D&D General Sandbox and/or/vs Linear campaigns

[NN]

Its not about the hooks its about whether you can spit the hook out .

 

[payn]

Ahhhh sandboxing.

 

[TiQuinn]

Ahhhh sandboxing.

Sometimes you wonder if they're doing it on purpose...

 

[bloodtide]

Except that the description you keep giving is NOTHING like what such DMs run.

I could re post old post where someone did post something exactly like I said.....just in the "sandbox words". But it is such an up hill battle.

Once I said at least one of every player in a group will cheat....and plenty on the internet swore that in years of gaming they had never met or even heard a rumor of a player that cheats. You can't really engage with people like that.

That's where the disconnect is. The phrases you used just now--"Runs a fair and balanced game and is a fan of the players and characters"--has jack-all to do with your so-called "player-DM".

Right it is always the words. I use words descriptively. RPG posters have an alternative dictionary.

High intelligence is unrelated, and consistent universal agreement, while useful, isn't required. Clear and open communication is dramatically more important than either. Initiative and creativity are likewise more important than intelligence or unmitigated agreement.

I'm more for the natural street smarts common sense intelligence, not the "look at my paper on the wall".

As said: I don't think this is a thing for you, either. You are a very traditional DM, and I don't mean "trad" in the style-labels sense, I mean that you run things in a way loosely similar to Gary Gygax, from what I've heard. The DM is still front and center, still orchestrating and leading and prodding etc., etc., but whenever a rules-adjudication thing happens, you aim for impartiality and consistency--but your word is law, and if folks want to question it, they are welcome to depart the table. That, too, is not a style I'm particularly enthused about, but that doesn't mean it's bad or wrong, it's just not for me.

To be fair, I'm happy for players to make an appeal........outside of the game. I keep my Sundays open, so if a player wants to come over and complain that his 2nd level halfling ranger "should" have been able to jump off a cliffside a straight distance of 1,000 feet and catch a flying dragon's tail in midair, I'm open too it. Few do....but some have.

Though some of the worst are the 'fantasy ones'......I say the portal made by the elves won't cut people in half if suddenly closed and will just push them safely to one side or the other....like a safety feature. Player Bob wants to demand that foes can be chopped in half....because it is cool.

No, you misunderstand. This is the adventure for folks who like this style. You have incorrectly fixed a specific idea in your head as "this is what an adventure is", but "an adventure" is broader than that. What you consider to be a "prelude", old-school sandbox fans consider to be the prime experience. Much like, for example, I consider the gritty barely-surviving stuff to be at best the prelude to a deeper, thematic, unfolding story of a group of comrades figuring themselves and each other out while they do some cool stuff and probably save things (people, cities, nations, the world, a critical artifact, etc.)

Yea, I get some people call "shopping for new boots" an adventure......but there has to be a separation here. Players in a D&D game make action adventure characters....and then what to plant corn or drink in a tavern or some other Slice of Life stuff....and still say "wow, what an amazing adventure!". But it just does not compare to say "fighting demons in the Abyss".

But there is nothing wrong with it. Sure they make lots of silly cartoons that are "TV shows", but we sure don't consider them "real" TV shows.

 

[bloodtide]

• No required "plot"/"events", just stuff that happens as the world turns.
• PCs can do things that might be "disruptive" in a linear/railroad game, like killing authority figures or leaving town before the monster attack etc.
• The players themselves decide what things matter to them, and may change their minds about this
• The DM primarily acts as "referee" (in the old-school game sense), rather than as an author or guide
• Players are responsible for seeking out information, leads, and points of interest--the DM won't throw hooks/prompts at them
• Atypical/idiosyncratic goals, like "set up a potion shop" or "sail around the world" etc., are common or even encouraged
• Wandering monsters, infestations, and various other threats that move, grow, or change over time

1. I do see this as a big point. A lot of players hate the idea that the DM gets to tell them what to do. So the "no DM tells me what to do".
2. This....is more dependent on things. Jerk players that hate the DM can ruin any game, and there is a HUGE underbase of jerk players that join games only to ruin them. In any normal game, it is really mostly always the fault of a poor DM.
3. This sounds nice, but it is so vague. The players should care about the game....or just go home.
4. This is hard to do for a lot of groups. I know the Mythical Group will just be amazing players that run through the game.....but that is a myth. Real players do anything except that.
5. I love this one in theory. And for my good players it works out great. For the bulk of gamers, it just does not work.
6. Not really sure what each person considers such a goal. In a LOT of such cases there are better games.
7. As a 'natural' type DM, I can say most players hate this....but then I use the common sense type.

Context matters.

I do most of the above in my games.....but I doubt it would be the way you like.


For example, if you say "My character will stay in town and run his potion shop", my answer would be "well, it was nice gaming with you" and show you the door.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

I always smile when people talk about and approach roleplaying games like an engineering project.

 

[Lanefan]

For example, if you say "My character will stay in town and run his potion shop", my answer would be "well, it was nice gaming with you" and show you the door.

How about "My character will stay in town and run his potion shop while my other character joins the party for this adventure."

 

[AlViking]

How about "My character will stay in town and run his potion shop while my other character joins the party for this adventure."

I've never understood the demand of GMs that a player cannot create a new character if they want. I prefer that it makes sense in-world, but other than that it's their character.

 

[soviet]

Minor point of order: I'm fairly sure Bloodtide is describing a style they explicitly don't like. (Or, rather, their utterly mistaken strawman version of a style they don't like.) Hence why they refer to things like "player-DM" who meekly sits there and does nothing.

?

That's all I do. 'Yes Mr Player sir, thank you, I'll be quiet now'. They'd hit me otherwise.

Are you saying that's not typical?

 

[soviet]

To be fair, I'm happy for players to make an appeal........outside of the game. I keep my Sundays open, so if a player wants to come over and complain that his 2nd level halfling ranger "should" have been able to jump off a cliffside a straight distance of 1,000 feet and catch a flying dragon's tail in midair, I'm open too it. Few do....but some have.

Wait, you literally set aside time at the weekend to run an appeals court for players to contest your rulings?