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

[SableWyvern]

Cartographers don't place things on maps.

They draw maps which correspond to a literal, physical location. Presuming they aren't intentionally making bad maps, I mean.

Which means we are right back at the problem of "objectivity" allegedly not being about any physical reality....and yet as soon as you push on it, physical reality is where the argument goes!

You quoted me before I added in my next line:

"Are you suggesting that it's not possible to be in the driver's seat unless the imaginary world has already been realised in every respect to the same degree of fidelity as the real world?"

It seems like you are, which is pretty silly bar, I think.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Yes, really. The guards were only there because of player actions. If they had not driven the play to that city, there would be no guards prepped by me. After the initial description in the first session, all of what I do is in response to the players. I am reactive to their interests and actions.

And no, I cannot narrate anything I like. Not and be running the game in good faith. I have to run the world appropriately in NPCs in response to the players. Again, I'm reactive, as are very nearly all DMs of D&D.

As for subjectivity by the DM and what he thinks is logical, I'm not sure what the point is there. Whether it's subjective or what I think is logical still happens in response to the players, which is my point here. I am reactive to the players actions. They drive the play and what I need to prep.

Lastly, in response to "At no point can the player take any actions or make any declarations that will change that," there are in fact actions the players could take to change that situation. Charms, suggestion spells, domination, etc. can alter the mindset of the guard. The number of actions is pretty limited, but they do exist.

 

[SableWyvern]

And I'm saying there are other ways to create the feeling of objectivity. Your way isn't the only way; it's but one among many. Yet folks here, including yourself, even in this post, have argued that it IS the only way to get objectivity.

Who claimed there aren't other ways to created the feeling of objectivity, that work for some people?

Several have claimed there aren't other ways that work for them. I don't think anyone has claimed it's not possible (if you hunt for it, you might find an isolated comment here or there, without further context, where someone has failed to add in a disclaimer about personal preference, but it's pretty clear from all the context in the thread that everyone you're arguing with is explaining what they like and why, and not claiming that their preferences are universally applicable to all games and participants).

 

[pemerton]

Can you be in the driver's seat in the real world when the only positions on the map are those placed there by the cartographer?

Are you suggesting that it's not possible to be in the driver's seat unless the imaginary world has already been realised in every respect to the same degree of fidelity as the real world?

I think the point is that, in actual driving, the constraints involve the causal operation of weather, topography, road surfaces, other vehicles, etc.

The map, if accurate, answers to some of these facts (eg topography and road surfaces).

Whereas, in the metaphorical "driving" of the sandbox, the constraints involve the GM saying stuff that they have authored. There is no reality to which representations - like the GM's words and maps - are answerable.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

When Alicia fell unconscious to the ground, the ragged poor coming to pick up the coin that had fallen from the sky due to her mis-cast, it felt real. The player couldn't easily change aspects of it.

When I, playing Aedhros, made the harbour official cry, it felt firm. And slightly cruel, even though it's all imaginary. There was no sense of a lack of firmness.

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

The only thing I can think of would be some sort of "Yes, and" scenario. One player might narrate that the group sees the body of X on the ground. It was not stated that X is dead, though, so someone could "yes, and" X to be pretending to be dead. That change alters the feel of what is happening.

I'm not saying you are doing that, but it's one way that the world might feel less solid.

 

[hawkeyefan]

One, my point was not that the resulting scenarios in narrative games don't feel realistic. If you describe them after the fact they do. The point is that as a player I don't feel the world to be as firm because I can easily change aspects of it.

What games allow players to “easily change aspects” of the game world?

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

A flashback cannot change what’s happened, though. It can reveal new information which may establish a new context for a scene. But it doesn’t change anything. Not if done per the rules of the game.

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

So I think this is an interesting comment. My take on it is that, with heavily prepped games, the GM is very often reacting to their own creations. Yes, they are including some input from the players… but it’s limited to the actions of their characters. Which are also limited by the GM’s creations.

The game world is a construct, almost entirely of the GM. They then use that as a starting point. They extrapolate from there. That’s a lot of authority over what play will be about.

I agree with this description.

And agree with this.

And agree with this.

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.

How so? What “story” may the players tell?

 

[Maxperson]

There are plenty. Railroading doesn’t require bad faith. It can be done without realizing it.

I think that there can be instances of railroading within the game that new DMs might engage without realizing it, but that won't make the game a railroad. To make the campaign a full railroad takes intent. It's not going to happen accidentally.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

No DM alive can put out anything close to 100% when it comes to the game world. Even the Forgotten Realms, the most detailed campaign setting I've ever seen, only has maaaaaaybe 1% of the world detailed.

There will be plenty I need to prep in response to the players declarations to go north or to Shrilly Vanilli. And even more that I've forgotten about or overlooked that will become apparent based on player declarations.

The players drive the play and I'm responsive to them. In a sandbox, the players come up with their own options. Not ones that I give to them. I may have put Northern Barbarians in an area, but the players are the ones who decide to go and take them over, making their barbarian PC chief of the north. That's not anything that I did that was of any interest at all. Again, the players are the ones who drive the play. Not me.

You need proactive players to drive sandbox play, though. If you have passive players, the DM will have to do more to interest them and get the players to do things. Proactive players set their own goals that drive the play.

 

[Maxperson]

Do you agree that what you say is metaphorical, or non-literal in some similar fashion? In that, in a literal sandbox, I actually move sand around. Whereas in the "sandboxes" being talked about here, the players don't move things: they say things. And the GM isn't actually providing anything but representations - words, maps and perhaps pictures; and in response to the players saying the things that they say, the GM provides more representations.

This is wrong. The players move plenty in a sandbox. Take the party of PCs going north to make one of their own the chief of the north. That very much moves the sand around and changes how things are done for not only the north, but very probably the entire world. Forging the tribes into one strong nation puts those barbarians on the map in a very different way.

 

[Maxperson]

Can someone be in the driver's seat when the only positions on the map are those the GM creates for them to go to?

Because that's wrong. There will be craptons of space on the map for things that the DM didn't create in advance. Like I said, even the Forgotten Realms only details about 1%(or less) of what is in the world. And it's far more detailed than the overwhelming majority of DM created settings.