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

[pemerton]

Let's say you try to bribe a guard. But this is an important post and the person the guard is employed by is paranoid enough that once a month they have a cleric come in and cast Zone of Truth which just has the guards walk through the zone and answer "Have you upheld your employment agreement". It's a simple yes or no question so the cleric could be done in a short period of time as they quickly shuffle through dozens of guards for one casting of the spell.

The guard may not be particularly loyal, but he knows if he takes the bribe he won't be able to answer the question in a way that preserves his employment and potentially his life. In a world where Zone of Truth is not a particularly high level spell I think this could be fairly common practice. So yes, bribing a guard may be off the table in many situations because it's a logical conclusion given setting assumptions that they couldn't get away with taking a bribe. It has nothing to do with limiting options, it's about considering how magic could alter the world.

Are the players informed, in advance, about this "logical conclusion given setting assumptions"? Or are they expected to work it out for themselves?

If the GM's head, and notes, are full of this sort of thing, and the players aren't told about it, and so their action declarations keep bumping into them, where is the player freedom and control that is at the core of sandbox play?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yet, as far as I know, you resolve combat in your RPGs under the constraint of mechanical systems, rather than just GM adjudication of free narration.

I suppose when I choose to use a subsystem, especially a ubiquitous one like combat, I do try to abide by its rules (but I can still change them if I want). I am talking about the larger decisions and general play procedures in the game, and the general roles of players and the GM.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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

I am honestly having trouble following pemerton

 

[Micah Sweet]

The nice thing about formalized rules is that by agreeing to play under them, all the participants accept that implicit accountability to follow them.

There’s little to no social awkwardness in saying “Actually, that spell only goes 60’, so that action won’t work.”

I will accept social awkwardness if it means no hard walls.

 

[pemerton]

Grown men generally do not play with dolls and would probably not like their hobbies being compared to doing so. I don' think this is at all controversial.

Here is the introduction to the D&D basic rules, on DnD Beyond:

The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery. It shares elements with childhood games of make-believe. Like those games, D&D is driven by imagination. It’s about picturing the towering castle beneath the stormy night sky and imagining how a fantasy adventurer might react to the challenges that scene presents.​

Do grown men also not engage in childhood games of make-believe?

The very strong impression that I got from your post was that your objection to "dollhouse" as a label is not about age/maturity, but about gender.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is this because you think there's a difference between using reaction tables, and making the decision unilaterally and in secret as a GM?

Or is it impossible to talk about why you personally like to do it one way rather than another?

I prefer some randomness and surprise in this area. It's more fun and can lead to interesting scenarios, and if everyone's clear that a reaction roll is made when you encounter new creatures, they don't necessarily assume combat is inevitable and might actually try to talk to folks they meet. And I like that too.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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

Going to take a crack at this but still not sure I quite follow your point. I just meant that in a sandbox you aren't generally thinking in terms of "okay there is one way to get this guy out of prison". You might have a have a guard who can't be bribed or something (it isn't super likely but it wouldn't be out of bounds). And having a guard like that isn't part of some campaign to steer the players along some preconceived path of helping someone get out of jail

 

[pemerton]

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

@hawkeyefan gave one simple example upthread:

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.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Here is the introduction to the D&D basic rules, on DnD Beyond:

The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery. It shares elements with childhood games of make-believe. Like those games, D&D is driven by imagination. It’s about picturing the towering castle beneath the stormy night sky and imagining how a fantasy adventurer might react to the challenges that scene presents.​

Do grown men also not engage in childhood games of make-believe?

The very strong impression that I got from your post was that your objection to "dollhouse" as a label is not about age/maturity, but about gender.

Again Pemerton, I don't think it is controversial to say grown men don't play with dolls, and that grown men would probably take some issue with that comparison. If people don't take issue that is fine. But my point is don't be surprised when you call something 'dollhouse play' that it might run some folks the wrong way

 

[pemerton]

Honestly this kind of scene can be 'ruined' by a die roll too.

How? I mean, what does it mean to say the scene is "ruined" if you're not running a railroad?