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

[pemerton]

You are the one that keeps insisting that there must be procedures spelled out in the rules that restrain the options of the GM for it to be a sandbox. If there are procedures and rules designed to restrain the GM's power that's ... wait for it ... procedural restraint.

<snip>

even if it is improvised on the spot it will hopefully be based on a knowledge of the situation and any NPC involved.

In the last quoted sentence you describe a procedure. (Or at least a fragment of a procedure.)

And you posit it as a desirable thing ("hopefully").

So I don't know why you keep posting as if you are disagreeing with me about the importance of procedures!

 

[robertsconley]

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.

In my previous replies, I’ve established that:

• NPC behavior is rooted in setting logic and plausible motivation, not arbitrary refusal.
• Players are allowed to attempt anything their characters are capable of; outcomes are adjudicated based on plausibility and context, not predetermined.
• I invite post-scene discussion and can justify an NPC’s response based on their motives and background.
• I use consistency and neutral adjudication to build trust.
• Players, as their characters, are not expected to know all the details of the setting, they are making decisions based on incomplete information, which is part of the challenge and the fun.
• Sandbox campaigns often take unexpected turns due to surprising player decisions, or the outcome of dice rolls, both of which can radically change the direction of play.
  

All of these elements are grounded in techniques with deep historical roots in tabletop roleplaying and wargaming, starting with the younger von Reisswitz’s introduction of the impartial referee in the mid-19th century. The consequences of using these techniques are well understood and have been compared against alternatives throughout the decades.

If the Thracian king demands the gorgon’s head before granting an audience, that’s a fact of the setting, not a railroaded plot point. The players aren’t forced to comply; they can threaten him, sneak in, appeal to another faction, or abandon the plan entirely.

We've now circled back to earlier concerns about predetermined outcomes and player uncertainty. I, and others, have already responded to those points in detail. Unless there’s something new to add, I think the readers of this thread have what they need to decide which of our respective views best fits the type of campaign they want to run.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I don't recall saying anything about storytelling. I said provide the best experience they can. I do trust my GMs to do that, and I wouldn't play with them if I didn't.

 

[pemerton]

The players know exactly as much as I think the characters would know. Some of that will be past knowledge, some from my description of the scenario, some based on a knowledge they should typically have. If I'm uncertain as to what knowledge they have I'll ask for a check.

Sometimes they will know quite a bit, sometimes they will know next to nothing. The GM makes the call of what they know. The declared action is resolved by the DM in D&D which is not exactly news.

I don't know if you're familiar with Gygax's discussion of Successful Adventuring, in his PHB.

To me, it is the gold standard - or close to, at least - for articulating how play should work in a map-and-key-based game. And its starting point is that the players have the capacity to exercise control over how much they know about the situations they are trying to engage in (via their PCs).

Your picture of D&D doesn't cover the field.

 

[pemerton]

I know there are other ways of resolution.

OK, then why do you seem to misdescribe them?

 

[Micah Sweet]

So does this mean that those of us who are not playing Gygaxian/Pulsipherian D&D are doing it wrong?

Are you training, teaching, and mentoring new GMs in their craft?

 

[Micah Sweet]

The second sentence seems self-contradictory.

And the first is just wrong. The phrase "legislating at the game level" makes no sense. Rules for RPGs aren't laws.

Ok. I don't enough daylight in the context of this discussion between the two terms to make a big deal out of it, but I'll apologize to you too if you like.

 

[pemerton]

Only if you are only allowing for one or a narrow set of paths. In sandbox play, you generally aren't doing this

Here is @hawkeyefan's post, to which you are replying:

Such absolutes seem at the very least to block certain avenues of play. The guard who cannot be bribed... okay, that cuts off a possible way past this obstacle. Can we find another entrance and a different guard? Do we have time to wait for a shift change? Can we take him out without alerting anyone else? The trait shapes play. And that's fine... it should do so. But the more you do it, and the more you're determining ahead of time, the more you're defining how play must go.

Is that enouh for play to become a railroad? One instance of an NPC with a given trait? Likely not, no. But the prevalance of such in the wider campaign? That's a concern.

And for me, the absolute bewilderment on the part of sandbox advocates that this is something that should be considered is surprising.

And what you are stating - "in sandbox play, you generally aren't doing this" - is a principle for GMing that (i) rests on the premise that hawkeyefan has stated (ie the more you do it, the more you're defining how play must go), and (ii) responds to the concern expressed in that premise by ensuring that it doesn't come to pass.

So you are essentially agreeing with hawkeyefan, both in respect of the concern he has identified, and stating a principle that can avoid that concern.

Yet you post as if you are disagreeing with him, and as if no principles are necessary! I don't understand why.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think anyone supports forcing things on others in the context of voluntary leisure activities. To the extent that I don't really see why you feel the need to say this.

IMO you either play a game with mechanical restraints on the GM and are therefore forced to abide by those restraints, or you don't play that game. My preference is option 2.

 

[robertsconley]

So does this mean that those of us who are not playing Gygaxian/Pulsipherian D&D are doing it wrong?

The original complaint was about mediocre GMs and said nothing about what types of campaigns they were running.

I'd appreciate it if we could avoid reframing people's points into things that weren’t said. That kind of mischaracterization doesn’t lead to substantive discussion. And there were several moderation warnings about that issue.

Especially in light of my closing paragraph in that post.

The critical thing to remember is that, regardless of technique, philosophy, or approach, it’s always a way, not the way. Much like teaching someone the arts, it’s about building foundational skills and judgment.