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

[Bedrockgames]

How? I mean, what does it mean to say the scene is "ruined" if you're not running a railroad?

I am saying that kind of moment could also be prevented by a die roll. Yo seemed to be making the point that the GM deciding these character traits could deprive us of the possibility of Joan of Arc or Arthur impressing Uryens with his humility

 

[pemerton]

That statement was part of a much larger paragraph

Yes, in which you referred to me repeatedly. And stated "But this is also why I don't impose my play stye on GMs", as if drawing a contrast with others. I'm just wondering who the others are that you were contrasting with.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes, in which you referred to me repeatedly. And stated "But this is also why I don't impose my play stye on GMs", as if drawing a contrast with others. I'm just wondering who the others are that you were contrasting with.

That isn't what I was doing:

But this issue doesn't go away by having more rigid rules curtailing GM powers or ensuring some kind of cohesive play style, because the issue is you could have virtually any mixture of players available to you in a small pool. Imposing any style of play, and not reaching some kind of accommodation is going to be an issue whether it swings in the direction of wanting something like one of Pemerton's Burning Wheel campaigns or like Rob's majestic wilderlands campaigns. I would agree, if you have a small pool of people to play with, that is going to have to be navigated socially. But having a system that basically just sides with Ezekiel or Pemerton isn't going to solve that problem because that might mean now Rob and @AlViking are stuck playing games they might not want to play.

I would say if people are stuck with a small pool of players, they need to find a medium or approach that works for everyone. I do think though for most people, it is getting easier to reach more gamers and have more options. . At least for me I have seen a very big change in that respect. I used to be limited to local gaming groups, and those I either had to find through my circle of friends or take my chances at a game store or comic shop. Now I can find local gamers online, and I find online game groups (which really frees me up). It won't be this way for everyone, and some people won't want online games because they prefer gaming in person.

But this is also why I don't impose my play stye on GMs. I game with a circle where about half the people will also step forward and run a game from time to time. If I were in a group where Pemerton was a GM, I wouldn't be a jerk and hassle him for running Burning Wheel, while I demand Majestic WIlderlands. I'd let him run the game the way he is comfortable running and hope to gain something from the experience. Even when I gamed with Rob, he doesn't run things exactly the way I do. But I wanted to see how he ran the session. I have another GM in our group who runs Savage Worlds and likes to it more around set pieces in a kind of Robin Laws style structured around scenes. I have a blast in those campaigns.

in the first paragraph I am saying not compromising is going to be an issue, whether someone is running Rob's game or yours. I was trying to make a point about the difficulty of dealing with a small pool of players where you don't have other groups as an options and saying it could be just as bad in either case. This wasn't a commentary on you at all. This was a commentary on failing to compromise around playstyle when you people are playing with a limited pool of people.

And in the second paragraph, the only reason I mentioned you is because clearly you are on the other side of the argument with me here in terms of style. And I was making the point that if I were gaming at a real table, I am not going to be a jerk to you and have a style argument. I am going to let you run the game how you are comfortable. That is isn't an attack on you or your style. This kind of inflexibility arises in all quarters (I have certainly seen it among sandbox players for example not wanting to let a GM run a game because it has bennies or something).

 

[robertsconley]

I’ve gone back to Gygax’s Player’s Handbook (1978), specifically the section titled "Successful Adventures." While I do not claim that Gygax supported sandbox campaigning in the modern sense, his advice forms the historical foundation for some of the techniques I (and others) use to manage sandbox campaigns today.

Here are a few key ideas from that section:

• Players are expected to set objectives before play begins.
• Strategic planning and preparation are crucial, including mapping, spell selection, and party coordination.
• The world exists independently of the characters; some threats are avoidable, others are not.
• Retreat, reassessment, and information-gathering are key skills.
• Characters succeed based on in-play decision-making, not story beats or preordained outcomes.

This strongly parallels various aspects of my approach to sandbox campaigns:

• I present a setting that would make sense even without the PCs.
• The players are free to interact with it however they like.
• I adjudicate their actions based on what’s plausible within the context of the setting.
• I do not predetermine outcomes. Players succeed or fail based on their decisions and how they engage with the world.

This is also why I say the players are allowed to "trash the setting." It's not a rhetorical gimmick, it's shorthand for a fundamental sandbox principle: the campaign should not protect the setting from the consequences of player action. Nor should it protect the players from the setting as a consequence of their actions.

Addressing the mischaracterizations that have emerged:

It has been repeatedly framed that any NPC with strong motivations or immovable positions is evidence of railroading unless the players can predict in advance what will happen. This logic would turn Gygax’s advice on its head. Gygax explicitly tells players to prepare, to investigate, to plan, and to make decisions without full information. Uncertainty is not an obstacle to be designed out, it's a feature.

Likewise, the idea that a GM applying a consistent internal logic is "arbitrary" unless supported by player-facing mechanics is simply ahistorical. The referee model that D&D emerged from (and Gygax practiced) assumes the human referee is capable of applying consistent judgment, just like the impartial umpire in a wargame. Gygax’s origins in miniatures and kriegsspiel are well-documented.


Gygax method of running campaign is not the same as a sandbox campaign in the modern sense. It is its own distinct style. But many of the techniques uses to run sandbox campaigns today have deep historical roots in tabletop roleplaying and wargaming. That includes incomplete player knowledge, independent NPC agendas, and consequences emerging from a shared fictional world. The idea that these principles are somehow evidence of "bad practice" when not systematized, is a serious misreading of the game’s foundations.

 

[pemerton]

not knowing that contributes to the risk. If I have intelligence suggesting otherwise, it is a less risky proposition. Both are fine. You want both circumstances in a campaign. Sometimes players should have ways of getting more information about something like this, but sometimes that information isn't going to be available. I like having some cases where blind choice is a factor, even if in most the choices will be more informed.

<snip>

I am not saying this approach is wrong. I am saying the other approach is okay too

I'm not quite sure how to reconcile "I am not saying this approach is wrong" with "You want both circumstances in a campaign". Does the latter really mean "I like to have both circumstances in a campaign?"

But anyway, I don't see the particular appeal of blind choice in the sense of the GM has already decided what will happen when I declare my action, and I don't know what that will be, and it might hose my PC, but I'll just take the chance. This doesn't strike me as conducive to player-directed RPGing.

When it comes to getting more information, as I've already posted upthread there are different ways of approaching this in RPGing, and in my view some push play very strongly towards a GM-directed experience. The focus of play can become the players following the GM's breadcrumbs (eg as per @Hussar's example, way upthread, of all the GM-authored steps the players have to go through to get the spelljammer; or as per my example not far upthread of the GM having the King of Thracia send the PCs on a quest to kill the gorgon, if he is to aid them in relation to the siege).

If the GM is adjudicating realistically, then NPC traits and motivations can be learned by the players. It's not a 'secret' decision.

My point is more that if the NPCs are fixed and details are known, the players have ways to learn about them.

It's secret at the point it's authored. Whether it can be learned by the players will depend on how play works at the table. And my point is that some of those ways, when deployed in play, push things away from a sandbox-y experience to a GM-directed experience.

It differs from a AP because the players can ignore that quest hook without losing the game. They can look for other allies. Or they can define new objectives and the world will evolve.

If the attempt to persuade the King of Thracia to help as an ally fails because of a decision the GM has made, in advance about what it will take to persuade him - ie do this other quest that the players are not inherently interested in - then I don't see how we are still talking about sandbox play. This seems to me to be GM storytelling play.

And to me it seems pretty trivial to describe at least one more sandbox-y alternative: the players have their PCs appeal to the King of Thracia; the GM has the king ask, "Why should I help you? What makes you worthy or deserving?" And now the players can have their PCs make their case, or make an offer of service, and things head in a direction that is player-driven rather than GM-driven.

If the players choose to seek Blackrazor and learn it lies in White Plume Mountain, are they now on a railroad?

Without more detail, who can say. But obviously a valued treasure being hidden in a dangerous place does not on its face seem to shift players away from what they care about to something they don't care about.

Whereas the players who are invested in the fate of their city and the siege, now finding the GM sending them on some gorgon-killing quest instead, clearly are being shifted away from something that they had treated as a focus of play.

And what I describe in the immediately preceding paragraph is a thing I've experienced, as a player, and to me it is obvious and frustrating railroading.

 

[mamba]

@hawkeyefan gave one simple example upthread:

so tell them / show them. I am not disagreeing with that

 

[hawkeyefan]

Only if you are only allowing for one or a narrow set of paths. In sandbox play, you generally aren't doing this

That’s why I think it makes sense to be very aware of these decisions… because doing so is narrowing paths.

Again, it may be fine from time to time, and individually it’s likely not an issue. But collectively? That’s something else. And so, I think it’d be something anyone interested in player-driven play would want to keep in mind.

Let's say you try to bribe a guard. But this is an important post and the person the guard is employed by is paranoid enough that once a month they have a cleric come in and cast Zone of Truth which just has the guards walk through the zone and answer "Have you upheld your employment agreement". It's a simple yes or no question so the cleric could be done in a short period of time as they quickly shuffle through dozens of guards for one casting of the spell.

The guard may not be particularly loyal, but he knows if he takes the bribe he won't be able to answer the question in a way that preserves his employment and potentially his life. In a world where Zone of Truth is not a particularly high level spell I think this could be fairly common practice. So yes, bribing a guard may be off the table in many situations because it's a logical conclusion given setting assumptions that they couldn't get away with taking a bribe. It has nothing to do with limiting options, it's about considering how magic could alter the world.

In the real world some people are susceptible to bribes, but is that 5%, 20%, 50%? Heck if I know, but if you're a well paid guard who takes their job seriously (or is significantly afraid of punishment) I don't believe it approaches anything near 100%.

I mean that seems like a really elaborate way to block a player from bribing a guard. It’s also the kind of thing that is likely known… there would be rumors or news about town that the lord of the castle takes extreme steps to ensure loyalty.

Everything serves two purposes. It has a place in the game world, and then a place in the game. GMs should be considering both.

 

[pemerton]

In my previous replies, I’ve established that:

• NPC behavior is rooted in setting logic and plausible motivation, not arbitrary refusal.
• Players are allowed to attempt anything their characters are capable of; outcomes are adjudicated based on plausibility and context, not predetermined.
• I invite post-scene discussion and can justify an NPC’s response based on their motives and background.
• I use consistency and neutral adjudication to build trust.
• Players, as their characters, are not expected to know all the details of the setting, they are making decisions based on incomplete information, which is part of the challenge and the fun.
• Sandbox campaigns often take unexpected turns due to surprising player decisions, or the outcome of dice rolls, both of which can radically change the direction of play.
  

All of these elements are grounded in techniques with deep historical roots in tabletop roleplaying and wargaming, starting with the younger von Reisswitz’s introduction of the impartial referee in the mid-19th century. The consequences of using these techniques are well understood and have been compared against alternatives throughout the decades.

If the Thracian king demands the gorgon’s head before granting an audience, that’s a fact of the setting, not a railroaded plot point. The players aren’t forced to comply; they can threaten him, sneak in, appeal to another faction, or abandon the plan entirely.

We've now circled back to earlier concerns about predetermined outcomes and player uncertainty. I, and others, have already responded to those points in detail. Unless there’s something new to add, I think the readers of this thread have what they need to decide which of our respective views best fits the type of campaign they want to run.

You've asserted these things. I don't know what you mean when you say you've established them.

But turning to some of them: Players are allowed to attempt any actions their characters are capable of doesn't tell me anything about sandbox RPGing. That's just a basic feature of all RPGgs, It's part of what characterises them as a game form.

NPC behaviour is rooted in setting logic and plausible motivation and outcomes are adjudicated based on plausibility and context doesn't tell me anything about whether or not the gameworld is verisimilitudinous - it won't be, if the GM doesn't allow for things like Joan of Arc and the knighting of Arthur - nor about whether or not the game is a railroad. Because your ostensible contrast between a fact of the setting and a railroaded plot point doesn't hold, in my view. One standard part of the railroader's repertoire is to establish facts of the setting.

And the comparison to 19th century wargaming is not all that compelling. The referees of 19th century wargames were (ostensibly, at least) experts in warfare teaching others how to make successful decisions in warfare. But the RPG GM is not an expert engaged in a teaching process - unless we mean to say that they are an expert about their setting and they are teaching the players the content of their setting. Which is hardly a description of player-driven RPGing!

 

[pemerton]

Are you training, teaching, and mentoring new GMs in their craft?

Not in large numbers. Most of my training, teaching and mentoring is of new lawyers and philosophers.

But I have trained, taught and/or mentored some GMs.

Why do you ask?

 

[The Firebird]

Here are a few key ideas from that section:

• Players are expected to set objectives before play begins.
• Strategic planning and preparation are crucial, including mapping, spell selection, and party coordination.
• The world exists independently of the characters; some threats are avoidable, others are not.
• Retreat, reassessment, and information-gathering are key skills.
• Characters succeed based on in-play decision-making, not story beats or preordained outcomes.

This strongly parallels various aspects of my approach to sandbox campaigns:

• I present a setting that would make sense even without the PCs.
• The players are free to interact with it however they like.
• I adjudicate their actions based on what’s plausible within the context of the setting.
• I do not predetermine outcomes. Players succeed or fail based on their decisions and how they engage with the world.

This is also why I say the players are allowed to "trash the setting." It's not a rhetorical gimmick, it's shorthand for a fundamental sandbox principle: the campaign should not protect the setting from the consequences of player action. Nor should it protect the players from the setting as a consequence of their actions.

Addressing the mischaracterizations that have emerged:

It has been repeatedly framed that any NPC with strong motivations or immovable positions is evidence of railroading unless the players can predict in advance what will happen. This logic would turn Gygax’s advice on its head. Gygax explicitly tells players to prepare, to investigate, to plan, and to make decisions without full information. Uncertainty is not an obstacle to be designed out, it's a feature.

Likewise, the idea that a GM applying a consistent internal logic is "arbitrary" unless supported by player-facing mechanics is simply ahistorical. The referee model that D&D emerged from (and Gygax practiced) assumes the human referee is capable of applying consistent judgment, just like the impartial umpire in a wargame. Gygax’s origins in miniatures and kriegsspiel are well-documented.


Gygax method of running campaign is not the same as a sandbox campaign in the modern sense. It is its own distinct style. But many of the techniques uses to run sandbox campaigns today have deep historical roots in tabletop roleplaying and wargaming. That includes incomplete player knowledge, independent NPC agendas, and consequences emerging from a shared fictional world. The idea that these principles are somehow evidence of "bad practice" when not systematized, is a serious misreading of the game’s foundations.

This is a really nice description of sandbox play.

If the attempt to persuade the King of Thracia to help as an ally fails because of a decision the GM has made, in advance about what it will take to persuade him - ie do this other quest that the players are not inherently interested in - then I don't see how we are still talking about sandbox play. This seems to me to be GM storytelling play.

And to me it seems pretty trivial to describe at least one more sandbox-y alternative: the players have their PCs appeal to the King of Thracia; the GM has the king ask, "Why should I help you? What makes you worthy or deserving?" And now the players can have their PCs make their case, or make an offer of service, and things head in a direction that is player-driven rather than GM-driven.

I think it is clear we fundamentally disagree on what a sandbox is. Both of your examples are valid sandboxes, imo. If the players find something else to convince the king, that's ok. But if the big issue facing the kingdom is the gorgon and the PCs seem like a good fit...it's reasonable for the king to have his own goals and interests. He's not just a cipher for the PCs goals.

Without more detail, who can say. But obviously a valued treasure being hidden in a dangerous place does not on its face seem to shift players away from what they care about to something they don't care about.

Suppose the PCs have no other interest in making the trek to White Plume, but they need Blackrazor because it can be used as a focus for a powerful ritual that can break the siege. Is it now railroading?

Whereas the players who are invested in the fate of their city and the siege, now finding the GM sending them on some gorgon-killing quest instead, clearly are being shifted away from something that they had treated as a focus of play.

I think the key difference is you're looking for a sandbox which centers the PCs goals and desires. Imo that can hurt verisimilitude because the world does not revolve around the PCs. A sandbox will feel more realistic when there are competing factions and interests which are unrelated to what the PCs want.

And what I describe in the immediately preceding paragraph is a thing I've experienced, as a player, and to me it is obvious and frustrating railroading.

I'm sorry you've had bad experiences. I'm not saying your view of sandbox is wrong, for the record...just that it isn't what I look for.