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

[The Firebird]

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.

Then I'm confused. There have been numerous posts about the guard scenario which describe how players can learn that information. In your words, they are able to discover it.

So what is the issue?

 

[TwoSix]

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

You don't need rules to prescribe every outcome. You need rules to decide who has the authority to determine outcomes, and what boundaries to that authority exist, for every scene that arises.

 

[The Firebird]

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.

Sometimes hidden information leads to more engaging gameplay. A mystery campaign, for example.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

Which is what I do. A better game with better rules for me, ones that don't involve restricting the GM's ability to run the game using their own judgement.

 

[Faolyn]

Is such a deity part of "realistic" worlds?

Because, again, if that's what we're allowing as "realistic", the term is meaningless. Nearly anything is "realistic" then--and so we're right back at square one, where the GM is doing whatever they feel like doing, because they can make anything they feel like doing "realistic".

Is it particularly realistic to the real world? Not really, no. In the real world, throughout modern religion and older mythology, there have been very few gods that are listed as being capital-e Evil. And most of those that exist are usually associated with disease, natural disaster, or predatory animals, as opposed to evil gods who try to control human behavior.

Is it particularly realistic to any modern day religion? This is the wrong forum for that discussion.

However, D&D-type settings have absolute boat loads of capital-e Evil gods, so sure, keeping that in mind, having a puri-tyrranical Evil god who is willing to visit punishment to an entire family because daddy drank some booze is perfectly realistic. It's also pretty dumb, but let's face it, most D&D-type pantheons are pretty dumb.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

So two things on this.

First... the need to determine all that ahead of time... that's what's creating the need for you to think so much about what's "realistic". I mean, it's a fantasy world? Does it have to work the same as ours? Does a desert form on the leeward side of mountains? Or does a desert form because hundreds of years ago, there was a great magical duel between two wizards, and the land remains barren to this day? There's no reason that we must portray a world like ours.

Second... if all those details aren't determined ahead of time, we're free to establish them as we go, and to come up with whatever justifications we need to at the time. This frees us up to allow something really cool in play to stand rather than saying something like "Oh, that'd be cool... but the ocean currents I wrote down in my notes mean that it doesn't make sense... so nope, cool idea shot down due to ocean currents."

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.

No one is saying play should be without challenge.

It's more that in most cases, you can create an interesting challenge without hiding a bunch of information from the players just as easily as you can by hiding information from them.

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.

How you run your game doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's a perfectly fine way to play, and plenty of people will enjoy it.

But we're talking about shifting the prevailing approach to play... the discussion is about challenging the standard approaches to play... so I'm offering another.

Neither is better than the other... except based on preference. Neither is an issue in play, except in cases where there are mismatched expectations among participants.

 

[TwoSix]

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

I don't see anything wrong with assuming a correlation, especially one that tracks with my observed experience. (And, to be clear, I'm talking temperamentally conservative, not politically, as per the OP.)

If your observed experience is different than mine, that is of course a useful insight for discussion.

 

[AlViking]

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".

What does conservative or skeptical have to do with not liking something you like? That makes it sound like you have an unwarranted feeling of superiority because we don't happen to have the same preferences.

 

[robertsconley]

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.

To answer that, I think we have to take a step back and ask a more fundamental question: what is the point of the campaign? In other words, what are the creative goals that shape how we run and play the game, especially in player-driven or sandbox-style campaigns?

I would like to hear what you personally think the creative goals are of a campaign focused on player-driven/sandbox style campaign. Then I can reply discussing what else a referee should be considered. I feel the result would clarify things more for you then a discussion about what it is I do alone.

For myself,

My primary creative goal as a referee is to run a campaign where the players feel like they have visited a place as their character and had adventures. Using dice and the mechanics of the game, I aim to create a kind of pen-and-paper virtual reality for the players to explore. Every choice I make as a referee is evaluated with that goal in mind.

The process begins with me working with the players to select an interesting location and situation they’d like to adventure in. Usually, we narrow it down from two or three possibilities. Once that’s decided, I prep the campaign accordingly. Note, I am glossing over the prep part to get to the point where I can answer your questions.

When play begins, I describe the circumstances in which the players find themselves. They then roleplay their actions, and I adjudicate the results, which lead to me describing new circumstances. That cycle repeats itself throughout the campaign.

Let me be clear: NPCs (by which I mean both sentient beings and creatures) are essential to how I run these campaigns. The circumstances I present always include locations and the NPCs who inhabit them. If a player interacts with an NPC, I begin roleplaying that character, sometimes with voices and mannerisms, which I enjoy and perform well. the player responds by roleplaying in first person with me. It is up to them if they want to act, but it is not mandatory. Most players opt to roleplay a version of themselves with one or two quirks or mannerisms.

To manage this dynamic, since I’m just one person and the players are many, I often use a loose round-robin approach. It’s not a formal turn system like in combat, but it does reflect in-game time. For instance, if the party is camped for the night, I’ll go around the table and ask what each character is doing to for the evening, then another go around to handle what happens at night. I’ll typically spend 5–10 minutes roleplaying with each player before moving on. This helps keep the pacing manageable while allowing players to explore their characters and interact with the world. Players often pass if they have nothing particular to do. At times, smaller groups within the party will temporarily form, and I deal with that small group as part of the round-robin.

Regarding your questions:

Does the NPC contribute to a dynamic situation?
Yes, always. NPCs are a major source of dynamic situations in my campaigns. Most interactions, conflicts, and decisions involve them in some way.

Does it simply slow play down?
No. In my experience, these interactions add depth and momentum, rather than dragging things out. That said, pacing is also managed through how I moderate the table, using tools like the round-robin approach I described.

Does it block a player?
That depends on how you define "block." Players in my campaign are never prevented from attempting anything their character could reasonably do (within the limits of good taste). But yes, they can fail, and when they do, they may need to adjust their plans and goals accordingly.

Good questions, however, they don’t exist in a vacuum. Their answers, and their relevance, depend on the overall structure and purpose of the campaign. In a world-in-motion sandbox, NPCs and circumstances aren’t inserted for drama or balance. They’re there as part of the world the players are engaging with. Which is why I asked earlier to about what you think the creative goals are. To better illustrate the impact creative goals on the process.

There are answers to all of these concerns, but they don’t easily lend themselves to short forum posts with clean checklists or fixed procedures. The kind of play I’m describing is rooted in context, continuity, and player interaction with a living world. That takes explanation and actual play experience to grasp fully.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

Me too. It actually is possible to give something a fair shake and end up not liking it anyway.