D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[FormerlyHemlock]

Where was that? Not since it got necroed, and I don't think you were posting in the pre-necro thread.

Maybe you got me confused with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]?

I guess so. I apologize for the misattribution.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

You're the only one here who thinks that though. No one else even began to talk about fighting anything.

In post 858, this was said: "You don't run White Plume Mountain for 1st level characters do you? You don't bomb ancient dragons on those characters either." I'm not familiar with White Plume Mountain but "bombing ancient dragons" sounds like a fight scenario to me.

Leading directly to my counterpoint, that you can send 1st level characters into scenarios with ancient red dragons. (Or at least, Tolkien did.) You should not, however, require them to immediately engage the red dragon in direct combat. (That's a violation of Niven's Law, since they'll just have to roll up new characters immediately, thus wasting an hour or more of game time on the first characters.) You could present the dragon and let the PCs choose their approach, which could be bribing the dragon to go away (free virgins!), poisoning it with a poisoned cow, rallying their town guards to drive it off or kill it (ideally at night so you can effectively attack from long range with 60 guardsmen), playing dragon politics with the dragon next door, or anything else crazy that they dream up. Or run away; running away is always an option.

 

[Hussar]

In post 858, this was said: "You don't run White Plume Mountain for 1st level characters do you? You don't bomb ancient dragons on those characters either." I'm not familiar with White Plume Mountain but "bombing ancient dragons" sounds like a fight scenario to me.

Leading directly to my counterpoint, that you can send 1st level characters into scenarios with ancient red dragons. (Or at least, Tolkien did.) You should not, however, require them to immediately engage the red dragon in direct combat. (That's a violation of Niven's Law, since they'll just have to roll up new characters immediately, thus wasting an hour or more of game time on the first characters.) You could present the dragon and let the PCs choose their approach, which could be bribing the dragon to go away (free virgins!), poisoning it with a poisoned cow, rallying their town guards to drive it off or kill it (ideally at night so you can effectively attack from long range with 60 guardsmen), playing dragon politics with the dragon next door, or anything else crazy that they dream up. Or run away; running away is always an option.

The difference, of course, being that in your scenarios the players know the dragon is there. Thus, my point about bombing the dragon in. In your scenario, the players have all this information and can act appropriately. (or not depending on the players. ) But, in the example at hand, the players don't know the succubus is there and cannot know until such time as they've killed enough goblins.

I agree with your scenarios. All of which can be fun. Because in every one of your scenarios, there is a solution that is available to the players. That's been my point all along. The Succubus scenario is ultimately unresolvable, not because the players are bad or doing anything wrong, but because the DM has chosen a challenge that the players cannot resolve, no matter what they do.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The difference, of course, being that in your scenarios the players know the dragon is there. Thus, my point about bombing the dragon in. In your scenario, the players have all this information and can act appropriately. (or not depending on the players. ) But, in the example at hand, the players don't know the succubus is there and cannot know until such time as they've killed enough goblins.

I agree with your scenarios. All of which can be fun. Because in every one of your scenarios, there is a solution that is available to the players. That's been my point all along. The Succubus scenario is ultimately unresolvable, not because the players are bad or doing anything wrong, but because the DM has chosen a challenge that the players cannot resolve, no matter what they do.

I've previously pointed out a number of ways to resolve the murder (succubus) situation with low-level characters. #841, and then ExploderWizard added some more thoughts in #842. So no, I don't agree that the players cannot resolve it, no matter what they do. I do agree that they probably won't resolve it unless they have a paladin in the party, but as a player I'm fine with that.

I suppose this comes down to playstyle. As I've said, I prefer sandboxes and I run sandboxes, and in a sandbox it's common to run across situations which cannot be resolved immediately. Just think about King's Quest and Zork!

 

[pemerton]

I suppose this comes down to playstyle. As I've said, I prefer sandboxes and I run sandboxes

I still feel that this has only limited bearing on the situation under discussion, which was very evidently not a sandbox. The players were obliged to dick around with the succubus mystery until they discovered they couldn't solve it, then were obliged to go and kill goblins, so that they could then be told by the GM the solution to the succubus mystery that they had not been able to solve but had been obliged to spend playtime on.

And by "were obliged" I mean "were obliged, assuming they wanted to sit at the GM's table on that evening and play D&D".

 

[Hussar]

Additionally [MENTION=6787650]emdw45[/MENTION], I'd question your characterisation of your campaign as a sandbox. To me a sandbox is player driven. The events and actions are determined by the players and the DM generally reacts to the player's directions in a sandbox. What you listed above is a boat load of hooks that are all DM driven where the players have to react. That's not a sandbox IMO. It's just a full campaign, sure, but, since it's pretty much entirely generated by the DM, it's not a sandbox.

 

[Zak S]

When the players can't go " all your hooks" and do something else it is _less_ of a sandbox but not necessarily not a sandbox..

For example this:
"
"Over the course of the afternoon, you wrack your brains to come up with a new lead or a new angle on the problem, but nothing comes to mind and you're afraid you might have to file this under Unsolved Mysteries for now.
"

…is a "choker" technique that objectively makes play less sandboxy...

A way to do this that'd be more sandbox is simple, have a consequence of a thing they did or did not do earlier bite them on the butt during the investigation. If it's a thing they did do, that's player driven, if it's a ting they didn't do but could've that's less player driven but still arguably player driven, if it's a thing they could've done nothing about that's not player-driven.

All kinds of RPG have constraints and sandbox is really more of a scale than a yes/no:

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2010/05/chokers-and-chandlers.html

…as soon as you introduce even one NPC who has a mind of their own and use them that way, you introduce the POSSIBILITY of it not being wholly sandbox anymore (especially when "ending the world" becomes a thing an NPC can do if not dealt with), but it's really much more of a gradient.

That article lays out Total Railroad and Total Sandbox and everything in between (I think).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Additionally [MENTION=6787650]emdw45[/MENTION], I'd question your characterisation of your campaign as a sandbox. To me a sandbox is player driven. The events and actions are determined by the players and the DM generally reacts to the player's directions in a sandbox. What you listed above is a boat load of hooks that are all DM driven where the players have to react. That's not a sandbox IMO. It's just a full campaign, sure, but, since it's pretty much entirely generated by the DM, it's not a sandbox.

A sandbox is designed to maximize player choice and importance. It doesn't have to be a blank slate where nothing happens offscreen. Because it's a sandbox, the players never have to do anything in particular--there won't be any DM pushback if they decide to just walk away from everything and become space pirates. There's still an obligation however to ensure that space is full of something more than just emptiness. I.e. weird asteroids to explore, or a scro armada. Because I'm a simulationist I give these things an origin/backstory, but the intent at the metagame level is always about empowering players and presenting them with options. Ergo, sandbox.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

When the players can't go " all your hooks" and do something else it is _less_ of a sandbox but not necessarily not a sandbox..

For example this:
"
"Over the course of the afternoon, you wrack your brains to come up with a new lead or a new angle on the problem, but nothing comes to mind and you're afraid you might have to file this under Unsolved Mysteries for now.
"

…is a "choker" technique that objectively makes play less sandboxy...

How is that a denial of a player's attempt to ignore a hook? My players have ignored tons of hooks (that's why I can list so many unresolved ones ) in exactly this "shrug it off" way. What makes you think I'm forcing them to engage?

P.S. Obviously if they wanted to keep pursuing the mystery they could. It's as simple as saying, "No wait. I want to go interview the woman again/report her to the king/stab her to death/go fishing/disguise myself as the woman and go shoplifting." It's D&D, you can do whatever you want. Sometimes there are consequences to what you did.

 

[Zak S]

How is that a denial of a player's attempt to ignore a hook?

It isn't. It is a choker, however--a technique that makes a game less sandboxy. If you have a question about what that means, there's a link up there.

I am not agreeing with Hussar that your game "isn't a sandbox" I am explaining in more detail what that term means.