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

[AnotherGuy]

An example where the player has more direct input would be the Wizard's Ritual move, which I have genericized (don't have any Wizards in the party at present, but if someone decided to play one, I'd replace it with something appropriate, or make Wizards really really good at it, or in some other way compensate them for the loss of that move, since it really is a lovely thing to have.) Here's the Ritual move:

Ritual​

When you draw on a place of power to create a magical effect, tell the GM what you’re trying to achieve. Ritual effects are always possible, but the GM will give you one to four of the following conditions:

It’s going to take days/weeks/months.
First you must ______________________.
You’ll need help from ______________________.
It will require a lot of money
The best you can do is a lesser version, unreliable and limited
You and your allies will risk danger from ______________________.
You’ll have to disenchant ______________________ to do it.

I was directed to this and the Paladin's Quest by @Manbearcat , which I incorporated for 2 instances in my game. Very useful.

Note what it says there: Ritual effects are always possible. That's a hard, binding rule on me as GM. I am not allowed to tell the players they simply cannot achieve a ritual effect, unless doing so would grossly violate reason/sense/etc. (we are presuming people participating in good faith).

This is interesting. I would imagine D&D players adopting such a mechanic would test its limits.
For instance if one dares to run the Tyranny of Dragons AP with such a mechanic in place where the Cult of the Dragon is summoning Tiamat and you have Ritual effects are always possible on the table what would stop say the party from trying to create and perform a ritual whereby they stop the Cult of the Dragon's ritual from working. Using the fiction of the AP whereby at least 2 dragon masks are required in the ritual for the summoning of Tiamat, I would probably declare the party would require, at the very least, the majority of the dragons masks to overcome the Cult's ritual. I'm just thinking out aloud.

They did manage to obtain the blue dragon mask and they did research to find out what they could do with it and I let them know that they could reduce the blue dragon's damage output (bite, breath weapon) by 50%. Using this mechanic, I would NOT be the one shaping the effect of the ritual. i.e. They could be declaring that they were formulating a ritual that effectively would make the blue dragon head of Tiamat unable to use its breath weapon right? And realising all other requirements for the ritual, unless they provided complications/setbacks or failures via the die roll I would be bound by their ritual wish.

So, say they want to resurrect a long-dead champion of the kingdom, so she can fight off the evil sorcerer she slew long ago (hence "champion of the kingdom"). That's a pretty damn powerful effect, to restore life and vigor to someone who died, presumably of natural causes, centuries ago. So maybe I say they'll need help from the Church of Bahamut (which they aren't on great terms with because this group isn't at all shy about some skullduggery), they'll risk danger from the Sorcerer's second-in-command who has taken up residence inside the hero's tomb, and they'll have to make a great sacrifice to show Bahamut that he should relinquish this honorable soul back to the land of the living for one final deed of derring-do (read: disenchant something powerful and personally valuable, such as the Fighter's ancestral blade or the Wizard's staff of power.)

Would they know the bolded part immediately or would they need to Sprout Lore, go on a quest or do some investigating to discover they needed the Church of Bahamut? I mean practically how does that information play out in DW?

Here, the players have 100% control over what the ritual itself accomplishes. I can't touch that. But I can set costs

Noted!

 

[Maxperson]

Jokes aside though I feel that you have created your own categories here and that you're just assuming everyone buys into those categories. This might be a problem when others see agency as meaning just one thing or as meaning different things at different times in relation to what is being discussed. If you don't get buy in to your definitions of a term, and decide to argue as if you still have this buy in, communication is soon to break down.

If you google agency in an RPG, you end up with two primary types being discussed. Player and character agency. It seems there's enough buy in that those two show up all over the place.

 

[Maxperson]

COMPONENTS	RAILROAD	LINEAR	SANDBOX	PbtA
Driving Force	GM	GM	GM (via Setting) / Players	Players
Mechanics	GM Facing	GM Facing	GM Facing	Player Facing
Character Concepts	Not Applicable	Colour	GM Dependent	Critical
Setting Importance	Primary	Primary	Primary	Secondary
Realism Input	GM	GM/Mechanics	GM/Mechanics	Mechanics
Primary Goals	Story Goals only	Story Goals	Exploration / Story Goals	Character Goals
Player Agency	None	Little-Some	Some-Greater	Greater

This is how I see it in the very general sense, having not played any PbtA myself and only being exposed to this forum and the little I have read online. So I'm happy to be corrected. Each one of us may likely play things and judge things a little differently to the above, according to how we run things at our respective tables. And it varies from game to game and system to system.

There are probably many more components that should be added, maybe some that should be excluded or corrected - I'm certainly (given my lack of RPG experience) poor at defining our hobby which is best suited for the likes of @Manbearcat.

Now I do not think it's necessary to quibble about player agency given that many of the concerns shared amongst persons who run sandbox games is that player facing mechanics and players having some authorial agency spoils/lessens the immersive experience they wish to create and that is a fair argument. The GM is testing the player against the 'living' setting (GMPC) and there will be unknowns (and that is fine).
So does a PbtA have more player agency? I say of course, given that the player is more aware of the engine at play and by the limitations placed on the GM by the system.

On the other hand, PbtA GMs argue their experience is more immersive, despite the above (player knowledge), because of the necessary tensions created and questions being answered through the fiction which are the primary goals of the system and thus elevate the story being fleshed out and that too is a fair argument.
I feel the GM is also testing the player, but in a much different way to sandbox.
Will the character change going through the crucible and how?

Anyways, this is my two cents on this mammoth of a thread.

The DM can't drive a sandbox or it isn't a sandbox. If the players don't drive things, nothing happens.

 

[Campbell]

Let's avoid agency because it is a contentious term. Is the following objectionable:

• Burning Wheel offers slightly less autonomy (in comparison to a Living World Sandbox) because it expects players to engage with scenes framed by the GM (which are related to the premise they defined for their characters). Although here we can differentiate between group autonomy and individual autonomy, where generally autonomy from the group will usually be discouraged in Living World Sandbox whereas Burning Wheel encourages you to act as an individual.
• Burning Wheel offers more teeth/impact because based on its lack of secret backstory affecting resolution, objective DCs (based on factors that can be determined solely based on established fiction) and intent and task resolution players always have a firm grasp of what is required to achieve the change they are looking for.
• Burning Wheel offers substantially more content authority to players because their characters expressed beliefs become the focus of play.

I feel that these are sufficiently neutral terms.

 

[Maxperson]

In AP play, the players have meaningful control over what their PCs say and do. Does that mean there's nothing to be said about the difference of player agency between AP play and a sandbox?

I've already said as much directly to you in post #6,111, so I'm not sure why you are asking me again. The only difference is that in a linear game, the players sign on to go through the AP and they exercise their agency within that social contract. In a sandbox game that particular social contract isn't there. In both, though, the players have full control over what their characters say and do.

 

[AnotherGuy]

The DM can't drive a sandbox or it isn't a sandbox. If the players don't drive things, nothing happens.

The way I see it is the setting around them changes due to certain events happening, example a bunch of APs/modules are happening in the background and their unfolding stories could affect the direction and quests taken up by the PCs.
How many people run sandbox this way, I dunno - I do, so you may have a point if you believe it is more common for people to run static grid exploration play.

I tend to believe the setting is a major influence in sandbox - it is the GM stories (published or otherwise) and the GMs npcs with motives, rumours and gossip.

 

[Maxperson]

Cue in GURPS Discworld which can be run as a sandbox campaign (any type).

View attachment 405418

Or Xanth, or any other game where realism has been tossed out of the window.

 

[robertsconley]

I feel that these are sufficiently neutral terms.

While I appreciate this, the only path forward is just to take the time to spell out what one means by X when discussing it. Doesn't have to be an essay, but enough to give the reader the general gist.

Otherwise, this will result, and you will end up remaining frustrated.

 

[TwoSix]

This is kind of our point, the language of the debate is being framed to make everything about player and GM power dynamics over how the setting/or ‘the fiction’ is controlled. You are painting a high agency style out of the conversation (sandbox) with language . That is how you know something is wrong with the definition of terms: something that is one of the highest agency adventures structure is being framed as low agency purely by definitions

It's being framed that way because that's what matters, certainly from my personal perspective, where trad play is just one option among many.

Is a trad sandbox higher player agency than a trad adventure module? Absolutely. But there's a ceiling to the amount of authority possible to be exercised by the players when the GM asserts final authority over resolution.

That level of player agency might be sufficient for the creative needs of a lot of play paradigms, but it can't logically be considered close to maximal.

Sandboxes are a ton of agency if the frame of reference is purely "trad play"; when you zoom out to look at TTRPG play more broadly, or just games in general, those distinctions that appear large when zoomed in tend to fade away.

It's sort of like you see a ton of threads around here that are like: "OMG 5.5 changed everything, it's a whole new edition, how can I make them compatible?!" And if you're immersed in the 5e game framework, I imagine those changes do seem large and compelling.

I've run 5e without any classes at all. I'm running a 5e game where I removed proficiency bonus and made my own class system. From my personal "just keep my toes dipped into 5e" reference point, the 5.5 changes barely register. It's all perspective.

 

[robertsconley]

And what is even more crazy about the whole argument from more information being used is it wasn't just used to say sandboxes had less agency, it was used to say redefine the OSR too. This is why people are getting pissed off. Terms are being changed up to almost rewrite the history of these devlopments in the hobby

Luckily the OSR has a lot of experience in ignoring what the rest of the hobby expects them to do or how it tries to define them.