D&D 5E Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room

[jrowland]

Thought experiment:

In the design notes you've written for a level 15 party you have:

Wave after wave of kobolds poor through the many doors once the gong is sounded.

Is that "making it up as you go"?

What about "4 waves of 20 kobolds each pour through the many doors, one wave every odd round?" but then during the fight you decide to add another wave because a)it really won't change the outcome and b)keeps the cinematic tension high. Is that "making it up as you go"?

At what level of preparation is it ok and what level is it not ok? Do you need a full adventure module single-spaced and 1" margins? Is a single sheet of paper with notes sufficient?

But hey, at least we have a hobby where all welcome and people don't apply negative labels to other who play differently.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

If you decide what's behind the door before the PCs get there, they have real options of what door to open with real consequences. If you decide whats behind the door when they open it, then it was just a phantom choice, and that's the problem with sandbox play as I see it. Lots of flag waving about player freedom and choices and in the end still its just a DM making up whatever he wants after each player "choice", thereby making those "choices" trivial or meaningless.

That's not what most people would consider a sandbox. What you're describing is at least partially encompassed by the term "illusionism" and is typically used when a DM has prepared material they want to use, or to keep a plot-based adventure moving in the right direction.

It seems to me that a number of people who preach a sandbox approach one of the most important aspects is that the DM has as little input once the game is underway, where everything is placed before the players make their decisions. Either the stuff is where the DM placed it, or it's determined randomly, but the DM isn't supposed to "impose their will" on the game otherwise.

In a sandbox, exploration is paramount. If they characters are looking for a lost tomb, the location of the tomb is already known to the DM. It's a question of whether the characters can find it.

Nowadays, I see a lot of recommendations against this, for several reasons. First, the DM puts in a lot of pre-session preparation, for lots of material that will never come into play. In addition, if there is something specific the characters are looking for, it can sometimes take several sessions of exploring to find it. So techniques, like the one you don't like, are recommended or used. In some cases they are tied to player choice/character skills.

For example, instead of having to actually stumble across the location of the tomb by picking directions, following clues, etc., the players can still follow those clues, and the characters can make skill checks, and when success is determined, they've found the tomb. The placement of the tomb may not have been determined ahead of time, or it could just be that the DM used the players actions and rolls to ensure they ended up where they needed to on a fixed map.

So the real question is, does it really matter? If the DM has a map, with hexes, and a specific hex divided into sub-hexes, and the tomb placed precisely ahead of time, is it better to let the PCs wander around for 5 sessions because they aren't quite getting it right? Or is it better to be less rigid in the design, and determine an appropriate time and potentially skill checks, etc. before arriving?

Nowadays, a more common approach is to avoid the exploration altogether, and narrate the journey.

The reality is that you can also blend these techniques, and I think that that's the approach that works best for me. If the PCs are searching for a tomb that's been lost for thousands of years, does it really need to be right here? Why not over there? The important part isn't usually exactly where it is, but that the PCs actually find it. So a general placement (within these hills) is usually sufficient for me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If the DM has a map, with hexes, and a specific hex divided into sub-hexes, and the tomb placed precisely ahead of time, is it better to let the PCs wander around for 5 sessions because they aren't quite getting it right? Or is it better to be less rigid in the design, and determine an appropriate time and potentially skill checks, etc. before arriving?

Nowadays, a more common approach is to avoid the exploration altogether, and narrate the journey.

I know this is the problematic Elephant thread and not the problematic Exploration thread, but, I think it'd be closer to say that the more 'modern' (this millennium) approach is to handle the exploration more abstractly, with focus on the character's abilities and the story, rather than to avoid or hand-wave it, as opposed to the old-school approach of putting the goal under a metaphorical shell, and waiting for the players, based on their ability to play the shell game, to look under the right shell.

That's not what most people would consider a sandbox.

Yeah, but most people aren't Tabaxi....

 

[shoak1]

The two camps that @Lanefan was speaking about were those who prefer to play in a tactical manner, such as you, and those that enjoy "escapist roleplaying". This wasn't necessarily about changing content or not. And I don't see why people can't view the game as a tactical game, and also as escapist roleplay. I feel like my game incorporates both.

Creating/editing content on the fly is the defining line between the two styles illuminated by the author.

Meh, agency is being "tainted" either way. Sure, you can say that a DM making content up on the fly could minimize the PCs' agency. I don't think that it must do so, but it certainly could.

I'm not surprised by your poistion on this - I suspect that in order to be content playing with an omnipotent DM changing and creating content on the fly, one would need to believe that doing so doesn't taint player agency.

But your style is no less guilty. They must proceed in the manner expected by your pre-written adventure. That is a limitation on their agency. Now, your players may not mind it at all, so it may not be an issue for your group, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss it.

Dismiss it??? I have very, very consistently maintained that there is both a loss of player agency (control over where to go) and a gain in player agency (less DM taint) in playing a tactical style.

This is why I think that games can utilize elements of both styles. Why can't they? I mean, I can design an adventure with a linear section followed by a sandbox section pretty easily.....let's say they have to take a road to get to the "lost valley". The road is linear, the valley is an open environment.

You may want to reread the passage in question. Its not about linear vs sandbox - its about DM impartiality and taint. The author believes as I do that a DM creating/inserting/changing content on the fly taints player agency.

Okay....but have you not ever made a mistake in what you've prepared? What if you realize that you have made an encounter that is unintentionally far too challenging? How do you handle that when it happens?.....As a DM, do you try to correct such a situation or do you just play the villains to the hilt and crush the PCs?

If I made a math error (like calcing it for 4500 xp in stead of 3400 xp) then I discuss it with players and see if we can fix it. But if the particular monsters were correct in xp and just exploited the party's weaknesses then - well - sucks to be them, sorry. We aren't playing to sit around and sing songs and give hugs, we are playing to win lol - its a tactical challenge to the death. So I will play the bad guys with bloody resolve, wipe the party, and probably make fun of their weakness as well

So you are willing to adjust encounters based on the prevailing circumstances at the table....how is that really different from what others have said? Do you limit such changes to be based on the number of players only?

the latter

Are there other factors that may warrant such changes? Do you only allow changes that you've considered and written beforehand?

the latter

You use the "omniscient DM" comment as a joke a lot....but it sounds like you must be one in order to never make a mistake along these lines....

It seems you are trying to push me into some extremist position here to be honest. Of course I make mistakes. Of course I have to make some rulings. etc. But do I limit those as much as possible? Yes. Taint is not like a killer virus that kills you with 1 drop. More DM taint is worse than less DM taint.

I find it interesting that you delegate to a player for rulings. I don't think there's anything wrong with that....but since I've seen you question a DM's impartiality, I am surprised to see you rely on a players impartiality for rulings. Surely if a player can be impartial, so can a DM, no?

Rulings are not unique to D and D. Get a group of gamers together for any game and there's likely gonna have to be some rulings. You just try to be impartial. Again - no need to try to pigeon hole my style into extremism. The goal in this style is to limit DM taint, not eliminate it. Re-read the passage - the author explains it very well. If you still don't get it I don't think there's any thing I can say that will help you understand it better.

 

[shoak1]

It seems to me that a number of people who preach a sandbox approach one of the most important aspects is that the DM has as little input once the game is underway, where everything is placed before the players make their decisions. Either the stuff is where the DM placed it, or it's determined randomly, but the DM isn't supposed to "impose their will" on the game otherwise.

In a sandbox, exploration is paramount. If they characters are looking for a lost tomb, the location of the tomb is already known to the DM. It's a question of whether the characters can find it..

OK so I'm not as term savvy as some of you - instead of saying "sandbox" was I supposed to say "open sandbox" (as opposed to a "closed pre-defined sandbox") to refer to the players being able to go out of the prescripted/preset/developed area??

 

[shoak1]

Thought experiment:

In the design notes you've written for a level 15 party you have:

Wave after wave of kobolds poor through the many doors once the gong is sounded.

Is that "making it up as you go"?

It's not "making it up as you go," but those notes suck - it should be pre-defined how many waves

What about "4 waves of 20 kobolds each pour through the many doors, one wave every odd round?" but then during the fight you decide to add another wave because a)it really won't change the outcome and b)keeps the cinematic tension high. Is that "making it up as you go"?

absolutely

At what level of preparation is it ok and what level is it not ok? Do you need a full adventure module single-spaced and 1" margins? Is a single sheet of paper with notes sufficient?

hmmm seems like you are more concerned with poking fun at my style, as is common in these forums, than in being inclusive.....so maybe I'll just skip the rest of your questions.....

But hey, at least we have a hobby where all welcome and people don't apply negative labels to other who play differently.

Yeah it seems they just instead hurl camoflauged insults, back-handed compliments, and snide remarks - right buddy?

 

[shoak1]

DM engagement aside, I'd rather play a CRPG on my PC than be a player in a session with a DM that isn't willing to improvise some content or make rulings in the gray areas when the party decides to color outside the lines. If you're severely restricting my dynamic engagement, at least give me some nice graphics and immersive audio to help facilitate a convincing illusion for a few hours.

How about this?

 

[shoak1]

OK, now we're going down a different rabbit hole. If a player's not there, what happens to that person's character? Does it just arbitrarily vanish? Or - much more realistically - is it still in the party and still able to contribute just the same as if it had a player attached?

vanishes or "is back at camp" lol

Also, every encounter being that finely balanced could get dull after a while - it's fun to have some now and then that are complete pushovers and some others that we just can't win. Lanefan

"Balanced" is in terms of resource management, not in terms of every battle is a fight to the death.

 

[shoak1]

Maybe this has been brought up but this reminds me of when EGG posted here and was talking about players going off the path. He was talking about when he’s prepped an adventure area, dungeon, caverns, etc, and then players would be “nah, we are going to just wander over here and do this” where he had nothing prepared. And his response was pretty much "well I’ve got this area I’ve put together since you guys said you wanted to do some dungeon bashing but now you don’t, so my work is maybe wasted and I have nothing setup there so I guess that is the end of the session for tonight”. Many cried foul. I can see it both ways and can run both ways but honestly things are going to be more fun where I had time to work on stuff and would prefer to go there.

well said

 

[Lanefan]

Dismiss it??? I have very, very consistently maintained that there is both a loss of player agency (control over where to go) and a gain in player agency (less DM taint) in playing a tactical style.

I don't think anyone is challenging your consistency - you've been quite steadfast in your position; and that's to your credit.

What I'm saying (and maybe others are saying, but I'm not sure) is that you're steadfastly defending what is to me an undefendable position, in that the loss of player agency (control over where to go*) is an unacceptable cost - particularly as the gain in player agency you mention as its tradeoff can be largely achieved without it. The DM just has to quite literally be prepared for anything...and if you know your game world well enough this is quite possible to do about 99% of the time.

* - and control over what to do, to some extent.

You may want to reread the passage in question. Its not about linear vs sandbox - its about DM impartiality and taint. The author believes as I do that a DM creating/inserting/changing content on the fly taints player agency.

If done wrong it certainly can taint player agency, no doubt there. But it's by no means guaranteed that it will...and in fact in a story-first situation it'll even increase player agency as the DM is bound by the rules to insert what the players or the dice just put there, or something like that.

The way I see it, if you're crawling through a dungeon and have seen signs of kobolds and then you open a door and get jumped by 6 kobolds it doesn't matter one iota from the player side whether those kobolds were written in 8 months ago or 8 seconds ago. There's 6 kobolds. Fight 'em. Kill 'em. Loot 'em. Move on.

Personally I just wish I was good enough at this to be able to wing entire dungeons on the fly, but the spatial mapping stuff always torpedoes me. Give me a blank map, however, and I can wing the rest no problem; and the players will never know the difference.

Lanefan