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

[AlViking]

Perhaps it is the minimal sleep I got, but I have generally decided to check out of this conversation. It isn't going anywhere.

But I wanted to respond at least to this.

This, right here, is again using this "decisions <that are> based on established fiction" as a shield against railroading. That is the only possible meaning this could have.

It isn't though. Decisions based on established fiction can still be a railroad. Not one part of "decisions based on established fiction" provides any protection against railroading. I've been told more than once that this wasn't a claim people were making, and yet here you are making it!

Just because something can be doesn't mean it will be and decisions based on established fiction is one way to reduce the odds of it being a railroad.

According to you it seems like any campaign that doesn't use your preferred style of game is automatically or at best almost always a railroad so this is going nowhere.

 

[thefutilist]

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?

At first glance the way I play appears to be very similar to the way you play. Where I would differ, using your dire wolf scenario as reference.

Your players are essentially uncovering a mystery, they go here and there getting clues and it probably leads to a confrontation with Arbela. Each encounter suggests a few ways it can go but none of them are thematically relevant. The nature of the module suggests a go here then go there type of approach.

If I was rewriting it for the way I play. I'd cut all the encounter specific stuff ad focus more on the what the various NPC's priorities are. What's interesting to me as a GM is seeing how the player characters (with their priorities) interact with the NPC's, Not in a fetch quest type way, but along genuine moral lines.

Most importantly, I'd be expecting the group as a whole to find reward in the ethical decisions and the consequences therein of.

@Bedrockgames talks about this chemical catalyst effect and I'm in full agreement that this is what's happening. It's just my way 'may' more reliably produce it because as a group I'm hopefully playing with people who do have ethically driven characters.

It also means the NPC's must be fleshed out more. When I was noodling I was thinking of how I'd do Arbela for instance. I'd make her a Beggar who has 'seen some unpleasant stuff.' Rather than that giving her cause for sympathy with others suffering the same deal. She's gone full on, well they deserve what they get, there is no cosmic justice except what strength provides. Something along those lines only better (I'd need more time to think).

In fact what would be best of all is not having an adventuring party but having the players be, Arbela, Mahon, one of the beggar revolutionaries. Then the initial set up and conflicting priorities would ensure that something has to give, there's going to be some kind of explosion or radical change.

 

[robertsconley]

I think that the focus of play as you're describing it is very much the setting. It's about exploration of the setting. Seeing what cool things are out there and interacting with them.

As the primary author of the setting, this approach would seem to foreground the GM's ideas. They are going to be central to play more than the players ideas may be.

Thanks!

However, I still don't see the implications behind the GM’s ideas being in the foreground. Is the same implication in the other post where you said "There’s nothing that speaks to what the players want out of play.”? Along with the other comment “It seems like a menu of GM options and the players get to choose from it."?

Once I understand that oart, I’ll also circle back to your point about exploration being the focus. I think it’s tied to the bigger question you're raising here.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Two things.

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.

Two, I've played narrative games, including blades, for several campaigns. I've run one. I enjoyed it at the time. I don't anymore.

Fair enough, and honestly I don't know that I think you specifically are someone that gives off an especially ideological vibe. You're saying a lot of things that, tbh, got currency in a certain dark time around here that many of us still remember well.

 

[Bedrockgames]

@Bedrockgames talks about this chemical catalyst effect and I'm in full agreement that this is what's happening. It's just my way 'may' more reliably produce it because as a group I'm hopefully playing with people who do have ethically driven characters.

This is why living NPCs are such a crucial concept. I am not particularly concerned about whether it arises before the NPC is introduced or if the GM just has an immediate sense of a character when they make it up in the moment, but I think having NPCs with drive, ambitions, desires and goals is important for the chemical reaction. I am less worried about clashes of ethics and more about clashes of personality

 

[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.

I missed this post, so I'm going back to respond.

I think that what's happening in play as described is the GM has crafted a setting for the players to interact with. But it's a case of setting first, right? Likely the setting has been created (at least broadly) ahead of play, without regard to the characters the players will be playing.

So when play begins, the GM my offer some starting locations, each with it's own vibe or events going on, and the players will then pick what they think sounds interesting. Then play will proceed with the players going places and doing things, and that will prompt the GM to tell them what's going on in the area and what they can engage with.

So, what I'm looking at are the points of collaboration. They largely happen during play, and they seem mostly centered on the players declaring where they go, which then gives some options of things to do, and they select from those options.

When I'm running or playing in what I'd call player-driven game, I'd expect that the world would not necessarily be defined ahead of character creation. Or if it is, that it's suitably sketched so that players can contribute via their character creation. Then, I expect the GM to incorporate the players' contributions into play. These can be informal elements of backstory and the like, or they can be mechanical expressions of character such as "Drives" or "Instincts" or the like. These things are the players saying "I want play to be about THIS".

So to lean on the examples... if I have a player who makes a character who is a thief by necessity... perhaps his family was forced off their land by the local lord... then something like the Raven Marks idea may be very suitable. It seems to be right up that player's alley... it seems to speak to his character. This is me as a GM using the player's ideas to shape play. It's a more collaborative effort in that sense.

In a sandbox game I would say that players have different authority, not less.

If we need to go somewhere and my wife is driving I have less control over how we get there but I trust her driving skills so it's not like I'm sacrificing anything. In fact, I appreciate that she's driving because it gives me a chance to finish that article I was reading. It's the same with D&D. When I get the chance to play I don't want the same role or authority that the DM has. If it's a sandbox I know I'll still influence the direction of the game through what my character does.

People throw around these ideas of "authority" and "control" as if they are established fact and also that more authority over anything outside of my character is an inherent good or always beneficial. For me it's not because when I get to play I don't want any part of the GM role.

Different not less authority from the GM or different not less from players in other types of games? I'm not sure what you mean here.

As for comparisons to the real world... I think they tend to fall flat because the real world is so much different from a game. And we tend to compare the characters in the game to real people in the real world, which I don't think is a relevant comparison. We should be comparing players of a game to people in the real world, if anything.

As for whether authority and control are established fact, I think in many... likely even most... cases, they are. Whether they are desirable or not is up to each of us as individuals. If one of the enjoyments you get from playing is not having to direct play, then sure, player driven games may not appeal as much to you.

I'm not saying that one is better than the other. It's always going to be up to the individual to decide.

Okay. That's fair. There are some circumstances under which it wouldn't be bad faith. I do that that these days those would be fairly rare, though.

 

[robertsconley]

t none of them are thematically relevant.

Before I reply, can you clarify what it is you mean by thematically relevant? It might explain the difference between our viewpoints.

focus more on the what the various NPC's priorities are.

Also, and this isn’t a challenge or anything like that, did you read the PDF I attached? I’d like to know whether you felt I covered NPC priorities adequately. NPCs do have priorities that I use when running the adventure, but now I’m concerned I didn’t explain them well enough. This will be important when I work on the second edition.

I suspect this may be a broader issue with the writing I did in the current version. One reviewer commented on a character’s motivation, which led me to create this supplemental PDF to clarify something I had already planned to address in the second edition:

https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/Scourge_Design_Notes_Rev01.pdf

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Just because something can be doesn't mean it will be and decisions based on established fiction is one way to reduce the odds of it being a railroad.

According to you it seems like any campaign that doesn't use your preferred style of game is automatically or at best almost always a railroad so this is going nowhere.

I did not say that.

I am calling out the fact that you refer to this, consistently, as though it were in any way a defense against railroading. I am specifically saying, that argument isn't true. Just because it isn't a defense against railroading doesn't mean it causes railroading. That's a thing you inserted into this, not anything that I actually said.

 

[AlViking]

I missed this post, so I'm going back to respond.

I think that what's happening in play as described is the GM has crafted a setting for the players to interact with. But it's a case of setting first, right? Likely the setting has been created (at least broadly) ahead of play, without regard to the characters the players will be playing.

So when play begins, the GM my offer some starting locations, each with it's own vibe or events going on, and the players will then pick what they think sounds interesting. Then play will proceed with the players going places and doing things, and that will prompt the GM to tell them what's going on in the area and what they can engage with.

So, what I'm looking at are the points of collaboration. They largely happen during play, and they seem mostly centered on the players declaring where they go, which then gives some options of things to do, and they select from those options.

When I'm running or playing in what I'd call player-driven game, I'd expect that the world would not necessarily be defined ahead of character creation. Or if it is, that it's suitably sketched so that players can contribute via their character creation. Then, I expect the GM to incorporate the players' contributions into play. These can be informal elements of backstory and the like, or they can be mechanical expressions of character such as "Drives" or "Instincts" or the like. These things are the players saying "I want play to be about THIS".

So to lean on the examples... if I have a player who makes a character who is a thief by necessity... perhaps his family was forced off their land by the local lord... then something like the Raven Marks idea may be very suitable. It seems to be right up that player's alley... it seems to speak to his character. This is me as a GM using the player's ideas to shape play. It's a more collaborative effort in that sense.

When I craft new regions in my world or decide how they've changed over time, or create new worlds I'm not really thinking about specific players or their characters. I'm just setting up what I think is a sandbox with some interesting toys. If and when the players gravitate towards a specific toy, or the idea of a toy comes up in play, that's when I'll start adding more detail.

We're always building worlds we think will be interesting, that doesn't mean they're built with challenging specific characters in mind. I don't see an issue if we do, but unlike other games the goal isn't to have a specific design or goal for a specific individual.

Different not less authority from the GM or different not less from players in other types of games? I'm not sure what you mean here.

As for comparisons to the real world... I think they tend to fall flat because the real world is so much different from a game. And we tend to compare the characters in the game to real people in the real world, which I don't think is a relevant comparison. We should be comparing players of a game to people in the real world, if anything.

As for whether authority and control are established fact, I think in many... likely even most... cases, they are. Whether they are desirable or not is up to each of us as individuals. If one of the enjoyments you get from playing is not having to direct play, then sure, player driven games may not appeal as much to you.

I'm not saying that one is better than the other. It's always going to be up to the individual to decide.

I think the term "more authority" is nebulous and doesn't have a lot of meaning. If I'm playing D&D in most games I have little or no authority over the world but I have 100% authority over my character. Because the authority that we have in our role is so different "more" or "less" authority doesn't have a lot of meaning to me.

There are some people (I'm not saying you do, sorry if that wasn't clear) who use this idea of GM authority as a cudgel to reinforce their idea that a different approach to gaming is superior.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It isn't though. Decisions based on established fiction can still be a railroad.

Sure. It may or may not be a railroad. Nor is a railroad always bad. If the world needs saving, choosing not to save it is pretty silly.

Not one part of "decisions based on established fiction" provides any protection against railroading

Sure, if you don’t want a railroad adventure, then tell your DM - it’s their job to tailor the game to suit the players.