Yes, but that has nothing to do with whether you agree or disagree with what is being said. But hey, I wouldn't ever expect you to keep grudges out of an EN World post.
DM'ing is a skill, not an art.
- Thread starter Kzach
- Start date
Yes, but that has nothing to do with whether you agree or disagree with what is being said. But hey, I wouldn't ever expect you to keep grudges out of an EN World post.
Vegepygmy
First Post
Yep. I might quibble with how black-and-white the Water Pipe mechanics were in this case, but as far as general principles go, I'm with Varis. The pipe is there because it's there, not because you're supposed to do something with it.
Tewligan
First Post
Well, since you posted both your opinion and his, followed by "what do you think", I thought I answered that question.
Obviously, I agree with what Varis said.Also, what "grudge" am I supposedly holding here? Again,
Whether it's a sandbox is fully dependent on whether the drain had that plug before the PCs even knew it existed.
If Varis had to decide the details of the pipe when the PCs became interested in it then it's narrative control.
The impression I got from reading his post was that the pipe was fully detailed before the PCs knew it existed which would be sandboxy.
If Varis had to decide the details of the pipe when the PCs became interested in it then it's narrative control.
The impression I got from reading his post was that the pipe was fully detailed before the PCs knew it existed which would be sandboxy.
Vegepygmy
First Post
You know, I'm not sure that the term has the same meaning when applied to a video game as it does in the RPG community. Maybe it does, but it's hard for me to tell from that wikipedia entry, because the assumed goal of a video game is so different from the assumed goal(s) of tabletop RPGs.
Anyway, I understood what he meant by "Varis had a sandbox," and I agree. The world is there, waiting for you to explore it. It's not going to change because of your actions, though you can work changes upon it by your actions. (Except that in this case, Varis apparently believed you did not have any tools at your disposal that would have any real effect on the water pipe--which is where I would quibble with him.)
I certainly don't think the pipe should have been made interesting just because a PC decided to explore it. I wouldn't have "made something up on the spot," as you suggest. As a player, I hate when DMs do that. It feels obsequious to me, somehow. I'm looking for a challenge, not a gift bag.
To be honest I think there are far too many fine points in all the descriptions and definitions to be fair to anyone. A lot of assumptions are being made on what has been said that although logical conclusions, aren't necessarily accurate.
That's the limitation of our abilities to communicate effectively. I'm certainly not getting the points across in a manner that people can understand as I can see from the responses.
Everyone's understanding of terms is different. Definitions of art and skill for instance, what constitutes sandbox gaming, and drawing conclusions on minutia of what people have said.
*shrug*
Sammael
Adventurer
"Sandbox" does not mean that the DM has to alter the world to suit the players' decisions. If anything, "sandbox" means that the world exists "as is," and it's up to the players to change it. You know, like children... who make castles and stuff out of sand.
If the DM had changed the pipe to become an entrance into the keep, that would have been an example of narrativist play - the players believe that there should be an entrance, even if there wasn't one before, and so the DM changes the world to fit the players' belief.
If the DM had changed the pipe to become an entrance into the keep, that would have been an example of narrativist play - the players believe that there should be an entrance, even if there wasn't one before, and so the DM changes the world to fit the players' belief.
Again, definitions and fine points about what people have said can be made into logical conclusions but those conclusions aren't necessarily accurate.
I wouldn't have changed the pipe. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if I knew it was a dead-end, I would've shut the PC's down right there and then. But I also wouldn't have led them up a path with no recourse to a solution, whether that solution was beneficial or not. That is the reward. Negative or positive.
My understanding of sandbox gaming isn't that you change things on the fly to suit the players, for me it's that you put what should be logically there for the setting and scenario, there, regardless of what the players do.
If, however, you say, "There's a path..." you also don't say, "But don't go down it 'cause I don't want you to." That's not sandbox gaming either. If you put a path in front of the players, you have to expect them to follow it.
In our argument (between Varis and I), he used the example of "So you're saying if there was a wall and the players wanted to go through it, I should provide a door?" No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that if you show the PC's a door, don't have it be a concrete wall behind it
Thanael
Explorer
Someone already mentioned the term social contract. The problem is that apparently not all involved have agreed to the same terms. The OP leans more toward a "say yes or roll die" stance, while the DM obviously doesn't want to share his authority over the plot/gameworld to this degree.
Ryan Dancey's blogposts Action! and Show Me Your Stance! are really enlightening in this regard.
Ryan Dancey's blogposts Action! and Show Me Your Stance! are really enlightening in this regard.
Sammael
Adventurer
I dunno. A world without dead-ends ruins my verisimilitude. Yup, there's the evil word again.
Sometimes, an empty room is just an empty room. Of course, the DMs should not overdo it, because if they do, the players will start overlooking bigger and bigger things. But the DM should also not be expected to set up the entire world just from the point of the player fun.
Incidentally, I would have changed the pipe. At the very least, I would have allowed the PCs to overhear an enemy conversation while in the pipe (pipes are acoustic and all that) to make it at least somewhat worthwhile to the PCs. Maybe discover something stashed into the pipe. Something like that.
Sometimes, an empty room is just an empty room. Of course, the DMs should not overdo it, because if they do, the players will start overlooking bigger and bigger things. But the DM should also not be expected to set up the entire world just from the point of the player fun.
Incidentally, I would have changed the pipe. At the very least, I would have allowed the PCs to overhear an enemy conversation while in the pipe (pipes are acoustic and all that) to make it at least somewhat worthwhile to the PCs. Maybe discover something stashed into the pipe. Something like that.
Similar Threads
