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

[robertsconley]

What this means at the table is that this process will result in new encounters or scenes, and critically these encounters/scenes are NOT generated as a direct result of PC's desires or actions. They can of course be an indirect result, but they are not being generated as directly pursuant/focused on PC goals.

Yes, this effect is an important part of the appeal of this campaign style for the players.

But what you didn’t note is that the whole thing also acts as a feedback loop,which, way back upthread, was something I was trying to illustrate with my “hometown example.”

Forgetting the initial context I talked about, let’s suppose the players arrive at a location where they have no prior connection. At first, nothing is about the PCs’ desires or actions. The inhabitants go about their lives as they always have.

But for whatever reason, the PCs decide to stay. Their actions start to impact those they interact with, and those changes begin to ripple outward. Stay long enough, interact with enough characters, and the place starts to reflect the PCs’ desires and actions. To be clear, the result won’t necessarily center on the PCs, but it will definitely incorporate their presence. Sometimes,depending on the players’ goals,their desires and actions may end up dominating the social life of the place.

The effect you mentioned, and the one described above, is why my living-world sandbox campaigns have had so much appeal for the various groups of players I’ve refereed over the years, despite sticking to the same setting and reusing bog-standard fantasy tropes over and over again.

The key is that the players see my living world remembers them. That effect is enhanced by the fact that I incorporate what past groups did into the next campaign’s background.

Unexpectedly often, new players can tell which parts of the background came from player actions, even without being told explicitly. They’ll say something like, “Hey, this seems like a PC did this.” Once they realize that, most become far more proactive. I call this the soap opera effect.

 

[AnotherGuy]

In a sandbox, the players decide the goals. They can choose to be pirates and work to make that happen. They can choose to be kings of a country and work to make that happen. They can choose to be mercenaries and work to make that happen. If they want to go into the hinterlands that no country claims and forge a new nation, they can work to make that happen. They are the driving force behind where the game goes. The DM is reactive.

Can the GM cause the pirate crew to plan a mutiny due to the creation of a GM NPC pirate with a backstory and ambitions?
Can the GM cause the pirate crew to be hunted by a sea captain due to the creation of a GM NPC who has ambitions to become admiral, in order to be worthy to marry one of the duke's daughters? Is this not an example of a Living World independent of the PCs?
Can the GM cause the mercenaries to be elevated into positions of power within the realm as certain key influentials are targeted and assassinated?
Can the GM narrate an earthquake which then releases lethal toxins into the air or some other danger from deep within its bowels that hurt this new nation that PCs formed in the hinterlands?

Are these reactive or is this the Setting (the GM)?

 

[robertsconley]

But there is an absolute scale of agency. That was my point. We, as limited humans, often tend to ignore larger scales when we're focused on a limited subset of activity.

If your focus is on trad-style DM-arbitrated gaming, then sure, sandboxes are high agency.

Well, there's your answer. You believe there is an absolute scale of agency, and I don’t. While I hesitate to speak for others, it seems to me that many of those you’re debating with share my viewpoint as well.

I apologize if this sounds rude, but given that difference of opinion, is there much point in continuing the discussion on agency? I think you’ll agree that these are two fundamentally different viewpoints that can’t be reconciled.

But now that it's out there, I understand where you’re coming from. I don’t agree, but I do understand.

 

[TwoSix]

But what you didn’t note is that the whole thing also acts as a feedback loop,which, way back upthread, was something I was trying to illustrate with my “hometown example.”

When I said scenes/encounters could be an "indirect result" of player's actions, that was capturing the idea of the player's action causing a feedback result from the world model.

 

[TwoSix]

I apologize if this sounds rude, but given that difference of opinion, is there much point in continuing the discussion on agency? I think you’ll agree that these are two fundamentally different viewpoints that can’t be reconciled.

Believe me, I don't want to have any more discussions of agency.

As long as no one asserts my definition is incorrect, we have nothing to discuss.

 

[Maxperson]

Can the DM cause the pirate crew to plan a mutiny due to the creation of a GM NPC pirate with a backstory and ambitions?

If it happened, it would be in response to the PCs mistreating the crew in some way, driving the crew to mutiny. Crews don't just up and mutiny because they flip a coin.

Can the DM cause the pirate crew to be hunted by a sea captain due to the creation of a GM NPC who has ambitions to be admiral to marry one of the duke's daughters?

That makes no sense. That's not how it works. Naval captains don't have that level of autonomy. If a captain were to hunt them, it would be at the order of a country whose ships were looted/sunk by the PC crew, so it would be in response to their actions.

Is this not a Living World independent of the PCs?

No. The living world isn't aimed at PCs like that.

Can the DM cause the mercenaries to be elevated into positions of power within the realm as certain key influentials are targeted and assassinated?

As a result of PC actions, such positions could be offered to the group, but it would be their decision as to whether or not to take those roles. Such roles would mean a shift in direction away from being mercenaries, so the group would decide if their goals had changed. Some groups would take the offer, others wouldn't. Either way it's the DM reacting to the players decisions and goals.

Can the DM narrate an earthquake which then releases lethal toxins into the air or some other danger from deep within its bowels that hurt this new nation that PCs formed in the hinterlands?

No. Baldur's Gate is nowhere near those hinterlands. Now, if the earthquake been scheduled to hit the hinterlands area on a specific date and the PCs just happened to decide to go there to make their country, it could affect their plans. But since they chose to go there of their own volition, in accordance with their goals and desires, the earthquake affecting them would be a result of their actions, not the DM. The DM didn't throw the earthquake at them. Their decisions and agency put them in the middle of it.

Are these reactive or is this the Setting?

It's all reactive to what the players decided to have their characters do in accordance with their chosen goals and desires. Even the earthquake, which the DM didn't throw at the players. He planned it, but it wasn't planned to affect the characters and had nothing to do with them. That was a living world effect that they coincidentally ended up in the middle of. That sort of thing is very rare, as worlds are very large and the group is rarely going to be in a specific location of the world on the specific date something is happening.

None of it is setting, which is just.......the setting. In this case, since I mentioned Baldur's Gate, the setting would be the Forgotten Realms.

 

[robertsconley]

I'm trying to drill down as to how my sandbox differs from @robertsconley's "majestic world of perpetual motion" sandbox.

Understandable.

And, the difference, to me, is that in a "living world" the world is allowed to "speak up" and put things into play when the GM's model says that should happen.

I'll be straight with you, that’s not how I would phrase it, it simplifies what I actually do. That said, I’ve often stated elsewhere that people need to write this stuff down in a way that makes sense to them. So it’s good enough for me, with some reservations.

As for those reservations, you have to understand that I need to establish trust at my table, or the game just isn’t fun for anyone. I have several ways of doing that, and one of them is how I explain what I’m doing when questions come up.

The phrase "GM's model" is a problem because it only captures one part of the process, that I’m the one setting up the world and how it works. But it doesn’t tell the reader (or listener) anything about how I actually go about doing that. It leaves the impression that it’s all fiat, which it’s not. It’s a series of considered judgments, based on factors I weigh consistently.

 

[Pedantic]

I’ve done that as well, although it was a while ago. It’s why I’m a stickler now for how not running games that are more “high-concept” and have a starting rationale for PC cooperation.

I would love to see it all go a step further, with the party as the ultimate, collective agent as the norm.

Let's avoid agency because it is a contentious term. Is the following objectionable:

• Burning Wheel offers slightly less autonomy (in comparison to a Living World Sandbox) because it expects players to engage with scenes framed by the GM (which are related to the premise they defined for their characters). Although here we can differentiate between group autonomy and individual autonomy, where generally autonomy from the group will usually be discouraged in Living World Sandbox whereas Burning Wheel encourages you to act as an individual.
• Burning Wheel offers more teeth/impact because based on its lack of secret backstory affecting resolution, objective DCs (based on factors that can be determined solely based on established fiction) and intent and task resolution players always have a firm grasp of what is required to achieve the change they are looking for.
• Burning Wheel offers substantially more content authority to players because their characters expressed beliefs become the focus of play.

I feel that these are sufficiently neutral terms.

This point is mostly orthogonal to the broader conflict, but while I agree with you about most of these points, I wouldn't yield the point about intent; that leads to negotiation, which is generally a weaker mechanical position for players, and the gain in agency that requires negotiation without discussion of intent is still marginal.

Though I don't know what you mean by "teeth/impact" that isn't simply a reworking of agency, so I may be thinking of this incorrectly. The highest agency state comes from inviolable mechanics that produce fixed effects; if the outcome of an action is precoded, there is no need, nor benefit for the player to announce their intent. Instead the player realizes (or fails to realize) their desired outcome through choosing which actions to deploy at all.

I suppose that necessarily increases the risk of "secret backstory" intruding, but I think that's roughly an even trade-off for bringing negotiation into the question.

 

[AnotherGuy]

If it happened, it would be in response to the PCs mistreating the crew in some way, driving the crew to mutiny. Crews don't just up and mutiny because they flip a coin.

That makes no sense. That's not how it works. Naval captains don't have that level of autonomy. If a captain were to hunt them, it would be at the order of a country whose ships were looted/sunk by the PC crew, so it would be in response to their actions.

No. The living world isn't aimed at PCs like that.

As a result of PC actions, such positions could be offered to the group, but it would be their decision as to whether or not to take those roles. Such roles would mean a shift in direction away from being mercenaries, so the group would decide if their goals had changed. Some groups would take the offer, others wouldn't. Either way it's the DM reacting to the players decisions and goals.

No. Baldur's Gate is nowhere near those hinterlands. Now, if the earthquake been scheduled to hit the hinterlands area on a specific date and the PCs just happened to decide to go there to make their country, it could affect their plans. But since they chose to go there of their own volition, in accordance with their goals and desires, the earthquake affecting them would be a result of their actions, not the DM. The DM didn't throw the earthquake at them. Their decisions and agency put them in the middle of it.

It's all reactive to what the players decided to have their characters do in accordance with their chosen goals and desires. Even the earthquake, which the DM didn't throw at the players. He planned it, but it wasn't planned to affect the characters and had nothing to do with them. That was a living world effect that they coincidentally ended up in the middle of. That sort of thing is very rare, as worlds are very large and the group is rarely going to be in a specific location of the world on the specific date something is happening.

None of it is setting, which is just.......the setting. In this case, since I mentioned Baldur's Gate, the setting would be the Forgotten Realms.

That is fair. If none of those and events of similar nature occur from GM bias (for lack of a better word), then I agree your Sandbox is player driven.

 

[jayoungr]

Suppose that someone GMs exclusively adventure paths. And insisted to you that players in their game have as much agency in your living world sandbox, and that they prioritised player agency to the same degree as them.

I don't think this analogy works because you're talking about two different ways to play the same game, rather than two different games.