The Curse of Content

[Cluedrew]

Possibly my single biggest complaint with D&D and similar systems is that they are content based. I'll first explain what I mean by this and then I will explain why it is a problem. And then I will add some positivity.

So what does it mean to be content based? The high level definition it means to do something in a campaign you need a piece of content to play it. So to crawl through a dungeon you are going to need a map, it has room layouts, enemies (some of them might be custom made), traps and treasures. All of those might need to be designed themselves. OK but isn't that pretty much everything in a game? Even the PCs are content created – if not by the GM – so how is this not everything? In short I am cheating and only including content that has to/should be created ahead of time.

To illustrate, a dialog option in a computer game might be written, edited and voice acted, but in a pen-and-paper or table-top context you can just say what comes to mind. Maybe it isn't quite as refined by it works. As another example compare a system where you can say "The thugs have medium armour and good weapons." to one where every enemy has different health pools, attack values, several defences and special abilities. The first is simple, easy to make and probably isn't the focus while the second takes a lot of work but is something you can engage with. I would count the second as content but maybe not the first.

OK so why is this problem. Well first I have to rip off a bandage: You can't actually do anything in role-playing game. Sure there is a lot you can do and it is more flexible then in a computer but there are still limits. Sometimes that is intentional to make things difficult and create challenges. Other-times it is for the same problem as in a computer: there isn't any content that direction and so if you go that way it is an endless void. And the more a system is content based the easier it is for that to happen. The less a system depends on new content the less this is a problem because it is easer to reuse/adapt what you have or maybe up the little pieces you need on the fly.

And that is why campaigns in content based systems are inflexible. Not even in the railroad sense of the word but the high level plans have to go forward because we don't have content for anything else. (OK, we could have content for one or two other big things but I'm assuming limited preparation time so it probably will not be a lot.) That means big twists and turns to the campaign are almost out of the question.

And that is the curse of content, the more you depend on content the more the game is reduced to having all the same problems as a computer game; inflexible and preset.

There are upsides too. Going back to the combat example; thugs with medium armour and good weapons are quick to make but might not make for a deep and engaging combat encounter. You can also create grand set-pieces and discover huge amounts of lore about the setting. I suppose that would be the blessing of content.

Still I'll take the rules light system and an actual dynamic story more often then not.

[Vahnavoi]

Well first I have to rip off a bandage: You can't actually do anything in role-playing game. Sure there is a lot you can do and it is more flexible then in a computer but there are still limits.

Congratulations on getting past lies to children.

Beyond that, the crux of your problem has little to do with presence or absence of content, and everything to do with lack of process: useful algorithms for how to get from one piece content to another.

Procedural generation is how you avoid the problem of "formless void" in a rules-based system. If you go into an area that wasn't defined before, you pull a terrain card from the pile or roll a random encounter from a table to get yourself started. More expansive computer games use exact same tricks to create vast terrains or to keep games fresh between playthroughs.

It's also a self-created problem. It exists because roleplayers decided procedural generation sucks and that scripted gameplay is where its at.

[Khedrac]

Possibly my single biggest complaint with D&D and similar systems is that they are content based

I think I should interject at this point. I mean, you are not wrong, but there is D&D and there is D&D. I believe this is why many older players prefer "old school roleplaying" - so AD&D or (BECMI)D&D to 3.X and later (OK, or BX D&D or Classic).

I don't know 5th ed at all, and I have seen very little of 4th ed, but to me you have summed up what is to me one of the biggest problems of 3.X D&D - if there isn't a rule for it it's much harder to do it.

For me, a good example of this would be if a player said "my character crouches down just behind the warrior fighting our tank" - the idea is simple - the character cannot contribute to the melee in a conventional manner so seeks to give the party tank a terrain advantage. In OSR games the DM can make up a effect on the fly but in 3.X games there's no real rule for this so it cannot be done as described.

Personally, I think two significant parts of the cause of the problem are the SRD and the modern internet, particularly online gaming.
The SRD is a great thing, but to enable to system to be opened up to other publishers, there needs to be clarity on exactly how things work - and that means you need rules for them.
Online gaming has increased the amount of people gaming with strangers. This is not a bad thing, but it stresses the need to know what houserules are in play (also reasonable). However, the detail of the rules makes possible the optimisation culture that needs to know exactly how rules interact (usually so they can be exploited) and rules clarifications are now called "houserules" which in the OSR days wouldn't have attracted a second's thought. Add in the arm's length nature of online interaction which seems to cause many people to forget ordinary politeness and you end up in the situation where the DM cannot make up a rule for the situation not covered by the core rules because it would be an undeclared houserule...

Note: I have just addressed the problem on the "micro" level - how individual encounters flow, you have pointed out that the problem can be worse on the "macro" level - how an entire campaign flows; this is something I need to go away and think about, but is, to a degree, sandbox versus story-path.

[Pleh]

Still I'll take the rules light system and an actual dynamic story more often then not.

Wait, please elaborate on how a rules light system is superior?

Didn't you just imply that even a rules light system needs, "an actual dynamic story" to support it? And wouldn't that itself be created content, making rules light games content based as well?

I feel like you have contradicted yourself by aiming at the wrong target. It seems to me that RPGs are inescapably content based, whether D&D, rules light, or video games.

The actual difference you are trying to talk about is how easy content is to create. Video games must rely on procedural generation algorithms to create new content, which makes their improvisation and adaptability very limited.

You seem to be arguing that D&D, and rules heavy games in general, are too cumbersome to improvise or create content reactively.

I'll give you that rules light games are *easier* to improvise, because the mechanics require less manipulation.

But counterpoint 1 is that it isn't impossible to create content on the fly for D&D. Challenging, perhaps, but not impossible.

Counterpoint 2 is that having fewer rules doesn't always make it easier to create content. Part of the fun of video games or D&D is sticking an input into the game loop and see what it spits out. From this, we can receive Emergent Story, which can inspire creative improvisation that helps us generate new content.

Rules light systems will be much less effective in providing such inspirational feedback. Essentially, it places higher imaginative creative burden on the players (including GM).

Take the most rules light system possible: freeform. What are the downsides? Seems like the answer usually boils down to:

1. No limitations or rules means the game cannot be balanced unless the players voluntarily limit thenselves. Then the game isn't truly freeform, they are playing a system and haven't published or given it a name yet.
2. The game has a certain White Canvas problem. With all input coming from the players, there is no roll of the dice to prompt them. All imaginitive, creative control is on the players, so all effort comes from their personal energy reserve.

Honestly, every rule set is like a machine. If we compare running an RPG to traveling on a journey, having fewer machinery has the advantage of less upkeep to keep it running, but puts more work on your legs to carry you. On ths other hand, if you have a good car, you can reserve almost all your energy for maintaining the vehicle and you don't need to put much personal energy into walking to your destination.

Rules light as a middle ground seems to advocate for using a bycicle. Faster and easier than walking, but requires a lot less time, money, fuel, and tools to fix or maintain.

That's fine and fair enough, but let's not misrepresent the car enthusiasts. Cars are not inferior for requiring more investment to maintain. Rules heavy games are not inferior for being more burdensome to work with under the hood.

Some people live to hear that well tuned engine roar, even if they spend probably too much time getting it to that point.

[Cluedrew]

It exists because roleplayers decided procedural generation sucks and that scripted gameplay is where its at.

Oh yeah I was going to talk about the random tables in the back of Blades in the Dark as an example of some procedural generation that acts as a starting point for creating content. But things like that (and a book of randomized PC backgrounds) are all I've seen in that regard. Maybe you could go further with it but honestly doing it for one area of one campaign with no story events sounds pretty hard and doing it for arbitrary campaigns and somehow working in story stuff

Also the bit about the bandage is a joke, I think everyone knows that.

Note: I have just addressed the problem on the "micro" level - how individual encounters flow, you have pointed out that the problem can be worse on the "macro" level - how an entire campaign flows; this is something I need to go away and think about, but is, to a degree, sandbox versus story-path.

Yeah that is actually the level I am worried about. And there are things you can do to lessen the problem (tools above and practice below) but none of them seem to have the same effect as just starting with a simpler base.

Wait, please elaborate on how a rules light system is superior?

It's not. The trade-offs strike my fancy more often then the other way around. Unless we count the times I go so far the other way it takes me out of table top games entirely. Actually I'm not even sure one should count rules-light games in general, but the dynamic story where no one truly knows what is going to happen next because everyone is shaping it is my favourite thing about role-playing games.

Maybe I should of used the preparation comparison more (The Pain of Preparation) but paragraph three is about why on the fly stuff doesn't count. Also while that kind of content creation may be possible in rules-heavy games the fact the skill floor for it is so much higher is a problem. Sure you can put in the work to get that good and that is commendable but that still takes time and energy not everyone has to give.

[NichG]

For D&D I just try to have a general sense of how a certain amount of HP or AC or saving throws would 'feel' at different levels, and then I'll design things completely on the fly around that. So this is some high level legendary warrior? They'll need abilities so lets call this a ToB-type initiator character with what will end up being custom maneuvers. Probably needs around 150hp, should be hitting stuff with a +25 net bonus unbuffed, AC around 25 where a significant portion of that - lets say 8 points - is coming from dodge-type stuff, saves in the +18 range, and forget about skills/etc unless they come up.

The character needs about 3 offensive gimmicks and 3 defensive gimmicks:

For offense lets say a big scary status condition thing that consumes their entire attack sequence but has bad effects even on a successful save (something like a single-target full action attack that inflicts Paralysis for 1d3 rounds on a failed Fortitude save and Slowed for 1d3 rounds even on a successful save, but just normal damage); a shotgun strike swift action Boost that lets them attack everyone within a 30ft radius instead of a single target with a standard attack or attack roll based Maneuver but at the cost of -10 to-hit; an immediate action movement ability that lets them move 40ft in a line but creates a vacuum in their wake, drawing things in from 10ft to either side and causing minor damage on a failed Fortitude save.

For defense lets say Iron Heart Surge as a general 'can play at this level' pick, something that grants a bit of damage backstop in the form of 50% reduction for one round after taking a particularly large blow, and a small flat amount of self-healing whenever they land an attack no matter how much damage is dealt by it which can combo with the inverse power attack thing and the shotgun attack thing.

Theme it all as time manipulation martial arts, and call it a day.

Writing this out took about 10 minutes, so it's not instant, but it's not the end of the world to have to do this once or twice during a session.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Here's my experience with 5e D&D, as a forever DM who was frequently (until this year, stupid virus) running 3 campaigns a week.

Worldbuilding: I do this all the time anyway. Even when I don't have campaigns going.
Encounter planning: Takes very little time, because I rarely worry about pushing the envelope of difficulty. Pull some stat blocks from the MM (and other resources) that look about right and are thematic, go with it. Only making battle maps takes time, and that's only because I have to do digital ones in this distanced era. When I was doing it in person, I'd sketch them as we went, completely ad libbing them.
Campaign planning: Not tons of time or effort, because most of that's covered in the worldbuilding and I ad lib the rest of the details. And I don't plan things out more than an arc at a time for the high-level and a session or so for the details I do plan.
Rules rulings: I do these on the fly. I might look something up once every few sessions. DCs are either 10, 15, or 20, with the very occasional 25.

So the key has been for me to have a really solid, really well known (to me) world as a base. I can answer almost any question off my head, because I've spent 6+ years living in the world. If I had to change worlds for every group (that whole "collaborative worldbuilding at session 0" thing), I could never do this and I'd have to use a much more rules-lite system. Which would annoy me in other ways[1].

[1] In grad school I developed what I call the "Law of Conservation of Annoyance". In every system, model, or other constructed paradigm there is a certain amount of annoyance (ie parts of the system that don't work quite right and have to be fudged). Switching systems, models, or paradigms doesn't increase or decrease the total amount of annoyance, but merely shifts it around. Sometimes that's enough if you can push it to where you don't care about it, but it's still there.

[Vahnavoi]

Oh yeah I was going to talk about the random tables in the back of Blades in the Dark as an example of some procedural generation that acts as a starting point for creating content. But things like that (and a book of randomized PC backgrounds) are all I've seen in that regard. Maybe you could go further with it but honestly doing it for one area of one campaign with no story events sounds pretty hard and doing it for arbitrary campaigns and somehow working in story stuff.

One of the better examples I've seen belongs to Finnish RPG Franchise, Praedor. Specifically, one of its companion books, "Kirottu Kirja" and a decknof custom cards yo go with it.

To be a bit more specific, it has a table for random structures and threats, and a deck of cards to go with it. You can create landmarks in the terrain of a dead megacity by drawing cards from a deck as you go.

Though if you want to go really far back, 1st edition of AD&D had rough rules for procedurally generating dungeon floors as you explore them. A whole genre of computer games, Roguelikes, were basically founded on computerizing and emulating these rules. The contemporary culmination of this process is Dwarf Fortress, which procedurally generates massive worlds and their histories. On the tabletop, various OSR game supplements have less expansive procedures for doing similar things.

[Yora]

That's one of the really nice things about the Powered by the Apocalypse system. The way it is designed, all the crunch is on the character sheets of the players. It is designed so that the fallout from a failed attempt to deal with a threat can be determined by a judgement call on the spot, based on what is appropriate for the context of the current scene.
All you need to improvise during play is to have an idea for a new threat. You don't need to put together any kind of stats for that threat.

Preparation comes primarily down to thinking in advance about the places the players are like to be visiting, and the people and creatures that could be encountered at those places. You don't need to nail down the specifics, like the numbers of guards, or the exact locations of rooms. But the better you understand what the places are like, and who the people and creatures are and how they think, the easier it gets to create good content on the fly that feels more thought out instead of generic stuff.

Personally, I think two significant parts of the cause of the problem are the SRD and the modern internet, particularly online gaming.
The SRD is a great thing, but to enable to system to be opened up to other publishers, there needs to be clarity on exactly how things work - and that means you need rules for them.

I don't see that as part of the issue. Blades in the Dark has an SRD, while still being a system that has no stats for NPCs, monsters, magic items, and spells. (Only a few suggestions for bombs and poisons, and those are considered setting specific and not part of the SRD.)

It's also a self-created problem. It exists because roleplayers decided procedural generation sucks and that scripted gameplay is where its at.

I blame Dragonlance for 90% of all things that are wrong with most RPGs.

[Quertus]

I keep struggling to reply to this thread.

So... there's this notion of content that you're prepared to run, and content that you're... not.

Except... that seems solvable programmatically - simply having an engine to generate new content would solve this.

So what's the problem?

Is the problem that that new content isn't necessarily "CR appropriate"?

Is the problem that "Oh, look, there's a lake of gold just 2 days journey away, suddenly none of the 'fighting over the copper mine' plotline we've been playing makes any sense whatsoever"?

Is the problem that that Dragon 2½ days away, that didn't get generated for another 5 sessions, might have wanted to interact with some of these events?

On the flip side, yes, manually creating content in certain systems *cough* 3e D&D *cough* is rather a pain. No question there. OK, and?

-----

When the PCs unexpectedly decide that they want to talk to a thermonuclear astrophysicist, or come crashing through a random city wall, yes, there is probably a sudden need to generate content mid-session. But I don't see where the challenge there really changes with system.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I keep struggling to reply to this thread.

So... there's this notion of content that you're prepared to run, and content that you're... not.

Except... that seems solvable programmatically - simply having an engine to generate new content would solve this.

So what's the problem?

Is the problem that that new content isn't necessarily "CR appropriate"?

Is the problem that "Oh, look, there's a lake of gold just 2 days journey away, suddenly none of the 'fighting over the copper mine' plotline we've been playing makes any sense whatsoever"?

Is the problem that that Dragon 2½ days away, that didn't get generated for another 5 sessions, might have wanted to interact with some of these events?

On the flip side, yes, manually creating content in certain systems *cough* 3e D&D *cough* is rather a pain. No question there. OK, and?

-----

When the PCs unexpectedly decide that they want to talk to a thermonuclear astrophysicist, or come crashing through a random city wall, yes, there is probably a sudden need to generate content mid-session. But I don't see where the challenge there really changes with system.

Generating new content that makes sense isn't something that you can do programmatically. Even procedural generation ends up looking like the same thing after a while and often needs careful curation.

If I wanted a random dungeon crawl, I wouldn't be playing a TTRPG. I want a world that could really be. And that's not something a computer can do.

[Cluedrew]

I almost think I'm going to have to redo the first post. I feel there is something there, because honestly the biggest fault of every D&D campaign I have ever played (even if they were good overall) is pretty much the same: they were static. People talk about sessions where the campaign was completely derailed and I have played campaigns where that is most sessions. And that is a lot of fun. And not a single D&D campaign I have played was like that. Maybe it is a cultural thing.

I had a few more replies but I ended up cutting them out because they all boiled down to saying the same thing (as in this post or one earlier in this thread) to a different person.

Encounter planning: Takes very little time, because I rarely worry about pushing the envelope of difficulty. Pull some stat blocks from the MM (and other resources) that look about right and are thematic, go with it. Only making battle maps takes time, and that's only because I have to do digital ones in this distanced era. When I was doing it in person, I'd sketch them as we went, completely ad libbing them.

Oh yes, there is the next big way to cut out content creation, remade and reused content. Works if you have the right pieces at hand (and if you have enough pieces you probably do). Actually to bring up Blades in the Dark (it's been coming up a lot this thread), it doesn't have any rules to create factions despite a lot of its mechanics being faction based. Partly because they are pretty simple and you could create more. Partly because it gives you a complete listing of every faction in the city as part of the core rules, except the player's.

Except... that seems solvable programmatically - simply having an engine to generate new content would solve this.

So what's the problem?

Let me put it this way: Can you put one together for my next campaign?

No I can't tell you what the campaign is going to be the about, I usually decide that as part of session 1 with the players/after seeing their characters. That is all I need for a rules light system to create everything I need on the fly. Can you do the same with a rules heavy system? Taking into account theming, the characters and the kinds of tools they have and the goals they are working towards. Pick any system you like, if you can actually put this tool together I will teach myself to run it to use this tool.

[Rynjin]

I don't have a tool I use (save the existence of the PFSRD), but yeah I seat-of-the-pants GM for a rules heavy system (Pathfinder) all the time. It's exactly the same as doing it for a rules light system, save that the barrier to entry is higher. "Procedurally generating" content on the fly for your game is one part imagination, two parts system mastery; the more you know the more variables you can input.

For a rules light system, system mastery is, however, orders of magnitude easier than a crunchier system. That is the only appreciable difference between using that GMing style for different RPGs.

[Yora]

I almost think I'm going to have to redo the first post. I feel there is something there, because honestly the biggest fault of every D&D campaign I have ever played (even if they were good overall) is pretty much the same: they were static. People talk about sessions where the campaign was completely derailed and I have played campaigns where that is most sessions. And that is a lot of fun. And not a single D&D campaign I have played was like that. Maybe it is a cultural thing.

There are scripted campaigns in which the sequence of major scenes and their outcomes are predetermined, and there are campaigns where you "play to see what happens".
Derailing can only happen if there are any rails; that is, a script that tells you how the story plays out. Call it railroad if you want, or don't if you don't. But scripted adventures have been the standard for published D&D since Dragonlance was successful, and World of Darkness since forever.

I would guess 95% of all adventures ever released are scripts for full stories. No matter what happens, the book tells you the exact room where the final showdown will take place, exactly who will be fighting in that fight. And the same for all the other major encounters during the adventure or even entire campaign. And nobody ever really considers it a possibility thst the PCs might get defeated at some point. The players might get some options to save an NPC or not, decide what faction they want to ally with for a major fight, and little things like that. But still, the book tells you where, when, and who you will be fighting for the showdown.

Since virtually all adventures you can buy are like this, most people think this is the only way to run adventures. The rulebooks might give some lip service to telling GMs they can and should run their games interactively and responding to players' actions, but the adventures then just completely ignore it.

[Spiderswims]

Well, my question is: What is it about the game that makes you feel it's static?

I guess your not talking about the programed path (ok, we need to find all five element idols to defeat the demon), right?

By static, I'd guess you mean the game does not move or do anything new or exciting?

I might add this might be a bit on the player(s). When the players just have their characters stand around, nothing much happens in the game.

-----

Then I think you might be stuck in the rut that a campaign must be about something. Why? That is not true.

[icefractal]

Content is always the hard part, and there's no easy solution AFAICT.

Create it well in advance:
* Potential wasted effort.
* Can lead to inflexibility / railroading.

Create it shortly in advance (like, each session establish what the PCs will do next session, then prep accordingly):
* Requires prep time between every session.
* Still can lead to inflexibility although not as likely to.

Improvise on the fly:
* Mentally demanding, in a different way than prep is.
* Quality is highly variable.
* Easy to accidentally "soft railroad" by having all paths lead to the same result.

Procedural generation:
* It's not a silver bullet; as anyone who's flown around Minecraft in creative mode can attest, after a while of seeing the same procedurally generated landscapes they all start looking the same.
* Usually it just gives a seed to improvise from, so it has the same potential issues as improvising on the fly.

Whether prep or improv counts as "more work" is something that varies between individual GMs. For me personally, I find stuff like PbtA freeing, but also ****ing exhausting after a while of running it, so more often I stick to preparing stuff at least a bit in advance.

Also, I wouldn't say you can't improv in crunchy systems. It's harder in some cases, but for example when the PCs go somewhere like a large city, I'm not statting every NPC there individually! Instead what I do is figure out what the skill bonuses for "average professional" / "expert" / "best in the city" would be, and apply that accordingly. So say they try to use a forged document to scam the Shipwrights Guild. That's one of the larger guilds, and while not specializing in contracts they do deal with them, so they're going to have at least an "expert" appraiser scrutinizing it, but not quite "the best in the city".

Also, the humble d6. If a detail I hadn't thought about comes up, sometimes I'll just roll a d6 for it - 1 is the least favorable for the PCs, 6 is the most favorable. How well this works depends on how good your sense of what's plausible works out. For example, the PCs want to break into a noble's greenhouse. How guarded is it? 1 wouldn't be "guarded by a hundred 20th level Wizards" because that's dumb, but it would mean "regularly patrolled by the best guards he has working for him", and 6 would be "rarely patrolled, sometimes left unlocked". It's not really a content creation tool though, it's more like a 'break myself out of accidental mental ruts' device.

...

New high-op challenge - break into a greenhouse which is guarded by one hundred 20th level Wizards.

[Cluedrew]

I've been a bit quiet because I've (been busy and) had to reflect on some things it might be a constructed thing... an least in part.

I guess your not talking about the programed path (ok, we need to find all five element idols to defeat the demon), right?

By static, I'd guess you mean the game does not move or do anything new or exciting?

Your guess is wrong but I have been kind of vague about it. By static I mean events early in the game don't "really" effect later parts of the campaign. Not in the sense that everything is random and unconnected but in that all the reasonable outcomes are accounted for and will lead you down the path. A path that might be a lot wider than a railroad but still would play out quite similarly no matter what party you put down at the beginning. Pretty much every pre-made adventure without a bunch of branching paths will by its nature have this... problem (except maybe sandboxes that aren't formatted with a main sequence of events).

And maybe I shouldn't say problem but missed opportunity. Because although that path is wider than it is in computer it still isn't anywhere as near as broad as it can be and I like playing games where if anyone (any PC or the GM's responses) were replaced with someone else the game would not be the same in significant ways.

New high-op challenge - break into a greenhouse which is guarded by one hundred 20th level Wizards.

I'm going to need all the anti-magic.

[Xervous]

.

I'm going to need all the anti-magic.

But that unseals the rifts to the far realm! The wizards keep the place under positive pressure via called air elementals to ensure nothing gets through to our side in case of a containment failure.

[Pleh]

I like playing games where if anyone (any PC or the GM's responses) were replaced with someone else the game would not be the same in significant ways.

Sounds like you're advocating Player Generated Content. The GM is expected to run the game based on how the players choose to interact with the game.

In essence, this is handled by GMs with improv. This is not a failure of any system, but a failure with every system.

In order to leave the player input prompt truly blank and open to being filled with any conceivable response, the GM must be either prepared for every conceivable response, or highly skilled at improvising.

Beyond procedural generation, I've seen a few mobile app games that use AI for a text based RPG. It's like a step above procedural generation, because it's like procedural generation that is drawing from examples of handcrafted roleplay to improvise similar content.

Because at the end of the day, you can't really escape the need for content. If you manage to free your game of content dependency, you have a game where the players sit in an empty void in which nothing ever happens or can happen. All you can really do is learn to become skilled at making content, whether by preparing it in advance, improvising it on the spot, programming a computer to procedurally generate content, or teaching an AI to improvise content.

It's not really a curse. It's just a fundamental premise of the game.

[King of Nowhere]

[QUOTE=Cluedrew;24785956
And maybe I shouldn't say problem but missed opportunity. Because although that path is wider than it is in computer it still isn't anywhere as near as broad as it can be and I like playing games where if anyone (any PC or the GM's responses) were replaced with someone else the game would not be the same in significant ways.
[/QUOTE]

I don't see what that has to do with d&d 3.5.
this problem is there in any game, if you want to go in the uncharted part of the map the dm will honestly tell you that he hasn't created content there and please don't go. or maybe he will concoct some half-assed stuff on the fly, which won't be particularly good because improvisation.
happens the same if you're in a rules heavy system or in freeform. and in rules heavy systems, at least you have some boundaries for what you can expect

[Spiderswims]

Your guess is wrong but I have been kind of vague about it. By static I mean events early in the game don't "really" effect later parts of the campaign..

I'm not really following this at all. You seem to be talking about railroading, or at least an adventure path....but you don't say that, so maybe your not? Unless your game is just a random hex crawl, there has to be some sort of path.

And any module has to have a path as they can only have so much content. They can't make 50,000 page modules for every action a PC might or might not take.

All you can really do is learn to become skilled at making content, whether by preparing it in advance, improvising it on the spot, programming a computer to procedurally generate content, or teaching an AI to improvise content.

This is one of the basic things GMs do. Though I'd also add the skill of side trek. If the PCs really do a 180 or something, the GM just needs to toss out a side trek for them to do. Side Treks used to be in old Dungeon magazine, but you can find plenty free ones online too. They are simple and direct, but can still take an hour or more to play out. More then enough time for a GM to make something up, or for the game to end for the night.

[Pex]

Risking making a man of straw, sounds to me you want to play a game without rules making everything up on the fly. One can do that. I tried that once. Never again. It's fine as far as your taste goes for you, but I like content. I want the stuff that gets plugged in and buttons to push to make things happen. It's all glorified Make Believe Cops & Robbers, but content is needed to prevent I shot you! No you didn't! debates. The fun is in the game mechanics, and roleplaying takes care of the rest.

[Cluedrew]

All you can really do is learn to become skilled at making content, whether by preparing it in advance, improvising it on the spot, programming a computer to procedurally generate content, or teaching an AI to improvise content.

I will forward there is a second approach, design a system that it is easy to create content for. There by lowering the skill required to make content. As an individual player it is probably way more work but as a game designer you could make the same level of improvisation a lot more accessible. Not universal, people still have to figure out what goes there at a high level, but you can make the mechanical implementation easier.

And any module has to have a path as they can only have so much content. They can't make 50,000 page modules for every action a PC might or might not take.

Correct, which is why I propose the following solution: Create content* only for the actions the characters take. But to do this you have to be able to generate all the content in the window between the decision and when you see the... location, encounters or characters introduced because of that decision. In a sense all I am saying is there is value in a system that helps you do that.

Risking making a man of straw, sounds to me you want to play a game without rules making everything up on the fly.

I'm not going that far** here I would like to draw a line between structure and content. So a resolution mechanic is a system, rules for what stats a character has are a system or an attribute a spell can have is (part of) a system. On the other hand a map is a piece of content, a character with a filled out stat line or a custom spell is a piece of content. I feel like I should be able to rattle off dictionary definitions for these but I can't quite think of them right now, but does that help?

* I think I am going to give up on the old content divide. Or at least come back with new terms.

** At this time. I have in the past done role-playing that borders on collaborative writing exercise and it is fun but also definitely a different beast. Maybe I should

[Pex]

To a lesser extent there is Theater of the Mind combat, which I do like and run as DM. Characters and monsters have their specific abilities, but you don't worry about the details of who is where and how far. Your targets just have to be close enough and not worry about if exactly within 30 ft. It's enough to say you Move to ensure you get in range or out of range of something as needed. Positioning of Area Effect spells only matter by saying of course you avoid hitting party members.

If you're not careful an unintended breaking of the rules can happen. I made that mistake recently. In one combat I let every individual party member Move to attack a monster when feasibly they couldn't all have room to do so, not even to surround it. The monster happened to have a breath weapon, and I used it against everyone. A player correctly questioned being able to get everyone since it's a cone, but I ruled since I let everyone be able to get an attack in when normally they couldn't it was a fair exchange. If I used a grid not everyone could attack it directly and not everyone would be hit with the breath weapon. They all Moved to be in melee area. If anyone had stayed back to attack with range or do something else they would not have been in the breath weapon, but no one stayed back.

[SonglessBard]

This a curious conundrum to have since I don't have much experience with things feeling static. I am a DM (DnD 3.5 & 5) who generally runs a strong sandbox in well-defined world (Think 15-20 pages of lore and a MS paint map).

In my first long-form campaign, the PC's started the game by burning down a merchant's vessel, killing a prominent local politian (well-known for his corruption), and generally dismantling the port's commercial district. They prompty fled into a kingdom preparing for war instead of pursuing the other plot hooks (A vampire necromancer threatening the north, a powerful fleet of slaving pirates known as the Black Sword, and a once powerful politician revealed to be high priest of the trickster god.

An organization named the Black Sword took over the region in the chaos. Meanwhile, they found a cult offering refuge from the way by way of joining with the Gilded God, a lead on the missing prince (who could end the war, and local emissaries for either faction. They elected to find the prince, cure the ailment that sent him into hiding, and revive an earth titan that ensured he would retain his throne. By now the Black Sword was expanding, taking over bridges and threatening towns, including a few favored NPCs. Similarly, entire villages were uprooting themselves after being swayed by the Gilded God Cult which tied into 2 PC backstories. They had their allies protect the kingdom while they went to challenge the Black Sword.

Their preservation of the kingdom's unity led to their readied armies crushing the undead horde from the north but the Gilded God gained more ground. When they defeated the Black Sword, they decided to run off to a previously unexplored region of the world that gave insight into the realm of gods and the heaven and subsequently chose to come back to face off against a half-born avatar of the Gilded God, ending the campaign.

Almost all my dnd campaigns are similar to this in terms of having their pick of 3-5 plot arcs at a time. The world moves and the lore updates at the end of every plot arc (assuming they finish them). The PCs have exactly as much impact as the depth of the world allows and greater investment from players makes each piece more meaningful.

I have also run homebrew rules light systems over a deep well of lore, allowing players to explore Victorian London filled with the paranormal or a campy, "zany" space bounty hunters where the entire point of the game is to get out of debt while having fun. These games are focused on what the players find interesting. Finding threads that these things tie into a tapestry and electing to cut them or pull them only to delight in a wrinkle or a tear later on.

The game matters but I do not understand your curse of content. My players can't do anything but if they ask to do something the rules don't provide for (popping pocorn in magical fire as a combat distraction), I simply make a ruling.

But I somewhat feel like I am misunderstanding your arguement.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I am a DM (DnD 3.5 & 5) who generally runs a strong sandbox in well-defined world (Think 15-20 pages of lore and a MS paint map).

Looks at my world, thinks "maybe I've over-prepared?"

[Pleh]

I will forward there is a second approach, design a system that it is easy to create content for. There by lowering the skill required to make content. As an individual player it is probably way more work but as a game designer you could make the same level of improvisation a lot more accessible. Not universal, people still have to figure out what goes there at a high level, but you can make the mechanical implementation easier.

I'm curious. How do you do this beyond adding random content tables to the book?

Just exactly what kind of content should systems have that makes it easier for you to develop content?

[Vahnavoi]

And any module has to have a path as they can only have so much content. They can't make 50,000 page modules for every action a PC might or might not take..

This makes my head hurt... an obvious retort would be that there's a lot of room between "a path" and "50,000 page module", such as, maybe, a module that has two paths, or three...

But there's a more fundamental issue here. Consider Chess. The basic rules of Chess don't include an exhaustive exploration of every move (I don't even know what that number would be) one could make in Chess. No-one needs that to play Chess. You only need to know how the pieces can move on the board so you can arrive at the next game state.

So it is for roleplaying games. To have a lot of possible solutions, a module only needs a well-defined beginning state and some rules for how entities in the module would react to player action. And then when players take some action, you derive the mext state and reapply those same rules. So on and so forth until you reach an acceptable end state.

Case in point...

Unless your game is just a random hex crawl, there has to be some sort of path.

"Random hexcrawl" is an example of how to set up a game that doesn't have a path, but instead, has many paths. So are all map-based adventures, you don't need to confine yourself to a hex grid.

As long as 1) you can approach a game object from multiple directions and 2) the direction makes a difference, you have a game scenario with multiple paths through it. This is very basic, people. Basic board games manage this. Basic videogames manage it. Super Mario Bros. from 1985 has less railroading in it than many adventure modules, and it's a 2D platformer that only goes from left to right!

[Yora]

I'm curious. How do you do this beyond adding random content tables to the book?

Just exactly what kind of content should systems have that makes it easier for you to develop content?

Speaking from personal experience, probably the worst case for how you can stat an NPC are all games base on the d20 SRD, like D&D 3rd edition.

As GM, you decide you want an NPC who is a Fighter5/Rogue5, and you want full stats for him so that you can properly run him if the players decide to pick a fight with him. The rules for assigning skill points and gaining feats are designed for PCs who advance one level at a time every three or four play sessions. You can't rally make a 10th level NPC. You have to make a 1st level NPC, then level him up to 2nd level, then to 3rd level, and so on. And then you might realize you can't get the required prerequisites for the feat combination you like with this setup, and so you have to start the whole process over and over again.
And you can easily get into situations where you end up doing 6 NPCs or more for every game session.

Say you want to set up an encounter with goblins, but they are elite goblins with 2 levels of rogue. And you have to go through the same process.

Even worse is when the players take the action in unexpected directions and decide they want to fight NPCs that you did not expect to get into a fight and so you have not prepared stats for them. Making them up in 5 minutes is impossible.

Other systems have stats for NPCs that are much simpler than for PCs, or follow completely different rules. In some cases you only need two or three numbers to sufficiently stat an NPC for a confrontation, which you can make up on the spot in 5 seconds.

[Spiderswims]

This makes my head hurt... an obvious retort would be that there's a lot of room between "a path" and "50,000 page module", such as, maybe, a module that has two paths, or three...

I'd say most good modules do have two or three paths, but still that is only three paths at the most really. As a publisher, I can tell you every page counts and cost money. That three path module is 64 pages, but they your publisher tells you that you only have 32 pages, or 27 pages counting maps and artwork. So now you have to make that module just one path.

But there's a more fundamental issue here. Consider Chess. The basic rules of Chess don't include an exhaustive exploration of every move (I don't even know what that number would be) one could make in Chess. No-one needs that to play Chess. You only need to know how the pieces can move on the board so you can arrive at the next game state.

Chess is a bit too complicated for most people to grasp, but there is a very limited and set number of moves: in fact there is an exact number of move by move games of Chess that can be player ever. And the average Chess computer program knows them all.

A better more human example would be Tic Tack Toe. There are only a couple moves, and the basic move is just block the other player from winning: just about all games are a draw.

So it is for roleplaying games. To have a lot of possible solutions, a module only needs a well-defined beginning state and some rules for how entities in the module would react to player action. And then when players take some action, you derive the mext state and reapply those same rules. So on and so forth until you reach an acceptable end state.

The occasional module does try this, but it's not too popular for the simple reason that it does not work for most GMs. A lot of GMs can't build off a list of information, and this is very nearly true of all new and inexperienced GMs. They need the module to show them the path.

Correct, which is why I propose the following solution: Create content* only for the actions the characters take. But to do this you have to be able to generate all the content in the window between the decision and when you see the... location, encounters or characters introduced because of that decision. In a sense all I am saying is there is value in a system that helps you do that.

I'm not sure this is much of a problem or a curse. ancient Gygax Advise from long ago is to create content that can be slipped into a running game as needed. Take a couple minutes and you can make some guard or bandit NPC or a lurking monster. Once you have even five basic ones made, you can very easily make them more specialized

And if you play a popular game, like D&D, you can find tons of made content. In the past I used to take content from Dragon and Dungeon magazines, but now a days you can find tons of content online. you can take it and use it as is, or change it up some to fit whatever you need.

And you can always stall to make up new content. Just put something in the game that will take up the players attention and game time.

If it really comes down to it, you can just pause the game too. Do something else or play another game. Most players will understand.