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

Yes. But my key point here is: there are many paths to reach that feeling. This hyperfocus on "guided by prior prep" isn't the only way--and the "plausible extrapolation" isn't actually distinct, in any meaningful way, from the extrapolation that occurs in the kinds of systems @pemerton has been talking about up to this point. That extrapolation is not just inherently subjective, it is pervasively so.
I'd say the systems (and the plausible extrapolation) are very distinct, and in very meaningful ways. That's the reason people like both of them. If there were no perceived benefits to the BW approach, it wouldn't see such steadfast support. People prefer either approach because they do things differently.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

OK, now to answer @Hussar 's question as to how I'd prepare my next sandbox campaign. In very short, probably much like I prepared for the campaign I'm running now......

Long essay warning.

Step 1: initial inspiration. This can come from anywhere but in my case it's usually a map, or some scribble that looks like it maybe could be a map, and I start thinking "What could be there, and there, and there? What would this look like? What type of campaign might this result in?"

Some coke once got splashed across a piece of paper, I found it after it had dried. Just for kicks I traced around the edges of the dried coke and came up with what I thought was one hell of a good map (coke was land, blank page was sea) that could have become an excellent maritime-based campaign. I spent the rest of the afternoon imagining what that silly map could become, but didn't go any further with it as I already had a campaing on full boil and didn't need another.

My current campaign was seeded in almost as random a scribble: a party in my previous campaign had somehow got themselves stuck on a different world and I needed to bang out the very basics of this world in a hurry. I quickly sketched out a rough map, threw a few cities on it, decided it'd be a faux-Greek culture, and within 15 minutes I'd (unknowingly at the time) sown the seeds of a 17+-year campaign. It would be two years until I'd start fleshing it out any further than needed for that party's fairly brief visit.

Step 2: the hard and sometimes tedious stuff. For me, if I'm doing a new setting from scratch, there's a series of steps in no particular order other than forced (e.g. can't determine climate until I know the basic geography):
--- flesh out whatever map or other initial inspiration got this started to the point where the local-to-starting-point region is done to a level of detail that the PCs would reasonably know about. This takes ages if a) like me, you don't have mapping software and b) you want to do it halfway right
--- make sure this map has a wide variety of "interest levels" in its naming including numerous obvious sites for potential adventuring; also make sure the map includes all kinds of different sub-settings such that in case adventuring takes them to a jungle or mountains or a desert or wherever, the map has that built in
--- also make sure the map has some less-known areas on it for later use as ideas arise
--- do a few sub-maps of what are likely to be important areas to start
--- copy all these maps then augment them with DM-only info for possible later discovery by the players/PCs
--- build the pantheons
--- design the world's astronomy, and from that, its calendar
--- determine what types of cultures (be they faux-historical or completely made-up) exist in the starting area, including those of fantastic creatures and monsters, and have a vague idea of what else is out there; after this, figure out languages and their relative commonality
--- work out an actual world and local history enough to explain how-why things are as they are; then write out a player-visible version to the degree the PCs would reasonably know, if some of that history is to be unknown to begin with
--- determine the basics of climate, weather, etc. for the starting area
--- anything else that leaps to mind

Step 3: rules review. For my own game, as we use a 95+% homebrew rules system anyway, I'd look at what worked and didn't work rules-wise in the previous campaign(s) and tweak-adjust-kitbash to try to fix what didn't work. If I was using a more standard system this is where I'd go through and kitbash it, including decisions on what would and wouldn't be allowed for classes, species, feats, abilities, splatbooks, etc. etc. and including any significant decisions re optional rules and-or homebrewed changes.

Step 4: storyboarding. "But wait," you say, "a sandbox can't have a storyboard!" Well, please hear me out. :)

Even if the campaign is to otherwise be a full sandbox, I-as-DM will still predetermine (or, if you like, railroad) two things: 1) where they start, and 2) what the first adventure will be. I do this in order to get things started and the ball rolling, pure and simple. What they do with that first adventure wil be entirely up to them, but I'll somehow make sure that adventure is what they do first (and I've never had any problem getting buy-in for this).

After that, here's where the storyboarding comes in, in three ways:

1 - regardless of what they decide to do or not do once play begins, I need to know what's going to happen when in the setting if no interruptions occur to the flow of events. This includes the actions of factions or nations, the actions of specific NPCs, sometimes the actions of geology, and so forth.
2 - have some developing stories going on in the background such that if-when the players find themselves at a loose end I've got hooks to dangle
3 - for each of the potential adventuring sites on the map, have an idea of what canned module or homebrew idea that site represents e.g. this island is Isle of Dread, this swamp holds Tomb of the Lizard King, I'll write something myself if they go to these ruins, etc. etc.

Step 5: recruit players. Now that I've got a setting, rules system, and campaign premise ("anything-goes sandbox after the first adventure") I can pitch, and know what character options are available to play, it's time to find some players. Once I've got four or five players and a set night of the week to play on, we'll get together for roll-up night and drop the puck.

Step 6: ongoing development. Just because play has started doesn't mean steps 2 and 3 are finished. Setting expansion is often necessary when the PCs decide "where the map is blank, we'll go", and rulings made on the fly become incorporated into the rules system going forward.

Hussar, I hope that's what you were asking for. :)
 

The 2014 DMG had sandbox play called out as a specific style with some talk about what that looked like. Episodes and Serials IMO is like, non full-campaign play, but adventures linked together (eg: Ghosts of Sandmarsh; Candlekeep Tales; & etc).

Note that as a guy who started play D&D again back in 2018, I had no idea what a sandbox was until I started reading The Alexandrian circa 2023? It just doesnt show up in a lot of the younger circles at all IME - most of the folks recommending "hey, try doing a sandbox instead" are reaching back into the history of D&D or drawing on decades of experience. Hence some of the points in the OP of this thread.

If the 2014 DMG talks about sandbox I've never seen it and I just double checked. Not in the index, not in Creating a Campaign or Creating adventures. It's pretty similar to the 2024 DMG in describing campaigns as far as I can tell, albeit better organized.
 

That completely fails to answer my questions, though. Because I, at least, am not looking for actual play reports. I don't know what +1 Ob means in any practical or useful terms (yes, I know Ob means obstacle, but not what a +1 means); I don't know if +1D advantage is a big bonus or a little bonus. I don't care about Halika and Jobe and having to pick a few tidbits of information out of their adventure is less than useful.

I'm looking for you to say "I feel that Burning Wheel does <thing> well because of <reason>" The closest you got was saying there were more failures in BW than in (D&D?)4e, and that failures in BW were different than failures in 4e, but that's it. I know enough about 4e to imagine that, as with other editions of D&D, a failure is simply a failure but there's no inherent complications, which suggests that in BW a failure comes with complications--which, yay, I like it when games do that--but that still doesn't help to explain what's so great about Burning Wheel's ability to (re)frame situations.

I just wonder why you keep linking to nonhelpful Actual Plays (especially after multiple people have said they're not helpful) instead of answering "I feel that Burning Wheel does <thing> well because of <reason>".

I asked similar questions above and got the same response. "Look at these actual plays that you would need to purchase the book to even have a chance to understand" which is not helpful.
 

But I think this begs an extremely important question:

Does it in fact "exist prior to play and independently of the PCs"?
Well in my case the map does, a lot of the lore does, the cosmology does, as does all the other worldbuilding info I've written out prior to recruiting players for the campaign.

What doesn't exist prior to play is the actual story that emerges from and because of said play.
 

I'd take another look at the rules for how the game is run. That's where the magic is. The mechanics reinforce the fight for what you believe in ethos, but the process where the GM frames scenes in reference to belief statements written on the player's character sheets and we test whether those beliefs are reinforced or changed over time and with complications in reference to those beliefs are the rules that really matter.

For games like Apocalypse World, Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard it's the basic loop of play, including the GM's particular responsibilities that should be grasped with first. The mechanics then are layered on top to reinforce that play loop.
Unfortunately, I didn't find myself particularly interested in the game from my first read-through. I'm not saying it's bad; I'm saying it's not for me.
 

You're welcome not to believe me, but refuting my claim about what I like doesn't seem like a useful avenue for conversation. When I make a setting (which I have done several times, often without a specific campaign or group of players in mind), it definitionally exists independently of the PCs. So does every published setting, by the way.
I never said a thing about whether you like or don't like it.

I was asking whether the state of affairs is "actually do have a world which exists prior to play and independently of the PCs", or whether you have tools and techniques which create the feeling that that statement is true, even when it isn't.

Consider, for example, the aesthetic design that went into the Parthenon in Athens. The architects used extremely clever techniques to create the impression of straight lines...even though the lines objectively were not! Because they specifically accounted for perspective: long straight lines that extend far to the edges of vision appear to curve, so they made the lines curve in the opposite direction just enough to counter that quirk of human visual perception. In other words, they deviated from reality in order to make something seem more real than actual reality would be!

But if it is possible for something to artificially seem more real than reality itself...what does that say for the style of realism? It would seem to me that a true commitment to the standards of aesthetic realism includes at least considering techniques which are, objectively, "unreal"--but where that unreality has been carefully sculpted to counter quirks in human nature so as to intensify the feeling of realism beyond even what rigid adherence to reality would produce.

At which point, we have...that realism is just as much a style as any other, and not only can use, but historically consistently does use techniques which defy empirical observation....if and only if those techniques enhance rather than weaken the observers' "this exists apart from me" feeling.

As a good example from the other direction, I was just recently watching an LP of an adventure game I played in my (very early) youth, Lure of the Temptress, which featured an at-the-time cutting-edge function where NPCs really would wander around, doing their own thing, completely independent of the PC. This was done specifically with the goal of heightening realism; after all, real people usually don't just spend 100% of their time standing still in one location all day. The problem with this first outing in Lure is that...well, having NPCs that wander randomly is really, really bad for the feeling of immersion, because it directly draws the player's attention to "aw crap, where did this damned NPC wander off to this time?" Far from enhancing the feeling of realness and independent existence, it actually ended up throwing a bright spotlight on how game-ified the structure was.

If both an effort that specifically does mimic reality can degrade the feeling, and something which objectively defies reality can enhance it, the whole situation is much, much, much more complicated than any advocate of this approach (with the possible exception of @robertsconley) has given any room for.
 

Well in my case the map does, a lot of the lore does, the cosmology does, as does all the other worldbuilding info I've written out prior to recruiting players for the campaign.

What doesn't exist prior to play is the actual story that emerges from and because of said play.
I certainly agree that "the things I, Lanefan, wrote down" are written down separately from what the PCs say, and (presumably) written before said PCs were written, barring parts extrapolated or randomly rolled later of course.

My question is whether that then implies a thing which exists--in any sense at all--separate from actually being played in, or whether it is something that objectively doesn't exist in any sense (let alone existing apart from play), but which has been engineered to generate the feeling of existing apart from play even though it doesn't.
 

If both an effort that specifically does mimic reality can degrade the feeling, and something which objectively defies reality can enhance it, the whole situation is much, much, much more complicated than any advocate of this approach (with the possible exception of @robertsconley) has given any room for.
Respectfully, I think you are getting this impression because you are reading a stricter definition of realism into the fixed world approach than anyone has suggested is necessary. Micah mentioned choosing an option than wouldn't bring the campaign to a halt if there were multiple realistic choices. I'm on board with that, and I think AlViking, others, would be as well. Obviously people want a world that is not strictly realistic in that it has interesting adventuring sites too.
 

The 100% realism straw man strikes again.
Well then. Perhaps you're willing to relent on the 100% perfection of rules, if I would be willing to relent on 100% realism?

My point though wasn't that 100% realism isn't possible. It's that even 80% realism isn't possible. Probably not even 50% realism. There are huge^100 swathes of the world that are not, and never will be, given sufficient attention to be actual realism--and only those things sufficiently close to the PCs and what they might plausibly interact with will be given that attention. The "camera" is still focused on the PCs and what they might interact with, with details filled in at necessary junctures in a way that is as seamless and invisible as possible.

It's not that I'm judging your approach (or anyone's approach) for not being 100% realism. It's that I'm judging an argument for a particular approach, which claims that it can get VASTLY ENORMOUSLY superior percentage realism, when in actuality it's trading one point here, two points there, while large percentages remain unavoidably non-realist, even before we consider the outright fantastical elements.
 

Remove ads

Top