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

[zakael19]

Meanwhile, a common trend among BitD players is to deliberately get their first trauma as soon as possible in order to get another XP trigger, i.e. author stance, but they'll still roleplay in actor stance

Wow, this is a thing? I haven’t seen this in any of my groups or mentioned much around the discord, but I acknowledge the community is pretty big at this point. How strange. I definitely prefer how Deep Cuts handles both harm and trauma XP triggers.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Well, for my part and in fairly general terms:

"Plausible" implies a reasonably easy-to-follow (or in the case of hidden information revealed later, easy-to-explain) chain of events where one can be more or less expected to lead to the next. It is, if not directly opposite to, certainly in conflict with contrivance; which often eschews plausibility in favour of plot. Example: if Bob's character Kalvin was last seen kicking around several hundred in-fiction miles to the east with vague plans to head further east, plausibility makes it extremely unlikely Kalvin will be right here right now in the west where the other PCs are but contrivance puts him there anyway because Bob wants to bring Kalvin into the party.

This doesn’t seem like a very effective example because it simultaneously universally true in all RPG systems (whether Narrativist, trad or sandbox, if a character is established in a particular location, he is not going to appear elsewhere), but also false in a matter that is independent of RPG systems: i.e. in any high magic setting, independent of Narrativist, trad or sandbox, there is a possibility that a character can travel virtually instantaneously between locations.

 

[Faolyn]

By actor stance, author stance and director stance, do you mean this?

• In Actor stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have.
• In Author stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities, then retroactively "motivates" the character to perform them. (Without that second, retroactive step, this is fairly called Pawn stance.)
• In Director stance, a person determines aspects of the environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore the player has not only determined the character's actions, but the context, timing, and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world separate from the characters.

If you do, then I don't agree with what you have posted.

When I play Thurgon and Aedhros, I am playing in actor stance - I make decisions using knowledge and perceptions that my character would have. The character's hopes and commitments and regrets are particularly important to me also. For instance, Thurgon is committed to the tenets of his order, and his family, and Aramina; and he hopes to revive his order from its current dire state. Aedhros regrets bitterly the death of his spouse, and everything that he does is ultimately grounded in that bitterness.

OK, you've really misunderstood what I've talked about.

I criticized the call because it would be logical--likely, plausible, realistic, whatever term you want to use--for there to be a cup in the room, right out in the open, and therefore, it's a waste of game time to require a roll to see it. That cup would be there whether or not the player had any need for a cup at all, simply because the world exists outside of the players.

I am also saying this as a GM. My actions as a player would be different. Do you not act differently as a player as you do a GM?

As a player, if the GM didn't describe a cup, I would say "is there a cup around?" The GM would likely either say "yes, there's one right there" or "no, you don't see any", and the latter would be because there are literally no visible cups--they're put away in cupboards, underneath discarded clothes or other junk, deliberately hidden away in a secret drawer--(edit) or there are actually no cups at all.

The example you gave is basically, the cup is important to the PC, therefore, the PC rolls to make it exist, which strikes me as Authorial by the definitions you copypasted above.

Also, it's very silly to reduce playstyle down to a few options like this. People are complex and roleplay in different ways at different times.

 

[JConstantine]

Wow, this is a thing? I haven’t seen this in any of my groups or mentioned much around the discord, but I acknowledge the community is pretty big at this point. How strange. I definitely prefer how Deep Cuts handles both harm and trauma XP triggers.

It is, yeah. It's more prevalent on the BitD subreddit, often brought up in response to (GMs complaining about) new players being cautious in avoiding trauma. It also came up from time to time on the old G+ community.

 

[robertsconley]

I'd say out of the two, your monthly campaign comes closer to how I run things for my bi-weekly game, with differences of course.

Sounds good. While I prefer my Living World sandbox campaigns, if the situation calls for it, I adopt different techniques to better suit the circumstances. And a monthly campaign is one of those circumstances.

For example, because of safety and logistical needs, adventures for boffer LARPs like NERO are often linear, frankly, even railroaded. I wanted to run good LARP events and good LARP adventures, so I learned how to set them up in a way that most players wanted to ride the rails to the conclusion. That wasn’t easy.

Learning to do this well helped me in tabletop roleplaying, especially in situations where the characters are under orders from an authority, such as members of a city guard. In those situations, I have to be more proactive as I roleplay the NPCs giving orders. I need to come up with missions that the characters will undertake on behalf of those NPCs.

That’s where my LARP experience helps. It taught me how to select missions that would interest players, while still being consistent with what the NPC would actually ask. And that dovetails nicely with the logic of a Living World, because a good leader would naturally consider the skills and strengths of their subordinates.

To be clear, this is not the only method I use to determine what NPCs order PCs to do. It’s a mix of the above, random rolls, and plausible choices.

And to address the elephant in the room: yes, it’s still a Living World sandbox. The players, as their characters, are free to reject orders. That has consequences, of course (e.g., being considered deserters), but those consequences unfold logically from the setting.

The Nomar Campaign I mentioned earlier upthread is a good example. The PCs started out as mercenaries under orders from the Baron of Abberset and ended up building an inn on their own initiative. Their departure wasn’t great, they left on impulse and didn’t even give notice in person, but they paid a generous quit-fee and moved on to another frontier in Nomar. In the end, it didn’t matter much due to how events unfolded.

Although it is true I have not read enough of the exchanges (likely less than what I should have), but I think highlighting internal consistency & plausibility etc is not what should be the centre of your (you and his) discussion.
I think that is where things get caught in the cross-hairs.
And the reason for this is that then it seems to be a contest of who has the most plausible or consistent campaign which it should not be.

I never viewed it as a debate. From my point of view, there was never anything to argue over. Creative goals are not a zero-sum game, you can prioritize one goal and still incorporate others, such as consistency and plausibility.

My contention was, and remains, that placing a priority on plausibility and consistency is not a statement about what other playstyles do or don’t do with those principles.

Related to that, I can maintain that focus while still incorporating what my players find interesting, using techniques that are different from those used in other systems and styles. Mostly through the thing I do outside of the session rather during play.

And for my part, I compounded some of the confusion by trying to figure out how to communicate all this clearly. It took a while before I realized that not every participant in the thread was engaging in good faith like you are.

Ok, how is the bolded for emphasis accomplished in your campaign?

Excellent question. What I’ve found works best to make the setting feel like something the players have truly visited includes the following:

1) First-person roleplaying as the driver of the campaign
In my campaigns, first-person roleplay is the main way play moves forward. As illustrated in my session with Brendan, Adam, and Elliot, everything from pre-game to the second night’s combat with the ruffians was driven by the players speaking and acting in character. Occasionally, they used second-person description, and I described the situation or scene as needed.

In a LARP, this would play out the same way, just without the need for narrated description. Since I’m using pen, paper, and dice, I substitute with verbal narration and maps. The players do the same by using verbal narration, moving their tokens, and pointing at things on the map and asking questions about additional details.

Whether online or in person, my description tends to be terse, I’m usually showing locations and NPC movements, not narrating everything. As much as possible, I treat my tabletop sessions like virtual LARP adventures, minus the physical safety and logistics constraints.

Another way to put it: I use voice, pen, paper, and dice to simulate a virtual reality or holodeck that the players interact with as their characters.

2) Characters are the focus, both PCs and NPCs
Most of the action centers around player characters interacting with NPCs and each other. My prep focuses on what I need to portray NPCs consistently and responsively. Setting detail becomes relevant through interaction with NPCs.

Descriptions matter for setting context, but the campaign unfolds through choices and reactions between characters. Creatures are treated the same as NPCs in this regard.

3) Tracking change
As the campaign progresses, player choices impact the setting, locations, and especially NPCs in their social circles. These changes are tracked and incorporated whenever they return to a location or NPC.

I’ve done this since my second Wilderlands campaign. Over time, the cumulative effect became obvious, players could sense which parts of the setting had been “trashed” by earlier groups, particularly the City State of the Invincible Overlord. One reflective player told me it felt more lived-in because it was obvious many hands had shaped it.

4) Plausible outcomes
A big problem in sandbox play in general is decision paralysis, especially when players feel they lack enough information to make informed choices. This is why sandbox campaigns that start with a blank hex and no leads often fail.

But information is only part of the solution. The world must behave consistently enough that players trust they can weigh options and anticipate outcomes. This means a commitment that consequences will be plausible in hindsight.

Once players feel that, they become proactive and confident. They take risks as their characters.

This also affects system use. I stick to rules that let me adjudicate what characters do. GURPS served that role for two decades. My Majestic Fantasy RPG is written with that in mind, it's focused on action resolution and expressing the setting in mechanical terms.

By “what characters can do,” I mean: swing a sword, haggle, convince an NPC, pick a lock, forge a document, these are all things the system needs to resolve.

As opposed to more abstract moves like “broker a trade deal” as a single roll. With my approach, the player must go through the steps in character. If the player isn’t sure, but the character would know, I coach them through it, not tell them. Coaching means explaining choices and consequences, not making the choices for them.

And I make it clear that questioning or challenging rulings is fine. Especially when it comes to modifiers. If a player brings up a good point, I adjust. But I also make the final call, because the players don’t have all the information I have.

5) A bag of stuff
I do a lot of worldbuilding, mostly for fun, but also to build what I need. In addition to locations and NPCs, I keep a “bag of stuff”, semi-prepared content that I can adapt on the fly.

If I need a peasant hut or a small cave, I grab one from my folder and flesh it out to match the current situation. Because these are semi-prepped in advance, they stay consistent.

The Hârn Pottage series is a great example of what I use, though most of my content is far less detailed:
Harn Pottage

6) Trust through leadership
Finally, a crucial element is building trust among the players that behind the screen, I am acting as a fair and consistent referee. I’ve detailed this in other posts, but the core of it is being transparent, open to questions, responsive to player input, and applying basic leadership principles. That includes listening, being consistent in rulings, and demonstrating that I care about their experience and engagement. Without that foundation of trust, the rest of the Living World approach doesn't land as well.

7) The world in motion
The setting has a life of its own. If the players leave a location and come back, things have changed. NPCs live their lives even when not onscreen.

Each of these techniques overlaps with what you’ll find in other systems. But taken together, I’ve found they create the feeling that the players have visited a real place, as their characters.

I'm not sure if I'm being clear enough in this regard.

I hope this comprehensive outline answers your question. Also, as comprehensive as my answer is, it focuses only on what I do as the referee to create that feeling. I’m happy to answer follow-up questions, but ultimately, it would take more work, and probably a full book, to cover all the different aspects involved. So while the above covers a lot, it’s likely incomplete when it comes to any other questions you might have.

 

[hawkeyefan]

wait wouldn’t you say there is a difference between games where the set up or system encourage drama regularly and one where you just let it happens on its own if it arises but you can take it or leave it?

Sure, but that's not really what I said.

What you seem to be calling "drama" seems to be more conflict with personal stakes. That one game may focus on that and another may focus on external stakes... help the star-crossed lovers, rescue the princess, retrieve Whelm, Wave, and Blackrazor... whatever.

"Drama" is coming up on both games. Who it's relevant to seems to be the difference to me... which has been a big part of the discussion on agency. In one, it is relevant to the characters based on player choices, in the other, it's based on the GM whose world is the focus of play. I don't think either system is doing what you describe... or perhaps they both are.

So as far as what seems "organic" or not, I don't see much of a difference. Although, I will say that people do tend to be involved in things that matter to them and are related to their lives.

I'm not @Micah Sweet , but I can give a response I think they might agree with and it is how I feel. A neutral arbiter is useful because, in our experience, it works for us and the games we run. The process is fun for both us *the DM) and our players. For the DM, the fun extends beyond the gameday, at the table experience as well. If it is fun for us, it might useful and work for others.

Sure, I get that it may work for people... but I don't know if that says much. I think the relevant thing is why it works for you (meaning the general you).

In any game that values verisimilitude and setting logic over drama and personalized character development, dungeon-based or otherwise, the GM as neutral arbiter is IMO very useful advice, because it allows the setting to operate in a way that doesn't strongly favor any particular participant's judgement. This includes the GM if they are adhering to setting logic and verisimilitude as principles, especially if they are using tables as a tool.

Okay. I don't know if 5e values verisimilitude and setting logic so much as it does the PCs being larger than life heroes. I feel like the primary modes 5e is played in is either some kind of neotrad method where character concept is meant to be actualized in play or it's played in adventure path style play.

So play is generally meant to tell the player's chosen character arc, or the DM's chosen story. Both are kind of predetermined... so it would make sense for a GM to be making decisions based on those desired outcomes.

Now, I'm not saying that everyone who plays 5e plays this way... but I do think that it's pretty clearly what it's designed to deliver, and easily supports.

In the challenge of outdoor exploration, the challenge of courtly intrigue, the challenge of a heist, the challenge of interpersonal drama, and all sorts of other challenges, a neutral arbiter is always useful.

Rules enforcement. And, in 5e specifically, the making of rulings. The whole 'referee' thing.

There's a strong argument that 5e would benefit from a GM making rulings in the players' favor, given the focus of its play.

I mean... it one wants to play 5e with a focus on skilled play similar to earlier versions of D&D, then sure, you can do so... but I don't think that's really the intended focus of play. It lacks so many of the elements that support that kind of play... hence why I think the idea of a neutral arbiter is more a lingering design aesthetic than an actual bit of applicable advice.

 

[robertsconley]

Meanwhile, a common trend among BitD players is to deliberately get their first trauma as soon as possible in order to get another XP trigger, i.e. author stance, but they'll still roleplay in actor stance. Your specific observation about trad play mostly occurs before the first session, but I generally don't run the standard fantasy adventure party as a sandbox, preferring a non-linear railroad (what @zakael19 called rivers and lakes) for D&D.

It is, yeah. It's more prevalent on the BitD subreddit, often brought up in response to (GMs complaining about) new players being cautious in avoiding trauma. It also came up from time to time on the old G+ community.

I’m posting the above for context.

Meanwhile, a common trend among BitD players is to deliberately get their first trauma as soon as possible

My question is: what does this actually look like in play? Suppose I’m standing over the group running a Blades in the Dark campaign, what does “deliberately get their first trauma” look like at the table?

I want to make sure I understand this, because to me it resembles a rule incentive, very broadly, like classic D&D’s “gold for XP,” especially the variant where you only get XP if you spend the gold. In that system, the XP mechanic is clearly designed to incentivize specific behavior. So I’m wondering what mechanics in BitD are incentivizing players to rush toward their first trauma, and what “trauma” specifically means in that context.

To be upfront, I jettisoned gold-for-XP long ago as ill-fitting for how I run campaigns. I don’t like XP systems that incentivize a particular behavior. In my view, XP in my living world sandbox is earned due to life experience gained while living out the life of the character. Along with tracking changes to the setting, this type of milestone award is one of the oldest parts of my campaigns.

circa 1985

I still keep “monster/NPC XP,” because that’s something my players strongly want. But I’ve modified it so that any method of overcoming an NPC antagonist, combat, negotiation, trickery, earns the reward. It’s about resolution, not the method used.

To be clear, I’m not asking this to diminish BitD but to help me understand it better, especially when people compare or contrast it with how I run my living world sandbox. I often see claims that what I’m doing is “basically the same thing as system X,”

I realize this aspect of my campaign hasn’t come up much yet, but I don’t incentivize specific behaviors. I award XP based on overcoming antagonists (i.e., monster XP), and I also use milestone awards based on the goals the players set for themselves. The size of the award depends on the difficulty of the challenge they’ve chosen. If a goal is broad, I break it down into components so I can give out smaller awards as progress is made.

It used to be a roleplaying award i.e. how well the player acted in-character. But by the late 80s I realized that was a bad standard to use, so I switched to goals accomplished and then called it a milestone when that term became popular. Not every player likes or is willing to be an "actor".

All of this is handled informally and accompanied by my usual “feel free to ask questions” policy. I keep it informal because many players find formal milestones off-putting. Often, I need to listen closely to table chatter to pick up on what the group wants to pursue. I silently cheer when a player says, “Rob, I want to do X.”

There’s also a small subset of players who never explicitly articulate their goals. For them, I award XP based on how well they help other party members achieve their goals. Which, to be honest, mirrors what’s happening in-game as well.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, but that's not really what I said.

What you seem to be calling "drama" seems to be more conflict with personal stakes. That one game may focus on that and another may focus on external stakes... help the star-crossed lovers, rescue the princess, retrieve Whelm, Wave, and Blackrazor... whatever.

"Drama" is coming up on both games. Who it's relevant to seems to be the difference to me... which has been a big part of the discussion on agency. In one, it is relevant to the characters based on player choices, in the other, it's based on the GM whose world is the focus of play. I don't think either system is doing what you describe... or perhaps they both are.

So as far as what seems "organic" or not, I don't see much of a difference. Although, I will say that people do tend to be involved in things that matter to them and are related to their lives.



Sure, I get that it may work for people... but I don't know if that says much. I think the relevant thing is why it works for you (meaning the general you).



Okay. I don't know if 5e values verisimilitude and setting logic so much as it does the PCs being larger than life heroes. I feel like the primary modes 5e is played in is either some kind of neotrad method where character concept is meant to be actualized in play or it's played in adventure path style play.

So play is generally meant to tell the player's chosen character arc, or the DM's chosen story. Both are kind of predetermined... so it would make sense for a GM to be making decisions based on those desired outcomes.

Now, I'm not saying that everyone who plays 5e plays this way... but I do think that it's pretty clearly what it's designed to deliver, and easily supports.



There's a strong argument that 5e would benefit from a GM making rulings in the players' favor, given the focus of its play.

I mean... it one wants to play 5e with a focus on skilled play similar to earlier versions of D&D, then sure, you can do so... but I don't think that's really the intended focus of play. It lacks so many of the elements that support that kind of play... hence why I think the idea of a neutral arbiter is more a lingering design aesthetic than an actual bit of applicable advice.

When I say every game that values those things, I don't mean every system. I mean every table. Literally ever game being played that values verisimilitude et al, even if the system being used has higher priorities.

 

[Campbell]

So, when I play Vampire - The Requiem, Dune 2d20, Monsterhearts, Apocalypse World or Sorcerer because the scenarios and world building come out of who the characters are and breathe life to a particular location I get to just play a character who is going about their life in a world that is not built for adventure. Because the GM and the game are handling the make things exciting and engaging part as a player, I do not have to do it. I don't have to go out and explore a world or seek adventure. I get to play a person who strives, who loves, who has responsibilities, has friends and family they don't have to leave behind. I do not have to tie myself into knots or deal with the sorts of setting level contrivances that drive me crazy in Vampire: The Masquerade and most D&D settings.

I get to just play my character with integrity and not be responsible for making the game go. That to me feels organic as a player.

Don't get me wrong. I like D&D. I like Monster of the Week. But when I play them I kind have to twist myself into knots and engage less with the character I'm playing and kind of glance over some of the setting level stuff that takes me out of it. Something being designed top-down does not make it not contrived.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The DM does not at all determine what is or is not plausible. What is or is not plausible exists outside of the DM. The DM determines which of the plausible(or very rarely implausible) outcomes happen from those possibilities.

What? How does what's plausible "exist outside the DM"?

I disagree with both you and your DM. It's POSSIBLE for the merchant to just up and leave like that, but possible does not equal plausible. Plausible is what is reasonable or probable, and what she did doesn't pass either of those tests.

I mean... someone moving is perfectly plausible.

What if the GM, as part of their living world process, had already determined that this person would leave town on such and such date? And then the PCs attempted their move after that date?

Now... we all know that it's not really reasonable for a GM to have such details about every possible NPC in the setting, and that's what makes this problematic... the GM obviously denied them what they were trying to do, and seemingly for little to no reason.

But that doesn't mean that the NPC leaving town is implausible.

I've seen it done for decades with the Forgotten Realms

Bwah haha hahahahaha the Forgotten Realms yes, yes a bastion of plausibility!

But the problem with this is it also goes the other way. I've seen plenty of people say something was a problem at the table, only to find out it wasn't: they were the one with the problem. I think the issue is there are both problem players and problem GMs, and you can genuinely encounter both. If one person is making a group miserable that is a problem. But I think there is an assumption operating in this thread that it is mostly only the GM, and I think that isn't the case. A player who is overly insistent that the table bend to their tastes, is just as bad as a railroady GM or a GM who abuses their power, in terms of how functional the table is. For me, what I look for is a functional table. If you avoid both of these types of people, you gaming is so much easier. I treat it no different than I would other relationships. I am not going to be friends with someone who is bringing me down all the time, or constantly causing drama and problems. And I am not going to game with anyone who makes our time at the table unpleasant

I don't think that we need to go to the extreme of an actual problematic GM or player, though. For me, far more common and far more worthy of discussion, is the non-problematic player who has a problem with play. Labeling them "the one with the problem" doesn't seem fair. They may have a perfectly valid complaint or issue. That others don't share it doesn't mean it's immediately nonsensical.

Reconciling the differences that reasonable GMs and players may still encounter is worthy of discussion without having to comment on actually problematic GMs or players.

1) First-person roleplaying as the driver of the campaign
In my campaigns, first-person roleplay is the main way play moves forward. As illustrated in my session with Brendan, Adam, and Elliot, everything from pre-game to the second night’s combat with the ruffians was driven by the players speaking and acting in character. Occasionally, they used second-person description, and I described the situation or scene as needed.

I don't really see why that is the case. I mean... at the start of play, they were hired to travel from one location to the other, then along the way they encountered the star-crossed lovers. That could have all happened just as easily if they all described everything in third person.

The driver of play seems to be the hook that you gave them at the start.

I don’t like XP systems that incentivize a particular behavior.

Isn't that what all XP systems do? The one you share seems to incentivize first person roleplay, and that's a behavior.

Generally speaking, the XP system can be said to tell us what a game is about.