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

[Hussar]

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

No... well... kinda...

Dungeon levels roughly corresponded to character levels. Sorta. If you were 5th level, you could expect to proceed down 5 levels in a dungeon and be reasonably successful. If a trap dropped you down three more levels to Dungeon Level 8, you were in big trouble since those challenges were meant for (roughly) 8th level parties.

But, remember, every class had separate xp tables, so, it was entirely possible for a group to be of mixed levels, never minding multiclassed characters.

So, to answer your question, the tables weren't specifically tied to character levels, but rather the Dungeon Level corresponded to roughly what level the party should be at to expect to succeed.

 

[pemerton]

You say Gygax doesn’t talk about plausibility or freedom to act, but his entire structure assumes both. Players are expected to plan, make decisions with incomplete information, act on their own goals, and have the dungeon respond. That only works if the setting behaves in a consistent and understandable way, in other words, if it makes sense.

Consistent and understandable isn't the same as plausible. Well-known practical illustrations include mimics, trappers and lurkers above.

I made this point in my post that you replied to: "his dungeons are full of stuff that doesn't make sense, but is part of the shared experience of dungeon-crawling play built up at his table with his play group."

Someone trying to use the Gygaxian approach, with a new play group, would in my view be making a mistake if they started with mimics, or ear seekers, or even piercers. Start with simple pit traps, and simple monsters - perhaps a yellow mould as the most baroque, as the threat it poses is at least somewhat self-evident. As the play group establishes its own norms about what "makes sense" and how things work in their dungeon, then more and more bizarreness becomes tenable.

Part of the design purpose of Tomb of Horrors, as stated by Gygax, is to "punish" players who want to play high level PCs but haven't built up the familiarity with dungeon "norms" that will make it feasible for them to tackle it.

If it didn’t, there’d be no point to the level of preparation, mapping, spell coordination, or strategic decision-making Gygax emphasizes.

Not at all. Gygax is assuming that the PCs will foray into the dungeon to collect information - using scouting, listening, detection magic, demi-human abilities, etc to identify potential targets for assault and looting and the risks that they then pose - and then will plan and prepare to carry out the raids that they have prepared for via information acquisition.

This doesn't depend on plausibility but rather on understanding the norms of dungeon exploration, as these unfold in a group's play culture.

The style of play Gygax describes is not narrative-first

I don't really know what this means.

But Gygax does not seem very concerned about the thematic or emotional dimensions of the shared fiction. The fantasy tropes are just trappings for a new type of wargame. And the players are assumed to be playing their PCs in an essentially instrumental/"pawn stance" way - though it's complicated a bit because alignment punishments may be incurred by some players for some action declarations with some PCs, and so their is an instrumental reason to not always play completely instrumentally.

nor it is a sandbox campaign. But its elements, players choose their objectives, interact with the setting, and face the results, form an important part of sandbox campaigns. The techniques he recommends helped lay the foundation for sandbox campaigns.

Yes. That's why I brought it into the discussion.

EDIT:

I don’t think there’s any expectation of setting consistency, there’s an expectation of adherence to procedure and design that a skilled player can learn and apply to overcome the challenge dungeon?

You're a pithy ninja!

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

Yeah I started reading it all the time. And some years later I remember just sitting with it all month recovering from a surgery. I didn’t take it as gospel, there were things I used and things I didn’t. That and the white boxed set changed a lot of my mindset on how to approach design. I don’t even make d20 or OSR stuff but I found many of the ideas very useful, and felt I had thrown the baby out with the bath water on some of them over the years

 

[pemerton]

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.

Here I restate, word-for-word, what you quoted, but bold the bit you seem to be ignoring:

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.​

When you explain how you preserve the sandbox character of play by ensuring the GM does not decide things just as they fancy - but rather by reference to other constraints - then you're agreeing with me, not disagreeing!

 

[Thomas Shey]

I deliberately nominated 7th level because a 7th level fighter, in classic D&D, is a champion.

As for "swing", there is no swing if the GM decides, in advance, that the Orc captain is too powerful for the lower-level PC to defeat!

My point was there are games where he wouldn't need to do that to make opponents with a big enough gap essentially impossible to defeat him, simply because the resolution mechanism would make it either impossible or sufficiently unlikely to be dismissable. A 7th level humanoid opponent in most F20 games is simply not in that category, however, so if that's the result they want, they're either using the wrong system, mis-setting his construction (or potentially, both).

The point is this: many people who say GMs shouldn't be constrained by any rules or procedures take for granted that combat will be resolved using rules and/or procedures that constrain the GM. Assuming they're rational, they have reasons for accepting these constraints. I am inviting them to imagine someone having similar reasons that govern their view about other sorts of actions that might be declared.

Do you have any evidence that's particularly likely from past adjacent-discussions? I certainly don't.

EDIT:
Yes, this is what I said that you were puzzled by (as per your post that I'm replying to just above).

I don't know if the "you" in this sentence is aimed at me or Micah, but I suspect neither of us would be really puzzled by this.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No... well... kinda...

Dungeon levels roughly corresponded to character levels. Sorta. If you were 5th level, you could expect to proceed down 5 levels in a dungeon and be reasonably successful. If a trap dropped you down three more levels to Dungeon Level 8, you were in big trouble since those challenges were meant for (roughly) 8th level parties.

But, remember, every class had separate xp tables, so, it was entirely possible for a group to be of mixed levels, never minding multiclassed characters.

So, to answer your question, the tables weren't specifically tied to character levels, but rather the Dungeon Level corresponded to roughly what level the party should be at to expect to succeed.

That's why I said in OD&D they were indirectly factored in.

 

[Faolyn]

that is exactly what the original post was, my question was how to find out the disposition of the current guard though, not how to find one that you have a good chance of bribing

Talking to them, watching them, talking to others about that guard in particular.

 

[pemerton]

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

No. It's crucial to Gygaxian play that they're not - rather, they're keyed to dungeon level.

This means that players can choose how much risk to take - by choosing which level of the dungeon to explore - and the correlative amount of reward that is available - the dungeon treasure tables in Gygax's DMG are level-dependent:

 

[pemerton]

Do you have any evidence that's particularly likely from past adjacent-discussions? I certainly don't.



I don't know if the "you" in this sentence is aimed at me or Micah, but I suspect neither of us would be really puzzled by this.

This whole thing is confusing, because after querying why I said a thing, you said basically the same thing. And now, when I'm pointing that out, I get this confused and confusing response.

In reply to @Micah Sweet, you posted this:

I'd suggest you absolutely do--any set of mechanics whatsoever applies restraints on the GM--its just that there are areas you're comfortable with it, and areas you aren't.

But when I posted basically the same thing, further upthread, you asked me why I would bother posting such a thing.

The answer is - for the same reason that you did!

 

[robertsconley]

So does that mean I've also established certain points? Even where they contradict yours?

I'm not unaware of the history of RPGing. I'm the person who brought Gygax's PHB into the discussion. I'm the one who has used Lewis Pulsipher's writings to help frame the distinction between the wargame-y sandbox and the quite different "living novel". I don't see why you feel the need to condescend to me.

So, what makes it "organic" in a sandbox campaign? Is this meant to imply that what I described, upthread, in my Prince Valiant, 4e D&D and Burning Wheel games is not organic? If not, then what would an example of "not organic" look like? Is it possible to say anything about what determines whether there is uncertainty sufficient to warrant a roll? When is the GM supposed to allow for an extraordinary outcome, and when to ensure that events stick to prosaic normality?

If a player thinks that an extraordinary thing should be possible - which would seem to be the case, if they declare an action that posits the extraordinary thing as a possible outcome - then what reason does the GM have for taking a different view? Are you assuming that players will declare actions whose outcomes they would regard as lacking verisimilitude? Or is there some other virtue gained by having the GM able to affirm their conception of what is possible over what the player thinks is possible in the circumstances?

Sorry, but most of our discussion has centered on your analysis and critique of my approach to sandbox play. I haven’t yet seen a clear or cohesive articulation of your own philosophy, just isolated points, counterexamples, and hypotheticals. If you’ve laid it out elsewhere, great, but I haven't seen it in our discussion in this thread.

I’m aware of your references to Gygax’s Player’s Handbook and Pulsipher’s writings. I didn’t take them as condescending, should I have?

Regarding extraordinary events, I’ve already explained how they arise in my campaigns and linked to a relevant blog post. If any part of that was unclear, I’m happy to answer specific questions. As for how other systems handle extraordinary outcomes, my focus in this thread has been to explain the techniques I use to run sandbox campaigns, not to contrast or critique other playstyles.

Your last paragraph highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of how my campaigns actually function. In my campaigns, players do not formally “declare actions” in the sense you describe, except in structured situations like combat. Instead, they roleplay their characters verbally and visually, often using miniatures. When I referred to first-person roleplaying earlier, this is what I meant: play unfolds through natural back-and-forth interaction between myself and the players. They speak as their characters. I roleplay the NPCs. The flow adapts to the needs of the moment. It’s closer in spirit to LARPing than to any kind of narrative first mechanic. Even in combat, I still stress “describe first, roll second.”

Extraordinary events emerge from play, typically when I make hidden rolls for NPC reactions, or when players make skill checks, usually during roleplay. An extraordinary result leads to an extraordinary outcome.

A good example of this was during one of the times I playtested my Deceits of the Russet Lord adventures. The Russet Lord was a powerful winter sidhe lord with designs on a local pilgrimage site called Woodford. Keep in mind there were hours of roleplaying prior to the situation I am about to recount. That by the time the party entered the Russet Lord's lair they were well aware of its nature, although not of its details.

The situation occurred toward the end when the party found the Russet Lord's lair and made their way to his throne room. There was a bit of first-person roleplaying at first, with me as the Russet Lord and the players as their characters. The group was a bit cocky and disrespectful, particularly the burglar in the group. I, as the Russet Lord, lightning-bolted the burglar and demanded the party's surrender.

They steeled themselves to make a last stand and were ready to begin combat and roll initiative. One of the players, who was roleplaying a knight, stepped forward and challenged the Russet Lord. Now it wasn't a "I challenge you", no, the player made a short but awesome speech that was very much on point in regard to the Russet Lord's sensibilities. The player didn't have any special insight or information about the Russet Lord but made a very good educated guess based on what I did and said while acting as the Russet Lord. He tailored how he roleplayed his speech accordingly.

A Locution check was called for, and the player rolled. Based on the player's speech and the Russet Lord's personality, if the player rolled a normal success, the Sidhe Lord would let him go and kill the rest of the party. The party had wrecked part of his lair, they weren't going to escape his punishment. But the knight made an impression on the Russet Lord, and that gave him an evil idea, so he was willing to let the knight go for a time.

But the player rolled a natural 20 on his Locution, so the above never happened. Instead, as the Russet Lord, I said yes and accepted the knight's challenge. I, as the Russet Lord, and the player, as the knight, squared off and fought—and the knight won.

That’s what I mean by “extraordinary events” in sandbox campaigns. They don’t happen because the referee or the player wants them to. They happen because an emergent situation develops, and an unusual roll interacts with roleplayed intent in a way that’s consistent with the setting. That’s what makes it organic.

I know you’ve expressed criticism of this approach. And I’ve seen it suggested, directly or indirectly, that referees who run games like mine are tyrants or black-box narrators. But this style has worked for me and my players across decades of campaigns. It won’t be to everyone’s taste, just as no single system or approach can be. And that’s fine. The diversity of techniques in this hobby is a strength, not a flaw.