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

[AlViking]

There's a tourist attraction here in Victoria where you can be taken on a horse-and-carriage ride through different parts of town. I've heard those horses more times than I can count and the sound their hoofs make on the paved road is very close, if not identical, to what I often hear in movies or TV shows.

I'd say - without knowing anything about it - the odds are high to extreme that the sound departments of most studios have a collection of 'stock' sounds that they insert when required, four of which would be the recorded sound of hooves on a hard surface at speeds 'walk', 'trot', 'canter', and 'gallop'.

And so, at least in this particular case, I reject your claim that reality is unrealistic.

Now if we could just get them to have accurate sounds for guns, that would be amazing. Every time I hear a shotgun that sounds like a pistol, a rifle that always has that cool echoey sound I just want to throw something at the screen. Then there's magical silencers which are even worse.

 

[The Firebird]

Ok, I'm going to make up a game called The Fisherman and the Fighter. This is a focused game that is about (a) the nature of these two PCs as well as (b) the fate of their hometown.

Thanks for your detailed response.

* The Fisherman player and Fighter player each build their character out in the normal way. That build includes Relations, Belongings, Skills, and Traits with dice # and value associated with each. The opening of play sees us going to a backstory scene for each where we play out some seminal, life-shaping conflict and derive a piece of PC build from it.

* During independent tests (against inanimate opposition like a cliff) or versus tests (animated opposition like a person), they build their dice pool based on a transparent procedure and throw the dice. There are transparent stakes for tests, a clear winner/loser, and a margin of success procedure that generates increased fallout for the loser or increase boon for the winner. Independent tests build their "obstacle rating" via a grabbing a base number that indexes what the situation is and then adding additional factors that qualify on top of that. The number derived is the number of successes the PC has to achieve to win the Indy test. In vs tests, its simply the player building their relevant PC dice pool and the GM building the opposition dice pool based on the game's procedures; winner earns the stakes and loser absorbs the fallout (with margin of success piling on more fallout or giving the winner some kind of boon for follow-on conflicts; player choice).

* Players have a very limited currency that they mark and permanently lose. It is reliable (it always does its thing), but it is very limited and not replenishable. Like 3 of these. If they mark all 3, the PC is done in this game. What that means could mean any number of things depending upon the accumulated fiction to date and the final test in which they spend this currency; death, exile, flee like a coward, become a mostly irrelevant redshirt folded in with the rest of the townfolk...no longer a driving force in the community and game (whatever).

Each time the currency is spent, the player overturns the results of a test they just lost. The player also reveals some kind of weight or burden or past event that now haunts them deeply (with the weight or haunt increasing as these 3 x currency are spent).

* The bad guys are coming (whatever they are). We have limited information on what that entails. We (the group) generate keywords that tells us what they are, and why they're coming. Fictional parameters. There is also a procedure for developing their actual statistics that will impact play downstream. This is an open procedure with bounded values/resources for "the bad guys." But we don't resolve yet. We resolve at the very end if we do, in fact, take them on... with the prospect of these values "popping off" such that defending our hometown and our people could be nearly mechanically impossible (though we'll still play it out if we decide to Make a Stand). This is because we want to find out about the nature of the PCs in the face of extreme odds as well as the scary unknown. Is one of them courageous to the point of being a stubborn fool that will end up sacrificing the whole town in a meaningless stand over a plot of land? Is one of them a secret coward will to give up their home at the slightest specter of looming violence? Is the town consisted of vulnerable folk and mobilized exodus without laboring the enemy is just not realistic...in this case, we find out The Fisherman is a hero and makes a stand with the watch and his strategic use of their mighty reservoir and his traps...while The Fighter flees with the vulnerable and the meek. Etc etc etc, all kinds of configurations could spin out in play, up to and including a stand made and a repulsion of "the bad guys" at minimal cost to the town.

* The GM procedurally generates the town according to the rules. This creates various town qualities and various, key members who have motivations and dice pools not dissimilar to the PCs. The GM actively reveals these through play by provoking and challenging The Fighter and The Fisherman with the backdrop of this looming siege.

* We have a codified Early Game where we (i) find out who these characters are and (ii) the associated overt play (situation-framing > tests or vs tests to decide what happens > fallout > follow-on conflicts which cascade forward) with the machinery as above. Once that resolves and we know (iii) how the town is mobilized and mustered and (iv) who these two PCs are, we advance to the codified End Game.

* Now, through the process and accumulated fiction of the Early Game, the nature of the town and the two PCs have been mostly revealed and we know if we're taking a stand, or fleeing, or both, and who has been mustered and who has been revealed a coward or a heady leader.

Here, we do go through the process of generating "the bad guys." Depending upon how the Early Game went, the End Game features one or two codified conflict resolution procedures; a Flee/Chase conflict (if that is part of things) and/or a Make a Stand conflict (if that is part of things)

* Once the End Game is resolved, the nature of the Fighter, the Fisherman, the town, and the fate all parties has been decided and cemented.

I guess my main response to it is that it's very much a narrative approach. There's a set conflict, the game is set up to simulate only that conflict, and the narrative moves all take place within that framework. And second, the goals are fundamentally different than I see in a sandbox. You end your example with

"Once the End Game is resolved, the nature of the Fighter, the Fisherman, the town, and the fate all parties has been decided and cemented."

And, that's not really what I'm interested in, I suppose. I don't want to define the town through play; my primary interest is not deciding or cementing the fate of the different parties.

Does that mean, as you put it:

That issue is that there is a segment of TTRPG players that cannot (or perhaps "do not presently") experience immersion within setting and habitation of PC if there is transparent, rigorous systemization of a gameplay layer. Hence, "I just want the mechanics to get out of the way" and "trust the GM ('s black box gamestate decision-making)."

Maybe? I don't mind at all a rigorous gameplay layer, as in having set DCs for things, and I actually like it when the DM communicates the DCs to the player, because I think it makes for more concrete choices. But not all the time, and not if it involves hidden material.

I'd say more, that I don't experience immersion if I'm playing an active role in constructing the world during the game. If I as a player decide "maybe the bad guys have been displaced from their homes by a separate force and can be negotiated with", then I don't feel as immersed in my character, because I'm not making decisions as a character in a fixed world.

 

[The Firebird]

That's fine. I prefer to share a lot of information. I think the characters would generally be privy to a lot more information than is typically provided by the GM. So expecting them to ask when the shortage of information may be my fault seems odd.

I've seen statements to this effect a few times now and I think they are worth highlighting. Part of why I liked narrative games when I did (maybe 6 years ago) was precisely this reason: I had some 5e campaigns where I'd ask for basic in-character knowledge, like who the king is, and I'd be told no or made to roll for it. In that case I did end up floundering and liking a narrative system where I could define these details.

I've since played sandboxes which are more reasonable with information, and find them better than either. Ultimately this problem is poor DMing.

 

[AlViking]

This is what frustrates me about the "trust the GM" axiom:

If the actual gameplay layer is transparently systematized in a compelling, engaging way for player decision-trees and the GM executes their part in delivering that gameplay layer in an expert and deft fashion? We...don't have to trust...anything. We just...know. Because its...right_bloody_there. GM does their overt part + player does their overt part + system does its overt part = in concert we have arrived at a new, transparent gamestate and associated situation-state.​

I just wish we would always and ever index what appears to be the issue that is always circled back to in these cases (which we've seen multiple testimonials of such in this thread). That issue is that there is a segment of TTRPG players that cannot (or perhaps "do not presently") experience immersion within setting and habitation of PC if there is transparent, rigorous systemization of a gameplay layer. Hence, "I just want the mechanics to get out of the way" and "trust the GM ('s black box gamestate decision-making)." Secondarily, I wish we would be honest about what the trade-off for this particularized need for immersion entails. That trade-off is an impact to the gameplay layer whereby players are subbing out some not-insignificant orientation-to-situation/decision-tree work to the GM to either flat-out decide for the player ("would I know..." > "no you wouldn't...so do something else" or "yes you would and here is the key information that will inform your action declaration...go ahead and declare it now") or, instead of the player handling it all, the GM resolves some essential particulars of a player decision & action declaration & muster PC build vs opposition loop <GM comes up with some manner of discretionary fortune resolution procedure or some key value off the cuff...either telling the player to roll blindly, or the GM rolls it themselves, typically behind a screen>.

In the past, this was always asserted as "this sort of play is objectively not immersive...so therefore there is no trade-off...because you're not playing a TTRPG...you're playing a board game + disconnected free form." That was the move. At least we've gotten beyond that. But now that we're beyond that absurd move to prevent the conversation around trade-offs...can we actually discuss what is happening moment-to-moment, sequence-to-sequence at the table and discuss trade-offs for this "I need some certain particulars for my autobiographical immersive requirements" > "mechanics get out of the way" + "trust your GM" model vs alternatives?

I'm guessing the answer is a totally unpredictable "NO, WE CANNOT...YOU JERK...HOW DARE YOU?!!111"

I don't find collaborative world building immersive, that doesn't mean other people can't. But what I have seen is when people come up with ideas that conflict or just don't really fit with the narrative and the loudest person gets their way. Maybe there are other limitations and restrictions for that which weren't part of the session I did at a con.

 

[The Firebird]

The examples that were talked about were a guard who cannot be bribed, and a priest who would never take a drink.

So equally realistic (arguably more realistic) would be a bribe who can potentially be bribed or a priest who may potentially take a drink.

There's almost always room to make a decision that allows for player agency versus one that doesn't. That's the choice I'm talking about owning above.

In the case of the guard, if every guard inexplicably has an unwillingness to be bribed, it can start to feel unrealistic. Likewise, if every guard is willing to accept the right bribe, or is willing to hear the PCs out in the name of agency, then the world can start to feel unrealistic.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Whatever they find adventurous in the setting. This is not a flippant answer. Whatever region they pick, I have a pretty good idea of what exists there. The players have an understanding of the possibilities based on what their character would know. This part of the Initial Context that I create as part of the start of the Campaign.

This is very much in line with what I'd expect. Different areas that offer different types of situations or opportunities for players. This gives them some say in what the game will be about.

My preference is that the same rules used to describe characters are used to describe NPCs.

NPCs' society and culture are socially organized in the same way as you would expect if it were real for my Majestic Fantasy Realm. For something like Middle Earth, it reflects how society is described as being organized in those settings. Think of how a GURPS worldbook like Discworld would be written, and that's likely how mine are written.

You can see a slice of this in this supplement I shared for my Majestic Fantasy Realms.
Bandits & Brigands

Or for 5e
Medieval NPCs

To be clear realism is a concern because I wrote my Majestic Wilderlands/Majestic Fantasy Realms as a medieval fantasy setting. When I run Middle Earth, my work reflects its premises. Some of which parallels medieval life but many don't. So the process I use is genre/setting neutral.

Sure, I think plausibility is probably more accurate than realism. Or perhaps clarifying realism as it would be for such and such genre.

I don't consider gameplay at all other than the NPC stats should reflect their description in the setting.
This reflect my creative goal that the point of my campaigns is to let players visit a setting as their character and have adventures.

So, this to me speaks to a de-prioritization of game play. And there's nothing wrong with that, but it certainly has an impact on player agency and playability.

Think of walking around New York City during the day. If you look around there is easily over a hundred people in line of sight. Do you interact with them? no. Could you interact with any one of them sure. But either happens one of several ways.

• You stop, deliberately look around, and make a decision.
• Something at random catches your attention
• Somebody else decides to interact with you.

So what this mean for my campaign for each of these?

• I will quickly generate who is in the streets if the players decides to stop and look around. Then I will roleplay accordingly.
• As part of travel through setting, I roll to see if anything catches the players eye as their character.
• Seeing if some NPC decides to interact with the part is part the above roll procedure.

The random tables I will use reflect the details of the setting and location. It will look different for the Majestic Fantasy Realms vs. Middle Earth, although there is some overlap as a result of how Tolkien chose to do his worldbuilding.

Players determine who is important to them. Some are obvious, like Barons, Grandmasters, and Bishops but other I have to pay attention to their choices and makes notes of what they did.

Right, some will be important based on their place in the action of play or their place in the game world, others will be important because of their relationship to the player characters, and because the players care about them.

So I think we agree that not all NPCs are equally important.

See my comments on failure.

Sorry, I'm not sure which you mean? Do you mean the one I was replying to?

Neither. The NPCs are an outgrowth of the setting I designed. My players work with me to pick an interesting setting to play in for the campaign. Or as it often the case with my more popular settings like the Majestic Wilderlands, they pick a region or a situation within the setting they want to experience adventuring.

So you're saying that the GM's conception of the NPC is not more important than how the NPC fits into play... but you also said that beyond stats, you base your NPCs entirely on the game world.

I feel like the answer is not "neither" but is clearly "the GM's conception of the NPC is more important".

 

[hawkeyefan]

But, again, this is exactly how the sandbox scenarion with the guard is working. There are ways to learn that information. So why do you see that as opposed to player agency?

Because it all depends on many other factors.

If the disposition of the NPC is relevant, but can be learned, than I don't think that's a limit on agency, provided the GM offers opportunity to actually learn the disposition.

A key goal of sandbox style gaming, the way I see it and Bedrock wrote above, is to avoid playing through the GMs story. It's for players to not feel they are passively a part of the GMs story. And that's my experience with these games--the players are agents, they are not listening to a mystery story, but choosing whether the mystery is worth investigating and if so determining how to do so.

I think a murder mystery is a horrible example to bring up if you want to avoid playing through the GM's story. It's almost entirely that. The major exercise of agency in play would be to just walk away from the mystery entirely.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Perhaps, but I am only seeing vague platitudes from you Hawkeye

Is that so?

Feel free to ask me about my play... I'll gladly answer with specifics.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Is that so?

Feel free to ask me about my play... I'll gladly answer with specifics.

I was kidding, that was why I had a smiley face

 

[The Firebird]

It is about making sure if the players are about to make a blind choice of some kind, you have set it up as fairly as possible. I don't mind for example if I am snooping around a house looking for a suspect and there is a shed, and I go in, a murderer stabs me with a knife because I opened the door incautiously and he was genuinely there (even if the GM adlibbed the house and scene, if he noted that detail before I was making my decision, it feels more fair to me than if he made that decision because I opened the door incautiously and he wanted that kind of a moment). As long as I can look back in hindsight and say "well if I had been more cautious things might have turned out differently".

Yeah, i think this is a good example. In a game like Blades, if you have to get past some guards, you as the player might declare a Prowl action to sneak past or a Hunt to take them out. Then you roll and success depends on the dice. Depending on the results, it may turn out you're completely successful, or that there were more guards you didn't see, or so forth. And they will vary based on position and effect.

But at no point, imo, does it feel like "if I had been more cautious things might have turned out differently". The decision you made wasn't key to determining whether or not you got past the guards--the dice roll was.