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

[Enrahim]

It just feels like you're fundamentally saying, "Oh well this happens to all styles so I don't have to respond" and that's...really really frustrating. I know these things happen to many styles. I don't dispute that. But I believe this style is especially vulnerable. Meaning, I would expect there to be some kind of...process or procedure or technique or principle or rule-of-thumb or SOMETHING that would help.

Instead I'm getting...well, frankly, I feel like I'm being stonewalled.

I feel like @Bedrockgames are getting a bit into the teritory of processes around this in his post here D&D General - [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

It proposes PoV with Q&A as the rule of thumb direction to resolve the trilemma. With that one resolved focus can then be shifted toward looking at techniques to mitigate the potential negative consequences of that choice?

I think this might be where actively avoiding planned sequences might be coming in. If there are no planed sequences, then there at least are no situation the GM has plotted in where missing A due to "impropper prompt" will lead to problems when you get to B or C.

To try to expand on that idea it might be that just not actively planing sequences is not enough, but that you should as a technique try to prevent introducing elements at all where the order they are getting into play is of major importance. That is do not both introduce a knowledgable monster hunter and a monster with very spesific vulnerabilities in a similar region. This would of course be a very strong constraint at GM prep and world design, but might be a technique that should mitigate the issues of the insufficient prompt?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No one is ever going to run the idealized pure sandbox. It's impossible. It's the same old "If you don't hit 100% of your goal, you've completely and utterly failed" fallacy. No one in existence has ever had 100% autonomy to do whatever they want. It's like saying a person goes to the store and the shelves are already stocked - it's a railroad!!!

If I go to the store I have full autonomy on whether I purchase twinkies, ho-hos, some apples along with dozens or hundreds of other choices. If I've prepped some encounters, NPCs, perhaps a map, the players still have plenty of autonomy on approach. Just like can buy the twinkies if I want or apples. In a game if they decide to get some pears instead of apples I may have to figure out how to use of my apple template to create pears because they're actually pretty close to each other in the context of fruit. That's okay as long as I don't just slap a "pear" label on some apples but actually put thought into changing shape, color and flavor. The fact that they can't buy a car at the grocery store does not mean they have limited autonomy when they had a choice of what type of retail outlet they were headed to in the first place.

As MJ once said "You can't always get what you want but if you try sometime you might just find you get what you need." It's the same with sandboxes. You can't achieve a perfect sandbox but you can come close enough.

Alright. Let's take this example and run with it, shall we?

You decide to go to the store. But before you enter, the store has you blinfolded, puts noise-cancelling earphones over your ears, and puts mandatory boxing gloves on your hands. Functionally, while you are inside, you are in sensory deprivation--except for what your Guide Merchant tells you through those earphones. If you bring other shoppers with you, they'll be able to hear your questions and your Guide Merchant's answers, but everyone has to wear the same blindfold+earphones+gloves setup. Your Guide Merchant is legally required to never lie to you about prices, so you'll always know exactly how much you're spending (no trickery on that front), but beyond that it is their discretion what products they decide to mention and what descriptions or judgments they might make.

Would you say you still have full autonomy in this situation? I can certainly say that, at the very least, even if I were perfectly confident that my Guide Merchant would never for any reason lie to me nor hide anything I would want to know nor even exercise any judgment whatsoever that I wouldn't exercise myself, I'd feel like I'd lost a lot of my autonomy simply because I'm not allowed to observe myself. I am exclusively dependent on second-hand information through the Guide Merchant. But that situation is what players necessarily go through when playing a game of this kind with its radical dependence on GM-world-knowledge.

So, no, I don't accept that there's an analogy here. When you go to the store, you are in full control over what (if any) information you might receive, assuming it's there to be received. There is nothing second-hand, and you make all of your choices for yourself, directly knowing the consequences as much as it is possible to know them. That is what makes it such that you have autonomy. Those things are not, and cannot be, present at the game-table. That doesn't mean that some kind of autonomy can be present. I am not in any way denying or even questioning that here. I'm simply saying that the analogy you've used is not even remotely applicable because of the fundamental, and dramatic, differences between "I went to the store to shop" and "I played in a traditional-GM-sandbox game".

 

[Guest 85555]

I feel like @Bedrockgames are getting a bit into the teritory of processes around this in his post here D&D General - [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

It proposes PoV with Q&A as the rule of thumb direction to resolve the trilemma. With that one resolved focus can then be shifted toward looking at techniques to mitigate the potential negative consequences of that choice?

Can someone explain the trilemma issue to me? I know what a trilemma is, but I don't see how it relates to RPGs as an issue.

Basically POV and Q&A is how you navigate exploration in a sandbox. If the players go into a tavern, the GM can be as verbose or not as they want. It doesn't especially matter provided the players are able to Q&A to explore the room. There are all kinds of ways of handling it. The GM in his description is just trying to provide the answer to 'what is happening and what do they see'. You might defer to skill rolls like Detect or Empathy for certain things. I tend to use these passively. If the players walk in, but don't say what they are looking for or how they are examining the place, I may make detect or empathy rolls (I would especially do an empathy roll if there were people in the room hostile to the party as empathy is a way of picking up on social cues in my system). But the most important thing is to treat the players Qs as their visual examination of the area. Also for a tavern it might matter how many people are there. If it is crowded, I would expect players to be a bit specific about what they are looking for and just start by giving them a general impression. If there are three people in the tavern, I think describing all three is totally reasonable.

I think this might be where actively avoiding planned sequences might be coming in. If there are no planed sequences, then there at least are no situation the GM has plotted in where missing A due to "impropper prompt" will lead to problems when you get to B or C.

I am not sure I follow the concern here, but there are not really planned sequences. This is one of the major points people on the sandbox side have been making when they talk about prep.

To try to expand on that idea it might be that just not actively planing sequences is not enough, but that you should as a technique try to prevent introducing elements at all where the order they are getting into play is of major importance. That is do not both introduce a knowledgable monster hunter and a monster with very spesific vulnerabilities in a similar region. This would of course be a very strong constraint at GM prep and world design, but might be a technique that should mitigate the issues of the insufficient prompt?

This is why we talk about NPCs planning and taking actions, not about things happening. The GM is playing the world, and isn't laying out a series of events or scenes in a particular order. It is totally fine if you want an adventure in a sandbox where the is a likely order of events. But I think the more you do that the more problems you can run into (personally I usually find it easier to just see what happens moment to moment)

 

[AnotherGuy]

I don't follow. There's a castle. It has defenders. The PCs sneak past the defenders, or fight them, or whatever.

Okay.
Please explain how you view sneaking past the defenders is not avoiding/bypassing the encounters with the defenders?

In the fiction, I can't imagine anyone saying "Hey, we bypassed that encounter!"

No one mentioned anything about in-the-fiction. This is you reframing the conversation.

And at the table, why would I need to talk about "bypassing an encounter" as opposed to just talking about what did or didn't happen in the fiction?

There is no need for anything. Again this is a reframe of the conversation.
The entire conversation about bypassing encounters happened when the @AlViking mentioned the PCs bypassed the encounter etc. and then you commented that you did not understand the term bypassing the encounter.
The conversation was not about the in-fiction conversation between characters or about any need. These are all your inputs.
I'm curious as to why you keep reframing the conversation to this narrative.

The only answer I can think of is if there was some expectation that a certain type of, or bit of, play was going to happen - but it didn't!

Correct. There was an expectation by the GM that these encounters would take place. They didn't thus the PCs bypassed them to achieve their goal.

I've never had to describe this. If we're talking about map-and-key resolution, then in Gygax's terminology there's a particular "set encounter" that didn't happen, because the PCs didn't go to that place or open that door (or otherwise do the in-fiction thing that "activates" the set encounter).

Common parlance would use avoided/bypassed the encounter as opposed to they didn't happen which is vague and non-descript.
Why didn't the encounters happen? Did the players not show up for the session? Did you run a different adventure? Were you sick and did you cancel the session? You see these are all valid reasons as to why the encounters didn't happen, and yet they fall short whereas the PC bypassed/avoided the encounter is far more specific.

I used to run dungeons - not very well - and then, as I've often posted, around 1986 I started using techniques that I would later learn to think of, and improve, as "scene framing" of the sort found in Prince Valiant, Burning Wheel etc.

My perception of the term scene-framing are snapshots of a scene presented by the GM followed by a roleplaying resolution.

GM: Scene-frames
Table: Resolves
GM moves the story forward Scene-frames the next scene
Table: Resolves
...and so on
At least that is how I envision it when someone says they scene-frame.

The way I run a dungeon I would not describe it as scene-framing. There would be constant dialogue between GM and players as the PCs progressed through the dungeon building organically on the shared imagination with many of the elements within the fiction traditionally built on by the GM.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I feel like @Bedrockgames are getting a bit into the teritory of processes around this in his post here D&D General - [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

It proposes PoV with Q&A as the rule of thumb direction to resolve the trilemma. With that one resolved focus can then be shifted toward looking at techniques to mitigate the potential negative consequences of that choice?

I think this might be where actively avoiding planned sequences might be coming in. If there are no planed sequences, then there at least are no situation the GM has plotted in where missing A due to "impropper prompt" will lead to problems when you get to B or C.

To try to expand on that idea it might be that just not actively planing sequences is not enough, but that you should as a technique try to prevent introducing elements at all where the order they are getting into play is of major importance. That is do not both introduce a knowledgable monster hunter and a monster with very spesific vulnerabilities in a similar region. This would of course be a very strong constraint at GM prep and world design, but might be a technique that should mitigate the issues of the insufficient prompt?

Hmm. Perhaps. But that would be yet another unspoken but critically necessary expectation: that the players are basically somehow magically expected to know that they're supposed to treat every environment as something to be questioned deeply and expansively.

Which just feeds right back into my frustration about everything being kept tacit and implied and invisible, in the black box, even though a lot of it actually could just be...said. Like straightforwardly, plainly said.

Can someone explain the trilemma issue to me? I know what a trilemma is, but I don't see how it relates to RPGs as an issue.

A trilemma is a situation where there are, or at least seem to be, only three options--all of them undesirable. C.S. Lewis is famous for his trilemma regarding Jesus (the "liar, lunatic, or Lord" idea--not interested in debating it, just giving it as an example). It's the three-pronged version of a dilemma. The options, whether dilemma or trilemma, are usually referred to casually as "horns", coming from the idea that a "dilemma" means needing to choose which horn the bull gores you with--neither of which is appealing.

My (proposed; perhaps one might say "alleged") trilemma, here, is one about how much the GM prompts the players with information:

(1) No prompting at all. This leaves the players constantly having to guess what is relevant or useful or more than just set-dressing, hence my reference to the (pejorative) term for needing to hunt down a single-pixel item in classic adventure games (for computers), aka "needle in a haystack" issues
(2) Only prompting about things the GM has heavily prepared. Since the things the GM speaks of are, inherently, boosted above things they didn't speak of, this puts a massive bias towards prep and away from unprepped, which looks like loss of agency to me (the "menu of choices")
(3) Prompting about a ton of things, whether all prepped or a mix of prepped and unprepped. A zillion different bits of information...liable to either create analysis paralysis (too many options to pick from) or interest fatigue (too many options to cognitively engage with)

All three paths seem to lead to a problem, and "don't prompt", "only prompt prepped stuff", "prompt about most things" seems a pretty comprehensive . Thus far, the answer (as hinted via Enrahim's post above) is that character-PoV-centric presentation is key, and that (player?) Q&A is a vital procedure. I don't yet feel that is an answer--but it is a sincere effort to provide one. So, since Enrahim was building off of your post with this thought:

(A) How does centering on character PoV help with these issues? Do you have ideas for ways that could address, by itself or with other techniques, the issues above?
(B) What would you say are best practices, or important guidelines/rules of thumb, for player Q&A (I assume player questions and GM answers, this is only implied not stated outright) in this context? I ask about best practices etc. because "player Q&A" sounds, to my outsider's ear, like it would very quickly lead to the issue of feeling like you have to find a needle in a haystack every other session.

 

[Enrahim]

Can someone explain the trilemma issue to me? I know what a trilemma is, but I don't see how it relates to RPGs as an issue.

Oh, you missed this? Yet another quick context summary: The conversation got into a track where we had identified 3 possible ways to handle the situation where you have a scene with a non-obvious prepared element that would likely be interesting to the players:
1: Just tell that it is there
2: Do not mention it initially, a relevant question must be asked to reveal it
3: Tell about everything that is similarly noticeable as the element in question.
Each of these has their own drawbacks. You seemed to indicate option 2 as the preferred option for living world sandbox. This is why I then thought it would be interesting to look at how to mitigate the drawbacks of this choice.

 

[Maxperson]

If the players avoid the defence of a castle, then the GM's planned disposition of forces won't be triggered. But that does not seem to me to be bypassing or avoiding an encounter. It's choosing to sneak in rather than to assault head on.

You're playing semantical games here. Players choose to sneak in to avoid encountering guards, people they know, etc. Or in other words, they sneak in to avoid having encounters with those people.

This is from pp 84-5 of Gygax's DMG:

The judgment factor is inescapable with respect to weighting experience for the points gained from slaying monsters and/or gaining treasure. You must weigh the level of challenge - be it thinking or fighting - versus the level of experience of the player character(s) who gained it. . . .​

​

Tricking or outwitting monsters or overcoming tricks and/or traps placed to guard treasure must be determined subjectively, with level of experience balanced against the degree of difficulty you assign to the gaining of the treasure. . . .​

​

Convert all metal and gems and jewelry to a total value in gold pieces. If the relative value of the monster(s) or guardian device fought equals or exceeds that of the party which took the treasure, experience is awarded on a 1 for 1 basis. If the guardian(s) was relatively weaker, award experience on a 5 g.p. to 4 x.P., 3 to 2,2 to 1,3 to 1, or even 4 or more to 1 basis according to the relative strengths. . . .Such strength comparisons are subjective and must be based upon the degree of challenge the Dungeon Master had the monster(s) pose the treasure taker.​

Page 106 of the PHB is similar but not identical:

Experience points awarded for treasure gained - monetary or magical - are modified downward if the guardian of the treasure (whether a monster, device, or obstacle, such as a secret door or maze) was generally weaker than the character who overcame it. . . .​

​

Monsters captured or slain always bring a full experience point award. Captured monsters ransomed or sold bring a gold piece: experience point ratio award​

So there is no reference to "bypassing" encounters. Rather, XP is awarded for slaying monsters, and for capturing them; and is awarded for treasure looted (and ransoms paid). If the PCs acquire treasure by outwitting its guardians, they get the treasure XP but not the slay/capture XP.

As it is being used in this thread it's not a term I'm familiar with.

I know what it means for the PCs to go down path A rather than path B on a map, and thus to have encounter X rather than encounter Y. I know what it means for the PCs to sneak in rather than attack head-on, and thus to not get into a fight because they chose not to.

But I'm not familiar with reifying some of these possible events at the table, calling them "encounters", and then saying that the players, via their play of their PCs, bypassed them. To me the language of bypassing seems to connect to a concept of prep and planning and GM expectation that I'm not used to.

Yes, this is one of the things I was puzzled by.

Gygax used avoid instead of bypass. Same difference.

Edit: Gygax actually does use bypass in the context of encounter avoidance in the PHB on page 109 in his advice to avoid unnecessary encounters.

"This not to say that something hanging like a ripe fruit ready to be plucked must be bypassed, but be relatively certain that what appears to be the case actually is."

 

[Enrahim]

Hmm. Perhaps. But that would be yet another unspoken but critically necessary expectation: that the players are basically somehow magically expected to know that they're supposed to treat every environment as something to be questioned deeply and expansively.

I am not sure what is magical about this being explained when recruiting for the game, or at the very least in session 0? I would consider it a fault on the GMs part if they failed to assure the player was happy with this kind of play before bringing them on board..

Which just feeds right back into my frustration about everything being kept tacit and implied and invisible, in the black box, even though a lot of it actually could just be...said. Like straightforwardly, plainly said.

Well it could be straightforwardly plainly said.. But where is the fun in that? That is exactly one of the major the draw of the living world sandbox: Playing to try to reveal or deduce what is inside that black box. (Another big one being to make a mark on a world that is bigger than just this group) What would cluedo be if the contents of the envelope was revealed at the start of the game?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Okay.
Please explain how you view sneaking past the defenders is not avoiding/bypassing the encounters with the defenders?

I'm not pemerton. But to me, that isn't bypassing the encounter. It is interacting with the encounter--just not in the brute-force, maximally-straightforward way. To me, "bypass" is something rather more like...completely negating it? Like outright nixing the very foundation upon which the encounter is built.

If I may invent a quick hypothetical: party is journeying on a road. Bandit attacks are a known issue, albeit not one the GM has explicitly called out to the party. GM has prepared bandit encounters and a bandit camp if the party continues along the road. However, a spellcaster in the party remembers she has a scroll of teleport--so the party decides to teleport directly to their destination, before even finding out that there are bandits specifically waylaying this stretch of road.

That is a bypassed encounter--because the players never even knew it was there, and never did anything for, against, to, with, nor about it. Similarly, if the GM prepares stuff about the Duke (who is secretly evil) making ready to betray the PCs when they visit his castle...but the PCs simply never visit his castle, that's bypassing that prepared encounter. It never even had the chance to happen. Finding out that the Duke intends to do this, and secretly getting his clandestine mercenaries to let the party escape, would be interacting with that encounter--but using bribery and social skills, rather than bludgeons and sword skills.

The things you and others have described almost always come down to actually engaging with the encounter....just not doing so with combat. Or doing so with combat, but not to the death, in some cases.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I'm not pemerton. But to me, that isn't bypassing the encounter. It is interacting with the encounter--just not in the brute-force, maximally-straightforward way. To me, "bypass" is something rather more like...completely negating it? Like outright nixing the very foundation upon which the encounter is built.

If I may invent a quick hypothetical: party is journeying on a road. Bandit attacks are a known issue, albeit not one the GM has explicitly called out to the party. GM has prepared bandit encounters and a bandit camp if the party continues along the road. However, a spellcaster in the party remembers she has a scroll of teleport--so the party decides to teleport directly there before even finding out that there are bandits specifically waylaying this stretch of road.

That is a bypassed encounter--because the players never even knew it was there, and never did anything for, against, to, with, nor about it. Similarly, if the GM prepares stuff about the Duke (who is secretly evil) making ready to betray the PCs when they visit his castle...but the PCs simply never visit his castle, that's bypassing that prepared encounter. It never even had the chance to happen. Finding out that the Duke intends to do this, and secretly getting his clandestine mercenaries to let the party escape, would be interacting with that encounter--but using bribery and social skills, rather than bludgeons and sword skills.

The things you and others have described almost always come down to actually engaging with the encounter....just not doing so with combat. Or doing so with combat, but not to the death, in some cases.

Lets use the example I provided upthread.
PCs teleport in, steal the mcguffin and teleport out.
How have they interacted with the all the encounters they did not engage with?