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

[EzekielRaiden]

I think we are using the word "collaboration" in slightly different ways.

To me, collaboration in TTRPGs isn’t about everyone having identical creative authority over every element. It’s about players and GM working together to create an experience; listening to one another, responding to choices, and showing care for each other’s contributions.

A GM might build a world, but ideally they do so in service of the group. Likewise, players might make choices and shape events. But ideally with the same respect and thoughtfulness the GM brought to their prep. Everyone works within an agreed-upon tone, logic, and theme.

The group doesn’t need to flatten all roles into one shared authorship model to collaborate effectively. They can, instead, collaborate through how each person at the table engages with one another contributions. It's less about creative authority and more about mutual responsiveness, respect, and investment.

To me, that’s collaboration. Not because everyone has equal narrative control at all times, but because we’re all participating in a shared creative endeavor with mutual investment.

I never said anything about flattening--nor about perfect equality either. Folks in this thread are pretty happy to accuse others of using a perfection argument, but then to get annoyed when others say the same of them. So I'd appreciate it if you didn't ascribe demands of perfection to my arguments, since I'm trying to avoid doing that to others.

More importantly, collaboration was repeatedly and explicitly rejected. And then...well, I mean, you yourself just spoke of "all participating". Yes, I agree everyone is participating. But the explicit statement, made over and over and over again in this thread, was that the GM is the sole, singular creator. No player creates--ever. They contribute, but contribution isn't the same as creation.

Think of it as...the payroll director of a software company, or film studio, or what-have-you, is not a creator. They still contribute to the process of making a game (or film, or presumably music, or various other things), but at no point are they involved in the creative process. Given the importance of, y'know, paying your employees so they continue to do work, payroll is inarguably essential for the creation to exist. But being essential to creation is not the same as doing anything creative yourself.

 

[Guest 85555]

....hence why I said, in the bit you cut out...

If you're going to quote me in order to skewer me on not being subjective enough, it behooves you to not cut out the part where I LITERALLY DID say it was subjective, and not only subjective but specifically in my opinion. As in personal. Just for me, not speaking for anyone else.

Now who's trying to "score points"? But will anyone else call this out or find problem with it?

I wasn't trying to score points and I wasn't trying to take what you said out of context.

What is your problem man? You have had a childish rage towards everyone in this thread, and we have been pretty calmly addressing your concerns and questions.

 

[SableWyvern]

It was an example I was given on this very forum. I might be incorrect about which specific monster(s) you were supposed to learn about from the maimed man. But it was definitely an example, and given on this very forum, though I no longer remember who said it.

Thinking back on it, I believe it was in one of those "player skill not character sheet" type threads, a few years back.

Why are you holding people in this thread accountable for things said to you by different people, in a different thread, on a different topic, literally years ago?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If something about that environment (e.g. the dockside tavern you're in) interests you-as-player, ask for more detail about it. If not, move on to a different environment (e.g. down to the docks to check out the ships).

How can I know that I need to ask a question if I don't know there's something to ask questions about?

That's the problem here. I can't know whether or not there are things I don't know unless I already know at least a bit!

Sure, it could...if you don't mind listening to the DM give a half-hour narration every time. I know I'd rather have the DM take less tha a minute and say something like "The tavern is unexpectedly full and quite loud. Most of the patrons seems to be more-or-less rough-looking rowdy sailor types, with a smattering of people possibly of a more criminal persuasion. Two burly bouncers stand guard by the door and another by the bar, while several servers are run off their feet providing ale and the overwhelmed barkeep hasn't got time for any conversation with anyone. At first glance the furniture - befitting the rest of the place - appears dirty and well-worn but solid and sturdy." than have her take maybe an hour going into detail about every person in the place, every type of liquor behind the bar, and every piece of decoration on the walls.

And even that description of the tavern is more detail than I'd probably go into unless asked.

I think the best practice is high-level overview description of the scene or situation followed by Q&A; this allows the players to highlight what's of interest to them and directs the DM to focus on those elements.

So, to loop back to the above: How do the players know to ask about things they don't even know are present to be asked about? To reference the actually (if surprisingly) meaningful speech from Rumsfeld: "We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tends to be the difficult ones."

Precisely the same thing here. It is the unknown unknowns which are the most significant concerns, and also the thing the players are almost completely incapable of reaching under their own power--but if the GM pushes them into the light, that's the GM shaping player choices, or so I've understood it (and it seems to me your recent posts have agreed with this perspective.)

As for finding needles in haystacks, no big deal to me if there's a needle in there and they don't find it.

Color me shocked. Shocked! No, wait, not shocked. What's the word? Actually I'm not sure there is a word now that I think about it, which kind of ruins the joke. But I'm exactly the antithesis of surprised.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why are you holding people in this thread accountable for things said to you by different people, in a different thread, on a different topic, literally years ago?

Because it is a concrete example of a specific concern I personally would have in this context, which came from a real person.

It can't be dismissed because it's a weird hypothetical.

It can't be dismissed because it couldn't happen.

It can't be dismissed as something I invented for purpose.

I referenced it because it was something I thought people would actually have to respond to, rather than "well I'm just going to ignore that and pretend you have no point at all". Which has repeatedly happened in this thread.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Which then puts it on you to ask about the availability and-or prices of the specific things on your shopping list.

Sure. But can you have a shopping list if you aren't allowed to know what the store contains until after you get there and ask your Guide Merchant what the store contains?

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I never said anything about flattening--nor about perfect equality either. Folks in this thread are pretty happy to accuse others of using a perfection argument, but then to get annoyed when others say the same of them. So I'd appreciate it if you didn't ascribe demands of perfection to my arguments, since I'm trying to avoid doing that to others.

I can only react to your responses as I interpret what you say. I will not be 100% accurate in this interpretation. I believe this quote is what led me to the "flattening" interpretation;

why you would call it "collaborative" when "The GM builds a world", whether or not "they build it for us."

I am sorry if what I said bothered you or seemed inappropriate, it is always my intention to be respectful and kind. Hopefully that comes across in my posts.

More importantly, collaboration was repeatedly and explicitly rejected. And then...well, I mean, you yourself just spoke of "all participating". Yes, I agree everyone is participating. But the explicit statement, made over and over and over again in this thread, was that the GM is the sole, singular creator. No player creates--ever. They contribute, but contribution isn't the same as creation.

Think of it as...the payroll director of a software company, or film studio, or what-have-you, is not a creator. They still contribute to the process of making a game (or film, or presumably music, or various other things), but at no point are they involved in the creative process. Given the importance of, y'know, paying your employees so they continue to do work, payroll is inarguably essential for the creation to exist. But being essential to creation is not the same as doing anything creative yourself.

I think it's important to remember that I am only explaining my stance. Other Enworlders may view things differently, and I expect some will. It’s a nuanced topic after all.

When I talk about collaboration, I mean it in the context of storytelling; building a shared narrative together. In the games I’ve played and run, players absolutely create. They create characters with backstories that introduce new locations, factions, and events. They shape the direction of the world through their choices. This all adds to what the GM provides. I personally take those additions as inspiration for future sessions, leading to what I believe is co-creation.

I understand the payroll analogy, but I don’t think it fits here. In a TTRPG, players aren’t outside the creative process like support staff for a production. They’re at the table, actively building the story in real time. Their contributions don’t just support the GM’s creation—they transform it through interaction. And, in my opinion, that transformation is very clearly a creative act.

I think this hobby is a shared creative space, where each role contributes differently, but all meaningfully.

 

[Faolyn]

How can I know that I need to ask a question if I don't know there's something to ask questions about?

That's the problem here. I can't know whether or not there are things I don't know unless I already know at least a bit!

You can’t think to ask “is such-and-such here?” Extrapolate from the available data! Make stuff up and see what sticks!

 

[SableWyvern]

Because it is a concrete example of a specific concern I personally would have in this context, which came from a real person.

It can't be dismissed because it's a weird hypothetical.

It can't be dismissed because it couldn't happen.

It can't be dismissed as something I invented for purpose.

I referenced it because it was something I thought people would actually have to respond to, rather than "well I'm just going to ignore that and pretend you have no point at all". Which has repeatedly happened in this thread.

Well, the example goes back at least as far as Finch's Old School Primer, where it is (as far as I can tell) a somewhat tongue-in-cheek call for players to interrogate the game world.

As you mention, it's an example used in outlining a philosophy of play based on player skill. That discussion is mostly orthogonal to any discussion of sandboxes. The primary way you avoid issues of mismatched expectations and understanding with this style of play is exactly the same way you avoid it with other style -- by establishing and agreeing upon clear expectations prior to play.

What is especially noteworthy is that quick and hard-to-avoid death to things like slimes is part and parcel of the type of play being espoused in the Primer, and there is an expectation that the loss of low level characters isn't a big deal, and that players will learn from their experiences. Asking the one-armed man is great; if they fail to do so, they still learn the lesson, it's just learned a harder way.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, the example goes back at least as far as Finch's Old School Primer, where it is (as far as I can tell) a somewhat tongue-in-cheek call for players to interrogate the game world.

As you mention, it's an example used in outlining a philosophy of play based on player skill. That discussion is mostly orthogonal to any discussion of sandboxes. The primary way you avoid issues of mismatched expectations and understanding with this style of play is exactly the same way you avoid it with other style -- by establishing clear expectations prior to play.

Okay.

Can you tell me what those expectations are?

Because I'm fairly confident that that sort of thing is an actual answer to my questions for things about processes, procedures, guidelines, best-practices, etc. Like...a player who's never ever played sandbox before. What do they need to know? What do you tell them to make sure they're as prepared as you can make them to enjoy this, rather than getting lost, confused, frustrated, or stymied?