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

[AnotherGuy]

The question isn't one of whether the PCs are aware of things that exist in the world. Of course they do, and they must.

The question is whether everything the GM makes needs to be the focus or important to the PCs, and the answer to that is, no.

In both instances examples (yours and Lanefan's) interesting events occurred with a supposedly innocuous RE.
- who are these heroes who took care of the bandits? Lanefan could potentially use them into the future, just as he used the bandits to expand the setting.
- which town did they take over or which trade route did they disrupt? how many bandits were they? do they have expansionist plans or was an act of vengeance? what trade goods were targeted? ...etc

i.e. they usually become the focus/important if you start building more story around them

 

[SableWyvern]

In both instances examples (yours and Lanefan's) interesting events occurred with a a supposedly innocuous RE.
- who are these heroes who took care of the bandits? Lanefan could potentially use them into the future, just as he used the bandits to expand the setting.
- which town did they take over or which trade route did they disrupt? how many bandits were they? do they have expansionist plans or was an act of vengeance? what trade goods were targeted? ...etc

Yes, I pretty much agree. Although, again, I'm operating from the assumption that, based on the hypothetical provided by @AbdulAlhazred, we're not just talking about an "innocuous random encounter" , we're talking about a significant bandit threat in the region that happens to have resulted in bandit encounters being likely in the region.

But, yes, what you're saying/asking makes complete sense.

Edit: Although I see you now added in this:

i.e. they usually become the focus/important if you start building more story around them

Now I disagree entirely. The GM providing the players with background material about world events does not mean those things become the focus.

I am constantly aiming to provide the players with detail on many different events going on around the world. Most of those things serve only to show the players that they exist in a living world, where things happen and life goes on when they're not around. They generally only become the focus if the players make a choice do something about them.

I may have one or two large-scale events that are likely to occur at various times throughout a given campaign, but how the players choose to deal such events remains up to them -- and staying right out of may be an option. Normally, if I'm going to involve a large event (eg, a foreign invasion), I make sure it's not going to occur until well into the campaign, so that the players have well established characters and a good feel for what their characters want -- this ensures they don't automatically feel that this needs to be the focus of the game, they should already have things their focusing on, and this is just an additional complication that they can choose to prioritise or use or oppose or ignore.

Pre-planning such events (with a timeline, based on "this is what is likely to happen if the PCs never get involved") also provides opportunity for the expected events to be subverted by unexpected behaviour. And, if the PCs have packed up and left and are exploring a completely different part of the world when it happens -- well, then the invasion goes on without them, and may never even impact them, beyond hearing rumours about it.

And yes, an event like that is certainly the GM having an impact on the way the game turns out. As GM, I absolutely do impact events, constantly. But the underlying point is that the players, at all times, are able to decide what they want to focus on, and how. If their actions mean that an event occurs in a way they won't interact with it, then they don't. If their actions completely prevent some event from ever happening, then it doesn't happen. On the other hand, if they choose to head to some location at a time when some dramatic local event is scheduled to occur, and nothing has happened that would upset the schedule, then the PCs have to deal with being there when it happens.

But what doesn't happen is that I decide what the players choose to focus on or treat as important. I just keep throwing ongoing world events and opportunities and rumours at them, and they decide what sticks. And if they're in the middle of focusing on some critical mission, I continue to do this. The world doesn't stop having things happen because the PCs are busy. Not only will I not push the PCs towards focusing on the bandits, if they choose to focus on those bandits I will actively undermine any work I put into the bandits by offering the PCs distractions that might result in them ditching the bandit line of interest for something else. It is entirely up to the PCs if they stick with the bandits or go elsewhere.

My job is create and maintain the backdrop upon which the PC's story takes place. The players have nearly unlimited ways of engaging with that backdrop.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If one chooses to flesh out things P, Q, and R, and chooses not to flesh out things J, K, and L, and only fleshes out things X, Y, and Z in response to player prompting, how is one not determining which things are capable of being interacted with? How is one not putting in the information so that only some choices are worthwhile and others aren't worthwhile?

How is one not, through setting-creation, creating story?

To flesh out the world without intersection with whether the PCs have expressed interest in it IS telling story. You're telling the story of the places the party has never been and might never go. There's already a story to be had before they even arrive.

 

[Kromanjon]

In my youth I ran an adventure where the PCs got on a ship. The ship was basically a railroad, it was meant to do nothing more than get the PCs from point A to point B (another continent). Then the PCs decided to mutiny. They took control of the ship, killed everyone and turned to cannibalism. This was a sandbox move.

No matter what the GM decide to prepare or not, the PCs actions are what form the story. That's the thing. Sure, sometimes you hear GMs say that "if you don't want to pick up on my adventure hooks the door's over there," but even then it's still the PCs/players actions that brings that conclusion. A GM has all the power in the world, apart from controlling the players and the PCs, and with that, all that power is worth naught.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In my youth I ran an adventure where the PCs got on a ship. The ship was basically a railroad, it was meant to do nothing more than get the PCs from point A to point B (another continent). Then the PCs decided to mutiny. They took control of the ship, killed everyone and turned to cannibalism. This was a sandbox move.

No matter what the GM decide to prepare or not, the PCs actions are what form the story. That's the thing. Sure, sometimes you hear GMs say that "if you don't want to pick up on my adventure hooks the door's over there," but even then it's still the PCs/players actions that brings that conclusion. A GM has all the power in the world, apart from controlling the players and the PCs, and with that, all that power is worth naught.

Is it, though?

Is it?

Because this (as has been the case so many times in this thread) ignores the possibility of the invisible railroad.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Plenty of stuff I've put work into simply gets ignored by my players when I'm running a sandbox. Sometimes I'm even disappointed by that (yes, I have my own feelings and interests). But I don't let my disappointment dictate what happens; if the players aren't interested, then it is what it is. I focus instead on the things the PCs are interested in, the things they have decided to do and the places they have decided to go. And, because I do so, when I look back on the game, I am likely to be much happier when I see the ways in which my expectations were subverted and the strange and unexpected places the players chose to take the game. Forcing specific directions on the players wouldn't just be a derogation of my duty, it would result in less overall fun for me.

My job is create and maintain the backdrop upon which the PC's story takes place. The players have nearly unlimited ways of engaging with that backdrop.

Bolded emphasis mine.
I'm running Trad Sandbox, so much of what you write if not all is fairly familiar to me, however the best way I believe, that I have achieved the above is by including some player-facing mechanics.

I'm not nearly close to the level that some others in this thread are at, but what I have found, at least at my table, the more player-facing the game is, the more certain players can invest into the integrity of character and the the plausibility of the fiction generated at the table.
The players that already do this are never a concern so I'm speaking to the others which make us Trad DMs cling to our strings of power.

In heavy LARP influenced games such as the one run by @robertsconley, I'd imagine integrity of player characters and the plausibility of the fiction generated at the table by them (the players) is greatly assisted by the in-character speaking. It would be interesting to note given Robert's particular style of running games, how many of those so-called metagamers exist and persist at his table. I'd imagine very few to none, but that is my assumption based on the style of play.
I could be wrong, and Robert could correct me, but players would be there to dive into that kind of roleplaying experience more so than the numbers on the character sheet (important as they are).

 

[CreamCloud0]

Right. Let me give an example: I had a 5e character, way back when 5e was brand new. The game was set in my sister's pre-existing game world, which has a ton of lore and lots of games played in it. So, I pick Dwarf, Wizard, Transmuter, and Folk Hero. So I'm not trying to be especially profound in my characterization, I just figure he's tired of all the BS associated with being a little guy and he wants to play in the big leagues.

So, we go out on the frontier, turns out we're doing some loose version of Phandelver, which is itself reasonably location-based kind of AP-esque 'there are a few routes but they all basically lead to the same place'. But along the way Azardel kicks the ass of the Boss Hobgoblin in personal combat (good trick for a wizard, but as a Mountain Dwarf he's actually got a battleaxe and chain armor he can wear).

He decides he's going to take over the castle, and rebuild it, call all his dwarf buddies that he's a folk hero to down to live in it, and develop a trade route. Yeah, I guess that either A) doesn't mesh with whatever the DM wanted to do, and/or B) doesn't seem 'plausible'. Well, I did it, and got some reasonable problems and whatnot to solve, for a time. Had to kiss the arses of the neighbors, kill of a few monsters, build a bunch of stuff, and somehow come up with enough cash and retainers to make it work.

So, once I was dragged off on an adventure related to the other characters, that was that, it was decreed that my henchmen, acting with monumental foolishness, released a terrible monster which immediately took over all my stuff and undid all of that work.

Now, that MIGHT happen in a kind of narrativist fashion, but all of the above just illustrates many of the flaws with plausible and logical, and the many foibles of trad play in general. Also, I want to be clear, it wasn't BAD play in its own right, it was just a certain kind of play that is very distinct from what is found in games like BitD.

i don't think i'm seeing the argument you're trying to make, it was a fixed world, influenced by the actions of players, that all seems to follow well enough right up until the point where the GM goes 'and so five minutes after leaving your henchdwarves suffered a lethal bout of idiocy that just undid everything you worked for', which is very far down the scale of plausible and logical

 

[SableWyvern]

Bolded emphasis mine.
I'm running Trad Sandbox, so much of what you write if not all is fairly familiar to me, however the best way I believe, that I have achieved the above is by including some player-facing mechanics.

I'm not nearly close to the level that some others in this thread are at, but what I have found, at least at my table, the more player-facing the game is, the more certain players can invest in the integrity of character and the the plausibility of the fiction generated at the table.
The players that already do this are never a concern so I'm speaking to the others which make us Trad DMs cling to our strings of power.

In heavy LARP influenced games such as the one run by @robertsconley, I'd imagine integrity of player characters and the the plausibility of the fiction generated at the table by them (the players) is greatly assisted by the in-character speaking. It would be interesting to note given Robert's particular style of running games, how many of those so-called metagamers exist and persist at his table. I'd imagine very few to none, but that is my assumption based on the style of play.

I fully support people using what works for them. I would like to think nothing I've said in this thread suggests that methods different to the ones I use can't work, or shouldn't be used. When I've been more heated in this thread, I believe it's been when people are saying that the methods I use don't work, are inadequate, aren't really doing what I think they do, that my players are secretly oppressed or want something different, that the things I want from a game I would better achieve using the poster's preferred techniques.

I am bemused by comments like "Trad DMs cling to our strings of power."

All I'm doing when I run games is what works for me and what I know from long experience makes my players happy. No one that I game with is trying to strip me of any power, so no clinging is required. The fact that I have power gives me no pleasure in-and-of-itself. The fact that I wield it, as adroitly and thoughtfully as I can, to help my players engage in long-lived campaigns that keep them coming back for decades, that is something I do take pleasure in.

I may be misreading you, but it sounds a lot like you're suggesting that you assume that the things you have found improve your game would also improve mine, if only I was willing to open my eyes and see it.

I've run a very successful, fun campaign of Blades in the Dark. I've run Pendragon, with everyone buying into passions. I'm currently running a mission-of-the-week supers game where I very much am directing the story in many ways (and I find it less fun, overall, but my players are enjoying the change of pace, and it's giving me an opportunity to work on my next sandbox while I run it). In my much younger days, I leaned heavily on illusionism, and one of the most memorable sessions I ever ran, remembered fondly to this day by every player there as possibly the best session they were ever involved with, ended with a deus ex machina that makes me cringe a bit when I think about it. I'm quite willing to try many game styles, and I have learned what works for me (and my current group) and what doesn't over long decades. I don't need encouragement to open my eyes to other possibilities and I am certainly not afraid to run and learn about a range of different games.

And to be clear, I'm not saying that my experience means I know more about gaming than anyone else here. But it does mean that I absolutely do have orders of magnitude of more insight into what works for me, and for the players I game with, than anyone else in this thread.

My next campaign is going to be a sandbox I run with the methods being discussed in this thread by the "trad" crowd, probably more aligned with @Bedrockgames' techniques than @robertsconley's. I will use those methods because I know they work and they create a game I enjoy, and that my players enjoy. And I will continue to refine those methods, from session to session and campaign to campaign, as I continue to learn from my experiences.

If, at a later point in time, I'm in the mood for more player-facing mechanics, then I will run that sort of game.

If I have misread you, I apologise. I know I've been a bit snarky at times in this thread; with this post I'm trying to as politely and clearly as I can explain my position, and why I find some of the anti-trad rhetoric frustrating.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I am bemused by comments like "Trad DMs cling to our strings of power."

It was more a comment to something that occurred in another thread where I suggested something and a poster immediately jumped to the worst possible scenario of how players would react.
Their comment was indicative about the lack of trust/faith which can occur between GMs and players from both perspectives. And it is not that uncommon. Some players like most GMs need training, that training often comes from exposure.

What I have found is that when a player-facing mechanic is injected there is a greater degree of transparency and the specific type of player I'm talking about is then able to prioritize the character over the stats since the numbers are laid bare.

I may be misreading you, but it sounds a lot like you're suggesting that you assume that the things you have found improve your game would also improve mine, if only I was willing to open my eyes and see it.

I can only speak to my experiences and believe if I'm analyzing my game correctly, that those player-facing mechanics assisted in reducing my own biases. You may better manage your own desires at the table than I so it would not apply to you or it would not work in the way it has for me.

This is not a slight at all but a sharing of experiences. Enworld has certainly been useful to opening my eyes. My table has not been as fortunate to play through as many different types of RPGs as we'd like.

I've run Pendragon, with everyone buying into passions.

This is something I'd like to try run because it looks like so much fun and different.
I have the edition before the last.

And to be clear, I'm not saying that my experience means I know more about gaming than anyone else here. But it does mean that I absolutely do have orders of magnitude of more insight into what works for me, and for the players I game with, than anyone else in this thread.

That is fair.

 

[SableWyvern]

This is something I'd like to try run because it looks like so much fun and different.
I have the edition before the last.

I have fifth, I think. I was running the Great Pendragon Campaign (which is a sandbox in parts, but very much not a sandbox in others), but doing so as a second game on alternative weeks and, eventually, the workload became too great so I had to drop it.

I do hope to go back to it at some point.