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

[Maxperson]

The way I see it is the setting around them changes due to certain events happening, example a bunch of APs/modules are happening in the background and their unfolding stories could affect the direction and quests taken up by the PCs.
How many people run sandbox this way, I dunno - I do, so you may have a point if you believe it is more common for people to run static grid exploration play.

I tend to believe the setting is a major influence in sandbox - it is the GM stories (published or otherwise) and the GMs npcs with motives, rumours and gossip.

The background is just that, though. Background. In a living world where events happen, it's just stuff the players hear. Often it will just be that the baker and his wife split up, or the Duke had a stroke and his son took over. It's not all world shattering events. And the players are not intended or expected to go investigate these things.

If they hear the duke had a sudden heart attack, they might go see if it was natural, or they might open up a shop to sell the wares they find while adventuring, or they might go investigate the Forest of Endless Boredom to see if it's as dull as its reputation indicates, or...

The players drive the game. If they are passive, literally nothing happens. They sit there and stare at the DM who stares back. The sandbox is over and the DM has to start putting in all kinds of hooks and set them on adventures, etc. Not a bad way to play, but that's not a sandbox. If they are proactive, they set their own goals and desires and start taking action to reach those goals and desires. The DM is entirely reactive to their declarations, even when the world around them is doing stuff.

 

[TwoSix]

All you're doing is just reaffirming that you've created a definition of agency that is not widely shared to "prove" that the game you prefer has "more agency".

It's just common sense.

If a player can't do something in the rules because the DM has made a setting decision, the player has less agency. Full stop.

In a standard 5e game, I can make a PC that is a tiefling. If the DM says his sandbox game only has 4 races (human, elf, orc, and dragonborn), then I as a player can't make a tiefling PC. I, as a player, have less agency.

That loss of agency is not a good or bad thing, in and of itself. There are plenty of games that are improved by DM curation of setting to provide a more focused experience. But the restriction of player agency is an objective description of the state of play.

 

[AnotherGuy]

The players drive the game. If they are passive, literally nothing happens. They sit there and stare at the DM who stares back.

So, by this definition a Railroad = a Linear = a Sandbox = PbtA are all player driven.

 

[robertsconley]

It's being framed that way because that's what matters, certainly from my personal perspective, where trad play is just one option among many.

When it comes to creativity and system design, the personal perspective always matters. Many folks in this thread do not get that and insist on doing analysis, critiques, and criticism as if there is an absolute scale of agency.

Is a trad sandbox higher player agency than a trad adventure module? Absolutely. But there's a ceiling to the amount of authority possible to be exercised by the players when the GM asserts final authority over resolution.

The part I highlighted in bold highlights the fallacy you are committing. The ceiling only exists relative to your personal perspective and for anybody else who shares that perspective. That ceiling is something for other folks like myself who have their own personal perspective.

And that is OK. The systems you like that support your personal perspective will happily exist and thrive in this situation. Just as the systems that support my personal perspective will happily exist and thrive. And the 170.000 items available on DriveThruRPG, Itch.io and other places will continue to grow and become ever more diverse.

 

[AnotherGuy]

@Maxperson, in a Sandbox the idea is a Living World exists.
It is not a Living World if the PCs can act like furniture.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's just common sense.

If a player can't do something in the rules because the DM has made a setting decision, the player has less agency. Full stop.

This is not true at all. And it is an example of the kind of flawed assumption driving so much of the debate. Rules can limit agency more than anything. An empowered GM enables the hand to go beyond the rules, addressing what the player is really trying to do. Setting fidelity can also be importantly to agency. Something that thwarts a rule in one case probably gives players greater freedom elsewhere by making them less constrained by rules. It is just a different way of playing the game. Agency isn’t some mathematical equation

 

[Maxperson]

It's just common sense.

If a player can't do something in the rules because the DM has made a setting decision, the player has less agency. Full stop.

In a standard 5e game, I can make a PC that is a tiefling. If the DM says his sandbox game only has 4 races (human, elf, orc, and dragonborn), then I as a player can't make a tiefling PC. I, as a player, have less agency.

That loss of agency is not a good or bad thing, in and of itself. There are plenty of games that are improved by DM curation of setting to provide a more focused experience. But the restriction of player agency is an objective description of the state of play.

No. That's dependent on what and why. If the rules say the player can pick from any of the races in the PHB, but the DM doesn't have dragonborn and tieflings, player agency hasn't been affected.

All games and settings have limitations built in. That's the nature of settings and rules. They don't include everything, and player's can't expect full agency to equal "Anything I can think of." Agency comes from what you can do within those limitations that the rules and setting put down.

Going back to D&D, the PHB doesn't have Kzinti or Klingons in it. Player agency wasn't reduced due to lack of their inclusion.

Agency is just what control you have over the environment the characters are in OR the control you have over the actions of your character, depending on which of the two agencies are being looked at.

 

[Maxperson]

So, by this definition a Railroad = a Linear = a Sandbox = PbtA are all player driven.

I don't understand what you mean by that. None of those are equal to any other one, let alone all equal to one another. Was there another meaning to what you are saying there?

 

[AnotherGuy]

I don't understand what you mean by that. None of those are equal to any other one, let alone all equal to one another. Was there another meaning to what you are saying there?

What I'm attempting to say is you've reduced player driven to player participation in order to prove that the setting does not play a role.

 

[Maxperson]

@Maxperson, in a Sandbox the idea is a Living World exists.
It is not a Living World if the PCs can act like furniture.

A living world moves outside of the PCs. The world can live in a railroad, linear game, or sandbox. If the PCs just sit there in the sandbox like lumps, the world still lives. It's just very boring gameplay for everyone at the table, which is why the sandbox fails and the DM has to change the type of play.