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

[Lanefan]

See, here's my question. That's a plausible result. Sure. But, why a 5 way civil war? An equally plausible result is minor skirmishes as the 5 way groups shuffle for position that results in a stalemate that lasts for years. In other words, nothing really changes in the setting. But, that would be largely pretty boring to be honest. A 5 way civil war is a LOT more fun. So, did you choose the most plausible result or the one that would be the most fun and interesting.

Because if it was fun and interesting, then the whole notion of "choosing what makes the most logical sense" kinda goes out the window.

In this case it was (in my view anyway) the most plausible as well, as I'd already set up most of the slave lords (and one outsider) as being ambitious power-brokers in the area.

For what it's worth, since it started the civil war has largely been a background "somewhere-else" thing most of the time. One semi-retired PC did sign up for one of the armies and got into a few battles (and lost the lot, she was lucky to survive!) before abandoning that cause and coming back to adventuring. A few other parties have had to skirt around armies or battles, and one memorable group of infighting nutballs turned an army camp into something out of Laurel and Hardy. But otherwise it's just been quietly churning away in the background, not helped by the fact that in-game time in my campaign passes VERY slowly in relation to real-world time.

I do have an idea for a much more modern-AP-like mini-campaign that would front-and-centre this war as, mostly, a great big obstacle the PCs would constantly have to keep in mind while doing other things. Whether I ever get to run this AP, though, is a very open question.

 

[CreamCloud0]

See, here's my question. That's a plausible result. Sure. But, why a 5 way civil war? An equally plausible result is minor skirmishes as the 5 way groups shuffle for position that results in a stalemate that lasts for years. In other words, nothing really changes in the setting. But, that would be largely pretty boring to be honest. A 5 way civil war is a LOT more fun. So, did you choose the most plausible result or the one that would be the most fun and interesting.

Because if it was fun and interesting, then the whole notion of "choosing what makes the most logical sense" kinda goes out the window.

because when you have multiple equally plausible options competing you can defer the decision criteria to a secondary concern between those tied options like 'how fun will this option be for the players' or 'do i already have more prep detailed for executing one of these options' without compromising the fact that you're still picking 'what makes the most logical sense'.

if i'm calorie counting on a diet and my main priority is minimum calories in my dessert and the choice is between a strawberry cheesecake(700kcal) and a toffee sundae(950kcal) then the choice is pretty clear, but if there's also chocolate brownie(700kcal) available then my choice between the cheesecake and the brownie are both equally viable for 'the minimum calories' so i get to decide on a different factor other than calorie count like 'what flavour do i personally enjoy more', me making this one decision on flavour preference doesn't mean the priority notion of 'minimum calories' went out the window like you're trying to claim, it was just satisfied by either option.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Whether it's the GM or the player who sets the finish line, there's always going to be one. I can't remember whether Aedhros' goal was to commit murder or whether the murder was a step toward completing some other goal; in any case if the hesitation set you back from achieving that goal that seems like a loss to me.

It's not a loss for me as a player. My position, as a player, is no worse off because Aedhros has not murdered the innkeeper.

My PC's advancement of skills and similar abilities depends upon making tests, of various degrees of difficulty. Failing this Steel test doesn't prevent me making future tests.

And my PC's acquisition of Fate and Persona points depends upon me playing to his Beliefs, Instincts, character traits and the like. I've done that: failing to murder the innkeeper doesn't hurt me here.

But there is no finish line. There is no default/background trajectory which the PCs' actions are perturbing.

These two things are not related.

"I will become king of Althasia before my 35th birthday" sets a fairly obvious finish line involving a specific crown being put on a specific head.

This has nothing to do with any background stuff that might be going on.

The passage your quoted followed this:

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.

So the relation between the two sentences is:

(1) They summarise the two points I made in the paragraphs preceding them

(2) Those two points, that are summarised in those two sentences, are related because they're both about the absence, in BW play, of a type of GM role that is common in some RPGing: there is no puzzle/problem that the player is trying to solve/resolve/overcome by dealing with obstacles set up by the GM from the GM's notes/planning; and there is no background/trajectory that those obstacles belong to or which they are manifestations of.

 

[robertsconley]

It does seem odd to advocate against choosing fun when playing a game.

I know that’s not exactly what anyone has said, but there’s an element here of “why would you not choose the fun thing?”

The players are in the living world sandbox because they want to experience a different kind of challenge.

4) A Different Kind of Challenge
Every RPG structure offers a different kind of challenge. A Living World sandbox demands a lot of its referee, it’s not easy. It asks for consistency, curiosity, and the ability to extrapolate how events ripple outward. It’s best with proactive players who want to set their own goals.

But what it offers in return is a unique challenge:
The world doesn’t work against you or for you. It just is. It moves forward, and it’s up to you whether your hopes and ambitions survive contact with it. Some may view an indifferent world as a detriment, but what it offers is consistency and fairness. Characters rise or fall on their own merits, based on the actions the players choose as their characters.

Games like Blades in the Dark and Burning Wheel offer equally sharp challenges, but of a different nature. In BitD, play is structured like a TV episode. The player characters are always the focal point. In Burning Wheel, the core challenge is in testing character motivations against adversity (and that’s crucial, BW’s structure is built around whether beliefs, instincts, and goals hold up under pressure). In both games, play revolves around the PCs.

In a Living World sandbox, the world isn’t centered on the PCs, but it does respond to them. Their challenge is to rise within a world that keeps moving with or without them.

 

[CreamCloud0]

They don't differ much, and IMO both are very good maxims.

while similar in principal there is the fact the latter has much more of a history as a known stereotypical line of those who attempt to use 'the fiction' as a shield to justify hostile and antisocial character actions.

 

[Hussar]

Hussar why are you so hostile to this notion. Worst case scenario: Rob injects some fun along with plausibility. But it seems perfectly reasonable that some GMs might put aside what outcome will be most fun and go with what they think is most logical. I mean that isn’t impossible. If they can weigh it base on fun factor, why can’t they weigh it base on plausibility. Why would the former be possible but the latter impossible?

I’m “hostile” if that’s the right word because it’s contradictory. We have lots of examples of putting interesting and fun first. But apparently we’re also supposed to buy into this notion of plausibility as well?

Its the notion that this is somehow special to sandboxing that I’m rejecting.

 

[robertsconley]

I’m “hostile” if that’s the right word because it’s contradictory. We have lots of examples of putting interesting and fun first. But apparently we’re also supposed to buy into this notion of plausibility as well?

I already replied to another post about how plausibility works with fun, not against it; it's just a different kind of challenge. The fun in a Living World sandbox comes from dealing with a consistent world that doesn't revolve around the PCs but does respond to them.

Link to Post

Its the notion that this is somehow special to sandboxing that I’m rejecting.

In the Alternate History forums, they weigh plausibility constantly. The best alternative history Stories are those whose authors clearly considered the implications of the point of departure from our own history and worked out a plausible chain of events forming a new alternative history as a result.

I dabble in this from time to time. My best story is one based on What If RPGs developed out of a writer aide for Science Fiction Authors starting in 1939.

Travelling, an Alternate Vision of RPGs.
Travelling Continued

In the RPG world, folks who make historical RPGs and supplements, as well as RPGs based on specific works of literature like Middle-earth or King Arthur, weigh plausibility in order to come up with original material based on the setting.

 

[pemerton]

In the Alternate History forums, they weigh plausibility constantly. The best alternative history Stories are those whose authors clearly considered the implications of the point of departure from our own history and worked out a plausible chain of events forming a new alternative history as a result.

<snip>

In the RPG world, folks who make historical RPGs and supplements, as well as RPGs based on specific works of literature like Middle-earth or King Arthur, weigh plausibility in order to come up with original material based on the setting.

As I have followed the course of the thread, it seems to me that no one is denying that someone can set out to use plausibility as a heuristic.

I think the concern is more along the lines of it not yielding a unique outcome.

And I don't think your examples really speak to that concern. Counterfactual history, for instance, generates multiple inconsistent conjectures. And JRRT himself, when adding bits to Middle Earth, kept changing his mind.

 

[Hussar]

Since you missed it the first time, here is the complete post I made about how I use plausibility.
/snip

Oh, no. I read it the first time. I just didn't respond. Mostly because what I snipped is contradicted by this, which is to me, the most telling part:

If none of these jumps out, I roll. But again, I might pick, say she chooses to use the PCs as intermediaries to quietly pass word to House Durn, because that’s the most interesting given what the players are trying to do. Still, it has to be consistent with what we know about her. I’m not inventing drama. I’m resolving uncertainty in a way that respects character logic and builds off the established situation.

That’s how I handle even NPCs in the PCs’ immediate circle. It’s not about crafting a better scene. It’s about figuring out what they would actually do, and letting the world move forward from there.

In other words, you are not doing anything specifically different from what any good DM does. You are choosing results based on what the group will find interesting. Which is as it should be. All this verbiage about the internal logic of the setting and a setting that is built on internal consistencies is so much smoke and mirrors. Why would any good DM choose results that don't respect character logic or builds off of the established situation?

To me, you are making a separation here that is meaningless. People who are choosing drama aren't doing so at the expense of logic or established situations. That would ruin everyone's fun.

You've spent a lot of time talking about how you play in first person. In your experience, is this unusual? I haven't not played in first person since I was just starting out. Playing in first person isn't an achievement. It's the base of play for any group I've ever played with.

I guess, at the end of the day, while I am very impressed with your game and I can certainly see that you're passionate about it and I am sure your players are very lucky to have you, I also don't think what you are doing is any different than what any good DM does. Nothing about what you wrote above says anything about how a sandbox is particularly different from any other wall run game.

 

[SableWyvern]

As I have followed the course of the thread, it seems to me that no one is denying that someone can set out to use plausibility as a heuristic.

I think the concern is more along the lines of it not yielding a unique outcome.

And I don't think your examples really speak to that concern. Counterfactual history, for instance, generates multiple inconsistent conjectures. And JRRT himself, when adding bits to Middle Earth, kept changing his mind.

I presume when you say it's not yielding a unique outcome, you're referring to the fact that that outcomes aren't unique to this specific process, as opposed to the idea that the process can only ever arrive at a single, inevitable outcome.

Speaking for myself, it doesn't matter if the process arrives at outcomes that other processes also arrive it. The process itself has value. The idea that only the outcome matters does make it easier for me to understand why, earlier in the thread, someone made a comment that seemed to suggest if I enjoy certain dramatic moments I should play games specifically designed to bring those moments about.

At the time, I thought the observation was strange, because it completely ignore questions of whether the process would interest me. But now I wonder if it's because some of you are focused only on the outcomes, and really don't care how you get there.

The reality is that being able to say, "I am ruling as impartially as I can, treating the world as an independent, living entity, using my best judgement to make fair and plausible rulings," is important to me and at least some of my players, in-and-of-itself. The process is as important as the outcomes. In some contexts, the process is more important. This being the case, it matters not if another process may or may not arrive at similar outcomes if those processes don't meet my requirements.

[If you are suggesting that the problem is that the process might result in different outcomes at different times, I completely fail to see why that's a concern. Many things I do have different outcomes, to one extent or another, when done at different times.]