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

[robertsconley]

I'm saying that using hidden information to do so isn't ideal so far as player-driven play is concerned.

Limited knowledge of the world forms a significant part of the "ideal" when it comes to sandbox campaigns. And is critical in ensuring that the campaign unfolds through what the players choose. Why? Because the players are aware of their lack of knowledge and it motivates them to discover whether it is the exploration of physical geography or exploring a town's social network.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't think it's "anti-sandbox".

I think it's anti-"player-driven".

I've run (and am running) plenty of trad-style sandbox games. The players enjoy them. They have a good amount of autonomy to pursue leads and push their character in various directions. But ultimately events are happening to them. The games aren't "player-driven".

I wouldn't describe a sandbox as events happening to players. But I also suspect your definition of that is going to be different, because for you guys, something coming from the GM side, even in response to what the players do, often gets filed as such. But I wouldn't agree with this at all. I think a sandbox is very player driven. But I don't think we are going to bridge that divide at this point. Both sides here have laid out there positions (but I would point out, I am perfectly happy to call what you do player drive and/or sandbox-----so I only disagreeing with the part where you guys are saying what I am doing isn't player driven or sandbox play*

*I know you didnt' say the latter, but @Hawkeye made a point to that effect about the NPC characterization debate so that is what this is in reference to

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which would seem to be an argument for FKR play?

The "worst of both worlds" would seem to me to be a ruleset with detailed character building options and then a bunch of DM guidelines that amount to "Eh, you'll figure it out! Good luck!" But that seems to be a pretty popular paradigm!

My gut instinct is that popularity is because character building and world building are both fun activities to do on their own, without any need to sit down at a table and actually play.

Well, personally I do enjoy worldbuilding more than play, but play is fun too, and gives extra meaning to worldbuilding, so I'd rather both were in play.

One thing I really enjoy is coming up with mechanical support for stories, like figuring out to mechanically represent the Star Wars setting, or the events of a Marvel movie or an episode of Strange New Worlds.

 

[TwoSix]

This to me just doesn't match my experience and it feels like we are again wrestling for 'who has the most player driven style". I am increasingly thinking that is nonsense. I fully acknowledge what you are doing is player driven. I think a fair assessment of what Rob and I are doing, shows it is also player driven. There are key distinctions, and those matter. And to be clear here, what Rob and I do, there are plenty of games in that style that make room for things like players make rolls to bribe a guard. So sandbox play isn't strictly limited to approaches that go light on social interaction mechanics. But I've played in both and both seem to honor the player driven aspect. You just end up with some differences that can still be very important

Honestly, this reminds me of the "player agency" thread from a few years back, in which everyone sort of assumed "player agency" (much like "player-driven) was an obvious virtue in play. It isn't. Plenty of games benefit from being less player-driven or having less player agency.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And I expect my players to have fewer issues about "power" than that.

When I am running a game, I have power. But I am not using it against the players. My power is used for their benefit. I only get benefit if they do!

Again, this isn't about people who are deliberately using power against players; its about people who make mistakes and aren't good about acknowledging and fixing them. One is malevolence, the other is human nature.

So, yeah, I think everyone with extra ability to harm or help should have some guard rails, because we're all flawed human beings. And I really wish people would knock off reading that as my suggesting malevolent intentions; its either ignoring what I'm saying, not understanding what I'm saying, or its disingenuous.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Honestly, this reminds me of the "player agency" thread from a few years back, in which everyone sort of assumed "player agency" (much like "player-driven) was an obvious virtue in play. It isn't. Plenty of games benefit from being less player-driven or having less player agency.

I don't disagree that not every game needs to be about agency. I just think that a sandbox is a game with lots of agency and is player driven. I get you don't see it as player driven. We come from very different points of view. And we probably aren't going to persuade each other

 

[TwoSix]

Why would I continually try new things if I've sampled enough games to look at a description of a game to know I wouldn't like it? I don't really care for Thai food (I blame growing up with midwestern bland), so I'm not going to try that new Thai place someone is really excited about. If knowing that I'm not going to enjoy an ever-so-slight variation on something I know I don't care for makes me conservative or skeptical we have different definitions of what those words mean.

In addition like a lot of people I have limited time, limited opportunities, limited people interested in playing other games. I'm not going to waste precious time, energy and money playing other games when I have one I already enjoy. I don't feel a burning desire to switch games because the rules of the game matter are not the single biggest reason I play.

All you're doing is simply a defense of a conservative mindset when it comes to roleplaying game choices. Why not just embrace being who you are?

If the label "temperamentally conservative" somehow offends you, I'm sorry for that. I'm temperamentally conservative about all sorts of things, RPGs just happens to be one of the few things I'm not.

 

[AlViking]

Again, this isn't about people who are deliberately using power against players; its about people who make mistakes and aren't good about acknowledging and fixing them. One is malevolence, the other is human nature.

So, yeah, I think everyone with extra ability to harm or help should have some guard rails, because we're all flawed human beings. And I really wish people would knock off reading that as my suggesting malevolent intentions; its either ignoring what I'm saying, not understanding what I'm saying, or its disingenuous.

But the only reason to have guardrails is to prevent someone from acting in a malevolent way, is it not? If we assume that people in the context of a game are just trying to provide the best experience possible, why do we need guardrails?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Personally, I think every player has the right to check and confirm things with the GM - whether it be with the numbers or something may be off in the shared fiction. It is a game, we are of course fallible and can forget something (or even inject personal bias), and I always believe in open dialogue.

If you do not have that kind of respect then ofc you are going to incur distrust.

Unfortunately, the hobby is full of people who have been taught to either be defensive about that being done or outright offended. I'd be willing to bet some of them are in this thread.

 

[AlViking]

All you're doing is simply a defense of a conservative mindset when it comes to roleplaying game choices. Why not just embrace being who you are?

If the label "temperamentally conservative" somehow offends you, I'm sorry for that. I'm temperamentally conservative about all sorts of things, RPGs just happens to be one of the few things I'm not.

All I see is you putting anyone who doesn't play a ton of different games into a conservative box. There's a difference between someone who refuses to even consider options and someone who has given due consideration to other options and has decided those alternatives are not for them.

Like I said, we have different definitions of what the words mean.