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

[TwoSix]

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).

So totally objective, except for all the subjective parts.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Can someone be in the driver's seat when the only positions on the map are those the GM creates for them to go to?

if you think about your own metaphor i think it becomes abundantly clear the answer is absolutely 'yes, they can', but the GM doesn't create 'positions on the map' because that would imply you can only go to those locations, you can go literally anywhere on the map should you choose to, throw a dart at it and you can go there, it might be a city, a road, a dungeon, a lake or even the middle of a field but you can go there and that's your choice and agency to do so, Breath of the Wild-style freedom to explore anywhere you want to go, does the player not have agency because the geography and inhabitants of all of hyrule is set in stone before they started playing? no, of course they do.

 

[CreamCloud0]

It's the GM's world. You're just getting the chance to witness it.

It's the GMs world, You're getting the chance for your character to impact it with their actions.

 

[The Firebird]

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.

It's certainly sufficient for the players to "readily anticipate what sorts of outcomes will follow from them having their PCs do particular things."

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.

Sure they will. It sounds like you're imagining players who are not particularly self-directed. That's fine. Not everyone wants to come up with the goals themselves. They might do better in a different style of campaign.

So totally objective, except for all the subjective parts.

I think the misreading of objectivity, the application of the standard "it must be 100% objective to count" has not been good for the discussion.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

The DM making decisions to adjudicate the world without the need to reference any sort of resolution mechanic? Or at least having some discussion at the table? Making decisions about the shape of play all by themselves by creating notes outside of the table session?

To me, that is definitely a sticking point outside of old-school challenge play. Maps are fine, broad setting contours are fine, as long as they're transparent and are used to help both the players and DM frame possible intents for play. But definitely nothing like "your Persuasion check can't work because my notes say the guard is unbribable."

 

[Bedrockgames]

But they only get to see things the DM has prepared, or things the DM generates when it's requested of them.

Everything comes from the DM. The players are merely getting the opportunity to find out what is going to come from them.

No, they are engaging with it, causing it to go in unexpected directions. Again, the point isn't to make the players feel in control of the setting or of the narrative, it is to make them feel in control of their character in an objective world. This approach achieves that for many people.

 

[The Firebird]

The DM making decisions to adjudicate the world without the need to reference any sort of resolution mechanic? Or at least having some discussion at the table? Making decisions about the shape of play all by themselves by creating notes outside of the table session?

To me, that is definitely a sticking point outside of old-school challenge play. Maps are fine, broad setting contours are fine, as long as they're transparent and are used to help both the players and DM frame possible intents for play. But definitely nothing like "your Persuasion check can't work because my notes say the guard is unbribable."

Really? I think this just describes what the DM does, like all the time.

-The players enter a tavern. The module notes say the tavern keeper is "boisterous and friendly". The DM decides how this manifests and plays them. Does it mean the tavern keeper shares rumor X? Does it mean they are willing to help out with problem Y?

-The players enter a dungeon and are seen by an orc scout. The notes say "the scout raises the alarm". In some cases it may have more details, like "the orcs then congregate in the courtyard after 3 rounds". What do they do after they congregate? What if the PCs hide successfully? How do they search for the PCs?

-The players enter a combat. What spells do the enemy magic users cast? Who do the fighters decide to attack? Are the archers shooting at the barbarian or the wizard?

Or, even in narrative play:
-A player gets a 5 on a check in blades. They succeed but get a consequence. What is the consequence? Does it manifest as additional guards springing up from nowhere, an alarm being raised, the bluecoats being summoned?

DMs make these kind of adjudication choices all the time. Sometimes there is a mechanic, sometimes not; but in the vast majority of cases the resolution mechanic doesn't do all the work for you. Judgement is involved.

 

[TwoSix]

I think the misreading of objectivity, the application of the standard "it must be 100% objective to count" has not been good for the discussion.

There is absolutely a point where being "partially subjective" renders "mostly objective" meaningless. Sort of like putting a vampire outside and telling them "But it's only partly sunny!"

I simply think that DMs who believe "my mental processes for determining the next outcomes of the entire setting's fictional state are almost entirely objective" are falling prey to Dunning-Kruger. 99.9% of DMs can't do that with anything approaching "objectivity."

 

[TwoSix]

Really? I think this just describes what the DM does, like all the time.

-The players enter a tavern. The module notes say the tavern keeper is "boisterous and friendly". The DM decides how this manifests and plays them. Does it mean the tavern keeper shares rumor X? Does it mean they are willing to help out with problem Y?

<snip>

Or, even in narrative play:
-A player gets a 5 on a check in blades. They succeed but get a consequence. What is the consequence? Does it manifest as additional guards springing up from nowhere, an alarm being raised, the bluecoats being summoned?

The difference here is in the first examples the notes said how the tavern keeper acts, not a check. In the latter, there's a check. The rules are specifically telling to make up a consequence that arises from the character's action and ties back to the player.

That's a big, big, big, big difference. If you can't feel the fundamental distinction between the two, then yes, this discussion isn't going to make a lot of sense.

 

[CreamCloud0]

But the point--very very specifically, made repeatedly in this thread--is that the world is never created "in response to" the PCs. The specific terms used for this have been "objectivity", "independence"/"independent" (from the PCs and from player preferences), and "extrapolation".

the world is never created in consideration and direct response to the PC's goals, desires or identity, if the PCs travel to an area of the world that the GM has only vaguely defined then yes, technically, the world is defined in response to the players going there, but the contents of what is defined is entirely disconnected from the PCs, the PCs could be a war troupe, a travelling circus, the BG3 party or any other kinds of people but it would not affect what the GM decides and extrapolates what is in that location because the world does not care who they are, that is what is meant by 'the world being objective and independent of the players'