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

[TwoSix]

In this case that playstyle leads to events that make no logical sense to me. I'm not going to be ok with that personally.

You don't have to like it. But that dislike shouldn't prevent you from categorizing play in a way that includes things you don't like.

 

[Campbell]

Why is this called "blorb" play? It seems excessively silly, to the point of being dismissive.

Sandra calls it "blorb" because she wants to avoid having the definitional arguments that come from people using the dictionary meaning of what is a term of art in to stretch the meaning of the concept. By just calling it "blorb" she's able to define exactly what she means.

We have seen why this might be a good idea in the struggles we have had over discussions of "the (shared) fiction" on these boards - where it's intended to mean something specific, but people bring in their own take based on one of the many dictionary definitions of fiction.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Shockingly, if you read the not-very-long blog posts, they explain why. And the definition comes from someone who is actively supporting the types of play you advocate for.

Where does it say that. I read it but I think I missed where it explained the term's meaning or source

And two be clear, I liked it. I would say it is just one way of talking about what we do (I wouldn't hold it up as the way, as there are points I think I would quibble with, simply as a matter of taste), but I think it is a much better way of describing what we do than "discovering the GMs notes" or the "Gm decides". I see a lot of too crossover with what I have said (paper rock scissors for example is very close to 'pinning it down'). And I like that they at least doesn't fully accept the gamist label (I don't particularly care for GNS categories personallY). I suspect they is being way more systematic than I would be about it though

 

[pemerton]

My purported "lies"

Who said you're lying?

If you're referring to this post,

Well, only when I am accused of lying, or when you say X is clear in response to a post where I've explained in detail why its not the case that X.

I was referring to posts that accuse me of lying.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sandra calls it "blorb" because she wants to avoid having the definitional arguments that come from people using the dictionary meaning of what is a term of art in to stretch the meaning of the concept. By just calling it "blorb" she's able to define exactly what she means.

We have seen why this might be a good idea in the struggles we have had over discussions of "the (shared) fiction" on these boards - where it's intended to mean something specific, but people bring in their own take based on one of the many dictionary definitions of fiction.

Okay that makes sense. I missed that in the blog post

 

[Bedrockgames]

On Plausibility:

What I would say looking at my own GMing and self-scouting I have done after the fact is that I find say running Stars Without Number to the instructions it provides (and referencing blorb principles) to the best of my ability that I am still making aesthetic decisions that fit within my sense of what is plausible because when you have to create or design things there will be creative decisions. I would say that I am much more focused on plausibility as a constraint than I would be in say something like Dune 2d20. I would assume Stars Without Number as described in its text would count as a Living World Sandbox.

I don't think anyone would dispute this. Crawford's stuff is pretty respected in sandbox and OSR circles. I am not familiar with them enough to weigh in. I would just say, as with anything, it is reflective of that particular person's conception of living world sandbox (just like Rob's is reflective of his). So some caution in extrapolating principles is usually wise.

I have also seen a fair number of posts from Living World where they discuss certain aesthetic subjects they avoid (interpersonal drama. introspection, et al). That seems to imply within the context of the what's plausible decision space is also a filter based on aesthetic priorities.

Personally I am not sure I would call these things an aesthetic issue (but you guys seem to use aesthetic a bit differently than we do). But I am very into interpersonal drama. That has been the fuel of many of my living sandbox campaigns. I would say what I don't do is put mechanics behind it to instigate it, and if I do have mechanics or tools, they are generally not interfering with player control of the PC (so grudge tables are a big part this). Generally things are very 'in-setting' I guess

My experience based on a broad range of roleplaying is that we as GMs weigh both aesthetic priorities and our sense of plausibility in nearly every decision we make. Our priorities will be weighted differently, obviously. The weight of those priorities and also having a different set of aesthetic priorities will also make a huge difference. This is not me trying to just flatten everything - just share how I see things based on experience that includes a broad range of play, including a game I would assume fits the definition of a "World in Motion".

Again I suspect we would mean different things by aesthetics, but the reasoning here is why I tend to be non-prescriptive with living world sandboxes. I've been defending them against critique most of this thread, but in conversations I was involved in back in the day about them, there was this overly rigid conception of living world sandbox, that I personally found too naturalistic, too grounded in causation, that didn't leave enough room for other things to emerge (you might say other priorities like drama). So I started taking a more flexible approach that too what I thought was the best of what made sandbox work, but strove to avoid anything I felt would bog down play or make play not fun and interesting

 

[TwoSix]

I suspect they is being way more systematic than I would be about it though

Being systematic is good.

Saying "I'm describing these principles, because I think they'll make for a strong, distinctive play experience", like that blog post does, or the Principia Apocrypha, or Matt Finch's primer, is how you make a convincing argument in the TTRPG space.

"I'm just describing the way I like to do it" isn't really that helpful. Might be fun for the describer, but not very useful for anyone else.

 

[pemerton]

This whole line sounds excessively pedantic to me (no offense @Pedantic ) as if you're trying to score rhetorical points against someone rather than engage in honest discussion.

Hang on - so in reply to someone's claim that the fiction causes things to happen in the real world, it's pedantic to explain why I think that is obviously false?

I am discussing honestly. I've posted endless actual play examples in this thread, analysed them to the Nth degree, been told that I'm lying and mistaken about my own examples but have continued to reply to those posters, and have explained the play of Burning Wheel and (to a lesser extent) Torchbearer 2e and 4e D&D at endless length.

Where are your actual play examples? Where is your contribution to analysis? What have you said in this thread that would help someone improve their RPGing? I'm pretty confident that anyone who wants to increase the degree of player agency in their RPGing, by adapting the sorts of techniques used in the RPGs I've posted about, will be able to learn useful stuff from my posts. Just as I have learned useful things over the years from others.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What entirely mundane creatures in D&D have fear effects? Not saying you're wrong, just can't think of any.

The aforementioned spinosaurus dinosaur?

But if you want more: Lions can frighten anyone, pterafolk (from Tomb of Annihilation) that dive on creatures and hit them with a weapon attack cause fear, the aforementioned Warlord (a legendary creature, but not a magical one), a grung variant has a poison which causes a creature to be frightened of its allies, and the liondrake (from Fizban's) similarly has a roar that frightens (and paralyzes if you fail by 5 or more). There are also some debatable edge cases, one example being yuan-ti/doppelgangers/changelings, which have a "Unsettling Visage" feature that appears to be a function of their (within-the-D&D-world) mundane anatomy as shapechangers. That is, the fear isn't magical, it's simply an expression of their fantastical anatomy. Likewise, Frightful Presence on basically any dragon of sufficient age is functionally identical to its 3.x/PF1e version, which at the time was an [Ex]traordinary ability, not [Su]pernatural nor [Sp]ell-like, so there's no reason to think it has suddenly become supernatural in 5e.

And for those who have claimed that the Battle Master maneuvers don't apply, Icewind Dale: Rime of the Frostmaiden features an NPC, Gunvald Halraggson, who is functionally a mid-to-high-level Fighter, with (explicitly) Second Wind, Indomitable, and the ability to make three attacks. The important bit, however, is that he has Menacing Blows, a feature which (other than being 1/round rather than X/SR) functions identically to the Menacing Attack maneuver for the Battle Master.

So....yeah. Entirely mundane beings, even by Earth standards, can force someone to feel fear if they fail a roll. Even some things which are not mundane by Earth standards, but which are, functionally, mundane by "we live in a fantasy world" standards, aka not using any supernatural powers just....what their biology permits, can also do it.

 

[Imaro]

Oh I wasn't aware.
Seems like they made it a generic ability which perhaps gets more use than have it tied to a character's past. I suppose there are pro's and con's with these changes - comes down to what your table prefers.

Couldn't you just fluff it as an ability from your past and limit your usage to one creature if using 2024... What downsides are you seeing to the change?