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

[Faolyn]

Oh good grief.

The one fundamental point that has been repeated in this thread over and over and over again is that sandbox campaigns are created independent of the PC's. That the whole "living world" thing is completely separate from the characters.

Now, suddenly, sandboxes can be rewritten based on the level of the characters? :bwuh:? About the only thing that everyone has agreed on throughout this thread is that the biggest thing that separates sandbox play from every other playstyle is that sandboxes are not dependent upon the PC's.

We're thousands of posts in and NOW you're saying that this is wrong? That sandboxes are not necessarily separated from the characters? That it's perfectly fine in sandbox play to rewrite areas based on the level of the PC's?

Am I the only one here seeing this?

Again, you’re acting like everyone has to run their games in exactly the same way, which is utterly ridiculous. And I’m not saying their way is wrong, especially since we’re talking about two different things here: the sandbox’s world, and encounters.

Just because an area is ruled by a powerful dragon doesn’t mean that it will swoop down on the low-level party that enters its territory. It’s got better things to do, or it’s sleeping, or it doesn’t see them, or it doesn’t care about a bunch of little monkeys that are clearly too weak for it. Having the dragon automatically attack would mean that the world is centered on the PCs, unless the GM made the dragon especially bloodthirsty or paranoid. Instead, the dragon should act logically (for a dragon) and attack only if it makes sense. Are the PCs actively going after the dragon? Are they doing something that undermines its food source? Are they laden down with obvious treasure? Are they acting like an actual threat?

Just because an area is rife with bandits doesn’t mean that the low-level mooks will try to steal from high-level PCs. Just like in the real world, these mooks are going to want to prey on the weak, and it’s fairly unlikely that a high-level party will look weak (heavy armor, powerful-looking weapons, maybe even a magical glow about them). And by that time,word has gotten about those PCs, especially if they’ve killed bandits before. Instead, it’ll be the more powerful ones who think they’re a match for the PCs. Weaker ones will only go after the party in large numbers.

If there’s an area that’s populated by, say, chimeras, or giants, or something like that, it’s not ridiculous or anti-sandbox to have a low level party encounter them one or two at a time and encounter them in larger numbers or more frequently as they level up.

But anyway, you really need to stop with this all-or-nothing mentality you have. There’s no Universal Law of Sandboxes to be broken.

 

[Lanefan]

But, as @Lanefan pointed out to you, rewriting areas based on the character level is verbotten in sandbox play. That's one of the most fundamental aspects of a sandbox as it's being described - that the world exists completely independently of the PC's. Altering areas just because the PC's happen to be level X and not Y is violating one of the most basic tenets of sandbox play.

Which means that D&D, and any level based system, forces you to design worlds that take levels into account. It's unavoidable.

And such worlds make at least a bit of reasonable sense: assuming the setting has a long-term history, major threats to civilized areas would likely already have been dealt with (or else there'd be no civilization left there) and thus would likely be either well penned up or fairly remote or intermittent in nature (e.g. the BBEG's castle only manifests on this plane one day a year). Minor threats, which might arise on their own more often and become a varying degree of nuisance, would be dealt with as they arise; this is what low-mid level types do for a living. At higher levels they have to travel farther to get to the adventure sites.

Or if it's more like a "points of light" setting there could be all kinds of threats of all kinds of levels out there; once you leave the safety of the city walls, for all you know that ruined castle three valleys over might contain 20 Kobolds or 20 Vampires - only the DM knows for sure.

 

[Lanefan]

Whereas for me, in the kinds of play-experiences I've had, that would definitely sour the mood of that session; it would nearly 100% guaranteed require a conversation after to clarify what happened, why, and that we're still good; and it would very probably cast a long-term (but not permanent) shadow over that campaign unless the aforementioned conversation went extremely well.

Certainly, if any character in any party I'd played in decided to attack my own character with lethal intent, I would essentially always be upset and expect at the very least an explanation, and probably some degree of apology or at least an assurance of some kind.

To turn your own phrase: It would be an antibonding moment. We would be at risk of being less friends than we were before that incident. Not necessarily that that singular incident would break a friendship. But it would...well, as I said, sour the mood.

That's because you're letting what happens in-game bleed over to out-of-game.

Solve that, pretend the game is Vegas, and your friendships stay intact even after you've knocked off each others' characters. And you've got a new story to tell and laugh over.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My reasons for wanting player action constrained to their PCs has nothing to do with worrying about abuse. It's about the play experience I want to have, and the creative goals of the games I play.

It's not "constrained to their PCs" that I'm talking about here.

It's tons upon tons of hard rules about what players emphatically are not permitted to do--hard restrictions all over the place. You can't attempt things you don't have training for. You can't get training except in XYZ ways. You can't have a species other than the species options hard-coded into the world by the GM. You can't have a class the GM doesn't feel like permitting. You can't have a background (in both the formal and the casual sense) unless it gets meticulously approved by the GM. You can't have--as someone once asked me, when trying to put together a character for 5e--someone who is very wise, but really bad at observing their surroundings. (She was trying to model her now-husband, who can be deeply oblivious about things right in front of his face, but who is a practicing psychiatrist that really does do a very good job at helping his patients understand what complications they're dealing with.)

Players need to be constantly constrained lest they do something Unacceptable. But GMs? Oh, no no no. GMs can never be limited. That would be the worst thing ever.

 

[SableWyvern]

only the DM knows for sure.

And the one armed man in the pub.

 

[Lanefan]

@EzekielRaiden (and anyone else interested)

You might want to give this page a glance - it's the player-visible introduction to my game and how I run it (along with some specific-to-world info at the bottom).

www.friendsofgravity.com/games/commons_room/blue_books/decast-blue-book-in-html/decbluebook0.html

Saves me having to type it all out here.

 

[SableWyvern]

You can't attempt things you don't have training for.

That's news to me.

You can't get training except in XYZ ways.

Well, depending on what XYZ are, possibly.

You can't have a species other than the species options hard-coded into the world by the GM.

Absolutely. You are not playing a bohemian catgirl ninja in my historical Viking game.

You can't have a class the GM doesn't feel like permitting.

Absolutely. You are not playing a bohemian catgirl ninja in my historical Viking game.

You can't have a background (in both the formal and the casual sense) unless it gets meticulously approved by the GM.

Absolutely. You are not playing a bohemian catgirl ninja in my historical Viking game.

You can't have--as someone once asked me, when trying to put together a character for 5e--someone who is very wise, but really bad at observing their surroundings. (She was trying to model her now-husband, who can be deeply oblivious about things right in front of his face, but who is a practicing psychiatrist that really does do a very good job at helping his patients understand what complications they're dealing with.)

This seems pretty benign. I'm sure we can work that in, as long as your wise but unobservant character isn't also bohemian catgirl ninja in my historical Viking game.

Players need to be constantly constrained lest they do something Unacceptable. But GMs? Oh, no no no. GMs can never be limited. That would be the worst thing ever.

Pretty much, yeah.

Otherwise, soon enough it's bohemian catgirl ninjas all the way down.

 

[clearstream]

Again, you’re acting like everyone has to run their games in exactly the same way, which is utterly ridiculous. And I’m not saying their way is wrong, especially since we’re talking about two different things here: the sandbox’s world, and encounters.

Just because an area is ruled by a powerful dragon doesn’t mean that it will swoop down on the low-level party that enters its territory. It’s got better things to do, or it’s sleeping, or it doesn’t see them, or it doesn’t care about a bunch of little monkeys that are clearly too weak for it. Having the dragon automatically attack would mean that the world is centered on the PCs, unless the GM made the dragon especially bloodthirsty or paranoid. Instead, the dragon should act logically (for a dragon) and attack only if it makes sense. Are the PCs actively going after the dragon? Are they doing something that undermines its food source? Are they laden down with obvious treasure? Are they acting like an actual threat?

Just because an area is rife with bandits doesn’t mean that the low-level mooks will try to steal from high-level PCs. Just like in the real world, these mooks are going to want to prey on the weak, and it’s fairly unlikely that a high-level party will look weak (heavy armor, powerful-looking weapons, maybe even a magical glow about them). And by that time,word has gotten about those PCs, especially if they’ve killed bandits before. Instead, it’ll be the more powerful ones who think they’re a match for the PCs. Weaker ones will only go after the party in large numbers.

If there’s an area that’s populated by, say, chimeras, or giants, or something like that, it’s not ridiculous or anti-sandbox to have a low level party encounter them one or two at a time and encounter them in larger numbers or more frequently as they level up.

But anyway, you really need to stop with this all-or-nothing mentality you have. There’s no Universal Law of Sandboxes to be broken.

It does seem like "sandbox" labels several modes of play... family resemblances rather than a fixed set of identifying qualities. Which should be unsurprising given Wittgenstein's famous observation.

In past RQ sandbox play the world has been very much as it is and it is up to player characters to navigate its dangers. It's important that players know that this is the kind of world they are in, so that they don't aggressively confront Rune Lords or Mistress Race Trolls while they are rank Initiates. Where that has led to in my experience has been far more non-combat interacting with NPCs and PC to PC, because an Initiate may speak with an NPC it would be suicide to fight. I've seen such interactions gain tension from the power asymmetry.

That also tends to produce play where things aren't obstacles or hurdles on the way to the "real" action, because there isn't any stairway of increasingly levelled foes to climb. I would count (i) power-independence of world from player-characters coupled with (ii) a commitment to following the players very valuable if not central. That would be in addition to (iii) GM and game designer prep. being conceded some standing in the fiction even prior to entering the knowledge of players.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's because you're letting what happens in-game bleed over to out-of-game.

I'm not "letting" anything. It's simply my nature.

Solve that, pretend the game is Vegas,

I literally cannot mentally do that. I am not cognitively capable of doing that. I will always know that it is just as you say, a pretense.

I also don't see the game as gambling, as I've already said--and I hate gambling anyway. There is a reason you have (almost certainly) seen me say, "If I were a gambling man (which I'm not)" or some variation thereof. I don't do gambling. Gambling messes me up on multiple fronts. Those who wish to participate, more power to them, but for me it's an emphatic Big No, Do Not Want.

and your friendships stay intact even after you've knocked off each others' characters. And you've got a new story to tell and laugh over.

Nnnnnnope. Even if I could somehow white-knuckle my way through it and not have it have some kind of negative effect in the moment, it would, guaranteed, 100% never be something I would laugh about later. Frankly, even just imagining something like that happening is stressful. If the story were told at all, it wouldn't be by me, and I'd be taking steps to stay calm and not let the emotions overcome my better judgment.

To be honest, while I have more than once seen people take game situations this way, I have never understood it. I think of it like being an actor. Sometimes bad things happen to your character, or your character does bad things, but I see no reason any of that has to leave the table.

Doing this as one post since it's a related thing.

When I roleplay, I am investing part of my self into the character. That's why, for example, I genuinely find it impossible to play a truly unrepentant evil character for anything but a very brief time (maybe a single session at most). I can get away with it with NPCs, because even the most vile NPC isn't going to be getting spotlight time for most of a given session, let alone session after session after session. I can keep my distance. But anything I'm actually playing most of the time, long-term? Yeah, I'm putting some of what I am into that character.

If I don't do that, I can't meaningfully roleplay them. That level of investment, of "immersion" (knowing that word is often over-used), for me, requires that I remove some of the barrier between "myself" and "the character". Running an utterly divorced mental model of the character would be cold, sterile, mechanical. Like trying to pilot one of those "made to look like a real human" robots that sets off all sorts of uncanny-valley stuff--it just wouldn't work, not for me. Or if that analogy doesn't work for you, it would be like asking an author to craft a novel about a concept they feel nothing about and have no knowledge of nor connection to, other than academic journal articles on the subject--sure, they might be able to produce a string of words that follows English grammar and is printed on bound pages of paper, but it wouldn't be "a novel" in any of the ways that actually matter.

(Incidentally, the same goes for all of my creative work. I can't make things I don't feel at least a little inspired about, and if I'm inspired, I'm putting some of myself into them. I cannot not invest when I am creating, not if the created product is to have any quality whatsoever. This primarily applies to prose and poetry, but it affects anything I create.)

I certainly understand that not everyone will approach things that way. I don't understand how, but my understanding is irrelevant to whether it works for others. But telling me to divest is...like telling an artist to stop caring about the work they make. That you could make anything at all if you just stopped caring about what you create. I can't do that; it's not an unwillingness to make the choice, it is that that simply isn't a choice I am capable of making.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's news to me.


Well, depending on what XYZ are, possibly.


Absolutely. You are not playing a bohemian catgirl ninja in my historical Viking game.


Absolutely. You are not playing a bohemian catgirl ninja in my historical Viking game.


Absolutely. You are not playing a bohemian catgirl ninja in my historical Viking game.


This seems pretty benign. I'm sure we can work that in, as long as your wise but unobservant character isn't also bohemian catgirl ninja in my historical Viking game.


Pretty much, yeah.

Otherwise, soon enough it's bohemian catgirl ninjas all the way down.

Your flippant dismissal of perspectives other than your own is precisely why I don't have a whole lot of patience for the endless requests for understanding and empathy etc. etc. You have shown precisely none here, and instead dismissed my position as so much risible nonsense.