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

[Remathilis]

Where for me, what you call player entitlement is in this case what I call player agency.

If I-as-DM have designed a setting and determined that the campaign will start in the port city of Praetos, and have come up with a few potential adventures in-around the city to get things going, and the players' first in-character action as a party is to say "Hey, let's buy a boat and go looking for adventures in-around-across the Axenos Sea!" then I think I-as-DM have to be both willing and able to adapt or else I'm just not doing my job.

Maybe I can re-skin one of the close-to-town adventures I've prepped and have them find it somewhere else, or (more likely) maybe I design something new and save the near-town adventures for another party and-or another day.

I'm sorry, but every DM on this board rails about how the DM's Tastes are Absolute when it comes to system, style, and tone in their game but its absolutely ookie-dookie that the players can just ignore the campaign the DM has provided and demand something else. If the players said "Hey, I don't like AD&D, run Pathfinder instead" or "I know you said Tolkien races, but I want to be a tabaxi" or "I know your setting is low magic, I want a super-powered anime-styled character" you'd demand that player be excommunicated. But if the player says "I know you wanted to run something in the Nentir Vale, but we've decided we want a nautical/pirate campaign instead so we're going south to buy a boat" its okay because that's what a sandbox is?

Yeah, I don't think so.

 

[AlViking]

I'm sorry, but every DM on this board rails about how the DM's Tastes are Absolute when it comes to system, style, and tone in their game but its absolutely ookie-dookie that the players can just ignore the campaign the DM has provided and demand something else. If the players said "Hey, I don't like AD&D, run Pathfinder instead" or "I know you said Tolkien races, but I want to be a tabaxi" or "I know your setting is low magic, I want a super-powered anime-styled character" you'd demand that player be excommunicated. But if the player says "I know you wanted to run something in the Nentir Vale, but we've decided we want a nautical/pirate campaign instead so we're going south to buy a boat" its okay because that's what a sandbox is?

Yeah, I don't think so.

The two have nothing to do with each other. The campaign world I generally use has a few restrictions including a list of races but the players can have their characters go wherever they want. I don't allow players to alter the world outside of what their characters can influence either and neither one makes my game any less of a sandbox. I'm not excommunicating a player for wanting to play a different game than what I have to offer, I just don't provide something they may want.

 

[pemerton]

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

Burning Wheel.

Dungeon World played in the style of Apocalypse World (which DW apes very closely in its rules text).

4e D&D played in the fashion described and discussed in this thread: D&D 4E - Pemertonian Scene-Framing; A Good Approach to D&D 4e

 

[Hussar]

no, that is where you are wrong, the sage was not the only possible first stop, they were a possible first stop. The sage might even have been suggested by the players and not have existed in the setting up to that point. What lead to this sequence is decisions made by the players, not something forced by the DM.

Considering the example presented you are just wrong here. There were no other options. This wasn’t a “possible” first stop. It was the ONLY first stop. And you MUST progress through the stops in the proscribed order.

Good grief. How is this not linear? The players must proceed though the steps in a specific order to reach an and goal. That’s the definition of linear.

But yeah, I can see this is fruitless. This will not be resolved. Feel free to have the final word.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Nope. Games like this already exist.

 

[AlViking]

Nope. Games like this already exist.

I, and others have explained why we consider our games sandboxes. What do other games do that change anything?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Considering the example presented you are just wrong here. There were no other options. This wasn’t a “possible” first stop. It was the ONLY first stop. And you MUST progress through the stops in the proscribed order.

You really hornet clarified the example though before. But this isn't how most people run sandboxes. Why would I not allow them to pursue other avenues of discovering this information and getting to the Spelljammer ship

 

[mamba]

Considering the example presented you are just wrong here. There were no other options.

there were no other options because those were the steps described after the fact, ie this is what the players did, not what they could have done. This was pointed out more than once, you just ignored or missed it

That isn't a linear adventure. That is the players choosing to go to a sage, then to Nexus, then to the spell jammer.

There isn’t enough information in this example to know that. We don’t know if the GM planned on a sage being the avenue for learning the location. As long as the players are free to engage this question how they want, I think it isn’t linear.

 

[AlViking]

Burning Wheel.

Dungeon World played in the style of Apocalypse World (which DW apes very closely in its rules text).

4e D&D played in the fashion described and discussed in this thread: D&D 4E - Pemertonian Scene-Framing; A Good Approach to D&D 4e

What is different? In the 4e link there's verbiage about "framing" which is not really explained but the future scenes being determined by the players' choices and actions has nothing to do with edition and is what I've been describing as sandbox style. I would also add that the players can influence other NPCs who may respond in ways I had not planned for or expected.

Because the mention of DW and AW sounds like once again trying to dress up a preference for players having control of the world outside of their character as somehow being the superior and only way to have a sandbox.

 

[pemerton]

Because the mention of DW and AW sounds like once again trying to dress up a preference for players having control of the world outside of their character as somehow being the superior and only way to have a sandbox.

Are you very familiar with Apocalypse World? This post makes it seem like you're not, given that it is wrong. As per the rules, p 109:

Apocalypse World divvies the conversation up in a strict and pretty traditional way. The players’ job is to say what their characters say and undertake to do, first and exclusively; to say what their characters think, feel and remember, also exclusively; and to answer your questions about their characters’ lives and surroundings. Your job as MC is to say everything else: everything about the world, and what everyone in the whole damned world says and does except the players’ characters.​