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

[Thomas Shey]

Fortunately, dice do a pretty good job preventing those sort of situations from occurring.

Although it would be a little weird to bribe enough guards during a campaign to get a statistically significant sampling of guards’ openness to bribery.

I could actually see it happening with a long city campaign in a fairly corrupt city.

 

[hawkeyefan]

here's the issue, then: those practices do still apply, and always will in a D&D-like game.

Not nearly as much as they used to. Resource management of the mundane sort is not really a major concern with D&D these days, Lanefan. There are just bucket loads of abilities that obviate all such obstacles, and most are easily available, many as early as at character creation.

If you asked a 5e player how many torches he had, he's likely scissor kick you in the jaw with his footbone.

Citation needed for the bolded, I think.

I give you almost all of D&D since the Hickman revolusion, sir.

And even if the bolded is true (which I very highly doubt), withholding information that the characters wouldn't and couldn't have in the fiction would still seem to make sense from an immerion and role-play prespective.

Not really. What's immersive will vary. Personally, I don't find it immersive to rely on minimal information and have to constantly ask about things that would be readily apparent or easily discernable to my character.

Having a chance to succeed at something that is attempted has nothing to do with player agency unless there is never a chance to succeed when it doesn't follow the GM's predetermined path. Nothing is stopping you from attempting to bribe the guard.

Again, this is all in how it's presented and what the player is allowed to know or to potentially learn.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think some geographical space is all that's needed. Like I said, I had a sandbox that almost never left one city district.

I think it is fair. But I also think having it all in one city is considered somewhat unconventional so it is the kind of thing people are likely to debate

Then how is it that your immersion is broken? I don't follow

You said when you learn that a roll has determined the outcome rather than some amount of predetermination by the GM, you feel like your immersion is broken. So I ask how you can tell the difference andyou say you can't for sure.

So... I don't follow at all.

We might have gotten lost in the weeds here. I may need to review these posts to see where I got my responses mixed up

Does the attacker get to auto-hit you? Or does he still have to roll? Maybe with a bonus of some sort because he's surprised you?

There's something about predetermining these kinds of traits as absolutes that, when compared to combat, would be like saying "this NPC is so skilled at fighting that he never misses".

I almost got into combat because I sensed this might come up. I just don't accept that combat and social interaction are comparable in a game. We aren't going to use boffer weapons so we need to abstract combat (and combat is very hard to do free form without mechanics and dice: I've tried to devise freeform methods and I can't do it). Roleplaying, if you say something and I know how my character would react, or the GM knows how an NPC would react, that you can do without mechanics. I just don't these aspects of play are similar enough to necessitate mechanics on the social side (but like I said, I get social skills are expected so I use them, i just have a very particular way of using them so they don't trip me up personally)

Sure, I get that. My point is that such players are placing a priority on something other than player agency.

But they aren't. You keep going back to that. But that isn't what is happening. To this player their agency hinges on their character words mattering. Dice rolls can interfere with that. I am not even saying they do for everyone.

I play with players who value immersion to varying degrees. I only have one for whom it may be his top priority. I generally don't have trouble considering his slight difference in priorities to the rest of the group, though. I imagine it has something to do with what he finds immersive.

Again, I don't really think of it as prioritizing one more than the other. I think they are deeply connected. And I don't think play is a choice between priorities. You have not mentioned fun at all as a priority, only player driven agency. I wouldnt' assume based on that, that you are deprioritizing fun, or that your games are necessarily less fun because you are making agency the most important thing

 

[AnotherGuy]

You mean like "even he's bribable, odd he isn't", rolled at the table?

Yeah, but having thought about this a little more - the roll could be done openly and in secret.

 

[pemerton]

I'm curious...
If one considers an immovable NPC on the bribe (unknown to the PCs beforehand) as an example of Railroading then is a dead-end (not the result of dice but GM is following a map) in a dungeon viewed in the same light?

Depending on the context, of course it can be.

I'm curious too: does anyone think the GM narrating a dead end and the GM keeping it secret that the NPC is described, in the GM's notes, as unable to be persuaded to do <this salient thing>, are similar techniques?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I've seen statements to this effect a few times now and I think they are worth highlighting. Part of why I liked narrative games when I did (maybe 6 years ago) was precisely this reason: I had some 5e campaigns where I'd ask for basic in-character knowledge, like who the king is, and I'd be told no or made to roll for it. In that case I did end up floundering and liking a narrative system where I could define these details.

I've since played sandboxes which are more reasonable with information, and find them better than either. Ultimately this problem is poor DMing.

And poor GMing advice!

I flood the players with information. I answer all their questions. I save rolls for truly uncertain things... not just what their senses would tell them.

And I still don't think it's enough information to match what a character actually present in the information would know.

In the case of the guard, if every guard inexplicably has an unwillingness to be bribed, it can start to feel unrealistic. Likewise, if every guard is willing to accept the right bribe, or is willing to hear the PCs out in the name of agency, then the world can start to feel unrealistic.

Sure, this is why we have resolution systems that often include a dice roll.

Then, again, I don't get your complaint.

Ah well! It's more an observation than a complaint, but at this point, I don't think there's a point in explaining it any further.

I also don't get this. What the GM wrote is what happened before the players got there. How to investigate, who to interrogate, what clues to look for, how to deal with the different factions--these are all exercises of player agency. None of them are present in a novel.

They are not exercises of player agency. They are exercises of DM decision making. Of preparation. That they aren't presented in a novel format doesn't mean you're not playing through the GM's story. It's a murder mystery where the GM has arranged the details of the murder as well as the clues and the suspects and their possible motives and so on. The solution has been determined by the GM ahead of play.

Will there be some slight differences between Group A who plays through this scenario and Group B? Sure, probably. Will those differences be meaningful? Probably not.

Yeah, definitely. I guess I'm also confused on how a guard possibly being susceptible to bribery is preferable to them definitely being susceptible if player agency is the real goal. After all, if the roll is made and they turn out not to take the bribe, wasn't it the DMs choice to adjudicate in that way? And hasn't that adjudication method resulted in the players not being able to employ a tactic they wanted?

The way I see Hawkeyefan's argument, the DM should take ownership of the fact that a decision they made is restricting player choice. What am I missing?

The possibility of bribery being up to the dice instead of GM fiat means that I can exercise my agency as a player in engaging with this guard. Assuming D&D, the GM will tell me a DC, and I'll look at my Persuade skill and see I have a +5 or what have you, and that gives me a sense of my chances. Then I can decide to proceed or try something else. That's agency... my fate is in my hands. There is a randomizer, yes, but I understand the odds. Whether I pass or fail is up to me and the result of the roll, not up to the GM's whim.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It does not, but it is understandable why you would make that assumption, given how sandbox campaigns are generally viewed in the hobby. Exploration, in how I view sandbox campaigns, is the discovery of what is unknown, whatever its form—physical, social, mystical, or philosophical.

Well, it seems a lot of it is about geography... the examples you share of players map vs. GM map are definitely that.

But understood... that's one example of exploration as you meant it. Exploration as trying to uncover the unknown is definitely more up my alley.

 

[robertsconley]

Sure, I think plausibility is probably more accurate than realism. Or perhaps clarifying realism as it would be for such and such genre.

I believe I did that with highlighting the difference between a sandbox campaign with GURPS Discworld versus a GURPS Majestic Wilderlands coupled with the fact I describe the Majestic Wilderlands and the Majestic Fantasy Realms as Medieval Fantasy setting.

So, this to me speaks to a de-prioritization of game play. And there's nothing wrong with that, but it certainly has an impact on player agency and playability.

Not at all because I make it clear that players can attempt anything their characters can do. And what the character is defined by is their descriptions. And their description consists of notes and game stats.

The game mechanics I use are those that resolve what the character does. Swing a sword, make an attack roll. Jump a chasm, make an Athletics check. What I don't do is make a game of it. The focus is squarely on what you do as your character. The mechanics that are used reflect the process and the odds of what would happen if you were there, witnessing the action.

Again, it is not always about realism. I use the same principle for magic as I do for combat. If I ran a sandbox campaign using Toon, the combat system would reflect the reality of Saturday morning cartoons, not what happens on our planet.

Some backstory. So all of this started with AD&D 1e and the Wilderlands. I grew unhappy with AD&D 1e and started looking for alterantive. Eventually, I settled on Fantasy Hero because, as a toolkit, I could tweak many elements to fit the creative changes that were transforming the Wilderlands of High Fantasy into the Majestic Wilderlands. However, Fantasy HERO 1e still had too much of Champion's DNA in it, but then I found GURPS.

GURPS was perfect for how I ran things because 95% of time it had an answer for the most off the wall thing that players wanted to do. And the procedure nearly always made sense. Except for super powers, for some reason, SJ Games could never get that right for GURPS 3e. Anyway, Fantasy Hero is where describing first, rolling second became important for my campaign. And GURPS supported that even better.

My Majestic Fantasy rules are based on OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry. I only embraced it after I read various histories about the origins of tabletop roleplaying and D&D came out. That and 30 years more experience allowed me to tweak OD&D to do things I was doing with GURPS and characters, but without the weight of GURPS Mechanics and with the advantage of keeping compatible with classic D&D material.

So while I ignore gameplay, using systems remains vitally important as an aid for the adjudication process. And as a terse but effective form of communication with the players about their character's capabilities.

I am going to amend that slightly. While I don't care about gameplay, I do care about ease of use and elegance. Which is why I often adopt systems that are also good games, although that is not an attribute I look for.

So I think we agree that not all NPCs are equally important.

I concur

Sorry, I'm not sure which you mean? Do you mean the one I was replying to?

No about how while blocking is not a thing, players expect to fail and deal with the consequences of failure. Some may argue that blocking and failure are synonymous, but they are not. Blocking is a deliberate decision; failure is a consequence of making an attempt with an uncertain result.

So you're saying that the GM's conception of the NPC is not more important than how the NPC fits into play... but you also said that beyond stats, you base your NPCs entirely on the game world.

Yes, I base my NPCs entirely on the game world. It could be argued that it is a form of GM conception, but GM Conception is overly broad and does little to clarify what I actually do. As for game stats they are part of the NPC's description and tersely describe what the NPC is capable of.

Good questions.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Depending on the context, of course it can be.

I'm curious too: does anyone think the GM narrating a dead end and the GM keeping it secret that the NPC is described, in the GM's notes, as unable to be persuaded to do <this salient thing>, are similar techniques?

Hmmm your word salient I feel is key in your questioning.
It is likely the PCs may observe the guard beforehand in an attempt to determine what kind of code they follow.
For D&D that falls to the Insight roll.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

So the answer to "why do we distrust players but trust GMs" is "because we do."

Now you know why I have said the answers are unsatisfactory.

Note that presuming good faith on the GM's part but not presuming good faith on the player's part is specifically my issue here.

We invest some trust in the DM to provide an interesting environment and challenges.

Why the DM? Because they volunteered to DM and I may not feel like DMing.

But more to the point—-you asked why it is set up this way. Well, the game was designed that way because the founders thought that worked.

Many people still think these roles are helpful. That is not a dodge a just ‘cause.

It might be more helpful to just say I don’t like the traditional set up vs. ask a rhetorical question. Or not.

The traditional way is not for everyone and that is fine. But it is there for a reason. Not liking that historical note does not make it less the case.

If people don’t trust the dm it can be a problem. I get it. I am fortunate to both play with friends and family and to be agreeable and not too demanding in other cases.

Playing well with others is a strength of mine. If that cannot be leveraged, no doubt I would leave a group.

I hope everyone can find good enough and find the fun is more than that in the end.