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

[Lanefan]

@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.

My argument isn't so much about whether the make-it-up-on-the-fly vs nailed-down-in-advance approach produces more or less realism. In fact, I think those are almost unrelated axes.

My argument is that such an approach a) feels impermanent, as though everything is built on shifting sand, and b) carries a far higher risk of glaring inconsistencies unless someone - usually the DM - is really really good at taking notes on the fly while at the same time otherwise remaining engaged in the game.

Re a) above: it's similar to walking into two pubs; one where the lightweight chairs and tables are able to be cleared away on a moment's notice to turn the space into a dance floor or meeting hall or whatever, and another where the seating is permanently-installed booths and heavy furniture and its only possible function is to be a pub. To me the latter is vastly preferable as a place to hang around in, it feels solid and permanent and somehow more "real" than the other more temporary-feeling space.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

He's saying to find people close to you, yes. However, the portion about character faults assumes that people are present and willing to play with you, but you have driven them away for reasons. If you don't know anyone and/or can't find anyone close to you wants to play a game, that's not about you having character faults. That's just bad luck and it happens frequently in rural areas of the country/world that have lower and/or more spread out populations.

Yes. I know that that is true.

But the way it was said did not allow for that possibility. It simply said, if you don't have this situation, it must be because you have character faults. Again, the exact words were: "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." I have one physical-world friend. The vast majority of people I know are internet friends. The vast majority of people I know don't play TTRPGs. Of those who do, most either are or have been* players in the game I run, or run/play in other systems than what I would prefer to play (mostly CWoD and D&D 5e).

No allowance is made for this in the stated description. That is why I took umbrage with it.

*Most of my lapsed players are lapsed because of IRL physical or mental health concerns which, naturally, take precedence over silly entertainment time activities.

 

[Lanefan]

The tag says 5e general. That covers a lot of systems, not all of them WotC.

Nitpick: the tag is D&D general, which includes TSR, WotC, and (arguably) some adjacent systems.

 

[AlViking]

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.

I think that they just don't care to attach labels or discuss it as a topic. While I consider most of my games sandboxes it doesn't really mean much.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Then why do you keep calling your approach "objective"?

You've done that a dozen times in this thread alone.

 

[AlViking]

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.

Was the term even in fashion when 2e was published?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nitpick: the tag is D&D general, which includes TSR, WotC, and (arguably) some adjacent systems.

Even better. Way better.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then why do you keep calling your approach "objective"?

You've done that a dozen times in this thread alone.

Citation please.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Was the term even in fashion when 2e was published?

I don't know. I probably learnt it on these forums.

 

[Maxperson]

Does "find" here mean "look for"? Or are you talking about the players specifying the outcome of their declared action?

I mean, they aren't going to get to a city that doesn't have several taverns. If they say they will go find one, that will be the ultimate outcome.

Perhaps I've been unclear: I don't regard the players getting to choose what bit of the stuff the GM has presented to them to further focus on (say, to focus on accommodations, by looking for some, as opposed to focusing on guards, by insulting them) to be more than modest control over the shared fiction.

You have it backwards. The players aren't choosing what bit of stuff the DM has presented to them for further focus. The DM is reacting to what the players do and prepping stuff based on their actions. The players decide. The DM reacts.