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

[SableWyvern]

I said that the language of "moving" is metaphorical, not literal. You said that I'm wrong, and then - when I reiterated that there is no literal moving of things you replied that you were using the word "move" in a metaphorical sense.

So I still don't know why you said that I am wrong, only to then go on and say exactly what I had said, ie that talk of "moving" things is metaphorical.

Probably they didn't even consider that someone might actually ask if the sandboxes we're talking about are literally filled with sand, and misinterpreted the question on the assumption it wasn't some attempt at a petty semantic gotcha.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If a PC has a hatred of wargs, the GM doesn't arbitrarily throw in an encounter with wargs

Err, I find they often do. There is not much point in having a hatred of X as a character trait if X is Sir Not Appearing in this Adventure. If the sandbox didn't originally contain any X, most DMs will go back and add some.

 

[Maxperson]

I said that the language of "moving" is metaphorical, not literal. You said that I'm wrong, and then - when I reiterated that there is no literal moving of things you replied that you were using the word "move" in a metaphorical sense.

So I still don't know why you said that I am wrong, only to then go on and say exactly what I had said, ie that talk of "moving" things is metaphorical.

This is what you said. Stop trying to play at it being about something else.

"Whereas in the "sandboxes" being talked about here, the players don't move things"

The players do move things. They move the narrative.

 

[SableWyvern]

Err, I find they often do. There is not much point in having a hatred of X as a character trait if X is Sir Not Appearing in this Adventure. If the sandbox didn't originally contain any X, most DMs will go back and add some.

Please see the disclaimer I included at the end of my post in the (clearly misguided) hope it would prevent exactly this kind of quibble:

And, because it seems to be necessary to include these disclaimers in this conversation, to be clear, when I say, "you do this" or "you do that" I'm talking about what generic you does if generic you is developing a living sandbox in the fashion that some of us refer to as impartial or objective. I am not saying you @EzekielRaiden need to do things this way in your game, or that doing it this way is inherently superior, or that any GM is able to do such things with absolute impartiality, never influenced in any way by their unconscious biases, nor am I making any other value judgment or demand. If there is anything I have suggested I do that you still feel is completely and utterly impossible and at odds with those things that can actually be done according the known laws of physics, then it is likely that I am not actually suggesting that anyone does that.

If they did not exist, I would not generally add wargs into my campaign world on the basis a PC had a hatred of wargs because, in discussion with that player, they would not have created a character with hatred of wargs unless there were wargs to hate in the first place.

If it was an open question as to whether or not wargs exist, we might decide they do, or I might let the player know it remains an open question. But, in either case, in a living world sandbox, we wouldn't then immediately move to a Wargs Attack! scene.

 

[SableWyvern]

I don't know what sort of RPGing you are contrasting with here.

The sort @Paul Farquhar is familiar with, apparently.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Please see the disclaimer I included at the end of my post in the (clearly misguided) hope it would prevent exactly this kind of quibble:

The idea that sandboxes are ever "impartial and objective" is a bit silly. The sandbox has to include things that the players will find interesting, such as haunted tombs, scheming nobles, and of course, monsters. In most worlds, monsters are rare, so an "impartial and objective" sandbox wouldn't have any monsters.

And most DMs who know their players will tailor the sandbox to include more of the sort of content they like, as well as adding connections to PCs' backstories.

Bottom line: if the sandbox doesn't include the sort of stuff the players find interesting, they won't play in it.

 

[SableWyvern]

The idea that sandboxes are ever "impartial and objective" is a bit silly. The sandbox has to include things that the players will find interesting, such as haunted tombs, scheming nobles, and of course, monsters. In most worlds, monsters are rare, so an "impartial and objective" sandbox wouldn't have any monsters.

I am not going all the way back to square one to rehash the previous hundred-or-so pages of arguments about whether or not it is possible to run a sandbox with the intent of doing so in an impartial manner. Suffice to say, in my experience, it is possible (with the proviso, as I mentioned, that obviously everyone has biases that influence their decision).

In most worlds, monsters are rare

Other than the fact that "most worlds" is a bit of a nonsense (how are you even measuring that?), the only world that matters is the one a given sandbox is set in. How many monsters are or are not found in other worlds, settings and campaigns that have nothing to do with me is utterly irrelevant to the campaign I'm actually running.

 

[Maxperson]

The idea that sandboxes are ever "impartial and objective" is a bit silly. The sandbox has to include things that the players will find interesting, such as haunted tombs, scheming nobles, and of course, monsters. In most worlds, monsters are rare, so an "impartial and objective" sandbox wouldn't have any monsters.

Monsters are an inherent part of the game, so an impartial and objective sandbox would have them. To not have them wouldn't make sense or be realistic(fantasy realism).

And most DMs who know their players will tailor the sandbox to include more of the sort of content they like, as well as adding connections to PCs' backstories.

Bottom line: if the sandbox doesn't include the sort of stuff the players find interesting, they won't play in it.

I think most sandbox DMs just include some of everything, because that's what sandbox settings have. There will be interesting things for the players even without the DM tailoring that stuff to them.

One thing I do agree with you about here, is connecting PC backstories to the setting. That adds to the realism and depth of the sandbox and makes sense.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Monsters are an inherent part of the game, so an impartial and objective sandbox would have them.

But are explicitly described as "rare" in almost all settings, with the exception of "Points of Light". If they were as common generally as they are encountered by PCs, then commoners would be extinct.

Commoner: "I take my sheep to market."
DM: [rolls on random encounter table] "you are attacked by 4 kobolds".
[a brief fight ensues, one kobold is wounded, the commoner is dead]

I think most sandbox DMs just include some of everything, because that's what sandbox settings have.

It's okay if you are using a "bought in" sandbox, but if the DM is making it from scratch, including content that they know will not interest the players is wasted effort, and may even frustrate the players by making the interesting stuff harder to find.

 

[pemerton]

Probably they didn't even consider that someone might actually ask if the sandboxes we're talking about are literally filled with sand, and misinterpreted the question on the assumption it wasn't some attempt at a petty semantic gotcha.

Trying to turn the conversation from metaphor to literalness is not a petty semantic gotcha. It's a necessary condition of clear discussion about what actually happens.

For instance, one can't work out what @EzekielRaiden is talking about while the discussion is all couched in metaphor.