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

[AlViking]

So this has come up in campaigns in my world as well. I’d like to test your boundaries. The heroes beat the gang etc but then want to roleplay threatening say the rest of the gang . Do you allow that?
I change my campaign world to fit my players as 99% of the time I have a plan in my head how the adventure will go and it always fails. We discuss rules as I’m usually impartial. I have redone encounters etc based on circumstances especially if I left something out

For example
-player forgot they had advantage on a roll. We basically redo the roll or they didn’t describe the spell completely and there was something that affected the area etc etc

The players had their torches on but planned on sneaking after but forgot to say we turned off the torch

D&d etc game system isn’t Simon says(old reference so I apologize) . This is a game that impartially needs to be considered all the time and common sense

-no you didn’t sleep with your shield strapped on so when the goblins invade the camp you don’t have your bow notched

But it is your job as the gm to set that expectation for them before.
-you have bill the horse and your going into the tiny cave what do you do with bill and your tents etc

Most of those don't, to me, relate to whether or not a game is a sandbox. For example I'm pretty lenient with small details like forgetting to mention putting out the torches. Occasionally I'll ask for a check because it's uncertain, like whether or not the character remembered to grab something when they had to leave in a hurry. It's a game so I'll handwave little things here and there. If they're bringing good ol' Bill the horse to the mines where even such a brave pony should not venture then they need to figure out what to do with it.

My motivation for not getting too nit-picky is just to keep the game moving forward, it's not to direct the game in any particular direction. It's not even to really help the players achieve their goals, it's just acknowledging that my players are not the characters and that sometimes we forget to mention small things at the table.

 

[The Firebird]

Isn't that the opposite of impartiality? You changed things based on the player's desire.

Old post had a typo. I meant the "partiality" (or lack of "impartiality").

Looks like I got it wrong in another old post too. Sorry. Some kind of cold today, must be messing with me.

There's a third option here:

Prep DM wrote an overview of her city in advance. She knows there's a busy port. She doesn't bother to list what ships are there unless a ship is actually important to the events in some way, and then looks up how much ship's passage costs when and if the PCs actually try to hire one.

Yeah, and a half dozen others besides. I just wanted to capture a few.

 

[robertsconley]

But how do you see impartiality changing according to the goals of play?

Just to be clear, the concept of impartiality has been debated in philosophy with several distinct viewpoints. But the one I think is most relevant to tabletop roleplaying is fairness within a framework, meaning you have a set of principles that are applied consistently and without bias, in a way that aligns with the group's creative goals.

Those who believe impartiality must be absolute and grounded in universal principles may take issue with that. But considering the stakes, this is a game, and we’re doing it for fun, I think the above works fine for our purposes.

To answer your question directly: different goals lead to different principles, so what counts as fairness, consistency, or bias will vary depending on the framework the group is using.

 

[mamba]

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.

the random NPC did refuse it because they thought theirs and their families eternal damnation was at stake, not because they might get roofied

 

[mamba]

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.

that is a typo, it was meant to be an example for being partial, not impartial

 

[hawkeyefan]

Just to be clear, the concept of impartiality has been debated in philosophy with several distinct viewpoints. But the one I think is most relevant to tabletop roleplaying is fairness within a framework, meaning you have a set of principles that are applied consistently and without bias, in a way that aligns with the group's creative goals.

Those who believe impartiality must be absolute and grounded in universal principles may take issue with that. But considering the stakes, this is a game, and we’re doing it for fun, I think the above works fine for our purposes.

To answer your question directly: different goals lead to different principles, so what counts as fairness, consistency, or bias will vary depending on the framework the group is using.

I don't know if I agree with that. I'm sure there's philosophical debate about such things... I mean, of course there is... but to me, I don't see impartiality as a good or bad thing. I suppose I'm impartial about impartiality, fittingly enough. It has its place... but I don't think that the bulk of my GMing is as concerned with it as that of others'.

Like, I'm again thinking of my Spire campaign. The goals of play were to see what the characters were willing to risk and or lose in the name of making a change. That's the premise of play... that they're underdog revolutionaries fighting against the powers that be. So as I GM, my goal is to keep that a priority... to make sure that premise is in play as much as possible.

I don't think that means that when I do so, that I'm remaining impartial because it's the stated goal of play. I want to see that... that desire is very partial, I think.

 

[robertsconley]

My motivation for not getting too nit-picky is just to keep the game moving forward, it's not to direct the game in any particular direction. It's not even to really help the players achieve their goals, it's just acknowledging that my players are not the characters and that sometimes we forget to mention small things at the table.

So what happens all the time with how I run sandbox campaigns is that I will be faced with a handful of plausible outcomes and the odds don't vary significantly I will at times pick the one that most fun or interesting for the players and myself (I don't just consider my interest when I do this but my group as well).

I don't do this on a regular basis as I have done this long enough to spot bias in the way I think. So more often I will use the dice.

Just keep in mind we are doing this for fun. So if the result is consistent, just make the fun call from time to time, especially if you're sure that the group will enjoy the result.

 

[AlViking]

the random NPC did refuse it because they thought theirs and their families eternal damnation was at stake, not because they might get roofied

I was the one who came up with that answer ... but to me the scenario was hyperbole so I gave an answer in that vein. In an actual game it would depend on the scenario. Talking to someone in a tavern and the bartender serves up the drink of the NPC's choosing? Probably. Random person walking down the street and someone offers them a drink that the stranger pulls out? I know I wouldn't drink.

 

[Pedantic]

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.

These are both close, but there's an essential element missing that I think is the source of so much of the swirl in these discussions. The important bit is the primacy of an interactable world with immutable traits, not that the GM made up that setting.

It is an incidental part of the form (owing as much to the Czege principle as anything else) that this is usually resolved by a GM creating the setting; if there was some other means of creating a setting that could produce as compelling an appearance of completeness as a GM allows, then it would be used instead. The goal of play is served by the GM as a technology, and failure to meet it reflects a limit of the tool, not an intrinsic part of the goal. Focusing on the distribution of authority does a disservice to the gameplay loop the player is trying to engage with in the first place.

 

[robertsconley]

I don't think that means that when I do so, that I'm remaining impartial because it's the stated goal of play. I want to see that... that desire is very partial, I think.

Fair enough, you care about the theme of the campaign and as result you actively promote that.

While I care that my players have fun, I don't have any particular preference for how they have fun in my settings. And yes that would include exploring the lives of Basket Weavers. So impartiality works well for me. However, because of my experience, once it becomes apparent what they are trying to do. I will help when wanted. Usually by coaching or advice outside of refereeing the campaign. Particularly if there are novices to tabletop roleplaying involved.