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

[hawkeyefan]

I don't see this. I understand why it might seem true, because the more the GM fleshes out and defines the world, the less power the players have to define it...e.g., if the GM decided there are no barbarian clans, that restricts my options.

But meaningful play requires restrictions. Choosing Forgotten Realms as the setting means no laser guns, and that technically restricts player choice, but doing so is necessary for consistency.

Player driven play, imo, is not about the players having more power to define the world, but about the characters having meaningful choices. And that requires structure, that requires the DM to prepare things.

I would not look at it through the lens of the characters, but rather the players. That the players have meaningful choices.

 

[The Firebird]

I would not look at it through the lens of the characters, but rather the players. That the players have meaningful choices.

I did consider that; I switched term from player to character deliberately. As a player, I feel my choices are more meaningful in a world that is more defined. Giving me more power to control the world results in fewer meaningful choices.

More power to influence narrative results in more meaningful choices with respect to storytelling, but less with respect to gaming.

 

[zakael19]

I did consider that; I switched term from player to character deliberately. As a player, I feel my choices are more meaningful in a world that is more defined. Giving me more power to control the world results in fewer meaningful choices.

More power to influence narrative results in more meaningful choices with respect to storytelling, but less with respect to gaming.

Control over defining the world does not in any way constrain "meaning" by default. In my experience, much and far the opposite. The choices tend to have far more meaning because the world matters based on what you've defined about it that is relevant to your character.

 

[The Firebird]

Control over defining the world does not in any way constrain "meaning" by default. In my experience, much and far the opposite. The choices tend to have far more meaning because the world matters based on what you've defined about it that is relevant to your character.

No, not by default. And I certainly wouldn't say someone else can't have a meaningful game in that case. This is just my experience, and my preference.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

we are definitely getting lost in the analogy so my response doesn’t really connect to sandbox, but the engine is not my primary concern when buying a car. My primary concern is not dying in a car accident. An engine plays a role there but things like vehicle size, brakes, safety rating, crumple zones, roll over cages, etc are my major criteria. I drive a crappy V4 engine, when a V6 would be better (I am no car guy though so maybe I am mistaken). But the trade off for us was a more affordable and safer car. Obviously the engine failing is a catastrophic event but I would rather have engine failure than brake failure. My breaks failed on an old jeep once and the only reason we didn’t end up dead or in the hospital was because it had snowed and I was able to steer in a snow bank so it slowed us till we stopped

And yet if something goes wrong with any individual safety feature, I'm sure you would not immediately stop using the car just because that one feature stopped working.

If the engine stopped working, you would not drive that car. (Not that you'd have any choice, mind, but still.) Hence: the engine is of primary importance for driving a car. Whether the engine is powerful is not; whether the engine functions is.

The engine is what makes the car work. A car with every safety feature in the world and no engine, or a non-functional engine, is a particularly elaborate statue or highly inefficient wheel-cart; it cannot perform the task for which cars are designed, namely, driving. A car which lacks safety features (or which has safety features, but they are damaged/nonfunctional/spent/etc.) is still usable as a car, but won't be maximally safe.

So I stand by what I said: The car's engine is of primary importance. Once the engine meets the minimum functionality necessary for performing the function a car must perform, we can move on to other critical, but still necessarily secondary, concerns.

Likewise, a game system needs its metaphorical "engine" to work correctly, or it fails to perform the function of being a game people can play. Once the core system performs at the minimum level necessary, then we can start focusing on other critical concerns.

Further: "engine failure" can be just as dangerous as brake failure. If your engine fails while you're on train tracks, or in the middle of an intersection, or any of various other places, that is just as dangerous as brake failure--just a matter of being the obstacle something else hits, rather than being the hitting thing colliding with some other obstacle. So a failed engine is no more nor less a safety concern while driving than failed brakes; you need both things for a safe vehicle, but you need the engine to have a vehicle at all.

 

[The Firebird]

And yet if something goes wrong with any individual safety feature, I'm sure you would not immediately stop using the car just because that one feature stopped working.

If the engine stopped working, you would not drive that car. (Not that you'd have any choice, mind, but still.) Hence: the engine is of primary importance for driving a car. Whether the engine is powerful is not; whether the engine functions is.

The engine is what makes the car work. A car with every safety feature in the world and no engine, or a non-functional engine, is a particularly elaborate statue or highly inefficient wheel-cart; it cannot perform the task for which cars are designed, namely, driving. A car which lacks safety features (or which has safety features, but they are damaged/nonfunctional/spent/etc.) is still usable as a car, but won't be maximally safe.

So I stand by what I said: The car's engine is of primary importance. Once the engine meets the minimum functionality necessary for performing the function a car must perform, we can move on to other critical, but still necessarily secondary, concerns.

Brakes seem critical. imo.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Brakes seem critical. imo.

Critical, yes. But secondary to an engine. I explicitly said that in what you quoted (though I admit I have been editing the post to add further detail.)

Without an engine but with brakes, a chassis isn't a car--it's just a metal frame with wheels. Without brakes, but with an engine, a chassis is a car, but it's a highly unsafe one. I would not want to drive a car that had no brakes, but I cannot even try to drive a "car" that has no engine!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I have a strange relationship to this issue. I play and DM like the system doesn't matter (we play 5e, like we played 4e, like we played 1e), BUT, I design my games like the system is the most important thing! I have very different mindsets as game designer compared to when I am a player/DM. Not sure what that means!

I am not sure what it means either, being perfectly honest. That sounds to me like cognitive dissonance.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Pre-prepped neither means nor equates to railroad, and to suggest it does only muddies the waters in the already murky pool this discussion is becoming.

Perhaps. But the more pre-prepped things are, the further away from sandbox it is, and the closer to railroad it is. Pre-prepping is not sufficient for railroading--but it is necessary.

 

[AlViking]

And yet if something goes wrong with any individual safety feature, I'm sure you would not immediately stop using the car just because that one feature stopped working.

If the engine stopped working, you would not drive that car. (Not that you'd have any choice, mind, but still.) Hence: the engine is of primary importance for driving a car. Whether the engine is powerful is not; whether the engine functions is.

The engine is what makes the car work. A car with every safety feature in the world and no engine, or a non-functional engine, is a particularly elaborate statue or highly inefficient wheel-cart; it cannot perform the task for which cars are designed, namely, driving. A car which lacks safety features (or which has safety features, but they are damaged/nonfunctional/spent/etc.) is still usable as a car, but won't be maximally safe.

So I stand by what I said: The car's engine is of primary importance. Once the engine meets the minimum functionality necessary for performing the function a car must perform, we can move on to other critical, but still necessarily secondary, concerns.

Likewise, a game system needs its metaphorical "engine" to work correctly, or it fails to perform the function of being a game people can play. Once the core system performs at the minimum level necessary, then we can start focusing on other critical concerns.

Further: "engine failure" can be just as dangerous as brake failure. If your engine fails while you're on train tracks, or in the middle of an intersection, or any of various other places, that is just as dangerous as brake failure--just a matter of being the obstacle something else hits, rather than being the hitting thing colliding with some other obstacle. So a failed engine is no more nor less a safety concern while driving than failed brakes; you need both things for a safe vehicle, but you need the engine to have a vehicle at all.

Is there a point to this analogy? Because I think the 5e "engine" works just fine for a sandbox, as do many other games.