A Question Of Agency?

[Ovinomancer]

Well the ripples are the choices, mine and the players. The wave interference are the consequences of those choice. Then on top of that new pebbles are thrown in by myself and the players creating new patterns on the "surface" of the setting. A major difference between my approach and the other being described is that I don't have a preconceived notion of where the pebbles may fall.

Which other? This is a strange response to my point that the ripples example is vague to the point of being nearly universal.

On my side it starts out with the description of the NPC characters, their motivations, and their plans. The NPCs plans get updated after every session to reflect what the player do or don't. That is in essence the interference patterns eluded to in my analogy. Because I don't control the what the player decide, things often and do take off in unexpected direction.

I ran 14 groups as part of the formal playtest of my Scourge of the Demon Wolf sandbox adventure. Plus the initial time using 3.X, then another time using GURPS, and three times with D&D 5e, and once heavily modified for Adventures in Middle Earth. All started with the same initial circumstances, one of them dealt with it the same way and had very different experiences. One group antagonized the village priest, another turn them into allay. Most groups kept the wandering beggars safe from the wolves and the angry villager who blame them for the current issue. One managed to unite the two group to stand against the Demon Wolf pack and led them to victory when they attacked.

The process is straight forward. Jettison one's preconceived notions, set the stage, see what the PCs do, and react in accordance to how the NPCs personalities and details are defined. After the session update the setting and its characters. Rinse and repeat throughout the life of the campaign following where the players go until it reaches a stopping point.

I'm not sure what you're lecturing me on. I mean, this last paragraph is pretty much exactly how Powered by the Apocalypse games, or Burning Wheel, or Forged in the Dark games work, and these don't feature the prep that you've explained is part of your approach. Which gets back to my statement that your explanations should sound like many games, because they're so vague as to not be particularly descriptive on any one.

The interest would be a play procedure -- what's your game loop? In my homebrew 5e game set in Sigil, for instance, I tend towards preps locations -- NPCs, monsters, layout, traps, etc., -- and then let the players deploy skill to navigate this. In between such set pieces, I run more freeform, using modified skill challenges that let players set their own agendas and follow along, so lots of ripples. In my Blades in the Dark game, it's all ripples, all the way down. I don't prep anything and entirely follow the players' leads. There's a loose setting, some strong themes, and some thumbnails of factions and that's about it for pre-game fictional setup. After that, it's entirely on the players, and yet that play looks nothing at all like a prepped sandbox. Alternatively, I'm getting ready to run a 5e AP -- Descent into Avernus -- and this is a pretty strong railroad that I'm doing extensive deconstruction of to remove the more railroady bits, but there's still lots of room for ripples in the adventure as it opens in the middle to a semi-sandbox in Avernus. So...

Let's look at an example, a toy one used in this thread -- if a player wanted to search for their long lost brother, how would you engage this move by the player? For me, in 5e, I would ask questions of the player about the brother -- how did you leave it, what was he like, what problem caused him to lose touch? And then I would follow up on those answers, likely starting one of my modified skill challenges to start the PCs on the path to locating the brother, and those largely follow PC direction and play a lot like a narrative game. In Blades, I would ask the same questions, and likely set up some clocks to describe the kinds of things that need to be done to find the brother, then play would address those clocks either in downtime or as scores (preferably both).

Either way, there's zero doubt that the player could establish this dramatic need in the game. Heck, in the Avernus game, I have one PC that's looking to find a way to remove a family curse and revolves around a devil in Hell, and a second that accidentally damned someone to Hell with their magic and is seeking to make that right. Both of these are not at all part of that printed adventure, but they're going to be a part of the game, and not as a sidequest -- these are going to be wrapped into the mainline somehow.

How would you do it? Could the players establish these kinds of things as dramatic needs without blocking, and what kind of play would entail from that if allowed?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes, that’s exactly what it is. And although there are pathways, it is possible to not stick to the paths, but it’s recommended when the crew does this that the GM make seizing the claim harde

Do you think that the lack of specificity would be an obstacle to sandbox play? And I mean like a significant obstacle, not just something the group would balk at because it’s unfamiliar?

I would honestly have to play it to see, but I think for my players it would certainly be an issue. I've often tried to bring in more abstract procedures for this sort of thing and the rejection level for them is quite high. I designed a whole sect building system, and it worked in theory, and worked if it remained at an abstract, background level, but the players pretty consistently wanted to get into specifics and that is what made it break down for me. I am not sure though if this would do that or not. Also, some of it might be workable as a way of buffering specifics if I understand because it gives material bonuses for controlling different elements of a faction? So if I read you correctly, one way I could use something like that is allow my players to play things out as they do (say they go into a quarter of the city where an enemy gang operates and take over a couple of workshops they control, if I can identify what that means on the map you showed me, I could note that and it would provide them with some kind of ongoing advantage or resource. Again though, the problem is the specificity. My players are the types who will take over a workshop, and then start utilizing it pretty finely in the game

I think a proper way to put it might be they are setting first before mechanics type players. Where any mechanics are just meant to reflect the setting material and the characters who inhabit it. And they often don't find the mechanics themselves engaging (it is more about having mechanics that just don't get in the way, or do what they need for what they want to do in the setting).

But again, a little hard to say without trying it and absorbing the information through play. There is a lot in your post I read, but I couldn't translate into a visualization of actual play (just due to lack of playing it myself).

But I will say, even if it turns out it isn't portable into my game, I would still like to play the game on its own terms so I understand it. And I am sure I would be able to find some inspiration from it for helping me solve this criminal underworld puzzle (it is something I've never quite cracked or settled on).

 

[Bedrockgames]

The players will pick their crew type and the district where they lair and also the district where they operate (these may be the same or may be different). These decisions start to feed into others which starts to naturally suggest certain factions and so on.

But the things don’t become specific until they need to be. The GM does not determine every holding of each gang and how many men they have and so on. Each of the main factions gets a half page entry that briefly describes them, lists a few members and a couple traits for each, and offers a couple of assets, and some general goals.

This may or may not be an issue. I certainly don't need all the specifics spelled out in a setting (as long as I can extrapolate from an entry). Even with all my sects their entries give general information and there would be a lot of stuff that could be filled in more detail later by a GM (though many specifics like headquarters, maps of headquarters, areas of operation are laid out). Can you describe what 'become specific until they need to be' looks like just so I make sure I get this aspect.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think the player determining where the tower was resolution. The resolution gave the player that ... right? privilege? I'm willing to grant that the player looking at the local map and saying, "The Tower is here" is plausibly not roleplaying, but that's the only part of that I can see an argument about (and I'm not making it, to be clear).

There seems to be some confusion over how the Wises check worked, so I'll reiterate it, with some context.

Here's the context - from p 269 of Revised (the text is the same in Gold, p 552), setting out "the sacred and most holy role of the players" (emphasis original):

Use the mechanics! Players are expected to call for a Duel of Wits or a Circles test or to demand the Range and Cover rules in a shooting match with a Dark Elf assassin. Don't wait for the GM to invoke a rule - invoke the damn thing yourself and get the story moving! . . . If the story doesn't interest you, it's your job to create interesting situations and involve yourself.​

It's in this spirit that I, playing Aramina, and having regard to her Belief which I had previously authored - I'm not going to finish my career with no spellbooks and an empty purse! - that I said, as Aramina, something like Isn't Evard's tower around here. I don't now recall exactly what the GM's response was, but I think I was the one to point to Aramina's Great Masters-wise 2.

So the GM set the difficulty for the check (probably Ob 2, I'm guessing, because I think I succeeded without needing to spend any artha; and Ob 2 is the difficulty for knowing "an interesting fact" beyond common knowledge but without any details, which I think is what this would be, at least on a generous reading).

I then rolled the dice, and got my two successes (1 in 4 chance) and thus confirmed that Aramina's recollection was correct.

To my mind, this is clearly action resolution. The action in question is remembering something. As I've posted many times upthread, it follows exactly the same procedure as any other action declaration, including I attack the Orc with my mace. There was nothing "out of character" about it that would be any different from declaring and resolving the attack. (Eg rolling the dice is not something the character does, in either case. If someone thinks that rolling the dice "emulates" the PC swinging the mace, well equally in this case it emulates Aramina making the effort to remember something she learned while studying as a mage.) There was no pointing at a map, because that would certainly be "details". As I've also posted, we found the tower by getting help from Thurgon's former comrade Friedrich.

 

[pemerton]

To add to these posts about referees being fair: the role of a referee in a wargame is not wildly different from the role of a referee in a football game. The referee applies the rules and, when necessary, arbitrates between the two sides.

The idea that the role of a GM in a sandbox resembles this is not really plausible. For a start, there are no sides. Next, to the extent that the players experience "opposition" it is being provided by the GM.

This also drives home how different a sandbox of the sort @estar or @Bedrockgames is describing is from a Moldvay-style dungeon. In a Moldvay-style dungeon there is no opposition or antagonism: the dungeon is primarily a puzzle, and the monsters are threats that are encountered in the course of exploring it. The GM has to adjudicate them fairly - in some ways it's a more sophisticated version of a boardgame, and part of what makes it more sophisticated is that the players can make "moves" that engage the fiction. In this sort of play, the GM comes close to being a referee - designing the dungeon is a bit like preparing the field of battle for a wargame, and adjudicating the fiction can be done (hopefully; ideally) fairly and dispassionately.

But in a "living, breathing" world things are completely different. Designing such a world is not at all like preparing the field of battle, except in the most metaphorical sense. Deciding things like whether a given NPC is alive or dead and what a given faction will do in response to encroachments on its turf is not like adjudicating the fiction in the way a Moldvay GM has to.

Classic Traveller is interesting here, because it consistently uses the term "referee" to describe the GM, but the role is nothing like a wargame or dungeon-adjudicating referee.

 

[prabe]

There seems to be some confusion over how the Wises check worked, so I'll reiterate it, with some context.

{snip}

To my mind, this is clearly action resolution. The action in question is remembering something. As I've posted many times upthread, it follows exactly the same procedure as any other action declaration, including I attack the Orc with my mace. There was nothing "out of character" about it that would be any different from declaring and resolving the attack. (Eg rolling the dice is not something the character does, in either case. If someone thinks that rolling the dice "emulates" the PC swinging the mace, well equally in this case it emulates Aramina making the effort to remember something she learned while studying as a mage.) There was no pointing at a map, because that would certainly be "details". As I've also posted, we found the tower by getting help from Thurgon's former comrade Friedrich.

I agree. Clearly action resolution, and at least reflecting roleplay if not part of it. I keep getting BW confused with games I've played/run where the established facts (such as the Tower nearby) came after the check was resolved. That's on me; apologies.

 

[pemerton]

The PCs in essence are pebbles dropped into the pond of the setting and their ripples interact with other ripples that I defined.

Thank you! for so neatly explaining in one sentence what I've spent ages trying to say and have yet to say it well!

Here is how the metaphor breaks down:

In an actual pond, the interaction of ripples is (i) literal, and (ii) takes place in accordance with physical laws that are quite impersonal.

In the metaphorical pond of the sandbox, there are no literal interactions of ripples. The GM looks at his/her pre-authored ripples, looks at the players' ripples, and decides what the interaction looks like.

 

[pemerton]

I agree. Clearly action resolution, and at least reflecting roleplay if not part of it. I keep getting BW confused with games I've played/run where the established facts (such as the Tower nearby) came after the check was resolved. That's on me; apologies.

As I posted in your BW thread, I think the "order of operations" here is important in permitting character-focused and genuinely character-driven play. It contrasts with other approaches, like shared narration/framing, or like dicing to win a "chit"/token that confers authorial power abstracted from the character's own position in the fiction.

Prince Valiant storyteller certificates sit in an interesting place in this respect. At some table I suspect they could be used as mere chits. At our table they are used in the context of action declaration - but instead of rolling the dice the player "cashes in" a certificate.

 

[robconley]

The interest would be a play procedure -- what's your game loop?

• I describe the circumstances of the characters and it starts with the initial circumstances after character creation.
• The players describe to me what they do.
• I then describe the results often by using the mechanics of the system used for the campaign.
• I then describe the new circumstances
• Rinse and repeat until the session or campaign ends.

But a picture is worth a thousand words. Warning it not edited it is raw footage.

As for something written send me a PM and I will comp you a copy of a Scourge of the Demon Wolf.

Let's look at an example, a toy one used in this thread -- if a player wanted to search for their long lost brother, how would you engage this move by the player?

Depends on what been described about the lost brother. I can think of possibilities but in this case, it is the player's call to describe the brother, and his life before he got lost. It part of the player's background and as long it consistent with the setting, I am good with it. Based on that I will come up with how the brother got lost and work it into the campaign. The player can choose to follow the leads or not. If the player is smart, diligent, and has a little luck (you just can't be rolling ones all the time) then it is likely it will be resolved successfully.

For me, in 5e, I would ask questions of the player about the brother -- how did you leave it, what was he like, what problem caused him to lose touch? And then I would follow up on those answers, likely starting one of my modified skill challenges to start the PCs on the path to locating the brother, and those largely follow PC direction and play a lot like a narrative game. In Blades, I would ask the same questions, and likely set up some clocks to describe the kinds of things that need to be done to find the brother, then play would address those clocks either in downtime or as scores (preferably both).

I handle most of it through first person roleplaying combined with the use of the dice and the system when needed to resolve things when the result are uncertain. For example combat.

How would you do it? Could the players establish these kinds of things as dramatic needs without blocking, and what kind of play would entail from that if allowed?

My view is that because we are all human there is a limit to how detailed we can get. So in practice there is room for expansion about a character's background. As long as it not inconsistent with what been established I don't have an issue with a new family member or new detail being created and added to the background of the campaign. Once added I handle it like any other background element the players are interested in. I make sure to work it into as part of the life of the setting* as something the players to explore or learn out. However often it becomes an active goal of the players in which case they do what they think they ought to do as if they actually in the setting of the campaign. If they are novices, I will coach them until they are comfortable about choosing what to do.

*Think of it as color commentary coupled with random encounters.

 

[robconley]

In the metaphorical pond of the sandbox, there are no literal interactions of ripples. The GM looks at his/her pre-authored ripples, looks at the players' ripples, and decides what the interaction looks like.

In a way but not how you are thinking about it. What I do is establish the premise of setting which acts as check on what I can choose later. Every time something happens there is a range of results. If I think a possible result is the most interesting to the players I will pick that. If I think there are equally interesting possible results I will randomly roll between them and go with that. This acts as a check against bias. Sometimes only one result is plausible so I go with that. However I am kept in check by the fact there only a few possible result from any choice made by the players.

The rule I follow is that given the premise of the setting I will follow the consequences regardless of how I think ought it to be. I been called out from time to time for making a call that the players found implausible. And they are sometimes right. In which case I make a new ruling and that how it proceeds.

So it not fiat. The rules are defined by description of the setting, characters, and creatures.