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

[pemerton]

3e.

"Mialee and Tordek stand within the treasure chamber, surveying the riches before them. To get there, they slew three trolls, bypassed several devious traps, and solved the riddle of the golden golem to stop it from crushing them. Now they are not only richer, but from their experiences they have grown in knowledge and power.

Experience points are a measure of accomplishment. They represent training and learning by doing, and they illustrate the fact that, in fantasy, the more experienced a character is, the more power he or she possesses. Experience points allow a character to gain levels. Gaining levels heightens the fun and excitement"

And...

"A trap never discovered or never bypassed was not encountered (and hence provides no XP award)."

Is a trap an "encounter".

Anyway, 3E's GMing advice/instructions all assume heavily GM-driven play. Which is one context in which this notion of a "bypassed encounter" makes sense.

 

[pemerton]

It occurs to me that it is in 1e, just not using that exact term.

On rereading the relevant bits of the DMG (you quoted them upthread somewhere) the piece about "tricking or outwitting monsters" leaped out, as that covers sneaking past them and-or other ways of avoiding actually encountering them once you become aware of their presence.

But what you get XP for is the treasure you gain. There is no additional XP for the mere fact of tricking or outwitting.

 

[clearstream]

What is especially noteworthy is that quick and hard-to-avoid death to things like slimes is part and parcel of the type of play being espoused in the Primer, and there is an expectation that the loss of low level characters isn't a big deal, and that players will learn from their experiences. Asking the one-armed man is great; if they fail to do so, they still learn the lesson, it's just learned a harder way.

So... the underlying example for problems that I was upbraided for suggesting were not specifically sandbox, was from the OSR Primer?

 

[Lanefan]

How can I know that I need to ask a question if I don't know there's something to ask questions about?

That's the problem here. I can't know whether or not there are things I don't know unless I already know at least a bit!

You don't - which means you can either ask about everything or pick your spots. Most players IME pick their spots, sometimes correctly, sometimes red herrings.

In my tavern example above, my guess is that most players would key on the possibly-criminal patrons and ask more about those. I may or may not have anything in mind for them - they could be mere flavour, they could be what the PCs are seeking, they could be a distraction - probably depending on why the PCs went to that tavern in the first place.

As in, if they went there just to kill some time and maybe get in a bar brawl before boarding a ship, they're going to ask about different things than if they went there to try to make contact with the local Thieves' guild.

So, to loop back to the above: How do the players know to ask about things they don't even know are present to be asked about? To reference the actually (if surprisingly) meaningful speech from Rumsfeld: "We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tends to be the difficult ones."

Precisely the same thing here. It is the unknown unknowns which are the most significant concerns, and also the thing the players are almost completely incapable of reaching under their own power--but if the GM pushes them into the light, that's the GM shaping player choices, or so I've understood it (and it seems to me your recent posts have agreed with this perspective.)

I brought this same quote up somewhere way earlier in this thread but misappropriated it - thanks for reminding me who in fact said it.

And yes, there's always unknown unknowns, which mirrors real life to a fair extent. I mean, if I walk into a bar downtown and look around at the patrons, odds are high to extreme that I won't learn much of use - I ain't Sherlock Holmes. The same is true of the PCs.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure. But can you have a shopping list if you aren't allowed to know what the store contains until after you get there and ask your Guide Merchant what the store contains?

Sure you can have a list; and you'll already have an idea of at least some of what the store contains before you get there*. That said, there's no guarantee the store can fill your list entirely: they might be out of eggs today and might never carry the type of tea you're after.

* - in game play this would be your ability to look at player-visible maps of the setting, read the setting's write-up and history, etc. (if the DM doesn't provide such things before or when play begins then IMO that's cause to look askance).

 

[clearstream]

I can only react to your responses as I interpret what you say. I will not be 100% accurate in this interpretation. I believe this quote is what led me to the "flattening" interpretation;



I am sorry if what I said bothered you or seemed inappropriate, it is always my intention to be respectful and kind. Hopefully that comes across in my posts.



I think it's important to remember that I am only explaining my stance. Other Enworlders may view things differently, and I expect some will. It’s a nuanced topic after all.

When I talk about collaboration, I mean it in the context of storytelling; building a shared narrative together. In the games I’ve played and run, players absolutely create. They create characters with backstories that introduce new locations, factions, and events. They shape the direction of the world through their choices. This all adds to what the GM provides. I personally take those additions as inspiration for future sessions, leading to what I believe is co-creation.

I understand the payroll analogy, but I don’t think it fits here. In a TTRPG, players aren’t outside the creative process like support staff for a production. They’re at the table, actively building the story in real time. Their contributions don’t just support the GM’s creation—they transform it through interaction. And, in my opinion, that transformation is very clearly a creative act.

I think this hobby is a shared creative space, where each role contributes differently, but all meaningfully.

I felt you put your earlier idea well. Games often benefit from participants taking asymmetrical roles, with different jobs to do and different powers to do those jobs. That asymmetry can make space for each participant to contribute in a way that they prefer.

Perhaps it should be surprising that we don't see more designs that require multiple different GMs.

 

[Enrahim]

Player Q&A and PoV-centrality. Those are two procedures or processes we can talk about in greater detail.

Yes, I am happy with that contribution, and think it is important to credit @Bedrockgames . He also expanded on it in D&D General - [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting. in case you missed it.

I missed this. How does one go about doing this? Like could you give an example?

I think I have seen variations over the theme of prepping motivations several times, but cannot remember any concrete examples used. If I should come up with an instructive, though weak, example myself it would be rather than "fights to death" have something like "Do not want to be seen as weak". Another example would be rather than "gives player a quest" have "desires the magical lamp".

Whereas for me, it looks like telling someone that wearing a helmet while riding a motorbike is "quite inconvenient and far from essential". Sure, it isn't essential that you wear a helmet, but even if you avoid injury, it's still best-practice for people to wear one.

And when you're telling others about how to do the thing, I should think mention of helmets would be rather relevant. Maybe you don't think this is helmet-like. If you're going to tell (or lecture) about the style to those who don't know it, maybe instead of blithely dismissing a concern, it behooves you to explain why this is "kneepads for walking" rather than "helmets for motorbike races".


Wheras for me, it feels like I'm being told "JUST PUMP THE GAS 4HEAD" when I'm trying to figure out how to avoid being thrown off my motorbike when I go over a bump in the road.

I think the rest of this boils down to - are we walking, or are we motorbiking? And yes, I think this is a very good point you bring up.

However I just cannot help myself being a bit unserious before getting into my real answer: I am understanding if you are not able to answer this truthfully, but do you need help? It sound a bit like you might be trapped in a 1001 nights like scenario where your players are intending to kill you if you are not providing them excelent experiences all the time?

Ok with that out of my system, let us go to the serious part. The level of risk in your environment is essential for approperiate procedures. There are different level of risk environments in the RPG hobby. A home game with friends carry different expectations than a premium session at a castle, or a sold out live-show. The default assumption in RPG conversation is that we are talking about home game with friends. In this environement the consequences of the kind of failure modes we are talking about here are typically relatively minor. If you are trying out some new style, everyone involved understand there might be hickups, and if you stumble everyone will happily encurrage you to get up and try again.

The advice you describe as "Just pump the gas" Is likely assuming this kind if environement. And I really think this is the best advice there is. If you are in an accident that make you have to walk anew, the standard treatment is from my understanding just a lot of practice. I have never heard of anyone being prescribed watching hours of videos of people walking, or discussing in forums the experience of walking. I have not used a motorbike, but when I learnt to drive I know no amount of theory could replace the practice.

However if you indeed are in a high risk environement, it is important that you try to lay out that environement. Adequate protective measures for walking around is hugely different betwen if you are on a boat, a construction site, or among criminals as an under cover cop.

And I want to add that I think all if the negative anecdotes I have seen here has been of the form that someone was advertising something they plain were not. Like someone inviting you to watch how good their toddler has become walking, the toddler is just crawling all the time you are there, and the proud parrents have no idea why you seem a bit disappointed.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You have had a childish rage towards everyone in this thread, and we have been pretty calmly addressing your concerns and questions.

Mod Note:

(Emphasis mine.)

You may have been calmly addressing their concerns, but you ruined it when you posted this.

Please, everyone- let’s not escalate situations by making things personal.

 

[clearstream]

@Umbran I was thinking about "Q&A" is also not a sufficient answer, as without information, you cannot frame useful questions. The GM is the player's eyes and ears, and so must prime the pump, and that leads to the three prongs." (Emphasis mine.) How does priming the pump lead to the three prongs?

​

1) The players are not given prompts by the GM - players have no clue what to choose to do, and "anything they want" is not a sufficient answer, as one cannot make an informed choice without information.​

​

2) The GM prompts everything in existence in the sandbox - the players are overwhelmed with choices/information.​

​

3) The GM prompts some manageable sublist of everything - the players end up assuming those are the only things available, and the sandbox reduces to "pick a mission I prepare for you" play.​

A job GM has in many modes of play is offering initial situation (or outlining: game designers might provide one for the group to use.) I think that is true of sandbox too. GM (or the designers) must say something about the world and the initial situation ("prime the pump") and that addresses 1) as players are given initial prompts by the GM so they do have a clue; and what should be kept in mind is the rolling nature of the shared ongoing narrative. Once in motion it needn't necessarily contain more GM prompting, as player questions and decisions uncover setting and roll forward into further questions and decision (the ongoing Q&A others have mentioned.)​

​

2) seems reached by understanding following the players to imply that everything matters equally regardless of physical, temporal or narrtive distance from character starting points. A minimal initial situation in sandbox would be 'characters are physically located here, at this point on the map' which seems to me to address the panic given even a moment's reflection.​

​

3) claims that "players end up assuming those are the only things available" pointing to something true of practically every mode of play, which is that players in a game are those who will adopt the proper lusory attitude (acceptance of its precepts and premises); the failure if there is one is of communicating what the play is about (session 0, as other posters have mentioned)... and the fix applies to all modes of play (participants must orient their lusory attitudes to the game they wish to play.)​

I think you correctly point to priming the pump, albeit that does not lead to the three prongs.* I wanted to emphasize the ongoing or rolling nature of the shared narrative, which carries momentum forward from initial situation, and remind about the lusory attitude.

*I noticed on rereading that there is an ambiguity in the formatting, and most likely you mean to say that in the absence of priming the pump the three prongs could emerge. Your concern contained its own solution.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It occurs to me that it is in 1e, just not using that exact term.

On rereading the relevant bits of the DMG (you quoted them upthread somewhere) the piece about "tricking or outwitting monsters" leaped out, as that covers sneaking past them and-or other ways of avoiding actually encountering them once you become aware of their presence.

I still find this idea of "encountering" such a strange way of conceiving things. If you are sneaking past something, surely you have "encountered" it?

Sneaking past some guards would IMO certainly count as outwitting them. Some DMs who want to encourage less-violent play from the players/PCs might even give extra xp for finding a way past that in the end leaves everyone alive and unharmed.

Certainly. I have a great deal of respect for any GM who actively sits down and checks their processes to make sure that those processes actually do cultivate the kinds of player behavior they wish to see. It's a far, far too common problem for GMs to do things they think they must do because of naturalism/realism/etc., or mistaken beliefs about appropriate challenge, or the need for "sufficient" challenge, or various other things, but which actually end up teaching lessons the GM actually would not ever want to teach the players. The widespread use of black-box GMing and all too common failure to actually talk about issues, rather than trying to "fix" them with rules or unspoken processes, just exacerbates the issue.

As I have mentioned here and elsewhere, I always think of the GM who posted a thread here a year or three ago, talking about how they used gridded maps to help the players perceive the world, and the players saw that as "oh crap, it's a fight we can't avoid, better set up for it". The net result was a GM who felt deeply frustrated at seemingly "murderhobo" players who would never even consider nonviolent solutions, and players who felt deeply frustrated at seemingly a "meatgrinder" GM who forced them through unavoidable high-difficulty combats over and over. I don't mean to call this person out, to be clear--they had discovered the issue and were looking for ways to fix it, which is always a laudable thing. Just proof positive that even an experienced GM operating in good faith and actively trying to do something helpful to their players can still run aground on a conflict that went unspoken.

That doesn't surprise me: 4e and 5e seem by design to expect the players to stand their PCs straight in to whatever is put in front of them rather than looking for different angles or ways around. In large part this is because resources - hit points, spells, etc. - are so (relatively) easy to refresh in comparison with something like 1e where resources somewhat had to be hoarded for best-use situations only and standing in to fight was rarely the optimal way of dealing with opponents.

Er...no. 4e explicitly rewards players exactly as much XP for sneaking past, negotiating through, or otherwise resolving encounters without direct combat.

You've allowed your biased perception of contemporary editions ("everything is combat and combat is everything", more or less) to occlude what @pemerton actually said. 4e very explicitly supports players choosing to engage with a potential combat encounter in any way they see fit because it rewards them 100% of the experience so long as they do, in fact, get past the encounter--whatever method they use to do so. Negotiation, bribery, stealth, deception, intimidation? Doesn't matter, all of those things are valid ways of getting through the obstacle. Indeed, IIRC, the 4e DMG specifically instructs you to be open to and supportive of players taking unexpected or unorthodox approaches, so long as they can adequately explain why it should be possible, and willing to face befitting consequences should their attempt fail.