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

[TwoSix]

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.

If a game goes poorly because of the rules, I'd rather just play a different game with better rules!

 

[Campbell]

Ultimately the sort of games that leave the GM beholden to the rules are ones where the GM's other responsibilities make it difficult to also be a referee. To run a game like Apocalypse Keys properly I cannot be a neutral arbiter. I need to be invested in the characters, deeply invested so I can make GM Moves that resonate with their circumstances. I need to not be a referee because the level of emotional distance required to be a good referee is beyond me. I cannot be the one who decided what happens because then I am not engaged and watching how things unfold. The empathy required to create compelling consequences and frame compelling conflicts would get in the way.

Part and parcel is understanding that not all roleplaying games have referees and not all GM roles serve the same function.

 

[TwoSix]

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

No one, in general, is looking for game play where "everything goes their way".

The distinction is how complications are generated. Did the DM make them up beforehand, or are they generated as the result of rolls and resolution mechanics?

Basically, is the guard unbribable because the DM said so (either in his notes or as a dramatic need in the moment), or because the player failed a check to bribe the guard?

 

[TwoSix]

Part and parcel is understanding that not all roleplaying games have referees and not all GM roles serve the same function.

Which, of course, circles back to the thread topic that a large portion of the D&D player base is innately conservative and skeptical of learning about other games with different types of GM and player roles.

 

[The Firebird]

Which, of course, circles back to the thread topic that a large portion of the D&D player base is innately conservative and skeptical of learning about other games with different types of GM and player roles.

Just speaking for myself--I know about other types of games. I've tried them at length. They aren't for me.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Basically, is the guard unbribable because the DM said so (either in his notes or as a dramatic need in the moment), or because the player failed a check to bribe the guard?

Out of curiosity what if it is a result of a random die, in which category does that fall under?

 

[Campbell]

No one, in general, is looking for game play where "everything goes their way".

The distinction is how complications are generated. Did the DM make them up beforehand, or are they generated as the result of rolls and resolution mechanics?

Basically, is the guard unbribable because the DM said so (either in his notes or as a dramatic need in the moment), or because the player failed a check to bribe the guard?

Specifically in the context of trad play used for sandboxes, like Stars Without Number (and other OSR games like Into the Odd) or any game using Blorb Principles with highly prepped material what I want is success or failure to be based on my skilled negotiation of the fictional environment. If I reach a loss condition I want it to be because I screwed up along the way, not because there were undetectable landmines somewhere in the path. Same for my successes. I do not want undiscoverable benefits to intercede on my behalf.

I want both success and failure to be earned.

 

[TwoSix]

Just speaking for myself--I know about other types of games. I've tried them at length. They aren't for me.

Exceptions to the rule always exist. I know there are plenty of gamers who have tried other approaches and still prefer trad play.

 

[AlViking]

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.



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.

One of the things I try to do in a sandbox, and occasionally have to remind myself of, is that I'm not making decisions based on helping or thwarting the characters goals. I'm setting up locations, factions, NPCs that do not care if the PCs exist until the PCs interact with them in some way. They find a way around the obstacles set in place? Fantastic. But if I have an iron door that can't be broken down, it's not going to suddenly break because the players are getting frustrated. I'm not deciding that the king's chambers are protected by an Inner Sanctum spell because I know the character's wizard could teleport the group, I'm doing it because in a world where teleport exists it's only logical that appropriate countermeasures would be used to prevent it.

I have to come up with obstacles and opportunities for the players because I want a fun and engaging game. But it's not "the PCs will take damage because it adds to the story", it's "the PCs will take damage if they decide to swim through the acidic water without protection from acid". When they totally bypass my acidic water trap because they bypass the water altogether or cast a protective spell, that's what happens. Even if I had never imagined the solution they came up with.

I recently had a game where a red hag was casting a ritual, and I had thought through what I considered were the likely contingencies of how the fight would go and included options of how to disrupt the ritual or potentially negotiate with the hag. Then, through clever play and a combination of spells and abilities from multiple characters they completely avoided combat while still disrupting the ritual. It worked because I set up the situation with all the precautions I thought the hag would consider. What I didn't do was add something in to force a combat to get the result that I wanted or just decide that it was too easy so I used some game mechanism to balance things out.

It's a different approach and one I happen to prefer. I don't want the GM or players to control the narrative, I want the deeds and words of the characters in reaction to obstacles to drive the game forward.

 

[TwoSix]

Out of curiosity what if it is a result of a random die, in which category does that fall under?

You mean like "even he's bribable, odd he isn't", rolled at the table?