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

[JConstantine]

BitD has a very different resolution framework from D&D and allied games of the sort that the "trad" sandbox proponents are playing.

If you're talking about the task resolution, it's pretty damn trad. The only difference really is that it explicitly requires the GM to explain how dangerous a situation the character is in (position) and how effective what they're attempting is going to be (effect).

I also think, as per @AbdulAlhazred's post upthread, that it takes a different approach to scene-framing too.

I'm not sure it takes a different approach, per se, but it certainly relies on far more hard framing than your standard D&D session. I'll freely admit to learning that the hard way, but it was a lesson learnt damn quick in the first session. I care about not crossing the line and infringing on player agency, so I default to a fair amount of soft framing, but man does Blades sputter if you do that. You cannot do the typical exploratory "so you're in [location], [description of area], what do you do?". It's very much "here's the obstacle, naughty word's about to hit the fan, how are you dealing with it? [Repeat]."

 

[JConstantine]

I wish I could remember where I read it (a quick search of Apocalypse World 2e doesn't bring up the phrase), but the advice I've most often heard is "hold prep lightly." It seems more useful than "don't prep." For me, my prep is more reactive than proactive most of the time.

Could it be mixing pg193 and pg195 of BitD?
Pg193:

Hold on lightly. Always feel free to rewind, revise, and reconsider events as needed. This is not a “no take backs” kind of game.

Pg195:

Be aware of potential fiction vs. established fiction. Potential fiction is everything in your head that you haven’t put into play yet. It’s a “cloud” of possible things, organized according to the current situation. [...] As the players take action and face obstacles, you grab elements from the potential fiction cloud and establish them in the ongoing scene.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Could it be mixing pg193 and pg195 of BitD?

It could be, though I've not yet read BitD with any level of attentiveness, so it's not entirely likely. I've certainly heard other folks say it, so I'm more likely picking it up second hand. This could be their source.

 

[thefutilist]

I wish I could remember where I read it (a quick search of Apocalypse World 2e doesn't bring up the phrase), but the advice I've most often heard is "hold prep lightly." It seems more useful than "don't prep." For me, my prep is more reactive than proactive most of the time.

AW takes the opposite approach to prep lightly or Blades potential v actual prep. Always do what your prep demands is a must say. Which really translates to, say what your NPC's demand and say what your Clocks demand.

 

[hawkeyefan]

To be clear, I wasn't saying RBRB was a similar game (though the core resolution for both is a dice pool systems using ranks in a skill/action, keep the single highest result), and only mentioned it insofar that it was the catalyst for me reading Bedrock's blog, and thus becoming familiar with his approach. I will say, I don't think @Bedrockgames has explained it as well here as he could have, but this a message board, not a blogsite, and if people were genuinely interested in understanding his or @robertsconley respective approaches, they'd actually read their blogs. As it stands, @zakael19 seems to be the only one truly coming from a place of curiosity and good faith, while others are more interested in point scoring.

I have seen both their blogs, but I would not claim to have done more than peruse them a bit.

Your last session isn't actually relevant. What you said in that other post is literally in BitD book. Let's take a look:

I think it's relevant because I expect it played in a way that would not work for either @Bedrockgames or @robertsconley , or many of the other posters who have been commenting here.

A City Guide to Doskvol starts on page 237. There's a brief timeline; a section on cultures; languages; a breakdown of Doskvol's "day" including 12 uniquely named hours; an in-fiction piece explaining electoplasm; a section on weather, calendar and season, including names for the 6 months; another in-fiction piece on food (mmm, eel and mushroom pie ), a section on law & order; the underworld; academia; the how it's haunted. Next, we get a map of the city, followed by a multipage breakdown of each district complete with landmarks, notable NPCs, typical scenes. traits like wealth and criminal influence, and a unique mechanic effect. Then we get a page of things overheard in Duskwall, including some rumours. The following page is a some rollable tables, including a rumour table.
Next segment is the factions, starting with an overview, followed by a write-up of about 2/3 of them, including NPCs, turf, situation and goals they're pursuing (i.e. events). At the end of that, we get a list of vice purveyor NPCs and their establishment, followed by a bunch of rollable tables for spinning up streets, buildings, people, devils (the game's catchall term for supernatural entities, not the D&D sort). A rollable table for generating scores, and ends with a brief overview of the Shattered Isles as a whole.

That sure looks like a fair amount of prep. It being done by the book's author rather than the GM, doesn't change that.

Two things on this.

First, yes the setting is given some detail. But it's far from fully detailed. Elements are sketched so that they can then be used by GMs and players however they see fit. It's all a starting point, and this is made very clear in the book.

Second, I think it very much matters that it's not the GM who created these things. The setting is more easily viewed as that of the game rather than "my world" to the GM. Especially when combined with the nature of the prep per the above.

During character creation, players pick an NPC to friends with and another to be rivals with (the rest are neutral, but are still people the character knows), they are expected to interact with these NPCs during play and the GM is expected to incorporate them. Crew creation also has an NPC contact, but goes further by connecting the crew to other factions:

This ties the crew to the setting and forces them to interact with it.
To quote the section on Establishing Hunting Grounds:

Every part of the city is owned by someone, which means every act by the crew forces them to interact with the setting. The book confirms this:

So, yeah, "meant and expected to interact with the setting" as you put it.

I believe I put it a bit more strongly than "meant and expected to interact with the setting", which you snipped, but if I wasn't clear, let me clarify now.

The sandbox play being advocated for seems to be a vehicle for the GM's prepped material. That this material is what drives play. Yes, the players can engage with whatever parts they want (though I would expect there to be limits based on geography and knowledge, as well as means... all of which can be significantly controlled by the GM), but what propels the players is the GM's material. Look at the example that was provided. The PCs were hired to do a job. Then, while traveling for that job, they ran into the star-crossed lovers, and became embroiled in that situation.

Not strictly star-crossed lovers, but Blades has Djera Maha, of The Hive:

So, yeah, you described BitD.

I believe that you know there's a difference between having an NPC with a connection to another in the setting is a bit different than sending the PCs on a mission and then having "randomly" encounter those two NPCs and become embroiled in their situation.

Plus, the nature of the setting in Blades is far more mutable. I can simply ignore that bit about Djera Maha, or I can create an element that totally contradicts it. We're not beholden to the prep in a way that other games likely are.

I wouldn't disagree with you that Blades can be run more traditionally at times, usually at the very beginning or perhaps when there's nothing obvious that should be next, or the players are unsure what to do. That it can accommodate that is likely a good thing, I'd say. I don't think that most trad style games can likewise handle an approach more like what Blades allows... picking a Score and a Detail and jumping into the action.

But I think that you are very much cherry-picking and ignoring significant portions of the book which are contrary to your point.

Can you clue the PbtA and FitD folk in on that? The amount of times I've heard/read "don't prep" is vexing. It's really no different than the Alexandrian's "prep situations, not plots".

Seems @hawkeyefan disagrees with you on that one.

Don't over-prep is what I usually see, along with the idea of potential fiction and holding on lightly.

And yes, generally speaking I wouldn't prep events that work as a call to action in Blades... though it could work as a natural progression of things. Certainly when a clock is filled, there could be an event that takes place... a faction going up in tier or some other development. But it's not the way I'd generally approach GMing Blades.

 

[JConstantine]

I think this dichotomy is a little different from a highly prepped sandbox in that it’s asking the players to come up with a “quest” that may or may not exist at all yet; and then helping nudge play along if they don’t have anything in mind (or dangle some hooks).

This is starting to feel like banging one's head against a wall. That is exactly what is going on in people sandboxes.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

AW takes the opposite approach to prep lightly or Blades potential v actual prep. Always do what your prep demands is a must say. Which really translates to, say what your NPC's demand and say what your Clocks demand.

I need to read AW again, more carefully, but I think you can both hold prep lightly and still say what your prep demands, for certain types of prepped material and provided that the prep has not yet been established in play. Until it hits the table, until someone says it, it can be scuttled or adjusted (it might have to be if the preceding play makes it impossible in the fiction).

 

[JConstantine]

The Wuxia Sandbox essays are probably the best place to start on the blog

That is where I started. Although, I have to admit, a RBRB section or tags would be handy dandy.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That is where I started. Although, I have to admit, a RBRB section or tags would be handy dandy.

That is a good idea. I added a sidebar (not sure if I found every essay but grabbed as many as I could)

 

[Campbell]

I need to read AW again, more carefully, but I think you can both hold prep lightly and still say what your prep demands, for certain types of prepped material and provided that the prep has not yet been established in play. Until it hits the table, until someone says it, it can be scuttled or adjusted (it might have to be if the preceding play makes it impossible in the fiction).

The prep you do in Apocalypse World (fronts/threats) is fairly light. As things get established over time defined parts of the setting become a bigger deal, but that's just part of the arc of most low to moderate myth play. You increasingly are dealing with a more locked down setting.