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

[Bedrockgames]

But whatever system you choose, when you’re running a sandbox, you still should consider the game.

Not necessarily. For a lot of groups, the game is a foregone conclusion. I mean most tables are probably playing D&D no matter what, so if that is you and your the GM, it is going to be D&D. And you may also be in a group that plays savage worlds or GURPS. In which case it is going to be one of those. Now you can certainly factor in system if you have freedom to decide that. But I don't think it is the most important thing. The most important thing is how you intend to run the game, how you plan to prepare for it, etc. Obviously system can impact the experience. If I am playing a game with narrow levels of powers (i.e. characters are pretty much fully baked after character creation), then the sandbox is probably not going to be driven by a desire to gain levels. But that is fine because a sandbox is about the setting and freedom to freely explore and act in that setting and there is a lot to be gained in the setting itself

 

[hawkeyefan]

Again this brings us to the kitty box criticism, which I think requires pretty expansive views of things like railroad and it is basically just a trick to make one of the most open approaches to play seem like a very narrow and closed approach. Sandbox isn't the best. It isn't something I would want to do every single time. But it is built on the idea of giving players freedom. In recent years I have seen lots of products adopt sandbox-isms, and while they might not go 100% all the way with it, I would still not describe them as railroads. They are clearly giving the players all kinds of choices. Again I think at the end of the day you are just making an argument to steer people towards your preferred play style by capturing the language (and that is what is so frustrating about these conversations)

None of what you said contradicts what I said.

And also… I am not saying that GM’s prep is a bad thing in any way. To go back to my recent Mothership campaign which is a sandbox in exactly the way you’re describing… I prepared material (some was material I bought in the form of modules) and then let the PCs loose in the setting. They could go whereever they wanted (and were able) to, and they could interact with what they found there any way they wanted.

That doesn’t change that what they were interacting with was stuff I designed and prepared. It’s not a bad thing in any way.

 

[Bedrockgames]

None of what you said contradicts what I said.

And also… I am not saying that GM’s prep is a bad thing in any way. To go back to my recent Mothership campaign which is a sandbox in exactly the way you’re describing… I prepared material (some was material I bought in the form of modules) and then let the PCs loose in the setting. They could go whereever they wanted (and were able) to, and they could interact with what they found there any way they wanted.

That doesn’t change that what they were interacting with was stuff I designed and prepared. It’s not a bad thing in any way.

We have already had hundreds of pages covering this. And I think it is a BS argument steering people towards your preferred play style and theory of RPGS

 

[Maxperson]

I also don’t think there’s universal consensus on exactly what constitutes a railroad, as the many threads on the topic make clear.

There doesn't need to be. There isn't a universal consensus on the world being round.

Your ideas on the matter seem incomplete to me.

I use the commonly used definition, not some of the more creative inventions some folks in the thread use.

You’re literally talking about designing things for use in the game. The setting? Part of the game. The playstyle? I mean… what are you playing? A game.

The game design is the creation of the game rules. Setting and playstyle are not game design and trying to relegate them to being game design renders game design overly vague and useless as a definition. If you're going to do that, then character creation and even game play are also "game design."

If the DM is adding, subtracting or creating rules in order to make a system sandbox compatible, that would be game design that is involved.

 

[AlViking]

There doesn't need to be. There isn't a universal consensus on the world being round.

If there was a thread world being round on this forum, people would immediately start arguing about how the world is a sphere. Then others would say that it's really an irregularly shaped ellipsoid because of the bulge at the equator (something I become more and more familiar with as I get older). Meanwhile someone would inevitably state that we don't really understand reality and from a perspective of gravitational pull the world is flat after all.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If there was a thread world being round on this forum, people would immediately start arguing about how the world is a sphere. Then others would say that it's really an irregularly shaped ellipsoid because of the bulge at the equator (something I become more and more familiar with as I get older). Meanwhile someone would inevitably state that we don't really understand reality and from a perspective of gravitational pull the world is flat after all.

You would even have people arguing that it is a straight line circling back on itself, or that it is flat at any given point if you focus on a small enough area

 

[hawkeyefan]

Not necessarily. For a lot of groups, the game is a foregone conclusion. I mean most tables are probably playing D&D no matter what, so if that is you and your the GM, it is going to be D&D. And you may also be in a group that plays savage worlds or GURPS. In which case it is going to be one of those. Now you can certainly factor in system if you have freedom to decide that. But I don't think it is the most important thing. The most important thing is how you intend to run the game, how you plan to prepare for it, etc. Obviously system can impact the experience. If I am playing a game with narrow levels of powers (i.e. characters are pretty much fully baked after character creation), then the sandbox is probably not going to be driven by a desire to gain levels. But that is fine because a sandbox is about the setting and freedom to freely explore and act in that setting and there is a lot to be gained in the setting itself

I think you’re missing what I’m saying.

When you design an area… a town that’s meant to be part of a sandbox, let’s say… you are thinking about the fictional elements of the town. Like the leadership… is it a mayor or a council, or something else? What’s the major occupation or industry of the town? Who else lives here? And so on.

You should also be thinking of the game. For there to be something for the players to engage with in some way, rather than just sightseeing. Conflicts, problems, opportunities. What shape these things may take. Decisions made that may impact that.

To think of the setting solely based on the fictional elements and not how they work as a game seems like an incomplete approach to GMing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think you’re missing what I’m saying.

When you design an area… a town that’s meant to be part of a sandbox, let’s say… you are thinking about the fictional elements of the town. Like the leadership… is it a mayor or a council, or something else? What’s the major occupation or industry of the town? Who else lives here? And so on.

You should also be thinking of the game. For there to be something for the players to engage with in some way, rather than just sightseeing. Conflicts, problems, opportunities. What shape these things may take. Decisions made that may impact that.

To think of the setting solely based on the fictional elements and not how they work as a game seems like an incomplete approach to GMing.

But what you are talking about is gamabilty in terms of adventure potential, not in terms of system. I am not saying these things shouldn't be considerations. I always ask myself if the NPC I made is gameable. That doesn't mean there is a whole adventure in mind for them. But it does mean they have clear enough goals and motives that those could provide fuel for the campaign or conflict. Again though, that isn't a system consideration.

And I am not saying the system side won't impact play obviously it is going to shape certain things. But isn't essential to the campaign being a sandbox. I could run a sandbox in the most bare bones system, even if it didn't have levels or monsters. You could take out combat mechanics, and I still could run the game as a sandbox. It might have challenges running it with RuneQuest or D&D might not have, but it is still going to be a sandbox campaign because sandboxes are adventure structures. They aren't systems.

 

[hawkeyefan]

We have already had hundreds of pages covering this. And I think it is a BS argument steering people towards your preferred play style and theory of RPGS

And that’s not what you’re doing? Riiiight.

Also… of the two of us, there is one who very clearly has a preferred playstyle. It ain’t me.

There doesn't need to be. There isn't a universal consensus on the world being round.

I use the commonly used definition, not some of the more creative inventions some folks in the thread use.

If so, then you’re failing to account for context in your definition.

As has been said, if sitting down to play one of the classic game modules is considered railroading, then you’re basically calling almost all D&D play railroading.

If you start a campaign with a specific moment and at a specific place, that’s not railroading.

Context matters. These absolute statements you make don’t allow for context.

The game design is the creation of the game rules. Setting and playstyle are not game design and trying to relegate them to being game design renders game design overly vague and useless as a definition. If you're going to do that, then character creation and even game play are also "game design."

If the DM is adding, subtracting or creating rules in order to make a system sandbox compatible, that would be game design that is involved.

No… NPC creation is part of game design. What level are they? What skills do they have?

Setting creation is part of game design. What locations are nearby? What opportunities are present in the area? What hostile, friendly, or neutral groups may be found in the area?

These are all elements of play and therefore elements of the game that is being played.

 

[hawkeyefan]

But what you are talking about is gamabilty in terms of adventure potential, not in terms of system. I am not saying these things shouldn't be considerations. I always ask myself if the NPC I made is gameable. That doesn't mean there is a whole adventure in mind for them. But it does mean they have clear enough goals and motives that those could provide fuel for the campaign or conflict. Again though, that isn't a system consideration.

And I am not saying the system side won't impact play obviously it is going to shape certain things. But isn't essential to the campaign being a sandbox. I could run a sandbox in the most bare bones system, even if it didn't have levels or monsters. You could take out combat mechanics, and I still could run the game as a sandbox. It might have challenges running it with RuneQuest or D&D might not have, but it is still going to be a sandbox campaign because sandboxes are adventure structures. They aren't systems.

Yes… I haven’t really been talking about system. I’ve been specifically talking about gameplay or the game.

Whatever the system may be, when you design NPCs and locations and other elements, you have to consider the game.

How you do so may vary depending on system, but that hasn’t been what I’ve been talking about.