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

[AlViking]

No. It isn't.

Because now you're telling me what I'm allowed to think about something.

It is not as easy as you claim.

I never said it was easy for you. I said I've done it.

 

[The Firebird]

Actually, there are a number of ways for the party to know this. There are a number of random encounters with various factions that can tell you how far behind the pursuit is. For example, my group met a small group of drow in the Silken Path (one of the random encounters). The warlock plus the two Deep Gnomes twins (Topsy and Turvy) used their Disguise Self ability to approach the drow and talk to them. They learned that the hunting party was a number of days (I forget the exact number right now) behind them and then the three convinced the drow, who were meeting up with the hunters later, that the party wasn'T in this area, thus buying them a bit more time.

How did these drow know where the hunting party was?

Really, the drow hunting party catching them at the end, if you play it that way, makes a certain amount of sense. The drow can't pursue the party directly, but, there are only a limited number of places the party could logically go. So, instead of chasing, they get ahead of the party and wait for them.

Yeah, if at some point the drow stopped chasing the party and then guarded the exits that would make sense. Does the pursuit actually stop though?

 

[TwoSix]

Can you give a concrete example of what you mean

You said it yourself.

If it arises in the course of play and happens to thwart them on occasion, that is fair. But if you are doing it to railroad, that is a problem.

For a living world game to exist, the setting notes must occasionally thwart the PCs. Otherwise the notes don't actually mean anything!

If a guard has been given the trait "Unbribable" in the notes, then the PC has to not be able to bribe the guard. That's the point of the notes. It demonstrates to the players that you, as a DM, have done this work beforehand, and aren't just making it up on the fly. And for proponents of living world play, presenting that aesthetic of "I've done the work" is crucial to the buy-in that allows their immersion.

 

[robertsconley]

How does character-centric story-telling fail to prioritize internal world logic?

It depends on what is meant by character-centric storytelling. As I understand it, the term refers to a style where the primary focus is on the player characters’ narratives, and where, over the course of the campaign, the details of the world are prepared in a way that highlights each character’s thematic journey and unfolding story.

That preparation process may build on existing setting material, but the goal is ultimately to serve the character’s narrative. The world's internal logic is maintained, but it is shaped around the characters rather than existing independently of them.

In my sandbox campaigns, I don’t factor character narrative into preparation. I focus solely on where the characters are, what they’ve done, and who they could plausibly interact with next. The world exists and develops regardless of the characters' arcs, that’s the difference.

And aren’t you aware that saying « my approach prioritizes internal world logic » comes off incredibly condescending?

It’s accurate to say that I prioritize internal world logic. Saying that is not a judgment on other types of campaigns, it’s a description of what I use to run campaigns. Just as a narrative-first campaign emphasizes story arcs, or a character-centric one focuses on the players’ thematic journeys, mine emphasizes a consistent world that operates according to its own logic. Nor does it imply that narrative-first campaigns don't use world logic as part of creating the narrative.

If you take that as condescending, you are reading implications that I’m not making. I’m not interested in reviving arguments from two decades ago or being held accountable for how others may have framed their positions on campaigns in the past. I’m speaking for how I run my own campaigns, not anyone else’s.

Would you agree that the posters that you are disagreeing with ALSO consider that their approach prioritizes in-world logic?

Your earlier phrasing, “character-centric storytelling”, already points to a different priority. When I read the opening of your post, my immediate thought was:

Sure, a referee can value in-world logic, but it's clearly subordinate to the goal of supporting character-centric storytelling.

That’s no different in tone or substance from my saying I prioritize world logic over a character’s narrative.

 

[FrozenNorth]

This was not how I understood the example. I thought it was established lore before the players interacted with it. Perhaps I'm wrong?

Here’s the post.

The GM. And this isn’t a problem. It is a feature. It helps with sandboxing if the GM is free to make interesting characters, some of whom could have strong traits like ‘will not drink alcohol out of a religious belief’. Why is up to the GM. And that isn’t a problem either. It is completely okay in a sandbox for the GM to establish NPC character traits because he simply finds them interesting for example. If the GM is doing that to railroad, sure that is an issue but it is also a very terrible way to design NPCs. Players will get sick of that behavior, and in my experience most sandbox GMs don’t abuse this

It was an example from this thread, not from a real game, but it mimics how such traits come to be in actual games, particularly in sandbox games.

The PCs interact with tons of minor NPCs that the GM creates on the fly and therefore don’t have existing traits. The PCs interact with NPCs that do have traits in unexpected ways that aren’t covered by those traits.

When PCs test those traits (which is a normal part of sandbox play), the GM then tries to justify the traits, including by creating lore to justify the trait.

 

[Bedrockgames]

When PCs test those traits (which is a normal part of sandbox play), the GM then tries to justify the traits, including by creating lore to justify the trait.

That is not typical sandbox play. GMs are not going to be making up background lore to fit a character trait is why I said it was a bad example. I wasn't arguing for making up lore to justify a personality trait in a sandbox

1) They may indeed make up a background trait on the fly. The purpose isn't going to be interfering with player agency
2) Because it can interfere with agency in that situation, I said, and I am sure many sandbox GMs would agree, caution would need to be used, probably a die roll would come into play
3) For a sandbox GM, it should not matter one way or another if the players bribe the guard. The only reason a character trait should be an obstruction is because it is a trait of that character or because it is a norm in the setting for bribes to not be taken. As a GM I don't care ether way how the situation unfolds. And again this is why that sort of thing, I would want 1) to pin down before it even comes up as a question, 2) very rarely have as a character trait in the first place

 

[Hussar]

When a definition of something starts getting overly broad, I generally find it useful to try and define by exclusion. What sort of games are absolutely NOT a sandbox?

Off the top of my head, a one-shot of something like Fiasco or Dread is not a sandbox. Pretty much any CoC game example I can think of is not a sandbox. "We're going to play module X from start to finish and then end the game" would not be a sandbox (unless the module is itself a sandbox).

I would add any strictly linear style campaigns would likely not be considered a sandbox. My Candlekeep Mysteries campaign, where it was episodic, with each episode being a new adventure, would certainly never be considered a sandbox. Something like Horde of the Dragon Queen as well isn't a sandbox. It's a Tour Des Realms campaign where the party is led in a pretty strictly linear fashion from beginnign to end.

 

[The Firebird]

Here’s the post.

It was an example from this thread, not from a real game, but it mimics how such traits come to be in actual games, particularly in sandbox games.

The PCs interact with tons of minor NPCs that the GM creates on the fly and therefore don’t have existing traits. The PCs interact with NPCs that do have traits in unexpected ways that aren’t covered by those traits.

When PCs test those traits (which is a normal part of sandbox play), the GM then tries to justify the traits, including by creating lore to justify the trait.

I don't read the post as saying the GM came up with it after the fact. It sounds like the GM previously came up with some information about the world--e.g., "night shift, Hooper and Brody. Paid well and subject to zone of truth. Won't take bribes". Then the PCs tried to interact by bribery.

 

[TwoSix]

That is not typical sandbox play. GMs are not going to be making up background lore to fit a character trait is why I said it was a bad example. I wasn't arguing for making up lore to justify a personality trait in a sandbox

Honestly, making up some exotic lore to justify weird results is one of my favorite parts of DMing. It's one of the main reasons I like to keep my campaign setting so loose.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I would give them my money rather than take a drink, just like I would give a mugger my money if they pulled a weapon on me. Why would a complete stranger come up to me on the street and offer me a drink in the first place? What kind of whack job are they if they tell me that if I don't drink they're going to kill me?

You have argued that a religion that would condemn a person’s family to hell if that person (but not the family) drinks a glass of mead under extreme duress is within the realm of fantasy realism.

Why isn’t a stranger that has such a pressing need that you take a drink that they would threaten your family not also within the realm of fantasy realism?