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

[The Firebird]

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.

Ok, I think I understand your concern here. Interestingly, it seems to me to be more GM facing than player facing. I.e., the issue isn't that the players are acting without a clear idea of potential consequences--they were. But its that the GM might have to make too many judgement calls in adjudicating those consequences.

That said, I think "have the faction attack in accordance with its means and desire for vengeance" gives you plenty of information to work with as the GM without seeming arbitrary. Resource rationing can be determined based on the other conflicts the faction is involved in and how big of a threat the PCs are. The specific magic items and day of attack don't seem to me to be so important as to constitute railroading...I don't think it is railroading if the GM decides they have a staff of frost instead of a wand of missiles. Both the specific items and the number can be determined randomly if it would help.

In an ideal case, you may have a list of all the magic items available to each faction. This works better in a low magic setting.

The day of the attack can be determined randomly, or you can give a % chance each day, with a modifier for how conspicuous the players have been.

But, if it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. This goes back to a comment I made earlier, that for you the phrase "the GM adjudicates the world" seems to be railroading.

 

[pemerton]

I'm looking for you to say "I feel that Burning Wheel does <thing> well because of <reason>"

I hadn't realised that this was still mysterious at this point.

Burning Wheel supports player-driven RPGing well, because (i) core components of the build of the PCs include priorities, which are chosen by the player, (ii) the GM's principle job is to present situations (= frame scenes) that speak to those priorities, (iii) if nothing is at stake (by reference to those priorities) in a situation then the player's action declarations just succeed (ie play moves on briskly until something is at stake), (iv) action declarations include intent as well as task, and success means that both intent and task are realised - in conjunction with (iii) that means that the players are able to "win" the stakes if they succeed on their checks, (v) failure on a declared action means that the GM narrates what happens, with the key requirement being to negate the player's intent, so failure always reframes the situation in terms of stakes that matter to the player in terms of the priorities that they have chosen for their PC.

Compared to some typical approaches to D&D:

*The GM does not establish situations primarily by reference to pre-authored fiction;

*The GM does not look to pre-authored fiction to decide if action declarations succeed or fail;

The GM does not need to decide if an action's success is uncertain - rather, the rules dictate that it is uncertain *if something that matters to the PC as authored by the player is at stake;

*If a player succeeds on a check, is it not just that the task was successful, but that they get their intent - so the GM can't use pre-authored fiction to take away or undercut the stakes that the player "won".​

There are other differences too; those are some of the more significant ones.

The game also supports more "intimate" play than typical approaches to D&D, in at least two ways: it does not depend on a notion of "adventure" - as the examples I've already posted of Aedhros, Alicia and Thoth illustrate, play can unfold just by focusing on the PC's living their lives; the priorities can pertain to matters beyond adventuring and looting and solving problems and mysteries, and so the stakes of situations can be very personal, or low stakes from the point of view of other people in the setting. For instance, a scene in which one character tries to persuade another to mend his dented armour can have as much heft in play a a scene in which the two characters fight for their lives against some Orcs.

 

[pemerton]

Incapable of generating a feeling of realism for them. I'd throw my hat into that ring as well. It says nothing at all about whether or not it would feel realistic to other people or whether other people would care one way or another.

Likewise, when I say that I find a certain sort of play rairoad-y, that doesn't mean that others would find it to be such.

 

[pemerton]

In an ideal case, you may have a list of all the magic items available to each faction. This works better in a low magic setting.

I think, as a practical matter, it is impossible for a GM to actually detail all the resource, capabilities, constraints etc that apply to an organisation of (say) 100 members, that operates with a high degree of coordination across multiple locations, and with a high degree of capacity to generate its own materiel, obtain materiel and intelligence from others, etc.

This is a task on a par with trying to create an imaginary history/account of an organisation like (say) the Templars in the 12th century.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Who decided that there were guards on the wall, to be insulted?

The general tenor of the posts from @Lanefan, @AlViking, @The Firebird, @Micah Sweet and @robertsconley is that the GM does: first, the GM authors the setting; then, the GM presents the setting to the players prompted by what the players have their PCs do. Eg the players say, "We ride up to the town" and so the GM responds "OK, as you come to the gate you see guards."

If you're talking about something different from this, you're going to have to spell it out for me.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Show me where people are making objective claims.

...seriously? You really need me to dig up the quotes? Fine.

Citation please.

I stand corrected. You, personally, have not done so nearly as often as I thought. But you have in fact used it, yourself, to refer to something. For your consideration, all bold added for emphasis:

Yeah this gets at a style split around how agency is talked about. What sandbox is offering is agency inside an objective setting that they players themselves aren't going to be able to shape (everything they do in a typical sandbox will be through their characters: which can have considerable force but these are two entirely different approaches to agency).

Objective from the perspective of the PCs. Like all games with a GM where the rules don't enforce strong restraints, trust is a major factor.

Players choices having real impact depends on the DM. No, I'm not forced to do something I don't think makes sense in context of the game but that doesn't mean things always go the way I expect them to. Enemies have been made allies, deals I never expected have been made, opportunities to gain a positive result have been ignored or failed completely. If a GM is not being objective they can always throw roadblocks in the way.

What, specifically, do other games do that D&D does not?

The partiality comes in because I modified part of the world so the player could complete their quest. Previously, the ice was impassable; then, the player wanted to bypass it; therefore, I changed the world so it could be bypassed.

If my notes had said "no one sails due to dangerous ice, but crazy captain Ramius will risk it for extreme fees", then it would still be objective. Or something like "believed to be impassable (false)". Or "roll on this table to determine whether it is navigable".

Personally, if I say that my setting design, and the way I run games, is fair, impartial and objective, I mean that I intentionally strive to be fair, impartial and objective; that I feel I manage to be fair, impartial and objective enough; that my players feel that I'm being fair and objective and that, as a result of these efforts, my game has a particular style and feel that I and my players enjoy. Someone who turns and around and says to me something along the lines of "Oh, but you're not really 100% objective, everyone has biases, so everything you claim you do is impossible and you should embrace your predilections and biases," then I just feel I'm speaking to someone with no capacity to understand gameplay experiences or perspectives outside their own.

Five different participants who have all used this description.

 

[Bedrockgames]

...seriously? You really need me to dig up the quotes? Fine.


I stand corrected. You, personally, have not done so nearly as often as I thought. But you have in fact used it, yourself, to refer to something. For your consideration, all bold added for emphasis:






Five different participants who have all used this description.

I don't know why we are still debating this. What point am I being quoted to make?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't know why we are still debating this. What point am I being quoted to make?

That the approach you (and others) have presented has been presented in the context of being inherently more "objective".

 

[pemerton]

So how does one distinguish between say a pack of a goblins and an earth elemental with the numbers? Are the DCs (AC) higher? Is the harm/damage one receives from bad attack rolls greater from specific monsters?

I didn't find Goblins in the rulebook.

Here's a Raider (p 140):

​

​

Rank:	Dangerous (2 progress per harm; inflicts 2 harm)
Features:	Geared for war Battle fervor
Drives:	What is theirs will be ours Stand with my kin Die a glorious death
Tactics:	Intimidate Shield wall Burn it down

Raiders survive by seizing what they need from others. Our grain. Our meat. Our animals. Our iron. They’ll take it all, and leave us facing the long winter with nothing to sustain us but prayers to indifferent gods.​

And here's a primordial:

​

	Extreme (2 ticks per harm; inflicts 4 harm)
Rank:
Features:	Personification of the natural world Turbulent, changing visage Vaguely human-like or animal-like form
Drives:	Embody chaos Cling to vestiges of power
Tactics:	Control the elements Destroy with primal rage

The primordials, said to be the vestigial spirits of long-forgotten gods, are the most ancient of the firstborn. Each embodies some aspect of the natural world, bound in a crude mimicry of a human or large animal. A river primordial is a mass of rock, gravel, and flowing water. A forest primordial is formed of wood, earth, rocks, and plants. A mountain primordial is a lumbering being of glacier stone and ice. A fire primordial, depending on its mood, might take form as embers, ash, and smoke - or as a raging pyre.​

​

They range in size from the height of an Ironlander to half-again as tall as a giant. Rumors persist of primordials who dwell in the deepest parts of the Wilds, or high in the ranges of the Veiled Mountains, who are as tall as an ancient tree. Beyond, some suggest, in the Shattered Wastes, live primordials who tower into the clouds. Is the sound of distant thunder sometimes the footfalls of mountain-sized primordials who dwell beyond the edge of the known world?​

​

Primordials are solitary beings as unpredictable as the natural forces they personify. They might ignore you. They might lurk at a distance, as if observing you. Or, they might attack. They do not speak in any language we can understand. Some suggest they have no intelligence, and are merely a manifestation of the natural world, no different than a winter storm.​

​

How do you kill a primordial? Most scoff at the idea. You are just as likely to kill the rain or the sea. A mystic might tell you to use a weapon imbued with elemental power. Don’t trust them. If you see a primordial, keep your distance. Better yet, run.​

 

[Bedrockgames]

That the approach you (and others) have presented has been presented in the context of being inherently more "objective".

When I said more objective, I wasn't talking about sandbox. I was talking about mysteries and having an objective mystery being more objective than one that is in flux. The process of solving a crime with objective facts and georgraphy. In terms of sandbox, I think many sandboxes, mine included, aim for objectivity. I think we think more in terms of modeling a world than producing a narrative for example. But I don't think that takes anything away from other approaches (I am sure plenty of styles are aiming for objectivity).