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

[AlViking]

The existence of the table, or even just rough notes, is a tool for consistency. Yes, I’m still making a decision, whether I’m designing a table or making a judgment call in the moment. But I’m also making a decision about how decisions get made. That’s important.

By committing to a model or a process, even one with odds for irrational outcomes, I create stability in how the world behaves. Players can recognize that stability and use it as a foundation for their own choices. That’s what distinguishes a sandbox with internal logic from one driven purely by a referee's whim.

There are a lot of ways to approach how people (and factions) will react. The top 3? I'd probably say the broad categories with a whole lot of variation and mix-and match would look something like

1) What the GM thinks will guide the campaign in the direction they want​

2) What the GM thinks is most fun or useful for the players​

3) What the GM thinks is most likely​

I don't personally fall back on #1 very often because I never really outline what I think should happen or what I want to happen. The characters drive the direction of the campaign and I simply attempt try to put interesting toys in the sandbox that they will enjoy playing with. Occasionally I adjust or make new toys based on what they seem most interested in.

I lean towards #3 most of the time. When I come up with an NPC or faction if I think they'll be important I do a very simple description, which in D&D may include alignment if it helps me think of their moral outlook. At a minimum I'll have a very simple 1 or 2 line description that I expand on when and if the NPC comes into focus. If they're likely to be central to current and imminent events then I'll dig more into their individual goals and desires. Frequently though I'm more concerned about what faction they're associated to and their relationship to their faction.

When creating NPCs I like to consider complications and complexity. Someone may be loving and a decent person but if their family is endangered they will do whatever they can to protect them even if it means doing things they normally would not. In addition a lot of NPCs will have agendas in opposition to the agendas of the characters even if it's only on very specific issues. It's just not always clear where the NPC stands.

My decisions are not based on what will be useful for the players but what is most logical for the NPC. Sometimes the NPC will be an open book, sometimes they're complicated, sometimes they have hidden agendas. Most of the time why an NPC did something will be clear eventually, but it's not always clear to begin with.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

For historians or futurists, that may be a major concern when evaluating long-term trends. But for tabletop roleplaying, the only jury we need to satisfy is the players, and the standard of good enough will suffice.

Well, yes. I agree entirely with that. I just couldn't find any real hint of constraints in any of it. That is, beyond the basic one of what players will put up with.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

We don't need need some objective rating of plausibility that can be reduced to some hard, numerical rating, though.

Do the players feel it's plausible? Do the players feel that less plausible things fall within an acceptable range as plausible outliers? Then it's plausible enough, which is all that is required.

It's already been established that this is something that occurs in many games, across a range of styles. The only thing that really differs is that some of us start prefer to start with plausibility when assessing outcomes, while others might look to other guiding factors first.

I given GM might first come up with a series of events that drive the drama or bring a character trait into play, or provide screen time to a particular player, or test a belief, or that they find personally interesting or whatever. Plausibility is likely be assessed later, and given a particular weight. Maybe, "is this actually possible" is enough. Maybe it's a matter of, "how much effort would it take to justify?" The precise weight given to plausibility will vary. It might be important, or not.

Some of us in this thread are simply saying we tend to start with plausibility first as part of our process. In the middle of play, I may pick what I feel is most likely, or weigh up rough probabilities and use a weighted die roll to select from a range. Outside of play, I will generally do that latter. If I have a particular, interesting idea I want to push ahead with (ie, I have failed to think about plausibility first), I will often specifically stop myself from just inserting it into the game, and will instead do my best to rate it objectively, assign a probability, and have it compete with other plausible options to help ensure my decisions remain more objective.

For the record, I disagree with @Lanefan that there should be a single, objectively correct outcome and the same situation should always result in the same outcome. I don't think that's at all necessary.

Right, as I replied to Robert, I agree. I just don't think it constrains the GM much at all. When I run DW I simply have ADDITIONAL constraints, ones with teeth.

 

[AlViking]

Right, as I replied to Robert, I agree. I just don't think it constrains the GM much at all. When I run DW I simply have ADDITIONAL constraints, ones with teeth.

The constraints have teeth just as sharp as the GM wants, even if they aren't enforced by the rules of the game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Personally I am not looking for constraints with teeth. I think you want an empowered GM in this kind of campaign

 

[robertsconley]

This is why I say I'd rather have more extensive rules that may not always make sense than a GM extensively making decisions on the fly; the former may have problems (but that can be addressed with houseruling if its worth one's while) but its at least transparent and predictable in process, where the ad-hoc GMing decisions are so, at best, only to to the GM.

I find rules that try to govern the behavior of sentient characters to be inadequate for running a tabletop roleplaying campaign. It’s OK if you don’t feel that way, but I do.

For me, the rules are about adjudicating specific actions by the players. I swing my sword, I try to haggle a deal, I craft a magic item, pick a lock, jump a chasm, and so on. I was unhappy with AD&D because I had to wing too many of these actions during play, especially when the players tried to trash the setting. As a result, I wound up being inconsistent, and that annoyed my players.

That, coupled with wanting more customization options, is why I jumped ship to Fantasy Hero in 1986. Two years later, I found GURPS, which covered just about any specific action the players wanted to do and did so with a pretty elegant system.

When I started writing professionally, SJ Games kept a tight grip on GURPS, so I returned to classic D&D. Also, by then, various RPG history books were coming out, and they did a great job explaining the origins of D&D’s mechanics. That helped me see how I could adapt what I did with GURPS to classic D&D. It started as house rules and eventually turned into my Majestic Fantasy RPG.

In closing, everyone has their own view of the role of a system. This is mine: all I need from a system is a way to adjudicate specific player actions and to describe elements of the setting, characters, items, creatures, tersely. The rest is either worldbuilding or the Living World sandbox material I’ve been describing.

Also, keep in mind that from the 1990s through the early 2000s, I spent about 15 years running LARP events and a LARP chapter. During that time, LARPing was my main hobby for roleplaying. In a LARP, you learn how to roleplay by actually acting out your character, always with safety in mind, and you do so alongside other players who are doing the same. It’s something like improv theater, except the players aren’t constrained by a script. NPCs are given general instructions by the event director, but the person playing the NPC has to exercise good judgment, because again, they are interacting with players who can do whatever they want as their character. And since it’s live action, there are no dice rolls or tables to reference in the moment.

And with tabletop roleplaying, first-person roleplaying is very similar to, what you can do with a LARP. The main difference is that as the referee you have to roleplay as all the NPCs.

 

[Lanefan]

Fortunately, I'm far more rigorous about lake and ocean placement than my players are about analysing it.

I'll cop to a failing of my own: I never put enough lakes and ponds and swamps in to any map I do, probably because I find doing so to be perhaps the most tedious part of mapping.

Seas and oceans, though, are easy.

 

[Lanefan]

Like...I gave an example which several people responded to as "well perhaps the DM knows something you don't, and you won't learn it for a while. You have to trust that whatever it is, it will work out." That was what "trust" meant, at the time.

At the point during play when something inexplicable-in-setting happens, that's when the trust comes in.

After the fact, once "showing the work" won't reveal any in-game information that should remain hidden, then IMO the work should be showable or explainable.

The difference is timing. Asking for an explanation right then and there during play, or soon enough after that such explanation would give away secrets, won't get you very far and IMO nor should it.

But a few months later when the party's into the next adventure and everything from the previous one has been sorted (and it's assumed the party won't be going back there), then asking "So in Halls of Katimae how did those guards keep finding us every damn time, no matter what we did?" should always get an explanation. In this example it could be something the party missed (e.g. some magical equivalent of security cameras throughout the dungeon), or that the BBEG was somehow using Clairvoyance through a PC's eyes in order to see where they were, or whatever. If it's a published module, showing the relevant printed text ought to do.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

At the point during play when something inexplicable-in-setting happens, that's when the trust comes in.

After the fact, once "showing the work" won't reveal any in-game information that should remain hidden, then IMO the work should be showable or explainable.

The difference is timing. Asking for an explanation right then and there during play, or soon enough after that such explanation would give away secrets, won't get you very far and IMO nor should it.

But a few months later when the party's into the next adventure and everything from the previous one has been sorted (and it's assumed the party won't be going back there), then asking "So in Halls of Katimae how did those guards keep finding us every damn time, no matter what we did?" should always get an explanation. In this example it could be something the party missed (e.g. some magical equivalent of security cameras throughout the dungeon), or that the BBEG was somehow using Clairvoyance through a PC's eyes in order to see where they were, or whatever. If it's a published module, showing the relevant printed text ought to do.

So hinky behavior now requires MONTHS of trust?

Are you for real right now?

 

[robertsconley]

Well, yes. I agree entirely with that. I just couldn't find any real hint of constraints in any of it. That is, beyond the basic one of what players will put up with.

All I can say is that if you believe in standing by your commitment to a principle, the last thing you want to hear at the table is "What the hell is up with that Rob?" Because that means just I screwed something up.

All I can say is, if you’re serious about sticking to your principles, the last thing you want to hear at the table is: “What the hell is up with that, Rob?” Because when I hear that, I know I’ve screwed something up.

In both my day job and my hobby, I rarely encounter people acting in bad faith. Most folks just want their issue solved (at work) or want to have fun pretending to go on adventures (in gaming). So when something goes off the rails, I take it as a sign of bad judgment on my part, maybe I didn’t give enough information, or the right kind, or I didn’t explain things clearly. Once we hash it out, I try to do better next time.

And when I do get it right, when I’ve been consistent and the players feel that events arise from a plausible world, something shifts. The atmosphere becomes more relaxed. Players take more risks. They’re more willing to accept adverse consequences, even a total party kill, because they trust the outcome was fair, not the result of me pulling strings behind the screen. And when they succeed, they relish the victory because it feels earned. To be clear, even this insight isn’t just theory, it comes from conversations I’ve had with my players about how the campaign was run.

I’ve been doing this a long time, and while I’ve enjoyed a lot of success, I’m still finding areas to improve. Mostly because even now, I haven’t experienced everything that’s possible, or even probable, in tabletop roleplaying.

Finally, I understand your skepticism, and that’s fine. I haven’t earned your trust on this, and honestly, a forum discussion isn’t the place where that kind of trust can be built. It has to happen at the table, session by session, through consistent play. And even then, it takes ongoing effort to maintain. So, for me, what the players are willing to put up with is a constraint. And that is the minimum. What I really want is for them to have fun and have interesting (to them) adventures visiting the world I created.