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

[Maxperson]

My old 1e DMs used to do this. They'd generate a tough situation with no solution in mind, just to see how we'd handle it. It was a lot of fun, even if we didn't always find a way through.

I used to do it so that I could have a good idea of what would happen if the players picked A, B or C, but then I realized that what happens next is usually pretty obvious, and that often the players picked D, E or F and I had to figure it out on the spot anyway.

Coming up with would could happen was a waste of my time, so I stopped.

 

[Maxperson]

100%. I've created a pretty detailed campaign setting with an extensive history, and I don't expect any players I ever run through it to interact with more than a small portion of it (although that portion will almost certainly end up with the most detail).

I mean, they almost can't. @Lanefan has one of the longest lasting, consistent settings that I know of. I'm curious with all that time and with all those different groups, what percentage of the total setting has been revealed to all the players combined(let alone a single player).

 

[hawkeyefan]

This makes no sense. If a DM is willing to ignore constraints, constraints don't mean anything. If the reason for having constraints is DMs that ignore those constraints, we don't need those constraints.

I’m not sure what you mean here but I’m reasonably sure it doesn’t pertain to what I said.

Constraints are self-imposed, either by DMs creating those constraints for themselves(setting fidelity, etc.) or the DMs choosing to follow the ones(or some of the ones) the game provides.

Are they self-imposed? Look at @Enrahim’s example where as GM he was ready to honor the dice but then changed what he did based on his players’ dissatisfaction.

It’s hard to look at that example as self-imposed, given that it originated with the players.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Again, so what? Does it not make sense to you that someone would deal with a problem situation, especially if the on-camera party doesn't?

Ofc and I do the same too.
I did later post as to the reason of my comment.

 

[Maxperson]

Are they self-imposed? Look at @Enrahim’s example where as GM he was ready to honor the dice but then changed what he did based on his players’ dissatisfaction.

It’s hard to look at that example as self-imposed, given that it originated with the players.

So they forced him to do it against his will? Or he chose to do it himself because of the self-imposed constraint of "I want to satisfy my players?"

 

[AnotherGuy]

Only if the PCs choose to interact with that part of the world, although I admit it's possible that knock-on effects could affect the PCs without their direct knowledge. That's how the world works. I didn't increase tariffs, but I still have to pay more for some stuff.

Yes that is how it works.

A - "Everything" is GM decides
B - Not really I use tables
A - Yes but you created those tables therefore GM decides.
B - These tables are extensive, 2 pages deep
And like everything I prep doesn't always see the light of day. PCs aren't forced to engage.
And I don't force them to engage.
However because they didn't engage with my prep I will GM decides a further move which works for my Living World.
Again ofc they are not forced to engage...

I'm not bashing anyone here I do it via the APs I'm running concurrently. PCs react as the clocks tick louder. It's happening right now in my campaign. 4 players are dealing with an abridged OotA and 1 is dealing with an abridged DiA. The clocks became quite loud.
They could have ignored both and pursued their own or other agendas or focused on the primary Adventure Paths: SKT and ToD.

EDIT: There are other reasons besides the clocks but the GM has significant pull via the setting too. I don't think its right to mitigate that the GM via the setting is also very much a driver. It's not solely player-driven.
And there's nothing wrong with that. But there is something wrong I think when you (general you) don't own up to it.

 

[Lanefan]

The convo which I picked up began with @AbdulAlhazred (but likely earlier) where they mentioned how much of everything is GM decided, even the bandits in @Bedrockgames RE tables. A conversation about how much content is GM decided was then argued between @Maxperson and @EzekielRaiden, with Maxperson adamantly saying that the GM content is much lower than others in the thread purport. @SableWyvern and then jumped into the convo regarding the bandits where it is often the case where content is created but doesn't see the light of day only for you and Sable to then make that content see the light of day even though the PCs never engaged with it.
i.e. Content sees the light of day one way or another in Storyteller fashion (pinging @Hussar).

Queue "But na-ah!"

Again, so what? As in, why does any of this matter in the slightest?

In real life, events happening in the UK are extremely unlikely to affect me in any way but out of interest I still read the BBC news page on a regular basis.

In the game setting, events are occurring elsewhere than where the PCs happen to be and even if those events don't have any effect on the PCs there might still be in-character interest in knowing about them.

That said, it's considerably more likely that far-away events will somehow affect PCs in the game setting than me in real life, even if only by colouring their decision as to what to do or where to go next, as PCs tend to be more widely-travelled and have much greater potential to involve themselves in such events should they so desire.

Which means it's on me-as-DM in my role of setting author to make sure I provide the equivalent of "news reports" if-when asked, though maybe neither as comprehensive nor up-to-date as we get from the BBC.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Hey @Lanefan my EDIT on my post just above yours addresses where I was coming from. We just cross-posted I think.

 

[Lanefan]

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

It's not that they usually become the focus, it's that they have the potential to become the focus if that's the way things end up going.

If the PCs decide they want to go meet or confront the other adventurers then I-as-DM suddenly have to pay a lot more attention to what makes that other group tick. If the PCs merely say (or imply) good job, chaps, and move on to something different then that other group may or may not ever be heard from again.

(one cool way in which that other group might arise in future is if a player later rolls up a replacement character maybe as part of its background it spent time in that group before joining this one)

 

[Lanefan]

This sets out that it is the DM's responsibility to describe the environment and decide what happens as a result of player actions. They cannot engage in hard scene framing that makes assumptions about what player characters have done, they cannot describe how player characters feel or think. The DM must listen to every player and ask what they are doing concurrently. They must act as a referee. These are all constraints that define the role's purpose within the game it's designed for.

The bolded piece is a massive red flag for me, if-when a game allows its GMs to frame scenes and just assume without asking that the PCs have done what they needed to in order to - when the scenes are separated by any significant time and-or distance - get from the previous scene to the new one.

Do it once, you've got an argument on your hands. Do it twice and I'm out.