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

[Bedrockgames]

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.

yes it is because it can actually create new things. Granteed the GM is the one who comes up with what it is exactly, but this definitely has the effect of steering campaigns into direction the GM might not have planned on the menu. Just as an example, the GM might have a city on the map and the players might say "Are there any celestial plume dealers in that town we can work with". And the question might be asked literally or play out as the players go to the town and ask around. But however it happens it forces the GM to answer the question of whether there are plume dealers in town. And if the answer is yes, that might become an avenue for exploration. Again, yes the GM will 'author'* the details of that and have final say, but this is definitely in my view the players 'doing whatever'.

*your word not mine

 

[pemerton]

yes it is because it can actually create new things. Granteed the GM is the one who comes up with what it is exactly

<snip>

yes the GM will 'author'* the details of that and have final say

If it is the GM coming up with - authoring - new stuff, then what stops it being the GM's menu?

The answer must be: the principles whereby the GM comes up with that stuff. For instance, whose concerns are guiding the GM in arriving at their new stuff? The GM's concerns for the "integrity" of their vision of the setting? Or the players' concerns in having their PC hope to learn/discover/achieve something?

 

[Hussar]

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.

So to you it is only a sandbox if the DM has nothing on offer, the players say ‘we want to do X’ and the DM then has to conjure everything out of thin air / improvise all of it?

Are there any limitations on what the players can ask for, like eg they were playing on the Sword Coast but the players say ‘we travel to Thay now’ or ‘let us find a Spelljammer’ as in a previous example?

No I’m simply pointing out that the difference between sandbox and, say, Adventure Path, is one of degree not kind. Sandbox may have a bigger menu, but the players are still constrained to bartering from that menu and cannot substitute anything unless the dm feels like it.

Whether you have one path or ten paths forward, the point is at no point are you ever off a pre-determined path.

People try to paint this as two approaches. I’m saying it’s all the same approach just with minor variations.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If it is the GM coming up with - authoring - new stuff, then what stops it being the GM's menu?

The player's question is what initiated the celestial plume dealer even existing there (this example assumes the GM didn't have that kind of detail written down about the town and that the player asked, which got the GM to make a decision about it). No one is saying the GM isn't ultimately creating the detail, but you aren't making enough of a distinction between details the GM prepped and put on the map before play and details that emerge through play (even if the GM creates them) as a result of the players probing what already exists, asking questions and pushing the boundaries of the setting with their characters. So I would say it isnt a menu item either way

The answer must be: the principles whereby the GM comes up with that stuff. For instance, whose concerns are guiding the GM in arriving at their new stuff? The GM's concerns for the "integrity" of their vision of the setting? Or the players' concerns in having their PC hope to learn/discover/achieve something?

I don't know that the answer must be anything. That seems pretty black and white to me.

Obviously the principles matter. But even if the GM has a mush of principles and no real clear idea of why he is doing what, the players pushing on the boundaries of the setting with questions and actions like this is going to have an effect. I don't think it automatically is made a menu item just because the GM isn't using the right set of principles. Don't get me wrong, having solid principles to work on can be great for GMing.

I mean if the GM is just saying 'no' to everything, for some reason. Sure that is a problem that might lead it to feel like the GM has a preset menu. But if the GM is at least occasionally saying things like "yeah something like that is here....." then it isn't a menu as far as I can tell (and "yeah something like that is here...." is a pretty common thing to hear in a sandbox).

That said, your typical sandbox GM is probably going to be trying to balance the integrity of the setting with the player's agency and other considerations (like what the GM knows about celestial plume dealers in the setting already). But eventually what is likely to happen, is the players asking "is there a blank here" gets answered in the affirmative (even if the GM had no plan of such a thing being there_

 

[Hussar]

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?

Nope. You’re right it’s working exactly the way it should. A linear series of steps authored by the Dm.

Why are you arguing with me? I agree with you. Sandbox is largely an illusion of choice when in fact, lockstep linear resolution is the “way this is supposed to work”.

 

[AlViking]

No I’m simply pointing out that the difference between sandbox and, say, Adventure Path, is one of degree not kind. Sandbox may have a bigger menu, but the players are still constrained to bartering from that menu and cannot substitute anything unless the dm feels like it.

Whether you have one path or ten paths forward, the point is at no point are you ever off a pre-determined path.

People try to paint this as two approaches. I’m saying it’s all the same approach just with minor variations.

Again with the assumption that the DM is preparing predetermined paths. Why? Do you not understand the difference between planning a set of encounters that will have to happen and setting up and populating a location? I mean, if it's your opinion, it is. I just don't see much similarity between what my campaigns look like and an Adventure Path. I don't have long term planned story or plot lines, I don't ever plan out A will happen then B and there will all lead to conflict C.

 

[Hussar]

it would be, but what if they could go to any of these right from the start, it is H and up that require them to level up in A-G before they can tackle them?

Then it would be absolutely a non-linear series of adventures. But, now you're shifting the goalposts. The scenario as presented isn't this. It's a lockstep, linear series of scenarios that the GM offers to the players. The players cannot skip any of the steps since each step is needed to be completed before proceeding to the next step. Thus, linear.

And every step is created and presented by the DM and the players simply react to that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Are we operating on the assumption that not moving beyond the GM's "menu", as you call it, means your players have no agency?

 

[Hussar]

Again, yes the GM will 'author'* the details of that and have final say, but this is definitely in my view the players 'doing whatever'.

Whereas to me, this is just a DM curated menu. The DM can always just say, "no, there are no celestial plume dealers here". After all, the original example was, "No, there are no Spelljammer ships here".

 

[mamba]

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.

ok, not really whatever but something that is not on the ‘menu’. There is no obligation to choose one of the items offered