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

[TwoSix]

But the only reason to have guardrails is to prevent someone from acting in a malevolent way, is it not? If we assume that people in the context of a game are just trying to provide the best experience possible, why do we need guardrails?

Considering "guardrails" generally exist in the real world to prevent people from having accidents, that doesn't seem correct to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Considering "guardrails" generally exist in the real world to prevent people from having accidents, that doesn't seem correct to me.

I've always figured guardrails were mostly there to protect those who put them there from liability. So money essentially.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And I am not arguing that rolling to check is an invalid approach or that it thwarts sandbox play. My only point is the GM deciding something like an NPC trait and that happening to establish a barrier to something in game, isn't railroading and is still in keeping with a player driven sandbox as people like me and Rob are describing (and I am not even saying all such sandboxes will avoid things like having the player make a skill roll: I just think there is often a reluctance to engage with strong social interaction rules in such campaigns).

I think the ethos behind it is very much at odds with player-driven play. As I've said multiple times, one instance may not impact play to the point that it's an issue. The more it happens, the more of an issue it's likely to be (again, assuming player-driven play is a goal). So to me, seeing such an unconcerned attitude is surprising.

I would expect a proponent of player-driven play to be very aware of this kind of thing.

Then I'm confused. There have been numerous posts about the guard scenario which describe how players can learn that information. In your words, they are able to discover it.

So what is the issue?

It depends. The example as provided is incomplete, so it's hard to say. This is why I've offered a few ways to handle it, depending on the circumstances.

For me, if player-driven play is a priority for me, I would have the trait of the guard be known. I'd either show the players in some way, or I'd let them know it. This is assuming the guard is not meant to be a meaningful obstacle in and of himself, but rather a step toward a more meaningful goal. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on such an interaction and just getting it to the point where it's actionable by the players.

Now, if we're talking about the resolution of a major goal... like if after the guard the PCs are speaking with the noble of the castle, and are pleading for help... then the noble's traits are much more important. I may require the players to try and suss them out. Or I may share them openly... it depends on the nature of the PC and other factors as well. The dealing with the noble seems far more central to the goal that the players have, so I would spend more time on it.

But even 5e has actual rules for that. The players can use skills to determine the NPCs Traits which will help them in negotiating with him. Most people ignore these rules, and the new version of 5e probably got rid of it altogether (I honestly don't know). But even a game that's as "hey, do what you want" as 5e has rules related to this stuff.

Sometimes hidden information leads to more engaging gameplay. A mystery campaign, for example.

Such is your opinion. I have played games where the resolution of a mystery is generated in a different way than just being pre-determined by the GM, or where the resolution of the mystery is secondary to the goal of play. Playing through a GM's novice mystery novel isn't my idea of an engaging way to play, generally speaking.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Which is fine as a personal preference but you are now trusting the game author to deliver the type of game you want.

At least you can assess them up front; you don't have to try and read the GM's mind.

 

[TwoSix]

There's a difference between someone who refuses to even consider options and someone who has given due consideration to other options and has decided those alternatives are not for them.

Sure. The former is "stubborn", the latter is "conservative".

 

[Micah Sweet]

At least you can assess them up front; you don't have to try and read the GM's mind.

You don't have to read the GM's mind if you talk to them.

 

[TwoSix]

I've always figured guardrails were mostly there to protect those who put them there from liability. So money essentially.

Sure, but they aren't being used to protect anyone from malevolent actions. They are there to prevent someone from tripping and falling into the Grand Canyon, or driving off the road while looking at your phone for a new podcast episode (example 100% not personal).

 

[mamba]

The problem is a social one and is dealt with on that level.

I agree with this, but the OP wanted to use rules to deal with it, that is why I was asking them how their rules establish them trusting the DM when they otherwise would not

 

[AlViking]

Considering "guardrails" generally exist in the real world to prevent people from having accidents, that doesn't seem correct to me.

We have guardrails in real life because the result of an mistake or unavoidable accident is life or death. The stakes aren't that high in a game. Hopefully.

 

[AlViking]

At least you can assess them up front; you don't have to try and read the GM's mind.

I'm not really arguing with you, I just disagree and don't understand your point. If we assume the GM has the best interest of everybody at the table at heart then I don't need to read the GM's mind. As a player I don't need protection if there is no threat.