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

[Maxperson]

Party meets in a tavern. GM describes the tavern and notes that one of the patrons is an old man with one arm. This is understood by many old-school GMs as ample information for the party to know that the old man with one arm is an essential source of information that cannot be ignored. I--if I had not been explicitly told this by such GMs--would never have seen it as such, and would just have interpreted that old man as colorful background, a cool bit of set-dressing. These GMs have explicitly informed me that failing to talk to the one-armed old man would be a major--likely fatal--mistake.

That seems very hyperbolic. Even if the old man does have information, it will rarely be a fatal mistake to not get the information, let alone likely to end up fatal.

The way I run my game is if the players walk into a bar, I will tell them what's there and give some details about everyone they can see. Their characters are looking, so they would notice the shabbily dressed gnome and the old one armed farmer. Most of the time those two would just be patrons who happened to just be there.

 

[Umbran]

This is a bit of a rehash of a line of discussion that has already happened, so this feels like a bit of a misrepresentation. From what I've seen, it's more:
A: It looks like this style has a problem, and nobody will tell me how it is handled!
B: I handle it by XYZ, someone else may handle it differently.
A: That isn't sufficient enough to alleviate my concerns.
B: Well, maybe this style isn't for you...

And, in my reading, that line I bolded is not an accurate representation. Since the person who said it originally reacted positively to my post, I think I got pretty near the mark.

Can you stop telling me how to answer his post please? I think it is relevant. If he thinks it isn't he can tell me

So, EzekielRaiden was specifically and explicitly expressing frustration at how their actual inquiries weren't being clearly addressed. So, it seemed to me that keeping focus on the actual query was important.

In any event, your thought that they wouldn't like it has been stated, pretty clearly. We could even, for sake of clearing up the discussion, take it as a given, and proceed as if we all know that ER would not like it.

Having established that, if you don't have anything else to say on ERs' query, I'll not pursue it with you further.

 

[Guest 85555]

In any event, your thought that they wouldn't like it has been stated, pretty clearly. We could even, for sake of clearing up the discussion, take it as a given, and proceed as if we all know that ER would not like it.

Does that mean there's nothing further to discuss?

I have to be honest Umbran. I like you as a mod and poster, but when you throw in snarky "Wows" like that, it rubs people the wrong way. And when you do it while telling them they are posting wrong (when I feel I was just honestly responding to what was said), it is very frustrating

 

[Guest 85555]

I really like you sharing that you have found broader impressions work better than detail for you! Do you think you can try to give an example as to approximately how broad strokes you use now? Even better if you manage to compare it to what you might have done before?

What I mean is, instead of describing everything in geographically precise detail (which I might do if tactics are super important), when the players are approaching something like a house in the woods, I will be very minimal: You see a courtyard house nestled in the trees with a lot of activity around it.

I try to keep things to a sentence. If it is important, I might give greater detail initially. But I want to engage the players through Q&A, so the thing I am trying to avoid is having them feel like I am narrating to them. I want to make sure they can quickly step in and ask questions or propose actions.

 

[Guest 85555]

So, EzekielRaiden was specifically and explicitly expressing frustration at how their actual inquiries weren't being clearly addressed. So, it seems to me that keeping focus on the actual query is relevant.

But that is exactly why I said that. I was admitting to him he may have a point. I am trying to say "You know, this may be a criticism we can't answer for you". I don't think it is crazy to go from that, to maybe this style of adventure isn't a good fit.

 

[robertsconley]

The three-prongs:
1) The players are not given prompts by the GM - players have no clue what to choose to do, and "anything they want" is not a sufficient answer, as one cannot make an informed choice without information.
2) The GM prompts everything in existence in the sandbox - the players are overwhelmed with choices/information.
3) The GM prompts some manageable sublist of everything - the players end up assuming those are the only things available, and the sandbox reduces to "pick a mission I prepare for you" play.
"Q&A" is also not a sufficient answer, as without information, you cannot frame useful questions. The GM is the player's eyes and ears, and so must prime the pump, and that leads to the three prongs, above.

The question is then how to manage to keep focus on player choice, while avoiding the three failure modes above. What are the techniques used?

This trilemma only applies if the referee’s primary role is to prompt, to steer players toward specific options through suggestion. If, instead, the referee reports the world as it stands, like a battlefield scout relaying conditions, the trilemma becomes irrelevant. Players aren’t choosing from a list; they’re navigating a situation.

In the military, scouts are trained to deliver accurate, concise descriptions to give commanders situational awareness. Tabletop referees can do the same for players. The goal isn’t to nudge or hint, but to convey what the characters perceive, allowing players to make informed choices.

Reports are filtered through the characters’ perspective. In a forest clearing, the referee might describe an old tree with a hollow, but not what could be inside. It’s up to the players to decide and act: “I check the hollow.” In complex scenes, hidden elements may lack obvious clues. The players’ knowledge, prior experience, and current focus shape what is described.

This is contextual. If the group knows rebels operate nearby and use tree hollows to pass messages, then a tree with a hollow is worth describing. If not, and they’re simply passing through, it might not be noted at all, not by fiat, but because the characters wouldn’t give it attention.

Referees can use this principle to avoid spotlighting everything. I liken it to walking through Manhattan. On a busy day, I pass hundreds of people, but I only notice what draws my attention. When I was a child, I noticed everything. As an adult on business, I filtered most of it out.

The same applies at the table. Referees describe what would plausibly catch the characters’ attention, given their context and goals. And just as in real life, not everything that happens is relevant. One day in Brooklyn, while I waited outside a shop, a guy sped by on a skateboard, wearing a cape and DJing from a boom box. It had nothing to do with me, but it happened.

Including such random moments, chosen by judgment or random tables, keeps the world from feeling curated. Not everything described is important. That’s how I avoid the third prong: players don’t assume what’s described is the only thing available, because they know not all of it matters.

Finally, players in my Living World sandbox begin with an Initial Context, a situation report that outlines their characters’ circumstances and what they already know at the start of the campaign.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Right, but this is basically not connected to who can say what, it's true regardless. Also, as you articulate it, what would be the harm in a game being a little more specific about the kinds of stuff it expects to be about?

A game can absolutely be more specific about the kinds of stories it's meant to tell, that kind of clarity can often be helpful. We see this in a lot of third party products. But I don’t think the issue here is what the game is about. It’s how we play together.

This goes back to something I've argued in the past, in other threads. You cant codify social issues. If groups lack the social skills to do as my mother said, and play nice, no amount of rules will help them. And if the group has those social skills, the rules are superfluous.

So, put simply, I think codifying table behavior is a poor use of developer time. Designers can and should offer advice, examples, and guidance on healthy table culture—but they can’t legislate good behavior into existence. Trying to do so is, in my opinion, a fool’s errand.

2) A bit of an aside: It is neither flawed, nor unflawed, in an objective sense. Approaches to play can only be evaluated in the context of some set of desires or expectations. Not all games even use the GM/Player(s) model, for example.

A couple things with this.

My comment is firmly situated in the context of games that do use the GM/player model, which remains the dominant structure in the hobby. I think GMless games are out of the scope of my comment, but I think the underlying idea of collaboration would still apply there as well.

And while it’s true that no approach is objectively right or wrong, I think it’s fair to say that removing collaboration in a collaborative medium is a poor fit. To me, it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes this hobby work.

 

[Campbell]

It's not about legislating good behavior. It's about establishing shared creative goals (that we all agree to take on). This is no different than deciding to play Resistance, Uno or Battle For Rokugan (all board games). Part of playing any game is taking on the roles it defines and the objectives of play.

So, we can approach things in a few ways. We find games that have creative goals that sound like fun ones we can agree on and the group collectively embraces those goals, we can start with a shared vision and try to find a game that matches it or we can all bring in our individual creative goals and try to accommodate one another. Obviously in each case, we can adjust things as we go, but vastly prefer the first two. But I also tend to have creative goals that are dependent on the people I'm playing with also sharing them.

It's not about social skills. It's about collectively choosing to do something together rather than everyone trying to do their own thing and just learning to accommodate one another.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A game can absolutely be more specific about the kinds of stories it's meant to tell, that kind of clarity can often be helpful. We see this in a lot of third party products. But I don’t think the issue here is what the game is about. It’s how we play together.

This goes back to something I've argued in the past, in other threads. You cant codify social issues. If groups lack the social skills to do as my mother said, and play nice, no amount of rules will help them. And if the group has those social skills, the rules are superfluous.

So, put simply, I think codifying table behavior is a poor use of developer time. Designers can and should offer advice, examples, and guidance on healthy table culture—but they can’t legislate good behavior into existence. Trying to do so is, in my opinion, a fool’s errand.

Sure. But I am more thinking of the sort of structured exposition of aboutness and roles that something like Apocalypse World provides. I, and I think many other players of more modern RPGs, find the lack of such to be a fairly obvious deficiency given how frequently issues seem to stem from confusion in this area.

 

[Campbell]

I do agree that rules will not resolve social issues and that a functional set of creative relationships should basically be assumed. That's what I would call basic stuff.

The fun bit to me is what happens once we have those functional relationships. How can we get to diverse and compelling (and different) play experiences. What does it look like if we row in this direction or that direction? If we take on this goal and this other technique? How can we move past just functional?