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

[EzekielRaiden]

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).

And I'm saying it's not objective. That's...the whole point.

Pre-established is no more nor less objective than any other approach. It may or may not even be independent in any of the ways folks would like it to be. Instead, it is constructed to give that feeling--even when the feeling isn't actually representative.

Contrast this with the way sandbox-y playstyles, to varying degrees, prioritize agency. Merely feeling like one has agency isn't enough--as noted, the "invisible railroad" is a well-establshed concept. That feeling needs to be backed up by actually having the believed quantity of agency.

I don't think folks who are talking about "objectivity" and "independence" etc. are making that distinction, between what they believe to be objectivity/independence/etc. and what is actually objective and independent--and the fluidity of that gap between belief and actuality matters a lot for the (many) places this conversation has bogged down.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Using the word "objective" in a sentence doesn't mean we're claiming anything is objectively realistic.

Then I don't understand what half or more of these things are saying.

Like I literally don't understand why anyone would use the word "objective" in relation to realism except for this.

Would you be willing to explain what you actually meant by your use of it, then?

 

[The Firebird]

I don't really follow this - as in, I can read the words and so on, but I don't know what system you're talking about, and am having trouble imagining the play.

Perhaps I'm not grasping what "change" means. I'm not sure.

That post was about Blades and referred to player authorship of the fiction. E.g., a flashback sequence.

 

[mamba]

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.

the DM is reacting to player input, it is a loop because each ‘side’ influences the other. If the DM reacted to DM narration, they would be telling a story to an audience

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So, do you genuinely have a problem with anything I actually said in the post of mine you quoted? Or do you just have some problem with the word "objective", regardless the context it's used in?

The former.

It is a claim of objectivity about approach. Something which Micah and others strenuously denied having ever done in the thread.

As others have chimed in, we're not using the word to say our games are objectively better than others. We're talking about objectively assessing outcomes within the framework of the established facts of our individual, imaginary game worlds. And even within that context, I clearly stated that I'm not 100% objective.

I didn't say "objectively better" in the generic sense. I said that you are claiming your style contains objectivity and thus the other styles--explicitly rejected for their (alleged) subjectivity--do not have that.

That specific thing is what I'm calling out. This claim that your approach is objective or contains objectivity, while the approach @pemerton or others are speaking of doesn't.

I'm asserting neither thing has any more nor less objectivity than the other, because there isn't a thing to be objective about. Consistency, sure! But there's nothing inconsistent about the things pemerton has described. The other things, like being pre-written or being extrapolated by employing "real-world logic" etc., likewise do not add nor create any objectivity that wasn't already there.

 

[mamba]

As GM II ask the player to frame the first scene. I have scene frame authority but I'm ceding it.

apart from the player initiating what they want to do, I see no difference to the tasks @pemerton described here and rejected

 

[Hussar]

/snip.

If the players decide to go north to the Fire God's Mountain, everything I prep for that journey and destination is in response to what they are doing. If halfway there they meet someone from the city of Shrilly Vanilli and they find that more interesting and change directions to go there, now I have to react to their change in the fiction and prep stuff in that direction.

There is no good faith game of D&D where the players have no control over the fiction and the DM controls everything. I may prep stuff, but they control the general type of prep I can do through their actions and declarations. If they decide to go to Shrilly Vanilli, I'm not going to prepare for them to arrive at the Swamp of Ill Repute on the other side of the world. I have to prepare for them to go to Shrilly Vanilli.

But, that's the point we keep trying to get across. The ONLY reason the players could decide to go north to Fire God's Mountain is because, you, the DM, put that there as a potential destination. Same as Shrilly Vanilli (I am SO stealing that name for an NPC btw). How did they meet someone halfway through their journey? Who added that NPC? Did the players request or take some sort of proactive action to meet this NPC? No. You added it as the DM. And, guess what? There's going to be something interesting to do at those locations. Imagine that. How did I, who isn't even in the game, who has no idea about any of the details of your game, able to predict that with 100% certainty?


Well, because I know that we're playing a game and it's your job as the DM to make sure that there actually IS something interesting to do everywhere the players go. So, no, the player don't have any real control here. Not really. Their only real control is choosing from the list of options that the DM has provided. Had there not been an NPC that you, the DM, added, they would not have gone to Shrilly Vanilli because they would have had no reason to go there. Where did that reason come from? From you, the DM. You weren't "reacting" to anything the players were doing. You were adding stuff that you thought was interesting.


Which is fantastic DMing. That's what you're SUPPOSED to do. But, at not point should we be kidding ourselves that this is somehow the players being proactive or you are doing things "in response to what they are doing". The DM is very, very firmly in the driver's seat and the players are along for the ride.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And I'm saying it's not objective. That's...the whole point.

Pre-established is no more nor less objective than any other approach. It may or may not even be independent in any of the ways folks would like it to be. Instead, it is constructed to give that feeling--even when the feeling isn't actually representative.

I just said the aim was objective. I didn't say it is the only way. But I do disagree with you. It is an objective approach because you are modeling a setting that has concrete, objective details. Is it the same as a real world the GM brings into physical being? No of course. No one is making that claim. Now, you are under no obligation to agree.

Contrast this with the way sandbox-y playstyles, to varying degrees, prioritize agency. Merely feeling like one has agency isn't enough--as noted, the "invisible railroad" is a well-establshed concept. That feeling needs to be backed up by actually having the believed quantity of agency.

And we've taken pains in the thread to show you how the agency is real. Perhaps it is insufficient agency or the wrong kind of agency for you. But clearly for us it supplies exactly the kind of agency we want

I don't think folks who are talking about "objectivity" and "independence" etc. are making that distinction, between what they believe to be objectivity/independence/etc. and what is actually objective and independent--and the fluidity of that gap between belief and actuality matters a lot for the (many) places this conversation has bogged down.

I think we are. I think you are not giving enough credibility to the idea that you can model a physical place in your mind and in your map. And that you can even model other things and establish objective details about them.

Again, no skin off my back if you see it different but this aspect of play is something people clearly find worthy of pursuit

 

[Hussar]

the DM is reacting to player input, it is a loop because each ‘side’ influences the other. If the DM reacted to DM narration, they would be telling a story to an audience

Within a given scene? Sure, the DM is reacting back and forth. That's true regardless of any kind of RPG, generally. Granted it might be a bit more diffuse in other systems, but, in any system which has a DM/GM, that's how it works. But, when that scene ends, it's right back to the DM initiating and the players reacting.

 

[The Firebird]

Sure… it guides him to different areas of his prep. Go to one, the GM reads these paragraphs, go to the other, the GM reads those paragraphs.

There’s a difference between a GM referencing his prep as the primary contribution to what he says to the players, and a GM referencing the players’ stated priorities as the primary contribution to what he says to the players.

So if the GM is looking solely at his prep, then he’s going to tell me what’s in the Forest of Tears. Or at least, what the common knowledge may be. Then maybe there’s some esoteric info gated behind a roll that maybe a character may know. Then when we go there, he’ll reference his maps and the stat blocks and encounter areas or whatever else he has prepared. This still seems very much like the GM as the primary creator of what happens in play.

I agree with this description.

No one is saying players need all the information. We’re saying that as players of a game, they need a sufficient level of information to make an informed decision. Very often, what many of us would consider basic information, readily available, is withheld because it’s uncertain if the characters would know, or the players didn’t ask.

In my opinion, that’s poor GMing. Provide them with an abundance of information. Don’t make them fight for every scrap of useful info… don’t make them pixelbitch every single step of the way.

As the source of all the information the players have, the GM should be generous. He shouldn’t necessarily be concerned with limiting the players to what the characters would know.

And agree with this.

But, that's the point we keep trying to get across. The ONLY reason the players could decide to go north to Fire God's Mountain is because, you, the DM, put that there as a potential destination.

And agree with this.

The DM is very, very firmly in the driver's seat and the players are along for the ride.

But, I very strongly disagree with this. I don't think it follows that because they created the world, they are driving the story. The players are driving, within the world the GM provides.