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

[EzekielRaiden]

I said I wouldn't engage, but here I am again ...

@EzekielRaiden

You are asking what protections you have against a GM who intentionally or inadvertently railroads you, if you play a game where the GM has the power to intentionally or inadvertently railroads you.

The answer is, you have none. If you play in such a game, there is a risk that this will happen. Most of us who play this way seem to find the risk to be extremely low to completely insignificant, but only you can assess what is an acceptable level of risk to you.

There is no other answer.

A GM could railroad you, whether secretly and maliciously, or accidentally while being well-meaning. The only way to guarantee this doesn't happen is to not play in the styles of play where you fear this is a possibility. You don't seem to like this or want to accept it, but it is the absolute truth and no one has any other answer for you. We can try and explain why the risk doesn't concern us, but cannot make the risk vanish.

I honestly and genuinely do not understand what more you're looking for here. Do you want us all to start a campaign to end this style of play and prevent anyone from ever running games this way again, just to ensure you never get accidentally caught in such a game? Do you expect us to all announce to our tables that play in this style must cease? If not, what is it that you want? What is the outcome you're looking for? What could I do that would would satisfy you (noting that I cannot change reality such that a GM with the power to secretly railroad you is prevented from doing so)?

Several people spoke of various things--"realism", plausibility, consistency, etc.--as limitations on GM action. I don't know if anyone used that specific phrasing, but there were repeated assertions that there were limits of some kind, and those limits were genuinely external to the GM. That's why I've kept asking, repeatedly, where the external limits are. Because I was told they were there.

I wouldn't be asking this if I hadn't been told, repeatedly, that such things were there. I have no interest in "scoring points" or "catching" people in some trap or whatever. I have better things to spend my time doing.

I'm simply asking because I was told they were there. If they aren't, that's fine, though I do think it affects some of the other arguments made, if the (alleged) limitations, guidelines, constraints, whatever-we-wish-to-call-them are not in fact external to the GM as was previously described.

Because, contra what you've said above, that IS the way that those advocating this particular style HAVE argued that their position is special and different and not like other styles. That theirs is "realistic", or "consistent", or that it articulates a world that "really exists", or various other claims, and that any other style does not achieve this state (with the usual jab, implicit or explicit, that the kinds of games @pemerton speaks of not only don't do this, they cannot do this even in principle, for various alleged reasons.) That the GM isn't doing things because they feel like it and exercising their individual judgment acting on their individual preferences, but rather that they set up something and then have to abide by it regardless of--indeed, utterly disconnected from--any personal preference for what could or could not happen, what does or does not matter, what should or should not result from a given action.

Pretty much the only thing I've gotten thus far, the only actually concrete thing, is a commitment to what video games call a "persistent world", from an actually pretty productive exchange where I clarified my terms and someone else clarified theirs, rather than either of us just flat-out declaring "I can't explain it, you just have to accept it". I don't know if "persistent world" is the phrase fans of this style would welcome (it is, after all, a term from video games and that can raise hackles in any TTRPG discussion), but I will continue to use it, with quotes, unless/until someone challenges it and offers at least some kind of alternative they prefer, to at least cut down a little on the back-and-forth.

A commitment to a "persistent world" does in fact entail some, minor, limitations on the GM. They're still very soft limitations, since original input is still 100% under their control and inputs that have not yet been made available to the PCs may be changed at any time without breaking that commitment, but they're limitations nonetheless and that's something. In specific, with a persistent world, the GM is pretty much hard-required to continue iterating on things in places the PCs are liable to go, even if they don't actually do so, and significant changes require commensurate justification. I consider that an extremely low bar, but it isn't a bar below the floor (like the "wait several months" answer, that's very much a through-the-floor hurdle, because several months is plenty of time for a GM to just invent whatever they want and rigorously check it for holes or issues.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ok. I now see better the context. Yes I agree claiming those stating prefering sandbox play have exclusively focused on differences is false. But there has been a lot of posts in this thread where someone with sandbox preference have tried to highlight things they think that their prefered style of play does differently. This to the extent that while I believe the hyperbole of "only" is factually false, it still seem expressive of something the one writing it really felt.

I think the same can be said for those who have stated a preference for blades in the dark or BW in this thread. It is long.

I have never asserted that DW, or BitD, or any PbtA or FitD game is somehow uniquely special or the only thing capable of some particular result. Not once.

I have said that I find that the degree of sandbox-y play experience you can get out of D&D is slightly lower (but still very much a sandbox!) than the degree of sandbox-y play experience you can get from Ironsworn. (Which, I'll note, is its own thing, neither PbtA nor FitD but having grown from shared roots.)

Much earlier in the thread, I posted explicitly laying out that--unlike what had been said by several people up to that point--I see a spectrum from the most hardcore railroad possible (where it borders on amateur theater, line reads and all, e.g. the most rigid form of Dragonlance play, though it is not singularly specific to DL) to the most hardcore sandbox possible (which I used Ironsworn as an example of, though I'm sure other systems can also do it fine), with several steps between. That I recognize invisible railroads as less onerous than clumsy overt ones, but still railroading; that there can be relatively "soft" railroads, where there's still a track but it isn't nearly as rigid as the stereotypical ham-fisted railroading DM would do it. And, conversely, that there are "soft" sandboxes, where the game is more sandbox-y than not-sandbox-y, but it's still not a very high degree of sandbox-y.

I regret, on reflection, some of the terms I used there. I should not have called the ninth list entry "pseudo-sandbox", but rather recognizing that it is, entirely, a sandbox--just not the most sandbox-y experience possible. I had fixated on calling one end "railroad" and the other end "sandbox" and that was a poor choice on my part.

So, sincerely, to you and to @SableWyvern and @AlViking and anyone else who would rightfully find my words hurtful, I am sorry. I should have spoken better, and I am trying to speak better now.

Returning to my list, with that apology in mind: On it (which might have some entries missing), the "menu of adventures", for me, crosses the line into being "more sandbox than railroad" (and, for comparison, the "deck of adventures" would be almost exactly neutral.) It's still got a degree of inflexibility in it (once you're on adventure A, you're probably not getting off adventure A until it's done), but it's pretty clearly committing to player engagement and the idea that player choices are the driving force, not GM invention nor GM intervention--it's just a very, very mild commitment to that. Each stage up from there is trying to commit to that idea more fully, more completely, in more areas, more consistently.

And, as a result of that, I do think that there are times where the combination of how D&D structures its rules, plus the didactic, heavily GM-driven style of play that D&D typically expects (both in its rules design and in its culture-of-play), means that the system CAN--not 100% always does, but easily CAN--contribute additional difficulty to the process of running a sandbox. Since other systems have different rules design, presentation, and culture-of-play, those particular difficulties are always or nearly always absent, and thus in the sense of preparation and process-of-running, those systems are easier to sandbox with. Doesn't mean that you cannot sandbox with them. Just means it's less effort to do so. Like....the difference between using a big heavy-duty pickup truck for moving house, vs using a moving van. The moving van is designed for the purpose and is more spacious, able to hold more things. Doesn't mean you can't do it with a pickup truck (I would know...my family could rarely afford to rent a moving vehicle the three times we moved residences in my childhood)--just means it might be more trips, and if complications arise you're going to have to come up with solutions (e.g. a tarp and bungee cords if the PNW weather turns on a dime as it so often does.)

 

[SableWyvern]

Several people spoke of various things--"realism", plausibility, consistency, etc.--as limitations on GM action. I don't know if anyone used that specific phrasing, but there were repeated assertions that there were limits of some kind, and those limits were genuinely external to the GM. That's why I've kept asking, repeatedly, where the external limits are. Because I was told they were there.

I wouldn't be asking this if I hadn't been told, repeatedly, that such things were there. I have no interest in "scoring points" or "catching" people in some trap or whatever. I have better things to spend my time doing.

I'm simply asking because I was told they were there. If they aren't, that's fine, though I do think it affects some of the other arguments made, if the (alleged) limitations, guidelines, constraints, whatever-we-wish-to-call-them are not in fact external to the GM as was previously described.

The limits are essentially self-imposed, or imposed by social construct.

I don't railroad my players. Why don't I? I've said I won't. But why did I say I won't in the first place? Because I wouldn't enjoy a game where I did. I mentioned earlier I'm currently running a villain of the week game where I am exerting a lot of control over the story (transparently, with my players' knowledge) and it's just not as much fun for me. So if I've said I won't railroad, then why would I railroad, when I genuinely don't enjoy doing so?

But no matter what justification or explanation I give, at the end of the day, the limitation depends ultimately on my decision not to do so, my willingness and ability not do so and my players' willingness to speak up if they think I'm doing otherwise and they have a problem with it.

The main restriction beyond the self-imposed one is the groups' ability to call me out. But it's true that, if the railroading was invisible, they wouldn't know and couldn't call it out, so that restriction wouldn't apply.

And that is, fundamentally, the limit of the constraints the GM is working under in this style.

I'm confident that anyone telling you that there were restrictions was talking about one of those two things -- self-imposed and socially imposed -- or something very directly derived from either of those.

Because, contra what you've said above, that IS the way that those advocating this particular style HAVE argued that their position is special and different and not like other styles. That theirs is "realistic", or "consistent", or that it articulates a world that "really exists", or various other claims, and that any other style does not achieve this state (with the usual jab, implicit or explicit, that the kinds of games @pemerton speaks of not only don't do this, they cannot do this even in principle, for various alleged reasons.) That the GM isn't doing things because they feel like it and exercising their individual judgment acting on their individual preferences, but rather that they set up something and then have to abide by it regardless of--indeed, utterly disconnected from--any personal preference for what could or could not happen, what does or does not matter, what should or should not result from a given action.

What I'm arguing (and I think that what other's with a similar viewpoint to me are arguing) is simply that we feel the freedom we are given to make decisions -- which comes with the theoretical power to secretly railroad -- also gives us the freedom to create the types of games we want and that our players enjoy.

As @Bedrockgames has tried to explain on several occasions, a GM's ability to just make a call about something when it comes up is tied in some essential and fundamental way to what makes tabletop roleplaying the thing we enjoy. It is what sets these games apart from everything else. So when people suggest GMs shouldn't have such power, those people are suggesting the thing that sets these games apart from others for us should be removed.

Naturally, if that freedom isn't important to you, then you will be far less inclined to care if the freedom is curtailed. For us, that GM power is central to what the game is about and what makes it fun. As a player, I want my GM to have that power. As a player, I want to be responsible only for the things my character does, I want to be act on those responsibilities only from the same perspective that my character would act on them, and I want to not be responsible for things my character can't directly affect, which means I need the GM to manage those things.

Now, others might have similar desires while finding other ways of achieving that goal but, for me, it's done best when, as I suggest above, I get to look after my character, from my character's perspective and leave my GM to deal with managing the world my character exists in.

As a GM, I generally want to manage the world and present it in a way that allows my players to only worry about things from their characters perspective. I don't want them to need to make decisions about the world, I want to handle that for them, so they don't have to.

Giving the GM authority over the world, with limited oversight, is the best way I've found of achieving those things. I'm fine with people who have other ways, but this is the way that works for me and it also works for others.

Pretty much the only thing I've gotten thus far, the only actually concrete thing, is a commitment to what video games call a "persistent world", from an actually pretty productive exchange where I clarified my terms and someone else clarified theirs, rather than either of us just flat-out declaring "I can't explain it, you just have to accept it". I don't know if "persistent world" is the phrase fans of this style would welcome (it is, after all, a term from video games and that can raise hackles in any TTRPG discussion), but I will continue to use it, with quotes, unless/until someone challenges it and offers at least some kind of alternative they prefer, to at least cut down a little on the back-and-forth.

A commitment to a "persistent world" does in fact entail some, minor, limitations on the GM. They're still very soft limitations, since original input is still 100% under their control and inputs that have not yet been made available to the PCs may be changed at any time without breaking that commitment, but they're limitations nonetheless and that's something. In specific, with a persistent world, the GM is pretty much hard-required to continue iterating on things in places the PCs are liable to go, even if they don't actually do so, and significant changes require commensurate justification. I consider that an extremely low bar, but it isn't a bar below the floor (like the "wait several months" answer, that's very much a through-the-floor hurdle, because several months is plenty of time for a GM to just invent whatever they want and rigorously check it for holes or issues.)

Honestly, I think the whole persistent/living world thing is actually a discussion at a level up from what I've just discussed about distributions of power or areas responsibility.

That question of distribution of responsibility and authority, which seems to be what you're butting up against most, can apply in a wide range of games. The philosophy of "players control the PCs, GM controls the rest of the world" can apply to a GM running an adventure path, or a railroad, or a focused one-shot, or a game of political intrigue that never leaves the palace, or an investigative game, or a sprawling sandbox. It is in no way unique to sandboxes, nor does it inevitably result in a sandbox. If your feel that I, or anyone else, has suggested otherwise, then I'm confident that most likely we misspoke or you misunderstood. I would be shocked if any of the vocal trad-sandbox advocates in this thread tried to disagree with me on this -- the simple existence of a high level of GM freedom does not immediately result in a sandbox.

It is simply that case that the trad-sandbox advocates in this thread also happen adhere to the philosophies above and have found that those philosophies work best for them in combination with their sandbox processes.

There are sandbox advocates in this thread who are just as serious about their sandboxes but who interact slightly differently with their characters, are seeking to explore different things, and achieve their overall goals better with a different distribution of tasks and powers. That's all it is.

So, to be clear, you don't need a powerful GM with limited constraints to run a sandbox with a persistent world but you do need a powerful GM with limited constraints to run a sandbox with a persistent world in the style that some of us gain the greatest enjoyment from.

I would suggest that a number of posters, quite possibly including me, have, at times, suggested that a persistent sandbox requires an unconstrained GM. If we've done this, it's most likely just because that's the way we've found works for us, because of fundamental assumptions we make based on the sorts of games we enjoy. And that slightly tinted version of the truth, perhaps, has been the entirety of the reason you've been frustrated. Or, perhaps it's not.

Feel free to throw any follow-up or clarifying questions at me.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Much earlier in the thread, I posted explicitly laying out that--unlike what had been said by several people up to that point--I see a spectrum from the most hardcore railroad possible (where it borders on amateur theater, line reads and all, e.g. the most rigid form of Dragonlance play, though it is not singularly specific to DL) to the most hardcore sandbox possible (which I used Ironsworn as an example of, though I'm sure other systems can also do it fine), with several steps between.

The link doesn't work for me - what number post was it?

 

[robertsconley]

I recall @robertsconley commenting on several occasions that our objectives seem similar, and it's really just the methods that are different.

That's accurate, and for those who don't remember, this is what I said back in $8532.

That's good to be in agreement about a point. However, I feel we still disagree about the implications of the two assumptions, namely that they are both equally capable of producing the same variety and scope of outcomes.

Both styles, referee-first, player-first, value consistency and plausibility. Both can lean heavily on prep or improvise on the fly. Both are fully capable of producing deep, character-rich campaigns with consequences and arcs that matter. They do it through different means and priorities, which gives each a distinct feel at the table and different points of appeal for different groups.

And it is also important to note that referee-first and player-first remain simplifications. Both approaches use many of the same techniques, just in different ways. Both have varying degrees of the different types of player agency, like character-agency, meta-agency, or the agency afforded to a player of a game. We have to keep in mind that to a fan of one approach, it can feel like the other approach is missing the point. To a fiction-first/player-first player, referee-first play may feel like it is ignoring character intent. To a referee-first player, player-first play may feel like skipping over the world.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The link doesn't work for me - what number post was it?

Post #1809. You likely have a different number of posts per page than I do (20 on my end).

 

[Maxperson]

Thus far, every single answer has been built on...a thing the GM has complete and absolute control over and which is not in any way separate from them. Context? GM decides what counts as context and what doesn't. Setting? That's literally something they wrote, or something they're re-writing from someone else's work. (E.g. I don't imagine that @Maxperson would merely accept it even if Ed Greenwood himself declared that, say, an alien species colonized a sparsely-inhabited portion of the Realms--nor would I expect him to never ever deviate from, say, the monster design of trolls to say that this troll is weak to lightning and cold rather than acid and fire, merely because--I am making this up, to be clear--all trolls in FR are weak to acid and fire.)

First, the DM does not have complete and absolute control over context. Not even close. If I declare that my fighter goes up and flirts with the barmaid, I have made that part of the context that the DM has to include. It would be extreme bad faith for the DM not to include it, and that's rare enough not to bother worrying about. As well as being so incredibly obvious that we could, and would, all just walk out of the game if a DM ever tried that.

Second, I have changed a few things about the Realms. No Spellplague or Sundering for example. That doesn't mean that the 99.999% of the written lore that I haven't changed has become mine instead of Greenwood's, TSR's and WotC's.

 

[Maxperson]

My point was to ask, "Okay, so the players made that decision. What happens to prevent you from doing <blah blah blah>?" where <blah blah blah> is what you described here.

Good faith and losing the players who would just get up and leave if a DM tried that. They knew where they were going and if the land suddenly appeared right when they mutinied to avoid going there OR appeared in front of them after they turned the ship, or if a storm drove them there, it would be very obvious that they were being railroaded.

When the GM controls both all possible information that goes into player decision-making, and all possible results that are produced by player decision-making, what limit did those player decisions place on the GM? As far as I can tell: none! The ship's gonna have to land sooner or later, they'll run out of water or people to cannibalize. And as soon as they do, we get the quantum ogre er quantum haunted house UM distant continent where something interesting is happening, yeah, that's it. (I am trying to inject some levity. Not sure if I'm succeeding.)

I don't know why they just didn't start fishing.

 

[AlViking]

Alternatively: you're all assuming map-and -key and/or timeline-based prep and resolution, but for some reason are being coy about it?

Alternatively: you're wrong that we all run games the same way. I've never used map-and-key and while sometimes there's a timeline other times there isn't depending on the scenario, at least not on a scale that matters. Some people do use those techniques and they're open about it and not coy at all.

 

[AlViking]

In D&D you would call it a check.

Sure, we all do that.

It was the idea of bypassing something that I was struck by.
...

No, I would call it an encounter. Which I did. The goal for the group was to stop some hags from poisoning a feast that would turn the town's inhabitants into monsters. The guards were there because the hags had charmed them to keep nosy outsiders out until the feast was done. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't think in terms of tests, checks, challenging character's beliefs or anything really targeted at specific individual characters. Especially since the campaign in question can have up to 8 players.

This is all just meaningless semantics, it's just not how I think of things. There's the established fiction at the table that the hags have figured out how to turn people into monsters (bit more to it, but that's the crux). I figured out what potential obstacles would make sense that would prevent anyone from interfering. I had overall outline of what the hags had prepared which gave me a quick list of probable encounters for my notes. In this case it a simple fight with a number of constructs that would have been activated if they had not figured out a way to avoid it.