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

[Bedrockgames]

A "choose your own adventure" book also lets you as a player make choices based on limited information to reveal what consequences ensue.

I don't consider that sufficient agency for me to engage with in a roleplaying game.

If it isnt enough agency for you that is fair. But I used to play tons of Choose your own adventures, including ones that had character sheets with HP for characters. They are nothing like the amount of control you have over your character in a sandbox. Also you aren't simply making choices. That is the aspect of play in a choose your own adventure that really limits it. You could have thousands more pages to accommodate more choices and it would still feel confining because you can't try to do anything unexpected, you can't ask the writer for more information about something specific, etc. In a sandbox you can try to do anything you want.

 

[TwoSix]

Even when they just pick a name because it sounds cool, they are still the ones deciding to drive play there, not the DM. He didn't make them pick that place out of the many places named. Nor can he be sure they will ever really go there, because he isn't driving play.

I mean, if the player's decision-making is driven by "this name sounds cool" or something equally trivial, that's not bad, but it is a pretty good example of low-stakes "let's just see what happens" play.

I think a major division in this thread is the relative tolerance (or desire) for the game to have episodes of low-stakes, "let's just hang out" play.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I mean, if the player's decision-making is driven by "this name sounds cool" or something equally trivial, that's not bad, but it is a pretty good example of low-stakes "let's just see what happens" play.

I think a major division in this thread is the relative tolerance (or desire) for the game to have episodes of low-stakes, "let's just hang out" play.

I do think sandbox generally is more tolerant of low stakes. But I also think people are underestimating how powerful emergent stakes can be when they are an organic outcome of the players pursuing their goals.

 

[robertsconley]

My point is that the more authority that the GM has, the less the players have.

What is the implication of this from your point of view? I traced back your conversation @mamba and I did not a get a sense of why you considered this an issue.

If you’ve already explained this earlier in the thread, would you mind pasting it here? It would really help clarify things for anyone following your current discussion with Mamba, especially given how long the thread has become.

With this information, everybody gets a sense of where the fundamental difference in philosophy lies and why you two are not coming to an agreement on the issue of referee authority. And with that, both of your chains of reasoning will make sense given your respective assumptions.

 

[Maxperson]

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!"

Vampires are pretty quick. That one better be able to stay under a cloud.

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."

As I stated upthread, there's no way to be 100% impartial, but a DM trying hard to be impartial can get close enough that it doesn't matter.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Nor would I.

Do you think fixed world sandboxes are similar in that they offer the same small number of choices as these books? If so I can see why people are finding them railroady.

Please see the example of play provided below. I'd not go so far as to say it's a railroad, but I think it's clearly very GM driven. The players are given potential options by the GM.

In fact in a recent the players were on their way to the Forsaken Desert to investigate rumors of Dark Elves. As they made their way through the Golden Pass after arriving as Visby they encountered rumors while roleplaying with NPCs about the following.

• A thieves guild known as the Raven's Mark's that may or may not be a rebel group seeking to liberate the former kingdom of Vasa from the Grand Kingdom who conquered it 70 years ago.
• A conflict between loggers and the druids of Greenelm Forest, with a detachment of the Royal Rangers involved.
• Then, only to discover while staying overnight in Hawksleigh that the Winter Court (faeries) were involved in escalating the conflict.
• Learning about hill giants accosting a caravan travelling over the Golden Pass and forced to pay Yonk's tribute.

All this was supposed to be a quick two-day journey over the pass to Castle Westguard to provision and pick up information about the Forsaken Desert.

The party had a long in-game discussion about all this information the morning they left Hawksleigh. They were interested, but they were more interested in the Dark Elves. Ultimately, they decided no to the Raven's Mark and no to the Greenelm conflict. But since they were on their way, they stopped at Gold Keep to see what they could do to help with the Hill Giant situation. They figured they would find the cave, kill a bunch of giants, and loot their treasure.

Each of those options sounds very much like what we'd have called an adventure module back in the day. Perfectly fine way to play, and potentially plenty of fun. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. But I don't think it's nearly as player-driven as claimed.

 

[TwoSix]

Vampires are pretty quick. That one better be able to stay under a cloud.

Make that Dex save, lol.

As I stated upthread, there's no way to be 100% impartial, but a DM trying hard to be impartial can get close enough that it doesn't matter.

Yea, just can't agree with that. I don't think they can, and I think that's important.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What is the implication of this from your point of view? I traced back your conversation @mamba and I did not a get a sense of why you considered this an issue.

If you’ve already explained this earlier in the thread, would you mind pasting it here? It would really help clarify things for anyone following your current discussion with Mamba, especially given how long the thread has become.

With this information, everybody gets a sense of where the fundamental difference in philosophy lies and why you two are not coming to an agreement on the issue of referee authority. And with that, both of your chains of reasoning will make sense given your respective assumptions.

It may have been more from another recent thread that was similar.

My point here is that when the GM largely sets the goal of play, the setting in which play will take place, the dangers and obstacles that will be faced, likely ways those obstacles can be overcome, the consequences and outcomes of player declared actions, and so on.... the more that the GM does all this, the more the GM is directing play. I don't think they're doing so as blatantly or directly as a railroad. But I think it's very driven by the GM. How could it not be?

I think the more that player input enters the process, and system input as well, the less the GM is directing play.

 

[robertsconley]

Each of those options sounds very much like what we'd have called an adventure module back in the day. Perfectly fine way to play, and potentially plenty of fun. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

But I don't think it's nearly as player-driven as claimed.

Why do you feel it isn’t as player-driven as claimed? You mentioned it sounds like a series of old-school adventure modules, could you expand on what you mean by that, and how it connects to your view of player agency? I’m asking because I think if we dig deeper here, we might find the specific point where our perspectives diverge. Once that’s clear, the rest of our reasoning will make a lot more sense to each other.

 

[AlViking]

My point is that the more authority that the GM has, the less the players have.

In a sandbox game I would say that players have different authority, not less.

If we need to go somewhere and my wife is driving I have less control over how we get there but I trust her driving skills so it's not like I'm sacrificing anything. In fact, I appreciate that she's driving because it gives me a chance to finish that article I was reading. It's the same with D&D. When I get the chance to play I don't want the same role or authority that the DM has. If it's a sandbox I know I'll still influence the direction of the game through what my character does.

People throw around these ideas of "authority" and "control" as if they are established fact and also that more authority over anything outside of my character is an inherent good or always beneficial. For me it's not because when I get to play I don't want any part of the GM role.