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

[Paul Farquhar]

Yes, because it's fair and transparent, and at least in the B/X model of play, is a rule-stated procedure.

If everything happens because of “a rule-stated procedure” it’s more like chess than a role playing game.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Yea, just can't agree with that. I don't think they can, and I think that's important.

I would tend to agree with you, despite my table playing traditional D&D with indie techniques and ideas thrown in here and there and willing to incorporate some player-facing mechanics, but I feel that whether it is for the good of the party or the bad I cannot consider myself impartial.
I raise plausible scenarios/consequences but to be honest, I can be just as creative and create opposing plausible consequences/scenarios.
It is why I worry about illusionism, and it is the reason I have incorporated gamist mechanics.
I enjoy hidden backstory, it makes sense to me for it to exist in certain scenarios when I feel the players should be making a honest (impartial) choice without being influenced with this other knowledge.
I know my table enjoys how we run things and they do not have issues with the internal consistency of the world, NPCs and the consequences of their actions but yes I recognise my own biases.

 

[TwoSix]

If everything happens because of “a rule-stated procedure” it’s more like chess than a role playing game.

Yea, I wouldn't agree with that.

As long as part of the rules procedure is "describe a fictional state", which will then be the driver for the next procedure, then you're in the vicinity of a role-playing game.

 

[robertsconley]

It may have been more from another recent thread that was similar.

My point here is that when the GM largely sets the goal of play, the setting in which play will take place, the dangers and obstacles that will be faced, likely ways those obstacles can be overcome, the consequences and outcomes of player declared actions, and so on.... the more that the referee does all this, the more the GM is directing play. I don't think they're doing so as blatantly or directly as a railroad. But I think it's very driven by the GM. How could it not be?

I think the more that player input enters the process, and system input as well, the less the GM is directing play.

Thanks. This is helpful, it brings together many of the elements you've mentioned across the thread.

I see how you're linking referee setup, goals, obstacles, consequences, with a broader ideas of running a campaign. What’s not yet clear to me is what you see as the implication of that. What follows from it in terms of how the campaign unfolds?

I've talked a bit about the implications and consequences of how I run living world sandbox campaigns, my own personal take. But rather than focus on mine right now, I’d like to understand your take on what I and others do, what do you see as the consequences of the approaches being described?

And as I’ve said before, this isn’t about emotional investment, it's about advancing the conversation so we can pinpoint where different philosophical foundations lead to different approaches to running tabletop RPGs.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Why do you feel it isn’t as player-driven as claimed? You mentioned it sounds like a series of old-school adventure modules, could you expand on what you mean by that, and how it connects to your view of player agency? I’m asking because I think if we dig deeper here, we might find the specific point where our perspectives diverge. Once that’s clear, the rest of our reasoning will make a lot more sense to each other.

It's difficult to say for sure based on what you shared, but going on just that information... there's nothing that speaks to what the players want out of play. Why were they pursuing rumors of Dark Elves? What might connect them to the Raven Marks? Are the players interested in the idea of rebellion or some kind of struggle with the downtrodden? Or in exposing thieves who might be masquerading as rebels? Is anyone in the party affiliated with a nature deity or have some kind of goal to protect nature? Anything that would connect them to the conflict between the loggers and druids? And so on. What about any of these things speaks to the players and their characters?

Again, there's nothing wrong with any of it. But it seems like a menu of GM options and the players get to choose from it. That doesn't really seem all that player driven to me.

 

[TwoSix]

I would tend to agree with you, despite my table playing traditional D&D with indie techniques and ideas thrown in here and there and willing to incorporate some player-facing mechanics, but I feel that whether it is for the good of the party or the bad I cannot consider myself impartial.
I raise plausible scenarios/consequences but to be honest, I can be just as creative and create opposing plausible consequences/scenarios.
It is why I worry about illusionism, and it is the reason I have incorporated gamist mechanics.
I enjoy hidden backstory, it makes sense to me for it to exist in certain scenarios when I feel the players should be making a honest (impartial) choice without being influenced with this other knowledge.
I know my table enjoys how we run things and they do not have issues with the internal consistency of the world, NPCs and the consequences of their actions but yes I recognise my own biases.

Oh, for sure. I worry about that whenever I run, and I interrogate my own play to see how often I've gone with DM force/illusionism/secret backstory to provide dramatic impetus.

Everything we discuss here are ultimately techniques to get my game into a state where the players are excited, interested, and making suggestions to drive play. Most of my current games are hybrids of old-school gamist play and narrative "player-driven" goal setting. If they're waiting for me to suggest what they do next, that's when I know I'm not doing what I want to do as a DM.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yea, I wouldn't agree with that.

As long as part of the rules procedure is "describe a fictional state", which will then be the driver for the next procedure, then you're in the vicinity of a role-playing game.

You can assign fiction to chess, even more so to Cluedo.

In D&D, the fiction is the game. The rules only step in when there is uncertainty.

 

[TwoSix]

It's difficult to say for sure based on what you shared, but going on just that information... there's nothing that speaks to what the players want out of play. Why were they pursuing rumors of Dark Elves? What might connect them to the Raven Marks? Are the players interested in the idea of rebellion or some kind of struggle with the downtrodden? Or in exposing thieves who might be masquerading as rebels? Is anyone in the party affiliated with a nature deity or have some kind of goal to protect nature? Anything that would connect them to the conflict between the loggers and druids? And so on. What about any of these things speaks to the players and their characters?

Again, there's nothing wrong with any of it. But it seems like a menu of GM options and the players get to choose from it. That doesn't really seem all that player driven to me.

To me, it seems a matter of "the DM is presenting lore, and wanting the player to choose to be interested in a portion of the lore."

That can work with certain motivated players, but I find it easier to get player buy-in when they invest in the setting.

 

[Faolyn]

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

Basically anything?

Look, a GM may decide that there's a location at a particular point on a map, but it doesn't mean that they have to actually detail that location at all until--and if--the players go there. The PCs can decide to travel there and then the GM can get them to describe it, or the GM and players can describe it together.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It may have been more from another recent thread that was similar.

My point here is that when the GM largely sets the goal of play, the setting in which play will take place, the dangers and obstacles that will be faced, likely ways those obstacles can be overcome, the consequences and outcomes of player declared actions, and so on.... the more that the GM does all this, the more the GM is directing play. I don't think they're doing so as blatantly or directly as a railroad. But I think it's very driven by the GM. How could it not be?

Because the players are the ones saying what they want to do. The players can say "No" to whatever teh GM throws them and say "We want to go to teh town and look for bandits to work with" or "we want to go find out if there is an artifact that does Y and where it might be". Some of these things teh GM will have immediate answers to based on setting information, some he will not, and will have to decide. No one here is denying that the GM essentially functions like a human simulator of the setting. The players have to interface with that. But when it is done in an open way, the players are very much in control of the direction of the campaign and their characters actions. And we can't just gloss over mechanics like they don't exist either. It isn't just the GM dictating what happens. If a player meets a barkeep who is boisterous and talkative, the player can always say "I hate noisy people" and swing his sword at the barkeeps head. Those kinds of actions take campaigns in directions that aren't really in the hands of the GM anymore. Unless he wants to fudge to protect the barkeep, that sort of stuff is happening all the time in a sandbox. The big thing that drives it is there is no conceit of there being an adventure or adventure the players must go on. The GM is supposed to bring things around them to life as they interact with the setting, and if NPCs and similar things are sufficiently supplied with motive and goals of their own, it is more like a chemical reaction once things start cooking. The GM can present them with information about the world. It is rarely in the form of hooks for modules though. I would say most of what happens is an organic back and forth, where the GM does not know where things are heading, nor do the players, until there is a negotiated way forward.

Again, not for you. That is totally fine. But this is not a GM driven style by any reasonable use of that term