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

[Bedrockgames]

Certainly.

But the claim, originally, was that the game cannot tell you what your character is thinking. Period. No complexity, no nuance (apart from the endlessly irritating "unless magic" exception), it was a hard line in the sand with D&D allegedly on one side and other games on another side, and very specifically used fear as an example.

I have shown this alleged line has both D&D and the other games located on the same side.

I am now being told that a mundane lion forcing the PC to feel fear somehow doesn't count, because forcing you to feel fear, allegedly, has absolutely zero influence whatsoever, zip-zero-nada, on any thoughts you have, at all.

This response is so ridiculous, I genuinely have to consider whether I am being trolled. Your response, at least, is far more measured--that fear involves both mental and physical elements, and that the mental ones can be easier to manage if the physical ones have been addressed. That I absolutely agree with, but I do so in part because it recognizes that part of fear is that it affects your thoughts. In other words, a game telling you your character is fearful specifically MUST mean that it is telling you, to at least some degree, what your character is thinking. Period.

Do you disagree? Do you claim that fear has absolutely no mental component, and is solely and exclusively a matter of physical body changes, nothing whatsoever involving thoughts or mental states?

I've already given my opinion on this, which is both approaches are viable and achieve different things. I like having things like fear effects. I think I am probably somewhere on the side of moderate mechanical effects (generally I would like to be in control of my characters thoughts but there are exceptions where I think it can add to play). But I also get some people just want to control what their character thinks.

When it comes to D&D, I wouldn't read too much into exceptions. This stuff came up in teh 4E debates too where someone would try to explain why a certain mechanic didn't appeal to them (and often it is possible that explanation wasn't well thought out, but sometimes it was). And a common response was to point to existing mechanics in D&D that already did that. I think there is a key difference between something periodically showing up in a game, perhaps so you barely notice it and it actually has to be pointed out to you it has been there all along, and something being a much more prevalent feature of play. Again, I think both approaches have validity, but so too do both preferences

 

[Old Fezziwig]

When it's one PC out-Duelling another PC, the losing PC has to go along with whatever the winner convinced him about. I can easily see this being (ab)used as a form of CvC mind control by dominant-type players packing a bit of cleverness.

Sure, the possibility for abuse is there, but it's never come up for me.

Setting aside the usual ways that one might handle bullying, poor sportsmanship, and knucklehead behavior at a table, the framework of the rules applied consistently should help with some of this:

(1) DoWs are for BFDs in the fiction, not every disagreement;
(2) no one's obliged to accept one; and
(3) any reduction in the Body of Argument (read: DoW hp) requires a compromise in the stakes. Winner-take-all results are possible, but they're not common in my experience, even with drastically different character capabilities, so it's likely no one's going to get everything they want in the precise way they want it.

All makes sense, though again this is PC vs a crowd of NPCs rather than PC vs PC.

Question, though: in the example you cite, does the entire parliament have to go along with the idea that you pooched it or can some individual MPs or a minority party still think you have a valid point and vote in your favour (and maybe get in trouble with the kig later for so doing)?

The entire parliament is only bound in the same way the PCs would be -- the matter is settled in terms of a vote or in terms of over the table, overt parliamentary activity. And this could be framed as the opposition running out of political capital or will to try again, especially in the face of the repression of pro-Johann (Prohann?) speech. PCs could approach individual MPs, or be approached by individual MPs, to take up schemes etc. They could engage with trade unions or foreign governments. Players can always try to approach things differently. The only thing that's settled until things change is that discrete situation/approach.

 

[AlViking]

Are you saying it doesn't add to the conversation?

Because the thing you're trying to argue is that you couldn't ever choose differently, for any reason, because the setting (somehow) makes you not choose differently.

But you could! You could choose differently. There are a million ways to do so. Plenty of them are all three of plausible, grounded (again, I dislike "realistic" and will not willingly use it myself), and impartial. For example, I find it unlikely that you have specified the precise populations and biospheres of every single continent on this world. I find it unlikely that you have expressly and completely forbidden any form of interplanar travel. I find it unlikely that you have totally forbidden the possibility of creating creatures through magic. I find it unlikely that you have spelled out the entirety of the world's history, such that there could never be an ancient, near-forgotten threat. I find it unlikely that you have totally excluded the possibility of other worlds. Etc.

And I find it supremely unlikely that, even if I was wrong about some of the above, I'd be wrong about all of the above simultaneously.

There are pathways through any of these (and many more besides) which would be all three of plausible, grounded, and impartial, given a modicum of effort on your part as DM. Hence, it cannot be plausibility, groundedness, or impartiality which (somehow) forces you to nix one idea over another. Instead, the causative factor seems to be quite clearly, "I don't want a world with orcs in it, so there aren't any orcs, and I will push players away from orc-related options as a result."

This, again, is what I mean when I talk about how the DM can do almost anything, and the alleged "restrictions" of plausibility, groundedness, and impartiality don't actually limit much of anything. Sure, they cut off the patently ridiculous or obviously biased, but beyond that, the world is your oyster. You can add to or remove nearly anything you like from it, provided you put in sufficient work--and the presence or absence of orcs just beyond the horizon is absolutely a thing that is under your control and which these alleged restrictions do not prevent.

I never said that I couldn't change. Obviously I could have turned the region into an orcapalooza. I chose not to because I've decided that once lore is established I don't change it except in ways that there are reasons to change it. My setting isn't cast in stone but it's not written on a whiteboard to be changed on the fly for one individual either. I have an idea of culture, climate, likely species and lore that will be encountered for the areas that campaigns have touched in the past. I have a general idea for areas that have never been touched by players. I have decided that planar travel is not as easy as casting a spell and have worked out how and when it can occur. I have a history of the world that at least at a high level goes back (at this moment) goes back 1,300 years when a new common calendar was established. Before that there was a vague golden age followed by a prolonged era of recovery from some unexplained disastrous events.

But it doesn't change anything. My campaign world is designed to have interesting areas, plenty of opportunities for adventurers. But it doesn't revolve around individual characters. As a group the players decide what opportunities they are going to pursue even if a character or two sometimes diverge in small ways from the main group. It's obviously a self imposed restriction, one that I decided on long ago as the best way for me to have a world that persists from one campaign to the next.

It's just one way of doing a setting, one that works for me and my players and has for decades.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I do think we are getting lost in the plausibility debate. This is just one style and approach to sandbox. The key thing with sandbox play is you genuinely commit to letting the players explore what they want, and you react not to thwart or steer but in aid to that process of them pushing the boundaries of the setting. If people want to call that GM driven, they can. I don't think it is. And I don't think it is particularly helpful in the context of trad play to do so (if you are trying to distinguish between an adventure path, a scene based adventure or a sandbox, calling sandbox GM driven play doesn't really tell you anything).

 

[SteveC]

Reading over this thread gave me some old school Alarums and Excursions feelings. I've been thinking about it since I heard it's finally shutting down. This feels like a discussion we could have had back in the 1970s. It's kind of nice to see how RPGs and how to play them are still an issue in dispute.

 

[thefutilist]

I do think we are getting lost in the plausibility debate. This is just one style and approach to sandbox. The key thing with sandbox play is you genuinely commit to letting the players explore what they want, and you react not to thwart or steer but in aid to that process of them pushing the boundaries of the setting. If people want to call that GM driven, they can. I don't think it is. And I don't think it is particularly helpful in the context of trad play to do so (if you are trying to distinguish between an adventure path, a scene based adventure or a sandbox, calling sandbox GM driven play doesn't really tell you anything).

What's a scene based adventure?

 

[Bedrockgames]

What's a scene based adventure?

I use the term loosely but anything where you are structuring play around scene. Adventures like you had in the 90s, where they literally had the module divided by scenes (like an event based adventure) or acts (there were some Ravenloft modules I remember doing this). And there are more rigid ways and more loose ways to think of them. I think at the far end is the GM as storyteller approach, where there are scenes the GM has planned and they are likely to or going to happen. On the end you have stuff that is not as heavy on that side and even more open. Like Esoterrorist, which Gumshoe is based on: one of the pieces of advice is to have an 'end scene' card to show the player when a scene has played out. It is still investigation based buy your are thinking in terms of scenes (and the players can go where they want: it isn't super linear like some of the 90s models I mentioned). The point though was a lot of the sandbox discussion is a reaction against railroading, 90s storyteller style play (and I don't just mean vampire here but that style you found in a lot of lines at the time) and the adventure path play that was taking over in the 2000s (particularly with its structure around encounters planned for pacing and balance). Those were at least the things you heard people mention a lot in discussions about sandboxes, and those were the rails they seemed to be avoiding

 

[thefutilist]

I use the term loosely but anything where you are structuring play around scene. Adventures like you had in the 90s, where they literally had the module divided by scenes (like an event based adventure) or acts (there were some Ravenloft modules I remember doing this). And there are more rigid ways and more loose ways to think of them. I think at the far end is the GM as storyteller approach, where there are scenes the GM has planned and they are likely to or going to happen. On the end you have stuff that is not as heavy on that side and even more open. Like Esoterrorist, which Gumshoe is based on: one of the pieces of advice is to have an 'end scene' card to show the player when a scene has played out. It is still investigation based buy your are thinking in terms of scenes (and the players can go where they want: it isn't super linear like some of the 90s models I mentioned). The point though was a lot of the sandbox discussion is a reaction against railroading, 90s storyteller style play (and I don't just mean vampire here but that style you found in a lot of lines at the time) and the adventure path play that was taking over in the 2000s (particularly with its structure around encounters planned for pacing and balance). Those were at least the things you heard people mention a lot in discussions about sandboxes, and those were the rails they seemed to be avoiding

I've got a longer reply I can make but if I add: Situation play

So we have: adventure based, scene based, sandbox, situation, does that distinction make sense?

Situation play would massively reduce the open world exploration aspect but retain the open ended emergent consequences of such play. In effect we're all here for a specific scenario but how that scenario plays out, no one knows. Or would you place that within the scene based category?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I think you would be amply rewarded by actually playing something like Dungeon World or better yet Apocalypse World, with some people that have a handle on it. There are a number of misunderstandings that you seem to be laboring under about Narrativist play.

For Example: Dungeon World does not feature 'extensive character backstory' as an element of play, whatsoever. Players generate a character in much the same way as they would in D&D, picking a playbook (class) and making some decisions about what moves (think powers) they start with from that class. They also have some gear options. From a characterization perspective the player selects a Race, a Gender (this isn't even really germane to anything except RP), an alignment, and a bond with at least one other character. That's it, you don't need to invent some elaborate backstory. In fact the PCs in DW can be just as much wandering murderhobos as they would be in any average D&D game, though it will be hard to maintain that for long...

What distinguishes play in DW, and in varying degrees for other similar games, is the FOCUS ON THE CHARACTERS, as characters, not as cogs in some player's ambitions. You describe there being no need for any rules related to characterization. Sure, that's true for your D&D trad play, because who the characters are, in the sort of sense that we mean when we talk about real people and 'who they are', is irrelevant in D&D! It effects nothing, it is simply color. If a player in such a game wishes to depict their character as brave, crazy, evil, naive, etc. they simply playact that, and they can do so as it is convenient, or not.

In DW there is no precreated world and thus no plot or story arc of any kind exists. The players will describe their characters, name them, pick bonds, and then based on some of those elements the GM will set a scene, perhaps asking a player or two some relevant questions first. Whatever this scene is, it holds some sort of situation which puts pressure on the characters in some way. It may simply threaten them, it may key on a bond, it may present an opportunity, possibly with a cost, etc. This stuff will generate weighty play.

It is easy to imagine a likely scenario, the characters have all arrived at the town of Blackhill, on a river boat, so they're at the docks. The fighter's bond is "I have sworn to protect Smirk the Halfling." As soon as he steps off the boat he sees that some tough looking customers have accosted Smirk! At this point the GM might ask "why did you swear to protect Smirk?" etc. etc. etc.

Notice too how we've already built up a fair amount of fiction, a river, a town, boats, docks, ruffians, etc. There's plenty of standard fare kind of material here to go forward with. Maybe the setting is a bit more fantastically described too, like the GM is tasked with making the world fantastic. While the Fighter is worrying about the halfling, the cleric is being seduced by mermaids, tricky little things, they just like to pilfer things from travelers! One of them seems wounded, and his Good alignment says "Endanger yourself to heal another." Well, he was warned by the boatmen that these creatures are thieves and con-fish, so will he be prudent, or follow his moral code?

I'd also note that Dungeon World basically doesn't have any kind of mechanics that tell you what you HAVE to do. Unlike BW it doesn't have 'Steel checks' and such. If the Fighter protects the halfling and resolves that bond, he gets XP, likewise the cleric could get XP for healing a mermaid, though he may lose his purse as well! Players decide. Maybe the mermaids harden his heart a little bit, he might change alignments later on!

So, most of this is not a RADICAL departure from trad games. What is really different here is the unrelenting focus on player concerns, the way these concerns are put under pressure and tested, and the lack of 'architecting' the game by a GM. Later the GM WILL devise fronts and draw some 'maps with holes in them' to help her frame new scenes and 'bring the world to life' (IE a campaign front can provide an overarching backdrop of action, like "you see a column of dusty soldiers enter the north gate. They look as though they've had a rough week in the Orc Wars!"). Well, maybe the PCs join the Orc Wars, maybe they don't, as in any such game, but it is an Orc War because the Dwarf answered the question "why did you come to town" with "I was made homeless by the Orcs." Maybe he wants revenge?

 

[Faolyn]

From a practical standpoint, my experience has been that one of two things happen in a DoW where two of three PCs are involved: (1) the third PC throws in with one of the principals, adding Helping Dice to their actions or even taking the lead on some volleys, or (2) the third PC is completely unconcerned with the stakes of the DoW and lets it take its course. If the former, they have a dog in the hunt, and they're bound by the same rules as everyone else (e.g., they don't have to agree, but the matter is settled for the time being). If the latter, I can't imagine haven't seen their them suddenly caring after all the shouting's done (they can think whatever they want, but they don't have the ability to override the results).

Edit: fixed the last sentence, kept redlines.

But according to the book, the audience will think the winner is not only correct, but awesome as well. That the winner has "struck on the truth while [their] opponent is mired in half-formed thought and naive delusion." And there's nothing in there that I can find that says PCs react differently.

Now, maybe Luke Crane really meant it when he said that the DoW rules aren't designed for PC vs. PC, winner takes all conflicts--they're designed for PC vs. PC (or PC. vs. NPC) in front of a neutral NPC audience--but he didn't lay down a hard-and-fast rule about it for some reason and kept the text vague by writing yeah, OK, you can use them that way, but they're really not meant to be used that way, pemerton is Doing It Wrong.

Maybe Luke never imagined anyone would would use them for PC. vs. PC (or PC vs. NPC) in front of a PC audience. In this case, I have to ask if he'd ever played an RPG before. So I'm pretty sure this isn't the case.

Maybe when combined with the idea that the DoW rules do force a PC to comply in letter, if not in spirit, to the winner's decision, in which case the PC audience is required to think the winner is correct, even if they don't have to be overjoyed about it.

Or maybe the PC audience is, in fact, required to think the winner PC is awesome, "the cat's meow," to quote the book, and the loser PC is a dullard.

We'll never know! There doesn't seem to be any errata on it, and no amount of googling the topic has brought up anything besides people's opinions as to whether this is a good idea or not.


In my opinion, though, forcing a player to lose agency because of a die roll is a Bad Rule. As I mentioned about a thousand posts ago, in Monster of the Week, you can use the Manipulate Someone move on a PC, but the player still has a choice as to whether or not they're manipulated, and they get XP if they choose yes.

(People keep forgetting that's the crux of my issues with pemerton here: so many of his examples are rules that take away from player agency and ability to choose their own character's thoughts and actions.)