D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[FormerlyHemlock]

You don't run White Plume Mountain for 1st level characters do you? You don't bomb ancient dragons on those characters either.

"Bilbo, before we can take you to the Lonely Mountain to steal treasure, we need you to kill several thousand goblins first. Because frankly, right now, you're just not equipped to fight Smaug."

 

[billd91]

And just to build off of the Star Wars example earlier. When Luke first enters the Death Star, his goal isn't to confront Vader or destroy the Death Star. His first goal is escape. Then his goal becomes rescue the Princess. He doesn't actually even meet Vader, nor does he face any insurmountable challenges that would require him to come back later. His challenges are difficult and exciting, and mostly involve running the hell away, which is fine. But, running away is a perfectly valid option and is presented as such. They aren't there to do anything that is beyond their capabilities.

We already know Luke wants to fight the Empire. He said as much while still on Tatooine. But notice what he does when he first encounters the Death Star. He could take that Empire on in a head to head fight... and get stomped. Instead, he ends up (along with Obi Wan, Han, and Chewie) setting more achievable goals - rescue the princess and escape. What's to stop a group of players from doing the same thing? Set their own goals based on a situation that, if they take it head on, they currently cannot solve or defeat.

And we see this a number of times in the inspirational literature. Malcolm Reynolds may know he can't get through an Alliance fleet to get to Mr. Universe so he engages in an activity within his reach - goading a Reaver fleet into pursuing him. Gandalf knows he can't take the One Ring and swoop into Mordor with it - that's way too conspicuous. But he does have the power to get some of the most innocent, stalwart, and stealthy guys on the planet to sneak the ring to the Fire while he and his buddies keep the Eye focused on other events.

You may see things as if a GM had set up these specific challenges for the PCs - ones within their grasp. But it's just as easy to see it from a more sandboxy perspective with overall goals (destroying the Empire, getting to Mr. Universe) and let the PCs choose what they do to achieve them, how, and when.

 

[pemerton]

You may see things as if a GM had set up these specific challenges for the PCs - ones within their grasp. But it's just as easy to see it from a more sandboxy perspective with overall goals (destroying the Empire, getting to Mr. Universe) and let the PCs choose what they do to achieve them, how, and when.

Nothing about the example scenarios described by [MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION] has even the hint of a sandbox to it.

I get bored with the concept that you just 'happen' to always do things that are at the right 'level' for your party. You may call that 'focused' but I call it predictable and boring.

I want the chance that the creatures are way too powerful, I want to discover the evil dragon/lich/hobgoblin army that is too powerful. It is either an encounter that we need to think to avoid, or it is a goal we need to work towards defeating sometime later.

If you can avoid them, and that is your goal, then it is something that it at the "right" level.

If the players have no choice of goal but to attack the hobgoblins or dragon, and that will be an auto-fail, then it is not at the "right" level.

The scenarios described by the OP are not ones in which the players have a choice of goal.

 

[pemerton]

"Bilbo, before we can take you to the Lonely Mountain to steal treasure, we need you to kill several thousand goblins first. Because frankly, right now, you're just not equipped to fight Smaug."

I'm not sure exactly who this is directed at, but to me it seems an apt description of the succubus scenario: the GM points the players at a mystery, tells them (in effect) that the goal of play is to solve it, but then railroads them off to fight goblins so they are high enough level to actually realise and engage in the solution.

I think it is terrible scenario design.

 

[Celtavian]

"Bilbo, before we can take you to the Lonely Mountain to steal treasure, we need you to kill several thousand goblins first. Because frankly, right now, you're just not equipped to fight Smaug."

That's what the journey to The Lonely Mountain was for. Bilbo gained quite a few levels on the way.

 

[ExploderWizard]

We already know Luke wants to fight the Empire. He said as much while still on Tatooine. But notice what he does when he first encounters the Death Star. He could take that Empire on in a head to head fight... and get stomped. Instead, he ends up (along with Obi Wan, Han, and Chewie) setting more achievable goals - rescue the princess and escape. What's to stop a group of players from doing the same thing? Set their own goals based on a situation that, if they take it head on, they currently cannot solve or defeat.

And we see this a number of times in the inspirational literature. Malcolm Reynolds may know he can't get through an Alliance fleet to get to Mr. Universe so he engages in an activity within his reach - goading a Reaver fleet into pursuing him. Gandalf knows he can't take the One Ring and swoop into Mordor with it - that's way too conspicuous. But he does have the power to get some of the most innocent, stalwart, and stealthy guys on the planet to sneak the ring to the Fire while he and his buddies keep the Eye focused on other events.

You may see things as if a GM had set up these specific challenges for the PCs - ones within their grasp. But it's just as easy to see it from a more sandboxy perspective with overall goals (destroying the Empire, getting to Mr. Universe) and let the PCs choose what they do to achieve them, how, and when.

Players choosing what to get involved in and to what degree is fine, as is the existence of potential enemies that are powerful enough to flat out kill them. The presentation of a mystery, then by game mechanic douchebaggery informing the players that it isn't time for them to figure it out yet and to go do something else is frustrating.

Its OK if the players figure out what they are up against and decide that they are not equipped to handle it. In the succubus scenario, so what if the players were able to figure out the nature of their enemy? They would still need powerful allies and some clever planning to do anything about it if they take action now. They may decide to keep an eye on the target and bide their time while they figure something out.

In the end the result is that they will probably be higher level by the time that they decide to act, but it will be because they are playing smart not because the DM decides that they don't have enough hit points to figure out the mystery and send them off on a mission that is effectively, just a training montage.

That's what the journey to The Lonely Mountain was for. Bilbo gained quite a few levels on the way.

Maybe he did, and got magic loot too. Do you think any of that would have made a difference if Bilbo had decided that, since he was "experienced" that he would engage Smaug in combat? Smaug was a problem that couldn't be solved by straight combat even for the whole company, for tough dwarves that could slay over a hundred orcs.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Nothing about the example scenarios described by [MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION] has even the hint of a sandbox to it.

Maybe, maybe not. I didn't see anything in the description that couldn't happen I'm a sandbox. But you did say earlier in this thread that you wouldn't like my campaign (a sandbox) because it has too much going on simultaneously, and so I don't think we're talking solely about Majoru's campaign--I think we're talking about the general case of having multiple hooks in play simultaneously. And in a sandbox, you HAVE to give the players multiple hooks or it isn't a sandbox.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm not sure exactly who this is directed at, but to me it seems an apt description of the succubus scenario: the GM points the players at a mystery, tells them (in effect) that the goal of play is to solve it, but then railroads them off to fight goblins so they are high enough level to actually realise and engage in the solution.

I think it is terrible scenario design.

It is directed to those who seem to think the only way to engage with an opponent is to beat it in direct combat.

 

[Hussar]

It is directed to those who seem to think the only way to engage with an opponent is to beat it in direct combat.

You're the only one here who thinks that though. No one else even began to talk about fighting anything.

In the Succubus example, it can't even get to that point because the PC's do not have the resources to discover the Succubus. They can't fight it until they discover it can they? So, why are you talking about direct combat at all?

 

[pemerton]

you did say earlier in this thread that you wouldn't like my campaign (a sandbox) because it has too much going on simultaneously

Where was that? Not since it got necroed, and I don't think you were posting in the pre-necro thread.

Maybe you got me confused with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]?