So what is a sandbox game anyway?

[OldTrees1]

I'm not even talking about adhering to the standard D&D rules, guys. I am talking about scenarios where there could be anything of the DM's choosing behind a door. Monsters, traps, treasure, a fair maiden. They can choose how to have their NPCs respond, short of diplomancer abuse. They can either let you buy that diamond to resurrect your friend, or perhaps some thief happened to steal the last one. What monsters you encounter on a journey, if they bother using a random encounter table, if they even bother throwing an encounter at you at all is all up to the DM.

Now, what if the DM was doing their best to be fair and make the most logical outcomes from some players' actions, but they still thought something was unfair, like events were being manipulated? This could arise from a number of factors they simply don't know.. because they simply aren't the all-knowing DM, or it could just be paranoia.

Now consider a DM that is pretty deadset on manipulating the party into taking a certain set of actions... and that party is totally oblivious to that manipulation, thinking it's the best sandbox ever?

As I said, it's the illusion of meaningful choice that makes a sandbox. Not that games don't exist, or players don't exist, or the concept of choices don't exist.

Again, if it is still an illusion then the DM has not created a sandbox yet. Instead the DM has to exercise their own power over themselves to grant the PCs the non illusionary choices that make up the foundation of a sandbox.

If the DM has the power to make an illusionary choice, they also have the power to make a non illusionary choice (aka a real choice which is a prerequisite for a choice to be meaningful) because they are the only obstacle between a choice being illusionary or meaningful.

I know this is DMing 101 but:
When I DM I do this really simple thing. Before the Players respond to a choice I gave them, I decide to respect and run with their choice. *ABRA KADABRA ALAKAZAM* Suddenly when the Players make their choice, the outcomes flow from that choice rather than me having absolute control over the outcome.

[Mr Beer]

Players have exactly as much power in a D&D game as they do in a S&M dungeon: the safe word.

That threat of leaving entirely is the only leverage they have. I wouldn't say that's a lot of power. It's a small bargaining tool, to try and get an experience you want while still staying in the game.

With normal people involved, they have the leverage of talking to the DM, adult to adult.

If one of my players wants something, I will try to accommodate them. If the group as a whole doesn't like what I'm doing, I'm definitely going to make changes. Kind of ruins the whole point, if I, metaphorically speaking, keep whipping them until they scream out the safe word.

[Boci]

Right...

Step one: the players give the DM all the power.

Step two: the DM has all the power.

If power was given to you, you don't have absolute power. What was given can be taken away.

Except in a complicated game like D&D with a lot of moving parts, you can't do that sort of thing after 1st level or so. It get really hard at say 5th level or so to say ''how much'' damage a single attack can do.

And this does not even touch on optimization...

Regardless of level and optimization, players can still say "no, that's BS, we're not playing along," to the DM.

[Florian]

@OldTrees1:

Sorry, I wasn't very clear in my reply to you. What I was trying to say is that in a traditional game, the gm continually wears three different hats as part of the exchange of power:

1 - Creator: The power to create the game world is really absolute and is completely independent of the players.
2 - Judge/Arbiter: The power to deal with, handle and resolve to mechanics/rules level of a game is important and will most likely be centralized on the gm by default.
3 - Storyteller/Facilitator: This is the contested point we're all talking about here and whether shifting that hat over to the players will be the defining factor of a sandbox.

The thing with the "illusion" mainly stems the passive influence (1) will have on (3) when it comes to facilitating emergent play. For example, the choice to heavily borrow some Lovecraft stuff and include that in your basic fantasy game world, will basically pre-set the course of interaction when the players encounter it.

@Pleh:

Whether or not depends on what exactly we're talking about. More traditional game with the clear split between players/characters and gm/world are based on a vastly different power exchange and accompanying workload and responsibility than, say, systems that are aimed towards being gm-less.

[Pleh]

Right...

Step one: the players give the DM all the power.

Step two: the DM has all the power.

More like

Step one: the players give the DM permission.

Step two: the DM acts under the authority granted by the players

Optional, Step three: the players revoke the permission granted to the DM if they overstep their bounds.

The DM never has power, only permission and the illusion of control.

[Florian]

More like:

Step 1: Everyone understands the nature of what a game is and to participate means to accept to play by the rules of the game.

Step 2: The rules of the game are (most often, see stuff like house rules) codified in a manual and may form a system. This includes distribution and transfer of power, duties, privileges and so on.

Step 3: The nature of (most, traditional) TTRPGs means that the mechanics are by default incomplete and need at least one participant to act as part of the system, with a special role and function that is vastly different from those of the other participants.

Step 4: Understanding this means to accept that this one participant acts as an agent of the rules of the game, something that all participants opted to be voluntarily bound by.

[Nifft]

A sandbox game is a role-playing game, and all RPGs are illusions.

In this illusion of a game, the game master and the other players have the illusion of a conversation.

The illusory rules of this illusory game serve as a guide for the illusion of a conversation, giving the illusion of mutual expectations and shared terminology.

[Pleh]

More like:

Step 1: Everyone understands the nature of what a game is and to participate means to accept to play by the rules of the game.

Step 2: The rules of the game are (most often, see stuff like house rules) codified in a manual and may form a system. This includes distribution and transfer of power, duties, privileges and so on.

Step 3: The nature of (most, traditional) TTRPGs means that the mechanics are by default incomplete and need at least one participant to act as part of the system, with a special role and function that is vastly different from those of the other participants.

Step 4: Understanding this means to accept that this one participant acts as an agent of the rules of the game, something that all participants opted to be voluntarily bound by.

This still says that DMs only have as much power as the rule system gives them. The rule system is given power by the players opting to participate.

The power comes from player permission.

Any sense of DM control is delusional as it is merely a product of player permission and the limits of what the rules allow a DM to do.

[Segev]

An illusory choice is one where the choice itself is an illusion. There really never was a choice; there was just a chance for the person being presented a choice to express one. The consequences will be the same no matter what, with (at best) a slightly different justification for how it got there.

A real choice is one where the consequences actually differ based on the choice, and do so in a meaningful way. The person presented the choice really does determine what the outcome will be by making the choice. Or at least, heavily influences it.

A meaningful choice first has to be real, and then has to provide the choice-maker enough information about each option that he can make some prediction about the consequences. Maybe not a perfect one, but it should have at least some clue. "I don't want to fight ogres, so I won't take Ogre Trail," for example, would at a minimum let him avoid the multiple ogre encounters on Ogre Trail. The adventurer who wants to face ogres and chooses Ogre Trail, though, should definitely get to face ogres, even if he also winds up facing their Hill Giant enforcer and his pet green dragon.


Whether the choice is illusory or real has nothing to do with whether the events are fictional or not.

You can have an illusory choice in real life: a jerk cop pulls you over and offers you a choice of getting arrested for the cocaine he just dropped into your car, or of giving him the cocaine back and bribing him to leave you alone. If you take option 1, you get arrested and he loots your wallet of all your cash and now you have have his-word-against-yours and he impounds your car in civil asset forfeiture. If you take option 2, he demands all the money in your wallet as the bribe, then arrests you for attempting to bribe an officer and seizes your car in civil asset forfeiture for the cocaine he "found" in it.

This is something that could happen in real life, and if it did, it would be non-fiction. But the choice would still be illusory.


So, stop conflating illusory choices and fictional scenarios; they are not the same thing. A fictional scenario can have non-illusory choices.

[Knaight]

This is something that could happen in real life, and if it did, it would be non-fiction. But the choice would still be illusory.

Where "could happen" translates to "happens pretty routinely", and "if it did" translates to "when it does", with "would be" becoming "is".

[Segev]

Where "could happen" translates to "happens pretty routinely", and "if it did" translates to "when it does", with "would be" becoming "is".

Perhaps, but I'd rather not argue one way or t'other on the commonality of it happening IRL, as that can get into politics. I think we can all agree that it's an egregious, illusory choice, which is all I was trying to get across.

[Quertus]

As I said, it's the illusion of meaningful choice that makes a sandbox. Not that games don't exist, or players don't exist, or the concept of choices don't exist.

No. The actual meaningful choice makes a sandbox. The illusion makes something else.

Imagine if the content writer can write all the content, hand it to the rules arbiter - along with copies in sealed envelopes to all the players - and the rules arbiter runs the game according to the content and the rules. Afterwards, the players open the envelopes. If the players do not agree that the world as presented matches the contents of their envelopes, then it's probably not a sandbox.

Imagine further that there's a video camera recording the GM's rolls. Every time that the GM makes a ruling, he has to record that ruling, like "there's a 50% chance that all the diamonds have been stolen when the party decides to resurrect their fallen ally", so that every die roll and every choice are accounted for. If these rulings are egregiously unrealistic or inconsistent, you probably don't have a sandbox.

More like

Step one: the players give the DM permission.

Step two: the DM acts under the authority granted by the players

Optional, Step three: the players revoke the permission granted to the DM if they overstep their bounds.

The DM never has power, only permission and the illusion of control.

So much this. One of the secrets of leadership is that one does not have power, only permission.

More like:

Step 1: Everyone understands the nature of what a game is and to participate means to accept to play by the rules of the game.

Step 2: The rules of the game are (most often, see stuff like house rules) codified in a manual and may form a system. This includes distribution and transfer of power, duties, privileges and so on.

Step 3: The nature of (most, traditional) TTRPGs means that the mechanics are by default incomplete and need at least one participant to act as part of the system, with a special role and function that is vastly different from those of the other participants.

Step 4: Understanding this means to accept that this one participant acts as an agent of the rules of the game, something that all participants opted to be voluntarily bound by.

So long as the banker is following the rules, and letting the game decide how much I owe for landing on Park Place. If they overstep their bounds, and try to control things outside their designated preview, then they have failed to abide by the agreed upon rules.

A sandbox game is a role-playing game, and all RPGs are illusions.

In this illusion of a game, the game master and the other players have the illusion of a conversation.

The illusory rules of this illusory game serve as a guide for the illusion of a conversation, giving the illusion of mutual expectations and shared terminology.

Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. As to that which I perceive? It may all be an illusion. But my experiences are real.

Further, just as it is possible that I am a brain in a jar, it is also technically possible that some sufficiently powerful being ("God") is creating the worlds of my imagination. Thus, it is technically possible that the game is more real than "reality", in a very real sense.

[KorvinStarmast]

Only idiots fail to understand context.

Words can be good or bad depending on the context.

If talking about the outcome of a roulette game, random is not a bad word.

If talking about the decisions made by a DM in a game of D&D, random is a bad word.

Context matters.

That's overly broad, and missing some context.

If talking about the decisions made by a DM in a game of D&D, random can become a bad word.

[WindStruck]

An illusory choice is one where the choice itself is an illusion. There really never was a choice; there was just a chance for the person being presented a choice to express one. The consequences will be the same no matter what, with (at best) a slightly different justification for how it got there.

A real choice is one where the consequences actually differ based on the choice, and do so in a meaningful way. The person presented the choice really does determine what the outcome will be by making the choice. Or at least, heavily influences it.

A meaningful choice first has to be real, and then has to provide the choice-maker enough information about each option that he can make some prediction about the consequences. Maybe not a perfect one, but it should have at least some clue. "I don't want to fight ogres, so I won't take Ogre Trail," for example, would at a minimum let him avoid the multiple ogre encounters on Ogre Trail. The adventurer who wants to face ogres and chooses Ogre Trail, though, should definitely get to face ogres, even if he also winds up facing their Hill Giant enforcer and his pet green dragon.


Whether the choice is illusory or real has nothing to do with whether the events are fictional or not.

You can have an illusory choice in real life: a jerk cop pulls you over and offers you a choice of getting arrested for the cocaine he just dropped into your car, or of giving him the cocaine back and bribing him to leave you alone. If you take option 1, you get arrested and he loots your wallet of all your cash and now you have have his-word-against-yours and he impounds your car in civil asset forfeiture. If you take option 2, he demands all the money in your wallet as the bribe, then arrests you for attempting to bribe an officer and seizes your car in civil asset forfeiture for the cocaine he "found" in it.

This is something that could happen in real life, and if it did, it would be non-fiction. But the choice would still be illusory.


So, stop conflating illusory choices and fictional scenarios; they are not the same thing. A fictional scenario can have non-illusory choices.

No. The actual meaningful choice makes a sandbox. The illusion makes something else.

Imagine if the content writer can write all the content, hand it to the rules arbiter - along with copies in sealed envelopes to all the players - and the rules arbiter runs the game according to the content and the rules. Afterwards, the players open the envelopes. If the players do not agree that the world as presented matches the contents of their envelopes, then it's probably not a sandbox.

Imagine further that there's a video camera recording the GM's rolls. Every time that the GM makes a ruling, he has to record that ruling, like "there's a 50% chance that all the diamonds have been stolen when the party decides to resurrect their fallen ally", so that every die roll and every choice are accounted for. If these rulings are egregiously unrealistic or inconsistent, you probably don't have a sandbox.



So much this. One of the secrets of leadership is that one does not have power, only permission.



So long as the banker is following the rules, and letting the game decide how much I owe for landing on Park Place. If they overstep their bounds, and try to control things outside their designated preview, then they have failed to abide by the agreed upon rules.



Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. As to that which I perceive? It may all be an illusion. But my experiences are real.

Further, just as it is possible that I am a brain in a jar, it is also technically possible that some sufficiently powerful being ("God") is creating the worlds of my imagination. Thus, it is technically possible that the game is more real than "reality", in a very real sense.

Ok, just want to quote you guys, thus clogging up the space on this page more, and say I think you're right.

That's one idiot on the internet whose mind you managed to change. Congratulations.

[kyoryu]

...

I just wanted to say I really admired your .sig. It's almost as correct and good-looking as 2D8HP.

[2D8HP]

...almost as correct and good-looking as 2D8HP.

2D8HP isn't feeling very correct right now (I'm sure it will pass), as 2D8HP is realizing that he can't long sustain role-playing a PC that's has inclinations that are too different from my own.

Strangely, as a DM portraying diverse NPC's is dead easy, I'm guessing that the difference is how long I have to stay in-character.

As a DM I can do a vile evil NPC, but I tried an evil PC in an "evil campaign", and I can't keep it up, and no matter what my PC is supposed to be they usually turn into a sterotypical Dwarf (because that's closer to me) no matter what I'm playing.

I just didn't identify with NPC's as much as I do with PC's, and that thought brings to mind the thread topic:

Players feel invested in their PC's decisions, and they want those decisions to matter.

I just don't care about "illusionism" or "quantum ogres", but I do care about feeling "Locked into Lameness"

...Locked into Lameness "Your forced to fight a conga-line of antagonists in an arena for an audience, and healing between bouts is provided to drive home the utter pointlesssness of your battles.", is a "railroad"...

Remember when Roy and Belkar were captured and made into gladiators?

Don't do that.

Ever.

I don't care if it's a "Trope", players will suicide their PC's before submitting to capture (or they'll just quit the game) most every time.

"But The Gamesters of Triskelion episode of Star Trek was really cool".

No it wasn't.

"But Gladiator..."

No.

Don't do it.

Learn from The Cage:

CAPTAIN PIKE: Make contact, Number One.

NUMBER ONE: They kept us from seeing this, too. We cut through and never knew it. Captain.
(The communicator isn't working)

MAGISTRATE: As you see, your attempt to escape accomplished nothing.

PIKE: I want to contact our ship.

MAGISTRATE: You are now on the surface where we wished you to be. With the female of your choice, you will now begin carefully guided lives.

PIKE: And start by burying you?

MAGISTRATE: That is your choice. To help you reclaim the planet's surface, our zoological gardens will furnish a variety of plant life.

PIKE: Look, I'll make a deal with you. You and your life for the lives of these two Earth women.

MAGISTRATE: Since our lifespan is many times yours, we have time to evolve you into a society trained to serve as artisans, technicians.

PIKE: Do you understand what I'm saying? You give me proof that our ship is all right, send these two back, and I'll stay with Vina.
(Number One sets her laser pistol to overload)

ONE: It's wrong to create a whole race of humans to live as slaves.

MAGISTRATE: Is this a deception? Do you intend to destroy yourselves?

VINA: What is that?

PIKE: The weapon is building up an overload. A force chamber explosion. You still have time to get underground. Well, go on! (pushes Vina away) Just to show you how primitive humans are, Talosian, you go with her.

VINA: If, if you all think it's this important, then I can't go either. I suppose if they have one human being, they might try again.
(More Talosians arrive)

PIKE: Wait.
(Number One turns off the pistol)

TALOSIAN: Their method of storing records is crude and consumed much time. Are you prepared to assimilate it?
(The Magistrate nods, and the veins on his head throb)

MAGISTRATE: We had not believed this possible. The customs and history of your race show a unique hatred of captivity. Even when it's pleasant and benevolent, you prefer death. This makes you too violent and dangerous a species for our needs.

VINA: He means that they can't use you. You're free to go back to the ship.

PIKE: And that's it? No apologies? You captured one of us, threatened all of us.

TALOSIAN: Your unsuitability has condemned the Talosian race to eventual death. Is this not sufficient?

MAGISTRATE: No other specimen has shown your adaptability. You were our last hope.

PIKE: But wouldn't some form of trade, mutual co-operation?

MAGISTRATE: Your race would learn our power of illusion and destroy itself too.

ONE: Captain, we have transporter control now.

PIKE: Let's get back to the ship.

No "forced to fight" scenarios.

EVER!!!

[Boci]

I don't care if it's a "Trope", players will suicide their PC's before submitting to capture (or they'll just quit the game) most every time.

Not in my expirience. Players may not like being captured, but they won't suicide and they certainly won't quit the game over it. Depending on the circamstance they may even enjoy being captured, understanding that part of being in a living world not custom designed for them is that they will sometimes be outmatched.

[Darth Ultron]

If power was given to you, you don't have absolute power. What was given can be taken away.

Regardless of level and optimization, players can still say "no, that's BS, we're not playing along," to the DM.

True, but I did not use the word ''absolute''...

Also True: players can always be Jerks and idiots. Like player Bob has his character cast charm person on an npc, and it does not work. Bob flips out and demands the spell work...but there are plenty of ways in the rules for it not to work.

More like:

Sounds good to me.

The power comes from player permission.

Any sense of DM control is delusional as it is merely a product of player permission and the limits of what the rules allow a DM to do.

The players give up all their power...except the ''take their toys and go home'' power.

Not in my expirience. Players may not like being captured, but they won't suicide and they certainly won't quit the game over it. Depending on the circamstance they may even enjoy being captured, understanding that part of being in a living world not custom designed for them is that they will sometimes be outmatched.

I find it common enough.

A Jerk player will have their character get captured then they will just kill the character and leave the game.

[JNAProductions]

DU, most of us play with people that aren't enormous tools. And if every single player you encounter is such... There may be another factor at play.

[Pleh]

The players give up all their power...except the ''take their toys and go home'' power.

Only proves the DM never really had any power to begin with.

[RazorChain]

Only proves the DM never really had any power to begin with.

This is just starting to be silly. The Goverment has no power because it receives it's power from it's citizens.

Power, authority and status are a little more complex than you can just walk away or take it back.

The only times I've decided not to participate in games is when I was bored with the game or didn't have the time. The instance when I got bored and didn't come back was because nothing was happening...nothing fun that it because the Keeper (CoC) had forgotten to hand out THE VITAL CLUE, which meant the whole game just floundered.

When it comes to all the players just walking away from a game then we are talking about serious abuse of power. I've known GM's who were guiding their uber munchkin GMPC through a pure power fantasy of their own making and still they had players.

So, yes when GM's have reeled in players and the players are participating then the GM has all the power within the game. That power even transfers outside of the game and gives them a certain status or authority withi the group outside of the game.

Im most systems it's acknowledged that the GM creates and controls the game world. He creates or decides upon content to play through. He adjucates and interprets the rules and decides upon the results of dice rolls. He controls everything within the game except the PC's and even then he decides upon what the players can or cannot play.

The Game Master has all the power within the game. Yes he can lose that power, just like a goverments can be toppled

[Boci]

This is just starting to be silly. The Goverment has no power because it receives it's power from it's citizens.

Power, authority and status are a little more complex than you can just walk away or take it back.

Not really. Part of governments power is an ability to stay in charge in the face of resistance. I can say

"No government, I refuse to listen to you and will not cooperate with any efforts you try"

And the government has options. A DM doesn't. If the players say no, that's the end, they can't call in the cavalry to maintain order.

[RazorChain]

Not really. Part of governments power is an ability to stay in charge in the face of resistance. I can say

"No government, I refuse to listen to you and will not cooperate with any efforts you try"

And the government has options. A DM doesn't. If the players say no, that's the end, they can't call in the cavalry to maintain order.

Ok...I live in western society. The people of my country have toppled the government twice in the last 10 years because they were unhappy. No shots were fired, only new elections and different people were chosen to lead the government.

The Social Contract means that we surrender some of our freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler. This is one of the basis of government, democratic government is based on election and decisions of the majority.


What has this do do with the GM? The GM rules, the players submit to his authority during the game. If they aren't happy they can replace him, just like the people can replace the government and elect someone else. If you don't like the government you can leave the country and live somewhere else, just like you can change group if you don't like your current GM. A player leaving the group doesn't remove the GM from power, all he does is submit to the power of a new GM.

[Nifft]

Not really. Part of governments power is an ability to stay in charge in the face of resistance. I can say

"No government, I refuse to listen to you and will not cooperate with any efforts you try"

And the government has options. A DM doesn't. If the players say no, that's the end, they can't call in the cavalry to maintain order.

If ONE player objects to something in the game, the DM has the power granted by all the other players to coerce that one player to adhere to the rules, or to get out.

If SOME FEW citizens object to something in the state, the government has the power granted by all the other citizens to coerce those few citizens to adhere to the laws, or to get out.


If ALL the players object, they can end the game.

If ALL the citizens object, they can end the government.

[Florian]

So basically, da blaß mir doch einer nen Schuh auf, DU was spot on from the beginning when differentiating players that understand the roles of the GM as either "agent of the system we agreed to" or "agent of entitlement/wish fulfillment" and pointing out the difference. Well... duh!

[Pleh]

This is just starting to be silly.

The anti sandbox crowd have been silly about the whole thing for quite some time now. Telling me that I'm not allowed to do that now is just special pleading.

Ok...I live in western society. The people of my country have toppled the government twice in the last 10 years because they were unhappy. No shots were fired, only new elections and different people were chosen to lead the government.

We should be careful to not let this stray into real world politics. Unbefits the forum.

[Florian]

The anti sandbox crowd have been silly about the whole thing for quite some time now. Telling me that I'm not allowed to do that now is just special pleading.

We should be careful to not let this stray into real world politics. Unbefits the forum.

There is no "anti sandbox crowd". The lines here are drawn between theory and praxis of what a sandbox is, and how you actually go dealing with one and how a GM fits into this.

[Pleh]

There is no "anti sandbox crowd". The lines here are drawn between theory and praxis of what a sandbox is, and how you actually go dealing with one and how a GM fits into this.

And a GM fits exactly where the players and the rules tell them to.

[Quertus]

If ONE player objects to something in the game, the DM has the power granted by all the other players to coerce that one player to adhere to the rules, or to get out.

If ALL the players object, they can end the game.

Yup. Or replace the GM. Or browbeat the GM to play by the ****ing rules or GTFO. All of which I've seen happen.

So basically, da blaß mir doch einer nen Schuh auf, DU was spot on from the beginning when differentiating players that understand the roles of the GM as either "agent of the system we agreed to" or "agent of entitlement/wish fulfillment" and pointing out the difference. Well... duh!

You seem to be confusing "agent of the rules vs agent of their own wish fulfillment power trip" with "agent of the system we agreed on vs agent of player entitlement".

The Banker does not get to choose how much I owe for landing on Park Place. It's not "player entitlement" for the players to want to follow the rules of the game.

And a GM fits exactly where the players and the rules tell them to.

Agreed.

[Boci]

If ALL the players object, they can end the game.

If ALL the citizens object, they can end the government.

Yes, and the first one is 5 people, the second one is...minimum a million. Not a good comparison.

Firthermore, tt doesn't need to be all players. If all but one player objects, that likely enough to. Depending on the group size, losing one player could be a big deal too. Even in a large group, say 6 players, that's still 17% of the group gone over one thing. A sensible DM is going to at least consider just how important this feature is to them, when a player doesn't want to be in a game with it. "Hmmm, do I really need to explore rascism in depth if its going to lose me a player? Would I rather have one less theme to explore in a game and keep the current party?"

If they aren't happy they can replace him, just like the people can replace the government and elect someone else.

As I mentioned above, one of those things involves a single digit number of people agreeing on something. The other involves way way more. Its not a good comparison.