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

[AbdulAlhazred]

If that was the case, there wouldn't be so many murders in real life. People would get scared out of killing someone.

Human beings are a murderous lot. Some fear murder, and often don't commit it. Others overcome their fears. A few have no fear at all and if they wish they kill again and again. I think that's a pretty reasonable reading of history...

 

[SableWyvern]

The playing to find out that happens in Apocalypse World is, however, qualitatively different from that which happens in classic OSR games.

In Apocalypse World there is no pre-established fiction, and the nature of the characters themselves is likewise to be discovered, not pre-established in any sense. So we play to find out if the Hardholder has what it takes to acquire a water supply. What will he do? Will he deprive the Sand People of water? Will he shoot some rivals? Will he condemn his own sister to death for being a water witch? Play to find out! I've never played ANY trad concept game where this kind of finding out was on the menu.

Now, I'm no OSR guru, but OSR originated out of a desire to go back to the 'original game' and use it as a vehicle for understanding what the most basic elements of RPG experience were. I've always been a bit of a skeptic, but I don't think there was ever anything wrong with stripping things down and trying different ways of making RPGs. So, I have no reason to doubt that things which are explicit in Apocalypse World also exist in the OSR, nor is there any reason to think AW invented them. I don't think that's ever really been claimed. Still, what AW is playing to find out, that's not something that OSR has done.

As I mentioned in a subsequent post, the explanation of play to find out found in Blades in the Dark feels quite similar to my existing understanding of emergent story.

There may have been all sorts of other discussions going on prior to and concurrent with what was written in Blades that take it in different directions, but the basic explanation I quoted earlier and everything else I took from the Blades rulebook was perfectly in keeping with my existing understanding of the concept. I read about about Play to Find Out for the first time in BitD and my only thought was, "Cool, that suits me just fine, it's my preferred way of playing." Nothing since has really changed my mind about.

To my mind, there is nothing particularly special about the questions you're asking above with respect to Hardholder. In my recent Dark Sun game (which was more of a stealth sandbox than an overt one, to be fair, but was certainly a fairly trad game, being run with Mythras) I was very interested to see how the PCs would react to learning that all was not what it seems in the village of escaped slaves where they found refuge. Very specifically relevant to your examples, how they would handle water sources that they need but so do other perfectly decent people. How they would balance pragmatic needs with offering people basic human dignity. Seeing how characters deal with moral quandaries and conflicting priorities has always been part-and-parcel of my gaming, sandbox or not, and I am surprised to see anyone suggesting this is rare or unusual.

Similarly, finding out about characters through play is absolutely part of OSR and trad play among those who oppose complex backstory. My general preference is for PCs to have enough motivation to go adventuring/fit in with the premise of the game, but no more. The game is about what your character is going to do and become, not who they used to be or what they did before. What kind of person they are is something I want to learn about when I see them played. Similarly, when I just played a PC in a very trad (although not especially sandbox) game, I had a concept for my character, and I was interested to see how the character's attitude changed through play and to what to degree his experiences would shape him. Would he cleave to his traditional values, or accept that the world was a bigger, stranger, more complex place? Would he keep up his brave face, or admit to some of his fears? I don't need special mechanics for any of that, and never have.

Which is not say I am opposed to the use of special mechanics, or games built specifically to focus on asking those questions. I'm just saying these aren't new or unique concepts at all and, while I am happy to believe you if you say you haven't seen them in trad gaming, I just think that the fact you haven't seen them doesn't mean they weren't there. As I commented in another thread recently, I believe the hobby is a lot more insular than many people realise. It is entirely possible for two people with decades of experience to have moved in very different circles where what is liked or disliked, played or not played, accepted or rejected, can be extremely different.

 

[pemerton]

OK, so fun fact: I found a copy of BW Gold online. I didn't download it, because I won't download a game without paying for it, but I have been looking stuff up in it. Everything I wrote there was taken directly from the book.

View attachment 405726

Again: maybe next time you get into a prolonged argument with someone about the duel of wits, you mention that you're using the rules in ways that they're not intended to be used. It's incredibly disingenuous of you to claim other people don't know what they're talking about when you're using houseruled mechanics! As I previously said, you have repeatedly failed to mention key elements here, even when directly questioned. That is not cool. You either need to stick with RAW or say that you're modifying the mechanics.

@Faolyn, you're just wrong.

I'm not "houseruling" the Duel of Wits. I'm playing it as per the rulebook and designer commentary.

From Gold Revised p 389: "Though the Duel of Wits cannot make a character like or believe anything, it can force him to agree to something" - such as mending armour.

From p 388 - "The Duel of Wits is an extended conflict mechanics used to resolve debate and argument in the game (and at the table)."

From p 398 - "The losing side must then abide by the terms the winning side set forth at the outset of the duel. The winning sie has won this test, and like any other test in Burning Wheel, their intent is made manifest."

Why you are trying to "educate" me on a RPG that I've been playing for years, whose rulebooks I know back the front to an almost obsessive extent, I don't know. What are you trying to achieve?

 

[Maxperson]

You do realize, in absolutely standard English, something being the priority doesn’t mean that it’s the only thing that matters?

Sure, but it's also not the highest priority. As you have been told time and time again, agency is the top priority in a sandbox game.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think setting fidelity is required for sandbox, even if it associated with many sandbox campaigns.

No kidding. I cheat on my settings with other settings all the time!

 

[Maxperson]

Now you see exactly my point. @Bedrockgames JUST stated that the majority of sandbox games prioritize setting fidelity. The notion of maintaining continuity and whatnot has been repeatedly stated as vitally important to sandboxes.

And now you're telling me that setting fidelity is not all that important.

So you can kinda see why these conversations go around in circles so much. It's like punching fog. Is setting fidelity a factor in sandboxes or not? And, if it's only "associated" with sandboxes, how is that any different than any other kind of campaign? Because setting fidelity can be important in any kind of game.

He said it wasn't required, not that it's not all that important.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Except this kind of "RPG design as scientific method" seems to be far more popular with Narrativist-leaning folks than otherwise.

I'm not so sure about that... I think there's a fairly significant element of deliberate and 'eyes open' kind of design in many quarters. 'Blorb' for example is NOT Narrativist, but it is surely a taking stock of RPGs as they are and not being obtuse about them. 4e D&D, while it can be played as a Narrativist kind of game, is still fundamentally D&D and has been most commonly played in a much more trad style. Yet it is a game that is very conscious of itself and open to playing transparently. 13th Age is not really Narrativist either, maybe even more neo-trad and similar to FATE, but it would be hard to argue it wasn't designed with a clear understanding of what it is, either.

No, I think RPGs as a genre have become far more self-examining and far more deliberately designed in the last 20 years, overall.

 

[pemerton]

It's possible there are rules that state "don't use this on PCs" but I haven't seen them.

A principal purpose of the Duel of Wits rules is to resolve disagreements between PCs. As per what I quoted just upthread.

And this is from p 180 of The Codex:

Creating rules for resolving social conflict has an accidental, unintended effect on our games. We found the rules also settled player disputes at the table. . . . Presenting a fair system for resolving arguments between players has had a few knock-on effects. It's sped up our games immensely. . . . we can just disagree and, if we disagree forcefully enough, jump into a Duel of Wits to resolve it. This speedy resolution has, in turn, caused another strange effect: We disagree more now. Not just because we're old and curmudgeonly, but because we know we can have productive disagreements now. We can argue, cajole and plead and we know it'll get resolved in a satisfying manner so we can move on and keep playing.​

Are you now going to tell me that Luke Crane is wrong about how Burning Wheel works?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Who is "tearing down", or saying that things don't work?

I mean, here's a post from upthread:
Where you justify interrogating me because you think that my RPGing is nonsensical.

And here's another post from upthread:
Presumably you don't see this characterisation as "meaningless" of RPGing that I enjoy as tearing down.

So likewise, my attempts to understand how the GM of a "living world" sandbox makes decisions, and my suggestions that many of these "living world" sandboxes seem to be rather GM-driven, such that I would tend to find them railroad-y, is not "tearing down". It's just me sharing my thoughts and perspective. No amount of metaphorical description of the imagined world as a causally active thing is likely to change my thoughts.

The key here is that those of us who are trad-leaning are for the most part explaining ourselves through subjective, personal opinion. "This doesn't make sense to me", or "using this method of adjudication would be meaningless to me". In many cases, your "side" has not done this, which leads to your statements sometimes coming off as needlessly aggressive. Bringing this up with your side has not led to more pleasant and fruitful discussion, unfortunately. At least no from my perspective.

 

[zakael19]

This to me is where the real differences lay. Not in how plausible things are, but in the objective of play. That sandboxes present settings as reactive toys to play with. That's the appeal. The ability to go anywhere and do anything without expectations.

At least that's been what differentiates my own sandbox play from other forms of play. Not how coherent the experience, not how plausible the setting is. In my experience plausibility is pretty consistent across various play methodologies if the group puts effort in to maintain it.

I mean Dolmenwood is a pretty darn incoherent/implausible setting but an amazing sandbox! It’s full of magical mushroom faeries, doors to pathways outside mortal ken, brewers making the best beer, knights on quests with unicorns, Barons jockeying for political capitol, forgotten shrines of saints, witches and I can’t believe they’re not druids full of arcane secrets & etc.

It has a degree of internal logic, but like it’s also operating on very Medieval + absurdity. It’s wonderful. The random tables keep that feeling of a faerie tale that’s always walking the edge of alien/vicious/hilarious.

I don’t think they looked at plate tectonics once .