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

[zakael19]

Why does it matter?

See the post from @Campbell his was in reply to.

 

[pemerton]

So you're describing one process here - obviously it's not the only one that a GM might use, when having to apply the rule call for a roll if the outcome is uncertain.

It's also pretty obvious that, for any given set of established facts/details, there are probably multiple ways of staying true to them. This seems true for things ranging from the technical/scientific - say, the risk of a bushfire being caused by lighting a campfire in a forest - though to the interpersonal and intimate - say, the likelihood that a person will respond to a proposal of marriage.

Sometimes "staying true" to something also involves notions of aesthetic or even moral value - I don't know if you intend to include that, but common human experience tells us that this is also something where multiple ways forward can be seen to be ways of staying true.

In my experience of GMing sandboxes using "realism" or "what would make sense in the setting", these multiple possibilities for staying true and making sense and being realistic, given the context can generate disagreement between players and the GM. Depending on the point in the resolution process that the principle is invoked and applied, it can also produce a sense of unfairness or capriciousness, if the GM imposes a consequence that they believe would make sense, but that was not anticipated or expected by a player whose PC is affected.

That's not a reason not to do it, although it's a reason that I no longer GM using that method. I think even for those who do GM using that method, I think it is a reason to be thoughtful about how the principles is applied, to what extent the GM should act unilaterally, how to go about establishing clear stakes before the dice are rolled, etc.

Circumstances in settings are always nuanced. As a result, there are always several plausible possibilities.

<snip>

Sandbox Campaigns are about embracing the What If, embracing the possibilities, and embracing the uncertainty. I often commented that the goal of sandbox campaigns is to let players trash the setting as their character. A crucial element of that is the fact that there are always multiple plausible possibilities given the circumstances of the campaign at any one moment. Being free to trash the setting means being free to pick which possibility to explore.

Embracing myriad possibilities and uncertainty is important to Sandbox campaigns. However, these are goals that have to be implemented by human beings, particularly by the individual who is the referee of the campaign. An important challenge is one you noted.

<snip>

Sandbox campaign works best when the referee is a neutral arbiter

<snip>

The referee must be impartial, as that is what builds trust among the players that the referee's decisions are fair. I have developed a series of best practices that I use to establish my impartiality. Others have their own methods.

One of them is being open to discussion and questions even during play. I won't discuss things that would be considered spoilers after the campaign is concluded, or in many cases, several sessions later, when specific spoilers are no longer relevant. I'm happy to hash things out and walk players through why I made the decisions I did.

<snip>

Wrapping this up, discussing the issue of uncertainty and differing views of what was possible was a common topic in early discussions about sandbox campaigns.

So, at least in broad terms you agree with me?

 

[AlViking]

See the post from @Campbell his was in reply to.

Not sure what that means, sorry. To me, either I trust my GM or I don't. If I trust them to do the best they can and I'm enjoying the game it doesn't matter. If I don't trust them or I'm not enjoying the game we have a different issue and I'm probably not going to continue playing with them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ok, sure, but how do you make this decision? If it's "in the moment" is it whim? Feels right? What are you bringing to bear to figure this out if it's not part of like, prep or tags or something? Random rolls on a table? Do the players have a way to figure out that this person is going to shut down all their ideas that poke against this suddenly upright guard that didn't exist 5 seconds ago? Do they have a way to determine the guards here are incorruptible, is it a reaction table they know is part of play? Random dice and you're narrating the outcome based on pass/fail?

I like to use reaction tables personally.

 

[pemerton]

Tolkien might have been fine with some northern barbarian clans, but adding Tortles to the setting is a no go.

Really? I mean, he added hobbits, and ents. And talking birds both big and small. How can we say, a priori, that anthropomorphic turtles are right out?

We can't even say, with confidence, that JRRT's anthropomorphic turtles wouldn't have a comic side to them, given that he's not averse to comedy in relation to some of his other setting elements (eg hobbits).

 

[FrozenNorth]

I just disagree. Changing the rules is rarely, if ever, going to transform a GM. If they need help with world building as an example, nothing in D&D says they can't do that. If they need to run NPC more convincingly, give them feedback on how to do it. I've given feedback to GMs on multiple occasions and it usually works.

Giving someone feedback is not confrontational.

We were all mediocre DMs once. When we started, and we didn’t know what we were doing, and our pacing was bad, etc.

Those are the people who benefit from better or more clear rules. Those are the people who benefit from being reminded that compromise is at the heart of GMing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Ok, sure, but how do you make this decision? If it's "in the moment" is it whim? Feels right? What are you bringing to bear to figure this out if it's not part of like, prep or tags or something? Random rolls on a table? Do the players have a way to figure out that this person is going to shut down all their ideas that poke against this suddenly upright guard that didn't exist 5 seconds ago? Do they have a way to determine the guards here are incorruptible, is it a reaction table they know is part of play? Random dice and you're narrating the outcome based on pass/fail?

If it is just some new guard, I would probably roll a d10 behind the scenes to see how bribable he is. But whatever it is, I'd try to pin those details down before making him. I'd be reluctant to assign "cannot be bribed under any circumstances" in the moment, because i'd rather have that be for an NPC where I am considering a complete personality. But I also wouldnt' care if the GM said no this guard isn't bribable. Bribing people isn't an easy thing to do and it can backfire real bad. So I think this idea that it should be easy in an RPG, doesn't make a lot of sense. That is going to come down to the GMs sensibilities, and I am fine playing with a GM who is more generous but also fine playing with one who is taking a more realistic approach to bribery.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Agreed, as long as it only happens once (or, in a long campaign, very rarely). A single NPC with an outlandishly extreme take on something is fine. The questions marks start floating around when it happens more often.

The exception, of course, is when the outlandish extreme takes are clearly being done for sheer humour value. I'm fine with that.

Genre matters here too. I do mostly wuxia campaigns these days and that is a genre where characters are often very strong willed (like willing to cut off their own face in the right circumstances strong willed). So a lot of this depends on whether you are operating in a genre setting, in a realistic setting, and then what a particular GMs sensibilities might be there

 

[pemerton]

Bit again this is where context comes in. I don't presume that anyone walking up to the King as a complete stranger, a nobody, with no leverage at all, has a 5% chance of taking over the kingdom. But if the characters can build a proper context and leverage... why not?

Someone recently reminded me of this thing that actually happened in the actual history of our actual world:

Joan was born to a propertied peasant family at Domrémy in northeast France. In 1428, she requested to be taken to Charles VII, later testifying that she was guided by visions from the archangel Michael, Saint Margaret, and Saint Catherine to help him save France from English domination. Convinced of her devotion and purity, Charles sent Joan, who was about seventeen years old, to the siege of Orléans as part of a relief army. She arrived at the city in April 1429, wielding her banner and bringing hope to the demoralized French army. Nine days after her arrival, the English abandoned the siege. Joan encouraged the French to aggressively pursue the English during the Loire Campaign, which culminated in another decisive victory at Patay, opening the way for the French army to advance on Reims unopposed, where Charles was crowned as the King of France with Joan at his side. These victories boosted French morale, paving the way for their final triumph in the Hundred Years' War several decades later.​

Turning to fiction, one of the foundation works for our hobby - JRRT's LotR - posits great kings and captains who put all their trust for victory in the fate of a tiny village gentleman and his gardener-valet, who are sneaking into the most heavily fortified place in the known world and carrying the enemy's most powerful weapon almost to the doorstep of the enemy's headquarters.

A historically-flavoured FRPG that has no room for these sorts of things - or, linking this discussion to that of railroads, permits them only when the GM has decided that it is a plot element to be permitted and fostered - is not the game for me! It lacks verisimilitude and depth.

 

[zakael19]

If it is just some new guard, I would probably roll a d10 behind the scenes to see how bribable he is. But whatever it is, I'd try to pin those details down before making him. I'd be reluctant to assign "cannot be bribed under any circumstances" in the moment, because i'd rather have that be for an NPC where I am considering a complete personality. But I also wouldnt' care if the GM said no this guard isn't bribable. Bribing people isn't an easy thing to do and it can backfire real bad. So I think this idea that it should be easy in an RPG, doesn't make a lot of sense. That is going to come down to the GMs sensibilities, and I am fine playing with a GM who is more generous but also fine playing with one who is taking a more realistic approach to bribery.

Gotcha. That's actually interesting, because a) that's kinda the opposite of what you said in the previous post and b) prepping the sort of "corruptibility of the guard" or similar characteristics of an NPC means that there's stuff the players can absolutely like figure out, right?