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

[pemerton]

Some descriptions of sandbox play in this thread read more like "freeform RP within the context of D&D" which is fine, but not really consequential within the bounds of a game design. It may be meaningful for the people involved in play, but that's something so subjective we can't really talk much about it (much like "fun").

Exactly this. A sandbox where the GM is making up what happens in response to the players going somewhere is faux agency because it's entirely inconsequential. To have consequence there must be CHANGE, not just revealing the world.

The "freeform sandbox" is the living, participatory novel style that I mentioned upthread as being the object of Lewis Pulsipher's criticism. Here it is quoted; the first passage is from Best of White Dwarf Articles v1, p 45 (originally White Dwarf #1, 1977), the second from BoWDA v2, p 13 (originally White Dwarf #24, 1981):

D&D players can be divided into two groups, those who want to play the game as a game and those who want to play it as a fantasy novel, ie direct escapism through abandonment of oneself to the flow of play as opposed to the gamer's indirect escapism - the clearcut competition and mental exercise any good game offers. . . .

The escapists can b divided into those who prefer to be told a story by the referee, in effect with themselves as protagonist, and those who like a silly, totally unbelievable game. In either case, there are two ways this can be accomplished. One is by innumerable dice rolls and situations which call for chance, especially magical decks of cards, buttons, levers and so on - lottery D&D. The other is by manipulation of the situation by the referee, however he sees fit. In California, for example, this leads to referees who make up more than half of what happens, what is encountered and so on, as the game progresses rather than doing it beforehand. In either case the player is a passive receptor, with little control over what happens.

*****

D&D styles range from the "simulation" through "wargame" to "absurd" and finally "novel". As one moves along this continuum the DM's procedures become less rigorous . . . At one extreme we have a DM who uses a pocket calculator to compute results, at the other a DM who makes up almost everything as he goes. . . .

Finally we have the "novel" style. In effect, the DM writes an oral novel in which the players are participating characters. This can be pretty bad, but the players don't mind because they're helping to "write" it. In such games the DM may make up everything as he goes along.

As one passes along the continuum one finds that players are most passive in the novel style and most active in the wargame style. (The simulation style stresses realism so much that characters tend to be hostages to the dice, the rules, and the DM.)​

I don't really agree with the "continuum" analysis; and as I posted a decade ago Pulsipher doesn't describe every possible approach to RPGing:

It was around 1986, with original Oriental Adventures, that I started to discover a way of GMing in which the GM would make stuff up on the spot, while still allowing players the scope to make choices which are genuine in their consequences, thereby avoiding the railroading that Pulsipher warns against. (More than 15 years later I discovered that this approach to GMing had been refined and theorised by Ron Edwards and others at The Forge.)

But Pulsipher is correct, in my view, to fasten on "control over what happens" - control over the shared fiction - as the crux of player agency. And simply prompting the GM to produce more of it is not a very high degree of control.

As soon as you create the conditions for change, an established fictional element, then you're back to being at the metaphorical 'start of the dungeon.'

So why not just start at the Dungeon?

Right. If that's the game, start with the game. As I posted not too far upthread,

Turning communication about what it is we're doing here together in the player of this game into a series of relatively blind moves within the game just seems very odd to me.

My personal concern is that if a GM is hoping for a particular course of action that they would be manipulating or nudging players in that direction. It's a sign of their head not really being in the right place for sandbox play and it would really be a bad sign for more Narrativist play.

I think it depends on what we mean by "course of action".

I'll go back to Prince Valiant - a game focused on relatively light-hearted Arthurian knight errantry. What makes the game "go" is that the GM presents the players with situations that are ripe for knights errant to involve themselves.

Having typed that paragraph, I realise I could equally have gone back to Dogs in the Vineyard - a game focused on less light-hearted religious government/enforcement. What makes that game "go" is that the GM presents the players with situations that are ripe for religious enforcers to involve themselves.

In both games, the GM is supposed to leave it for the players to decide what their PCs do in response to the presented situations. They may take one side, or another side, or neither side. They may be noble, or ignoble; brave, or cowardly; etc.

But if the players don't engage the situation - just have their PCs ride right on ignoring whatever it is that the GM has presented - then there will be no play. Much the same as if a player of a 1st level character in classic D&D, told by the GM in the first session "OK, you're at the entrance to the dungeon, looking down the dark and foreboding corridor", responds "Bugger this, I'm going back to the village to keep working on the farm!"

Expecting the players to play the game isn't railroading. It's just part of the basic logic of people sitting down to play a game together. And trying to achieve it via manipulating or nudging is (in my view) silly. It's not something to be resolved within the play of the game. It's part of agreeing to play a game together.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The problem, though, is that you went into this assuming that the GM has no reason other than railroading you.

IME, which includes a decent amount of what I would call railroading, this is kinda exactly how it is. GMs often don't recognize what they're doing, but they're doing it. Mainly they're simply not conceiving of, or aware of, alternatives. There may be various reasons why specific instances of force or one-dimensional play are deployed, but I note that D&D in particular seems bad at pointing out what might constitute this sort of play (I haven't read 5.5e, so I can't really say if it introduces more insight here). In fact, most D&D texts basically take a fairly 'controlly GM' type of approach as a given.

And looking at @Campbell complaining about the pushback when anyone attempts to analyze things, use/invent terms, etc. that don't conform entirely to the assumptions of this kind of play, yeah, it is a thing. I mean, the whole 4e Edition War was exactly that thing! That may be long in the past for many of you, and need not be raised from the dead, but yet it still forms the context within which all the last decade's discussion of systems and techniques lives in.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You don't come here to learn about D&D but to pontificate and lecture.

Go elsewhere for actual D&D content lol.

Every DMs different. Always has been always well be. If you have very specific tastes you might struggle finding a compatible one. It's badwrongfun to not water to them apparently according to ENworld (lol x2).

Most people are good most of the time. 80-90% of players are decent imho. The remainder can go play elsewhere.

Great players are hard to find though. They're 10-20%.

Just for clarity @Zardnaar is that 'you' for me specifically or a more general 'you'

 

[Zardnaar]

Just for clarity @Zardnaar is that 'you' for me specifically or a more general 'you'

General you. Everyone's got different tastes. Rules won't cover that if DM and player desires are different.

It's a life experience thing more than games. Any hobby, social event hell even dating.

In all cases more picky you are harder it's going to be for you. I value group cohesion and hygiene more than anything else ymmv.

You can mix it up a bit to figure out what players like. I'm running 3 different games and styles catering to different tastes. I'll probably reduce it to two games soon.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Because you are taking a style most player would say is player driven and describing as GM led. It feels like you are twisting it, to turn it on its head. And you say you play such games and don't see this as a negative. But I am also reading it in the context of all the discussions we have had on these topics and it reads to me as trying undermine the language people have around sandbox play to essentially make it seems like it does the opposite of what it promises. And I think there is a fundamental disagreement here on what it means when the GM is using prepped material in terms of agency

I think there's 2 things that go on here, and they're closely related:

1) You have a particular view of these issues, like what you mean by 'GM Lead', which don't describe play outside the trad context well at all. It isn't necessarily some sort of ideological battle when people describe things differently, they've just got a different viewpoint (and sure, that can go both ways).

2) Everyone seems so defensive. Step out of your castles. I mean, you talk about things like Hillfolk, but then it feels like that's sort of a tactical maneuver to outflank some critics or something. Throw down your arms, nobody wants to fight. Again, this can apply to all sides, but at least to me it feels like there's always one side that wants to 'get into it'.

Maybe we can have a discussion in some thread where none of this telling other people their words are not used right etc. happens. I dunno.

 

[Lanefan]

Then I am supremely surprised. You would be one of the people I consider most strongly in favor of "my way or the highway" DM attitudes.

Oh, don't worry - I am. My point was that, once you're in the game and play has begun, it usually takes a pattern rather than just a single incident to trigger that response. "My way or the highway" rears its head with me more often when recruiting players, or thinking about who to try to recruit.

Conversely as a player, if there's a dispute I'll say my piece but I also accept that it's ultimately "your way or the doorway".

 

[pemerton]

The even more obvious answer is that the DM is hoping the party does something because he knows it will be a ton of fun for everyone, but is being impartial and letting them do their own thing.

You would have him railroad instead of be impartial. Why?

Even in those approaches to GMing which make impartiality a virtue, it's impartiality at the point of adjudication. Inviting people to play <this thing> with you because you think it will be fun isn't adjudication. Similarly, telling people "Hey, this thing over here will probably be fun" isn't railroading. It's just being up front.

If that's how your playstyle does things, it's not our playstyle that's a railroad, it's yours.

We don't push the players in directions.

Well, yeah. It's a card game, not an RPG.

Yes it is. You're pushing the players in a direction that you want and that they did not choose.

Telling the players, at the start of the first session of a classic D&D game "You're at the entrance to the dungeon", isn't "pushing the players in a direction that they did not choose". Presumably the players turned up to play a game of classic D&D. And that's how the game works!

Likewise, when I write up my Burning Wheel PC Thurgon - a knight of a religious order, whose backstory includes that he has been dispatched on a mission by the Knight Commander of his order - the GM is not "pushing me in a direction I did not choose" by starting things with Thurgon patrolling the border between Ulek and the Pomarj. That is just starting the game.

That the game was designed as a railroad, doesn't cause it to cease being a railroad. Classic D&D was just a railroad that everyone signed on to ride. When everyone knows the game is going to be a railroad and agrees to ride, that's the one circumstance I can think of where a railroad isn't a bad thing.

Classic D&D isn't a railroad, though. Dungeon-crawling, of the classic style, is a type of semi-freeform wargame. It has the basic structure that I described above: the players, who start somewhat blind, make "small" moves to obtain information about the situation, and then - having obtained that information - make "big" moves to obtain treasure, and thus progress in the game.

The GM doens't need to pretend that raiding the dungeon is just one option among many - raiding the dungeon is the game! What the GM does have to do is (i) present a situation in which obtaining and deploying information is meaningful (so multiple paths, engaging puzzles/tricks, etc); and (ii) make transparent decisions in the freeform elements of play, so that players can grasp what is going on, and on that basis make informed moves.

Railroading is forcing a party down rails no matter what the players may wish.

With the classic D&D dungeon crawl you MUST go into a dungeon for the purpose of finding treasure and getting XP. There is only one choice for them and they have no goal other than what was chosen for them.

Even if I accepted your definition of railroading, your account of classic D&D here shows that it is not a railroad!

The players choose to play the game. They know what it entails. Playing the dungeon-crawl game is no more railroading than sitting down to play bridge or chess or Mastermind (another asymmetric puzzle-solving game).

With a sandbox setting, the players can choose to go to a dungeon, or choose never to enter one. Choose to stay in cities, or never go into one, staying in the wilds. They can set their own goals for their characters that have nothing to do with what the DM has set up in advance.

There is a ton of agency in a sandbox setting that is not present in the classic dungeon crawl. The differences are not merely that of scale.

At this level of description, all that is established is that the players can make some choices about colour. It doesn't show that they exercise significant control over the consequences of the actions that they declare, or the content of the shared fiction more generally.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The "freeform sandbox" is the living, participatory novel style that I mentioned upthread as being the object of Lewis Pulsipher's criticism. Here it is quoted; the first passage is from Best of White Dwarf Articles v1, p 45 (originally White Dwarf #1, 1977), the second from BoWDA v2, p 13 (originally White Dwarf #24, 1981):

D&D players can be divided into two groups, those who want to play the game as a game and those who want to play it as a fantasy novel, ie direct escapism through abandonment of oneself to the flow of play as opposed to the gamer's indirect escapism - the clearcut competition and mental exercise any good game offers. . . .​

​

The escapists can b divided into those who prefer to be told a story by the referee, in effect with themselves as protagonist, and those who like a silly, totally unbelievable game. In either case, there are two ways this can be accomplished. One is by innumerable dice rolls and situations which call for chance, especially magical decks of cards, buttons, levers and so on - lottery D&D. The other is by manipulation of the situation by the referee, however he sees fit. In California, for example, this leads to referees who make up more than half of what happens, what is encountered and so on, as the game progresses rather than doing it beforehand. In either case the player is a passive receptor, with little control over what happens.​

​

*****​

​

D&D styles range from the "simulation" through "wargame" to "absurd" and finally "novel". As one moves along this continuum the DM's procedures become less rigorous . . . At one extreme we have a DM who uses a pocket calculator to compute results, at the other a DM who makes up almost everything as he goes. . . .​

​

Finally we have the "novel" style. In effect, the DM writes an oral novel in which the players are participating characters. This can be pretty bad, but the players don't mind because they're helping to "write" it. In such games the DM may make up everything as he goes along.​

​

As one passes along the continuum one finds that players are most passive in the novel style and most active in the wargame style. (The simulation style stresses realism so much that characters tend to be hostages to the dice, the rules, and the DM.)​

I don't really agree with the "continuum" analysis; and as I posted a decade ago Pulsipher doesn't describe every possible approach to RPGing:
But Pulsipher is correct, in my view, to fasten on "control over what happens" - control over the shared fiction - as the crux of player agency. And simply prompting the GM to produce more of it is not a very high degree of control.

Right. If that's the game, start with the game. As I posted not too far upthread,

​

I think it depends on what we mean by "course of action".

I'll go back to Prince Valiant - a game focused on relatively light-hearted Arthurian knight errantry. What makes the game "go" is that the GM presents the players with situations that are ripe for knights errant to involve themselves.

Having typed that paragraph, I realise I could equally have gone back to Dogs in the Vineyard - a game focused on less light-hearted religious government/enforcement. What makes that game "go" is that the GM presents the players with situations that are ripe for religious enforcers to involve themselves.

In both games, the GM is supposed to leave it for the players to decide what their PCs do in response to the presented situations. They may take one side, or another side, or neither side. They may be noble, or ignoble; brave, or cowardly; etc.

But if the players don't engage the situation - just have their PCs ride right on ignoring whatever it is that the GM has presented - then there will be no play. Much the same as if a player of a 1st level character in classic D&D, told by the GM in the first session "OK, you're at the entrance to the dungeon, looking down the dark and foreboding corridor", responds "Bugger this, I'm going back to the village to keep working on the farm!"

Expecting the players to play the game isn't railroading. It's just part of the basic logic of people sitting down to play a game together. And trying to achieve it via manipulating or nudging is (in my view) silly. It's not something to be resolved within the play of the game. It's part of agreeing to play a game together.

Right, I think Lew Pulsipher was reasonably correct in his analysis at the level of understanding of RPG play/design c1979 or so. I think it is, however, hazardous (and not suggesting you are doing this, you've adequately explicated yourself here already) to take too much from 40 year-old articles. I think it would be a bad idea to, for instance, define his continuum (sim -> novel) as a continuum of player agency! In fact, TSR itself published MSH FASERIP, which by 1986 included significant mechanisms going in an entirely different direction. Mechanics like spending Karma mean the players have a certain degree of authority and also some beliefs or ethics which can be tested, etc.

Narrativist systems simply don't fit at all within Lew's framework. He simply envisages "story play" as a process where the GM tells a story, with some sort of sliding scale of player inputs apparently from many to few. He doesn't seem to have, at that time at least, even conceived of the concept of character itself as the building block of structured play in which a game still exists even if the fictional situations are dynamic and possibly invented on the fly. Without that, there's no real way to evaluate something like a PbtA, it simply cannot be described at all by Lew's framework.

And I would note that a LOT of the discussion I here around here seems to be essentially analyzing things in accordance with Lew's ideas, as outlined here!

 

[Bedrockgames]

2) Everyone seems so defensive. Step out of your castles. I mean, you talk about things like Hillfolk, but then it feels like that's sort of a tactical maneuver to outflank some critics or something. Throw down your arms, nobody wants to fight. Again, this can apply to all sides, but at least to me it feels like there's always one side that wants to 'get into it'.

I will address these points when I have more time but I want to say this isn't a tactic. I genuinely like Hillfolk and I usually bring it up when people make condescending remarks about a lack of exposure to other games. Now I am definitely not a fan of Burning Wheel, Blades in the Dark or Apocalypse World, but a lot of times, people talk as if I only play D&D or something. And to be clear, I've read Blades in the Dark (it didn't appeal to me so I didn't play it, but I can see why some people would like it). Dungeon World I bounced off hard. And Burning Wheel I have zero awareness of except what i have seen posted about it in these threads (which is why I was often asking questions about specific mechanics). But Hillfolk I bring up 1) because I like it, and 2) because it is the polar opposite of trad, so it is relevant if we are talking about other ways of empowering players (also I think it is a game I would like others to explore, particularly people on my side of the fence because I think it has great potential to be a narrative system that would appeal to a trad player due to how it handles immersive elements)

 

[pemerton]

Narrativist systems simply don't fit at all within Lew's framework. He simply envisages "story play" as a process where the GM tells a story, with some sort of sliding scale of player inputs apparently from many to few. He doesn't seem to have, at that time at least, even conceived of the concept of character itself as the building block of structured play in which a game still exists even if the fictional situations are dynamic and possibly invented on the fly. Without that, there's no real way to evaluate something like a PbtA, it simply cannot be described at all by Lew's framework

Yes, agreed, and I've posted the same.

I think Lew Pulsipher was reasonably correct in his analysis at the level of understanding of RPG play/design c1979 or so. I think it is, however, hazardous (and not suggesting you are doing this, you've adequately explicated yourself here already) to take too much from 40 year-old articles.

<snip>

I would note that a LOT of the discussion I here around here seems to be essentially analyzing things in accordance with Lew's ideas, as outlined here!

Right. In the context of a discourse that often seems to treat 1984 or thereabouts as a normative baseline, I think that Pulsipher's articles are still useful.