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

[hawkeyefan]

So first off, I appreciate the effort you put into offering a full explanation in this post and others. I’ll be happy to discuss the other points you raised later today, but I want to touch on this part first because I think it highlights why our approaches differ.

From this and your previous posts, my understanding is that you prefer campaigns that are creative collaborations, where worldbuilding, themes, stories, characters, and the process of play are shared among everyone at the table. That makes sense to me, and your comment follows from that foundation.

While we often use similar tools, like having a referee, or in the case of Torchbearer, random tables, you use these tools to support the creative goal of collaborative campaign creation. That creative goal is a fundamental choice that shapes everything else.

Before I go further, I want to emphasize: we're talking about ways to have fun. And there are different ways of achieving fun, even if we’re all starting with the same basic tools, dice, pencil, and paper.


In contrast, my creative goal with a living world sandbox campaign is not collaborative creation. Instead, I build worlds and invite players to visit them, to spend a portion of their hobby time living as characters in these worlds, having adventures. In this setup, I’m both a travel agent and the engine of the world. What I’m not is a tour guide. Some have criticized sandbox campaigns with strong referee authority by saying players feel like tourists watching the referee perform. But in my campaigns, I’m not a tour guide who leads them once they pass the gate. I’m the travel agent who built the destination, and the engine that makes the world respond logically to what they do as their characters once they arrive.

And there’s one more thing I do: I make sure the world remembers what the players do. Visiting fantastic places is fun, but the secret sauce is running the same setting for the same genre over and over again, tracking the lasting consequences of player actions. As a result, the Majestic Wilderlands I run today isn’t just a product of my creativity; it’s the sum of my efforts and those of my players. That’s how I began this whole living world sandbox path, when my second AD&D campaign took place in the same Wilderlands as the first, shaped by the kingdoms and towers that the players in the first campaign had built.

I hope this helps clarify why our approaches differ and that it adds clarity to our future discussions, especially when we talk about techniques and how they serve different creative goals. I’m always happy to explain how a specific technique follows from my approach and how it shapes interaction between the referee and players when my goals are a factor.

Yeah, I think the type of game I'm talking about... such as the Blades game I talked about... is a creative collaboration.

My only problems with that phrase: one, is that it kind of applies to all RPGs... it's just a matter of to what part of play it's applied. Two, and more importantly, it often then gets described as some kind of shared storytelling or "writer's room" which I don't think is accurate.

So your players never said the equivalent of "We want to buy a broken down ship, soup it up and become pirates"? Not that specific of course but just some random goal they came up with that you then figured out how to implement. Because that's become the current driving force of a campaign I'm running now. I was doing a semi-random lore dump when one of the players picked up on something I mentioned. They then convinced the rest of the group to go along and they now have a goal I had never anticipated. It's pretty awesome.

Not exactly, no. Maybe before play begins? As I said, I tend to do a lot of collaboration prior to play in an attempt to make sure play is about what they'd like it to be about. So if they want to be pirates, it's likely to come up then. Is it possible for play to go in some way where piracy is related and then the players decide to hell with everything else, let's be pirates? Generally, no... though my Mothership game would have allowed for this if the players had decided to go that route.

A lot of my campaigns are what the DMG calls episodic in nature. There are a number of options they can pick from and we pursue that specific episode but the general options do come from me. Direction for future options will likely shift depending on how the episode goes. I still consider these sandboxes, while one episode may build on the last I don't really have long term goals or even an end game in mind. In other words, not much different from what you describe except that I still feel like the players (in my case through the actions of their characters) still have a great deal of influence on possible story arcs and themes because of their decisions.

Sure, I haven't been disputing anyone's use of the term sandbox... I've just been describing some of the differences in the types of sandboxes. My Mothership game is very different from my Blades game... but both have the kind of open world aspect that I think is central to the sandbox experience. How they go about using that open world is different, though. Neither is better than the other, except as far as one may prefer one over the other.

Yeah, that's my point...I think this language is grating for fixed world sandboxers because they (we) do see our games as player-driven, just not because the players create the content. So a term that functions on the content creation would be more precise.

This is a fair criticism though. Maybe "I prefer games where the players have a significant role in content creation"?

That's fine. I'm more just explaining my use of terms. I'm not expecting to change how everyone in the industry uses the terms... just my use and how and why I arrived at it. Honestly, I'm far less interested in policing the terminology of anyone in this discussion than I am talking about the differences and similarities of the play types.

Like, if you understand my use and I understand yours, then we can communicate.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Clearly you've never met some of my crew, to whom "Where the map is blank, we'll go" is sometimes their main mode of play.

 

[AlViking]

Maps are anachronistic in any type of pre-industrial society. Maybe the rulers have them - highly inaccurate ones, but ordinary folk don’t. They just know where the few places are that are relevant to them.

I.e. the solution to your problem is: don’t give the players a map. They can ask for directions, or follow a road, or strike out into the wilderness in whatever direction they like.

Standard D&D seems to be more Renaissance than medieval, with books and printing presses standard, and therefore maps more widely spread. The real world didn't have access to any number of things like flying, turning into an eagle or just asking a god for specific details. Many campaigns also have sort of a magi-tech vibe with flying ships and similar. I also assume that there is magic that doesn't really apply to PCs so a specialist cartographer scholar having magic that can zoom way, way out to verify accuracy of maps would make sense to me.

In other words, "They didn't have it in <insert time period> in the real world so it shouldn't exist in my fantasy game" (and the other way around as well) never made a lot of sense to me. We can't really know how things would have been different if there were magic, but we can pretty much be certain it would not be the same.

 

[Lanefan]

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?

Depending on situation, the minimum might be zero: you don't hear of any adventuring opportunities in the area, and can either hang around and wait for one to arise or go somewhere else and ask around there.

 

[zakael19]

For me, it's not about trust. Especially since I don't want that heightened level of authority when I am DMing.

It's because I feel play flows the best when the player and DM are both heavily involved, and when narrative control and the driving of play volleys back and forth between participants. There's no need for refs or judgements, we all just play and leave the "refereeing" to the ruleset.

Y E S.

In an hour and a half I'm going to be hopping in discord and getting back into the most rewarding gaming experience I've ever had in my life because this is exactly what the play feels like. It's like a tennis volley, pinging interesting conversation back and forth until we trigger a procedure (or one of us goes "wait, doesnt this sound like a Move here? did we mean to escalate?"). The players drive forward against targets of play in the world, as we discover them or as directed by the game I create Threats that push back against what they care about (or the world writ large), and we see what comes to pass.

It was so cool to discover that there were systems out there that just dropped the mechanics to run a sandbox game where players establish clear goals/drives/etc and seize them with both hands and as the GM all I have to do is hang on and cheer the victories and commiserate at their defeats.

 

[zakael19]

I don't see it as possible to disentangle the two.

Even if 2 GMs run the same published world, they will extremely rapidly become two separate entities.

The sheer volume of posts in the "so what's unique about your Doskvol" in the Blades in the Dark discord is a great example of that! It's got a better defined constrained setting than the vast majority of setting books out there, yet people take things and run in so many ways. Pretty cool!

 

[thefutilist]

I mean I don’t particularly care about the ethics of characters: if they want to be heroes or criminals it is up to them

I mean ethics in the sense of a world view, an ethos. Both that characters have them and the players at the table can mutually comprehend and enjoy an ethos in action, in conflict with another ethos, and the consequences it has. (which to me, is Narrativism in a nutshell)

 

[robertsconley]

But the players are not necessarily walking into a new town, they're starting up in a village, town or city or even on a sea vessel. Relationships have already been established with people and organisations. And all this could be besides the inference of their family.

I'm talking about the individual character - they may have already had their first love, they may be in debt, they may have responsibilities, they may have suffered trauma, they may be part of a theatrical troupe or they may have rescued an animal or they are seeking truth...etc The way in which you present your campaign in your above post, you're discounting any history, personal code, flaw or desire each character may have attained at that point in time.

IMO if you want immediate player buy-in into a setting, let the players create a few NPCs (humanoid, animal, other) with whom they can have favourable, neutral or unfavourable relationship with. You can even be traditional about this and collaborate with them so you're comfortable with these NPCs. Ask as many questions as you need to to better understand them. Just like you are fully invested in the setting you create, so will the players be with their minor creations.

Not sure how to put this but I had this covered for a while, but I do appreciate the suggestion.

How to Manage a Sandbox Campaign, the pre-game
Later, I call this the Initial Context. The term pre-game comes from the campaign section of the 1983 edition of Harn

I haven't written a book consolidating my material, but I do have a reference page now on my blog.
Sandbox Campaign Articles

Again, sorry for the misunderstanding, but there's only so much one can pack into a forum post.

If you are interested, I have a background that I managed to hang on from a 1994 campaign where all the players were mages in the City State of the Invincible Overlord.

Sample Background Part 1

Background for Edward Albion

You were first apprenticed to Halfred of Goodnap. He took you in at the age of seven and gave you your first training in Thothian magic. After five years, at the age of twelve, Halfred took you to a secluded part of the woods.

Edward, you have been coming quite well in your studies of magic. I would like to complete your training but unfortunately I can't. Now you are a big lad, so we don't need any tears or such nonsense. I will place with you with Marfran, a friend of mine. He will complete your training and initiate you into the order.

But there is a more important matter I wish to speak of you. I am not a just a Thothian mage, but also a member of a band known as the Regulators. This is an important secret of mine that nobody must know of me or... you. I cannot stress this enough, if the Order of Thoth ever finds out that I was a member of the Regulators, they will hunt me down and all those I trained including you.

This is because since the days of Lucius the Great, the Regulators have supported the Overlords. We often go out and adventure, our interests and duties take us to many corners of the Wilderlands, but first and foremost we owe our loyalty to the Overlord of the City-State.

The Regulators started under Atrabilorin. He was a dwarf who ruled City-State over 300 years ago brought the city safely out of the fall of the Dragon Empire. For the next 100 years we served the City-State, protecting it from many danger. Finally over 200 years ago Salm-Lorin, a mage of our Order, rose and made himself tyrant. Seizing control of the Guild of Arcane-Lore, he used its mages to take control of the City-State and the lands around it. Outcast we dedicated ourselves to his overthrow.

Lucius and his father, the first Overlord Halius, were able to defeat Salm-Lorin and with our help bring him to justice. Unfortunately before we could imprison him, he escaped and killed himself by throwing himself off the highest tower of the Cryptic Citadel. Because of their just cause we pledged our loyalty to Halius, his son Lucius, and to Clan Bulwark.

We are a small band, numbering only several hands each generation. What we lack in number we make up in our skill and our dedication. From time to time we look for promising young folks and begin to train them. You Edward are one of those.

If you decide to pursue this path, you will be watched and tested from time to time. When you have grown enough in experience and wisdom you will be brought into the Regulators. Your first task will be to form a band of adventurers around that you know and trust. The other members will watch you from time to time to see how you are doing.

Plus after your initiation into the Order you will be given a medallion. The medallion is recognizable to any official of the Overlord and will aid you in your endeavors. Plus a enchantment will be laid on you that prevent any Mage from forcing the fact that you are a Regulator.

Remember, being a Regulator isn't about power or wealth but about doing a duty that few other can or will do. Bringing peace and justice to the Wilderlands. Use your wits and keep your eyes open you will find yourself going far.

This is a very small first step where you allow the players some creative input into the setting and their ideas can only but enrich the world.

As I said before, I am always open to suggestions from my players, and often they get incorporated into the campaign's background. But what precludes the use of formal mechanics is that they don't know the details of the setting like I do. And that by design as a result of my creative goals.

Partially mitigating this is that I am well aware that the world is a vaster place than what I have in my notes. So, there is plenty of room to find a place for an interesting background that my player wants to try roleplaying. In addition that specific to my Majestic Fantasy Realm/Majestic Wilderlands is that I lean heavily into fantasy tropes. While there are specific details, I create them in a framework that most hobbyists are familiar with. You can see some of this work where I show some pages from the supplement half of my Scourge of the Demon Wolf. Where I give each peasant, and inexperienced mage a unique backstory.

I'm not gonna push anything else, because it may be too much of a mind shift right now, but I think if you're trusting of your table, and you have good communication with the players their creativity might provide a nice surprise and injection into your game.

I'm going to give you examples from what 2 of the players at my table created.
The 1st is an attachment from a PC who spent some time in Waterdeep, so I told him to create NPCs he had encountered.

It looks good and represents the kind of background my players and I come up with when they want to. Not all do.

I hope this clears things up.

 

[Lanefan]

3) The names are not the entirety of the information available to the PCs. They can ask their contacts, ask for rumors, talk to a sage, use divination magic, and so forth. If these are major locations in the setting the GM should also tell them what their characters know about these places.

This points to something else that might be a disconnect: in order to get not-obvious information and answers, how much in-character effort (if any) do the PCs have to exert?

Some, like me, want to see the characters' level of knowledge more or less match the degree of effort they put out in-game to obtain such knowledge. That means the players have to ask questions and-or have their characters do some research, and we have to play this through

Others, it seems, are willing to give the characters loads of information on any inquiries or even if no inquiries are made; either because they find the info-gathering process dull or because info-gathering is usually low-stakes stuff.

What this latter approach soft-prohibits are the sometimes very entertaining situations where PCs go roaring into an adventure without nearly enough information and things go completely sideways because of this.

 

[zakael19]

I would note that "high-stakes" and "combat" are not intended to be used synonymously.

"High stakes" is generally intended to mean, for these use cases, "situations that will challenge or possibly change a character's beliefs or conceptions of themselves."

The highest stakes event we've had in 3 sessions of my bi-weekly Sunday game was the Heavy trying to convince the town council that they needed a formalized sheriff. Things escalated due to his Stormblessed arcana, and next thing we knew another character's father-figure was dead (having aided in warding the Public House against the inadvertently summoned storm, and having doubted that the Heavy was truly "chosen by Tor.").

Mechanically: 7-9 result on Persuade vs NPC = "they will tell you how you can convince them, but it'll be risky, challenging, or distasteful." Blessed had just mentioned that the Heavy is basically teh Avatar of Tor, said Heavy is fighting with their Belief about who they should be and what they should do, clear answer was: council demands proof (challenging).

Heavy goes, oh ok - walks out to the titular Stone of Stonetop, and cries out in his heart for Tor to answer (with a bit of insults thrown in). I validate the stakes here: you're defying the danger of the Council's disbelief and judgement, doing so by reversing your "Control the Storm Marks" move to incite them instead.

Heavy affirms, rolls a 6-. I can make a move as hard and direct as I want. It's late spring, storms are known to be a Thing, Tor has been mocked: a huge Thunderstorm forms out of the sky over the plains to the west and boils towards the town.

Blessed remembers the last time this happens, starts to ward the public house against angry storm spirits. Father figure joins in, since he has an NPC move about abjuring spirits. Mechanically, an NPC who Aids shares in the danger. Seren is denoted as Old and Frail. When the Wards are contested by the storm spirit (or perhaps Tor himself) pouring down lightning, the Blessed rolls - another 6-. Clear move here is for the frail Seren to bear the brunt, and drop to Death's Door. Like in most games, you don't need to roll the death move for NPCs - but you can, and I ask the Blessed to roll for his follower.

Snake Eyes. Tor really had it in for him. And now relationships and the tenor of the town and the way people look at the Heavy are all fundamentally altered.