D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[The Firebird]

This isn’t a confrontational series of questions. I’m trying to learn where the lines blur and does the fact that they can blur make them meaningless.

Does the fact that purple exists make blue and red meaningless?

As a player it would never occur to me to not want to do what the DM presented.

Sandbox play is a lie. In the end the players always end up doing what the DM presents.

I think we've figured out the source of your confusion

 

[KYRON45]

Does the fact that purple exists make blue and red meaningless?


I think we've figured out the source of your confusion

These comments come off as confrontational to me. Thank you for playing.

 

[Lanefan]

OK, these aren't very comparable, because whether a game is good or not is almost entirely a matter of opinion, whereas with phones, there are actual, objective reasons one model is better or worse than another.

You don't like 4e or 5e, which is fine, but that's not the same thing as it being garbage. And quite frankly, even if you truly believe with all your heart the 4e or 5e system sucks, you are still capable of using it to tell a good story, especially if you have players who are willing to play their characters well. Which means, ultimately, whether or not the game sucks is up to you.

Wasn't trying to suggest 4e and-or 5e are garbage, only that some phone models were.

The difficulty of pitching something that the pitcher doesn't believe in, however, is the same.

Can you give an example of two mutually-incompatible changes to a rule that have actually happened at your table?

Suggested, not happened: clerical curing should be more effective / clerical curing should be less effective, vs what it was at the time. This one went on for a while and eventually just petered out when that campaign ended; for the next campaign (with mostly different players) I just left clerical curing as it was. That said, one player did use the compromise-to-punt tactic in that one; with the mistake being the "punt" went right off the end of the campaign.

Footnote: oddly enough, nearly 20 years later I-as-DM am now the one who wants to change clerical curing; though my change wouldn't affect its overall effectiveness.

 

[Lanefan]

In the end; the DM still has to prepare and run encounters though right? Encounters that have something to do with the greater game at large I suppose. So I stand by my statement.

The difference is you're preparing in reaction to what they do rather than proactively assuming you know what they'll do. So for example if you've mentioned (among many other things) a spooky castle on the hill and they decide to go check it out, you wing it for that session - or, if you have to, delay them with random encounters and obstacles - and then more fully prep the castle during the week.

Either that or you're preparing everything everywhere all at once, which has always struck me as overkill.

 

[Lanefan]

This touches on my question. If there are different kinds of sandboxes….can’t anything be considered a sand box?

If my plan is to run an AP….and during that AP the party decides to make a left (when the literature wants them to go right) and engage in another AP farther down the road…..isn’t that a form of sandbox? To make it not a sandbox wouldn’t I as the DM have to say….no…it’s this AP this way or nothing?

If your players abandon the AP they're on and go do something else instead they've just turned your linear campaign into something closer to a sandbox whether you wanted them to or not. That you let them do so implies you're cool with hitting curveballs, which is the by-far most important skill of a sandbox DM.

That said, not every AP-running DM will allow the players to jump ship like that and will instead force them to stay on the AP.

And yes, for sure there's varying degrees of sandboxiness (new word for the day); the opposite is to say there's varying degrees of linearity as the two are on a sliding scale.

 

[Lanefan]

You insinuating that I don’t understand is offensive to me. I’m kidding; I’ve never been offended by anything.

My question really is simply(but probably not simple at all), at what point does a linear game with multiple possible lines become a sandbox? And also…if all of the encounters in the sandbox are somehow related is that really a sandbox?

Very possibly, yes.

Let's say there's seven or eight different potential adventure sites, most if not all of them seemingly unrelated to each other, the DM has dropped in as hooks. The players send their PCs out to one of them and wipe it out, then another, then another - doesn't matter which sequence - without ever noticing there actually is a loose connection between all of them.

Maybe, for a dumb example, the sites are all controlled by, or pay protection money to, the Cartel of BBEGs; and so it doesn't matter whether the PCs knock off the Goblin raiders or the spooks in the castle or the Evil Wizard in her tower, sooner or later they're going to attract the attention of the CoBBEGs who will then mount a response of some sort. Meanwhile, by sheer luck the PCs might decide to jump on a ship and sail across the sea*, leaving the CoBBEGs chasing shadows.

So yes it's a sandbox in that the players have full choice over what their PCs do in the setting; but there's still stuff going on behind the scenes. And if they somehow do realize the connection between the sites and stumble on to the existence of the CoBBEGs then that takes things in a whole new direction - maybe.

* - this happened in a game I ran - the PCs were involved in something way deeper than they realized but by sheer luck decided to take a very long trip just before all hell was about to land on them.

Simply put…are the choices adventure path or sandbox? What if I want multiple APs in my sandbox?

I've done just this on numerous occasions - embedded 4-to-6 adventure APs into a larger more sandboxy campaign. In my current campaign I can quickly think of five such occasions, and I might be missing one.

 

[KYRON45]

Very possibly, yes.

Let's say there's seven or eight different potential adventure sites, most if not all of them seemingly unrelated to each other, the DM has dropped in as hooks. The players send their PCs out to one of them and wipe it out, then another, then another - doesn't matter which sequence - without ever noticing there actually is a loose connection between all of them.

Maybe, for a dumb example, the sites are all controlled by, or pay protection money to, the Cartel of BBEGs; and so it doesn't matter whether the PCs knock off the Goblin raiders or the spooks in the castle or the Evil Wizard in her tower, sooner or later they're going to attract the attention of the CoBBEGs who will then mount a response of some sort. Meanwhile, by sheer luck the PCs might decide to jump on a ship and sail across the sea*, leaving the CoBBEGs chasing shadows.

So yes it's a sandbox in that the players have full choice over what their PCs do in the setting; but there's still stuff going on behind the scenes. And if they somehow do realize the connection between the sites and stumble on to the existence of the CoBBEGs then that takes things in a whole new direction - maybe.

I've done just this on numerous occasions - embedded 4-to-6 adventure APs into a larger more sandboxy campaign. In my current campaign I can quickly think of five such occasions, and I might be missing one.

So the players get to determine what kind of game the DM runs? Not so much player agency as players bullying the DM.

How come no one talks about DM agency?

 

[Lanefan]

I guess my disbelief in the differentiation comes from this…

As a player it would never occur to me to not want to do what the DM presented. If I don’t want to do what the DM is offering; that’s it…the game is over.

Ah, there's the difference between us, at least: me, I see it that the DM has given us a setting to bash around in as we will. Sure, we'll probably end up doing some adventures he wants us to do but we'll probably also end up doing things he completely doesn't expect. Sometimes the curveballs might fly his way thick and fast, other times we'll do exactly what he thinks we'll do.

As a DM I present an elevator pitch for a game I’m prepping and people either join in for that game or they don’t.

And does that elevator pitch include things like "I'm running Rime of the Frostmaiden, who's in?" I ask because if yes, then you're asking the players to sign up for a strictly-linear game right up front...

I’m not in touch with this whole….im a player and I’m gonna do what I want….or I’m a dm and you’re gonna do what I tell you.

...and are thus - probably unintentionally - guilty of the bolded.

 

[KYRON45]

Ah, there's the difference between us, at least: me, I see it that the DM has given us a setting to bash around in as we will. Sure, we'll probably end up doing some adventures he wants us to do but we'll probably also end up doing things he completely doesn't expect. Sometimes the curveballs might fly his way thick and fast, other times we'll do exactly what he thinks we'll do.

And does that elevator pitch include things like "I'm running Rime of the Frostmaiden, who's in?" I ask because if yes, then you're asking the players to sign up for a strictly-linear game right up front...

...and are thus - probably unintentionally - guilty of the bolded.

I’ve never run a full pre published adventure path. Those are great to cherry pick but it’s too much work to read it all and stick to it.

When I build games I use the characters as the foundation. For me the whole point of gaming is keeping the players interested. If I want to fight uphill battles; I’ll go to work.

So my conclusion to all of this is that sandboxes are in fact an illusion that players let the DM have since they are going to end up doing whatever they want any way.

 

[Lanefan]

So the players get to determine what kind of game the DM runs? Not so much player agency as players bullying the DM.

How come no one talks about DM agency?

The DM's agency comes from a) defining the setting and b) to a very great extent determining what adventuring opportunities exist in that setting.

After that, IMO the DM should reflect what the players are and-or do. If the players are more passive then the DM can operate in pro-act mode, laying down adventures that the players then play through and prepping those adventures well ahead of time. If the players are more proactive then the DM can operate in react mode, reacting to what the players do and prepping on a more just-in-time basis.

Over the long run I've found it's often a mix of both: sometimes the players are happy to play through what's put in front of them while at other times the same players will take the bit between their teeth and go all sorts of unexpected directions.