D&D 5E Do You Prefer Sandbox or Party Level Areas In Your Game World?

iserith said:

The way I set up my current sandbox (a hexcrawl campaign) is pretty simple. It's prep-heavy on the front end, but is very easy to run at the table and produces fun results. I'm all for spending a little time out of game to make it easy to run at the session.

I have a forested swamp as the sandbox. There is one town which is a relatively safe place to long rest and do downtime activities. On the map, I placed 20 points of interest in various hexes. When traveling the swamp, if you enter a hex without a point of interest, there is a random encounter. That might be with a few giant leeches or a green dragon or anything in between - it's up to dice. If you enter a hex with a point of interest in it, you experience the point of interest, whatever that may be. These are somewhat detailed, interesting situations that are doing their own thing until the PCs turn up. Then we see what happens. There is also a big threat that wanders the swamp - a horde of undead. When undead are indicated for a random encounter, it also means the horde moves one hex in a random direction. (As it happens, it's getting close to town now!)

There are also several factions. On a weekly basis, I roll randomly and one of the factions does something notable, the specifics of which is also generated randomly. Then I have to figure out what that means in the context of everything else going on and show how the situation changes if it's noticeable. This has meant so far that some weirdness is going on with the adventuring guild and this has ticked off the local church, but has presented an opportunity to the PCs by allowing them to not worry about encountering a normally dangerous faction in the swamp. So this is already creating interesting side effects only 49 days into the game (in-game time). Session 4 is this Friday.

Weather is also rolled randomly on a weekly basis, plus something the cursed land itself does (e.g. floods areas of forest so they aren't suitable for long rests, makes diseases more difficult to shake off, etc.).

Anyway, that's all there is to it. It practically runs itself. The players do what they want given what they know or predict based on their experience so far. And I have no idea how it will turn out which is part of the fun for me. Last week, the party managed to make a big score and level up. They are pumped to head out into the wilds next session to see what else is there.

This is what a sandbox is to me.

Click to expand...

Emerikol said:

No offense but I wouldn't play with that group. They are not taking the game serious enough to interest me.

I know it may be your only option but gee. Come on guys.

Click to expand...

Rob Kuntz said:

It's commendable that you are applying in-game design tenets to personalize your campaign.

Click to expand...

Ovinomancer said:

Of course the GM has to ad-lib some things, but if you're preference is to minimize this, you should really ask what that achieves in play -- how does it support what you want. The "depth" argument is weak -- this is often trotted out but it's not every strongly presented. @Lanefan has done the best job I've seen, and what that boils down to is a GM's desire to plant lots of extra details to essentially chaff player skilled play -- it's an additional layer of challenge to skilled play.

Click to expand...

Ovinomancer said:

What are in-game design tenets

Click to expand...

loverdrive said:

In a game, where power level changes drastically over the game and high CR monsters wipe the floor with low-level PCs before they could have time to react? Party, of course.

Click to expand...

Rob Kuntz said:

Adapting the rules (which are a design) to your needs by altering, arranging or adding to them. Generally speaking most DMs do this to some extent, some also take it further. The further you go the more it defines a personalization that just works for the designer. It's actually how the game was originally created. Other in-game design apertures are house-ruling and on the fly adaptation. I appreciated the OP's succinct design view on what works for him (or her, depending).

Click to expand...

Ovinomancer said:

Ah, okay, you're using in-game to not mean in-game, I guess. And tenets to not mean, well, tenets? Just customizing the game. @iserith is pretty savvy in doing this.

Click to expand...

Rob Kuntz said:

Actually no. I meant what I meant. As exampled by the OP: S(he) designed a personalized map, populated it with unique encounters, had unique faction activities occurring, produced a system for weather, and other such design elements, and then engaged the design based upon an overall design tenet (or imagined and engaged design principle) that works for the players and designer.

Click to expand...

Ovinomancer said:

I don't disagree with your thrust, here, but the words you're using don't jibe with me. Tenet is a principle or belief widely shared, and that's not what you're talking about, here. A design tenet would be something like less is more or specific beats general -- concepts that are axiomatic to design. This isn't that. And in-game? The results are in-game, but the design isn't -- it's explicitly done outside the game to create a feeling in the game. That said, I certainly agree that @iserith does this -- I've long admired their approach to targeted and specific house-rules to evoke a theme or concept in game, and stolen it without shame or hesitation.

Click to expand...

Sword of Spirit said:

A few thoughts:

First thought: Morrus defined what he meant by sandbox in the OP. The poll wasn't about the way the overall campaign is run, but rather about (essentially) wandering encounters on the world map. You may or may not have some sort of story arc or adventure path or etc in your overall campaign--what matters for the poll (as I read the OP) is what happens when you go to X encounter area on the map, regardless of when or why you are there.

Next thought: For many people the whole exploration experience some of us are talking about seems difficult to grok. You're probably going to have to come from the perspective that we are talking about something you don't grok, and then try to learn what it is like you are taking a class learning some new scientific principles. Some of you are already doing this I'm sure, and I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but I think sometimes we all need to have that sort of thing pointed out (or at least it helps me): "Hey, new knowledge here! Student Mode activated." I'm not sure I'm the best person to explain it, because for me the principle is just a given (which in my experience from either side tends to make things difficult to explain), but I'll give it a whirl.

Part of the experience of playing D&D for some people is that a world exists in a non-variable initial data state, rather than having the initial data state for its areas influenced based on external information (like party composition) when first encountered. You know how in Skyrim the map is all created? It's like that. You know how in Skyrim monsters scale to your level? It's like not that.

This allows a specific experience of exploring that data state as a separate entity, which isn't possible if that data state is influenced by your own data. It makes it more like visiting some place in the real world, and experiencing it. If I go to Switzerland as a tourist, I would expect that there are certain sites and restaurants in certain locations. If they started popping up based on my needs or expectations, it might be interesting at first but I'd start to think I'm crazy or in a reality simulation (cue obligatory link someone will post ), rather than being an actual tourist in Switzerland. I wouldn't feel like I'm getting the real experience of being in Switzerland (because I wouldn't be). When I'm playing in D&Dland, I want to get that real-feeling experience of being there and exploring!*

Why is that experience not attainable when a DM is just making it up as they go along? It's because the DM--whether conscious or not--will be adapting things to the PCs or their players. The DM already has that data, and it is going to influence their creative decision-making. They can consciously attempt to minimize that and get into a zone where they try to ignore the party for the creative endeavor, but that's an imperfect solution. The DM will also have a hard time remembering all of the data on the world that would flesh it out well--like when I make up NPC names during sessions rather than consulting a name generator (I do both) they all tend to follow certain conventions that make them sound like names I made up, while name generators give more variety. Same thing goes with types of foes present (oh, I totally forgot there are supposed to be a lot of bullywugs in this swamp...), treasure found (why is it always potions and sword, and never horseshoes of the zephyr?), and even spontaneous events (another kidnapping? how come there is never an unexpected forgery fiasco?) This also means that what is found during exploration is dependent on the DM's current state of creativity, mood, what movie they watched last night, etc. A whole lot of variables other than the initial data state. Some DMs are better or worse at pulling this off, but it's always going to be a thing.

And the reason that thing matters is that, for this play principle, that initial data state is more interesting than the DM's variable-influenced data state. We want to explore the former, not the latter! (Same reason I like Elder Scrolls games but use mods to turn off the stupid scaled-opponents and treasures.)

That's really the principle at the core here: some people find exploring the initial data state delightful in a way that exploring a data-state influences by other variables is not.

Now, as anyone involved in this conversation will be well aware of, the DM actually cannot create the entire initial data state ahead of time. So does that mean this experience isn't even deliverable in the first place? Not exactly. There has been a solution for this since virtually the beginning of the game. Random tables that are part of the initial data state. That essentially totally solves that problem. The DM doesn't have to have notes saying that at hex A4 in the Darkwood there is a tribe of goblins, because he has a "Darkwood Encounters" table that is to be rolled on 3 times a day when people traverse the Darkwood, and has a 3.4% chance of generating a tribe of goblins. We random tables as covering all the bases, we now have an initial data state sufficient to create the desires exploration experience.

It's important here to re-iterate that these considerations really do work for us to give us this experience. Since I'm taking a temporary "teacher mode", I'd say to the class something like. "Does that seem strange to you? Try to imagine why it might work that way for others? What's going on in their minds that causes that to work that way? Can you create that state in your own to 'see' it for yourself?"

Now, the astute will note that even that solution is imperfect, because you are unlikely to have sufficient tables to provide complete coverage for all of the empty spots in the initial data state. This is a valid concern regarding the information given so far. So we need to digress briefly into the DM's role in presenting this data state.

The DM's role in presenting this data state to facilitate the exploration experience is to present the information that already exists impartially, fill in the blank spots that have existing algorithms (random tables) by impartially applying those algorithms, and spontaneously create the needed additional data with an impartial focus on filling in that data state as it most likely would exist, regardless of the party encountering it.

That last part is about mindset. The DM isn't going to be perfect, but there is definitely a difference in effort and result between filling it what you think will be fun, interesting, or challenging for the party, and filling in what makes the most sense for the world without conscious consideration to the party. By following these steps you minimize the DMs unintentional and unconscious adaptations to only affecting the limited blank areas in the initial data set.

These three elements flow together to really enable this delightful experience of exploring an initial data state uninfluenced by party or other considerations.

Now, it's also worth emphasizing that this is about establishing the explorable world. This doesn't mean that you can't set adventures in it customized to the party, or otherwise create customized content. What is vital here is that this is a separate thing you are doing from creating the world's initial data state. It's part of the campaign (which itself should be thematically compatible with the world's initial data state, of course). It's like adding expansions Skyrim. They don't invalidate what came before, they just add new data. You might (actual example) place the Forge of Fury adventure in the Pomarj, and decide that in the aftermath of the Greyhawk wars, the Principality of Ulek is launching a counter invasion to attempt to reclaim their land from the Pomarj, which means the normal encounter tables are replaced with new random encounter tables that are more appropriate to the war going on. You might also decide that there is an NPC adventuring party from the Wild Coast down in the nearby village where the PCs first arrive at, because you had some fun ideas for that adventuring party. The initial data state is being expanded with new data chosen for either the campaign (in the case of adding the adventure) or for the world (in the case of the counter-invasion). This doesn't change the order of operations for the DM in play at all, they just have an updated set of initial data they are dealing with. This also doesn't mean that you can't insert fun things into the data set spontaneously on the fly. This is one of the things that a DM can do that a computer game can't. It is important that inserting those fun things follow certain discrete principles.

Essentially, when you insert situationally customized things into the experience spontaneously (rather than creating them at some point as an expansion to the world or campaign or generating them with the random tables included in the initial data set, or making things up to best approximate what makes the most sense for that initial data set), it is like you are playing a PC**. These new things you create in that way are bounded by the data in the same way that the players' characters are. You can spontaneously plop down an NPC that you think would be interesting, but you can't rewrite the world or ignore the results of random rolls, because that would be influencing the initial data set. This is the most subtle distinction, but it is real. The DM treats the initial data set (including later creative expansions) as authoritative, and works completely within the boundaries of that state during play, exactly like player characters.

By doing so, the DM is enabled to also explore the world in a way similar to the way the players are (though to a lesser extent).

While it might seem like there are a lot of fiddly details to this (and generally we don't think through how this all works the way I did today), these are the underlying principles at work, and they really do work to create that awesome exploration experience some of us love so much in our D&D.


*One might hire a tour guide in Switzerland to take me to a curated set of destinations customized for my interests (or the expected interests of tourists) which is fine and is analogous to a pre-made adventure in D&D. But if I decide to ditch the tour guide and explore, the world is going to be there regardless and I get to explore it. The same experience is desirable in D&Dland.
**As is fairly obvious, the PCs in such a game generally lack narrative control outside of their individual choices of what to do, since that's another way to interfere with the exploration experience. If I'm just declaring that a certain site will exist when I turn the corner in Switzerland, it's no better than a cosmic DM doing so.

Click to expand...

1. The DM makes a mistake, and inadvertantly uses the wrong random table (maybe swapping the table for the table from an adjacent hex) or the wrong random number generator (maybe rolling 1d12 instead of 2d6).
2. The dice used to randomly select items from the tables are not fair.
3. The dice used to randomly select items from the tables are not fair, and are (somehow) biased towards results the players would find the most enjoyable at any given moment.
4. The DM occasionally chooses to ignore the random result from the table in favor of a different, randomly selected result from the same table, based only on OOC factors (e.g. rerolling when a non-combat encounter comes up too many times in a row, knowing that the players are itching for combat).
5. The DM routinely chooses to ignore the random result from the table in favor of a different, randomly selected result from the same table, based only on OOC factors (e.g. rerolling when the DM thinks the rolled result won't be fun based on the players' current moods).
6. The DM occasionally chooses to ignore the random result from the table in favor of a different, purposefully selected result from the same table, based only on OOC factors (e.g. picking a combat encounter, knowing that the players are itching for combat after a long run of non-combat encounters).
7. The DM routinely chooses to ignore the random result from the table in favor of a different, purposefully selected result from the same table, based only on OOC factors (e.g. picking a different result based on the what the DM thinks the players would find most fun).
8. The DM occasionally rolls two sets of dice, and chooses whichever result from the table the DM thinks the players will most enjoy.
9. The DM routinely rolls two sets of dice, and picks whichever result from the table the DM thinks the players will most enjoy.
10. Between sessions, the DM updates the tables to remove entries that are no longer relevant in response to in-game events (e.g. removing unique foes that have been defeated).
11. On the fly, the DM updates the tables to remove entries that are no longer relevant in response to in-game events (e.g. removing unique foes that have been defeated).
12. Between sessions, the DM updates the tables to replace removed entries with new content that makes sense based on in-game events (e.g. settlers moving in to now-safer territory).
13. On the fly, the DM updates the tables to replace removed entries with new content that makes sense based on in-game events (e.g. settlers moving in to now-safer territory).

Xetheral said:

Thanks for the detailed explanation!

I understand your interest in exploring a fixed initial data state, and I understand that, in a nod to practicality, a probabilistically determined initial data state is acceptable to you.

What I don't yet understand is where the point is located along the line from rigid procedural generation to DM ad-hoc creation where you feel you lose the experience of exploring a fixed initial data state. I've listed a bunch of examples located at various points along that line, and I'm interested in learning which examples you think would still provide the experience you're looking for. If your answers depend on whether or not the DM and/players knows about the deviation from the prescribed procedural generation, I'm interested in that too.

1. The DM makes a mistake, and inadvertantly uses the wrong random table (maybe swapping the table for the table from an adjacent hex) or the wrong random number generator (maybe rolling 1d12 instead of 2d6).
2. The dice used to randomly select items from the tables are not fair.
3. The dice used to randomly select items from the tables are not fair, and are (somehow) biased towards results the players would find the most enjoyable at any given moment.
4. The DM occasionally chooses to ignore the random result from the table in favor of a different, randomly selected result from the same table, based only on OOC factors (e.g. rerolling when a non-combat encounter comes up too many times in a row, knowing that the players are itching for combat).
5. The DM routinely chooses to ignore the random result from the table in favor of a different, randomly selected result from the same table, based only on OOC factors (e.g. rerolling when the DM thinks the rolled result won't be fun based on the players' current moods).
6. The DM occasionally chooses to ignore the random result from the table in favor of a different, purposefully selected result from the same table, based only on OOC factors (e.g. picking a combat encounter, knowing that the players are itching for combat after a long run of non-combat encounters).
7. The DM routinely chooses to ignore the random result from the table in favor of a different, purposefully selected result from the same table, based only on OOC factors (e.g. picking a different result based on the what the DM thinks the players would find most fun).
8. The DM occasionally rolls two sets of dice, and chooses whichever result from the table the DM thinks the players will most enjoy.
9. The DM routinely rolls two sets of dice, and picks whichever result from the table the DM thinks the players will most enjoy.
10. Between sessions, the DM updates the tables to remove entries that are no longer relevant in response to in-game events (e.g. removing unique foes that have been defeated).
11. On the fly, the DM updates the tables to remove entries that are no longer relevant in response to in-game events (e.g. removing unique foes that have been defeated).
12. Between sessions, the DM updates the tables to replace removed entries with new content that makes sense based on in-game events (e.g. settlers moving in to now-safer territory).
13. On the fly, the DM updates the tables to replace removed entries with new content that makes sense based on in-game events (e.g. settlers moving in to now-safer territory).

Importantly, examples ## 1-9 only lead to results that were possible under the initial data state, and ## 10-11 only update the initial data state to keep it self-consistent. Examples ## 12-13 change the initial data state, but only to maintain a constant variety of content (e.g. it avoids empty hexes). In none of the examples is the DM tailoring the results from the tables to the characters (although ## 3-9 tailor the results from the tables to the players, to various degrees). I'm particularly curious about your response to example # 3--even though it is implausible, as it introduces deliberate bias to the results from the tables, without the DM themselves being biased.

Click to expand...

Ovinomancer said:

...
I think it's less this, and more that I, as recently as five years ago, was making your arguments and felt as you do. I think that my change of opinion has made it more challenging for me to let the realizations go, even as I'm perfectly fine with someone coming to a different conclusion. Or, in other words, my understanding has changed, and I look at these things in a different way, and it's hard to remember not everyone's made that change (or even should).
...

Click to expand...

iserith said:

I have a forested swamp as the sandbox. There is one town which is a relatively safe place to long rest and do downtime activities. On the map, I placed 20 points of interest in various hexes. When traveling the swamp, if you enter a hex without a point of interest, there is a random encounter. That might be with a few giant leeches or a green dragon or anything in between - it's up to dice. If you enter a hex with a point of interest in it, you experience the point of interest, whatever that may be. These are somewhat detailed, interesting situations that are doing their own thing until the PCs turn up. Then we see what happens. There is also a big threat that wanders the swamp - a horde of undead. When undead are indicated for a random encounter, it also means the horde moves one hex in a random direction. (As it happens, it's getting close to town now!)

Click to expand...

Morrus said:

Which do you prefer?

Click to expand...

Sword of Spirit said:

A few thoughts:

Click to expand...

Sword of Spirit said:

A few thoughts:

First thought: Morrus defined what he meant by sandbox in the OP. The poll wasn't about the way the overall campaign is run, but rather about (essentially) wandering encounters on the world map. You may or may not have some sort of story arc or adventure path or etc in your overall campaign--what matters for the poll (as I read the OP) is what happens when you go to X encounter area on the map, regardless of when or why you are there.

Next thought: For many people the whole exploration experience some of us are talking about seems difficult to grok. You're probably going to have to come from the perspective that we are talking about something you don't grok, and then try to learn what it is like you are taking a class learning some new scientific principles. Some of you are already doing this I'm sure, and I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but I think sometimes we all need to have that sort of thing pointed out (or at least it helps me): "Hey, new knowledge here! Student Mode activated." I'm not sure I'm the best person to explain it, because for me the principle is just a given (which in my experience from either side tends to make things difficult to explain), but I'll give it a whirl.

Part of the experience of playing D&D for some people is that a world exists in a non-variable initial data state, rather than having the initial data state for its areas influenced based on external information (like party composition) when first encountered. You know how in Skyrim the map is all created? It's like that. You know how in Skyrim monsters scale to your level? It's like not that.

This allows a specific experience of exploring that data state as a separate entity, which isn't possible if that data state is influenced by your own data. It makes it more like visiting some place in the real world, and experiencing it. If I go to Switzerland as a tourist, I would expect that there are certain sites and restaurants in certain locations. If they started popping up based on my needs or expectations, it might be interesting at first but I'd start to think I'm crazy or in a reality simulation (cue obligatory link someone will post ), rather than being an actual tourist in Switzerland. I wouldn't feel like I'm getting the real experience of being in Switzerland (because I wouldn't be). When I'm playing in D&Dland, I want to get that real-feeling experience of being there and exploring!*

Why is that experience not attainable when a DM is just making it up as they go along? It's because the DM--whether conscious or not--will be adapting things to the PCs or their players. The DM already has that data, and it is going to influence their creative decision-making. They can consciously attempt to minimize that and get into a zone where they try to ignore the party for the creative endeavor, but that's an imperfect solution. The DM will also have a hard time remembering all of the data on the world that would flesh it out well--like when I make up NPC names during sessions rather than consulting a name generator (I do both) they all tend to follow certain conventions that make them sound like names I made up, while name generators give more variety. Same thing goes with types of foes present (oh, I totally forgot there are supposed to be a lot of bullywugs in this swamp...), treasure found (why is it always potions and sword, and never horseshoes of the zephyr?), and even spontaneous events (another kidnapping? how come there is never an unexpected forgery fiasco?) This also means that what is found during exploration is dependent on the DM's current state of creativity, mood, what movie they watched last night, etc. A whole lot of variables other than the initial data state. Some DMs are better or worse at pulling this off, but it's always going to be a thing.

And the reason that thing matters is that, for this play principle, that initial data state is more interesting than the DM's variable-influenced data state. We want to explore the former, not the latter! (Same reason I like Elder Scrolls games but use mods to turn off the stupid scaled-opponents and treasures.)

That's really the principle at the core here: some people find exploring the initial data state delightful in a way that exploring a data-state influences by other variables is not.

Now, as anyone involved in this conversation will be well aware of, the DM actually cannot create the entire initial data state ahead of time. So does that mean this experience isn't even deliverable in the first place? Not exactly. There has been a solution for this since virtually the beginning of the game. Random tables that are part of the initial data state. That essentially totally solves that problem. The DM doesn't have to have notes saying that at hex A4 in the Darkwood there is a tribe of goblins, because he has a "Darkwood Encounters" table that is to be rolled on 3 times a day when people traverse the Darkwood, and has a 3.4% chance of generating a tribe of goblins. We random tables as covering all the bases, we now have an initial data state sufficient to create the desires exploration experience.

It's important here to re-iterate that these considerations really do work for us to give us this experience. Since I'm taking a temporary "teacher mode", I'd say to the class something like. "Does that seem strange to you? Try to imagine why it might work that way for others? What's going on in their minds that causes that to work that way? Can you create that state in your own to 'see' it for yourself?"

Now, the astute will note that even that solution is imperfect, because you are unlikely to have sufficient tables to provide complete coverage for all of the empty spots in the initial data state. This is a valid concern regarding the information given so far. So we need to digress briefly into the DM's role in presenting this data state.

The DM's role in presenting this data state to facilitate the exploration experience is to present the information that already exists impartially, fill in the blank spots that have existing algorithms (random tables) by impartially applying those algorithms, and spontaneously create the needed additional data with an impartial focus on filling in that data state as it most likely would exist, regardless of the party encountering it.

That last part is about mindset. The DM isn't going to be perfect, but there is definitely a difference in effort and result between filling it what you think will be fun, interesting, or challenging for the party, and filling in what makes the most sense for the world without conscious consideration to the party. By following these steps you minimize the DMs unintentional and unconscious adaptations to only affecting the limited blank areas in the initial data set.

These three elements flow together to really enable this delightful experience of exploring an initial data state uninfluenced by party or other considerations.

Now, it's also worth emphasizing that this is about establishing the explorable world. This doesn't mean that you can't set adventures in it customized to the party, or otherwise create customized content. What is vital here is that this is a separate thing you are doing from creating the world's initial data state. It's part of the campaign (which itself should be thematically compatible with the world's initial data state, of course). It's like adding expansions Skyrim. They don't invalidate what came before, they just add new data. You might (actual example) place the Forge of Fury adventure in the Pomarj, and decide that in the aftermath of the Greyhawk wars, the Principality of Ulek is launching a counter invasion to attempt to reclaim their land from the Pomarj, which means the normal encounter tables are replaced with new random encounter tables that are more appropriate to the war going on. You might also decide that there is an NPC adventuring party from the Wild Coast down in the nearby village where the PCs first arrive at, because you had some fun ideas for that adventuring party. The initial data state is being expanded with new data chosen for either the campaign (in the case of adding the adventure) or for the world (in the case of the counter-invasion). This doesn't change the order of operations for the DM in play at all, they just have an updated set of initial data they are dealing with. This also doesn't mean that you can't insert fun things into the data set spontaneously on the fly. This is one of the things that a DM can do that a computer game can't. It is important that inserting those fun things follow certain discrete principles.

Essentially, when you insert situationally customized things into the experience spontaneously (rather than creating them at some point as an expansion to the world or campaign or generating them with the random tables included in the initial data set, or making things up to best approximate what makes the most sense for that initial data set), it is like you are playing a PC**. These new things you create in that way are bounded by the data in the same way that the players' characters are. You can spontaneously plop down an NPC that you think would be interesting, but you can't rewrite the world or ignore the results of random rolls, because that would be influencing the initial data set. This is the most subtle distinction, but it is real. The DM treats the initial data set (including later creative expansions) as authoritative, and works completely within the boundaries of that state during play, exactly like player characters.

By doing so, the DM is enabled to also explore the world in a way similar to the way the players are (though to a lesser extent).

While it might seem like there are a lot of fiddly details to this (and generally we don't think through how this all works the way I did today), these are the underlying principles at work, and they really do work to create that awesome exploration experience some of us love so much in our D&D.


*One might hire a tour guide in Switzerland to take me to a curated set of destinations customized for my interests (or the expected interests of tourists) which is fine and is analogous to a pre-made adventure in D&D. But if I decide to ditch the tour guide and explore, the world is going to be there regardless and I get to explore it. The same experience is desirable in D&Dland.
**As is fairly obvious, the PCs in such a game generally lack narrative control outside of their individual choices of what to do, since that's another way to interfere with the exploration experience. If I'm just declaring that a certain site will exist when I turn the corner in Switzerland, it's no better than a cosmic DM doing so.

Click to expand...

happyhermit said:

Moreover, some of us have made the opposite change, and now see that things that we thought didn't matter, can actually be really important for providing the experience we are looking for.

Click to expand...

Ovinomancer said:

Thanks for this detailed reply. I think you've made a mistake in assuming others aren't very aware of this structure -- I certainly am, and have used it in the past and believed it to be the best way (obligatory "for me") way to approach play. However (and you knew this was coming), there's an interesting bit here where I think the actual reason for preferring this is somewhat different from the touted reason, that being that the world feels more believable when done this way.

And that can be illuminated in a specific moment of play. For example, if your party enters a new town, one you have no prior experience with, and you ask around to find if there's a tavern in town, can you tell, in that moment, if the GM makes it up right on the spot prompted by your ask or if it's in the notes? Let's assume that if it's in the notes the GM is well prepped and recalls this fact without reference, or that the on the spot GM makes a show of rustling papers behind the screen to look like they're checking notes. I submit you can't. I further submit that it's impossible to tell, in any given moment, what method of content creation is being used. And, if this is the case, if you can't tell at any given moment if something is happening, then it becomes increasingly hard to argue that it's the approach. Sure, there's an argument that it's too small to discern in the moment, but adds up over time (not terribly convinced this is a useful argument, but it can be explored if someone wants to) or that, over time patterns of generation will occur that expose the man behind the curtain (again, I think this is somewhat weak, but stronger than the previous, at least for certain things). But, if you can't tell in the moment -- if play is just as fun and rewarding before you find out, then the answer to why this matters isn't really that it creates a more believable world, but rather something else.

And, to be clear, I'm not doubting or arguing that this something else isn't important to enjoyment! I think it very much can be. I also think that games will be better if it's teased out and looked at directly rather than tucking it behind verisimilatude, or believability, or realism arguments about prep vs improv. My guess is that for the majority of people it's a skilled play issue or a trust issue. Both are entirely valid. And, no, it's not a bad thing to not have blanket trust for a fellow player and want some kind of control on the gamestate that prevents what you would consider abuse of trust, and preferring prep be done before is such a control. No issues with this, and no one should say that this is a bad thing -- it's human to take advantage of situations, even unconsciously, so this isn't so much a "I don't trust Bob" thing as it is a "I trust Bob is human." You've largely said this above, if not in these exact words. So, yeah, trust and how it operates in the game is important. Heck, some of the games I really like have way more controls on the GM as far as this goes -- PbtA games really confine the GM in ways that would be anathema to a D&D GM.

So, long story short, I don't really think that believability in the world is the right reason that prep is desired, because, in any given moment of play, it's not discernable. Instead, I think that it's another reason that's leaning on this because it's the simpler or less challenging explanation, even while it's hiding the real motivation. I think careful examination, and honesty about play goals, will help improve games by allowing players to dispense with things that don't actually improve that and focus on the things that do. Maybe it's the same things, maybe not.

Click to expand...