D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?

[TwoSix]

And what do you do - particularly in sandbox play - when one or more players want to spend more time on everything? When their (perhaps unspoken) goal is to deep-dive into the setting and-or each other's characters, with the adventures merely a distraction from these pursuits? Or when their (perhaps unspoken) goal is to do a bunch of other non-adventuring or downtime stuff e.g. fight or prank each other, get involved in local politics, spend time on deep info-gathering and research, develop new spells, etc.?

I can't speak for @Hussar, but I would (and have done this in the past) bail out of the game.

I wouldn't do this in my current groups because we're all friends, but in earlier years where I've played with mostly acquaintances, I've absolutely dropped games where the sessions were almost entirely "faffing around", and I couldn't get the party motivated to actually do anything for multiple sessions.

 

[James Gasik]

Each DM and player have their own preferred pacing. I try to be open, if the group wants to go adventuring and get to it with minimum fuss, no problem, I got all the dungeons and the dragons. If they want to spend a little time exploring the town and getting to know the NPC's, that's great, I got all the plot hooks and side content.

Where I usually draw the line is if they want to split up with each character trying to get a solo adventure while I have to worry about keeping the other players involved in the game, which is the problem I used to have with "going to major city to shop" sessions- I put my foot down now and say you can either get with me on Discord or we can pass emails, or you can stick with the group because I've been the player who got locked out of the game for hours on end in the past because the DM wanted to pull people into another room (this happened in D&D but all the damned time when I played VtM) and it sucks.

I don't have patience for PvP actions (I tell 'em to let me know what happened, I have better things to do).

I despise one PC hiding information that the group should know (If you don't trust these people why are you traveling with them?).

I also try to move along the old "taking prisoners who will always turn around and backstab us" debates. I usually have captured NPC's be very clear about what they are going to do. If the ogre you saved is loyal to his tribe, he'll probably tell you what you want to know, but he's going to go back to his tribe if you let him go.

I also draw the line at out of game/out of character drama. I don't care who sleeps with who, if that means you can't game together, don't show up to game, thanks.

Oh and as a rule, I don't accept drugs and alcohol...wait, what was I talking about?

Oh right, pacing. Yeah so I'm flexible, but if I feel like people's precious time (especially mine) is being wasted, I'll push to move things along. Note that if everyone is having fun, that's never wasted time (as in, they're laughing, smiling, engaged, and into character).

(If they're frowning, looking at their phones, and seem frustrated, I don't know, I'm not a Betazoid, but I think that's a good sign someone isn't having fun.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

And what do you do - particularly in sandbox play - when one or more players want to spend more time on everything? When their (perhaps unspoken) goal is to deep-dive into the setting and-or each other's characters, with the adventures merely a distraction from these pursuits? Or when their (perhaps unspoken) goal is to do a bunch of other non-adventuring or downtime stuff e.g. fight or prank each other, get involved in local politics, spend time on deep info-gathering and research, develop new spells, etc.?

I cherish that player.

 

[Hussar]

You keep saying things like this, but that's not my experience from either side of the screen.

That does seem weird. I wouldn't have had you roll. The only way I'd have had you roll is if there was some valuable/secret/special spot on the door and I would need to know if you randomly hit it, but 99.99% of the time you'd have just stabbed the door and we'd move along with whatever roleplay followed.

See here’s the thing.

It’s not weird. It’s pretty par for the course. It’s what I’ve seen from dm after dm stretching back decades. It happens all the time.

Why do you think they included the infamous “skip the gate guards” advice in the 4e DMG? They weren’t making that up.

 

[Hussar]

.

And what do you do - particularly in sandbox play - when one or more players want to spend more time on everything? When their (perhaps unspoken) goal is to deep-dive into the setting and-or each other's characters, with the adventures merely a distraction from these pursuits? Or when their (perhaps unspoken) goal is to do a bunch of other non-adventuring or downtime stuff e.g. fight or prank each other, get involved in local politics, spend time on deep info-gathering and research, develop new spells, etc.?

I do what I did in the past.

Find a new group.

I have extremely little free time. I’m not interested in spending my very limited free time on “pranks”. Get on with the game.

I’d much, Much rather actually complete a campaign than play in dozens of half campaigns. I’ve DONE dozens of half campaigns. I’m not interested anymore.

Thirty minute hockey game? Fantastic. Best thing I’ve heard of all day.

Doesn’t have to even be combat focused at all. If it’s 100% role play without a single die drop, that’s cool too. Your mistake is in thinking that “get to the point= combat.

Not at all.

Get to the point gaming means exactly that. Get to the point. Don’t faff around with a bunch of pointless trivia like “do you break your dagger?”

Oh and to clarify, I stabbed the door on the suspicion of it possibly being a mimic.

 

[CreamCloud0]

See here’s the thing.

It’s not weird. It’s pretty par for the course. It’s what I’ve seen from dm after dm stretching back decades. It happens all the time.

Why do you think they included the infamous “skip the gate guards” advice in the 4e DMG? They weren’t making that up.

could you elaborate slightly on what 'the skip the gate guards advice' means here for someone who didn't play 4e?

 

[TwoSix]

could you elaborate slightly on what 'the skip the gate guards advice' means here for someone who didn't play 4e?

As an example, let’s say the party was entering a major city to meet with the duke. A major city probably has guards at the gate. Just because those guards are there doesn’t mean the DM is required to have a roleplaying scene including them.

This is controversial precisely because those sort of encounters (the random city guards) are the point of play for those who favor sandbox/emergent play.

For those sort of players, meeting the guards, getting into a fight, getting thrown into prison, and then organizing a prison riot to escape, and 5 sessions later saying “Hey, what about that meeting with the duke?” is the exact sort of experience they crave.

 

[Hussar]

.


So I have to ask: why do you even play TTRPGs? Why not just play non-RPG video games, or board games? It's not for the journey and it doesn't sound like it's for the "roleplaying with your friends" part of it either. So what do you get out of it?

Fair question I suppose.

I’m playing at it’s heart to create an interesting story with my group. That might be any story. Doesn’t really matter what the story is too much - could be action, could be romance, mystery or something else or a combination of different genres.

But we are creating a story.

And every story, in order to be a story, requires a conclusion. That’s the basic requirement for a story - character, setting and plot.

Many DMs imo understand the first two parts of that but forget the third. Simply having characters and setting is not a story. Faffing about on meaningless, pointless side stuff is not a story.

And I want to create a story. So if the story is at Point B and we are at Point A and the character has the means to get us from A to B without any real problems, then why am I as the dm going to get in the way here? The players want to go to Point B. They have made it perfectly clear that that’s the goal here and the story of the campaign doesn’t advance until we get to B.

So let’s get going.

 

[Scott Christian]

While I agree with everything else, but that bolded but isn;t quite so accurate. 5e has done a lot that encourages players to take that antagonist mindset from video games & apply it to the meat computer across the GM screen. First you have a lot of stuff designed to give players a "no it doesn't" veto if the GM points out a problem (ie see the hundreds of pages filled with discussion over background features) Then there is the way they spent so much effort binding the GM's hands with AL & shifting things* that are traditionally a GM's discretion to players themselves. Players who come in from video games through AL who once might have rules lawyered a bit before backing off so the game could continue wind up maintaining that adversarial antagonist mindset in order avoid rules lawyering & force the GM on the defense trying to justify their GM calls instead. Players who might not have cared enough to get involved get roped in by the plain reading & maintain a wary shield ready to support any player being wronged by an unfavorable GM call or houserul not covered in sessionzero

* IE download the AL plyers guide & the DM equivalent sometime & check out what they have to say about choosing magic items& treasure. TL;DR version of it is the ALPG pretty much grants players the ability to choose them & likewise can level their PC (or not) whenever they want while the DM equivalent is explicit about how the game needs to take RAW to a whole new level for the rules themselves & for a long time the adventures too but any gold & treasure in the adventure is not awarded to players.

You're right. That is a more than fair take.

 

[tetrasodium]

As an example, let’s say the party was entering a major city to meet with the duke. A major city probably has guards at the gate. Just because those guards are there doesn’t mean the DM is required to have a roleplaying scene including them.

This is controversial precisely because those sort of encounters (the random city guards) are the point of play for those who favor sandbox/emergent play.

For those sort of players, meeting the guards, getting into a fight, getting thrown into prison, and then organizing a prison riot to escape, and 5 sessions later saying “Hey, what about that meeting with the duke?” is the exact sort of experience they crave.

Id say that it class even more reasons to be controversial given that "gate" guards can be pretty freaking important in setting the baseline of some game worlds. Take any world or region with Edo style travel restrictions like maybe parts of darksun maybe some versions of thay or just any homebrew world using them . Since it's based very loosely on a historical figure it two and things england actually did for reasons covered in the series I'll name Netflix's blue eye samurai as a great example of how functional competent "gate guards" who are also competent can dramatically alter how a setting needs to be juggled alongside overall questing. If you go looking back at places consider led to be "wild West" towns in us history it won't take long to find evidence of a completely different twist on the impact made by those guards with the extremely strict turn in your weapons to the sheriff upon arrival in town or else laws in nearly all of them.

While I mostly skipped 4e I'll point to the examples above as reasons why they probably should have had a player facing sidebar explaining how competent law enforcement can impose complications like travel restrictions and arms control can dramatically change the feel of a setting.