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

[ezo]

Amazing... other discussions couldn't drive me from this thread, but the "sandbox discussion" has done it.

See ya all on the flip-side...

 

[Faolyn]

As for linear adventures and sandbox campaigns. I made this post a while back.
Sandpits to watch out for in your Sandbox


Below is based on the second half of the post that is relevant to the discussion on linear adventures. This also applies to the generation of rumors.

---

A lot of people view encounters and locales like the below. Little distinct dots in a setting.


In reality, they are more like this. Ink stains that spread across the landscape, overlapping and intermixing.



In the upper right the orange could be the range of the Dragon Xartha. The next to it is the town of Crendan (light Blue) who been subject to monthly raids by the dragon. Xartha supports the Orcs (Dark Green, right) who menace the human village of Meradar (pink) and the elven forest of Ashenwood (purple). All three are thinking of petitioning the King Orden of Alamaigne for aid (Dark Blue) who has his own problems with Baron Darkeven (Dark Green, left) who is leader of a thieves guild and making a nice profit smuggling into Crendan. In the upper left the Dwarves of Granitestar (light green) have retreated into the fastness to ride out the troubles. If convinced to come out, their aid could prove to be the tipping point leading to victory over Xartha.

What happens in sandbox campaigns is a result of the path the party choose when travelling across the landscape. If they opt to go through the left half of the map above. Then King Orden of Alamaigne, Baron Darkeven, the town of Crendan, and the Dwarves of Granitestar are relevant.

If they go through the right half then Dragon Xartha,, the town of Crendan, the Orcs, village of Meradar, elven forest of Ashenwood are relevant. Different choices by the group will result in different adventures playing out.

Huh. You know, that could be an interesting way of determining alliances. Open up an art program, randomly place down dots of various sizes and shapes and colors, then blur it until some of the dots overlap.

 

[robertsconley]

Huh. You know, that could be an interesting way of determining alliances. Open up an art program, randomly place down dots of various sizes and shapes and colors, then blur it until some of the dots overlap.

Hey if it works for you go for it. Glad it helped. I would recommend trying a soft brush that features random widths. The soft brush should give you the feather effect seen in the image.

 

[Lanefan]

No, they are not. The players have declared they want to go to a Spelljammer ship. The DM provides every step along the path that leads them from where they are to where they want to go. They go to this sage because the DM tells them that they need someone to help them find a portal to the Nexus. They travel to the Nexus because that's where the DM tells them they have to go. Once in Nexus, they talk to the NPC's that the DM tells them that they need to talk to in order to find a Spelljammer. And, once they have followed the completely linear path from A to B to C to D, they arrive at the Spelljammer ship.

Other than the initial hook of "We want a Spelljammer ship" the players have zero input into how the adventure plays out. It's entirely linear. That the players get to choose from the DM's menu doesn't make any real difference - it's still just reacting to whatever the DM has put into play.

And the alternative is? That on the players declaring they want to go to a Spelljammer ship they simply arrive at one with no intervening steps, challenges, obstacles, or adventures along the way?

Or, how else is this supposed to work?

 

[Lanefan]

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?

They can certainly ask for it, but in a D&D or D&D-adjacent game they might be out of luck before they start as D&D generally assumes - with a few limited and specific exceptions - setting to be entirely in the purview of the DM.

And if the DM doesn't want to run the sort of game or style where players have more setting input then sure, maybe (some of) the players are looking for a new table. So be it; not every game is for everyone.

 

[Lanefan]

Huh. You know, that could be an interesting way of determining alliances. Open up an art program, randomly place down dots of various sizes and shapes and colors, then blur it until some of the dots overlap.

If needed, some of the dots could be short lines instead, if a faction or whatever is intended or able to have (potentially) wider influence.

 

[pemerton]

It is about facts though. Facts the GM has generated about the setting.

we are talking about a model created by the GM

This seems to be agreeing with @Hussar, not disagreeing!

I mean, your metaphor of "facts"/"model" corresponds to his metaphor of "items on a menu".

no, at the end of the day it is the players choosing between the options the DM decided to put on the menu, or to reject them all and do whatever.

The first disjunct seems true. The second doesn't, though. The players can't have their PCs "do whatever" if it is not something that the GM has presented to them in some fashion. Because the "facts" of the sandbox are the things the GM has authored.

It's still the GMs world, because it's still a classic-style game. Whether or not making choices within that world is enough agency for you is obviously subjective.

As per @Campbell's post not too far upthread, I'm not posting about what is or isn't "enough agency" - different episodes of RPGing, using different systems and approaches, feature different amounts of player agency.

I'm just explaining why what @Hussar is saying makes sense to me.

what is the alternative, the players just saying ‘I heard there is an abandoned Spelljammer just beyond that hill there, let’s go there and take it’?

There are a variety of techniques for RPGing that does not confine the players to choosing from the GM's menu. Hussar referenced one system already in this thread: Ironsworn.

Here's an old thread that talks about some of these, in the context of D&D play: D&D 4E - Pemertonian Scene-Framing; A Good Approach to D&D 4e

And here's an actual play thread with some illustrations: PCs defeat Miska, but relinquish the Crystal of the Ebon Flame

The basic idea being discussed, and illustrated, in those threads is that rather than the players choosing from the GM's menu the GM frames scenes by choosing from the players' menu.

EDIT:

how else is this supposed to work?

See immediately above in this post.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This seems to be agreeing with @Hussar, not disagreeing!

I mean, your metaphor of "facts"/"model" corresponds to his metaphor of "items on a menu".

I would have to go back and find his posts and mine because it has been a few pages. But I don't think he and I agree on either front. One I don't think this is just a menu of options. But also I said to him, even if it were, a menu of options isn't a linear adventure

 

[Bedrockgames]

The first disjunct seems true. The second doesn't, though. The players can't have their PCs "do whatever" if it is not something that the GM has presented to them in some fashion. Because the "facts" of the sandbox are the things the GM has authored.

In most sandboxes, there is usually space for the players to ask questions and those questions will help create space for things they might want to explore. I realize you won't see this as a form of agency or anything, but this is an important aspect of play that can't just be glossed over. Yes there are options for players in a sandbox (the GM usually has a map with locations specified). But it is also generally understood the players can probe that setting, and one way to probe it is ask questions. And this is how they will generally go about "doing whatever".

 

[pemerton]

it is also generally understood the players can probe that setting, and one way to probe it is ask questions.

Yes. They "probe the setting" by declaring actions - generally low-stakes actions - that prompt the GM to reveal more of the setting. This is not moving beyond the GM's "menu", though.