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

[robertsconley]

But this isn't true for all sandboxing. @Hussar has used Ironsworn as an example of a system to support sandboxing, and it doesn't need this sort of stuff to be prepared by the GM.

Ironsworn incorporates procedurally generated context as an important part of how it functions as a system across all three modes of play it is designed to support , including running a traditional campaign with a human referee.

Any campaign that relies heavily on procedural context during play omits steps crucial for a sandbox campaign. One of two things tends to happen with procedural context:

1. The result is inconsistent with previously established elements of the setting.
2. Or it limits the choices the players can make as characters adventuring in the setting.

These are the same issues that software algorithms behind computer RPGs are prone to, and the pen-and-paper versions are no exception.

Now, Ironsworn can work great for a sandbox campaign, provided the referee uses its tables as part of prep. It can also save the referee a lot of time for the types of settings those tables are designed to support.

Since Ironsworn has been brought up, it is important to note its support for solo and co-op play. It is one of several systems that have come out in recent years that I feel represent an advancement in solo play for tabletop RPGs. The crucial element is the extensive use of oracles in these systems. At first glance, they appear to be just another set of random tables, but how (that pesky word again) they are used makes a real difference.

I feel the recent generation of these systems excels at solo roleplay. They are good at helping a solo player (or a small co-op group) structure their imagination about what is happening in the campaign as they pretend to have adventures as their characters. Furthermore, they are more flexible than earlier types of solo roleplaying.

As far as the intersection with sandbox campaigns goes, these oracles and their systems also work great because they involve the players in taking an active role in ensuring that the results are consistent with what has already been established about the setting, and apply any needed polish.

I recommend this series of videos by my friend Matt Jackson, who is a big fan of solo RPGs and someone I regularly discuss this topic with.

Matt Jackson

You're assuming a particular sort of approach both to how situations are framed (ie by the GM drawing on GM-prepped stuff like NPCs, factions, etc) and how actions are resolved (by reference to GM-prepped stuff like those details of NPCs and factions, the map-and-key, etc). But this thread has already had extensive discussion of how those are not the only possible approaches.

I am aware of these discussions and have considered their arguments. I disagree with their conclusions.

 

[robertsconley]

Procedures for resolving actions and how the referee responds to player choices are not distinct things. They are intimately connected.

Thank you for confirming that we see this differently.

 

[pemerton]

Ironsworn incorporates procedurally generated context as an important part of how it functions as a system across all three modes of play it is designed to support , including running a traditional campaign with a human referee.

Any campaign that relies heavily on procedural context during play omits steps crucial for a sandbox campaign.

I dunno, I don't really go in for this sort of prescriptiveness.

 

[gban007]

Procedures for resolving actions and how the referee responds to player choices are not distinct things. They are intimately connected.

They are connected, but are distinct. Dnd has one set of procedures for resolving actions. However, whether I'm playing a railroad or playing a sandbox will change which procedures I'm applying when, and so how i respond to player choices will vary.
I put an example in the other thread I think around dragonlance, where nature of the adventure meant I was just saying no to some of the things the characters were asking to do, as didn't fit the adventure, whereas if I was doing sandbox I would have allowed or called for a resolution procedure. Most games say the resolution procedures are for when things are in doubt, otherwise say yes or no. In a railroad I will call for the procedures at different times than in a sandbox, so while the system is unchanged, my responses as a referee have.

 

[Manbearcat]

Procedures for resolving actions and how the referee responds to player choices are not distinct things. They are intimately connected.

The idea that GMing techniques and action resolution aren't intimately intertwined as collective pieces (among others) of interconnected gameplay in service to common goal seems to ride shotgun in the "all this stuff is just intangibles for the GM to administer their sense of the feel of play and its rightful intentions" truck.

Put another way, system doesn't give rise to tangible, intentional gameplay in concert with associated GM-craft. Rather, GMs use system discretionally, abstrusely to deliver intangibles-laden experience to players.

 

[Umbran]

@Hussar has described Ironsworn as a sandbox-supporting game.

I do not accept Hussar as the One True King of Playstyles. (Nothing personal, Hussar)
I reserve the right to think that maybe Ironsworn gives Hussar what he wants, but maybe misses the mark for "sandbox" in a broader sense.

If, by sandbox, we have to mean map-and-key-based prep and resolution, then none of those systems is a sandbox-y one. But this thread seems to be working with a more expansive/inclusive notion of what can be a sandbox.

I think some folks, for their own reasons, are focused a great deal on the player-autonomy aspect of sandbox play, but are too easily just tossing aside the actual metaphor - the sandbox is a box, it is full of sand, and people can do what they want with the sand. If you aren't going to consider the box and the sand as integral to the style... why are you calling it "sandbox"? If you aren't going to stick to the metaphor, the metaphor fails to be helpful.

I do not stipulate map-and-key, because I am open to the idea that the pre-generated content is more important than the map-and-key, and that other ways of managing the pre-generated content might still do.

Moreover, I think there is likely value to us in differentiating between different approaches to high-player-autonomy. I expect that Ironsworn will fail to produce what many would consider core to the "sandbox" experience, for the same reasons that they would feel Dungeon World fails to give them core D&D experience.

If the difference may matter, we should not be quick to glom them all under the same word.

 

[Umbran]

Procedures for resolving actions and how the referee responds to player choices are not distinct things. They are intimately connected.

I think some people would prefer them to be so. In practice, though, I think many people get what they want, and a lot of fun out of RPGs with those connections being flexible, possibly to the point of being haphazard.

 

[pemerton]

They are connected, but are distinct. Dnd has one set of procedures for resolving actions. However, whether I'm playing a railroad or playing a sandbox will change which procedures I'm applying when, and so how i respond to player choices will vary.
I put an example in the other thread I think around dragonlance, where nature of the adventure meant I was just saying no to some of the things the characters were asking to do, as didn't fit the adventure, whereas if I was doing sandbox I would have allowed or called for a resolution procedure.

Saying no because it doesn't fit the adventure is a procedure for resolving an action.

Most games say the resolution procedures are for when things are in doubt, otherwise say yes or no.

I know 5e D&D says this. I'm not sure off the top of my head which other RPGs do. I can't think of any RPG that I play that says this.

 

[gban007]

Saying no because it doesn't fit the adventure is a procedure for resolving an action.

I know 5e D&D says this. I'm not sure off the top of my head which other RPGs do. I can't think of any RPG that I play that says this.

Isn't Burning Wheel 'say yes or roll the dice' which is similar idea, if don't feel anything at stake, say yes, otherwise roll the dice. But the DM may approach it differently as to whether a situation should be yes or not depending on nature of campaign/ how approaching it.

 

[robertsconley]

I dunno, I don't really go in for this sort of prescriptiveness.

My views come from decades of experience using, designing, and adapting procedural systems for both computer and tabletop roleplaying games.

I applaud the recent round of solo RPGs, because their designers have figured out ways of combining procedural generation and human imagination to create a distinct type of tabletop roleplaying that is now a growing niche of the hobby. Some are narrative-first, while others focus on creating sandboxes. However, it remains its own distinct niche because of its heavy use of procedural content.

I was among the group that first promoted the term "sandbox campaign" as part of the marketing for Necromancer Games' Wilderlands of High Fantasy boxed set. The term was adapted from computer gaming, as we felt it was the best fit for the types of campaigns we were running with the Wilderlands. When we talked about sandbox campaigns here on ENWorld, and on other forums and blogs, we stressed both the freedom players had in setting the direction of the campaign, and the fact that the presence of a human referee made it a very different experience from computer sandbox games using procedural generation.