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

pemerton said:

Have you read the core rules for Burning Wheel, which you can download for free here:

Click to expand...

no I haven’t, will take a look, but I doubt it can do what I described, namely provide one explicit answer as to what the outcome is for any given action in any given situation where all the GM has to do is look it up.

Was your ‘how many enemy wizards are after the party’ a BW scenario? If so it is miles away from what I an talking about

pemerton said:

I don't know what you mean by "you get whatever the action says you get".

For instance, suppose the action is to build a shelter that will withstand the wind. And you succeed. At what point is the GM at liberty to say, "OK, the wind just got stronger, your shelter is now blown away"?

Or you succeed at your action to persuade the security guard to let you in without telling their boss. At what point is the GM at liberty to decide - perhaps without telling the player - that the guard changed their mind and is now telephoning their boss?

Burning Wheel answers these questions via a =combination of "intent and task" and "let it ride". Torchbearer 2e is very similar.

I don't know how your system of pure task resolution is meant to answer them.

Click to expand...

Pretend there's no GM. Some other system provides a set of challenging circumstances, perhaps a particularly clever video game that no one has managed to document, that has answers for all these fun hypotheticals. There is a fixed pattern of wind speeds, the guard rotation will happen the same way whether a PC is present or not, and a sufficiently complicated AI determines whether the guard stays bought.

Design your resolution system in that world, then bring it back to this imperfect one. Despite the guard rotation now being a decision a person has to make, the winds perhaps coming from a combination of random tables and projection, that system will still work just fine, because it has nothing to do with the content. It's a tool the player will leverage against that content to the best of their ability.

You'll have to deal with an imperfect GM who's not as good as that ideal state, providing less information then you could observe, bringing in their own commonplaces, perhaps occasionally giving in to pacing events in a more exciting manner and so on, but it's the best currently available technology. Certainly, it's not worth giving up the tools of resolution over.

pemerton said:

Yet multiple posters in this thread have posited White Plume Mountain as consistent with sandboxing. Now maybe @The Firebird was just reaching for an easy example; but @Lanefan didn't seem to be. And Lanefan has told us that he has used Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth in a game that is described as a sandbox.

Almost nothing can be less realistic than either of those modules!

Click to expand...

Lost Caverns is pretty gonzo, no argument there.

Truth be told, I've never run White Plume Mountain.

pemerton said:

I've also seen B2 Keep on the Borderlands described as a sandbox. But the Caves of Chaos are also utterly unrealistic.

So if realism is a big expectation, than @Lanefan's game isn't a sandbox.

Click to expand...

The Caves of Chaos might or might not be realistic (in the realism-of-setting sense) depending how much various "humanoid monster" creatures and-or cultures are willing to associate with each other.

The one time I've run it, it was the first adventure in the campaign; and that initial adventure is always pre-determined by me-as-DM in order to get things started.

mamba said:

that is your right


that is not my goal, I try to understand your point, what it is that makes this a railroad for you


no problem


the original post only said he would not drink alcohol, then someone starting listing ever increasing stakes like threatening to beat them up, threatening to kill their family, so if the priest had caved somewhere between those two, you would have been fine?

Click to expand...

Possibly! A genuinely devout priest caving too easily might be a minor problem in the opposite direction, but yes.

And the examples the person who said that gave were simply there to show, with I felt pretty reasonable accuracy, that it's actually extremely rare for someone to have a position that they would absolutely never, under any circumstance, deviate from, particularly with something as (relatively) minor as consuming a single alcoholic drink.

As a good example, in Judaism (and IIRC Islam as well), it is acceptable to eat things that are forbidden by the laws of kashrut in order to prevent unnecessary death. If you have a choice, you should choose what is kosher, but if it is literally "eat this pork meat or literally die of starvation", you should eat the meat and seek absolution later. (Having looked it up, yes, this also applies to Islam, or at least to major branches thereof.) Hence, even real-world religions with very strong views about particular dietary choices usually recognize that there can be a higher calling which supersedes those restrictions.

That was, more or less, the point being made by the increasingly severe possible PC actions: that, barring a few specific exceptions I won't name because I don't feel like drawing mod attention by doing so*, it really should be exceedingly rare that a particular individual just flatly cannot, under any circumstances whatsoever, be persuaded to do a thing. Instead, the much more reasonable, indeed much more realistic, standard is that "in order to persuade this person, you'd need to do something you probably aren't willing to do", e.g. "threaten to torture their family". It's not that persuasion/intimidation is impossible; it's that none of the possible paths which could produce persuasion/intimidation are ones the party would willingly pursue.

*I'm sure you can think of one or two horrifically unacceptable actions which even "save an innocent life" might not be enough to make a person willing to do.

pemerton said:

o I'm at a loss as to what point you intended to make by adducing it.

Click to expand...

It is a description of people who are members of Bandit and Brigand gangs and how they interact with each other.

Here is how to read it.

First a description of what bandits are.

BANDITS
Bandits are outlaw bands roaming the roads and countryside robbing merchants and peasants. They are usually poorly organized, poorly led, and poorly fed making them desperate people capable of anything.

Click to expand...

How they are organized and how frequently they are found in the rural landscape.

Typical bandit gangs are 4d6 individuals in size. At most there will one bandit gang in a barony (four to six rural villages) due to the attention of the noble lords and need for food.

Click to expand...

Next is a list of people typically found in bandit gangs

Bandit w/ Club
This bandit was once a peasant farmer.

Bandit, Spear
A bandit who was a peasant militiaman and managed to keep his spear and a wooden shield.

Bandit, Archer
A bandit who was a peasant militiaman and managed to keep his short bow and a dagger.

Bandit, Tough
A village tough who was outlawed and now lives as a bandit

Bandit, Lieutenant
Once a village tough who is now considered to be second in command to the band’s captain. One lieutenant will be found for every 3 to 6 bandits in the band.

Bandit, Captain
Once a village tough who is now in command of a band of bandits.

Click to expand...

Each followed by a stat block for my Majestic Fantasy (based on OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry)
The stat block list their class and level, initiative bonus, Armor Class, hit points, Saving Throw, Move, S&W Challenge Level, XP award, # of Attack and their details, Their Attributes plus their bonuses, Special abilities, and Ordinary Abilities (Skills), and finally their possessions.


Next I talk about Brigands along with a terse description of the rural underworld.

BRIGANDS
Brigands are the rural equivalent of urban thieves’ guilds. They are better organized than ordinary bandits and more capable of hiding from the authorities. Usually brigand gangs form from a mercenary band that ran into bad luck or was outlawed for a crime. Because of this, they have slightly better equipment and have fighters as members as well as thugs. The biggest difference from urban thieves’ guilds is the lack of burglars. Due to their focus on assault and robbery, thugs and fighters are much more common. In addition due to their rural location, there exists an underground trade network of fences and smugglers so the brigands can sell the goods they rob.

A brigand gang will have about 5d6 individuals. Generally there only one brigand gang per castle domain with four to six baronies with a total of 16 to 40 rural villages.

Click to expand...

This is followed by another list of folks who are found in Brigand gangs, Including their stat blocks.

Brigand, Tough
A village tough who joined a brigand gang. Has better equipment and discipline compared to his bandit counterpart.

Brigand
A down on his luck mercenary, yeoman, or guard who now one of the rank and file of a brigand gang.

Brigand, Lieutenant (Tough)
Once a village tough who is now considered to be one of those in second in command to the gang’s captain. One lieutenant will be found for every 3 to 6 brigand in the gang.

Brigand, Lieutenant
A down on his luck mercenary, yeoman, or guard who is now considered to be one of those in second in command to the gang’s captain. One lieutenant will be found for every 3 to 6 brigand in the gang.

Brigand, Captain
A down on his luck experienced mercenary, or guard who is now in command of a brigand gang.

Rural Fence
A rural fence is usually an itinerant tinker who deals with bandit and brigand gangs buying their ill-gotten gains. The tinker will then take the stolen goods to sell in a market or town outside of the region in order to reduce the chance of the items being identified.

Smuggler
A merchant specializing in transporting stolen and/or illegal goods from market to market. Usually will have 1d3 Brigand Toughs or Brigands work with him as guards along with 1 Peasant Farmer for every two mules.

Click to expand...

One of the brigand stat blocks

A rural Smuggler

This then followed by the Open Game License

Hope that clears up your confusion on how to understand the document.

EzekielRaiden said:

Possibly! A genuinely devout priest caving too easily might be a minor problem in the opposite direction, but yes.

And the examples the person who said that gave were simply there to show, with I felt pretty reasonable accuracy, that it's actually extremely rare for someone to have a position that they would absolutely never, under any circumstance, deviate from, particularly with something as (relatively) minor as consuming a single alcoholic drink.

As a good example, in Judaism (and IIRC Islam as well), it is acceptable to eat things that are forbidden by the laws of kashrut in order to prevent unnecessary death. If you have a choice, you should choose what is kosher, but if it is literally "eat this pork meat or literally die of starvation", you should eat the meat and seek absolution later. (Having looked it up, yes, this also applies to Islam, or at least to major branches thereof.) Hence, even real-world religions with very strong views about particular dietary choices usually recognize that there can be a higher calling which supersedes those restrictions.

That was, more or less, the point being made by the increasingly severe possible PC actions: that, barring a few specific exceptions I won't name because I don't feel like drawing mod attention by doing so*, it really should be exceedingly rare that a particular individual just flatly cannot, under any circumstances whatsoever, be persuaded to do a thing. Instead, the much more reasonable, indeed much more realistic, standard is that "in order to persuade this person, you'd need to do something you probably aren't willing to do", e.g. "threaten to torture their family". It's not that persuasion/intimidation is impossible; it's that none of the possible paths which could produce persuasion/intimidation are ones the party would willingly pursue.

*I'm sure you can think of one or two horrifically unacceptable actions which even "save an innocent life" might not be enough to make a person willing to do.

Click to expand...

One of my favorite "Mixed success" outcomes from Stonetop's "Persuade vs NPC's" move:

"[if they have reason to resist and you roll a 7-9] they reveal something you can do to convince them, though it’ll likely be costly, tricky, or distasteful."

Hussar said:

But, I got absolutely pilloried for suggesting that this is a lot of work that the DM needs to do before starting a sandbox or indeed, even being able to consider the campaign a sandbox. Huh.

Click to expand...

just because one person does it that way does not mean everyone has to. You did not do any of this and called your game a sandbox, that you did not use D&D is immaterial to this

Bedrockgames said:

Because the real world Logic is arising after the creation of the character. Making the NPC is a creative act but also constrained by what is reasonable in the setting, like whether there is an anti-drinking God. And the. That belief is what comes into play when the PC tries to ply him with alcohol.

Click to expand...

Again, you are not responding to the thing I said.

"What is reasonable in the setting" is completely under the GM's control. Absolutely 100% completely. Nothing the GM wants to put into the setting can be restricted by that because they declare what is reasonable by fiat.

So the real-world logic isn't doing anything! It isn't helping anything, because it's already operating on something the GM has declared to be "reasonable in the setting", regardless of whether it is in any way reasonable in general.

It's the Euthyphro problem, but for reasonableness rather than piety. If the gods (GM) can declare anything reasonable, then they can declare things that aren't, but which they just tell you you have to accept as being reasonable. The real-world logic has zero effect on this BECAUSE it happens after.

This is why I have taken such an issue with the given example. It reflects a world that is inherently unreasonable, but which the GM, whether sincerely or not, believes is reasonable. In some ways, I would almost prefer the GM who insincerely believes it's reasonable, because that implies a GM who still agrees with me on what is reasonable, they're just not actually applying it. The GM who believes that an unreasonable thing is in fact reasonable...how can I possibly address that? How can we even communicate, if their idea of "reasonable" is so far removed from my own, the two no longer intersect, or only intersect in a thin sliver?

I've been going through unprecedented growth of character over the last 15 years. I have a lot of love in my heart for AD&D 1E, but it's not the game I want to play anymore. I am a hardcore Pathfinder 1E fan, and I will be homebrewing for it and playing it until the day I take my last breath. I am not adverse to playing anything else. I like inclusion in RPGs, and I crave in my heart to see our hobby grow and evolve more compassionate and welcoming.

Hussar said:

See, this is where I think a lot of people have a problem with this idea that a DM driven sandbox is actually quite as free with player choice as is presented.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here who shares my thoughts on sandboxes, would call this Gm Driven, we would call it player driven. I get you probably don't see it that way and would have a different conception of player driven, but I don't think these conversations go very far when we use terms that pre-load favorable to one play style over another.

Hussar said:

For example, if your "living world" is so important that you are constantly advancing various events into the world as time moves forward, and none of those events are initiated by the players, at some point, it starts looking a lot more like a linear campaign. After all, when the ravening hordes of zombies come to town, there aren't a lot of choices. And it's not like the players created that horde. It's not like the players initiated this event. It's 100% DM driven.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind living world is a very broad concept. But part of the idea is you want a sense of a world that is external to the players. That does not mean they can't initiate events or they can't interfere with events. And living world isn't necessarily about events coming to them that they even have to deal with. It can be stuff going on in a neighboring kingdom. Different GMs use different tools here. Some use fiat. Some tables. And there are other methods as well. But the point is to have things like a passage of time in a setting, so a kingdom isn't just sitting there for months while the players are off on teh other side of the globe. Stuff is happening and facts on the ground are shifting.

I usually take a very light hand there, rolling on tables to see if any notable events happen over rate course of the year. My main insterest on the living side of things is the living adventure (the groups and NPCs operating in closer proximity to the PCs). Again these are not so much events as characters with agency pursuing goals. I also use things called shake up tables stir things up with factions (and sometimes I might not roll, but instead just decide if I have a clear idea of what a given NPC is doing).

But make no mistake, the players are very much driving what they are doing and when it comes to NPCs and groups around them, their actions and choices have huge impacts. If you don't enjoy this approach, that is fine. I wouldn't want you to play in a way that isn't fulfilling.

Hussar said:

Which means, most of the time, the players are simply reacting to whatever events the DM has presented to them. They can't really ignore them (because zombie hordes are rather hard to ignore). Effectively, the DM has wheeled up the plot wagon and is doling out the plot to the players.

Click to expand...

Again, this just isn't true. Sometimes they might reacting to developments. But even then it usually more like seizing an opportunity than having an adventure come to them that they have to react to. You've mentioned zombie hordes but I pretty much never do anything like that, and even big things on the map like invasions, are rigged to be very rare on my tables. And in those instances, because players are in the Jianghu, they don't have deals with invading forces if they don't want to. They're usually off pursuing their own goals

Hussar said:

Which is perfectly fine. But, it is difficult, IMO, to reconcile the idea of total player freedom and DM generated events.

Click to expand...

I'd quibble over this characterization but I think we are going to get sidetracked. What I will say is I think that you are painting a picture that doesn't really match how these games tend to play out.