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

[Hussar]

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.

But, as @Lanefan pointed out to you, rewriting areas based on the character level is verbotten in sandbox play. That's one of the most fundamental aspects of a sandbox as it's being described - that the world exists completely independently of the PC's. Altering areas just because the PC's happen to be level X and not Y is violating one of the most basic tenets of sandbox play.

Which means that D&D, and any level based system, forces you to design worlds that take levels into account. It's unavoidable.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I do not know if I might be misreading @Lanefan completely. However this is an indisputable fact: When I read Lanefan's posts that in my mind conjures up an image of a game concept I find really cool. When I read your attempts of explaining Lanefan I see an absolute horrible game concept. It might be that Lanefan's game actually is so awfull you describe, so let us set that aside for a while.

If those are your responses, that's entirely fair--I can't and wouldn't want to tell you what to feel--but for me the descriptions I read did not conjure up anything that sounded even remotely fun. Hence why I have said what I have said.

I will now try to present the core game concept I find cool that was inspired by Lanefan's posts, by amplifying it and put it into a much simpler context. I present to you my newly designed game "Cat and mouse Uno"!

In cat and mouse Uno you pretend to play Uno. You need 5 players. 4 of the players play mice, one player play cat. The players pretend to be following these two rules:
1: The standard rules of Uno
2: The mice can communicate freely, as long as they in no way reveal anything about their cards.

The *real* rules of the game are as follows:
1: If the cat ever thinks they catch a mouse in breaking any of the pretend rules, they state so, and any foul play has to be reversed and the accused mouse/mice must draw one card without question or explenation.
2: The cat actually play a legitimate game of uno.
3: Noone are allowed to do any irreversible actions like tearing up cards, or throwing the pile.
4: When the cat is out of cards, any mice with cards left lose. If all mice get rid of their cards before the cat, the cat loses.

I think this might be a fun little game. I have not playtested it. But I really think this game will work best if
1: All mice are able to trust the cat to follow real rule one consciously.
2: All mice actively try to break the pretend rules without the cat noticing.
3: The cat is actively trying to catch the mice in breaking any of the pretend rules.

But the only reason they need to trust that is because they're forbidden from questioning and will never be given an explanation? Like that specific thing is precisely the problem. The cat may declare misbehavior at any time, and the mice aren't allowed to question it, nor will they be told what they did wrong. That...I mean, what on earth COULD you do if the cat abused that? Literally the rules tell you you can't do anything. The cat has full control, every advantage, and no limits whatsoever other than choosing not to abuse their powers.

Make a note that of these 3 points only number 1 can be said to be stated by the rules. As such the two other points are purely advice on how to play this game to get a particular kind of good time. Of course you could just ignore advice 2 and 3 and the game would essentially reduce to a standard game of uno with a bit weird end condition. But I guess you could see how that would be a very different experience and that there might be players that would strongly prefer the experience you get by following that advice?

And in this framing I hope my advice regarding how to play the game I just designed is somewhat "acceptable" to you?

I mean it's very slightly better? But it still sounds like a pretty bad experience to me. Doubly so because you've inserted something which--explicitly--isn't part of what Lanefan spoke of. Two things, actually. First, you have presumed that the mice are always collaborating; as Lanefan has said both here and elsewhere there is no such expectation of cooperation, and indeed at rock bottom it really is every person for themself, it's just often wiser to keep allies around than to immediately backstab or abandon them. Second, you have made the victory condition specifically group-oriented, which is in conflict with Lanefan's explicit statement that individual success is paramount and group success is only at best a secondary thing. By enforcing cooperation between the mice, you've already presumed a removal of the mercenary attitude which is one of the bigger problems I have with the concept--and thus made something that isn't actually what Lanefan described.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Of course I am. That's what level means. Your world absolutely is scaled to party. 100%. You are designing your world where you have areas that are "inherently dangerous" and areas (presumably) which are inherently less dangerous. That's 100% because of the level system. I am frankly baffled how you could even begin to deny this. It's right there in your example. Your low level party starts in a "safer" area. Becomes more "experienced" and then can move on to the higher dangerous areas.

This is bog standard D&D. There's zero difference between this and what the old style mega-dungeons did with Dungeon Level denoting PC level.

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.

So, you agree. You have developed an idiosyncratic meaning to a word specifically so that it fits within your framework, despite the fact that no one else uses this word that way. I mean, it's an easy way to protect what you're doing from criticism. When you get to not only control the definitions of words, but also reject meanings that are commonly understood, it does make discussion somewhat difficult.

I've run enough GURPS as well. D&D characters advance from 1st to 10th level in about a year of play - in nearly any edition. That's the presumed pace. I've never, ever seen a GURPS character go from 50 points to 250 points in the same amount of play time. Good grief, we typically gave or received 2-5 points per session and 1 or 0 was not unusual. That's about two to three years of play to go from 50 to 250. Comparing GURPS to D&D and trying to claim that the progression of characters is anything similar is very far outside my experience.

 

[Faolyn]

But, as @Lanefan pointed out to you, rewriting areas based on the character level is verbotten in sandbox play. That's one of the most fundamental aspects of a sandbox as it's being described - that the world exists completely independently of the PC's. Altering areas just because the PC's happen to be level X and not Y is violating one of the most basic tenets of sandbox play.

Which means that D&D, and any level based system, forces you to design worlds that take levels into account. It's unavoidable.

Since when is everyone forced to run a sandbox in exactly the same way?

Anyway, the world still runs independently of the PCs. The NPCs have their own goals and actions. That has nothing to do with the difficulty of the encounters the PCs may have.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If those are your responses, that's entirely fair--I can't and wouldn't want to tell you what to feel--but for me the descriptions I read did not conjure up anything that sounded even remotely fun. Hence why I have said what I have said.


But the only reason they need to trust that is because they're forbidden from questioning and will never be given an explanation? Like that specific thing is precisely the problem. The cat may declare misbehavior at any time, and the mice aren't allowed to question it, nor will they be told what they did wrong. That...I mean, what on earth COULD you do if the cat abused that? Literally the rules tell you you can't do anything. The cat has full control, every advantage, and no limits whatsoever other than choosing not to abuse their powers.

Even if that were true, I don't view it as nearly a good enough reason to institute hard rules on what the GM is allowed to do. It really feels like you have a deep concern about abusive GMs that just isn't widely shared by your audience.

 

[hawkeyefan]

As someone who likes them both...

Yes, but not in the way you probably mean the question.

For example, both games can produce (what I think is) a decent shot at fantasy action-adventure. So, even if they have different ways of doing it, they aren't completely alien to each other, either. They are similar enough that you can cogently compare how they each do various aspects of the genre. While there may not be a direct mechanical port from one to the other, knowing one might well inform the GM of techniques and approaches to use in the other.

One of the best things about learning other games, for me, has been how it informs my RPGing overall. I think every RPG has things to teach players and GMs.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Whereas for me, in the kinds of play-experiences I've had, that would definitely sour the mood of that session; it would nearly 100% guaranteed require a conversation after to clarify what happened, why, and that we're still good; and it would very probably cast a long-term (but not permanent) shadow over that campaign unless the aforementioned conversation went extremely well.

Certainly, if any character in any party I'd played in decided to attack my own character with lethal intent, I would essentially always be upset and expect at the very least an explanation, and probably some degree of apology or at least an assurance of some kind.

To turn your own phrase: It would be an antibonding moment. We would be at risk of being less friends than we were before that incident. Not necessarily that that singular incident would break a friendship. But it would...well, as I said, sour the mood.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Even if that were true, I don't view it as nearly a good enough reason to institute hard rules on what the GM is allowed to do. It really feels like you have a deep concern about abusive GMs that just isn't widely shared by your audience.

And yet you do view the exact same reasoning as not only nearly good enough, but far and away good enough, to justify expansive hard rules on what players are allowed to do.

That is the core of the problem. Players need to be tightly constrained less they do horrible things. GMs need to be completely unconstrained regardless of whether or not they might do horrible things. That asymmetry has never had any more defense than "well GMs are special", which is begging the question.

 

[Faolyn]

One of the best things about learning other games, for me, has been how it informs my RPGing overall. I think every RPG has things to teach players and GMs.

Exactly. Mechanics and the like may not transfer between games, but the philosophy behind the GM’s principles often does.

 

[zakael19]

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.

Well ok, but in the context of your greater post which includes your constant refrain of stuff like:

A common criticism of this approach is: “Why bother? I only have so much time, just skip to the good stuff.” Or “I feel like I’m playing Mother May I or playing Twenty Questions.” My response is that getting to the good stuff is part of the fun. And it isn’t handled through dry procedures or filling out spreadsheets, as classic roleplaying is often depicted; it happens through interacting with NPCs, through roleplaying, and through interacting with the World in Motion and NPCs' personalities. The process of navigating that, matching your character’s goals to the agendas of others, uncovering information, and making decisions in uncertain circumstances, is what makes the journey as compelling as the destination.

Im really curious, since like "interacting with NPCs and PC to PC" is the vast majority of all the play I do even if we're handling procedures differently. Are you drawing a contrast here between a conception of older school more disposable PCs and minimal interactions? Or...?

Like, just to be clear: it's routine for me in all the games I run right now to have a session that is literally nothing but delving into relationships, agendas, and information via explicit "roleplaying" scenes with each other and NPCs along the journey that the group is going through towards their goals. Same thing in all my 5e games.