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

[AbdulAlhazred]

I reckon the two easiest ways to get Narrativism are through trad play with story fit characters (as you say) or playing something totally different to trad games, preferably without a GM, something like Showdown or Zombie cinema.


I think the worst way is through PbtA. Not saying they don't support Narrative play but it's going to be a struggle.

Here we part ways, lol. DW is super fit to purpose, though I think AW and several others are actually better. The virtue of DW is the milieu is familiar to the participants, I just need to follow the process outlined in the book and it happens. The players already understand dungeons, monsters, rangers, etc.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Did I miss a thread of discussion with all this talk of contrivance? I don’t have any context for the back and forth about it these last couple pages.

There's been a LONG history of debate as to how arbitrary and contrived (I never used this term) 'sim' play is, or isn't. If you missed something it was the last 10 years, or more, lol. I'd note that some posters here have not really taken sides, though I think in many cases positions are taken that tend to rest on one side or the other.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

To be clear, the response about players being “constrained” by things like distance or money misses the point entirely. It relies on a shift in meaning, what I referred to as constraint, was narrative constraint: the idea that the referee directs the story or limits player options through imposed plot structure. Reframing that to mean logistical or in-world limitations is an equivocation. Of course, players can't teleport across the map or bypass in-setting costs; that’s not what was being debated.

By substituting in-world realism for narrative structure, the reply effectively dodges the actual issue. It’s a soft strawman, replacing my point about player-driven choice within a reactive world with a much weaker claim I never made. It also assumes a false equivalence between all types of “constraints,” erasing the procedural difference between a Living World and other types of structure. Agreeing with a diluted version of my point about in-world barriers while sidestepping the structural claim is not clarification, it’s misdirection.

I think you're overreacting a bit, but mainly I'm struck by the notion of a 'narrative constraint'. I am not sure what those are.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Depends, again, on the specifics of the journey.

If they're making the safe 6-day walk from Torcha to Karnos in my game, a trip that various PCs and-or parties have made dozens of times before (and was played out in more detail the first few times), I'll just say something like "It takes the usual six days, each of you knock off 10 g.p. for inns and food along the way, and you arrive at Karnos." I'll do it in more detail if there's reason to, e.g. if another PC is trying to find or meet them en route or if the PCs are intentionally trying to avoid being seen, etc., or if (highly unlikely) the players come up with a reason for more detail; otherwise it's a ten-second process and on we go.

If they're making the not-always-so-safe boat trip from Karnos around to Praetos, however, even though that trip's also been done lots of times it'll still get done in a bit more detail every time. Depending on weather, that trip can take anywhere from 7 to 15+ days, and if they want to put into port anywhere along the way it'll take longer yet (plus playing through whatever they do there). Further, there's a not-zero risk of pirates and-or sea monsters for part of the trip, and unless they've got competent sailors with them there's also the not-zero risk of running aground on a rock in the dark (about half the journey is through marine terrain similar to the islands off Greece or the Gulf Islands here in BC).

 

[Maxperson]

This sort of dismissiveness is exactly the sort of thing that picks fights.

It's also a load of bupkis.

 

[Lanefan]

There is nothing here about plot points, character arcs, dramatic momentum, interpersonal drama or the like. I really do not see the point in bringing them up in association with it. The point of Narrativism isn't its narrative byproduct, but the experience of playing these characters under pressure. The crucible is the point.

Time and again you refer to things like "the crucible" and "playing these characters under pressure". Manbearcat often refers to (paraphrasing) putting the characters in a firehose.

To me that sounds like typical game play would be - and is intended to be - heavily stress-inducing for the players; hardly what's wanted by the (I suspect massive) majority of players who see the game as a chance to kick back, relax, and get away from stress in real life.

 

[robertsconley]

Right, this is quite incisive. It's the key element of the GM-centered and directed nature of living world play. The problem I have, why I go further and describe ALL plausibility as simply GM-directed, is that the assertions made as to the robustness of the much vaunted GM adjudication of what is plausible, what the narrative constraints are on the GM, is tissue paper. GMs do what they feel like doing. These appeals to 'logic' or whatever are just lampshades.

I am going through your post line by line. It overstates the case and flattens important distinctions that matter in practice.

"Right, this is quite incisive."

You’re aligning with @thefutilist here, no issue, just setting the tone that you find their critique meaningful.

"It's the key element of the GM-centered and directed nature of living world play."

This frames Living World play as fundamentally referee-directed, that is, the referee driving the game as an author, not just maintaining the world.

That misrepresents how Living World sandbox play typically works. Yes, the referee is central in presenting and updating the setting. But the direction comes from the players. The referee isn’t guiding them through an arc, they’re adjudicating how the world responds to their decisions.

"The problem I have, why I go further and describe ALL plausibility as simply GM-directed..."

This is the core of your position: that any referee claim of “plausibility” is just a post-hoc justification for doing what they want.

But this only holds true if you assume the referee is always inventing on the fly without constraint. It ignores a wide range of sandbox techniques where plausibility follows from prior choices, dice rolls, established NPC goals, or world-state procedures.

"...is that the assertions made as to the robustness of the much vaunted referee adjudication of what is plausible, what the narrative constraints are on the referee, is tissue paper."

You're saying any claims to internal logic, consistency, or self-imposed limits are flimsy.

That might be true in illusionist play or poorly run games, but it’s not accurate for Living World referees who use tools like:

• NPC timelines and goals
• Reaction rolls and morale
• Random tables for event generation
• Persistent records of world state and consequences

They function as meaningful constraints that players can interact with and trust.

"GMs do what they feel like doing."

This is the strongest and most dismissive version of your point. You’re suggesting that every referee choice ultimately reduces to fiat.

But in practice, many referees deliberately don’t do what they feel like. They roll the dice and live with the result. They stick to faction plans that no longer serve a narrative interest. They allow players to derail months of setup.

Living World play specifically values that restraint. The referee doesn’t decide what happens; the world and the players do.

"These appeals to 'logic' or whatever are just lampshades."

You’re arguing that “logic” is just a rhetorical cover, a lampshade hiding the referee’s hand.

Again, that may apply to some styles of play, especially illusionist or narrative-driven games trying to preserve the appearance of openness. But Living World play thrives on exposing the scaffolding. The referee often shows their process, where the result came from, why something happened, how the world state developed.

Calling that a “lampshade” is inaccurate

Wrapping it Up
Your post collapses everything into a binary: either the referee is perfectly objective (which no one claims), or they’re just making everything up to suit themselves.

That framing erases what many Living World referees actively do: constrain their own authorship, build procedures that generate consequences, and present a world that does not care what would make the best story.

The core of your belief is that any referee appeal to “plausibility” is inherently post-hoc and subjective. Everything else you’ve said flows from that premise. I don’t say that to dismiss your points, but to highlight that we are at an impasse unless that premise is open for reconsideration.

I can explain the methods I use to simulate a consistent world, but if your position is that all such methods are just disguised authorship, then our conversation is at an end.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, I'd say any RPG that isn't either solo or 1 GM - 1 player should have either explicit or implicit assumptions that the player characters are going to have some rationale to work together.

I know that some tables do the "you roll your character up by yourself, and you all meet for the first time in the tavern during session 1". But even those tables don't normally have "well, we have a paladin and an evil cleric, the paladin player is going to bounce, good luck!" There's an implicit understanding that the players will try and do something to resolve the tension.

In my case, that "something" is to just let 'em fight if, in-character, that's what they want to do.

If they don't resolve it, and a character leaves the party, it's an awkward semi-fail state, not a triumph of "Look at our verisimilitude!"

If it's what the character would do then to me that's a success state.

In fact, the character leaving is probably more of a success state (in that the departing character is still out there and can potentially come back into play later) than is the character dying at the hands of the other PCs before even leaving town.

This shakedown period is IME very typical at low level as the party slowly sets and solidifies its (for lack of a better term) alignment and gathers characters who more or less fit into that alignment while shedding those who don't. In the case of the evil cleric vs the good paladin, if the paladin leaves or is killed then the cleric probably has a lot to say about the party's alignment henceforth. Flip side: if the evil cleric leaves or dies then the paladin will tend to set the alignment (and even more so if it's a 1e-style pally who is fussy about what sorts of people it'll adventure with).

 

[robertsconley]

I think it says something about our perspectives that my own interest and engagement with the hobby comes in the reverse direction. Going to a different place and time (with my character mostly being a vehicle for that) especially with exploration in mind has never been the primary appeal for me. Being another person, living another life, feeling the things they feel has always been what drew me in (with setting primarily being a vehicle for achieving that ends).

I started with message board freeform roleplay when I was like 12, played AD&D for a couple years, but really fell in love with tabletop roleplaying the first time I created a Vampire character because it was the first time I felt like I was creating a person who existed in a world, had a context, had a personality (nature and demeanor), had connections (a mentor, contacts, a clan, a herd). That I wasn't just playing an extension of myself.

It may surprise you that, as a player, I also immerse myself deeply in my characters. I played and ran Boffer LARP events for 15 years and even owned a chapter for a time. While I enjoy tabletop roleplaying and immersing myself in-character, it's not as satisfying for me as roleplaying in a LARP.

My focus as a referee of a Living World sandbox comes from a different source, though my love of immersive roleplaying still shows through in how I portray my NPCs. While LARP is more compelling for me as a player, running a Living World sandbox campaign is more satisfying than organizing LARP events, with one exception: large-scale, many-on-many roleplaying with dozens of players and NPCs interacting in-character.

The nature of live action always limits the scope of a LARP. Staff need to eat, rest, and sleep. Setting up physical adventure areas and moving props and people across a campground requires coordination and time. As a result, most adventures are linear, except for those many-to-many roleplaying scenarios. And above all else, safety is paramount.

With tabletop roleplaying, I don’t have those limitations. I'm free to present a much wider range of situations, locations, and choices. So when I had to step away from LARP due to family obligations, I didn’t look back. My LARP experience was invaluable in improving my skills as a referee and greatly helped me in how managed my Living World sandbox campaign.

And yes I do the funny voices.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't play as much as I used to, but I've been gaming for a half century and was much more so when younger (and with a wider range of players), and I won't say I've never seen problem players, but--with the frequency you talk about it? I not only haven't seen it, I haven't even seen anyone before you talk about it in that kind of frequency. When it comes up its usually in the context of said player being a standout problem child, not the common case.

When we first started, there were probably more "problem players" than not; even including some of us who kept at it and still play together today.

There was certainly a winnowing-out process over those first few years, though; and if @bloodtide is in a situation where he's constantly taking in lots of new players it's reasonable to think that winnowing-out process is, in his case, endless.