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

[SableWyvern]

Eh, as far as I can make out @SableWyvern and @Bedrockgames are Narrativists. They like the drama stuff and play is emergent. That's my bar anyway.

People are welcome to use whatever term they want to describe my play. Personally, I have no real interest in trying to distil everything that I enjoy in TTRPGs down to a single word but, if I was going to try doing so using GNS I'd be inclined to go with sim. Take that as you will; at the end of the day the word being used won't change what I'm doing, nor will it accurately describe the full range of things taking place.

Edit: I feel I should add that, based on your (perhaps unusually) generous definition as to what counts as Narrativism, I'd agree that I fit.

 

[Faolyn]

What are the factors that go into this decision? When do we go to dice? When do we just pick? Or pick multiple outcomes?

For example, @robertsconley has said that verisimilitude is his highest priority. @Bedrockgames has said his is character agency. These different priorities may play a part in how things go.

None of these reasons is bad… it’s all a matter of preference. But, without a set procedure, it’s all just the GM deciding what happens.

Are you asking me personally as to what I would do if something like that happened? Or am I standing in for all GMs everywhere? Because I think you know as well as I do that there's no single set of procedures and there never could be because there are simply too many options.

Well, your first point was about the sheer volume of possibilities. Your second was about the varying levels of plausibility among those possibilities. Those would seem to lead to the conclusion that more than one outcome is both possible and plausible.

Combined with the third point, I suppose those possibilities are narrowed down some, but as I said… many folks would not include those factors. And even if they do, I still think that more often than not, there’s be multiple options from which to choose.

I think that most people do include those three factors; they just don't separate them into a list like I just did or consider them in that order. And a lot of GMs are going to take the first, maybe second thought of how things will work.

I listed the first thing that seemed completely natural to me as the result of the Impiricide. I came up with the republic/confederation idea for you as a less likely outcome than warring states, not as something that felt to me like a natural progression. I came up with the Abyssal portal idea to show how it's impossible to list every potential result of the Impiricide once you bring magic into the picture, and unless there was an already-stated prophecy, this one isn't much different than the "arcana-punk" idea, which does not flow from the Impiricide at all and happened because the hypothetical GM thought it was cool. So what looks like multiple options, in this case, was really only one that actually feels like the world progressing naturally.

Which was, of course, the original point of this tangent: when GMs say the world is changing or progressing on its own, they mean they are taking what they feel is the most natural reaction to occur based on PC (or NPC) action. They're not saying that the world literally exists as a physical thing and they have no part of its progressions.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is a super interesting post! Thanks for describing your process and the tools you're using in detail like this. I can see you've put a lot of work into your game/setting to create this web you can assess and use easily in play, and the "most interesting given what the players are trying to do" heuristic within the confines of your existing consistent world state resonates.

Do you think this might be still similar to how BITD has you run its factions and NPCs to portray an accurate and believable world state though? It strikes me as very similar now that I see the fullness of your decision making:

"Let everything flow from the fiction. The game's starting situations and your opening scene will put things in motion. Ask how the characters react and see what happens next. NPCs react according to their goals and methods. Events snowball. You don't need to “manage” the game. Action, reaction, and consequences will drive everything."

I will let Rob answer but I have some thoughts on this.
This is no different from how most living world sandboxes are run, and it is also no different from things like situational adventures I mentioned. I think where the differences will lie in what follows after this in the rulebook. The only statement we would probably quibble with is "The fiction". We would probably say let things flow from what the characters do

and

" Advocate for the interests and capabilities of the NPCs. Your job is to convey the fictional world accurately, remember? Believable NPCs with interests and capabilities make for a more compelling fictional world. Don't be a push over. When the PCs take action against an NPC, remind the players of their interests and capabilities. When the PCs act in alignment with the interests of NPCs, remind the players of their support and friendship"

This also would be at home I think in most sandboxes. Again, the details after this are going to matter. And the phrasing here is a tad more aggressive I think than how most living world sandboxes would frame it. But basically you play NPCs like full characters, with motivations, connections, goals and limitations just like PCs. For me at least the idea of running NPCs and factions this way stems how characters like Strahd were handled in the original Ravenloft adventure.

I've posted this before but Feast of Goblyns is where I first started thinking about this:

And here is that idea as it was described in the original Ravenloft module:

 

[SableWyvern]

There are a number of misunderstandings that you seem to be laboring under about Narrativist play.

Huh? I haven't been making any comments about Narrativist play generally, in this conversation.

I have talked about how I, personally, run games, comparing my experiences with Blades to other games, and I've talked about the conclusions I reached about which elements of play fall under the umbrella of "play to find out" based on my reading of Blades.

 

[Faolyn]

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

Right. Now, I don't mind it so much when there's some fiat involved in resolving issues; I have no problem with narrativist play, even though it took me a while to truly understand it, and I think that in many ways I prefer it to a more strictly-detailed games. I definitely prefer it to some other styles of game. I can see why it's not everyone's cup of tea, though.

The problems I'm having with BW is that unlike, say, PbtA or Fate, BW is both bizarrely crunchy in some places and extremely barren in others. I wasn't joking when I said there was weapon speed and armor penetration factors, like from AD&D. There's called shots as well, and at least three different ways to run a combat. I haven't counted, but I think it has more character trait options than GURPS does. The actual rulebook for Gold is 600 pages long. But the things like what @Lanefan brought up--After I hesitate, can I continue my action? Are PC audiences forced to go along with the winners of the duel of wits, and if so, for how long? Why is it considered against the spirit of the rules for me to carry a waterskin with me, when another character is in armor?--they're not answered.

 

[pemerton]

I don't agree with this. I think that, granted I've never played BW itself, just TB2e and Mouseguard, it would be a violation of the principles of abiding by the spirit of play. The dice just told you that your character isn't going to do X, and now you are going to rules lawyer into just going ahead and subverting that? I'd call you on that! What I would do is narrate the outcome in such a way that the opportunity was lost. You took a stab at the other guy, but your heart wasn't in it, he disarmed you and then fled. By the time you recover your weapon, he's gone. You can go after him, and perhaps make another attempt, but chances are he's out screaming bloody murder and the guard is going to show up at some point, wanna risk it?

There are lot of different contexts for Steel tests, and so it can depend quite a bit.

For instance, in Fight!, if you fail a Steel test triggered by the pain of injury, and you choose to "stand and drool", then you lose actions. And that's its own punishment: if you're still standing when your hesitation ends, you can throw yourself back into the fray. (In RM terms, its analogous to a "stun no parry" crit result; in 4e D&D it's analogous to being stunned until the end of someone-or-other's turn.)

There are also ways of making someone take a Steel test in a Duel of Wits, and again if they fail they lose their next volley in the exchange. This permits driving home the argument unopposed, but again if that doesn't end the Duel, the hesitating character can come back in.

In Aedhros's case, the hesitation permitted another PC to intervene - Alicia, via her Persuasion. And it really makes no sense to ask what would have happened had she not been there, because in that case the innkeeper wouldn't have been unconscious and at the mercy of the PCs. But I'm confident that my GM would have come up with something interesting to happen while Aedhros paused. Or conversely, if he really had nothing interesting in mind, then he wouldn't have asked for the Steel test. Or would have asked for it in response to the knife going in and the blood flowing out, perhaps having something in mind for that.

I feel that this post of yours is relevant here:

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.

<snip>

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.

Right. Trying to analyse the play of BW or (at least as you play it) DW through the lens of counterfactual "what ifs" doesn't make much sense to me. Those what-ifs generally assume that there is some default or background trajectory of play (driven by the GM based on scenario design, or general notes, or whatever), which is unfolding via GM decision-making and narration and which the actions of the PCs are a type of (bigger or smaller) perturbation of.

Speaking with a degree of generality but also (I believe) accuracy, the what-ifs assume that play is about solving a problem/puzzle - overcoming pre-established obstacle to achieve a goal that "exists" on the GM's hidden gameboard. So Aedhros losing 4 heartbeats of action is seen as a player loss because it sets back the attempt to get to the finish line.

But there is no finish line. There is no default/background trajectory which the PCs' actions are perturbing. My previous reply to you, just upthread, explained how I arrived at this realisation through play (and as you already know my understanding of what it was that I'd realised benefitted enormously from reading stuff outside of the "mainstream" accounts of good GMing).

Aedhros hesitating for 4 heartbeats of course set him back. And it meant that my action declaration was thwarted - I wanted Aedhros to murder, and he didn't. But my play wasn't set back. I wasn't losing, as a player. Feeling Aedhros's hesitation; and then his callous looting and carrying off of the unconscious Alicia; is the game.

 

[Faolyn]

In fairness, to me those are fairly basic default assumptions; even more so in any game that has Clerics or equivalent as a playable class.

In my Level Up game, we have spirits. They didn't make the world but they can grant powers. Dark Sun had clerics of elemental forces, not gods, and there's been the idea of clerics gaining powers from non-divine causes and simply from sheer belief since at least 2e.

 

[Faolyn]

Because D&D has never, ever had such a thing, ever.

The double standards are so thick you could sell them as double cheeseburgers.

Everyone already knows that D&D has a ton of them. There's no double standard here.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

The narration given was that I did take a stab at him but my heart wasn't in it, hence I missed.

Except the narration given resolved all of these things by fiat; and from that post and others I get a general sense that it's supposed to work this way, at a rather low granularity level.

See, now that's more like the level of detail I'd prefer to see in resolving a scene like this! Every one of those steps is a point at which the fiction could go this way, or that way, or maybe even some other way; we don't and can't know until dice are rolled and things happen.

The key for granularity for BW is going to be that the situation we're playing still needs to be important to the characters' beliefs, instincts, and traits. If we're going to spend a lot of time on something, it has to be a BFD, not just idle play. The really detailed subsystems (DoW, Fight!) are not intended to be used capriciously. There are other ways to resolve smaller actions. I think that keeping this in mind as we zoom in or out in terms of time and attention to detail is critical.

 

[robertsconley]

I am interested in that, did you answer it in one of your previous posts?

The first thing to remember is that people are the most interesting thing you have in a setting. You may have a killer magic system, like Ars Magica, but what elevates it is the culture that develops around it. The same goes for Burning Wheel, one of its major strengths is how its creative goals focus on people and their relationships.

So if you want to make a place interesting to adventure in, create a compelling situation involving the people who live there.

Next, you usually have one of two scenarios: either you’re about to start a campaign in a setting you’ve already used, or you’re crafting a brand-new setting for the campaign.

In both cases, I recommend talking to your players individually and as a group. Find out what kind of situations they’re interested in, especially the ones involving people. I say “interview,” but I don’t mean some formal process with appointments and clipboards. It just means you make a point to ask them, before the campaign starts, what kinds of adventures they’re envisioning and what kind of characters they want to play.

You then look for the intersection points between their answers. Unless you’re running a PvP-style campaign where players work against each other, you’ll want to find shared interests and themes they’re all excited about.

From there, if you’re making a new setting, sketch out three or four campaign ideas. If you’re using an existing setting, identify three or four regions or situations within it that would support those interests.

Then you hold a more formal group meeting. Pitch each of the ideas you’re ready to run. Let everyone bounce thoughts around until a consensus is reached.

Now you can begin your preparation, tailored to both individual and group interests, focused on the chosen setting, region, or situation.

With existing settings, you get the best mileage over multiple campaigns by keeping the high-level details broad, but going for depth at the local level. Any part of the setting, no matter how briefly described, can be as rich and diverse as the real world. A city-state you’ve used a dozen times can feel fresh if the players are all city guards, or all come from the same neighborhood, and the campaign focuses on that specific area. If your main region feels too familiar, say it’s heavily feudal, then shift to a different region with a new culture and develop that.

With new settings, you can tailor more precisely to the players' interests since you're starting from a blank slate, but you also have more up-front work if you want any depth at the beginning of play. So, like anything, there are trade-offs.

With an existing setting, the players may need to compromise a bit with what's already been established, but you can often find a way to minimize that. The big upside is that the setting offers more depth and more things to “trash,” as I like to say.

In short, I’m leveraging my players to tell me what they’re interested in, instead of guessing what they might be interested in.

Hope that answers your question, feel free to follow up.