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

[mamba]

I am otherwise checked out of the thread as explicitly said previously, because the very people complaining about terminology and insulting descriptions and inappropriately extreme terms/examples are now using those very things and think it's fine, but no, I didn't say either of these things.

you had the following reply to a post

If the NPC believes they and their family will face eternal torment if he drinks, it should be impossible to get them to drink. What is a few more years of mortal life compared to an eternity of suffering?

Inventing examples like this doesn't do you favors.

Because this is exactly the kind of thing I would hear and think, "Oh. So the DM is railroading me. Gotcha."

To me that sounds like what is referenced below

It has been repeatedly framed that any NPC with strong motivations or immovable positions is evidence of railroading unless the players can predict in advance what will happen.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Starting on page 90 of the DMG

View attachment 404073
View attachment 404075

the entire section goes on for ten paragraphs ending with this.

Nor this is an isolated example. Gygax talks extensively about the various aspects of creating and managing the campaign's milieu. And setting consistency is a large part of this.
From Page 21

View attachment 404077


Wrapping this up this is why AD&D 1e is an important foundation for many of the techniques used in Sandbox Campaigns. And to be clear AD&D 1e RAW has is it own distinct style.

Yeah one of the big things that started shifting my view of play again was going back to the 1E DMG and realizing a lot of the advice was much much better than I remember. Now it is highly regarded again, but this was back when if you told people you were reading the 1E DMG they might laugh, and make fun of things like attack matrices. And some of it was reconnecting to styles of play I remembered encountering when I first began, some of it was realizing I had missed aspects of 1E and they offered solutions to some of the things that frustrated me.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Nor this is an isolated example. Gygax talks extensively about the various aspects of creating and managing the campaign's milieu. And setting consistency is a large part of this.

Wrapping this up this is why AD&D 1e is an important foundation for many of the techniques used in Sandbox Campaigns. And to be clear AD&D 1e RAW has is it own distinct style.

I cannot recall are random encounter tables for a dungeon character level dependent or not?

 

[mamba]

But you're not disagreeing with me, or anyone else, because no one said that the GM deciding has to mean unpredictability etc.

But obviously it can mean that.

Hence why it is in interesting, in the context of RPGing, to talk about different approaches, methods, procedures etc.

I believe this line from a post of yours started this sidetrack

If the procedure permits the GM to just act as they fancy, though, then I think we've moved out sandbox territory and into a "living novel" approach.

If the DM deciding does not mean unpredictability, then the players still can make informed choices and affect the sandbox in an intentional and goal-oriented way, so I am not sure why it switched over to a living novel then.

I agree that the DM deciding can mean a railroad, just not that it necessarily results in one. To me your sentence sounded like it does, since you said it no longer could be a sandbox.

Comparing any and all procedures and heuristics to a straight jacket is just bizarre.

As if those of us who are not in strait jackets never follow rules, principles, procedures and heuristics! I mean, it's because we do those things that we are regarded as normal.

a straight jacket restrictions your range of motion, of course most people have control over those, so they do not need to wear one. The same imo is true for DMs, most do not intend to abuse their powers or make random, capricious decisions, so leaving some control with the DM instead of transferring it all to game rules is generally not a problem either.

Can the rules help the DM in making good decisions, sure, that is not in question imo. The line is where (generic) you say 'the DM should have to always do as the rules say, because otherwise he will just railroad us and no one wants that', I rather leave some power with the DM, the rules cannot forsee all eventualities.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I cannot recall are random encounter tables for a dungeon character level dependent or not?

They were indirectly so in OD&D.

 

[robertsconley]

I cannot recall are random encounter tables for a dungeon character level dependent or not?

Mmm, technically no, but they are monster-level related.

I don't use that aspect of AD&D 1e in my fantasy campaign. While I use dungeons, they are built with a history, and I design them accordingly.

However, I have used the Wilderness tables, which work fine for the fantasy settings I use for my campaigns. I prefer the ones in the Monster Manual 2.
This is why I stressed that while many sandbox campaign techniques are rooted in D&D's history. Classic D&D is not a proto Sandbox RPG, and it has its own distinct style. The Dungeon Random Monster Level Determination Matrix is one of the hallmarks of that style.

 

[zakael19]

Starting on page 90 of the DMG

View attachment 404073
View attachment 404075

the entire section goes on for ten paragraphs ending with this.

Nor this is an isolated example. Gygax talks extensively about the various aspects of creating and managing the campaign's milieu. And setting consistency is a large part of this.
From Page 21

View attachment 404077


Wrapping this up this is why AD&D 1e is an important foundation for many of the techniques used in Sandbox Campaigns. And to be clear AD&D 1e RAW has is it own distinct style.

Fair enough! Unlike @pemerton I genuinely could not care less what the old editions of D&D had to say except as a matter of historical interest, and such procedures and guidance deeply uninteresting, as well as troubling from a modern perspective in many degrees.

Edit: in fact I cannot think of a more appropriate reinforcement of the thread’s title.

 

[robertsconley]

Yeah one of the big things that started shifting my view of play again was going back to the 1E DMG and realizing a lot of the advice was much much better than I remember. Now it is highly regarded again, but this was back when if you told people you were reading the 1E DMG they might laugh, and make fun of things like attack matrices. And some of it was reconnecting to styles of play I remembered encountering when I first began, some of it was realizing I had missed aspects of 1E and they offered solutions to some of the things that frustrated me.

I remembered a moment in late 90s or early 00 in the early days of the internet where my oldest friends discussed something about the AD&D 1e DMG we read on-line. We pulled out our copies, and none of us could remember reading that section before. We talked about how it was awesome, you can pick it up, flip it open to a random page, and find something interesting and/or useful to read.

 

[pemerton]

So regarding this.

View attachment 404064

I think Adventures in Middle Earth is a good source of how to handle this in a way that plausible and feels true to the character.

<snip>

We have these other elements to consider.

• Thranduil’s primary goal is always to protect his people and his kingdom. He fears being lured into a trap by agents of the Shadow, so he is cautious and slow to act at times, but when his path is clear he decides with great swiftness.
• For uncounted years, I have kept my realm safe. I will not let it fall.
• +1 if the Company has more than one Elf of Mirkwood – the Elvenking prefers to trust his own people;
• +2 if the heroes bring a jewel or other precious gift to honour him;
• -2 if the heroes imply that his kingdom is lesser than those of the Elder Days, or otherwise insult their host.

All of these could reasonably influence how Thranduil reacts even if proper protocol isn’t followed. They’re examples of social nuance that a human referee must weigh in context.

What do those numbers mean? I'm not familiar with the system.

In my play experience, good systems for presenting moments of great emotional intensity around honour, status, alliances and bonds, etc, where the outcome is not known in advance by either the players or the GM, include 4e D&D, Prince Valiant and Burning Wheel.

Here's an example from actual Prince Valiant play:

The previous session had finished with the PCs in Castle Hill and in the good graces of its Lord, having provided him with a crowmaster. It made sense that an itinerant performer should have travelled to this major urban centre, and so the three knightly PCs (two knighs and their squire) were able to reconnect with the fourth.

There was talk of a powerful knight who was blocking the road north, not letting anyone pass who was unable to beat him in battle - and so far unbeaten. (This was Sir Lionheart, of the second Challenge from a Knight scenario in the rulebook.) Naturally the PCs headed off to see if they could do better, with a crowd in tow to see the excitement and the performer working the crowd.

The PCs had only light or medium armour (+1 or +2 dice), and ordinary horses - not fully-trained warhorses - and with the best brawn + arms total being 8 dice, for overall dice pools (including 1 for lance) of 11 or 12 at best. Whereas Sir Lionheart, with arms 5 and heavy armour (+3) and a fine warhorse (+1) had 14+ dice. (Technically the system calls for coins, but we use dice counting evens as heads.) Conversation with Sir Lionheart revealed that he had returned from the Crusades, and was a knight without match who was waiting to find a fitting lord to serve. (I took this not from the scenario description, but from the excellent 1981 film Excalibur's treatment of Sir Lancelot.)

The players of the knights were hoping that the performer PC would work up the crowd to support them - like the Geoffrey Chaucer character in the film A Knight's Tale - but the player of the performer worked up the crowd in general, so that both jousting knights got a bonus die.

The first of the PCs to have a go was Sir Gerran. He lost, soundly beaten (but Storyteller Certificate still in the player's hand).

Next up was Justin "the Gentle", Sir Gerren's son . He lost too.

Sir Justin and the squire PC were in competition for the hand of the young and beautiful Lady Violette of Warwick, and hence their players were having a bit of a stand-off over spending their Storyteller Certificates: one use of such a certificate is to "Incite Lust" and another is to "Suppress Lust" - so if one used it to ensure Violette's affections, the other could cancel. But use in the joust with Sir Lionheart would change the balance of power.

Sir Justin's player decided, in the end, to use his certificate, but somehow let the player of the itinerant performer talk him into spending it not on outright victory ("Knock and Opponent Senseless" or "Kill a Foe in Combat") but rather on a "gold star" - a permanent PC buff allowing a bonus die once per session. The bonus die was not enough for him to defeat Sir Lionheart.

Sir Justin's player also wanted to bring his skill of arms 4 (rather than joust 0) to bear, so Sir Justin agreed to joust with real lances rather than blunted ones, and (as per the scenario description) with stakes therefore being not a small token but the loser's arms and steed. So for the second time in the campaign, Sir Justin lost his kit by losing a joust!

The squire PC asked for a joust, but the proud Sir Lionheart declined to joust with a mere squire. To which the PC responded, "Fine, I'll just continue on my way then!" and tried to pass Sir Lionheart and continue along the road. This called for a Presence vs Presence check, which the PC won - and so Sir Lionheart knighted him so that he could joust and perhaps succeed where the others had failed. I took the words of the knight ceremony from Excalibur - "In the name of God, St Michael and St George I give you the right to bear arms and the power to mete justice".

The player of the (now) Sir Morgath determined that he would use his certificate for an outright victory. He considered knocking Sir Lionheart senseless, but he suspected (correctly, as it turned out, given the scenario description) that if he unhorsed Sir Lionheart but didn't kill him, Sir Lionheart would insist on fighting with swords to the death. So he decided to Kill a Foe in Combat - when the lances of the two knights connected, the one wielded by Sir Morgath splintered, and a shard flew through a gap in Sir Lionheart's visor and entered his brain through his eye, killing him!

Sir Morgath was feted by the crowd. He also was able to upgrade his gear, being the first of the PCs to have heavy armour and a warhorse. He also won Sir Lionheart's superbly jewelled sword, which grants a bonus die for social situations where prestige is in issue.

The other two knight did their best to re-equip themselves using surplus gear the PCs had accumulated (including Sir Morgath's old kit) and then they continued north to see what adventures might be had!

Here's an example from 4e D&D play - not about knighthood, but about appealing to honour, freedom and duty, and shaping NPC behaviour in this way:

The PCs erected a magic circle around the Mausoleum of the Raven Queen, in order to prevent anyone from entering it and potentially learning her true name (backstory here); then rested; then scried on the tarrasque, which they knew to have recently begun marauding in the mortal world, identifying its location and noting that it was being observed by maruts. They decided that, to return to the mortal world to confront the tarrasque they would first teleport to their abandoned Thundercloud Tower, and then take that with them through another conjured portal and fly it to where the tarrasque is.

<snip>

When the PCs step through the portal from their resting place to the top of the tower, they find that it is not where they left it - on the disintegrating 66th layer of the Abyss - but rather in the palace of Yan-C-Bin on the Elemental Chaos. This brought the PCs, and especially the chaos sorcerer, into discussion with the djinn who had retaken possession of the tower and were repurposing it for the coming Dusk War. Mechanically, this situation was resolved as a skill challenge.

Sirrajadt, the leader of the djinn, explained that the djinn were finally breaking free of the imprisonment they had suffered after fighting for their freedom the last time (ie with the primordials against the gods in the Dawn War), and were not going to be re-imprisoned or bound within the Lattice of Heaven, and hence were gearing up to fight again in the Dusk War. He further explained that only Yan-C-Bin (Prince of Evil Air Elementals) and the Elder Elemental Eye could lead them to victory in the Dusk War.

The PCs both asserted their power (eg the paladin pointed out that the reason the djinn have been released from their prisons is because the PCs killed Torog, the god of imprisonment), and denied the necessity for a coming Dusk War, denouncing warmongers on both sides (especially the Elder Elemental Eye, whom Sirrajadt was stating was the only being who could guarantee the Djinn their freedom) and announcing themselves as a "third way", committed to balancing the chaos against the heavens and ensuring the endurance of the mortal world.

Sirrajadt was insisting that the PCs accompany him to meet Yan-C-Bin, declaring that mercy would be shown to all but the sorcerer. (The reason for this is that the chaos sorcerer - who is a Primordial Adept and Resurgent Primordial - has long been a servant of Chan, the Queen of Good Air Elementals, who sided with the gods during the Dawn War and is resolutely opposed to the Prince of Evil Air Elementals; hence the sorcerer is a sworn enemy of Yan-C-Bin.) As the PCs continued to debate the point and explain their "third way" reasoning (mechanically, getting closer to success in the skill challenge), Sirrajadt - sufficiently unsettled by their claims - invited them all to resolve the matter in conversation with Yan-C-Bin, who moreso than him would be able to explain the situation. The PCs therefore went to meet Yan-C-Bin himself, as guests and not as prisoners - not even the sorcerer.

Yan-C-Bin greeted them, but mocked the sorcerer and his service to Chan. There was some back and forth, and some of the same points were made. Then the PC fighter/cleric Eternal Defender, who has recently taken up the divine portfolio of imprisonment (which position became vacant after the PCs killed Torog), spoke. Both in the fiction and at the table this was the pivotal moment. The player gave an impassioned and quite eloquent speech, which went for several minutes with his eyes locked on mine. (We tend to be quite a causal table as far as performance, in-character vs third person description of one's PC vs out-of-character goes.) He explained (in character) that he would personally see to it that no djinn would be unjustly imprisoned, if they now refrained from launching the Dusk War; but that if they acted rashly and unjustly they could look forward to imprisonment or enslavement forever.

The player rolled his Intimidate check (with a +2 bonus granted by me because of his speech, far more impassioned and "in character" than is typical for our pretty laid-back table) and succeeded. It didn't persuade Yan-C-Bin - his allegiance to the Elder Elemental Eye is not going to be swayed by a mere godling - but the players' goal wasn't to persuade Yan-C-Bin of the merits of their third way, but rather to avoid being imprisoned by him and to sway the djinn. Which is exactly what happened: this speech sufficiently impressed the djinni audience that Yan-C-Bin could not just ignore it, and hence he grudgingly acquiesced to the PCs' request, agreeing to let the PCs take the Thundercloud Tower and go and confront the tarrasque - but expressing doubt that they would realise their "third way", and with a final mocking remark that they would see for whom the maruts with the tarrasque were acting.

And here's an example from Burning Wheel play - in this case, an attempt by a PC to reconnect with a family member doesn't work out as the PC hoped:

My PC is Thurgon, a warrior cleric type (heavy armour, Faithful to the Lord of Battle, Last Knight of the Iron Tower, etc). His companion is Aramina, a sorcerer. His ancestral estate, which he has not visited for 5 years, is Auxol.

At the start of the session, Thurgon had the following four Beliefs - The Lord of Battle will lead me to glory; I am a Knight of the Iron Tower, and by devotion and example I will lead the righteous to glorious victory; Harm and infamy will befall Auxol no more!; Aramina will need my protection - and three Instincts - When entering battle, always speak a prayer to the Lord of Battle; If an innocent is threatened, interpose myself; When camping, always ensure that the campfire is burning.

Aramina's had three Beliefs - I'm not going to finish my career with no spellbooks and an empty purse! - next, some coins!; I don't need Thurgon's pity; If in doubt, burn it! and three instincts - Never catch the glance or gaze of a stranger; Always wear my cloak; Always Assess before casting a spell.

<snip>

Thurgon decided that they would head east, along the river, looking for the cave - which must be a goblin cave, he thought - the old-fashioned way. He also kept an eye out for an ex-knight, Friedrich, who lives in the area and had helped Thurgon and Aramina when they were on their way to Evard's tower. This Circles check (base 3 dice +1 for Reputation as the Last Knight of the Iron Tower and +1 for an affiliation with the Order of the Iron Tower, vs Ob 2) succeeded, and as the character trudged along Friedrich passed them, poling his skiff along the river. Thurgon told him that the tower was no more, and that a demon had been driven off, and asked for a ride. Aramina mended the dents in Thurgon's breastplate (successful Mending vs Obstacle 1) while Friedrich took them as far as the next tributary's inflow - at that point the river turns north-east, and the two character's wanted to continue more-or-less due east on the other side of both streams. This was heading into the neighbourhood of Auxol, and so Thurgon kept his eye out for friends and family. The Circles check (base 3 dice +1 for an Affiliation with the nobility and another +1 for an Affiliation with his family) succeeded again, and the two characters came upon Thurgon's older brother Rufus driving a horse and cart. (Thurgon has a Rationship with his mother Xanthippe but no other family members; hence the Circles check to meet his brother.)

There was a reunion between Rufus and Thurgon. But (as described by the GM) it was clear to Thurgon that Rufus was not who he had been, but seemed cowed - as Rufus explained when Thurgon asked after Auxol, he (Rufus) was on his way to collect wine for the master. Rufus mentioned that Thurgon's younger son had married not long ago - a bit of lore (like Rufus himself) taken from the background I'd prepared for Thurgon as part of PC gen - and had headed south in search of glory (that was something new the GM introduced). I mentioned that Aramina was not meeting Rufus's gaze, and the GM picked up on this - Rufus asked Thurgon who this woman was who wouldn't look at him from beneath the hood of her cloak - was she a witch? Thurgon answered that she travelled with him and mended his armour. Then I switched to Aramina, and she looked Rufus directly in the eye and told him what she thought of him - "Thurgon has trained and is now seeking glory on his errantry, and his younger brother has gone too to seek glory, but your, Rufus . . ." I told the GM that I wanted to check Ugly Truth for Aramina, to cause a Steel check on Rufus's part. The GM decided that Rufus has Will 3, and then we quickly calculated his Steel which also came out at 3. My Ugly Truth check was a success, and the Steel check failed. Rufus looked at Aramina, shamed but unable to respond. Switching back to Thurgon, I tried to break Rufus out of it with a Command check: he should pull himself together and join in restoring Auxol to its former glory. But the check failed, and Rufus, broken, explained that he had to go and get the wine. Switching back to Aramina, I had a last go - she tried for untrained Command, saying that if he wasn't going to join with Thurgon he might at least give us some coin so that we might spend the night at an inn rather than camping. This was Will 5, with an advantage die for having cowed him the first time, against a double obstacle penalty for untrained (ie 6) +1 penalty because Rufus was very set in his way. It failed. and so Rufus rode on and now has animosity towards Aramina. As the GM said, she better not have her back to him while he has a knife ready to hand.

Not knowing Adventures in Middle Earth, I don't know if it can generate play that would resemble any of these examples.

This illustrates why human judgment is so important in a sandbox campaign. Social interactions often involve layered motivations and plausible exceptions. That’s not something a fixed algorithm, or a deterministic audience rule, can simulate well.

I think all the examples I've posted illustrate human judgement at work: the players making and giving effect to judgements about what it makes sense for their PCs to day and do; the GM making judgements, within the parameters of the resolution system, about how NPCs respond.

 

[zakael19]

I remembered a moment in late 90s or early 00 in the early days of the internet where my oldest friends discussed something about the AD&D 1e DMG we read on-line. We pulled out our copies, and none of us could remember reading that section before. We talked about how it was awesome, you can pick it up, flip it open to a random page, and find something interesting and/or useful to read.

For me that’s any time I read another new thing by D. Vincent Baker and it breaks my mind again about what’s possible in the world of game design to create specific experiences as an expression of a designer’s artistic intent.