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

[Faolyn]

I’d point out that “better” has never been what I said. Easier? Yup. I’ll stand by that. But better is the interpretation that others have added despite my repeatedly saying that it’s not.

No, what makes it not a sandbox is that the amount of work required to create all that precludes the game from ever happening at all because the DM just doesn't have the time.

I'm saying that D&D is not a very good sandbox game.

There are other systems that work better for creating sandboxes than D&D.

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.

You have have fought, ignored, strawmanned, or downright insulted just about every attempt by anyone to show why D&D is fine for sandboxes or why they like prepping games.

Like please, go through my recent post or the recent posts by others and show how Ironsworn is so much different from D&D.

 

[pemerton]

show how Ironsworn is so much different from D&D.

This has been done. Look at the journey rules that I posted.

 

[Faolyn]

This has been done. Look at the journey rules that I posted.

I'm talking specifically how Hussar described it. The mechanics are going to be different, of course, but the way he says he handles it in game is pretty much the way I've used it or seen it used in I'd say most games. The players want to find rumors; it doesn't matter if it's some sort of Charisma check or a Gather Information move or a Carousing roll or whatever. The GM will use the roll to determine the types of rumors that will, in his words, lead the PCs on an adventure. And so on.

Heck, a lot of the things you posted are basically the same in, well, a whole lot of games. You need a magic weapon to hit the leviathan. You have to pass a saving throw to avoid being frightened. Its swim speed is too high for you to escape that way. I could go through this same list with tons of other systems as well. Some games may have bane weapons. Some games may have traits that make you less or more likely to be frightened by the leviathan. Some games may give you penalties to swimming in the choppy waters around a leviathan. Some games have Vows as a trait you can take during or after chargen.

Please note: I've heard lots of good things about Ironsworn and I've been wanting to give it a try for a while now, but it's not so magically different from every other game as you might think, and there's probably very little that's done in it that can't be done, and routinely is done, in other games.

 

[mamba]

5e D&D, by default, doesn't have a concept of strong hit, or weak hit, or paying the price on a miss.

no, I was referring to the 'ask the oracle' part to determine details of the quest / location / whatever. There are plenty of books you can use for that, that 5e does not cover this in its core books does not mean you cannot play 5e that way, it only means that WotC had other priorities.

Here is a small list of books that could help with it, not that you need all of them

Uncharted Journeys
Dangerous Destinations
Spectacular Settlements
Epic Locations – Nature
Oracle Story Generator
Oracle Character Generator
The Game Master’s Fantasy Toolkit

 

[AlViking]

You have have fought, ignored, strawmanned, or downright insulted just about every attempt by anyone to show why D&D is fine for sandboxes or why they like prepping games.

Like please, go through my recent post or the recent posts by others and show how Ironsworn is so much different from D&D.

Different does not make better, neither is less prep time, nor a systematic approach ro journey rules, not even things like the concept of strong hit, weak hit, or paying the price on a miss.

They're just different. I've played other styles of game here and there and they just don't work for me like D&D does. So when people say that D&D doesn't work like those games? I say thank goodness. Other games work for someone else? I'm glad for them.

But I still run a sandbox campaign and I do it because of preference but also because for me it's less work. Not sure there's anything else to add.

 

[Faolyn]

Different does not make better, neither is less prep time, nor a systematic approach ro journey rules, not even things like the concept of strong hit, weak hit, or paying the price on a miss.

They're just different. I've played other styles of game here and there and they just don't work for me like D&D does. So when people say that D&D doesn't work like those games? I say thank goodness. Other games work for someone else? I'm glad for them.

But I still run a sandbox campaign and I do it because of preference but also because for me it's less work. Not sure there's anything else to add.

Exactly. If Hussar prefers Ironsworn to D&D, or finds it a hundred times better than D&D for his preferred style of gaming, that's great! It's just, say that's your opinion and let other people have theirs instead of trying to constantly prove them wrong.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Exactly. If Hussar prefers Ironsworn to D&D, or finds it a hundred times better than D&D for his preferred style of gaming, that's great! It's just, say that's your opinion and let other people have theirs instead of trying to constantly prove them wrong.

So, by this logic, it is impossible to ever say that any system is ever not particularly good for any particular things?

I can bill D&D as being precisely as good at literally anything as any other system, regardless of design differences? I can bill any other system as precisely as good as D&D at turn-based combat?

Because that's the logical result of this argument. No system can ever be better or worse at any use, no matter what. And I find that claim completely ridiculous. FATAL is just as good as D&D? Absolutely the Nine Hells not.

 

[Lanefan]

So, by this logic, it is impossible to ever say that any system is ever not particularly good for any particular things?

I think that largely depends on a) how specialized the system in question is trying to be and-or b) how hard it is trying to suggest (or even force) a particular playstyle.

The more that either or both of those elements is inherent in the system, the less good it's likely to be at doing things outside its self-imposed niche.

I can bill D&D as being precisely as good at literally anything as any other system, regardless of design differences? I can bill any other system as precisely as good as D&D at turn-based combat?

Because that's the logical result of this argument. No system can ever be better or worse at any use, no matter what. And I find that claim completely ridiculous. FATAL is just as good as D&D? Absolutely the Nine Hells not.

D&D, however, isn't trying hard if at all to be specialized, nor is it trying very hard to suggest a particular playstyle other than broadly DM-centered. Because of that, it remains flexible enough to be good enough at enough things that most people can make it work.

It covers even more ground when you look at all its editions rather than just 5.xe.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think that largely depends on a) how specialized the system in question is trying to be and-or b) how hard it is trying to suggest (or even force) a particular playstyle.

The more that either or both of those elements is inherent in the system, the less good it's likely to be at doing things outside its self-imposed niche.

D&D, however, isn't trying hard if at all to be specialized, nor is it trying very hard to suggest a particular playstyle other than broadly DM-centered. Because of that, it remains flexible enough to be good enough at enough things that most people can make it work.

It covers even more ground when you look at all its editions rather than just 5.xe.

But that isn't the argument that was being made. "It's adequate enough to get by, even if it isn't as good at something specifically designed for some particular thing" would be perfectly fine.

The argument given was:

You have have fought, ignored, strawmanned, or downright insulted just about every attempt by anyone to show why D&D is fine for sandboxes or why they like prepping games.

Exactly. If Hussar prefers Ironsworn to D&D, or finds it a hundred times better than D&D for his preferred style of gaming, that's great! It's just, say that's your opinion and let other people have theirs instead of trying to constantly prove them wrong.

"You are not allowed to have the opinion that one system is better at a particular task than any other" is the only possible logical conclusion from this. That "[X system] is better at <style A> while [Y system] is better at <style B>" is an inherently invalid position to take.

This is why I am reacting so strongly to this. It is the direct rejection of any possibility of comparing the effectiveness of any system at any action or activity ever, no matter what. No system can ever be better or worse at anything.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, sorry folks, but, that conversation was getting far, far too antagonistic to be continued, so, questions about "better" or "worse" will be tabled and I will simply not answer them from now on.

My point is, and remains, that there are other systems where it is easier to run a sandbox than D&D. Nothing more, nothing less.