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

[pemerton]

I feel I have enough options to get the point across! But I also play other games beyond the one in question, so I don't really have one style in that sense.

<snip>

There are those of us who actually play games of multiple types, though!

This!

(Likewise, I enjoy playing backgammon and five hundred!)

 

[mamba]

Hang on, I didn't say anything. I wasn't the one claiming that rumours make sandboxes. There was a claim that having only 4 choices means it's not a sandbox, so, what is your answer?

My sandboxes don't rely on the DM generating ANY material, so, my rumours would be 0.

you certainly sounded like any number of hooks provided by the DM still means the DM is in control of everything and the poor players have no say

Within a given scene? Sure, the DM is reacting back and forth. That's true regardless of any kind of RPG, generally. Granted it might be a bit more diffuse in other systems, but, in any system which has a DM/GM, that's how it works. But, when that scene ends, it's right back to the DM initiating and the players reacting.

Whether your sandboxes have rumors or not is immaterial. Is a game in which the DM provides all hooks and the players choose among those provided hooks ever (ie even if the DM had provided a hundred hooks) a sandbox in your view or does the fact that they originate with the DM make it a (at 100 hooks pretty elaborate) railroad?

 

[SableWyvern]

There are those of us who actually play games of multiple types, though! I don't oppose any system of play that gives the GM ultimate authority... I actually play and run in those games (even if I don't tend to utilize the full authority granted to me as GM). I just view such games as necessarily GM-directed. The shape of play is determined mostly by the GM, with the players contributing via making decisions for their characters.

(Emphasis mine)

When you're saying such games are necessarily GM-directed, you seem to be agreeing with the point I just made -- if it's necessary to be that way, then clearly you believe that it is impossible for it to be otherwise.

Some of us disagree that such games are necessarily GM-directed, because our experience shows that it is not.

If my experience shows me something is occurring that you steadfastly believe is not possible, there does not seem to be any room left for meaningful discussion.

 

[pemerton]

Is a game in which the DM provides all hooks and the players choose among those provided hooks ever (ie even if the DM had provided a hundred hooks) a sandbox in your view or does the fact that they originate with the DM make it a (at 100 hooks pretty elaborate) railroad?

I could be wrong, but I don't get the impression that @Hussar is treating "sandbox" and "linear/railroad" as mutually exclusive categories. He seems to be talking about degrees of player freedom/control.

In my posts, I've characterised a sandbox as a game which makes place and journeying have heft in play. I should probably add, as things that the players make choices about.

But that is largely separate from the issue of how much control do the players have over the shared fiction. The players can make choices about which imaginary place they want their PCs to journey to, without having much control over the shared fiction (ie if everything that follows from those choices that they make is determined by the GM using opaque heuristics).

 

[robertsconley]

I feel I have enough options to get the point across! But I also play other games beyond the one in question, so I don't really have one style in that sense.

Labels and such can help facilitate discussion, but we have to accept what the other party is saying. Sometimes, these discussions... despite several interesting points... can get too caught up in arguing about labels instead of the ideas behind them.

I hear you that you have enough ways to get your point across in the moment. But for those of us trying to refer to your position later, or to distinguish it in broader discussions, we don’t have a clear label to work with.

That’s where the problem comes in. When I or others refer to what you're describing as “creative collaboration,” it often gets dismissed as inaccurate. Or someone will respond with, “All RPGs involve creative collaboration,” which muddies the distinction entirely.

So do I treat it the way I’ve done with “conflict” in Burning Wheel or Torchbearer, and say something like:
“When your goal is creative collaboration as Hawkeyefan defines it…”?

Since this is about what you value in play, I think it would help keep conversations moving forward if you could offer a term or phrasing that reflects your specific goal: a campaign where the various elements, including ones traditionally reserved for the referee, is shared with the players.

Otherwise, we’re stuck trying to point to your ideas without the language to do so.

 

[robertsconley]

Note that there's a lot of stuff in there about sandbox play, prep, "Keeping the World Alive," etc that reads a lot like what @robertsconley is sharing! One thing it stresses is not planning too far ahead, or overdoing prep so you don't waste time or actively guide players.

I've read Principia Apocrypha, and while it shares some elements with my own Living World Sandbox campaigns, there are important differences in emphasis and approach.

Both value impartial refereeing, meaningful player choices, and emergent outcomes. But where Principia focuses on player ingenuity overcoming harsh challenges with minimal prep and a strong emphasis on survival, my campaigns are built around the idea of the world as a persistent, evolving place. I teach that prep should be sufficient so that when players talk to an NPC or push into a new region, it feels like they’re stepping into something with depth and history. In my case, that level of prep is more extensive than what Principia encourages. The world moves on its own, and the players’ choices shape its future.

While Principia aims to challenge, I aim to leave players with the feeling that they lived in the setting and had adventures. The fun for me., and I hope for my players, is seeing how their characters can change the world, not just survive it.

 

[Maxperson]

"Roll a d6. On a 4+, the player dictates what happens next; on a 3-, the DM does." is a fully comprehensive rule set.

No it's not. How do you determine who rolls? How do you determine when a roll happens? What happens if one player really doesn't like what happened? What happens if the other person just waits until he wins a roll and undoes what has been done? And on and on.

Super vague "rule sets" like that don't really work, and are super heavy on fiat to boot.

 

[pemerton]

Who or what determines what triggers or causes the d6 to be rolled?

And are those statements bound by any further rules (other than basic genre conceits)?

No it's not. How do you determine who rolls? How do you determine when a roll happens? What happens if one player really doesn't like what happened? What happens if the other person just waits until he wins a roll and undoes what has been done? And on and on.

Super vague "rule sets" like that don't really work, and are super heavy on fiat to boot.

I think @TwoSix was alluding to something like this:

I say, "my character, this guy in Thatcher's london, who has everything to lose, he goes to his lover's flat and convinces him to keep their affair private." You say, "y'know, I don't think that his lover is inclined to keep their affair private, do you?" And I say, "no, I suppose not, but my character is desperate to convince him anyway. In fact, he brings an antique revolver with him in his jacket pocket, in case he can't."

(Look, just look: the character has no "character sheet," but he's a whole character, fully realized. I can play him effortlessly.)

How do we decide what comes true?

We can simply agree. That works great, as long as we really do just simply agree.

We could flip a coin for it. Let's do that: heads my character convinces yours to keep their secret, tails he murders him instead.

Or y'know, that's a lot to deal with. Let's have a rule: whenever a character's life is at stake, that character's player gets to call for one re-flip of the coin.

On the other hand, isn't my character's life at stake too? His wife, his kids, his position, his money, his everything? Which should have more weight between us, your character's life or my character's "life"? Shall we go best two of three, or is that setting life and "life" too equal?

How about this: we'll roll a die. If it comes up 1 or 2, your character will refuse and mine will kill him; if it comes up 3-6, your character will agree to keep the secret and (unknowingly) thereby save his life. It's unequal because my character killing yours is less to your liking than your character ruining mine's life is to mine. It's unequal to be fair to us, the players.

Notice that we haven't considered which is more likely at all. We probably agree that it's more likely, in fact, that your character will refuse, so my character will shoot him. But that doesn't matter - either could happen, so we roll according to what's at stake.

Also, notice that we aren't rolling to see whether your character values his life in the face of my character's gun in any way. We're rolling to see if your character agrees to keep the secret without ever knowing about the gun, or if he refuses without knowing about the gun and my character shoots and kills him.​

In other words, (i) the participants clarify what is at stake in the situation, and then (ii) identify if they disagree on how it should unfold ("what comes true"), and if they do (iii) toss the coin, roll the die or whatever.

 

[Maxperson]

What shapes and constrains those reactions?

The players' actions and declarations have a huge impact on the reactions, but it's not 100% the players there. The DM also has input into the reactions.

If the players say that they are climbing the mountain, the DM is very much constrained in his reaction to some sort of climbing the mountain response. He's not going to narrate that they are swimming in the ocean.

Your notes? Your sense of what is logical for the setting? Something else?

Until some account is given of how you're deciding what to say by way of reaction, almost nothing can be known about how much control the players exercised.

It's mostly the players. They are driving the direction and in effect dictating to the DM the field of responses the DM can give. Some fields are wider than others, and the DM is free to choose things that make sense for the world in RESPONSE to the players' declarations, but he is very much constrained by those declarations. Unless he's acting in bad faith anyway.

 

[pemerton]

The players' actions and declarations have a huge impact on the reactions, but it's not 100% the players there. The DM also has input into the reactions.

If the players say that they are climbing the mountain, the DM is very much constrained in his reaction to some sort of climbing the mountain response. He's not going to narrate that they are swimming in the ocean.

It's mostly the players. They are driving the direction and in effect dictating to the DM the field of responses the DM can give. Some fields are wider than others, and the DM is free to choose things that make sense for the world in RESPONSE to the players' declarations, but he is very much constrained by those declarations. Unless he's acting in bad faith anyway.

Climbing the mountain seems to permit quite a wide range of responses. There are lot of things that "make sense" as possible things that might happen to someone who is climbing a mountain.