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

[EzekielRaiden]

We could get into this. I think the issue I have with some definitions, is they get used as a way of making an argument like "All sandboxes are really just railroads". And in doing that they basically argue that pretty much most adventure structures are really just railroads. So for example I don't think an AP is a railroad. I think it can be one, as can a mystery or even a sandbox, but it is boils down to the players sense of control over their decisions, how much control they actually have, and what actions the GM may be taking behind the screen to promote agency or hinder it

Conversely, very specifically because people have asserted it on this very forum, I'm intensely aware of the "invisible railroad". Which should not ever count as a sandbox, even though literally the whole point of the invisible rails is to deceive the players into thinking they are in a sandbox when they aren't. We had a whole thread about them a while back. Heck, we had a second, and apparently I conflated them in my memory (though there it uses the phrase "illusionism" rather than "invisible railroad"/"invisible rails").

I've already gone on record--several times--saying that this is a spectrum, that there are PLENTY of games that are neither pure railroads (which are almost unheard of) nor pure sandboxes (which are not quite as rare, but still very rare), but some point between. Further, that those which lean more-sandbox-than-not are perfectly legitimate to call "sandbox"--but there can still be degrees of sandbox-y-ness.

So I'm definitely not doing that thing, and I honestly don't see anyone else doing that either.

In fact, I see what seems like quite the reverse, hence why I referenced "invisible railroads" to start with. The arguments I've seen seem to call anything other than the most ham-fisted, clumsy, brute-force railroad as being "a sandbox", which is a pretty tough argument to swallow. I flatly don't accept an invisible railroad as a sandbox, even if it's a game where the players (incorrectly) believe they have freedom and agency. The feeling of agency is certainly important, but for it to be any degree of sandbox, that feeling needs to be actually correct, and to a pretty significant degree--merely being correct occasionally isn't enough. Of course, again, I recognize degrees of sandboxiness, so "correct" here doesn't mean the belief needs to point to having the most stridently sandbox game possible. It just needs to be the case that (a) the players more often than not do have the necessary degree of freedom and agency for the kind of sandbox on offer, and (b) when they believe they are exercising that agency, they usually are. (The "more often than not" part is simply, as I've said, setting a fuzzy dividing line between "more railroad than sandbox" and "more sandbox than railroad".)

An AP is more railroad than sandbox. That doesn't mean it cannot possibly ever contain any amount of sandbox--it most assuredly can. I have played an AP, Lost Mine of Phandelver, which has elements of sandbox-y play despite being much more prefigured than not-prefigured, and I appreciated that mix of elective interaction. (A big problem I had with the follow-up, Phandelver and Below, is that it is both really linear, and offers functionally no opportunities to do anything "off" the adventure. We ended up with scads of cash and nothing whatsoever to spend it on because we couldn't get OUT of Phandelver for more than a few hours, and all the good shops were in Neverwinter!)

I'd like to cut out this one bit here though, because it points to a much more serious disagreement:

So for example I don't think an AP is a railroad. I think it can be one, as can a mystery or even a sandbox,

Perhaps I am misreading, but is this a claim that a railroad can be a sandbox? Or is it saying that an AP can be a railroad or a sandbox? If it is the former, we have a much, much bigger issue to address than any of the above.

 

[robertsconley]

Separately, as @robertsconley said, I was not claiming that the X-card (nor O-card) has any relation whatsoever to sandboxes of any kind. It's completely orthogonal.

My earlier point about the X-card was that its impact on sandbox campaigns depends entirely on how it is implemented.

That’s not the same as saying it is completely orthogonal in all circumstances.

Claiming otherwise overlooks the larger context of how the mechanic is actually used, and how that use impacts whether a system supports different types of campaigns effectively.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My earlier point about the X-card was that its impact on sandbox campaigns depends entirely on how it is implemented.

That’s not the same as saying it is completely orthogonal in all circumstances.

Claiming otherwise overlooks the larger context of how the mechanic is actually used, and how that use impacts whether a system supports different types of campaigns effectively.

The only way it could affect a sandbox is if it is being abused.

I'm not interested in talking about a mechanic being openly abused in defiance of its explicit intent and the extensive advice and best-practices usage.

 

[robertsconley]

The only way it could affect a sandbox is if it is being abused.

I'm not interested in talking about a mechanic being openly abused in defiance of its explicit intent and the extensive advice and best-practices usage.

It's about what the creative goals are. How a mechanic is used in a system is a result of why the mechanic is there in the first place. And that is to further the author's or group's creative goals. Specifically for X cards, they are there to help keep the group on the same page creatively, which is different when it comes to a narrative first campaign versus a sandbox campaign versus other types of campaigns.

There is a general idea behind X cards that makes the mechanics of interest to many authors and groups. Then they take that general idea and tailor it to fit their creative agenda.

How X cards can be abused is not relevant to my point. If it occurs, the group can take care of the issue by hashing it out among themselves, without needing a game author to tell them what to do.

 

[Alzrius]

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?

In that case, could you link to the post where you clarified your misstatement about D&D not being a very good sandbox game? I must have overlooked it.

 

[Faolyn]

How broad or deep do players get in under an hour?

Do you think it’s a good idea to have one person highly invested in the setting because they’ve spent months and months alone with it, while the remaining participants are pretty much brand new to it? Doesn’t that imbalance seem potentially problematic? I mean… what if the players don’t see the appeal quickly enough and decide to bug out away from the GM’s prep? What if they never see the appeal?

What if they do see the appeal?

Or, what if you have a group of people working together to build the world. Or what if you have a GM who is constantly asking for player input and using it when building the world. Or what if you have players who like learning about the world. Or what if you have a GM who is amenable to changing parts of their world that the players don't like. Or what if you have players who don't care but the GM enjoyed the work anyway.

My friend is planning on running a game set in the Persona universe. I've never seen it or played it. Or read it, if it's also a manga. I know next to nothing about it besides what they've told me. I'll learn almost everything about it by playing. But I trust them as a GM.

And it's really no different from playing in a pre-made setting like the Realms or Ravenloft.

I disagree with this. I’ve read plenty of rule books that have said “never do this” or “always do that”.

Such as? I'm not doubting you, but I either haven't read those games or glossed over those parts of them.

 

[Faolyn]

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?

No...? What sort of games are you playing where random is the same as plotted?

 

[Faolyn]

Uhh, no?

At no point have I made the slightest claim about knowing the "right way to run a sandbox". In fact I have repeatedly stated that I've used D&D for sandboxes.

What I said, and continue to say is that it is a lot less work ie. faster and easier, to get a sandbox campaign off the ground in other systems than D&D. Even your own example of the most basic scenario - a simple six encounter adventure - needed more than half an hour to create. Let's take it at half an hour. Let's take your time as given.

So, every location that the DM needs takes half an hour to create. The DM is going to need at least six locations at the outset of a sandbox. Otherwise, it's not much of a sandbox, right? So, right there, we're looking at 3 hours of work (and that's VERY generous) just to have the most basic sandbox created. Note, the DM at this point has not created anything else. No world, no town to start in, no overarching map, nothing. Just six points of interest. Oh, and the DM needs a random encounter chart or two for travel between POI. There's another bit of work.

Just using your own numbers, it takes hours of work MORE to get your sandbox off the ground than it took me in Ironsworn. So, yes, I would argue, using your own numbers, that it is faster an easier to run sandboxes in other systems than D&D.

Now, is it better? No comment. Not a single judgement about which is better. That's entirely on you.

So again, why do you keep fighting other people? Why do you care that a D&D GM is going to need "at least" six locations? Why do you care if the GM makes those locations and encounters by scratch or uses pre-made locations and encounters?

Earlier, you said that in Ironsworn you started with a village and one NPC. That's not six locations and a random encounter chart.
Why do you continue to insist that a D&D GM would need to prep six encounters and a random location chart as well?

Ironsworn may be faster at the onset, but you still need to be able to come up with those things on the fly, which means you put in the same about of creative work later. The only thing you're saving on is the effort of writing down the stats--which isn't even necessary for D&D GMs who have their books in front of them (or access to an online source such as DDB); all they need to do is flip to the right page or open the right link.

So again: if you're not trying to claim that Ironsworn is better than D&D, why do you constantly fight and belittle those who stick up for their D&D game and talk about how much faster and easier Ironsworn is? I mean, you're doing it right here in your reply.

 

[The Firebird]

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.

Two things.

1) First, editing. If you do things in advance, you don't have to go with your first idea. You have more time to evaluate, to see if what you're generating makes sense, to connect it to other aspects of your world, to make it feel organic.

2) Second, fixed content allows for greater player choice. Suppose the players can go to the Mountains of Magnatz or Port Perdusz. If the referee plans in advance, these can be detailed, distinct societies that will play out differently. If they haven't, then the content will be heavily influenced by what the referee is thinking at the moment.

Maybe they say Fistful of Dollars last night and like the idea of feuding families. Then they'll put that wherever the players go, and the two destinations end up being pretty similar. The players don't have as much meaningful choice.

 

[robertsconley]

Viewing all rules as inherently "they box you in and prevent you from doing good things" is a position I don't agree with. That is definitely something that can happen, and I do not in any way mean to argue otherwise. But to presume that every rule is a terribly bad thing unless it does something so amazingly wonderful that it becomes indispensable? That is just as much a mistake as assuming that every rule is always an amazingly wonderful thing unless it does something terribly bad.

Reading your response to @Bedrockgames, I take the following points from your post:

• If something matters, it should have a rule.
• Referee technique shouldn't have to carry the burden of organizing the campaign.
• Good design encodes good practices into the system itself.

In short, you are making an argument for the primacy of system design.

I didn't discuss your specific points because this represents the core difference between your views and mine (and separately, @Bedrockgames').

I can't speak for @Bedrockgames, as he has his distinct take. But for me, while I disagree with the primacy of system, I apply a structured framework that integrates adjudication tools, referee coaching, and worldbuilding techniques to support sandbox campaigns. What many call "the system" is just one element of this overall method. Likewise, @Bedrockgames has developed his own structured methods, which overlap with mine in some ways and differ in others.

For example, some object to the idea of GM fiat. In my approach, human referees making judgment calls and creative decisions are absolutely crucial. However, I take issue with labeling this as "fiat" in the sense of arbitrary or whimsical decision-making. That is not how campaigns are with my approach. In my reply to @pemerton, I outlined the criteria I use for adjudicating character actions, and elsewhere I've explained how consequences are systematically developed and managed. @Bedrockgames likewise has structured solutions to these elements.

We could certainly debate the particulars, but at the end of the day, our respective approaches are fundamentally different from yours.

I'm happy to explain more about how these elements fit together if you're interested, but I think this clarifies the core difference between our perspectives.