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

[clearstream]

History time! This was atempted more than 100 years ago. The concept of kriegspeil as a professional military tool was quite the rage. They had the top generals trying to codify their experience into concrete rules, so that a less experienced umpire could adjunctate a game with a conflict between two or more parties with inperfect information, and realistic outcomes.

After doing and refining this for some decades someone came up with the idea that it might be better to just have the experienced generals be umpires without any sort of rules. Hence free kriegspeil was born as a way to improve the simulation over what could be acheived trough formalised rules.

This concept then evolved trough several steps into what we now know as traditional roleplaying games.

(I am no historian, and the lines provided above is likely totally oversimplified and might even contain factual errors. This is intended for entertainment purposes, and are not to be construed as historical advice)

One distinction in purposes for rules that this makes me think of, is that they can be constitutive, i.e. give rise to play that were it not for the rule would not occur. That is a an aspect of the 'extending' I wrote about, where the aim can be to produce behaviour that cannot be observed in the absence of the rule.

It therefore cannot be a result of being an experienced general solely: general B cannot apply the distinctly constitutive rules of general A unless they are articulated somehow. In a similar vein, B will not be able to replicate play constituted by norms* that B does not possess. FKR adherents tend to acknowledge that in concepts such as the invisible rulebook and references to an adopted canon.

*@SableWyvern mentioned social norms, so just to note here that the norms I refer to are not limited to social, they may be procedural, genre-defining, etc.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

we have beaten this part of the conversation into the ground. But I want to point out: doing what feels right is not at all the same as doing what feels plausible or realistic. No one is denying different GMs will gauge those two things in different ways. But using realism as a guideline leads you to very different places than doing what feels right or what feels like it drives the game towards excitement. How a Gm makes these decisions matter, and they do impact agency

If one's personal perception of what feels plausible or realistic is what is doing the deciding, I don't understand how that differs from what I said. It just means GM Q tries to direct their feelings at properties X and Y, rather than properties A and B. And, I'll note, plenty of people have already admitted that doing what feels right or what feels like it will contribute to a more exciting experience is still a thing, even for the most rigorously sandbox-y GM who prioritizes other things first.

It even seemed at least reasonably non-controversial, by this thread's standards, when I asserted that what I think most people actually DO is an exchange rate between various priorities. That is, if we say 1 "point" of interestingness is only worth 0.01 "points" of plausibility, then something needs to be worth 100+ interestingness points in order to be a fair exchange for even a single point of plausibility lost in the doing. Such a standard doesn't mean this GM would never choose interestingness despite a loss of plausibility, but rather that they expect a very high return for the investment, so to speak. If the GM knows that option A would be profoundly, overwhelmingly boring and dull, but very slightly more plausible than option B, which would be profoundly exciting and engaging and still very plausible, it seems...rather unlikely that even an extremely strident sandbox-y GM would choose the former option. Now, if it were the difference between a merely mildly uninteresting but overwhelmingly plausible option C vs a merely mildly or only temporarily interesting/exciting/etc. but wildly implausible option D, naturally that GM and indeed most GMs would choose the former, as it is clearly the lesser of two evils. "Maximally plausible but profoundly boring" loses to "Almost maximally plausible but profoundly exciting", even in cases where "maximally plausible and slightly uninteresting" wins out over "almost completely implausible and somewhat interesting".

Let me give a concrete example of what I mean. Let's say the PCs were framed for a crime (or possibly committed one, whichever you prefer). The plausible, but extremely boring, option A would be for them to wait for days or weeks in a jail they don't have the ability to break out of, until a judge finally arrives to hear their case. The slightly less plausible, but still fairly plausible, option B would be for the PCs' allies (who also oppose the tyrannical/oppressive laws of the land) to stage a prison breakout before that happens, both to help the PCs escape, and to have a little leverage over them ("we did break you out of jail...you could at least scratch our backs in return" kind of thing). A prison break specifically to help the PCs is simply, flatly, less plausible than the prison working as it has always worked. But it's also a hell of a lot more fun--and, importantly, still quite plausible, even if it is ever-so-slightly less plausible than the alternative.

If there is a GM here who would choose to make the players play through hours of "you can't escape from the jail cell, it was literally made to hold people like you, you just have to wait until the trial begins", rather than having a plausible-but-not-AS-plausible exciting prison-break sequence, I will gladly retract the criticism. But I'm fairly confident there isn't anyone here who would choose the maximally-plausible but terribly-boring option when a highly, but not maximally, plausible option exists that would be way more fun to play.

 

[SableWyvern]

Let me give a concrete example of what I mean. Let's say the PCs were framed for a crime (or possibly committed one, whichever you prefer). The plausible, but extremely boring, option A would be for them to wait for days or weeks in a jail they don't have the ability to break out of, until a judge finally arrives to hear their case. The slightly less plausible, but still fairly plausible, option B would be for the PCs' allies (who also oppose the tyrannical/oppressive laws of the land) to stage a prison breakout before that happens, both to help the PCs escape, and to have a little leverage over them ("we did break you out of jail...you could at least scratch our backs in return" kind of thing). A prison break specifically to help the PCs is simply, flatly, less plausible than the prison working as it has always worked. But it's also a hell of a lot more fun--and, importantly, still quite plausible, even if it is ever-so-slightly less plausible than the alternative.

If there is a GM here who would choose to make the players play through hours of "you can't escape from the jail cell, it was literally made to hold people like you, you just have to wait until the trial begins", rather than having a plausible-but-not-AS-plausible exciting prison-break sequence, I will gladly retract the criticism. But I'm fairly confident there isn't anyone here who would choose the maximally-plausible but terribly-boring option when a highly, but not maximally, plausible option exists that would be way more fun to play.

You have presented only two options:

• Do something fun but possibly implausible.
• Spend hours of real time simulating nothing happening in a jail cell.

However, these are far from the only two options available. You don't need to play out the time in the cell in real time, and days of game time that's boring for the characters can pass in minutes, long before anyone at the table is bored.

Whether or not playing out something in real time would be boring is never a consideration in my decision making (other than decisions about whether to play it out in real time or not), because we're never required to play anything out in real time.

 

[Enrahim]

You have presented only two options:

• Do something fun but possibly implausible.
• Spend hours of real time simulating nothing happening in a jail cell.

However, these are far from the only two options available. You don't need to play out the time in the cell in real time, and days of game time that's boring for the characters can pass in minutes, long before anyone at the table is bored.

Whether or not playing out something in real time would be boring is never a consideration in my decision making (other than decisions about whether to play it out in real time or not), because we're never required to play anything out in real time.

This was also my first gut feeling, but on further reflection I realised that is immaterial to the larger point. It is hard to construe a genuinely boring option, and I think this unrealistic example still works well to convey the feeling I believe @EzekielRaiden tried to convey.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You have presented only two options:

• Do something fun but possibly implausible.
• Spend hours of real time simulating nothing happening in a jail cell.

However, these are far from the only two options available. You don't need to play out the time in the cell in real time, and days of game time that's boring for the characters can pass in minutes, long before anyone at the table is bored.

Whether or not playing out something in real time would be boring is never a consideration in my decision making (other than decisions about whether to play it out in real time or not), because we're never required to play anything out in real time.

I'd like to ask a question here. It may sound harsh, and I apologize for that in advance.

Did you intend to completely ignore the point I was trying to make? Because that's what happened here. Instead of even remotely engaging with the point--namely, that there are in fact some times when even a rigorously sandbox-y, plausibility-first, realism-first GM would in fact choose something with a very small comparative loss of plausibility if and only if it reaped enormous rewards in terms of generating a fun experience--you have basically said "well you constructed a false dichotomy so I'm going to completely ignore your argument."

This, right here, is what I mean when I say people just disregard my arguments, rather than trying to engage with them at all. It's particularly frustrating because I know you have very specifically accused me of "pointless bickering" and similar things, of dwelling on inconsequential side-details, of trying to "score points", etc.

But that's exactly what this looks like to me. Pointless bickering. Bringing up an irrelevant side-detail in order to just totally ignore any substantive statements I made, so you can score points against me and prove that I'm somehow unserious or antagonistic or whatever else.

 

[SableWyvern]

I'd like to ask a question here. It may sound harsh, and I apologize for that in advance.

Did you intend to completely ignore the point I was trying to make? Because that's what happened here. Instead of even remotely engaging with the point--namely, that there are in fact some times when even a rigorously sandbox-y, plausibility-first, realism-first GM would in fact choose something with a very small comparative loss of plausibility if and only if it reaped enormous rewards in terms of generating a fun experience--you have basically said "well you constructed a false dichotomy so I'm going to completely ignore your argument."

This, right here, is what I mean when I say people just disregard my arguments, rather than trying to engage with them at all. It's particularly frustrating because I know you have very specifically accused me of "pointless bickering" and similar things, of dwelling on inconsequential side-details, of trying to "score points", etc.

But that's exactly what this looks like to me. Pointless bickering. Bringing up an irrelevant side-detail in order to just totally ignore any substantive statements I made, so you can score points against me and prove that I'm somehow unserious or antagonistic or whatever else.

I'm genuinely not sure what point you are trying to make.

As best I can tell, everyone you're arguing with has already agreed that their personal biases and feelings have an effect on their judgements. Plenty of people have already said that, if they see a number of outcomes that seem similarly plausible, they are likely to choose the most interesting one (I have said that I actively try to avoid doing that, but I seem to be an outlier among my "allies" in that respect).

So if you are simply trying to argue that people are affected by their feelings, or that we consider what's interesting when making a decision, that's not a thing in dispute and there is no case to make. No one disagrees with you.

But assuming that isn't your point, all I have left to go on is what you claimed was a concrete example. I considered that example, and thought, "that doesn't reflect a real situation that I feel would arise in the game, and the conclusions don't make sense to me". So I felt that whatever point you were trying to make is clearly not well supported by the example, and said so.

Honestly, I can barely follow what half this discussion is about any more. As I've said multiple times recently, I don't think I or others actually disagree with most of your most basic points, and I don't understand why the disagreement even continues.

You very specifically said one of the things I could do to satisfy you would be to provide examples of what I'm talking about, and I gave you two years of session reports where I talk about my processes and what's going through my mind -- but it seems any time I make a genuine effort to do everything I can to give you exactly what you seem to be asking for, that isn't even acknowledged.

 

[Enrahim]

So, if it helps, I am happy to now ask: "How does a sandbox referee create continuity and earn trust without visible mechanics?" I have already said, many times, that I agree a GM needs allowance, a period of time without jumping to conclusions etc., so that they can build a foundation of trust. (That, too, was repeatedly rejected by more than one person, I'll note.) But very little has been said about how that would or could be done--in large part because so many people rejected the very idea that they needed to earn trust at all, and instead asserted they simply deserve it because they are the GM.

I feel a bit sceared about entering what I think is a very constructive direction on the conversation, but I have some reflections on this I think might be worthwile to bring up.

Trust is a social construct. There are no hard rules for how to get it. An excelent illutionist can build trust in their ability to amaze and entertain. A very skilled craftsman can build trust by showing of their work. A soccer referee can build trust by making genuinely impartial decissions, and avoid situations that could be construed as bribing.

As a social construct a lot of the premisses around it is also culturally dependent. I for instance live in Scandinavia where we are fameous for embracing a baseline trust that anywere else would be condsidered plain gullible. However this cultural phenomenom has often also been cited as one of our main competative advantages.

The concept of implicit trust of authorities is also a cultural phenomenom many feel strongly about. It is also almost neccessary in certain circumstances, like when following a treatment plan set out by your doctor. I think a lot of the backlash you have gotten with regard to your request for explicit trust building come from a perspective that a trust relationship with the GM is a requirement for the activity to properly work, just as you might not get much out of your relationship with your doctor if you insist on getting a 5 year education worth of justification before you are willing to accept their meds.

So while I think talking about how techniques to build trust is highly interesting, I think it is important to go in not expecting to find an escape from the subjectivity of the GM process you seem to take issue with into a realm you would recognise as clearly objective.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm genuinely not sure what point you are trying to make.

As best I can tell, everyone you're arguing with has already agreed that their personal biases and feelings have an effect on their judgements. Plenty of people have already said that, if they see a number of outcomes that seem similarly plausible, they are likely to choose the most interesting one (I have said that I actively try to avoid doing that, but I seem to be an outlier among my "allies" in that respect).

So if you are simply trying to argue that people are affected by their feelings, or that we consider what's interesting when making a decision, that's not a thing in dispute and there is no case to make. No one disagrees with you.

I was straight-up just told that no, they aren't. That that doesn't come into play. That's why I was making the point in the first place.

That left me to take you at your word, that you thought this was a concrete example of a point you were trying to make. I considered the concrete example, and thought, "that doesn't reflect a real situation that would arise in the game, and the conclusions don't make sense". And, going back to my own principles, I've mentioned that any time I feel myself moving too quickly to picking a specific outcome because it seems the most interesting or aligns with my expected outcome, I actively stop myself and will usually reassess, think about a range of outcomes and then assign odds to them all, to help eliminate my biases and allow myself to be surprised. In your concrete example, I would not behave as you're suggesting.

Okay. I wish my example had met your standards. I have tried very hard to actually tie things I describe to specific behaviors or scenarios, rather than speaking abstractly, because people dislike it when I do that. But then when I do, people write off the concrete examples as automatically bad and wrong and horrible and the worst thing ever etc., etc., etc., rather than trying to take the core point seriously and just leaving the (apparently) problematic example with a "your example didn't help, and frankly seems ridiculous" and then moving on.

Honestly, I can barely follow what half this discussion is about any more. As I've said multiple times recently, I don't think I or others actually disagree with most of your most basic points, and I don't understand why the disagreement even continues.

I mean I've gotten monumental pushback on nearly everything I've said, only for the conversation to eventually wind its way around until people do actually agree, so...from my perspective, it was people loudly declaring I was completely wrong, only to then, inch by painful inch, eventually slide into exactly what I'd described from the very beginning and which I was told I was dead wrong to believe.

 

[SableWyvern]

I was straight-up just told that no, they aren't. That that doesn't come into play. That's why I was making the point in the first place.

There is nothing in the post you were quoting that said "interesting" does not or cannot come into play. @Bedrockgames talks about using realism as a guideline and says nothing about how "interesting" is (or is not) factored in.

If it was said by someone else or in a different post, at a different time, I can't be expected to assume that that was what you were responding to, because it's not what you were quoting.

Edit: actually, I see he mentions using "realism" instead of "what drives excitement." In which case, I point out again, he also mentions guidelines not absolutes. I am absolutely certain he's talking about the things he considers most, and comparing them to things he considers less important and is not trying to claim he is never, ever effected by questions of what is exciting in any way at all.

Okay. I wish my example had met your standards. I have tried very hard to actually tie things I describe to specific behaviors or scenarios, rather than speaking abstractly, because people dislike it when I do that. But then when I do, people write off the concrete examples as automatically bad and wrong and horrible and the worst thing ever etc., etc., etc., rather than trying to take the core point seriously and just leaving the (apparently) problematic example with a "your example didn't help, and frankly seems ridiculous" and then moving on.

Again, if your core point is "Most, if not all, GMs will consider what's interesting and it will have an effect on their decision-making," I am very skeptical anyone in this thread will deny it. I would be interested in any examples of someone saying interesting is complete non-factor and they are never influenced by it, because I'll happily join you in asking for that statement to be defended.

I mean I've gotten monumental pushback on nearly everything I've said, only for the conversation to eventually wind its way around until people do actually agree, so...from my perspective, it was people loudly declaring I was completely wrong, only to then, inch by painful inch, eventually slide into exactly what I'd described from the very beginning and which I was told I was dead wrong to believe.

I specifically addressed in an earlier post (possibly multiple) why I think this has happened.

 

[Gimby]

i'm not seeing the black box either, i don't think this was an issue with sandbox or living world play, i think it was an issue with the GM not wanting to spend any more time on this side-venture of yours and for you to get on with the module already, i get the feeling your henchmen weren't actually idiots until after you already left and no matter what you did or who you might've of hired to run your castle while you were away something would've occurred to bring it all down to make it moot and give you no reason to return, it gives me 'you spent too long lounging around in safety at the inn so now it spontaneously burned down, now you'll HAVE to go on the adventure' vibes.

just my interpretation of the situation.

I think that's probably the more likely cause, but you could also see how this could very plausibly flow from principles based on the assumption that the world keeps progressing. For example, we could posit this wasn't the henchmen being idiots, it was deliberate sabotage due to one of them being replaced by a doppelganger, plausibly one hired by the character's enemies if they hadn't opposed one so far in the campaign.

Externally, such a scenario would appear to be identical to what has been described, but rather than "getting on with the module" there would potentially be motivation to investigate the circumstances and chase down this new threat. This, I think is what's being got at with the "black box". From the outside, this appears to have the hallmarks of some fairly heavy handed railroading but from the inside it may follow plausibly and realistically from player actions and NPC motivations. If we can't distinguish these cases at the table, it seems it may lead to some of the problems described.