Or you're also misunderstanding what people are saying.
This isn't a case of "oh, I can't control what goes on in my world" in the way some people do stupid or horrible things and say "it's what my character would do." Unless I seriously missed something, the people in this thread are talking about trying to make their world react naturally to the actions of the PCs and NPCs in it.
Am I to take it your worlds never change no matter what the PCs or NPCs do?
No, not at all. I’m surprised that’s what you took away from my post.
My point is that the world doesn’t actually react, the GM makes decisions or uses procedures to depict how the world reacts. Which may seem silly to point out, but I’ve noticed a tendency for some folks to attribute such things to the world.
As you say above, which I bolded, the GMs make their worlds react.
A GM avoiding ownership of that decision making is what I was calling BS.
We aren't going to bridge this gap. I am fine with you not seeing it our way. From my perspective, you are just reframing things here. For example, I wouldn't say we prioritize setting over characters. What I would say is characters are part of the setting so generally you are influencing the campaign through your character.
I don’t know. I realize there are several people advocating for loving world sandbox play, but not everyone seems to have the same ideas on things. But I see enough evidence that makes me think the setting is a primary focus.
The setting is often constructed ahead of play with no thought to the players or their characters. Some have even stated that thinking about players or characters during setting creation would be negative in some way.
The setting is treated as more important than the characters. Look at the orc as favored enemy discussion… no one said “hmm, okay… there are orcs in this world now” or “I’ll change the goblins to orcs” or “orcs were wiped out ages ago… but maybe some have survived” or anything like that. (To be fair, I think this player was being foolishly stubborn… but still, that impulse to place setting above character is strong).
The effort made by the GM prior to play often creates an uneven dynamic between GM and player. The word “leadership” has been introduced to the discussion. The GM’s contributions are considered paramount. The players’ ideas, if considered at all, are often secondary, though not always.
But I think this stuff:
Is extremely annoying
Well it needed to be restated.
That’s fair, within your framework. In mine, the referee exists to support the core goal of the campaign: to make the players feel like they visited a living, coherent world. That feeling of verisimilitude is what’s prioritized.
Right! Verisimilitude was one of the possibilities I suggested upthread about what was prioritized above player agency. I also mentioned plausibility and setting fidelity… and I think they’re all kind of related.
So yes, the players don’t have much meta-agency—they don’t shape the world as authors. But they do have strong character agency: their ability to change the setting is directly tied to what their character can plausibly accomplish. That’s the tradeoff, and the players know this going in, it’s not hidden or unclear.
Sure, I get that. I’ve never said that sandbox play is dissatisfying. It may be so to someone looking for a different type of play, but the same could be said for any game. Whatever game we’re talking about… from the most open to the strictest railroad… is fine if everyone’s on board with it.
But what I’m talking about when I’ve said that the living world sandbox is not as player focused as often portrayed is precisely because of the tradeoff that you mention here. The agreement to limit player agency to that of what the character can do… which is likely perfectly fine with the players… and have less say about what’s happening in the game beyond that.
This is what I’ve been saying. It’s understood by the participants… preferred by them even. There’s nothing at all wrong with it. This is why I don’t like my comments to be described as “diminishing” the style.
That said, there is an important form of meta-agency present: players, individually or as a group, are always welcome to talk with me about their overall goals. This helps guide what I prepare for upcoming sessions and ensures that their interests are handled with sufficient detail.
If that structure results in the referee being more central from your perspective, I understand. However, in my view, it’s about aligning the referee’s role with the setting-first premise, rather than spotlighting the referee personally.
I do think it makes the GM more central. It allows them to build their world entirely without concern for the characters or player desires other than the general “our characters will have adventures”. Again, nothing wrong with that. But I think that in a game that is more player-focused, the setting creation wouldn’t be so removed from the characters. That the players’ ideas would be incorporated into the setting, that character elements the players are interested in are present in play, and that the GM then uses all these ideas to help deliver an experience that is focused on the players.
Now, it seems like you allow for some of this based on your mention of “meta-agency”… that players can talk to you and make requests or talk about goals. So I think you get what I’m saying… and likely realize that what you’re talking about could go further.
But maybe not… it’s tough to say based on the description you shared.
