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

[Micah Sweet]

And saying your position again and again won't change mine.

You have to actually SHOW something. In my experience, changes outside of session are extraordinarily rare and almost always only in response to really, really, really serious problems, or to a single person taking a great deal of initiative. Otherwise, functionally, the only time stuff happens is in or around session. So telling me "just talk to me after" does not help. If the strategy is so terribly prone to failure, it needs some kind of supplement or backup. You can't just write off a really, really common problem as "well just don't play with those people". That would literally mean never playing, in my experience! And I'm hardly alone in this.

In my experience, if someone has a problem and it is agreed to discuss it after the game, that nearly always occurs. It is not a "really common problem" IME, and IMO you have failed to prove otherwise.

See? Just as firm a positive example as your negative assertion.

 

[nevin]

I DM a lot for randoms. I say in the session 0 that the first 15 minutes is for banter and the last 15 minutes is for meta discussions. I also say that you can walk in at any point during the first 15 minutes, but must stay for the final 15 minutes. So the meta discussions are mandatory. I even prompt each player for their thoughts during this time. As such, I see many issues resolved after the game during this 15 minutes.

Maybe the timing isn't the issue. Maybe it's a lack of commitment to actually having the conversation that's the issue. If we don't set that time aside, its easy to just not do as we say. Just a thought.

problem is then it starts to feel like High School or a Job. If they want to stay everything is going well if you have to make them stay then why are they there?

 

[nevin]

No. It's not railroading, when people turn up to bridge night, to start dealing cards.

It's not railroading, when people turn up to play classic D&D, to say - as per Gygax's example - "OK, you're at the dungeon entrance". (In a session that is not the first, the players may first want to do the sort of prep that Gygax describes in his Successful Adventures essay in his PHB.)

It's not railroading, when people turn up to play Prince Valiant, to tell them about the invitation to errantry that their knights have just encountered.

This is where I think the failure to actually discuss play processes tends to cause some confusion (not necessarily on your part, to be clear - but in discussions of the dynamics of RPG play).

As this is an edit, I'll post it now, and then make a follow-up post to elaborate on what I mean.

I think some people that truly love the idea of sandbox play with no rules>not sure it could actually exist> get confused with the concept of Tyranny of Choices. Most people are overwhelmed by a large number of choices and sieze up and make no choice. It's so universal it's a serious part of marketing. Give people 2 or 3 choices they feel competent to decide. Give them a more and the larger the number the less competent they feel to decide so they usually won't. Most people want at least guard rails on thier games. By that I mean they want to know what's ok, why they are there and have a general Idea of what they are supposed to be doing. If you throw the average player in a sandbox they often simply start killing things because it's DND and that's the easy choice. Or they just don't come back. There are some who love the wide open freedom and anarchy but I'd say they are probably not more than 1% of the player base.

 

[Zardnaar]

My rule is more FAFO. One of the players decided to wander off in a game where they knew they were in incredibly dangerous area a while back. The character only survived by incredibly good luck when they ran afoul some optional encounters I had outlined for the entire group. In another game long ago the player decided their character didn't want to go with the rest of the group so I just told them they were welcome to leave or write up a new character.

I make it quite clear before my session 0 that I only have so much time and patience for lone wolf characters and it's not worth wasting the time of 5 other people to run a 1-on-1 session for 1 individual.

I did write up the rules once.
No lone wolf type characters were mentioned. These days it's verbal. Don't be a jetk don't roll play a jerk. That includes pvp, stealing off other players, cowards and lone wolves

 

[nevin]

I did write up the rules once.
No lone wolf type characters were mentioned. These days it's verbal. Don't be a jetk don't roll play a jerk. That includes pvp, stealing off other players, cowards and lone wolves

but since 1e there have been players that love that stuff. This is the problem with rules for everything. My game may not be ok for your players and your game may not be ok for my players. If a group of players want to play D&D (Paranoia Edition) more power to them.

 

[Lanefan]

Not entirely. GMPCs are pretty much what the GM would be playing if they weren't being the GM; they're supposed to be treated exactly like the PCs are in every way, because they are a PC. They just happen to be played by the GM. Whereas NPCs, even the most fleshed-out of them, tend to be a bit more in the background than the PCs are and usually aren't used just like PCs are. GMPCs have a particularly bad reputation because a lot of GMs will use them to steal the spotlight, will give them extra powers or equipment, lets them break rules, or otherwise make them "cool" at the expense of the PCs.

If the players decide to get an NPC to come with them on their journey, and that NPC helps out in combat or healing occasionally, takes a turn at watch, or helps carry the loot, but otherwise mostly reacts to the PCs, they're an NPC.

If the NPC in question has their own quests and goals but actually could use the PCs' help to achieve them, and their goals are in line with the PCs' goals, and they do things on their own without the PCs around, they're a GMPC.

To me the distinction is fuzzy enough that the two just kind of bleed together into one, for me.

If the players recruit an NPC or even a hench to come adventuring with them, I'm going to give that NPC just as much personality etc. as a PC would have. It's still an NPC by definition only in that it doesn't have a player attached.

I do try to find reasons to send long-serving party NPCs down the road before they become too powerful, but there's been times the players simply wouldn't let me because the NPC was too well-liked and had become an integral part of the party's core.

If the NPC has their own quests and goals, doesn't need the PCs help to achieve them but wants them along so the GM can narrate how awesome they are, is five levels higher than the PCs, carries twin godslayer of hit points greatswords which do more damage than any two of the other PCs combined, and gets all the babes, they're a really bad GMPC.

Agreed on this.

That said, having such a stupidly-powerful NPC join a party for a short time only can sometimes be a useful tool in the toolbox; as in, when being assigned a mission: "Jane Superhero will come with you until you meet Mr Bigdragon; her job is to deal with him and distract him away from you while you lot go on to the real mission that lies beyond his lair."

Which means, until the party meets Mr Bigdragon they've got Jane along to help deal with any other annoyances.

 

[Zardnaar]

but since 1e there have been players that love that stuff. This is the problem with rules for everything. My game may not be ok for your players and your game may not be ok for my players. If a group of players want to play D&D (Paranoia Edition) more power to them.

That's fine those players can go elsewhere. I wish them luck in their future endeavors

 

[pemerton]

Here is the basic structure of a classic D&D dungeon:

The GM draws a dungeon map. At it's core, it is rooms joined by corridors, with doors being the principal mediators between these other two elements.

The GM, in the key, writes an account of each room. In its essence, a room is a latent scene. The scene is triggered/activated by the players having their PCs open the door.

If the players open doors blind, then they are not exercising situational authority. Rather, no one is - it is essentially random. (I guess if the dungeon is a single line, then the GM exercised that authority in building the dungeon. I'm assuming something more classic, with multiple paths etc.) If the players follow Gygax's advice in Successful Adventures, of collecting information and making plans, then they can be the ones to exercise situational authority.

We can generalise this account of the classic dungeon to a particular type of sandbox (we could call it the "classic" sandbox): the GM exercises predominant, even exclusive, authority over setting and backstory. (Maybe players contribute some backstory at PC gen, which they and the GM weave into the GM's notes about the setting.)

Many of the GM's setting elements - lairs, prisons, political factions, etc - have latent situations in them.

The players "activate" these situations by declaring the appropriate actions - eg that their PCs cross the hills to find the dragon cave or that their PCs talk to the mayor to try and secure her support in their attempt to overthrow the Baron.

So the players and the GM share situational authority, in the asymmetric fashion just described. As has been discussed extensively upthread, the less information the players have - about what situations will be activated and what is at stake in them - then the greater the GM's control, and vice versa.

In all these "classic" modes of play, the GM - if they are not going to be self-defeating - has to be generous and permissive in adjudicating the "activating" actions. I say "self-defeating" because if a GM puts blockers in the way of situation-activating actions, then the game will grind to a halt.

And in this sort of game, it seems to me that there is an onus on the GM to make sure that all of the latent situations are reasonably interesting - whatever exactly that means, for the particular game being played and collection of players. A GM who prepares uninteresting latent situations is laying the groundwork for a boring play experience.

Now, what is going on with the "plot hook" that the GM presents, but that the players are free to ignore? If this is the presentation by the GM of one of their latent situations - so, in effect, an immediate invitation to the players to engage in a situation-activating action declaration - then (i) the GM should not be worried if the players pick it up or ignore it, as there are other situations that are latent in the set-up; and (ii) the GM will presumably soon be presenting some other opportunity for the players to activate a situation by having their PCs do something-or-other.

The simplest illustration of this goes back to a dungeon: if the players have their PCs disregard one door, and instead examine another, this should be neither here-nor-there to the GM. (If it's bad play by the players, the GM might inwardly, or even - after the event - outwardly mock them, but that's not the same as having a hope for play.)

But suppose that the GM does not have a host of latent situations prepared, and the most interesting thing the GM has prepared is the situation for which they have presented a "hook", an invitation to the players to activate it. Then I don't see any reason to be coy. Let the players know where the game is.

And this isn't railroading per se. It's just being honest that the game being played is not a classic sandbox.

Railroading comes in when the GM decides and manipulates stakes, outcomes, etc so that the players aren't exercising control over the salient shared fiction.

 

[Lanefan]

Why?

If the GM thinks that a particular thing would be particularly interesting, I don't see the benefit in keeping that secret.

I have to say this seems strange coming from such a strident anti-railroader as yourself.

If the DM lays down numerous options and then says "But it'd be really cool if you choose this one!" she's in effect pretty much just told the players which one to choose; and if that ain't railroading, what is?

 

[SableWyvern]

Perhaps. But isn’t wanting them to go a specific route kind of leaning in that direction anyway?

Like if that’s what a GM wants to do, then just do it.

That's one way to play. But that sounds like removing a lot of player agency to me.

As an involved and invested participant in the game, having my own feelings as GM about how I would like the game to progress is obviously something that is going to happen. As I mentioned quite some time ago, part of my job is ensuring that those feelings don't have an undue influence on my decisions. Another job is ensuring that the players understand that if I'm running a sandbox, they do, indeed have the power to make decisions for the their characters and that they are the ones who decide what they do. They are not beholden to my desires.

A couple campaigns back, there was a civil war brewing. The PCs were important enough that either side would be happy to have them as allies. The party was being quite conservative in their approach and I presented them with an opportunity to get more involved. I had done my prep for the session on the assumption that they would bite the hook, and there were all sorts of developments that would be able to follow on from a decision to jump on board.

A priestess PC was asked for her help recovering the corpse of a slain noblewoman who was being held by a rival church for various political reasons. The priestess would not have a bar of it, because another PC was tentatively aligned with the opposing faction. The representative asking for assistance made a fairly compelling moral case and, when rejected progressed to begging and basically grovelling, before moving on to demanding and finally storming off in anger and frustration.

When I was able to throw everything into the role of that envoy, working as hard as possible to have the PC agree, but the player still felt comfortable saying, "No", it was one of the proudest moments of my GM career.

I could have said, "Hey guys this is what I've prepped, this is what I think will be most fun, can you please go along with it," but that was not the sort of game I was running at the time. And had I done so, I would not have had the pleasure of being surprised and seeing the game go in different direction. I later played out the behind scenes events that occurred after the players went their own direction and, when they later heard about the botched attempt by servants of Ishanna to rescue said body from a church of Solinor, the deaths on both sides and the growing schism between the faiths, they felt a deeper connection to the world as they realised that the whole political landscape had shifted, in part because of that PC decision not to assist.

My current game is not a sandbox. I'm running a reasonably linear villain of the week supers game, with an overarching threat growing in the background. In this game, the players are expected to step up and be heroes when presented with a threat to deal with, and saying, "nope, that doesn't interest us," isn't really a viable option. That's been established up front. But when I go back to running a sandbox in my next campaign, I will remind the players that we're shifting back to a mode of play where the PCs are free to do whatever they want. If there are any rails (eg, no turning into psychopathic murderers slaughtering everyone they meet) they will be made clear and if we reach a blurry border we'll discuss the details, but the basic expectation I will have is that, within the wide zone of the agreed premise, the players are free to make their own choices without any concern for what I as GM would prefer.

Now, if they just shrug their shoulders and move on at every potential hook and aren't pushing forward to some interesting goal themselves, chances are they are going to be very bored. But, if they're doing that, then there are deeper issues. Passing on any individual hook is absolutely OK, for whatever reason they want, and I want my players to feel comfortable doing so. If they're not in the mood to investigate strange sounds in the forest, then they should not feel compelled to investigate strange sounds in the forest.

The PCs belong to the players, not to me. I present them with a world, they decide how to interact with it. Much of my fun comes from seeing the unexpected ways in which they end up changing and influencing that world, including (and especially) when they subvert my expectations.

Edit: Another time I had ideas about where I wanted the game to go, also a story I think I already mentioned in a different context in this thread, was when the PCs came across an opportunity to go visit a fairy festival. I had some cool stuff planned if they went this way but, after coming across the clues, they could not nope out of that option hard enough. I was disappointed that the cool things that could have happened didn't, but I was immensely happy that my players had learned to take the fickle nature of fairies seriously, and their reaction was absolutely in keeping with a sensible decision from the perspective of someone actually present in the world. There was also no shortage of other things for the players to be doing; it's not as if they were just wandering about aimlessly and rejecting the opportunity to do something interesting instead.