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

[EzekielRaiden]

Maybe the solution for you is not justify or provide detailed explanations? It seems to really bother you, so why are you doing it?

...

Because that would then mean no discussion happens.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't know the meaning of that term (I don't play or design video games), care to explain?

Certainly. A persistent world in a video game context is one that continues to operate, in various senses (e.g. monsters might wander around, plants might grow, day/night cycles continue, etc.), regardless of whether any players are actually engaged with it. Contrast this with something like Baldur's Gate 3. Nothing happens if you aren't actively in the game world. By comparison, essentially all MMOs are "persistent worlds" now, because the servers continue to run and events continue to fire whether or not the player is interacting with them. Some games sorta fake it, where they are shut down while they aren't active, but they'll extrapolate a likely future state based on how much time has passed, but that generally wouldn't be understood as a truly, properly persistent world.

Something like this, albeit not quite 100% identical, seems to be what many fans of the DM-centric sandbox style are aiming for. That is, instead of "the player is loaded into the program" is replaced with something like "the PCs are interacting with this area/section/event", more or less. So, even if the players aren't interacting with an area/person/section/event, stuff continues to happen. This is valuable to folks who are talking about this...general space of gaming, because it gives the impression (whether or not this impression is accurate) that the world is "alive" and "independent" from them--that it does respond to what they do, but it isn't defined by what they do.

I didn't know the meaning of this term until you just explained it!

Ah, my apologies. This one comes up a lot even on this forum, so I had understood it to be common knowledge. Another term for "illusionism" is an "invisible railroad" (or players being on "invisible rails"). It is the illusion of meaningful choice. I, personally, strongly dislike illusionism because I see it as inherently deceptive. Others see it differently, and do not believe it is a "deception", but...something else. Seeing as how I am pretty heavily against it because I see it as a deception, I am not a good person to explain the position of anyone who likes or favors illusionism.

 

[Hussar]

It's not meaningless. 1) While rare, I have seen unplausible things. 2) In a fantasy world there's a lot that isn't plausible. You can't just say "magic" and something becomes plausible. The players generally know the game and will call shenanigans if you try to pull something like that. If they care about plausibility anyway. A lot of folks don't.

But, again, it's the DM who determines what is or is not plausible. My DM example way, way back thought it was entirely plausible that the merchant left town without notice just before our heist. If asked, I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that she thought that was perfectly plausible. And, really, she's not wrong. It is entirely plausible for the merchant to leave town without notice. It can happen. Now, I also know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it happened because the DM was railroading us. But, from the perspective of plausibility, it passes the sniff test.

Basically, "plausible" is such an incredibly low bar. I mean, good grief, virtually no dungeon is ever "plausible" without the DM doing a ton of back filling. The entire Caves of Chaos is completely implausible. But, we accept it.

It's a meaningless metric.

 

[Hussar]

Other than that, however, ideally they would indeed end up at more or less the same place. If it's the same DM running both groups, I would actually somewhat expect this and if all other things were identical would raise an eyebrow were it not the case.

And yet you raised nary an eyebrow when @robertsconley stated that he did exactly this and that it was expected that the same DM running both groups would have radically different campaigns.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm jumping in late so I don't know if you are correct on this or not. I have noticed some people discussing plausibility. So, IMO, it seems like some people are discussing this,...because that is the bedrock of what realism means to me.

So my definition is something like...
Fantasy RPG Realism: What is broadly plausible in a given situation based on the fantasy physics and assumptions of the campaign world (setting).

Okay. This does circle back to one of the other things ("plausible"), so it's a bit difficult to work with, but it's something, so I won't complain too much.

Plausibility is deeply subjective, as I understand the term. Things I might consider implausible, you might consider plausible and vice-versa. This is especially true if we refer to it as "broadly plausible", meaning we aren't requiring a narrow lens here. E.g., Dictionary.com gives "plausible" the primary definition of "having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable"--tying it to entirely subjective things like appearances, worthiness, approval, believable, etc. The second definition definitely isn't something you want to bring in so I won't touch that.

But there's a second component here, which is...more or less what I've referenced several times now as "DM effort required", namely, "the fantasy physics and assumptions of the campaign world (setting)", as you put it. What things are part of the fantasy physics? Well...whatever you're told are part of it, which means...anything the DM decides to include. So the plausible cannot really limit anything, unless the DM is just bad at getting you to think they know what they're doing or talking about. Almost anything can become plausible with the right preamble. That's why the second definition I alluded to above isn't something you want to invoke, as it notes that a "plausible" argument, for example, is implicitly an argument with only the superficial appearance of truth and nothing underneath, sort of a damning with faint praise situation (as in, if it were more than merely plausible, one would expect to use the stronger word instead.)

"Realism", if it does in fact find its root in plausibility, establishment of patterns of inputs and outputs ("fantasy physics"), and "assumptions of the...setting", is...thus not really that much of a limiter. Yes, it will limit some things, some of the time; I'm not trying to say it's literally 100% pure anything goes. But it's also a pretty weak limit. That's why I bring up DM effort here. Almost anything can be massaged into plausibility with enough DM effort. This becomes exponentially easier when you have grandfathered exceptions like "magic", where literally some players will get all up in arms about something until the DM says "it's magic" and then suddenly every complaint (IMO pretty inexplicably!) just evaporates. If magic is a part of the world's physics, it has to have rules too, just declaring something "magic" isn't enough--but D&D fans seem to accept the loosest, most ridiculously unbound, most uncodified systems of magic without a peep of criticism (one, of several, reasons why magic in D&D remains overpowered.)

My apologies @EzekielRaiden , I see now that you let this thread. Sorry to summon you back. Feel free to ignore if you want (though I didn't answer on of the questions you said no-one answers for you).

It's fine. Your replies have been courteous and you have endeavored to explain, and you have recognized useful contributions I have made. I'm probably not going to read the rest of the thread, but I am happy to respond to this. There's a reply I owe Lanefan for a similar response, but that might have to wait until after I get some sleep.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's not meaningless. 1) While rare, I have seen unplausible things. 2) In a fantasy world there's a lot that isn't plausible. You can't just say "magic" and something becomes plausible. The players generally know the game and will call shenanigans if you try to pull something like that. If they care about plausibility anyway. A lot of folks don't.

And yet that's exactly the response we've seen in this very thread.

A Warlord creature being able to just make someone afraid? Utterly ridiculous.

Saying that that Warlord creature is actually magical--without even a moment spent on what kind of magic, or how it works, or whether it's a spell or just some other supernatural phenomenon, etc., etc.--and suddenly the criticisms disappear, such that I (and others) pointing out the problem had to consistently say "...not caused by magic" and other similar clauses.

It really is the case that magic gets an instant and almost universal get-out-of-explanation-free card.

 

[robertsconley]

That is such a low bar that it's meaningless. All plausible means is that it is believably possible. In a fantasy world, there's pretty much nothing that isn't plausible. And, why would you think that every Dm/GM out there isn't setting the same bar? Do you think that people who play pass-the-story-stick games are running things that aren't plausible? Of course not. Plausible is the lowest common denominator of any RPG play.

As I stated before, there are basically three levels of outcomes: the most likely, the probable, and the possible. This becomes apparent to anyone who works with “what-if” scenarios on a regular basis, such as in weather forecasting. Forecasters must assess the current situation, evaluate potential outcomes, weigh them, and generate predictions people will act upon.

Weather forecasting is not a simple equation where if humidity, temperature, and pressure are X, Y, and Z, then result A automatically follows. Instead, it involves ranking outcomes by likelihood.

For example, the Storm Prediction Center uses categorical risk levels:
https://www.weather.gov/media/ewx/iwt/SPC_WPC_Differences.pdf

This same principle applies to other complex, hard-to-quantify domains like diplomacy or politics.

The distinctions I use, most likely, probable, and possible, also apply when assessing outcomes in a tabletop roleplaying campaign. While realism may influence outcomes, the framework remains useful even in more fantastic settings like Pratchett’s Discworld (see GURPS Discworld).

And since I’m not trying to write a PhD thesis on outcome assessment in TTRPGs, I keep it simple: I focus on what’s probable (which include the most likely outcome). I ignore what’s possible as these low probability outcomes are to numerous to assess during a tabletop roleplaying session.

 

[AlViking]

Technically that is true, but like the weather, no two starting points are ever the same with the players.


Appreciate the compliment. So you know your experience mirrors mine.


So is it fair to say....

Spoiler

You were willing to let them trash your setting?

Some of my players seem to think that the goal of the game we play is to to trash my setting.

 

[Bedrockgames]

On sandbox
This is one of the threads of discussion that is causing the most confusion/frustration. A part of that seems to be a due to some people conflating @robertsconley 's "Living World Sandbox" with all sandboxes, when it's simply one form it can take. I'd argue that the "living world" protocols Robert uses could be applied to a railroad just as readily. Sandbox, also, does not "foreground location and journeying" as @pemerton put it. A hexploration focused campaign likely would, but that's not required for a sandbox. My V:TM sandbox doesn't give a monkey's about location and journeying - they can take a car or train. Nor does @Bedrockgames wuxia sandbox, as best I can tell, except insofar as a player character is at point A and their (player-driven) goal is at point B. At it's core, sandbox play can be distilled to the broader use of "play to find out". Since it has been brought up already, I'll quote Blades in the Dark: Don’t steer the game toward certain outcomes or events. That's it. That's the heart of sandbox play in contrast to a railroad. You allow the players to go wherever they like (within the confines of the sandbox - you need a box to contain the sand, after all) and do (well, attempt) whatever they like. No pre-planned plot, no GM menu of options, no getting precious about your GM toys. Everything else is system and playstyle dependent.

My approach is something of a hybrid. It definitely puts a great deal of emphasis on sects and characters (think any classic Shaw brothers martial arts movie with feuding groups of martial artists), and so in that sense it is closer to a Vampire the Masquerade sandbox than an OD&D sandbox. But dungeons and travel can be important. I do not do hex crawls (at least as I understand that term) but I do use hexes and don’t gloss over travel. So if the characters have to travel 90 miles to Dee, that is about three hexes on the map. Assuming good terrain, that is a survival roll for each hex/day, which could lead to a random encounter or grudge encounter. Dungeons are also important. One of the things I wanted to do with the setting was shoe dungeons are a big part of the genre (because I felt peopke downplayed this aspect of it). So the end result for me is a campaign that can beer in both the direction of a VtM campaign and a D&D campaign, which has been pretty helpful for longevity IMO

On GM goals/priorities
This is the other thread of discussion causing confusion/frustration and I think part of that is the use of the terms "goals" and "priorities" having a certain connotation of proactive pursuit. For the trad/sim side, I think this is better thought of as a more passive "considerations".
I expect all GMs are weighing up multiple things when considering how to adjudicate, but the difference is in how much weight is given to each one.
For example, if we have:

• Player agency - the player's ability to think and act as they so choose
• "Realism" or verisimilitude - the ways in which the setting adheres to real world logic and laws of physics, cause and effect (as best the GM understands them)
• Setting conceits - the ways in which the setting differs from the real world (magic/supernatural, superpowers, advanced tech, etc.)
• Genre conventions - tropes, themes, character archetypes, etc. related to a given genre
• Fun/interestingness - rule of cool

(This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, merely some of the most common.)

A GM running a railroad is still going to consider player agency (within the confines of the plot/adventure), but a GM running a sandbox is going to give vastly more weight to it. Similarly, a narrativist GM is still going to consider verisimilitude, but a simulationist GM will give it more weight (this will also typically see the simulationist GM defer to someone more knowledgeable on a given subject, or even look something up, when GMed without ego). Each consideration will have more or less weight, with lesser considerations being factored in if there are multiple options to chose from and the higher consideration is equal between them.

From what I understand of @Bedrockgames wuxia sandboxes (correct me if I'm wrong), it seems player agency would be the foremost consideration (albeit through the lens of simulationism, so "character agency"), then - assuming all else is equal - either verisimilitude or setting conceits, followed by the other, then - assuming all else is equal - wuxia genre conventions, then - assuming all else is equal - fun/interestingness. (And possibly other considerations not mentioned.)
This differs from @robertsconley , who seems to weight verisimilitude on par with player (character) agency, and gives no concern to genre conventions whatsoever.

I think that is the the ballpark. I might not use language like simulation but agency is at the top. I wouldn’t say verisimilitude for me as my campaigns are not naturalistic but certainly consistency of world, believability and setting conceits. wuxia is kind of present throughout. I think I’ve internalized it so much when I run things, it isn’t even a consideration: it is part of how I handle plausibility (i.e. NPCs behave like Wuxia characters). But like you say at the end this is all largely academic. I am not being systematic when I run a game. I am going largely by feel and what seems like it would happen (i.e. how does Iron God Meng feel about the party’s betrayal, what would he do. I think a lot of it really revolves around a kind of instant characterization and immersion by GM into NPCs. It isn’t about long sequences of RP but just knowing what that character is thinking and feeling and seeing the game from their POV (you just feel it, like the blues)

Edit: typed on phone, pardon any errors

 

[dave2008]

I think they are logical enough for RPG purposes. At least in my experience DMs that I have played with have been logical enough to come up with plausible outcomes. It's very, very, VERY rare for me to experience a DM decision that is unplausible. It has happened, but only a handful of times in the last 40 years.

I agree with you, but that wasn't what I was trying to talk about.

My stance is that claiming your setting has some "internal logic" outside of what you (the DM and the group) determine is false, IMO.

I 100% agree the DM can adjudicate the setting based on what they deem is plausible, heck, that is how I DM. That is just not what was pushing back on.