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

[Maxperson]

I’ve done that as well, although it was a while ago. It’s why I’m a stickler now for how not running games that are more “high-concept” and have a starting rationale for PC cooperation.

I don't do that, either. I have no problem if the group wants to split up in town to shop and whatnot, or if the party splits for a short time out in the field, but I expect the players to figure out how to get their PCs to be enough on the same page to be an adventuring group.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've been explaining my opinions on the matter. I don't think that the living world sandbox type play being discussed is as player-focused as is being stated.

That's not really a problem... as I've said, I run games like that myself. But I view them differently. My opinions and ideas on the matter have been challenged, so I've posted to explain myself.

Yes, clearly ENW is dominated by the non-traditional crew.

You have roughly three times as many posts as I do, Lanefan. It's not just pesky fans of more serious play who are invested in forums.

Give me a break.

But didn't you start this line of discussion by challenging the established idea about sandbox games and why people play them by essentially telling folks that they're lying to themselves? I mean, that's going to cause a response.

And the non-traditional crew may not have the numbers, but it's a largely united front that shows in every thread discussing game design in any way to IMO make their pitch, so it certainly reads to me like a valid voting block.

 

[Lanefan]

I think it's generally easier if there is something connecting the PCs in some way. They don't have to be friends or even companions, but they can be bound by geography or by cause. Something that connects them so that what each does somehow matters to the shared fiction of the game.

In a higher-lethality game that connection can be as simple as "We're more likely to survive as a group than as individuals". In other words, strength in numbers.

Yes, clearly ENW is dominated by the non-traditional crew.

You have roughly three times as many posts as I do, Lanefan. It's not just pesky fans of more serious play who are invested in forums.

Indeed. But when (hypothetical numbers here) 20% of the noise in these somewhat-system-agnostic discussions is made by those representing maybe 1% of the overall player base, that to me counts as an outsized voice.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And at the same time, everything gets a whole lot blander.

An example, perhaps:

There's lots of things in the game - spells, feats, magic items, etc. - that affect how a character can or does move: haste, slow, jump, climb, flight are just a few.

The unified-design theory would probably want a one-size-fits-all rule, something like "non-natural* movement effects of any kind or of different kinds cannot stack", i.e. that a creature or person can only have one such effect active on itself at a time. Easy, sure, but boring as hell and, IMO, very lazy design. (a second, corollary, blanket rule would be either A: that having one such effect active denies the application of any others until the first effect has ended, or B: that application of a second such effect overwrites and ends the first)

Far better would be to delineate how each of these different "extra" movement types can or cannot interact with the others, and also with additional instances of itself. Can someone be double-hasted or double-slowed? Do haste and slow on the same person just cancel each other out? If two different things give a character the ability to jump 20 feet straight up, do the two together allow a 40-foot jump? Can a hasted character be given spider climb as well? Etc., etc.

And then start looking at specific feats or items or spells and see if any exceptions then apply to the answers to all the interaction questions above. For example, does wearing boots of speed function differently than a speed-you-up spell? Do slowing effects stack while hasting ones do not? Etc., etc.

And if this means some write-ups get long, so what?

* - the "non-natural" is there to allow for built-in natural movement abilities e.g. an Aarakocra's ability to fly.

Ugh, bad design. This is why AD&D turned into a hot mess. Just say no.

 

[AlViking]

I think a pretty core distinction between some of us is the assumption that we’re looking for play this is less “casual/hangout” (although that’s OK at times) and instead play is done with more intentionality.

But that seems to imply, falsely, that people who play D&D are always casual. Some groups are, some aren't. Sometimes we're casual, sometimes not.

Meanwhile when I read about some of these games they just come off as very artificial where "exploring your beliefs" seems to come down to die rolls and/or spending meta-currency. But in D&D? I've made a player cry (in a good way) after a story reveal. They just rejected a generous, no strings attached reward because they hate the NPC.

Just because we don't have specific mechanisms surrounding emotional state it doesn't mean we can't be serious. Even if it's only now and then.

 

[TwoSix]

Indeed. But when (hypothetical numbers here) 20% of the noise in these somewhat-system-agnostic discussions is made by those representing maybe 1% of the overall player base, that to me counts as an outsized voice.

 

[TwoSix]

But that seems to imply, falsely, that people who play D&D are always casual. Some groups are, some aren't. Sometimes we're casual, sometimes not.

Meanwhile when I read about some of these games they just come off as very artificial where "exploring your beliefs" seems to come down to die rolls and/or spending meta-currency. But in D&D? I've made a player cry (in a good way) after a story reveal. They just rejected a generous, no strings attached reward because they hate the NPC.

Just because we don't have specific mechanisms surrounding emotional state it doesn't mean we can't be serious. Even if it's only now and then.

That's why I said "some of us". There are obviously multiple axes of distinction. "Casual" vs "intense" is but one.

 

[AlViking]

That's why I said "some of us". There are obviously multiple axes of distinction. "Casual" vs "intense" is but one.

"Some of us" usually includes the person making the post. So unless I misread what you said I disagree, whether D&D is casual or not is largely up to the people at the table.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

How does one derive this crucible or create a world/setting as needed to present a premise to test? Is it via collaboration or is the GM shifting the story towards this crucible via the failures on the rolls?
Are there specific techniques which are employed to create this question via the setting?

In my sandbox campaign, I'm constantly scouring the characters' Traits, Ideals, Bonds and Flaws to see if/and how they can be applied as the natural story emerges (players are encouraged to do this too, but I'm the primary driver since I find and enjoy that internal character test). The players and I are not actively driving the story to test their Traits, Ideals, Bonds and Flaws. If the story presents that test and I'm alert to the opportunity, I do so. I have found the players at my table actually enjoy that struggle.
It is not a perfect process at all since the game was not designed for that.

Techniques vary somewhat, but let's say we were discussing Dungeon World. Suppose a character is lost and wants to find his friend whom he has a bond with "I will always protect Joe." He reaches a point where he has a choice of directions. He could choose correctly or incorrectly. The GM clearly knows this is a point where something is at stake, and he's got various 'dungeon moves' he can use, plus prep, like a map and fronts.

At this point the player might decide to be smart and discern realities. Maybe first he just addresses the scene framed by the GM describing a narrow squeeze in one direction and a torch lit passage in the other. He rolls, maybe he gets to ask questions and perhaps get a bonus on later tests using the answers, or maybe he rolls badly and the GM simply tells him something unwelcome.

Later he takes one of the above routes, maybe he successfully asked which passage was beneficial. He might have to defy danger to pass, maybe with a bonus. Either way the GM is bound to get him closer to his goal, his buddy Joe. Failures will put more pressure on the character, using up resources etc. Or even inflicting harm.

DW simply proceeds like this, basically endlessly modulus fronts and character advancement or death.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not sure what you mean by "adding"... I'm talking about the creation of the setting and everything within it. Is that what you mean? If one is working with a pre-existing setting of some sort, then I can see why you might call it adding... if that's not what you meant, let me know.

I've never met or heard of a DM who creates every encounter, magic item, NPC, etc. the group will ever encounter at the moment of building the setting.

The DM is constantly adding encounters, items, NPCs, sometimes dungeons, etc. to the setting, whether it was a pre-existing setting or one of his own creation.

Assuming that is what you meant, when you create an NPC, you are thinking solely of their place in the fictional setting? You don't think in terms of the game at all? Like, have you given then a level and other game statistics?

In relation to the fictional place of the NPC, yes. As some sort of game thing, no. If I have a barkeep who is an army veteran, there's a good chance I'm going to give him fighter levels(prior to 5e) or make him an NPC veteran(5e), but the focus isn't the game, it's the fiction. Those things are there because of his place in the fictional setting.

Thinking in terms of game is looking at an encounter to see if it's easy, difficult, deadly, etc., and how much XP the PCs will get from it. That's not part of the fictional setting. It's a game construct.

Have you created any existing connections with other NPCs or factions, or any goals for the NPC that may offer opportunities to the players?

I create goals for NPCs, yes. Whether those offer opportunities to the PCs or not depends on what the players pick for their PCs goals and personalities. Sometimes it does. Other times it does not. Those goals are created for the fictional position of the NPC, not with the PC(s) in mind.