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

[Lanefan]

Yeah, but who wants to play at a table full of early-series Jamie Tartts?

Who or what is Jamie Tartts?

 

[FrozenNorth]

I've seen people who would have been perfectly capable of describing finding a set of ruins as "an encounter" though.

I think the distinction between calling ruins an encounter and calling a town an encounter is relevant.

 

[FrozenNorth]

You misunderstand me. It's what d&d would term an encounter, not how d&d players would describe it in normal speech

Since 3e encounter in d&d has widened quite a bit with its meaning.

I actually don’t think D&D would term finding a town an encounter.

 

[Umbran]

Who or what is Jamie Tartts?

Jamie Tartt is a character from Ted Lasso - he starts as the best player on the team, technically. But, he's a ball-hog on the field, and a self-aggrandizing twit and general jerk off the field.

He gets better.

 

[TwoSix]

Do you really think how FATE works has much to do with D&D?

I’ve definitely used some Fate ideas in my D&D after reading and playing FATE.

 

[AlViking]

As someone who likes them both...

Yes, but not in the way you probably mean the question.

For example, both games can produce (what I think is) a decent shot at fantasy action-adventure. So, even if they have different ways of doing it, they aren't completely alien to each other, either. They are similar enough that you can cogently compare how they each do various aspects of the genre. While there may not be a direct mechanical port from one to the other, knowing one might well inform the GM of techniques and approaches to use in the other.

Sure, but it's like comparing Risk to Axis and Allies. They're both about war, but that's about the end of it. I have yet to see anything in discussion of narrative games that really correlates to more traditional games like D&D.

 

[AlViking]

I’ve definitely used some Fate ideas in my D&D after reading and playing FATE.

Such as?

 

[Hussar]

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.

But, doesn't this violate the whole "The world is independent of the PC's" criteria of a sandbox? After all, the world must not change in response to what the PC's are, only in response to what they do. If you are changing encounters based on the party level, you aren't running a sandbox, according to many in this thread.

Or, to put it another way, how can a world which changes at the stroke of the DM's pen based on the party's level be considered independent and having internal logic?

 

[Hussar]

/snip

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.
/snip

So, the characters are cognizant of their actual character levels, HP, etc. They know that these things are real in the world?

And, of course, the world adjusts itself to the characters exactly as you outline. Your "Dearthwood" is a higher level area, so, it's far away from the low level area and much more difficult to get to. Meaning that the DM has pretty much dictated the flow of the campaign based on the level of the characters. And, of course, this also presumes a campaign where locations are known to the participants. The participants know that if they stick to the Caves of Chaos, they will be within their recommended power level, but, if they choose to go to Dearthwood, they will die.

But, none of this is the DM writing the flow of the campaign?

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.

Ahh, I see. So, if we ignore what level actually means, and pretend that it's something else, then it fits with our framing of play. Ok. I suppose that's in keeping with this entire thread. Level is a script. Note, you mention GURPS, but, since GURPS isn't a level system, and monsters/opponents are not really based on the point value of the characters, then taking a GURPS character into different areas won't actually matter that much. GURPS characters don't really get a whole lot more powerful over the course of a campaign. Your point awards are far too low to make much difference unless the campaign is lasting many years.

GURPS is a great example of a sandbox game where the characters are not constrained to only adventure in certain areas until they "progress" enough to take on these other nicely contrived areas that the setting builder has so conveniently created.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Right, so, there's probably a selection bias involved.

From my own posts in the same threads, one might come to a similar conclusion about me. It takes some more completeness to know that I've run several of my main campaigns in Classic Deadlands, Gumshoe, D&D, and upcoming Savage Worlds - to realize I have no issue with more traditional games, either.

I do post in many threads related to D&D and similar games, however, so if you are interested in talking about those games I would expect to see you there.