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

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, as stated, as far as I'm concerned, if anyone is actually claiming all sand boxes must be created and GMed with complete, 100% impartial objectivity at all times, they're flat out wrong. I haven't seen anyone claiming that but, if I missed it, I stand in opposition to such statements.



Within the playstyle being discussed (ie, one were the GM is aiming to act as impartial arbiter), you decide on a setting, you create ground rules for it and then you develop it according to those rules. You may choose some set of rules for development that exist independently of yourself as referee/worldbuilder but, the fact remains, you are picking your ground rules and axioms on the assumption that they will result in an entertaining game. This is self-evident; I honestly don't believe anyone in this thread is arguing otherwise.



"Realistic" in this context doesn't mean "exactly like the real world in every way". This, also, should be quite self-evident.


Yes, you do. And this is something else that is also so completely self-evident that perhaps it's worth interpreting other people's comments with the assumption that they understand this, and simply don't feel the need to state such self-evident things.

But, I'm not really interested in getting into an ongoing semantic debate about this kind of minutiae. All I'm really seeing here are a bunch of straw man arguments. "You can't be objective unless you're 100% objective." "Your world can't be or feel realistic unless it's 100% like real life." These aren't positions anyone actually holds.

I was only drawn into this discussion because of the claim that exploration isn't exploration if the goal is to explore. @Hussar seems to have clarified they don't really hold that position and, in any case, I've reach the end of my interest in that semantic argument, so I will leave you all to it.

Given the way people are talking in this thread? Where they consistently talk about "objectivity" and refusing to do anything "subjective" etc. etc.? Where they are effectively claiming they have no choice but to do X/Y/Z things because otherwise they would somehow fail to be "objective"? Where they take umbrage with any form of declaring some things "important" and others not?

No, I don't at all grant that these things are self-evident. Not even remotely.

There is a quite clear pattern here of somehow believing that realism is not, itself, also a style an thus subject to subjective considerations.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Really, now? Really. You're going to accuse anyone who doesn't have a large, physically-present, local group of good friends who are all already invested in one specific game system of having character faults?

Is that really the argument you want to make? Because it sounds to me like you're saying anyone who hasn't lived exactly the same life as you must have a damaged character. That's not a great argument to be making. In fact, I would call it openly insulting.

Actually he didn't say, but that is what appears to be that you have understood from his post. The question is why?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Actually he didn't say, but that is what appears to be that you have understood from his post. The question is why?

Because he said:

The answer, of course, is to play with people you know, preferably live rather than online. And if none of those people want to play with you then it's probably time for a long hard look in the mirror.

Emphasis added.

He literally said "if you don't have friends, preferably live rather than online, who want to play [a TTRPG] with you then it's probably time for a long hard look in the mirror."

There is no other interpretation of that last bit but "you have character faults which are the reason nobody wants to play with you."

Not, y'know, any of the umpteen-million other reasons why a person might not be able to do that specific thing.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Everyone has character faults. Friends are people willing to put up with them.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

By definition, some aspects of the world are less important than others. It's simply the nature of engaging in narration, which every DM ever has had to do

You miss a critical point: the players are free to ask questions, and can ask for more detail on anything, including things the DM did not think would be important whilst preparing.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Correct! Low-stakes play is not a component of Burning Wheel. That's one way in which, as I posted, it contrasts fairly markedly with the example @TwoSix posted: 'a starting point of "You start in a room. There are doors to the north, east, and west. What do you do?"

 

[Hussar]

Ok, let's see if this works. In the interests of building bridges instead of burning them, let me outline how I would run my next Sandbox campaign, which won't be for some time as I've just embarked on my current one, but, at some point in the future, this is what I would do to run my next sandbox. Buckle up boys and girls, this might be a bit long.

Step 1. Choosing a map.

Ok, here this is easy. The unbelievably talented @Dyson Logos has recently being doing a project he calls The autumn lands I both love @Dyson Logos and hate him for being so damn talented at the same time. Anyway, I'd use this map:



It's freaking GORGEOUS. Lots of goodies. Tons of stuff to play with. I have zero idea what the actual story of this land is, and don't care. I'm just unabashedly stealing this map.

Step 2. Creating the Truths of the World.

Now, this is where system steps in. I am a drooling fanbois of Ironsworn and I'd probably go out and get Delve and maybe a couple of other books as well. But, when playing Ironsworn, the basic Session 0 is used to establish the truths of the world. In the Ironsworn world, the idea is that the land you are in now has only recently been settled (think Vikings in Vinland or Canada). That gives a kind of base to work from. Now, as a group, we decide the Truths of the World which more or less sets the boundaries of the genre - is it a high fantasy world with wizards and whatnot or is it more or less historical fiction with no magic at all? Are there monsters in the world? If so, how common are they? Are there other species a la demihumans in the world? So on and so forth. This is done as a group exercise so everyone gets a say. IME, it generally works out with ties simply being put to a vote. So, that's the background of the world taken care of.

Step 3. Choose a Starting Point

This part is fairly easy. Find a town that people like the name of and that's where they are going to start. Even easier since nothing on this map has names. But, if you look closely at the different maps, there are villages and whatnot scattered around. Find a couple people think might be fun - near the mountains, near the water, near the swamps, whatever. And, at that point, we're good to go.

Huh. This wasn't quite as long as I thought. Players create characters and I take a few minutes to bang out a town of some sort. Maybe consult the Oracle to get an idea or two for a potential conflict that needs resolving. Or not. The party could simply Undertake a Journey to go to somewhere on the map and I know that the system will build on stuff as we go, developing into an interesting campaign. The players are meant to each start with 2 (3? Sorry, book is not in front of me and I could be misremembering) Bonds with someone, so, right there, if I've got 4 players, I've got 8 NPC's with direct ties to the PC's before I even start. Additionally, every character starts with an Epic Quest of some sort, something that takes a VERY long time to resolve which also drives things along.

Oh, I guess there should be a step 4.

Step 4. Keeping meticulous notes.

This is very important. After all, stuff that gets generated in play can potentially be important, even if it's not important now. Keeping notes means that I, or any of the players, can call back to earlier stuff to drive events.

So, there. Done. I'm ready to play my new sandbox. With a map like this, I should be able to keep the game going for a year or more.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Seriously? Now you think that I'm not giving a sound account of how Burning Wheel or Torchbearer 2e are meant to be played?

What do you think play would look like, if it was based on (as per the rules, that I've quoted multiple times now) the GM framing scenes that are based on player-determined PC priorities? Do you think The Sword demo - disseminated by Luke Crane, the lead author of BW and co-author of Torchbearer 2e - more closely resembles the sort of actual play I post, or the sort of game play you talk about in your game?

Do you think it's relevant that Thor, the lead author of Torchbearer 2e, has participated in my threads on TB2e and seems to have accepted the way that I'm running it? Or that Luke expressly called out one of my actual plays on his own message boards? Luke says in that thread "Thanks for taking the time to post your excellent insights and observations!" I was already pretty confident I'd made good sense of the game system, and that didn't change my mind.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Everyone has character faults. Friends are people willing to put up with them.

Irrelevant.

I have exactly one friend within physical travel distance of me--and even that is at least a half-hour drive.

Of the internet friends I have, more than half aren't interested in RPGs. Of those who are, I've already had the few interested in Dungeon World in my game. I know exactly two people who are GMs themselves, and they GM only the systems they really like and no other system.

Given how hypersensitive people have been in this thread to anything that can be even vaguely read as insulting to classic gaming, I should think a direct insult to the character of anyone who doesn't have a local group of friends who all like the same system they do would raise more eyebrows.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Seriously? Now you think that I'm not giving a sound account of how Burning Wheel or Torchbearer 2e are meant to be played?

What do you think play would look like, if it was based on (as per the rules, that I've quoted multiple times now) the GM framing scenes that are based on player-determined PC priorities? Do you think The Sword demo - disseminated by Luke Crane, the lead author of BW and co-author of Torchbearer 2e - more closely resembles the sort of actual play I post, or the sort of game play you talk about in your game?

Do you think it's relevant that Thor, the lead author of Torchbearer 2e, has participated in my threads on TB2e and seems to have accepted the way that I'm running it? Or that Luke expressly called out one of my actual plays on his own message boards? Luke says in that thread "Thanks for taking the time to post your excellent insights and observations!" I was already pretty confident I'd made good sense of the game system, and that didn't change my mind.

Frankly, at this point, it's hard to expect what response this might get.

If folks are literally going to do the two-step of demanding specific examples and then asserting "well those could be artificial", we're already in territory where an actual discussion is impossible. Anything useful will be put to higher and higher and higher burdens of proof until nothing could possibly clear the bar. Anything contradictory will be believed with little more than a cursory glance. And thus the wheel turns...