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

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

But Hannah having something she "would like them to continue [doing]" seems to be a pretty big no-no, isn't it, in this context? Like I was under the impression that the GM wanting the players to do anything at all would be unacceptable, outside of sharply limited exceptions (e.g. right at the start when the players don't have enough basis for personal motivations; or if the game has genuinely become lost and aimless and thus the players really specifically want a "hook" to change that status). Is that not the case?

I won't lie, this is really profoundly confusing because it seems to be contradicting almost everything that's been said in the thread, and I'm really struggling not to just respond with frustration at what seems like being jerked around.

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)

But the thing described was "openness to discussion". That was very specifically what someone said, repeatedly--and I think you have also said that (though I could be mistaken, please correct me if I'm wrong). Now, you're placing what seem like really strong restrictions on what kinds of questions can be asked. It's not just a need to be coy or low on details, this is the DM basically completely rejecting any question that isn't closed-form and preferably yes-or-no. That makes descriptions like "openness to discussion" seem really hollow and not particularly serious--and loops back to the "do I really know what people mean by <ambiguous phrase>? Or are they using it in a much different way so that I can't really say I agree or not without getting a comprehensive explanation?"

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.

I was under the impression that the GM desiring that a path not be pursued was openly and specifically not acceptable in this style. Is this not true?

 

[Enrahim]

I see it as pretty much universal that one of the skills a good DM needs to have (or, over time, acquire) is the ability to hit whatever curveballs the players throw.

I can agree to that. But these are skills you get to practice all the time anyway.

Your advice was to not take a time out. What I tried to point out is that this advice implies advicing against giving the players a choice on if this should be low fun high learning experience or a high fun low learning experience (Limiting a kind of plater agency). It also implies advicing not trying to clear up misunderstandings (maybe the players incorrectly remembered the mckguffin being in a different castle due to 1 month having passed since last session, and the names were similar).

So your answer still do not address why your think your advice is sound for the GM that has not yet aquired the skills you consider important? Is it for instance that you think the long term value of the intensive training oportunity is going to outweight the short term pain of having a subpar experience going in a direction noone at the table actually wants? In that case how about relatively new groups where not even the GM has fully commited to the hobby?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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?

I'm honestly not sure I can--particularly in light of these recent posts!

Is it acceptable to have a planned sequence of events a, b, c, as part of the defense of a location when the PCs visit it? Is that an unacceptable overreach because the GM has laid down a sequence of what will happen? Or is it a necessary part of portraying a "realistic" "consistent" world that evolves?

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

Well, I would say they are jargon:encounters, but they are not layperson:encounters, because you...literally didn't encounter them. Given the (claimed) preference against jargon, I can see how someone would feel confused by trying to understand it in a completely non-jargon way, when it is being used in a jargon way.

 

[Lanefan]

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.)

Scale.

On the small scale individual encounters are often prepped, either as part of a canned adventure module or something homebrew. Unless it's a far more linear dungeon than I'd like to run, that the encounters are prepped doesn't force the PCs to engage with them, nor does it force the sequence of those encounters; and in no case does it force the PCs' approach to said encounters.

Other times individual encounters might be randomly rolled e.g. on a wilderness encounter table; here it's nigh inevitable the PCs will have to engage with the encounter but (unless they're caught completely off guard) they still control how they engage. There's still no pre-set sequence, nor any guarantee which specific encounters on the table a given group will meet if any.

When you talk about pre-prepped sequences of events or even pre-prepped sequences of adventures you're at a larger scale than individual events. Again, linear dungeons where one room leads only to the next are the exception; but I think we can agree that's awful dungeon design and for these purposes henceforth ignore them.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I gotta say, this one has me confused as well.

If someone asked me-as-DM to say yes or no to if I have a desire that a path is not further pursued in game I can't think of any non-extreme instance where my answer would not be, in effect, "What you guys do in-game is up to you". And if we're into extreme instances then something bigger has come adrift.

 

[Enrahim]

But Hannah having something she "would like them to continue [doing]" seems to be a pretty big no-no, isn't it, in this context? Like I was under the impression that the GM wanting the players to do anything at all would be unacceptable, outside of sharply limited exceptions (e.g. right at the start when the players don't have enough basis for personal motivations; or if the game has genuinely become lost and aimless and thus the players really specifically want a "hook" to change that status). Is that not the case?

I won't lie, this is really profoundly confusing because it seems to be contradicting almost everything that's been said in the thread, and I'm really struggling not to just respond with frustration at what seems like being jerked around.

I fully understand your frustration. The distinction here is strongly nuanced. A DM are of course not a robot but a human (still). That means they of course have desires and priorities. However in this living world sandbox tradition we are talking about it is a very strongly held virtue that these biases should not affect play. I guess there might be extremist sub traditions that extends this to not being able to in any way reveal any hint of preferences also outside play. I am assuming this is quite fringe. Tough there might be individuals in this thread having revealed themselves as being part of that subtraction without me noticing. All replies I have seen to you though has been in line with my understanding of the main tradition - that the DM should avoid to reveal biases trough their in game decisions without touching on any limits on how they can express themselves in a outside game meta discussion.

But the thing described was "openness to discussion". That was very specifically what someone said, repeatedly--and I think you have also said that (though I could be mistaken, please correct me if I'm wrong). Now, you're placing what seem like really strong restrictions on what kinds of questions can be asked. It's not just a need to be coy or low on details, this is the DM basically completely rejecting any question that isn't closed-form and preferably yes-or-no. That makes descriptions like "openness to discussion" seem really hollow and not particularly serious--and loops back to the "do I really know what people mean by <ambiguous phrase>? Or are they using it in a much different way so that I can't really say I agree or not without getting a comprehensive explanation?"

The key difference here is openness to discussion, and limitations to what can be discussed. For instance in the 3d6 down the line podcast, they have after each session a segment where the players and DM discuss in quite detail what happened in the session, what they liked and didn't like (including the DM), and other meta observations about system and group dynamics. However if they ever get into speculation about what clues might mean and how possible future actions might play out, the DM is very carefully to not reveal anything but maybe tiny teases. Also the DM is not hesitating reminding the players about things they have already discovered that might be relevant for a future action to play out, or outline certain practices he is leaning on to make judgment calls.

So of course a GM should be open to discussions on a wide range of topics regarding the rpg. But they clearly cannot discuss things they cannot express and they shouldn't discuss things they shouldn't reveal. The idea is that in common conversation on the game the participants tend to avoid such topics, so it make sense to think of them as exceptions to the more generally aplicable rule to "be open to discussions"

I was under the impression that the GM desiring that a path not be pursued was openly and specifically not acceptable in this style. Is this not true?

I answered this above, but I think it is important to reiterate: A human GM is of course allowed to have desires. And I think even the most hard core sandboxes here would even put down the foot mid session if the players started graphic depictions of raping and pillaging the villagers.

 

[Lanefan]

I can agree to that. But these are skills you get to practice all the time anyway.

Your advice was to not take a time out. What I tried to point out is that this advice implies advicing against giving the players a choice on if this should be low fun high learning experience or a high fun low learning experience (Limiting a kind of plater agency). It also implies advicing not trying to clear up misunderstandings (maybe the players incorrectly remembered the mckguffin being in a different castle due to 1 month having passed since last session, and the names were similar).

I think I've lost the plot (pun intended) here a bit.

If the character would remember something significant from two days ago that's been a month for the player, I'll usually remind the player about it (or suggest the player read the game log; if it's that significant it would, ideally, be in there).

Otherwise, sometimes one or two low-fun high-learning experiences now can pay off big time later on, particularly for...

So your answer still do not address why your think your advice is sound for the GM that has not yet aquired the skills you consider important? Is it for instance that you think the long term value of the intensive training oportunity is going to outweight the short term pain of having a subpar experience going in a direction noone at the table actually wants? In that case how about relatively new groups where not even the GM has fully commited to the hobby?

...new groups and especially new DMs. There's always going to be a shakedown period for any new DM (in any edition) while they learn the ropes; ideally the players are forgiving during this period, and if those players are at all experienced they might even expect a few low-fun sequences while the DM - though floundering now - learns better how not to flounder in the future.

Short term pain for long term gain.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I'm honestly not sure I can--particularly in light of these recent posts!

Is it acceptable to have a planned sequence of events a, b, c, as part of the defense of a location when the PCs visit it? Is that an unacceptable overreach because the GM has laid down a sequence of what will happen? Or is it a necessary part of portraying a "realistic" "consistent" world that evolves?

Does everyone play one-way?
Are you saying everyone uses the same Living World sandbox approach that @robertsconley uses which is the same as @Bedrockgames as @Maxperson as @Lanefan as @Micah Sweet as @SableWyvern as @AlViking as myself or that we all consider our games Living World. Is this really your position?
And all this given how it's evidently clear that there are differences in the way the above run their campaigns and many such differences have been touched on in this thread.

I'm sure you've seen modules with guards at positions a, b, c monsters at d, e, f and BBEG at g and a random encounter table. Now at any time some of us may stick to that, others may roll to see if the guard at post c took a toilet break or whatever, others may use timed patrols. Point is there is a location with several areas where encounters are likely to occur and there usually are listed procedures that take place should something disturb that. There may also be rules about who can hear what or see who should a scuffle breakout in certain areas. PCs may use the Silence spell to ensure they don't find themselves in a series of endless encounters...

This isn't revolutionary or confusing but apparently we need to make it so otherwise we'd have to agree on something and where's the fun in that. Amirite?

EDIT: Players tell the GM they are going to the Fortress of Encounters for next session. DM plans it. How dare he plan Fortress of Encounters in a Living World, everyone knows the Fortress of Encounters is not realistic and consistent.

Well, I would say they are jargon:encounters, but they are not layperson:encounters, because you...literally didn't encounter them. Given the (claimed) preference against jargon, I can see how someone would feel confused by trying to understand it in a completely non-jargon way, when it is being used in a jargon way.

What I find sad is, is that this thread exhibits a lot of, what we call in Greek, the spirit of contrariness (πνεύμα αντιλογίας) for the sake of contrariness. I guess welcome me to the internet.

And to be clear I've seen it on both sides. It just so happens to be this issue right now.

 

[SableWyvern]

What I find sad is, is that this thread exhibits a lot of, what we call in Greek, the spirit of contrariness (πνεύμα αντιλογίας) for the sake of contrariness. I guess welcome me to the internet.

I've tried to avoid it, but I'll cop to having been guilty to at least some of that.

I want nothing to do with the ongoing "encounter" argument though. You can all sort that one out among yourselves.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm honestly not sure I can--particularly in light of these recent posts!

Is it acceptable to have a planned sequence of events a, b, c, as part of the defense of a location when the PCs visit it? Is that an unacceptable overreach because the GM has laid down a sequence of what will happen? Or is it a necessary part of portraying a "realistic" "consistent" world that evolves?

Do you (or does anyone) see a problem with a pre-written adventure including the following:

==============
Castle defenses

If an alert is sounded, or if any untoward disturbance occurs, the following will happen unless prior or ongoing events interfere:

Within 15 seconds
--- the alert will be repeated throughout the castle, all on-duty guards will have weapons drawn (or loaded) and ready
--- the sergeant of the watch will order off-duty guards to be awakened if asleep and to begin donning their arms and armour
--- the guards on the postern gate will ensure it is closed, barred, and locked then one will report such to the sergeant-at-arms while the rest remain in place

Within 45 seconds
--- if it is not already up, the guards on the drawbridge will withdraw inside and begin hoisting the drawbridge; this will take them 2 minutes unless interrupted
--- about one-third of the on-duty guards not already in these locations will begin moving to the battlements, one-third to the location(s) of the royal family, and one-third to the source of the initial alarm
--- civilians and staff will begin moving to the nearest place of safety (their quarters, the kitchens, the root cellar)
--- the status of the postern gate will be reported to the sergeant at arms

Within 2 minutes
--- the sergeant of the watch will receive a brief report as to the nature of the alert and issue orders accordingly
--- civilians and staff will have reached their safe areas
--- all on-duty guards will by now be either on the battlements, or guarding the royal family, or at the source of the initial alarm

Within 3 minutes
--- with the drawbridge now hoisted, its previous guards move to the battlements above the drawbridge and take up station there
--- off-duty guards report for duty and are assigned as needed
--- if the alert is deemed to pose imminent danger to the royal family they will be escorted by their guards to the castle vaults
=================

So. That's a planned sequence of events* that will happen if an alert is sounded, unless amended by something specific to that particular alert (for example, if the alert is due to someone trying to gain access through the postern gate the guards there will simply try to hold it until reinforcements arrive). And for me, this is perfectly acceptable.

And note this is all completely independent of the PCs. They might be the cause of an alert, or they might be bystanders or guests in the castle when an alert is sounded, or whatever.

* - actually just part of the sequence; it doesn't touch on magical defenses or any classed-levelled entities living in the castle, it only details what the mundane guards do.