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

[robertsconley]

I think this is one of the areas where we part ways in regard to what is sandbox play. For you, I think the idea is that there's this whole world of options for the players to visit and explore. And while there are necessarily limits of some sort on the geographical space, it's generally considered to be large enough to effectively be unbounded.

To clarify, it is not just about geography; it is also about what situation the players want to start out in. So it is both for example the Nomar campaign that I use as an example, the player didn't just choose to start out in Nomar, they wanted to be mercenaries, and out of all the places where I had notes on mercenaries doing something, Nomar was the place that interested them the most.

For me, I don't really view that as important. Or at least not any different than what I'm doing. Like when your players agree to play in your Majestic Wilderlands campaign, they're agreeing to play in that setting, which I would take to mean an entire campaign world or at least a continent or two, with the elements that it involves. When my players agree to play in my Spire campaign, they're agreeing to play in that setting, which consists of an individual city (though one with a bleeding tear in reality beneath it, which causes some spatial and temporal wonkiness).

I feel like you're missing something about how my campaigns work, but I apologize, I can't put my finger on it. Perhaps my previous paragraph will help. You are emphasizing geography, and that just one factor that goes into determining how the campaign starts out. Keep in mind there are other types of sandbox campaigns, like West March, ones that are more well-known that do emphasize geography. Geography is just one of several elements for how I handle things, important but not other factors are important as well.

But do I get where you are coming from.

My impartiality comes in with the sense that they can go wherever and do whatever... I don't have things that they MUST interact with. When we began play, I provided them with an immediate specific goal just so we could hit the ground running, and then another goal that was more open-ended that they could pursue any way they liked. Beyond that, I never needed to prompt them in any way... they started bouncing off NPCs and factions and forming their own goals and so on. All of this revolved around the premise of play.

I like an open world setting in that sense... but I think I prefer some kind of premise to be in place rather than just "do whatever". I think games benefit when there's some mutual goal or drive that everyone agrees to. Players may have their own goals for their characters, but all within the lens of the basic premise of play.

My variant of this is the Initial Context.

I have observed since the mid-2000s that plopping the part in the middle of the map and saying "go forth" is a niche taste that doesn't work well with the average hobbyist. There were a lot of reports here on Enworld, another place, of how sandbox campaigns were failing in ways that mine and others on the Wilderlands team didn't. The difference was the fact that myself and the other members of the team, didn't start our campaigns with "go forth and explore". No, the players had stuff to do right from the start. We all did things differently; some had individual backgrounds while others didn't, some had rumor mechanics, and so on.

So I generalized that into the Initial Context and wrote about it.

My Axioms of Sandbox Campaigns

My axioms of sandbox campaigns First off a referee has to be willing to let his players trash his setting. If you are going to get bent ...

batintheattic.blogspot.com

Initial Context
Most sandbox campaigns fail. Why? Because of the lack of a good initial context. Many mock character histories and background but if you going to get a sandbox campaign you are going to need a least a half page of specifics for each players and a half page of general information for the group as a whole.

Players who enjoy being plunked down in the middle of a blank map and told "Go forth and explore" are few and far between. About as common as players who enjoy playing GURPS with all the options in play at once. Most players want to feel their choices have meaning. Picking one of the six surrounding blank hexes is not a choice with meaning. So work on the initial situation so that it is interesting and give the players enough information to make some valid decision of what to do.

From my Basic Rules for the Majestic Fantasy RPG.

The Initial Context
One of the hard things about a campaign using these rules is what the players do at first. It is important to think about the initial context—the situation the players find their characters in when play commences. Sometimes the players are notably self-driven and the group has a specific idea of what they want to do. In these cases, the initial context can be minimal.

In most cases, the players will be unsure of the possibilities, so it is best to have three to five rumors, pieces of lore, or contacts prepared so the players have a choice of where to adventure. It is important that anything vital they would know is written up in a small handout and made available. Keep this handout as minimal as you can while still covering everything you deem important.

We are pretty much on the same page about this.

 

[robertsconley]

These are very very different things. The nuances of these things matter a lot to people like me. These things are being casually conflated by people in this thread.

Then I would ask @FrozenNorth about what he meant by character centric storytelling.

 

[Thomas Shey]

When a definition of something starts getting overly broad, I generally find it useful to try and define by exclusion. What sort of games are absolutely NOT a sandbox?

Off the top of my head, a one-shot of something like Fiasco or Dread is not a sandbox. Pretty much any CoC game example I can think of is not a sandbox. "We're going to play module X from start to finish and then end the game" would not be a sandbox (unless the module is itself a sandbox).

Are you assuming by "not a sandbox" includes "only has very limited sandbox elements"? If so, I'd add a game where the PCs are a group of local law enforcement, and its part of the premise that any character that does something to get themselves kicked out of that will no longer be effectively part of the campaign (though there's room for "the PCs all find out something horrible and change to bring down the corrupt organization they were part of" if everyone's onboard, but I'd say that's still likely not a sandbox).

 

[Manbearcat]

OK, but to be clear, my point is what mattered in that conversation, what @FrozenNorth meant by it. I had to take a guess, as it isn't a term you can just look up by googling it. And it seems like I was close enough for the conversation to continue. Because while we continued to have a debate, it wasn't about that.

Not a concern about you guys’ debate.

Concern was about concept creep around story as it pertains to play or concept misunderstanding “getting out the door.” The amount of digital ink I’ve written simply to try to correct the record on these subjects and gently help people play these games correctly is enormous. I’d much rather spend my time talking about the technical aspects of better play and specific games than the infinite regress of correcting a perpetually wobbly record.

So what I write (what I write a lot) was a preemptive PSA and not a commentary on you guys’ conversation.

All good.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, you can change the example again to suit your purposes just like you rewrote Keep on the Borderlands to suit your argument.

But, that's expressly NOT what @Lanefan said. The floor was rickety in order to slow the party down. He straight up said this. The floor is actually NOT old or rickety. It just looks that way but is instead completely sound. The only reason it's described as old or unsound is to get the players to act in a certain way.

More, perhaps, to give them the opportunity to act in a certain way. Whether they in fact do or not is entirely up to them; for all I know they'll march across that room without a second thought, or use magic to fly across, or turn around and find another way to get across (or just forget about it and go elsewhere), or take out tools* and start tearing the floor up, or do something else I haven't thought of here.

There's also the whole question - and benefit - of narrating elements in the scene for sheer atmosphere, without any intention of those elements having mechanical impact. The rickety-looking-yet-solid floor in this example would be one such.

* - always possible in my game; one of the PCs has a complete kit of masterwork carpenters' tools in her bag of holding.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, rickety floors will cause the character to be cautious when encountered. But have you considered that @Lanefan was obligated to describe it that way as a result of being a part of a keyed encounter? That he hadn't that the players would have been upset at being withheld vital information even if the floor turned out to be safe?

Have you considered that you are making an assumption that he was making it up on the fly? Rather than ask for clarification, you instead leapt into criticism.

I understand why you are upset with this thread, as you felt attacked. But that is not a reason to start assuming everybody is operating in bad faith here.

Now, I read the overall post as describing something happening due to a keyed encounter. But it could have been a result of a randomly generated encounter. While I think it is unlikely @Lanefan could have meant this to be a result of an arbitrary decision. Let's ask @Lanefan to clarify.



To determine this together, we need to ask @Lanefan to clarify.

As with many of these things, the rickety-floor scenario was something I-as-the-poster made up on the spot while typing that post, in order to give an example of what I was talking about (impartial resolution by DM decision, I think).

And sure, the scene is a bit obstructionist if one wants to view it that way; whether by the module designers if it's a canned module or by the DM if it's made up on the fly.

And my question in either case is: so what?

It's atmospheric, it helps set the rest of the larger scene (if the floor here is narrated as looking rickety, odds are the players will internalize that most of the rest of the house is also pretty run-down, which saves me having to narrate the same thing over and over), and if they're paying attention it gives them reason to, in-character, stop and think. It's also possible, depending on the specific scenario, that the rickety-looking floor here is telegraphing a hazard elsewhere (i.e. that the floors in this house aren't always going to be as solid as this one turned out to be).

None of this changes the fact that granting auto-success on walking across this particular bit of floor is an impartial act on the DM's part.

 

[Lanefan]

How does character-centric story-telling fail to prioritize internal world logic?

If-when it gets to the point that the game world too-obviously revolves around the PCs, I'd say that failure has occurred.

 

[Maxperson]

Well no. You know if it’s possible or not. Otherwise you wouldn’t call for a roll.

The roll is almost never to determine if the guard is bribable in the first place.

No. It's almost always going to be to see if the guard is bribable in the first place.

If the guard is known by the DM to be bribable, there isn't going to be a roll. The guard is bribable and you just negotiate the amount.

If the guard is known by the DM to not be bribable, there isn't going to be a roll. The PCs fail.

It's when it's some schlub guard that the DM has no idea if he's bribable or not that there is a roll. If they beat the DC, he's bribable. If they fail, he isn't.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So games like Burning Wheel and Apocalypse Keys are not character centric storytelling. We're not doing things to inject drama. We're addressing the premise of the characters. There's no narrative to serve. We're playing to find out who these characters are under pressure, but it's not about drama or what makes for a satisfying narrative. It's not about character arcs. It's about following them on their journey.

Now what my home group does in our L5R, Vampire and Final Fantasy games is character centered storytelling. There is a narrative we are building together. A sense of arcs we're building to, weaving things together.

These are very very different things. The nuances of these things matter a lot to people like me. These things are being casually conflated by people in this thread.

I recognize that they are different things, and I respect your feelings on this matter. But I conflate them because I have the same (not for me) opinion of them, and because narrative-centric and character journey-centric are not different enough from each other to make a difference to me personally regarding the kind of gaming I prefer. I'm sorry if that feels bad and I will try to separate them more in my discourse, even if I don't care for either style.

 

[Lanefan]

I agree about the former. However, the latter depends on how important the wall actually. If there's pressure of some sort--a time crunch (and each failed roll means lost time), enemies after them, bad or no equipment--then yes, a roll should be made. There's actual consequences to be had. f the PCs have all the time in the world and decent equipment, then there's no point. They'll do it eventually.

I'm very much in the "your roll represents your best attempt in the time you have" camp, and thus for me there's no such thing as "take 20". Having loads of time makes that roll easier, for sure, but a 1 is a 1 is a 1 notwithstanding. Or if they had all night I might just have them roll to see how long it takes and-or how painful/noisy it gets.

For these purposes let's assume they need to get over the wall reasonably soon in order to get other things done before daylight.

Having the PCs stop to roll dice in this case just delays the players without adding anything interesting to the game. At the most, what I'd do is roll to see how well they do it and if there are any complications.

In Level Up, this 30-foot wall might be an Exploration Challenge. A successful group roll might mean that make the climb in standard time while a failure might mean that it takes a lot longer, they party loses several Supply, and each character takes a level of exhaustion in the process. That's a lot more interesting than simply saying the party is stuck on the wrong side of the wall.

I'm fine with their being stuck. I'm not a fan of "fail forward", because when taken to any length at all it means that though there might be some complications, at the root of it the PCs always get what they want (in this case, to get over the wall). To me fail means fail, period: you don't get what you want...and there might be complications on top of that.