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

[Faolyn]

It's bending over backwards when

a) the "something interesting" is clearly contrived just for that purpose and otherwise makes no in-fiction sense, and-or

That's a huge assumption. It's incredibly easy to come up with something interesting that is 100% in the fiction. Example: they're in an area where there are monsters or guards. They take too long to do something and those monsters or guards (or someone who then alerts the monsters or guards) find them. Example: They get through the lock, but the lockpicks break.

How do either of those feel contrived or nonsensical?

b) "interesting things" keep happening over and over again, far more often than random chance would dictate.

The party is actively going into dangerous situations looking for trouble and treasure; it's an adventure game, not a cozy game. Their life is by definition going to be interesting.

The party may not be the main characters of their world--which makes sense--but they are the main characters of their party. At least, I hope you don't have them play second fiddle to NPCs all the time. And when you, the GM, are engaging with one of those players--asking what they're doing, getting them to make rolls, stuff like that--then the camera is on them. It's those moments that should be interesting.

 

[Faolyn]

Not quite. D&D worlds and sandboxes will be designed in such a way that the challenges in a given area will be geared for a certain level range. So this forest is for levels 1-4. That canyon is for levels 3-5. That mountain is for levels 14+. So on and so forth. In play, the DM will pretty clearly signpost this and make sure that the players don't unknowingly wander into areas they shouldn't.

Are they? You've looked at every sandbox ever made, including the homebrew ones, and determined this is the case all the time?

It's funny. You: sandboxes have to be done this way. Me: No they don't. You: THAT'S NOT HOW SANDBOXES ARE SUPPOSED TO GO!!!

Maybe you should stop One True Scotsmanning here and just accept that your particular view on this is not universal.

 

[Faolyn]

What rule dictates that a secret admirer won't attempt to free an imprisoned PC?

Rule of storytelling: Deus ex machina is frequently cheap and/or boring. If an NPC is going to bust them out, it should be a known individual who has both the reasons and means to do so, not a random person who just showed up to save the day.

Rule of reality: A secret admirer who is willing to bust the PC out of jail can be very creepy unless done very, very well. And not creepy in a fun, horror game way, but creepy in a stalker-y, makes you want to sleep with a weapon under your pillow way.

 

[Campbell]

How did I "disrespect" other games? It seems like once again the response is "You don't use exactly the correct terms so you're wrong and why all the hate?" I have my preferences, you have yours. I have stated until I'm blue in the face that we just want different things and that's okay. The approach of narrative games is different in a way that I do not care for. I want the GM building worlds that I explore. I don't want to make moves instead. But that's me. It's what I enjoy and what makes sense to me. Not because I haven't looked into things, not because I refuse to change for the sake of change, not because I'm a stuck in the past Conservative with a capital "C" who refuses to accept the glory of other styles of games.

I play D&D because I enjoy playing the game. If you don't, if something works better for you, that's great! Embrace your game! Just stop people from telling me that I'm stuck in the past and afraid to move forward.

It's not about getting the terms correct. It's about accurately representing how we do the damn thing. You not liking the way a particular games does something or how it's structured does not give you carte blanche to misrepresent (whether through ignorance, carelessness or willful misrepresentation). It also does not give you free reign to not receive pushback when you combine multiple non-conventional play structures into some sort of "narrative game" mess.

It also does not give you carte blanche to make general statements about how stuff works based solely on conjecture without receiving pushback or correction.

At the end of the day if I called 5e restrictive because it got in the way when I tried to run it using more Narrativist play methodologies (I can talk more about this experience if anyone has questions) I would receive all sorts of pushback, correctly, because it was never designed for that. Just like someone coming from more conventional play norms would be wrong to call Daggerheart restrictive because it hasn't a different set of play conventions.

The reason I said your commentary was disrespectful was because through your conjectures you are implying that playing Apocalypse World is somehow more mechanistic and rules bound. Beyond being inaccurate it shows a view that denies the creative efforts of everyone involved. It disrespects the craft of people like the people I have played with that have decades of experience playing and running these games. I would never make such an implication of anyone else's play. I respect your craft and I would expect you to respect mine in kind.

I'm not trying to sell you on anything or get you to try anything. If other people are please respond to them. The only way I see you as conservative is that you frame everything solely through your play preferences and desires and the way you draw conclusions about how other people's play must work in the most unflattering way possible. You seem entitled to having everything suit solely your desires and seem unable to show respect to other playstyles. That's what is conservative to me.

I respect everyone's right to play in the way the want. I also think we are responsible to try to understand and accurately portray how other people play and show respect for their craft.

This is not fundamentally different than a discussion of software development methodologies. One would hope if we discussed the circumstances of our projects and why we each opt for how our organizations organize their work that we would be able to respect why each made the decisions they made and how it serves our different purposes instead of you talking ad nauseum about how methodology my organization utilizes would never work for you and running roughshod over the way I do things.

 

[Faolyn]

Except that even in that city, there is zero chance that the PC's are going to meet that CR 20+ stuff because the DM will signpost it so clearly. Granted, we might have players that are that deliberately suicidal, but, generally speaking, no they aren't. So, even if that stuff exists in your city, it won't see play until such time as the PC's are capable of handling it.

Your worlds are exactly like WoW worlds. That's the consequence of playing in a leveled system. There's no avoiding it.

Really? I had the players in my city-based game meet a potential adversary (potential in the sense that the players chose to talk their way out of combat rather than engage) who was... well, I don't even bother to calculate CR anymore, but she was a caster many levels higher than the PCs were, in her home territory, which she could mentally control, and who could call for guards to back her up. I didn't tell the PCs any of that at all. They knew she was a caster because of lore reasons, but they had no idea of her power level or abilities, nor did they even have any idea that she was anything other than a regular, low-level wizard. They didn't even know she could call for guards because they knew her room was soundproofed.

So I guess I managed to avoid these unavoidable consequences.

 

[Faolyn]

Sometimes failing to light the candle means that you get eaten by the grue. But that's because the grue is afraid of light and was stalking you, not because you couldn't light the candle.

That would be a perfectly logical, consequence in a fail-forward situation. It merely requires that the GM alert the PCs to the existence of the grue ahead of time.

 

[Faolyn]

If the players are inhabiting their characters then when it comes to obstacles wouldn't these two things kind of run in lockstep?

Is a character who is being seriously injured by a monster in combat having fun? Some might be, but I'd bet a lot would realistically be scared or desperate.

I, their player, could be having tons of fun.

And I, the player, would not be having fun because I had to spend multiple sessions just to get past a door. I would a combination of bored and frustrated.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Are they? You've looked at every sandbox ever made, including the homebrew ones, and determined this is the case all the time?

It's funny. You: sandboxes have to be done this way. Me: No they don't. You: THAT'S NOT HOW SANDBOXES ARE SUPPOSED TO GO!!!

Maybe you should stop One True Scotsmanning here and just accept that your particular view on this is not univ

Are they? You've looked at every sandbox ever made, including the homebrew ones, and determined this is the case all the time?

It's funny. You: sandboxes have to be done this way. Me: No they don't. You: THAT'S NOT HOW SANDBOXES ARE SUPPOSED TO GO!!!

Maybe you should stop One True Scotsmanning here and just accept that your particular view on this is not universal.

Oh, stop it! There's huge concessions to playability in all these setups! Of course there are always clear signposts telling the players whether or not some area is easier or harder than what they are able to handle. Most play would be pointless otherwise. Exactly what the delineations are and how they're telegraphed may vary a bit. Yet I bet money the random overland encounter tables in your sandbox are arranged such that mountains and swamps are the most dangerous, hills are next, and plains are the safest and lowest level. Furthermore it's highly likely that areas further from the PC's base of operations are higher level.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Oh, stop it! There's huge concessions to playability in all these setups! Of course there are always clear signposts telling the players whether or not some area is easier or harder than what they are able to handle. Most play would be pointless otherwise. Exactly what the delineations are and how they're telegraphed may vary a bit. Yet I bet money the random overland encounter tables in your sandbox are arranged such that mountains and swamps are the most dangerous, hills are next, and plains are the safest and lowest level. Furthermore it's highly likely that areas further from the PC's base of operations are higher level.

So your argument is that we're lying?

 

[hawkeyefan]

So your argument is that we're lying?

I think, in the sandboxes I’ve seen, there is clearly consideration for things like level and danger. I don’t think that means that there are never exceptions… there may in fact be a super dangerous creature not far from the starting town, or there may be a hostile, powerful NPC among the staff at the castle.

But I don’t expect that there is no consideration about how this is all handled from the perspective of a game. These things matter and they absolutely will come up in play.

I don’t think most people construct their sandboxes without considering these kinds of factors. In fact, I don’t even see how they could do so.