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

[pemerton]

I have yet to see anything in discussion of narrative games that really correlates to more traditional games like D&D.

Here's an example: D&D 4E - Pemertonian Scene-Framing; A Good Approach to D&D 4e

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Sure. I was just noting that the fact the game normally defaults to advancement, and most people probably expect some, doesn't mean you can't get a satisfactory game with almost any game without it if its managed right; the fact some games expect it and some don't is almost irrelevant except for setting those expectations.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think the distinction between calling ruins an encounter and calling a town an encounter is relevant.

I don't disagree, I just think the line isn't entirely clearcut here. I think I could quite see generating a village as an encounter for example.

 

[robertsconley]

Are you drawing a comparison in your head here between your play and like old school dungeon crawling or something? Every single game of D&D 5e I’ve played and run has rotated around interactions in character with NPCs, with that being most of the player’s favorite moments apart from high beats like an “epic combat” or unexpected problem solving.

That’s not relevant to my point about levels or how they function in a living world sandbox. The section was there to show that gaining experience, and therefore levels, doesn’t reduce play to a procedural grind. It supports the idea that level can serve as a shorthand for a character’s life experience.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure, but it's like comparing Risk to Axis and Allies. They're both about war, but that's about the end of it. I have yet to see anything in discussion of narrative games that really correlates to more traditional games like D&D.

What exactly do you mean by 'correlates to more traditional games'. There are differences, and many similarities, which have been extensively discussed for years on this venue.

As for the comparison of D&D and FATE that you are apparently referencing. I think of FATE as being specifically designed around a kind of OC/neo-trad kind of play where the players have a central role in defining what their characters do and what the story related to them is and is about. 5e certainly can be bent more or less in the direction of this same type of play, but it is going to be more related to how it is played, though things like BIFTS certainly provided some support, modest though it was (and apparently gone in 5.5e).

 

[Lanefan]

So, the characters are cognizant of their actual character levels, HP, etc. They know that these things are real in the world?

To levels, specifically: yes.

All caster types recognize the steps of progression up their class, both by what their best spells are and by how effective their spells are, and also by how often they can cast said spells. Comparing these things among your peers will fairly quickly tell you where you stand.

For non-casters, it's simply a matter of recognizing greater or lesser skill within your trade (i.e. class) when you see it. A fighter might not be able to tell how many actual levels she is higher or lower than another fighter but after even just a bit of observation or sparring they will both know who is better out of the two of them.

Also, in games like mine where training is required to level, simply counting how many training runs you've done gives a very close equivalent of level.

They're not, however, cognizant of hit points other than in a vague sort of "she's a lot more resilient to pain than I am" sense.

 

[Faolyn]

But, doesn't this violate the whole "The world is independent of the PC's" criteria of a sandbox? After all, the world must not change in response to what the PC's are, only in response to what they do. If you are changing encounters based on the party level, you aren't running a sandbox, according to many in this thread.

Or, to put it another way, how can a world which changes at the stroke of the DM's pen based on the party's level be considered independent and having internal logic?

I mean, you just have the same opponents, but with different numbers of them or different levels of hit points and AC (lower or higher), stuff like that. Obviously that’s not going to help you if the PCs go to places with nothing but high-level opponents, like the Demonweb Pits or the Valley of the Ancient Dragons, but it will open up a lot more of the world to them without changing what’s actually there. If the PCs travel through Bandit Badlands, they still get attacked by bandits. They just meet, I dunno, eight bandits instead of fifteen bandits led by three bandit chiefs, or whatever it would be.

 

[robertsconley]

So, the characters are cognizant of their actual character levels, HP, etc. They know that these things are real in the world?

You're reading level as a mechanism for gating content. That’s not how I use it. In my Majestic Fantasy RPG, level is a shorthand for life experience, not a script. The world doesn’t scale to the party. Some places are inherently dangerous and remain so. Others are more manageable. The players choose where to go. The consequences follow from that.

The mountaineering and caving examples weren’t about level restrictions. They illustrate how people in real life deal with dangerous, uncertain environments: by asking questions, gathering information, gaining experience, and making informed decisions. That’s the model I apply to play, not “go here at level 3,” but “you can go anywhere, but you better understand what you’re walking into.”

GURPS works the same way. Low-point characters in a dangerous world face high risk. The system doesn’t stop them from heading into trouble. The danger doesn’t scale down, it’s always there, waiting to be found. I designed Majestic Fantasy RPG with a similar survivability curve to GURPS in mind. In Majestic Wilderlands campaigns run in either system, characters can go anywhere, but they need to read the situation and act accordingly. Whether they’re 1st level or 50 points, or 10th level or 250 points, the risk remains constant. It’s how the players choose to engage that matters.

So, if we ignore what level actually means

I’d be cautious about framing anything as “what level actually means.” I’ve spent over two decades running GURPS (2e through 4e), and nearly 15 years with classic D&D starting in the late 2000s. I'm well acquainted with how level and point values are commonly used across systems and tables.

What we’re discussing here is how I use level in my Living World sandbox, particularly with my Majestic Fantasy RPG, which I’ve run successfully across multiple systems, campaigns, and groups. It’s the same approach I use when running sandbox campaigns with D&D 5e.

If you don’t think that experience is relevant, feel free to challenge it. But don’t tell me what level actually means. It means what it means at your table. I use it differently, and I’ve built a consistent framework around that usage that works in play.

 

[AlViking]

Here's an example: D&D 4E - Pemertonian Scene-Framing; A Good Approach to D&D 4e

I'll try to take a look when I have enough time to really go through it.

 

[AlViking]

What exactly do you mean by 'correlates to more traditional games'. There are differences, and many similarities, which have been extensively discussed for years on this venue.

As for the comparison of D&D and FATE that you are apparently referencing. I think of FATE as being specifically designed around a kind of OC/neo-trad kind of play where the players have a central role in defining what their characters do and what the story related to them is and is about. 5e certainly can be bent more or less in the direction of this same type of play, but it is going to be more related to how it is played, though things like BIFTS certainly provided some support, modest though it was (and apparently gone in 5.5e).

I don't see much of a connection between the approach of narrative games (and I've never had a chance to play FATE, perhaps it was a bad example) and D&D and similar games. Narrative games seem to be very reactionary, entirely focused on the character while D&D is focused on adventure - even if the adventures are chosen by the players in a sandbox. I don't know or care about TIBFs of my player's characters, we tried to lean into it a bit when 5e came out but it just felt artificial to us. Which, I mean I know the whole game is artificial but it just seemed unnecessary. It was better for the players to just discuss and chose direction in character, resolve or talk about their character through RP rather than have some meta-framing being taken into consideration.

Which isn't a great explanation, I just feel like we're comparing apples and baseballs when we discuss different approaches.