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

[robertsconley]

While some people do play long, most games of this ilk are meant for 10-25 session play, tied to "arc" style outcomes. They are explicitly not intended for endless forever play, and tell you that directly in the guidelines.

This seems like a significant distinction between the different styles of play.

To be clear, it is not a downside. To me, it looks to be a consequence of focusing on player-first,, and the fact that many of these RPGs go for a prep-light build, it's a you-go character-centric approach.

On the traditional side,, Shadowdark is well known for its prep-light approach.

 

[hawkeyefan]

@hawkeyefan seemed to imply that any creator-as-GM is going to be focussed on bringing their creations to bare as the primary focus. And that's not the case, surely?

No, not exactly. I said it’s a risk and something that should be considered. And I said the more it’s prevalent in play, the greater the “risk”.

But it’s by no means certain. I don’t tend to approach these things as if there are absolutes.

 

[robertsconley]

I'm sure there's a way to marry the two, like an "XP for trashing the setting", without dictating how, though it would likely require some stringent phrasing.
Not that I'm suggesting you should, of course. Merely me musing a hypothetical.

Back in the '80s, I dropped the AD&D XP system in favor of the following approach.

I don’t use all of it anymore, but I still award XP for defeating monsters, and what most would now call a milestone award. That milestone award uses the same formula I originally created for a roleplaying award:

Factor × Level × Significance of the Goal Achieved

The factor ranges from 25 to 200, usually 100 for campaigns expected to last one to two years.

Goals are whatever the players or group set for themselves. Sometimes they tell me directly. Other times I pick it up from table chatter. Often, it’s obvious from the events of the play when a goal has been achieved. I use a 1–5 scale for significance, though in practice I mostly award 3s and 5s.

This setup has worked well. The players know they’ll be rewarded for doing things that matter to them, and that big XP gains come from achieving tough goals. Most importantly, it avoids me putting my thumb on the scale to favor any particular way of “trashing” the setting.

 

[zakael19]

This seems like a significant distinction between the different styles of play.

To be clear, it is not a downside. To me, it looks to be a consequence of focusing on player-first,, and the fact that many of these RPGs go for a prep-light build, it's a you-go character-centric approach.

On the traditional side,, Shadowdark is well known for its prep-light approach.

You need to design for long term play intentionally with engines like this. Generally you'll answer what you're playing to find out at some point and work towards the "endgame" bits the game poses you, almost all of them have a "bringing your game to a conclusion" portions that help the GM guide the group towards that. For many people, this sort of short form "arc" play is deeply satisfying and you get to explore a concise premise and resolve it.

The Dungeon World descendent game I'm playing currently, Stonetop, is much more explicitly designed for long-form play - with a premise around building a community and keeping it safe that is meant to take place over many seasons to years; and with characters designed for longer-form progression. I'm currently a year / just shy of 40 sessions into the campaign and have honestly failed at zooming out temporally nearly enough!

 

[robertsconley]

You need to design for long term play intentionally with engines like this. Generally you'll answer what you're playing to find out at some point and work towards the "endgame" bits the game poses you, almost all of them have a "bringing your game to a conclusion" portions that help the GM guide the group towards that. For many people, this sort of short form "arc" play is deeply satisfying and you get to explore a concise premise and resolve it.

Makes sense. I know my reply is short, but what you just said sounds reasonable.

The Dungeon World descendent game I'm playing currently, Stonetop, is much more explicitly designed for long-form play - with a premise around building a community and keeping it safe that is meant to take place over many seasons to years; and with characters designed for longer-form progression. I'm currently a year / just shy of 40 sessions into the campaign and have honestly failed at zooming out temporally nearly enough!

That raises a question I recently asked a friend who enjoys BW, PbtA, and similar systems. Let’s say you finish your Stonetop campaign in a year or two. Would you feel comfortable using the system again for another campaign, with a new set of characters, in 2027? And again in 2030 or 2035?

My friend, who’s played in my Majestic Wilderlands campaign, so he's familiar with my approach, said he wouldn’t keep the same setting like I do. He enjoys building new settings collaboratively with the group each time. So while he couldn’t say how he’d handle long-term continuity with a system like BW or PbtA, he valued the fresh start each time.

From what I’ve read in the rulebooks, I don’t think there’s anything in the mechanics that would prevent this kind of continuity. But as my friend put it, the group would have to “buy in” to whatever was carried over from previous campaigns. So I am curious to know what you think about this since you have a lot of experience with this style of play.

 

[Hussar]

There is no contradiction. To put it simply, as I am not acting as a storyteller.

I guess, at the end of the day, this is why we will not agree.

You have created a setting, characters and plot (NPC X has Y motivations and Z will occur unless the PC's do something to change that) is, to me, acting like a story teller. Not knowing the conclusion of a story does not make one not a storyteller. You have every element of a story in place. The elements of that story are based on the characters that are created. Not always, of course, but sometimes.

To me, that is 100% a story teller.

But, I do get that some people only see it as being a story teller if the complete story is known. Of course, deciding the outcome of any event that does not include the PC's is 100% story telling. How could it not be. If you decide, because of the "logic of the setting" that X happens, to me, that's story telling. It's what DM's do.

 

[gban007]

The more I follow these various posts where I can, and the differing ways people play different systems , and as Umbran says with such a limited pool doesn't give good guidance on how any table one may come across may play a sandbox vs railroad, or dnd, or BitD or PbTA, it gives me a lot of sympathy towards @EzekielRaiden position/ query, which is dont see so much as a question of trust, as much as how do I know what sort of a game I'm going to be playing with a table? If they say sandbox, what level of agency will I actually have? If playing DnD or BitD, how are they interpreting / using some of the rules? Yes session zero should help, but I begin to think one session wouldn't give enough of a steer with a new group / DM, as some things will be taken as geared, and only after playing for some time will you really know, and by then could be too late.

 

[Hussar]

One those are statements by two entirely different people, who have said they don't run things exactly the same. But I am not seeing the contradiction. GM as storyteller, is a very specific type of game, where the players are there for the GMs story.

No. It is not. That is a very specific definition created by a certain crowd in order to draw lines between what they do and what other people do that don't actually exist.

You don't have to believe it, but the kind of sandbox play I and Rob are talking about were actively avoiding that type of campaign. Having stuff prepped, doesn't mean you are telling the players a story.

Yes, it does. If you have stuff prepped, then you are telling a story. You might be telling a story in collaboration with other people. But, at no point are you not telling a story.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No. It is not. That is a very specific definition created by a certain crowd in order to draw lines between what they do and what other people do that don't actually exist.

It is what I was referring to when I used the term. Now if you want to say I was using the term in a way you object to, you can. I will push back on that because I don't agree with your definition. But I don't think you can say I was contradicting Rob (and you certainly can't say I was contradicting myself).

Yes, it does. If you have stuff prepped, then you are telling a story. You might be telling a story in collaboration with other people. But, at no point are you not telling a story.

If everything is a story then nothing is. Having material prepped, and not having any idea what that material will lead to, is not story in the sense i was using. If you want to debate story, I suppose we can do that. But I was using storyteller in a particular way here and I know what I was saying. You are blending two different issues here: what I was trying to say, and what you think story ought to mean in an RPG

 

[Hussar]

/snip

In my Living World Sandbox campaigns, as well as other traditional and sandbox styles, the referee describes the world first. The players react to what’s going on. The referee then adjudicates or describes what happens next.
/snip

So, in what way, when you describe the world first - events that are going on, history, conflicts - is that not telling a story? This is what I just can't wrap my head around. How can you claim that this isn't a story? You have every single element of a story except the conclusion. Which, frankly, is what we're playing for. We play the game to write the conclusion of the story. But, since 99% of the elements of that story - every location, NPC, plots etc - are derived from the DM, in what way is the DM not telling a story?