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

[AlViking]

As @AlViking runs a persistent setting for multiple campaigns spanning (I think) decades of in-world time, would your take be different had Orcs been wiped out by the actions of a previous campaign such that when a player wants to choose Orcs as favoured enemy in this campaign, there aren't any?

'Cause in that instance it wouldn't have been AlViking's decision to not have Orcs in the setting.

Most campaigns are in the same world and play has covered a few centuries at this point. While the lack of orcs wasn't due to character actions but I would be curious as well.

 

[Lanefan]

A model doesn't have to be particularly accurate, it just has to serve the intended purpose for whatever is being simulated.

To be fair, "model" does imply a somewhat greater degree of detail and simulation than most aspects of RPGs are likely to a) need or b) get.

IMO a better term for what things like combat rules, falling damage, lockpick chances, etc. do is "abstraction".

 

[Bedrockgames]

You do realize, in absolutely standard English, something being the priority doesn’t mean that it’s the only thing that matters?

I realize you can juggle priorities, but if someone says "the priority" I assume it is the main focus

 

[pemerton]

falling damage models(predicts what happens) falling and hitting the ground really hard. D&D sword swings model what happens when a sword hits the body. And on and on. They are really simple models, but they are designed to predict what will happen about what we know of these things.

They are simple models.

Even if I treat these damage systems as models - which is dubious - they are not relevant to what I was talking about, which is setting design.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What's the statue of limitations on "let it ride"?

This is the old "only roll once" thing. In the formulations I've seen (widely used outside of BW and long predating it) the GM should not require an additional roll for as long as the situation remains fundamentally unchanged. So, if some new situation arises which makes the circumstances different, then a new check may be required. In my game, HoML, this same concept is used, if you make a check during a challenge, you carry that result forward even if the activity it covered is continuing.

 

[Hussar]

I think @AlViking's idea of things here is probably more the norm for sandboxes. Setting fidelity is usually pretty important. I am not saying if you add orcs because players want them, it suddenly isn't a sandbox. I just think his thinking probably reflects a majority

Ok. Great. If setting fidelity is pretty important to a particular definition of a sandbox, but not important in another definition of a sandbox, then it's fair to say that we cannot use setting fidelity to define sandboxes.

 

[AnotherGuy]

You could. It wouldn't necessarily be true, but you could. I create the world, the factions, the NPCs in order to have a playground for the player's characters. I don't design it for specific characters for multiple reasons but the only reason it exists is because of them. Taking a metaphorical microscope and artificially declaring which one has a priority is meaningless. They are both a priority.

This is how I view it.
Like I have said before in this thread, I see the setting as the GMPC and I have injected quite a bit of player-facing mechanisms in our game and yet I recognise the setting as a dominant driving force.

At our table the party has willingly split to pursue different quests.
One selected a quest on purely a player-interest level, but their selection works in the fiction;
Some selected a quest on what made practical sense to them; and
One selected a quest purely based on their character's Bond and also tied their decision to a recent fictional tragedy in the hopes of not repeating it.

My setting "Clocks" are ticking loudly AND the players are the ones making the choices and directing play...

 

[AlViking]

Ok. Great. If setting fidelity is pretty important to a particular definition of a sandbox, but not important in another definition of a sandbox, then it's fair to say that we cannot use setting fidelity to define sandboxes.

I don't think setting fidelity is required for sandbox, even if it associated with many sandbox campaigns.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Ok. Great. If setting fidelity is pretty important to a particular definition of a sandbox, but not important in another definition of a sandbox, then it's fair to say that we cannot use setting fidelity to define sandboxes.

I think think it is probably helpful to mention in a definition that setting fidelity is a common feature but by no means a necessity. I don't know the percentage but likely something you see in a majority of sandbox games. So I don't think something isn't sandbox just because it doesn't have that kind of setting fidelity.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think setting fidelity is required for sandbox, even if it associated with many sandbox campaigns.

Now you see exactly my point. @Bedrockgames JUST stated that the majority of sandbox games prioritize setting fidelity. The notion of maintaining continuity and whatnot has been repeatedly stated as vitally important to sandboxes.

And now you're telling me that setting fidelity is not all that important.

So you can kinda see why these conversations go around in circles so much. It's like punching fog. Is setting fidelity a factor in sandboxes or not? And, if it's only "associated" with sandboxes, how is that any different than any other kind of campaign? Because setting fidelity can be important in any kind of game.