Dream House of the Nether Prince

Right, this is the key. The only difference in theory is that in my game the characters' actions don't matter. They likely have consequences, but they don't matter, with all the implicit meaning that makes that a semi-loaded phrase. If they go team evil then I have different dynamic in their opposition, and it will be short-term "easier" and long-term more difficult, but that's about it. If they want to be the bad guys, be the bad guys. I have no particular expectations or preference for them to choose one path or another.

That's a sensible way of looking at it. Do I take the shortcut for the short-term gain, hoping it will allow me enough maneuvering room to face the long-term consequences is a problem that is interesting from a gameplay perspective.
 
This is the worst. For players and DM alike. Like you said, it bogs the game down. Formalities of alignment must be observed, interrogation must be slogged through with or without a pile of opposing skill rolls depending on the system, and then there's the deep inconvenience of figuring out what the hell to do with the captive (drag him along? tie him to a post? send him back to the authorities with a henchman? battlefield execution?).
My players dread it when the bad guys surrender or want to negotiate, because they feel obligated to let them and often miss out on the loot. Still, sometimes that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Recently, they fought a group of bands I'd loosely based off of characters in The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly. When they'd captured Clint Eastwood's character and started interrogating him, it was fun (for me) rationalizing (to them) his 1960's anti-hero motives. They eventually let him go since he was clearly a hired gun just looking to make a buck. It threw them I think, dealing out in the wild with humanity and (as EOTB reminded me) it's large neutrally-aligned lens of self-interest. In a dog-eat-dog world, men can treat eachother burtally. Get the other guy before he gets you. It was a nice counterpoint to the more clearly black-hardheartedness of the monsters, but would (IMO) get old if it were single-note or the main theme. I beleive it's a mistake to humanized the creatures lurking in the dark who hate the light.

Early on I made it clear that befriending a goblin wasn't ever going to work---they have no notion of friends. It's strictly peeking order: Obey the strong and dominate the weak. Zero morale code. Cruelty is fun if you can get away with it. Humanity is a blight that should be erradicated because it disgusts them by it's very nature. etc.

Some people need a quest to give them the kick in the ass to get going. Sometimes it's the sandbox designer's fault: If all you give them is 'You start here in the middle of a vast cloud of possibilities. What do you do?" you're likely to cause paralysis in the majority of players. It's good to have some kind of recognizable central narrative as a lifeline for the lost to cling onto until they figure out what their own priorities are. Once again, Witcher 3 absolutely nailed this. The Fallout games weren't half bad either.
That said, I'm afraid more and more people really are at the opposite extreme; looking to roll dice and play-act their way through someone else's failed fantasy novel. For them, a sandbox probably seems unbelievably lazy and 'immature'.
I think the key is interesting detail in almost everything so that the environment is constantly tugging at the PCs, soliciting help or wanting to steamroller over them. The world should never stop casting hooks at them---even when they are following one. The trick is to not have one central plots, but multiple central plots and countless subplots. Again, that's more work for the DM---and much of it potentially wasted work. It is my firm belief that the difference between excellence and mediocrity in a campaign is how many layers of the onion the DM is willing to prepare and how willing is he to let you to never uncover them. That's one of the take-aways I gleaned from my old DM.

A single, central "story" is the lowest-effort result and hardly a stone's throw from "I bought this story, so that's what we have to play." That doesn't mean it can't be fun, but the alternative is much richer. Bashing sandboxes is like complaining about having to go to work.
 
Last edited:
Right, this is the key. The only difference in theory is that in my game the characters' actions don't matter. They likely have consequences, but they don't matter, with all the implicit meaning that makes that a semi-loaded phrase. If they go team evil then I have different dynamic in their opposition, and it will be short-term "easier" and long-term more difficult, but that's about it. If they want to be the bad guys, be the bad guys. I have no particular expectations or preference for them to choose one path or another.
See, this is the thing. This is how I run my campaign as well, and I don't see how it is incompatible with players facing moral quandaries that arise from their own consciences. As for it mattering, the gods won't punish them, but the local constabulary might.

This is the worst. For players and DM alike. Like you said, it bogs the game down. Formalities of alignment must be observed, interrogation must be slogged through with or without a pile of opposing skill rolls depending on the system, and then there's the deep inconvenience of figuring out what the hell to do with the captive (drag him along? tie him to a post? send him back to the authorities with a henchman? battlefield execution?).
Both myself and the other DM in our group have taken to very obviously letting non-essential NPC's die before they can get captured. Like the strike to subdue does so much damage that it kills the NPC anyway. Basically the message being "let's keep playing". It's a definite act of DM fiat and no one likes it, but the alternative can be a real drag on the game night.
Interesting to contrast this with what @PrinceofNothing is always saying about taking captives to figure out where the treasure is hidden.

For myself, I can say as a player I have no issue dealing with this on a case by case basis. For example, the inconvenience to me as a player in dragging the captives back to town for trial is the effort is saying the words, "We escort the captives back to town and deliver them to the constable for trial." If there is some sort of timer that precludes that, well then I have to evaluate my priorities.

EDIT: I have also hired retainers to guard prisoners (not a big inconvenience, since I am already hiring retainers to guard the horses - and sometimes wagons, I tend to pick dungeons clean). And I have taken captives into my service, or let them go on conditions, or after providing information, or owing me a favour. Really there are a lot of opportunities here.

For those of you playing faux-medieval style games, you might want to consider the premodern concept of "parole", particularly with respect to prisoners of war (modern, too, in some places outside of the U.S.). Possibly with some tweaking for your game. If you incorporate it into your setting it can make taking prisoners less problematic.
 
Last edited:
For example, the inconvenience to me as a player in dragging the captives back to town for trial is the effort is saying the words, "We escort the captives back to town and deliver them to the constable for trial." If there is some sort of timer that precludes that, well then I have to evaluate my priorities.
I don't hand waive traveling. I think it's one of the most fun parts of the game---having a destination. If my players are several days or weeks out of town, it will likely take at least a few session (or more!) to get there...especially with all the potential distractions. So taking a prisoner in the deep outback or a dungeon is problematic. They often extract a promise and let them go...leave them tied up and walk away (if they haven't run out of rope)...or else kill them (after much hand-wringing) if they are too dangerous.
 
EDIT: I have also hired retainers to guard prisoners (not a big inconvenience, since I am already hiring retainers to guard the horses - and sometimes wagons, I tend to pick dungeons clean). And I have taken captives into my service, or let them go on conditions, or after providing information, or owing me a favour. Really there are a lot of opportunities here.

For those of you playing faux-medieval style games, you might want to consider the premodern concept of "parole", particularly with respect to prisoners of war (modern, too, in some places outside of the U.S.). Possibly with some tweaking for your game. If you incorporate it into your setting it can make taking prisoners less problematic.

Taking prisoners so you can learn information about where they keep their shit or use them for tricks is part of DnD I think, or at least it should be. One might even consider the use of and exchange for hostages and whatnot. I imagine it makes less sense when one fights orcs or other creatures that are blood enemies but with humans it should be an option.
 
For those of you playing faux-medieval style games, you might want to consider the premodern concept of "parole", particularly with respect to prisoners of war (modern, too, in some places outside of the U.S.). Possibly with some tweaking for your game. If you incorporate it into your setting it can make taking prisoners less problematic.

Well I never! Do you mean to suggest that learning will improve my D&D game? I swore 20 years ago never to do that again.
 
Like the strike to subdue does so much damage that it kills the NPC anyway. Basically the message being "let's keep playing". It's a definite act of DM fiat and no one likes it, but the alternative can be a real drag on the game night.

Two words bucko. Sleep. Spell. And then begins the intricate dance of Charm Person, threats, offers to defect, and questions of Where Is the Gold?
 
My favourite moment of prisoner-taking was playing Ben L's Through Ultan's Door. It was a FLAILSNAILS game of course, so my character is from Arthurian Britain, somebody is a 19th-century circus-performer illusionist, another guy is a Russian Orthodox priest, you get the idea. And we took some Fleischguilders prisoner and I TRIED to be the good guy about it, but the 18 STR fighter was from Empire of the Petal Throne...
 
This is the worst. For players and DM alike. Like you said, it bogs the game down. Formalities of alignment must be observed, interrogation must be slogged through with or without a pile of opposing skill rolls depending on the system, and then there's the deep inconvenience of figuring out what the hell to do with the captive (drag him along? tie him to a post? send him back to the authorities with a henchman? battlefield execution?).
Both myself and the other DM in our group have taken to very obviously letting non-essential NPC's die before they can get captured. Like the strike to subdue does so much damage that it kills the NPC anyway. Basically the message being "let's keep playing". It's a definite act of DM fiat and no one likes it, but the alternative can be a real drag on the game night.



Some people need a quest to give them the kick in the ass to get going. Sometimes it's the sandbox designer's fault: If all you give them is 'You start here in the middle of a vast cloud of possibilities. What do you do?" you're likely to cause paralysis in the majority of players. It's good to have some kind of recognizable central narrative as a lifeline for the lost to cling onto until they figure out what their own priorities are. Once again, Witcher 3 absolutely nailed this. The Fallout games weren't half bad either.
That said, I'm afraid more and more people really are at the opposite extreme; looking to roll dice and play-act their way through someone else's failed fantasy novel. For them, a sandbox probably seems unbelievably lazy and 'immature'.

My group doesn't see it as a inconvenience. Also for clarity--it bogs down the action or moving forward of the quest of the game but my group views a roleplay opportunity as part of the game. Several times my character has offered a prisoner a higher wage and suddenly I get a (untrustworthy) henchmen which sometimes works out and sometimes doesn't. But having a little back-up can help with the inter-party factions or a little more muscle to carry loot out or sometimes it causes a little chaos if I get backstabbed. I understand that most here don't like to roleplay during the game, so not trying to sway anyone's opinions here, just sharing that we enjoy those opportunities, like an empty room, it breaks up the action a bit. It is interesting to me how we all play the same game, but differently.

I've never understood the paralysis from players when provided options. Are designers going to have to restrict themselves to putting only 1-2 things in a room so players don't freak out with how many things there are to explore in a room? It's just the same thing with a bunch of quests but on a grander scale. Should hex crawls only have 1 hex in them? I thrive in those situations with abundant hooks/rumors/etc.--total freedom to tackle the set-ups/hooks the DM provided that interest me most. I'd counter that the players are the ones who are 'lazy' as the DM, as Squeen says, has developed several layers of an onion--that's hard work.

Makes me wonder if Choose Your Own Adventure books would be popular at all today or if people would just freak out and hate them because they are forced to make decisions for themselves. Give me lions to play with, not sheep.
 
I understand that most here don't like to roleplay during the game, so not trying to sway anyone's opinions here, just sharing that we enjoy those opportunities, like an empty room, it breaks up the action a bit. It is interesting to me how we all play the same game, but differently.
It's a roleplaying game. I do both. So did Gygax, although I find his characterizations a bit stock. 1e DMG p. 103:
Other Non-Player Characters: The host of merchants, shopkeepers, guardsmen, soldiers, clerics, magic-users, fighters, thieves, assassins, etc. are
likewise all yours to play. Again, this is simply a matter of assuming the station and vocation of the NPC and creating characteristics — formally or informally according to the importance of the non-player character. These NPCs will have some alignment, but even that won’t be likely to prevent a bit of greed or avariciousness. Dealing with all such NPCs should be expensive and irritating. Consider the two following examples:

The fighter, Celowin Silvershield, enters a strange town seeking aid from a high level magic-user in order to turn an associate back to flesh (after a most unfortunate encounter with a cockatrice). His inquiries at a tavern meet with vague answers until several rounds of drinks have been purchased, and the proprietor generously tipped. Wending his way from tavern to wizard’s tower, Celowin is accosted by a beggar, and he is pestered unendingly until he either pays off or calls for the watch. Paying off will attract a swarm of other beggars. Calling for the watch can be nearly as dangerous, as they could resent a foreigner’s refusal to deem a native beggar worthy of a copper or two. Despite such possible misadventures, the fighter finally comes to the tower of Llewellyn ap-Owen, a wizard of high repute. However, Celowin’s knocking is answered by a lesser person, the warlock Tregillish Mul, the wizard’s henchman. Mul informs the eager fighter that: “Lofty Llewellyn is far too busy to see anyone at this time. Good day!” Unless Celowin is quick in offering some inducement, the warlock will slam the tower door and forget about the intrusion.

Now let us assume that Celowin’s bribe was sufficient to convince Tregillish Mul to arrange an appointment with his master, and furthermore that such appointment is actually timely. Now old ap-Owen is rather testy, for he was in the middle of an experiment which is now absolutely ruined, and must be begun all over again, just because this stupid sword-swinger managed to convince Mul-the-lackwit that something was more important than a wizard’s spell research! Well, this fellow Celowin had better have a good reason for interruption, and further, the pay had better be good . . . . Celowin will have to pay through the nose, in cash and in magic items, to get the magic-user to turn stone to flesh once again. But suppose Celowin has no item which Llewellyn could use? The wizard will take something he cannot use personally, for he undoubtedly has all sorts of henchmen and hirelings who can employ these things, not to mention the possibility of trading or selling. In no event will money ever serve to replace magic items! Furthermore, if no magic is available, then a geas can be laid to get some!

These examples show how varying roles are played without great difficulty simply by calling upon observation of basic human nature and combining it with the particular game circumstances applicable. Once established, it is quite easy to recall the personae of frequently consulted or encountered NPCs. If such intercourse becomes very frequent, considerable additional development of the character or characters concerned, and their surroundings, will certainly be in order. Thus, in many ways, the campaign builds and grows of its own volition and within its own parameters.

I've never understood the paralysis from players when provided options. Are designers going to have to restrict themselves to putting only 1-2 things in a room so players don't freak out with how many things there are to explore in a room? It's just the same thing with a bunch of quests but on a grander scale. Should hex crawls only have 1 hex in them? I thrive in those situations with abundant hooks/rumors/etc.--total freedom to tackle the set-ups/hooks the DM provided that interest me most. I'd counter that the players are the ones who are 'lazy' as the DM, as Squeen says, has developed several layers of an onion--that's hard work.
I think it is common for people to have an easier time if they have limited options, as opposed to a truly open ended scenario. It is sort of like using random tables to get your creative spark going as a DM; constraints inspire. My players are among those who don't do well with infinite possibilities, so I find it is good to have a few obvious ones.

When I'm a player, prefer open ended scenarios, as long as I can infer enough about the local setting to infer some options. Or at least I want the the freedom to choose a path other than the ones that are being spoon fed to me.
 
My favourite moment of prisoner-taking was playing Ben L's Through Ultan's Door. It was a FLAILSNAILS game of course, so my character is from Arthurian Britain, somebody is a 19th-century circus-performer illusionist, another guy is a Russian Orthodox priest, you get the idea. And we took some Fleischguilders prisoner and I TRIED to be the good guy about it, but the 18 STR fighter was from Empire of the Petal Throne...

What the actual fuck Terrible. You're going to give Squeen a sudden apoplectic aneurism with those 'character classes'! :P I want to bring my Tiefling Disco-Paladin to this party!
 
Two words bucko. Sleep. Spell. And then begins the intricate dance of Charm Person, threats, offers to defect, and questions of Where Is the Gold?

You hear that you guys?! I'm a full-fledged Bucko now! :D

For sure we can do these things, and from time to time we do. Hell, we even found (definitely not backwards-compatible) rules for leading evil NPC's to redemption in the Book of Exalted Deeds (Ptolus also has a church of redeemed monsters that you can drag penitent NPC's to). But given our average (very sad) 3 hr session these days, this gets pretty tedious when we're trying to clear a dungeon. Especially if we're way down deep and nowhere near somewhere we can drop the prisoner off. That charmed drow 'henchman' is just a backstabbing waiting to happen at absolutely the worst time.
We can tell the DM doesn't want to deal with it by the way he'll throw clearly outmatched monsters at us instead of throwing down their arms. If there's one guy clearly making a stand instead of trying to run, we generally get the message that he's worth saving.
 
When I'm a player, prefer open ended scenarios, as long as I can infer enough about the local setting to infer some options. Or at least I want the the freedom to choose a path other than the ones that are being spoon fed to me.

Yeah! @Malrex I think this is what I was trying to say. I think we're all in agreement actually, since you say:

I thrive in those situations with abundant hooks/rumors/etc.

None of us want to get dumped in an open world and be told that it is our oyster to do with as we please (mignonette and fresh grated horseradish pls). There need to be at least hooks/rumours/clues to give us some concrete choices. For those who want to be part of something bigger though, the rumblings of a central narrative; the summons from the local magistrate/the mysterious stranger at the inn/the panicked refugee at the gate are a comforting lifeline to be ignored or heeded by those looking to do something with their limited game time.

Makes me wonder if Choose Your Own Adventure books would be popular at all today

I actually think this is what the people you are complaining about would be MOST comfortable with. Action or Roleplay setpieces followed by two or three clearcut choices all leading to further crisply detailed/scripted situations. Basically one laborious step up from the illusion of choice.
 
What the actual fuck Terrible. You're going to give Squeen a sudden apoplectic aneurism with those 'character classes'! :p I want to bring my Tiefling Disco-Paladin to this party!
Sounds like a wild, heady time---a speakeasy for D&D nerds. Oh internet...I remember well the optimism of the Roaring Aughts.

@Beoric : I rather like Gygax's play example. Trent & Gene say playing at his table was a blast. :)
 
What the actual fuck Terrible. You're going to give Squeen a sudden apoplectic aneurism with those 'character classes'! :p I want to bring my Tiefling Disco-Paladin to this party!

Heheheheh nah, it was 2 clerics, an illusionist and a fighter. I think one guy had a special class but it was pretty close to a thief.
 
For sure we can do these things, and from time to time we do. Hell, we even found (definitely not backwards-compatible) rules for leading evil NPC's to redemption in the Book of Exalted Deeds (Ptolus also has a church of redeemed monsters that you can drag penitent NPC's to). But given our average (very sad) 3 hr session these days, this gets pretty tedious when we're trying to clear a dungeon. Especially if we're way down deep and nowhere near somewhere we can drop the prisoner off. That charmed drow 'henchman' is just a backstabbing waiting to happen at absolutely the worst time.
We can tell the DM doesn't want to deal with it by the way he'll throw clearly outmatched monsters at us instead of throwing down their arms. If there's one guy clearly making a stand instead of trying to run, we generally get the message that he's worth saving.

Oh yeah I get this. Reconnaisance takes place initially or if some chieftain or bodyguard happens to be taken alive, the party will in fact kill most things they encounter, and subduing things in my game is hard. I am a big fan of random morale so no hints can be gleaned from opponent behavior in that regard.
 
Yeah! @Malrex I think this is what I was trying to say. I think we're all in agreement actually, since you say:
Oh, I was just quoting your post, but felt we were all in somewhat of agreement--I was just being opinionated and not necessarily directing it at anyone. I wish I could find that twitter discussion and post it here but I barely know how to use twitter...very strong opinions about hating sandbox play.
 
Oh, I was just quoting your post, but felt we were all in somewhat of agreement--I was just being opinionated and not necessarily directing it at anyone. I wish I could find that twitter discussion and post it here but I barely know how to use twitter...very strong opinions about hating sandbox play.

Now I'm curious...
 
Back
Top