D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[pemerton]

Unlike @pemerton I genuinely could not care less what the old editions of D&D had to say

Heresy!

in fact I cannot think of a more appropriate reinforcement of the thread’s title.

Interestingly, I think some of what Gygax says is quite radical compared to a lot of the contemporary "trad" culture - a much less GM-driven approach to play than seems to be quite mainstream these days.

 

[robertsconley]

Fair enough! Unlike @pemerton I genuinely could not care less what the old editions of D&D had to say except as a matter of historical interest, and such procedures and guidance deeply uninteresting, as well as troubling from a modern perspective in many degrees.

Edit: in fact I cannot think of a more appropriate reinforcement of the thread’s title.

It’s perfectly reasonable to make different creative choices from what earlier designers or referees preferred. That’s how the hobby grows. But dismissing the creative practices of the past outright is a mistake. There’s a reason these approaches worked, and they laid the foundation for the techniques used today. You don’t have to adopt them or even like them, but understanding them can help you make better-informed about your own creative choices.

It why folks learn art history and study older forms of art even when their focus is on more recent styles.

While there were things like the Harlot table that made my eyes roll back when I was a teenager and still does today. The bulk of the material have practical value when the context is understood and the playstyle it supported.

When I reference AD&D techniques it is not to hold them up as dogma, but to show how they influence the techniques I use today to run sandbox campaigns. That there is a body of knowledge that surrounds them that informs us about the possible consequences, both good and bad.

 

[zakael19]

Heresy!

Interestingly, I think some of what Gygax says is quite radical compared to a lot of the contemporary "trad" culture - a much less GM-driven approach to play than seems to be quite mainstream these days.

I think that’s fair, but I also see the “OSR” community as the deliberate inheritors of that side of the D&D tradition (the player - directed principled, player skill forward sandbox) - with a lot of work over the last decade or so to create principles and guidelines that seek to “standardize” the cultural expectations and best practices. As such, I’m not sure we need to reach that far back when there’s plenty of folks who’ve done good work in moving the art forward; except to make a point on history .

 

[pemerton]

One can very much argue that if he's that skilled, 7th level in most F20 games is not exactly a sign of it. In fact, you could argue that style of game is a bad choice for that in the first place since its got so much swing in it. So its easy to argue that's a problem of papering over the wrong tool for the job.

I deliberately nominated 7th level because a 7th level fighter, in classic D&D, is a champion.

As for "swing", there is no swing if the GM decides, in advance, that the Orc captain is too powerful for the lower-level PC to defeat!

At this late date, do you really think most of the people liable to respond to this are going to do anything but roll their eyes at drawing an analogy between physical and social actions here? If so, where have you been? If not, is there a point in doing this?

The point is this: many people who say GMs shouldn't be constrained by any rules or procedures take for granted that combat will be resolved using rules and/or procedures that constrain the GM. Assuming they're rational, they have reasons for accepting these constraints. I am inviting them to imagine someone having similar reasons that govern their view about other sorts of actions that might be declared.

EDIT:

I'm going to step in on this one. I'd suggest you absolutely do--any set of mechanics whatsoever applies restraints on the GM--its just that there are areas you're comfortable with it, and areas you aren't.

Yes, this is what I said that you were puzzled by (as per your post that I'm replying to just above).

 

[robertsconley]

plenty of folks who’ve done good work in moving the art forward; except to make a point on history .

Plenty of folks have contributed valuable ideas and innovations over the years. But framing it as "moving the art forward" implies a linear progression, which isn’t how creative endeavors work. RPGs aren’t technology where newer automatically means better. Older systems can still produce compelling play today, just as they did decades ago.

This isn’t unique to RPGs, it's true of music, literature, and visual art as well. Creativity expands, diversifies, and branches. It doesn’t march in a straight line. So assertions that one approach is “forward” just because it's newer misunderstand the nature of creative development.

 

[robertsconley]

What do those numbers mean? I'm not familiar with the system.

They are a modifier to a D&D 5e style skill check using 1d20 versus a target number. Higher is better.

 

[pemerton]

Not of a mood to dig up the quotes, but this was how I understand the argument. Am I wrong about that? If so, what is a more charitable way to state it?

Indeed, your last statement here seems to me in line with robertsconley's characterization. I'm interpreting "NPCs with immovable positions" in his statement is what you mean by "the GM pre-determining that persuading a NPC will fail".

What am I missing?

I've not talked about "can predict in advance what will happen". I've talked about being "reasonably knowable". Those aren't the same thing.

And my remark about what is or isn't remarkable was in reply to @robertsconley saying that a lack of predetermination is a characteristic of sandboxing.

Also, you may be assuming that I assume that sandbox and railroad are the only two possibilities. I doubt that's the case - though it's tricky, because this thread is shaping the way I use the term "sandbox".

 

[robertsconley]

I think all the examples I've posted illustrate human judgement at work: the players making and giving effect to judgements about what it makes sense for their PCs to day and do; the GM making judgements, within the parameters of the resolution system, about how NPCs respond.

Indeed they do thanks for sharing them.

 

[pemerton]

When I say I’ve established certain points, I mean I have already presented, justified, and illustrated them in earlier replies. At this stage, we’re circling back to the ground, which has already been covered.

So does that mean I've also established certain points? Even where they contradict yours?

Since sandbox techniques, like all RPG techniques, are part of that history, Peterson’s research is useful for identifying what’s actually novel about sandbox campaigns.

I'm not unaware of the history of RPGing. I'm the person who brought Gygax's PHB into the discussion. I'm the one who has used Lewis Pulsipher's writings to help frame the distinction between the wargame-y sandbox and the quite different "living novel". I don't see why you feel the need to condescend to me.

Saying that NPC behavior is rooted in setting logic and that outcomes are adjudicated based on plausibility and context is what makes it a verisimilitudinous approach. That’s the core of maintaining coherence in a fictional world, when outcomes and reactions emerge from consistent internal logic rather than fiat or narrative convenience.

As for “allowing for things like Joan of Arc or the knighting of Arthur,” that is exactly the kind of extraordinary outcome that can emerge organically through play in a sandbox campaign., often through the use of dice. A key skill of the referee is knowing when uncertainty warrants a roll.

So, what makes it "organic" in a sandbox campaign? Is this meant to imply that what I described, upthread, in my Prince Valiant, 4e D&D and Burning Wheel games is not organic? If not, then what would an example of "not organic" look like? Is it possible to say anything about what determines whether there is uncertainty sufficient to warrant a roll? When is the GM supposed to allow for an extraordinary outcome, and when to ensure that events stick to prosaic normality?

If a player thinks that an extraordinary thing should be possible - which would seem to be the case, if they declare an action that posits the extraordinary thing as a possible outcome - then what reason does the GM have for taking a different view? Are you assuming that players will declare actions whose outcomes they would regard as lacking verisimilitude? Or is there some other virtue gained by having the GM able to affirm their conception of what is possible over what the player thinks is possible in the circumstances?

 

[zakael19]

Plenty of folks have contributed valuable ideas and innovations over the years. But framing it as "moving the art forward" implies a linear progression, which isn’t how creative endeavors work. RPGs aren’t technology where newer automatically means better. Older systems can still produce compelling play today, just as they did decades ago.

This isn’t unique to RPGs, it's true of music, literature, and visual art as well. Creativity expands, diversifies, and branches. It doesn’t march in a straight line. So assertions that one approach is “forward” just because it's newer misunderstand the nature of creative development.

I think “the art advances” when we speak of “the art of design and play” is absolutely true. The world of TTRPG design has moved far beyond the tentative first steps where it started. What we have now has exploded beyond the wildest thoughts and dreams of those early days into something that now models a wide variety of the human experience in play. You can see some of what we don’t get to in rule-based design for decades desired and hoped for in those early days when you read the cited magazine articles in The Elusive Shift.

The new generations discovering OSR play (and primarily NSR stuff) absolutely concur with the title of this thread. They are interested in newer thoughts about facilitating player creativity in problem solving, concepts of how to actually talk about being that neutral referee, while building an inclusive and engaging table.