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

[pemerton]

"Make the world respond based on established fiction" is a heuristic.

Sure. Is it a heuristic that is amenable to player knowability? That depends. Personally, I think it is more amenable to knowability when it is applied by the group, rather than the GM unilaterally.

Collective application can lead to some issues if this is also meant to be resolving conflict. Hence why I tend to prefer fortune-based rather than unconstrained "fiat narration"-style resolution.

Yes, the DM of a sandbox makes decisions to adjudicate the world. Is this the sticking point? As I said before, for you "the DM adjudicates the world" seems to be a railroad.

As I believe I've posted, it is about control - which does not depend upon authorship, but does depend upon knowability.

 

[AlViking]

Then I don't understand what half or more of these things are saying.

Like I literally don't understand why anyone would use the word "objective" in relation to realism except for this.

Would you be willing to explain what you actually meant by your use of it, then?

What are you trying to prove? I said that when people said a style of game felt more realistic to them you somehow turned that into we think our preference is objectively better for everyone. No one said anything like that. My quote? The one you said "proved" that I claimed "... it isn't just "for them". It's realism for everyone. Because it's allegedly 'objective' or lacking in 'objectivity'"? It was " If a GM is not being objective they can always throw roadblocks in the way."

I'm not discussing realism in any way shape or form. I'm talking about someone potentially railroading because they're making decisions not based on established fiction but because they want a specific result. If I think it would be really cool for the party to turn right at a juncture and they turn left instead I don't use quantum ogres to ensure I get the result I want. They turn left. I may present a situation where the characters encounter Githyanki that are there because of an accident can talk to them, part ways with an agreement to not fight, help them, fight them, something else. It ended up in a fight largely because the barbarian won initiative. If it had been important to some predefined plot that the characters help the Githyanki and form an unexpected alliance, which in a railroad is something that would have happened somehow, barbarian or no.

Nobody is claiming to be absolutely 100% objective at all times in our decisions. But I see no on even hinting at the game being objectively better or more realistic for everyone. Not even close.

 

[pemerton]

I would agree, the only question is what qualifies as a heuristic. Is the DM following their model of what they consider to be realistic and probable in the world a heuristic, or does it take a set of rules in a book for that?

See my post just upthread.

 

[Hussar]

But, I very strongly disagree with this. I don't think it follows that because they created the world, they are driving the story. The players are driving, within the world the GM provides.

How can it not? The players won't go to places the DM doesn't put in front of them. They would have no reason to travel to place X unless the DM provides place X. And, specfically within a level based system like D&D, many areas are more or less walled off by level. Yes, sure, you can wander into the red dragon's lair, but, since that's suicidal for 1st level characters, either that red dragon's lair will be in a location that the PC's can't reach due to lack of resources, or they will be strongly warned off by the DM through the use of NPC's.

Now, true, the players could choose suicide by dragon, but, by and large, they aren't going to. So, when the DM plonks a red dragon lair in location X, that's a big sign that says, "You must be this tall to ride". Again, the DM is very strongly influencing what the characters do.

 

[AlViking]

But, that's the point we keep trying to get across. The ONLY reason the players could decide to go north to Fire God's Mountain is because, you, the DM, put that there as a potential destination. Same as Shrilly Vanilli (I am SO stealing that name for an NPC btw). How did they meet someone halfway through their journey? Who added that NPC? Did the players request or take some sort of proactive action to meet this NPC? No. You added it as the DM. And, guess what? There's going to be something interesting to do at those locations. Imagine that. How did I, who isn't even in the game, who has no idea about any of the details of your game, able to predict that with 100% certainty?


Well, because I know that we're playing a game and it's your job as the DM to make sure that there actually IS something interesting to do everywhere the players go. So, no, the player don't have any real control here. Not really. Their only real control is choosing from the list of options that the DM has provided. Had there not been an NPC that you, the DM, added, they would not have gone to Shrilly Vanilli because they would have had no reason to go there. Where did that reason come from? From you, the DM. You weren't "reacting" to anything the players were doing. You were adding stuff that you thought was interesting.


Which is fantastic DMing. That's what you're SUPPOSED to do. But, at not point should we be kidding ourselves that this is somehow the players being proactive or you are doing things "in response to what they are doing". The DM is very, very firmly in the driver's seat and the players are along for the ride.

Taking a concept and style of play to an unrealistic and unachievable extreme is kind of meaningless. I don't think there is ever a "pure" sandbox in TTRPGs or CRPGs. Even something like Minecraft, which isn't a linear game and has no predefined goal, is not 100% pure sandbox because there are still common goals that emerge from play because of the design of the rules. That doesn't mean we can't come close. The players may not define the guards or the town, but they do decide how they interact with the guards and what they do in the town or the Fire God's Mountain.

Setting artificial restrictions on a term doesn't change how it is commonly used.

 

[Hussar]

how is the DM asking ‘where do you want to go next’ / ‘what do you want to do next’ the DM initiating?

Let’s assume the DM brought up 10 rumors and the players pick among those rather than deciding on their own based on what happened so far. You consider these 10 options to be the players reacting and the whole thing therefore being what, a fancy railroad?

So, how many rumours are required?

If the DM brought up (note that it's the DM bringing up, as in entirely sourced by the DM without any input or reaction to the players) only 2 rumours, does that make it not a sandbox? Three? Four?

What's the minimum number of options required to qualify as a sandbox? Because, previously, I was just told that 4 wasn't enough. So, what is the minimum?

 

[SableWyvern]

So, how many rumours are required?

...

What's the minimum number of options required to qualify as a sandbox? Because, previously, I was just told that 4 wasn't enough. So, what is the minimum?

I stated that if the players only have four options in total for things they're able to do, that is insufficient. I'm not sure if your "previously" refers to me, but I certainly didn't say anything about rumours specifically. If the game has been going for any length of time there should probably be dozens of possible options -- every person you meet, everything you do, every place you go, every rumour you hear, every adventure you go on results in new threads and possibilities. The minimum number of new rumours specifically available at given moment is probably zero.

We know that baron over there is looking for allies against the duke. We know the Duke is unhappy with x, y and z. We can go continue exploring one of these two sites we've been delving into and-and-off. We can set off for one any of half a dozen other places where we've heard rumours of possible wealth and excitement. We can head to the capital to try and sell some stuff. We can check for local rumours. We can head out into the wilderness to see where that map leads. We can see if that other baron is still looking for people to deal with disappearances. We can go scout out the lands to the south where the evil prince is apparently raising armies of beastmen. We can hire sages to see if they can find any clues regarding the location of a magical weapon worthy of our fighter. We can invest in a horse ranch. We can see if we can find out more about those cultists hanging with some of the beastment tribes out east. We can return to the manor and deal with the local thieves guild that has been demanding protection money from our seneschal. Etc...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The players won't go to places the DM doesn't put in front of them.

You don't seem to have met many players....

Even in games that are not sandboxes, players often go "we travel to [insert name of place the DM has never even considered]".

 

[FrozenNorth]

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

You were the person that brought up « character-centric » approach to characterize the perspective you disagreed with, while labelling the perspective you agreed with as the « internally consistent » approach.

To me, @Micah Sweet and @AlViking both clearly explain that their styles prioritize a world with internal logic rather than character-centric storytelling. @pemerton elects not to address this. Instead, he consistently redirects the discussion toward his own framework, one centered on narrative authority and the role of player goals in shaping the fiction.

My point is that labelling your preferred approach « the internally consistent » approach was extremely condescending to people that disagree with you but still consider that their campaigns take place in internally consistent worlds.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So, how many rumours are required?

If the DM brought up (note that it's the DM bringing up, as in entirely sourced by the DM without any input or reaction to the players) only 2 rumours, does that make it not a sandbox? Three? Four?

What's the minimum number of options required to qualify as a sandbox? Because, previously, I was just told that 4 wasn't enough. So, what is the minimum?

Zero.

The players might go: "we would like to open up a coffee bar". That was something actually discussed in one of my games. In the end they didn't as it wasn't a sandbox game so they had something more pressing they needed to do. But they could have done. NB, I had already established the existence of coffee in the setting.