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

[Faolyn]

HE DIDN'T SAY THAT!

Maybe just maybe focus on the argument actually being made, instead of the strawman you want to take down?

I can quote him on that, too.

Not quite. I’m saying that the prep for this six encounter dungeon multiplied by the number of locations that the dm provides for the players to explore - a minimum of three at the very least, up to dozens or even hundreds according to some- makes it prohibitively time consuming.

I stand by the easier, simply because it's far less work to get off the ground.

And, good grief, how much material did you need to create two NPC's? To do that in D&D is a LOT more work.

Note, and just so I don't get misunderstood again, I'm going to start adding this disclaimer to posts:

I am not claiming that it is impossible to do sandboxes in D&D. I am claiming that other systems work better for sandboxes since D&D is so prep heavy. I am also claiming that the difference between sandbox and linear campaigns tends to be a lot less than claimed because of the workload required to prepare a sandbox.

But, here's the thing. Most people can't do that on the fly. You have six D&D encounters. That's probably around 10 different stat blocks, each of which is very detailed. You can't do that on the fly. It needs to be prepared. And that takes time. Often, quite a lot of time depending on the level of the PC's.

Now multiply that by a hundred in order to be able to allow enough player choices to count as a sandbox. At the high level of simply describing things, that's easy. But, in actual play? That's a MOUNTAIN of work.

I said that forcing the DM to spend gobs of hours and do all the work means that it's more difficult to use D&D as a sandbox game.

Shall I continue?

Whether there is only one way or no way at all, you have now accepted that objective analyses of some forms of design are possible. If that is true, then it cannot be true that all claims regarding game design are 100% pure opinion and nothing else. You have to actually defend why "game X is not actually better or worse than game Y at doing task X" is true.

OK, then defend this:

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.

Coz it seems to me that if you define "sandbox game" as "a game where the PCs have free reign to go wherever they want and do whatever they want, with minimal or no predetermined goals" then you can do this in just about any game. Off the top of my head, the only games that can't be true sandboxes would be games with very narrow focus, like Blades in the Dark--you really can't play a law-abiding citizen in that game.

If you're choosing to define "sandbox game" as an improv-heavy game, or a game that relies entirely on player input and direction, or as a game that can't have a pre-existing world, then, well, you're defining it wrong.

And if you want to say that D&D is not a great system for improv-heavy games, player-led games, or games with pre-existing

Beyond that: it's trivially easy to construct counterexamples to the claim that "the only way for a game to be not-good at a task is to have no rules for it". That is, a game that has badly-constructed rules for achieving a particular end is entirely possible.

No, that's not what I said at all. Some games literally do not have rules for combat, for instance. In fact, I have at several games that flat-out say "no combat." It's not that the game has bad rules for combat; it's that you literally can't get into a fight using these games. (For instance, Wanderhome, or Mystery Business.) Or a game might be a modern-day or sci fi game with no magic.

That's different from a game that has badly-constructed or missing rules. By missing rules, I mean things like the old WEG generic D6 System books, which would say "see chapter 10 for rule XYZ" and the book didn't have a chapter 10. (or whatever chapter it was; it's been decades.)

Consider, for example, a stealth game, where the most consistently effective, most consistently successful strategy is to run in, proverbial guns blazing, killing every enemy you come across, because when every enemy is dead, no one can claim you weren't stealthy, and you never have to attempt stealth rolls/checks/actions/etc. Such a game is, objectively, badly designed for the thing it was designed to do: it objectively creates incentives for behavior the designers wanted to discourage, and objectively creates incentives to avoid behavior they wanted to encourage. That is one of the most obvious examples of badly-designed games.

That sounds like the players are choosing to ignore the stealth rules. I'd have to see this hypothetical game. Does the game itself give impossible difficulties for stealth and easy difficulties for killing things? Or is that up to the GM to set those difficulty levels and mysteriously the bad guys always see the hidden PCs? Or are the players simply murderhoboes who prefer killing to sneaking.

 

[gban007]

HE DIDN'T SAY THAT!

Maybe just maybe focus on the argument actually being made, instead of the strawman you want to take down?

I usually respect a lot of your posts, but here Faolyn clearly stated that Hussar said that Ironsworn was better for sandbox games, you say here Hussar didn't, people provide plenty of examples where Hussar did say that Ironsworn is better for sandbox games, and now you're saying that the claim was that Hussar said Ironsworn was a better game full stop, but that isn't what Faolyn said at all.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

The first of those is a very controversial statement, particularly when applied to the TSR editions, and is getting quite justifiable pushback.

The second, not so much. If there's systems out there that specialize in sandbox they'll by default likely be better at it than a system that tries to be more flexible. The telling question then becomes whether those systems are any use for playstyles other than sandbox, for thems as wants to use it for such.

 

[Faolyn]

Yes it can?

It is better in one particular sense. Like that's literally what it means. And even if speed isn't the only thing you care about, a massive gain in speed may be worth a sacrifice elsewhere.

No, it's better for you because of that. That's not objective, because not everyone wants a game to move or be prepped quickly.

 

[Faolyn]

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).

Yep.

I do want to emphasize, though, that making it up ahead of time and making it up as you go along are both perfectly good ways to do a game.

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.

Actually, you can. You (the GM) can make parts of your map ahead of time and parts as you go along, and you can decide that there's a settlement in that particular location but leave the details up to the players. You even do something like use a table of per-determined events and openly roll on it when necessary.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The second, not so much. If there's systems out there that specialize in sandbox they'll by default likely be better at it than a system that tries to be more flexible. The telling question then becomes whether those systems are any use for playstyles other than sandbox, for thems as wants to use it for such.

There is also the question of what kind of sandbox they are designed towards. If someone designs a game for sandbox, but has a more rigid idea of what a sandbox is than you, even if you are a sandbox fan, you might not like it (and if their idea of sandbox is overly broad, same thing could apply).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I usually respect a lot of your posts, but here Faolyn clearly stated that Hussar said that Ironsworn was better for sandbox games, you say here Hussar didn't, people provide plenty of examples where Hussar did say that Ironsworn is better for sandbox games, and now you're saying that the claim was that Hussar said Ironsworn was a better game full stop, but that isn't what Faolyn said at all.

It is what I read, from repeated posts. They did not mention sandbox--and several different people have taken Hussar to task over the alleged claim that Ironsworn is simply, flatly, better than D&D. Which he did not say and never said. The thing I replied to was:

No, but it's ridiculous to say that because of one or two factors, system A is better than system B.

It was absolutely using "you can't just say one system is generically better than another" as the basis of the claim. That specific part was what I was taking umbrage with.

Anything else is irrelevant.

 

[Umbran]

I'll go a step further and posit that "game design" as it is often discussed on these boards has nothing to do with making a game. It is a rough collection pseudo-academic models that are applied to games after they are created as an attempt at analysis, not a part of game creation.

Having been witness to the creation process of some games... I feel you are incorrect. At least, as a generalization. I am sure there are some creators who do to undertake design processes, but some do.

 

[AnotherGuy]

There is a heavy reliance on fictional positioning. See eg the discussion on p 208:

A leviathan is an ancient sea beast (page 154). It’s tough to kill because of its epic rank, and it inflicts epic harm, but it doesn’t have any other mechanical characteristics. If we look to the fiction of the leviathan’s, description, we see “flesh as tough as iron.” But, rolling a Strike against a leviathan is the same as against a common thug. In either case, it’s your action die, plus your stat and adds compared to the challenge dice. Your chances to score a strong hit, weak hit, or miss are the same.​

​

So how do you give the leviathan its due as a terrifying, seemingly invulnerable foe? You do it through the fiction.​

​

If you have sworn a vow to defeat a leviathan, are you armed with a suitable weapon? Punching it won’t work. Even a deadly weapon such as a spear would barely get its attention. Perhaps you undertook a quest to find the Abyssal Harpoon, an artifact from the Old World, carved from the bones of a long-dead sea god. This mythic weapon gives you the fictional framing you need to confront the monster, and finding it can count as a milestone on your vow to destroy this beast.​

​

Even with your weapon at the ready, can you overcome your fears as you stand on the prow of your boat, the water surging beneath you, the gaping maw of the beast just below the surface? Face Danger with +heart to find out.​

​

The outcome of your move will incorporate the leviathan’s devastating power. Did you score a miss? The beast smashes your boat to kindling. It tries to drag you into the depths. Want to Face Danger by swimming away? You can’t outswim a leviathan. You’ll have to try something else.​

​

Remember the concepts behind fictional framing. Your readiness and the nature of your challenge may force you to overcome greater dangers and make additional moves. Once you’ve rolled the dice, your fictional framing provides context for the outcome of those moves.​

I like this technique (thanks!). It is extremely useful for me currently as the PCs having failed a skill challenge with a gold dragon to soften its disposition towards them, now find themselves in a combat against it to see if they are worthy for the favour they're asking.

The challenge being to survive 3 full rounds against it (one for each necessary attitude shift) or incur 9 successful attacks, whichever comes first.
I've re-engineered the combat with player-facing mechanics so only the players roll which reflect as Degrees of Success and Failure. Failure being the dragon auto hits with Bite, Claw or Molten Spit (Level Up), with the various degrees inflicting more damage.
Characters with additional attacks need to be wary as subsequent attacks after the first shift the difficulty of success up a category respectively. The ancient gold dragon's base AC is 22, so the PCs first attack in a round needs a 22, the second a 26 and the third a 30 on the hit roll.
Bonus Action attacks and a Haste spell though would do the work to reset and count again as a first attack for that round. Also if they fail their hit, the Shield spell can be used to lessen/negate a Degree of Failure.
They will likely not be able to kill it (it is not the goal), so they can trade extra damage from the Degrees of Success for fictional positioning and other mechanical benefits.

Then in terms of Legendary Actions, once during the combat round the PCs must make a saving throw to avoid a Tail Swipe or Wing Buffet (randomised) or suffer the effects IF they are in range.

I'm also pushing for a dynamic/mobile combat which requires PCs in melee to move a minimum of 4 squares/20 feet (it is 3 sizes larger than them +1 inherent) during the round of combat or suffer disadvantage on their attacks as the dragon is better able to defend against and hit slow and stationery targets.
PCs in range will also need to move constantly to avoid a Tail Slap or Molten Spit.

Lastly, and I know you may not agree with this at this is secret backstory, but any PC who does not engage with the dragon risks its Dragon Breath (also on recharge) as an additional Legendary Action during the round, as it deems the character cowardly and undeserving of their bold request.
I just do not feel this information should be player facing, as they have had the benefit already of insight rolls and its dialogue with them which revealed its ideals, bonds, traits and flaws.

Three of the four characters are also extremely low on resources, and despite them being 15th level, this fight could become deadly for 1 or 2 PCs.
To reduce hit point loss from attacks by the dragon they do have two options:

• Sacrificing magical items through the fiction (rarity of item will determine the amount of damage reduced); and
• Opting to take a gamble on the Lingering Injury table in the DMG

So they have plenty of safety nets and the only thing I'm "controlling" is the dragon's movement (and even that can be randomised). They just cannot be seen to be cowardly.

 

[Faolyn]

The first of those is a very controversial statement, particularly when applied to the TSR editions, and is getting quite justifiable pushback.

The second, not so much. If there's systems out there that specialize in sandbox they'll by default likely be better at it than a system that tries to be more flexible. The telling question then becomes whether those systems are any use for playstyles other than sandbox, for thems as wants to use it for such.

Just for the heck of it, I looked up games designed for sandboxes. I found three posts asking that question, one on a reddit post from last year and the other two on the RPGnet forums from 10+ years ago. Some suggestions, based on what the responders have said they have actually played as sandboxes:

• Runequest
• Traveller
• Stars/ Worlds/Cities/Without Number
• Basic Roleplaying
• Savage Worlds
• Reign
• "Any skill-based system that doesn't use levels"
• Mythras
• GURPS
• "D&D, especially earlier editions, but any edition if you don't worry about balancing encounters too much"
• Dragonbane
• Forbidden Lands
• Chronicles of Darkness and 2e WoD
• Pathfinder
• The One Ring
• Swords of the Silver Throne
• DungeonWorld
• Adventurer Conqueror King
• Fate
• Burning Wheel
• "Any game that lets you adapt quickly and improvise, even frikkin Phoenix Command"
• Atomic Highway
• HERO
• Primetime Adventures
• Mutant: Year Zero
• Apocalypse World
• Trollbabe

So I think what we can take from this list is you can run a sandbox in pretty much any system you want, including Phoenix Command.