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

[EzekielRaiden]

They are still restrictions. I can't just decide in that age of sail game that my ship can fly whether that's a hard rule because the game has rules for how ships work or because it's the narrative assumptions of the people playing the game.

So? Like seriously, so what? You are conflating rules with any possible restrictions whatsoever, which is both counterproductive and confusing. It makes things seem the same when they are almost nothing alike.

@pemerton can correct me if I misinterpret him but he believes that if the GM decides whether or not something is uncertain, automatically successful, potentially successful or not possible it is not a sandbox. That there must be some predefined procedure to determine response to declarations.

You'd have to ask him. I don't know his mind.

It's only an invisible railroad if the GM has already determined direction before the declaration of actions by the players. When I'm DMing and running an NPC I base reactions on what I know about the NPC while taking into account what the characters have done and said. There have been many cases when direction of the session or even entire campaign changed based on choices of the characters.

And if you set down too-hard things about what NPCs are and what they'll do etc., this is functionally equivalent to an invisible railroad too. Which was the point of the "action resolution needs an independent standard" argument--by giving THAT much control, THAT much absolute power over what does or doesn't happen, what can or can't be attempted, etc., the ability to make such "campaign changed" choices vanishes.

I'm just basing what I consider "most people" based on reading that I've done. Some people include the ability of players to contribute to world building, I've never seen another claim that all reactions to player declarations must be procedurally resolved.

The point is to remove DM interference with the process of going from attempt to consequence--because standard D&D provides nearly absolute control over that process to the DM, and thus provides essentially total control over player action. Leaving that to a vague "well I'll let you attempt pretty much anything" isn't enough--because "pretty much anything" is far, far too vague.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm saying that his definition of only one and only true way of running a sandbox is not widely accepted. I have never called it "wonky", "ridiculous" or any of the other accusations.

You did not use those words. You have--now repeatedly--argued that that standard has nothing in common, at all, with what people mean when they say "sandbox." This is functionally identical to writing it off as a wonky ridiculous thing that has no bearing on the present conversation.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Whether or not people care should not determine whether something actually is a sandbox or not.

Sure, but we have to debate the point and drill down at what he is saying. Personally I am fine with calling it a sandbox if the GM is maintaining consistency of setting, if the GMs on the fly material is coming out of an existing foundation so everything feels concrete. If all he is doing is improv, then perhaps another label would be better.

So you're fine with something that...isn't really a sandbox, but calls itself one?

I am not as concerned about a rigid definition beyond the ability to explore an open world. I think there are some sets of assumptions people have about that: the GM preps a setting and map, the GM has considerable authority, etc. But I think we can be flexible with those assumptions. I also do think what role the GM plays matters a great deal, but I also think there is a danger of people saying 'sandboxes can only be X" which could discourage experimentation. So when I see someone like @Hussar using what would to me be less conventional sandboxing, but still getting results they find exciting and interesting (and keep a sense of an open world) I don't have a problem with it. It might need a qualifier and people might debate whether it is a sandbox (I think having these debates can be constructive if they aren't hostile or mean spirited). People are allowed to experiment and expand adventure paths, monster hunts, investigations, etc. Sandbox should be open to that too, and it doesn't have to belong to just one group of people

For goodness' sake, I thought the one thing we all agreed here was that railroad and sandbox were opposites!

Ad lib does not equal railroad.

No one? The point wasn't whether one person cares or doesn't care. The point was whether the thing described is in keeping with generally understood standards of sandbox or not. AlViking is claiming pemerton's standard is somehow totally wonky out there ridiculous unlike anything typical people expect....and then saying things that very much indicate their standard doesn't comport even with what folks have said in this very thread!

Personally I am not seeing a conflict with sandbox. I would probably need to find out more about what @AlViking has in mind to be sure. But ad libbing and riffing is a feature of most sandboxes. You can only prep so much, and a given sandbox will have different proportions of prepped to ad libbed material. If you aren't ad libbing, then it is not a living world, because everything is just static and the players can't 'zoom in' on the map or find features you haven't accounted for

 

[Hussar]

So just to be as clear as possible, you misspoke when you said that "D&D is not a very good sandbox game," and that's not what you actually think?

Again, you just pulled a single sentence out of a three or four paragraph post in order to what?

Since I have now repeatedly clarified my point, and apparently everyone else here is perfectly clear what my point is, even @Bedrockgames and we NEVER agree on anything, I'm kinda wondering what exactly you're trying to "prove" here?

 

[Imaro]

I'm making no claims either way here. (Though I personally do believe it's terrible for a sandbox game for a variety of reasons.)

I am simply trying to determine what claim is being asserted when folks say, point-blank, that no game can ever be better or worse at any task no matter what.

I don't really have a dog in this fight but I don't believe this is what's being asserted. I think what's being asserted is that in order for something to be judged better or worse for a particular task... the parameters for what makes said task better or worse must first be set.

 

[Hussar]

Whereas you seem to want to say that the GM-atuhored "living novel" is a type of sandbox.

I have to amit that I agree with @AlViking here. Sandbox, to me, is a setting where the action of the game is largely driven by the player interactions with each other and the elements of the setting - whether that setting is 100% authored by the GM or 0% or some value in between.

IOW, a sandbox where there isn't "map and key" is no less of a sandbox.

 

[AlViking]

So? Like seriously, so what? You are conflating rules with any possible restrictions whatsoever, which is both counterproductive and confusing. It makes things seem the same when they are almost nothing alike.


You'd have to ask him. I don't know his mind.


And if you set down too-hard things about what NPCs are and what they'll do etc., this is functionally equivalent to an invisible railroad too. Which was the point of the "action resolution needs an independent standard" argument--by giving THAT much control, THAT much absolute power over what does or doesn't happen, what can or can't be attempted, etc., the ability to make such "campaign changed" choices vanishes.

You're ignoring the whole neutral GM aspect of GMing a sandbox and assuming it can't be done. I do not care what direction the campaign takes when running a sandbox. I have no long term path predefined. I have NPCs with motivations and goals, events that are likely to happen if the character's don't change their course. But I do not think much ahead of what I expect to happen than a session or two, and even those expectations are open to change.

The point is to remove DM interference with the process of going from attempt to consequence--because standard D&D provides nearly absolute control over that process to the DM, and thus provides essentially total control over player action. Leaving that to a vague "well I'll let you attempt pretty much anything" isn't enough--because "pretty much anything" is far, far too vague.

This idea that the GM will always interfere with the changes set in motion by the characters is unfounded. Things don't always go the way the players want, that would be boring. But I don't "want" anything when running a sandbox campaign other than to set up an fun and enjoyable campaign.

 

[Hussar]

I think the difference here is an expectation of the state of the sand.
snip

I don't advocate for either style; I like my APs. But I are least think after 30+ pages I see the difference.

That, @Remathilis is a FANTASTIC analogy. That really illustrates things nicely. And puts it in such a great way that in no way tries to claim that one is better than another. Thank you.

 

[AlViking]

You did not use those words. You have--now repeatedly--argued that that standard has nothing in common, at all, with what people mean when they say "sandbox." This is functionally identical to writing it off as a wonky ridiculous thing that has no bearing on the present conversation.

I've stated that there is not one and only one way of running a sandbox and that my preference is for a different style. Everything else? You're making it up.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm not sure I agree with that. I'm having a hard time seeing how a GM making the map up as they go won't be interesting. It might be very random, unless the GM is following actual geological principles, but on the other hand, it may be a setting where random is useful. Heck, I just read a game today that had the players (it's a GMless game) fill in the hex map as they go along, with no pre-planned setting other than "eldritch forest, here's your village."

But how is the GM who is just randomly deciding doing anything different than the one who has prepared a specific plot ahead of time? Isn’t it just the timing of their decision-making that’s different?

It’s not about what’s decided so much as how it’s decided. And in that, the two methods seem significantly similar.