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

[Maxperson]

"The Sword" has two main functions: it's (1) a demo game used at conventions (2) to show off the Duel of Wits rules. I'm sure you could kick off a campaign with it, but it's a roughly 15-30 minute game without extrapolating more material.

I thought main function of "The Sword" was to cut down your enemies in order to hear the lamentation of their women, but what do I know.

 

[The Firebird]

I don't know how much, if any, experience you have playing Burning Wheel (or Torchbearer). I can attest that, in my experience, the game is as verisimilitudinous as any of my (19 years of) Rolemaster play. Personally I find it more so, because of the intimacy of attention to the character that the system encourages.

When you say "if the NPCs I encounter keep testing my character", though, I think you are missing some of the ways that colour and conflict are related. The PC meets many people. Most of them are not in conflict with the PC. Hence, they are colour, and typically mere colour. So no tests are required; free narration, often fairly quick, will do the job.

I'm glad it works for you. Personally I find these kind of meta divisions of NPCs into color and conflict really artificial and I think they'd impair my enjoyment.

 

[AlViking]

I've seen games that say things like "if you're a bigot, you're not allowed to play this game" (well, the phrasing is a bit saltier, but you know what I mean). Of course, these warnings are usually on games that bigots wouldn't want to play in the first place. Although I saw one on a game (can't remember which one, but you played as either an animal or an animal-folk) that effectively said "if you're into bestiality, you're not allowed to play."

On a more generally useful note, games are increasingly bringing up boundaries, lines and veils, the X-cards, and so forth. While the idea of these tools is to help prevent unwanted material from coming up in a game, they also can help by telling players it's OK to say "this behavior is not OK." (Look, gaming is a social thing and as such, there's going to be pressure for people to not make waves by stopping people who are being rude or worse.) At any rate, telling players to sit down and talk about what sort of creatures or events are or are not acceptable in the game also gives them to opportunity to talk about what behaviors are or are not acceptable.

A hypothetical rule that says "if there are disagreements about how a mechanic works, go by what the book or GM says in order to keep the current session moving smoothly, but after the session, discuss the problems then and come to a decision before the next session--and it's OK if the group's decision goes against what the book says or the GM had previously ruled" would help keep a very common form of conflict to a minimum.

I think the 2024 DMG does a pretty decent job of setting guidelines. I'm sure we've seen similar before but now there's an entire section on "Ensuring Fun For All"

For example on how to handle disagreements ...

Rules Discussions​

Work out a policy about rules discussions at the table. Some groups don’t mind putting the game on hold while they discuss different interpretations of a rule. Others prefer to let the DM make a call and continue playing. If you gloss over a rules issue in play, make a note of it and return to the issue later.

Some players like to use the rules to argue against your decisions. While such players can be helpful when you’re stuck or make a rules mistake that’s easily corrected, players who argue the rules too often can disrupt the flow of the game.

If a player wants to pause play to find a specific rule or reference, you can invite the player to search for it while you and the rest of the players continue the game. That player’s character essentially steps out of the game for as long as it takes. Monsters don’t attack the character, and the character takes the Dodge action in combat until the player rejoins the group. This solution allows the other players to keep playing instead of letting one player stop the game.

 

[AlViking]

I think this is the closest thing I've seen to a thesis statement about what you think railroading is. But I think the jargon is holding it back here because many unrelated concepts fall into "control over the fiction". Consider:

1) The GM writes "captain Sparrow, large ship, +25% to base travel costs" before the game.

2) The GM writes "pit trap, 10 ft deep, activated by 10lb weight".

3) the player says "I walk down the hallway tapping a 10 ft pole".

4) the player says "I look for a ship captain in town. I want to find someone to hire for our journey.

5) the player says "I try to trick the goblin into falling into the previously discovered pit trap".

Based on your previous responses, I suspect (1) is considered control over the fiction if it is decided during play, but perhaps not if before play. I suspect (2) is the same. I think you would not consider (3) nor (4) to be control over the fiction. But (5) would be, because the player learned that information already.

Personally I would consider actions like (3) and (4) to exert meaningful control over the fiction. But it seems like if the players can only take actions of this type, as in a fixed world sandbox, you consider this railroading.

I think your thesis statement needs to be clarified by what exactly control over the fiction means.

Pemerton has his own definition of sandbox that doesn't match any definition I've been able to find anywhere else. It's basically "You can only have a sandbox if you play a game that works like the one I prefer". The world is constructed by the players during play, they always have transparency on obstacles, on and on. Which is one possible structure for games, I just don't see that it has anything to do with sandbox play.

edit - ninja'd by maxperson

 

[Maxperson]

Except that it can.

It can't 100% perfectly prevent problems. That, I agree with.

But rules absolutely can, and do, make a difference. They do so all the time in our daily lives.

Only because there are real world consequences for violating those rules. For the DM, the only consequence is that he might lose players. If a DM is the kind of person to abuse the game like that, no rule is going to have any effect on him. He already knows before he does it that he could lose players.

Rules--particularly ones that are known and public--make it easier for well-intentioned people to avoid accidentally doing something wrong, and make it harder for ill-intentioned people to get away with things. Rules provide a floor from which to negotiate, and importantly, well-constructed rules legitimately do help keep people on the same page, thus reducing the chance of major problems.

The former is irrelevant, because it doesn't involve abuse. The latter is irrelevant, because the DM just changed the rules, which is why it's abuse. Negotiation happens with DMs who are not abusive and might want to alter a rule that the players disagree with, not with abusive DMs who won't care.

It's simply false to say that rules never make a difference--even when those rules aren't "obey or we'll force you". Just because they aren't a perfect shield doesn't mean we should pretend they make no difference at all.

They make a difference with DMs who will follow or mostly follow the rules. The DMs who care about the game and the players. Not with abusive DMs.

 

[AlViking]

Only because there are real world consequences for violating those rules. For the DM, the only consequence is that he might lose players. If a DM is the kind of person to abuse the game like that, no rule is going to have any effect on him. He already knows before he does it that he could lose players.

The former is irrelevant, because it doesn't involve abuse. The latter is irrelevant, because the DM just changed the rules, which is why it's abuse. Negotiation happens with DMs who are not abusive and might want to alter a rule that the players disagree with, not with abusive DMs who won't care.

They make a difference with DMs who will follow or mostly follow the rules. The DMs who care about the game and the players. Not with abusive DMs.

I don't get this whole idea that a GM could "accidentally" be a total jerk. The people that are jerks either have no ability to read their players or don't give a damn. I don't see what possible kind of guidelines or guardrails could stop that.

What's funny is that there are so many articles out there talking about how great D&D is at teaching kids how to work together on a team collaboratively and how to handle disputes. None of the articles I've ever read through ever mention any issues with the role of DMs and players, it just isn't a problem.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't get this whole idea that a GM could "accidentally" be a total jerk. The people that are jerks either have no ability to read their players or don't give a damn. I don't see what possible kind of guidelines or guardrails could stop that.

They can't. If you have a killer DM who is throwing such deadly encounters at the group that one PC is dying almost every fight and the party TPKs before level 5, the encounter rules in the DMG and players knowing about those rules won't make a difference. They aren't going be able to negotiate him down to more reasonable encounters by showing him the rules in the book and talking to him.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm glad it works for you. Personally I find these kind of meta divisions of NPCs into color and conflict really artificial and I think they'd impair my enjoyment.

Every single game does this. If a town in some detailed trad game world has 3000 inhabitants, how many detailed NPC descriptions do you think there are for inhabitants of said place? If it is a heavily focused on location that number might run into the several dozen, perhaps. Some additional information might exist that categorizes some others as occupying certain professions, etc. A very few, probably countable on my fingers, might have full PC-level sheets, or something similar.

So, basically 90-95% of everyone is pure color, just part of the scenery, assumed to be normal people with average abilities and motivation and attitude typical of the population. If a PC, for some reason, focuses on one of these NPCs, then the GM will naturally RP them consistent with the situation. Assuming the criteria of 5e, that might involve a check of some sort, if the fiction indicates something that matters to the players is at stake.

The exact same criteria would apply in Dungeon World, and I assume also in Burning Wheel. In any of these games further NPC depth might be added/established, the character could take up some role in the fiction, or not.

 

[Campbell]

At least from my perspective losing a player to the group, even for just this game, is a substantive cost. It means losing a skilled, collaborative contributor who I know meshes with the larger group. It means no one is breathing life to a character we all know and appreciate. It often means substantive changes need to be made to everything that is in motion to accommodate their absence.

It likely means we're going to take a year or two before we find someone who is a fit for us creatively and socially. Finding a player might be easy, but finding a fit is not easy at all.

It's not losing "a player". It's losing Sarah who brings Vertigan the Bold to life and is good at bringing the best out of Donny.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Every single game does this. If a town in some detailed trad game world has 3000 inhabitants, how many detailed NPC descriptions do you think there are for inhabitants of said place? If it is a heavily focused on location that number might run into the several dozen, perhaps. Some additional information might exist that categorizes some others as occupying certain professions, etc. A very few, probably countable on my fingers, might have full PC-level sheets, or something similar.

So, basically 90-95% of everyone is pure color, just part of the scenery, assumed to be normal people with average abilities and motivation and attitude typical of the population. If a PC, for some reason, focuses on one of these NPCs, then the GM will naturally RP them consistent with the situation. Assuming the criteria of 5e, that might involve a check of some sort, if the fiction indicates something that matters to the players is at stake.

The exact same criteria would apply in Dungeon World, and I assume also in Burning Wheel. In any of these games further NPC depth might be added/established, the character could take up some role in the fiction, or not.

There's that 100% perfection straw man again...

And the issue here as I see it is presentation and intent. In DW the story purposes and character roles are quite clear and a major part of the game's intended dynamic. In most versions of D&D and similar games the intent is often to provide as full a picture of that part of the setting as is considered practical. The narrative purpose of what details are emphasized is usually not shoved in your face.