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

[The Firebird]

I mean, it feels like you are being deliberately obtuse here.

Let me illustrate with a different example. I like historical fiction, you like fantasy fiction. If I were to describe my preferred literature as « literature where the characters act like real people », you would reasonably push back that « characters acting like real people » is a feature of fantasy fiction as well, and by ascribing that characteristic to historical fiction only, I am clearly implying a distinction with fantasy fiction.

Similarly, describing your perspective to sandboxes as « consistent world DMing » implies that you believe that different approaches don’t value a consistent world.

Likewise, describing an approach as 'player driven' might imply other approaches are not player driven.

I would disagree that I am attempting to reframe your position. I am using the same terminology of several posters that agree with you.

That post was liked by @Faolyn , @Maxperson @Lanefan and @The Firebird. So there is definitely an implication that exclusive GM control of the world is the defining feature of this approach.

I would say 'GM constructed' but not 'GM curated'.

 

[FrozenNorth]

On a more generally useful note, games are increasingly bringing up boundaries, lines and veils, the X-cards, and so forth. While the idea of these tools is to help prevent unwanted material from coming up in a game, they also can help by telling players it's OK to say "this behavior is not OK." (Look, gaming is a social thing and as such, there's going to be pressure for people to not make waves by stopping people who are being rude or worse.) At any rate, telling players to sit down and talk about what sort of creatures or events are or are not acceptable in the game also gives them to opportunity to talk about what behaviors are or are not acceptable.

It’s also more than that. It provides a framework to investigate whether people are OK with pushing certain boundaries in a game. In the past, I would not include child death in my games because most of my players are parents. This provides a tool to check if in a horror game, the players would be willing to include this or if it stays off the table.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You need rules, or else conflicts between players and DMs will happen, and without any rules for dealing with those conflicts to boot. Well, conflicts will happen with any game, but far more will happen without a lot more rules to cover things than that d6 roll.

Yup. Imagination time with no rules is not IMO a game. More a storytelling exercise at best.

 

[Faolyn]

Sorry, I'm not following.

It's not like the players can declare that there is a red dragon a point X. The DM does that. The DM tells the players, there is a Red Dragon here. Because of the level system, if the players are insufficient level, they cannot go there (or, well, they can but very, very likely won't). Which means that the players go off and do other stuff, only returning to this place once they have sufficient firepower. How is this not the DM more or less driving the campaign? I plonk down numerous locations. Some of them will be too dangerous for the characters. Some of them will be more or less plausible for the players to handle. So, I've now carved out a pretty clear path of "don't go here (yet)" and "here is a good place to go for interesting stuff to happen". The path of the campaign is going to follow those road signs pretty predictably.

My whole point for all of this is the argument that "sandbox allows so much freedom" is that this "so much player freedom" isn't quite as much as people want to claim. The truth is, the difference between a sandbox campaign and pretty much any other campaign isn't anywhere near as big as people like to believe. The amount of freedom for the players is going to depend so much on the DM that it's not really possible to say that sandbox campaigns allow maximum player choice.

You're acting as if there's only one possible action the PCs could take: go to the location and confront the dragon.

Instead, players could try to sneak past the dragon in the hopes that it doesn't notice them. This could make for an unusual and tense session.

They could learn the dragon's routines and walk brazenly past when they're sure the dragon is sleeping or away. This could involve the PCs trying to sneak around and watch the dragon, or seek out historians, zoologists, hunters, or locals who have knowledge about the dragon. (And before you say anything, it would be up to the PCs to figure out what sort of NPC they want to talk to; all the GM would be doing is giving them a name and skill level).

They could bring an offering in the hopes that the dragon will accept it as tribute and leave them alone. This could even be one of the rumors about the dragon--that it's willing to let people past if they offer it a tribute--leaving the PCs to decide if they want to get the offering.

They could try to poison or drug the dragon since they know they couldn't hope to defeat it in combat. This could involve the PCs getting to use some of their skills to make the poison, or seeking out alchemists, herbalists, thieves' guilds, etc.--again, it would be up to the PCs to decide this--and then figuring out how they're going to deliver the poison.

They could also choose to simply never interact with the dragon at all, even when they're at a very high level, because they aren't interested in doing so.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Who is this Baker person, and what is their claim to speak with authority?

I'm always extremely dubious about people citing internet randos as an authority on anything.

Narrativist fans quote Baker regularly, but I'll let them explain it.

 

[Campbell]

If these mechanics affect your ability to take actions for your PC during play, such that "the rules say you can't do that", I don't see how that doesn't take some measure of control of your character away from you.

With a Duel of Wits, you are opting in. You are staking that control over your character's autonomy to have control over the setting. It's a clear-eyed decision you are making. Want to convince the border guard to let you pass then you leave yourself vulnerable to being convinced to leave the way you came. You are staking autonomy for impact.

It's a choice that has an impact and consequences. This is the beating heart of agency from my perspective. You have an awareness of what success means, what failure means and go in clear eyed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So a person whose opinion only has value if you like his game designs.

Since I'm not familiar with them, to me that is of less value than the opinions of the people posting in this thread, who at least I know a little.

That's always been my issue with Baker-quotes too. He very clearly has a point of view and an agenda.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Don't be disingenuous. I asked what you would prefer me and others to use when referring to your idea of collaborative creation to reflect your view accurately.

Disingenuous? I've already described the game in question how I want to. You don't like that description because of its potential implications about how you describe your game.

If that were what I was asking you to do, that would be a relevant point of discussion. But that is not the case because you haven't offered a label or a short description yourself. So it is impossible for me to ask you to change something that doesn't exist yet.

Moreover, your criticism implies that something definable does exist.

Okay. I propose that sandbox be reserved for the kind of game that I am speaking of because the players are free to mold the sand how they like, with guidance from the GM.

The kind of game you're talking about can instead be called a playground, because all the attractions have already been created, and the players can move about and go on the ones they want. They have the freedom to go over to the swings, or over to the see-saws. And they can decide to run up the slide instead of sliding down it.

That does indeed clarify it. Thank You

I just wish that clarification had come without the assumption of bad faith. It would have made for a smoother discussion.

I had already described it as such.

That agency is in many cases (nearly every game I've ever participated in as player or GM, for example) not desired and therefore irrelevant to the people involved. Calling games like this "low agency" because they don't meet your subjective bar is just personal preference.

That it's not desired doesn't change that it exists. It's not a problem that such agency is not in every game. In fact, it's a positive thing because it allows for variety.

What we enjoy is preference. What exists and is available is not.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, literally the dozens and dozens of times people spoke of the DM pre-writing the setting so that it must necessarily be independent of the PCs and the players?

Like I figured that was literally the intent was that there wasn't and couldn't be "consent" from the players about that. To have it involve player consent in any way would be making it not independent.

But I genuinely don't expect any actual progress here. In the last 2000 posts, nothing has been achieved. I haven't even gained new understanding of anything. We've just circled round and round and round and round, with what seems to me like one side doggedly insistent of a bunch of things that are either vague to the point of uselessness, contradictory when actually examined, or not actually distinguishing anything from anything else.

The players are consenting to the GM making that content, as well as any content they subsequently make once play begins. If they didn't consent, they...wouldn't play.

 

[TwoSix]

Sounds like the 100% perfection straw man is at it again, ready to tell everyone they shouldn't bother with trying to make a plausible and verisimilitudinous setting for their game, because they couldn't possibly get it exactly accurate.

You can do whatever you want, man.

But if you tell me “I’m running my setting as an objective, unbiased creation” I’m not going to believe you. I believe that YOU might thank that.