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

[Maxperson]

I would agree, the only question is what qualifies as a heuristic. Is the DM following their model of what they consider to be realistic and probable in the world a heuristic, or does it take a set of rules in a book for that?

It also depends on what "readily" means. I can usually anticipate what sorts of things will happen from the actions of my PC, even when the DM is not bound to respond in specific ways.

If "readily" means 100% of the time, then I agree with @pemerton. If "readily" just means very often, then I disagree with him.

 

[The Firebird]

I don't think something unexpected might happen is a basis for saying that the players are exercising control. It seems to be the opposite!

Some people mess with (say) the KGB and survive. Ohers are crushed. The range of possibility is extreme. How are the players to know what is likely?

Suppose the GM uses random rolls - that just drives home the unknowability by the players!

In each case, the players are exercising control--they understand they are going to face some consequences and that they aren't going to be able to anticipate those fully in advance. The fact that they can't tell you exactly how many KGB agents will be sent after them doesn't mean they don't know the consequences. Just like if you raid a dungeon and it gives you a bunch of rolls on a treasure table, you know it will be worth raiding even though you don't know exactly what you get. Or you know that if the enemy magic user casts prismatic spray on you it is going to be nasty, although you can't predict exactly how.

The standard of knowability you are applying is not really comprehensible to me given how knowability works elsewhere in RPGs. And life.

And as I have posted, depending on what this gathering of information actually means, instead of active, player-driven RPGing we have the players following the GM's breadcrumbs - in effect, the GM is exercising the sort of control over the player's action declarations that a good bridge player exercises over other players' play of their cards (ie not usurping authority, but constraining and guiding its exercise)

The GM didn't leave any breadcrumbs; they are just portraying the world. The players don't have to learn about these locations at all if they don't want to. They are in control of their actions.

 

[TwoSix]

In each case, the players are exercising control--they understand they are going to face some consequences and that they aren't going to be able to anticipate those fully in advance. The fact that they can't tell you exactly how many KGB agents will be sent after them doesn't mean they don't know the consequences. Just like if you raid a dungeon and it gives you a bunch of rolls on a treasure table, you know it will be worth raiding even though you don't know exactly what you get. Or you know that if the enemy magic user casts prismatic spray on you it is going to be nasty, although you can't predict exactly how.

The standard of knowability you are applying is not really comprehensible to me given how knowability works elsewhere in RPGs. And life.


The GM didn't leave any breadcrumbs; they are just portraying the world. The players don't have to learn about these locations at all if they don't want to. They are in control of their actions.

A "choose your own adventure" book also lets you as a player make choices based on limited information to reveal what consequences ensue.

I don't consider that sufficient agency for me to engage with in a roleplaying game.

 

[The Firebird]

Yes, because it's fair and transparent, and at least in the B/X model of play, is a rule-stated procedure.

Yeah, then I don't get this division. For me, the "GM describes how the world reacts" is a rule. The "innkeeper is boisterous and friendly" is a rule. When the PCs interact with the innkeeper the innkeeper telling them rumors is then just the DM responding according to the rules.

I don't see why the inlusion of dice makes it a different kind of rule.

 

[The Firebird]

A "choose your own adventure" book also lets you as a player make choices based on limited information to reveal what consequences ensue.

I don't consider that sufficient agency for me to engage with in a roleplaying game.

Nor would I.

Do you think fixed world sandboxes are similar in that they offer the same small number of choices as these books? If so I can see why people are finding them railroady.

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah, then I don't get this division. For me, the "GM describes how the world reacts" is a rule. The "innkeeper is boisterous and friendly" is a rule. When the PCs interact with the innkeeper the innkeeper telling them rumors is then just the DM responding according to the rules.

I don't see why the inlusion of dice makes it a different kind of rule.

Because when "what the DM has written in his notebook can overrule anything else happening at the table", they have de facto unlimited authority.

I, as a DM, don't want unlimited authority. I, as a player, don't want the DM to have unlimited authority.

 

[Maxperson]

How can it not? The players won't go to places the DM doesn't put in front of them. They would have no reason to travel to place X unless the DM provides place X. And, specfically within a level based system like D&D, many areas are more or less walled off by level. Yes, sure, you can wander into the red dragon's lair, but, since that's suicidal for 1st level characters, either that red dragon's lair will be in a location that the PC's can't reach due to lack of resources, or they will be strongly warned off by the DM through the use of NPC's.

Now, true, the players could choose suicide by dragon, but, by and large, they aren't going to. So, when the DM plonks a red dragon lair in location X, that's a big sign that says, "You must be this tall to ride". Again, the DM is very strongly influencing what the characters do.

Upthread I agreed with I think it was you, that players will rarely just go to landmarks that aren't named on the map.

I disagree with what you are saying there, though. What I have seen very often is that the group or a player in the group will want to find X that his PC wants, and will go to the library or a sage to find out where X is located. Sometimes X will be one of the locations already detailed on the map, in which case the player is driving play to that location, not the DM's name. Often, it won't be on the map and the DM will have to add it somewhere, also driving play to that location.

Even when they just pick a name because it sounds cool, they are still the ones deciding to drive play there, not the DM. He didn't make them pick that place out of the many places named. Nor can he be sure they will ever really go there, because he isn't driving play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

there is a lot of authority, I don’t think anyone is disputing that. The dispute is about whether it allows for meaningful input / control by the players or not.

A DM can absolutely railroad a game that way, but that is a choice, not the logical consequence

My point is that the more authority that the GM has, the less the players have.

And regarding railroads, I disagree that it must always be a choice to do so. It may be... it also may just be a side-effect of a high amount of GM authority... where they've decided the goal of play, prepared the world ahead of time, decide exactly the consequences of player declared actions, and so on.

That's just more and more influence on what the game is about to the point where the players have very little.

Not enough to make the game a railroad game. It's hard not to know that you are forcing your vision on the players when you do it consistently. I will agree that they may not know it's called a railroad, but they know what they are doing.

You didn't know that you were forcing your vision on them? I find that hard to believe. I do believe that you were directed to play that way. AD&D was like that. I also believe that you didn't know it was called railroading.

I said it didn't require bad faith. Did I know what I was doing? To an extent, yes... I was following the main paradigm of play presented by the hobby, supported by plenty of advice you could find at the time. Would I have described it as "forcing my vision" on the players? No. Interestingly, neither would they, really. But was that what was happening? A lot of the time, yes!

My question is how do you do the latter on any sort of ongoing basis without having it come across in play that the setting or game world revolves around the PCs?

I don't worry if the game revolves around the PCs because the game necessarily must revolve around the PCs.

Disagree. Part of what makes those moments special is that they're somewhat uncommon, and thus stick in the memory for a while. If they happened all the time they'd soon be forgotten, buried under the avalanche of more recent such moments and eventually becoming the ho-hum norm rather than the memorable exception.

Put another way, if you're running along at a 5-out-of-10 average, a 10-out-of-10 moment is special; but if you're running along at a 9-out-of-10 average anyway a 10-out-of-10 moment is no big deal; never mind that 9-out-of-10 is unsustainable for anything longer than the fairly short term.

And this dial doesn't go to 11.

Yeah, that's not true. I'm not saying that every moment of play is a 10 out of 10, but that's what I'm pushing for. The idea that there must be boring bits to have fun bits is... a bad take, I think. It seems an argument for mediocrity.

Yes, the DM of a sandbox makes decisions to adjudicate the world. Is this the sticking point? As I said before, for you "the DM adjudicates the world" seems to be a railroad.

It's not that in isolation. It's that the GM creates the world. The GM adjudicates the world. The GM sets the goals of play. The GM decides consequences of PC actions.

They give the players more narrative control. This is one of the main appeals for blades as a player. It's what I enjoyed about it when I was into the system.

What do you mean by "narrative control"? Isn't that what people are saying is the advantage of sandbox play? That the players have control over where they go and what they do? Isn't that narrative control?

I can't help but have the feeling most of the fixed world skeptics have had poor experiences with GMs who didn't respond to player choice or give the players adequate information. Because I think it is just so obvious that the players determine the course of the story. I'm sorry if that hasn't worked out in your games.

The condescension is noted and not appreciated.

Also, though I have been a player often enough, the vast amount of my experience with RPGs is as a GM. And mostly with some version of D&D. In that regard, I'm mostly commenting on my own GMing over the entirety of my time as a GM, which goes back many many years.

Many others here seem to have sprung fully formed from the mind of Gygax as perfect GMs who at most need to refine their methods a bit. That's not me... I ran games in ways I'd rather not run them now. I've made plenty of errors. I've done the kinds of things we're talking about. I've done them thinking I was doing something else.

I've played and run games that sound exactly like what many others are advocating for in this thread.

 

[AnotherGuy]

But, if you don't describe what is taking place with any more specificity than impact it with your action, all you have succeeded in describing is the ability of the players to oblige the GM to say new stuff in response to the players having their PCs do stuff.

And that is basically the bare minimum for any non-scripted RPGing.

What I've been interested in, for much of the past many pages, is what else has to be the case, for the players' impact to be some sort of genuine control. My suggestion has been that the players must be able to know, at least broadly, what the GM will do in response - and thus can choose to bring about that particular response by declaring the particular action they declare.

Predictable Outcomes of a Module
A module I injected into my campaign provided the following predictable outcomes.
1. Find out what Thay was doing with the Cult of the Dragon;
2. Destroy the undead dragon army Thay was building;
3. Make an alliance between the Council of Waterdeep and the Thay Resurrection;
4. Make an alliance between the Council of Waterdeep and Thay;
5. Stop Thay Resurrection's plans to summon a powerful fiend in order to combat their splinter group which was working with the Cult of the Dragon to summon Tiamat.
6. A Combination of the above.

Actions of Party
They uncovered 1 and then managed to do 5 because the party inadvertently led the Thay (government) to the headquarters of the Thay Resurrection (rebel forces) before escaping with a teleporation spell.
PCs knew they were being chased/followed.
They knew Thay and the Thay Resurrection were sworn enemies.
Are you saying I should have told them what would happen 2 months down the line? (see below 1ST and 2ND consequence)

Consequences
After two months word came out that the Thay Resurrection had indeed been crushed by Szass Tam (the Lich Lord ruler of Thay).
1ST Consequence decided by GM.

An emissary of Thay arrived 2 months after the events in the module to attend a Council of Waterdeep requesting Thay join their fight against the Cult of the Dragon/Tiamat.
2ND Consequence decided by GM.

Current Storyline
Players never raised any objection to Thay joining the Council and tacitly agreed with their silence to Thay requisitioning one of the newly built teleportation circles to move large quantities of military personnel for the war effort.
They are aware mechanically how Thay's inclusion in the fight will assist the final battle and it is significant.

However, it is Thay afterall, so there is a 3RD consequence but I'm not prepared to let that information become table knowledge because (I feel) that defeats the purpose of roleplaying to find out how their choices affect the storyline and the challenges they face.

Would you inform your players the 3RD consequence BEFORE they have made their choice so they could have genuine control over the impact they have?

EDIT: I should add as the story has unfolded, besides whatever has happened within the Council meeting, the party will be responsible for communicating the necessary military co-ordination and teleportation circle details with Thay so the PCs can indeed do their own thing here. As I have said they are aware of Thay's mechanical might for their inclusion or exclusion in the final battle, but I'm not prepared to give them hidden backstory (true motives & goals) of Thay. They have not earned the right to know that. All they know and have heard is, that Thay cannot be trusted.

 

[Maxperson]

So, how many rumours are required?

If the DM brought up (note that it's the DM bringing up, as in entirely sourced by the DM without any input or reaction to the players) only 2 rumours, does that make it not a sandbox? Three? Four?

What's the minimum number of options required to qualify as a sandbox? Because, previously, I was just told that 4 wasn't enough. So, what is the minimum?

0 is the minimum. Rumors don't make the world a sandbox. Being an open area that the players choose the direction of, their goals, etc. is what makes it a sandbox. Rumors and events happening outside of the PCs is what makes a living, breathing world. A sandbox doesn't need to be living and breathing, though in my opinion it makes the sandbox better.