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

[Paul Farquhar]

Intense social anxiety and being naturally introverted. Not having a car doesn't help either.

Sad, but it doesn't change the fact that playing with friends is the ONLY way to be sure you are not going to find yourself playing with a jerk. There are no rules that can do that.

 

[mamba]

I take a number of posters to be arguing about exactly this!

from my perspective they are arguing over whether the degree is meaningful and whether the approach works for them at all

I haven’t seen anyone argue that players contributing to the fiction directly is giving them less control (or even equal control)

 

[mamba]

The option to do what?

the option to call for a Steel test

 

[pemerton]

It seems to me the following two propositions cannot both be true, of some episode of play of a RPG:

* The players exercise no control over the content of the setting;

* The GM authors setting elements in response to things the players express interest in.​

Likewise for the following two propsitions:

* The GM is not required or expected to follow any procedure or heuristic in deciding what to say happens as a result of a player having their PC do something;

* The players are readily able to anticipate what sorts of outcomes will follow from them having their PCs do particular things.​

 

[SableWyvern]

But the point--very very specifically, made repeatedly in this thread--is that the world is never created "in response to" the PCs. The specific terms used for this have been "objectivity", "independence"/"independent" (from the PCs and from player preferences), and "extrapolation".

I find none of these terms actually capture much of anything. The objectivity, as I've said, has a far greater focus on preserving a feeling or appearance of objectivity, rather than the actual state thereof--which is perfectly fine, but it means that that "objectivity" is actually a specific form of subjectivity, dependent on the needs and tastes of the players, which has been repeatedly rejected as an unacceptable technique. The "independence" from the players immediately falls apart the moment you start doing things like asking to what degree things get prepared--the prep is, almost exclusively, radiating outward from those places the PCs are at least somewhat likely to go, people the PCs are at least somewhat likely to interact with, and the further away from plausible/expected PC attention, the less prep is done...which is exactly like the approaches used in games being rejected for failing to meet this standard. And then the extrapolation, which fills in the gaps and permits flexible, dynamic response, literally IS what systems like Dungeon World and Burning Wheel are driven by--using our own good sense and reasonable chains of thought, selecting possibilities that are biased toward being interesting in some way (because, as said at length above, a game that preserved anything even remotely like the ratio of interesting:uninteresting situations IRL would be almost entirely suffused with empty, uninteresting stuff!)

In other words, these terms when analyzed closely don't point out any differences!

I would posit that, if your interpretation of other opinions requires that others believe or claim things self-evidently impossible (eg, everything in the world already exists and is fully fleshed out), then perhaps you need to consider that maybe you've interpreted it incorrectly.

To make a genuine, good faith attempt to explain the distinction you seem to be missing here:

Parts of the world will inevitably need to developed based on and in response to the actions of the PCs because, as you've pointed out and as everyone is going to agree, it is impossible to have every possible thing in the world fully developed in advance.

However, the point being made is that, in this style of play, the world does contort itself to accommodate the inner thoughts and desires of the PCs; instead, the world responds to the ways in which the PCs act on those desires.

If a PC has a hatred of wargs, the GM doesn't arbitrarily throw in an encounter with wargs. But (having already established that wargs do exist) they might take a look at their gameworld, work out where the wargs are likely to be, what they might be up to and how someone might track them down so that if the PC takes action (eg, starts asking travellers about wargs, researching wargs, etc), the GM has something to go on.

It makes sense to spend time to develop those things the players are more likely to take interest in, but when you develop things, you place them in the world, you don't just throw them at the PCs, because the world doesn't conform the PCs interests.

If the PCs decide to go visit the Garden of Sorrowful Delight, the GM may need to develop the garden in more detail because the PCs are actually going there. However, if the players start talking about how they would enjoy an extended adventure involving a melancholy nymph, the GM doesn't just drop the Garden of Sorrowful Delight in the next town. I'm confident that the people you are referring to who said you never create things in response to the characters are referring the second scenario, not the first.

And, because it seems to be necessary to include these disclaimers in this conversation, to be clear, when I say, "you do this" or "you do that" I'm talking about what generic you does if generic you is developing a living sandbox in the fashion that some of us refer to as impartial or objective. I am not saying you @EzekielRaiden need to do things this way in your game, or that doing it this way is inherently superior, or that any GM is able to do such things with absolute impartiality, never influenced in any way by their unconscious biases, nor am I making any other value judgment or demand. If there is anything I have suggested I do that you still feel is completely and utterly impossible and at odds with those things that can actually be done according the known laws of physics, then it is likely that I am not actually suggesting that anyone does that.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, here is your post that I replied to:So now are you saying that, in fact, what I posted about metaphor was right rather than wrong?

If you are saying that the players didn't move the story, you are wrong. You can figure out which metaphor is which.

 

[pemerton]

the option to call for a Steel test

From BW Gold Revised, p 360:

Steel is an attribute that represents the character's nerves. It is tested wen the character is startled or shocked. The results of the test then tell us whether the character flinches, or whether he steels his nerves and carries on. . . .

A GM may call for a Steel test under four conditions: When the character is confronted with surprise, fear, pain or wonderment.​

This is followed by half-a-page of explanation of these categories, and another couple of pages listing particular circumstances and obstacles. There are also a variety of traits that affect the outcome of steel test (basically, reducing the difficulty and thus the degree of hesitation if failed), and these also help elaborate when it is appropriate for the GM to call for a steel test.

 

[pemerton]

If you are saying that the players didn't move the story, you are wrong. You can figure out which metaphor is which.

I said that the language of "moving" is metaphorical, not literal. You said that I'm wrong, and then - when I reiterated that there is no literal moving of things you replied that you were using the word "move" in a metaphorical sense.

So I still don't know why you said that I am wrong, only to then go on and say exactly what I had said, ie that talk of "moving" things is metaphorical.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

everything else being mostly pointless dithering..

Not everything has to be focused on achieving a goal. "Pointless dithering" is still playing the game an having fun. One of the most memorable D&D sessions I have had largely revolved around the PCs trying on hats in a hat shop.

 

[pemerton]

in this style of play, the world does contort itself to accommodate the inner thoughts and desires of the PCs; instead, the world responds to the ways in which the PCs act on those desires.

If a PC has a hatred of wargs, the GM doesn't arbitrarily throw in an encounter with wargs.

I don't know what sort of RPGing you are contrasting with here.