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

[EzekielRaiden]

I know I'm a bit late to the party on this one, but there's a point I'd really like to see clarified.

In the discussion about "bypassed encounters", I've seen several mentions of GMs planning out encounters in advance, only for the PCs to "bypass" them.

I don't really understand how that squares with the statements folks have made regarding non-planning from the GM, and I think this is at least adjacent to pemerton's questions. Specifically, this implies that there is, in fact, a planned sequence of events that will happen, and the PCs have found a shortcut which skips some of that planned sequence.

Given the pretty strong feeling in this thread about even the slightest suggestion that something has been pre-planned, rather than various other perspectives, I am...more than a little confused by the way this is presented. That is, the presentation seems--I stress, SEEMS--to be far more like what I hear in non-sandbox contexts, where the GM has set out what will happen, but there is some room for PCs to weave around/over/through those things.

Have I missed something? The impression I've gotten thus far is that anything even like pre-planning a sequence of encounters would be verboten. Which, again based on the impression I've gotten, would mean that it isn't possible for there to be a "bypassed encounter". There are simply entities in the world. The party might interact with them, or not interact with them.

Or, in simpler terms, to "bypass" something, I was under the impression that you normally would have to go through it, but you found a way to not do so. E.g. a person can only "bypass security" because enduring security's scrutiny is required, but this person found a way to avoid it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Did you ever position a gang of toughs in front of the PCs as a challenge or obstacle and if yes, did the PCs successfully take steps to avoid them?

Yes, I’ve already said that I have considered encounters in some of the games I run. But not all. The ones where I do tend to be D&D or similarly structured, where an abundance of the effort is on the GM.

If yes again, then boom: they bypassed that encounter (and in 1e D&D, would get xp as if they had defeated the toughs in combat).

Wouldn’t that be resolving the encounter? I don’t expect that the AD&D books describe it as bypassing an encounter. But maybe they do.

I don't know of anyone who describes anything as an "encounter" during play.

Certainly some people seem to do it here in this thread. And clearly there are many people who tend to think of it as such prior to play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I know I'm a bit late to the party on this one, but there's a point I'd really like to see clarified.

In the discussion about "bypassed encounters", I've seen several mentions of GMs planning out encounters in advance, only for the PCs to "bypass" them.

I don't really understand how that squares with the statements folks have made regarding non-planning from the GM, and I think this is at least adjacent to pemerton's questions. Specifically, this implies that there is, in fact, a planned sequence of events that will happen, and the PCs have found a shortcut which skips some of that planned sequence.

Given the pretty strong feeling in this thread about even the slightest suggestion that something has been pre-planned, rather than various other perspectives, I am...more than a little confused by the way this is presented. That is, the presentation seems--I stress, SEEMS--to be far more like what I hear in non-sandbox contexts, where the GM has set out what will happen, but there is some room for PCs to weave around/over/through those things.

Have I missed something? The impression I've gotten thus far is that anything even like pre-planning a sequence of encounters would be verboten. Which, again based on the impression I've gotten, would mean that it isn't possible for there to be a "bypassed encounter". There are simply entities in the world. The party might interact with them, or not interact with them.

Or, in simpler terms, to "bypass" something, I was under the impression that you normally would have to go through it, but you found a way to not do so. E.g. a person can only "bypass security" because enduring security's scrutiny is required, but this person found a way to avoid it.

It does seem to be a bit of a conflict! I doubt we’ll encounter a satisfying answer!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Wow! I think we might be onto something here! The module word was by the way purely based on this quote further up in the reply chain.

I hope you see that this unfortunate use of that word is as inconsequential to the main point as a bit flawed example So back to the interesting stuff:

We have here identified a fundamental difference in our expectations. I really tried, and I could not see any rational reason a GM could want to withold an honest answer to that question. I would think many would have the same problem as me. If you can explain the basis for your expectation to not get an (honest?) answer, maybe that might help at least me better understand where you are coming from, and what you are getting at.

You expect a GM to withhold an answer from you? Why is that? Several of the trad-leaning GMs here have already stated that they would answer such questions from a player, because it would go toward building trust.

Quoting both since these are the same question from different sources.

Some of the GMs you describe have instead said the opposite. @Lanefan, for example, was the one who said that no answer further than some variation on "guess you'll have to find out" could be expected for genuinely months at a stretch (the implication being, more than one month but less than six, from context). Others have specifically said that the only answer a player can expect to receive in some cases is some variation on "I'm the GM, you need to trust me."

And, as I noted, I invented (on request) an example upthread about a Paladin (raised in the priesthood, distant relative of the royal family) who got utterly shut-down by his GM on something that seemed highly out of sorts (an allied, albeit insular, priesthood of a deity specifically about defending their lands from threats...who outright refused ANY audience, period, no questions, move along.) In response to that example, I did not see anyone saying that the GM was failing to provide an answer--indeed, at least a couple seemed to think that the GM's answer was perfectly fine, and it was the player who was at fault for failing to trust that whatever the GM was doing, it was for a good reason that had nothing whatsoever to do with railroading.

You can read the example here. I then gave further commentary explaining my concerns, and a follow-up with the kind of corrective answer I would find acceptable. (These links should work regardless of your posts-per-page count, but if they don't, the posts are #5318, #5577, and #5798. Which, given each of these posts is >200 posts apart, I think you can see what I mean when I say this thread moves at lightning speed sometimes.)

Much of this came from me talking about things like wanting "accountability" and "openness", being able to "seek restitution". When I used those words, I had not just one or two but several people respond to those requests in an entirely negative fashion, as in, rejecting that any of that is required, expected, or even beneficial.

That, in large part, is why I wouldn't expect any answer beyond, "You just have to trust me", from a GM like this. Because I have repeatedly been told things that indicate that that's all I'm ever going to get, unless I wait 3-6 business months.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Games like Monsterhearts, Sorcerer, Burning Wheel, et al are not adventure games in the same way that D&D is an adventure game though. You do not have the freedom to "go anywhere and do anything". These are games with premises, with characters who have their own premises we are expected to honor. There's no avoiding - there's handling things in a different way - using different approaches, but you are expected to embrace the premise regardless.

Yes. But everyone here has played D&D we are not speaking Latin when we talk about bypassing an encounter.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I know I'm a bit late to the party on this one, but there's a point I'd really like to see clarified.

In the discussion about "bypassed encounters", I've seen several mentions of GMs planning out encounters in advance, only for the PCs to "bypass" them.

I don't really understand how that squares with the statements folks have made regarding non-planning from the GM, and I think this is at least adjacent to pemerton's questions. Specifically, this implies that there is, in fact, a planned sequence of events that will happen, and the PCs have found a shortcut which skips some of that planned sequence.

Given the pretty strong feeling in this thread about even the slightest suggestion that something has been pre-planned, rather than various other perspectives, I am...more than a little confused by the way this is presented. That is, the presentation seems--I stress, SEEMS--to be far more like what I hear in non-sandbox contexts, where the GM has set out what will happen, but there is some room for PCs to weave around/over/through those things.

Have I missed something? The impression I've gotten thus far is that anything even like pre-planning a sequence of encounters would be verboten. Which, again based on the impression I've gotten, would mean that it isn't possible for there to be a "bypassed encounter". There are simply entities in the world. The party might interact with them, or not interact with them.

Or, in simpler terms, to "bypass" something, I was under the impression that you normally would have to go through it, but you found a way to not do so. E.g. a person can only "bypass security" because enduring security's scrutiny is required, but this person found a way to avoid it.

You don't understand how stealth, bribery, invisibility, teleport, pass without trace and a myriad other skills, abilities and spells can bypass encounters or at the very least combat encounters? At this point I would ask how long have you been playing D&D and who do you play with?

Even 4e modules had encounters which could be bypassed with creative players. I guess anyone who played a 4e module railroaded their players into EVERY encounter in the module.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes. But everyone here has played D&D we are not speaking Latin when we talk about bypassing an encounter.

Well, would you say my elaboration on the question demonstrates why pemerton would want clarification?

I wouldn't have posted about it if I didn't see a seeming (emphasis SEEMING) contradiction between the hard stance against most forms of pre-planned events, vs the way a sequence of encounters has been described here.

You don't understand how stealth, bribery, invisibility, teleport, pass without trace and a myriad other skills, abilities and spells can bypass encounters or at the very least combat encounters. At this point I would ask how long have you been playing D&D and who do you play with?

Even 4e modules had encounters which could be bypassed with creative players. I guess anyone who played a 4e module railroaded their players into EVERY encounter in the module.

I'm not saying I don't understand how an encounter can be avoided. I agree that that's a thing.

I want to understand how this fits into the explicit descriptions given and reiterated, most vehemently, against pre-prepped sequences of events. I see a sequence of encounters as a sequence of events, and I'm not sure how to parse them as non-events, if that is what I'm supposed to do (I have no idea.)

 

[Faolyn]

It does seem to be a bit of a conflict! I doubt we’ll encounter a satisfying answer!

Except I’ve described how it works without pre-planning several times already.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I want to understand how this fits into the explicit descriptions given and reiterated, most vehemently, against pre-prepped sequences of events. I see a sequence of encounters as a sequence of events, and I'm not sure how to parse them as non-events, if that is what I'm supposed to do (I have no idea.)

Anyone of us can plan the defenses of a location - with a planned sequence of events a, b, c. Can we at least agree there?

If the PC avoid such events through creative play are they encounters or not encounters?

One can use other examples where a planned encounter with the strong potential for being a combat encounter was defused into merely a social encounter.

Then there is timing - PCs may arrive early before the ritual summoning of a demon (steal/destroy the necessary ritual components or slay the caster) and thus bypass the DM planned combat encounter with the demon.

This is very much in line with what you stated upthread: Having player decisions matter.

 

[Enrahim]

Quoting both since these are the same question from different sources.

Some of the GMs you describe have instead said the opposite. @Lanefan, for example, was the one who said that no answer further than some variation on "guess you'll have to find out" could be expected for genuinely months at a stretch (the implication being, more than one month but less than six, from context). Others have specifically said that the only answer a player can expect to receive in some cases is some variation on "I'm the GM, you need to trust me."

And, as I noted, I invented (on request) an example upthread about a Paladin (raised in the priesthood, distant relative of the royal family) who got utterly shut-down by his GM on something that seemed highly out of sorts (an allied, albeit insular, priesthood of a deity specifically about defending their lands from threats...who outright refused ANY audience, period, no questions, move along.) In response to that example, I did not see anyone saying that the GM was failing to provide an answer--indeed, at least a couple seemed to think that the GM's answer was perfectly fine, and it was the player who was at fault for failing to trust that whatever the GM was doing, it was for a good reason that had nothing whatsoever to do with railroading.

You can read the example here. I then gave further commentary explaining my concerns, and a follow-up with the kind of corrective answer I would find acceptable. (These links should work regardless of your posts-per-page count, but if they don't, the posts are #5318, #5577, and #5798. Which, given each of these posts is >200 posts apart, I think you can see what I mean when I say this thread moves at lightning speed sometimes.)

Much of this came from me talking about things like wanting "accountability" and "openness", being able to "seek restitution". When I used those words, I had not just one or two but several people respond to those requests in an entirely negative fashion, as in, rejecting that any of that is required, expected, or even beneficial.

That, in large part, is why I wouldn't expect any answer beyond, "You just have to trust me", from a GM like this. Because I have repeatedly been told things that indicate that that's all I'm ever going to get, unless I wait 3-6 business months.

Yes, I have seen references to those examples before, and I want to highlight the essential difference: In your example Kyle were asking about an open explenation for a GM decission. In my example the player instead ask the GM about their desires. If Kyle had asked Hanna if Hanna would like them to continue looking into why the followers of Hyksos suddently seem more hostile toward a devout Sethite than Kyle would have expected, I believe the response from this forum would have been very different.

I think the main reasons people can justify not providing an answer to the first kind of question is that it is a very open question. The obvious problem is that it might be impossible to answer without revealing things that might spoil some fun (and regarding your counter that it never came into play as the players left behind 1: the mystery might not be related just to that location, it could be related to the character or the foundations of the world. 2: Even if it was local, how could the GM divine you would never return?) However I think the more common reason would be the GMs inability to articulate an explenation. (Witch can be frustrating to someone as reflected and articulate as you. But it is well known you can be a good craftsman without being able to explain how you do your craft)

Neither of these should be a problem with a closed form question directly asking the DM to say yes or no to if they have a desire that a path is not further pursued in game.