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

[Lanefan]

Again, I refer you to the example that I was explicitly given by others who favored an old-school sandbox experience: the "you didn't talk to the one-eyed [or one-armed, or various other maimings] man, so you never heard that the slimes in the mines are weak to lightning but divide when struck by regular weapons, which means your death at their hands/pseudopods is entirely on your head." That's not an exact quote, of course, but it covers the core points: (1) the players were just supposed to know that some NPCs in the tavern were necessary sources of information; (2) failure to interact with the one and only source of that information is construed as the players' mistake; and (3) any deaths/losses that result from failure to interact with that source are thus earned by having made that mistake.

If the NPCs in the tavern were the only possible source of this information then sure, one can't blame the players for not interacting with what otherwise might have seemed a bunch of randos in a pub.

If, however, the info was potentially and relatively easily available from various sources but the players couldn't be bothered with info-gathering* and instead just plowed on in, then I'd say their failure is on them.

Most such situations fall somewhere between these two examples - the info is available but there might be a bit of player-side in-character work required to get it...or, as was the case in your example, painful trial and error will do as well.

* - I've DMed these players in the past. Roaring fun all round. Lots of rolling-up of new characters, though.

I have been told, over and over, that the sandbox GM must not manipulate the players' choices. But in the very act of giving detail to thing X and not giving much detail to thing Y, that can manipulate player choices. "Oh, this is the thing the GM wrote a lot about, it must be Important" is a perfectly natural thought for many players, of any style. Likewise, things that don't get any description at all are at risk of being written off as unimportant or non-interactable.

You're right on this one. There's a fine line between making sure something is mentioned in narration (or boxed text) while not pushing it front-and-centre. Which means in practice IME giving a broad overview narration first and then further detailing only the specific elements the players ask about, if any.

This is...kind of essential to the trilemma. The first path, giving no bias by (almost) never prompting, only waiting for players to act--but then the (from my perspective) very high risk of players never even considering something due to lack of prompting.

I'm fine if they miss things through not investigating further (or at all), even to the point of their being unable to progress further. I'd prefer that.......

The second, accidentally manipulating player action toward the things you prepared and away from their own choices/creativity.

.....over this.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Which then puts it on you to ask about the availability and-or prices of the specific things on your shopping list.

The Guide Merchant, to begin with, doesn't know what you - as opposed to all the other shoppers - are specifically there to buy today; so the only useful up-front info he can give is the store's hours "we're open until 7 tonight, you've got lots of time", some general sales and promotions "we have 20% off all our bread, today only", and how busy the place is "there's a long line at checkout right now".

After that, it's on you to ask questions and-or indicate why you are there. "What's your selection of frozen dinners?". "Do you have tinned sardines?" "What's the best-before date on the milk?", etc. etc.

In-game, this would mirror you-as-player asking "What can we find out about this 'Bebekki Ruins' shown on the map?" or "You mentioned Orcs have been raiding farms to the north, give us more detail on that" or "Is there anywhere we can go that could provide Wizzy an opportunity to expand his spell selection?", etc. etc.

I think we'd agree this is preferable to the Guide Merchant just launching into an hours-long litany of every single thing available in the store and all the relevant info about each of those products.

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.

And that's something we have to accept when playing with a real-life human DM, that our imaginations have to do some of the work of filling in the blanks; as opposed to playing in a video game where, as far as the programming allows, we can and do get more of a sense of first-person observation.

 

[pemerton]

If I'm driving somewhere and the online map shows solid red and a 20 minute delay on my current route, I can bypass the delay by taking a different route. I bypassed an encounter with a traffic jam. If you can't understand that, or accept that someone might use verbiage you wouldn't, it's on you.

In the real world, a traffic jam exists.

What's the analogue in RPGing? The GM's notes? Something else?

 

[AlViking]

In the real world, a traffic jam exists.

What's the analogue in RPGing? The GM's notes? Something else?

An encounter.

 

[Faolyn]

In the real world, a traffic jam exists.

What's the analogue in RPGing? The GM's notes? Something else?

How about the GM’s imagination? They’re allowed to use that when improvising and not relying on prep, right?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

If something about that environment (e.g. the dockside tavern you're in) interests you-as-player, ask for more detail about it. If not, move on to a different environment (e.g. down to the docks to check out the ships).

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.

Sure, it could...if you don't mind listening to the DM give a half-hour narration every time. I know I'd rather have the DM take less tha a minute and say something like "The tavern is unexpectedly full and quite loud. Most of the patrons seems to be more-or-less rough-looking rowdy sailor types, with a smattering of people possibly of a more criminal persuasion. Two burly bouncers stand guard by the door and another by the bar, while several servers are run off their feet providing ale and the overwhelmed barkeep hasn't got time for any conversation with anyone. At first glance the furniture - befitting the rest of the place - appears dirty and well-worn but solid and sturdy." than have her take maybe an hour going into detail about every person in the place, every type of liquor behind the bar, and every piece of decoration on the walls.

And even that description of the tavern is more detail than I'd probably go into unless asked.

(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.

I think the best practice is high-level overview description of the scene or situation followed by Q&A; this allows the players to highlight what's of interest to them and directs the DM to focus on those elements.

As for finding needles in haystacks, no big deal to me if there's a needle in there and they don't find it.

 

[pemerton]

You're playing semantical games here.

No, it's others who are quoting dictionaries etc. I'm trying to understand a process of play.

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.

I'm asking - where, in play, do those other people "exist"? The answer seems to be in the GM's notes or in the GM's imagination. Is that right?

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?

Where did those encounters exist? What have they avoided?

To me it looks like you are saying the players declared actions that did not trigger/activate/enliven a good chunk of the GM's prep. Is that what you do mean?

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."

I'm not unsure about Gygax;s process of play. He's clear about it:

* The GM maps and keys a dungeon. Some of what's in the key is architecture and furniture. Some of it is creatures, tricks, traps. Those creatures, and maybe some of the tricks and traps (he's a bit loose in respect of those) are "set encounters".

* As the players declare actions to move their PCs through the dungeon, open doors, look at things, etc, the GM keeps track of (i) time and (ii) noise, and on that basis rolls wandering monster dice. Some of those rolls will result in encounters too.

* Gygax advised players who wish to have successful adventures in dungeons to (i) minimise noise and time-wasting so as to minimise wandering monster rolls, and (ii) to avoid wandering monsters that they encounter, and (iii) to avoid opening doors or otherwise enlivening "set" encounters which do not pertain to the particular goal that they have set for their particular foray into the dungeon.​

There is a clear account, in Gygax, of how and what the GM needs to prep, of how that is used in play, of what the goal of play is from the players' side, and of how the GM decides whether or not the PCs encounter something (ie wandering monster roll, or enlivened/activated "set" encounter).

But @AlViking didn't seem to be talking about Gygax-style play. @Faolyn has expressly averred talking about such play. I'm expressing curiosity about what process of play they are using.

Because the PCs can scout ahead unseen and come across an improvised goblin barricade, then decide to bypass it. Or avoid it if you want to use Gygax's favorite term that means bypass. No prep needs to have been done.

TOK, so the GM has told the players about the barricade. It is already part of the established situation. And now the players are deciding how their PCs will deal with the narrated obstacle.

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

I see that it is bypassing the defenders. I see that it is avoiding a confrontation with the defenders. Is it encountering and then avoiding the defenders? Or avoiding an encounter with them? Either seems acceptable in English.

But as I posted, my interest is in the process of play. When someone says the players bypassed an encounter what do they mean? If they mean rather than fighting, the players had their PCs sneak past then OK - that seems a fairly simple explanation but it seems to be hard to find someone who's willing to say it.

And if the players haven't been told about the guards - eg as might be the case in your teleport example - then how does anyone know what the encounters are that were bypassed? Is it because the GM's notes, or imagination, have a record of what those would have been? OK - but it seems hard to get clear on that as well!

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.

OK. I believe you are the only poster to have posted this. I have read other posters as denying it. Upthread, @EzekielRaiden seemed to share my reading of other posters as denying it, so I don't think my reading is completely idiosyncratic.

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.

Somewhat similarly, I've asked why we don't talk about the players/PCs avoiding encounters with the lice in the castle rushes, with the grooms in the castle stables, etc.

In Gygaxian play, the answer is because those are not written up in the key as "set" encounters. They are just flavour/window-dressing, like the description of the lichen at the base of the castle walls.

In terms of what you posted that I quoted just above, the answer is because the GM wasn't expecting or caring about the grooms or the lice; but was expecting the players to have their PCs fight (or talk to, or whatever) the guards.

Do you have any thoughts on how that sort of GM expectation relates to the idea of a "sandbox"?

 

[pemerton]

I'm still wondering how you can make meaningful choices in real life when those same conditions exist (you don't know all that is, of what you observe, you can only be truly informed about part of it, of that part, you don't know how much can be used/interacted with/etc).

Perhaps you can't? I mean, maybe much of my life is miserable, oppressed, low in agency, etc. There are people in the world who suffer under such conditions: They are bullied by others. Others make the choices that shape their lives. Natural disasters ruin their homes, their livelihoods, etc.

But in this thread we're talking about the play of a game. If you are saying that you prefer a game where player-side participants are not able to shape the play of the game because they are subject to the decision-making of another (ie the GM) well OK. But it seems hardly surprising that others want something different out of a game.

 

[Lanefan]

Previous to 2e XP from combat in D&D was a rounding error, unless the GM was extremely stingy with treasure to a degree which would warp several aspects of play.

Unless, as many 1e tables did even before 2e came along, xp-for-gp was either greatly reduced or dropped outright.

 

[pemerton]

When a GM uses the words bypassed/avoided the encounter, GENERALLY, the actions of the PCs saw to it that the combat never happened. They avoided it, they bypassed it.
Now one can use it in the sense of any type of encounter (social, explorative, trap etc) but in my experience it is mostly used to describe combat encounters usually planned for, but sometimes not.

OK, so "encounter" is generally used to mean "combat" so that "bypass the encounter" means "didn't fight but did something else instead".

I'm still curious about where these encounters "live" if the GM hasn't yet described the situation to the players. In @Maxperson's goblin example, the GM had described the situation; but in your teleport example, it seems that the GM may not have described any guards etc.