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

[pemerton]

You are confusing player input on setting with player choice among things in the setting.

To me, @Hussar seems perfectly aware of that difference, and is not confusing it. He seems to be pointing out that choosing from stuff that the GM presents to the players is still about the GM's idea of how things in the setting, and hence the game, hang together.

The players could have gone to someone or someplace else other than the sage. They could could have completely shifted focus to another thing (I.e. forget about the spelljammer let’s go see if the folks at Dragon Hall are hiring guards). That the GM is in charge of setting content isn’t relevant here. And you are still wrong IMO about how much player choice and action shapes what the GM does with the setting but that is a whole separate conversation about GM authority than whether or not the players are being railroaded on a single adventure or are free to choose what they want to spend time pursuing

I don't see @Hussar having asserted that anyone is being railroaded on a single adventure.

What he is saying, as I read it - and in response to another poster's example of the Spelljammer - is that if the players want to pursue the goal of obtaining a Spelljammer, then they have to go through the steps authored into the setting by the GM. That is, first they have to find someone (eg the sage) who can tell them where a Spelljammer might be found; then they have to find out how to get to that place; then they have to go there; etc. The players have to proceed through a series of steps, or events, that the GM has authored.

The fact that the players might change their focus to some other item on the GM's menu (to continue @Hussar's metaphor) doesn't change the fact that it is the GM's menu.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I've never played minecraft, so I couldn't comment on this very much. But let me ask you some questions:

• Did you create how the game works?
• Do you create/ control the canvas / world or whatever you build on?
• Do you have infinte blocks or whatever to build with? Did you have to don anything to get them?
• Do you have other people creating in your game or is it just you?

In order:
1. How it works--not exactly. However, the modding community is EXTENSIVE, so if you count "adding mods to change the play experience" then yes. There's also the ability to design circuits within the game, meaning you can "build" a program to run other things within Minecraft...though anything more complicated than like tic-tac-toe/noughts-and-crosses will require enormous effort to create. That said, you can decide whether monsters attack or not, which is a pretty hefty amount of control compared to most games.
2. In Creative Mode, yes, absolutely; you can rewrite the world as you see fit, flying, placing any blocks you want, etc. In other modes (Survival and Adventure), not exactly, but you certainly have a lot more control than most things. The fundamental gameplay is "explore a world, build stuff you think is fun, don't die when monsters arrive at night (if you have Peaceful mode on as noted above).
3. In Creative Mode, yes, you have access to all possible blocks and can freely reshape the world as you see fit. In other modes, while "infinite" is probably not accurate, the world is procedurally generated and it would be very, very difficult for even a team of people to completely deplete a large area of all possible resources.
4. Minecraft is multiplayer, and individual players can be in different modes (e.g. the server admin might be in Creative Mode while other players are not, or everyone could be in Creative Mode, or everyone in Survival, or whatever). Further, "Adventure Mode" is specifically for using player-created maps to play on, so you can even build a map for other people to experience if you feel like.

Cool. I'm sure for a lot of players it might be. You could do the same thing in D&D if you don't want a DM and only players.

I'm not familiar with Ironsworn so I don't know if you even need any sort of referee or not, but it seems like you don't.

It's not needed. I think it's useful to have one for certain kinds of things, but the system uses "Oracles" (basically, a combo of tables for rolling specific things, and tables for rolling various "yes/no" questions, depending on how likely the players think a "yes" answer is.)

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't see @Hussar having asserted that anyone is being railroaded on a single adventure.

What he is saying, as I read it - and in response to another poster's example of the Spelljammer - is that if the players want to pursue the goal of obtaining a Spelljammer, then they have to go through the steps authored into the setting by the GM. That is, first they have to find someone (eg the sage) who can tell them where a Spelljammer might be found; then they have to find out how to get to that place; then they have to go there; etc. The players have to proceed through a series of steps, or events, that the GM has authored.

The fact that the players might change their focus to some other item on the GM's menu (to continue @Hussar's metaphor) doesn't change the fact that it is the GM's menu.

but this 1) isn’t at all clear from the example (we don’t know what other ways to get the spelljammer would have been possible: we just know what path the PCs took and hussar is calling that linear in hindsight). Linear is an adventure structure with a clear path. It isn’t having something exist in the setting and information about its location being available in places in the setting. If I am running a sandbox, I don’t have some pre planned path to get to some treasure, artifact or object that exists there. I might have some notes on different people, books, etc that know about it but it is no skin off my back of players figure out other ways to get the info (for example they might ask to hire a local information broker and get the information from them, or they might use magic to get the location immediately). There is no linear adventure there and calling that linear strains what it means it in an RPG context in order to win a style debate about sandboxes

 

[Bedrockgames]

To me, @Hussar seems perfectly aware of that difference, and is not confusing it. He seems to be pointing out that choosing from stuff that the GM presents to the players is still about the GM's idea of how things in the setting, and hence the game, hang together.

And you guys are free to see it this way. It doesn’t matter because the point is even if all these are are linear adventures plopped in place by the GM (which they aren’t but even if we grant that): the players are still able to choose from among a myriad of scenarios.

I don't see @Hussar having asserted that anyone is being railroaded on a single adventure.

But this is the central thing a sandbox seeks to avoid. It is a style that is contrasted with ‘there is an adventure the gm has planned for the evening). That is why this point is relevant. If they are not being railroaded and can freely choose what to do, they have freedom of choice.

 

[Campbell]

And you guys are free to see it this way. It doesn’t matter because the point is even if all these are are linear adventures plopped in place by the GM (which they aren’t but even if we grant that): the players are still able to choose from among a myriad of scenarios.

And if that is not enough agency for a player's taste? If they want more than a selection, but want to set their own agenda? Are they being unreasonable to either provide that feedback or move on to a game with more agency? Are players allowed to want more say?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Also on the topic of @robertsconley ’s How To Make Fantasy sandbox. I would encourage people to read it for themselves in full and make their own determination. I will let Rob respond to the pinned made about it himself but I think it is a very useful resource if you are trying to put together a sandbox and feel overwhelmed by the work. He takes everything step by step (the whole thing is more than just the steps mentioned). I have it in print as well and it is very well done.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And if that is not enough agency for a player's taste? If they want more than a selection, but want to set their own agenda? Are they being unreasonable to either provide that feedback or move on to a game with more agency? Are players allowed to want more say?

Then it isn’t enough agency for their taste which is totally fine. I am all for people playing a style or system that works for them. Everything you list is reasonable. But I don’t think this conversation is moving in a reasonable or helpful direction. It is just a battle at this point. And a battle only one side seems to want.

I don’t think sandbox is a good fit for everyone and I think sandboxes have advantages and disadvantages to consider. But making it sound like they aren’t about player choice just because someone wants more agency feels like a disingenuous critique (they are clearly about giving players more choices but Hussar wants something very different from more choice: he wants players to have more direct input on setting and direction of events in the campaign. That is a very valid preference to have. But the hobby isn’t a zero sum game between sandbox play and what Hussar is looking for. Both can exist, both can be about empowering players in different ways. Both have upsides and downsides worth exploring. But if someone is just trying to win a style debate, the conversation isn’t going to illuminate any of those

 

[AlViking]

And if that is not enough agency for a player's taste? If they want more than a selection, but want to set their own agenda? Are they being unreasonable to either provide that feedback or move on to a game with more agency? Are players allowed to want more say?

It all depends on the group of course but I'm not sure what you mean by "more say". Players can choose to go any direction they want in my campaign but they are only responsible for their characters, I control everything else. There will sometimes be some collaboration on design that would happen offline but I'm the one who has the final say.

Having agency does not require control over other people or places outside of what your character can do or influence. If I wanted a game where the players were equal participants in world building I wouldn't be playing D&D and I don't see how it affects whether or not the game is a sandbox or not. It's just a different unrelated issue of game design and goals.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It all depends on the group of course but I'm not sure what you mean by "more say". Players can choose to go any direction they want in my campaign but they are only responsible for their characters, I control everything else. There will sometimes be some collaboration on design that would happen offline but I'm the one who has the final say.

Having agency does not require control over other people or places outside of what your character can do or influence. If I wanted a game where the players were equal participants in world building I wouldn't be playing D&D and I don't see how it affects whether or not the game is a sandbox or not. It's just a different unrelated issue of game design and goals.

Yeah this gets at a style split around how agency is talked about. What sandbox is offering is agency inside an objective setting that they players themselves aren't going to be able to shape (everything they do in a typical sandbox will be through their characters: which can have considerable force but these are two entirely different approaches to agency).

 

[darkbard]

Yeah this gets at a style split around how agency is talked about. What sandbox is offering is agency inside an objective setting that they players themselves aren't going to be able to shape (everything they do in a typical sandbox will be through their characters: which can have considerable force but these are two entirely different approaches to agency).

Except when you write "objective setting," you actually mean subjective decisions by the GM.