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

[The Firebird]

As far as I can tell, you are denying that such experiences happen! Or at least, have not said anything about how to avoid them.

First I'd evaluate the faction's resources and what their goals and threats are. Then I'd make a judgement call that does not consider whether it is a big or little threat to the PCs--just based on what the faction may do. If there is ambiguity I would use dice to resolve it. And I'd consider adding rules. For example, codify the perceived threat to the faction on a scale of 1-4, and suggest possible measures the faction would take at each level.

 

[Hussar]

Y'know, as much as I've been argumentative in this thread, there have been some really fantastic ideas come out of it:

• Let the players trash the setting. @robertsconley - this is absolutely fantastic advice and something I think a lot of DM's forget. I've seen a lot of players get discouraged from being proactive because the DM/GM doesn't want the players to "break" the setting. And it really shows because I've also seen a lot of players who show up at tables and refuse to be proactive because they've had all their proactivity beaten out of them.
  
• Sandboxing encompasses a number of different approaches. These approaches all have their own advantages and disadvantages and it's a very good idea to recognize them.
  
  [/Iist]
  
  Sorry, out of time right now. Can others add to this list? There really has been some fantastic advice given here, for all sorts of different approaches.

 

[Hussar]

First I'd evaluate the faction's resources and what their goals and threats are. Then I'd make a judgement call that does not consider whether it is a big or little threat to the PCs--just based on what the faction may do. If there is ambiguity I would use dice to resolve it. And I'd consider adding rules. For example, codify the perceived threat to the faction on a scale of 1-4, and suggest possible measures the faction would take at each level.

Heh. Or, alternatively, ask the players what they think should happen and then do that. Just for a different approach.

Personally, I find that players are FAR nastier to their characters than I ever would be.

 

[pemerton]

It's hard, because he's redefined railroading as a personal definition, so it doesn't really align with how the rest of us use it. That may be where your confusion is coming from.

Yes, I'm idiosyncratic whereas you and others are universal and objective!

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.

At that point, there is no shared fiction. There's just a note in a book.

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

Ditto, assuming that his is also written down before play.

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

Now there's a shared fiction (I'm assuming the player is saying this in the course of play): the PC is walking down the hallway, tapping a pole.

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

Again, assuming the player is saying this in the course of play, there is a shard fiction: the PC is looking for a captain in town.

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

This action declaration presupposes that there is a goblin, and a pit trap. But these are not normally parts of the player's "position" - they are not the PC, nor the PC's gear. What establishes that those other things are part of the shared fiction, and hence elements of the fictional position available for the player's action declaration.

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.

Even if the GM writes down something about Jack Sparrow during play, it's not part of the shared fiction if it's just a thing written on a bit of paper.

(3) and (4) introduce new bits of fiction, but they represent the bare minimum that a player can do in a RPG - that is, declare what their PC is trying to do.

As I posted, I don't quite know what is going on in (5).

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

The play of a RPG is all about the establishment, and ongoing generation of, a fiction. shared among the participants. It's this fact of fiction that is one of the things that distinguishes RPGing from boardgaming, or purely mechanical wargaming.

The ongoing generation requires the fiction to be created. This is what RPG procedures do - and as I posted, in a pretty conventional/mainstream RPG, the two main modes of creation are (i) the GM narrating a new scene/situation/encounter, and (ii) the actions that the players declare for their PCs generate consequences.

How are these things done? Who establishes what the elements will be, what the themes will be, how they are related, what possibilities they open up or foreclose? These are some of the elements of control.

If all the players influence is what their PCs try to do, then as I said they have the bare minimum control that is consistent with the game being a typical RPG at all. But that doesn't have to be all. It's not all the players can do in Gygaxian dungeon crawling, for instance: when the players are in the process of obtaining information, it is the GM who is controlling the information; but when the players exploit that information to achieve their PC goals (in virtue of their knowledge of how their declared actions will resolve) they are able to exercise control. In effect, they are able to oblige the GM to narrate the things that they want to be part of the fiction (to give a very simple example: by saying "I lay a plank over the pit", and then "I walk over the plank", the player obliges the GM to narrate "You get to the other side" rather than "You fall down the pit").

The idea of making a move that obliges someone else to make a particular move or at least constrains their move space is a fairly standard part of game play. In chess, by checking the opponent's king, I constrict their move options. In bridge and similar games, by choosing what to lead I control the play of the cards, exploit my length in a suit, run those who are short-suited, etc.

In Gygaxian play, the players aspire to get to a level of knowledge of, and position in relation to, the fiction that they can similarly control it. (Which, in this context, isn't the same as narrating it. Just as I can control your play in bridge, without being the one who plays your cards.)

Burning Wheel uses a completely different set of techniques to also allow players to exercise control over the shared fiction.

 

[pemerton]

First I'd evaluate the faction's resources and what their goals and threats are. Then I'd make a judgement call that does not consider whether it is a big or little threat to the PCs--just based on what the faction may do.

Yes, I did this. It almost killed the game, because the upshot was a near-TPK, not due to any misplay by the players but solely due to the overwhelming power of the NPCs. (Which, of course, is not an "objective" thing - it followed from my prior choices as GM, in the manner @hawkeyefan described upthread.)

Because we were all friends, the game survived, but the whole thing left a sour taste in everyone's mouth - especially the players.

 

[pemerton]

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.

It's not a "meta division". It's an analytic characterisation of the role that the NPCs actually served during the course of play. It's not unique to Burning Wheel; it's a feature of RPGing.

For instance, the barkeep who serves the PCs food and provides rumours is, in most D&D play, colour. The dragon whom they fight, on the other hand, is not.

One interesting thing to look at, in play, is when do colour elements become conflict elements, and who gets to decide this. For instance, when a poster tells you that, when GMing, they don't allow PCs to commit evil acts (such as murdering random villagers), they are insisting that certain PCs are to remain colour, or at least that there is a limit to the degree to which the players can make them more than colour.

 

[pemerton]

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".

Can you please stop posting false things about me, and what I've said in this thread?

What I've actually said, in this thread, is that a sandbox is a game which foregrounds place and journeying, and player choices about those things. And I've identified various possible approaches - classic hexcrawl, Ironsworn, Torchbearer - and haven't ruled out others.

Given that I hate classic hexcrawling, and have never played Ironsworn, I don't see how you can say that I am saying sandboxes must be what I prefer. And I've also posted that my favourite FRPG is Burning Wheel, which is not a sandbox RPG at all!

The world is constructed by the players during play

I've not said anything about this either. You're just making stuff up and attributing it to me!

 

[Umbran]

Well I care because I got accused more than a couple of times of onetruewayism and accused of denigrating play styles and games. Things I never actually did. But when some of the same people who have accused me of these things then tell me that I’m not even capable of running a sandbox, the hypocrisy becomes pretty apparent.

So, hold that thought...

So that’s why I care.

You do realize, however, that confrontation on the internet generally changes nothing, right? That arguing with them about their being wrong is terribly unlikely to change their minds? They will, in fact, generally dig in when you confront them. So, if nothing else, you're engaged in what is likely a losing proposition. If you consider this a problem, your current tactics probably aren't going to make things better, and might well make things worse.

The question you probably ought to be asking yourself at this point is whether your approach to discussion represents yourself well. Does it make you look like the kind of person who wouldn't have those positions?

F'rex... I am not sure trying to catch people out about exactly how many times they stopped on an interstate trip really does the job of disabusing folks of their wrong impressions. Nor does calling folks hypocrites. Like, if you want to make absolutely sure that folks don't think good things about you, that's a pretty good way to do it.

If your current approach isn't fixing it... time to try another approach.

 

[pemerton]

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.

This makes me think that you've only played DW with bad GMs!

here's that 100% perfection straw man again

There's nothing about perfection here. Colour is not an imperfection in a RPG - it's a crucial part of the game form!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I disagree. If someone is being an asshat, they aren't going to pay attention to the rules of the game.

And then they can be called out for violating the rules. Which is literally what I said. Having public, known, written rules means you can actually say, "Hey, that thing you're doing, you're not supposed to do that".

If someone yells at someone else at the table, there is no rule that will fix it.

If you think yelling is the most serious problem, we have a lot of work to do going over what is actually a problem at the table.

"Yelling" is so far down the list of possible issues it's not even worth talking about.

The PHB and DMG repeatedly state some variation of "don't be an ass".

And? Rules can still help. You're requiring that they be absolutely perfect shields. Perfection is a ridiculous standard. It'd be nice if you didn't use a standard of perfection or nothing.

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.

Note: something that would HELP. Not something that is absolutely 1000000% perfect.

But, as an example: the Dungeon World rules for "Spout Lore" (effectively a knowledge check). On a full success, the GM must give an answer that is both interesting and useful. Refusing to do so is breaking the rules. The rules are clear and simple, they don't require tons of effort.

Likewise, as previously mentioned, the X-card (and the rarer but still useful O-card) is enormously helpful for avoiding unintentional harm through GM actions or words. Given literally its only function is to create a discreet but recognizable signal--and even in the fantastically unlikely situation that it gets abused, you can see that because it's in the open--it helps, objectively and consistently. It isn't perfect. It's theoretically possible for it to be abused, or for the GM to just ignore it or only pretend to recognize it...but, again, because both of these are public acts, we can do something about them.

A great deal of what happens in "rulings not rules" games inherently puts this stuff behind the black box. You aren't allowed to know. You aren't allowed to have oversight. And then it's coupled with an extremely strong push against any form of disagreement or even mere commentary during session, forcing all comments to happen long after, when memory is fogged and the social contract strongly enforces a "come on man, just let it go, it's already past" effect. (Why, yes, I have dealt with this exact issue in a social group I was in!)

The social contract is important. But offloading 99.999% of stuff to it has consequences. It is NOT a cost-free choice. It is NOT as sweet and simple and perfect as so many in this thread pretend it will be. Because there is a spectrum of behavior, not 100% saintly perfection or 100% demonic vileness; there is a spectrum of GM skill, not 100% blissed-out awesomesauce or 100% dirt-worst awfulness; and, most important of all, the social contract can be JUST as harmful, JUST as oppressive and damaging, as any overly-restrictive ruleset--all while actively resisting any efforts to improve or change it because you can't discuss it openly, that's the whole point of it being a social contract.