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

[Maxperson]

If you agree that you cannot know anything of what is in the world, not even in principle until the GM has undertaken efforts to inform you, then how can you possibly have a "shopping list" prior to that?

Like you're literally undercutting your own message here!

He didn't say they can't know anything of the world until informed. He said what he wanted might not be available. If I play in his world, I know swords exist before I ever start the first session. I can add a sword to my shopping list. When I get to town, though, there may not be a sword for sale. There not being one for sale isn't the same as not knowing whether swords exist within the world until told.

The same goes for everything that is D&D standard or extends logically from that. If anything non-standard is happening, like the world has no swords for some reason, the DM will usually let the players know that prior to play. And rarely, you might be wrong when you assume a logical extension from something D&D standard, because strange things are sometimes present in settings that would keep it from happening.

 

[Faolyn]

Well, some posters are telling me that their sandboxing does not centre the GM.

But now I am being told that players are bypassing things that have no existence except as ideas in the mind of the GM.

So why is this such a sticking point for you? What is it about this concept that is just too difficult for you to understand?

Prepped game: I write down an encounter, or the clues that would lead to the encounter. If the players deliberately decide to not engage with the encounter or follow the clues, but instead go around, they bypass it.

Improvised game: I invent, on the spot and in response to player actions, either an encounter or the clues that would lead to the encounter. If the players deliberately decide to not engage with the encounter or follow the clues, but instead go around, they bypass it.

To me, that’s basically the same thing, with the only difference being in when I come up with the encounter idea.

Maybe when you GM, you’re able to shut off the parts your brain that thinks about what happens next. Maybe you’re able to happily put down tracks for the PCs to follow without giving a single thought as to what made them until the players actually follow them and get to the end. I can’t do that. I can’t stop those thoughts.

But if you can’t understand this, then I’m not sure there’s any point in you continuing to ask because you’ll never get it.

 

[zakael19]

Maybe when you GM, you’re able to shut off the parts your brain that thinks about what happens next. Maybe you’re able to happily put down tracks for the PCs to follow without giving a single thought as to what made them until the players actually follow them and get to the end. I can’t do that. I can’t stop those thoughts.

I don’t think of anything I do right now as encounters, because the games I’m running don’t either. At most, I’m framing a scene that may or may not include a danger (a stalking beast, a babbling brook with a nature spirit, an ancient ruined tower, a demanding loved one), and asking “what do you do?”

If the players go quiet and sneak away from the beast, or walk past the tower, or admire the brook but don’t invoke the spirit I’m not thinking in terms of “bypassing.” They chose to do something in response to the situation, where I had 0 up front expectations.

I do think a lot of this circles back to a) advancement rules and b) GM prep and expectation. If the advancement rules demand overcoming challenges for progress, “encounters” become part of the ruleset. 5e’s play culture move towards milestone leveling would suggest devaluing that sort of thing, but the time it takes to set up and run interesting combat keeps the notion on the table (plus the emphasis in AP culture on encounters of all sorts).

 

[Umbran]

I think you correctly point to priming the pump, albeit that does not lead to the three prongs.* I wanted to emphasize the ongoing or rolling nature of the shared narrative, which carries momentum forward from initial situation, and remind about the lusory attitude.

*I noticed on rereading that there is an ambiguity in the formatting, and most likely you mean to say that in the absence of priming the pump the three prongs could emerge. Your concern contained its own solution.

No, I think you miss the basic point: Properly priming the players, so that they have enough information, but not too much, and retain the idea that the information you've primed with are suggestions, but not the totality of what they can choose to do, is NOT EASY, and one can slip into one of those three modes if not done well.

So, the original question was basically about what processes and procedures are used to ensure it is done well.

 

[clearstream]

I don’t think of anything I do right now as encounters, because the games I’m running don’t either. At most, I’m framing a scene that may or may not include a danger (a stalking beast, a babbling brook with a nature spirit, an ancient ruined tower, a demanding loved one), and asking “what do you do?”

If the players go quiet and sneak away from the beast, or walk past the tower, or admire the brook but don’t invoke the spirit I’m not thinking in terms of “bypassing.” They chose to do something in response to the situation, where I had 0 up front expectations.

I do think a lot of this circles back to a) advancement rules and b) GM prep and expectation. If the advancement rules demand overcoming challenges for progress, “encounters” become part of the ruleset. 5e’s play culture move towards milestone leveling would suggest devaluing that sort of thing, but the time it takes to set up and run interesting combat keeps the notion on the table (plus the emphasis in AP culture on encounters of all sorts).

To me, the way you describe scenes can fit with sandbox and comes to possibly semantics (an "encounter" may or may not contain danger etc.) I've come to prefer the word "scene" only because it reminds better of structural concerns and available diversity of content.

While advancement isn't distinctly a sandbox issue (many approaches can work) I think you are right that for rulesets that emphasise a detailed conflict minigame, GM preparing a range of possible encounters can serve the players well (by enriching content in whatever directions they go). Perhaps in future AI will cover that work.

 

[clearstream]

No, I think you miss the basic point: Properly priming the players, so that they have enough information, but not too much, and retain the idea that the information you've primed with are suggestions, but not the totality of what they can choose to do, is NOT EASY, and one can slip into one of those three modes if not done well.

As I do find it easy, it seems like "properly" perhaps has a per-group dimension to it.

So, the original question was basically about what processes and procedures are used to ensure it is done well.

I suspect having constraints in mind for rates of spatial and temporal repositioning relative to scale is helpful in limiting the scope of information. (It can be a mistake to communicate too much detail... less is more!) An example of what I mean is the Traveller UPP.

My normative definition of rules should remind that norms substantially preexist. A poster above referred to that. So another technique is to use normal labels to indicate the categories or sense of what is there (for further Q&A), drawing attention to where norms are extended/superseded.

And then it is also a conversation where the players have a job to do. They need to say what they are interested in.

In these ways, the group can expand upon a sketched initial situation in directions players care about. There are probably other techniques that could be teased out with more thought.

 

[Faolyn]

I don’t think of anything I do right now as encounters, because the games I’m running don’t either. At most, I’m framing a scene that may or may not include a danger (a stalking beast, a babbling brook with a nature spirit, an ancient ruined tower, a demanding loved one), and asking “what do you do?”

If the players go quiet and sneak away from the beast, or walk past the tower, or admire the brook but don’t invoke the spirit I’m not thinking in terms of “bypassing.” They chose to do something in response to the situation, where I had 0 up front expectations.

I do think a lot of this circles back to a) advancement rules and b) GM prep and expectation. If the advancement rules demand overcoming challenges for progress, “encounters” become part of the ruleset. 5e’s play culture move towards milestone leveling would suggest devaluing that sort of thing, but the time it takes to set up and run interesting combat keeps the notion on the table (plus the emphasis in AP culture on encounters of all sorts).

I’m that paragraph, I’m not even talking about encounters. I’m talking about thinking about what the things I say mean. If I’m improvising a scene and I say there are footprints, at that same time I’m also thinking about what made those footprints. Thus, an encounter with what made the footprints becomes possible.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So why is this such a sticking point for you? What is it about this concept that is just too difficult for you to understand?

If I had to hazard a guess. I would say he is asking because it’s hard to reconcile the ideas of encounters and how they relate to prep and how that impacts how GM- or player-centric a game may be.

As @zakael19 elaborates in this post:

I do think a lot of this circles back to a) advancement rules and b) GM prep and expectation. If the advancement rules demand overcoming challenges for progress, “encounters” become part of the ruleset. 5e’s play culture move towards milestone leveling would suggest devaluing that sort of thing, but the time it takes to set up and run interesting combat keeps the notion on the table (plus the emphasis in AP culture on encounters of all sorts).

I think the advancement angle is an interesting one, and now that you say it, i think it connects with the very idea of encounters and then prep.

I imagine that’s a very strong reason that some people simply cannot think of approaching play GMing without the idea of”encounters” being baked in. Bit my experience matches yours… I don’t think in terms of encounters in games like Stonetop, Blades in the Dark, or Spire. None of these games based advancement on resolving encounters, and all of them rely on less GM prep than trad games.

 

[Campbell]

Maybe when you GM, you’re able to shut off the parts your brain that thinks about what happens next. Maybe you’re able to happily put down tracks for the PCs to follow without giving a single thought as to what made them until the players actually follow them and get to the end. I can’t do that. I can’t stop those thoughts.

That is the intended mentality for the playstyles Apocalypse World and Burning Wheel were designed to support. To stay present, focus on what is on-screen. Don't commit to anything off-screen. Think of possibilities, sure, but do not get attached to them. Because as a GM the job is maintaining the pace of play and keeping the focus on the premise of the game and the individual player characters.

We're still extrapolating, but only in the moment and always in service to the needs of the game.

Aside: I think there's this thing where we see a game tells us how it's intended to be structured and think to ourselves (based on our previous experiences with more conventional play) it cannot literally mean it. Like when Vileborn, says it expects players and GMs to embrace the three-act structure of its scenarios I did a double take. I think we should take more things at face value.

 

[AlViking]

I don’t think of anything I do right now as encounters, because the games I’m running don’t either. At most, I’m framing a scene that may or may not include a danger (a stalking beast, a babbling brook with a nature spirit, an ancient ruined tower, a demanding loved one), and asking “what do you do?”

If the players go quiet and sneak away from the beast, or walk past the tower, or admire the brook but don’t invoke the spirit I’m not thinking in terms of “bypassing.” They chose to do something in response to the situation, where I had 0 up front expectations.

I do think a lot of this circles back to a) advancement rules and b) GM prep and expectation. If the advancement rules demand overcoming challenges for progress, “encounters” become part of the ruleset. 5e’s play culture move towards milestone leveling would suggest devaluing that sort of thing, but the time it takes to set up and run interesting combat keeps the notion on the table (plus the emphasis in AP culture on encounters of all sorts).

XP has no particular relevance to encounters. I haven't used XP for quite some time now, I still think in terms of encounters. It's just a difference from narrative games and traditional games which are more of a simulation generated by a GM. An encounter doesn't have to be combat, although it typically has an obstacle and/or opportunity that moves the game forward. It's just a way of categorizing scenes that GMs may want to do prep for and that will have some impact on the state of play.

Of course it doesn't really matter if we all agree or not, it's the what D&D and some other games call it.