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

[zakael19]

It doesn’t matter if it was pre-planned or on the fly. Unless you want to make the claim that the footprints are there solely as a threat and can never act lead to anything more? I’ve not read Stonetop but I don’t think that’s the case, if only because it would lead to players not caring about threats once they noticed a pattern.

Telegraphing a threat is meant to lead to a decision point, especially in an exploration context. I want play to move forward, so I’m prompting them to perhaps Know Things, or Seek Insight, or simply declare a course of action and evolve the situation.

Just because a Threat comes on-screen doesn’t mean that I’m proscribing any future actions either. Last time we played I provided signs of a threat (dead spots of grass, signs of strange animals), on a Seek Insight 6- I Introduced a Danger by having the wolf-deer chimeras closing in with their horrible elk-bugle/howl call, the players did some back and forth and elected to creep out using a magical ability they’d already had in effect.

With some more back and forth and development of signs of a larger problem in the forest behind these things, we left the ruined tower hill behind and the scene concluded.

Did this become an encounter because the threat manifested? Was it an encounter when it was simply a ruin on a hill and a handful of notes of potentiality? Jeremy Sandberg intends exploration in Stonetop to be sort of a “narrativist point crawl.”

 

[Lanefan]

That's possible, if Grok is a lying, no good scoundrel. They agreed to help each other back in the beginning and the others risked their lives to help him, so to me that's a fairly good reason for him to help them with their adventures.

If he can.

Not much of a king if he immediately leaves his people behind to go off on (what to his people would look like) pursuits of his own.

Now if he could get the whole Barbarian tribe to come along and help, that'd be hella cool; assuming you're willing to DM an adventuring party with a few hundred NPCs as members.

 

[Lanefan]

I don’t think of anything I do right now as encounters, because the games I’m running don’t either. At most, I’m framing a scene that may or may not include a danger (a stalking beast, a babbling brook with a nature spirit, an ancient ruined tower, a demanding loved one), and asking “what do you do?”

I don't think of them as encounters either, at least not during play, but I am almost always thinking about (or looking at, if pre-written) "what comes next, if they don't change course". What's in the next room? What's the next threat? What have they left behind them? Is this a good time to check for wandering monsters?

I also have to, in the back of my mind, be ready for if-when they do change course.

If the players go quiet and sneak away from the beast, or walk past the tower, or admire the brook but don’t invoke the spirit I’m not thinking in terms of “bypassing.” They chose to do something in response to the situation, where I had 0 up front expectations.

I do think a lot of this circles back to a) advancement rules and b) GM prep and expectation. If the advancement rules demand overcoming challenges for progress, “encounters” become part of the ruleset.

Indeed, though I still don't think of it as "encounters [being] part of the ruleset". Advancement in my game is amost entirely based on overcoming challenges and-or taking risks, with those who take the risks getting full xp and those who hang back getting part or none. I'll also give xp for avoided risks or challenges provided a) the PCs knew in-game of their presence and b) took active measures to avoid or bypass said challenges or risks.

What I don't allow is "double-dipping" or getting xp twice for the same thing, for example if they get xp for sneaking past the guards on the way in they won't get xp for killing them on the way out.

 

[Lanefan]

In Stonetop, when I tell the players they see “footprints/tracks” or “evidence of killed game” or whatever else tantalizing thing here, what I’m really doing is telegraphing a threat (“point to a looming danger / hint at more then meets the eye, etc”) which I may bring into play as a hard or soft move depending on what they do.

Once that’s telegraphed, I can use the danger to build tension, force actions, or take a hard move if the players dither and give me a golden opportunity.

Might be a dumb question, but isn't that exactly the same principle as dropping adventure hooks in a sandbox game, only on a smaller scale?

 

[Lanefan]

Forgive me but XP is also "GM fiat leveling." The only difference is where in the chain the GM makes the decision to give the progression. With XP that decision is made when the GM picks statblocks, XP values, or decides on the encounter. In milestone, it's when the GM decides some criteria were met.

I think trying to say milestone devalues something because of the "GM fiat" is odd, when XP is functionally the same at it's core. XP advancement is just GM fiat with a calculator, milestone is fiat with a calendar.

The real difference is milestone is honest and open about the fiat, while XP is fiat dressed up as an actual mechanic. Neither serve sandbox ideals any better than the other.

What milestone levelling really devalues is individual character bravery and risk-taking. It doesn't matter what you do or how many risks you take (or conversely, what you don't do or how many risks you stand back and let others take), you're all gonna level up at the same time.

Which means there's no incentive whatsoever to stick your neck out and (try to) be The Hero, and every incentive to sit back and let others take the risks....which really sucks if those risks carry serious potential consequences e.g. PC death.

 

[AlViking]

What milestone levelling really devalues is individual character bravery and risk-taking. It doesn't matter what you do or how many risks you take (or conversely, what you don't do or how many risks you stand back and let others take), you're all gonna level up at the same time.

Which means there's no incentive whatsoever to stick your neck out and (try to) be The Hero, and every incentive to sit back and let others take the risks....which really sucks if those risks carry serious potential consequences e.g. PC death.

My incentive is that the more you try to avoid the risk the more likely you are to be the target of a surprise flanking maneuver. Hmm. Does that mean I am an evil GM?

 

[AlViking]

5e absolutely ties advancement to encounters (primarily combat) unless you move to milestone leveling.

Milestone leveling is GM fiat leveling unless you tie it to sessions played per level and autolevel based on that. Obviously this devalues “encounters as unit of advancement” but I’d think is also something that a sandbox style of play would disavow?

A DM can always give out XP for non-combat encounters and for bypassing encounters. I don't use XP for several reasons but on was that I never knew how much to reward for clever play instead of just kill on sight. That doesn't just mean sneaking past the guards but convincing the guards that there's an invasion by some enemy troops and starting a minor skirmish between two factions that did have an uneasy peace.

Most games I 've played in have dropped XP advancement anyway whether they're sandbox or not.

 

[clearstream]

I really appreciate that Daggerheart has been up front with its expectations here as well. It’s designed to be a heroic fantasy game about cinematic stories, and emphasizes thinking of the Three Act narrative structure as well (with tips on how to craft that via interlocking sub-plots, weaving backstories in & encouraging player input, etc). It’s not designed for open hexcrawl sandboxing, or really throwing narrativist “story now” play out there.

Given that, we can evaluate how the game design fulfills its intent.

This made me wonder what folks' thoughts are on game designer prep? A case in point being the 500+ pages of The Wider World for Stonetop. Or the 200+ pages Griffin Mountain for Runequest as I outlined up thread. Those can supply strong resources for a sandbox play style.

Is game designer prep equivalent to GM prep? If not, what separates it?

 

[DinoInDisguise]

What milestone levelling really devalues is individual character bravery and risk-taking. It doesn't matter what you do or how many risks you take (or conversely, what you don't do or how many risks you stand back and let others take), you're all gonna level up at the same time.

Which means there's no incentive whatsoever to stick your neck out and (try to) be The Hero, and every incentive to sit back and let others take the risks....which really sucks if those risks carry serious potential consequences e.g. PC death.

I can’t argue with this — not even on the internet. That said, I think there is some stylistic nuance.

As you rightly pointed out, XP often emphasizes individualized rewards, while milestone leveling tends to focus on group accomplishments. That distinction reflects a broader philosophical divide.

Where someone places value would be up to the individual DM and group. I think, from my prior posts in this thread, my view is very clear. I view the hobby as inherently collaborative and group focused. My preferred method of advancement should be clear.

However, I fully understand that not everyone shares that view. And I was not advocating people use one over the other. Just pointing out that the GM fiat statement very clearly applies to both.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

He didn't say they can't know anything of the world until informed. He said what he wanted might not be available. If I play in his world, I know swords exist before I ever start the first session. I can add a sword to my shopping list. When I get to town, though, there may not be a sword for sale. There not being one for sale isn't the same as not knowing whether swords exist within the world until told.

The same goes for everything that is D&D standard or extends logically from that. If anything non-standard is happening, like the world has no swords for some reason, the DM will usually let the players know that prior to play. And rarely, you might be wrong when you assume a logical extension from something D&D standard, because strange things are sometimes present in settings that would keep it from happening.

So...you can assume everything is standard, except that assumption may be undercut at any time?

That doesn't sound like a solid foundation to me. It sounds like building on sand.