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

[mamba]

Here's an illustration of the difference. Consider Thoth, whose Beliefs include I will give the dead new life!. On the first model, a GM might create a whole scenario about Thoth trying to find a body suitable to raise as an undead - say, first he has to do this thing, then that thing, then this other thing, etc, until - if successful - he eventually obtains a suitable corpse. That would be obstacles in the way of a goal. But it would not be anything like Burning Wheel play, because it would not be the GM framing Thoth into scenes based on his priorities. Because each of <this thing>, <that thing>, <this other thing> - on the first model - might have nothing at all to do with any of the player-determined priorities for Thoth.

ok, I’ll bite… so it looks like Thoth tries to create an undead, so they are kinda like Frankenstein, at least that is my take-away from the scenario you describe. So I can see how your example scenario might work out for this, but you also say that this is not how it would work in BW.

I assume the belief is a priority too, so ‘your’ job is to frame Thoth in scenes around that belief. Is the distinction you make that the sequence of tasks you describe are not scenes, or is it something more fundamental, e.g. that you should challenge the belief, maybe by the scene questioning the morality of creating undead, rather than just throwing obstacles in the way of Thoth creating their first undead?

 

[zakael19]

If the setting is unrealistic, then I don't understand how the heuristic extrapolate what is the most realistic/plausible is supposed to be applied.

That's the problem when any of us bring up realism, verisimilitude, or plausibility. You get a response that either insists on a strict definition that can then be picked apart, or you get a refutation based on the inability to get 100% of everything right. A straw man of perfection is generated that is subsequently set up as the enemy of "good enough" or "best we can manage" that is what we want and are supporting, to somehow "prove" the impossibility of our desires, and therefore our preferences.

I'm getting very tired of this. We have a way, you have a way (with nuance and variation within each, of course). Both are viable. There are similarities and differences, but probably more of the latter. One side trying to convince the other of the wrongness/incoherence of their style or of their argument for it is accomplishing nothing productive, and runs the constant risk of offending the person with whom you are arguing.

Y'all go on ahead. I'm going to stay here and build a nice little house by the stream.

So from my perspective, there’s a marked reluctance from the folks who like to say that they prioritize “realism” or “verisimilitude” in their play to acknowledge that it’s their personal conception of what those words mean that they’re talking about. I assure you that while I may not have pre-defined huge swathes of my world in detail, and may not intend for “inherently cohesive setting details” to be the primacy of play, that doesn’t mean that it’s ever like, lacking for me. I spend about 9 hours a week running a game for which I am exhorted by the book to hold as one of my main agenda items “to portray a rich and mysterious world.”

Because I am encouraged to lean on the players as we build out details, the world and setting always expands in a way that meets the table’s expectation for internal consistency and a general genre verisimilitude based on what each player knows and brings to the table about things. Because the characters all have different backgrounds and priorities, they focus on bits of the world to add detail and spotlights on that then enhances the overall fictional image in all our heads.

That’s just one way to achieve a table-consensus “appropriate” (realistic is a bad word for a fantasy game anyway) flavor to the fictional space. Yours is another. So long as the table feels what’s being established in the conversation feels right neither is inherently “better” - it’s just degrees of preference around the flow of conversation and authority.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not sure how that is an also - my post began by noting that low-stakes play is a feature of sandbox RPGing.

The demo you included specifically eschewed any low-stakes play and started right in on the high-stakes stuff, giving the very strong impression that high-stakes is all that matters.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure as hell could've fooled me with the way you and others talk about how harmful and disruptive players are.

Harmful and disruptive DMs won't have nearly as many such stories to tell as they won't have had the opportunity to acquire them; given that their players will likely all have left long since.

Not-so-harmful DMs, however, can keep going for the long term and over time will inevitably encounter all sorts of different player types, some of which in hindsight (or even in the moment) their games would have been better without.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So, basically 90-95% of everyone is pure color, just part of the scenery

No, 90-95% of everyone is a potential important character.

 

[Campbell]

For what it's worth I just personally degree that the output of GM has a mental model and decides what happens based on what they feel is most plausible results in a world that feels more real at the end of the day. I think the plausibility on top of plausibility often results in a world that feels too clean, isn't messy enough. Does not have the sorts of contradictions or unreal events that make our world feel like a real place with real people. At least based on my own experience running games like Stars Without Number.

This is particularly true for the sorts of scenarios I prefer, which are about people ostensibly living exciting lives, but not ones marked for adventure. Where the world acts on the characters as much as they act on the world. I find that building around the player characters' lives often results in a setting that feels much more lived in, much more dynamic in practice.

So, the games that I have played that have felt the most real, had the most depth are sort of hybrid experiences. Where we using more traditional systems we define characters with fairly strong premises, how they are connected to the setting and build in meaningful relationships. But then the GM builds on top of that with more detail and also includes a cast of NPCs with strong premises that are connected to the PCs. Then we play in a more or less traditional manner, but injecting stuff related to character premise as we go. Although usually with some storytelling stuff to weave the personal journeys of the characters together.

@RenleyRenfield has taught me a lot about running that sort of game. A lot of those techniques I put in place for running a slightly higher myth game of Blades in the Dark.

This why in part I think we all need to do a better job of separating out aims from techniques.

 

[Lanefan]

Let me try to clarify then.

The characters were not "just exploring". They were traveling to a specific location to explore that specific location. The only reason they went to that specific location is because the DM deliberately called it out as a place of interest - it has a cool name, it's probably somewhere that would be interesting to go.

Ideally the map is strewn with places that have cool-sounding names,

That's not exploring. Exploring isn't traveling to a specific destination.

The first time I drove from here to Indianapolis for GenCon (both a route and area I'd never seen before) it sure felt like exploring.

 

[Lanefan]

An assumption here is that the PC failed to bribe the guard because the guard wasn't corrupt. But that's not the only way to interpret a poor result on a bribery skill check.

Maybe the PC misjudged how corruptible the guard was and offered a bribe that was turned down

Maybe the PC misjudged how corruptible the guard was and declined to offer a bribe that the PC believed would be rejected

Maybe the PC correctly judged the guard, and declined to offer a bribe that would be rejected.

Maybe the PC misjudged the size of the bribe needed.

Maybe the PC misjudged the form the bribe needed to take.

Maybe the guard misheard and thought you were offering a bride, and he's already married.

 

[Lanefan]

Makes sense. I think it would turn me off the game entirely, unless it was very carefully presented.

That's where we differ. A CvC-based demo like that would probably have me asking "Is this game always like this?" followed by "Sign me up!".

That said, I rather suspect actual ongoing play would be considerably different, if only because the CvC aspect wouldn't appeal to some and even if it did it would butcher continuity (which some also value) when characters kept getting driven away or even killed by their peers*. I could see there being a lot of solo or split-party play due to all the plotting and planning, which could get unwieldy if there's five players at the table.

It would, however, work well if there's only one or two players plus the GM; which - if I'm correctly recalling posts elsewhere - is how @pemerton generally plays/played it.

* - I, on the other hand, would love it.

 

[Lanefan]

You seem not to be reading what I post, as you are attributing to me opinions that are largely the opposite of the ones that I posted in reply to you, and have reposted just above.

Obviously I disagree with this, given that I've posted hundreds, probably thousands, of words doing exactly this, plus have posted and linked to many actual play examples. Have you read any of them?

While your specific play examples make for interesting reading, what we don't know - and can't know - is whether those examples are truly typical to system (i.e. would everyone get similar engagement and results from the same situation) or are instead reflecting how you've individually or collectively made the system work well for you and your table.