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

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not talking about a culture and what they might write about online. I'm talking about the rulebooks that form the basis for their play. That's matters (to me, at least) a heck of a lot more.

Perhaps ironically, then, I find the culture-of-play matters more in this context--because, especially in a crowd that generally holds that system either doesn't matter at all, or matters only very minimally, the non-system components of the play experience take on a great deal more influence.

A culture of play that (frequently) declares that system either doesn't matter at all, or is only minimally relevant, is one where the mores and discussion clearly are supposed to carry more weight.

 

[robertsconley]

When I read this, I see a description of GM-driven play:

* The GM decides to introduce this thing because they think it is interesting/amusing/challenging/whatever.​

​

* The players (as their PCs) learn about this thing by investigating - which means, in terms of actual processes of play, spending time at the table declaring actions that are intended to elicit, from the GM, more information about this thing that the GM has introduced into play and that has become a focus of play.​

The play may be satisfying or unsatisfying for those who participate - I say nothing about that. Nor do I say anything about 'whim" or "arbitrariness". I'm simply saying that it looks GM-driven to me.

You’re seriously downplaying the player’s role in all this and focusing too much on the referee’s. In my Living World sandbox, the referee doesn’t steer play by deciding what’s important in the moment, the players do that through their choices and initiative.

The magic hat, or any other object or situation, only becomes relevant because the players engage with it. That’s not GM-driven focus, it’s player-driven exploration within a World In Motion. The referee doesn’t point the spotlight; the players do.

At this point, we’re rehashing ground that’s already been covered. I understand why you choose not to accept my position, we’re working from different assumptions, which naturally lead to the conclusion you’ve drawn.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't want my game to explicitly put any attention to making a good story. That's all there is to it.

I just find that games which shove important components under the rug and pretend they don't exist, frequently run into problems by failing to actually do the stuff that component covers. Worse, because the component is assiduously kept out of sight, it becomes extremely difficult to identify where the problem is, because not only is it kept out of sight, nobody ever wants to bring it into sight for any reason, making fixes way more difficult than they should be.

So you're saying my assertion of your conclusions and attitude is without merit and will not engage with it? That's fine, but you can't really expect folks to engage in your points about their posts in that case.

I'm saying that the extremist point you ascribed to me isn't worth engaging with, no.

A less-extreme standpoint would be quite well worth engaging with, but I'm not sure what specific less-extreme viewpoint that would be, and I'm not interested in attempting to read your mind, if only because I seem to be incapable of rolling anything but a nat 1 for Mind Reading checks.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I was thinking just the general travel encounter table, or the teahouse encounter table. Granted, the entanglements table is pretty much all negative things designed to complicated the crew's life, while your encounter tables are mixed, but it's the same principle.

Cool. Yeah I like to include those kinds of things. The RBRB encounter table was pretty stripped down but I found helpful for shaking things up a bit (just to make things more clear to people these are the tables). And these can connect to the Jianghu table which lists specific individuals

Putting things like that on tables is something I find helpful. The Inn tables were a bit of an outgrowth of the tables I had in Ogre Gate Inn adventure in the middle of the Ogre Gate Inn book and the The Inn Encounters on the Blog. For Ogre Gate Inn I wanted to capture the feel of the Dragon Inn movies:

 

[robertsconley]

I think basically this view is, in part, outdated. Techniques and approaches to running RPGs, and thus the associated game designs, have evolved a huge amount in the last 20 years. In 1995, maybe even in 2005, I'd have agreed with you on a lot of this.

Good communication is never outdated. It’s the foundation upon which everything else is built when it comes to small group interactions.

But the reality is a game like Dungeon World is simply not described by your view at all. The actual approach is super general and rarely gets in the way. It's not a set of rigid rules in the sense you all seem to mean. It's more of a supporting framework for how the participants interact and the game flows.

If communication is presented in the form of game rules, then it will be treated like game rules, regardless of intent, whether that’s 100 years ago, 10 years ago, or today. That’s not a matter of the age of the design but of how players interpret the structure of rules.

The actual mechanics are also extraordinarily general, and yet always applicable, unlike systems that try to handle endless specific situations, which I agree with you don't really work well.

That may be a strength of Dungeon World as a game system, but it’s not really relevant to my point. If the guidance on managing a campaign is given as advice or principles, that avoids the issue I raised. But if it’s embedded as rules text, then it risks being interpreted as binding mechanics, regardless of how general or flexible they are.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Okay @Maxperson it is in fact becoming clear that the most...pointedly "fun is not a top priority" posts were from someone I am ignoring, so I will not be quoting them nor referencing that any further than this paragraph. I can only ask that you take my word that, from my perspective, there were posts that came across as "fun is distinctly not a high priority, other things are far, far more important".

Here are various posts, most of which I have quoted in their entirety to avoid accusations of bias, where I found someone directly or indirectly (i.e. "I don't think this, but many do" type stuff) where fun is put clearly lower on the totem pole than any other priority--it may still be a priority, but a distinctly lesser one. I believe one of the quotes is from someone skeptical about this idea, presenting their confusion or incredulity at the notion that someone would intentionally choose an option they know is significantly less fun simply because it is slightly more plausible.

Spoiler: Very quotes, much length

No I don't think they are. This is one of the things I was referring to earlier about sandbox circles in the discussions me and Rob were having online. It was actually one of the big debates. I tend to lean on fun myself, but there is a popular approach to sandbox that is so naturalistic, that overlap isn't there (don't get me wrong, they would label what they are doing as fun and they enjoy it, but they are choosing naturalistic over fun in terms of plausibility). This is the specific reason I call mine drama+sandbox

The thing is it isn’t this binary. So long as the GM is picking the most plausible outcome, even if they have narrowed it down to one or two and then gone with the one that is both fun and plausible, it isn’t a problem. You are trying to avoid doing things simply because they are fun, dramatic or cool for that moment.

But to my earlier point I think you are underestimating the popularity of wanting things to follow a kind of naturalism in this style. Now to be clear I don’t even cleave to this because I personally don’t find it fun, but I would say there is a sizeable portion of sandbox fans, perhaps even a majority who would be naturally suspicious of the fun option, and lean on the most plausible and naturalistic one. A lot of what drives this play is a sincere effort to avoid railroads, adventure paths and 90s style ‘storyteller’ play. So many people who talk about sandbox and in particular living world have staked out positions favoring very naturalistic campaigns because they are wary of things introduced by the Gm that have any sense of artifice to them (this is why I said for some even a mystery might be a bit out of place or rare, because the moment something like that begins you kind of know you are in an adventure)

I am sure Rob’s overall goal is that people have fun. But I think he doesn’t think the game is enhanced by having fun steer the GMs decisions. The point here is GM as neutral arbiter. I have no problem with fun outcomes in my games. But what Rob talking about is something I get. I see it as part of a more naturalistic approach to play that places strong emphasis on GM neutrality and impartiality. If you are considering what is fun, that is a bias that can lead you away from what is more plausible. But people who go for this will tell you they are still having fun, because that is the kind of play they want. It is a style of play that feels more documentarian

On GM goals/priorities
This is the other thread of discussion causing confusion/frustration and I think part of that is the use of the terms "goals" and "priorities" having a certain connotation of proactive pursuit. For the trad/sim side, I think this is better thought of as a more passive "considerations".
I expect all GMs are weighing up multiple things when considering how to adjudicate, but the difference is in how much weight is given to each one.
For example, if we have:

• Player agency - the player's ability to think and act as they so choose
• "Realism" or verisimilitude - the ways in which the setting adheres to real world logic and laws of physics, cause and effect (as best the GM understands them)
• Setting conceits - the ways in which the setting differs from the real world (magic/supernatural, superpowers, advanced tech, etc.)
• Genre conventions - tropes, themes, character archetypes, etc. related to a given genre
• Fun/interestingness - rule of cool

(This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, merely some of the most common.)

A GM running a railroad is still going to consider player agency (within the confines of the plot/adventure), but a GM running a sandbox is going to give vastly more weight to it. Similarly, a narrativist GM is still going to consider verisimilitude, but a simulationist GM will give it more weight (this will also typically see the simulationist GM defer to someone more knowledgeable on a given subject, or even look something up, when GMed without ego). Each consideration will have more or less weight, with lesser considerations being factored in if there are multiple options to chose from and the higher consideration is equal between them.

From what I understand of @Bedrockgames wuxia sandboxes (correct me if I'm wrong), it seems player agency would be the foremost consideration (albeit through the lens of simulationism, so "character agency"), then - assuming all else is equal - either verisimilitude or setting conceits, followed by the other, then - assuming all else is equal - wuxia genre conventions, then - assuming all else is equal - fun/interestingness. (And possibly other considerations not mentioned.)
This differs from @robertsconley , who seems to weight verisimilitude on par with player (character) agency, and gives no concern to genre conventions whatsoever.

But this is largely academic, and likely completely imperceptible in actual play. Between how imagination is sparked by inputs, the speed of thought, the need to maintain pacing, etc., it's not going to be anywhere near so procedural or formulaic. And it's likely going to have inconsistency between any given points of adjudication just because it's a human brain doing it.

My approach is something of a hybrid. It definitely puts a great deal of emphasis on sects and characters (think any classic Shaw brothers martial arts movie with feuding groups of martial artists), and so in that sense it is closer to a Vampire the Masquerade sandbox than an OD&D sandbox. But dungeons and travel can be important. I do not do hex crawls (at least as I understand that term) but I do use hexes and don’t gloss over travel. So if the characters have to travel 90 miles to Dee, that is about three hexes on the map. Assuming good terrain, that is a survival roll for each hex/day, which could lead to a random encounter or grudge encounter. Dungeons are also important. One of the things I wanted to do with the setting was shoe dungeons are a big part of the genre (because I felt peopke downplayed this aspect of it). So the end result for me is a campaign that can beer in both the direction of a VtM campaign and a D&D campaign, which has been pretty helpful for longevity IMO


I think that is the the ballpark. I might not use language like simulation but agency is at the top. I wouldn’t say verisimilitude for me as my campaigns are not naturalistic but certainly consistency of world, believability and setting conceits. wuxia is kind of present throughout. I think I’ve internalized it so much when I run things, it isn’t even a consideration: it is part of how I handle plausibility (i.e. NPCs behave like Wuxia characters). But like you say at the end this is all largely academic. I am not being systematic when I run a game. I am going largely by feel and what seems like it would happen (i.e. how does Iron God Meng feel about the party’s betrayal, what would he do. I think a lot of it really revolves around a kind of instant characterization and immersion by GM into NPCs. It isn’t about long sequences of RP but just knowing what that character is thinking and feeling and seeing the game from their POV (you just feel it, like the blues)

Edit: typed on phone, pardon any errors

There are a lot of ways to approach how people (and factions) will react. The top 3? I'd probably say the broad categories with a whole lot of variation and mix-and match would look something like

1) What the GM thinks will guide the campaign in the direction they want​

2) What the GM thinks is most fun or useful for the players​

3) What the GM thinks is most likely​

I don't personally fall back on #1 very often because I never really outline what I think should happen or what I want to happen. The characters drive the direction of the campaign and I simply attempt try to put interesting toys in the sandbox that they will enjoy playing with. Occasionally I adjust or make new toys based on what they seem most interested in.

I lean towards #3 most of the time. When I come up with an NPC or faction if I think they'll be important I do a very simple description, which in D&D may include alignment if it helps me think of their moral outlook. At a minimum I'll have a very simple 1 or 2 line description that I expand on when and if the NPC comes into focus. If they're likely to be central to current and imminent events then I'll dig more into their individual goals and desires. Frequently though I'm more concerned about what faction they're associated to and their relationship to their faction.

When creating NPCs I like to consider complications and complexity. Someone may be loving and a decent person but if their family is endangered they will do whatever they can to protect them even if it means doing things they normally would not. In addition a lot of NPCs will have agendas in opposition to the agendas of the characters even if it's only on very specific issues. It's just not always clear where the NPC stands.

My decisions are not based on what will be useful for the players but what is most logical for the NPC. Sometimes the NPC will be an open book, sometimes they're complicated, sometimes they have hidden agendas. Most of the time why an NPC did something will be clear eventually, but it's not always clear to begin with.

Certainly, from my read of this, the goals/priorities (or, as JConstantine put it, "passive 'considerations'") here put several things ahead of whether or not the players are having fun, and thus implicitly indicate that there are going to be a lot of situations where, even if a GMing direction would be a substantial gain in the fun department, it won't be taken simply because it is a very small loss in the plausibility department. Or, to phrase that differently, slightly uninteresting but extremely plausible situations will, almost universally, win out over extremely interesting but slightly implausible situations. That's...a tough position for me to swallow with any DMing style, because it...implies that the players having fun isn't a particularly significant goal.

 

[JConstantine]

I'm not sure I would consider BitD to be a process of GM presenting hooks. IME the players are the ones saying things like "the Lampblacks must have a stash somewhere, lets go take it out!" or something like that.

That is the ideal, but it's not actually even the default by the book. And that player-decided goal is the entire point of each of our sandboxes. The goals will differ, of course. So for my V:TM sandbox, a player might decide that they want to seize control of the local organised crime group, in which case I'm asking how they want to go about doing that. I might be providing obstacles, but the GM does that in Blades too. For @Bedrockgames wuxia game, a player might decide that they want to seek out Iron Arm Mi in order to challenge them to a duel and prove they're the better martial artist.

---

I'm going to quote the book, though I'm not going to paste it wholecloth since it's copyright. For anyone who doesn't own a copy, any bold and italics are the book itself, any emphasis of mine will be in different coloured text.

Certainly the GM is not uninvolved, but it is a different thing than classic play I'm familiar with where the GM hands out rumors or has quest givers hand them stuff to do. Doskvol is also kind of this target-rich environment, so there isn't much of a NEED for hooks.

From the GM Actions section of the Running the Game chapter:

GM, it’s your job to provide opportunities but also to follow the player’s lead.
As the GM, you’ll step in and describe an opportunity when the PCs look for one, rolling or picking from the opportunity tables as you please, adding your unique ideas about the city and its factions

Sounds GM-driven so far.

Look around at the factions and NPCs that interest you. Who’s vulnerable? Who needs something done? What part of the setting are you curious to see in play?

Hmm, sounds kinda like a quest giver.

If the players don’t have their own idea for a job, this is the perfect chance to look for a new opportunity. Ask them if they’d like to perform a group action to discover something, and how their crew goes about that kind of thing.

Not seeing much different to seeking out rumours.

When you present an opportunity, it should include the components necessary for the players to understand how they might mount a score.

Gosh, there's that GM-focussed verbiage again.

Depending on the outcome of the investigation (or the strength of their informant’s or contact’s connection to the opportunity), you can provide even more details and hooks for the action to come.

So, just like what Bedrock said about players actively seeking out further, not immediately obvious, information. And what were you saying about hooks?

Better information from contacts or investigation (or other means) may include

• Interesting secrets,

Thought I'd throw this in there as a counterpoint to @hawkeyefan being liberal with information.

Basically, you’re offering the players an opportunity for action.
You’re providing enough to keep the game from stalling

Again with the GM-focus.

The other avenue for getting the game going is to follow the player’s lead. This is just like providing an opportunity, but in this case you listen to the opportunity presented by the players rather than describing it yourself.

This is tacked on at the end. Harper spends 844 words across 8 paragraphs talking about GM-provided opportunities, yet only a single paragraph consisting of 83 words for player-driven ones.

Entanglements are more like hooks, if anything. They don't really serve the purpose of random encounters. They happen at the end of a score, as the next free play starts. Usually the entanglements started some new clock, or caused some resource depletion, or a change in situation (someone is incarcerated for example). This often motivates the next score.

From the Entanglements section:

after each score, you roll dice to find out which entanglement comes calling. An entanglement might be a rival crew looking to throw their weight around (and demand some coin), an Investigator of the City Watch making a case against your crew (but ready for a bribe), or even the attention of a vengeful ghost.

Sounds an awful lot like random encounters to me. But let's have a look at the actual entanglements.

arrest​

An Inspector presents a case file of evidence to a magistrate, to begin prosecution of your crew. The Bluecoats send a detail to arrest you (a gang at least equal in scale to your wanted level). Pay them off with coin equal to your wanted level +3, hand someone over for arrest (this clears your heat), or try to evade capture.

Literally, the first one. I don't see how that can be considered anything other than an encounter.

cooperation​

A +3 status faction asks you for a favor. Agree to do it, or forfeit 1 rep per Tier of the friendly faction, or lose 1 status with them. If you don’t have a +3 faction status, you avoid entanglements right now.

Second one. I can see that being a hook. Also GM-driven.
I'm not going to paste each one, so I'll sum up the rest:

• demonic notice - hook
• flipped - consequence
• gang trouble - encounter
• interrogation - encounter
• questioning - consequence
• reprisals - encounter
• rivals - encounter
• show of force - hook
• unquiet dead - encounter/hook
• usual suspects - consequence

So, a fair mix, but a plurality of encounters.

 

[JConstantine]

At this point, we’re rehashing ground that’s already been covered.

This thread has gone in more circles than a spirograph.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Just something I want to comment on trying to catchup on this thread...

We have posters discussing how they do not like the restrictions placed on the GM particularly those found in Narrative games.
In the same vein they argue that restrictions on players choices are important/necessary to highlight key peculiarities of the setting.

I find that amusing.

Aye. So do I.

It's very much a "rules for thee, not for me" kind of situation, or at least that's what it looks like from the outside.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Three DMGs and two PHs* adds up to a fair chunk o' paper; and it was all explicitly called out as being core.

* - or was it two-and-three? I only got the first PH-DMG-MM set and lost track after that.

Two DMGs. The second is optional and focused on higher-level play (e.g. Paragon tier, levels 11-20). Three PHBs.

Note what "core" means in 4e: because in 4e, everything 1st party is core. Literally every WotC-published thing is.

That doesn't mean you have to USE it, though I would certainly recommend using the original books, with some of the more-important errata (like to Stealth stuff and skill challenge math...and it's worth noting that people ripped into 4e for needing errata to the Stealth rules.....only for 5e to then need errata to its Stealth rules, and getting even more such errata in 5.5e!)

"Everything is core", in 4e, means that everything is held to the same balance standards. Everything. Supplements? Expected to remain within the approximate balance range of the first three books. Magazines? Same deal. Miniatures tie-in products? Same deal. "Everything is core" means the creators legitimately committed to making it so EVERYTHING published for 4e could be trusted to stay pretty much fine, so you didn't need to review everything with a fine-toothed comb for possible crappy exploits. This doesn't mean NOTHING unbalanced snuck through! A few things did. (As an example, the "Windrise Ports" background was initially OP, within the bounds of 4e balance, but it was later redesigned to be, if anything, on the weak-ish side. Compared to 3e, of course, nothing 4e ever produced was even remotely overpowered, but that's a separate concern.)

If you didn't have anyone playing a Monk or other Psionic class, you really didn't need PHB3. If you didn't have anyone playing a Barbarian or Druid or Sorcerer etc., you didn't need PHB2. Sure, there might be something useful in those books, but useful =/= necessary.

Sorry, "Golden Wyvern Adept" doesn't ring any bells.

(edit - typo)

When 4e was still getting the finishing touches before going to the printers, WotC did an early reveal where they showed off some actual mechanics, not just high-level ideas or setting materials (which they also did with other stuff). One of the things they previewed was a feat called "Golden Wyvern Adept", which included both some mechanical effects I can't recall, and a little bit of relatively mild story/RP context (you have been initiated into a group called the Golden Wyverns, who were a group of spellcasters, possibly Wizards specifically[?], that had certain goals and expectations).

The community response at the time was VEHEMENT OUTRAGE. Fans absolutely skewered the 4e devs for having the unmitigated GALL to presume the story for anyone's character, for forcing in-character actions or affiliations in order to do a particular thing. This taught the devs an early lesson: Don't force anything in RP. Let RP exist completely on its own, so mechanics can be used for whatever flavor and story the player wishes.

And guess what 4e was then pilloried over? (Something I, personally, mocked 4e for because an ex-friend poisoned the well!) Flavorless mechanics that didn't include any story or roleplay elements!!!

Yes. It was very literally the playerbase being completely unpleasable. The very same people who brought out the proverbial torches and pitchforks because of the Golden Wyvern Adept feat "enforced" setting elements or whatever...who then slammed the 4e we eventually got for NOT containing those very elements.

It's one of the most obviously infuriating examples of how 4e literally could not win, an encapsulation of how 4e was subjected to "heads I win, tails you lose" expectations.