Let The Players Manage Themselves Part 3, waitaminute...

[Adso]

And, while you don't intend for your column "to be the be the-end-all-be-all", new and inexperienced DM and players as well as a larger segment of the DND fanbase often take what the designers at WOTC write as being the gospel of how things should be done and your approach often comes across (to me and apparently others) as reinforcing this.

Over my many years of dealing with the D&D fan base, the one thing I'm certain of is their ability to forge their own opinions.

 

[Snoweel]

There's a rather large thread elsewhere in these forums about real life people who were a thousand times more awesome then any D&D character could ever be.

Exceptions to the rule only prove it.

Even these people go through long dull periods where they "look for the fun". And life not being D&D, there is no DM to ensure the fun finds them

Real life can and is plenty exciting and does make for some truly awesome stories - just not the life of you and me. But then again, we aren't adventurers.

Speak for yourself son.

I'm an erotic adventurer of the most deranged kind. But that's neither here nor there.

 

[Cadfan]

I just didn't want to hijack the thread into a "sandbox: good or evil" debate.

I did want to pipe up and point out that not everyone likes sandbox games since there were several very-pro sandbox comments in this thread.

The trick to running a very good sandbox campaign is to trick the players into thinking that they're playing in a very good sandbox campaign.

...most of DMing is like that. How do you create a vibrant, living, multifaceted gameworld? Well, you trick the players into thinking that they're in a vibrant, living, multifaceted gameworld.

 

[justanobody]

Wow…don’t get me started on canon. I really dislike the concept of canon in RPG settings, and I think it is out of place for DM advice. Don’t get me wrong, I believe very strongly in many of the opinions I write. I do considered and know other opinions (and have at times championed those opinions in the past), but haven’t espoused them for one reason or another. At the same time, I think people should think about them, disagree with them, have the convictions to come up with their own arguments, and challenge the status quo when they feel they ought to. It is conversation, not the dogma of perceived canon that makes games and gaming better.

As others have said, coming from a WotC product, everything is considered canon, or core, or what term have you. The electronic magazines form another source, may not be viewed as harshly in terms of article temperment or wording, but coming from the makers of the game it does sit that the words are law for the game.

So your intent is one thing, but being part of the company means you are building on the whole of everything else that makes up that game.

It is good that you feel so strongly towards your style of play and enjoyment and can share that with others in this type of format as a Dungeon article. i tore into your Be Fair section on another thread here is you are able to search the forums and find it. May have ben the sacred cows thread. Which goes to show that the various style are out there, and you are providing many readers with a side of the coin they may not have seen before.

You just have to make sure that you do not deface their side of the coin while doing so as Dungeon is an official core D&D product.

Also, sadly, your article, and others for Dragon and Dungeon, are one-way streets and not conversations with anyone. While the various online forums allow for discussion and conversation, the articles are not capable of this. Thus why there is a strong possible chance to come across heavy handed with words and opinions that would seem to reflect the view of the company and the intent for the game itself. Sadly, again, in some elitist way if you will, even without that intent at all.

 

[The Ghost]

It's not that I entirely disagree with the column (as the majority of the article really jived with me). However, the statement I quoted was strongly-worded...

I agree. The previous two parts and most of this article where very good advice. It looked at a number of problems a lot of DMs face and gave us a solution. The solutions given never felt like they were musts but instead felt like options.

The comment about world-building, however, seemed wrong. Especially since it just followed a statement about how the game is supposed to be fun. It felt like a must; that I need to stop world-building posthaste because it detracts from instances of "the fun". I take exception to that as I find world-building to be part of "the fun". I find the interactions my players have with the world to be part of "the fun". My players enjoy the richness that exists in my worlds - it is part of "the fun" for them.

Nonetheless, I look forward to future columns and constructive discussion as we've had here with both players and the author himself.

So long as it is free. I will be sad when WotC goes onto the subscription model - but, that is neither here nor there.

 

[Adso]

The comment about world-building, however, seemed wrong. Especially since it just followed a statement about how the game is supposed to be fun.

I never said (or even implied) world building couldn't create fun. I absolutely said that world building shouldn't trump fun.

I've seen a lot of games where the DM let world-building trump fun...and games where terribly un-fun circumstance were justified by making the world more realistic...none of them ended well (including those of this ilk that I've run in the past).

 

[The Ghost]

I never said (or even implied) world building couldn't create fun. I absolutely said that world building shouldn't trump fun.

Ah, and now we have an understanding.

Had you wrote that in the article it would have come across much more clear to me. And I am sure to many others here on these boards.

Thank you for clearing that up.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I did want to pipe up and point out that not everyone likes sandbox games since there were several very-pro sandbox comments in this thread.

I think the fact that "not everyone likes" can be understood to append every opinion posted to EN World. There's no need to pipe up to just state that.

 

[Snoweel]

The PCs took normal precautions and saw the dragon before it saw them. It's not exactly hard. Dragons are big. What's your point?

My point is that your PCs entered a dragon's territory, discovered its existence, and got away safely. Though dragons might be big, they are also fast and once the PCs are seen, it is entirely up to the dragon whether there's an encounter or not.

So your PCs saw the dragon before it saw them, and I assume it didn't see them at all.

Is it impossible in your sandbox for a black dragon to spot humanoids making a stealthy escape? How about if they're taking "normal precautions" (ie. before they themselves saw said dragon?)

So the real question is, if it's not impossible, in your sandbox, for a dragon to discover humanoid creatures merely taking "normal precautions" in its territory and then decide to kill them regardless of their words or actions, is it only impossible for this to happen to player characters?

According to your sandbox's rules-of-physics-and-whatnot, was there any chance that your PCs could have, unknowingly, passed a point-of-no-return in the game, where a TPK was inevitable based on average dice rolls?

I'm sure you know where I'm going with this.

The trick to running a very good sandbox campaign is to trick the players into thinking that they're playing in a very good sandbox campaign.

...most of DMing is like that. How do you create a vibrant, living, multifaceted gameworld? Well, you trick the players into thinking that they're in a vibrant, living, multifaceted gameworld.

So true.

And I daresay that anybody claiming to run a legitimate sandbox is not only deluding their players, but themselves as well.

A true sandbox game would be an insanely frustrating experience.

I've seen a lot of games where the DM let world-building trump fun...and games where terribly un-fun circumstance were justified by making the world more realistic...none of them ended well (including those of this ilk that I've run in the past).

Every single time I've experienced a game where the details of the setting are written in stone - ie. can't be modified on the fly to fit the adventure at hand - I have found world-building to trump the fun.

Which is why I'm wary of anybody who is a world-builder first and a DM second - they have so much emotional investment in their work of art that the other people around the table have to take a backseat.

 

[justanobody]

That is not even possible. You have to be a world-builder to be a DM. Even purchasing a published setting requires adaptation and rebuilding of parts of the world to meet your player needs.

Are you saying that Greenwood, Baker, Wyatt, etc are probably bad DMs since they are setting/world builders?

I would then ask how those world settings do so well if those people did not know what a DM needed or how a DM works. building worlds for the PCs is part of hte DMs job unless you just draw random card/tiles to stick together and call it the world.