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

[zakael19]

I haven't bought* the 2024 DMG yet, nor anything else 2024, so I can't speak to anything in there other than what's quoted in posts here. I do have the first 4e DMG (of two? three?) but it's a long while since I looked at it.

But now I'm curions as to what other guidelines and limits they're laying down and whether I, as something of an anything-goes player and DM, would see anything the least bit useful in them.

* - and likely never will, I have the 2014 core three which would seem to be close enough; similar to my not buying the 3.5 books as I already had 3e.

You can find the core of the guidelines available for free on DnDBeyond. That’s where I’m quoting from - I bought TOV instead of 5.24!

 

[Bedrockgames]

No, it's not misdirection. The "in world realism" can constrain "the narrative". A frozen mountain pass prevents travel to the location the PCs want to get to... okay, how do we determine when they can get there? When is the pass clear enough for travel? How long off is that? Who decides how quickly time moves? What else might happen while they wait? How long will those things take to resolve? And so on.

As the GM, you have massive amount of influence over these things. And this is before we even consider the actual procedures that are meant to handle some of these things.

And to be clear... there's nothing wrong with a GM having that control. But let's not act like it's the world that's making decisions.

But there is a difference between deciding these things based on what seems like it is plausibly the case (i.e. estimating the time it takes normal humans to hike through wilderness to figure out how long it takes the party to get there, using seasons to decide if the pass is snow-blocked or if the snow has melted, etc) and deciding it because you want something to happen, because you want to control pacing, etc. And of course something like travel time is normally handled by mosts systems anyways.

On time passage, in a sandbox in my experience this is one of the biggest differences than other games. That is something that usually is kind of negotiated. When I am running a sandbox I am very cautious about simply announcing the passage of time, because I don't want to gloss over anything the players might want to do

 

[AlViking]

But there is a difference between deciding these things based on what seems like it is plausibly the case (i.e. estimating the time it takes normal humans to hike through wilderness to figure out how long it takes the party to get there, using seasons to decide if the pass is snow-blocked or if the snow has melted, etc) and deciding it because you want something to happen, because you want to control pacing, etc. And of course something like travel time is normally handled by mosts systems anyways.

On time passage, in a sandbox in my experience this is one of the biggest differences than other games. That is something that usually is kind of negotiated. When I am running a sandbox I am very cautious about simply announcing the passage of time, because I don't want to gloss over anything the players might want to do

I do regularly have downtime in my games but when I see it coming I try to plan it for the end of a session so I can tell my players it's coming. Then they can think about whether or not they want to do anything during that downtime, everything from starting a business to researching a new spell to getting involved with an underground fight club. It's not for every player or group but it can add some depth to characters as being something other than just adventurers.

 

[TwoSix]

OK, so you've either had nothing but lovely people to play with or everyone at your table is fine with metagaming.

I mean, games where players have a higher level of authority are going to be more vulnerable to players who act in bad faith. If mitigating players with negative tendencies is a concern, than I would agree that games with higher levels of DM authority are almost certainly better suited.

1) For a game that says the GM should only call for rolls if there's a lot at stake, you seem to have people call for rolls for things that only the most nitpicky games would call for, even when such rolls disregard either the flow of action or established character traits; and

I think reasonable GMs can disagree whether or not "finding a cup" was high enough stakes to call for a roll. It's a judgment call.

Also-also, you are once again not understanding what "consent" and "choice" mean. There is a huge, huge difference between a player wanting to roll a test and Player 1 making Player 2 roll a test in the hopes that Player 2 will fail because Player 1 doesn't like Player 2's agenda.

Hmm... it's bad form to ask the GM to make a roll, because making rolls is how you advance your character. But it's totally fine for one player to insist another one make a roll. So simply get two players to force each other to make rolls and they'll all advance in rank! Bwah-hah-hah!

There's also a pretty big difference between "players holding each other to account to follow the rules" and "players screwing each other over." When I remind another player they forgot to roll a bane effect in 5e, I'm not "screwing them over", I'm holding them to the rules structure we all agreed to maintain.

This is the basic principle by which cooperative games like Pandemic or Forbidden Island work under.

You claimed that BW was better than D&D because it could do scenes that were intimate, high stakes, and have heft, and cited a time when PC 1 tried to convince PC 2 to mend his armor.

@pemerton's been posting here a really long time. He's not going to make a rookie mistake like making an obviously normative statement like "BW is better than D&D." You might be imputing that, but having a preference and saying "my game is better" are two very different things.

If this attempt was nothing more than a die roll or two, how was it intimate, high stakes, or have any heft? It's literally just a die roll! That's arguably the most boring way possible to resolve a social interaction!

I take it you prefer "thespian narration leading to group consensus over which performance was better" as the superior, more player-focused method of resolution?

 

[AlViking]

I haven't bought* the 2024 DMG yet, nor anything else 2024, so I can't speak to anything in there other than what's quoted in posts here. I do have the first 4e DMG (of two? three?) but it's a long while since I looked at it.

But now I'm curions as to what other guidelines and limits they're laying down and whether I, as something of an anything-goes player and DM, would see anything the least bit useful in them.

* - and likely never will, I have the 2014 core three which would seem to be close enough; similar to my not buying the 3.5 books as I already had 3e.

The advice isn't really directed at experienced DMs, it's for newbies. It's explicitly calling out certain behaviors and providing guidance and advice.

For example for the player the last sentence. A bit saccharine for my taste, but I think the core idea is sound. Then again if I didn't think it was good advice I'd likely just call the authors of the text idiots and continue to play a disruptive a-hole because it's fun for me.

What Would Your Character Do?

Ask yourself as you play, “What would my character do?” Playing a role involves some amount of getting into another person’s head and understanding what motivates them and how those motivations translate into action. In D&D, those actions unfold against the backdrop of a fantastic world full of situations we can only imagine. How does your character react to those situations?

This advice comes with one important caveat: avoid character choices that ruin the fun of the other players and the DM. Choose actions that delight you and your friends.

There's a whole section in the DMG on ensuring fun for all. While I think it's good advice for people new to the game for an experienced DM I don't really see anything new.

 

[robertsconley]

When I am running a sandbox I am very cautious about simply announcing the passage of time, because I don't want to gloss over anything the players might want to do

It's not uncommon in my campaign for players to want to play out nearly every minute of a day as their character. I exaggerate a little, but the result was that I had to abandon a flat XP award per session for my GURPS campaign in favor of a RuneQuest-style method of increasing skills. There's still a flat award, but it's just 1 point per session. I've had campaigns where characters went from 125 points to nearly 200 points in just a month of in-game time.

Applying some Runequest to GURPS

With my Majestic Fantasy RPG, I still use the traditional XP awards for dealing with monsters or NPC opposition (which doesn’t always have to involve killing to earn the reward). However, the bulk of the XP comes from milestone awards, given when players complete the goals they've set for themselves, either individually or as a group. Overall, this aligns well with the pace of in-game time compared to my 20 years of experience with GURPS RAW.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's not uncommon in my campaign for players to want to play out nearly every minute of a day as their character. I exaggerate a little, but the result was that I had to abandon a flat XP award per session for my GURPS campaign in favor of a RuneQuest-style method of increasing skills. There's still a flat award, but it's just 1 point per session. I've had campaigns where characters went from 125 points to nearly 200 points in just a month of in-game time.

Applying some Runequest to GURPS

With my Majestic Fantasy RPG, I still use the traditional XP awards for dealing with monsters or NPC opposition (which doesn’t always have to involve killing to earn the reward). However, the bulk of the XP comes from milestone awards, given when players complete the goals they've set for themselves, either individually or as a group. Overall, this aligns well with the pace of in-game time compared to my 20 years of experience with GURPS RAW.

Yeah I usually ask the players before advancing time. That is a pretty important consideration. A lot of sandbox play can start being real time, and players will feel it if you just tell them a day, or even an hour, went by with no discussion.

And then of course you can have systems for time management in procedures themselves. I tend to mostly only worry about these when characters are traveling or exploring at the very local level.

 

[robertsconley]

I'm not speaking to your description of living world stuff here. My entire post was directed entirely towards your description of Narrativist play. I'm saying where I think your description of Narrativist play is off. I get that accurately describing Narrativism is not your priority, but you are being very loose with it in a way that leads to conflating it with typical play of games like Fate and Hillfolk which is it very much not like, not even close to like.

Narrativism is not concerned with drama or theatrics or story beats. It is concerned with character premise, but these are not the same things.

Your conflation of all non-sandbox play is what I am taking exception to, here, and more broadly.

If your critique was aimed solely at my description of Narrativist play, then I will address that directly.

First, I reject the claim that I’m being “loose” with the term or that I’m conflating Narrativism with systems like Fate or Hillfolk. I didn’t reference either one, and I’ve been careful , especially in light of Baker’s recent post , to ground my comparison in structure, not labels or superficial aesthetics.

I described Narrativism as defined by Baker: a play dynamic centered around characters with passionate commitments entering into escalating conflict without pre-planned resolution, where the consequences reveal something meaningful. That’s not about plot points or narrative beats, and I never claimed it was. In fact, I explicitly drew the line between that dynamic and a Living World approach by showing where the conflict comes from, what sustains it, and what the system prioritizes.

If you think I’ve misdescribed Narrativism, feel free to point to where, with reference to Baker’s framing that you provided. But don’t accuse me of conflating all non-sandbox play or treating Narrativism as synonymous with story games writ large. That’s not what I said, and I’ve been careful not to paint it broadly.

I’m not interested in misrepresenting anyone’s position, but I do expect my own to be read in good faith.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I described Narrativism as defined by Baker: a play dynamic centered around characters with passionate commitments entering into escalating conflict without pre-planned resolution, where the consequences reveal something meaningful.

Assuming this is accurate, and @Campbell feel free to weigh in if it is not. I think I am drilling down more on the distinction here. For me some of this aligns with the living part of my living adventure. If I were to rephrase the parts in alignment: it is a campaign centered around characters and conflict with no planned resolution and where the consequences help determine the campaigns direction. That isn’t all the living adventure is, but that is a big part of it. Now conflict can always be averted, alliances forged. But as it is a martial setting, conflict is one of the constants. I am not worried about things like something meaningful being revealed and what field the conflict need not be passion, it could just be greed, or ambition. And the PCs aren’t preloaded for conflict or anything. But as a general rule, you do something like kill someone or thwart them, that becomes a grudge and can come up on the grudge table in the future

 

[thefutilist]

In the post, I contrast narrativism’s focus on dramatic escalation with the Living World’s emphasis on causality, world logic, and emergent consequences.

I chafe a bit at this because:


I can extrapolate based on logic, causality and consistency but BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF PERSON I AM, I'm naturally producing extrapolations that ALSO escalate (in the dramatic sense).


So it isn't either/or


You could in fact read Narrativism as saying, play with people whose living world extrapolations tends to ALSO lead to escalations across moral lines.