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

[pemerton]

My issue with the meta distinction is simply that IMO it encourages one to think of the setting and the campaign as a narrative construct and not a world existing independently of the PCs interacting with it. And I don't want that.

Does it?

Or does it make one think carefully about how elements of the setting have been brought into play, and might be brought into play. Which is a pretty key GM skill, I think.

 

[The Firebird]

The control is to (i) say things about what their PCs do, and (ii) prompt the GM to say things.

Given that (i) is a component of all RPGing, all the action for talking about degrees of control/agency is in (ii). I've posted a lot about this upthread, including the range of principles and heuristics that a GM might use to work out what to say.

If there are no constraints on what the GM says beyond other stuff the GM has written and what the GM thinks is true to that stuff, and this is not reasonably knowable to the players, then I think it is fairly obvious that the players are not exercising control here.

It is not obvious at all to me. Indeed, I'd say the opposite is very obvious--the players are meaningfully exercising control because they are interacting with a fixed world. The players being able to predict the outcomes precisely beforehand seems like an idiosyncratic standard.

 

[AlViking]

It is not obvious at all to me. Indeed, I'd say the opposite is very obvious--the players are meaningfully exercising control because they are interacting with a fixed world. The players being able to predict the outcomes precisely beforehand seems like an idiosyncratic standard.

It's the difference between character agency and player agency. In D&D the default is that the players have agency through and limited to their characters.

 

[thefutilist]

Which of these is color? Feel like we're circling a definition. But it is clearly very precise, and I'm not sure what it is.

I think it makes sense that it would apply to narrative systems but not to my games. That's why it doesn't work for me. Not saying anyone is wrong for using the term.

Well stuff like the Rotweed and Broher having one eye. They're incidental to the situation in a way that describing the location of the Red star cult isn't. One common thing you see in Narrative games (or even trad games played in a looser more narrative way), is that the players can throw this stuff out there but there's a line they can't cross, understanding that line is necessary.

Also incidental stuff does get reincorporated. So I, a player, mentioned Broher having one eye. The GM runs with that and say he lost it at the battle of Habershon, again maybe this is just color. Several sessions later the GM needs to reference a battle and he thinks about what's been established, oh Habershon. Then the players need someone who knows about that battle, oh Broher. The color then becomes relevant and it seems like the fiction has a life of its own (which I'm assuming we all regularly experience)

 

[pemerton]

I've stated it before: "control over the shared fiction" doesn't seem well-defined to me.

The shared fiction is (by definition) imaginary stuff. Being imaginary, it has to be made up.

Who gets to control what is made up? (Which isn't the same as who actually authors it - for the same reason that controlling the play in a game of chess, or bridge, is not the same thing as moving a piece or playing a card - games have rules which means that participants can control, to a greater or less degree, what moves other participants can make.)

One context for making up shared fiction is scene framing. Who controls what sorts of scenes are framed - what elements they contain, what themes they address, what possibilities they open up or foreclose, etc?

Another is establishing consequences of declared actions Who controls what these are - what elements they contain, what themes they address or resolve, what possibilities they open up or foreclose, etc?

The more the GM is controlling all this stuff, the more railroad-y the game is.

 

[AnotherGuy]

@Hussar great step-by-step process for your sandbox. Just a question, the discussion amongst the group re monsters, playable races etc is that part of Ironsworn? Does the game come from a little to-know myth setting idea? Is there a monsters manual or is that your injection?

Setting. For my next sandbox I'd likely go back to Mystara, let the players choose the specific Gazetteer setting.

Character Creation. We'd either select or randomize the cultural components of the characters according to the specific Gazetteer.

Then I'd likely want the PCs to establish Traits, Flaws, Bonds and Ideals. And add Desires/Goals. Determine the relation to each other or not at all.

NPCs. Then similar to you have each of them create 5 NPCs (humanoid, animal or supernatural) and determine their relationship to the characters.

Start. I'd let them come up with an initial premise but seed homebrew/module content around their starting point in the form of rumours/gossip or setting history.

May have 1-2 Clocks running...mechanised, date or by trigger.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It is not obvious at all to me. Indeed, I'd say the opposite is very obvious--the players are meaningfully exercising control because they are interacting with a fixed world. The players being able to predict the outcomes precisely beforehand seems like an idiosyncratic standard.

I don’t think it is worth continuing to debate but I think breaking all activity to these two steps and using that to deny agency if there aren’t restraints isn’t a useful way to understand what is happening. For example folding in things like Q&A to I, almost makes it sound like Q&A isn’t part of it. It also glosses over philosophy by emphasizing the use of constraints.

Fundamentally sandbox isn’t reinventing the wheel so the core of it should function like a standard RPG. What is different about it is the expectation of the amount of material the GM prepares (which I think you can still do in other ways) and how willing GMs are expects to be around the accommodation to different actions and goals. But the breaking down of everything into this two step process is just not something I think we are ever going to agree on (especially if it is being used to deny agency in sandbox, or only allowing it in the most rigidly designed sandboxes with prescriptive approaches to play)

 

[The Firebird]

Well stuff like the Rotweed and Broher having one eye. They're incidental to the situation in a way that describing the location of the Red star cult isn't. One common thing you see in Narrative games (or even trad games played in a looser more narrative way), is that the players can throw this stuff out there but there's a line they can't cross, understanding that line is necessary.

Also incidental stuff does get reincorporated. So I, a player, mentioned Broher having one eye. The GM runs with that and say he lost it at the battle of Habershon, again maybe this is just color. Several sessions later the GM needs to reference a battle and he thinks about what's been established, oh Habershon. Then the players need someone who knows about that battle, oh Broher. The color then becomes relevant and it seems like the fiction has a life of its own (which I'm assuming we all regularly experience)

This example is helpful. But I'm afraid it feels a bit like the blind men circling the elephant; a lot of examples, but not a statement. Is there a straightforward definition for color? Is it "things that are incidental to the situation, and are therefore fair game for the players to define"?

 

[pemerton]

Can you define high stakes?

The player is not just trying to prompt the GM to tell them more about the setting. The player is actually engaging with a priority they have established for their PC. So how things resolve will determine whether, and perhaps how, the PC is able to achieve what they want or realise their conception of things.

A while ago you had the character haggling with a merchant about an angel’s feather or looking for a ship in the harbor. I consider both of these relatively low stakes and did expect you to say ‘yes, there is a ship’ rather than rolling for that. So what makes something low stakes enough to say ‘yes’ and move on

If it does not pertain to a player-expressed priority.

Like, when playing Aedhros I declared that Aedhros goes to the wealthier part of town, hoping to meet a fellow Elf from the Elven Ambassador's residence. The GM didn't call for a test, and I didn't insist on one, to find out whether or not Aedhros got to where he was going: because Aedhros had no Belief about travelling through town, or being out of place in the high quarter, or anything like that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Put my copy of WoG into my backpack. Review the scenario/dungeon I'm going to start with, and put that in my backpack. Then turn up to the session.

I mean, that's what I actually did.

Then the players built their PCs, which includes choosing starting settlements from the settlement type list. And as I posted, we located those settlements on the map. And the dungeon - in that case, the Tower of Stars. Then started playing.

You know, from what I've seen of it that's remarkably similar to the way one begins a game of Shadowdark. Certainly a way in any case.

Neat.