Lloyd just opened my eyes that sandboxing is a story that FOLLOWS from player action consequences. There is still a story. Maybe the rest of the planet understood this, but for me this will actually open up a play style that I havent been good at.
Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 00:37 Introductions 04:12 Sponsor NAMES 05:00 Coming up with names SANDBOX GAMES 09:54 Keeping track of consequences 12:38 The Because Rule 15:16 What is sandbox 17:16 Providing solutions COLLABORATIVE WORLDBUILDING 20:43 Allow players to establish facts about the world 26:14 Two kinds of players MECHANICS 29:05 Mechanics to incorporate more 31:47 Meaning of a success 32:25 Control mechanics & Horror games 33:26 Relying too much on dices and sheets 35:15 Becoming a better roleplayer CHARACTERS & CUSTOMIZATION 36:56 Classless character creation 39:49 Archetypes 40:41 Game balance 42:40 What is a good game balance? GAME DESIGN 45:53 Typical game loop 47:28 Fighting VS Negotiating 48:41 What is the fun part of the game? CAMPAIGNS 51:32 Type of endings 1:00:25 Player character races
The story element that Lindybeige is talking about is that a protagonist should have something they want and something they need. The character doesn't always need to get what they want but they should always get what they need. Its through the process of getting what they Need that the character changes.
Yeah. It's a good thing to know, it's the difference between a great story and a terrible one. I know one of my fellow players always wants very particular things, usually involving a subsect of the realm none of us has interest in, who is often situationally an antagonist due to being a cult. He seems incapable of ever changing what his character actually needs.
I love the discussion on narrative freedom, and the point Ben made about discovery and exploration. I think in OSR games, much like how John argued is the case for horror games, narrative control for players will take away the feeling of discovery and exploration that is so essential to the core OSR experience. A huge part of the game is finding things out about the dungeon, discovering its secrets and surviving its challenges-why DID the wizard go mad? Why were these dead monks barricaded in this specific room? Where is the metallic smell that permeates this lower level coming from? As a player I don't want to feel like I'm the one making these things up, I want to find them out organically through play; the unknown loses its appeal if you're the one making it up. Of course this is not to say that I ALWAYS want to give up narrative control, in some games it truly enhances the experience, but for some games, and I think specifically in this case in OSR adventures, it is best for players to be asking questions, and not answering them.
That concept - around the 24:30 mark - regarding high and low rolls deciding who shapes the world, completely blew my mind. It is the antithesis of the “let the dice tell the story” philosophy.
That «Ask Questing Beast» series is extremely entertaining and informative. I love it and I thank you and all the different guests that accepted the invitation.
On die rolls for social interaction, here's how I make it more than just rolling, but also not penalizing players with less social ability... First, roleplay the interaction out. Judge the performance, but not the social 'smoothness' of the talk. Don't worry about how quickly they responded, how artfully worded, etc. Just judge the nature of the arguments they made and the strategy of what to mention and what not to mention. For example, if there were clues that the character was jealous of someone, and the PCs take note of that and say "this would really irk that person". Or if they use an argument that would be a good and believable point. My judgement of their approach then creates a modifier on the Difficulty of the task, and then they roll vs that difficulty. This is exactly parallel to using a character's strength roll to budge a heavy object, but modifying it because they had the good idea to use a nearby pole as a fulcrum.
Yeah, I find the idea that you can't fall back on rolls pretty obnoxious. We play characters who are very different from us. If an introvert wants to play a Crane courtier to get the feeling of being a smooth operator, then the introvert shouldn't be penalised for not being able to roleplay that at the table.
On the one hand, they have a point when saying they want more RP rather than dice rolling, which is all well and good, but like Lloyd (Lindybeige) pointed out: taken to the extreme, that means a non-technically inclined player can't play a bomb expert (or other technical professions). Or as Sandy mentioned: it means a player with lower IQ can't play a smart character and less eloquent people can't play at being persuasive. You could of course say "get good", but that's obviously not always possible. This is where I feel D&D fits in well: It lets you play at that power fantasy of being good at something, no matter if that something is "swinging a sword at people" or "talking to people".
I agree, but I think it also goes deeper. Both drama nerds and maths nerds like dnd, and people both enjoy telling stories and playing board games. For maths brains, often the rules are the game, like a board game or computer game, and the narrative is the justification/validation/reward for successfully understanding how the world works.
I tend to treat die rolls as a sort of fallback. Players who aren't as good at something as their characters still have the option of just rolling for it, but then they're at the mercy of the dice. They still need to give me some idea of how they're trying to do it, though.
Avengers... Assemble. Owait it's just another Questing Beast video... 33:45 this is why i slap my players down when they tell me they're gonna roll for something. i as the dm will tell you when you need to roll. otherwise, just tell me what your character does.
Dude...that dwarf thing is exactly how my brother played his elf! He should have died from grief when his partner died, but didn't and was trying to figure out how to live after that and with the pain... And maybe trying to connect with people again after a century of Hermitage. It was super cool.
I have always had an issue with a GM telling me to describe how I disable the trap rather than roll the dice. I am not a thief, I do not know how to disable a magical trap. The whole point of an RPG is to help me play something I am not. It is not about me being stupid, I just do not know how to pick pocket, I am not a super genius who knows how to cast spells, the dice is there to allow me to be what I am not.
A good idea for sandboxes is to run the first quest/activity as a railroad. Especially if you have new players. Tell them up front that they need to do a short preplanned quest, making up some in-world reason for it, that fits the characters. This quest is designed to give the players a controlled way to experience one or two combats and solve a problem by interacting with the world. It also gives the referee the opportunity to introduce the setting and it's quirks without endangering the party unnecessarily, whilst reducing the need for upfront lore dumps. Past this point, let the players know that they are on their own and must make their own decisions. "Be it dungeoneering, exploring, fighting, warring, mining, politics, rebellion or pouring a large beer. This world is now yours to make of it what you will." I like to make sure the players know a few easy sources of simple quests (notice board, hunters guild etc) by this point. This is my best attempt to allow them the confidence and freedom to be as creative as they want, whilst not feeling overwhelmed by infinite choices :)
Spot on about there being different kinds of players and not all want to create the world. Knowing your players is huge and then changing your GM style to fit them (Provided you still like it). Not all players fit all GM's and vice versa.
I really like the idea of telling your players that you don't know how they're going to solve a problem, encouraging them to be creative because there isn't a presupposed answer. The commentary on what a "balanced TTRPG" experience is was enlightening. It's about whether or not a player character had a chance to shine so the player wasn't on their phone the whole session. And all aspects of the game have meaning.
Hey Ben, shout out from Brazil! I've been enjoying these podcasts a lot! As a suggestion, you could bring Diogo Nogueira, the brazilian OSR author (sharp swords & sinister spells, solar blades & cosmic spells etc) to the show Congratulations for the great work you've been doing!
Running OSE with Optional Ruleset I allow my players to break past the limits of their class, to use "incompatible" weapon types in a pinch, with a -2/-2 hit/dmg. If their character wants to, they could seek a skilled warrior to train them to use any weapon they like. Over time I give players a +1 to hit proficiency bonus, if they don't already have one and they have been using a specific weapon type a lot. Players with classes that start with a proficiency bonus (mostly martial or semi martials), will be able to develop to expert and master bonuses (+2hit +1dmg / +3hit +2dmg) at times I judge appropriate, granted per weapon type, with new weapons mastered faster each time. Non martial classes can gan expertise and mastery over a weapon, but they need to dedicate a lot of downtime to achieve it. This ensures any class could learn any weapon whilst not making the melee weapon combatants feel bad. Although, characters who need to hold a spellbook or some such will not be able to master two handed weapons as a hard limitation.
Hey you got Sandy Peterson on! I recommended you get him awhile ago so I'm going to pretend I had something to do with this 😂 great episode, big fan of all of these people!
Suddenly I got this image of a slightly dim half elf hearing one of his fellow adventurers talking about shaving and suddenly the half elf goes "They SHAVE?!" with a look of abject confusion on his face. Thanks for that one Lloyd :P
Very insightful. Thanks. The two highlights for me were (1) play D&D with no classes and everyone gets to pick 10 abilities and go, (2) you never go beyond 1st level HP. I don't know if I'd quite go as severe as never going past 1st level HP, because HP are so precious at low levels, but I definitely feel that HP are broken in 5e. I really like how Hero's Journey does it where you get max at 1st level, HD at 2nd and 3rd and then just 1-3 HP, depending on Class, after that. That way, you get enough HP that you can survive some fights, but not so much that the arithmetic involved feels like work.
A lot of OSR has the lower hp. You get your hit dice (no con-modifier) through level...9? (Also generally smaller hit dice and always rolled even at level 1) and then they get like +1 hp per level after level 9 or so...
Most character races are sub-species in DnD. Most of them can interbreed, something different species tend not to. So race is actually more of a correct term, I'd argue more correct than we use for humans. Humans are basically all just different types of Retrievers, which is one of types of dogs out there.
QB’s description of how he handles disarm trap is very interesting. When I started playing D&D a player would enter or approach her room and say “I search for traps”. I as DM would say “describe what you’re doing”. The play would then say “I look at the stones on the floor, I look up at the ceiling, search the walls, does anything seem movable, do I see signs of anything being disturbed”, etc. There might be dice rolls involved but there was much more of a descriptive dialogue. Often now players seem to simply want to roll perception checks or things like that rather than go through the interactive dialogue. Conversely, There seems to be a greater desire to go through what I would call the “soap opera” interactive dialogue - frankly I don’t care for that very much.
This was awesome, fascinating, and delightful! Please try to get these people together again for more of these videos! (Of course it doesn't need to be the same 3 people all the time, you know that.)
Thank you for all the great ideas I can use in my games. I am perfectly fine with players playing non-human species, even if they play them in a way I don't prefer. It's their game, too.
Thanks Guys, Really found this interesting , and awfully useful as an out of date DM. A lot of interesting and rather philosophical perspectives on Running and playing D&D.
Great discussion and people thanks! On player contribution, I am dead set against players having control over things their characters would not. However, I'm completely open to a player saying something like, "Wouldn't there be a key on this guy since he's guarding this place?" and then I will consider the chances of it, maybe even roll the chance, and rule on it. They might think of details I didn't. But it's always something I consider - never 'determined' by them. As a player that's what I want too. I want to feel like I'm interacting with an objectively existing world - not just sitting around writing a story with someone (a fun and worthy thing - just not why I play RPGs).
Talking about balance it is a real thing like Sandy says, so if people do the math and figure out the 5 choices for a character aren’t choices at all the game isn’t working. This can functionally be tested, early D&D was basically horribly balanced and we all know this now. This is why I love the Dungeon Dudes’ tier lists on 5e classes because the choices players can make need to be judged seriously. So many games think about how players can make bad characters ignoring most people won’t do that.
Next time Questing Beast puts out the call for questions I need to ask them what their opinions are of Arcadum's Twitch stream games and his persistent world of Verum.
I personally like characer-class systems, because I like working within frameworks when creating a character. There's a fun challenge in figuring out how to become the best of a certain subclass. The Overpowered idea is silly, and I think it stems from the restrictions you have in classes. How often don't you read about the "perfect build", but most of those are just "I do lots of damage, and don't die". With a classless system you might get overpowered too, but you get less underpowered characters, since everyone can take what suits the most. Overpowered isn't the problem, the problem is imbalance in power levels between characters. If you have one guy who spend 10 weeks figuring out what 10 feats to take, VS the person who looked at the Cooking feat and said "Yep that's me" without thinking, you might end up with some players not having as fun. But that's a minor issue.
Wow, how have I not just used the names of people I know in real life?! I've got decades of work experience with hundreds of people, most of them I can easily recall their names and a brief character description of them! Funny how such an obvious little thing can feel so revelatory!
To me, in games where overcoming a challenge is part of the fun for the players, game balance is a question of how much a character is able to contribute to the success of the team. Some games make that easier than others, while those others require more creativity from both the GM and the players. Let's take D&D 3.5 as an example - in theory, once you get beyond around level 12, fighters and rogues are basically useless to the party. A party of wizards, druids and clerics can handle basically any combat-based problem they encounter at that point. The wizard will have made a few wands of knock and a few scrolls of improved invisibility to make up for the lack of a dedicated locksmith in the party, while the cleric is almost as good at fighting as a fighter would have been and the druid can handle basically anything nature related. However, this forgets one important point - powerful villains will know that powerful magics exist, and will prepare for them. What they can't prepare anywhere near as easily for is the level 12 Rogue with a +20 to each of hide and move silently, a +22 to open lock, and a blatant disregard for the property rights of evil liches. Likewise, with the leadership feat, a level 12 Fighter might well have up to a 17 leadership score (12 for level, assuming 10 charisma for no bonus or penalty there, +2 for a great reputation, +1 for being a fair and generous ruler, +2 for having a base of operations), and a band of 35 trained soldiers, even if they're almost all level 1, can get a surprising amount done if used properly. The thing is, however, that this requires the GM to provide obstacles that mundane skills taken to a superhuman level can solve more easily and reliably than magic.
At the 29:00 mark where he talks about Hillfolk I'm thinking that Smallville does everything Hillfolk does in a much better way. Smallville is also one of the best games at player co-creative emergent gameplay.
I don't really like the "no dice roll if you made a convincing argument" approach. It rewards a player in certain areas, where other areas might not actually give the same benefit. Being Charismatic in real life shouldn't be an excuse for getting your cake for free, unless the strong guy at the table can substitute his strength checks with 20 push ups.
All games require skill of some kind. It all depends on which player skills you want to test. After all, every time you make a good tactical decision with your character, you are using your intelligence rather than the PC's.
@@QuestingBeast Yeah. The difference is though that the tactical decision is a "meta game", the same with thinking out how to approach a social encounter. Tactics might be the difference between victory or failure, but in the end we let the dice decide if we hit or miss. On the flip side, would you allow a player to automatically hit the enemy, if he narrated it greatly? If there's a chance of failure built into an obstacle or encounter, I will use dice. If there's no failure state, then sure I won't use the dice. The player's inherent skill should be in finding an opportunity, not in how well they can talk their way out of the failure state. At least that's what I think
@@TheAurgelmir I think there's a balance of how players play and what they want. I have some players who are super dedicated to their character and will be (and can be) as charismatic/intelligent/wise as their character is (either high or low). Generally I won't make that roll based, but if a player doesn't like that pressure or has a hard time playing up or down to their character as the case may be, I call for a lot more rolls. I don't want to reward or punish a player based on their ability or inability vs. their character sheet.
Classes campaigns...your play is valid! That said, the next time you have a toothache IRL are you going to the dressmaker? Your attorney? Perhaps you'll consult a consultant.
sometimes i like when the pc feels like a person who doesnt know how they will successed. because irl or even in the moment in the narritive, the character doesn’t decide what their outcome will be, they just know what their action is before the outcome. there is aspect of realness or tension in the latter. of course it doesnt always work.
14:00 Yes! Not only do character choices co-create emergent game-play but by giving a broad leeway to Character Agency the DM is secretly farming all their ideas and wonders about the world they find themselves in. For me, this is the heart of ttrpg. The characters discover and experience wondrous scenarios and the DM gets to interact with the ever unknowable reactions and interactions. This is where the real life magic happens. Why D&D endures. People gathered around a shared experience. A campfire around which human existence is expressed. Telling shared stories of triumph and tragedy as truly lived by our characters. From Zero to Hero, there are no unworthy stories.
Ben - When you put out the call for viewer questions among your patreon subscribers, it would help if you could indicate who the guests are going to be. Maybe I missed it, but if I had realized that the host of Lindybeige was going to be on this, there are some specific questions I would have liked to have asked. Having said that, great discussion!
