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

[JConstantine]

(it is like listening to pop radio and asking why they aren't playing more 90s grunge or jazz)

Given the global naughty word show, I'd say grunge is due a revival.

 

[JConstantine]

However, the good news is that even 0.01% of the numbers D&D 5e pulls are sufficient for the cause.

Yeah. The other part of the Paizo dev's comment was that the pie is so large, that even though they're getting a narrower slice compared to the 4e era, it's more pie overall. 5e's breakout success really was a case of rising tides lifting all ships.

 

[JConstantine]

(perhaps Stranger Things is a contributing factor?)

Both Stranger Things and Critical Role are contributing factors, but they're a "win more" situation. It seems to have been a perfect storm of D&D's playtesting to ensure a broad appeal ("everyone's second favourite" edition syndrome) combined with geek culture being in the zeitgeist as evidenced by the popularity of Marvel movies, board games seeing a renaissance, etc.

 

[Faolyn]

I'm not talking about forcing anyone into specific actions.

Your tone of writing when you asked me those questions, and again below, suggested otherwise.

I'm talking about this notion of "an encounter" being a thing that exists independently of play, which the players can "bypass".

To me, that is quite curious.

The idea that players can choose whether or not to do something shouldn’t be a foreign concept.

To make a loose comparison: when I GM a D&D combat, and the PCs win by defeating their opponents, I don't normally describe this as "bypassing" a TPK.

Because it’s not, unless the GM is has the goal of a TPK. I don’t mean the NPC adversaries trying their best to stay alive and kill or drive off the PCs; I mean the GM wanting to kill the party. Most games want the GM to either be neutral or a fan of the party, not outright antagonistic. Indeed, I’d wager that unless it’s a pivotal boss fight, most combat encounters are built with the idea that at least some of the party, and probably most or all, will survive. So for most games, a successful combat didn’t bypass a TPK because that wasn’t their purpose.

And I don't think I've seen others use that term either. So these "bypassed" encounters or "bypassed" plot hooks seem like something different from consequences that didn't happen. And I'm curious about what they are.

Again, I explained this before and I don’t understand what you’re not getting. But here:

There is a hallway with two doors.

Behind Door Number 1 is an Encounter. You can imagine whatever you want here, but let’s say a talkative monster of some sort guarding treasure. The encounters is such that the players can either fight or negotiate with the creature. Furthermore, there are additional doors in this room that lead deeper into the complex, plus you can also go back in the direction you came from.

Behind Door Number 2 is an Encounter. Let’s say it’s a mystical library of some sort, complete with a knowledgeable librarian. Again, the PC can fight or negotiate. There are also more doors here.

Both rooms and NPCs are fleshed out to the same degree.

The PCs go through one of the doors, say Door #1. They meet the creature inside. Maybe they fight them; maybe they talk with them. They then go through the other doors and continue on.

They do not go through Door #2 or meet the creature behind it. They bypassed that encounter.

It’s possible that they can go back at some point and go through Door #2, and therefore get the encounter anyway, but it’s also possible that the GM has a timetable and after a period of time has elapsed, the librarian is off-duty. Or has gone to another location, or is dead, or any number of things. Since it’s a mystical library, the library itself may be gone. So that encounter would still be bypassed. They didn’t meet the librarian, didn’t potentially learn their information, didn’t potentially make a new ally or enemy.

 

[AlViking]

Both Stranger Things and Critical Role are contributing factors, but they're a "win more" situation. It seems to have been a perfect storm of D&D's playtesting to ensure a broad appeal ("everyone's second favourite" edition syndrome) combined with geek culture being in the zeitgeist as evidenced by the popularity of Marvel movies, board games seeing a renaissance, etc.

We'll never know how D&D got so big, but I also don't discount the relative ease of starting to play. Yes, a lot of it is cultural Stranger Things, CR and other streams helped. However, the game was already growing rapidly before Stranger Things an quite a while before CR got an audience. But along with cultural we also have easy access to how-to videos and blogs. The rules are, for D&D, simple and straightforward. PF 1e was great if you wanted a lot of crunchy builds, but the barrier to entry was even higher than 3e.

It was a whole mix of reasons from a decent ruleset to not flooding the market with books (especially no PHB 2 and similar) along with everything else. I'm just happy that the rules work for me and my groups and that there are alternatives for others that want them.

 

[robertsconley]

Yeah. The other part of the Paizo dev's comment was that the pie is so large, that even though they're getting a narrower slice compared to the 4e era, it's more pie overall. 5e's breakout success really was a case of rising tides lifting all ships.

Regarding D&D lifting all boats, maybe before crowdsourcing was a thing. But now with Kickstarter and Backerkit it has changed radically.

Here is the last of the top tabletop RPG kickstarters.

https://www.kickstarter.com/discover/advanced?ref=discovery_overlay&sort=most_funded&tag_id=33

Here are the ones with the tag OSR

https://www.kickstarter.com/discover/advanced?term=OSR&woe_id=0&sort=most_funded&seed=2913854&page=2

 

[JConstantine]

Regarding D&D lifting all boats, maybe before crowdsourcing was a thing. But now with Kickstarter and Backerkit it has changed radically.

Crowdfunding was a thing years before 5e came out. Kickstarter itself launched back in 2009. Sure, it's facilitating a host of indie (and not so indie) projects that probably wouldn't exist without it, but the audience for them is only as large as it is thanks to 5e. Bit of a wombo combo.

 

[AnotherGuy]

The point about tables is because you are putting disparate elements on them and rolling randomly, it isn't like the GM engineering a scenario. It tends to produce unexpected results and things the GM has to fit to that moment (and some tables require to roll on multiple tiers and combine things). Just because the GM made the initial entries, I would still say that is miles away from the GM creating a planned encounter

The problem with ' everything is GM decides' is it glosses over all the other things going on and reduces all trad play to the power of the GM. The GM's ability to provide setting response to players actions is important, but so are the player's actions. So are tables (and people can characterize these as GM decides because the GM built the tables, but that overlooks that a table is effectively a system that provides randomness in play, not something built on the GM deciding what he or she wants to happen in that moment (otherwise the GM would just choose the encounter rather than roll on the table).


Sure this happens across styles and structures, you just have to accept you will eat more prep in a sandbox because that is the arrangement you are offering.



I think characterizing it as a move feels off to me. But as long as what the GM is introducing is a proper reaction to what the players are trying to do, I think you are honoring their agency and you aren't just in a game where the GM is simply deciding things.

Like I said I don't have an issue with any of the above...since we share a lot of it. My contention is not necessarily that GM decides everything but that when I speak of a driving force I don't solely make it the PCs. I recognise my role in that driving force too.

Now all of us (players with similar styles) have different degrees of how much the GM drives the story in our particular campaigns but I'm not making a comment on that.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I'm just struck by the language of "bypass", that's all.

Especially in conjunction with the idea of an "obstacle", to me it suggests the idea of the players trying to reach a "finish line".

When I am GMing Burning Wheel or even Torchbearer, I think in terms of situations that trigger tests. And failed tests have consequences. But I don't think in terms of "proto-" or incipient encounters that the players might "bypass".

I'm not talking about forcing anyone into specific actions. I'm talking about this notion of "an encounter" being a thing that exists independently of play, which the players can "bypass".

To me, that is quite curious.

To make a loose comparison: when I GM a D&D combat, and the PCs win by defeating their opponents, I don't normally describe this as "bypassing" a TPK. And I don't think I've seen others use that term either. So these "bypassed" encounters or "bypassed" plot hooks seem like something different from consequences that didn't happen. And I'm curious about what they are.

How would you describe as an example whereby the party became aware of an ambush on their lives so they cast invisibility and made their way from A to B without incurring the ambush. Did they not bypass the encounter?

 

[Lanefan]

I'm just struck by the language of "bypass", that's all.

Especially in conjunction with the idea of an "obstacle", to me it suggests the idea of the players trying to reach a "finish line".

When I am GMing Burning Wheel or even Torchbearer, I think in terms of situations that trigger tests. And failed tests have consequences.

Which would logically make it in the players'/PCs' best interests to try to avoid or bypass those tests when they can, wouldn't it? Path of least resistance, and all that?

And aren't the players in BW or Torchbearer also trying to reach a finish line; to wit, the achievement of their characters' goals and beliefs?

But I don't think in terms of "proto-" or incipient encounters that the players might "bypass".

I'm not talking about forcing anyone into specific actions. I'm talking about this notion of "an encounter" being a thing that exists independently of play, which the players can "bypass".

If the PCs are trying to gain entry to a castle and my notes (or the module) tell me there's five guards on the drawbridge you'd quite rightly call it a railroad were I to force the PCs into the presence of those guards without any choice in the matter.

And yet here you look askance at the idea of the players being able to bypass "an encounter" with those guards by, say, sneaking around the side of the castle and trying to find some other way in should they so choose.

So these "bypassed" encounters or "bypassed" plot hooks seem like something different from consequences that didn't happen. And I'm curious about what they are.

A bypassed encounter is just that. Nothing to do with consequences, other than the encounter is still "out there" and can potentially be met again later. The guards on the drawbridge, for example, that the PCs didn't deal with on their way in to the castle might pose a problem for them on their way out if not bypassed again, or represent extra reinforcements if the place goes on alert while the PCs are inside.