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

[Thomas Shey]

But the only reason to have guardrails is to prevent someone from acting in a malevolent way, is it not?

Do you think that's the primary purpose of guardrails on a road? If so, you're mistaken; the primary purpose is to reduce damage when misadventure occurs.

Same here. Purpose of guardrails is to help protect against mistakes and make it easier to prevent them in the future.

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?

See above.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I need to determine broad outlines ahead of time. The decisions I make on the fly, which happens because I run a sandbox, I'm still basing my decisions on my outline. I don't need to know that the king's guard is named George, all I need to know is that the king is dictatorial and unforgiving but also generous to his supporters and employees. I've chosen to make my world's climate resemble that of earth. There are some areas blighted by magic but it's never changed basic weather patterns.

Sure, but just about every game has such outlines. It's more a question of how and when are they determined. For me... even when I play D&D... a lot is established by the entire group in session zero. This allows me to focus on the areas of interest to the players, and to incorporate their ideas into the setting. For example, if one player wants to play an elf, I'm going to ask him about what elf culture is like and we'll figure it out together. In situations where something is not established about elves... maybe some kind of cultural observance or holiday... I'm going to include that player in coming up with that stuff.

As far as "we're free to establish" that just sounds like you're trying to give collaborative world design an elevated value because it's your preference. My approach is no better or worse than any other, it's just different and one that I've enjoyed as player and GM for decades.

I've never said one is better or worse. In fact, I've been clear to say the opposite. It's all preference.

However, I do believe that one is more concerned with player-driven play than the other, and I think that's clear from the comments here.

I don't "hide" information, I also don't provide information I don't think the characters would have. I'm pretty generous with high level information, people will recognize the symbols of the major religions (even fairly obscure ones if they have training), everyone knows you need fire or acid to kill trolls.

Not providing information you don't think the characters have is very likely equal to hiding information. I say that knowing that there may be times to hide information that are valid no matter what kind of game you're playing. It's not about having NO unknown information... it's how that unknown information is used in play, and how it impacts the players and what they can and can't do.

My point is that the impact such information has should be considered by the GM.

Like take your "king that's dictatorial and unforgiving but also generous". These traits are likely known by the locals... and therefore learned by the PCs. To me, this would be common knowledge that I would provide to the players even if they were newcomers to the town. They could then incorporate that knowledge into their dealings with the king's men.

If it were not shared... it kind of seems like a trap... with the justification "you didn't look into it". But ALL the information the players get must come from the GM. So why not just give the info? Why call gate it behind a roll?

In old school play, that kind of play worked, because the entire game was about skilled play to navigate a dungeon. If that's not what you're doing, then just provide the information and move on with play.

There's no murder mystery if the players know everything I know as GM.

Well, that's debatable... but we had a recent long thread about that, so no need to rehash it here.

But it's not about telling them everything. If a goal of play is to find out who killed X, then of course the players shouldn't know that.

Rather, it seems like proponents of sandbox play don't accept your definition of player-driven play or player agency as any kind of objective truth.

Yes, that is what it seems like! I just think they are wrong!

 

[Minigiant]

There was no conformity in the 80's and 90's. The vast majority of us house ruled our games to the point where each game was different enough to have to stop and learn how a new DM did things before we could play with a new group.

There was/is more conformity with the WotC editions due to having so many rules for everything, as well as social changes in how kids were raised, than there ever was in the TSR editions.

I mean by the conformity of the official, tournament, and table hopping stance.

In the 70s, 10s, 20s, the IP holders were more officially supportive of alternative styles and wacky variants. So you really couldn't predict what a table's core was. But during the 80s thru 00s, TSR and WOTC only supported the non-traditional when their sales dwindled hard and the community followed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, but just about every game has such outlines. It's more a question of how and when are they determined. For me... even when I play D&D... a lot is established by the entire group in session zero. This allows me to focus on the areas of interest to the players, and to incorporate their ideas into the setting. For example, if one player wants to play an elf, I'm going to ask him about what elf culture is like and we'll figure it out together. In situations where something is not established about elves... maybe some kind of cultural observance or holiday... I'm going to include that player in coming up with that stuff.




I've never said one is better or worse. In fact, I've been clear to say the opposite. It's all preference.

However, I do believe that one is more concerned with player-driven play than the other, and I think that's clear from the comments here.



Not providing information you don't think the characters have is very likely equal to hiding information. I say that knowing that there may be times to hide information that are valid no matter what kind of game you're playing. It's not about having NO unknown information... it's how that unknown information is used in play, and how it impacts the players and what they can and can't do.

My point is that the impact such information has should be considered by the GM.

Like take your "king that's dictatorial and unforgiving but also generous". These traits are likely known by the locals... and therefore learned by the PCs. To me, this would be common knowledge that I would provide to the players even if they were newcomers to the town. They could then incorporate that knowledge into their dealings with the king's men.

If it were not shared... it kind of seems like a trap... with the justification "you didn't look into it". But ALL the information the players get must come from the GM. So why not just give the info? Why call gate it behind a roll?

In old school play, that kind of play worked, because the entire game was about skilled play to navigate a dungeon. If that's not what you're doing, then just provide the information and move on with play.



Well, that's debatable... but we had a recent long thread about that, so no need to rehash it here.

But it's not about telling them everything. If a goal of play is to find out who killed X, then of course the players shouldn't know that.



Yes, that is what it seems like! I just think they are wrong!

How interesting! Here I was thinking you were wrong.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, but just about every game has such outlines. It's more a question of how and when are they determined. For me... even when I play D&D... a lot is established by the entire group in session zero. This allows me to focus on the areas of interest to the players, and to incorporate their ideas into the setting. For example, if one player wants to play an elf, I'm going to ask him about what elf culture is like and we'll figure it out together. In situations where something is not established about elves... maybe some kind of cultural observance or holiday... I'm going to include that player in coming up with that stuff.




I've never said one is better or worse. In fact, I've been clear to say the opposite. It's all preference.

However, I do believe that one is more concerned with player-driven play than the other, and I think that's clear from the comments here.



Not providing information you don't think the characters have is very likely equal to hiding information. I say that knowing that there may be times to hide information that are valid no matter what kind of game you're playing. It's not about having NO unknown information... it's how that unknown information is used in play, and how it impacts the players and what they can and can't do.

My point is that the impact such information has should be considered by the GM.

Like take your "king that's dictatorial and unforgiving but also generous". These traits are likely known by the locals... and therefore learned by the PCs. To me, this would be common knowledge that I would provide to the players even if they were newcomers to the town. They could then incorporate that knowledge into their dealings with the king's men.

If it were not shared... it kind of seems like a trap... with the justification "you didn't look into it". But ALL the information the players get must come from the GM. So why not just give the info? Why call gate it behind a roll?

In old school play, that kind of play worked, because the entire game was about skilled play to navigate a dungeon. If that's not what you're doing, then just provide the information and move on with play.



Well, that's debatable... but we had a recent long thread about that, so no need to rehash it here.

But it's not about telling them everything. If a goal of play is to find out who killed X, then of course the players shouldn't know that.



Yes, that is what it seems like! I just think they are wrong!

How interesting! Here I was thinking you were wrong.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I get you might find that more interesting. Personally I find it more interesting discovering in the interaction that he isn't bribable.

Sure, and I offered a way that could be discovered. If you roll a persuasion check (or similar) and do poorly, this guy can't be bribed. We find out through play.

If instead this is something that's determined ahead of time by the GM... this guard cannot be bribed... then no matter what you do, you'll find out that he can't be bribed. Roll a critical success on an attempt to persuade him? Failure! Make a compelling argument that he should let you through? Failure!

That doesn't seem very playable.

Again this isn't about you doing it wrong and me doing it right, or you always giving players what they want. I just think we are talking about a range of approaches that are all valid and achieve different things.

Yes, I'm not saying any one approach is better for another. I'm saying one seems to be less concerned with player agency than I would have expected.

For me it is very important that when I interact with an NPC, I feel like I am interacting with someone who has an established set of traits. And I get not everyone has this experience, but the moment that gets put on rolls, for me I tend to lose that sense.

That seems odd to me. You're uncertain when you first encounter him. You make a roll of some sort... and then you discover something about him. That would seem to describe your play either way.

And again, even though I feel this way, I do include skill rolls in my own games because I get lot of people expect them. So I am not like extremely ideological on this point. But I think it is worth defending because I notice a massive difference when I go from a system that has social skill rules with mechanical weight and ones that don't have that kind of weight

Oh, sure... they'll feel significantly different in this sphere.

I think most games expect things to make sense. But you definitely have a spectrum of how much sense things need to make. I've played in games that didn't. For example the 90s, a lot of the modules and rules, even for stuff like D&D at times, were more about what was dramatically appropriate. And there is nothing wrong with that. Sometimes you want to focus on a mood and realism isn't a top concern. I've even said, I am not hugely into realism. I am more into consistent genre settings that feel like they are inhabited by real people and groups (albeit with heightened personality traits).

Sure, there are varying levels of priority on these things.

With your interest in Wuxia, I would assume you're no stranger to larger-than-life personalities or melodrama. Even more reason why intractable NPCs seem odd to me.

For me realism isn't a chief consideration. This conversation is complicated at times because sometimes we are talking generally about a style of sandbox play and sometimes I am taking about my own particular style (where I prioritize drama and player freedom). To do that I need to be able to make NPCs with stark character traits. However, as I said, something like that unbribeable guard is a rarity.

Sure! My point is such character traits can be defined without being so impactful to play. Confident... dismissive... outgoing... harsh... stoic... these are all perfectly fine traits that help us picture this person more clearly, but aren't anything so extreme as to shut down entire avenues of player action.

Even something like "Principled" is better, in my opinion, than "unbribable". It gets at the same idea without being absolute. And it can be communicated in other ways to inform the players of this trait.

This to me just doesn't match my experience and it feels like we are again wrestling for 'who has the most player driven style". I am increasingly thinking that is nonsense. I fully acknowledge what you are doing is player driven. I think a fair assessment of what Rob and I are doing, shows it is also player driven. There are key distinctions, and those matter. And to be clear here, what Rob and I do, there are plenty of games in that style that make room for things like players make rolls to bribe a guard. So sandbox play isn't strictly limited to approaches that go light on social interaction mechanics. But I've played in both and both seem to honor the player driven aspect. You just end up with some differences that can still be very important

I'm not saying anything as absolute as that. I'm saying that what you're describing is less concerned with player agency than I would have expected. I'm not comparing it to what I do or what anyone else does. I'm comparing what I would have expected from you to what you're posting.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I'll try this one more time: in my view, this isn't protecting against intentions; its protecting against judgment. And I do, indeed, think you somewhat need to read the GMs mind to know how good the latter is.

I don't know why its controversial that someone can have the best of intentions and still make mistakes, and the more decision making they're doing, the more opportunity for this arises.

(And before someone tries to drag me off on the other topic paralleling this, I'm not talking about campaign planning or NPC design (though I think good rules can help minimize errors there too), I'm talking about this in terms of resolution of events and how consistent and transparent they are).

 

[Bedrockgames]

That seems odd to me. You're uncertain when you first encounter him. You make a roll of some sort... and then you discover something about him. That would seem to describe your play either way.

No, the problem I have with skill rolls doing this as a player, is the bribability has less to do with the established traits of teh character the GM has created and less to do with my actual attempt, and more to do with a roll. I get it can be modified, and I am not saying this is going to be a universal reaction. But just as an example, I found myself a lot less immersed in play for years during the d20 era. And the moment I went back to 2E, where you didn't have stuff like bluff and intimate (and a social skill like Ettiquette was a knowledge roll not a roll that you used to act) my experience suddenly shifted back to a deeply immersive one. SO for me, I just find these skills make me feel less like I am interacting with a real environment.

 

[Bedrockgames]

With your interest in Wuxia, I would assume you're no stranger to larger-than-life personalities or melodrama. Even more reason why intractable NPCs seem odd to me.

You are going to need a range of NPCs in wuxia. Melodrama is important, but there are also a lot of characters who are intractable because "indomitable spirit" is a major theme (not just in wuxia but across many martial arts based genres). So a character who cannot be bribed, wouldn't be outside of the bounds of expected characters. Whether as an NPC or a PC. You have a lot of characters in wuxia movie and books for example who will say things like there is one thing they won't do, or one thing they simply won't stand for. That itself can help produce melodrama. The Bride With White Hair, pivots around that a bit (not because she has an intractable trait about being bribed, but because she has an intractable trait around someone believing other peoples word over hers)

Sure! My point is such character traits can be defined without being so impactful to play. Confident... dismissive... outgoing... harsh... stoic... these are all perfectly fine traits that help us picture this person more clearly, but aren't anything so extreme as to shut down entire avenues of player action.

Sure, and my point is this very much depends on the character. I think having a GM who is true to an NPC is important for this style of play. Sometimes that means you have a guy who is stoic and harsh, sometimes it gets more specific, like having a character who would never cheat on their wife.

Even something like "Principled" is better, in my opinion, than "unbribable". It gets at the same idea without being absolute. And it can be communicated in other ways to inform the players of this trait.

Again my only point here is I want the GM to have the full range. Most of the time, principled is sufficient. Sometimes you need characters who take harder lines. And yes it can be communicated to them. But it doesn't always have to be. I think in a fun campaign, I am going to experience a mix of more information and less information about that stuff

I'm not saying anything as absolute as that. I'm saying that what you're describing is less concerned with player agency than I would have expected. I'm not comparing it to what I do or what anyone else does. I'm comparing what I would have expected from you to what you're posting.

I don't see this as being in conflict with agency though. Again it comes down to the overall picture. If the GM is creating a world and trying to give the players agency in it, then it is fine. Once in a while that might mean you come to a supremely locked door because there is a cagey character in the setting taking more extreme measures. But that isn't a universal attempt to diminish agency. It is simply a world where PC agency is respected but so is NPC agency. Because so much of it pivots around the interaction between them

 

[AlViking]

Do you think that's the primary purpose of guardrails on a road? If so, you're mistaken; the primary purpose is to reduce damage when misadventure occurs.

Same here. Purpose of guardrails is to help protect against mistakes and make it easier to prevent them in the future.



See above.

If the players choose to do something boneheaded like run into battle before recovering from the previous fight, I let the dice fall where they may. In that example the group ended up surrendering to avoid a TPK.

I'm not going to limit player actions to something expected or what I wanted so I don't want it for the GM either.