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

[robertsconley]

Note, that is one version of sandbox and not one that I ascribe to. The idea that in order to have a sandbox, the DM must be the sole source of details is a particularly idiosyncratic version of sandbox that only supports one, fairly narrow playstyle and insists that anyone doing anything different isn't actually playing a sandbox. Thus my disagreements with @robertsconley

I would appreciate it if you leave the accusations of the one true wayism out of the discussion. @Bedrockgames has been extraordinarily patient with many posters here explaining what he does with sandbox campaigns and how he views them. I took the time to ask the questions that were needed to understand your point of views. I ask you show @Bedrockgames the same courtesy.

As for fairly narrow playstyles and folks doing different, I have been writing about sandbox campaigns for two decades and was among the group popularized the term to describe a pre-existing type of tabletop roleplaying campaign. What most of the hobby considers to be a sandbox campaign, isn't what I do, or what you do, or what @Bedrockgames does rather it is West March style campaign developed by Ben Robbins back in 2007.

That's just my considered opinion. None of us has the data to demonstrate which aspect of sandbox campaign enjoys the most support in the hobby.

So let's leave the accusations of one true wayism out of the discussion, shall we?

 

[pemerton]

Not all. There is nothing about a game being a player driven sandbox, that means players should have a mechanical widget to determine if they can bribe the guard. Like I said both approaches work and interact with the player driven quality in different ways. One sacrifice you make when you have say a robust skill styes or something that lets them bribe the guard on a roll, is you can take away the meaning of their words. In most cases we won't be talking about a guard who is unbrideable, we will be talking about the GM establishing other traits, the reason you might want the GM to be able to establish those traits is that can inform how that NPC reacts to things the players do. Which does create the sense of interaction with a real person. But it also gives weight to the things the payers actually choose to say and do (rather than have that largely handled by the die roll). I am not saying it is the best option. There will be cases with both approaches where you encounter issues. I just think there is nothing wrong or anti-sandbox about saying the GM can establish NPC traits, even strong ones.

See, this contrast between "mechanical widgets" and "giving weight to the things the players actually choose to say and do" reinforces my impression that you're not that familiar with good social resolution systems.

I mean, imagine the howls of outrage if I said to serious wargamers that their intricate systems for resolving battles put everything onto "mechanical widgets" rather than what they, as players, actually choose to do!

 

[pemerton]

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

See, this is the sort of dogmatic assertion that gives me the impression that you're not familiar with much non-D&D-esque RPGing.

Now maybe I'm wrong, and you do have that familiarity, and you are just speaking loosely. But taken literally, what I have quoted you saying is simply false.

There are some approaches to mystery RPGing where it is true; but they are not the only ones.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Trust them to do what?

I've been a player for about 10 or so sessions in the past decade. I've GMed many more than that. When I GM, I don't want to be playing a storyteller/railroad game. Which is why I like systems that create structures and processes that don't require me to do that.

I posted an example oF what I want to avoid in the current "GM mistakes" thread: when GMing Rolemaster, the PCs had a powerful faction acting against them. I, as GM, had to decide how much effort the faction devoted to thwarting the PCs, and how seriously the resources dedicated to that effort were deployed. The rules of the game gave me measures for things like how many and how potent spells can a NPC cast, but nothing more. So all the rest was simply up to me to decide, with the upshot of my decision being the full gamut from the PCs experience little threat to the PCs are utterly hosed.

RM has no inherent devices for handling or mitigating this, because it's mechanics are basically more elaborate and simulationist versions of classic D&D mechanics (with a few exceptions - eg it has rudimentary but still workable social mechanics); but it assumes a completely different framing context from the very artificial environment of the classic D&D dungeon (which constrains and channels possible threats so the PCs don't get automatically hosed by the forces arrayed against them).

This experience is one reason why I prefer systems that - like classic D&D - provide a framework for the introduction and prosecution of adversity, but - unlike classic D&D - have a framework that will work in the more verisimilitudinous/naturalistic contexts that I prefer.

To give a concrete illustration of what I mean: in the most recent session of my Torchbearer 2e game, two PCs escaped from a prison in Wintershiven (the capital of the Theocracy of the Pale), abetted by a third PC. So there are now agents of the Pale who are hostile to them. But I don't, as GM, need to make any decisions in advance about who those agents are, how effective they are, etc - the sorts of decisions that I had to make in the RM game. Rather, the resolution system tells me (through various of its devices, like the rules for failed tests, the rules for events, etc) when I need to introduce "unanticipated" adversity, and there are also clear frameworks for establishing its difficulty, and there are clear frameworks for resolving conflicts (including clear rules for when PC death is on the line).

There is all the verisimilitude and vibrancy of my old RM game - I'm even using my same beloved 1980 Greyhawk Folio maps (though I think I actually got my copy in 1983 or perhaps early '84). But the game system improves the playability, by establishing clear procedures for the presentation and unfolding of PC-threatening adversity.

Talking about "trust in the GM" - as in, whether or not I trust myself (to do what?) - is a red herring.

It's a red herring for you, because trust apparently isn't a relevant aspect of the games you play. The mechanics you use eliminate it as a factor. That's great for you. But it's too high a price for me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But I look at my XP budget for every combat based on the guidance given in the DMG in my game as well. Nothing forces me to pay attention to that other than the social contract I have with my players of course. But if that social construct isn't enough - if I regularly kill off all my player's characters - then I won't have players for long.

As GM I can always ignore the rules or guidelines and the rules police aren't going to come arrest me.

Exactly. This is what the social contract is for. You can't replace it with a rulebook without consequences.

 

[Bedrockgames]

See, this contrast between "mechanical widgets" and "giving weight to the things the players actually choose to say and do" reinforces my impression that you're not that familiar with good social resolution systems.

I mean, imagine the howls of outrage if I said to serious wargamers that their intricate systems for resolving battles put everything onto "mechanical widgets" rather than what they, as players, actually choose to do!

I was talking about skill rolls in games that have them for social skills. I wasn’t talking comprehensively about all social interaction rolls.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It doesn’t say that. But so what? I wasn’t only talking about modern D&D.

My point was how practices established in the early days of D&D don’t make as much sense in modern versions of the game, yet have remained out of some mixture of nostalgia and conservatism.

Well, my point is that practices in the early days of D&D are no less valid and no less part of the discussion than what is popular in more modern versions of the game.

 

[robertsconley]

No set of rules will prescribe every outcome to every action under every condition,

Have you read the core rules for Burning Wheel, which you can download for free here: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/98542/burning-wheel-gold-hub-and-spokes

I ask, because if you have then your post that I've quoted is puzzling; and if you haven't, then you might find them interesting, as they will show you how a resolution system can be designed so as to dissolve the concern that underlies your post that I've quoted.

@mamba is correct. In computational theory, it is well established that any simulation is necessarily a simplification; it cannot fully capture the complexity of the system it represents. This principle applies equally to games, tabletop roleplaying., and specific systems like Burning Wheel. Suggesting otherwise veers into absurdity.

 

[pemerton]

See, this contrast between "mechanical widgets" and "giving weight to the things the players actually choose to say and do" reinforces my impression that you're not that familiar with good social resolution systems.

I mean, imagine the howls of outrage if I said to serious wargamers that their intricate systems for resolving battles put everything onto "mechanical widgets" rather than what they, as players, actually choose to do!

@The Firebird, I'm not 100% sure how to interpret your "Wow" response to this post.

But imagine someone who knew nothing about dice-based wargaming except Risk, and who therefore said that the resolution of imaginary battles, if it is to be realistic or to put any weight on what the players, as generals, choose to do rather than just the outcome of "mechanical widgets", must be approached purely via free-kriegsspiel.

Why should a serious wargamer take such a pronouncement seriously?

Similarly, why should I take that sort of pronouncement seriously in the context of social resolution in RPGing, when I know and play with multiple systems that show it to simply be false?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, my point is that practices in the early days of D&D are no less valid and no less part of the discussion than what is popular in more modern versions of the game.

Sure. But I hope you see how that really has nothing to do with what I said?