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

[hawkeyefan]

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).

Yes, I understand that. My point is that when he makes that choice, he knows he is denying the player the information. Whether that's good or bad is up to the participants to decide... but there's no denying that the GM did it. He chose that route. He owns that decision.

Then, one step further, as I said in another recent post, I find this focus on "realism" or logic over game considerations to be surprising coming from people who are talking about player-driven play.

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

Yes, I know this. I'm not saying that his goal is to thwart players. What I'm saying is if his decision leads to players feeling thwarted, then it doesn't really matter what his goal was... a consequence of that decision is the player feeling thwarted.

Again, when looking at the range of possible outcomes of any action, there are usually multiple options that could be considered plausible. So when it's a choice between a plausible option that doesn't thwart the player and a plausible option that does... if the GM picks the one that does... to me, that's problematic in the space of player-driven play.

Again, if the players don't care, then it's not problematic at all.

 

[Faolyn]

I am agreeing that a DM just acting on their fancy is a problem, I am disagreeing that unless there is a procedure to prevent this at all times, the DM will end up doing so. The DM can restrain themselves.

This is not to say that there should be no rules, only that they do not need to completely prevent this on their own

If anything, the rules may help the GM realize what they can do.

First time running PbtA, I was like "Wait, I can just inflict harm as long as it's from an established source? I don't need to have the PC roll to avoid it or anything?"

 

[AlViking]

Yes, I understand that. My point is that though realism is a goal, it's still up to the GM. It's the GM's choice, not realism's choice. So whatever consequences there may be, they are the responsibility of the GM. They've made a choice. They should own it.



Again, all of this is fine if it matches player-GM expectation. It's only an issue if there is a misalignment there. Which, if we're talking about player-driven play (I'm gonna use that term here instead of sandbox), then it would seem that in these instances that you're talking about, it's that realism is prioritized over player-driven play.

Especially when an equally realistic option that also supports player-driven play is likely.



I'll address each of your points and how they relate to my overall point.

• Who decides what is unknowable or lost to time or a secret guarded so closely that it cannot be discovered? The GM.
• Yes, there are ways to offer the information to the players, or at least the chance to learn the relevant information. Who decides if there are visual cues like an interaction with another NPC or a religious symbol? The GM.
• Yes, ability checks may help here. Who decides to call for such a check? Who sets the DC? Who decides what information is gained on a successful roll? The GM.

These are all the decisions of the GM. To try and avoid responsibility for all these choices and instead attribute it to "realism" is just wrong. The GM is responsible for so much of it.

Now, if this works for you, again... it's not a problem. But the game does not have to be played this way.

Personally, I want to know how the players will deal with the un-bribeable guard. I don't want to wonder how they'll even find out he's un-bribeable. I'll just share the information. I'm generous with information because I recognize the players' understanding of the situation in play is entirely dependent on my ability to describe it to them. So I share a lot. Why not? What's to be gained? A long drawn-out interaction with a guard? Why? Let's get to the good stuff.



Play what game? Twenty questions? Is this what you tend to focus on when you play?

This is the kind of "conventional wisdom" that after many, many years I've come to eschew. There is no reason to hold back every shred of information as if it's a major discovery. You can indeed just narrate things like "you can tell just by the way he looks that this guy isn't going to take a bribe" or "you can just tell this guy is lying".

This is the difference between a principle that says something like "when the outcome of an action is uncertain, roll the dice" and "only roll dice if there are interesting consequences for failure".

When I build a campaign world, populate it and come up with factions I try to make it as logical and realistic as possible. Climate is based on probable ocean currents, latitude and geography of the land such as mountains. Unlike a lot of campaign maps there's not going to be a desert just because the designer wanted a desert scenario, it will be because of mountains or because they're within 15-30 degrees of the equator like on earth. I also try to take into consideration changes to behavior and culture based on the impact of magic and monsters being real.

So yes, when I make decisions I try to base them on logical outcomes of my other design decisions. As far as why I as a GM make those decisions? Because someone has to and, for the most part, the results are more realistic than random generation or people just adding in changes when they don't have the depth of knowledge on the setting that I do as a GM. If that doesn't work for you there are plenty of other games and approaches, for me those other approaches have never been any better than GM decides and were often worse.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes, I understand that. My point is that when he makes that choice, he knows he is denying the player the information. Whether that's good or bad is up to the participants to decide... but there's no denying that the GM did it. He chose that route. He owns that decision.

Yeah but the thing is if you are really trying to prioritize realism, you just try not to factor those kinds of consequences into your decisions. It is a very let the cards fall where they may approach.

Then, one step further, as I said in another recent post, I find this focus on "realism" or logic over game considerations to be surprising coming from people who are talking about player-driven play.

Again in this style of play, realism is considered a key part of the players having a world where they are driving play. I think you have a very different idea of player driven play, which is fine. Obviously that works for you. But if you are talking sandbox, the stuff me and Rob are saying, is not really that controversial. If anything I am probably way too far outside the realism and naturalism camp for many sandbox players and GMs

Also I think we are at a point in the conversation where we genuinely understand where the other is coming from. We don't have to strive to disprove the other guy. These conversations can be a wrestling match, where we try to win, or they can just be a way to understand each other. We are probably never going to want to run the same style of game, but I think it is reasonable that two different approaches to player driven play/sandbox can exist without being a threat to each other

 

[AlViking]

GM owns the decisions they make and their consequences, including what factors they used in that decision. But player dissatisfaction doesn’t automatically mean the decision was wrong or unjustified. That’s why the context of the decision needs to be evaluated to understand better why the player is dissatisfied in the first place.

I would also add that sometimes there will, and should, be times when a player cannot accomplish a goal. If there are no real obstacles I would lose interest in the game. That does mean that at times when I'm playing I can get a bit frustrated but it makes for a better overall experience.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes, I know this. I'm not saying that his goal is to thwart players. What I'm saying is if his decision leads to players feeling thwarted, then it doesn't really matter what his goal was... a consequence of that decision is the player feeling thwarted.

Again, when looking at the range of possible outcomes of any action, there are usually multiple options that could be considered plausible. So when it's a choice between a plausible option that doesn't thwart the player and a plausible option that does... if the GM picks the one that does... to me, that's problematic in the space of player-driven play.

Again, if the players don't care, then it's not problematic at all.

but for a lot of us player driven means acting through our characters in a setting that feels it has its own life. For that to be the case some choices are going to have to thwart my ambitions. If every choice is doing that, fair it is a problem. But to me it isn’t a player driven sandbox if we arent everything seems to go our way. Maybe I bribe three guards in the first six months of play. I won’t bat an eye if the fourth guard I try bribe just isn’t having it: that will feel very plausible to me and not like it is interfering with the players being in the drivers seat

 

[TwoSix]

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.

And that change in trust is a very important distinction. If there's a problem with how gameplay shakes out when we all followed the rules, then that is the rules' fault. If the GM has ultimate ownership to amend the rules as they see fit and the gameplay doesn't work out, then it's the GM's fault.

As a GM, I would rather have a game go poorly because we followed the rules, then because I didn't discharge a duty to amend the rules to fit my table.

 

[AlViking]

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.

So? If I have a murder mystery, I know who the murderer is but I withhold that information because that's the whole point of a murder mystery. If I'm withholding information I have a reason for it. If that bothers you that I don't immediately explain (after it's not longer relevant to the ongoing plot we can chat) then I'm not the GM for you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And that change in trust is a very important distinction. If there's a problem with how gameplay shakes out when we all followed the rules, then that is the rules' fault. If the GM has ultimate ownership to amend the rules as they see fit and the gameplay doesn't work out, then it's the GM's fault.

As a GM, I would rather have a game go poorly because we followed the rules, then because I didn't discharge a duty to amend the rules to fit my table.

I feel the opposite. I'd rather make a correctable mistake then find myself having to rework the rules, for reasons of personal growth and a desire not to be pre-emptively constrained by the textbook.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

I think there's two very different framings of what "player-driven" might mean.

One is about the DM designing a very large setting without a lot of pre-set scenes, like an adventure path/module does. This is what I tend to the think of as the Elder Scrolls model; where the focus of play is on "discovery" of the pre-generated lore and story hooks. The player agency and freedom is the ability to discover that lore, and accept or reject hooks in any particular order the players like. I don't tend to think of that as "player-driven", but it does offer more apparent agency than your classic Dragonlance style AP.

The other is more of what you and I a few others here would generally mean, where the contours of the setting are established in play in order to frame challenges and conflicts to the PC-engendered goals.