D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[prabe]

The question is what does WotC consider to be homebrew? I run the Forgotten Realms, however, I never had a Spellplague or Sundering, King Azoun is still alive, and past games have modified my Forgotten Realms such that it is very different from one someone would purchase. Is that a homebrew world or not? A good argument could be made for both yes and no.

The last poll I saw, or at least the last one I remember, broke out homebrew settings (including from-scratch and patchworked from published bits) and homebrew adventures (possibly also by whether you were working from scratch or mixing and matching). It might also have called out homebrew adventures in published settings, which would be pretty close to yours, I think.

 

[hawkeyefan]

First I agree. I don't care if my style makes someone vomit. Helps me identify who I want to avoid in my games. But, it is more polite to say "I think or this makes ME feel a certain way..." than to say "This is how it is objectively..." And that applies to everyone.

example: This makes me vomit. ok. polite.
example 2: This is vomit inducing. not polite. This second one says it is vomit inducing for everyone.

Now again, I don't care all that much and I've often gotten impolite at times especially when I'm getting it in the face repeatedly from someone who is definitely not polite. But if you want polite the above is better.

I don't really see much difference in the above.

Yes. Just making it up at the last second right before you need it.

I don't think as I used hand wave this is what I mean. Yes the DM always invents and constructs the NPCs hopefully with thought and care. And I'm not saying a DM does not have to at times especially for a minor person have to hand wave an NPC. I try to keep in mind the broader knowledge I do have of the town and the various citizens to help me play this one appropriately. And I certainly do have THAT knowledge.

As someone who played with heavy DM prep for many years, I can say that I actually find a looser approach to be far more efficient as far as time commitment, and also far less likely to cause contradictions with established lore. Defining only the "broad strokes" ahead of play really helps alleviate a lot of the concerns, though it does rely on comfort with introducing new elements on the fly.

I don't expect players to contribute to the creation of the campaign setting NPCs unless they do so BEFORE they start playing in session 0 while devising a background. Even then it will be collaborative with the DM.

So this is the kind of control that I'm talking about. I get that this has been the paradigm of play for decades. But I don't find this kind of thing to be anywhere near as disruptive as many claim. Or maybe I should say "as many suppose" since most often these concerns come from folks who have never played this way.

I realize there are many ways to play. There is very much a make it up as you go style of play where the DM's input into the setting is deemphasized though not eliminated by any means.

What many of you don't seem to ever understand is the opposite. The fact that many of us prefer a style where the DM's creation of the setting is perhaps the most important thing the DM does. That making the setting feel like a real place in the same way a good author crafts a setting is important to us. We want to adventure in an immersive believable setting. We want to interact with NPCs and establish relationships with them. We don't want to do things that pushes us out of that immersion and if we contribute to the setting while playing as a character that will shatter the suspension of disbelief. You may feel differently but we feel as we do.

No, I understand that quite well. I played that way for a good twenty years. I prepped my little DM's heart out. Spent hours by myself coming up with ideas for play and cool setting elements and NPCs and all that stuff.

And I found that very often that prep became paramount to play. I had devoted a lot of time to it and did so with a fun game in mind. So that commitment... that amount of control over what would be introduced into play... would at times make me prioritize the setting over the PCs. Most of the time, there was no conflict... if you asked my players, most of them wouldn't describe it as ever being problematic to them in any way. But as you touch on in your post, as the GM, I have a broader view.

It's a tough thing to realize that all the prep time spent on worldbuilding doesn't actually enhance play all that much. That you can establish a lot of things on the fly as needed and they'll be just as compelling for play as if you spent hours alone scribbling into a notebook.

 

[hawkeyefan]

One example is that the DM exercising control can be "about" providing the experience their players seek. (Assuming, of course, a table with aligned playstyle preferences.)

I can expand on that example from personal experience. As a player, the experience I seek is one where (among other things) the fictional world I'm exploring vis-a-vis my character is both (a) tailored to my interests and (b) doesn't feel like it's tailored to my interests. In practice, balancing my preferences requires someone else to have most of the authorial control over the setting, because it's very hard to achieve (b) if I'm the one doing the tailoring. So giving authorial control over the setting to the DM is part-and-parcel of achieving the experience I seek, but it's not "about" giving up control as it would be if I were actively seeking a sense of abnegation, submission, or passivity.

Indeed, one of the "other things" about the experience I seek as a player is the feeling of achieving self-determination in the face of obstacles. In practice, achieving that feeling requires the players to (collectively) have a high degree of control over the direction of the campaign by way of setting their characters' goals and making strategic choices (because its hard to have a feeling of self-determination otherwise), while simultaneously not having authorial control over the obstacles faced (because overcoming self-imposed obstacles, while potentially satisfying, is a different kind of feeling than what I'm seeking).

Thus, for me as a player, the experience I seek requires giving a great deal of control over the setting and the obstacles within it to the DM, while keeping a large measure of control over the direction of the campaign for myself (and my fellow players). Thus, when the DM "exercises [that] control", it's "about" providing the desired experience, and comes with a highly positive, laudable connotation. In contrast, saying the DM exercising control is "about" control suggests that the control is an end in its own right, which carries a strongly negative connotation.

I don't know... I can see a lot of potential for conflict between that level of DM control and the players being very self-directed.

I also don't see the necessity of this level of DM control to experience a strong element of player directed play. I find that the less the DM controls, the more say the players have... which usually benefits any kind of player directed play that may be going on.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't really see much difference in the above.



As someone who played with heavy DM prep for many years, I can say that I actually find a looser approach to be far more efficient as far as time commitment, and also far less likely to cause contradictions with established lore. Defining only the "broad strokes" ahead of play really helps alleviate a lot of the concerns, though it does rely on comfort with introducing new elements on the fly.




So this is the kind of control that I'm talking about. I get that this has been the paradigm of play for decades. But I don't find this kind of thing to be anywhere near as disruptive as many claim. Or maybe I should say "as many suppose" since most often these concerns come from folks who have never played this way.



No, I understand that quite well. I played that way for a good twenty years. I prepped my little DM's heart out. Spent hours by myself coming up with ideas for play and cool setting elements and NPCs and all that stuff.

And I found that very often that prep became paramount to play. I had devoted a lot of time to it and did so with a fun game in mind. So that commitment... that amount of control over what would be introduced into play... would at times make me prioritize the setting over the PCs. Most of the time, there was no conflict... if you asked my players, most of them wouldn't describe it as ever being problematic to them in any way. But as you touch on in your post, as the GM, I have a broader view.

It's a tough thing to realize that all the prep time spent on worldbuilding doesn't actually enhance play all that much. That you can establish a lot of things on the fly as needed and they'll be just as compelling for play as if you spent hours alone scribbling into a notebook.

Prep time spent worldbuilding is part of play to me. My favorite part, in fact.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Prep time spent worldbuilding is part of play to me. My favorite part, in fact.

Sure, that’s absolutely fine. I did plenty of my share of that when I was younger and had more free time. And I still do some as needed for the games I run.

I’m just describing some of the pitfalls that I experienced with that type of game. Or, what I see as pitfalls, anyway.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, that’s absolutely fine. I did plenty of my share of that when I was younger and had more free time. And I still do some as needed for the games I run.

I’m just describing some of the pitfalls that I experienced with that type of game. Or, what I see as pitfalls, anyway.

I actually enjoy it more now at nearly fifty than I did then.

 

[Oofta]

Sure, that’s absolutely fine. I did plenty of my share of that when I was younger and had more free time. And I still do some as needed for the games I run.

I’m just describing some of the pitfalls that I experienced with that type of game. Or, what I see as pitfalls, anyway.

Kind of seems like the pitfalls would depend on what kind of prep you do and what style of campaign you're running. I have no problem playing in a linear game if I know it's what I'm signing up for, even if it's not the style of game I run. So in a more linear campaign, just following the breadcrumbs is kind of expected sometimes. Meanwhile I don't get too caught up in planning actual scenarios or even putting a lot of thought into NPCs until they survive first encounter with the NPCs.

No one method is going to work for everyone, we all need to figure out what works best for us and our group.

 

[pemerton]

What many of you don't seem to ever understand is the opposite. The fact that many of us prefer a style where the DM's creation of the setting is perhaps the most important thing the DM does. That making the setting feel like a real place in the same way a good author crafts a setting is important to us. We want to adventure in an immersive believable setting. We want to interact with NPCs and establish relationships with them. We don't want to do things that pushes us out of that immersion and if we contribute to the setting while playing as a character that will shatter the suspension of disbelief. You may feel differently but we feel as we do.

Here's the thing:

Both when playing, and when GMing, I love it when the setting feels like a real place (it has depth, surprises, strange revelations, weird coincidences like the time when I was walking through the streets of London and bumped into one of the half-dozen Australians there whom I know, etc). I want the players to interact with NPCs and establish relationships with them.

And thankfully, my RPGing is replete with this all the things that I want and love!

 

[pemerton]

I can expand on that example from personal experience. As a player, the experience I seek is one where (among other things) the fictional world I'm exploring vis-a-vis my character is both (a) tailored to my interests and (b) doesn't feel like it's tailored to my interests. In practice, balancing my preferences requires someone else to have most of the authorial control over the setting, because it's very hard to achieve (b) if I'm the one doing the tailoring. So giving authorial control over the setting to the DM is part-and-parcel of achieving the experience I seek, but it's not "about" giving up control as it would be if I were actively seeking a sense of abnegation, submission, or passivity.

Indeed, one of the "other things" about the experience I seek as a player is the feeling of achieving self-determination in the face of obstacles. In practice, achieving that feeling requires the players to (collectively) have a high degree of control over the direction of the campaign by way of setting their characters' goals and making strategic choices (because its hard to have a feeling of self-determination otherwise), while simultaneously not having authorial control over the obstacles faced

I think what you describe here is pretty widely understood to be a goal of RPGing, that distinguishes RPGing from (say) round-robin storytelling. Methods for achieving it have been discussed, in some detail, for 20+ years by designers like Vincent Baker: if you read through his "anyway" posts/blogs, you can see him approaching this from all sorts of angles. Here's just one example, from 2003:

Doing Away with the GM
You need to have a system by which scenes start and stop. The rawest solution is to do it by group consensus: anybody moved to can suggest a scene or suggest that a scene be over, and it's up to the group to act on the suggestion or not. You don't need a final authority beyond the players' collective will.

You need to have a system whereby narration becomes in-game truth. That is, when somebody suggests something to happen or something to be so, does it or doesn't it? Is it or isn't it? Again the rawest solution is group consensus, with suggestions made by whoever's moved and then taken up or let fall according to the group's interest.

You need to have orchestrated conflict, and there's the tricky bit. GMs are very good at orchestrating conflict, and it's hard to see a rawer solution. My game Before the Flood handles the first two needs ably but makes no provision at all for this third. What you get is listless, aimless, dull play with no sustained conflict and no meaning.

In our co-GMed Ars Magica game, each of us is responsible for orchestrating conflict for the others, which works but isn't radical wrt GM doage-away-with. It amounts to when Emily's character's conflicts climax explosively and set off Meg's character's conflicts, which also climax explosively, in a great kickin' season finale last autumn, I'm the GM. GM-swapping, in other words, isn't the same as GM-sharing.

Any solution to this is bound to be innovative. There's not much beaten path.​

When I've played Burning Wheel over the past couple of years, it's been co-GMed with the same sort of GM-swapping that Baker describes: I frame the scenes that put pressure on my friend's PC; he frames the scenes that put pressure on my PC. We alternate control over NPCs as fits the situation, and applies the appropriate pressure on the appropriate player and their PC.

There are a lot of ways to arrange the relationship between authority over backstory/setting and authority over scene/situation that will preserve the "externality" of obstacles. The sort of approach advocated by @Emirikol, @Oofta and @Micah Sweet in this thread is just one of them.

 

[Xetheral]

I don't know... I can see a lot of potential for conflict between that level of DM control and the players being very self-directed.

I also don't see the necessity of this level of DM control to experience a strong element of player directed play. I find that the less the DM controls, the more say the players have... which usually benefits any kind of player directed play that may be going on.

I was responding to your request for an example of how DMs exercising control can be about something other than the control--in this case, providing an experience sought by the players. The example is just as valid regardless of your opinion on the experience sought and whether other approaches might provide some or all of the same experience.