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

[The Firebird]

To me, at least, "boisterous and friendly" doesn't automatically mean "willing to share rumors." A GM could decide that the innkeeper doesn't share rumors ("gossip isn't friendly"), is willing to share rumors unprompted, or will share them only if prompted in specific ways (e.g., the PCs mention that they're going to a specific location so the innkeeper shares a rumor they heard about it, but doesn't mention a rumor about a different location). The GM could also rely on the dice to determine if the innkeeper shares a rumor when prompted (PC makes a sufficiently high charisma roll, or GM rolls a die and decides on a particular result, the innkeeper talks, etc.).

Right; the GM is applying their judgement to adjudicate the world. Different GMs could play them differently. Just as 'success with a complication' is a rule in Blades, but the specific complication that manifests will differ based on GM.

 

[Faolyn]

I would note that "high-stakes" and "combat" are not intended to be used synonymously.

"High stakes" is generally intended to mean, for these use cases, "situations that will challenge or possibly change a character's beliefs or conceptions of themselves."

I wasn't using them synonymously.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Not sure I understand the last sentence very well. We all definitely agree on NPCs having depth of personality.

I mean I don’t particularly care about the ethics of characters: if they want to be heroes or criminals it is up to them

 

[TwoSix]

I'd say that it's the world doing that, not the GM.

I don't see it as possible to disentangle the two.

Even if 2 GMs run the same published world, they will extremely rapidly become two separate entities.

 

[AlViking]

Yeah, that's the distinction, I think... player-driven versus GM-driven. The example I gave of the Blades campaign is showing the agency that players have on the direction of play beyond just that of control of their characters. They have a strong say in what the game will actually entail. The world is sketched prior to play (Doskvol is a very detailed setting, but the way it is presented leaves a lot of area for input), and then fleshed out through play.

I think a game where a GM has a story to tell as you mention has more in common with one of these two types of play than the other. I don't think that what you and @robertsconley are talking about is entirely GM driven. There is some amount of player input, for sure, and the GM may not have a story to tell. But the GM is still authoring the vast majority of what is available for play. That's the similarity that I see is key... that's what makes it GM driven in my mind.

For example, the players in my Mothership game were free to take whatever jobs they wanted. They could then go to any locations available to them, per their means. There were plenty of jobs on the station, and plenty of jobs off the station out in space or on other planets. But the nature of those jobs and the content included in those jobs? Entirely made by me. I was driving play in the sense that everything play was about was chosen by me.

My players had no issue with this. They understood the nature of the game, and they approached play accordingly. So I'm not using the descriptor "GM-driven" as a negative. It wasn't a railroad, it wasn't linear, I would still describe play as a sandbox type game. But the content of play is very much up to the GM rather than the players.

So your players never said the equivalent of "We want to buy a broken down ship, soup it up and become pirates"? Not that specific of course but just some random goal they came up with that you then figured out how to implement. Because that's become the current driving force of a campaign I'm running now. I was doing a semi-random lore dump when one of the players picked up on something I mentioned. They then convinced the rest of the group to go along and they now have a goal I had never anticipated. It's pretty awesome.

A lot of my campaigns are what the DMG calls episodic in nature. There are a number of options they can pick from and we pursue that specific episode but the general options do come from me. Direction for future options will likely shift depending on how the episode goes. I still consider these sandboxes, while one episode may build on the last I don't really have long term goals or even an end game in mind. In other words, not much different from what you describe except that I still feel like the players (in my case through the actions of their characters) still have a great deal of influence on possible story arcs and themes because of their decisions.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeah I think this is a reasonable argument for more narrativist games. It was one of the things that appealed to me.

Oh, I was making that argument more for trad play! The whole "I'm simulating a world in my mind" is such a herculean task as it's often described that I think anything that lessens that burden is probably worthwhile.

There's a lot of personal preference here. I like taking my time in the dungeon and evaluating the possible outcomes before moving. Likewise, I like planning the heist or whatever, so when Blades skips that I find it unsatisfying. But a lot of people do want to get right to the action.

Sure... I think there's a reasonable amount of this, and that will vary from person to person... but no matter what, it eventually reaches a point where it's a negative to play. As I said, my players were turtling and pixelbitching. Play slowed to a crawl and they were second guessing everything. This was because of the shift from a hexcrawl to a dungeoncrawl, and the shift in GMing that went along with it.

Once I realized what was happening, I adjusted and things improved... but it was still eye-opening. The kind of mundane resource management that once was central to D&D play, and the method of GMing that kind of play no longer really applies to how the game works.

I think 'player-created' vs 'GM-created', as someone suggested, accurately captures the distinction you're getting at without making fixed world sandboxers feel like their playstyle is not being understood. I think those terms are better than player/GM driven.

Meh, I don't see much of a difference. 'Player-created' also seems inaccurate because it sounds like the GM isn't involved, when really it's more collaborative. There's still plenty of GM creation in that type of game.

I also think it's because we tend to think of these things geographically... but that's not really what's happening. The characters may go to a location and then certain opportunities/jobs/adventures are available to them based on that location. But really, there's no location involved.

When I say "player-driven" or "GM-driven" I'm more talking about who determines the content of play. And I think there are few games where it's 100% the players or 100% the GM... both would seem to be flawed in some way.... most games are a mix. I tend to categorize them by who does the bulk of it.

OK, but I was talking about locations.

But even with your example, I don't have to detail the home of your brother's killer until you actually get there.

Sure, but there aren't really locations, right? There's just different lists of content available, kind of like the way a menu works. Select the swamp, and you'll get things like lizard men and willow wisps and so on. Select the pasta section and you'll get things like lasagna and linguini and so on.

You don't ever have to detail the home of the brother's killer, or anything else to do with the brother in a trad-sandbox. This is a way in which the players are limited. They are able to determine where the characters go within the setting the GM has made... their characters have autonomy.

But they as payers can have more agency than that. Players can shape play in ways beyond what their characters can do, if the game (or GM) allows for that.

 

[The Firebird]

When I say "player-driven" or "GM-driven" I'm more talking about who determines the content of play. And I think there are few games where it's 100% the players or 100% the GM... both would seem to be flawed in some way.... most games are a mix. I tend to categorize them by who does the bulk of it.

Yeah, that's my point...I think this language is grating for fixed world sandboxers because they (we) do see our games as player-driven, just not because the players create the content. So a term that functions on the content creation would be more precise.

Meh, I don't see much of a difference. 'Player-created' also seems inaccurate because it sounds like the GM isn't involved, when really it's more collaborative. There's still plenty of GM creation in that type of game.

This is a fair criticism though. Maybe "I prefer games where the players have a significant role in content creation"?

 

[robertsconley]

Yeah, that's my point...I think this language is grating for fixed world sandboxers because they (we) do see our games as player-driven, just not because the players create the content. So a term that functions on the content creation would be more precise.

I thought creative collaboration (inspired by something @hawkeyefan said) that I used in my reply to him worked out well. It is terse and is self-explanatory as an overview and open to variation as to how the creative collaboration is achieved, whether it focuses on shared fiction or creating narratives.

 

[AnotherGuy]

If I understand correctly, there are two main points you are making.

• “There’s nothing that speaks to what the players want out of play.”
• “It seems like a menu of GM options and the players get to choose from it."

I’ll start with the second.

Yes, it does resemble a menu of options—one created by someone else, because that’s how the world often appears when you first encounter it. That’s why it’s a recurring motif in sandbox campaigns. If you walked into my hometown tomorrow, nothing in it would be about you—your goals, your wants. The same was true for me when I was born there. But after decades of living there, parts of the place now reflect my choices, my efforts, and my values.

But the players are not necessarily walking into a new town, they're starting up in a village, town or city or even on a sea vessel. Relationships have already been established with people and organisations. And all this could be besides the inference of their family.
I'm talking about the individual character - they may have already had their first love, they may be in debt, they may have responsibilities, they may have suffered trauma, they may be part of a theatrical troupe or they may have rescued an animal or they are seeking truth...etc The way in which you present your campaign in your above post, you're discounting any history, personal code, flaw or desire each character may have attained at that point in time.

IMO if you want immediate player buy-in into a setting, let the players create a few NPCs (humanoid, animal, other) with whom they can have favourable, neutral or unfavourable relationship with. You can even be traditional about this and collaborate with them so you're comfortable with these NPCs. Ask as many questions as you need to to better understand them. Just like you are fully invested in the setting you create, so will the players be with their minor creations.

This is a very small first step where you allow the players some creative input into the setting and their ideas can only but enrich the world.
I'm not gonna push anything else, because it may be too much of a mind shift right now, but I think if you're trusting of your table, and you have good communication with the players their creativity might provide a nice surprise and injection into your game.

I'm going to give you examples from what 2 of the players at my table created.
The 1st is an attachment from a PC (Amon) who spent some time in Waterdeep, so I told him to create NPCs he had encountered.

The 2nd is from an academic debate in Waterdeep's Great Library where the PC (Fivin) and a fellow colleague had a rather unplanned public debate, one of the rewards of the skill challenge was the creation of NPCs who were present during the debate - player rolled high and so got to create the max number of NPCs.
While gesticulating with book in hand, the PC unravelled the core of the book from its cover (result of a failed skill check - pertinent for the NPC Tomph)

Spoiler: NPCs Present at the Academic Debate

Tomph - Female half-orc scribe. Avid reader hoping to one day work for the Library, sourcing books from around the world. Neutral towards Fivin (would've liked him, but appalled at his treatment of books)

Heintz - Human male scholar. The academic who debated Fivin. Past middle age, but still very energetic, yet patient with "the youth". Amicable towards Fivin, as he seemed open to being challenged (unlike typical high elves).

Isolde Burrowfound - Dwarf cleric. Left her clan after a vision from Lathander, god of birth and renewal, and devoted her life to following him. Has a guilty pleasure for anything drizzled in honey. Antagonistic towards Fivin (and Heintz) as their debate had several elements of blasphemy, and they seemed irreverent towards the gods.

Lucan Naïlo - High Elf male wizard from Evermeet (Fivin's birthplace). Eloquent, smug. Antagonistic towards Fivin - irreconcilable political and arcane differences.

Fildo Porridgepot - Male halfling custodian. Part of a cleaning crew - Cherrycheeks Cleansweep - working at various estates around Waterdeep. Amicable towards Fivin (and Heintz), as their debate was entertaining and Fildo feels smarter for listening.

Barakas Ignominy - Male tiefling rogue. A forger for a group of smugglers, studying sigils in the library. Neutral towards Fivin, but was entertained by the book incident. Not a fan of smart-arses though.

 

[Lanefan]

Maps are anachronistic in any type of pre-industrial society. Maybe the rulers have them - highly inaccurate ones, but ordinary folk don’t. They just know where the few places are that are relevant to them.

In a typical D&D setting that has magic, arcane academic types, and long-range travel, I would expect mapping to be considerably more advanced than, say, 1500s European mapping.

And beyond rulers, I woud suggest libraries would also keep maps; and at least some PCs (the wizardly types for sure, maybe others) would have access to such.

In the game I play in, one of the long-standing PCs has made it her hobby to collect maps of everywhere, hoping one day to construct a comprehensive map of the world. This gives a great in-game rationale for the maps we players get to see on the game's website (many of which are drawn up by that same player, under direction from the DM).

I.e. the solution to your problem is: don’t give the players a map. They can ask for directions, or follow a road, or strike out into the wilderness in whatever direction they like.

Fine for the initial start-up if the PCs are all from the same town or very-local area. Not so easy if it's a more typical party of an Elf from the Lirienwood, a Dwarf from the Khozora Mountains, a Human from the south-coast port town of Karnos, and a Part-Orc from a small farming village to the west, all meeting in the north-coast city of Praetos before starting off on an adventure.

That group would be able to build their own map of a pretty big area just by telling each other what they know and having someone draw it out. Might as well just give 'em a basic map up front and have done with it.