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

[Bedrockgames]

Right... but most games would say to let the dice resolve that uncertainty. When it's just "well I envisioned this guard as a highly principled fellow with a young son who he strives to always teach to do the right thing, so he immediately turns you in" it's a bit dissatisfying.

Let the dice tell us. I roll low to bribe the guy, he looks at me and says "Something I tell my boy every day... you have to do what's right, no matter how easy it would be to do what's wrong. Move along... your coin has no value here."

it depends on the game. Some games would rely on dice here. This is actually a bit of a dividing line in D&D for example (where if you go to the older versions you might have things like reaction adjustment, but even when they introduced NWPs they were at pains to not have that interfere with RP. But with 3E, there was a shift. Like I said both can work. I use social skills sometimes because I know people like them, and I even have them in my own games for that reason. But I generally reserve them for when I am uncertain about a character's reaction to what the players are doing.

For me personally, I generally am not too worried about guards being bribed in my campaigns. In wuxia bribable guards seem pretty common. But if I had a strong enough character idea for one guard, I'd be happy making him unbribeable. I don't think there is anything wrong with a GM doing that sort of thing

Or if it's important for some reason that this guy can't be bribed, then narrate a scene of him clubbing someone who attempts to bribe him as the PCs approach. Communicate this to them... they can then make an informed choice.

In some games this is certain okay. But in a lot of sandboxes, players might find this too cinematic. I think if you want to do this there is nothing wrong with it. but I don't think the players have to have this information either. I don't think every choice should be blind, but some blind choices are okay.

 

[pemerton]

If you can't trust your GM, I really don't know why you play. It seems like it wouldn't be fun.

Luckily, when I play I can trust my GM not to railroad. And to apply the rules of the game.

You seem to imply it's a character flaw, in a RPGer, not to want to just trust that the GM will tell you an interesting story. But I don't know why that would be.

 

[mamba]

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?

at least theoretically, yes, how would you figure out how corruptible a guard is without trying to bribe them?

 

[The Firebird]

at least theoretically, yes, how would you figure out how corruptible a guard is without trying to bribe them?

Ask around the thieves guild to figure out when McBribe is on duty.

 

[robertsconley]

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

Our methods may overlap in spots, but they’re grounded in fundamentally different assumptions.

 

[pemerton]

It's been many pages now. But the point that started this discussion was that having too many fixed character traits for NPCs or too specific scenarios (like a siege) was a railroad because it limited player options.

The post that started this strand of discussion was mine. And here it is again, together with one of its sequels:

if the players are trying (via the play of their PCs) to persuade a NPC to do something, and the GM has decided in advance, and secretly, that the NPC will never do that thing, that can clearly be an instance of railroading. I've experienced it, and I imagine so have others posting in this thread.

Would you agree that you can't shoot the moon with an arrow (assuming you're not Artemis or similar) doesn't actually require the GM to make a judgement call? Everyone knows that - it verges on the self-evident, for anyone who knows what the moon is and what archery is.

Whereas this NPC can't be persuaded to do <this salient thing> is often not self-evident at all. As a constraint on the results of action declaration, it is completely unlike the example of the obviously impossible thing.

Way upthread, there seemed to be a general consensus that sandbox RPGing is about, at least and in general, player freedom in respect of, and control over the direction of play in virtue of, the actions they declare for their PCs.

And my point is (at least roughly) a corollary of this: if the players are declaring actions effectively blind, and if what the range of likely outcomes is is not reasonably knowable to them, then those features - freedom and control - are absent. The GM's secret decision about what a NPC will or will not do, that is not reasonably knowable to the players before they declare a salient action, is one example. And not just hypothetical - as I posted, it is one that I've experienced in play, and I'd be surprised if I'm the only RPGer for whom that's true.

I've also added that this absence of freedom and control, and hence departure from sandboxing and possible drift into railroading, is not dependent upon the GM's motives. I don't care how realistic the GM's NPC is, or how true to their pre-authored fiction the GM is being in making the decision about what the NPC will or won't do. I'm talking about the actual process of play.

It comes up in the siege case, too, and from both directions. In post 2596 you suggested the players can have their PCs go and find allies. Suppose the PCs sneak out and go to speak to the king of the Thracians. If the GM has decided (for instance) that the king of the Thracians will not grant an audience unless the PCs return with the head of the gorgon plaguing his lands, how is play now any different from a GM-directed AP? The players, in order to succeed at the actions that they have made salient for their PCs, are now just following the GM's breadcrumbs.

Or, in the other direction - suppose that the players decide that their PCs will go to the tent of the commander of the besieging army, and implore the commander to withdraw their army. If the GM has decided, in advance, that the commander simply cannot be persuaded - that they will enforce the siege without mercy to the bitter end regardless of what anyone says to them about anything - what has happened to the players' freedom of action? And where are things like Joan of Arc - a reality - or this scene from the film Excalibur - for me, at least, a grounding fiction - going to come from?

 

[mamba]

Eg in 5e D&D, the GM must actually decide, in some fashion or other, whether or not the outcome of a player's action declared for their PC is certain or uncertain. For reasons that escape me, though, many posters seem not to want to talk about the actual processes that they or others use.

probably because this can lead to a never-ending stream of ‘but what ifs’, see the discussion around the criminal background

 

[The Firebird]

And my point is (at least roughly) a corollary of this: if the players are declaring actions effectively blind, and if what the range of likely outcomes is is not reasonably knowable to them, then those features - freedom and control - are absent. The GM's secret decision about what a NPC will or will not do, that is not reasonably knowable to the players before they declare a salient action, is one example. And not just hypothetical - as I posted, it is one that I've experienced in play, and I'd be surprised if I'm the only RPGer for whom that's true.

If the GM is adjudicating realistically, then NPC traits and motivations can be learned by the players. It's not a 'secret' decision.

It comes up in the siege case, too, and from both directions. In post 2596 you suggested the players can have their PCs go and find allies. Suppose the PCs sneak out and go to speak to the king of the Thracians. If the GM has decided (for instance) that the king of the Thracians will not grant an audience unless the PCs return with the head of the gorgon plaguing his lands, how is play now any different from a GM-directed AP? The players, in order to succeed at the actions that they have made salient for their PCs, are now just following the GM's breadcrumbs.

It differs from a AP because the players can ignore that quest hook without losing the game. They can look for other allies. Or they can define new objectives and the world will evolve.

If the players choose to seek Blackrazor and learn it lies in White Plume Mountain, are they now on a railroad?

Or, in the other direction - suppose that the players decide that their PCs will go to the tent of the commander of the besieging army, and implore the commander to withdraw their army. If the GM has decided, in advance, that the commander simply cannot be persuaded - that they will enforce the siege without mercy to the bitter end regardless of what anyone says to them about anything - what has happened to the players' freedom of action?

Not being able to succeed at all possible goals does not mean that one isn't free to act.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Or, in the other direction - suppose that the players decide that their PCs will go to the tent of the commander of the besieging army, and implore the commander to withdraw their army. If the GM has decided, in advance, that the commander simply cannot be persuaded - that they will enforce the siege without mercy to the bitter end regardless of what anyone says to them about anything - what has happened to the players' freedom of action? And where are things like Joan of Arc - a reality - or this scene from the film Excalibur - for me, at least, a grounding fiction - going to come from?

Clearly the GM decided in that campaign that Uryens was susceptible to bold displays of humility Honestly this kind of scene can be 'ruined' by a die roll too. In a lot of systems, Arthur is just not going to persuade Uryens if the dice don't go his way or he doesn't have enough skill ranks. But like I said, both can work. It is purely a preference thing

 

[pemerton]

I would expect a level of consistency / predictability rather than the DM just doing whatever random thing he thinks of in the moment.

And what heuristic or process would you expect the GM to use? And how do you anticipate that leading to predictability for the players?

It's not like these are questions that can't be answered! Gygax's rulebooks have extensive discussions of them, for instance.

I as a player also have an idea of what I consider a likely / reasonable / possible outcome, if what DM decides frequently is between highly improbable and next to impossible, then I have no way to make informed decisions. If it mostly stays in the most probable to not unexpected range, with a few surprises every now and then, then I can.

I generally do have a way of telling which of the two it is however, and if it is the former, then I won’t be interested in continuing the campaign.

So now you seem to be agreeing with me. So I don't know why you are posting as if you disagree!

I do not think ‘the DM is just making stuff up with no consideration to player input, probability, or logic’ to be an accurate description of what DMs do (with maybe some very rare exceptions), so I see no reason to stick to this caricature as an example for a DM or to see it as something I need protection from.

No one was advocating for that kind of DMing.

No one is "sticking to" any "caricature".

Upthread, I posted that it seems to me that sandboxing requires the GM to adhere to some sort of principles or procedures for deciding outcomes of declared actions, so that the players can make non-blind action declarations. You and others posted that I was wrong.

Now you seem to be saying that I was right. So I'm not sure why you started out by disagreeing!