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

[AlViking]

Exactly. I have heard enough nightmare DM stories to know GMs don't always act in good faith. I've PLAYED with DMs that don't act in good faith. I have more bad DM stories than bad player stories, and I have plenty of bad player stories.

GMs are getting a pass because Enworld is full of GMs.

If a GM betrays my trust and runs a game I don't want to play I quit the game. It's a simple solution that's always worked for me and a better one than changing the fundamentals of a game I enjoy.

 

[AlViking]

I’m trusting the game designer to deliver an experience that me and my table will buy into.

I’m not looking for “the game I want”. I’m looking for a good game.

I try not to play the same game for years and years at a time.

You're still trusting someone to deliver an experience that you and your fellow players will buy into. It's just changing where you're placing your trust.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I've been trying to avoid words like "wrong" because I don't really think there's a wrong way to play if everyone involved is on board.

"Unjustified" though? I think that's definitely relevant. Very often, what's "realistic" is an entire range of possibilities. So, when a GM chooses from among those possibilities, and he chooses one that denies information to the player instead of one that provides information to the player, the GM is deciding to deny information to the player.

But if he narrows it down to two realistic options and thinks the one that denies the players information is more plausible, he is still being guided by realism.

However even if he did opt for one that denied information, he might be doing it to inject verisimilitude (he may think it is more realistic in that situation for them not to have certain information available).

Again though you have to take it in as part of an overall pattern of behavior. If just one choice is being cut off, that doesn't mean the GM is trying to thwart players or subvert their agency. He may just be trying to reflect how he think life would be (which for me is totally fine as a player). Where it stops being fine is when I sense the GM is just throwing down roadblocks any time we find a quicker route to a goal, or when the GM throws down things to keep us on a particular path

 

[hawkeyefan]

not at all because a sandbox is going to have concrete details. Sometimes I move able details. I get that you would prefer a method that doesn’t let something like this emerge through Gm choice but that is just a preference. I play in sandboxes all the time and the GM deciding something about an NPC, even if it is something that ends up thwarting what the players want to do, would just regarded as part of bringing the world to life. As long as it isn’t a situation where the GM is regularly making the least generous choices in that respect. Again overall patterns matter here. Ina sandbox the GM is expected to give the players earned victories and not thwart them for plot reasons. But active NPCs with strong motivations are absolutely in keeping with sandbox

Yes, overall patterns matter. That has been a major part of my point earlier... one instance here and there may not be an issue. But if this is done routinely, then it's likely to become an issue for some participants.

I think that the permissive attitude about this stuff is just kind of surprising to me in that I tend to think of sandbox play as being focused on player-driven play... and so this would be a concern for any GM to consider when they make decisions. To have GMs who are proponents of sandbox type play defending the GM's ability to place realism above player-driven play... it's surprising.

Creative choices like using realism or consistency as guiding principles are certainly worth discussing, but that’s not the central issue of why I replied to you. My point is that dissatisfaction doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If we don’t look at the full situation, we’re just reacting to the outcome, not understanding what led to it.

With that understanding in place, we can determine the right approach to address the player’s dissatisfaction.

I'm not really aware of games that don't have realism or consistency (to the extent such apply to fantasy worlds, anyway) as considerations for the GM. Except perhaps exceptions like Toon or the like... where the point is that logic and consistency specifically may not apply.

So, setting aside those common concerns, what else should a GM be considering? In my opinion, they game impact of his decisions. Does this NPC contribute to a dynamic situation in play? Does it simply slow play down? Does it block a player?

I am not saying that there are wrong answers to these questions. I'm saying that I think, in terms of player-driven play, of which I think sandbox play is an example, these questions should be considered. Likely before ones of realism and logic... since we can likely still have a situation make sense. Like... sometimes guards can actually be bribed, or priests do actually take a drink.

 

[AlViking]

Because the real world Logic is arising after the creation of the character. Making the NPC is a creative act but also constrained by what is reasonable in the setting, like whether there is an anti-drinking God. And the. That belief is what comes into play when the PC tries to ply him with alcohol.

I still question under what circumstances the characters would so strongly want an NPC to drink that they would threaten death to the NPC and their family. Offer someone a drink and they refuse? That's a common everyday thing, there's many reasons someone would refuse. Threaten to kill them if they don't drink? Only if you're playing an extreme murder-hobo game.

 

[mamba]

Joe: Hey, Rob, why was there a dragon in that meadow?

Rob: I felt like there ought to be one.

Joe: But the nearest dragon lair is 200 miles away across the Westwall Mountains.

Rob: I just it would be cool for a dragon to fly in to fight you guys.

Joe: Rob you are being an a*h*. That was bs*.

Rob's Note: I do have a friend that I game with named Joe, and that's how the exchange would go if I tried to do something like this.

I am not seeing any game rules referenced here, so the same way you would do it if there were no rule, by questioning the decision?

So what does the rule actually get you, a slightly better idea of when to question a decision?

 

[hawkeyefan]

No.

I don't think you're accurately describing my position. I don't think you need to "hold back every shred of information as if it's a major discovery". The players don't need to spend a whole session just to learn the guard schedule.

Sure. Again, I'm saying that a GM should be considering these things when they design the situation in the first place. So weeks before play, when the GM is sitting with his spiral notebook and writing up NPCs and locations and all that, how they will work in play should be a consideration.

Not just their fictional role, but their role in play.

Yeah, this is the difference in playstyle. Blades in the Dark replaces a lot of the planning and approach with the engagement roll, which is supposed to skip the boring stuff and get straight to the action.

Personally, I think the contingency planning, the approach, scoping the place out, is fun and interesting, not boring. So abstracting all this stuff doesn't work for me. It makes it feel like less of a game.

I approach D&D the same way. I share information because I want to see what the players do with it. I don't want them to have to fight just to get information to then be informed enough to make a decision. Certainly not for something as likely trivial as a guard.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes, overall patterns matter. That has been a major part of my point earlier... one instance here and there may not be an issue. But if this is done routinely, then it's likely to become an issue for some participants.

I think that the permissive attitude about this stuff is just kind of surprising to me in that I tend to think of sandbox play as being focused on player-driven play... and so this would be a concern for any GM to consider when they make decisions. To have GMs who are proponents of sandbox type play defending the GM's ability to place realism above player-driven play... it's surprising.

Maybe we are just thinking of different examples in our head of what that means, but applying realism to the setting is in my experience a big expectation in sandbox (one I often push back on because I do think it can lead to play being too dull for me). Again the example being given is a GM deciding a trait for an NPC, and a GM preferring a system or an approach to system where things like social skill rolls aren't going to have it so the players can just intimidate roll or persuade roll their way to bribing the guard. I wouldn't say the split is anything like 90-10, but I do think there is a lot of skepticism of social skill rolls and social interaction rules in general among sandbox gamers. So that aspect of this example might be tripping things up (i.e. characterization of an NPC and deciding an NPCs response based on the words a player use, rather than a die roll, is pretty common in sandbox circles).

That said, I do think it is a thorny issue and this is why I have said both approaches can work. And it is why I have said I include social skill rules in my games even though I find they subtract from the RPG experience for me personally (I noticed this a lot switching back and forth between 2E and 3E D&D for example). I've tried to arrive at a middle ground personally that makes both people who like social skills happy and someone like myself happy

 

[Bedrockgames]

I still question under what circumstances the characters would so strongly want an NPC to drink that they would threaten death to the NPC and their family. Offer someone a drink and they refuse? That's a common everyday thing, there's many reasons someone would refuse. Threaten to kill them if they don't drink? Only if you're playing an extreme murder-hobo game.

Lol. Overall this example is getting more and more silly I agree. I am starting to picture a very bizarre peer pressure special episode adventure. "If you don't drink this shot of whiskey, we're going to kill your parents!"

 

[The Firebird]

Sure. Again, I'm saying that a GM should be considering these things when they design the situation in the first place. So weeks before play, when the GM is sitting with his spiral notebook and writing up NPCs and locations and all that, how they will work in play should be a consideration.

Not just their fictional role, but their role in play.

It sounds like more than that to me--like you should be shaping the world in response to what the PCs desire. I.e., if the PCs want to bribe a guard, the GM should make the guard bribable and communicate that to the players because this gives the players the control. Is that characterization wrong?

If I've understood you right, then I think it should be clear why this makes the resulting experience less of a game, in the same way changing the rules to make rooks move diagonally midway through makes chess less of a game.