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

[Hussar]

If the GM is making things up as they go, I start to feel like I'm playing the GM, not the world. If I want to succeed, I have to appeal to their sense of what would be fun or interesting moreso than what is good in universe.

If the scenario is fixed, then I get to play the world instead.

But, since that scenario is 100% generated by the dm, I’m failing to see the difference. You’re still playing to the dms preferences and biases and predilection in any case.

If the dm is playing a module, it’s not too hard to play to that mindset. If the dm is 100% homebrewing, it doesn’t really matter. You are still playing to the gm.

 

[Micah Sweet]

...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.

The world of the PCs is fictional. I see no problem with it being objective from their perspective.

I also note that is the best you can do to support your point against me. I accept your apology though. Lots of running hot from all sides here.

 

[mamba]

@pemerton posted this before but never got a reply, I assume it got lost in the flood of new messages

Here's an illustration of the difference. Consider Thoth, whose Beliefs include I will give the dead new life!. On the first model, a GM might create a whole scenario about Thoth trying to find a body suitable to raise as an undead - say, first he has to do this thing, then that thing, then this other thing, etc, until - if successful - he eventually obtains a suitable corpse. That would be obstacles in the way of a goal. But it would not be anything like Burning Wheel play, because it would not be the GM framing Thoth into scenes based on his priorities. Because each of <this thing>, <that thing>, <this other thing> - on the first model - might have nothing at all to do with any of the player-determined priorities for Thoth.

ok, I’ll bite… so it looks like Thoth tries to create an undead, so they are kinda like Frankenstein, at least that is my take-away from the scenario you describe. So I can see how your example scenario might work out for this, but you also say that this is not how it would work in BW.

I assume the belief is a priority too, so ‘your’ job is to frame Thoth in scenes around that belief, or is that your issue, that the sequence of tasks you describe had nothing to do with Thoth’s priorities despite resulting in them creating an undead? Is the distinction you make that the sequence of tasks you describe are not scenes, or is it something more fundamental, e.g. that you should challenge the belief, maybe by the scene questioning the morality of creating undead, rather than just throwing obstacles in the way of Thoth creating their first undead?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@pemerton posted this before but never got a reply, I assume it got lost in the flood of new messages


ok, I’ll bite… so it looks like Thoth tries to create an undead, so they are kinda like Frankenstein, at least that is my take-away from the scenario you describe. So I can see how your example scenario might work out for this, but you also say that this is not how it would work in BW.

I assume the belief is a priority too, so ‘your’ job is to frame Thoth in scenes around that belief. Is the distinction you make that the sequence of tasks you describe are not scenes, or is it something more fundamental, e.g. that you should challenge the belief, maybe by the scene questioning the morality of creating undead, rather than just throwing obstacles in the way of Thoth creating their first undead?

I would think that the later is one aspect for sure. What sort of unsavory acts are required in order to raise the dead? When might this be justified? Can Thoth justify it? More mundane obstacles might exist as well, but I think they're not likely to be the real crux of the thing. They might serve more as connective tissue in the fiction. Like Thoth must have the blood of an innocent, but the only feasible approach to that means taking it from a family member, since murdering someone else would bring unwanted attention.

 

[Hussar]

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?

A given conflict will be given a rating (basically from 1-5, although they do have specific names, but, like usual, the actual names escape me right now). That number will basically determine how difficult it is to end this conflict (number of successes needed) and how much "damage" you will receive due to failed (or partially failed in some cases) checks. Note, I'm putting "damage" in quotes because you, as the player, narrate your own failures and dictate what kind of penalty you suffer, which might also be ameliorated by your Assets (for example, having the Asset: War Band means that you can approach combat differently than normal and can divert damage into your troopies.)

So, a pack of goblins (presuming a small pack) would be a challenge of 2 (1 for base goblin+1 for it being a pack), while the earth elemental might be a challenge 3 or 4 depending on various factors. I can't remember if the Ironsworn book has an actual Earth elemental... lemmee check a sec... no, there's no specific Earth Elemental, but, a Challenge of 3 is probably about right. Meaning that a lone PC vs this is most likely going to be in WORLD of hurt. You'd be very lucky to survive this encounter and if you do, you're going to be chewed on seriously. In a group? Yeah, I'm probably going to smack the characters around a bit, but, it should be pretty reasonable as an encounter. Note, Ironsworn doesn't really have a "level" system per se, so, there's no real need for an extensive stat block listing to challenge characters of different levels. Basically, mechanically, there would be virtually no difference between, say, an Earth Elemental and what they call a Haunt (essentially a ghost). You would obviously narrate them differently, but, at the base mechanical level, there isn't any difference.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Some coke once got splashed across a piece of paper, I found it after it had dried. /snip

You heard it here first folks. @Lanefan's games are fueled by coke. LOLOLOL

 

[Hussar]

OK, now to answer @Hussar 's question as to how I'd prepare my next sandbox campaign. In very short, probably much like I prepared for the campaign I'm running now......

Long essay warning.
/snip

Hussar, I hope that's what you were asking for.

Sorry, was snipping for brevity.

EXCELLENT stuff. And, frankly, probably how most people approach creating sandboxes. Yeah, that's matches up pretty well with how I've done it in the past as well.

Like I said before, tradition works. It absolutely does. It just does require a fair bit of heavy lifting before play starts. To me, that's the weak point of sandboxing this way. The strong point is that once you've done the work, running the game gets really easy because you've got so much to draw on.

 

[Hussar]

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.

I doubt it would be in 2e or 1e since the term, according to @robertsconley was coined after 2000.

 

[Hussar]

It's only the initial description that the DM offers up first. After that, it's all in response to player actions and declarations. The DM is reactive, having to shift and weave at the desires of the group who can change direction or goals at any time.

Really?

The players declared that there were guards at the gate? The players declared that the town was there? What, exactly, is the DM reacting to? Yes, the players will react to what the DM puts in front of them, fair enough. DM describes, players react. DM then describes again. Wash, rinse, repeat. That's the basic play loop. At no point is the DM "reacting" to anything. The DM is dictating results. The DM is narrating results. But, at no point is the DM actually reacting to those results.

And any result is 100% determined by the DM. The DM can narrate any result he or she feels like. Now, that narration will generally be constrained by what the table will accept, genre conventions and table social contract, but, beyond that, it's 100% up to the DM. The Dm decides that the guard is unbribable, and that's the truth of the scenario. At no point can the player take any actions or make any declarations that will change that.

I'm getting the sense that many of us are talking past each other because, to me, this is self-evident. There is no objectivity here. The DM is making decisions and narrations that will be fun (hopefully) or interesting (again hopefully) to the table. That's an inherent bias right there. Even the idea of "the world reacts in a logical way" is still absolutely constrained by what the DM thinks is logical. I had a DM absolutely declare that plate mail could not exist in the world because it was too technologically advanced. When I pointed out that plate mail predates chain mail by about a thousand years, I was told I was a bad player for questioning the DM.

Everything the DM does is going to be subjective. That's unavoidable. Sure, the DM can try to be as objective as possible, but, that's not the same as actually BEING objective. Hell, I don't want to play with an actually objective DM. If I did, I'd stick to CRPG's.

 

[Maxperson]

But you're not! You're using it as piece of jargon, to describe certain real-world gameplay dynamics!

Call it what you want, it has a commonly used definition that you do not use, which causes confusion when you use your definition and try to apply it to others.