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

[robertsconley]

Let me express this differently: If a certain outcome enhanced a character’s narrative but flat out contradicted a fact that had been established in play, do you believe that the proponents of character-centric play would discard the fact?

I can’t speak for everyone, but definitely in my case the answer is no.

I think if it benefited the character's narrative, then yes, some proponents of character-centric play would be willing to discard a previously established fact. I’ve seen this happen in actual play with a friend who enjoys narrative-first systems.

But to be clear, the inconsistency has to serve the narrative strongly enough to justify it. In the case I witnessed, the group discussed it openly before going ahead, and my friend confirmed afterward that they made the choice deliberately. We’ve run LARP events together and have had long conversations about our approaches to RPGs, so I know how he thinks about these things.

 

[wicked cool]

Since 2 or more of you are arguing about impartial can you give examples of when you are not?

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

If your intention is not to be condescending would in not be more accurate to ground the descriptions based on what makes them distinct rather than points they share? As I already responded, making a consistent world is important for all GMs.

I agree that « character-centric » is an accurate description of one side, but I would argue that « GM-curated world » would be more accurate for the other.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Agreed.

I think a major part of the definition of a sandbox is not just the possibility, but the expectation, that the PCs will start in a place, and be presented with various options as to possible paths to follow, with various degrees of clarity.

The most basic sandbox imaginable would be a Zork-like text adventure with a starting point of "You start in a room. There are doors to the north, east, and west. What do you do?"

 

[The Firebird]

Since 2 or more of you are arguing about impartial can you give examples of when you are not?

I had an example about hiring a ship earlier. Consider a variant of that. The players are in a northern city and the ice has closed passage for the winter. In my GM notes I have written "Ice blocks all travel". However, one of the characters must return a yeti horn to the south, because it can make a potion that will save their sister's life.

I think this is a compelling character moment and I want to see it happen. Therefore I say, "it turns out this year there is a gap in the ice, and you can find a captain willing to risk it for a large fee".

In this case, I'm not being impartial, I'm making the world change in response to the PCs stated goals.

 

[mamba]

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?

yeah, give money over take drink, sure. As I said, if the guy kills you otherwise anyway, I am not so sure you do have much to lose by taking the drink though.

Might as well give that a shot, maybe he is just crazy enough that it actually is just some alcohol and he just was very insistent. Between certain death and something unknown, the unknown usually becomes a lot more palatable

 

[TwoSix]

If your intention is not to be condescending would in not be more accurate to ground the descriptions based on what makes them distinct rather than points they share? As I already responded, making a consistent world is important for all GMs.

I agree that « character-centric » is an accurate description of one side, but I would argue that « GM-curated world » would be more accurate for the other.

I really think the vital distinction between these playstyles is that for the "living world" proponents, what the DM works on and creates outside of the game space, in the time between table sessions, has its own authority and agency. The DM is allowed (and expected) to assert the authority of their notes over results derived from resolution procedures if and when the two come into conflict.

This is superficially similar, but in-play very different, from the table collectively agreeing to setting parameters to limit their possible narrations. If you agree to play in Eberron or Duskvol, neither a player or DM is allowed to assert that the guard is unbribeable due to their faith in Paladine, for example.

 

[robertsconley]

Personally? I would say that no GM can be 100% impartial but I also don't think any game system can be 100% impartial.

I agree.
In my opinion, game mechanics for tabletop RPG campaigns function as terse descriptions of how things work. As descriptions, they reflect the bias of the author writing them, which is why my books are peppered with Rob's Notes, explaining my thinking at strategic moments

or for adventures

Even a game that relied completely on random procedural generation is probably not completely impartial because the results of the procedure are predetermined.

Just before this post I recommend a method of using random tables to generate word salad to super me creatively. I don't use these tables blindly. I look them over and see if what they generate makes plausible sense with the setting I want to use them for.

A game isn't likely to be successful if there's a 1 in 10 chances of any action the players declare has the result of "rocks fall, everyone dies". There are, of course, exceptions to every rule.

Agreed

That doesn't mean we can't have complete impartiality as a goal and come close to it. Oh, and I have this post bookmarked if that's what you were referring to, I need to make time to read through some things.

It is a process where we learn something new every time, even if you are like me and have been doing this since 78.

 

[Manbearcat]

I’m about 10 minutes from catching a plane, so I don’t have time to engage much. But there are some things regarding Story Now (Narrativism in Forge design theory) play that is being distorted here and it leading to some odd exchanges and conclusions. I’m seeing terms like “character-centric” and “arcs” and “storytelling” that seem to attempt to index Story Now agenda which are either confused or wide of the mark or are an accidental Trojan Horse for assumptions that don’t belong.

* Story Now design and play are not preoccupied by outcomes or arcs or storytelling. They’re concerned with (i) premise, (ii) coherent (meaning they engage with play premise) initial conditions and framing, (iii) aggressive play with proper execution of participant role, (iv) and the inertia/trajectory of play faithfully unfolding in accords with proper application of system at each moment of play such that when play resolves, we did “the thing” (whatever that thing is for a given game).

There is no “style of play.” There is “what does this game do?” “Ok, do that.” And games will often diverge radically from one another in terms of structure, procedures, action/conflict resolution, currencies (including none), and advancement/fallout.

Therefore, If you merely tell me an outcome of your play, I have absolutely no idea if you were either (a) playing a Story Now game or (b) executing it correctly if you were in fact aiming to play one.

No one is telling a story.

No one should have their mental space preoccupied by mapping character conception onto play (“character arcs”).

Just aggressively do the game’s thing (see the particular game for what that is).

And again.

And again.

Till the essential matters of play (see the particular game for what that is) are settled.

This is why I ask people for actual play. I don’t know anything about your play if you don’t tell me exactly how you got from this situation-state to this follow-on situation-state. Telling me a fictional outcome tells me approximately zero.

/plane. GGs

 

[AlViking]

I’m simply pointing out the inherent contradiction that you seem to be willing to accept fantasy realism in one case but not in the other.

Maybe they are under a fey geas that requires them to drink alcohol with the first person they see. That seems on brand for fey.

Or a fey geas to never touch another drop of alcohol. For some NPCs that could be a fate worse than death.