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

[Alzrius]

So, you're just ignoring the parts in what you just quoted where Hussar said

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.

In other words, explicitly NOT, at ANY point, saying that D&D is just a fundamentally worse system or that Ironsworn is just a fundamentally better system. Each and every time, his claim has been the much more restrained statement that X system is better than Y system for task Z. Which is completely different from saying that X system is just inherently better than system Y at everything you could possibly do.

Like I don't understand why this is such a hard thing. He has made this argument consistently.

You're moving the goalposts. According to you, all Hussar said was that X game makes a good "omelet," i.e. that he only said that X game did something well. In point of fact, that's not all that he said, with multiple people have given you direct quotes to back that up.

Now, you can agree with those other quotes or disagree with them, but they demonstrate quite clearly that "X makes a good omelet" is not all that he said.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't care about speed in my sandbox play. It does not make the experience better for me. Therefore, speedier sandbox equals better sandbox is not objectively true.

I can use logic too.

This is the thing, speed of prep is not really a concern for me either. I enjoy putting together a sandbox. And I find they are largely self sustaining once you have done the initial work and get them going (even in a game like D&D).

 

[The Firebird]

A person telling you, "52 Pickup is better for sandbox gaming than D&D" is something no one can dispute or argue against?

You can dispute it for a certain definition of sandbox. But at the end of the day "I prefer this" is unassailable.

 

[pemerton]

A sandbox doesn't have to be all of A or B. Plenty of sandboxes are built on prepped material and also made up on the fly as a result of the players probing the setting and the GM making things or resetting to rolls in the moment

But it does have to be A or B if it is to serve certain goals.

For instance, if the resolution technique is ostensibly map-and-key, but the GM is making up the map and/or the key as they go along, then the players aren't actually learning stuff in the way that @The Firebird and @Faolyn described (or at least the way I took them to be describing).

Once the GM is making up the map and/or key, then either (i) the player experience of learning about the setting comes much closer to what @The Firebird criticised about Ironsworn, or else (ii) the GM needs to keep their spontaneous authorship secret, so as to create the illusion of a map-and-key constrained sandbox.

This is what I mean by not being able to have it both ways.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You're moving the goalposts. According to you, all Hussar said was that X game makes a good "omelet," i.e. that he only said that X game did something well. In point of fact, that's not all that he said, with multiple people have given you direct quotes to back that up.

Now, you can agree with those other quotes or disagree with them, but they demonstrate quite clearly that "X makes a good omelet" is not all that he said.

No. I said all he said was that X is better at making omelettes.

The thing you're arguing against is that X is better at EVERYTHING.

The two are not the same. And the latter is quite obviously a strawman.

We're done here. I'm not replying further to you.

 

[The Firebird]

But it does have to be A or B if it is to serve certain goals.

For instance, if the resolution technique is ostensibly map-and-key, but the GM is making up the map and/or the key as they go along, then the players aren't actually learning stuff in the way that @The Firebird and @Faolyn described (or at least the way I took them to be describing).

Once the GM is making up the map and/or key, then either (i) the player experience of learning about the setting comes much closer to what @The Firebird criticised about Ironsworn, or else (ii) the GM needs to keep their spontaneous authorship secret, so as to create the illusion of a map-and-key constrained sandbox.

This is what I mean by not being able to have it both ways.

Narrowly true. But I'd consider a world with a large amount of fixed content and some random rolls a sandbox. The random rolls actually add to the sandbox, imo. And "roll encounters on table X" is a type of fixed content. So it's a fuzzy boundary.

 

[mamba]

Point to me the place where he said D&D was a bad system. Point to me the place where he said Ironsworn is just an inherently, generically better system than D&D.

at sandboxes, not inherently, just like the post you were replying to

Such as Hussar saying that because Ironsworn is faster, it is better for sandboxes

 

[Alzrius]

No. I said all he said was that X is better at making omelettes.

No, that's not what you said. You said, "Hussar has been quite clear that all he is saying is "X is good/fast at making omelettes"" which is demonstrably not true.

The thing you're arguing against is that X is better at EVERYTHING.

No, what I'm arguing against is your saying that Hussar was only saying that X game was good at being a sandbox, ignoring that he said other things about other games being bad at it, both as a comparison and not.

The two are not the same. And the latter is quite obviously a strawman.

The strawman is saying that his statements were all about X being good at Y, ignoring that he also said Z was bad at Y (both on its own, and compared to X).

We're done here. I'm not replying further to you.

Okay, but that doesn't change that "X is good at making omelets" isn't all he said, and you're wrong to say that it was all that he said.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But it does have to be A or B if it is to serve certain goals.

For instance, if the resolution technique is ostensibly map-and-key, but the GM is making up the map and/or the key as they go along, then the players aren't actually learning stuff in the way that @The Firebird and @Faolyn described (or at least the way I took them to be describing).

Not necessarily. The expectation that the GM will map certain things, but that they are going to invent as the game progresses. Maps will have blank spaces and so it is quite normal in a sandbox for the GM, even if most of the stuff is mapped out in advance, for the GM to invent what is in blanked or zoomed in spaces on the fly

Once the GM is making up the map and/or key, then either (i) the player experience of learning about the setting comes much closer to what @The Firebird criticised about Ironsworn, or else (ii) the GM needs to keep their spontaneous authorship secret, so as to create the illusion of a map-and-key constrained sandbox.

This is what I mean by not being able to have it both ways.

I am not familiar with @The Firebird's criticism. But the GM doesn't have to keep it a secret. The GM can be transparent that they are inventing. If it is important to have a sense of objectivity though (and it might not be) there are things the GM can do (like pinning things down as they are invented).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Narrowly true. But I'd consider a world with a large amount of fixed content and some random rolls a sandbox. The random rolls actually add to the sandbox, imo. And "roll encounters on table X" is a type of fixed content. So it's a fuzzy boundary.

And random rolls generating material are HUGE in these kinds of sandboxes in my experience