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

[pemerton]

When I say realism, I mean something that is not railroading (the DM creating unrealistic obstacles to keep us on track) and that aspects of the world are not modified based on what the DM thinks will cause more drama. I mean combats are not structured for balance as in combat-as-sport games.

When I say "realism" I mean that the setting conforms to known generalisations of tendency for human societies. To give one instance of what I mean by this: in a mediaeval-type setting the folk culture will be predominantly oral rather than literate. (Just the other day something - I can't remember what - prompted me to think that I should include a performance in a town scene soon.)

In my FRPGing, realism is a consideration for establishing fiction, but not the only factor by any means. Partly because there are (significant) limits to my knowledge; partly because expectations for FRPGing are set by other fiction as well as history, and that other fiction is often not realistic; partly because some unrealistic things are nevertheless interesting and fun.

I wouldn't use "realism" to talk about game play processes. Realism seems to me to be an attribute of a fiction, not an attribute of a process whereby a group establishes a fiction that they will all imagine together.

 

[pemerton]

That's a good question. For my part I would say that @pemerton 's game style disrupts my personal sense of realism, primarily because it seems to me the focus of the mechanics is on character(and in particular "soft" character mechanics like motivations, goals and feelings) rather than setting.

And similarly, I find your approach to be railroad-y, because decision-making is predominantly in the hands of the GM, who makes decisions without any particular regard to player goals.

 

[pemerton]

It seems to me you want player agency.

Yes.

The player should know what's going on, what the odds are, should know what's about to happen. It doesn't matter what a person in the imagined world would know, it doesn't matter what the character perceives.

In order: not really (that the player should know what's going on); generally yes (that the player should know what a successful roll will be); not necessarily (that the player should know what's about to happen); no (that it doesn't matter what a person in the imagined world would know or perceive).

I do not set up scenarios based on what direction I want the story or narrative to go. I build scenarios that fit the scenes I expect to come into play based on the decisions and actions that have brought us to the current point.

I don't know how else to explain it. If there's a pit trap it's because the area is inhabited by kobolds and it's one way they can take out larger enemy opponents. It's not because I don't want your character getting to the end of the hall.

I don't know why you need to explain it in some other way. It's pretty clear.

Railroading vs sandbox is, IMHO a different story and one that really comes down to how decisions are made. Are they made because of the current scenario, either by rules of the game or by the GM? Then it's a sandbox. Are the decisions (always) made because the GM wants you to follow this predefined path? Then it's a railroad.

OK. When I talk about a railroad, I mean the GM's vision of how things should unfold predominating over the players', in an ongoing and systematic way.

 

[The Firebird]

And similarly, I find your approach to be railroad-y, because decision-making is predominantly in the hands of the GM, who makes decisions without any particular regard to player goals.

OK. When I talk about a railroad, I mean the GM's vision of how things should unfold predominating over the players', in an ongoing and systematic way.

I think these statements could be clarified. In sandbox play, decision-making is not in the hands of the GM. The players determine the goals, they determine the approach, they determine where to go, they determine what plotlines to explore. The GM adjudicates without regard to player goals. But imo that doesn't mean "the GM's vision of how things should unfold predominates over the player"--the entire agenda, what to go and where to explore, is player directed.

Would "railroading occurs when the GM builds the world and adjudicates outcomes without regard to player goals" be an accurate rephrasing? I think that gets at the point more precisely than saying decision making in general.

 

[AlViking]

Yes.

In order: not really (that the player should know what's going on); generally yes (that the player should know what a successful roll will be); not necessarily (that the player should know what's about to happen); no (that it doesn't matter what a person in the imagined world would know or perceive).

I don't know why you need to explain it in some other way. It's pretty clear.

OK. When I talk about a railroad, I mean the GM's vision of how things should unfold predominating over the players', in an ongoing and systematic way.

But again... you're talking about how the GM thinks events should unfold. In my definition of a sandbox the GM doesn't care, predict or want anything to unfold in a specific way. They set up obstacles and opportunities that are based on world building and what they think makes for interesting and engaging playground for the players.

I may think of ways the characters could overcome obstacles but it has nothing to do with plans, goals, what I want to happen. I have no long term plans, no goals or outcomes I'm steering my players towards.

Seems like no matter how often I or other posters say that we end up in the same place. If we aren't playing your preferred style the GM can't be trusted to not drive people to a conclusion the GM wants.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, when I read posts like these I see a lot of normativity:

Is normative thinking inherently critical of your preferences? Or merely a statement of their own?

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is the same thing EzekialRaiden was getting at yesterday--the need for a heuristic. And I think the answer is the same. For large sandbox worlds, the heuristic at a certain point is "the referee's judgement" and the game requires players to trust that as a heuristic to succeed.

I've played with DMs I could trust and it works great. I've played with ones I couldn't and it didn't go that well. Avoiding those bad experiences were part of why I went for narrative games in the past--I liked having more codified rules because as a player it felt like it defined and protected my agency.



I can see why you dispute the use of the term. Verisimilitude is probably better. I think it is easier to define with reference to what it's not. When I say realism, I mean something that is not railroading (the DM creating unrealistic obstacles to keep us on track) and that aspects of the world are not modified based on what the DM thinks will cause more drama. I mean combats are not structured for balance as in combat-as-sport games.

The term 'realism' is used to some extent a reaction to these other things.

That's pretty much what I mean by realism or verisimilitude most of the time too. I also try to keep non-supernatural things as close to real world physics as is practical at the table, with some action movie wiggle room for spice.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And similarly, I find your approach to be railroad-y, because decision-making is predominantly in the hands of the GM, who makes decisions without any particular regard to player goals.

Well, there you go. That's an impasse if ever there was one!

Discussion over?

 

[pemerton]

But again... you're talking about how the GM thinks events should unfold. In my definition of a sandbox the GM doesn't care, predict or want anything to unfold in a specific way. They set up obstacles and opportunities that are based on world building and what they think makes for interesting and engaging playground for the players.

You're misconstruing my use of the word "should".

The GM makes a decision - they have to, or else the game comes to a halt as everyone looks at the GM who is saying nothing.

The GM bases their decision on some factors. Those factors don't, normally, entail some outcome. But the GM extrapolates from them in a manner that some posters have described as "organic" and "natural".

The word "should" describes the the connection between the inferential base, and the conclusion that the GM arrives at as following from that base.

Seems like no matter how often I or other posters say that we end up in the same place. If we aren't playing your preferred style the GM can't be trusted to not drive people to a conclusion the GM wants.

No, as I said you're misreading me.

And it has nothing to do with trust. It's about the GM being the one to make the decision, having principal regard to their conception of what follows "naturally" or "organically" from the situation.

 

[AlViking]

You're misconstruing my use of the word "should".

The GM makes a decision - they have to, or else the game comes to a halt as everyone looks at the GM who is saying nothing.

The GM bases their decision on some factors. Those factors don't, normally, entail some outcome. But the GM extrapolates from them in a manner that some posters have described as "organic" and "natural".

The word "should" describes the the connection between the inferential base, and the conclusion that the GM arrives at as following from that base.

No, as I said you're misreading me.

And it has nothing to do with trust. It's about the GM being the one to make the decision, having principal regard to their conception of what follows "naturally" or "organically" from the situation.

I have absolutely no idea what your talking about "the connection between the inferential base, and the conclusion that the GM arrives at as following from that base."

To me the intent and approach the GM takes to make decisions is all that matters as far as I'm concerned. You stated upthread

And similarly, I find your approach to be railroad-y, because decision-making is predominantly in the hands of the GM, who makes decisions without any particular regard to player goals.

Making decisions that are not based on goals, either the player's or the GM's, is what makes a game a sandbox to me. Whether the GM is making decisions based on their goals or the goals of the player, they are no longer being impartial. If a GM is railroading and the players make an attempt to overcome an obstacle that follows the rails and the GM decides that it automatically succeeds, is that not still a railroad? It doesn't matter that the GM decided it would be successful, they decided it would be successful because it keeps the narrative on the track they had predetermined.