Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941331If your PCs are in an undercroft and there are undead about, do you enable them to try and sneak past from above via hanging beams or, say, have weak walls that they can break through to circumvent areas with concentrated undead?

It is increasingly obvious from posts like this and Shipyard Locked's that even in our little corner of teh internetz some posters approach the GM's role with a very different mindset from what I once thought to be a consensus of sorts here.

I believe it is the GM's role to present players with a fictional world with which they are free to interact, within the boundaries of the game's internal logic.

Most fantasy settings, gaming or otherwise, behave very much (maybe too much) like our own world. From gravity to human psychology, it's usually safe to extrapolate from real world situations and experience.

So, regarding your specific example...

Climbing up the beams to sneak past the undead? In most traditional roleplaying games, this is two, maybe three tasks to resolve for each character: one to climb up (sounds easy with the appropriate equipment, and difficult without) and another to, once up there, sneak (probably easy, depending on how high up the beams are and how perceptive your undead are). Finally, depending on how wide the beams are, you may elect to put them through a third check to see if they can keep their balance while crawling (easy, but slow) or walking (hard, but faster, assuming there's enough room
for the character(s) to stand up).

Breaking through the walls? Sounds noisy and sure to attract unwanted attention, assuming it's even possible — what are these walls made of, and in what condition do they stand? (well-kept masonry is unlikely to cede anytime soon to a party of four to six PCs, even if they have pickaxes and sledgehammers. Rotting wood is another story, but may still make noise and draw attention.)

Just create the scenery in your head and fill in the details as necessary, as PCs prod and poke looking for solutions. Never backtrack. Never be for or against your players. Just strive to build a consistent and believable world, and fairness should follow.

Quote from: estar;941339Take your conception of Undead, imagine the space as if you are really there, and see if a yes or no answer makes sense in that context.

If the bottom of the beams are six feet above the floor with a two foot clearance then no I don't think it makes sense for the party to use them to sneak past unless we are talking about undead halflings.

As for weak walls, are the walls defined as being weak in your write-up? If it doesn't say either way it is reasonable to assume that some walls are weak or perhaps the whole catacomb has weakened wall. Assign a probability and roll the dice to see if it is so.

The point of RPGs is to pretend to be a character interacting with an imagined setting doing interesting things. It not some board or miniature game with victory conditions to achieved by the use of the game rules. The rules are just one tool to be used by the human referee to handle what the character do. If the rules doesn't cover something that otherwise makes sense then you will have to use your judgment to make a ruling. The odds are high for most RPGs that there is something in the existing mechanics that can be used. For example Dexterity, Agility and Strength scores.

What should keep in mind is not to fall in the trap of thinking that the game is defined by the rules. It defined by the campaign you create around a particular setting.

I don't need help coming up systems or strategies to deal with in-game stuff -- I do think random roll tables are awesome though!

The beams would be about one-and-a-half to two stories above the undead in the example.

(Bearing in mind I came up with this example literally as writing the OP so environments are easy to create for me).

The idea of playing a *character* doesn't seem to be common as much as playing an incarnation of yourself, usually to play out a power fantasy. Doesn't really make sense to me. That's another topic, though.

I think that's true too: the precept of not using just static rules-based environs. It seems kinda boring to me. As a player, I would want to be able climb up on a crate next to wall and then use it to climb up on the roof then come down through the skylights of the building that way -- I don't want to *have* to go in through the front door.

What is weird is even though I have met and played with other GMs who espouse this notion, I'm only one who seems to follow it through that I've experienced. In one group back in time, we were breaking into a car dealership and when I wanted to go via the roof and the other players followed with me, the GM didn't know what to do. I asked if there were skylights (because flashy dealerships on a lot tend to have them) and he wasn't sure what to do but said nervously "yes". We broke in through there but there was no alarm or security measures or anything -- made no sense. Just no reactivity.

Quote from: Omega;941343I dont enable them.

I look at the situation as has been described and judge if what they are trying to do is feasable within that context.

Normally I have ceilings high enough that such a thing should be possible. But there are times when its not. And there are lots of times theres no structure to even try it with. I usually note this sort of stuff in the initial descriptions for an area or when its a new feature to an established locale.

As for punching through a wall. Same thing. Has it been established that theres a weak wall section here or previously. More likely Id allow a dwarf character to search for flaws in the stone to hit a spot where a wall is thin and break through there. I usually though ask. "Are you sure?" and remind them that damaging or making holes in structures, especially underground ones can have disastrous consequences.

The group I DM for currently is really good at using the environment when they can.

Environmental stuff is really cool. I like creating environments that my players can interact with and manipulate to help them achieve their objectives.

I like the idea of a building falling down because you blew away its structural integrity. I don't think I would have them worry about doing it underground in that same way -- unless the structure was crappy to begin with, it's not collapsing because one wall got kicked in. So if it's a VC tunnel, sure, but your stereotypical dwarven ruins needs a steampunk bomb to go down.

Quote from: Shemek hiTankolel;941357Every encounter I present to my players will never have only one solution. There's more than one way to skin a cat. I don't enable them, but I do reward clever play. In fact, they rarely resort to head on confrontation anymore.

Shemek.

I tend to make direct confrontation lethal as fuck. I also like my players playing clever because I like to create challenging obstacles for them. And if they use creative thinking to take on an enemy, I counter it with something just as tricky. Some of my players will be irritated by this because they expect to just do their thing and the enemies just shoot at them -- others love it because they need to get around them real sneaky-like beat them at their own game.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;941342In my group, players don't ask questions. Based on what has happened up to that point, players have an idea of what is possible or not and then state where they are and what they are trying to do at that moment. Then a roll is made.

That sounds crap.

Quote from: Spinachcat;941431I treat PCs as competent. I don't expect players to have their PC's knowledge. A dwarf may note a weakness in the wall and understand the dangers / risks that poses even though the player may not. I have no problem saying "your hero knows...." when there isn't a reason for the player to have that knowledge. Heck, Call of Cthulhu even has a Knowledge roll for this stuff.

I tend to ask for rolls from my players to help em' out, especially if they're struggling or there's a solution that would be more simple than what they have planned (though that does not mean it is more elegant or, in fact, better than theirs). If other players present them with an idea, I also have them roll too. I have a couple of players who are particularly enthusiastic about thinking about a solution and then telling it to the others but their character isn't there to express it so I have them roll.

Quote from: nDervish;941435I'm not sure how you're using "enable" here, so I won't give a straight yes-or-no answer, but, if there are appropriate hanging beams present, then I'll allow them to use those beams to sneak past and, if there's a weak wall, then they're perfectly free to break through it.  However, I will not specifically place hanging beams or weak walls for the express purpose of creating opportunities for players to do these things.  And I absolutely won't let players use out-of-character metapoints to conjure them into existence solely for the sake of ensuring that they can always do anything and everything they might dream up.

So:

- I will "enable" players to use anything present to their advantage
- I will not place things with the specific intention of "enabling" certain solutions
- I do not "enable" players to place things during play via narrative fiat

I don't do that. If what they're saying is interesting and/or may lead to emergent behavior (which is usually the case), I say yes to it. I've done this more than a few times and it's come in handy when I haven't planned out or thought of a setup or consequence for an environ or PC, respectively.

Quote from: The Butcher;941465It is increasingly obvious from posts like this and Shipyard Locked's that even in our little corner of teh internetz some posters approach the GM's role with a very different mindset from what I once thought to be a consensus of sorts here.

I believe it is the GM's role to present players with a fictional world with which they are free to interact, within the boundaries of the game's internal logic.

Most fantasy settings, gaming or otherwise, behave very much (maybe too much) like our own world. From gravity to human psychology, it's usually safe to extrapolate from real world situations and experience.

So, regarding your specific example...

Climbing up the beams to sneak past the undead? In most traditional roleplaying games, this is two, maybe three tasks to resolve for each character: one to climb up (sounds easy with the appropriate equipment, and difficult without) and another to, once up there, sneak (probably easy, depending on how high up the beams are and how perceptive your undead are). Finally, depending on how wide the beams are, you may elect to put them through a third check to see if they can keep their balance while crawling (easy, but slow) or walking (hard, but faster, assuming there's enough room
for the character(s) to stand up).

Breaking through the walls? Sounds noisy and sure to attract unwanted attention, assuming it's even possible — what are these walls made of, and in what condition do they stand? (well-kept masonry is unlikely to cede anytime soon to a party of four to six PCs, even if they have pickaxes and sledgehammers. Rotting wood is another story, but may still make noise and draw attention.)

Just create the scenery in your head and fill in the details as necessary, as PCs prod and poke looking for solutions. Never backtrack. Never be for or against your players. Just strive to build a consistent and believable world, and fairness should follow.

Like this, Butcher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR4ZAeYtYIU&t=07m26s | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJLlbNj_ewo&t=0m41s

I have had players come to me and ask me to not base the game world on internal systems and a consistent world logic because it made them feel they couldn't just do what they wanted, essentially. I then had other players come to me and said they liked how I have this realistic, logical world but then asked me to get more extreme with it where essentially there'd be a lot of no's to everything. It's weird and makes no sense the polarity of it.

I tend to have creatures walking around, patrolling, eating, drinking, talking and stuff. One time some Mage PCs were infiltrating a motel from the back while a violent battle was raging at the front and as they were making their way up a stairwell, they heard a conversation between some guards (which got them laughing, what they were talking about too, which was cool) and then they went off to check out the nearby hallways. I did that, you know, to breathe life into the world but at any point they could have taken the guards there which could have helped but might not have either. There were big holes in the floor too in the hallways beyond that door that they'd need to jump over to fall through to lower floor to come up from the other side instead (which they could blast open with magic or whatever else).

They also had multiple things going on to deal with during the raid and locations and stuff which goes into the realm of non-linearity but that's off-topic. What is on-topic is that accessing the enemy bossman's room could be done via the door to the room, from the balcony of the room via fire escape or roof, around the side of the hallway where there was already some smoking holes via a magic fight or through the roof directly or from underneath via another room (which itself had enemies to deal with). Just lots of stuff for them to contend with. And they realised, I think, that there was lots of stuff because they were seperated into essentially three groups just navigating the same AOA.

Why is this not more common? Just throwing them an environment but one which is structured instead of "here's a sandbox world: go sandbox!".

(By the way, when I said post-2000 fantasy, this is one example of what I meant in the videos).

I thought that was sandboxing, or at least a common variation. I'm not sure what you mean by "structured". If I treat the environment in a realistic manner, I actually have less to plan.

There are players that I've had to "train", so that they understood they could employ lateral thinking and that the environment would react in a realistic way. But, once that understanding was reached, things usually proceeded swimmingly.

Quote from: Baron Opal;941512I thought that was sandboxing, or at least a common variation. I'm not sure what you mean by "structured". If I treat the environment in a realistic manner, I actually have less to plan.

There are players that I've had to "train", so that they understood they could employ lateral thinking and that the environment would react in a realistic way. But, once that understanding was reached, things usually proceeded swimmingly.

Sandboxing is where you throw PCs into a game world and say "go do shit, I dunno, fuck". Like, you draw up this big map and shit and just say "you begin at these crossroads, they take you blah blah, glag glag and etc etc. There's forest around you and like animals and shit." All grand stuff but not really much structure or really any missions or stuff to do. I'm not really a fan of that at all, it's a bit shit.

I see. I do expect the players to have the motivation to find their own adventures. However, I also throw them a few hooks at the beginning so that they know what's out there, what the world is like, and can choose an initial theme.

That's litterboxing. A good sandbox is full of hooks and options.

I guess I'm not seeing the conflict between a structured environment and an open environment. Clearly you see the conflict. But I may be missing specific elements you require for a game to not be "shit." (If you mean literally dumping Players at a crossroads and saying, "Go" -- I have never seen anyone do that. Do people do that? If they do, I don't call that a sandbox. I call that screwing over your players with too little information to make any choices of value of any kind.)

And now that you've explained why you meant about enabling and being "good at freeform gameplay" -- I'm good at it. It's how I play. I expect the Players to come up with ideas and solutions that surprise me and react not with panic but with delight and excitement.

Quote from: saskganesh;941529That's litterboxing. A good sandbox is full of hooks and options.

Interesting. I don't see the contradiction. Perhaps I didn't explain adequately.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;941530I expect the Players to come up with ideas and solutions that surprise me and react not with panic but with delight and excitement.

Indeed, it's more fun that way. I get to improvise more.

Quote from: Baron Opal;941534Interesting. I don't see the contradiction. Perhaps I didn't explain adequately.

I'm not sure, but I suspect saskganesh was responding to PrometheanVigil.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;941536I'm not sure, but I suspect saskganesh was responding to PrometheanVigil.

I'm almost sure that is the case, and I found it a good answer, too:). Though I think the way he explains "sandboxing" is just "sandboxing done incompetently".
Funny enough, what I'd consider a competently-run sandbox is (almost?) exactly what he calls "throwing together some structure".

Quote from: AsenRG;941542I'm almost sure that is the case, and I found it a good answer, too:). Though I think the way he explains "sandboxing" is just "sandboxing done incompetently".
Funny enough, what I'd consider a competently-run sandbox is (almost?) exactly what he calls "throwing together some structure".

Hence why I'm not seeing the conflict in what he's talking about.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;941545Hence why I'm not seeing the conflict in what he's talking about.

I think he's just seen mostly incompetent sandboxes, and came to associate the practice with this name. If that's the case, I'd understand why he would want to pick a different name for his games...
Or maybe he's been discussing it with people who claim to run sandbox games, yet run them in the aforementioned manner (pretending "we run the game the way Gigax, Mentzer and Holmes meant it to be run" optional;)).

The only time Ive reigned in Freeform play by my players has been when their choice completely eliminated the game we had come to play. It hasn't happened often, perhaps 3 or 4 times in several decades but when it does I stopped the action, explained that they were free to proceed the way they intended but it would seriously alter the direction of the game and probably postpone the session while I prepared for something different. In every case they were open to changing their minds with some discussion and explanation and we went on as planned.

One example was a lengthy and detailed haunted mansion mystery I planned wherein one player immediately suggested burning the place down when they first laid eyes on it. The others were quickly on board and didn't care a shits if the owners complained, authorities responded etc. They were gonna fight Evil by God! I would have let them if they had insisted but thankfully they backed off when I explained it was the investigation of the house that we had gotten together to play, not a 5 minute arson adventure.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941522Sandboxing is where you throw PCs into a game world and say "go do shit, I dunno, fuck". Like, you draw up this big map and shit and just say "you begin at these crossroads, they take you blah blah, glag glag and etc etc. There's forest around you and like animals and shit." All grand stuff but not really much structure or really any missions or stuff to do. I'm not really a fan of that at all, it's a bit shit.

You are SO FUCKING WRONG

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG  WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONGWRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

that the light from RIGHT will not reach you for eighty quadrillion eternities after the heat death of the universe!

Quote from: rgrove0172;941554. . . [T]hey backed off when I explained it was the investigation of the house that we had gotten together to play, not a 5 minute arson adventure.

Sounds like the players should've burned the referee's notes then played Risk.