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

[pemerton]

the library example in my mind was if I thought about it during or after play as something the PCs could have done in the fiction and the players never thought of it (i.e. it wasn't planned beforehand). There are times when that happens when I think of something while they're declaring actions and the rest of the table doesn't it and I offer them up after the session with "you now what you guys missed?"
Other times I may hint at it during play, maybe it happens through a check.
I cannot say I have a set way of dealing with ideas that spring to my mind during play. Most of the time I want to reward the players ofc. This is an interesting tangent.

When it comes to PCs brainstorming for ideas, do you offer input or is the advice in the rulebooks to rely strictly on the player's imagination?

I will sometime offer input, and sometimes not. It depends very much on mood and context.

With the library example, that would be different in different systems.

In Classic Traveller, I would normally assume that someone runs the Library program on the starship computer, and tell them the appropriate backstory.

In Prince Valiant, there are no libraries and that sort of clue-gathering doesn't really figure.

In Burning Wheel, this would be a test (on Research and/or an appropriate Wise) and so flagging it as a possibility would really be part of finding out whether or not the player thinks that is an interesting thing to do. In TB2e it's similar, but in addition each test made counts against an action economy (depending on the phase: Adventure, Camp and Town phase all have their own action economies).

If there is a circumstance where some information can be had for free, and I want that to be up to the players, then I say nothing - see eg the example upthread of the players having their PCs deliberately not closely examine the pool, thus missing out on loot.

 

[zakael19]

When it comes to PCs brainstorming for ideas, do you offer input or is the advice in the rulebooks to rely strictly on the player's imagination?

I’ll often chime in with a “maybe something like X? y?” or a nudge to use a mechanic that suits. My intent here is to tell them what I immediately see as some potential steps to realize their goal or what have you. Sometimes they grab what I toss out and play moves on, sometimes they ‘yes, and’ it, sometimes they use it as a pivot over to something else.

 

[pemerton]

I didn’t say anything about combat. I said “X number of rooms in a dungeon” or “X encounters per day”. I said nothing about those rooms or encounters being all combat.

You are fabricating that entirely. I’ve now clarified this for you three times.

Just on this: a while ago I converted the T1 Moathouse to TB2e. I think it's fair to say that it doesn't get more classic dungeon than the Moathouse!

In their "forays" into the Moathouse in my Torchbearer game, the PCs have been captured by the bandits after a failed attempt to trick them; have made allies of some bandits later on; have spoken to Lareth, allied with Lareth, facilitated an alliance between Lareth and the river pirates, and ultimately helped the angry Bugbears track down the fleeing Lareth; as just implied, formed a loose alliance with the Bugbears; and have been captured by the Gnolls, ransomed themselves, and released the other prisoners from them.

The only combat has been with the giant lizard, the giant tick, the giant frogs, the bats, the troll rats and the Gnolls (the PCs were captured, hence why that had to negotiate their ransom). So I don't see any particular correlation between dungeon and combat.

 

[Hussar]

It doesn’t matter whether I wrote the content myself or pulled it from published material. Locations, characters, and events all go into the same toolbox. They’re not paths, they’re options, waiting to be acted on (or not) by the players.

But doesn't the level system work against you here?

You can have all the locations and whatnot that you want, but, there are practical limits on what a 1st level party can do. Which means that your sandbox locations have to be to some degree, constrained by that fact. You can't put 1st level characters into Queen of the Demonweb Pits. Well, you can, but, only for a really short time.

And, as well, the players are also cognizant of these limitations. They know that at Level X, they can with some degree of accuracy predict which adventures are in their wheelhouse. And, since none of us particularly want to TPK the players, there's going to be some pretty serious signposting going on if the players choose to wander into somewhere that is way above their weight class.

This is the point I've kept trying to make all throughout this thread. The D&D system itself is going to seriously constrain any sandbox. It's unavoidable.

 

[pemerton]

On the subject of Encounters and Bypassing them - instinctively as a GM I think of "bypassing" to mean avoiding a fight - there's an assumption that I don't think is uncommon that we are generally referring to combat by Encounters.

Among those in this thread who are arguing that "bypass an encounter" has a clear meaning, there seems to be a significant difference of opinion over this particular issue.

Which in my view tends to undermine the contention that the phrase has a clear meaning!

 

[pemerton]

I've always read the bolded as being separate and discrete from any xp given for the treasure itself that those monsters or tricks were guarding.

Well, the text does not support that reading in my view, for two reasons:

It refers to XP for treasure and for killing and capturing creatures/monsters.

The reference to tricking and outwitting appears under the heading "Adjustment and Division of Experience Points" and is followed by further elaboration: "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." I think this is pretty clearly about how to adjust the XP gained for treasure when it was gained not by fighting, but by trickery, overcoming traps, etc.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ruthless exploiters? That's a bit much.

You have, many many times over, told me that they will--not that they might, but they will--bend the rules into pretzels, even break them, if they think they can get away with it. What else should I interpret that as? That's what ruthless exploitation IS!

That's twice in one post you've insulted my players. Duly noted.

Whereas from my perspective, you have insulted functionally all players everywhere by saying that everyone behaves the way yours do.

If they're not pushing against the rules - rules, remember, are made to be broken - they're not doing job one: advocating for their characters.

No, they aren't made to be broken. That, alone, is already a radical difference between where you're coming from and where nearly everyone else comes from. See @DinoInDisguise's post (#9797).

You can absolutely advocate for your character without doing anything even remotely like what you have just described. Rules are not made to be broken; that's very literally the opposite of true. Rules, by their nature, are teleological; they are made to establish a pattern, in service of some defined purpose. A rule that either fails to establish a pattern, fails to have a defined purpose, fails to fulfill its defined purpose, or has an unacceptable defined purpose, is literally the definition of a bad rule that should be replaced, or in the case of unacceptable purposes, simply removed.

"Rules are made to be broken" is the assertion that you're above the rules--which I reject. Nobody is above the rules--but we can certainly work within the system to identify and address broken, flawed, or counterproductive rules.

Long experience tells me you can have it both ways, and given we're still playing after 44 years tells me something's working right.

I mean, sure. Your group can do whatever it wants. I've never said otherwise.

But it will never be--neither rationally nor morally--acceptable to claim that players SHOULD be subject to "you're GOING to break the rules every single time you can unless-and-until I wave my banhammer at you", while GMs SHOULD be subject to "you literally can't do wrong unless I have incontrovertible proof" levels of trust.

That's you projecting what works for your group as a universal rule for everyone else. It doesn't fly. It never will.

 

[Enrahim]

No, they aren't made to be broken. That, alone, is already a radical difference between where you're coming from and where nearly everyone else comes from. See @DinoInDisguise's post (#9797).

You can absolutely advocate for your character without doing anything even remotely like what you have just described. Rules are not made to be broken; that's very literally the opposite of true. Rules, by their nature, are teleological; they are made to establish a pattern, in service of some defined purpose. A rule that either fails to establish a pattern, fails to have a defined purpose, fails to fulfill its defined purpose, or has an unacceptable defined purpose, is literally the definition of a bad rule that should be replaced, or in the case of unacceptable purposes, simply removed.

"Rules are made to be broken" is the assertion that you're above the rules--which I reject. Nobody is above the rules--but we can certainly work within the system to identify and address broken, flawed, or counterproductive rules.

Are we talking about "breaking the rules" as in not correctly reporting your current HP, or "Breaking the rules" as in "I think my spring boots should allow me to jump further than indicated by the rules", or "breaking the rules" as in "We got a magical crossbow and a bunch of peasants, let us make a railgun"? Or maybe some alternative I can not think of right now?

At the very least I get the impression that the two of you are talking about completely different things. Instead of correctly pointing out that the other person is talking complete nonsense if they were talking about the same thing as you, I think it might be more constructive to try to get to understand what the other person is actually talking about.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And it was measured by professional career astronomers, not happy amateurs. I fail to see how "this is hard for the professionals" to not be a justification for "If you just want a fun hobby game, you probably shouldn't try this"?

You will probably not be surprised to hear that I don't have a particularly high view of "GM as continuous amateur game (re-)designer", so no, that doesn't really move me either.

Yes, and then in the post after you paraprased it into something I thought was not matching the original quote. If the meaning of a quote is the main object of dispute, I think attempts at pointing to what was literary said deserves a real quote rather than a paraphrasing

Well, he has now backed it up with--literally--saying:

If they're not pushing against the rules - rules, remember, are made to be broken - they're not doing job one: advocating for their characters.

...and...

Long experience tells me you can have it both ways, and given we're still playing after 44 years tells me something's working right.

Where "have it both ways" specifically means, in response to what I had said in that post, which was...

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot demand a presumption of total innocence (unless rigorously proven otherwise) for GMs and a presumption of guilt from players (unless rigorously proven otherwise).

So yes. @Lanefan is--literally--saying that you can have "a presumption of total innocence (unless rigorously proven otherwise) for GMs, and a presumption of guilt from players (unless rigorously proven otherwise)." That quote is now explicit and direct, in his own words responding to me.

Disagreed. In that context read "Do their best at getting away with stuff" as referencing his previous statement in the reply chain

Then I refer you to his quote, just above, where he says "rules are made to be broken" as being a requirement for "advocating for [one's] character."

There is no way to interpret what Lanefan has said that does not mean that players should push and push and push and push against the rules until they have completely bent them out of shape or even outright broken them. That is what Lanefan meant.

That is, we are not talking about cheating the rules but rather about freeriding the other party members.

Nope. Lanefan has explicitly said otherwise, as quoted above. Direct actual words: "rules, remember, are made to be broken".

The these have and has I read as advice markers in this context. That is "These are things you have to do in order to have a good time in this kind of game in my experiece". I do not read it as a moral absolute as in "You have to do this or else you are doing something awfull". How do you read those have/has?

I read it as the former. It is not the reading that contains the element I find morally repugnant. It is the claim itself--that you have to do this in order to have a good time. That you have to treat the almighty GM with absolute and nearly unassailable trust, unless they do something so horrendously offensive that no one could possibly question that it was bad, while you also have to presume that every player WILL break the rules unless the GM presides as an active threat against anyone who does so.

Also would the last sentence feel less inflammatory to you if we replace "assume" with "pretend"? I do not think this is an a fully approperiate substitution, but if you still think it is bad and can explain me why, that might help me understand how we are reading this part differently.

No? It's not the wording that is the problem. It is three things.

1. GMs simply must be trusted, almost no matter what. The bar to prove distrust is extremely high.
2. Players must be distrusted, genuinely no matter what. There simply isn't a bar to prove trust--they must always, and continuously, be subjected to the constant threat of ejection or other retaliation, because...
3. All (smart/effective/what-have-you) players will bend every rule as far as they can possibly bend it, 100% of the time, and if they can bend it so far that it breaks, they will do that. If they believe they can get away with breaking a rule, they will break it.

Those three things are all morally unacceptable to me. I just don't accept that that is, in any way, a normative standard. If a specific group elects to play by that standard, more power to them. But it is not, and cannot ever be, a norm, something that must be enforced for anything (a style, a game, anything) to function.

I am 100% certain that most sandbox GMs here do not share @Lanefan's perspective on this. You most certainly don't. I am practically certain @robertsconley doesn't. I would be extremely surprised if @Micah Sweet did--not quite 99% certain he doesn't, but maybe 95%.

Indeed, there's only one or maybe two other people person on this entire forum (that I've ever interacted with, anyway) that I would be even somewhat willing to believe that they agree with Lanefan on this topic, that the players not only can, not only should, but will bend the rules as hard as they can and (functionally always) break or at least attempt to break them.

Edit: And to be clear, the standard I prefer is: (1) GMs and players alike should be presumed innocent unless reasonable evidence suggests a problem, (2) if reasonable evidence suggests that there is a problem with anyone's behavior, it should be discussed so there is a possibility of fixing the problem, and (3) GMs and players both respect the rules, but know that petition for reasonable review is valid, where how high a standard you have for "reasonable" is proportional to how foundational the rule is.

A standard I would accept (but would not willingly play under) is (1) GMs and players alike can't be trusted, and must thus be held under threat of retaliation should they get caught doing something untoward to ensure they don't engage in such beahvior; (2) some common standard, whether punitive or lenient, for what counts as actually bending or breaking the rules aka "getting caught"; and (3) all (smart/effective/what-have-you) players and GMs will bend, and at least attempt to break, every rule, no matter what.

I consider the latter standard rather depressing, since it creates an environment of constant distrust, suspicion, manipulation, and recrimination. But it is at least a self-consistent standard. It doesn't privilege one person above all others simply because that one person...has more power to do things? It doesn't presume that only players are doing underhanded things they would "get caught" for if it were done out in the open.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Are we talking about "breaking the rules" as in not correctly reporting your current HP, or "Breaking the rules" as in "I think my spring boots should allow me to jump further than indicated by the rules", or "breaking the rules" as in "We got a magical crossbow and a bunch of peasants, let us make a railgun"? Or maybe some alternative I can not think of right now?

At the very least I get the impression that the two of you are talking about completely different things. Instead of correctly pointing out that the other person is talking complete nonsense if they were talking about the same thing as you, I think it might be more constructive to try to get to understand what the other person is actually talking about.

....that isn't breaking or even bending the rules. That's requesting a review of the rules, on the grounds that the rules are (allegedly) bad. There is absolutely nothing wrong with petitioning to review a rule. That is essential to the very idea of having rules in the first place. Some rules are more sacrosanct than others (e.g., "can't we just pretend a 19 is actually a crit??? Just this once??????" is far less likely to fly than "can we just skip the 'running start' requirement for a high jump, because that never made any sense to me?"), but very few rules are perfect and intelligent, cautious review is not lawlessness, it is absolutely necessary for there to be "law" crafted by mortal hands.

Honestly, at this point it feels like you are trying to twist Lanefan's words into any shape, no matter how contorted, which makes them somehow not what the plain and obvious words say. I very much grant that charity in interpretation is important, but if someone overtly tells you that players are doing badly at being players unless they try to break the rules, perhaps you should take them at their word?