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

[robertsconley]

But that's the point that you keep trying to ignore. It is YOU who are choosing between the plausible outcomes. It is YOU who defines "plausible". The world doesn't define that. There is absolutely nothing in your setting that defines what is plausible or not. Every single decision point is grounded in your personal views of what is plausible or even possible.

That is what people are pushing back against. This notion that there is some sort of objectivity in your setting. There absolutely cannot be any objectivity here. Not when every single element of your setting is defined and detailed by you. Every single outcome, decision, event, whatever, is 100% sourced from you. There is not way that can be objective.

Note, "not objective" in no way means that it's bad. It just means that it's not objective. Since the only judge of what "fits the logic of the setting" is the person who created the setting, I'm going to call shenanigans on any claim of objectivity. It can't be objective. It's simply not possible.

Which is where the notion of "own your decisions" comes in. Why be coy and try to claim something that is obviously untrue on its face? Why not simply state that in a trad-sandbox game, the DM is going to be deciding 99% of what's going on in the game? While the players will have input through the actions of their characters, everything else is 100% down to whatever the DM decides.

I don’t agree, but I understand where you’re coming from. This is the same type of issue I mentioned upthread about Poussinist vs. Rubenist debates in art history. We have two fundamentally different views on structure versus expression. We're operating from a similar kind of divide.

It’s clear to me that you understand my position, even if you reject the premise. That’s fine. But the techniques I use follow logically from that premise.

And just as Burning Wheel has hours of actual play demonstrating that its approach works for running tabletop campaigns, my specific approach to sandbox play has decades of actual play behind it, as do other forms of sandbox refereeing.

 

[zakael19]

Yeah, I find the idea that plate tectonics and wind currents are important for designing a fantasy setting a bit odd.

My wife says that she thinks it's cool that people do it though! If world-building is your hobby and it makes you happy, why not model what you want I guess!

 

[Bedrockgames]

But that's the point that you keep trying to ignore. It is YOU who are choosing between the plausible outcomes. It is YOU who defines "plausible". The world doesn't define that. There is absolutely nothing in your setting that defines what is plausible or not. Every single decision point is grounded in your personal views of what is plausible or even possible.

That is what people are pushing back against. This notion that there is some sort of objectivity in your setting. There absolutely cannot be any objectivity here. Not when every single element of your setting is defined and detailed by you. Every single outcome, decision, event, whatever, is 100% sourced from you. There is not way that can be objective.

Note, "not objective" in no way means that it's bad. It just means that it's not objective. Since the only judge of what "fits the logic of the setting" is the person who created the setting, I'm going to call shenanigans on any claim of objectivity. It can't be objective. It's simply not possible.

Which is where the notion of "own your decisions" comes in. Why be coy and try to claim something that is obviously untrue on its face? Why not simply state that in a trad-sandbox game, the DM is going to be deciding 99% of what's going on in the game? While the players will have input through the actions of their characters, everything else is 100% down to whatever the DM decides.

The objectivity comes from treating like a real place and striving for consistency. I mean if you have objective facts about the world written down that is objective. This doesn’t even require sandbox or an open world. A dungeon written out on graph paper is a place that is planned out as an objective place in the setting. Is has measurable qualities. And Rob is just using logic to extrapolate in the setting what’s seems most plausible to him. I don’t think he of I deny that it’s him deciding that. But the why matters here. If he decides because he thinks it is what is most plausible that is different from him deciding because he thinks it is the most cool

 

[zakael19]

What’s really odd about is that it’s gone from “I don’t like the ways these rules work” to “I don’t think you GMed this right, because of my personal view of how psychology works”.

Which is quite a change in focus!

I believe @pemerton can pass his Steel test to drop the line of conversation!

 

[Hussar]

/snip

And yes, I improvise. But your framing ignores how I actually run things and tries to pull everything back toward a framework you’re more comfortable with. My improvisation is bounded by world logic, not driven by theme, character arcs, or narrative tension. I’m not asking myself “What would make a compelling story here?” or “What will challenge the character emotionally?” I’m asking, “What happens next based on everything that came before?” That’s not a stylistic difference. That’s a procedural one.

But, I guarantee that if you had two plausible outcomes, one of which you think the players will enjoy playing out and one that they wouldn't enjoy, or you think will be boring or not personally interesting to play through, virtually every single time, you will choose the former and not the latter.

Claims of "world logic" fall flat in the face of actual play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think that multiple posters here have conjectured a "why" - namely, the GM has a vision of the setting that they wish to affirm via play.

Well, it IS an interesting question! WHY any particular setting? WHY any particular decision as to what is there or how it would logically progress or interact with other things, like PC 'stuff'. But lets start with the why of the setup of the setting itself. Having developed several of these worlds, I can provide a list of reasons they were created as they were:
Erithnoi - This was simply 'idle' worldbuilding. I was maybe 13? So I first drew a map of an area which I modeled after some fantasy (I called it 'Kanth' if that gives you any clues). Then at some point I was bored, maybe I needed some additional areas because I was bored of that one, something along those lines. So I applied my understanding of physical geography, along with simply what I thought was fun, interesting, and gameable. I drew a continent. It is 'logical' in the sense that it has mountain ranges, seas, rivers, deserts that fall in the rain shadows of mountains (in turn determined by assuming the prevailing winds were generated by coriolis forces of a spinning globe heated by a sun). Whatever, I doubt it is any more realistic than Oerth, Faerun, or whatever. It is big, I give it that!

Alleterre - This is a sort of fantasy Western Europe that I invented for a game using PACE to run a game based on French Medieval Romance. It is just very deliberately constructed for this purpose. There's a fantasy 'France', a fantasy Britain, and some other areas that didn't much get fleshed out, but presumably corresponded roughly with Italy, Spain, and points further east. There are kings, lords, evil fae, giants, sorcerers, and various such things.

The Island - This was also pretty deliberately constructed for a 4e campaign. The concept was basically a 'land of the lost' sort of place where the PCs would be cast ashore in a shipwreck, but conceptually the Island is all that is left of the world post some sort of magical apocalypse. There are mysterious dwarves, secretive elves, barbaric halflings, a couple of human towns, and a mysterious cult which seems to be centered on the volcano at the center of the place. The idea was for it to be just sort of an unbaked pie, the players would figure out what it all meant by exploring it. The players did decide certain other elements would be included, though I don't recall precisely which ones those were, maybe the halflings? Anyway, the campaign kind of just never got far...

I guess that describes three possibilities, simple worldbuilding for its own sake, a desire to produce an emulation of a fantasy version of the real world (based on a pre-existing mythos), and then one case of a fairly specific concept situation box. I expect there are several additional possibilities, along with different flavors of each.

 

[Bedrockgames]

What’s the counter argument?

Should RPG design be done by emotional intuition?

On vibes?

I think design definitely can be guided largely by emotion but that isn’t really what is being said here in most cases. I base my design on what works at the table for me through trial and error and based on what goals I am trying to achieve. I think we where we probably differ from you is our model of analysis. A lot of what you guys are talking about appears to derive from GNS. Some people find those kinds of models helpful. I have never found them very useful for myself.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But, I guarantee that if you had two plausible outcomes, one of which you think the players will enjoy playing out and one that they wouldn't enjoy, or you think will be boring or not personally interesting to play through, virtually every single time, you will choose the former and not the latter.

Claims of "world logic" fall flat in the face of actual play.

I don’t think this is true for every GM. First of most outcomes like this are more likely to be decided by dice rolls than fiat. But say he has an NPC reacting to the players taking an action and this situation if two outcomes, both plausible, one boring one exciting comes up. He will pick what he thinks is the most plausible of the two. In the rare case that they are so close he simply finds them equally plausible, well that is an edge case. No one would begrudge him leaning into fun all things being equal, but I suspect many would resort to a die roll if they were uncertain. I have to say though I can’t even recall a time this hypothetical has come up in play for me

 

[TwoSix]

My wife says that she thinks it's cool that people do it though! If world-building is your hobby and it makes you happy, why not model what you want I guess!

I think it’s great fun myself; I like looking at fantasy maps and playing all sorts of top-down simulation games, so it’s right up my alley.

But I would also agree that it’s not important to driving play at the table; at best, it just makes me slightly happier when I’m DMing.

 

[pemerton]

The session unfolds from first-person roleplay. There’s no need for an "intent and task" mechanic like in Burning Wheel. The players show intent by roleplaying their characters. Tasks arise naturally from what they describe their characters doing, including combat.

This is no different from Burning Wheel. (And "intent and task* is not even a mechanic. It's a framework for understanding and resolving action declarations.)

This post describes an example.

To expand on it further:

View attachment 405756
The group arrives at Gold Keep.
They crest the ridge and see the town about a half mile away. I describe the scene.

View attachment 405757
As they get closer, they can see buildings like the inn and shops, so I add labels to the map.

View attachment 405758
Sometimes they split up to do different things, I handle this round-robin style and can manage up to three or four subgroups before it bogs things down.

Again, nothing you describe here is any different from Burning Wheel.

In this case, they all head to the castle. At the gate, Erdan (an elven merchant-adventurer) asks to meet the Constable, Sir Jerome Blackhawk. The group is polite and looks respectable aside from the tribal priest from the steppes. No roll needed, they're let into the Great Hall.

This is where we start to see possible differences. The GM, playing the gate guards (I am assuming that the gate guards are NPCs), makes a decision based on their sense of plausibility. In Burning Wheel, a roll might be called for here - I am assuming that Erdan is a PC, and it would depend on what Erdan's Beliefs, Instincts, traits etc are, and hence how the presentation by the GM of the castle and the guards relates to those aspects of Erdan.

Five minutes later in-game, the Chancellor arrives. I roleplay him in first person. He asks the party their business. Erdan reveals he’s an elf, which carries high status in some human realms, and explains his concerns about hill giant activity. I call for a persuasion check, but only to see if he rolls a natural 1. He doesn't, so they’re shown to Sir Jerome’s study.

Again, the only (and obvious) difference here from Burning Wheel is the approach to calling for a check. Assuming that, in BW, a check would be required - as I said just above, that would depend on details that you don't specify in your account, because they're not salient to your game - then it would be against an appropriate obstacle, or perhaps would be a Duel of Wits (eg maybe the Chancellor wants to benefit from the prestige of being associated with an Elf, and so seeks some promise or commitment from Erdan in exchange for admission to see the Constable - the GM would make that decision about what the Chancellor might want by looking at any intersections between what the GM has decided about the Chancellor and *what Erdan's player has decided about Erdan's Beliefs etc).

Spoiler: The Rule of One

View attachment 405759

In-character, they lay out a proposal to deal with the giants. It aligns with the NPC’s goals, so no roll needed. Sir Jerome agrees. They’re offered supplies, decline, rest overnight, and head out in the morning. All of this handled in first person roleplaying.

See above - there is no particular reason why this would be different in Burning Wheel, but again it would depend on how this situation relates to PC Beliefs etc.

The rest of your discussion is a bit less granular, and I'm not going to try and interpolate BW methodologies. But to me you seem to have a bit of a strange idea about how Burning Wheel plays, and thus are not quite noticing where the points of difference would arise.

The idea that the difference between my playstyle and Pemerton’s is just a matter of timing misses the point. It flattens a structural difference into a superficial one.

I don't see why the timing of decisions, in a game - and particularly a game played over an extended period - is "superficial" and not "structural".

In my campaigns, the world is in motion. It doesn’t sit idle waiting for a dramatic beat.

<snip>

That’s part of the discipline of running a Living World. You’re not just building forward, you’re maintaining consistency backward.

There is no difference here from my GMing.

I’m adjudicating how a world with its own agendas and timelines reacts to what the players choose to do. That’s not just a difference in pacing. That’s a difference in how player agency functions.

I agree with the final sentence. And the first sentence described a different process from the one that I use.

My improvisation is bounded by world logic, not driven by theme, character arcs, or narrative tension. I’m not asking myself “What would make a compelling story here?” or “What will challenge the character emotionally?” I’m asking, “What happens next based on everything that came before?” That’s not a stylistic difference. That’s a procedural one.

As I've repeatedly posted, but as apparently you are ignoring, character arcs play no role in my thinking in any of my GMing.

Pemerton’s techniques and philosophy make sense given what he values in RPGs. But he cannot conceive of a universe where my Living World sandbox, and the versions shared by others here, are equally valid approaches grounded in different assumptions.

Of course I can conceive of your Living World play. Heck, I did some version of it for 10 years, and was regarded as the preeminent exponent of it in my university club.

The fact that I happen not to care for it anymore; and that even back then was finding play the most satisfying when it departed from your living world methodology; doesn't mean I can't conceive of it. It just means that there's other stuff I prefer!