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

[robertsconley]

As long as no one asserts my definition is incorrect, we have nothing to discuss.

Look, irreconcilable assumptions mean we see each other’s viewpoints as incompatible, only one can be true. If I’m correct that the standard of agency is not absolute, then you’re incorrect. If you’re right that it is absolute, then I’m the one who’s wrong.

But that’s okay, because now we understand where each other is coming from, and that’s the important part, especially when it comes to something creative like running a tabletop roleplaying campaign.

Also, everything else that you said on the issue makes sense in light of what you think about the standards of agency. And I hope my view also makes sense in light of what I think about agency.

As far as I am concerned, if that's true, then that works out great because the world would be a poorer place if we all thought alike on this kind of stuff.

 

[Maxperson]

That is fair. If none of those and events of similar nature occur from GM bias (for lack of a better word), then I agree your Sandbox is player driven.

That's how sandboxes are supposed to be run. Some DMs may fall short of that and influence things directly, but in true sandbox play, what happens to the group is a result of player decisions and actions.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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


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.

That would certainly be a valid thing. Further, if just anybody with a place of power of their own could start up a counter-ritual, you can bet that Tiamat's servants would be actively hunting down places of power that could be used so. That implies you're probably going to need protection (as Tiamat's cultists are going to hunt you down), or you need a place of power they don't know exists, or you need to work with someone who has a well-protected place of power you can work from to conduct the ritual.

But maybe it's not something just anybody can do. Then you'd need to find who can do it--which might be quite hard, given you're going up against a goddess and her cultists. Or maybe the ritual components aren't just the masks (but those are a good pick)--maybe you need something that will ensure your ritual takes precedence over hers, some kind of artifact or near-priceless thing or "impossible" object (like how the chains that bound Fenrir were made from impossible things). Or maybe the ritual is "lesser" in the sense that it has to be really, really precisely timed--you can't just use it whenever, maybe it has to precisely counter her ritual right at the point hers would complete, like the ritual equivalent of classic counterspelling, where you had to cast the correct anti-spell or it was useless. Or...

You can see how there's a near-infinity of options here, most of which would be quite in keeping with still having an adventure. This just changes the tone of the adventure to "do/get/find/secure the things/help/location/information/resources we need to make our (counter-)ritual happen".

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.

I'd say that specific result is a tad game-y for my taste, but it's not out of the question. I would probably haggle a little over the details, mostly trying to aim for a ritual that makes sense and wouldn't just be instantly defied by, y'know, a god flexing their godly power. "A ritual to steal the breath of lightning from the god of evil dragons" is frankly way cooler-sounding than "reduce damage output by 50%". But as soon as you have in fact stolen her breath weapon, she's gonna be PISSED and absolutely going to hunt you down to take it back. (She is still a dragon, after all, they hate being stolen from.) So you'd probably want to deploy it at a very precise time, rather than just any old time.

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?

We would talk it out. Given the GM is the one choosing the costs, it would seem unfair to make those costs shrouded in mystery until the players did something else. I would probably handle it like this:

Spoiler: Example discussion of costs

GM: "So, you'd like to resurrect Sathi Sunscale, as she was the one who led the charge against the Dark Sorcerer and struck the final blow?"
Fangir the Wizard: "Yes. Even if she cannot kill the Sorcerer himself again, her knowledge would be invaluable."
GM: "Okay. That's a very powerful effect you're seeking--raising the long-dead, who died of natural causes. Very powerful."
Ozruk the Fighter: "Aw man, I was worried he'd say that."
GM: "But ritual effects are always possible, and you know where her tomb is located, more or less. So--costs."
Fangir: "Exactly. What will this cost us?"
GM: "Well I'm not going to make it take weeks or months, you don't quite have that kind of time. But something you know about Sathi is that she was a devout paladin of Bahamut. If she did in fact die of natural causes, she wouldn't exactly be a rarity, but it would be something celebrated by Bahamut and his faithful. She almost surely resides with her god now, in the hills and dales of Celestia. Even for a good cause, Bahamut is unlikely to demand a second life of service from one who served so well. You're going to need to convince him, and that's going to mean getting some of his faithful on your side."
Cheerily the Rogue: "...not the most difficult thing we've ever done...I think..."
Fangir: "Not that you'd know anything about why the Church of Bahamut would distrust us..."
Cheerily: "Listen, I can't help it if a few pieces of silverware fell into my coat pocket while we were dining."
GM: "Regardless, that's pretty clearly something you're going to need to do. I'm also gonna say that for a resurrection of this magnitude, to power the thing you're going to need to sacrifice something of great power, something irreplaceable. While it doesn't have to be any specific artifact...Fangir, your staff...?"
Fangir: "Absolutely the hell not."
GM: "...or Ozruk, your family blade...?"
Ozruk: "I'd rather take the Dark Sorcerer on myself."
GM: "Well then, looks like you guys need to find an artifact! And, finally, you need to conduct the ritual in the Tomb of Heroes itself. That will work perfectly fine as a place of power--it is, after all, where many heroes are buried--but as we established last time, the Dark Sorcerer's second-in-command, the Lady in White, has befouled the place with her presence. There's no way she'd allow you to just waltz in and set up shop. You'll have to deal with her before you can do this."
Ozruk: "Oh, well I kinda took that as a given, but sure."
Cheerily: "So: make nice with the god-botherers, steal--"
Fangir: [GLARE]
Cheerily: "....acquire an artifact nobody will be too broken up about sacrificing, and kill Generic Brand Elvira. Y'know. Nothing big."
GM: "I dunno. Sounds like a pretty big adventure to me!"

Here, I'm emphasizing the conversational nature of playing DW. It's meant to be, mostly, a conversation punctuated with mechanics, more or less. I don't really see any gameplay nor story benefit to concealing what these costs are. Making players jump through hoops for stuff they need is really not the PbtA way.

Noted!

I should note, the GM can (slightly) affect what the ritual does as one of the costs is "the best you can do is a lesser version"--but even then the core idea remains in place, it's just a matter of (more or less) saying that the group can only achieve a partial or limited version. As an example I've seen of that: a resurrection ritual which only temporarily revived the victim. Their time had already come, they could not truly return to the world, but they could have a little time to put their affairs in order and share information they knew etc. Sadly, in context, that recipient rather squandered what little life he had received. My character (a Paladin) ended up replacing him as de facto head bishop of the main temple of Bahamut, because...yeah he had basically sold people to vampires to keep the city from descending into madness, without ever trying to find a better way. We did find one. That kinda...messed him up. All was relatively well in the end though--we allied with a friendly faction of vampires who had learned that freely-given blood is WAY tastier and more nutritious than forcibly-taken blood, so we made an actual, above-board arrangement to have the vampires functionally become the night watch of the city, while the temple would collect offerings of blood from those thankful for the protection. (That campaign was quite fun, though sadly it ended like...two sessions before we would have wrapped everything up for a proper ending!)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Did I say everyone runs games like I do? No. Is possible to take everything relevant up to that point into consideration? I try my best to do so because I am not constrained by the rules of the game. Did I call out every single game other than D&D or say that they all work like BW? No. But even if your game is collaborative world building, it's not something I value so therefore to me it's irrelevant and even distracting from investing myself in my character.

Meanwhile in some games any move or action declaration is resolved by a roll. The player decides what challenge is going to be faced but the resolution? Even whether they can murder someone? The player loses all agency because the decision is made by a roll of the dice. Different games, even different groups using the same rules, have different goals and approaches to the game.

No approach is better or worse. I've never said my preferred version is better because I don't think there is any objective way to measure things as nebulous as agency. We can discuss the different approaches to gaming, and I can express my preferences that I don't care for a game you happen to like. But "nuance and subtlety" when it comes to valuation? It's almost always "My preferred game does X so it has more Y".

If you have read @pemerton's posts and gotten from it something so banal as that, I cannot say I believe you actually understood what he's written. Multiple times.

 

[AlViking]

If you have read @pemerton's posts and gotten from it something so banal as that, I cannot say I believe you actually understood what he's written. Multiple times.

What have I misunderstood? Examples were given where player A was able to convince B do something based on applying a rule of the game and rolling dice. In another example someone was not able to commit murder because the rules dictated that they needed to roll dice and when they failed they could not proceed. I admit I've gotten to the point of skimming walls of text because it's just regurgitation of what's been said before.

Whether the approach of those other games is good or bad comes down to personal preference.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

So things happen outside the PCs control that may affect them? Reminds me of real life, in which we are all limited by our own abilities and the world we live in.

Just like my sandbox game.

 

[Faolyn]

@pemerton

Is there a reason why you're refusing to answer my question?

You claimed that BW was better than D&D because it could do scenes that were intimate, high stakes, and have heft, and cited a time when PC 1 tried to convince PC 2 to mend his armor.

If this attempt was nothing more than a die roll or two, how was it intimate, high stakes, or have any heft? It's literally just a die roll! That's arguably the most boring way possible to resolve a social interaction!

If this attempt involved Player 1 and Player 2 actually roleplaying this discussion, using actual words, and the dice were just there to see if Player 1's words were convincing, then how is this any different from D&D or any other RPG that has persuasion skills in it?

 

[Faolyn]

If you have read @pemerton's posts and gotten from it something so banal as that, I cannot say I believe you actually understood what he's written. Multiple times.

I have read pemerton's posts multiple times. He has, on multiple occasions, refused to say whether or not an argument/conversation re: mending armor was made via roleplay or via rolling the dice.

Therefore, we can only assume that the examples given actually were banal and made with nothing more than rolling dice.

 

[thefutilist]

Sure. First off, assume we're talking about my Majestic Wilderlands. Next, realize that while I wrote a book on one aspect of what I do, I didn't cover everything, and I could talk for hours on this stuff. So if it doesn't seem like I covered something, ask questions.

First,
While "opening a shelter for stray dogs" is in the realm of unlikely but plausible, "going to a city they haven't been to" is highly implausible. The players know they have zero social connections, little information, and thus the work they'll have to do is considerably more compared to places they do know and have connections in.

But hey, let's say they decide to do that. Not only that,let's also put on the table that they're a bunch of ex-mercenaries who managed to capture a king and sold his ransom to the ruling prince of the realm they live in. So, funding and social permission are not a problem.

Incidentally, that describes what happened in one of my campaigns. Specifically, these folks:
GURPS Majestic Wilderlands Update #1

However, instead of a stray dog shelter, they chose to build an inn.

The overview of the campaign is described in these two posts. I never got around to writing the third, but that’s okay because it dovetails into the answer to your question:

The Nomar Campaign Part 1
The Nomar Campaign Part 2



If it's from scratch, basically what I described in How to Make a Fantasy Sandbox.

For the dog shelter in the city, I’d look at whatever notes I have on the city and start at Step 25:
A Fantasy Sandbox in Detail Part XVII

After that, I have enough sketched out about the city to handle the party going there and doing the research needed to figure out how to set up a dog shelter. Beyond that, what gets fleshed out depends on player choices. I use the techniques I outlined in How to Make a Fantasy Sandbox plus a stack of aides and random tables I cobbled together from Harn, Ars Magica, D&D, Judges Guild, and my own creations.

When I was younger, I would create most of it based on what I thought was plausible, interesting for the party, and consistent with my worldbuilding. But for the past two decades, I’ve used random tables to get me thinking outside the box about what could plausibly exist in a given place.

The only bias is that I keep tabs on what interests the players. So the most detailed prep goes into the stuff I know various players will go for first. For example, in my current campaign, one of the more proactive players is a member of the Cult of Kalis, a blood goddess of assassination. So I make sure any prep I do for wherever the party is headed includes notes on the Claws of Kalis (if any) in the area. Likewise, there's an elven merchant in the group, so I make sure I have notes on local merchants and trade opportunities,because I know he'll be looking for them.


This stems from an observation I had while traveling to major cities for special technical assignments at the manufacturing company I work for. In Chicago, New York, Pittsburgh,walking around surrounded by signs and hundreds of people,what catches my eye? The game store on 33rd Street. Never mind the hardware and lock store on the left or whatever is behind building #13 on the right. The game store is what I focus on.

View attachment 405375
And players do the exact same thing (most of the time) when visiting a setting pretending to be characters having adventures. When the day comes that a player decides on the spot to open the door to Admore Hardware & Lock Co. or explore #13 33rd Street, then I’ll whip out my dice, make a couple of rolls, and figure it out.


In the case of the Nomar Campaign, the players went to Dorn, the capital of the Principality of Nomar, and spoke to Prince Artos' Chancellor. They showed him the writ Arto gave them, collected some of the reward in coin and the rest as a promissory note. The Chancellor sent them to his clerk, who handled land claims. They picked out the parcel they wanted to use,which was the crossroads marked with an “N” on this map:

View attachment 405374
Each Hex = 12.5 miles or 5 leagues or 5 hours of walking across level ground.

Why an inn? You’ll have to ask the players,Delvin, Aeron, Durgo, and Kermit,who were still playing. Cei Kerac and Henry Keifer's players dropped out due to real-life commitments. The remaining players hashed it out among themselves before going to Dorn to present the writ. They batted around a few ideas until someone said, “How about building an inn?” That idea gained traction, and everyone voted yes.

Why the crossroads? That was straightforward. There was nothing there, and it would have more traffic than anywhere else in the Principality. Plus, the land belonged to the Prince, so it was his to give.

Once that was all settled, I ended the session a bit early and spent the following week fleshing out my notes on Oxcross, Bellsdale, the Plain of Cairns, and Pineshow.


Not familiar with sandrasan. So I can't answer that question. As to what I do, you can ask further questions like you have above. As well as look on my blog. Also if you have something that links to sandrasan I will take a look.

Bat in the Attic

A blog on 40 years of gaming and Sandbox Fantasy.

batintheattic.blogspot.com

I consolidated my Managing Sandbox Campaign posts here

Managing Sandbox Campaign Articles

This is a master index of all my posts on managing Sandbox Campaigns. How to Make a Fantasy Sandbox Note that at the bottom of the post ar...

batintheattic.blogspot.com

I would look at the ones that talk about building a Bag of Stuff

I will get around to doing the same for my world building posts after launching my Majestic Fantasy Realm KS.

I also I have bunch of free downloads that are a diverse collection of finished and semi-finished works.

Stuff in the Attic

h2 style="text-align: center;"> Stuff in the Attic Box of Majestic Fantasy Stuff Majestic Fantasy Basic Rules Version 10 Basic Rules for...

batintheattic.blogspot.com

One thing I would using for building the city the stray dog party is heading too is my Fantasy Demographics article.

https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/Fantasy%20Demographics%20Version%201.pdf

Plus my Building a Feudal Setting series.

Bat in the Attic

A blog on 40 years of gaming and Sandbox Fantasy.

batintheattic.blogspot.com

Like I said above feel free to ask further questions.

Great post. That clears a lot of stuff up and really shows how you do things.



On sandrasan's site she has a load of texts under the roleplaying section. These are some of the more relevant.

A lot of this might be interesting to Narrativists as well, she's a good theorist.



How she generates content

Blorb Principles

idiomdrottning.org

Quick note on content generation and game spaces

The Chasm Width Problem

idiomdrottning.org

A character in a living world?

Character-tailored play

idiomdrottning.org

What content?

In a cloud of wallpaper, bones of salience

idiomdrottning.org

information transparency or not (very relevant to the current conversation)

Transparency of Method

idiomdrottning.org

Radically transparent DM-ing

idiomdrottning.org

No myth, realism and Blorb (kind of relevant to the conversation)

Realism and blorb

idiomdrottning.org

A brief practical example of a bit of prep

[DM] Prep toolbox? New Tepest.

idiomdrottning.org

 

[hawkeyefan]

There are two major types. Your type which focuses on the player control over the fiction, and my kind which focuses on the player having meaningful control over what his PC says and does. Those are not the same kind of agency.

No, there's only one type of agency we're talking about. It's that of the player playing the game. Player agency.

It's about the player understanding and knowing the rules and processes of play to make decisions that affect play and allow them to achieve the goals of play.

This is how players of any game exercise agency.

I think here you're (maybe intentionally?) conflating "the ability to make meaningful choices" with "the ability to make accurate choices". They are not the same...unless you're suggesting in corollary that the players should never be able to make a wrong or inaccurate choice, at which point I pull the "stop" cord so I can get off the bus.

Not exactly, no. Meaningful choices are needed, yes, but it's not about accurate choices. It's about accurate information. You cannot make a meaningful choice when you're not accurately informed.

Now, there are different ways that players may wind up not being informed. If it's through some failing on their part, then that's one thing. If information that could be available to them is simply withheld by the GM, then that's a GM denying them information. That's undermining agency.

In other words, if the players fail in some way, it should be because of a mistake they made, or because the dice didn't go their way... it shouldn't be because the GM decided, for whatever reason, that they didn't have all the information to make a decision.

With this I agree.

However there comes a point (and maybe I've crossed it myself now and then, though I try not to) where posting opinions crosses into what comes across as evangelizing, which will get pushback from me in any milieu.

No one's evangelizing. And honestly, the idea that a small group of people who openly and clearly play a variety of games is more likely to evangelize than the posters who clearly play one game or one type of game only is just misguided.

So realism isn't essential to sandbox, it is a common feature. It is also not more of a priority than agency when it does exist. And one of its main aims is the enhancement of agency, not its limitation. You are putting two things into conflict that generally are not in conflict because you introduced a strange idea about agency being limited when players don't have more access to information (even if it makes total sense they wouldn't have said information). Again, that isn't a limit on agency when you are talking about their ability to act in the world their characters inhabit and their ability to make meaningful choices (given them too much information can even interfere with the latter).

Well, I said that it was more plausibility. I think consistency also came up earlier in the thread. And you advocated for a GM choosing to withhold information from the players if he felt it was appropriate... information that is up to him to share or not. You said you trusted your GM with these decisions, and that you'd prefer to be immersed in your character rather than be given knowledge that your character may not have.

That's placing priority on things other than player agency.

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 not about how the setting or the fiction is controlled. It's more about how the game is played. Is it played by informed players? Or is it played blindly in some way?

I've also not said that the living world sandbox is without agency... I've said that I don't think it's as focused on it as is often stated.