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

[zakael19]

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.

Yeah, even in light of reading plenty of other PBTAs and such - going back and looking at DITV for instance lays things out so clearly. Knowing how to run BITD and PBTAs is informing how I look at Daggerheart.

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.

FWIW, in the game of Stonetop we had on Sunday during the End of Session portion one of the players highlighted how much they loved that the current arc of play “feels like something out of the Lord of the Rings, like tke journey bits.”

Most media we look at (novel and movie alike) tends to do scene framing or montages to give the implication of distance and exploration. I try and use the same thing as we are traveling through the Great Forest and such - montage style bits where we describe the varied terrain, do some Q & A to get into the character’s heads, some trail banter, and then frame into a scene of more intense stuff.

Maybe as simple as an impending storm, the thunder pealing in the distance. What do you do? And they decide to put a leanto together for shelter (they have mystical markings right now on their faces that gives them the power to move quiet and stealthy in nature but rain might wash it off..), and the Blessed goes off foraging for more ritual plants, and rolls terribly so it takes him too long and the heavens open up, and he gets lost and the Heavy goes out with the kid’s hound to try and track him down…

I’m planning to take this sort of scene frame exploration over to Daggerheart when I start running it, it just feels like it combines the best features of time and distance passing with interesting and grabby (or just “appropriate” - like the quiet clearing of gorgeous flowers and tart but edible berries for them to resupply with and discover that the kid hates sour stuff) situations.

 

[robertsconley]

Of course I am. That's what level means. Your world absolutely is scaled to party. 100%. [...]

The City State of the Invincible Overlord is not a “safer” area. It has its own dangers, political, criminal, and otherwise, every bit as perilous as Dearthwood. Players often choose to start there because they understand how to operate within civilization, not because it’s less dangerous. That’s a choice rooted in context and familiarity, not a mechanical assumption about level-appropriate zones.

Nothing prevents a group from starting in Dearthwood. They could begin as orcs from one of the tribes. The systems I use fully support that. But so far, no group has chosen to. That’s a player-driven outcome, not world-scaling design.

The flaw in your argument is that you’re debating your assumptions about my setting rather than asking how things actually work in the Majestic Wilderlands or Majestic Fantasy Realms. When I explain them, you reframe the answer to fit your model, rather than engaging with the point I’m making.

You’re baffled because you’re trying to force everything into a framework of level-scaling and content gating. I reject that model. My worlds don’t scale to the players, the players learn to navigate the world.

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.

You’re welcome to believe that, but here’s a map of Blackmarsh. Here is the text of the setting. Feel free to analyze it however you like, but you won't find the kind of level-zoning you're assuming”

The text of the setting is attached.

So, you agree. You have developed an idiosyncratic meaning to a word...

There have long been two traditions in D&D. One treats level as a special marker of heroism or narrative significance, seen in much of Gygax’s and TSR’s work. The other, seen in Judges Guild’s City State of the Invincible Overlord and Wilderlands, treats level as life experience. Every NPC has a class and level. What I’m doing is part of that lineage. It’s not idiosyncratic, it’s historically grounded. If you’re unfamiliar with that tradition, fine, but it is not a redefinition.

It's an easy way to protect what you're doing from criticism (snip)

I’ve stated clearly, here, on my blog, on other forums, and in my published works, how I use level and class. It’s the way Blackmarsh was designed, a fairly popular setting. I’ve never claimed my approach is the only valid one. I’ve consistently said it’s a way, not the way. Yet you keep insisting it’s impossible, or evasive, simply because it doesn’t match your framework. That’s not debate, it’s projection.

I've run enough GURPS as well (snip)

This is a good example of missing the point. I never claimed GURPS and D&D have the same rate of advancement versus the out of game calendar. I said the survivability curve from 50 to 250 points in GURPS is comparable to the curve from levels 1 to 10 in my Majestic Fantasy RPG. That’s a structural design comparison, not a pacing one.

And for the record, most of my GURPS campaigns started characters at 125–150 points, roughly equivalent to 5th level in my Majestic Fantasy RPG. I have run several GURPS campaigns where the character started at 50 pts as well. If you want to start a thread on progression pacing, feel free. But it’s irrelevant to your earlier point about the survivability of the characters in the two systems.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Oh good grief.

The one fundamental point that has been repeated in this thread over and over and over again is that sandbox campaigns are created independent of the PC's. That the whole "living world" thing is completely separate from the characters.

Now, suddenly, sandboxes can be rewritten based on the level of the characters? :bwuh:? About the only thing that everyone has agreed on throughout this thread is that the biggest thing that separates sandbox play from every other playstyle is that sandboxes are not dependent upon the PC's.

We're thousands of posts in and NOW you're saying that this is wrong? That sandboxes are not necessarily separated from the characters? That it's perfectly fine in sandbox play to rewrite areas based on the level of the PC's?

Am I the only one here seeing this?

 

[robertsconley]

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



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.

The terms I used, like “Mother May I” or “skip to the good parts”, are common stereotypes that have been unfairly applied to different styles of play.

For example

"we can get to the good bits"
"mother may I" (Same post)
"twenty questions"

If you’re interested in the context behind those, I’d suggest asking the original posters directly.

 

[pemerton]

FWIW, in the game of Stonetop we had on Sunday during the End of Session portion one of the players highlighted how much they loved that the current arc of play “feels like something out of the Lord of the Rings, like tke journey bits.”

Most media we look at (novel and movie alike) tends to do scene framing or montages to give the implication of distance and exploration. I try and use the same thing as we are traveling through the Great Forest and such - montage style bits where we describe the varied terrain, do some Q & A to get into the character’s heads, some trail banter, and then frame into a scene of more intense stuff.

Maybe as simple as an impending storm, the thunder pealing in the distance. What do you do? And they decide to put a leanto together for shelter (they have mystical markings right now on their faces that gives them the power to move quiet and stealthy in nature but rain might wash it off..), and the Blessed goes off foraging for more ritual plants, and rolls terribly so it takes him too long and the heavens open up, and he gets lost and the Heavy goes out with the kid’s hound to try and track him down…

I’m planning to take this sort of scene frame exploration over to Daggerheart when I start running it, it just feels like it combines the best features of time and distance passing with interesting and grabby (or just “appropriate” - like the quiet clearing of gorgeous flowers and tart but edible berries for them to resupply with and discover that the kid hates sour stuff) situations.

I'm not sure about the berries . . . but the weather and the lean-to and so on is great stuff!

I want to draw a comparison with the episode from my Burning Wheel game that got a bit of attention upthread, of a PC looking for a cup to catch the blood of the decapitated mage.

Both that episode, and your episode with the foraging that takes too long and so the heavens open, really illustrate the "now" in story now. These things aren't obstacles or hurdles on the way to the "real" action - they are the action.

I was trying to get at this idea upthread when I contrasted this sort of RPGing with RPGing where there is a "finish line" that the players and their PCs are trying to get to, so that these sorts of things are mere obstacles.

It also relates to the idea that the players would try and minimise rolls so as to avoid failure - in your Stonetop game (as I've understood it, at least, from your description) and in BW and TB2e and Prince Valiant, the rolls aren't things to be avoided. They're the mechanical engine of the game, the produces these outcomes like the PCs being rained on, their magical markings washing down their faces, etc. Which as you and your player said is genuinely like a film or a novel.

 

[Hussar]

The City State of the Invincible Overlord is not a “safer” area. snip But it’s irrelevant to your earlier point about the survivability of the characters in the two systems.

Snipping for brevity.

So your Blackmarsh area - the PC's presumably start in Castle Blackmarsh. That's the obvious starting point. Oh, look the closest adventure location - the bogs at 0814 - are filled with minor plant monsters. Then we have 0616, Ruchill Burn - an abandoned dungeon that can be filled with level appropriate monsters. Then at 1309, we have a truly dangerous location. Only accessible after the PC's have a boat. It's 30 miles off shore. Well distant so that the threats of the island are nicely contained. So on and so forth.

The further you get from the "home" base, the more dangerous the encounters become. Hrm... almost like it was designed based around a level system. Imagine that. I mean, the 200 (ish) orcs that lair are nicely what, two, three weeks overland from the home base?

Why aren't the orcs in the swamp? Why not drop the flame demons right outside Blackmarsh Castle?

Every single design decision is based around the level system.

 

[Enrahim]

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.

The reason for the stated rule without question or explenation is that I without that rule do not see anything in the rules protecting it from descending into a argument. That is counter to the fast paced light hearted feel of the game I am aiming for in this particular design. Just the act of asking the question is taking the game out of it's intended flow, and into a meta domain I think subtract greatly from the intended experience. In other words that "no question rule" is essential for the experience I want to achieve with this game.

If you have any rules suggestions that would limit the reliance on trusting the cat without compromising that core fast paced experience, I am all ears! I think that would greatly improve my design! (And if posible to translate to RPG context might work wonders on my rpg games as well)

(Edit: this should go without saying, but I add it as it might be important. The rules of this game of course do not apply outside playing the game. The players can of course question, probe, argue and bicker as much as they like after the game is over. Thus there are social mechanisms as old as humanity itself to keep the cat honest. The advice of assuming the cat to be honest also only applies within the scope of the game)

I mean it's very slightly better? But it still sounds like a pretty bad experience to me.

Yes, I absolutely don't expect everyone to want this experience! Else I would probably be sitting on a gold mine with this design

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.

I think you missed an important moment in real rule 4: Only mice with cards left lose if the cat finishes. I think this is the most likely outcome. So my hope would be that first time players might do as you and at first enter it as if it was purely cooperative. Then as the game progresses, or in subsequent games, they both gradually have gotten a bag of tricks that is somewhat working while having a growing realisation that they might want to prioritise looking out for themselves. This kind of evolving gameplay as the group matures is a feature I like in certain board games.

And I never claimed to make something Lanefan described. I said I was inspired. For one thing I am pretty certain Lanefan is not actually playing Uno for decades, confusing it for an RPG

 

[robertsconley]

So your Blackmarsh area - the PC's presumably start in Castle Blackmarsh. That's the obvious starting point. Oh, look the closest Every single design decision is based around the level system.

Your take that Blackmarsh is built around a level progression system doesn’t hold up. The core of your claim is that Castle Blackmarsh is a “starting area,” and that threats get worse the farther you move out, but it’s not how Blackmarsh is designed. I should know, I wrote it.

Breaking it down.

1. Castle Blackmarsh Is Not a Safe Zone
Castle Blackmarsh is a political and magical powder keg. The dungeons under it are full of unexplored, trap-ridden remnants from the reign of Atacyl Oathbinder. The elves don’t even have the manpower to finish clearing them. The humans resent Elven rules, and there are two conspiracies aimed at ending it. It's not a starter town, it’s a city with real dangers within and underneath it.

2. There Is No Presumed Starting Point
Blackmarsh doesn’t assume your campaign starts at Castle Blackmarsh. Viable entry points include:

• The halfling settlements in Newcombe (0409/0610)
• The dwarven hold at Olden Hold (0217)
• Ostrobard towns like Muncaester (1305)
• Elven Stardell Falls (0804)
• Vasan Viking strongholds like Castle Taldane (2505)

Each comes with distinct opportunities and threats. No one path is “the level 1 route.”

3. Dangerous Creatures Are Mixed In Everywhere
Some examples:

0214: An old black dragon (HD 8) and her young (HD 7), just a few hexes from halfling farmland.
0309: A ruined keep with ochre jellies and a black pudding (HD 10), right near the halfling of Strangeholms
0605: A planar breach where 12 flame demons (treated as 8 HD fire elementals) are fighting elves near Castle Blackoak
1706: Four Rocs feasting on the remains of a Red Dragon, 10 miles from the fishing village of Ethanfeld.

If this was a level-scaled setting, none of that would be anywhere near the starting areas.

4. There’s No Consistent Difficulty Gradient
If Blackmarsh followed a CR gradient, you’d expect dangerous locations on the fringes and safe ones near the center. But there are calm farming villages like Gamla (2509) or Daretop (2704) in the far corners, while mid-map areas like 0413 are full of kobolds worshiping a dangerous, untouchable magic sword.

Danger isn’t placed to match player level, it’s there because of geography, history, and politics.

5. Threat Placement Follows In-World Logic
The orcs are in the Crimson Hills (1911, 2207) because it’s a war-torn region near the Brotherhood of the Raven. The flame demons are where the elven forest is breached by a planar tear. That’s not CR-balancing, it’s worldbuilding.

6. This Is a World, Not a Treadmill
Blackmarsh doesn’t adjust to you. You adjust to it. You gather rumors. You scout. You ask the locals what they’ve seen. If you hear there’s a dragon in the hills and go anyway, that’s on you.

The sandbox doesn't hide things until you're ready. It expects you to engage with the world intelligently.

7. The Core Design Philosophy Is the Living World Sandbox
this is from the setting intro

This format is designed to make it easy to referee players as they explore the world. With a list of locales, it is easy for the referee to determine what is over the next hill and what possible challenges the players might face. In addition, since the players can largely be left to their own devices, this format allows the referee more time to focus on the core adventures in his campaign.

Not every hex location has a description, and the background information is only meant to be a loose framework. Referees are encouraged to add material and make the setting unique to their campaigns.

It is suggested that to get maximum use of this setting that the referee look over the locales, then chose the ones that best suit the campaign. Note the NPCs and their circumstances. Develop a timeline of events if the characters are not involved. Detail important locales and add new ones of your own design. Do the same for the NPCs, and make notes on their motivations and personalities.

After each session of the campaign, review what the players did. Look at your original timeline of events, see what impact their actions had, and make the needed changes. Sometimes the players’ actions will lead to a new and unexpected chain of events.

The creativity of the referee comes by not forcing his players to follow a predetermined story, but to develop new and interesting consequences based on the players’ actions. Use the NPC’s motivations and personalities to decide which consequences are the most likely and pick the most interesting.

The result is a campaign where the players feel they are forging their character’s destiny within a living, breathing world. It will not only be fun and adventurous, but also filled with surprises. Consequences will accumulate and spin the campaign into unexpected directions.

Conclusion
Blackmarsh is not structured by level. It’s structured by history, geography, and factional influence. If you walk into the Crimson Hills at level 1 from the Duchy of the Ostrobards, you will probably die. That’s the point.

It’s not about scaling the world to the players. It’s about players learning to navigate a world that doesn’t care what level they are.

If you’re expecting 5e-style design, Blackmarsh is going to feel brutal. But if you want a sandbox that treats the setting as a real place, it rewards player agency and strategic thinking better than most published material.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

To be honest, while I have more than once seen people take game situations this way, I have never understood it. I think of it like being an actor. Sometimes bad things happen to your character, or your character does bad things, but I see no reason any of that has to leave the table.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

My reasons for wanting player action constrained to their PCs has nothing to do with worrying about abuse. It's about the play experience I want to have, and the creative goals of the games I play.