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

[AlViking]

NO. You absolutely have NEVER been told that. Not once. Not by a single person in this thread. Not ever.

The ONLY thing that was said was that D&D is a prep heavy game and requires a fair amount of heavy lifting before you start in order to properly run a sandbox in D&D.

But, not once have you ever been told by anyone in this thread that D&D can't do a real sandbox. The only people who have claimed that a given game can't do a sandbox, AFAIK, is @robertsconley's claims that games where content is generated in play aren't suitable for sandboxes.

You did not say it's not possible, @pemerton for example has asserted that at best we have a "living novel" (which I can find no definition of or reference to anywhere) because the DM controls everything other than the characters.

I don't put strict limits on sandbox, I've posted a couple of times what I think are the important points. But if you feel you and your players feel like you're running a sandbox you probably are.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This seems to entail that Torchbearer is not a sandbox system. But this thread has led me to the view that it is; so I don't accept your contrast between "groups who enjoy sandbox campaigns" and a group playing Torchbearer.

But if someone doesn't want to deal with conflict as the centre of play, why would they play TB2e? That would be a strange thing to do!

In case it's not clear,

(i) I'm not criticising anything; I'm describing it;

(ii) I don't suggest that a heavily GM driven sandbox leads to players' goals being subordinated to the referee's goals. My point is about who controls the shared fiction.

If the players are making decisions in the setting through their PCs that have an effect on the world, then they are sharing in control of the fiction with the GM so far as I'm concerned. If you feel differently (and I believe you do), then fair enough. Happy gaming!

 

[The Firebird]

The reason there are terms like color is because a lot of Narrative games play around with who gets to say what about what. There needed to be a shared terminology about what was legit to say.


My Rogue is trying to find the location of the Red Star cult.


Me: Rogue enters the Black Boar tavern, it's still busy this time of day, filled with yellow smoke from rot weed and the sound of the cries and lamentations of the gamblers. I approach one eyed Broher, the tavern owner, and ask him where the cult is hiding. He tells me they meet in the cellar of the Mangled Duck.

I've invented the Black Boar, rot weed and what color its smoke is, Broher and the fact he has one eye and also the location of the Red Star cult.

In some games none of that is legitimate. In some games just the part that's italicised isn't legitimate. In some games it may be legitimate depending on the roll. In some games it's all legitimate. In some games it's legitimate if my character frequents the Black Boar but not legitimate if this is a 'new' tavern he's going to. And so on.

Which of these is color? Feel like we're circling a definition. But it is clearly very precise, and I'm not sure what it is.

I think it makes sense that it would apply to narrative systems but not to my games. That's why it doesn't work for me. Not saying anyone is wrong for using the term.

 

[AlViking]

@pemerton , one last try.

Your examples get lost in the weeds of play. Now, before you write up a response that's thousands of words long, take a step back. Keep it simple. Obviously many people don't understand your explanations. It doesn't help that you repeatedly redefine words, insist that if people don't use your exact verbiage that they're wrong. It's not "style", it's "technique". It's not "story now" it's, well you had a couple other adjectives in there I forget. Meanwhile other sources call it narrative or character driven. You don't own the words people use but you constantly complain about people not using your exacting terms muddies your point.

So tell us an over-simplified version.

1. Set up a scenario with 2-3 players. The characters have some aspect, but just pick one or two per character. We don't need all the detail.
2. The GM sets up a scene. Why? What's the motivation?
3. The players react to the scene.
4. The GM responds, creating obstacles(?). How do you decide how easy or difficult?
5. The scene ends. How do you decide how the next scene is impacted.
6. How does this turn into a longer term campaign.

Each answer shouldn't be more than 1-3 sentences. Don't get bogged down into detail or terminology, people's eyes glaze over with monstrous blocks of text even if you think it's useful it's not. Even short descriptions (random example here) D&D General - [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting. is full of jargon that makes it difficult to understand. It's a short story full of terms with no explanation, just a play by play. It's like a play-by-play report of an American football game to someone from the UK wondering why full-back is spelled fullback and what the heck a quarterback is. A tackle? Is that a position or what something does, and where's the mention of the goalkeeper?

 

[Micah Sweet]

So literally the only problem isn't the distinction, which you agree is present and relevant...

It's literally just the word "color".

Even though you specifically said that this "meta distinction" was the problem.

My issue with the meta distinction is simply that IMO it encourages one to think of the setting and the campaign as a narrative construct and not a world existing independently of the PCs interacting with it. And I don't want that.

 

[pemerton]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this is not particularly helpful.

In what sense? I mean, it's true.

I just don't see that sandbox play - in the sense of play that centres place and journeying - needs a whole lot of prep.

I could write my own starting scenario, if I had to: in that case I'd follow the steps set out in the Scholar's Guide (pp 132-43). And I could draw a map of the setting, if I needed to (as per the Scholar's Guide, pp 14-16), though I personally wouldn't see any need to do that when I already have WoG available.

If by "not helpful" you mean because the players are putting settlements on the map, well again I just don't see how this is at odds with sandboxing, as that idea has been developed in this thread. I mean, from the actual play post:

Golin, 43 year old Dwarven outcast - from a forgotten temple complex just inside The Pale. He is cynical and explosives-wise, and believes that explosive solutions are good solutions

When I asked the player what gods are worshipped in the forgotten temple complex, he replied (to the effect of) "What do you think? Gods of explosions!"

Much later on - 10 or 12 sessions in - I decided to convert the Moathouse from T1 to Torchbearer 2e. I decided that the Forgotten Temple Complex was, in fact, the (Forgotten) Temple of Elemental (Evil) - and so wrote up some elemental cults to be worshipped there:

Cult​	Elements	Elemental Evil	Skills
Explosives	Air, Fire	explosions	Alchemist, Cook
Sky	Air, Water	waves, wind, tempest	Survivalist, Sailor
Forges	Earth, Fire	volcanoes, greed	Armourer, Jeweller, Smith
Herbalism	Earth, Water	wilderness, miasma, atavism	Healer, Peasant
Potions and Vapours	Fire, Water	poison	Alchemist, Enchanter
Void	Air, Earth	darkness, suffocation	Lore Master, Ritualist

When the PCs actually went there, Golin reconnected with the Explosives cult and got forcibly inducted into the (secret and evil) Void Kult (the "K" is at Golin's player's insistence), while Fea-bella joined the cult of Potions and Vapours.

This approach, of building out the details as play starts to point towards their salience, is one that I've often used. Gygax suggests it in his DMG, so I don't think it's that aberrant or radical!

 

[The Firebird]

I've given one: the GM exercising control over the shared fiction. In post 3709, which was a reply to you, I said:I don't know what you find unclear in this account of what I mean by "railroad".

I've stated it before: "control over the shared fiction" doesn't seem well-defined to me. I haven't seen you offer a concise definition of that; just long examples that haven't generalized clearly (for me).

The same point holds, though: potential conflict isn't conflict. It doesn't move from colour to conflict until the conflict actually occurs, in play.

You've lost me with jargon again.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't accept that your sort of "living world" game is the only approach to sandbox RPGing.

So what you describe as "omission of crucial details" is, in fact, deliberate generality that allows for multiple approaches to sandboxing, not all of which involve "impartial refereeing".

I can't speak for Rob, but I think given the length of his post there is probably more back and forth needed for you guys to clarify what he is saying and find where you might disagree. For instance living world sandbox is a qualifier, and he seems to be using it that way:

What do sandbox campaign focus on well there are several variation including my own living world style. But all of the share a common focus on allowing the players as their characters to set the direction of the campaign by their choices. In otherwords conflict (as defined by BW/TB) is emergent from what the players choose to do as their character.

Now, I will say, living world is a concept so deeply associated with sandbox play at this point, that I think many people do see it as part of the style. Again, Rob and I were involved in many of the same conversations in the OSR on sandbox and my memory of those discussions is living world became a very strong idea (and just going by memory but off the top of my head it feels like 75% of OSR sandboxes at least were embracing this living world concept). That is just a number based on memory so maybe Rob can weigh in and maybe he can clarify if he thinks I am wrong or oversimplifying the situation. But at the core of these discussions (which honestly were often debates because people often disagreed on key things), was a strong desire to escape anything that felt like railroad and to move away from linear style adventures (and I think in those conversations there was usually a distinction between those concepts). And one of the big things people also wanted to move away from was this sense of a 'pre-loaded' story (even if it was coming from the GM on the fly). That is why terms like organic keep coming up. I am not saying this is The Way to do sandbox. I am just trying to provide some background context on some of the discussions that inform aspects of what you are seeing here (and I am sure sandbox was being discussed in other ways elsewhere).

This is why I call my approach Drama+Sandbox. I allow for things that a GM informed by the above conversation, might take exception with. And while the Conflict Rob mentioned arises organically in my campaigns, there is a pressure cooker element like the one someone mentioned for Blades in the Dark: it is just done differently, more through the way campaigns are structured around sects and martial conflict, and through the use of grudge tables. But those are there to help ensure character drama. Still in my campaign I would allow myself to inject a dramatic moment that wouldn't feel as organic in a more traditional sandbox.

This "fated encounter" encounter from my rulebook sample adventure (which is a mystery not a sandbox adventure, but still it is meant to take place in the broader context of a sandbox), is an example of something that doesn't feel organic to me in this way (and so the 'dramatic' qualifier). It is the kind of planned encounter you might see in a typical D&D campaign or something, but it feels to me less organic because it has a pre-loaded quality to it. Also the encounter is serving a function beyond responding to player choices:

 

[mamba]

Correct! Low-stakes play is not a component of Burning Wheel. That's one way in which, as I posted, it contrasts fairly markedly with the example @TwoSix posted: 'a starting point of "You start in a room. There are doors to the north, east, and west. What do you do?"

technically that could be high stakes, the characters just do not know it yet

Can you define high stakes? A while ago you had the character haggling with a merchant about an angel’s feather or looking for a ship in the harbor. I consider both of these relatively low stakes and did expect you to say ‘yes, there is a ship’ rather than rolling for that. So what makes something low stakes enough to say ‘yes’ and move on or from the DM side not present it (there are three doors… I doubt the answer is to avoid rooms with more than one exit…)?

 

[pemerton]

If the players are making decisions in the setting through their PCs that have an effect on the world, then they are sharing in control of the fiction with the GM so far as I'm concerned. If you feel differently (and I believe you do), then fair enough. Happy gaming!

The control is to (i) say things about what their PCs do, and (ii) prompt the GM to say things.

Given that (i) is a component of all RPGing, all the action for talking about degrees of control/agency is in (ii). I've posted a lot about this upthread, including the range of principles and heuristics that a GM might use to work out what to say.

If there are no constraints on what the GM says beyond other stuff the GM has written and what the GM thinks is true to that stuff, and this is not reasonably knowable to the players, then I think it is fairly obvious that the players are not exercising control here.