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

[Micah Sweet]

I never said a thing about whether you like or don't like it.

I was asking whether the state of affairs is "actually do have a world which exists prior to play and independently of the PCs", or whether you have tools and techniques which create the feeling that that statement is true, even when it isn't.

Consider, for example, the aesthetic design that went into the Parthenon in Athens. The architects used extremely clever techniques to create the impression of straight lines...even though the lines objectively were not! Because they specifically accounted for perspective: long straight lines that extend far to the edges of vision appear to curve, so they made the lines curve in the opposite direction just enough to counter that quirk of human visual perception. In other words, they deviated from reality in order to make something seem more real than actual reality would be!

But if it is possible for something to artificially seem more real than reality itself...what does that say for the style of realism? It would seem to me that a true commitment to the standards of aesthetic realism includes at least considering techniques which are, objectively, "unreal"--but where that unreality has been carefully sculpted to counter quirks in human nature so as to intensify the feeling of realism beyond even what rigid adherence to reality would produce.

At which point, we have...that realism is just as much a style as any other, and not only can use, but historically consistently does use techniques which defy empirical observation....if and only if those techniques enhance rather than weaken the observers' "this exists apart from me" feeling.

As a good example from the other direction, I was just recently watching an LP of an adventure game I played in my (very early) youth, Lure of the Temptress, which featured an at-the-time cutting-edge function where NPCs really would wander around, doing their own thing, completely independent of the PC. This was done specifically with the goal of heightening realism; after all, real people usually don't just spend 100% of their time standing still in one location all day. The problem with this first outing in Lure is that...well, having NPCs that wander randomly is really, really bad for the feeling of immersion, because it directly draws the player's attention to "aw crap, where did this damned NPC wander off to this time?" Far from enhancing the feeling of realness and independent existence, it actually ended up throwing a bright spotlight on how game-ified the structure was.

If both an effort that specifically does mimic reality can degrade the feeling, and something which objectively defies reality can enhance it, the whole situation is much, much, much more complicated than any advocate of this approach (with the possible exception of @robertsconley) has given any room for.

I'm not going to fight you. I said my piece. Make of it what you will, but I'm done justifying my playstyle.

 

[The Firebird]

@Micah Sweet, @Lanefan, and @robertsconley absolutely have made that argument. I'm fairly sure @mamba also has.

They have explicitly rejected approaches like those described by @pemerton as being not just incapable of generating that feeling, but actively antagonistic to the very possibility of ever feeling that way.

This has not been my reading of the thread.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Again, I don't think that's at all obvious--and I think numerous people in this thread have pretended that that not-strictly-realistic element is a teeny teeny tiny fraction, a "9% vs 99%" sort of distinction, when it's significantly closer to a "50% vs 60%" distinction--still a very meaningful improvement, but not a near-total-removal, indeed only removing a relatively modest proportion of the (alleged) unrealism.

In many cases here, I find several things being overlooked because of their supposed obviousness or self-evidentiality, but then I see arguments which absolutely do not act like those allegedly obvious or self-evident things are even a consideration.

Seems pretty obvious to me.

 

[Faolyn]

Why should we care what 5.5 prioritizes?

It won't matter to you, me, or probably anyone on this forum, but it will matter to newbies who may not be exposed to an entire style of play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

@Micah Sweet, @Lanefan, and @robertsconley absolutely have made that argument. I'm fairly sure @mamba also has.

They have explicitly rejected approaches like those described by @pemerton as being not just incapable of generating that feeling, but actively antagonistic to the very possibility of ever feeling that way.

From a personal, subjective perspective, yes, @pemerton 's playstyle does not work for me, on several levels. So what?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Except that then people use the word "objectivity"/"objectively"/etc. and similar things.

Which means it isn't just "for them". It's realism for everyone. Because it's allegedly "objective" or lacking in "objectivity".

Show me where people are making objective claims.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It won't matter to you, me, or probably anyone on this forum, but it will matter to newbies who may not be exposed to an entire style of play.

Fair enough. Hopefully they'll have access to someone who can introduce them to a wider experience, so an informed decision can be made about what style(s) of games they prefer.

 

[zakael19]

If the 2014 DMG talks about sandbox I've never seen it and I just double checked. Not in the index, not in Creating a Campaign or Creating adventures. It's pretty similar to the 2024 DMG in describing campaigns as far as I can tell, albeit better organized.

You know what, I went back and scanned and you're 100% correct. My bad for taking Reynard's post yelling about "SANDBOXES ARE MISSING" at face value, hahaha.

Looks like 5e writ large needs you to read between the lines to get to a sandbox-style of play! I can see getting there with some of the guidance in the DMG, but there's definitely an emphasis on quest/GM-directed adventures.

 

[pemerton]

Your complaint is just that the GM makes the decision? In the dungeon crawling case, you said it is not railroading because the players learn enough about the world to get predictable results. You also said the results didn't have to be known precisely; so it is enough to have a reasonable idea of the results. And in this case the players seem to have a reasonable idea of the results. Their actions constrain the GM to act a certain way--to make the faction respond in accordance with their means and desire for vengeance.

I stated it upthread:

when GMing Rolemaster, the PCs had a powerful faction acting against them. I, as GM, had to decide how much effort the faction devoted to thwarting the PCs, and how seriously the resources dedicated to that effort were deployed. The rules of the game gave me measures for things like how many and how potent spells can a NPC cast, but nothing more. So all the rest was simply up to me to decide, with the upshot of my decision being the full gamut from the PCs experience little threat to the PCs are utterly hosed.

RM has no inherent devices for handling or mitigating this, because it's mechanics are basically more elaborate and simulationist versions of classic D&D mechanics (with a few exceptions - eg it has rudimentary but still workable social mechanics); but it assumes a completely different framing context from the very artificial environment of the classic D&D dungeon (which constrains and channels possible threats so the PCs don't get automatically hosed by the forces arrayed against them).

This experience is one reason why I prefer systems that - like classic D&D - provide a framework for the introduction and prosecution of adversity, but - unlike classic D&D - have a framework that will work in the more verisimilitudinous/naturalistic contexts that I prefer.

The post I'm quoting goes on to explain what that sort of system/framework can look like; but here I'm just quoting the bit that sets out the "complaint".

Applying the heuristic, have the world respond logically did not tell me what to do. It didn't tell me how the enemy faction might need to ration its resources (there are a wide range of possibilities here), what full range of magic items it would have access to (there are a wide range of possibilities here too), exactly what day they would mount their attack on (ditto), etc.

I had to make decisions, and by making the input decisions I was to a large extent choosing the outcome. Upthread @Micah Sweet suggested adopting a different, non-impartial heuristic. But I imagine I'm not the only "living world" GM who has found the idea of a deliberate "softball" a bit unsatisfying.

The whole thing was a very disappointing experience.

There are possible ways to avoid it. One is that the players elect not to have their PCs act boldly in pursuit of their values (in this case, by dealing with their enemy faction as they did). To me, that is not all that satisfying.

Another is to find different heuristics and procedures for play. This is what I have done (mediated by the RPG systems that formalise those sorts of heuristics and procedures).

 

[AnotherGuy]

No idea what you're asking or snarkily asserting here. The comment a couple removed I was replying to was talking about how lots of players are just like "here to chill and have a good time and don't want to worry about their character beliefs being interrogated through heavy high stake gameplay" and I was just pointing out that many players dont even want to have to worry about classic player-directed sandbox style play and much as the latest DMG seems to emphasize the play of, simply follow a fairly linear narrative.

Simply doing sandbox style gameplay is perhaps somewhat conservative these days! Hell, OSR is the champion of it, and it's kinda intentionally conservative or like "lets play in an idealized version of what old school D&D was."

My apologies. I thought you were disparaging the poster for playing a playstyle which is not in the 5e book.
As it happens it is neither mentioned in the 2014 edition or 3rd edition (contents or index).
I didn't bother checking 2e or 1e - the latter of which I only have in pdf format.