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

[Bedrockgames]

@The Firebird, I'm not 100% sure how to interpret your "Wow" response to this post.

But imagine someone who knew nothing about dice-based wargaming except Risk, and who therefore said that the resolution of imaginary battles, if it is to be realistic or to put any weight on what the players, as generals, choose to do rather than just the outcome of "mechanical widgets", must be approached purely via free-kriegsspiel.

Why should a serious wargamer take such a pronouncement seriously?

Similarly, why should I take that sort of pronouncement seriously in the context of social resolution in RPGing, when I know and play with multiple systems that show it to simply be false?

Because @hawkeyefan mentioned rolls and I started talking about thinks like skill rolls for bluff. And so was explaining that while this isn’t a universal reaction I find such systems create a strong disconnect for me between what my character is saying and the outcomes. It impacts the weight of what I say and trips me up. This is why I mentioned 2E and 3E D&D because it is a similar core system except 3E has things like bluff and I found those had a very big impact on my sense of agency and immersion.

That is fine if you don’t like my wording and I wasn’t trying to impress anyone with my knowledge of social skill system. I was responding to something @Hawkeye was saying

 

[robertsconley]

I'm sure what you're saying is in line with your experiences. However, I think you are seriously underestimating how differently these adventures can play out at the table.

Yes, I can confirm that given the same Initial Context set in the same situation that there are a LOT of different ways it will play out. I have done extensive playtesting of various Sandbox Adventures, most involving what would be considered a mystery. The oldest of these is Scourge of the Demon Wolf.

As part of writing the adventures, I do extensive playtesting and the results form the bulk of what I write about. In fact, I just ran Scourge of the Demon Wolf, and a newer one, Deceits of the Russet Lord, at Wizard Con in Kalamazoo, MI, last weekend. Each group forged its own way to figure out what was going on and how to resolve it.

 

[mamba]

Self-restraint means adopting some sort of principle or process or heuristic. It's not an alternative to it.

I meant self-restraint as opposed to some game rules / mechanics that attempt to accomplish that restraint

Once we're are talking about restraint, we can then talk about how it is communicated, applied, etc.

I am not sure we communicate restraint outside of what scenario we present in game, let's take your example

We can also look at how it relates to scenarios like the one I described just upthread, where I as GM have to decide how many enemy wizards attack the PCs, and the in-fiction situation permits a range of possibilities from modestly to overwhelmingly, such that my decision as GM at this point basically dictates the resolution of this whole aspect of the ingame situation

I did not find the post you were referring to, I searched in this thread for your user and the term wizard. It reads as if it was your decision how things would develop, from a minor skirmish to a TPK or surrender by the party. It sounds like according to whatever rules the game had to 'restrain' you, the range was wide open in this case, so how do you decide what is appropriate?

Also, what is the goal of the enemy, do they just want to get rid of some nuisance and a TPK is just fine for them or do they want something from the characters?

I would try to pick an enemy party size that is reasonable (however you establish that, given that the rules give you a lot of leeway here, that probably at least means I am not going for either of the extremes). I would also see if I can give the players an out, like spotting the enemy party and avoiding it rather than having to make a stand under all circumstances and if it comes to a fight, I do hope the enemy is not content with accomplishing a TPK but has a different goal from that. Without more specifics (remember, I did not find the post you referred to), I cannot really tell how else I would restrain myself.

 

[The Firebird]

I don’t know… the conclusion is set ahead of play, so either the players solve the mystery or they fail to do so. The clues are mostly determined ahead of play, so they’ll help the players reach the conclusion. I imagine some amount of interviewing of witnesses and suspects will yield the information the GM has determined that it will. And so on.

I’m not saying there will be no differences… but I’m comfortable that my assumption is fairly accurate.

All I can say is that I've played both sides of the table and seen it play out very differently.

Hm. Well, I’m not really sure what you mean by “the players construct the world” or why that would impact DCs. I mean, even when running D&D, I provide every DC to the players openly before the role. I don’t think these two things are all that connected.

By "players construct the world" I mean that the players play an important role in constructing the narrative. In determining the structure of the world, what NPCs exist, what their relationships are, and so forth.

Several people who are discussing what they call "player driven play" have offered some version where this is explicit, like the Burning Wheel example.

I'm not sure about your view in particular. I see it as somewhat implicit in your statements, in that you think the DM should actively shape the world so that the players can achieve the PCs goals. But I'm not sure how far you push it.

 

[pemerton]

Whatever region they pick, I have a pretty good idea of what exists there. The players have an understanding of the possibilities based on what their character would know. This part of the Initial Context that I create as part of the start of the Campaign.

<snip>

NPCs' society and culture are socially organized in the same way as you would expect if it were real for my Majestic Fantasy Realm. For something like Middle Earth, it reflects how society is described as being organized in those settings. Think of how a GURPS worldbook like Discworld would be written, and that's likely how mine are written.

You can see a slice of this in this supplement I shared for my Majestic Fantasy Realms.
Bandits & Brigands

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't understand what your Bandits and Brigands supplement is adding - in terms of concepts, or social organisation, or the like - to the 1977 Monster Manual entries (in the "Men" section).

 

[AlViking]

But, I got absolutely pilloried for suggesting that this is a lot of work that the DM needs to do before starting a sandbox or indeed, even being able to consider the campaign a sandbox. Huh.

I'm not going to relitigate that one again. I am surprised how much time some people spend on prep, but it doesn't surprise me some games are faster to set up.

 

[zakael19]

No, I wasn’t. Go back and read my post.

I was pointing out that the modern version of D&D has practices that no longer make sense for the game. That they’re holdovers from earlier editions, which focused on different things.

Specifically, I was talking about how mundane resource attrition (torches, rations, ammo, etc.) isn’t really that important to 5e. The idea that these things need to be tracked is a holdover from earlier editions. If a GM decided not to track them in 5e… or maybe to only do so in certain situations… they would find their game mostly unaffected. Not so in the earlier versions where this stuff mattered so much more.

No where did I appeal to the popularity of modern D&D or even make any kind of commentary on the quality of the different versions.

You’ve imagined this.

I certainly never tracked mundane supplies playing 5e. It never materially affected gameplay.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Okay, I literally signed into 40 notifications, so there is a decent likelihood I'm just...not going to respond to every reply sent my way. Even if only a third of those are actual posts, responding to 13 different replies is just too much for me right now. I apologize if this makes anyone feel I've dodged them but I just don't have the spoons.

 

[pemerton]

I've seen statements to this effect a few times now and I think they are worth highlighting. Part of why I liked narrative games when I did (maybe 6 years ago) was precisely this reason: I had some 5e campaigns where I'd ask for basic in-character knowledge, like who the king is, and I'd be told no or made to roll for it. In that case I did end up floundering and liking a narrative system where I could define these details.

I've since played sandboxes which are more reasonable with information, and find them better than either. Ultimately this problem is poor DMing.

Which brings us back to @EzekielRaiden's question from one or two hundred posts upthread: is it possible to say more about what makes for good or for poor GMing?

Upthread I suggested that it involves adherence to principles - such as ensuring that salient information is reasonably knowable - and not using the authorship of setting element to force players into follow-the-GM's-breadcrumb excursions in order to be able to feasibly pursue their goals in the sandbox (and my example of this was being sent on a gorgon-killing quest by the King of Thracia, when the real action the players are interested in is saving their city from a siege).

Many posters have responded by suggesting that principles, heuristics, processes and the like are to be eschewed. Yet also speak about GMing using normative language (eg "poor" GMing). Are the norms really that ineffable?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes, I can confirm that given the same Initial Context set in the same situation that there are a LOT of different ways it will play out. I have done extensive playtesting of various Sandbox Adventures, most involving what would be considered a mystery. The oldest of these is Scourge of the Demon Wolf.

As part of writing the adventures, I do extensive playtesting and the results form the bulk of what I write about. In fact, I just ran Scourge of the Demon Wolf, and a newer one, Deceits of the Russet Lord, at Wizard Con in Kalamazoo, MI, last weekend. Each group forged its own way to figure out what was going on and how to resolve it.

Yeah I used to make primarily investigation based adventures for publication (mostly back when I was doing modern stuff, but I still do them here or there) and they play out considerably different from one group to the next).