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

[Enrahim]

Are you saying (or alternatively, would you concur) that problems of that kind then aren't sandbox-specific? They apply to many modes of TTRPG play.

Well, the property of there being a DM bias in all descriptions are present in many (probably most) modes of TTRPG play. But I don't think I would consider it a problem in most of them - not even in "soft sandbox" as mentioned in my previous post. It first become a problem if you really strive to minimize DM bias on player actions, and I can not think on the top of my head of any other well known modes of play than sandbox where that could possibly be considered a meaningful virtue.

 

[Guest 85555]

Seem like we are coming to similar conclusions
But I think I should point out that I think a central observation is that there are at least two different ways of thinking about sandbox going on here.

The first is the soft sandbox ideal where the DM is freely throwing in interesting stuff, and can advertise it within reason, but that if the players chose to do something else then they are fully free to do so. I get the impression that it is this ideal you are assuming in this reply.

However there has from my understanding been people inn this thread that has made claims that this soft sandbox ideal is not enough to describe what they are doing, but rather make claim to a hard sandbox ideal where they not just do accept any player action. Exactly what this harder ideal entails, and if this is even possible I believe is the key part a portion of this thread has been revolving around, and my post you replied to was assuming this to be the topic.

I think the line is sandbox versus living world sandbox. In the latter, there is I think a striving away from artifice. But how dedicated that is can vary. I wouldn’t say having a hook makes it less of a sandbox, it just is a sandbox with more arrows. I tend to lean into loving world but in a way that isn’t as naturalistic as is standard. I like having flashes of drama, I like genre, etc.

Also sometimes in sandbox discussion it is easy to slip into idealism. One reason I grow wary in these conversations is people start painting their own approach into more and more narrow corners, eliminating edge cases that are perfectly useful, in reaction to criticism and points made in debate. It is where I started drifting away myself from a more extreme approach to sandbox to what I do now, which doesn’t cleave as rigidly to ideas but focuses more on what the needs of my present table are. Sandbox is a very useful structure and it is one of my primary modes of play but you can fall in love with the idea and forgot to have fun if you aren’t careful.

 

[pemerton]

Okay by this logic.

1. Engaging with the encounters is choosing to assault head on.
2. Not engaging with the encounter is NOT choosing to sneak.
3. Avoiding or bypassing the encounters is NOT choosing to sneak.
4. Choosing to sneak is choosing to sneak.

Are you standing by this logic.

I don't follow. There's a castle. It has defenders. The PCs sneak past the defenders, or fight them, or whatever.

In the fiction, I can't imagine anyone saying "Hey, we bypassed that encounter!" And at the table, why would I need to talk about "bypassing an encounter" as opposed to just talking about what did or didn't happen in the fiction?

The only answer I can think of is if there was some expectation that a certain type of, or bit of, play was going to happen - but it didn't!

I know you were familiar with 4e's Cairn of the Winter King and likely other modules. So, in your mind what happens (what do you call it) when a trad GM uses the module as is but the party avoids/bypasses some of the encounter due to smart play?

I've never had to describe this. If we're talking about map-and-key resolution, then in Gygax's terminology there's a particular "set encounter" that didn't happen, because the PCs didn't go to that place or open that door (or otherwise do the in-fiction thing that "activates" the set encounter).

You played 1e and RM. Presumably you used to prep back then - in the Trad sense or were you using PbtA principles in the 80's before they became known?

I used to run dungeons - not very well - and then, as I've often posted, around 1986 I started using techniques that I would later learn to think of, and improve, as "scene framing" of the sort found in Prince Valiant, Burning Wheel etc.

 

[Umbran]

Is it good? I've been really curious about that game, being a big fan of the books.

Well, I have enjoyed playing it a lot. If you like Fate, but want it a little cruncher than normal, this might be a good game for you.

It was published in 2010, so its lore covers up to somewhere around Small Favor or Turn Coat, the 10th or 11th book in the series.

Butcher, a gamer himself, was involved in the writing, and there's a conceit that Billy (the dorky werewolf, who is a RPG player, canonically) is behind the game's creation, and there are a lot of margin comments from Billy, Harry, and Bob, which are often informative and usually amusing. For example, on the OGL page, there's a comment in Harry's font, "Hmm... Not as bad as the Accords themselves, but still pretty heady stuff, William."

They've added some rules depth beyond standard Fate, especially around magic and wizardry, specifically, so that can be a plus for some. There's some basic templates for lots of different types of characters to help character generation.

The game assumes that you are playing in Harry's world, but not in his Chicago, specifically. There's a sort of Session Zero minigame/exercise in which the players help choose what city they are in, and what the major forces, faction, antagonists, and features of the place are, which we had a lot of fun with.

(Edit to add: If you want to play in Harry's Chicago, they have a separate book detailing that setting.)

I would totally play it again.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Can you reference any posts that I can read by putative sandbox aficionados that lay out this case?


As I wrote above, I suspect that "inadequate prompting" in sandbox is masked by the result that players simply go in another direction. Seeing as GM had no particular direction in mind, it's never noticed that they inadequately prompted.

The problem of "what if players miss Q, when Q is needed to pass test Z" isn't sandbox-specific, so I wouldn't necessarily look to sandbox to answer it. If (i) I want to or must get through the blue door, and (ii) only the blue key can open the blue door, while (iii) nothing tells me that I need the blue key or where to find it, then (iv) I'm not getting through the blue door. Many game designers have offered solutions to that problem. Sandbox mitigates it somewhat by avoiding imposing any strict requirement on players to get through the blue door.

So I wonder why the players decided to go into the mines? and once there, why their first strike didn't reveal that the slimes would divide? Why was the danger they were in not clear to them: inadequate prompting seems to have continued into the encounter. Again, that isn't a sandbox-specific problem.

That reminds though of another principle I assume applies to sandbox, which is that the player characters aren't bound to stick around. They might have something at stake on getting through the mine, but it's up to them what price they're willing to pay (there's no adventure path that says "you must get through the mine".) It's important not to overlook players as upholders of these principles, too.

At this point it's been years, so I don't remember the specifics. IIRC, @Lanefan was one such poster, so perhaps you could ask him about how he has used "maimed grizzled man in the tavern" type things as this sort of idea.

But, again, you seem to be missing the forest for the trees. The point wasn't that it's some narrowly-specific hoop-jumping. It's that there are a lot of ways for this to go wrong. Where the GM leaves the players to their own devices and the players get frustrated as a result. Or, the GM gives prompts for the stuff they've actually worked on--at which point the players could easily feel that the only choices they're "supposed" to make are the ones they're prompted about. Or, the GM prompts about functionally everything, which can get really really overwhelming really quickly.

Like...I'm not trying to be persnickety here, it just seems like you are insistently ignoring that these issues are relevant. Either it's something that can happen to other styles so...you don't need to have any answer, which seems like a pretty lame response if I'm being honest. Or it's--effectively--"that's not this style in its optimal state, so I'm not going to address it".

One (of several) reasons why I have almost always avoided games that bill themselves as this particular kind of "sandbox" is that that trilemma really does come up, and I've seen how it can derail games. GM prompts nothing, so players get lost, do something they have no idea is really really REALLY REALLY stupid, and pay a huge price, which damages trust. GM prompts excessively, so players feel overwhelmed either by analysis paralysis or by too much information to filter through (note, those are two different, albeit related, problems; the first means an inability to decide, the second, an inability to comprehend), which saps fun. GM only prompts on stuff they've prepped...players are pretty likely (IME) to think those prompts are the only things doable, or at least the only things actually worth doing, which would be precisely counter to the explicit point of the style (player choice above all else).

It just feels like you're fundamentally saying, "Oh well this happens to all styles so I don't have to respond" and that's...really really frustrating. I know these things happen to many styles. I don't dispute that. But I believe this style is especially vulnerable. Meaning, I would expect there to be some kind of...process or procedure or technique or principle or rule-of-thumb or SOMETHING that would help.

Instead I'm getting...well, frankly, I feel like I'm being stonewalled.

 

[pemerton]

Okay...I think I see where you're coming from.

I was driving to work this morning and saw a few deer roaming around in the street. I took a different route to avoid the deer. I still made it to work and my story progressed. You would say that I still encountered the deer, because I did. Others would say that I bypassed that encounter, because I avoided any potential harm.

Is this closer to what we're thinking?

Well, to me, as you describe it, it seems that you encountered some deer.

Now the framing of encounters in terms of potential harm is one possibility, but it is not something that Gygax assumes (as per the AD&D PHB, pp 40, 103):

It is necessary to stress that the usage of the term "monster" is generic for any creature encountered during the course of adventuring. A monster can be exactly what the name implies, or it can be a relatively harmless animal, a friendly intelligent beast, a crazed human, a band of dwarves, a thief - virtually anything or anyone potentially threatening or hostile.

When your referee indicates your character has encountered a monster, that simply indicates a confrontation between your character and some type of creature is about to take place. The results of such a meeting will depend on many factors, including the nature of the monster and your character's actions. All monsters are not bad . . .

A "monster" can be a kindly wizard or a crazed dwarf, a friendly brass dragon or a malicious manticore.​

So to me, at least, the association of encounter with threat or with combat seems very hack-and-slash-y.

But also, when reflecting on your deer example, I don't think the translation to RPGing is completely straightforward.

Suppose, for instance, that had you followed the deer they would have led you to Bigfoot. So, in avoiding the deer, you also missed out on meeting Bigfoot. That is true because of certain (stipulated for sake of the example) facts about the world. It's those facts that support counterfactuals like "Had I followed the deer, I would have encountered Bigfoot."

But in the context of a fiction - like the imaginary worlds of RPGing - what supports those sorts of counterfactuals?

This is why I come back to map-and-key. Because in the case of map-and-key, it is the map and the key that support the counterfactual: had the PCs opened this door, they would have seen such-and such; had they gone to this hex, they would have seen the cave which is the location of the red dragon (a "set encounter" in Gygax's terminology).

But without some prep of that sort - a map-and-key; perhaps an event timeline)?) - I can't see what supports the counterfactual. Unless it is meant to be supported simply by some disposition of the GM to decide that an encounter will take place, which disposition is undercut because of some action that the players have their PCs perform.

 

[pemerton]

The GM describes tracks. Following the tracks would lead to an encounter with a potentially hostile group. The PCs go around them or go in a different direction.

Wasn't this supposed to be an example that might be at home in Apocalypse World play? (That's my recollection, but perhaps I've lost my grasp of this thread of the discussion.)

Proceeding from that premise, then I'm puzzled: because following the tracks, in AW, would prompt the GM to say something based on the rules and principles of the game - but this may or may not be an encounter with a potentially hostile group. That would depend on what actions the players declare for their PCs, whether those trigger player-side moves (eg Read a Sitch), what moves the GM makes, etc.

Or consider a different but non-map-and-key system: in Burning Wheel the attempt to follow the tracks might have to be resolved by rolling the dice (if there is something at stake), and the outcome of that would depend on the intent, and on success or failure, and in the latter case on how the GM choose to narrate the failure.

 

[Guest 85555]

At this point it's been years, so I don't remember the specifics. IIRC, @Lanefan was one such poster, so perhaps you could ask him about how he has used "maimed grizzled man in the tavern" type things as this sort of idea.

But, again, you seem to be missing the forest for the trees. The point wasn't that it's some narrowly-specific hoop-jumping. It's that there are a lot of ways for this to go wrong. Where the GM leaves the players to their own devices and the players get frustrated as a result. Or, the GM gives prompts for the stuff they've actually worked on--at which point the players could easily feel that the only choices they're "supposed" to make are the ones they're prompted about. Or, the GM prompts about functionally everything, which can get really really overwhelming really quickly.

Like...I'm not trying to be persnickety here, it just seems like you are insistently ignoring that these issues are relevant. Either it's something that can happen to other styles so...you don't need to have any answer, which seems like a pretty lame response if I'm being honest. Or it's--effectively--"that's not this style in its optimal state, so I'm not going to address it".

One (of several) reasons why I have almost always avoided games that bill themselves as this particular kind of "sandbox" is that that trilemma really does come up, and I've seen how it can derail games. GM prompts nothing, so players get lost, do something they have no idea is really really REALLY REALLY stupid, and pay a huge price, which damages trust. GM prompts excessively, so players feel overwhelmed either by analysis paralysis or by too much information to filter through (note, those are two different, albeit related, problems; the first means an inability to decide, the second, an inability to comprehend), which saps fun. GM only prompts on stuff they've prepped...players are pretty likely (IME) to think those prompts are the only things doable, or at least the only things actually worth doing, which would be precisely counter to the explicit point of the style (player choice above all else).

It just feels like you're fundamentally saying, "Oh well this happens to all styles so I don't have to respond" and that's...really really frustrating. I know these things happen to many styles. I don't dispute that. But I believe this style is especially vulnerable. Meaning, I would expect there to be some kind of...process or procedure or technique or principle or rule-of-thumb or SOMETHING that would help.

Instead I'm getting...well, frankly, I feel like I'm being stonewalled.

The bottom line is there are risks running a sandbox. You learn over time how to best run them for yourself, and players learn whether sandbox or a particular GM’s sandbox is for them. I don’t think sandbox is going to be your cup of tea for this reason. While these are issues GMs have to think about and figure out: there isn’t one single best answer here. It seems like there is too much of an X factor with sandbox for you to be comfortable.

That said, perhaps a sandbox run in the style of @Hussar would work for you. But more typical living world sandboxes might not. I do think you would find arbiter of worlds and ACKS interesting because he places emphasis on procedures and the relationship of rules to agency. So perhaps the approach there might answer some of your concerns (Arbiter if Worlds is only about 100 pages and Kay’s out a guiding philosophy that is present in ACKS). You might want to check out how ACKS handles things like exploration as well

 

[AlViking]

I just want to scrible down some thoughts here that are somewhat raw still. I have reached conclusion that prefect player "freedom of choice" fully independent on DM biases are theoretically impossible in a living world sandbox. However the prep and nature of it is not fundamental to this. Rather the bias that is impossible to get rid of lies in the limitation that the DM need to select what information to convey.

With this limit in place there might be a framework where it makes full sense to say that the prep itself do not in any way affect the player choice. As long as the would be effect of the prep given "perfect" information is lower than the limits set by the DM information limitation, then the prep itself cannot be said to introduce a relevant bias.

Might some of the claims about how prepping a living world is not introducing any issues with regard to player agency be better understood if viewed trough such a lense? What are the properties of prep that manage to avoid this threshold? How is the "ideal" interaction between prep and what is being told in a sandbox game that strives for minimal DM bias? So many exiting questions to think about!

No one is ever going to run the idealized pure sandbox. It's impossible. It's the same old "If you don't hit 100% of your goal, you've completely and utterly failed" fallacy. No one in existence has ever had 100% autonomy to do whatever they want. It's like saying a person goes to the store and the shelves are already stocked - it's a railroad!!!

If I go to the store I have full autonomy on whether I purchase twinkies, ho-hos, some apples along with dozens or hundreds of other choices. If I've prepped some encounters, NPCs, perhaps a map, the players still have plenty of autonomy on approach. Just like can buy the twinkies if I want or apples. In a game if they decide to get some pears instead of apples I may have to figure out how to use of my apple template to create pears because they're actually pretty close to each other in the context of fruit. That's okay as long as I don't just slap a "pear" label on some apples but actually put thought into changing shape, color and flavor. The fact that they can't buy a car at the grocery store does not mean they have limited autonomy when they had a choice of what type of retail outlet they were headed to in the first place.

As MJ once said "You can't always get what you want but if you try sometime you might just find you get what you need." It's the same with sandboxes. You can't achieve a perfect sandbox but you can come close enough.

 

[AlViking]

I don't follow. There's a castle. It has defenders. The PCs sneak past the defenders, or fight them, or whatever.

In the fiction, I can't imagine anyone saying "Hey, we bypassed that encounter!" And at the table, why would I need to talk about "bypassing an encounter" as opposed to just talking about what did or didn't happen in the fiction?

The only answer I can think of is if there was some expectation that a certain type of, or bit of, play was going to happen - but it didn't!

I've never had to describe this. If we're talking about map-and-key resolution, then in Gygax's terminology there's a particular "set encounter" that didn't happen, because the PCs didn't go to that place or open that door (or otherwise do the in-fiction thing that "activates" the set encounter).

I used to run dungeons - not very well - and then, as I've often posted, around 1986 I started using techniques that I would later learn to think of, and improve, as "scene framing" of the sort found in Prince Valiant, Burning Wheel etc.

If I'm driving somewhere and the online map shows solid red and a 20 minute delay on my current route, I can bypass the delay by taking a different route. I bypassed an encounter with a traffic jam. If you can't understand that, or accept that someone might use verbiage you wouldn't, it's on you.