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

[AlViking]

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

Speaking for myself I'm never intentionally not impartial. But since I'm creating the entire world, all the NPCs, hazards, obstacles and opportunities I am consciously or unconsciously influencing direction. Some of that is intentional because I don't care for murder-hobo dungeon crawling so we talk about that in our session 0. There are certain borders to my sandbox, if you want to take over the local mafia and run a criminal racket I'm not the right GM for you. I guess that would be the simplest example that some people would call not being impartial.

 

[AlViking]

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

In the real world the stranger could be trying to roofie me, in a fantasy campaign it could be worse. Just because you personally would take the drink doesn't mean that any random NPC would.

 

[AlViking]

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

View attachment 404262
or for adventures

View attachment 404263


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.

I use random tables mostly for names, occasionally for inspiration as well.

Agreed


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

Newbie. I've been doing it since 77. We started with the OD&D brown box set and were super excited when the blue box set came out. Dang I'm old.

 

[robertsconley]

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.

First, I was told my description was condescending because it emphasized difference. Now I’m told it’s inaccurate because it doesn’t emphasize difference enough. That contradiction speaks for itself.

You're also attempting to reframe my position by calling it a “GM-curated world.” That’s not a neutral term. It recasts my approach as one of authorial control, as if I’m selectively assembling content to guide outcomes, when in fact, I’ve detailed procedures and extrapolations that produce results regardless of what would best serve a character arc.

As I mentioned in my reply to @Hussar, philosophical foundations matter. He was upfront about his, and I appreciated that. Now I’d ask the same of you.

We all value consistency, but we differ on what that consistency is in service to. In character-centric play, it supports the player character’s narrative. In my campaigns, it reflects a world that operates on its own terms. Understanding our campaign philosophies will clarify why we approach campaigns differently, and why certain techniques that seem natural or necessary in one style can feel intrusive or out of place in another.

 

[robertsconley]

Newbie. I've been doing it since 77. We started with the OD&D brown box set and were super excited when the blue box set came out. Dang I'm old.

Yeah, even now, I feel like a young guy compared to the folks I discuss OD&D stuff with—those who played the 3 LBBs. Basically, I was part of the second wave that crested in the early ’80s.

I was new enough that my introduction was with the Holmes boxed set, before the AD&D PHB was released. My junior high friends and I didn't know that OD&D existed. We thought Holmes was the first game in the series. All the AD&D branding didn’t help with that impression.

So, while I played Holmes, we were mostly SPI and Avalon Hill wargamers until the AD&D DMG was released, when it became our primary form of gaming. Later in the ’80s, I figured out that all the adult and college gamers had been using OD&D in the late ’70s, mixing in AD&D piecemeal until the DMG was released. But since I was in junior high, I didn’t interact with them much.

Finally, how I heard of D&D in the first place was—I was walking home when a frenemy waved what I now know was an OD&D white box at me and teased that he was going to play D&D and I was not. I had no clue what he was talking about, but I didn’t let him know that. Later, I figured it out at Boy Scout camp during the winter of ’77–’78. The long evening hours meant there was a lot of D&D being played.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You're also attempting to reframe my position by calling it a “GM-curated world.” That’s not a neutral term. It recasts my approach as one of authorial control, as if I’m selectively assembling content to guide outcomes, when in fact, I’ve detailed procedures and extrapolations that produce results regardless of what would best serve a character arc.

This is my issue with the discussion. I am happy to smooth out disagreements and not impose my sensibilities on others. But our I agree with this. This kind of terminology does not feel like an adequate description for what I ma doing

 

[wicked cool]

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 being impartial, making the world change in response to the PCs stated goals.

So that’s a quest? Not sure that means impartial. You set your world and you and player created a quest the save their sister.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, even now, I feel like a young guy compared to the folks I discuss OD&D stuff with—those who played the 3 LBBs. Basically, I was part of the second wave that crested in the early ’80s.

I was new enough that my introduction was with the Holmes boxed set, before the AD&D PHB was released. My junior high friends and I didn't know that OD&D existed. We thought Holmes was the first game in the series. All the AD&D branding didn’t help with that impression.

So, while I played Holmes, we were mostly SPI and Avalon Hill wargamers until the AD&D DMG was released, when it became our primary form of gaming. Later in the ’80s, I figured out that all the adult and college gamers had been using OD&D in the late ’70s, mixing in AD&D piecemeal until the DMG was released. But since I was in junior high, I didn’t interact with them much.

Finally, how I heard of D&D in the first place was—I was walking home when a frenemy waved what I now know was an OD&D white box at me and teased that he was going to play D&D and I was not. I had no clue what he was talking about, but I didn’t let him know that. Later, I figured it out at Boy Scout camp during the winter of ’77–’78. The long evening hours meant there was a lot of D&D being played.

I started in 86 so I feel very much like I started somewhere in the middle in of TSR days

 

[The Firebird]

So that’s a quest? Not sure that means impartial. You set your world and you and player created a quest the save their sister.

The partiality comes in because I modified part of the world so the player could complete their quest. Previously, the ice was impassable; then, the player wanted to bypass it; therefore, I changed the world so it could be bypassed.

If my notes had said "no one sails due to dangerous ice, but crazy captain Ramius will risk it for extreme fees", then it would still be objective. Or something like "believed to be impassable (false)". Or "roll on this table to determine whether it is navigable".

 

[Faolyn]

If the obstacle's apparent difficulty, even after investigation, doesn't match what the DM decides then there's a problem.

A stupidly-extreme example: a three-foot-high stone wall that a human-size character wants to step up and over, yet the DM says "No". Magic detection reveals nothing, meaning there's neither illusion nor Wall of Force in play; the DM just wants the PCs to go around to the front door.

Flip-side example: it's a rainy night and the PCs are staring at a 30-foot-high wall the DM needs them to get over so his plot can progress. Normally, to climb this wet wall would need a roll of some sort but the DM just says "Right, you're over the wall and in the courtyard".

Both of these are bad news. The first should be an auto-success all day long while the second should be determined by the usual climbing rules of the edition in use; with the DM ready and willing to accept the PCs failing to get over the wall if that's what the dice declare.

I agree about the former. However, the latter depends on how important the wall actually. If there's pressure of some sort--a time crunch (and each failed roll means lost time), enemies after them, bad or no equipment--then yes, a roll should be made. There's actual consequences to be had. f the PCs have all the time in the world and decent equipment, then there's no point. They'll do it eventually. Having the PCs stop to roll dice in this case just delays the players without adding anything interesting to the game. At the most, what I'd do is roll to see how well they do it and if there are any complications.

In Level Up, this 30-foot wall might be an Exploration Challenge. A successful group roll might mean that make the climb in standard time while a failure might mean that it takes a lot longer, they party loses several Supply, and each character takes a level of exhaustion in the process. That's a lot more interesting than simply saying the party is stuck on the wrong side of the wall.