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

[EzekielRaiden]

You were the one saying that having anything predefined means everything is nailed down.

Please quote me where I said those words.

To me if I have multiple meaningful choices and the autonomy to choose options (or even asking if I can get a custom order) I have autonomy. If I have that level of autonomy in a game I'm playing a sandbox. I will never have infinite options to choose from in a game or in real life, that doesn't mean a game or real life is linear.

Then I do not share your definition of "agency".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

By that logic, it's impossible to have a sandbox game if that game involves a GM. You'd have to invent a GM-less game that uses a ton of random generators or event decks for there to be a true sandbox.

You may note that both Hussar and I have held up a gale which was designed to work without needing a GM.

 

[AlViking]

Please quote me where I said those words.


Then I do not share your definition of "agency".

If you already know the contents of every hex well before players enter it, how is the world not nailed down?

It's your theme park. They just get to choose what they see in it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

@AlViking Can't quote your post as it contains no text (only quotes which don't get carried forward)

I stand by what I said. You know everything the players could interact with in the hexes. You, the DM, have to determine what all that is before any player can be allowed to interact with it. That is nailing things down. There are games, both those that require a GM and those that don't, which explicitly do not work that way.

 

[AlViking]

@AlViking Can't quote your post as it contains no text (only quotes which don't get carried forward)

I stand by what I said. You know everything the players could interact with in the hexes. You, the DM, have to determine what all that is before any player can be allowed to interact with it. That is nailing things down. There are games, both those that require a GM and those that don't, which explicitly do not work that way.

I do not know what the results of the character's actions will be, that's the whole point. If the DM has decided that King Bob rules over a land, the characters still have full autonomy on how to deal with good old Bob. They could ignore him, kill him, negotiate, bribe. They could form an alliance with Queen Sue and overthrow him through legal means. It's only linear if there is only 1 reaction possible. In a sandbox King Bob's reactions are not predefined only his history, personality and goals are.

Any game that has structure will have some options and limits predefined.

 

[The Firebird]

It is not like either. I cannot say it is more or less like either thing. Of 7, blue, and red, 7 is no more like blue than it is like red, nor is it more like red than blue. It is like neither.

When people like sandboxes they're often interested in verisimilitude. The point is that a sandbox feels more like the real world than a railroad. I disagree that there is no value to this comparison.

But everything in that hex will be nailed down by the DM before they actually do anything there. That's the point. No option is available without being created by the DM, whenever the details are filled in is irrelevant. The DM is the sole arbiter of what is allowed into the fiction (except for personal details) either way.

I don't get your point then. The part I was interested in was:

They can't forge into unknown territory, for one of various reasons:

4. They have choices...but those choices are only things the DM already has prepared (whether fixed-sequence or a "menu" of options or a nailed-down world they can hexcrawl through)

Truly going somewhere else simply isn't in the cards. In fact, even for many games billed as "sandboxes", actually leaving the original area of interest is never even a possibility.

The DM presenting the world to the players doesn't mean the players are unable to forge into unknown territory.

What you really seem to be saying is that in D&D players exercise less authorial control over the game than they might in other systems. That's true. But it's orthogonal to the question of 'sandbox', imo.

 

[Faolyn]

I agree, but based on what some people seem to think, this is the only true sandbox. Do whatever you want.




Then you are just leaving the results of every decision up to a roll of the die. I don't see how it matter how it's decided what the contents of a chest (or whatever randomized result you want) is, whether it's a person or a random result, the only autonomy you had was whether to open the chest or not.

Ah, but then it's not up to the GM to decide these things with their cruel GM fiat!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ah, but then it's not up to the GM to decide these things with their cruel GM fiat!

Your sarcasm is not doing you favors. I literally just said this isn't a criticism.

You would think I had pissed in someone's cheerios the way people are reacting...

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ah, and see how you used the negative example, but not the positive one? Clearly I'm the one with a nasty evil agenda, not just using examples to illustrate a point, that a power not exercised still matters. As I literally said. Clearly the takeaway is that sandboxes are prisons, and not that sandboxes make you the most powerful individual person on Earth.

For goodness sake, I know you can respond to arguments better than this.


I mean, you're the one using words like "accommodate" and talking about how you must "devote energy" to filling in the world because the players made a choice. That sounds to me like the only things players can do are ones you prepare. You just don't prepare absolutely all of it ahead of time. It's still your world. They just elect what to see of it.

Please describe the alternative in a D&D-like game with a GM.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The GM provides the rails. The agency is in where you look while you're riding them.

How are you not seeing comments like this as adversarial?