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

[AlViking]

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.

So the fact that I don't care for other mechanisms means that I'm just "innately conservative and skeptical"? It can't just be that I know enough about other approaches and what I like and that I wouldn't like a different approach?

 

[Bedrockgames]

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?

And I am not arguing that rolling to check is an invalid approach or that it thwarts sandbox play. My only point is the GM deciding something like an NPC trait and that happening to establish a barrier to something in game, isn't railroading and is still in keeping with a player driven sandbox as people like me and Rob are describing (and I am not even saying all such sandboxes will avoid things like having the player make a skill roll: I just think there is often a reluctance to engage with strong social interaction rules in such campaigns).

 

[TwoSix]

So the fact that I don't care for other mechanisms means that I'm just "innately conservative and skeptical"? It can't just be that I know enough about other approaches and what I like and that I wouldn't like a different approach?

Yes? If your attitude is "I know what I like, and I don't need to try other things because I already know I like this way", then I certainly wouldn't hesitate to define that as "conservative and skeptical".

 

[The Firebird]

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

I don't know that I'm just an exception either. There seems to be an unstated assumption in your post that if people were just less skeptical, then other types of games would be more popular. I don't think this is true. People know what they like.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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).

But what kind of game doesn't have that expectation? That things make sense within the context of the game world?

This is why I think what we're talking about is the priority of such considerations. I think as you describe sandbox play, realism/consistency is a higher priority for you than gameplay.

Which then leads me to the conclusion that sandbox play is less player-driven than people are stating.

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?

It's not entirely accurate, no. I'm saying that such a trait need not be decided ahead of time. In the event that it is, then it should be either communicated to the players, or they should be able to discover it.

In the context of the admittedly simple example of the guard... I don't think that the scenario involving the guard is likely so consequential to gameplay that it warrants such detail ahead of play, so I'd leave it up to the dice. Nor does it warrant many steps of interaction... like, gathering information on a single guard? Unless it can be resolved quickly, I don't see the need to spend a lot of table time on this.

In the event it should be important, or perhaps the loyalty of said guards has already been established in play for some reason, then it should be communicated clearly to the players.

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.

I'm advocating for open and clear processes that would prevent the equivalent of a rook moving diagonally.

There's nothing that prevents me from making interesting and engaging scenarios for play. There's no reason that I can't do so without relying on hidden information.

What it boils down to is that you can create situations that have information hidden from the players, or you can share the information with the players. Given those two options, I know which I prefer and which leads to more engaging gameplay.

 

[mamba]

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 get the notion, but there is more to DMing than following the rules. No set of rules will prescribe every outcome to every action under every condition, so a lot is still on the DM to do on top of following the rules and narrating events.

Ideally the rules help with that, obviously, but there still will be plenty of differences in play between two DMs following the same set of rules

 

[Pedantic]

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.

This is the most reasonable statement of the position I've seen yet, but I think it still goes too far. Hooks are a convenient means to help simulate players into wanting things which is the primary responsibility they have to make a game happen, not the sole source of interactivity within a setting. The appropriate game comparison is something more like Kenshi or Caves of Qud with lots of systems and established NPCs to interact with, than an open world game like Skyrim. The benefit of a DM is that they can more easily produce more and better content than a custom level design or procedural generation can.

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?

This, more than anything, is why I hate when these discussions end up in binary poles. I hate the gameplay loop placing the generation of challenge in resolution creates. It feels miserable to play, it discouraged players from doing things unless they stop holding success as a goal, and it punishes them for doing the wanting I set above as their primary job. Players should be excited to deploy mechanics to defeat obstacles, they should delight in having the right spell prepared, bringing the right item, or spotting how their talent can be used to circumvent a problem means this thing they're engaging with is not a problem. It is equally problematic if the resolution system is undefined and the GM makes it up on the fly as it is if the system is designed to put them in a worse position by engaging.

There has to be more space for complications that exist independently of the players, but can be tabcked by engagement with system. As I'm fond of saying, we could just write all the rules down. And then let the DM present scenarios and situations (perhaps entirely derived from the unfolding of a world in motion) for the players to engage with, using those rules.

We don't need to bake negotiation into systems to make them tools or player agency.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

I don't think framing it as conservative is useful. I am finding a lot of the attitudes expressed on the other side kind of conservative (in that it is very rule bound play). But that is just me. I don't know what is driving peoples desires for one type of game over another and it doesn't help to assume it comes from a character trait that we could put a value on

 

[TwoSix]

And I am not arguing that rolling to check is an invalid approach or that it thwarts sandbox play. My only point is the GM deciding something like an NPC trait and that happening to establish a barrier to something in game, isn't railroading and is still in keeping with a player driven sandbox as people like me and Rob are describing (and I am not even saying all such sandboxes will avoid things like having the player make a skill roll: I just think there is often a reluctance to engage with strong social interaction rules in such campaigns).

And all I'm arguing is that every time you put something into the game that's not changeable by the game's resolution method, you weaken the ability of the game to be described as "player-driven" as opposed to "player-discoverable".

I would be happy to describe Skyrim, for example, as a trad-style sandbox, but I wouldn't describe it as "player-driven".

 

[TwoSix]

I don't know that I'm just an exception either. There seems to be an unstated assumption in your post that if people were just less skeptical, then other types of games would be more popular. I don't think this is true. People know what they like.

I'll make it a stated assumption. If people were less skeptical, other types of games would be more popular.