From my perspective, your posts appear to present pretty truistic stuff - like your PDF of bandit stats - as if this is meant to shed some light on the benighted. You talk about "trashing the world" - as if the possibility of alternatives to DL-esque or AP0-esque railroading will be revelatory to those you are replying to. You say that "players can have their PCs attempt anything that is possible in the fiction" as if that is somehow a departure from a baseline norm for RPGing.
(snip)
Your post clearly lays out your approach using Burning Wheel and Torchbearer and clarifies your preferred style of play. This helps me understand your position more clearly.
However, the core issue I've repeatedly raised remains: your persistent mischaracterization of sandbox techniques as either insufficient for ensuring player agency or inherently consistent with railroading. You acknowledge the extensive clarifications offered, yet continue to present a distorted picture of what has been explained at length.
You label my explanations as "truistic," yet you consistently act as though basic concepts, such as players' freedom to engage openly with the setting and the importance of internal consistency, are controversial or insufficient. While these points might seem obvious, you've repeatedly treated them as points of contention or misunderstanding, especially in your ongoing questions about adjudication methods and the emergence of extraordinary outcomes.
Regarding Extraordinary Events:
As clearly outlined previously, both ordinary and extraordinary outcomes in my approach result organically from interactions, situational context, roleplaying, and impartial use of dice. The example involving the Russet Lord scenario was provided precisely to illustrate how this works in practice.
Your method of roleplaying and resolving actions through explicitly declared intentions and structured conflict-resolution mechanics is certainly a valid approach to campaign play. However, your repeated suggestion that a method relying on internal consistency, impartial adjudication, and dice-driven uncertainty inherently limits player agency or resembles railroading does not hold up.
To directly address your points again:
- Player agency, in my sandbox campaigns, arises explicitly because players interact authentically and freely with a setting that consistently responds to their choices. Players roleplay with NPCs, set and pursue objectives, and face outcomes naturally emerging from their decisions.
- Extraordinary outcomes in my approach do not require players to explicitly declare an extraordinary intention. Rather, such outcomes naturally result from the adjudication process I use when players attempt to act as their characters. Players in my campaigns cannot always anticipate these outcomes, and that uncertainty enhances, rather than undermines, player-driven play.
- My references to historical wargaming and the impartial referee concept highlight how well-established these ideas are within the hobby. Your dismissal of historical precedent, reducing it merely to the "teaching" of setting details rather than acknowledging its role in impartial adjudication, misrepresents how these methods historically functioned—as extensively documented by Jon Peterson and other RPG historians.
Finally, it is not accurate or fair to imply that seeking accurate representation of my views equates to expecting a "courtesy of deference." On the contrary, I am seeking an honest portrayal of techniques and outcomes I have repeatedly clarified. Criticism is welcome; persistent misrepresentation is not.
I remain happy to discuss differing approaches honestly and respectfully, and to address questions even when they challenge my points. However, productive dialogue requires accurately engaging with each other's positions rather than repeatedly circling back to previously addressed misconceptions.
