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

[Micah Sweet]

I think the metaphor isn't tortured. It may just be uncomfortably clear.

Valentine's Day is the moment in which the results we produce are particularly relevant to the recipient of those results. On Valentine's Day, getting a bag of poo from your SO is particularly relevant, and is particularly bad.

The GM ought to own when their results, however they are generated, stink for the player. "Internal world logic" is not somehow especially absolving.

Seems pretty tortured to me, especially as you're clearly trying to force the emotional component as analogous to a romantic relationship.

 

[Umbran]

But wouldn't you agree that between the act of creating and the act of playing, the logic kind of suggests certain things.

You seem to be trying to say the logic exists outside the creation. It does not. The logic is part of the creation. How the thing behaves is part of the thing that you create, not separate.

For example if I make an NPC who wants to steal beautiful faces for his collection, and one of the players has a character they describe as beautiful or handsome, then there would be a certain logic to that NPC going after that PC. It isn't like it has to happen, but there is definitely a kind of logic arrow pointing in that direction should those two happen to interact

Yeah, but since you created the NPC with that particular desire, you cannot divorce yourself from how that would play out. This is exactly the "that's how my character would behave!" statement. Since you made the character, you own how they behave. You own the logic of their action.

 

[robertsconley]

So, what are we talking about here, what you, robertsconley, do, or what is done broadly in various approaches to play? Because your personal behavior doesn't speak to anyone but you, and your behavior then cannot be used as support for an approach to play, in general.

You say my behavior can’t support a general approach to play, but actual play is the only meaningful testbed we have. What I’m describing isn’t a personal quirk, it’s a structured method built on various techniques and methodologies. It’s reproducible, teachable, and has worked with many groups over the years. I’ve written a book and numerous essays, and the feedback from those using similar methods has been positive.

While I haven’t yet written a unifying book or essay in the style of Edwards’ Forge essays, this discussion has helped clarify what that might look like. But I’m honestly not sure what standard I’m being asked to meet here. If a referee's approach can’t be judged by how it plays out in real campaigns, what else are we supposed to evaluate?

And again, the setting doesn't have internal logic that isn't also the GM's own personal logic, since the GM either creates or authorizes that logic.

We’ve already agreed that the referee is responsible for the logic used in the campaign. But your phrase “personal logic” muddies the water. Yes, the referee creates or authorizes the logic, but that logic doesn’t have to be invented from scratch. It can be adopted from elsewhere, whether that’s Edwards, Crane, or Baker, or from real-world history, like the social and economic patterns of Earth between 600 and 1400 AD, which I often draw on.

If you're saying that any logic ultimately becomes the referee’s “personal” logic because they approved it, fine, but that undermines the distinction you seem to be making. If the real issue is the source of the logic, we’re on the same page. If it's about responsibility, I’ve already acknowledged that I bear it fully.

And let’s not forget where this subthread started: I asked whether your objections still hold if players know in advance that "bags of poo", or to use a more precise example, potential Total Party Kills, are a feature of the campaign.

So let me make the question direct:

Do you still object if players know up front that TPKs are possible, that they may occur without warning, and that the referee is the one responsible for them, yet they choose to play anyway?

That’s not about hidden authority, narrative manipulation, or violated expectations. That’s informed consent in a clearly framed game structure.

If your answer is still “yes, I object,” then I think the disagreement isn’t about referee procedure, it’s about whether certain kinds of stakes and consequences should be on the table at all, no matter how clearly they’re communicated.

 

[AlViking]

As GM, you have editorial control, and you are in charge of implementation. Once you pick it up and use it, it is yours.

Plus, unless you are going to claim that pretty much everyone who uses those settings would, if given the same situation in the setting, come to the same setting-logic conclusion for the next events, then it isn't the setting's logic - it is the GM's.

So, do you want to make that claim?

Is anyone trying to abdicate responsibilities as GM? Of course I make the final decision on everything that happens outside of what the characters do and this line of questions seems to be a well trod and tired strawman. I do it as best I can based on the logic that has been established for the world and what I have in my notes. I don't see why anyone makes a big deal out of this, saying that we rely on internal logic of the world is just a phrase used to summarize an approach to determining what will happen that has been explained repeatedly.

 

[Umbran]

Seems pretty tortured to me, especially as you're clearly trying to force the emotional component as analogous to a romantic relationship.

If your folks are dispassionate about your games, then maybe it doesn't apply to you?

Otherwise, I find the romantic relationship is kind of apt, as it highlights that there are responsibilities and expectations between you, and the people involved care pretty deeply about how it goes..

 

[Bedrockgames]

You seem to be trying to say the logic exists outside the creation, it does not. The logic is part of the creation. How the thing behaves is part of the thing that you create, not separate.



Yeah, but since you created the NPC with that particular desire, you cannot divorce yourself from how that would play out. This is exactly the "that's how my character would behave!" statement. Since you made the character, you own how they behave. You own the logic of their action.

My point is, once created it is part of the setting. If another Gm picks up and runs it, they can see the logic.

 

[JConstantine]

I’ve not read Righteous Blood, Ruthless Blades, so I won’t comment on that. I expect it’s more different than you’re describing, based on @Bedrockgames overall comments and views in this discussion.

To be clear, I wasn't saying RBRB was a similar game (though the core resolution for both is a dice pool systems using ranks in a skill/action, keep the single highest result), and only mentioned it insofar that it was the catalyst for me reading Bedrock's blog, and thus becoming familiar with his approach. I will say, I don't think @Bedrockgames has explained it as well here as he could have, but this a message board, not a blogsite, and if people were genuinely interested in understanding his or @robertsconley respective approaches, they'd actually read their blogs. As it stands, @zakael19 seems to be the only one truly coming from a place of curiosity and good faith, while others are more interested in point scoring.

No, I don’t think I have. I just ran a session Monday night. It didn’t involve a hook that I provided the players, it didn’t involve them interacting with my premade locations and NPCs.

Your last session isn't actually relevant. What you said in that other post is literally in BitD book. Let's take a look:

It's just the GM has put all this prep into the setting and its NPCs and factions and events...

A City Guide to Doskvol starts on page 237. There's a brief timeline; a section on cultures; languages; a breakdown of Doskvol's "day" including 12 uniquely named hours; an in-fiction piece explaining electoplasm; a section on weather, calendar and season, including names for the 6 months; another in-fiction piece on food (mmm, eel and mushroom pie ), a section on law & order; the underworld; academia; the how it's haunted. Next, we get a map of the city, followed by a multipage breakdown of each district complete with landmarks, notable NPCs, typical scenes. traits like wealth and criminal influence, and a unique mechanic effect. Then we get a page of things overheard in Duskwall, including some rumours. The following page is a some rollable tables, including a rumour table.
Next segment is the factions, starting with an overview, followed by a write-up of about 2/3 of them, including NPCs, turf, situation and goals they're pursuing (i.e. events). At the end of that, we get a list of vice purveyor NPCs and their establishment, followed by a bunch of rollable tables for spinning up streets, buildings, people, devils (the game's catchall term for supernatural entities, not the D&D sort). A rollable table for generating scores, and ends with a brief overview of the Shattered Isles as a whole.

That sure looks like a fair amount of prep. It being done by the book's author rather than the GM, doesn't change that.

those are going to be the major focus of play. The player characters are meant and expected to interact with the setting.

During character creation, players pick an NPC to friends with and another to be rivals with (the rest are neutral, but are still people the character knows), they are expected to interact with these NPCs during play and the GM is expected to incorporate them. Crew creation also has an NPC contact, but goes further by connecting the crew to other factions:

When you assign your two upgrades, the GM will tell you about two factions that are impacted by your choices:

• One faction helped you get an upgrade. They like you, and you get +1 status with them. At your option, spend 1 coin to repay their kindness, and take +2 status with them instead.
• One faction was screwed over when you got an upgrade. They don’t like you, and you get -2 status with them. At your option, spend 1 coin to mollify them, and take -1 status with them instead.

Choose one contact who is a close friend, long-time ally, or partner in crime. The GM will tell you about two factions that are impacted by your choice:

• One faction is also friendly with this contact, and you get +1 status with them.
• One faction is unfriendly with this contact, and you get -1 status with them.

At your option, these factions are even more concerned with this contact and so you take +2 and -2 status instead.

This ties the crew to the setting and forces them to interact with it.
To quote the section on Establishing Hunting Grounds:

The area is small, only three or four city blocks—but it’s still an intrusion on someone. The entire city is divided among larger, stronger factions.

Every part of the city is owned by someone, which means every act by the crew forces them to interact with the setting. The book confirms this:

The cycle is: we start a score, the score introduces new elements in the fiction, those elements affect other factions, those factions react, we try to make the most of those reactions and climb the Tier ladder. This affects other factions, we have to deal with it so we make another score... and on it goes.

So, yeah, "meant and expected to interact with the setting" as you put it.

Look at the "star crossed lovers" example. This is a pair of GM NPCs to be interacted with... and the resultant action drives play.

Not strictly star-crossed lovers, but Blades has Djera Maha, of The Hive:

Maha had a close relationship (some say romantic) with the leader of the Crows, Roric, who was recently murdered by his second-in-command.
FACTION CLOCKS Avenge Roric’s murder 6

So, yeah, you described BitD.

 

[Umbran]

So let me make the question direct:

Do you still object if players know up front that TPKs are possible, that they may occur without warning, and that the referee is the one responsible for them, yet they choose to play anyway?

My objection has never been about the existence of a particular result. I am not saying anything in particular is badwrongfun. Generally, if everyone is aware, sure, that's fine.

But... (there's always a but)...

Specific situation beats general, and real people are more important than "setting logic". So, as a random example, if Player C's Dad died last week, and you TPK them... well. you own that, and claiming any upset is the player's fault for choosing to play that week shows a remarkable lack of empathy on the GM's part.

 

[JConstantine]

That’s absolutely the first half of the “give them opportunities” section - meant to help shape play for groups or GMs that may not feel at home with fully player - led priorities. The second half “or(and?) follow their lead” is how many of us play, taking the player‘s espoused goals and working with them to shape a score and then frame the Engagement.

That's not really the "first half", that segment is almost entirely "provide opportunities", while "follow their lead" is a single paragraph. And, just to be clear, the "follow their lead" is absolutely how I prefer it to be played, but then I'm a proactive player. There's one person I've gamed with who absolutely prefers to be lead by the nose, and it's like pulling teeth.

The game just supports both styles explicitly with procedures on how to - the same way a Sandbox world might have intial hooks/rumors/encounters to get play going (or notes towards dungeons and stuff).

This is rather my point. In terms of player-driven vs gm-driven, BitD is no different to the various sandboxes mentioned in this thread.

 

[pemerton]

In terms of player-driven vs gm-driven, BitD is no different to the various sandboxes mentioned in this thread.

I know BitD from reputation and a bit of reading, rather than actual play, but I don't think what you say here is accurate.

BitD has a very different resolution framework from D&D and allied games of the sort that the "trad" sandbox proponents are playing.

I also think, as per @AbdulAlhazred's post upthread, that it takes a different approach to scene-framing too.