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

[EzekielRaiden]

I refer you to my dozens of other posts in this thread, which spell out in great detail the process of play for Burning Wheel, Torchbearer and Prince Valiant, and also say a bit about my preferred approach to Classic Traveller.

Here's just one example: in GMing Torchbearer, I'm more interested in experiencing my friends' presentation of what it means to be Elven and Dwarven, and of how Elves and Dwarves relate to one another, than in presenting them with setting lore about Elves and Dwarves.

Great example. These rules enable, as has been said above, the emergence of "what it means to be Elven" and "how Elves relate to Dwarves", rather than having the revelation to the players that "to be Elven means X" and "Elves relate to Dwarves in Y ways".

What sort of fiction do you have in mind? If the GM is the author of all the "lore", decides everything that is at stake, etc, what are the players contributing via their action declarations? In my experience, it tends to end up being pretty operational, "problem-solving" stuff.

I'm curious about this as well.

When the lore is entirely dictated to the players--when the world is hidden in the black box, until the GM starts giving descriptions of the things they see inside the box--the player contribution is...just the action taken, nothing more, nothing less. Which road was travelled--but nothing comes from that other than what things the GM decided to put at the end of that road. What door was unlocked--but nothing comes of that other than the things the GM decided to put behind that door. Yes, they're making decisions, but (to reach WAY far back in the thread), is that them directing fiction? Or is it them selecting which specific three-course-meal the chef will prepare for them?

 

[Hussar]

And we're lucky you're here to let huge swathes of people in the hobby know they're wrong.

All you're doing is overtly attacking the way other people play because you don't understand it, and then complaining that you don't like the way the people you're attacking defend themselves.

Good grief. Attacking? How am I attacking? In what way have I denigrated anyone or anything? The idea of "emergent play" is generally used to talk about how sandbox play doesn't have story. That the story emerges from play. Right? So, in what way do I not understand it? Have I somehow misunderstood what people mean?

Disagreeing does not equal not understanding. I understand the concept perfectly well. I just think that it's largely overblown and frankly, most often used as a means of attacking other playstyles. "Oh, you are one of those story DM's. You don't understand how the game is meant to be played. Let me pontificate at length about the way we played forty years ago and how this is so much more superior to any other play." Generally something along those lines.

My point is, it's all largely hogwash. Play proceeds because the DM guides play at every single step. That's what a DM driven game like D&D does. If I have orcs in a dungeon, then the story is going to be about orcs in a dungeon. Even when the players decide to drive things - such as the example of opening a tavern - gee, what happens? Oh, right. Challenges happen. And it's all sourced directly from one person at the table - the DM. That's how we play the game.

How am I wrong here?

 

[clearstream]

But, now you're changing the examples. I agree, "My car is parked in the driveway" isn't really story telling since there is no plot there.

"My car is parked in the driveway and is on fire" is perhaps getting closer. "My car is parked in the driveway and is on fire while surrounded by zombies" is definitely a story.

Something this made me think about is whether I would call a setting and cast the play? And does whatever I decide on that change if those elements have natures or motivations? (Such as the car can be driven, the zombies are voracious.)

 

[Hussar]

is ultimately about letting the players do what they want and giving them agency.

And, to be fair, if that's where it stopped, I'd have no problems. I totally agree that this is what a sandbox is. What I'm disagreeing with is all this other stuff that's being tagged on like "logical consequences" and "living world" and the complete rejection of just how much power and control the DM has over the table and the game in a traditional game.

 

[Hussar]

So what do you propose the best thing to do is? The players create all encounters?

See, this is where everyone is getting it wrong.

I'm NOT CRITICIZING. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the DM generating the content. That's perfectly fine. Of course it is. I am, in no way, claiming that this is a bad thing.

I am saying, though, that it is story telling.

 

[pemerton]

I'll have more in the morning, but I do not endorse the idea that lore/setting is story or that all GMs are storytellers.

Emergent play is not possible when one single person at the table is in control of 99% of everything. There is no space to emerge.

To my mind, some setting/lore is story and/or plot.

For instance, if the backstory includes one or more PCs being on a particular trajectory (say, they are "chosen ones", or the village is under attack and the PCs are the villagers' only hope) then I think that is pretty close to a story or plot.

But some lore/setting is not a story plot. For instance, Hardby is a fantasy city with docks, and shady merchants, and thieves, and a wizard's cabal; and its ruler is a magic-using Gynarch is not really a story or a plot.

I do think that emergent story, as opposed to largely pre-established story, needs space for contributions to connect, interact and yield the emergent. Which I think is what @Hussar has in mind.

For instance, if I as GM stipulate Hardby (as just above), and make all the decisions about what is going on at the docks, and make all the decisions about what the shady merchants and thieves are up to, and also decide how the ruling wizards respond to the PCs, etc, etc - then I think this is what Hussar is characterising as non-emergent story.

To the quibbler, I can concede that it is emergent in this sense: the GM is prompted to put it all together, from the bits the GM introduced, by promptings from the players. But this still leaves it as the GM's (overwhelmingly so, at least). Again, I take this to be what @Hussar is getting at.

So what do you propose the best thing to do is? The players create all encounters?

Obviously I can't speak for @Hussar.

But speaking for myself, here's one possibility: the GM frames scenes - that is, establishes and presents situations - based on player-determined priorities for their PCs.

And then the outcomes are resolved using methods other than the GM deciding what is most likely or plausible or the "best fit" with their sense of the backstory.

I mean, there are actual RPG rulebooks that talk about how to do this!

 

[Hussar]

Something this made me think about is whether I would call a setting and cast the play? And does whatever I decide on that change if those elements have natures or motivations? (Such as the car can be driven, the zombies are voracious.)

Just to clarify. When you say cast, you mean the characters in the play and not the actors playing the characters?

So, you have the cast (as in the characters in the play) and the setting. But, you don't have any plot yet. And, typically, cast definitions are pretty sparse - Name (so and so's uncle), Name (so and so's wife) etc. So, no, not really at that point. But, once you start defining those characters in terms of conflict - giving them factions and motivations - then yes, I would call that a story.

At least, that's how I would define it.

Bob - a fighter. (not a story)
Bob - a fighter in Waterdeep (still not a story)
Bob - a fighter in Waterdeep searching for the Macguffin of Whatever in the Undermountain and will approach the party in order to try to hire them - that's pretty close to a story.

 

[SableWyvern]

@EzekielRaiden you might have missed it, but I said earlier I am not going to engage with you further. This being the case, there is no point in you quoting me and asking questions.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Obviously I can't speak for @Hussar.

But speaking for myself, here's one possibility: the GM frames scenes - that is, establishes and presents situations - based on player-determined priorities for their PCs.

And then the outcomes are resolved using methods other than the GM deciding what is most likely or plausible or the "best fit" with their sense of the backstory.

I mean, there are actual RPG rulebooks that talk about how to do this!

And of course the everpresent ridiculous extreme people respond with will be "oH sO tHe PlAyErS iNvEnT eVeRyThInG????" with the most disingenuous, knowingly mocking presentation, rather than something even remotely charitable...

Would be really cool if folks didn't do that here.

 

[SableWyvern]

Good grief. Attacking? How am I attacking?

Is this a serious question?

I stated that emergent play is important to me. You have claimed that the style of play I prefer gives the GM all the power and that

Emergent play is not possible when one single person at the table is in control of 99% of everything. There is no space to emerge.

So you are stating that, given the one thing you believe leads to another, that the style of play I participate in does not and cannot exist.

If that wasn't enough, in the very same post where you say you're not attacking anyone, you go on to say

My point is, it's all largely hogwash.

That's not simple disagreement. That's saying that the people who disagree with you are full of crap and almost everything they say should be discounted. You then go on to reiterate that your perspective is the only true and honest one and that this should be obvious to all right-minded folk.

That's how we play the game.

How am I wrong here?

This thread is full of thousands of posts from people trying to explain that what you're describing is not how they see or play game and that you are, in fact, wrong if you are trying to apply these perspectives to their game. But because you don't understand it, you dismiss it all as hogwash.