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

[Thomas Shey]

I've played with dozens, likely hundreds of DMs over the decades if I include cons and game days. I can't think of a single example of "malign" GM authority and overreach.

There can be a number of reasons for that, some more complimentary than others. But given it neither matches my own experience nor many other people, I don't see why it should be relevant to my opinion.

 

[AlViking]

And I not only have, but I know of dozens of players (and I'm more likely vastly understating it) who have. So all your statement says is that (charitably) you've been lucky, or less so, that you're either highly tolerant or deliberately blind.

I doubt that I've been that lucky, I've had bad DMs. But malevolent? If by that you mean (from Dictionary.com) "wishing evil or harm to another or others; showing ill will; ill-disposed; malicious" then no. I haven't had, as far as I know, psychopaths for GMs. If that's not what you really mean then perhaps you should consider dialing back the adjectives a bit.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And that’s not what you’re doing? Riiiight.

Also… of the two of us, there is one who very clearly has a preferred playstyle. It ain’t me.

No I am not. I am not advocating for a single style. When Hussar said he was using a system that gave players more say over setting for a sandbox, I said that sounded totally fine and I didn't say it wasn't a sandbox. Because I think people should play what they want, that people should explore what styles they want. I wasn't trying to linguistically box him in, the way that happens in this conversation where people switch up the language and suddenly a sandbox is really a railroad or a sandbox doesn't really give you agency (because those terms have been adjusted to steer towards a particular play style if people want to avoid railroads and want to encourage agency)

 

[Thomas Shey]

I doubt that I've been that lucky, I've had bad DMs. But malevolent? If by that you mean (from Dictionary.com) "wishing evil or harm to another or others; showing ill will; ill-disposed; malicious" then no. I haven't had, as far as I know, psychopaths for GMs. If that's not what you really mean then perhaps you should consider dialing back the adjectives a bit.

If you like "with bad intentions" feel free. I'd call a lot of the apparent reasons "ill will" and the fact they don't I don't really care about; a lot of people think they're justified in doing things that are still being done with bad intentions.

 

[zakael19]

Do the actions at one "stop" have potential impact on the rails available or what could happen at the next destination? For that matter is there a predetermined outcome for every stop? Because having that predetermined stop and never taking into account ripple effects is what makes a sandbox into a branching linear game IMHO.

Right, I think it's kinda the difference between "narrative outcomes on the ending card" vs "we went off and played a different story next" to use vaguely computer game terminology.

Like, no matter what you do in Curse of Strahd - you're really there to explore Strahd's story and get to a final confrontation. The only difference in Call of the Netherdeep is setting up some final encounter stuff and again that good/bad/neutral ending type of thing.

In a true sandbox, you might decide your campaign is done because your characters are all established domain holders retiring from the adventuring life, and you've totally re-made the realm or whatever along the way.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

There is a spectrum of narrative density and player freedom.

As you move towards more and more player freedom, you hit the limits of what a human DM can realistically prep or improvise. Expanding freedom inevitably dilutes the amount of engaging content that can be delivered at any one time. Or shifts limited ideas into new places.

So this means that in any sandbox there will be proverbial invisible walls. These are moments where the DM’s prep runs dry or their improvisation can’t sustain meaningful engagement, and shortcuts are used. On the other end of the spectrum, linear campaigns or "railroads" (in the broad sense) keep things narrow enough for the DM to ensure consistent narrative density. The DM can ensure their prep and improvisation can handle the load.

Players need engagement. Human brains need engagement. Tasks that are too easy or offer no reward become boring. A world full of empty freedom but no meaningful response is just background noise. The brain loses interest. This is why the glorified "true sandbox" campaigns we see mentioned so often, seemingly don't exist in practice. Not because no one tries, but because human DMs can’t actually maintain them. There will always be a boundary past which the world stops being interesting. That boundry is the invisible wall. The gorilla cage, as one posted noted.

We’ve seen tools like hex crawls and random encounter tables used to try to patch this. But even these tend to undercut the very agency sandbox games are praised for. Procedural content—especially when unresponsive to player action—quickly reveals its limits. It starts to feel like noise. We’ve seen the same in video games: just ask any long-time Skyrim player how reactive the world really is. If the goal of sandbox campaigns is minecraft, we might be losing the strength of this wonderful hobby.

So I think this discussion is very interesting. But not for the differences between the styles of play. But because it highlights that, ultimately, they are all constrained by the prep and improvisation skills of the DM. Meaning that the difference between linear and sandbox campaigns is often a matter of what constraints are acknowledged up front, or disguised behind an illusion of total freedom.

 

[AlViking]

If you like "with bad intentions" feel free. I'd call a lot of the apparent reasons "ill will" and the fact they don't I don't really care about; a lot of people think they're justified in doing things that are still being done with bad intentions.

Then I can still say I've never had a GM with bad intentions. They may not have been good GMs but actively out to make the game less than fun for their players? No and while in theory it could happen this idea of actively running a bad game is a strawman. A GM that doesn't work for me? That happens now and then.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No I am not. I am not advocating for a single style. When Hussar said he was using a system that gave players more say over setting for a sandbox, I said that sounded totally fine and I didn't say it wasn't a sandbox. Because I think people should play what they want, that people should explore what styles they want. I wasn't trying to linguistically box him in, the way that happens in this conversation where people switch up the language and suddenly a sandbox is really a railroad or a sandbox doesn't really give you agency (because those terms have been adjusted to steer towards a particular play style if people want to avoid railroads and want to encourage agency)

Yes you are. You make normative statements all the time about “how most games work” and “what most games include”.

You present your very traditional ideas as the norm and anything else as some kind of exception to the norm. Rather than just two approaches to RPGs that are equally valid. To be fair, I don’t even think it’s something you mean to do. I just think it’s so ingrained that you do it by default. This is why, when it’s pointed out to you, you don’t even realize what people are criticizing. That’s how it seems from what you say in your posts.

And you insist on knowing my preferences. Despite the fact that I very clearly enjoy trad games as well. I’ve made numerous references to my Mothership campaign. I ran it for about a year. I have played and run plenty of 5e D&D. The vast majority of my RPG experience is with some form of traditional play.

You aren’t in a position to tell me my preferences.

That I am able to describe the kind of sandbox play you’ve described as GM led because it is a vehicle to highlight GM prepared material has nothing to do with amy preference I have. It is simply me being able to look at what play consists of and how the material in play is determined, and describe it accurately. Without regard to any preference I have.

If I didn’t enjoy that kind of game, I wouldn’t play or run that kind of game, at least not at any significant length.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes you are. You make normative statements all the time about “how most games work” and “what most games include”.

Because most people are playing some form of D&D and this is the norm. that doesn't mean there aren't other ways of playing. When they come up I acknowledge them, i don't crap on them, I don't accuse them of being less than standard games. But there needs to be a common frame of reference for conversation and it makes sense that frame of reference will be how most tables do things

You present your very traditional ideas as the norm and anything else as some kind of exception to the norm. Rather than just two approaches to RPGs that are equally valid. To be fair, I don’t even think it’s something you mean to do. I just think it’s so ingrained that you do it by default. This is why, when it’s pointed out to you, you don’t even realize what people are criticizing. That’s how it seems from what you say in your posts.

Something can be a norm, but not be more valid than another option. I tis pretty clear what the norm is. That doesn't mean it is the better choice.

Also I've mentioned that I play games like Hillfolk too. This isn't something where I don't see how other games can operate.

And you insist on knowing my preferences. Despite the fact that I very clearly enjoy trad games as well. I’ve made numerous references to my Mothership campaign. I ran it for about a year. I have played and run plenty of 5e D&D. The vast majority of my RPG experience is with some form of traditional play.

You aren’t in a position to tell me my preferences.

Fair enough I am not a mindreader but.....

That I am able to describe the kind of sandbox play you’ve described as GM led because it is a vehicle to highlight GM prepared material has nothing to do with amy preference I have. It is simply me being able to look at what play consists of and how the material in play is determined, and describe it accurately. Without regard to any preference I have.

This is the part I take issue with. It is the language capture going on, which seems to have the effect of steering things away from this style towards one with a different power arrangement at the table. The problem is you are taking terms like player driven, sandbox, and railroad, switching up their meaning and it feel like it being used to undermine the positions of people talking in favor of sandbox play

Also I don't think you have this comprehensive understanding of what is happening at the table that you think. You have a model for understanding and if that helps you, great. The problem is you are insisting that you are accurately describing what is going on and dismissing other peoples models for talking about it.

 

[Faolyn]

So now you're saying that the whole of classic D&D is railroading, because it's taken as a premise that the players will explore the dungeon?

Well, if it follows that bit of advice, yes. "You have to do this because that's the only way you can adventure" is textbook railroading. I don't know about the "whole of classic D&D." My table tried to run through the GDQ series updated to 5e and got incredibly bored and stopped halfway through because it had so little focus on RP and so much focus on combat, so that's my only real exposure to "classic D&D."

My particular belief is "Classic means old. It doesn't necessarily mean good."

I think you're confusing railroading with agreeing how we're going to spend our time together.

I think you're confusing railroading with "invariably a bad thing at all times and under all circumstances." If everyone agrees to the premise, that's OK. Some people enjoy that sort of game. Some people enjoy that sort of game all the time; some people only enjoy it on occasion. Some people hate even the tiniest hint of GM direction.

You asked, in effect, who has content authority in Burning Wheel. I told you that it is distributed, and posted an example to illustrate a player exercising content authority (ie that there is a vessel in the room, suitable for catching the blood from a beheaded man) by way of a successful Perception test.

You frame this in terms of "the GM making the player roll" and "the GM could call for a roll" - ie you seem to assume that it is up to the GM to call for rolls, or not, as the GM seems appropriate. That is not the rule in Burning Wheel.

I feel like you're continuing to misunderstand me, and I can't tell if it's deliberate or if I'm just really bad at writing.

Here's the posts that started this tangent (Micah was responding to @Firebird; I'm not sure if they responded):

Couldn't the PCs get a hold of the guard schedule somehow, and learn when the shift change occurs? I've seen this done in various media all the time.

How would this be resolved?

If it takes (say) an hour or two of play time at the table, where the player is just moving through scenes framed by the GM based on the GM's ideas about the guardhouse, who knows the schedule, etc, and the player is declaring low-risk, low-stakes actions to try and prompt the next scene so that, eventually, the GM will present the outcome of the PC learns the scheduled - then, that it the sort of play that I regard as highly GM-driven. I mean, we're talking about an extended episode of play where all the fiction comes from the GM, and the player is just receiving it.

Through continued discussion with you, we have learned that:

(a) It's pretty common in BW for the GM to set a scene. After all, the rules you quoted say "the story you have created." Not "the story the players have created" or "the story the players and GM have created together." Maybe "the story you have created" is just shorthand for "the entire table."

For instance, unless you say otherwise, it's fair to say it was up to the GM, not one of the players, to say that there was an assassin after that wounded guy. It was then up to the dice to see if the PC got there before the assassin did. These are both standard for RPGs. Few games are going to have the PC decide that they get there before the assassin, because that would be OP in most games.

(b) it's apparently impossible for a player to want to do something, or actually do something, without it being "low stakes" or "GM-driven" unless it's written as a belief or instinct first.

And it's (b) that's the sticking point.

The GM creates the story in which there are guards who won't let them pass because of the dice (this is no different than saying whatshisname couldn't get to the wounded guy before the assassin did because of the dice). The dice have spoken. The players want to get the schedule. How is this a bad thing or against BW principles?

The GM creates the story in which there is an illegal kobold-slave fight ring hidden in the basement, knowing that this would be something that is interesting to the players, if they learn about it. How is this a bad thing or against BW principles?

One of you takes on the role of the game master. The GM is responsible for challenging the players. He also plays the roles of all of those characters not taken on by other players; he guides the pacing of the events of the story; and he arbitrates rules calls and interpretations so that play progresses smoothly.

OK, so this is one of those games that frames the GM as another player, just one with a special role. OK, nothing special here. D&D doesn't phrase it that way, but lots of games do. Dragonbane does it, and some people consider that game to be OSR-adjacent.

So, let's suppose that it's true that in any other game, the GM could delegate their content authority to a player, or to the dice, and call for a roll for the PC to find a vessel (I actually think this is an over-generalisation, but that doesn't matter). That doesn't seem all that relevant to Burning Wheel, where the GM doesn't choose to call for a roll: something is at stake (in relation to the PC's player-authored priorities) and so the dice have to be rolled.

This is why a roll was called for on the occasion I've described - because something bearing directly upon a player-determined priority for the shaman PC (namely, taking the blood of the dying mage back to his Dark Naga master) was at stake.

OK, so everything has to be rolled for. The GM has no say. They are but an unwitting pawn of the rules, unable to choose it for themself.

Except that things are only rolled for if something is at stake.

Who decides that something is at stake? The GM or the player(s)?

Seriously. In this scene, did a player say "I think whatshisname should have to roll to see if he can find a cup because that's really important"? If this is the case, then this is ripe for abuse, particularly in a game where the PCs are not a tightly-knit party with a single goal. If Player 2 didn't want Player 1 to succeed at something, like giving the naga blood, then this would be a great way to stop him. It would be terribly meta and antagonistic, but it would be acceptable by RAW and RAI.

So I'm guessing it's not up to the players to decide when something is at stake. Am I correct?

If yes, then it's up to the GM to decide. Which means that the GM chooses to call for a roll. They just have say that something is at stake. They decided to not say "yes" to the question of "is there a cup"

If I were the GM in this instance, and I know that the most important thing is getting the blood back to the naga, and I also know that the PC is in a room that is more than likely to have a vessel in it (since it's a room for someone to recover in, meaning cups and bowls of water for drinking, washing wounds, and wetting dressings, plus containers that store meds, herbs, and bandages, plus a chamber pot, plus any number of other things), then what makes it high stakes to roll to see a cup? What makes it wrong or against BW principles for me to say "there's a cup on the bedside table"? What about that makes it low-stakes or low-tension or non-dramatic or whatever, when there's plenty of other uncertainty in the scene?

(For instance, I would assume that wandering around with a cup full of blood is a pretty sus thing to do. Once whatshisname has the blood, he then has to get it back to the naga without anyone noticing. However, it's a given that someone is going to raise an alarm because an assassin just got in and beheaded someone, which means that people are going to be even more on edge and guards might be called, which means rolls for subterfuge and fast-talking would be called for so nobody notices that whatshisname has a cup full of blood.)

See, I can understand that you (or whoever the GM was at the time, I forget) had them roll because hey, you had them roll. You thought it was important. Maybe you wouldn't next time around, maybe you would. No biggie. But when you're saying that this is the One True Way, that the GM has to do it this way because otherwise it's wrong somehow--that's when I call shenanigans.

Your insistence that BW is no different from other RPGs seems to me to be belied by your complaints about the various ways in which it is different! And to me, it seems that you are not really recognising the reason why rolls are called for in Burning Wheel.

The mechanics are basically the same, just with different names. Your insistence that they are somehow better or more immersive or intimate or whatever term you want to use is what's baffling to me, when to me, they look more restrictive.

The players determine priorities for their PCs. The GM frames scenes based on those priorities. The action resolution rules - intent and task and say "yes" or roll the dice - operate in this context.

This is not the same as every other RPG. It centres player priorities in a way that is different from a lot of other RPGing. (Including some that is being described in this thread.)

No, this is just like in any game. I determined the priorities for my PC when I played AD&D 2e, and again when I played D&D 3e, and yet again when I play D&D 5e. I also determined the priorities for my PC when I played GURPS, Fate, Call of Cthulhu, Star Wars d6, Mage: the Ascension, Werewolf: the Apocalypse, In Nomine, Masks, and every other system I've ever played. Yeah, in many of those games, particularly the ones I played in the 90s, there was a push to keep the group together, but I've almost never had GMs who wouldn't let me at least attempt accomplish my own goals.

Is my gaming history unique? Am I somehow lucky that I've managed to determine my own character's priorities in every game I've played in the past ~35 ~25 years? (Edit: I forgot how old I was and how time worked.)

Or are you just convinced that every game you aren't fond with is terribly flawed?

There are relatively few people that I have seen speaking about playing D&D in a BW-esque fashion. One of them is me. Two others are @Manbearcat and @Campbell (although they are less likely than me to use BW as a model or exemplar for trying to explicate their play). The D&D in question is 4e, because it has some of the technical elements to support player-driven, scene-based RPGing.

I see zero evidence of this way of playing D&D being widespread. I don't see it in the examples of your own RPGing that you post!

OK, so do us a favor and tell us what you mean when you say "the players determine priorities." And when I say "tell us" I mean tell us. Do not quote from your play notes or the book. Use your own words.

Because it really looks like you are No True Scotsmanning here and simply deciding that whatever it is you don't like is not player-determined priorities.

You mean like here:

And here, in reply to you:

And that example is for an unusual session where only two people can make it. When everyone is there, do you "round robin"? During the game, I mean. Not picking a different GM each session--in that case, there's still one GM.

The Burning Wheel GM is not expected to be impartial. I've just quoted to you the most important rule that governs them (and have quoted it and paraphrased it several times upthread, including in reply to you): the BW GM is expected to present problems based on the priorities that the players have established for their PCs. The GM calling for a Steel test when Aedhros tries to commit cold-blooded murder is doing exactly what they are supposed to do.

So the GM chooses! And in this case, went against the PC's priorities because their Beliefs and Instincts indicated that Aedhros would have no problem with cold-blooded murder.

The fact that Alicia follows through with a Persuasion spell is exactly what I would expect. There is no "misuse". Any more than there is "misuse" by me when, as GM, I call for the Tax test following the casting of Persuasion; which fails, leaving Alicia unconscious and hence (once again, from Aedhros's point of view) dependent on Aedhros.

Given that you don't believe me when I tell you the rules of a game that you appear to have never played, I'm not sure why you are now asking me about the rules. So that you can once again correct me?

I, Aedhros's player, chose to declare an action that is apt to prompt a call for a Steel test from the GM. If I didn't want to prompt the GM to call for a Steel test, I wouldn't have had Aedhros do something that is apt to do just that. This is - at the general level of structure of play - no different from an Apocalypse World player choosing to Act Under Fire. I don't understand why you are determined to insist otherwise.

Is it? And wasn't it?

I notice you completely failed to answer my questions. For instance, don't expect me to remember who it was who wanted Alicia to repair his armor. If it wasn't Aedros, then say "Wrong guy; it was actually Thurgon who wanted Alicia to repair his armor, and here's what happened" instead of addressing the issue. You do that a lot.

Anyway. This:

I think you're very confidently conjecturing about the fiction, and the emotional dynamics, of games that you're not part of, being played via a methodology that you're not familiar with.

Perhaps you think that conversations about relatively mundane matters, such as a request that one's armour be repaired, of necessity cannot have heft. I don't know why you'd think that, though. And it's not something that I think.

I have done that. And you've accused me of lying; and asserted that it has no heft; and told me that there is no difference from any other RPGing.

I am not going to post the full rules for Duel of Wits. It used to be available as a free download, but that seems no longer to be the case. It broadly resembles other scene-oriented complex resolution systems (such as are found in HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, 4e D&D skill challenges, Prince Valiant, etc). Actions are declared and resolved by those who are part of the argument, and this progresses towards victory for one or the other party. There is also a mechanism for generating compromise (if the loser has nevertheless made some progress towards victory).

Because the core resolution framework of BW is (as I have posted upthread already, and as is set out the free download) is intent and task, the player has to say what their PC is doing - that is, identify the task and make clear the intent. In the case of Duel of Wits, this is called "speaking the part" (p 103 of Revised):

When scripting these maneuvers, players must speak their parts. Spitting out moves in a robotic fashion is not a viable use of these mechanics. The arguments must be made. Of course, no one expects us all to be eloquent, so just the main thrust or a simple retort usually suffices (but a little embellishment is nice).

Keep it simple and to the point. Say what you need to in order to roll the dice. A multipoint statement should be broken down into multiple actions across the exchange.
The back and forth of the argument is also key to establishing the content of compromises.

Aedhros doesn't wear armour; he wears his tattered Elven cloths, and the boots that he stole from the innkeeper.

Thurgon wears armour, because he is a knight riding the boundary between Ulek and the Pomarj on the orders of the Knight Commander of his order.

OK? I don't understand how your imaginary set-up is not "self-centred", but the actual play examples I've posted are.

Well, first, I already made the following two posts, both in reply to you, which directly contradicts your imputation of ignorance or malice or whatever you are intending by "why is that?":


Second, you are the one who is describing a game that requires the GM to frame scenes that speak to player-established priorities as "self-centred"; so why would you expect me to infer that you are now advocating for exactly such a principle to govern GM scene-framing?

...makes it look like it was resolved by a Duel of Wits. That is, by some die rolls.

Sure, lots of games do that. The PC wants to persuade an NPC, they roll Persuade, or whatever that game has. Most games either don't let PCs do that to other PCs, or--as in the case of Monster of the Week--still give the target PC a choice, but a reward if they go along with the dice.

So answer this question: Did the player explain, in-character, why Alicia should mend the armor, and really roleplay the scene out before making some die rolls? Or did the player just say "I want Alicia to mend my armor first" and then make some die rolls?

If it's the latter, then the scene had no weight to it. It's just rolling dice.