Long time lurker, first time poster.
I realise I'm coming into this late, but a few of the more recent posts have hit on thoughts I had a week ago, so hopefully my contribution is still pertinent.
There's several threads in discussion that are getting tangled possibly contributing to confusion/disagreement.
On simulationism (vs narrativism) and immersion
I figure it's probably best to start with this, since it seems to me that this is the lens through which all other threads are being viewed.
It's telling that everyone on the trad/sim side of the debate have all expressed the same sentiment: a preference for mechanics that model the fictional world and a focus on "realism"/verisimilitude because it facilitates immersion. There is also a tendency towards first-person roleplaying and character/actor stance for the same reason. This is not a coincidence.
Meanwhile, I've noticed elsewhere, that narrativists tend toward director/author stance, and aren't as concerned with immersion - indeed many state that don't experience it (for example, I remember an interview in which BitD author, John Harper, expressed as much). Anecdotally, the (admittedly single digit) narrativist players who have mentioned immersion outside of this board, when elaborating, seem to actually be talking about engagement - the way one might be engrossed in a TV show - rather than immersion the way simulationists mean.
I'm sure all of us, on some level, acknowledge that this is all make-believe and, as such, requires suspension of disbelief, but I suspect that those who lean toward simulationism have a higher sensitivity for suspending disbelief leading to immersion (and a greater sensitivity still can result in bleed), but that also means that suspension of disbelief is more easily broken, and by extension, immersion. The preferences expressed by simulationist leaning folk, then, are effectively - due to whatever quirk of psychology is shared - a layer of illusionism that acts to strengthen that suspension of disbelief. In contrast, for simulationists, narrativist style mechanics and practices are akin to holding up a neon sign that says "This is all pretend!" - it may be true, but it's an intrusive distraction.
On agency
A few posters view a distinction between what
@robertsconley termed "character agency" and "meta agency", with
@hawkeyefan notably considering them both subsets of a broader player agency. The distinction makes sense from a simulationist viewpoint. To use an analogy: player agency as hawkeyefan views it is like white light, simulationism is a prism that refracts it into spectral components.
With regards to mechanics like Burning Wheel's Steel test vs D&D's various supernatural effects, or traps forcing a saving throw, etc. I'd argue that they are all - each and every one - a reduction in or constraint on player agency. The question is simply a case of which ones an individual is willing to accept, and that is likely going to come down to both playstyle preferences and expectations.
As an example, I once played in a convention game of Vampire: The Masquerade V5, run by one of Onyx Path Publishing's freelance writers, in which our coterie was tracking down a renegade vampire (to prevent a masquerade breach, if I recall) and when we finally caught up to her, we were at the site of a murder, a pool of blood congealing on the ground. As a result of a flubbed roll, the GM described how the other members of the coterie watched incredulously as my character (a former male model Toreador) got on their hands and knees and lapped up the gelatinous blood. It was
objectively a loss of agency for both player and character, but I thoroughly enjoyed the moment because I implicitly signed up for such knowing the conceits of V:TM and the mechanics of V5. But there is no way I'd countenance such a loss of control in D&D outside of enchantment spells or similar magical effects.
On sandbox
This is one of the threads of discussion that is causing the most confusion/frustration. A part of that seems to be a due to some people conflating
@robertsconley 's "Living World Sandbox" with all sandboxes, when it's simply one form it can take. I'd argue that the "living world" protocols Robert uses could be applied to a railroad just as readily. Sandbox, also, does not "foreground location and journeying" as
@pemerton put it. A hexploration focused campaign likely would, but that's not required for a sandbox. My V:TM sandbox doesn't give a monkey's about location and journeying - they can take a car or train. Nor does
@Bedrockgames wuxia sandbox, as best I can tell, except insofar as a player character is at point A and their (player-driven) goal is at point B. At it's core, sandbox play can be distilled to the broader use of "play to find out". Since it has been brought up already, I'll quote Blades in the Dark:
Don’t steer the game toward certain outcomes or events. That's it. That's the heart of sandbox play in contrast to a railroad. You allow the players to go wherever they like (within the confines of the sandbox - you need a box to contain the sand, after all) and do (well, attempt) whatever they like. No pre-planned plot, no GM menu of options, no getting precious about your GM toys. Everything else is system and playstyle dependent.
As an aside, and not to muddy the waters further, but the "GM menu of options" is a separate style called a
theme/amusement park (11min video explaining it).
I'd say that any given campaign will be more or less sandbox-y, or more or less railroad-y, than another depending on how much GM-driven content vs player-driven content there is. I know
@robertsconley doesn't view it as a spectrum, and when using a simplistic linear spectrum like temperature as a comparison, I can understand why, however, I'd argue it is indeed a spectrum, but it's a more complex one like colour, comprised of:
- Hue - what most people think of with the word "colour".
- Brightness - how light or dark a hue is. In traditional media this is split into tint (hue mixed with white) and shade (hue mixed with black)
- Saturation - how vibrant or dull a hue is. In traditional media this is covered by tone (hue mixed with pure grey - a 50/50 mix of white and black)
The inclusion of GM-driven content doesn't automatically prevent something being a sandbox, but the more there is, the less sandbox-y it is until it's no longer recognisable as sandbox. To use colour as an analogy - one person may view teal as being more green while another views it as more blue, but there comes a point along the spectrum where a given shade of green is clearly distinguishable from a given shade of blue.
On GM goals/priorities
This is the other thread of discussion causing confusion/frustration and I think part of that is the use of the terms "goals" and "priorities" having a certain connotation of proactive pursuit. For the trad/sim side, I think this is better thought of as a more passive "considerations".
I expect all GMs are weighing up multiple things when considering how to adjudicate, but the difference is in how much weight is given to each one.
For example, if we have:
- Player agency - the player's ability to think and act as they so choose
- "Realism" or verisimilitude - the ways in which the setting adheres to real world logic and laws of physics, cause and effect (as best the GM understands them)
- Setting conceits - the ways in which the setting differs from the real world (magic/supernatural, superpowers, advanced tech, etc.)
- Genre conventions - tropes, themes, character archetypes, etc. related to a given genre
- Fun/interestingness - rule of cool
(This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, merely some of the most common.)
A GM running a railroad is still going to consider player agency (within the confines of the plot/adventure), but a GM running a sandbox is going to give vastly more weight to it. Similarly, a narrativist GM is still going to consider verisimilitude, but a simulationist GM will give it more weight (this will also typically see the simulationist GM defer to someone more knowledgeable on a given subject, or even look something up, when GMed without ego). Each consideration will have more or less weight, with lesser considerations being factored in if there are multiple options to chose from and the higher consideration is equal between them.
From what I understand of
@Bedrockgames wuxia sandboxes (correct me if I'm wrong), it seems player agency would be the foremost consideration (albeit through the lens of simulationism, so "character agency"), then -
assuming all else is equal - either verisimilitude or setting conceits, followed by the other, then -
assuming all else is equal - wuxia genre conventions, then -
assuming all else is equal - fun/interestingness. (And possibly other considerations not mentioned.)
This differs from
@robertsconley , who seems to weight verisimilitude on par with player (character) agency, and gives no concern to genre conventions whatsoever.
But this is largely academic, and likely completely imperceptible in actual play. Between how imagination is sparked by inputs, the speed of thought, the need to maintain pacing, etc., it's not going to be anywhere near so procedural or formulaic. And it's likely going to have inconsistency between any given points of adjudication just because it's a human brain doing it.
