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

[AlViking]

Sure. The former is "stubborn", the latter is "conservative".

Like I said, we have different definitions. Especially when you also add in "skeptical". If I found a style of play or a game I enjoyed more I would drop my current game as soon as practical. I haven't so I don't.

 

[robertsconley]

I agree with this, but the OP wanted to use rules

Then, as a general reply to what you just stated, I recommend to the OP the below. It’s written in a prescriptive style, and in many ways, it does a better job of helping people navigate difficult situations than any RPG rulebook I’ve seen.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think the ethos behind it is very much at odds with player-driven play.

What do you think the ethos behind it is?

 

[TwoSix]

Like I said, we have different definitions. Especially when you also add in "skeptical". If I found a style of play or a game I enjoyed more I would drop my current game as soon as practical. I haven't so I don't.

That's fine. I have no desire to argue definitions. I'm still going to continue to use the word, though, especially since it's the thread topic.

 

[The Firebird]

It depends. The example as provided is incomplete, so it's hard to say. This is why I've offered a few ways to handle it, depending on the circumstances.

For me, if player-driven play is a priority for me, I would have the trait of the guard be known. I'd either show the players in some way, or I'd let them know it. This is assuming the guard is not meant to be a meaningful obstacle in and of himself, but rather a step toward a more meaningful goal. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on such an interaction and just getting it to the point where it's actionable by the players.

So, this sounds to me like, contra your previous post, the information 'being discoverable' by the PCs is insufficient. If the detail is minor, it should be revealed to them without effort on their part. Correct?

Such is your opinion. I have played games where the resolution of a mystery is generated in a different way than just being pre-determined by the GM, or where the resolution of the mystery is secondary to the goal of play. Playing through a GM's novice mystery novel isn't my idea of an engaging way to play, generally speaking.

I don't think your characterization of "a GM's novice mystery novel" is fair, nor do I see how including a half dozen people in authorship improves the situation.

 

[AlViking]

That's fine. I have no desire to argue definitions. I'm still going to continue to use the word, though, especially since it's the thread topic.

Then I guess I'm "conservative" because I happen to be in a healthy committed relationship with my wife and haven't traded her in for a new model even though I occasionally look at other women. Kind of an odd definition of conservative do me but you do you.

 

[TwoSix]

Then I guess I'm "conservative" because I happen to be in a healthy committed relationship with my wife and haven't traded her in for a new model even though I occasionally look at other women. Kind of an odd definition of conservative do me but you do you.

If you don't view having a traditional monogamous long-term marriage as being temperamentally "conservative", then I agree that we're using the word very differently.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I think that depends on several things. But at the most basic, player-driven to me implies that the players should be involved in determining the goals of play. There may also be some premise to play, or genre considerations and the like.

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.

What adventures do they have? Who decides what adventures they go on? Who decides what adventures are available? Who decides if exploration is a goal?

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.

I'm very familiar with play as you are describing it. It was a fundamental part of my foundational years of play.

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.

Sure, I agree. Interacting with others in the game world is a huge part of play.

A couple of other thoughts on this...

Are NPCs all equal to play? Are some more minor than others? Does this factor into your prep in any way?

Are you considering NPCs both in their fictional place AND their gameplay place? Do you focus on one over the other?

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.

In my experience, there are a lot of NPC interactions that can be handled quickly, or elided entirely. The classic example that many people bring up is the visit to the shopkeeper. Unless there's some strong reason to get into that, I'm just going to ask the player what they want and then resolve the purchase or what have you. This kind of stuff can slow play down quite a bit. I've seen people describe their entire session as a "shopping trip" and such a session would make me want to bash my head against the table.

But interactions with NPCs who are important to the players or to their goals? Those are far more important.

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.

I mean block as in it just shuts something down without being known or without a chance to be changed. The examples discussed so far have been NPC traits.

Is the GM's conception of an NPC as a fictional character more important than that NPC presenting some kind of playable situation to the players?

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.

Absolutely, context matters. I've been trying to allow for different contexts in the posts I've made. And my questions are generally about looking at alternate contexts.

 

[Campbell]

For my part the guard rails in most of the games I run (that have them) are kind of like wearing pads when you play football. I'm going to regularly do stuff that would be very very dangerous without them and know that a certain of collisions are going to happen. I just want to make the more catastrophic collisions happen less often.

When I run more traditional games I have to be a lot more careful, take fewer risks because crashing into guard rails is a lot more survivable than driving off a cliff.

 

[Bedrockgames]

What adventures do they have? Who decides what adventures they go on? Who decides what adventures are available? Who decides if exploration is a goal?

I think questions like this are rarely productive because I already am answering them from a defensive posture (and I am not anticipating a good faith response to my answers: and I am not saying you are being bad faith, I just don't think this conversation is one where people are really trying to understand each other, but are simply trying to win).

What adventures do they have? This is obscenely broad. They have all kinds of adventures. From gang warfare adventures in a city, to delves into ancient monasteries for artifacts, monster hunts, duels, investigations, to adventures in the sky to become immortals. There is a very, very wide range of potential adventures.

Who decides what adventures they go on? The players

Who decides what adventures are available? This is a mixture of Gm-player. The Gm is preparing the setting and creating an environment and there might be some obvious adventure sites if the players want to do that (for example underground tombs or something). But for the most part adventures arise out of players setting goals for themselves based on what they know about the setting, who they have met, what groups they have formed connections to, etc. So they might say, okay let's go to Iron God Meng and try to form an arrangement with him so we can bring celestial plume through his territory.

Who decides if exploration is a goal? I am not sure I fully understand what you mean by this. But if you mean who decides if they go on an exploration adventure, that is pretty much up to the players. If the question is more "no who decides whether their dungeon delve is going to be exploration based or about dramatic twists", I think that gets complicated because every sandbox is different. But I see every adventure site as a place where character conflict could arise, and other things might be going on. Certainly the characters are in a physical world and there will be an exploration component if they decide to go into an underground tomb. But they could also totally side step that by hiring a bunch of miners (stuff like this happens all the time). If all they want is the object in a tomb, and they don't want to go 'crawling' it is not that uncommon for them to seek someone else to do it for them. This is something that has come up because I've had players who are staunchly not into going on quests like that, and players who almost need those kinds of exploration quests to thrive. Generally I try to accommodate both preferences but either mixing things up or making it so one set of players can go on teh exploration quest while the other player tends to things they find more pertinent to their interests. Usually the party is pursuing some agenda they have set up for themselves