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

Those posts are all about the style of sandbox Rob and I are talking about because I was asked to explain and defend some points about them. They weren't general statements of 'ought' for other campaigns. And I wasn't assuming the norms expressed here were the norms for everyone. I was trying to explain why I would be okay with say the GM given an NPC a trait that completely thwarts what I was trying to do, but also point to when I would start to see that as a problem. I wasn't saying that you should also walk around with my sensibilities on this
Funny how these statements aren’t “ought to” yet I’ve now been told a few times that the sandbox campaigns I’ve run aren’t actually sandboxes.

Seems pretty normative to me.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Auto-succeed or auto-fail can still be an impartial decision depending on the circumstances.

Situation: rickety-looking floor, narrated as such in order to give the PCs reason to be cautious (and maybe delay them a bit), that the DM knows is in fact sound.
Player: "I carefully walk across the floor."
DM: "Good. It creaks a bit, and now you're on the other side of the room. Now what?"

Seems impartial enough from here.
How is that impartial at all?

You, the dm, declared without any reason other than to force specific actions from the players, that the floor was sound.

This is EXACTLY what we’ve meant by dm determination being railroading. The only reason you described the situation that way was to influence the players to act in a certain way.
 

As written yes. But it's expressed to the players that the drow are chasing them and they're given numerous signs of this. They have to guess that it's just a dramatic element and no matter they do they will not get caught until just before they leave.
Have you actually read the adventure recently? This is not true. The party is pursued. Yes. But they can be caught up at any time. Being caught up in now way means failure or success. It’s just an event.
 

How is that impartial at all?
Because the floor creaks as a result of being old and comprisedof wooden boards pegged to a frame.

It is part of the description of the setting. Everybody has been quite clear about where these details come from. What hasn't been said much that many of these details are determined well before the referee knows whether a character will try to walk across it.

From our discussion, I know you use a lot of procedural generation, and one of the effects of this is that many of the details of your settings are generated on the fly. While that is a common tradition in most types of sandbox campaigns, in many cases the creaking floor has been noted well beforehand. That's the part you are missing.
 
Last edited:

Because the floor creaks as a result of being old and comprisedof wooden boards pegged to a frame.

It is part of the description of the setting. Everybody has been quite clear about where these details come from. What hasn't been said much that many of these details are determined well before the referee knows whether a character will try to walk across it.

From our discussion, I know you use a lot of procedural generation, and one of the effects of this is that many of the details of your settings are generated on the fly. While that is a common tradition in most types of sandbox campaigns, in many cases the creaking floor has been noted well beforehand. That's the part you are missing.
Sure, you can change the example again to suit your purposes just like you rewrote Keep on the Borderlands to suit your argument.

But, that's expressly NOT what @Lanefan said. The floor was rickety in order to slow the party down. He straight up said this. The floor is actually NOT old or rickety. It just looks that way but is instead completely sound. The only reason it's described as old or unsound is to get the players to act in a certain way.

And, please, I've been gaming just as long as you have. I've done both procedural generation and I've done the traditional thing too. It doesn't matter that the creaking floor was noted beforehand. That's not the important bit. The important bit is the ONLY reason that this was noted was to influence the players to behave in a certain way.

There is zero impartiality here. None whatsoever.
 

Have you actually read the adventure recently? This is not true. The party is pursued. Yes. But they can be caught up at any time. Being caught up in now way means failure or success. It’s just an event.
You're right; I remembered there was a forced railroad bit, but it's that they're caught up with regardless of how fast they go and how many precautions they take.

But then, there is time pressure. If they don't move quickly, they will be caught by an encounter that will be overly difficult for them, especially at low levels.
 

You're right; I remembered there was a forced railroad bit, but it's that they're caught up with regardless of how fast they go and how many precautions they take.

But then, there is time pressure. If they don't move quickly, they will be caught by an encounter that will be overly difficult for them, especially at low levels.
True. But, does that mean that in a sandbox, the DM is constrained from ever introducing encounters that might be too difficult if the party does not play smart? I would have thought that this was pretty much one of the basic tenets of sandbox play. That smart play is rewarded and poor play is penalized. How is the DM introducing a hunting party chasing the PC's not exactly that?
 

Because this causes player actions to feel like they have more weight. This makes those actions feel more meaningful. If the DM is actively changing their decisions in order to further, to suppress, or otherwise to change the players goals, then the world no longer feels as objective. This changes the game from "how can I succeed in this universe" to "how can I convince the GM to further (or not suppress) my goals"?

Just my view.
Here are the relevant rules for Burning Wheel (from the Gold edition, pp pp 9-11, 24-25, 30-31, 72):

In the game, players take on the roles of characters inspired by history and works of fantasy fiction. These characters are a list of abilities rated with numbers and a list of player-determined priorities. . . .

One of you takes on the role of the game master. The GM is responsible for challenging the players. He also plays the roles of all of those characters not taken on by other players; he guides the pacing of the events of the story; and he arbitrates rules calls and interpretations so that play progresses smoothly.

Everyone else plays a protagonist in the story. . . . The GM presents the players with problems based on the players’ priorities. The players use their characters’ abilities to overcome these obstacles. To do this, dice are rolled and the results are interpreted using the rules presented in this book. . . .

When declaring an action for a character, you say what you want and how you do it. That’s the intent and the task. . . . Descriptions of the task are vital. Through them we know which mechanics to apply; acknowledging the intent allows us to properly interpret the results of the test. . . .

A task is a measurable, finite and quantifiable act performed by a character: attacking someone with a sword, studying a scroll or resting in an abbey. A task describes how you accomplish your intent. What does your character do? A task should be easily linked to an ability: the Sword skill, the Research skill or the Health attribute. . . .

what happens after the dice have come to rest and the successes are counted? If the successes equal or exceed the obstacle, the character has succeeded in his goal - he achieved his intent and completed the task.

This is important enough to say again: Characters who are successful complete actions in the manner described by the player. A successful roll is sacrosanct in Burning Wheel and neither GM nor other players can change the fact that the act was successful. The GM may only embellish or reinforce a successful ability test. . . .

When the dice are rolled and don’t produce enough successes to meet the obstacle, the character fails. What does this mean? It means the stated intent does not come to pass. . . .

Unless there is something at stake in the story you have created, don’t bother with the dice. Keep moving, keep describing, keep roleplaying. But as soon as a character wants something that he doesn’t have, needs to know something he doesn’t know, covets something that someone else has, roll the dice.

Flip that around and it reveals a fundamental rule in Burning Wheel game play: When there is conflict, roll the dice. There is no social agreement for the resolution of conflict in this game. Roll the dice and let the obstacle system guide the outcome.​

The player does not need to convince the GM of anything - all they have to do is (i) determine priorities for their character (which, in BW, are expressed predominantly via Beliefs, Instincts, Traits, Relationships, Affiliations and Reputations), and (ii) state clear intents as part of their action declarations for their PCs.

So I think your characterisation is quite inaccurate.
 

Remove ads

Top