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

[Lanefan]

I disagree. If someone is being an asshat, they aren't going to pay attention to the rules of the game. If someone yells at someone else at the table, there is no rule that will fix it. The PHB and DMG repeatedly state some variation of "don't be an ass".

Give me one clear scenario, one rule that you would think would change things. Because I've seen people be abusive playing UNO, it has nothing to do with the rules of the game it's the person in the seat.

Never mind that one group's "abusive" can be another group's "this is how we roll".

 

[The Firebird]

It's great that it works for you, from what I've read it wouldn't work for me. But that's not the point. You're trying to prove .... well I'm not sure what you're trying to prove anymore. It's like giving people a motorcycle repair manual to explain the difference between a car and a motorcycle and people ask about rolling down the windows so you just repost the manual.

Just wanted to highlight this because I think it accurately characterizes some of the responses.

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.

If it were exactly the same then BW wouldn't need a bunch of jargon and rules for the GM to follow. It being different is part of the point.

I think Micah is right about how they differ. You may not characterize 100% of things in complete detail. But in a certain sense that is the ideal; the only barrier is how practical it is, and the more true to the world the DM can be, the better.

Whereas the ideal in BW seems to keep things diffuse, and to not define things until they are relevant. Indeed, if they were too defined beforehand, they may not pressure the characters in the appropriate way.

 

[The Firebird]

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.

I think there is another key difference here. The goal in a fixed world sandbox isn't just to construct a world that has verisimilitude. It's for the world to feel that way to the players. If the players are taking an active role in constructing the world, then they know for a fact that there isn't that much defined; that if they explore two hills over, they may have to decide what happens there.

And that is very different than feeling like the world does exist and all we have to do is explore it. Even if both result in realistic sounding narratives.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

Never mind that one group's "abusive" can be another group's "this is how we roll".

True, not everyone is a fit for every table, nor is every table a fit for everyone.

 

[robertsconley]

But there must be someone adjudicating the world, right? If the intent is to find a ship captain and they succeed, who describes the NPC? Who decides how large the ship is and what the fee will be?

(snip)

I feel I've seen a lot about specific mechanics, but little about the general principals that make them better or worse (in your view) for these purposes.

I've reading the recent discussions and it caused me to reflect on the different approaches that drive tabletop campaigns, especially after some recent discussions about Burning Wheel, Torchbearer, and traditional sandbox play. I wanted to share some thoughts about fundamental philosophies but not as a critique of any approach, but as a route to clarify things so people can see how everybody's chain of reasoning works.

From what I read and what has been stated here, Torchbearer and related systems like Burning Wheel are designed to put character beliefs and goals under pressure. Conflict is the engine of play. Every session is expected to contain tension, challenges, and stakes that force hard decisions and personal growth. This creates compelling campaigns, especially for groups who enjoy character drama and moral dilemmas. The rules reward internal conflict, ideological strain, the testing of beliefs, and moments of tension.

By contrast, this is different in the Living World Sandbox style I use. The world exists in motion, independent of the players. Conflict may arise, but it's not required. Sometimes, entire sessions revolve around exploration, logistics, trade, discovery, or social interaction. Sometimes players solve problems with diplomacy or by simply walking away. The point isn't to provoke conflict, but to simulate a world that responds consistently to player choices.

To put it simply:

• In TB and related systems, conflict is the point of play.
• In sandbox campaigns, conflict is a possible outcome of play.

Players in both styles may have deep characters with goals and beliefs. However, conflict is expected in one model, while it's emergent in the other.

These two points of view led to two different chains of reasoning, with different tools and techniques being relevant.

It leads to misunderstandings over referee impartiality and railroading. For the group that enjoys sandbox campaigns, a system with a focus like Torchbearer will be like railroading. The system continually forces them to deal with conflict, whether they desire it or not.

To be clear, this is conflict as torchbearer defines it.

In Burning Wheel we have this

The criticism of the sandbox campaign is that the referee's authority invariably leads to players' goals being subordinate to the referee's goals. Thus, players are invariably railroaded to deal with whatever the referee's goals are. The idea of a World In Motion is one such goal; thus, the campaign is railroaded.

Many of the counterpoints, including those I made, focused on how this is not the complete picture. We focused on why the techniques we practice made this not an issue.

However, upon review, I see why that wasn't a compelling argument. The points I made rest on the assumption that a referee can be impartial, and using good leadership principles instills confidence in the group that the referee is truly impartial.

However, if the reader believes that is not possible, then there is no explanation I can craft that will convince them otherwise. I could show it if they played in a campaign of mine, but the limits of forum discussion preclude this avenue.

Even if we assume that the referee can be impartial, there remains a fundamental difference between sandbox campaigns and BW/TB-related systems. In sandbox campaigns, conflict with character goals and beliefs is emergent from the situation, and this not a given. It can only arise if the players choose to become part of a situation that gives rise to this conflict. To be clear, this is not always combat, rather I am talking about conflict as Burning Wheel/TB defines it.

For example, in my Scourge of the Demon Wolf sandbox adventure, the situation is such that the following conflicts could happen that challenge the goals and beliefs of characters.

Emergent Conflicts for Scourge of the Demon Wolf

1. The players find the bandits, defeat them, and discover they are disguising themselves as wolves. Do they believe that to be the real problem that resulted in the Baron's huntsman failing? Using this to convince the Village to bring in the harvest. But ultimately, not resolving the larger issue of the Demon Wolf.
2. A variation of the above is that they discover the wandering beggar clan are fences for the bandits. Making them accessories to the bandit's crimes. Do they act on that without investigating further? Or do they find out about the chief's son who was killed by the Demon Wolf?
3. In convincing the village to return to the harvest after the bandits are dealt with, they tell the villagers about the beggars as fences. Villagers are now unanimous that the beggars need to be dealt with, leading back to #2
4. The party investigates further and finds out, as a result of the village bailiff's death, that there is more going on than bandits. But Elder Anselm, the village priest, is pressuring to deal with the Beggars since he and half of the village are convinced they caused the problems with the wolves.
5. They never befriend or convince Elder Anselm that the beggars are not the source of the problem, then Elder Anselm and he march half of the village out to the Beggars' camp to lynch them.

Prior to publishing the adventure, I ran it ten times with ten different groups of players. Above are just some of the conflicts that arose because of the different choices made during the adventure by different groups that challenged their goals and beliefs.

The following are some of the elements of the situation that gave rise to the conflict above. Which conflict happens for each group depends on the choices they made from the start of the adventure. The conflicts were not scripted but were emergent from the different elements of the situation that existed before the start of play.

The Bag of Stuff for the Scourge of the Demon Wolf

• Arbela is an ambitious apprentice from the Golden House who tried to take a shortcut to power but botched it giving birth to the Demon Wolf.
• The wrath demon, who is the demon wolf, wants to cause as much pain and suffering as possible through wrath (brutal attack on people)
• The Baron sent his huntsmen to hunt the wolves down. The huntsman was deceived by the Demon Wolf into killing rival packs of wolves and thinking he solved the problem.
• Afterward, the Bailiff of the village was brutally killed by the Demon Wolf, and the attack resumed.
• The villagers then refused to bring in the harvest and challenged the Baron's authority.
• The villagers are scared and feel besieged by the wolf attack
• A bandit gang is taking advantage of the situation by disguising its attacks as wolf attacks.
• A wandering clan of Beggars wandered into the area, and their chief's son was killed, and now want vengeance
• Half of the village, led by Elder Anslem, thinks the wolf attacks are caused by the Beggar.
• The beggars are fences for Bandit, but have nothing to do with their attack.
• Shortly before the arrival of the character, the bandit attacked and murdered a peddler several miles out on the road leading to the village. They made the peddler attack look like a wolf attack.

From Georgia to Canada, from St Louis to Connecticut, a dozen groups confronted this situation in different ways, resulting in different conflicts emerging in different ways.

It attached a copy of the adventure for those interested.

The difference between having the system mandate conflict as the central focus for Torchbearer/BW and the conflict being emergent as a result of player choice in the sandbox campaign is, I think, the crucial difference resulting in incompatible viewpoints over the various techniques being used by both approaches, even if we assume that referees can be impartial.

 

[robertsconley]

The world of Discworld may be fantastical, but the actual lives of nearly all the people on it (History Monks notwithstanding) are very realistic. Individuals may try to alter reality because of narrative conventions--the actions of the Watch trying to create exactly million-to-one odds come to mind--but that was very much under desperate circumstances (and it failed to work), not an everyday thing.

Yup which is one of the reasons that made the series a classic. Real people are trying to live out their lives in a world with very different rules for its universe.

 

[zakael19]

I think there is another key difference here. The goal in a fixed world sandbox isn't just to construct a world that has verisimilitude. It's for the world to feel that way to the players. If the players are taking an active role in constructing the world, then they know for a fact that there isn't that much defined; that if they explore two hills over, they may have to decide what happens there.

And that is very different than feeling like the world does exist and all we have to do is explore it. Even if both result in realistic sounding narratives.

No see you're doing exactly what I said in my post! Just because you might think it's more "realistic" (again I dont think that's a good word, "tangible" or "genre appropriate" or "feels right" or something is probably better), doesn't mean that my players at my table find it so; or that in fact you might not become more invested and imaginatively engaged in a world that you helped define the details for (or not, we're not all the same). But, given that one of the most common complaints you see across the internet is that players "dont care about my world/lore/NPCs" and yet I don't have that issue in any of the 4 games I have where we're doing some degree of "fill in the blanks" suggests that maybe there's something there for certain types of people!

Let me give some actual examples from play out of 2 different games:

- Last week, in Monday's Stonetop, two of the Marshal's crew (NPCs that he defined as part of his character creation, the "crew" is a band of followers that playbook has) were getting married to an old merchant-acquaintance of the band's from back in their caravan guard days. The crew are brothers, both Hillfolk - Stonetop has a widely defined setting but with lots of "empty spots" or "maybe..." questions for you and your table to nail down the fine details together - and I went around the horn asking each player for a different, appropriate to their own character's priorities, detail about the Wedding ceremony. I often open my game sessions like this with something that gets people back into the mind of their character and into the world before we jump into hard framed scenes.

As a result, we defined stuff about the vows (archaic phrasing from their Barrow-Lord ancestors, swearing that their children and their children's children will keep on the compact to guard the evils of their ancestors from outsiders, we established surprisingly similar to the Vows the Marshedge Old Families use); the ceremony (fires for each being joined, a unity one in the center they all light together); and sacred plants that represent life and water. We then zoomed in on some of that ceremony in a few scenes, and had a great time.

- Last Sunday, in Blades in the Dark. This game gives you a pretty detailed broad brush setting dripping with flavor; and then asks you to fill in all the details. What is it about the fancy tavern in Whitecrown where the Spider slakes his vice that he loves so much? What do the worker's tenements look like? We bat that around, or I get an establishing feature and then we go. Because I'm asking players to reach into their imagination and pull something out that resonates to their character ("what is your step-mom always cooking when you come home? what's the smells that permeate the tavern? when you take Black Diamond and trip out on ghost field Jazz - what's it like?"), we're cohering together and the circular contributions allow people who's characters aren't in the scene to remain creatively engaged.

Note that I don't personally do what you suggested like "ok, as you cross over the hill uh - map's blank, what do you see?" I ask a crystallization question that asserts something about the reality first so others can build - "as you pass into the woods, what smell hits you that reminds you of the last time you were under the canopy? what do you always hate about venturing deep into the Great Forest? &etc."

 

[zakael19]

From what I read and what has been stated here, Torchbearer and related systems like Burning Wheel are designed to put character beliefs and goals under pressure. Conflict is the engine of play. Every session is expected to contain tension, challenges, and stakes that force hard decisions and personal growth. This creates compelling campaigns, especially for groups who enjoy character drama and moral dilemmas. The rules reward internal conflict, ideological strain, the testing of beliefs, and moments of tension.

By contrast, this is different in the Living World Sandbox style I use. The world exists in motion, independent of the players. Conflict may arise, but it's not required. Sometimes, entire sessions revolve around exploration, logistics, trade, discovery, or social interaction. Sometimes players solve problems with diplomacy or by simply walking away. The point isn't to provoke conflict, but to simulate a world that responds consistently to player choices.

Note that "conflict" doesn't inherently mean "fighting another person with words or deeds." I haven't played Burning Wheel, but Mouse Guard (which is a lite/tweaked version that gave rise to Torchbearer) has exploration/discovery/social interaction/etc as core "conflicts" of play. Mouse Guard in particular is a very "can you make it through the wilds" sort of game, if you're familiar with the graphic novels at all - the characters are all mouse-size mice, just fully sapient and with a vaguely medieval society and tech base. The wild is innately dangerous to navigate (especially thanks to weather) for something of that size.

Edit: but yes, generally a narrativist game engine wants some degree of active seeking of goals that tie back to the premise the game wants to test, and the worlds you get are designed to push back on your characters through some mechanism (eg: PBTA moves and their outcomes, FITD and its inherent pushing you towards goals that are fraught with risk, etc). Blades in the Dark is an excellent example of a living world game (in that the city of Doskvol is always in motion around you) designed to be a pressure cooker.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I have no idea what you're talking about tbh. With quite extensive experience in both styles, and on each side of the screen, I can tell you that neither set of techniques particularly results in a less engaging or real-seeming milieu. This has nothing to do with perfection, and nobody expects that. The post I responded to claimed that Narrativist NPCs are mostly color, to which I, politely, disagree. I continue to disagree!

 

[The Firebird]

No see you're doing exactly what I said in my post! Just because you might think it's more "realistic" (again I dont think that's a good word, "tangible" or "genre appropriate" or "feels right" or something is probably better), doesn't mean that my players at my table find it so; or that in fact you might not become more invested and imaginatively engaged in a world that you helped define the details for (or not, we're not all the same). But, given that one of the most common complaints you see across the internet is that players "dont care about my world/lore/NPCs" and yet I don't have that issue in any of the 4 games I have where we're doing some degree of "fill in the blanks" suggests that maybe there's something there for certain types of people!

I think you've misread me. I'm not saying the resulting world or narrative feels less realistic. I'm saying that what is important as a player, to me, is feeling that the setting exists prior to me sitting down at the table. I want to know that what I'm being presented with has its own verisimilitude that is independent of me.

Note that I don't personally do what you suggested like "ok, as you cross over the hill uh - map's blank, what do you see?" I ask a crystallization question that asserts something about the reality first so others can build - "as you pass into the woods, what smell hits you that reminds you of the last time you were under the canopy? what do you always hate about venturing deep into the Great Forest? &etc."

Yes, this is a fine way to phrase it. To restate my point--when I've played these games, I find it unsatisfying to be asked "what do I hate about venturing deep into the Great Forest". It implies to me that the Great Forest wasn't defined before I sat down, and by extension many aspects of the world weren't defined either. That makes my decisions feel less meaningful, because the world is shifting beneath my feet.