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

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, that is how they are constrained. They are constrained to act as their character could.

Why? What purpose do those constraints serve?

To allow them to play the game by inhabiting the role of their chosen characters, and not having concern for actions outside of that role, because that's what they want. It's what I want when I play. Are you assuming that players naturally want more narrative control than running their PCs alone would give them, and thus I am "keeping then down"? Or are you projecting your desires onto strangers?

 

[Micah Sweet]

But only in how they interact with the setting. Which is GM crafted.

It may not be in any way unique to that player or their character.

Why need it be? What purpose does that serve?

 

[JConstantine]

I mentioned earlier in the thread that GMs, when creating settings and scenarios, should do so with both the fiction and the gameplay in mind.

I suspected this was what you meant, but wanted to be sure since we clearly diverge in certain views. I don't have a neat binary view/approach on this; it varies by game and campaign.

I don't know how familiar you are with V:TM V5, but in case you're not (and for anyone else reading who isn't), Chronicle Tenets are decided by the group before play begins. They establish what is effectively the coterie's shared moral/ethical outlook and as such signal to the GM what the nature of any moral dilemmas the coterie face should be. They are specifically meant to be tested (a not uncommon misunderstanding is treating them as lines and veils). Any character breaking a chronicle tenet gains a "Stain", which can result in loss of humanity (a roll is made at the end of a session to check).
Characters also have their own personal morals/ethics noted by Convictions, which are meant to bind them to their own humanity. These can deviate from or even contradict the Chronicle Tenets, and be used to mitigate Stains from breaking a Tenet if it's done in service to a Conviction. Breaking a Conviction may also incur Stains.
So, if I'm running V5, part of my job as GM is bring scenes to bare that specifically test those Tenets and Convictions - a rule of thumb I use for this is that any moral dilemma should have an easy out by breaking the Tenet/Conviction and sticking to it should pose a problem for the Kindred's unlife. But since I'm specifically curating such scenes as a GM, I consider that less sandbox-y. I also wouldn't being doing this in, say, D&D

Speaking of D&D, I already mentioned I wouldn't run it as a sandbox, preferring a non-linear railroad approach. But something I prefer for D&D is personal questlines similar to what Mercer does in Critical Role, or companion missions in a BioWare game. But what I do for these is take into account the player's abilities or lack thereof. So, I might have enemies or situations that are specifically designed to showcase the focussed PC's strengths, so they can be the big damn hero, but I'll also have others that highlight their weaknesses/deficiencies to show why they need their allies (the other PCs) - and that's done for all PCs so I'm not playing favourites. Ideally, these will also highlight their BIFTs, but not in a way similar to V5. That said, I generally give no consideration to the PCs for the main plotline unless the BBEG learns of them and is cunning enough to factor them into their plans.

Meanwhile, I've recently been pondering a Conan pastiche, possibly using Barbarians of Lemuria or maybe the new Conan game from Monolith, and for that I imagine I wouldn't be factoring in the PCs at all.

If you also extend this to include rules incentives, then I'm at odds with @robertsconley. XP (or equivalent) being granted for the things you want to see in play is game design 101, as far as I'm concerned. I actually wrote a bunch of XP triggers for my V5 games (the official ones are possibly the worst I've seen).

Does that answer your question?

 

[robertsconley]

See, I don’t think it needs to go that far. I’m not saying that you or @robertsconley or anyone else has a specific story to tell. My view is that the more elements of “the story” (I know none of us really like that label, I use it reluctantly) that are created by the GM… especially devoid of any consideration of or input by the players… the more GM-focused the game is.

It’s the “devoid of any consideration or input” part that doesn’t reflect how I run things.

Player-first RPGs often start with a light touch when describing the setting. Most of what exists is tightly tied to the characters, important locations, people, and situations exist because they matter directly to the players. As the campaign progresses, the new elements that get added tend to have that same kind of character-centered significance.

In contrast, my Living World approach starts with more already in place. Not everything is detailed to the nth degree, but there’s enough groundwork that player choice has real significance, not because the players authored it, but because it’s a robust world offering varied possibilities. Even if it’s “referee-first,” those possibilities allow players to define who their characters are through their choices.

For example, I’d agree with your concern if this was what I was offering:

But if what’s prepped looks like this, and it’s used as part of the player’s initial context, then it’s a different story. It addresses the concern you raised, just in a different way.

Now, please give me the courtesy of assuming that there are things on the map the players don’t yet know, like what’s actually in the Broken Mountains. But also assume they know enough about each area to make a meaningful choice based on their character’s perspective.

For my City-State campaign with Zahkhar, the setup looked like this, plus a short half-page summary hitting the high points of what the group and individual characters knew. The rectangle on the map? That was drawn by the players. I also made it clear that anything considered “common knowledge” was fair game, just point and ask. I wasn’t going to hit them with a 200-page Harndex-style info dump. For example, if they asked about RE-12 She-Devil, I had a two-sentence common knowledge note ready. And if something like the She-Devil Tavern became important during play, I’d describe it without waiting to be asked.

So yes, my Living World sandbox, and other traditional approaches like it, do handle the issue you raised. We just approach it differently than systems designed around a player-first methodology. And yes, there is a consequence that it requires more in the way of prep by the referee. And while it should be more than the first map I shared in order to deal with the issue. It doesn't have to be the full blown maps I shared either. There is a happy middle ground that works well with the time and interest that most referee have for their hobby.

 

[robertsconley]

If you also extend this to include rules incentives, then I'm at odds with @robertsconley. XP (or equivalent) being granted for the things you want to see in play is game design 101, as far as I'm concerned. I actually wrote a bunch of XP triggers for my V5 games (the official ones are possibly the worst I've seen).

Yeah, we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.

I’m more interested in seeing how the players “trash” my setting on their terms. I don’t want to tell them how to do it through rules incentives.

The only time I include mechanics like that is when it reflects how the setting actually works, like, “this is what it would be like if you were really there.” That’s why I’m fine with the Shadow rules in Adventures in Middle-earth. Shadow isn’t a metaphor for moral decay in Tolkien’s world. It’s a literal supernatural force of corruption rooted in Morgoth’s marring of Arda, something Sauron exploits, but which exists independently. It’s part of the logic of the setting, not just a message layered over it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

To allow them to play the game by inhabiting the role of their chosen characters, and not having concern for actions outside of that role, because that's what they want. It's what I want when I play. Are you assuming that players naturally want more narrative control than running their PCs alone would give them, and thus I am "keeping then down"? Or are you projecting your desires onto strangers?

Just asking what the purpose of constraints are, Micah. It doesn’t really have anything to do with trad vs. narrativism.

If you can understand the purpose of constraint on the players, it seems odd to me that you can’t apply that reasoning to the GM, too.

Why need it be? What purpose does that serve?

It’s what helps make a game more character focused.

 

[Campbell]

Disregarding what it means to be player driven or not I would say that play where we are spending substantial amounts of time exploring and learning about the setting and engaged with conflicts that are external to the characters' concerns so that we can get to the points where our characters concerns are central is more focused on the GM's setting and less focused on the players' characters' concerns. That sort of play, while enjoyable for its own sake, can feel like jumping through hoops if your concerns are those sorts of personal stakes.

There's nothing wrong with that being a component of play, but it is very much a sort of play that highlights the GM's creative contributions more so than a game that does not require players to engage in that level of free exploration to get to the personal-stakes parts. Really, if free exploration of the setting is going to be part of play it should be something that is valued by the table.

This is something we really have to balance in our Final Fantasy game. The SeeD missions our characters go on tend to focus on the world and external conflicts whereas our downtime tends to focus more on the personal stakes. Me and the other player both enjoy both sorts of play, but I favor and am energized by the personal stakes and find the explore the setting and problem-solving part of play kind of stressful. Where the reverse is true for the other player. A large part of this is I'm software engineer so I have figure stuff out stress all day while the other player is in management so has people stress all day.

Sidebar: I also consider exploration of the inner lives of important NPCs (as an important to the player characters) part of those personal stakes, but that's like a personal aesthetic choice that probably brings my own play closer to that of @thefutilist is some ways and why Chronicles of Darkness and Dune are personal favorites of mine.

 

[JConstantine]

Second, I think it very much matters that it's not the GM who created these things.

Coming back to this, I'm curious: does this extend to, say, John Harper running BitD? For example, if both he and I were to run BitD in the exact same manner, and one that appealed to your sensibilities, and all else was equal, does Harper being the creator actually impact it significantly enough in your view?

 

[Lanefan]

Not in the ones I've seen? Maybe I wasn't quite clear with what I meant:

- In most FITD games, you have a strong core premise of the game itself, what the macro "playing to find out" is (we're here to explore the success or failure of new criminal gangs in a victorian city filled with ghosts / we're here to see if Magical Girls can face the trouble of their emotions and the pressures put on them from their opposition / we're here to see if we can bring a disparate revolutionary coalition together to take down the Vampire overlords / etc).

- You generally have a secondary Playset / Crew / whatever, that has specific sub-goals and frames teh fiction (we're Hawkers, selling illicit substances; we're mecha pilots struggling against extinction; we're facing off agains the Vampire Lord X an embodiment of Y tropes about the real modern world).

These two alone start directing the overall thrust of play, before you even truly begin in a way that I think "we pick a spot on the map" doesnt quite do; you've already flagged to the GM what a huge amount of play is going to involve. From there, the players can pick directions they want to go to pursue the interests of their overarching umbrella - how do they want to find new turf to sell their drugs; where and how will they battle the leviathans; what faction do they want to try and bring into the revolution or where do they want to challenge the Vampire Lord's hold.

Once you've got that, you make an Engagement roll (or equivalent) and you're in the action; no intermediate space.

Some questions.

Your examples here, along with numerous others I've seen re BitD and similar, seem fairly solidly rooted to the immediate "what happens next" question rather than anything longer-term.

What about the long term? Or very long term? How long can a BitD or FitD campaign reasonably expect to last, given weekly play? Is the provided setting enough to support a multi-year campaign with persistent or semi-persistent PCs? Failing that, is it on the GM to provide extra setting should the PCs decide to leave the base (which would be Duskvol in Blades) and seek their fortunes elsewhere?

 

[Campbell]

Coming back to this, I'm curious: does this extend to, say, John Harper running BitD? For example, if both he and I were to run BitD in the exact same manner, and one that appealed to your sensibilities, and all else was equal, does Harper being the creator actually impact it significantly enough in your view?

What matters to me is where the agenda is (and how tightly we are holding on) - are we focusing on exploring the setting or is the setting serving the game as a vehicle for us to engage with the concerns of the characters?