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

[Old Fezziwig]

But according to the book, the audience will think the winner is not only correct, but awesome as well. That the winner has "struck on the truth while [their] opponent is mired in half-formed thought and naive delusion." And there's nothing in there that I can find that says PCs react differently.

The rules are clear that the PC involved in the DoW isn't subject to mind control and free to feel and think how they want. Based on that, my reading is that non-participant PCs also remain free to feel and think how they want but recognize who's won or lost the DoW and act accordingly. I don't think the suggested conflation of non-participant PCs and the audience is intended, and, as you're pointing out, leads to strange places.

Now, maybe Luke Crane really meant it when he said that the DoW rules aren't designed for PC vs. PC, winner takes all conflicts--they're designed for PC vs. PC (or PC. vs. NPC) in front of a neutral NPC audience--but he didn't lay down a hard-and-fast rule about it for some reason and kept the text vague by writing yeah, OK, you can use them that way, but they're really not meant to be used that way, pemerton is Doing It Wrong.

Maybe Luke never imagined anyone would would use them for PC. vs. PC (or PC vs. NPC) in front of a PC audience. In this case, I have to ask if he'd ever played an RPG before. So I'm pretty sure this isn't the case.

Maybe when combined with the idea that the DoW rules do force a PC to comply in letter, if not in spirit, to the winner's decision, in which case the PC audience is required to think the winner is correct, even if they don't have to be overjoyed about it.

I'm not sure where Crane said this, but my understanding is that the conflict rules (DoW, Fight!, Range and Cover) are intended to be used for any conflict, regardless of participants. My experience has been that winner-take-all conflicts are very rare in DoW because of the compromise rules, and it usually happens because of bad luck in scripting or rolling. (I suppose it could happen because of poor scripting, too, but that's harder to quantify.)

I don't agree that the audience has to think the winner is correct, necessarily (cf., my conversation with @Lanefan regarding parliament and MPs handling the aftermath of the PCs losing a DoW), only that the winner has won the argument. A certain amount of them might think the winner is correct and in some cases that might be the point of the DoW (e.g., the Stakes are "I want to convince the people to rise up against Johann the Bad!"), but I think it's easy to imagine daylight between (a) thinking the winner is correct or right and (b) thinking the winner won, and, then, in both cases, comporting themselves accordingly.

Or maybe the PC audience is, in fact, required to think the winner PC is awesome, "the cat's meow," to quote the book, and the loser PC is a dullard.

I think your reading here isn't entirely charitable -- the reference to "the cat's meow" isn't rules text but an analogy aimed at clarifying his intentions in the section and that the DoW is not mind control. Maybe it's unsuccessful at doing so, but I think the next paragraph is more useful in sussing out how the rules are meant to be used: "though the Duel of Wits cannot make a character like or believe anything, it can force him to agree to something -- even if only for the time being" (BWGR 398). As I've pointed out above, I don't think conflating the PCs (participants or otherwise) with the DoW audience is useful or helpful for play.

In my opinion, though, forcing a player to lose agency because of a die roll is a Bad Rule. As I mentioned about a thousand posts ago, in Monster of the Week, you can use the Manipulate Someone move on a PC, but the player still has a choice as to whether or not they're manipulated, and they get XP if they choose yes.

Yes, I saw this when you posted it previously. I'm not sure how it's instructive here, save that (1) it shows how we might do things diferently than BW, which, yes, of course, more than one way to handle this, and (2) you prefer this method to BW's methods, which is noted and appreciated. It strikes me as perfectly fine for MotW, and I'm sure it leads to good play, consonant with MotW's aims. (In case it wasn't apparent, I've neither played nor read MotW.) I believe the DoW rules do for BW, though I grant that BW may not be to taste.

(People keep forgetting that's the crux of my issues with pemerton here: so many of his examples are rules that take away from player agency and ability to choose their own character's thoughts and actions.)

I don't see how we could forget. But I think that this is wrapped up in different definitions of and preferences for player agency and goals for play that are different enough that they may not be reconciled.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Referring back to Blades, which is what I'm familiar with, I chose to run the game and set it in Doskvol because I was interested in that. I don't see how that's any different than choosing to run a game set in Dark Sun and have a village of escaped slaves. Blades clearly shows me that "Play to Find Out" does not necessarily mean, "shared world creation."

Play to Find Out can, IME describe two related things. One is simply playing to find out what happens in a narrative sense. Does Skyler fall out the window and break his neck, or not? All RPGs basically do some form of this, if they didn't they'd have to be entirely free narrative such that everyone would pick the outcomes instead of finding out. The other thing it can describe is finding out about the premise of the game, which is often, though not ALWAYS, things about the characters themselves, mostly 'interior' things about what sort of people they are, though that might manifest in the exterior of the fiction as well in what they do or their backstories perhaps.

[Edit to add: The definition I quoted from Blades also explicitly states that the GM's decisions are included in the process of playing to find out, so it doesn't seem correct to call out the existence of GM decisions as being contrary to the philosophy.]

I don't think the GM is excluded from 'playing to find out', neither the GM nor the players already knows. The GM will make decisions (moves in PbtA parlance) that have unknowable ramifications. Play will surface those consequences and elucidate the participants on what is true. When the GM gives the Slicer a choice of fighting a hopeless rearguard action so that his crew can escape, or leaping to safety himself, who knows what will happen? Play to Find Out. But make no mistake, BitD and DW are both equally aimed at putting PCs into that kind of crucible.

Now, talking about how events tend to escalate and spiral out of control is absolutely touching on what makes Blades unique and interesting to me. I agree completely that "it is a very different kind of structure of play" and, if you are going to include escalation of events being nearly inevitable as part of the definition of "Playing to Find Out," then I also have to agree it goes well beyond simply referring traditional definition of emergent play.

I think it is necessary for things to escalate. BitD is ESPECIALLY focused on a kind of constant escalation IME. When we played Stonetop there was also escalation, but there were also other 'beats' to the game (we actually had some interesting discussions related to several plays through Stonetop by somewhat overlapping groups where the balance between 'village mode' and 'adventure' was very different). So, Stonetop IME definitely gets to a similar place as BitD, my BitD character and my Stonetop character both got fleshed out a LOT in several ways. Both got pushed to their ultimate limits, and neither one arrived at a point that I could have anticipated in terms of their personal growth, etc.

However, at no point when reading Blades did I see anything that suggested to me that if events in the game are not escalating out of control, then you're not meeting the definition of "Playing to Find Out." I don't see any reason not to think other elements of the game (downtime, lulls in play, a moment of friendly interplay with nothing really at stake, etc) aren't also covered by the general philosophy espoused by play to find out. If your definition does include that distinction and doesn't include such things, then so be it. I realise there may be respected game design philosophers in the PbtA community who have made that distinction and consider it fundamental to the definition, but that much narrower definition doesn't seem exist in the text of Blades in the Dark or, if it does, I completely missed it.

It is an interesting question. I think there's definite value in 'beats'. I think in our play of BitD in particular the 'action' parts of the game were the beefier part. Downtime and info gathering, projects, chatting, etc. DID factor into the game in a substantive way. I just think scores were pulling a lot of weight. In Stonetop our game seemed pretty heavily leaning into the adventure side. There was a LOT of village politics though! And often the adventure stuff spun directly out of that. We didn't do a ton of village upgrade moves and whatnot though. There was a bit of it, but it always seemed like something was pushing us to go deal with a problem in the world. The village WAS still the focus though, much like the crew is in BitD.

In terms of if you can Play to Find Out in downtime kinds of situations where dice are not generally being rolled, etc. I think, yes, but I don't think it would really be very substantive without the escalating pressure situations as well. This is why the sort of long-winded trad forever campaign kind of play doesn't click with me. Sure, the 'interludes' (as I called them in my system) ARE potentially significant, but they have to be salted into real substantive action where the pressure is on, otherwise I feel like I'm just playacting to no point.

 

[Lanefan]

A failed Steel test causes hesitation. From Revised p 121-2:

Steel is an attribute that represents the character's nerves. It is tested when the character is startled or shocked. The results of the test then tell us whether the character flinches, or whether he steels his nerves and carries on.​

​

When a Steel test is failed, the player loses control of the character momentarily - just as the character loses control of his faculties. The player chooses how the character loses it, but after that the character is out of action for a few in-game seconds as he freaks out. . . .​

​

When a player fails to get a number of successes equal to his hesitation, he's failed the Steel test. When this happens, the character stops what he is doing and loses it for a moment - for as many heartbeats as the margin of failure.​

The player has four default options for hesitation; various traits can add additional options. Once the hesitation has ended, the player regains control of their PC, and the character can act.

Let It Ride says (p 32) that "A player shall test once against an obstacle and shall not roll again until conditions legitimately and
drastically change. Neither GM nor player can call for a retest unless those conditions change. . . . Nor can a player retest a failed roll simply because he failed." So if a player fails a Steel test, their character hesitates and their is no re-roll. But once the character has recovered from their hesitation, they do not to test again.

So by that last sentence the character, after that few in-game seconds of hesitation forced by the failed Steel roll, could go ahead and commit the murder anyway (absent outside intervention)?

If yes, this tells me that the "a few seconds of in-game time" duration of a failed Steel check overrides the seeming quasi-permanence of Let It Ride, which makes it all much more reasonable IMO.

 

[Bedrockgames]

In more emergent drama play, you're always giving the NPC their due. So yeah given the fictional circumstances it may well end up being the type of stuff that happens in the genre but at the moment of decision you're treating them as a real character rather than as a genre piece. If that distinction makes sense. Is it fun because of drama stuff or is it fun because it emulates wuxia movies.

Well wuxia movies are extremely dramatic and character driven. This one is tricky because characters are definitely genre characters, but you still give them their due. I don't know how to get it not his though without knowing more about what you mean here. In wuxia there are some boundaries to the genre, but it is also a genre known for its characters. And there is a heightened reality to it. The characters live by a certain code, the way characters in a gangster movie have something like the Omertà. And there are social conventions, cultural conventions, but these are also individuals. Wuxia a very individualistic genre. One of the themes is characters are so powerful because of their kung fu, they often can do whatever they like because no one can stop (you see this even more with the villains and side characters). So I think you end up with a lot of eccentric and larger than life figures if you are making them true to the genre. But those figures feel and have desires. Grudges and violence are a common theme, but so is love, so is family, so is brotherhood, etc. So I think it is important to be guided by your characters feelings.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Are you saying it doesn't add to the conversation?

Because the thing you're trying to argue is that you couldn't ever choose differently, for any reason, because the setting (somehow) makes you not choose differently.

But you could! You could choose differently. There are a million ways to do so. Plenty of them are all three of plausible, grounded (again, I dislike "realistic" and will not willingly use it myself), and impartial. For example, I find it unlikely that you have specified the precise populations and biospheres of every single continent on this world. I find it unlikely that you have expressly and completely forbidden any form of interplanar travel. I find it unlikely that you have totally forbidden the possibility of creating creatures through magic. I find it unlikely that you have spelled out the entirety of the world's history, such that there could never be an ancient, near-forgotten threat. I find it unlikely that you have totally excluded the possibility of other worlds. Etc.

And I find it supremely unlikely that, even if I was wrong about some of the above, I'd be wrong about all of the above simultaneously.

There are pathways through any of these (and many more besides) which would be all three of plausible, grounded, and impartial, given a modicum of effort on your part as DM. Hence, it cannot be plausibility, groundedness, or impartiality which (somehow) forces you to nix one idea over another. Instead, the causative factor seems to be quite clearly, "I don't want a world with orcs in it, so there aren't any orcs, and I will push players away from orc-related options as a result."

This, again, is what I mean when I talk about how the DM can do almost anything, and the alleged "restrictions" of plausibility, groundedness, and impartiality don't actually limit much of anything. Sure, they cut off the patently ridiculous or obviously biased, but beyond that, the world is your oyster. You can add to or remove nearly anything you like from it, provided you put in sufficient work--and the presence or absence of orcs just beyond the horizon is absolutely a thing that is under your control and which these alleged restrictions do not prevent.

Hmmmm, interesting. So all this kind of got me thinking. There IS a way to get around the points you just made. That is by simply making the world mundane. That is, the argument becomes "well, other worlds are just a fantastical imagining, they don't REALLY exist in this setting, it's basically just mundane with a little magic sprinkled in." Another spin on that is the old "ancient magics" dodge that fantasy authors (especially Urban Fantasy ones) use where the really cool stuff is all lost and forgotten, so it would be 'implausible' for you to actually, say, master an ancient planar gate ritual. This sort of approach also helps to reign in the hazards of high-level play where the PCs will eventually be FAR from plausible in any fashion! No, all the artifacts and relics of power, and the top tier magic items, are all just ancient legends. Sure you can try to find one, it will be an 8 level long quest! Oh, and you can't even get started on that until you are 5th level, which takes about 9 months of play... snore.

 

[Faolyn]

And do you expect most events would yield only one possible result such that anything else would be illogical?

Or do you think that most events would be likely to yield several potential outcomes?

It's quite possible that an event would have several potential outcomes. However:

(1) It's ridiculous to expect that any one person would be able to determine every single outcome the event could cause. Especially when you bring fantasy elements into it. It's possible that the deaths of all the members of the Imperial family triggered a prophecy that ripped open a portal into the Abyss.

(2) Not every possible outcome the GM can imagine is equally likely. In my Impiricide example, it's possible that the formerly warring kingdoms may choose to stay united as a republic or confederacy or something similar. It's possible that there would be no or minimal uprisings from oppressed groups because of local armies. Are these outcomes as likely as the former empire becoming Balkanized? I'd say no; someone who is more versed in this sort of history may say differently--but they're not running this game.

(3) Because this is a game, the logical outcome of an event also includes the proviso "must make the game interesting and fit in with the game's tone." Saying that the formerly warring kingdoms choose to stay united may not be all that interesting to the group or fit in with the tone, if the game is supposed to be grim or gritty. On the other hand, if the game is supposed to be about beating back the darkness and bringing hope to the world, then saying that the warring kingdoms do choose to be united would be more interesting and logical for the setting.

There may be lots of potential outcomes that could come as the result of an Impiricide. But keeping the above three points in mind, I'd wager it's more likely that there really will be only a single outcome that could logically happen. That's not to say that if two different tables had the exact same thing happen, their outcomes would necessarily be the same.

 

[robertsconley]

Overall I think we are moving forward in our dicussion however there something that need to be cleared up first.

I wrote this. I omitted my pointed comment.

Every system has creative goals and priorities. I place plausibility first. Other systems place their priorities first before plausibility.

You said this in response.

But I have to be honest, I would be very surprised if players of the other RPGs did not ensure that plausibility and coherency did not exist in their games.

Then, later in the post, you said this

What doesn't pass the sniff test for me is thinking that others run nonsensical settings and storylines. I have read posts from @pemerton and @Manbearcat and there is nothing I can point to that lacked the plausibility and internal consistency.

See the problem?

See my next post for my comments on the rest of what you said in your post.

 

[robertsconley]

Is that something you believe @pemerton does? Change the world to accommodate player chatter?

I do not see how a table could function if there was no backward consistency.
Again, is that something you believe @pemerton's table does, ignore backward consistency?

What I'm trying to show you is that these principles are not unique.

We likely are juggling with more content and thus we decide/adjudicate on more of them without the use of dice.
But backward consistency, internal consistency, plausibility, coherency, realism, consequentialism - call what you wish is/are not unique to Living World, World in Motion, Sandbox Play etc.

The differences are is how they materialise, how they are adjudicated. The procedures we use.

There is other stuff that is different to, between the games but I'm not speaking to that right now.
My original post to you was merely about the similarities which exist.

My issue with Pemerton isn’t what he does or doesn’t do in his campaigns. I’ve said multiple times now: what he does makes sense in light of his creative goals and overall philosophy.

My issue is his refusal to acknowledge that what I do in my Living World sandbox, and what others do in similar sandbox campaigns, also follows our creative goals in a manner that makes sense. This is not about whether his worlds are inconsistent or implausible. It’s about the lack of mutual recognition of distinct frameworks grounded in different assumptions.

In this discussion, you’ve been far more cordial and polite, but your repeated emphasis on “similarities” ends up in the same place: it glosses over the structural distinctions I’ve been trying to clarify. I tried to illustrate this by asking you to imagine someone conflating PbtA’s use of Moves with Burning Wheel’s Intent and Task. But clearly that didn’t get the point across.

So let me put it plainly: the fact that all these approaches use similar tools, dice, procedures, pen and paper, is irrelevant. What matters is how those elements are used. It’s the procedures, priorities, and interpretive frameworks that give rise to distinct playstyles. Sandbox campaigns, including Living World ones, aren’t defined by aesthetics or surface techniques, but by the internal logic that governs how play develops.

The same is true for Burning Wheel, PbtA, Blades in the Dark, and others. Each system is structured around its own logic of play, shaped by the designer’s or referee’s creative goals. While they may share techniques on the surface, they apply them in fundamentally different ways.

At this point, I think it’s best to agree to disagree.

 

[robertsconley]

I find clocks useful on the meta-level, and if one wants to provide a player-facing mechanic and leave things to chance, which you alluded to in the post I replied to, not about clocks specifically, but about other issues. i.e., roll when possible before using discretion.

What I do instead of what clocks do for the players is provide summaries, or if I am lucky, a player does the summaries. I generally like it better when a player keeps track because it is more immersive.


The ones I provide generally look like this.

The playtesting of 5e is over, Phandalin explodes

Over the summery and into the fall I ran the Lost Mine of Phandelver for the group to get our feet wet with DnD 5e. The only major change I ...

batintheattic.blogspot.com

For a series of similar summaries, look at this.

Bat in the Attic

A blog on 40 years of gaming and Sandbox Fantasy.

batintheattic.blogspot.com

For what it looks like when a player does it, see this. (go to the end for the oldest)

Majestic Wilderlands Archives - Gaming Ballistic

The Majestic Wilderlands campaign, executed in Fifth Edition

gamingballistic.com

As a side note: You may find this particularly interesting about when the party enters a town for the first time.

Majestic Wilderlands - Look Squirrel/We Shot the Sheriff - Gaming Ballistic

We start off east of the bridge entering the city, and observe from a half-mile away that there’s a knight and three yeoman interrogating those who wish to cross. Based on our familiarity with this area, we know there’s a manor nearby – actually, lots of them. This is thanks to a poor set of...

gamingballistic.com

And of course, it is the start of the now infamous (among my friends)incident "Look Squirrel I shot the Sheriff"

 

[robertsconley]

I have appreciated your roleplaying style, the level of detail you have placed in your setting as well as the maps you keep providing. It is impressive.
I run my sandbox differently to yours in that I have a number official adventure paths and modules that run concurrently, and while I'm juggling that I lean into providing character goals/desires and I inject often enough player facing mechanics where I feel it would provide the intuitive knowledge the PCs would have when making decisions. When it comes to the setting, ACT 2 of our campaign is in Forgotten Realms, my information is sourced from published content, setting and homebrew - but not nearly on the level of scrutiny you provide, ours PCs are also 15th level so the setting changes rapidly as you may imagine.

Thanks for sharing that. I’m currently running two 5e campaigns in the Majestic Fantasy Realms, one weekly, one monthly. My Living World sandbox framework works great for weekly or bi-weekly play, but I’ve found it doesn’t translate well to monthly campaigns.

The issue is player recall. Too much time passes between sessions, and people forget what was happening, just like someone coming home every few weeks and needing a full update. For a game done in limited time for fun, that kind of complexity becomes a burden.

So I adjusted. The monthly game runs more like a structured series of action-oriented adventures, closer to an adventure path, though still with sandbox elements. The hooks are compelling enough that players willingly follow them. It’s a different rhythm.

The first two sessions I ran it as a Living World sandbox, but both the players and I saw the friction. After session two, we talked, and I shifted my approach. I now treat the monthly campaign much like a boffer LARP event, logistically planned, high-engagement sessions that require different techniques. I won’t get into the details here, but the format has been working well, and it allows me to meet the table’s needs without abandoning my values as a referee.

It’s not unlike an adventure path, but with my own design layered in. A lot of it is about staging dramatic set pieces, like running a big location from Goodman Games’ Dark Tower.

I understand that, I think one of the differences is that you predominantly maintain that sense of order at the table and in the fiction. From what I understand Pemerton shares some of those responsibilities with players at his table. And yes that is one of the differences, but that is not to say his table would be absent of fairness, internal logic etc, while I think consequences are a result of GM moves (failures on dice).

I wouldn’t describe it as “a sense of order at the table.” If you want an outside perspective, ask @BedrockBrendan, I ran half a dozen sessions for our podcast, and he participated directly. He also still has links to our post-game discussions.

There’s a video here:

That session was run theater-of-the-mind because we didn’t use a VTT, so there’s a lot of visual play and mapping that isn’t present. For something closer to that style, you can check out this Shadowdark playtest session:


This one was more focused and less sandbox than usual, because it was a controlled playtest situation. It’s not quite like something broad and open-ended like Deceits of the Russet Lord, but it gives a sense of how I handle information, tone, and flow. See my next post for a breakdown of the early part of the session.

It is well to mention that his players are also accustomed to maintaining that sense of fairness and internal logic of the setting or I doubt that table would survive.

Sure. But keep in mind, the debate I had with @pemerton was never about how he conducts his campaign.

I did not refer to procedures, I just do not buy PbtA other RPG games run with storylines where inconsistency is permitted. I do not know how anyone can imagine such games exist.
If I'm wrong on that assumption prove to me, wheresover in this mammoth of a thread from all the examples he has provided where you have witnessed inconsistency or some breakdown of world logic. It should be easy if that were the case.

You're still missing my point. This isn’t about whether Pemerton’s campaigns are inconsistent. I’ve said multiple times that his methods make sense within his own framework. In addition his use of plausibility and consistency seems to make sense. However, it is also clear that he prioritizes things differently than I do in his campaigns.

The issue is his refusal to acknowledge that what I do in my Living World sandbox, and what others do in similar campaigns, is also coherent and valid within a different framework, with different goals and assumptions. That refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of structurally distinct approaches is the actual problem.

I'm not diminishing how we play.

Except you are, by repeatedly focusing on surface similarities and refusing to engage with the differences others have pointed out. For example, one of my creative goals is to bring the world to life in a way that makes the players feel like they’ve visited it as their characters. That’s fundamentally different from what Luke Crane describes in Burning Wheel, where the focus is on beliefs, drama, and moral conflict. Both are legitimate. But they’re different in kind, not just in method.

I value GM decides/adjudicates and hidden backstory.
There is enjoyment for me in setting prep.
Adjusting the D&D rules for a sense of realism happens at my table.
Our table also has fun incorporating some indie player facing mechanics or leaving decisions for the table to decide as opposed to the GM. And it is interesting to watch the players start to do the work for you to maintain setting coherency. I can give you examples if you wish, but this post is already long, so I could do it in a future post.

Thanks for sharing that, it gives me a better picture of your table’s dynamics. From what you've described, your methods seem to align well with your goals. But I don’t see how this supports your earlier points. Listing shared techniques doesn’t address the structural distinctions we’ve been discussing. That’s the core of the disagreement.