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

[ezo]

What's a character who "has skills" instead of being good at combat in 5E? What example would that be?

There is a difference between being "good at combat" and being "meh at combat" and being actually "bad at combat."

I'm honestly not sure how to make someone bad at combat in 5e unless it's on purpose...but even then that doesn't mean they get skills instead.

Oh, it isn't hard. My DMPC is pretty losy at combat, because he is a utility / support bard. Not a "buff" caster, or focused on anything in particular. Sure, he has good control spells, but slots are limited so it isn't like he can use them all the time.

Here's a screen shot from my excel file:

As you can see, no combat cantrips so he has to rely on his shortbow +1, to which he is ok but with only one attack per round not great. His spells offer some buffs (bless, aid), only direct damage is lightning bolt and somewhat through hex.

He can help in combat generally, he isn't useless of course, but hardly great. He real value is with many skills and his big spells, which can turn the tide possibly, but because slots are limited he can't rely on them all the time at all.

Generally, IME, if a PC is mediocre or even bad in combat, they make up for it in other ways, and skills is one common way.

 

[Hussar]

But most sandboxes are a combination of prepped locations, factions, ongoing situations, etc, and are expected to be very fluid and organic in response to players taking actions. The basic idea is to respect the freedom of the players to explore and seek out what they want to do.

But here’s the thing. All those things you list are 100% dm generated. The players have only as much freedom as the dm allows. If the dm decides that something isn’t there, then it’s not there.

The only real difference is that instead of a single unifying story as in a linear campaign, you have a bunch of mini stories strung together episodic style.

Like in the children’s sandbox example above, the players may only use the sand provided and must never be allowed to alter the sandbox. They have no control over what toys may be found in the sandbox. Sure they might build a sandcastle, but only on the terms dictated by the owner of the sandbox.

At no point do the players get to add or change the sandbox itself. It’s all about discovering the DMs world and what the dm has created. It’s all about reacting to the DMs ideas.

Which is fine and fun. I’m not going to claim otherwise. Lots of players love playing that way. Heck I don’t mind it either. But this idea that sandbox=complete player freedom is a total fiction. You only have as much space to play in as your dm allows.

 

[KYRON45]

You only have as much space to play in as your dm allows.

If you were a religion; I’d convert.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But here’s the thing. All those things you list are 100% dm generated. The players have only as much freedom as the dm allows. If the dm decides that something isn’t there, then it’s not there.

The only real difference is that instead of a single unifying story as in a linear campaign, you have a bunch of mini stories strung together episodic style.

Like in the children’s sandbox example above, the players may only use the sand provided and must never be allowed to alter the sandbox. They have no control over what toys may be found in the sandbox. Sure they might build a sandcastle, but only on the terms dictated by the owner of the sandbox.

At no point do the players get to add or change the sandbox itself. It’s all about discovering the DMs world and what the dm has created. It’s all about reacting to the DMs ideas.

Which is fine and fun. I’m not going to claim otherwise. Lots of players love playing that way. Heck I don’t mind it either. But this idea that sandbox=complete player freedom is a total fiction. You only have as much space to play in as your dm allows.

It is freedom to explore, not freedom to create. But the GM very much has to react to what the players are doing. To say this is just a sequence of adventure strung together, is not at all what is occurring in a sandbox. Not only are players free to select where they want to go and what they want to do (which is I think by any stretch freedom), but they can also set agendas by shifting the focus of the campaign through their actions. External stuff definitely comes from the GM, but the GMs job isn't to limit their freedom or have the players dance for their amusement, it is to facilitate the exploration of the sandbox and bring it to life around the players. If the party decides they want to take over the government of a local town, that is an entirely viable goal to set for themselves. If they decide they want to explore the northern forests and claim territory for themselves that is fair. If they want to spend their time as sleuths in a city, they can do that. The GM is trying to accommodate where they shift the campaign to. I think it takes a lot of mental gymnastics around this idea that "if the GM is running the game the players are never truly free" to paint sandbox as somehow not being a style of play where the freedom to do what you want is a major feature of the style

 

[Hussar]

Well, they could decide to try those things but they'd first have to find a Spelljammer ship (extremely unlikely in my setting, almost but not quite to the point of no chance) or a portal that could get them to somewhere like Sigil (in my setting, much more likely; and the Sigil-equivalent already exists and has for decades) and go from there.

And every single option is created, controlled and made available by you the dm. I can’t get a Spelljammer because you haven’t added it. I can’t only have a chance of finding a spelljammer if I explore the setting you have created in a manner that you find acceptable.

Iow, it’s pretty much no freedom at all. It’s all just reacting to the DM’s ideas. In order to find a spelljammer, I must travel to Nexus. While in Nexus I presume I would need to speak with specific people and/or go to specific locations in order to find said Spelljammer.

How is this not linear?

 

[Hussar]

it takes a lot of mental gymnastics around this idea that "if the GM is running the game the players are never truly free" to paint sandbox as somehow not being a style of play where the freedom to do what you want is a major feature of the style

But it’s not a feature. I can’t only only “do what I want” so long as what I want is filtered through what the dm creates. If I choose to do X, I’m now pretty much locked into whatever story the DM creates around X.

Sandbox is just a series of dm generated linear adventures. The players might suggest a theme for the adventure although IME, it’s far more common for the dm to simply drop a handful of adventure hooks on the players and then run whatever one they’ve glommed onto after the dm has rolled out the plot wagon.

 

[KYRON45]

Sandbox is just a series of dm generated linear adventures.

This was what I meant when I started this line of thought.

 

[AlViking]

But here’s the thing. All those things you list are 100% dm generated. The players have only as much freedom as the dm allows. If the dm decides that something isn’t there, then it’s not there.

The only real difference is that instead of a single unifying story as in a linear campaign, you have a bunch of mini stories strung together episodic style.

Like in the children’s sandbox example above, the players may only use the sand provided and must never be allowed to alter the sandbox. They have no control over what toys may be found in the sandbox. Sure they might build a sandcastle, but only on the terms dictated by the owner of the sandbox.

At no point do the players get to add or change the sandbox itself. It’s all about discovering the DMs world and what the dm has created. It’s all about reacting to the DMs ideas.

Which is fine and fun. I’m not going to claim otherwise. Lots of players love playing that way. Heck I don’t mind it either. But this idea that sandbox=complete player freedom is a total fiction. You only have as much space to play in as your dm allows.

I don't think the players need to add to the game world in order to make it more of a sandbox than a linear game. All they need is the option to choose direction; admittedly the choices are limited to the world as the GM imagines but it is still far more freedom than playing typical published modules like Tomb of Annihilation. In ToA you may have some freedom on how to go through the jungle but you know that sooner or later you're going to have to face the big bad. That overall trajectory being predefined is what, to me, defines a linear game.

My games may not be pure sandbox but they certainly aren't linear either.

 

[KYRON45]

I feel like every pro-sandbox definition reiterates my original statement. But you accused me of trolling so I can’t make that comment.

 

[Faolyn]

But here’s the thing. All those things you list are 100% dm generated. The players have only as much freedom as the dm allows. If the dm decides that something isn’t there, then it’s not there.

The only real difference is that instead of a single unifying story as in a linear campaign, you have a bunch of mini stories strung together episodic style.

Like in the children’s sandbox example above, the players may only use the sand provided and must never be allowed to alter the sandbox. They have no control over what toys may be found in the sandbox. Sure they might build a sandcastle, but only on the terms dictated by the owner of the sandbox.

At no point do the players get to add or change the sandbox itself. It’s all about discovering the DMs world and what the dm has created. It’s all about reacting to the DMs ideas.

Which is fine and fun. I’m not going to claim otherwise. Lots of players love playing that way. Heck I don’t mind it either. But this idea that sandbox=complete player freedom is a total fiction. You only have as much space to play in as your dm allows.

While I realize that this particular thread is about D&D, there are games where the players create as much world-content as the GM, or even more. For instance, in Fabula Ultima, players make the world while GMs merely "take part" in the world-planning sessions.

Which suggests the lesson here might be, if you want a 100% true sandbox, either play a game other than D&D or use another game's suggestions in your D&D game.