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

[AlViking]

My cynical side says, "Yes, but only if our rhetorical goals match. If my rhetorical goal does not align, I have little need to accept the meaning as clear."

If there are multiple more-or-less equally viable options, I give more weight to the original intent.

 

[robertsconley]

Thanks, so just to be clear you take an AP apart for content. As in you don't follow the AP timeline or sequence of events once they engage with the storyline or as you refer to it option?

No, I don’t follow the AP’s timeline.

That said, the NPCs in an Adventure Path typically have goals, plans, and motivations, and good AP authors structure events to follow logically from those elements. So if the players don’t interfere, things might unfold similarly to how the author describes.

However, working against this is that I adapt modules and APs to fit my setting (the Majestic Wilderlands or Majestic Fantasy Realms), so it’s rare for events to play out exactly as written.

For example, when I adapted Keep on the Borderlands for a recent campaign, I didn’t use the original layout with all the caves in one valley. I spread them across a peninsula and reworked the Evil High Priest as an agent of the Church of Sarrath, a Lawful Evil religion (a simplification), who was using the local tribes to establish a base to conquer Castle Blackmarsh.

Using the caves from Keep saved me the effort of creating multiple dungeon maps and monster lairs from scratch. Instead, I focused on defining the goals and motivations of a dozen key NPCs and integrating them into my living world sandbox.

 

[AnotherGuy]

This kind of makes the definition of encounters meaningless though. If my level 5 group is more interested by the caves of Despair and decides not to go to the Cliffs of Carnage, it doesn’t really make sense to say that we « bypassed » the Cliffs of Carnage, even if both the caves and the cliffs lead to the same location (the Town of Lame Naming Conventions).

Fair point - agreed.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I certainly don't understand how their group has stayed together, I grant you that. That I don't understand does not mean it shouldn't have, couldn't have, nor didn't. It just means I have literally no clue how they managed to stick together so long.

Because every description Lanefan has given about it has made it quite clear how fundamentally mercenary their play is--as in, genuinely every man for himself as far as character behavior goes. I believe Lanefan has even directly agreed to the "mercenary" descriptor before, but that could be confabulation on my part.

I'd suggest that its likely because even though they're all out for themselves, they're aware enough to understand that pursuing their own self-interest requires other characters to get there, so they're selective in when they are blatantly selfish. This kind of thing wasn't that uncommon in the early days of the hobby, though a lot of people got tired of it--but that just means Lanefan is effectively selecting for the kind of people who don't.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I struggle to take this statement seriously. Clearly "encounter" is in D&D terms. It doesn't matter if nobody would describe a town as encountered in normal conversation. In D&D terms a group who crests a hill and finds a town is encountering that town.

Even in D&D terms, I don’t think I’ve come across anyone who has said they « encountered » a town.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

I mean, all sorts of things?

Make the rewards worth the risk: players tend to love shiny treasure, and many are very motivated by things like "saving innocents" or "getting revenge" or "uncovering the secret" or "redeeming someone" or "amassing power" etc. Even in the absence of those things, curiosity, jealousy, and pride are all great motivators.

[…]

Motivation is nigh-infinitely diverse. Pure pecuniary or (Doylist) competitive motives are not only not the only option, they're not even the most prevalent. And, as noted, purely individualistic XP devalues certain kinds of risk-taking while rewarding other kinds.

Definitely, @EzekielRaiden ‘s approach to motivating the characters both seems a lot more interesting and engaging, and more likely to result in characters with a broader selection of motivations.

 

[Faolyn]

But it doesn’t. The definition from the 5e DMG is different from the dictionary definition.

I’m sorry, what made you think I was using the 5e DMG’s definition of the word encounter? Or that I was using only 5e’s definition of the word?

I’m using the word as it means in RPGs as a whole, based on, well, every RPG I have ever read over the past 35~ years, as well as how it’s used in real life.

There can be non-combat encounters in a dungeon. There can be non-combat encounters in an adventuring day.

Oh no… you said that no matter what, they’re encounters. Here:

And did I say you must use the term? No.

So my guess is that your answer… when I asked if you can simply accept that I view it differently than you… is “No”.

And the same goes for you. You refuse to accept I view it differently than you, yet you’re insisting I change. Why can’t you agree to disagree?

Oh I’m not angry. And any issue I have with you is not because of you liking D&D. I like D&D myself, and have for decades.

I don’t even like D&D. I just don’t think the word is must be informed by it, like you do. So many games have used it since then—and it was used prior to D&D’s creation—that it isn’t a D&D term. Heck, just the other day I was reading a (non-gaming) webcomic and highly amused that the first panel had a guy saying “I was thinking about our encounter”.

And you simply won’t accept it.

No, the issue was you put some confusing comments out there and then accused others of bad faith when they expressed confusion over them.


Then, rather than acknowledging that either (a) your ideas were not as coherent as you thought, or (b) that because of differing definitions of the word “encounter” as game jargon versus its standard usage, there could perhaps be more than oneway to interpret things… you just doubled down on blaming others and accusing them of bad faith.

So if you have any kind of cooties… it’s whatever you’d call those kind.

Again: I explained the term ten or more times at that point, as did others. If he still can’t understand it after that, it’s not my explanation that’s confusing. It’s his willingness to learn that’s the problem. As I said before, he’s smart. It shouldn’t take him fifty explanations to get past the first step. It shouldn’t even take him more than two or three to say “ok, so she’s saying X to mean what I think of as Y.” I managed to do that with his insistent use of Ob without me even asking what he meant, because I was able to extrapolate from the context (difficult level) and thirty seconds of research (short for obstacle). You claiming the problem is our coherency means you think that he’s bad at abstract thought, extrapolating from context, or looking up what terms mean.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

I have no idea what @robertsconley does, but depending on what the encounters/locations are like, it’s easy to alter them to better fit the party’s level. Fewer or more antagonists, or a hazard inflicts more or less damage. Obviously, you’re still going to have a TPK if a 1st-level party wanders into the Demonweb Pits… but at the same time, the party is unlikely to be starting right next to the Pits[1]. In order to physically get there, they’d probably have to go through a lot of obstacles and thus will be gaining quite a few levels.

—

[1] Unless this is a Planescape-type game. But in that case, the party will be less likely trying to storm the Pits and kill Lolth and more likely on an errand to meet with a lesser servitor of hers, with instructions to not attack and/or look too tasty.

 

[Autumnal]

This kind of makes the definition of encounters meaningless though. If my level 5 group is more interested by the caves of Despair and decides not to go to the Cliffs of Carnage, it doesn’t really make sense to say that we « bypassed » the Cliffs of Carnage, even if both the caves and the cliffs lead to the same location (the Town of Lame Naming Conventions).

It does suggest a possibly entertaining campaign where the PCs get vast XP for all the dangerous places they don’t go…

…and the light dawns. This is a Flashman/Caiaphis Cain campaign.

 

[robertsconley]

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

No.

You can have all the locations and whatnot that you want, but, there are practical limits on what a 1st level party can do.

No more than what a party of 50-point GURPS characters can do.

In my Majestic Fantasy RPG, here’s how I handle this, from page 67 of the Basic Rules:

Experience
A character’s Class Level is representative of the character’s life experience. In general, all characters have a class and level. In some cases, hit dice and notes on special abilities may act as a shorthand when the full details of class and level are not needed.

Levels 1 to 2 are considered to be trained apprentices. Characters are nominally capable of doing the job of their class or profession, but still have more to learn before being considered a veteran or fully trained.

Level 3 is where characters are considered professionals within their class or profession. In a guild, this is the point where a character becomes a journeyman and is allowed to take employment with any master willing to hire them. Burglars will now be respected enough to run their own heists. Clerics become full priests of their religion, allowed to officiate at services and ceremonies. Fighters receive their first minor command. Finally, Magic-Users are considered fully trained and ready to make their own way in the world.

Level 6 is where characters are considered to have mastered their profession and ready to assume various leadership roles. In guilds, the character would be considered a master of their profession. Burglars gain control over the jobs and heists done in a neighborhood. A Cleric becomes eligible to be a bishop, responsible for the flock of a small region or city. Fighters start to independently command troops as a captain. Finally, Magic-Users start to take on apprentices to train and to assist them in their expanding array of research.

Level 9 is where the character reaches the pinnacle of their profession and occupies the highest leadership positions. In guilds, the character becomes a grandmaster, either leading the guild or with a place on the council, setting policy for the guild. Clerics become High Priests or Archbishops in charge of their religion’s hierarchy for a region or realm. A Fighter would be promoted to general or granted lands to rule as the lord or lady of the land. Finally, a Magic-User would be known as a full wizard and widely respected for their knowledge and skill. They would attract many apprentices and fellow Magic-Users to learn and assist the wizard in their research.

At level 12, the character is considered a paragon of their profession, somebody whose skill and exploits are worthy of being used as an example for others to follow. In modern times, these characters would win the Nobel Prize or be Olympic-caliber athletes.

At level 16, the character becomes more than a paragon and moves into legendary status. Their deeds are famous through the continent or even the world. Consider these on par with our own world’s Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Sun Tzu, Plato, or Aristotle.

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.

A better comparison is a group starting in the City State of the Invincible Overlord, who are aware of the Forest of Dearthwood, once the elven kingdom of Silverwood, now an orc-infested wilderness.

City-State is located in the lower left corner (the red dot).

The reality of Dearthwood:

If a party of 1st-level characters (or 50-point GURPS characters) decides to enter Dearthwood “just because,” their chance of dying is high. But if they treat themselves as beginners, do their research, and seek out help or intelligence, they may uncover something within reach, like the ruins of an Elf Lord’s temple. That’s where opportunity lies.

As I mentioned earlier, everything in my setting creates ripples. I put a great deal of effort into making the world plausible, even within a fantastical framework. I don’t wave it away with “it’s fantasy”, I follow the implications. One of those is that, even in a dangerous world, there are always opportunities for the inexperienced to find adventure and wealth. Like anything else, adventuring develops a culture around it, one that novice adventurers can learn from, tap into, and use to discover opportunities appropriate to their capabilities.

A common criticism of this approach is: “Why bother? I only have so much time, just skip to the good stuff.” Or “I feel like I’m playing Mother May I or playing Twenty Questions.” My response is that getting to the good stuff is part of the fun. And it isn’t handled through dry procedures or filling out spreadsheets, as classic roleplaying is often depicted; it happens through interacting with NPCs, through roleplaying, and through interacting with the World in Motion and NPCs' personalities. The process of navigating that, matching your character’s goals to the agendas of others, uncovering information, and making decisions in uncertain circumstances, is what makes the journey as compelling as the destination.

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.

It works a lot like mountaineering. Novices don’t tackle Everest first; they train, plan, learn, and practice on mountains more suited to their skill levels. Or better yet, consider deep cave exploration, where dangers are real and not always obvious. Inexperienced cavers will tackle easier, more shallow caves first before tackling more difficult ones. Preparation is key; it is no different with adventuring.

Plus, one thing that leaps out at me when reading the accounts of mountaineers and cavers is not just the technical elements of their craft, but the stories of the people they interact with. Many mock this as unnecessary drama, but to me, it makes everything they write about more human and relatable. For a tabletop roleplaying campaign, it is an invaluable resource for elevating something that would otherwise come across as a dry and technical series of procedures into a deeply engaging experience.

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.

My experience says otherwise. And I’m still in the process of documenting that experience, so I understand the skepticism.

The system only constrains a sandbox if you treat level as a script; if you treat it as an indication of life experience, then it's just one more part of how players make informed choices in a dynamic world.