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

[robertsconley]

This doesn't make much sense to me. "How to referee a game" is just about the most important component of a RPG system!

There are different ways and styles of refereeing a tabletop RPG campaign, regardless of the system or setting being used.

That being said I mucked up the grammar so I edited the OP and corrected it.

Sandbox campaigns result from a decision about how to referee the campaign, a decision that exists independently of the choice of setting and system.

 

[Faolyn]

This doesn't make much sense to me. "How to referee a game" is just about the most important component of a RPG system!

"How to be a referee" is almost never backed by hard rules, just suggestions at most. For example, a PbtA game might tell you to "be a fan of the players," nothing bad mechanically is going to happen if the GM is actually antagonistic towards them. Early D&D--at least the Gygaxian interpretation of it--was very PCs vs. GM, but clearly that changed dramatically from table to table even within those early editions.

That being said...

This includes mechanics like the X card described above. Could it be used to limit player agency to the point where a sandox campaign is difficult sure.

This doesn't make sense unless the players are actively abusing the X card. It's supposed to be "please don't use this particular topic." As an example, due to personal reasons, we have a player who vetoes the of demons and devils, particularly those who have a real world kind of flavor to them. If one showed up, they'd use the X-card to get us to stop. The rest of the table respects that and, should a demon come up in a particular game, it gets reskinned to something like a fae or eldritch horror, both of which are OK.

Likewise, if you're narrating a torture scene and someone flashes the X-card, you wouldn't necessarily say "OK, no torture happened." You could just say "this guy has been tortured" without going into details.

The X-card isn't a "get out of anything free", so there shouldn't be a way that players are using it to make a sandbox--or linear--campaign difficult.

 

[Hussar]

No, but it's ridiculous to say that because of one or two factors, system A is better than system B. Such as Hussar saying that because Ironsworn is faster, it is better for sandboxes--when speed is not actually a requirement for sandboxes. No, the fact that Ironsworn (and other, similar games) are faster makes it better for Hussar's preferred style of play. It's not going to make it better for people who like creating or learning world lore.

Please stop misrepresenting my point.

I DO say that it is faster and easier. I DO NOT say that it is better. That's something you folks have attributed to me and I have REPEATEDLY corrected you. Even if I may have mis-stated my point earlier, I have now repeatedly clarified it and it should be abundantly clear that:

I AM NOT SAYING THAT IT IS BETTER.

 

[Hussar]

No, that is not all he's been saying. As @Faolyn has already pointed out, Hussar has made several comments that were much more judgmental than that:

Again, cherry picking points while ignoring clarifications are not exactly helpful. Sure, I misspoke. Ok, mea culpa. I have since made it very, very very very very very very clear what I was saying. So instead of belaboring something that I have already clarified REPEATEDLY, why not actually stick to what I'm saying.

 

[Hussar]

I don't agree with this notion that classic D&D's core design is poor or unsatisfactory for sandboxing.

Note, just to be absolutely clear of my own position, which, I'll admit, I may not have been clear about earlier.

It is my position that classic D&D is more difficult to use to create sandboxes than some other systems. That the level system, the complexity of the rules, and the large amount of preparation required (creating multiple adventure locations, multiple random encounter tables, etc) makes any version of D&D require more work to get off the ground than some other systems than other games.

Now, at no point am I claiming that one is better than another. This is not a judgment of D&D vs other games. I am simply saying that there are other systems, by virtue of the mechanics of those systems, which make getting a sandbox up and running requires less preparation and is therefore easier than D&D.

Is that lawyerly enough for folks?

 

[Faolyn]

Please stop misrepresenting my point.

I DO say that it is faster and easier. I DO NOT say that it is better. That's something you folks have attributed to me and I have REPEATEDLY corrected you. Even if I may have mis-stated my point earlier, I have now repeatedly clarified it and it should be abundantly clear that:

I AM NOT SAYING THAT IT IS BETTER.

Yes, yes, you have said that Ironsworn is faster and easier. But then, every time someone said "OK, but I like writing lore and places of interest" or "it doesn't take me that long and I can use the material for a very long time" or "I have lots of resources I can use if I need something immediately," you fought against them, tooth and nail. And grossly exaggerated what people said in the process. "Oh, my game doesn't count because some people have said I need a 300 page book or lore" or "apparently you need to spend 400 pages and read through hundreds of books" when literally nobody said anything even remotely close to that or tried to claim that you were doing it wrong.

"I'd like to see you create a place of interest on the fly!" you said (or words to that effect; I can't remember your exact phrasing. You continually dismissed other people's claims that they can, in fact, improvise or get player input in a crunchy game like D&D.

So if you're not saying Ironsworn is better, or D&D is worse, then why did you continue to do all this? Because everything people were saying here was in response to you insisting that you know the right way to run a sandbox and they don't.

 

[robertsconley]

"How to be a referee" is almost never backed by hard rules, just suggestions at most. For example, a PbtA game might tell you to "be a fan of the players," nothing bad mechanically is going to happen if the GM is actually antagonistic towards them. Early D&D--at least the Gygaxian interpretation of it--was very PCs vs. GM, but clearly that changed dramatically from table to table even within those early editions.

That being said...


This doesn't make sense unless the players are actively abusing the X card. It's supposed to be "please don't use this particular topic." As an example, due to personal reasons, we have a player who vetoes the of demons and devils, particularly those who have a real world kind of flavor to them. If one showed up, they'd use the X-card to get us to stop. The rest of the table respects that and, should a demon come up in a particular game, it gets reskinned to something like a fae or eldritch horror, both of which are OK.

Likewise, if you're narrating a torture scene and someone flashes the X-card, you wouldn't necessarily say "OK, no torture happened." You could just say "this guy has been tortured" without going into details.

The X-card isn't a "get out of anything free", so there shouldn't be a way that players are using it to make a sandbox--or linear--campaign difficult.

@EzekielRaiden brought up the X-card as an example of a mechanic that actively helps a goal, as opposed to passive neutrality. I agree that is accurate, but in the context of sandbox campaigns, the X-card, and most RPG mechanics, are simply tools that are neutral in their effect on whether a system is suitable for a sandbox campaign.

That whether a safety tool like the X-card makes sandbox play easier or harder depends entirely on how the group chooses to implement it, not on anything inherent to the tool itself.


That's the point I was trying to make earlier: the X-card (along with another specific mechanic) is usually irrelevant to the structural question of whether a system supports sandbox play. What makes a campaign a sandbox campaign is how those mechanics are used in refereeing it.

You make a critical comment in your reply to @pemerton

"How to be a referee" is almost never backed by hard rules, just suggestions at most.

The bulk of my work promoting sandbox campaigns for the past two decades has been about turning vague suggestions and ideas into concrete techniques and advice to help folks run sandbox campaigns regardless of the system they are using.

I studiously avoid framing my essays and how-tos as rules or as a system.

Instead they form a body of techniques and a method of organization that are meant to be applied to the unique circumstances of a campaign to help the referee and the group manage a sandbox campaign. Not a one-size-fits-all ironclad system.

As a general note, the hobby and industry would benefit more from folks writing good refereeing advice for all types of campaigns rather than trying to codify style and feel into systems.

I hope this addresses your points.

 

[Bedrockgames]

@EzekielRaiden brought up the X-card as an example of a mechanic that actively helps a goal, as opposed to passive neutrality. I agree that is accurate, but in the context of sandbox campaigns, the X-card, and most RPG mechanics, are simply tools that are neutral in their effect on whether a system is suitable for a sandbox campaign.

That whether a safety tool like the X-card makes sandbox play easier or harder depends entirely on how the group chooses to implement it, not on anything inherent to the tool itself.


That's the point I was trying to make earlier: the X-card (along with another specific mechanic) is usually irrelevant to the structural question of whether a system supports sandbox play. What makes a campaign a sandbox campaign is how those mechanics are used in refereeing it.

You make a critical comment in your reply to @pemerton


The bulk of my work promoting sandbox campaigns for the past decades has been about turning vague suggestions and ideas into concrete techniques and advice to help folks run sandbox campaigns regardless of the system they are using.

I studiously avoid framing my essays and how-tos as rules or as a system.

Instead they form a body of techniques and a method of organization that are meant to be applied to the unique circumstances of a campaign to help the referee and the group manage a sandbox campaign. Not a one-size-fits-all ironclad system.

As a general note, the hobby and industry would benefit more from folks writing good refereeing advice for all types of campaigns rather than trying to codify style and feel into systems.

I hope this addresses your points.

To me this is a key point. I like non-prescriptive guidelines and advice. One of the things that I found I fell into when I got into sandbox was taking too much overly prescriptive advice to heart. And I think my games suffered for it. It was when I realized you have to take whatever advice you find useful and apply it to the table before you that I started running them in a way that I think was more satisfying for everyone involved.

 

[mamba]

nvm

 

[pemerton]

Note, just to be absolutely clear of my own position, which, I'll admit, I may not have been clear about earlier.

It is my position that classic D&D is more difficult to use to create sandboxes than some other systems. That the level system, the complexity of the rules, and the large amount of preparation required (creating multiple adventure locations, multiple random encounter tables, etc) makes any version of D&D require more work to get off the ground than some other systems than other games.

Now, at no point am I claiming that one is better than another. This is not a judgment of D&D vs other games. I am simply saying that there are other systems, by virtue of the mechanics of those systems, which make getting a sandbox up and running requires less preparation and is therefore easier than D&D.

Yeah, I think your position is clear enough - to me, at least.

I think there's room for differences of opinion around some of the concerns you raise about D&D. I think you're right about prep, in terms of map and key. Random encounter tables can be taken from the rulebook (in classic D&D, at least). The level system is an interesting one: I don't think it's a coincidence that wilderness travel, in classic D&D, is associated with mid-level PCs who are at a point where the level system in that version of D&D has a reduced impact on the play of the game compared to low levels (where PCs are ludicrously weak, especially at 1st level) or high level (where MUs break the game). But in more contemporary D&D, the level differences tend to be more stark, which can collide with a conventional approach to setting/sandbox prep.

To put my own cards on the table, I would never think of trying to run a sandbox using 5e D&D. And if I felt strings of nostalgia pulling me towards classic D&D, I would instead go straight to Torchbearer - which is what I've actually been doing for the past two or three years!

Is that lawyerly enough for folks?

Never!