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

[EzekielRaiden]

Are you talking about stuff like dissociated mechanics (because I didn’t see the post you were responding to).

It was simply another example I've seen of someone who took the hardest hardline stance they could, and then contorted into a pretzel when they came to realize how flawed and harmful that stance was but couldn't actually accept giving up that hardline stance.

What I am saying is just that in those kinds of conversations sometimes people find a root cause of a problem for them but over apply the explanation. For instance I think dissociated mechanics was one aspect of why some features of 4E didn’t feel right for some people. I think though they started going on a. Witch hunt and rejecting all dissociated mechanics where they found them. And the issue is dissociate mechanics are just one piece of the explanation and dissociated mechanics are only an issue when you really notice them. You can point back to earlier editions but they were in places of the game where they were do grandfsthered in no one noticed or in that particular context they just didn’t pop out. Also where I agree with you is fundamentally the root cause is just a possible explanation (call it dissociate theory). The real issue is they didn’t like the mechanics in question as they appeared in 4E (and it may have also been heightened by other things the game was doing).

I don't accept grandfathered exceptions to hardline stances. I find that to be openly and blatantly hypocritical. I then find that double especially unacceptable when a new exception, which came along after, is not only treated as the most super amazingly awesome thing to ever happen, it is specifically defended as being a good instance of the thing that had, up to that point, been rejected as inherently and necessarily bad.

I don't really feel like discussing 4e any further. I simply brought it up as an example of the same kind of argument as what I was responding to.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"Hesitates before doing X" and "Not able to do X at all" are very different things; and it's unclear to me which outcome the rules want in this case.

In the murder example, the murder was prevented by someone else's intervention (via a spell, I think) thus we're not told what would or could have happened had that invervention not occurred.

I'd call you on that narration (cue the table argument!): the hesitation occurs before I take a stab, not during; and barring outside intervention once the moment of hesitation passes I should be back to status quo with nothing else having changed. From there, knowing I'd hesitated once, it'd be on me-as-player to decide whether to go through with it anyway or not.

This does, though, point to something else I dislike about some of these systems: you just squashed about six different detailed actions into one brief mostly-fiat narration without giving any opportunity for reaction or granular resolution:

--- I took a stab at my target. Did I wound him? Kill him anyway? Miss completely? UNRESOLVED
--- the target disarmed me. Did he, really, or could I (try to) fend off the attempt? UNRESOLVED
--- if the disarm succeeds, you declare by fiat I can't get my weapon back in time to do anything e.g. throw it at his fleeing back.
--- if the disarm fails, are we now in combat? Do I get to (try to) stab at him again only this time with him fully able to defend? Does he get to (try to) clock me one and leave me sprawled on the ground? UNRESOLVED
--- the target flees. Am I able to react in time to tackle him or get in his way? UNRESOLVED
--- the target is gone. If I can't stop him, am I able to see which way he goes? Also, if I inflicted any wounds are they slowing him down and-or is he leaving a trail of blood for me to follow? UNRESOLVED

Where's the detail here?

The detail you're looking for isn't important to their process. That's a big problem I have with stuff like this too.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Also I feel the need to point out that this deep questioning approach where you force people to defend their playstyle through a Socratic series of questions isn’t really illuminating anything. It is just forcing people to give answers, answers that are probably not fully thought out, and leading down questionable paths of assumptions. It seems to be the deeper we go here often there is less clarity rather than more at the end of it

I'm really starting to feel the point of the questioning is to catch people out and score points rather than to increase understanding.

 

[thefutilist]

Yeah, so think that is another. I usually call that’s. Scenario or even ‘contained sandbox’ (Simply because I use situational adventure to describe something else)

I don't know if we're just circling back because I could have sworn we talked about this a bit earlier, anyway.


I would consider the scenario the 'unit' of play, as established I call them situations but that's neither here not there. The scenario has a contained sandbox nature in so much as there is a selection of elements that are fixed and that operate consequentially like a living world/sandbox. One very easy tell in a lot of Narrativist games is that you MUST prep after a scenario is finished (assuming you're playing in the same 'campaign') but whether you have to re-prep during a scenario is kind of dependant. There's also a distinction between scenario and setting. Things can enter into the scenario from the setting due to character choices. One you mentioned is law enforcement. They might not be there in the scenario set up but they are there in the setting and so if crime stuff happens they could well become relevant. At which point you have to effectively do a bit of mini prep to 'fix' them in place (give them personality, goals, stats, equipment and so on).

Also I don't think it matters, in terms of agenda, in what order the scenario and character are created. So some examples.


Sorcerer: The character and an inciting incident are created by the player and the GM uses this to create the scenario.

Circle of Hands/Dogs In The Vineyard: The GM creates the scenario without regards to the specifics of the player character.

Apocalypse World: The character is created first but then there is a back and forth fleshing out of the scenario, although it's the GM that 'fixes' it into position. (there are different readings of this game though)

 

[robertsconley]

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).

Agreed. I do think it’s fair for a novice to ask how plausibility is handled, just like it’s fair for someone new to narrative play to ask what makes a story compelling, or how character belief-testing works.

If we want sandbox play to be understood on its own terms, we need to be ready to explain how we handle those foundational elements like plausibility, just as narrative-focused GMs have to explain how they handle theme or dramatic pacing.

For my Living World sandbox campaigns, a perfectly fair novice question might be: what makes a place worth visiting or adventuring in, and how do you keep that interesting without writing a plot?

That’s not a challenge, it’s a real question people have when first encountering this style, and I think answering it helps ground the conversation.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It was simply another example I've seen of someone who took the hardest hardline stance they could, and then contorted into a pretzel when they came to realize how flawed and harmful that stance was but couldn't actually accept giving up that hardline stance.

I dont know. Without knowing the specifics of what was asserted I can't say. But I also think you sometimes treat genuine disagreements over things, as if they are disagreements over fundamentals about reality (we can disagree over a game mechanic and why it is good or bad)

I don't accept grandfathered exceptions to hardline stances. I find that to be openly and blatantly hypocritical. I then find that double especially unacceptable when a new exception, which came along after, is not only treated as the most super amazingly awesome thing to ever happen, it is specifically defended as being a good instance of the thing that had, up to that point, been rejected as inherently and necessarily bad.

This seems pretty extreme to me

I don't really feel like discussing 4e any further. I simply brought it up as an example of the same kind of argument as what I was responding to.

I am not trying to discuss it

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

"Hesitates before doing X" and "Not able to do X at all" are very different things; and it's unclear to me which outcome the rules want in this case.

In the murder example, the murder was prevented by someone else's intervention (via a spell, I think) thus we're not told what would or could have happened had that invervention not occurred.

I'd call you on that narration (cue the table argument!): the hesitation occurs before I take a stab, not during; and barring outside intervention once the moment of hesitation passes I should be back to status quo with nothing else having changed. From there, knowing I'd hesitated once, it'd be on me-as-player to decide whether to go through with it anyway or not.

This does, though, point to something else I dislike about some of these systems: you just squashed about six different detailed actions into one brief mostly-fiat narration without giving any opportunity for reaction or granular resolution:

--- I took a stab at my target. Did I wound him? Kill him anyway? Miss completely? UNRESOLVED
--- the target disarmed me. Did he, really, or could I (try to) fend off the attempt? UNRESOLVED
--- if the disarm succeeds, you declare by fiat I can't get my weapon back in time to do anything e.g. throw it at his fleeing back.
--- if the disarm fails, are we now in combat? Do I get to (try to) stab at him again only this time with him fully able to defend? Does he get to (try to) clock me one and leave me sprawled on the ground? UNRESOLVED
--- the target flees. Am I able to react in time to tackle him or get in his way? UNRESOLVED
--- the target is gone. If I can't stop him, am I able to see which way he goes? Also, if I inflicted any wounds are they slowing him down and-or is he leaving a trail of blood for me to follow? UNRESOLVED

Where's the detail here?

I think you are both rules lawyering AND nitpicking the question of granularity of action resolution. The rules say you "Hesitate" I don't think it says when this happens or how. The intent of the Steel rule is CLEARLY to allow the dice to adjudicate whether or not your mental state is overwhelmingly murderous or not. If you failed, then it isn't. A half-hearted murder attempt seems to me to be VERY MUCH IN THE SPIRIT of the game! Beyond that, I object to interpretations of rules which allow for only a very narrow set of possible outcomes from a vast range of fictional possibilities. I think it is a bad faith interpretation of the BW rules to demand that every failed Steel check must play out the same way.

And there are all sorts of levels of action resolution granularity in RPGs. Even in D&D combat we don't resolve every movement of each character's blade, or strike and counter strike. AD&D has 1 minute combat rounds! Even 10 second or so rounds as might be the assumption of 5e allow for a lot to happen. Go back and read Gygax's description of the combat system as a gamist construct. It is perfectly acceptable for a GM to adjudicate as I suggested. I mean, I will defer to @Old Fezziwig and/or @pemerton , who are BW experts, as to if I've run roughshod over some other part of the rules, though I doubt it.

Honestly, this kind of argument at a table I was GMing, would not get you far, at all. I would respond by welcoming you to suggest some alternate fiction, if you were unhappy with my effort, but you aren't getting to just roll again 5 seconds later to do the same old thing you just failed at, that's not how this works. As with most intent-adjudicating style games, I am pretty sure BW operates on the concept that once a check is resolved that the fiction has moved on, and repeating the same check again is no longer an option. Even in D&D you can't keep rolling 'Pick Locks' again and again, can you?

 

[robertsconley]

I'm really starting to feel the point of the questioning is to catch people out and score points rather than to increase understanding.

I was trying to point that out with my rhetorical analysis posts, especially in the case of @pemerton I haven't read up on so much rhetoric since college.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm really starting to feel the point of the questioning is to catch people out and score points rather than to increase understanding.

I think a lot of the Q&A feels like people are being made to take the witness stand at times. I just don't think it is productive, and too much of it seems to be getting steered towards a GNS vocabulary or framing, which I think most people on my side of the discussion simply view as not a useful model for understanding

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And yet the explanations provided, flexible and "vague" though they may be, communicate plenty to a lot of folks on this thread. The folks who are presenting as confused and insisting on very specific mechanical processes are the non-traditional fans. My point is, this seems like a break down along party lines rather than a general lack of communication on the part of sandbox and Living World enthusiasts.

One side has asked for--indeed, loudly demanded--clarifications, and repeatedly rejected any and all terms and ideas offered by the other.

That side then repeatedly uses terms that communicate almost nothing to the other side, which has asked for even the smallest effort to clarify, to explicate, to dig even a little bit deeper, and gotten jack squat.

Is there any wonder the folks on the latter side feel deeply frustrated, feel like they're being strung along, feel like the double standard is massive and entrenched?