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

[zakael19]

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.


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.

Oh absolutely, the rules just remove some GM power over adjudication in terms of both FITD/PBTA. But it’s not like I’m not fundamentally shaping the play space in all the games I run, I’m just doing so with an eye towards what the players and their characters are focused on instead of prioritizing my setting consistency over those goals or something.

And then I ask questions of myself, the characters, the direction of play, etc and “play to find out” what the answers (if any) might be.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

My point was about good communication.


That’s a misstatement. My assertion was that game mechanics can serve as a terse and structured form of communication, and that they can be used to communicate how a campaign operates.


You are not giving enough information about DW or PbtA to discuss your issue. For example, what rules in DW are very specific, AND very general/universal?

Oye, yes, and AW/DW is exactly parsimonious with its process/rules, and uses that to very clearly communicate how the game works. Yet at the same time the move-in-a-conversation loop IS very general. No matter what a player says, the rules have an answer, either they triggered a move, or it is the GM's turn. The list of moves is pretty concise, and they clearly indicate what they do.

We can go over individual specific rules, but I don't have time and access to that stuff during the day, but if you check it out you will see. The DW site has a PDF that includes all the player facing moves, including the standard playbooks. There's more to the game than that obviously, but it gives a good sense of that part of the puzzle.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

BitD scene framing is pretty similar to AW/DW I think, but I have not GMed it, so I might be missing something. Really, the BitD GM is there to lean on the crew and keep things cooking, not so much to be a master of fiction. They're going to describe scenes in keeping with the fiction and player action declarations. They also declare the effect, position, and scale of things, though the rules usually do a lot of the work there.

But a lot of it is spinning with entanglements and describing how things get messy. Nothing is more quintessential than "oh by the way there's now a 6 tick clock before bad thing happens."

 

[JConstantine]

So, with all of these, what I see is a manifestation of the Dungeon World "when the players look at you, make a move" concept.

No, it's not. That entire section is about establishing the next score, not BitD's equivalent of GM moves. That's the "Telegraph Trouble" and "Follow Through" GM actions.

In none of these cases is it true that the GM must always be presenting the next score.

I never said the GM "must". People really need to stop misrepresenting others' comments.

Sure, the GM can always help to move things along if that is advisable, but it isn't THE way things happen.

Again, I never said it was "the" way. I said it's presented as the default in the Running the Game section.
Chapter 4: The Score has this:

The PCs can set up a new score by choosing a target (from their claims or the faction list, for example), by approaching a potential client and asking for work, or by being contacted by an NPC who needs to hire a crew for a job.

That first one is player-led, but I'm not seeing much different from someone in @robertsconley game pointing at the map and saying "let's check out the Temple of Doom". The second two are what @hawkeyefan seems to consider GM-led.

Obviously every table is a bit different. I can easily see games where BitD is the GM feeding the crew score-of-the-week. I don't think that would be quite what Harper envisaged, and it would leave some of the best stuff on the table,

I agree. That's why I said the player-driven approach is the ideal.

The GM definitely dropped fiction on us that lead to some scores, but it had none of the character of 'hooks', because he had NO plan as to what we would do, he was just complicating our lives.

This is pretty much how my V:TM sandbox goes. Players may discover something about a NPC, say, but it's up to them how they utilise it in their ambitions.

There are 'secrets' in Doskvol, but like most Narrativist play, they're not things the GM knows that the players don't. I read the setting before play, I know as much as anyone!

This is really going to vary by group, especially since most players don't read the book.

No, you are misunderstanding entanglements. They come during 'downtime' at the end of a score, or fictionally maybe even a bit later, but they're tied to the last score. IME they are NOT fights.

There you go with the misrepresentation again. I never said anything about fights. Nothing about an encounter necessitates that it be a fight. So, no, I haven't misunderstood entanglements. If anything, you've misunderstood encounters.

I think you see them through a trad lens,

So, you see me as trad, @Micah Sweet sees me as a Narrativist. People love their pigeon-holing, huh. But no. As I've said previously, I try to approach each game in the spirit it was intended. That means reading the book and taking it as face value without any preconceived notions.

---

So, with all of these, what I see is a manifestation of the Dungeon World "when the players look at you, make a move" concept.

but like most Narrativist play,

I think you see them through a trad lens, as I think you see the whole "GM giving hooks." The people I've played with are fairly experienced Narrativist RPGers, so in our play neither of those elements came across much as you describe them.

I want to highlight these parts separately, because they showcase something else I've noticed among BitD fans. I've already mentioned how there's a trend to tell those coming from a trad-leaning background (especially 5e only) that they need a change of mindset, and to unlearn their approach, but Narrativist-leaning players, especially those coming from PbtA are often bringing in preconceived notions themselves. BitD is not strictly a Narrativist game. It takes several steps back towards trad, and, frankly, is a weird hybrid. I'd posit that it's like Nar 60:40 trad, so it breaks down less with narrativist leanings, but that doesn't make it Nar.

 

[JConstantine]

I will expect them to actually go adventuring in the Savage Frontier region, not run a cake stall in Waterdeep or immediately board ship for Calimshar (sp?)

Ok, but Calimshan needs more love. The Sword Coast gets all the fun.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, it's not. That entire section is about establishing the next score, not BitD's equivalent of GM moves. That's the "Telegraph Trouble" and "Follow Through" GM actions.

I never said the GM "must". People really need to stop misrepresenting others' comments.

Again, I never said it was "the" way. I said it's presented as the default in the Running the Game section.
Chapter 4: The Score has this:

That first one is player-led, but I'm not seeing much different from someone in @robertsconley game pointing at the map and saying "let's check out the Temple of Doom". The second two are what @hawkeyefan seems to consider GM-led.


I agree. That's why I said the player-driven approach is the ideal.

This is pretty much how my V:TM sandbox goes. Players may discover something about a NPC, say, but it's up to them how they utilise it in their ambitions.

This is really going to vary by group, especially since most players don't read the book.

There you go with the misrepresentation again. I never said anything about fights. Nothing about an encounter necessitates that it be a fight. So, no, I haven't misunderstood entanglements. If anything, you've misunderstood encounters.

So, you see me as trad, @Micah Sweet sees me as a Narrativist. People love their pigeon-holing, huh. But no. As I've said previously, I try to approach each game in the spirit it was intended. That means reading the book and taking it as face value without any preconceived notions.

---

I want to highlight these parts separately, because they showcase something else I've noticed among BitD fans. I've already mentioned how there's a trend to tell those coming from a trad-leaning background (especially 5e only) that they need a change of mindset, and to unlearn their approach, but Narrativist-leaning players, especially those coming from PbtA are often bringing in preconceived notions themselves. BitD is not strictly a Narrativist game. It takes several steps back towards trad, and, frankly, is a weird hybrid. I'd posit that it's like Nar 60:40 trad, so it breaks down less with narrativist leanings, but that doesn't make it Nar.

I definitely agree about the trend you mention. IMO, some Narrativist proponents have gotten pushy and judgemental about their preferences, like those techniques are somehow better because they are presented in a more formal, academic style.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

I am not saying you have no responsibility for "it is what my character would do moments". I am saying when you make an NPC or a setting detail, you can do so without concern for how it will play out. Some creations are obvious. You make something and clearly it would introduce a fetch quest, but something like "Corpse Queen likes music", I would have no real sense of what that is going to mean in terms off her taking actions until the players get involved and the campaign itself evolves on its own

 

[zakael19]

BitD is not strictly a Narrativist game. It takes several steps back towards trad, and, frankly, is a weird hybrid.

What are you defining as Narrativist here? As a dynamic of play, BITD fully supports it.

It also supports much stronger up-front GM framing and designer vision, while still inviting open collaboration in all aspects of play. Eg: the first GM action is “Ask Questions,” and you can run just about any game doing just this and an occasional roll (as the text notes).

It’s pretty clear that you should both offer opportunities (you’re a creative collaborator as the GM and you may have some neat threads based on factions or clocks or whatever, and you’re allowed to want to see certain things in the game), but also “If the players don’t have their own idea for a job, this is the perfect opportunity to look for a new opportunity” [by gathering info]. Thus foregrounding player ideas first and if they want a nudge or you have something to toss out there, that’s cool too.

I think this dichotomy is a little different from a highly prepped sandbox in that it’s asking the players to come up with a “quest” that may or may not exist at all yet; and then helping nudge play along if they don’t have anything in mind (or dangle some hooks). Pretty much all PBTAs do something similar via the GM moves (provide an opportunity, with or without a cost being a nigh universal one that can go from small scale to overarching PC goals).

 

[robertsconley]

That first one is player-led, but I'm not seeing much different from someone in @robertsconley game pointing at the map and saying "let's check out the Temple of Doom".

It started because I am partially deaf, and it was just easier for me to have the player point at the map and show me what their character was about to do. But over the decades, I found that, used judicially, it really enhanced play. Of course, I did the occasional elaborate set piece like the one below.

Most of the time, I used dry erase, and it was sufficient for the cause. Like here, where the Orcs tried to take out the party by driving their herd of cattle into the caves that the party was invading.

However, being able to describe the area briefly and setting up things to show rather than tell gets the players a lot more involved with interacting with the environment and NPCs. With proper organization, the process doesn't take that much more. Often I got it drawn or set up by the time I finish my verbal description.

The same thing works with VTTs.

And as for your comment, yeah pointing at the map is totally and saying we go here a thing in my campaign.

All the lines here were drawn by the players investigating the area around Yonk's Place

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

Yeah it is tough explaining in these threads, especially since I am often defending sandboxes in principle, but not always dealing with what I do at my own table (which is its own thing really). And I think it is harder to talk about your style of play from a defensive stance (everyone is a little more cagey and anticipating potential critiques). I developed a lot of my thoughts running games in sandboxes and being involved in sandbox discussions because I was looking for alternatives to the popular adventure structures for things like D&D in the early to mid 2000s (that was a period where I was running a lot of d20, and there was a strong culture of play around certain kinds of adventures). But if people look at my blog they will see more about what I am talking about. I have whole adventures up there too like the War of Swarming Beggars for Ogre Gate and a series of adventures of Strange Tales of Songling. So that can give people an idea what my prep might look like (keeping in mind it is written for an audience, and my own notes are different because they are written for me). Most of my adventures and GM essays are on the right side of the blog menu (reviews are on the left side). The Wuxia Sandbox essays are probably the best place to start on the blog