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

[Lanefan]

But that’s going back to the idea that this isn’t really a true sandbox, because the PCs can’t go anywhere—some places are simply instant death for low-level play.

Nitpick, perhaps: the PCs can go anywhere they like. It's just that if they do go to some places, they won't come back.

If I were to do this sort of sandbox, I’d do a mixture of these myself.

Well, yes; one of the things kind of inherent to a playable sandbox is that there be challenges and adventure possibilities out there suitable-ish for all levels. The thing with a true sandbox, though, is that it's almost completely on the players to - sometimes by info-gathering, sometimes by (maybe painful!) trial and error - determine which of those challenges and possibilities they can handle and which they cannot.

 

[Umbran]

To me some posters are raising a reasonable concern about an acute category of GM or game designer prep being given standing in the fiction prior to becoming known to players, which is when the prepared element seems like one that couldn't be needed unless players are to act in a certain way. Which seems to make assumptions about or override their agency.

Whether giving those unused elements standing in the fiction is valid or not depends on the playstyle agreed upon before play began.

Then, I wonder at calling this a "concern", insofar as games that intend to preserve player agency in that particular form already have that preservation baked into their design - if the GM follows the game rules as stated, they won't be giving those possibly unused items standing in the fiction, and may not even be generating ideas for those possibilities ahead of time.

To wit - when you agree to play bog-standard D&D, there is no "concern", as there's no promise to the players that all elements of the fiction will match their particular agendas.

It is pretty much only in the edge case of agreeing to a playstyle that the rules are not specifically designed for, that this will be a "concern". And, while the choice to do that is a valid one, the GM who was part of that choice is kind of on the hook for worrying about the concern. Folks on EN World should not be expected to answer for it. Maybe go ask that GM why they are choosing D&D for that approach to play, instead of Dungeon World, Blades in the Dark, or some other game that is closer to the right tool for the job.

Redundantly preparing a wide range of such elements could feel dissatisfying as surely it's impossible to anticipate every unfolding line of play.

Well, for one thing, prep-heavy games tend to attract GMs who find preparation itself to be part of the fun for them. Telling them to do less of it is telling them to have less fun. That's not going to get you far.

For another thing, GMs don't have to anticipate every unfolding line of play.

Indeed, for me professionally, there's a valid saying: "The Plan is not the valuable thing - the value is in the act of planning. " Having gone through the act of planning, you have reviewed the situation in some detail, and have considered how the pieces of the situation inter-relate, and have them recently in mind. Then, when things go against the plan, you are in a far better position to adjust to the unfolding situation than if you didn't plan at all. Having planned a couple of likely scenarios, the GM is more likely to be able to come up with one to cover a third direction not yet considered on the fly.

 

[AlViking]

To me some posters are raising a reasonable concern about an acute category of GM or game designer prep being given standing in the fiction prior to becoming known to players, which is when the prepared element seems like one that couldn't be needed unless players are to act in a certain way. Which seems to make assumptions about or override their agency.

Redundantly preparing a wide range of such elements could feel dissatisfying as surely it's impossible to anticipate every unfolding line of play. Although techniques such as signalling possible encounters in response to player actions, and finalising game details of prepared encounters based on actual play, can mitigate that. (And likely only encounters engaging detailed minigames benefit much from being prepared: others may be extrapolated from divers prepared setting elements that themselves are not encounters.)

The semantic debate seems as @Umbran points out, somewhat constructed. But I think there are interesting questions aside from that.

I don't prepare responses. I don't plan out the path the players will take or what the ultimate outcome will be. I make a few educated guesses here and there for responses, paths and outcomes just to help me think about how I might handle things and to give me an idea of what I should prepare. If the goal is going to be rescue the prince from the clutches of the evil sorcerer, I have to think about likely options of how they'll know where to go and what defenses the sorcerer is going to have. If this is an area I don't have any notes on I may want to add some high level descriptive info.

Then I prepare elements that the characters are likely to encounter experience. I prepare NPCs and give them descriptive text, motivations and goals. I have some idea of the physical location even if I don't typically do detailed maps. If I think combat is possible I have monsters written down along with what drives them and perhaps some other general notes. I usually have a combat encounter or two of just monsters that could be encountered in the area based on what is there, the same way I have a list of randomly generated names and NPC descriptions I don't expect to use. I do that because it will help me keep the game flowing if I need to start 100% improvising which happens on a fairly regular basis. I need to know the stats of the sorcerer and his bodyguards even if the characters end up negotiating the release of the prince because I didn't know if they could avoid combat.

I signal something if I think it makes sense from the character's perspective, if they're in pirate town and go into a shady bar it should be fairly obvious that a fight is possible even if I don't expect one. But if the characters have no reason to expect an ambush then the characters have no reason to expect an ambush. Obviously D&D and similar games need some prep for most GMs because it doesn't use more generic resolution procedures that can be adapted to different types of obstacles or challenges.

 

[TwoSix]

I certainly don't understand how their group has stayed together, I grant you that. That I don't understand does not mean it shouldn't have, couldn't have, nor didn't. It just means I have literally no clue how they managed to stick together so long.

Because every description Lanefan has given about it has made it quite clear how fundamentally mercenary their play is--as in, genuinely every man for himself as far as character behavior goes. I believe Lanefan has even directly agreed to the "mercenary" descriptor before, but that could be confabulation on my part.

I don't think I understand this viewpoint, or at least I lack the perspective necessary to empathize with it.

If I'm roleplaying an unpleasant jerk, and my friend is roleplaying another unpleasant jerk, and our characters both decide to off each other, that doesn't negatively impact my relationship with my friend at all. Heck, it's a bonding moment.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Though I have to point out nothing intrinsically requires a game otherwise mechanically in the D&D-sphere to require advancement. Frankly, at a certain point, advancement flattened out to the point you might never see a new level again in the OD&D days; there's nothing that would stop you from finding a level that worked for the group's comfort in 5e and just never levelling again. The fact everyone is used to zero-to-hero there doesn't really change that.

Advancement is a question of expectations, not necessity in almost any RPG (and I say that as someone who'd probably find static advancement (as compared to limited advancement) discomforting); the other elements of the game are almost irrelevant outside setting those expectations.

Sure, but I think a lot of folks enjoy and expect some kind of advancement, even if it's not the by level variety popularized by D&D. Even games like Call of Cthulhu and Cyberpunk have skill advancement, and most superhero games allow you to get stronger and/or more versatile even though that's not really what those games are about. I don't think we need to make an explicit #notallRPGs statement about liking or expecting it most of the time.

And I'm all in for a level system like pre-WotC D&D where things pretty much level off after a certain threshold. That's still real advancement for as long as it lasts.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But I enjoy some of the games that you and others here enjoy. I like and play D&D. I like and play other games as well.

My point is that some terms simply don't suit all games, which some folks are insisting is the case.

To be fair, you only seem to bring up traditional games when you're accused of only liking non-traditional ones.

I freely admit that not all terms apply to all games, but if we fixate on that progressive discussion grinds to a halt IMO.

 

[Umbran]

I would instead argue that if you enter into a game believing that individual achievement is meaningless

Ah, sorry, I didn't use the word "meaningless".

... the group advancement dynamic taken by WotC D&D and other games probably won't bother you, but if you instead think what you personally accomplish should contribute to your advancement, then it might. Your phrasing not only presents an unwarranted extreme, it demonstrates a negative judgement on those who think individual PC action should matter.

With all due respect, no.

I was noting that the statement we were given only held in once specific condition. That should NOT be taken as my holding the exact opposite position, and it should NOT be taken as negative judgement on anyone.

Also, I'm sure you know that FATE is not going to be an enjoyable game for everyone, so conclusions peculiar to its style and mechanics won't always apply.

What on this good green Earth said to you that I expected everyone would enjoy its style of mechanics? Please quote in my post where I suggested any such thing?

I used an example of a game that lacked individual advancement, but by no means lacked people sticking their necks out. That's all. I made exactly zero claim that the system was somehow a silver bullet for everyone's needs.

Sheesh.

 

[TwoSix]

To be fair, you only seem to bring up traditional games when you're accused of only liking non-traditional ones.

I freely admit that not all terms apply to all games, but if we fixate on that progressive discussion grinds to a halt IMO.

It's not really an issue if not all terms apply to all games; what becomes an issue is if the same term can mean completely different or even contradictory things depending on assumptions about what kind of games are being discussed.

That's why it's important to recognize and look for places where our viewpoints may be prejudiced by our own experiences.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's not really an issue if not all terms apply to all games; what becomes an issue is if the same term can mean completely different or even contradictory things depending on assumptions about what kind of games are being discussed.

That's why it's important to recognize and look for places where our viewpoints may be prejudiced by our own experiences.

In that case, if people insist on talking about wildly incompatible games in the same discussions, terms that have equally incompatible definitions in those games probably should be avoided.

 

[TwoSix]

In that case, if people insist on talking about wildly incompatible games in the same discussions, terms that have equally incompatible definitions in those games probably should be avoided.

That would be hard, because I don't think any TTRPGs are "incompatible" with each other. They're just different from each other.

Similar terms that have different use cases in different contexts should be discussed so that everyone can understand the contexts. Which is what we're doing here!