D&D 5E Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room

[Ilbranteloth]

Very thorough post - lets see if we can come to some greater understanding of each other:

Doesn't your approach necessitate creating content as they go, if they have freedom of movement? Or is your sandbox tightly bounded and everything therein detailed? If your style does necessitate creation of content, random generated content, or plug-and-play content, then it is in the "other" category from mine.

No approach along the continuum of sandbox to linear requires creating content as you go. It might mean there are more points of not so much content. For example, if you play in the Forgotten Realms, you could choose to play with nothing but published sourcebooks. That's what's there. Nothing else. That's not the way it was intended, but it can be used that way.

My personal campaign uses a lot of improvisation. In order for the players to have complete control over their characters and to write their own story, I have to be flexible and be able to improvise. That's not because it's a sandbox, nor does it preclude a linear approach either. It's because I don't want to break that immersion. The illusion that they are real characters in a real world, making real choices. That doesn't mean that there won't be any outside forces that work against that. Things like madness, charm, and similar effects can take away control of their characters, even temporarily. They may be the target of other people, for whatever reason.

I was not referring to that type of false choice actually. I mean this: The PCs have two villages to go to, and neither is predetermined by the DM. They choose village A. The DM decides there is a thieving juggler there. Who would have been in Village B if they had gone there? Maybe the thieving juggler, maybe someone else - who knows? Many players feel like their choice of village therefore had little meaning. as opposed to choosing between two villages that already exist when they get there.

But if they don't go to the other village, and even if they do, how do they know if the DM had prepared it ahead of time or not? Why would that change the actual play experience. That's the point where I get totally lost. Unless you investigate option #2, you have no idea what option #2 is. Whether it exists actually only matters if you do. If you don't, it's just wasted time on the part of the DM or author.

Your argument is that it's a break between cause and effect. What's really important in my mind is the game experience. If it's a tournament, where you're trying to see which group does it best, then everything must be the same, or it's not a fair test. But most games aren't tournaments. I can provide the small play experience if everything is prepped ahead of time, or using a number of other tools and techniques to fill in the gaps. You won't know the difference, and frankly, I can probably provide a better play experience if I can improvise simply because I can address the moment at that point in time better than I can guess what's going to happen.

Very well articulated again - now here is where we can really make some headway in understanding. Your school of thought is very compelling but it is predicated on the idea that there is no degree of taint, only taint or no taint.

And that I don't really have a clue what you mean by taint

In other words, lets say the players decide to smoke out the occupants of a castle, literally. Now I have to figure out what bad guys do what, and its a contingency not directly addressed in my write-up. So I have to make some arbitrary decisions on the spot. But because I have thoroughly detailed the castle, its occupants, their motivations, etc, I can do this with a minimum of taint. It's definitely not "clean," but its a far cry from not having the castle detailed in the first place.

Why are they arbitrary? If you have an outline of the castle, its occupants, and motivations, then none of their decisions should be arbitrary. Is that what taint is? Arbitrary?

Just because you haven't outlined every activity, action, or possibility doesn't mean that the DM's decisions must be arbitrary. Sometimes they might be. But they don't have to be. When something happens in my campaign,

Again, I can see how many people could view that as a fine way to play. But to me and those of my school of thought, inserting plug and play and/or random content between a cause (a player decision) and an effect serves as a fundamental break between that cause and effect.

And is that the goal of the game? To maintain integrity between cause and effect? I certainly don't think it is by default. There are much better options if that's the primary goal.

Here lies the fundamental difference - your players seem OK with options 1 or 2, but mine don't. Those options involve an event between cause and effect, and that inevitably alters the effect. To my school of thought, that's a mathematical actuality. Your school of thought sees it (correct me if i am wrong) as a defining part of the game.

Certainly not a defining part of the game. The only defining part of the game to me is that the DM provides the bulk of the setting and non-player character info and action, and the players provide that for their characters. Anything else is just different ways to do it. Even the amount of material under DM and player control has some flexibility, although there's a point (a gray fuzzy line) where you start morphing to shared story-telling, or a Story Now approach (and those aren't necessarily the same thing).

Actually, here's what I think nails the difference between what you like, and what I like. I won't speak for others, and this has nothing to do with play style (tactical, escapist), design (sandbox, linear), and encompasses pretty much any DM techniques as well.

To you, the integrity between cause and effect in the game is paramount (or at least very, very important).

To me, the integrity between cause and effect in the game world is more important than that in the game. I call it consistency.

If the game world is consistent, then the players can maintain the immersion in their characters and not be drawn out into the real world and the recognition that they are playing a game.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

From my point of view, I believe my approach is so alien to many of you that it leads to false assumptions on your part about what I am saying that are unsupported and contrary to what I articulate - which then leads to rancor from you that actually does serve to get us into an adversarial position I never intended.

I always that that was because we're a bunch of guys who spend too many hours playing games in pretend worlds, and with not enough girls and a severe deficit of social skills

 

[hawkeyefan]

No, no, no, I am not saying you are changing things to produce a desired outcome..... I assume that you and everyone else is being a good DM in that respect. I am saying that placing DM agency between player cause and effect is a fundamental break in that cause and effect, and that it is possible, and desirable to many of us, to minimize that insertion/breakage to a much greater extent than you seek to.

Again, no, no, no. I am assuming you demonstrate the best, not the worst qualities of sandbox play and improvisation. It is simply the fundamental break of cause and effect that I don't agree with.

I don't think I follow this reasoning. If I expect an encounter to involve some climbing on the part of the PCs, and so I come up with a table that reflects climbing DCs for the areas of the encounter location....i genuinely don't really see how that's different than if I just assign a climb DC at the time a PC tries to climb a wall in the encounter.

I can understand how it helps you given your table's style and expectations....you can show them afterward "see? it was a DC 15 check per my notes" but beyond that, I don't see any distinction. It's a DM deciding on a DC.

To be fair though, can you see how to someone of my school thought, randomly rolling an eleven is not the same as the result already being 11?

To some extent, yes, but ultimately, no. In both instances, the DM has decided "it's a DC 15 climb check for this wall" or "there are 5 trolls in this room, and 2 more in the next room that will react to the sound of combat within 3 rounds". It's just a question of when the DM decides this. If the DM's ability to judge is sound, then I don't see the issue of when this decision is made.

To those of your school of thought who see it as the DM's job to improvise, I can see how it can seem fundamentally ridiculous to see how that can be seen to negatively impact player agency. I think its why it has always been so difficult for me to get many of you to appreciate a different way of thinking.

I can appreciate a different way of thinking...I don't think I'd continue to discuss it if I didn't appreciate your thoughts. I may question things, but it's more to understand the reasoning behind the approach you take, not a lack of appreciation for the style you prefer.

Having the material exist ahead of time means player cause leads directly to player effect rather than going through a DM in between.

But doesn't it go through a DM in between anyway? Isn't any PC action then filtered through some kind of DM judgement and then an outcome is determined? So if the sequence of events is this:
PC Action
DM Looks at his pre-written notes
DM abdicates the action

Then I don't see a difference from this:
PC Action
DM thinks about the mitigating factors
DM abdicates the action

In either case, the middle step requires DM judgement. I hope that's clearer.

 

[shoak1]

That's how I'd feel about it, too. But, if we take liking a tactical game a little differently, as disliking the strategic side of the game, then it makes a little more sense. In a sandbox, there is more potential for a strategic element, where do we go next and to what end and how do we try to accomplish that end, ultimately, while in a linear game, it's easier to focus just on the next challenge, and even only during the next challenge.
That's not how it's being couched, but I could see that maybe having something to do with it.
[MENTION=54380]shoak1[/MENTION]? Am I completely off base?.

I would say that articulates well what I am saying with one quibble: I don't necessarily dislike the strategic element, its just that I am ok sacrificing it, and feel I must, in order to make the tactical element more challenging and untainted.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Edit: I feel like this post is just going to look confrontational and ranty, so I'm going to re-state my conclusion, at the start here, in the vain hope of heading that off:

Theories about RPGs, their systems and 'styles,' seem to inevitably fall into the trap of taking elements that make up the roleplaying experience, separating them out, isolating them & declaring certain pairs of them to be mutually exclusive, when in fact, they're all not only compatible, not only synergistic, but vital.

So, yeah, this is just another 'why can't we all just get along' rant.

Further Edit: And, my apologies to Ilbranteloth for unleashing this in a quote of his post, really, any post in this thread could have touched it off, including some of my own.

None needed.

There's certainly been a lot of plaintive whingeing over 'immersion' starting promptly in 2008, and continuing until the h4ters were done dancing and spitting on 4e's grave (so still going on, really).

It's just 'realism' and 'simulationisn' wearing a different pair of jackboots, with which to stomp on anyone who wants to actually play a game or tell or story, or exercise their own creativity or find their own fun in any way that deviates from the immersionist's vision.
Because your precious immersion can be shattered by any build decisions (race, class, feats, backgrounds, etc), and any in-play decisions, and any mechanic, it gives you a pretext to dictate what & how other players play, and what rules the DM uses.

As such, it's a dangerous concept to lend any credence to, at all. Unfortunate for anyone for whom it is a real creative agenda, who is actually able to pursue it individually yet still co-exist with others' creativity, that it gets abused that way and can't help but be rife for such abuse by it's very nature.
But there it is.

For me, "Immersion" as a concept, is fatally tainted. If the same positives (and there /are/ positives, I've experienced them, myself, in the past), can be articulated and worked towards /without/ putting undue restrictions on anyone/everyone else, maybe some related concept could be rehabilitated and put to good use.
Maybe.

Actually, I was just digging for a term that was different than the two in the quote. Despite my love of debate and discussion of theory and such here, my games aren't as serious as all that.

The only thing I really strive for, for my players, is to let them focus on their players and not the rules. The rules are there (or modified) as a support structure in my games, not a decision making structure. At least that's the best way I can think to describe it right now.

But good post.

 

[shoak1]

I'm just confused on this whole "DM taint" thing. To start with, I think it's a useless term that implies something negative but doesn't really tell us anything. DM taint would be anything the DM touches. If he wrote it, it's tainted. For example, it makes me thing that if the DM wrote the adventure, then then entire things is dripping with filthy, stinky, rotten DM taint. How could you bear to play such a thing? Obviously I don't think that's what you think. So where is the line where it becomes DM taint? Why is everything on one side of that line OK, and everything on the other side not? It seems to me what you don't want, is the DM changing or adding anything once the game starts. The ideal approach to D&D for you seems to be like the old tournament modules. Where they were designed as a sort of competition, to see which group was the best that year.

Again I will say what the guy in the quote said - the goal is not to eliminate taint but to minimize it. Taint is not a killer virus that kills you with one drop - its a shade that can be darker or lighter. Every game is created by someone, so we cannot eliminate the need to create the scene. But we can avoid (at least to a much greater extent than you feel the need to) interjecting DM rulings/content creation BETWEEN player choice and effect .

 

[shoak1]

But if they don't go to the other village, and even if they do, how do they know if the DM had prepared it ahead of time or not? Why would that change the actual play experience. Your argument is that it's a break between cause and effect. What's really important in my mind is the game experience.

Right - that's what you see as important - what we see as important is this:

If it's a tournament, where you're trying to see which group does it best, then everything must be the same, or it's not a fair test. But most games aren't tournaments.

You just seemed to be understanding us, then said that style is only valid in a tournament, why is that?

Is that what taint is? Arbitrary? Just because you haven't outlined every activity, action, or possibility doesn't mean that the DM's decisions must be arbitrary....And is that the goal of the game? To maintain integrity between cause and effect? I certainly don't think it is by default. There are much better options if that's the primary goal.

Yes we seek to limit DM interjection between cause and effect so as not to taint the effect.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would say that articulates well what I am saying with one quibble: I don't necessarily dislike the strategic element, its just that I am ok sacrificing it, and feel I must, in order to make the tactical element more challenging and untainted.

Hmmm.... I can't say I agree.
I mean, I /have/ seen what would now be labeled 'CaW' style play do exactly that, take a tactical scenario that might have been entertaining to play through, and, via hours of OOC tedium, reduce it to a pointless rollover.
It's just I can certainly see ways in which strategic challenge could be incorporated into a series of tactical scenarios, and provide plenty of interest at both levels. And even if I couldn't, I'd like to think it was possible.

That said, though your style seems like an odd juxtaposition of elements usually combined in different ways into more conventionally-(on these boards anyway)-recognized circles of wagons.

For instance, your insistence on wanting everything pre-defined is very 'simulationist,' while your focus on tactical play is very 'gamist' and the two are supposed to be antithetical (or all their reasons for loving one edition and/or hating another crumble). Rather than accept that they aren't antithetical, people are denying that your 'style' exists.

None needed.

Thanks for understanding.

Actually, I was just digging for a term that was different than the two in the quote. Despite my love of debate and discussion of theory and such here, my games aren't as serious as all that.

OK. Terminology gets thorny (I was going to say tainted, but I think tainted has become tainted in your discussion with shoak1).

That article had 'wargaming' and 'escapism.' GNS consumes game, simulation, & narrative. The edition war made board game, MMO, tactical, narrative, immersion, dissociation, and others all toxic.
Characterizing any element of roleplaying as 'roleplaying' (such as the social pillar) is obviously wildly prejudicial.

English has over 50k words, but we still might run out!

The only thing I really strive for, for my players, is to let them focus on their [characters] and not the rules. The rules are there (or modified) as a support structure in my games, not a decision making structure. At least that's the best way I can think to describe it right now.

5e's ideally suited for that approach, IMHO.

 

[shoak1]

But doesn't it go through a DM in between anyway? Isn't any PC action then filtered through some kind of DM judgement and then an outcome is determined? So if the sequence of events is this:
PC Action
DM Looks at his pre-written notes
DM abdicates the action

Then I don't see a difference from this:
PC Action
DM thinks about the mitigating factors
DM abdicates the action

In either case, the middle step requires DM judgement. I hope that's clearer.

In the latter scenario the DM exercises judgement between player cause and effect and in the former he doesn't. In your way of thinking, since the DM decides it anyways, then it doesn't matter - but surely you know that that is the exception to the way most people play most games right? Of course you can say that the decision you made between the cause and effect is the same that you would have made days ago before the players did all that they did, and maybe it even is - but surely you can see why many gamers would say "yeah, right lol," and prefer you not be interjecting your decision at that time, right?

 

[shoak1]

That said, though your style seems like an odd juxtaposition of elements usually combined in different ways into more conventionally-(on these boards anyway)-recognized circles of wagons.

Yes, I think that's true, though I would quibble with the "odd juxtaposition" part lol. Although I might not have all the right command of the proper terms, i believe my style is consistent with how many D and D players have played throughout its history, and with how most board games are played. Board game players are used to someone creating their game but then not interfering once play begins. That really sums up how we play. A majority of people I meet like playing D and D that way and don't like DMs manufacturing content on the fly. Its just that these forums as well as 5e seems to be dominated by people who see D and D as an improvisation-acceptable-and-desirable game. Its fine that people play that way, it just seems like they have trouble understanding why people wouldn't want to play that way, no matter how I articulate it.