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

[pemerton]

This completely failed to answer my question. Wanna try again?

Your question rests on a false premise: namely, that deciding what game and what scenario to play is itself something resolved by action declarations in play.

I'm pointing out, in some detail, how that was decided by actually talking to one another over lunch.

 

[SableWyvern]

And your response tells me that something is failing to get communicated here. I'm not inventing anything, GMSs in this paradigm are absolutely making these decisions. That's not my invention, it's definitional. You cannot simply dismiss it. It's trivial to arrange this as 'plausible', and there's nothing wrong with that within this type of play! Obviously situations and perceptions of what makes sense in a given game can vary. But I'm not proposing anyone play in a way that violates any of you principles. The point is that they're actually very weak constraints and leave so much leeway that the result is simply DM fiction. This is exactly the core contention and nothing you have said contradicts it in any way.

One of the principles is to ensure the players can chart their own path and not to railroad or force them down a particular route.

Your example repeatedly asserts that the GM, having created the bandits, will inevitably ensure they become the focus of the game, no matter what the players decide.

Ergo, your example GM is not following the principles. Ergo, your example tells us nothing about what happens when the principles are followed, only what might happen if they are not.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, I agree they are not the same thing. This goes some way to explaining why I said that I view them similarly, rather than saying something like, "they are the same thing".

None of which addresses the point I was making, which was that when I expressed that I see a similarity, you felt a need to leap in and and reject this. In fact, continuing to focus only on the differences, as if that's all that can possibly matter, is exactly what I was saying is the issue.

My main interest in these sorts of discussions is clearly setting out techniques. It's from others clearly setting out techniques that I wasn't familiar with that I've been able to improve my RPGing over the past 20 years.

When I think of setting design, I think of things like the advice and checklists in ICE's Campaign Law, or Gygax's discussion of building a campaign/milieu in his DMG. So it's a type of prep. It produces maps, keys to those maps, and also notes roughly in the style of JRRT's appendices to LotR, that spell out historical events, cosmological details, etc.

When I think of scene framing, I think of the actual moment, in play, of the GM presenting a situation to the players, in which their PCs are located/enmeshed.

And the relationship between the two is - at least in my experience - not straightforward. For me, learning how to do better scene-framing has involved changing how I think about and undertake prep. And that has happened over time, with multiple changes to my understanding: eg reading this on "no myth" - No Myth Roleplaying Summary - but then subsequently reading the AW rulebook on threats and fronts; and relating all this to my own play experience and approach.

Now maybe what you and other sandboxers are doing is similar in some ways to some of what I'm doing - eg maybe it's similar to the TB2e approach that I gave some examples of not too far upthread. My main reason for inferring that it's not all that similar is that generally when I post about the techniques I use the response from the more "trad" inclined posters is incredulity and/or outrage.

For instance, when I post about how I started my first ever session of Burning Wheel - a full account is here (posted on rpg.net by me a Thurgon) - I get told (eg by @Lanefan) that starting the action in the bazaar is a railroad, and that instead I should have started the action at the entrance to the town or in a tavern. The implication being - although I don't think I've ever seen it clearly spelled out - that I should start in a low-stakes scene rather than a high-stakes scene; and that the player should have to find his way to something higher-stakes by first declaring information-gathering actions which would then prompt me, as GM, to reveal some setting information that would permit the player to infer where to have his PC go so as to have high-stakes possibilities.

And this is the sort of thing I have in mind in doubting that there is a high degree of similarity between a "trad" sandbox approach to setting, and an approach to RPGing that emphasises scene-framing as a key GM responsibility.

 

[Faolyn]

I find the description of "missed encounter" extremely counterintuitive.

I mean, it's not a phrase I've ever used to describe my life, so why would I use it to describe the imaginary lives of imaginary people?

Because games use different terminology than real life does. You don’t seem to have a problem with the terms used in BW, even though they aren’t used the way they are in real life.

To me, you seem to be making assumptions about how RPGing works that aren't universal. I can't work out exactly what you've got in mind, though I think I've got a bit of an idea. The vibe I'm getting is something like a 1990s TSR module, and the associated expectations about how play works.

You would be wrong. What I know is that you’ve played RPGs for a while, post to a forum wherein multiple types of games are discussed, and are fluent in English. My only assumptions are that you know we’re using bypass as a verb and not a noun, and that you’ve paid at least a modicum of attention to games outside your preferred systems.

There are encounters. Sometimes, for any number of reasons, players deliberately avoid them. Those are bypassed encounters. If you, when running BW or TB, say there are signs of orcs in the east and the players say “I don’t wanna fight them, let’s go west,” they have bypassed an encounter.

 

[Faolyn]

Your question rests on a false premise: namely, that deciding what game and what scenario to play is itself something resolved by action declarations in play.

I'm pointing out, in some detail, how that was decided by actually talking to one another over lunch.

No it didn’t. You’re avoiding answering me.

If you plunk the PCs in front of Adventure Location, with the idea that they will go in it, and they choose to do something else, do you end the game or do you provide material so they can adventure elsewhere? It’s a simple question.

 

[thefutilist]

No it didn’t. You’re avoiding answering me.

If you plunk the PCs in front of Adventure Location, with the idea that they will go in it, and they choose to do something else, do you end the game or do you provide material so they can adventure elsewhere? It’s a simple question.

How do you provide new material? you mean like you have another load of prep?

edit: asking because in some games, if you don't have prep you may have to end the game so they amount to the same thing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because games use different terminology than real life does. You don’t seem to have a problem with the terms used in BW, even though they aren’t used the way they are in real life.


You would be wrong. What I know is that you’ve played RPGs for a while, post to a forum wherein multiple types of games are discussed, and are fluent in English. My only assumptions are that you know we’re using bypass as a verb and not a noun, and that you’ve paid at least a modicum of attention to games outside your preferred systems.

There are encounters. Sometimes, for any number of reasons, players deliberately avoid them. Those are bypassed encounters. If you, when running BW or TB, say there are signs of orcs in the east and the players say “I don’t wanna fight them, let’s go west,” they have bypassed an encounter.

There were plenty of encounters in D&D 4e. Heck, there was a whole 4e series called Encounters.

 

[pemerton]

Of all the ways a tabletop RPG campaign can be managed, why did you choose the following approach for running Arthurian adventures in Prince Valiant?

When I GMed Prince Valiant, I made decisions as a GM about who the PCs encounter, intended to frame them into interesting situations that would require the players to make choices about how their knight errants respond.

Because that's the GM's job in the game?

Here is some text from p 5 of the rulebook:

What Is the Game Like?
Have you ever wanted to adventure in the realm of King Arthur? Prince Valiant, The Storytelling Game provides that opportunity for you.

Playing is like being in a movie. You are like an actor who plays one of the dramatic roles in a movie or a play. Your “actor” is a “pretend you” who lives in the world of Prince Valiant and King Arthur. Your character is not you, but is like a mask you wear for the duration of the game. You are responsible for acting out his or her role to the best of your abilities, Your role can be almost anything.

As you can see, normal games like chess, trivia games, and poker have little in common with Prince Valiant except that they are all games. Thus, like them, Prince Valiant is *something intended to incite social gathering, entertainment, and play. But unlike these other games , *Prince Valian*t has no winners and losers. Also, *Prince Valiant has no board to move on, no cards to draw on, and no dice to throw.

Prince Valiant is most like a “roleplaying” game, such as King Arthur Pendragon, RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, and Dungeons & Dragons, but is even different from them. Prince Valiant is a storytelling game.

Storytelling
In a storytelling game the object is to participate verbally in the cooperative experience of a story. Everyone talks in order to contribute to the ongoing story. Inevitably, some people will talk a lot, some will talk only a little. Hopefully, everyone will talk a lot when their turn comes around and only a little at other times.

Play of Prince Valiant is verbal and imaginative. The action takes place in the minds of the players. The game is all verbal interchange, punctuated by throwing the coins to resolve conflicts.

The players cooperate to create a shared fantasy experience, guided by one of their number, who takes on the role of the Storyteller. The Storyteller is like the director of a movie.

One job of the Storyteller is to make up the underlying plot of the story that the other players, as actors, will take part in. They provide their own actions and lines subject to his guidance. Like a good director, the Storyteller must keep the pace up and give everyone a chance to talk. The Storyteller and the players jointly create the script for the drama.

The Storyteller is also a referee. He uses the game rules in combination with his own judgement to moderate play. He will often make decisions as to how a situation in the story is resolved, once everyone has had a turn to act out their role.​

(The reference to "no dice to roll" is a bit disingenuous, as the game does use a randomiser, namely, coins. When I play we use dice, declared either as odds/evens or high/low before rolling.)

There is more about the role of the "storyteller", including this on p 7:

The Storyteller is responsible for creating an interesting and enjoyable adventure to challenge the players. He prepares the characters, friendly and unfriendly, who will interact with the players, and plans for their various reactions to events. He presents the problem on which the adventure hinges to the players and relates the story piecemeal, feeding incidents and hints to the players, who in turn reply by stating what their characters will do.​

The references to "adventur[ing] in the realm of King Arthur", "dramatic role", "fantasy experience", "keep[ing] up the pace", "the drama" and "interesting and enjoyable adventure" to me all point in the same direction: the storyteller presents a situation to the players, narrated as the experience of their PCs, which will provide them with the opportunity to respond as knights errant. (Or similar sorts of Arthurian characters.) For me, this impression is reinforced by the scenarios ("episodes") in the book, which include 5 knight encounters (one of these is with Sir Lancelot), three women and one family in distress, a dragon encounter, two troll encounters, three encounters with Huns, a Saxon war-band, a Robin Hood-type ("Hugh the Fox"), and three encounters with the lower classes (including some rebellious peasants).

As I already posted, if one didn't want to play a RPG about this sort of stuff, one wouldn't sit down to play Prince Valiant.

For comparison, in my Living World sandbox campaigns, my goal is to leave players feeling like they’ve visited the setting as their characters, experiencing a world in motion and having varied, emergent adventures. That’s the overarching creative goal I aim for when managing a campaign, regardless of setting or genre.

So I’m curious: beyond choosing a genre like Arthurian romance in the world of Prince Valiant, what is your overarching creative goal when managing a campaign? What experience are you aiming to give or work out with the players through this approach? Especially given all the other ways one could approach managing a tabletop roleplaying campaign.

Using the sort of terms you use here, the goal in inviting my friends to play Prince Valiant is as stated in the rulebook - for the players to have enjoyed adventuring in the world of King Arthur, by having taken on the role of particular characters in that world and made choices about how they confront the problems that the GM has presented to them.

The contrasting examples I used about a trip to Greece reflects a deep difference in certain playstyle priorities. Even if that specific point isn’t relevant to your approach, answering the question about the Prince Valiant campaign would help me, and others reading, better understand how your priorities shape the way you manage campaigns.

Here is what you posted about a trip to Greece:

It’s like visiting Greece: you can take a tour bus from your hotel straight to the Parthenon, or you can walk the streets of Athens, talk to locals, and experience the life of the city. The first is efficient and curated; the second is more physically demanding but immersive. Neither is better. They’re simply different ways to experience a place and have their respecitve upsides and downsides.

Your Prince Valiant sessions aren’t about the players living in King Arthur’s world as their characters, they’re about testing how they respond as their character to specific dilemmas within Prince Valiant's version of that world.

And here are some reasons why I said that this is just wrong:

*The players in my Prince Valiant game are "living in King Arthur's world as their characters" just as much as the players in your game are "living" in your world as their characters. The PCs in my Prince Valiant game include a widowed father and his son. One who started play as a squire was knighted by Sir Lionheart, one of the greatest knights in Britain. All three PCs have married, each to a noblewoman, but in different circumstances. They have lived their religious convictions, and founded a religious military order. They have negotiated with nobles and royalty, and with rebellious peasantry. They have led their warband to victory, and also to defeat. All this has happened in 15 sessions of play.

*You are seeking to imply that your play is demanding and immersive in a way that mine isn't. But that is false, and the images you invoke inapt. Your players do not have a more gruelling time of it than mine: they sit around a table declaring actions, speaking and listening, and occasionally rolling dice, just as do the players in my Prince Valiant game. I have no reason to believe that your narration of lovers, or bandits, or taverns, or mud and trees and blood and racing hearts, is any more immersive than mine.

*You use timelines and random encounter tables and the like - upthread, what I describes as somewhat complicated procedures - to determine who the PCs meet as they travel. I make decisions based on what I think will be interesting. Neither approach changes the vividness of the narration, nor has any bearing on whether or not the players learn about "locals" and "the life of the place".

*The notion of "specific dilemmas" is also inapt. For instance, when the PCs encounter the outlaws attacking the abbot, what is the "specific dilemma". There are people, doing their things, and the PCs are invited to respond. As per the rulebook, this is intended to be "interesting and enjoyable". And I at least found it to be so.

 

[pemerton]

Because games use different terminology than real life does. You don’t seem to have a problem with the terms used in BW, even though they aren’t used the way they are in real life.

But the imaginary people don't describe their lives as if they were pieces on a gameboard!

As I've posted repeatedly, in the fiction perhaps the PCs avoid an ambush, or whatever.

I'm asking at the table what does it mean to talk about "missing/bypassing an encounter*? Where did "the encounter" live? Why were the PCs on some trajectory towards the encounter, such that it makes sense to say that they went on to "miss" or "bypass" it?

There are encounters. Sometimes, for any number of reasons, players deliberately avoid them. Those are bypassed encounters.

Where are these encounters?

If you, when running BW or TB, say there are signs of orcs in the east and the players say “I don’t wanna fight them, let’s go west,” they have bypassed an encounter.

No. They have had their PCs go west. There is no "encounter" that was avoided. Describing it that way would, in my view, suggest a significant misunderstanding of how BW works (both in respect of prep, and of scene-framing).

If you plunk the PCs in front of Adventure Location, with the idea that they will go in it, and they choose to do something else, do you end the game or do you provide material so they can adventure elsewhere? It’s a simple question.

I dunno. I mean, what do you even mean by "plunk the PCs in front of Adventure Location"?

Not far upthread I mentioned starting my BW game with the PCs in a bazaar, When one of the players declared that his PC left the bazaar, I resolved that action. It wasn't hard: the players described their PCs going to an inn favoured by sorcerers, hoping to be offered some work; the Circles test was rolled; it failed; and so I narrated a wizard's henchman turning up with a message from the sorcerer Jabal: Leave town, now. You're marked. Given that the sorcerer PC had just acquired a cursed angel feather at the bazaar, this was taken to be an indication of the curse at work.

Further upthread I talked about turning up to a RPG session and suggesting that we play a session of AD&D using White Plume Mountain. Everyone agreed, and rolled up some PCs. I read out the backstory, and we started at the dungeon entrance. If one of the players, at that point, were to declare "I go back to Greyhawk!" then as I already posted that would be a weird and dysfunctional thing - it would suggest that one or both of us had completely misunderstood the earlier conversation where we agreed to play White Plume Mountain.

As I already posted, in our earlier iteration of this conversation, agreeing on what game to play is not itself a move in a game.

 

[Faolyn]

How do you provide new material? you mean like you have another load of prep?

edit: asking because in some games, if you don't have prep you may have to end the game so they amount to the same thing.

There’s a difference between “if you players don’t go there, there’s no game” and “ok, give me some time to come up with a new adventure.”

Also, GMs can improvise, even in prep-heavy games.