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

[hawkeyefan]

In my Living World sandbox campaign, judgment and technique are interwoven. When my players question a decision, I can’t just say, “Well, that’s what would logically happen.” I have to walk them through my line of reasoning to show how I reached that conclusion.

What I do is an application of what Aristotle called practical wisdom, knowing when to follow rules and when to bend them in order to create a world that not only feels consistent but also fair to the players, even when their choices lead to adverse consequences.

This is what distinguishes my Living World approach from similar systems like Blorb.

And for someone who distrusts any referee judgment calls unless they are shared or strictly constrained, my Living World approach will not address their concerns. It assumes that good play emerges from reasoned transparency and group trust, not just rule adherence.

But how’s that different than “GM decides”? Yes, you consider many factors… but then, you decide.

I don’t see a huge difference here. And it’s not about trust… if I was a player in your game, I’d believe you’re doing what you’re saying. But I don’t think it’s all that different from GM fiat. You’re still deciding outcomes. In most cases, there’s a range of plausible outcomes.

Do you narrow it down in some way and then rely on some procedure that includes a randomizer? Or do you just decide?

I don’t want to assume, but it’s a bit unclear from your description.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Where did I tell anyone they must conform?

Why are you not asking anyone else why they’re trying to get me to conform?

Am I required to call out every single instance of potential problem rhetoric?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Insisting that meta agency is needed is definitely agenda driven from my perspective.

But what is meta agency? As far as I can tell, it’s something that’s been introduced just for this discussion.

What is player agency for soccer/football? What then is the meta agency for soccer/football?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Am I required to call out every single instance of potential problem rhetoric?

Why is my opinion problematic?

 

[robertsconley]

I mean, I'm operating with the definition of agency, and how it applies to playing games. As I said, that's as neutrally as I can manage.

You're operating with your definition of agency within the context of tabletop roleplaying. There’s no authoritative source for what "player agency" means, only competing interpretations offered by RPG designers and commentators. Honestly, we haven’t even reached consensus on what a tabletop roleplaying game is, despite the hobby existing for over 50 years, let alone on specific elements like agency.

I’ve been burned enough times in these discussions that I no longer assume shared definitions beyond the most basic mechanical elements. And player agency is not one of those basic elements.

Whereas you are dividing agency into two categories... character agency and meta agency. Which seems far more agenda driven than my take.

That division simply categorizes what a player is allowed to do in a campaign. It doesn't assign value. It doesn’t claim that permitting actions outside of a character’s capabilities is inherently good or bad.

Whether such permissions enhance or detract from a campaign depends entirely on the group’s creative goals.

 

[robertsconley]

What is player agency for soccer/football? What then is the meta agency for soccer/football?

That easy using spy equipment to listen to the opposing sideline discussing strategy and calling plays.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But what is meta agency? As far as I can tell, it’s something that’s been introduced just for this discussion.

What is player agency for soccer/football? What then is the meta agency for soccer/football?

I'm using your words, but I believe meta agency is any influence the player exerts over the game beyond what their PC themselves would be capable of.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why is my opinion problematic?

I haven't seen people on the more traditional side using language that speaks poorly of Narrativist play, but I've definitely seen what looks like the opposite to me.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I am not talking about thematic elements. A lack of literary theme, doesn't mean the setting is dead, or it is all about GM originated concerns. I am talking about living elements in the setting. When you guys talk about what me or Rob are doing, it is like the prep is just there to be discovered or interacted with. What i am saying is that doesn't capture what I think is happening. Because there is not only a much more involved interaction, but the players are also causing these things to go in directions they never would have otherwise (if they decide to abduct a bandit's daughter, that radically alters the flow of events, and the Bandit leader is an independent character who is going to respond). And the characters in the setting are also active, pursuing goals and agendas.

Right, but I think the answer here is basically to point out that all these responses and such are the GM doing dynamic world building. So, yes, the world responds, but the response is entirely in the hands of the GM, and is usually opaque to the players, to a large degree. To the degree that the GM is responsive to the players, and open, and makes space for the thematic issues, conflicts of the protagonist characters, to that degree this living world will be exactly what DW, AW, BitD, and many similar games envisage.

But I will say, Narrativist type games can also work with much more limited scope. DitV for example doesn't much care about big picture kind of stuff. You go to a town, do the thing, move on. Same with things like Agon.

 

[robertsconley]

I don’t see a huge difference here.

Not sure why, you seem to be knowledgeable about what constitutes classic railroading.

I don’t want to assume, but it’s a bit unclear from your description.

That's because I explained this multiple times upthread and I am pretty sure you replied to one of my posts where I talked about that and we had a discussion about it.

Do you narrow it down in some way and then rely on some procedure that includes a randomizer? Or do you just decide?

Yes, it often includes a randomizer, and there are times when I just decide. I have recommended that, in order to minimize personal bias in picking between plausible consequences to roll the dice to see which one to use.

How does it differ? In hindsight, my decisions are often reasonable and justified, as verified by the discussion I have afterwards when the players say, "Yes, that makes sense."

In contrast, most players do not view the decisions of a referee who does classic railroading as either reasonable or justified. Given what I know about your creative goals, I doubt you will find my decisions reasonable or justified because the process I use works against what you consider important for the enjoyment of a campaign.

Again, that is OK and makes sense in light of what you stated in the past about your priorities.