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

[AlViking]

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.​

I got games mixed up. Oops. In any case can you explain what the actual rule differences are that makes it a sandbox? Because yes, I was wrong but your answer answers nothing. Because I could say Zerbert World does X and it's meaningless unless everyone is familiar with the game.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Let's test this. (All names used purely for example)

"Hey DM, I know you set your game in Icewind Dale, but I don't like the North so we're taking a boat to Chult instead."

"Hey DM, I know your game is run on Faerun, but I want to Spelljam/plane hop to Eberron instead."

"Hey DM, I know you spent a lot of time running D&D, but we want find a portal to Golarion instead."

At what point has the players no longer abiding by the sandbox and instead tried to co-opt the game into something else? They are voting with their virtual feet in every situation. At what point does the DM get to say "no, you can't go to Chult/Eberron/Golarion because that is not the game I want to run." ? And if you say "no, you can't leave Icewind Dale, Faerun or the D&D Multiverse" have to create a true sandbox?

 

[AlViking]

Let's test this. (All names used purely for example)

"Hey DM, I know you set your game in Icewind Dale, but I don't like the North so we're taking a boat to Chult instead."

"Hey DM, I know your game is run on Faerun, but I want to Spelljam/plane hop to Eberron instead."

"Hey DM, I know you spent a lot of time running D&D, but we want find a portal to Golarion instead."

At what point has the players no longer abiding by the sandbox and instead tried to co-opt the game into something else? They are voting with their virtual feet in every situation. At what point does the DM get to say "no, you can't go to Chult/Eberron/Golarion because that is not the game I want to run." ? And if you say "no, you can't leave Icewind Dale, Faerun or the D&D Multiverse" have to create a true sandbox?

We discuss starting locale and basic themes in session 0. My campaigns aren't limited to one region, so all I ask is that we start where we discussed in session 0. If I had planned a game with a lot of dungeon exploration and travelling around the wilderness like ... I don't know ... Rime of the Ice Maiden that I mentioned above and they decided they wanted an urban city campaign instead it would be fine.

But yes, I typically do limit to a specific world. It's a large world with a lot of options though. Still very much a sandbox.

 

[Azzy]

This line of discussion is amazing. And exhausting.

 

[Faolyn]

Nope. Games like this already exist.

And are these sandboxes, in your opinion?

 

[Faolyn]

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.​

To be fair, some PbtA games do say that GMs shouldn't plan out the world ahead of time but that it should be built during game. Of course, some non-PbtA games say the same thing.

 

[mamba]

At what point has the players no longer abiding by the sandbox and instead tried to co-opt the game into something else?

depends on what was agreed on initially / in session 0

At what point does the DM get to say "no, you can't go to Chult/Eberron/Golarion because that is not the game I want to run." ?

at any of them, the DM is no more obligated to run the game the players want than the players are to play in the one the DM wants

And if you say "no, you can't leave Icewind Dale, Faerun or the D&D Multiverse" have to create a true sandbox?

no idea what makes a sandbox a true sandbox, it can be a sandbox and limited to Icewind Dale at the same time

 

[Campbell]

To be fair, some PbtA games do say that GMs shouldn't plan out the world ahead of time but that it should be built during game. Of course, some non-PbtA games say the same thing.

The reason to do so is not to like give player world building authority. It's to give yourself flexibility to frame situations that resonate with PC interests and like put them under pressure. You still retain the overall authority. You are just expected to use it in pursuit of maintaining the momentum of play.

 

[AlViking]

The reason to do so is not to like give player world building authority. It's to give yourself flexibility to frame situations that resonate with PC interests and like put them under pressure. You still retain the overall authority. You are just expected to use it in pursuit of maintaining the momentum of play.

Being flexible and trying to set up situations that resonate with my players is how I try to run my games. Nothing in the D&D rules contradicts that approach.

So what do other games do that are supposed to allow a sandbox that is somehow not possible in D&D?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Those are mostly character-build and ruleset issues, which generally cease to apply (or apply far less) once play begins.