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

[Guest 85555]

I don't think omission gets you all the way there, though. That's...sort of the point?

Omission only eliminates (presumptively) accidental roadblocks. "The system hasn't actively interfered" is far from "the system is actively helping". It's certainly helpful for task X if the system in question doesn't actively interfere with doing X. But it is--I should think objectively!--better for task X if the system actively helps with doing X.

To use a more contemporary example, things like X-card and O-card mechanics actively help players who want to do relatively "risky", pushing-the-envelope play-experiences. Having no mechanics at all for such things, neither interfering nor helping, is pretty clearly not enough, otherwise folks would never have developed the concept in the first place.

"The system doesn't get in my way, so it's better than a system that does get in my way" is a perfectly valid argument, but it is inapplicable as a rebuttal to the claim that a system actively helps with some specific task.

He is saying not everyone needs the system to help in the same way and that the most essential thing for sandbox to function as he is describing it is that core play loop. It isn’t like physical technology. The X card might help some groups but it might hinder others. It isn’t always going to be helpful for groups pushing the envelope (and some people find it can cause more problems). The same with any mechanical development. Some of the examples I have seen in this thread for good sandbox play, scale back combat for example, making it less granular. In those campaigns having more rules to help positioning during a fight would probably not help, but in a game where combat is more standard, positioning rules could help (but such rules could interfere with the core play loop for some people if they want a more flexible and open approach to positioning), same can apply to rules for overland travel. One man’s helpful mechanic or procedure is another man’s obstruction

 

[pemerton]

the most essential thing for sandbox to function as he is describing it is that core play loop.

This doesn't seem very plausible to me. Nearly every RPG works on the "core play loop" of the player describe, referee adjudicate. But not every RPG is good for sandbox play, at least in the widely-used sense of that term.

Marvel Heroic RP is one example. In A Wicked Age is another. And of course they're not the only two.

 

[mamba]

Something which has maximal sandboxiness needs both things about as high as possible while still having a system and respecting the boundaries of the fiction

maybe, but the amount of system people want is different, so a system that goes beyond that for the sake of ‘more sandboxiness’ will not be better for everyone, not even a better sandbox

 

[EzekielRaiden]

maybe, but the amount of system people want is different, so a system that goes beyond that for the sake of ‘more sandboxiness’ will not be better for everyone, not even a better sandbox

I mean it is literally better at sandboxing. That's what it's for, to be better at being more sandbox-y. It's just not better for the specific needs of a particular person, who doesn't want that much sandboxing.

A drill that can drill holes wider than you need isn't suddenly bad at drilling holes or worse for hole-drilling than a drill that can only drill holes just up to the size you need and no bigger. It is not helpful to the person who only wants to drill small holes, but that in no way diminishes the fact that a drill that can drill many different sizes of holes to whatever depth is desired, and at greater speed, is better at drilling holes than one that can only drill small holes to whatever depth is desired, and at slower speed.

That doesn't mean the first drill is necessarily the correct choice for every single person. Maybe we're talking a metal auger or something where it's expensive, or the drill bits are hard to find, or whatever else. It's perfectly valid and reasonable to say, "well, just because it's better at drilling holes doesn't mean it's simply better in all ways". But none of that has anything to do with whether drill A is better at drilling holes than drill B.

Like, this is the third or fourth time you have turned this into "well that doesn't make it UNIVERSALLY better". Neither I nor Hussar has said that it is universally better! Universal better-ness was never in the offing!

 

[Guest 85555]

This doesn't seem very plausible to me. Nearly every RPG works on the "core play loop" of the player describe, referee adjudicate. But not every RPG is good for sandbox play, at least in the widely-used sense of that term.

The argument isn't that every RPG is best for sandbox, it is more that you can use just about any RPG for sandbox and that games/mechanics designed with sandbox in mind are not universally helpful for that style (but you can always defer back to that core play loop to open things up). For example for some people a very strict approach to handling encounters as a roll per hex or something might work, and I think many would see that as a mechanic meant to assist sandbox, but for others this might be too rigid, and they might want to open it up to a ruling instead.

 

[Guest 85555]

I mean it is literally better at sandboxing. That's what it's for, to be better at being more sandbox-y. It's just not better for the specific needs of a particular person, who doesn't want that much sandboxing.

A drill that can drill holes wider than you need isn't suddenly bad at drilling holes or worse for hole-drilling than a drill that can only drill holes just up to the size you need and no bigger. It is not helpful to the person who only wants to drill small holes, but that in no way diminishes the fact that a drill that can drill many different sizes of holes to whatever depth is desired, and at greater speed, is better at drilling holes than one that can only drill small holes to whatever depth is desired, and at slower speed.

That doesn't mean the first drill is necessarily the correct choice for every single person. Maybe we're talking a metal auger or something where it's expensive, or the drill bits are hard to find, or whatever else. It's perfectly valid and reasonable to say, "well, just because it's better at drilling holes doesn't mean it's simply better in all ways". But none of that has anything to do with whether drill A is better at drilling holes than drill B.

Like, this is the third or fourth time you have turned this into "well that doesn't make it UNIVERSALLY better". Neither I nor Hussar has said that it is universally better! Universal better-ness was never in the offing!

We aren't just talking about preferences of individuals. We are talking about large groups of people having preferences. If it is just some guy in Tewksbury who wants something that is one thing, but there are very groups of style when it comes to sandbox. So a system that helps group A, is very likely to not help group B or even be meaningless or too constraining to group C. This is especially true with sandbox because it is a very open style of play where people bring in lots of different tools to meet that promise of 'you can do whatever you want'

 

[mamba]

I mean it is literally better at sandboxing. That's what it's for, to be better at being more sandbox-y.

not sure I agree with this, that is the problem with sandbox being vaguely defined. It is designed to utilize more player input / is more narrative, that I would agree on

Like, this is the third or fourth time you have turned this into "well that doesn't make it UNIVERSALLY better". Neither I nor Hussar has said that it is universally better! Universal better-ness was never in the offing!

I have no idea where you keep getting this ‘universally better’ from. You keep bringing it up when no one is saying it. I keep correcting you on this…

 

[Faolyn]

I mean it is literally better at sandboxing. That's what it's for, to be better at being more sandbox-y. It's just not better for the specific needs of a particular person, who doesn't want that much sandboxing.

A drill that can drill holes wider than you need isn't suddenly bad at drilling holes or worse for hole-drilling than a drill that can only drill holes just up to the size you need and no bigger. It is not helpful to the person who only wants to drill small holes, but that in no way diminishes the fact that a drill that can drill many different sizes of holes to whatever depth is desired, and at greater speed, is better at drilling holes than one that can only drill small holes to whatever depth is desired, and at slower speed.

That doesn't mean the first drill is necessarily the correct choice for every single person. Maybe we're talking a metal auger or something where it's expensive, or the drill bits are hard to find, or whatever else. It's perfectly valid and reasonable to say, "well, just because it's better at drilling holes doesn't mean it's simply better in all ways". But none of that has anything to do with whether drill A is better at drilling holes than drill B.

Like, this is the third or fourth time you have turned this into "well that doesn't make it UNIVERSALLY better". Neither I nor Hussar has said that it is universally better! Universal better-ness was never in the offing!

Upthread, you claimed people need to be able to defend your position.

Can you defend your position without using something that isn't a game for your analogy? Not auger bits or cars or pranks like 52-card pickup, but two actual RPGs, and explain why one is "literally" better for sandboxes?

 

[Guest 85555]

Like, this is the third or fourth time you have turned this into "well that doesn't make it UNIVERSALLY better". Neither I nor Hussar has said that it is universally better! Universal better-ness was never in the offing!

I think I am the one bringing up universality. But then if you acknowledge this, can't you see how a game like Ironsworn, which might be better for sandboxing than D&D for someone like @Hussar , would be potentially worse for sandboxing for someone like @robertsconley, and that both of them actually represent a set of preferences shared by large groups? I think if you are saying, this system is designed to do sandbox well, and this is how it achieves that. From a design standpoint, that is valid statement. I think when people start making those claims more universal, it gets murkier because people genuinely want different things and different levels of flexibility from a system, and they also have different needs in terms of what is going to interfere with or assist their style of play in a sandbox. A game like D&D works perfectly well for sandboxes. And you can even design a version of it, that strips out the things that might be considered a hindrance to sandbox if you want (people have done this). But not every sandbox is the same. There are plenty of people who like sandbox but don't want to limit themselves to just sandbox play. We can get overly obsessed with these kinds of goals sometimes. And systems that are overly focused, might end up hurting a game that is mostly sandbox but 5-10 percent something else

 

[Guest 85555]

It seems to me quite obvious that two factors are relevant for degree-of-sandboxiness: degree of player agency, and degree of player-driven experience. The former is about having the freedom to do more-or-less as the player likes (within the bounds of the fiction), subject to reasonable consequences for said actions. E.g. if the players elect to charter a ship to a new land, they can do that so long as they have the money to do so, since it's reasonable that it costs money to sail on someone else's ship. The latter is about whether any game-running person ("DM" in D&D terms) is the person causing the party to act, or whether the players are the cause of the action, whatever form it may take.

Something which has maximal sandboxiness needs both things about as high as possible while still having a system and respecting the boundaries of the fiction. The players need to be pretty much purely driving the experience, with as little GM intervention as one can get away with--preferably none at all. Further, the players need to have enough agency to be able to do almost anything they feel like doing, so long as those actions are sensible given the situation at hand.

Where you are going to have a lot of disagreement is around degree of player driven experience and what that means. For some sandboxes, operating outside the bounds of your character and even constraining GM authority here is going to be a plus, for some others (and I would honestly argue most here), the expectation is this aspect of play is largely confined to operating within your character (and possibly through probing via question and answer) with strong GM authority intact. I think both are fine to be clear. But the problem is you are already defining sandbox in a way that makes a style of play most sandboxes don't use and would probably avoid, the best way to do sandbox. You are effectively defining the terms to win a style argument