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

[Hussar]

I was thinking about starting a thread on how to build and run a sandbox campaign, because my process looks significantly different from what other people do. But I'm sure it would quickly devolve into how what I do isn't really a sandbox even though I and my players consider it one because D&D doesn't allow for it.

I'd rather enjoy seeing something like that. And, perhaps if you would refrain from restating other arguments, it might be easier? After all, no one here is claiming you aren't playing in a sandbox. About the strongest thing that has been claimed is that D&D isn't a particularly good system for sandboxing because it is so prep heavy.

 

[Hussar]

How broad or deep can you get in a world created in under an hour? I suppose Hussar could be an absolute genius at fast worldbuilding, but would I bet on that? No.

All you are doing is demonstrating your ignorance of other systems. Depth of world and world building occurs IN PLAY. It is created by the entire group. The interactions of the players between each other and the NPC's create the world. That's the whole point of (sorry for the Forgism) No-Myth play. By the end of the campaign, we had a very fleshed out system of myth and legend in the setting. Several locations and lots of history.

Granted, it was a very short campaign - only a dozen sessions or so. So, obviously, how much depth can we actually achieve in this? But, if I spent as much time playing as sandbox DM's spent on setting creation, I would at least as much depth and, actually have entertained my entire group throughout instead of needing to do hours and hours of prep before I even begin to play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, Hussar said he hates worldbuilding and had a player leave because he wanted to know more about the setting and Hussar didn't have answers, so for all I know, "deep" in this case could mean anything beyond the sheer surface.

Sure, lots of things can be created during play. I had to create all sorts of details on the fly because the players wanted to know about them and I didn't think about them ahead of time. But I also find it helps make the world richer by coming up with at least some of those details ahead of time.

And as I said way up thread, for many people, creating these details is fun. It's not a huge waste of time and it doesn't get in the way of the sandbox to know details about the world.

Yeah, anyone who hates worldbuilding likely has a different definition of "deep" in a gaming context than I do, if they apply that term to their own game.

 

[The Firebird]

Sure, lots of things can be created during play. I had to create all sorts of details on the fly because the players wanted to know about them and I didn't think about them ahead of time. But I also find it helps make the world richer by coming up with at least some of those details ahead of time.

This is one of my challenges also. There's been a push for minimalism recently. I'm thinking of the shadowdark hex crawls. No doubt they're easy to get to the table. But so much is ill defined I feel I'm doing the majority of the creative work anyway.

I like Hemingway's iceberg theory quote in this regard:

If a writer of prose knows enough of what he is writing about he may omit things that he knows and the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough, will have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them. The dignity of movement of an ice-berg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water. A writer who omits things because he does not know them only makes hollow places in his writing.

It doesn't matter if most things you prepare don't see the light of day. Because having prepared them will give you a greater understanding of the world, and cause the things you do present to feel that much more real.

 

[Hussar]

It doesn't matter if most things you prepare don't see the light of day. Because having prepared them will give you a greater understanding of the world, and cause the things you do present to feel that much more real.

Let me put it this way.

A lone GM working on a setting spends X number of hours writing, creating, doing worldbuilding. Every hour is 1 man hour of work.

A group playing something like Ironsworn (or one of the many, many other games like this) has four or five people sitting around a table constantly world building, writing, creating, meaning that every hour of play is 4 or 5 man hours of work.

That's the advantage to using these systems for doing sandboxes. Say it takes 20 hours of work to get a setting off the ground. I'm picking a totally random number - pick a different one if it works for you. In any case, these systems let you leverage the entire group in sharing the work of building a setting instead of everything funneling through one person at the table.

Even if the players are offering suggestions, it's still going through the GM in order to get it into a working form that can be used at the table.

Again, I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH TRADITIONAL GAMES. Hopefully if I write that in all caps the message might sink in. What I am saying is that there are systems out there that work better, more efficiently and frankly, more creatively because you have several heads working together instead of one person's lone vision.

 

[The Firebird]

That's the advantage to using these systems for doing sandboxes. Say it takes 20 hours of work to get a setting off the ground. I'm picking a totally random number - pick a different one if it works for you. In any case, these systems let you leverage the entire group in sharing the work of building a setting instead of everything funneling through one person at the table.

Yes; a consequence of my view is the belief that most GMs can only run a few settings in a few systems to a really satisfying level of depth. Ideally they'll run games there for years to decades.

Hopefully if I write that in all caps the message might sink in.

A timeless sentiment

What I am saying is that there are systems out there that work better, more efficiently and frankly, more creatively because you have several heads working together instead of one person's lone visiont

It depends. Sometimes many voices helps; sometimes it's just cacaphony. Most novels have a sole author and that seems to work for them. The purity of a lone vision is something.

I'd guess your system is better for getting games to the table. But I'd also guess it starts to sputter for more extended campaigns. At least that was my experience with PbtA and collaborative worldbuilding. Blades in the Dark was better, because there was such a strong authorial voice in the main setting.

 

[Hussar]

It depends. Sometimes many voices helps; sometimes it's just cacaphony. Most novels have a sole author and that seems to work for them. The purity of a lone vision is something.

That's actually almost never true. While most novels do credit a sole author, there are a host of editors and other people who have an enormous impact on that novel long before it hits the shelf. A novel is a team product.

There are virtually no novels out there, with some very rare exceptions, with a "purity of a lone vision".

 

[Lanefan]

All you are doing is demonstrating your ignorance of other systems. Depth of world and world building occurs IN PLAY. It is created by the entire group. The interactions of the players between each other and the NPC's create the world. That's the whole point of (sorry for the Forgism) No-Myth play. By the end of the campaign, we had a very fleshed out system of myth and legend in the setting. Several locations and lots of history.

Granted, it was a very short campaign - only a dozen sessions or so. So, obviously, how much depth can we actually achieve in this? But, if I spent as much time playing as sandbox DM's spent on setting creation, I would at least as much depth and, actually have entertained my entire group throughout instead of needing to do hours and hours of prep before I even begin to play.

So in this campaign you-as-group in effect brought the sand into the previously-empty box with you, rather than playing in sand that was already there.

Personally, once I saw behind the curtain and realized that everything beyond the characters' past or present perception was a blank page I'd probably find it a bit...well, off-putting isn't the right phrase, neither is disturbing, nor annoying, but...maybe unsettling might be the best term for now. As if my character was walking on a cloud rather than on something solid.

 

[Lanefan]

Let me put it this way.

A lone GM working on a setting spends X number of hours writing, creating, doing worldbuilding. Every hour is 1 man hour of work.

A group playing something like Ironsworn (or one of the many, many other games like this) has four or five people sitting around a table constantly world building, writing, creating, meaning that every hour of play is 4 or 5 man hours of work.

That's the advantage to using these systems for doing sandboxes. Say it takes 20 hours of work to get a setting off the ground. I'm picking a totally random number - pick a different one if it works for you. In any case, these systems let you leverage the entire group in sharing the work of building a setting instead of everything funneling through one person at the table.

Even if the players are offering suggestions, it's still going through the GM in order to get it into a working form that can be used at the table.

Which doesn't work for a player who as a function of play wants to explore something someone else has built, with all the mystery and surprises and discoveries said exploration should (ideally) provide.

It would also, I think, be or become impossible to keep player knowledge and character knowledge in synch; and to me both as player and DM I see this as vital for good-faith no-metagaming play. It's difficult, for example, to be surprised in-character that there's a hidden village of Elves in the next valley when out-of-character you just helped author it there.

 

[Faolyn]

All you are doing is demonstrating your ignorance of other systems. Depth of world and world building occurs IN PLAY. It is created by the entire group. The interactions of the players between each other and the NPC's create the world. That's the whole point of (sorry for the Forgism) No-Myth play. By the end of the campaign, we had a very fleshed out system of myth and legend in the setting. Several locations and lots of history.

I've run many systems, including ones where the players make the world. I've even played D&D games where the players made the world. Some of the world we make in-game. Some of it we make before the game starts. You're assuming that people who disagree with you are ignorant of how non-D&D games work, and that is very much incorrect.

And you've admitted that you hate worldbuilding and there is "nothing under a thin veneer."

Burning Wheel is not magically superior to other games. It's different from trad games. You like it more. That's OK. But it's ridiculous to say that other games are "terrible" for sandboxes just because you don't like worldbuilding and prefer to do everything during game.