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

[TwoSix]

I think it has a lot more to do with marketing and a game being ‘good enough’ than with skepticism

Like any large topic, there's a multitude of factors and no clear evidence of any root cause. I just see enough evidence to suggest some correlation.

 

[AlViking]

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 need to determine broad outlines ahead of time. The decisions I make on the fly, which happens because I run a sandbox, I'm still basing my decisions on my outline. I don't need to know that the king's guard is named George, all I need to know is that the king is dictatorial and unforgiving but also generous to his supporters and employees. I've chosen to make my world's climate resemble that of earth. There are some areas blighted by magic but it's never changed basic weather patterns.

As far as "we're free to establish" that just sounds like you're trying to give collaborative world design an elevated value because it's your preference. My approach is no better or worse than any other, it's just different and one that I've enjoyed as player and GM for decades.

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.

I don't "hide" information, I also don't provide information I don't think the characters would have. I'm pretty generous with high level information, people will recognize the symbols of the major religions (even fairly obscure ones if they have training), everyone knows you need fire or acid to kill trolls.

There's no murder mystery if the players know everything I know as GM.

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.

 

[mamba]

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.

if the rules say that it is the DM, then it still is the DM who has to decide the ‘details’ of the outcome, even if it is within the boundaries. So saying at that point any failure is on the rules, not the DM, still does not feel accurate to me. It shifts some responsibility on the rules, but not all of it

 

[robertsconley]

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?

The problem is a social one and is dealt with on that level.

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

This is what I do:
Me at Wizard Con 2025 in Kalamazoo, MI, Friday, April 25th:

Welcome to Scourge of the Demon Wolf. Please look over the pre-generated character sheets and pick one. I’ll explain the rules I’ll be using in a minute, but I want to talk about one thing first:

If at any point you don’t understand something or need something clarified, don’t hesitate to interrupt me and ask. Especially if you think it contradicts something I said earlier. If you’re unsure of something or what to do, also ask. I won’t tell you what to do unless it’s a rules-related question, but I will explain your options, their consequences, and generally coach you through what you’re unsure about.”

Scourge of the Demon Wolf is what I call a Sandbox Adventure. As you will shortly see, you will be starting in a situation that I will describe, after that, you as a group are free to decide how to deal with the situation in any way you see fit. There is no expectation on my part of how the adventure will unfold; that's up to you.
(snip).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm not saying everything needs to go the players' way. Nor am I saying that ambitions can't be thwarted.

I'm saying that using hidden information to do so isn't ideal so far as player-driven play is concerned.

And to use your example of guards... I ran a game a few months ago where one of the characters was very persuasive. He would indeed smooth talk or lie to get past guards, sometimes with bribes, sometimes without. These instances were all resolved by dice rolls... they went his way, and he got what he wanted. After he'd done so several times, I thought it would be interesting to have him run into a guard who wasn't susceptible to bribery or persuasion. I made it clear that was the case. Then I asked him... what do you do?

To me, that's far more interesting a situation to face than some unknown situation. I'd rather see what the player comes up with knowing the situation than just see if they can figure the situation out.

I get you might find that more interesting. Personally I find it more interesting discovering in the interaction that he isn't bribable. Again this isn't about you doing it wrong and me doing it right, or you always giving players what they want. I just think we are talking about a range of approaches that are all valid and achieve different things. For me it is very important that when I interact with an NPC, I feel like I am interacting with someone who has an established set of traits. And I get not everyone has this experience, but the moment that gets put on rolls, for me I tend to lose that sense. And again, even though I feel this way, I do include skill rolls in my own games because I get lot of people expect them. So I am not like extremely ideological on this point. But I think it is worth defending because I notice a massive difference when I go from a system that has social skill rules with mechanical weight and ones that don't have that kind of weight

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not saying everything needs to go the players' way. Nor am I saying that ambitions can't be thwarted.

I'm saying that using hidden information to do so isn't ideal so far as player-driven play is concerned.

And to use your example of guards... I ran a game a few months ago where one of the characters was very persuasive. He would indeed smooth talk or lie to get past guards, sometimes with bribes, sometimes without. These instances were all resolved by dice rolls... they went his way, and he got what he wanted. After he'd done so several times, I thought it would be interesting to have him run into a guard who wasn't susceptible to bribery or persuasion. I made it clear that was the case. Then I asked him... what do you do?

To me, that's far more interesting a situation to face than some unknown situation. I'd rather see what the player comes up with knowing the situation than just see if they can figure the situation out.

Neither example is just giving the player what they want.



Yes, I think that's becoming increasingly obvious. It seems that proponents of sandbox gaming are less concerned with player-driven play or player agency than I would have expected prior to this discussion.

Rather, it seems like proponents of sandbox play don't accept your definition of player-driven play or player agency as any kind of objective truth.

 

[robertsconley]

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.

Yup.
One thing I've gotten better at as I've gotten older is painting a fuller picture of what a character experiences under the circumstances. So while you still may be frustrated at not accomplishing your goal, there are alternatives at hand that can lead to other goals and adventures. In some cases, the players managed to still accomplish their goal but via an unforeseen roundabout route.

 

[TwoSix]

I just think there is nothing wrong or anti-sandbox about saying the GM can establish NPC traits, even strong ones.

I don't think it's "anti-sandbox".

I think it's anti-"player-driven".

I've run (and am running) plenty of trad-style sandbox games. The players enjoy them. They have a good amount of autonomy to pursue leads and push their character in various directions. But ultimately events are happening to them. The games aren't "player-driven".

 

[Bedrockgames]

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

I think most games expect things to make sense. But you definitely have a spectrum of how much sense things need to make. I've played in games that didn't. For example the 90s, a lot of the modules and rules, even for stuff like D&D at times, were more about what was dramatically appropriate. And there is nothing wrong with that. Sometimes you want to focus on a mood and realism isn't a top concern. I've even said, I am not hugely into realism. I am more into consistent genre settings that feel like they are inhabited by real people and groups (albeit with heightened personality traits).

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.

For me realism isn't a chief consideration. This conversation is complicated at times because sometimes we are talking generally about a style of sandbox play and sometimes I am taking about my own particular style (where I prioritize drama and player freedom). To do that I need to be able to make NPCs with stark character traits. However, as I said, something like that unbribeable guard is a rarity.

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

This to me just doesn't match my experience and it feels like we are again wrestling for 'who has the most player driven style". I am increasingly thinking that is nonsense. I fully acknowledge what you are doing is player driven. I think a fair assessment of what Rob and I are doing, shows it is also player driven. There are key distinctions, and those matter. And to be clear here, what Rob and I do, there are plenty of games in that style that make room for things like players make rolls to bribe a guard. So sandbox play isn't strictly limited to approaches that go light on social interaction mechanics. But I've played in both and both seem to honor the player driven aspect. You just end up with some differences that can still be very important

 

[AlViking]

It doesn't have anything to do with not liking what I like. It's the lack of desire to continually try new things in favor of the familiar that makes one conservative.

I would classify anyone who only plays PbtA games and doesn't want to branch out to new systems "conservative" as well.

Why would I continually try new things if I've sampled enough games to look at a description of a game to know I wouldn't like it? I don't really care for Thai food (I blame growing up with midwestern bland), so I'm not going to try that new Thai place someone is really excited about. If knowing that I'm not going to enjoy an ever-so-slight variation on something I know I don't care for makes me conservative or skeptical we have different definitions of what those words mean.

In addition like a lot of people I have limited time, limited opportunities, limited people interested in playing other games. I'm not going to waste precious time, energy and money playing other games when I have one I already enjoy. I don't feel a burning desire to switch games because the rules of the game matter are not the single biggest reason I play.