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

[Lanefan]

Hm? Same thing - “you’re making your way down the forest trails the wizard said to look for when you see a ring of standing stones up ahead - just like the map shows.”

Except even being given a clear map and told exactly where the dungeon is still doesn't guarantee the PCs are going to follow that map and-or not deviate significantly from the most obvious route.

For example, if the map shows the obvious route goes up a creek then through a pass to a specific rock bluff in which there is a cave that leads to the dungeon, with our lot it's at least likely - and sometimes even highly probable - they'll go by a completely different (and maybe more dangerous) route, approach the bluff from behind, and look for a back door.

If it's what their characters would do, I don't want to take that option away from them even if I-as-DM already know from reading the module that there isn't a back door and the cave entrance is a chokepoint.

 

[Zardnaar]

Oh, don't worry - I am. My point was that, once you're in the game and play has begun, it usually takes a pattern rather than just a single incident to trigger that response. "My way or the highway" rears its head with me more often when recruiting players, or thinking about who to try to recruit.

Conversely as a player, if there's a dispute I'll say my piece but I also accept that it's ultimately "your way or the doorway".

Only thing I don't like from DMs are arbitrary rules changes as you go along in effect nerfing classes.

I don't care if the campaign pitch includes rules changes up front.

I has 1 DM who did that campaign fell apart no surprise. Inherited some players who had DM nerfing rogues on the spot because they thought sneak attack was to good.

Probably because they landed a crit or whatever on pet NPC.

 

[zakael19]

Except even being given a clear map and told exactly where the dungeon is still doesn't guarantee the PCs are going to follow that map and-or not deviate significantly from the most obvious route.

For example, if the map shows the obvious route goes up a creek then through a pass to a specific rock bluff in which there is a cave that leads to the dungeon, with our lot it's at least likely - and sometimes even highly probable - they'll go by a completely different (and maybe more dangerous) route, approach the bluff from behind, and look for a back door.

If it's what their characters would do, I don't want to take that option away from them even if I-as-DM already know from reading the module that there isn't a back door and the cave entrance is a chokepoint.

This is a metaphorical map ("the quest giver's map that got you to this point"). I put them at the start of the dungeon (first exterior map area of the module), and then asked what they did and adjudicated the flow of play per the map & key and procedures of the game from there.

Worked great! I think we had 3 sessions of dungeon exploration before they had everything they wanted and headed back to town to secure the treasure & start exploring the world.

Aimless first session play is one of the least enjoyable things for me to GM or play in.

 

[Zardnaar]

Except even being given a clear map and told exactly where the dungeon is still doesn't guarantee the PCs are going to follow that map and-or not deviate significantly from the most obvious route.

For example, if the map shows the obvious route goes up a creek then through a pass to a specific rock bluff in which there is a cave that leads to the dungeon, with our lot it's at least likely - and sometimes even highly probable - they'll go by a completely different (and maybe more dangerous) route, approach the bluff from behind, and look for a back door.

If it's what their characters would do, I don't want to take that option away from them even if I-as-DM already know from reading the module that there isn't a back door and the cave entrance is a chokepoint.

I usually ad hc in that scenario.

Very rarely I'll say something like " this is what I've prepared it's that or nothing this week. Usually because of a headache, tired or time issues.

Sand box up to a point. If they keep trying to climb out of sandbox or whatever cancel the campaign it's not gonna work (happened once in last 10 years. I canceled 1 more because it didn’t work for other reasons).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think there's 2 things that go on here, and they're closely related:

1) You have a particular view of these issues, like what you mean by 'GM Lead', which don't describe play outside the trad context well at all. It isn't necessarily some sort of ideological battle when people describe things differently, they've just got a different viewpoint (and sure, that can go both ways).

I get different language can arise. But over time there has been a clear rift here between, for lack of better language, sandbox/trad and narrative/theory driven play (we could use 80 different terms here and they would all probably be wrong). And it is obvious that one rhetorical tactic had been to capture the language used by the sandbox crowd and invert it. You see this in the ‘sandbox is actual just a bunch of railroad’ threads all the time. Also when other style of play actually gone up: I am completely open to them as valid. I never said for example that sandbox play had to be trad. I was completely fine with a variety of approaches in sandbox because I think a big tent is better than a small one. But I think it is fair to push back on theory or language that seems like it is trying to undermine the validity of the styles I enjoy

2) Everyone seems so defensive. Step out of your castles. I mean, you talk about things like Hillfolk, but then it feels like that's sort of a tactical maneuver to outflank some critics or something. Throw down your arms, nobody wants to fight. Again, this can apply to all sides, but at least to me it feels like there's always one side that wants to 'get into it'.

Part of this is the context of the thread. The thread is about how exhausted a poster feels by the perceived conservatism of D&D fans. And part of it is there is valid reason to be defensive. I think a lot of the rhetoric I am complaining about deserves criticism

Maybe we can have a discussion in some thread where none of this telling other people their words are not used right etc. happens. I dunno.

I hope so. I don’t enjoy constantly arguing about this stuff. I think it is unhelpful. But sometimes it is inevitable because a lot of the rhetoric in these threads becomes very provocative, some even veers into sophistry in my opinion, and there is a need to be frank and clear when that happens

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, it's hard to force players down the path you want and they don't without being authoritarian.

I've had to improvise things quite a bit when stuff like that happens.

There's nothing wrong with saying, "Yes, you can go there, but as I haven't had time to prepare anything in that direction, we will have to pause the game until next week."

There have been a few times in the last few decades when even as experienced and as adept at improvisation as I am, the players have go so far into left field with their direction that I've had to do that.

The most memorable such incident in our crew happened 40+ years ago - the party was in a boat (maybe heading for or arriving at Isle of Dread or a variant?); the DM - who wasn't me - had prepped the anchorage and landing area but hadn't prepped the rest of the island. So, of course, the party decide to sail around the island and look for another anchorage.

And down comes the gigantic hand of god, completely blocking their path, with a booming voice saying something to the effect of "You can't go that way. It doesn't exist yet."

Much laughter all round, a memorable incident goes in the books, and back to the original anchorage they go.

 

[Maxperson]

If so, then you’re failing to account for context in your definition.

As has been said, if sitting down to play one of the classic game modules is considered railroading, then you’re basically calling almost all D&D play railroading.

That's just plain wrong. Forcing a dungeon crawl =/= sandbox play. Sorry. It's just not the same.

No… NPC creation is part of game design. What level are they? What skills do they have?

Setting creation is part of game design. What locations are nearby? What opportunities are present in the area? What hostile, friendly, or neutral groups may be found in the area?

These are all elements of play and therefore elements of the game that is being played.

Play =/= designing the game. The game designers design the game. DMs do it a little bit if they modify game rules.

You are conflating world building with game design when they just are not the same thing. When I world build, I am not designing D&D. Crawford and Co did the game design.

 

[Campbell]

@Bedrockgames

The reason I usually object to you bringing up Hillfolk all the time is because it is usually in the context of us discussing Narrativist designs and Hillfolk is a game that is even further away from games like Apocalypse World than conventional play is. It's a game that is very much a collaborative storytelling exercise with an actual writer's room dynamic. I have spent years trying to convey that games like Apocalypse World are not like that.

I mostly do not want people to associate what are two very different sorts of play into the same overall bucket. We already have to deal with that misinterpretation so often. Where people try to throw all less conventional play into the same "narrative game" bucket and having to convince people for the umpteenth time that Fate and Hillfolk are nothing like Sorcerer and Apocalypse Keys is deeply exhausting.

The issue at hand is mostly a lack of understanding of Narrativism and its associated techniques, rather than overall experience with non-D&D roleplaying games. For awhile I wasn't sure you understood that these are phenomenally different experiences.

 

[Bedrockgames]

@Bedrockgames

The reason I usually object to you bringing up Hillfolk all the time is because it is usually in the context of us discussing Narrativist designs and Hillfolk is a game that is even further away from games like Apocalypse World than conventional play is. It's a game that is very much a collaborative storytelling exercise with an actual writer's room dynamic.

Usually when I'm speaking about other people's lack of experience it's with Narrativism specifically. Not just other games.

I also mostly do not want people to associate what are two very different sorts of play into the same overall bucket. We already have to deal with that misinterpretation so often. Where people try to throw all less conventional play into the same "narrative game" bucket and having to convince people for the umpteenth time that Fate and Hillfolk are nothing like Sorcerer and Apocalypse Keys is deeply exhausting.

I can see your concern. It might come off like me talking about majestic wilder lands and someone making a post that PbtA is just like it or something. My point when I have raised it hasn’t been to create that kind of confusion.

One thing about Hillfolk though is it does have mechanics and resources. While dialogue is the driver there are design features to the game (like dramatic poles for example) so it isn’t purely collaborative storytelling. What it feels like is someone took theater improv concepts and gave them a mechanical framework to produce long term campaigns that can feel like Breaking Bad, Babylon 5 or I, Claudius. And the default setting of prehistoric hill people works because it creates a very open environment to create in

 

[Lanefan]

I think you’re missing what I’m saying.

When you design an area… a town that’s meant to be part of a sandbox, let’s say… you are thinking about the fictional elements of the town. Like the leadership… is it a mayor or a council, or something else? What’s the major occupation or industry of the town? Who else lives here? And so on.

You should also be thinking of the game. For there to be something for the players to engage with in some way, rather than just sightseeing. Conflicts, problems, opportunities. What shape these things may take. Decisions made that may impact that.

To think of the setting solely based on the fictional elements and not how they work as a game seems like an incomplete approach to GMing.

The town is what the town is. It's (ideally) on the players to figure out how and when to interact with it and-or any of its inhabitants, or whether they want to simply ignore the place and go somewhere else.

The setting is what the setting is at this moment in its ongoing history. It's on the players to figure out how they want to interact with it and-or what they want to do to it.