I'd like to point out, besides naming  a few thinks in the world building phase, most of what we do is character driven in Dungeon World.

We choose things our characters would do primarily.


So far the only problem I see that  we still have some "action/move" connections we need to get rid of (that is using the name of the move, but ah well.)

Quote from: CRKrueger;661762I'll give it to the AW/DW authors in that they do stress not announcing GM moves and trying to keep things at the character-level, unfortunately, to them character-level means "appropriate within the fiction", and many of the moves and mechanics concern things related to the character, yet outside the character's direct control.  The narrative meta-layer is assumed and fundamental.

We probably could go through all of the choice moves, and argue for a week about whether they are character or player level choices. I think some of them are and some of them aren't. But would that actually solve anything?

Quote from: apparition13;661789Is your expected response assumed to be what the character would desire, or what you think would be more fun/dramatic?

You know, it doesn't actually say. So let's say "No".

But on the other hand: in almost any other roleplaying game, literally nothing is stopping the player from trying things that they think would be more fun/dramatic, rather than that the character would desire. People who want to roleplay, will, and you can't stop them. People who don't, won't, and you can't make them.

Quote from: silva;6617582. I have doubts on the possibility to separate what your character thinks/wants from what you/the player in control of the character thinks/wants. It seems impossible to me In practical terms, but I admit never giving much thought to it.

What do you guys think ?

Sorry to be flippant, but it's called roleplaying. I do agree with your core point - at some level, you are always going to be speaking to the player and their perception of the character, rather than the character themselves - but it's a matter of trying as hard as you can to get across that gap. Nobody can teach that, only give you things to think about, you really have to learn it by experience... if you want to.

Quote from: Ladybird;661828People who want to roleplay, will, and you can't stop them.

Actually with OOC mechanics, you can.  Forcing people to think outside their character to engage with the game system removes them from roleplaying their character at that point in time/for that decision.  Once you start getting a significant portion of OOC mechanics in the game, then you have a RPG where you spend a significant portion of time not Roleplaying.

This of course assumes by Roleplaying and RPG you mean being IC when you make mechanical choices in the game system.  Pretty sure we're not all using that definition.

Quote from: silva;6617582. I have doubts on the possibility to separate what your character thinks/wants from what you/the player in control of the character thinks/wants. It seems impossible to me In practical terms, but I admit never giving much thought to it.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

Aristotle

Quote from: CRKrueger;661887Actually with OOC mechanics, you can.  Forcing people to think outside their character to engage with the game system removes them from roleplaying their character at that point in time/for that decision.  Once you start getting a significant portion of OOC mechanics in the game, then you have a RPG where you spend a significant portion of time not Roleplaying.

This of course assumes by Roleplaying and RPG you mean being IC when you make mechanical choices in the game system.  Pretty sure we're not all using that definition.

Tangentilly related perhaps, but I was thinking of this on my way to the gym at lunch.
I got to the point having reread the L&L entry on healing in towns vers the wild and the assumption in old school play that everyone was an Adventurer and had a core of standard skills.
That for some reason got me thinking about puzzles. Old TSR dungeons were full of puzzles. Riddles, giant Chessboards, etc etc littered the ancient dungeons of yore.
When solving these things how many players attempted to do it in character and how many just put their mind to it?

I think this is a core decision for players and it affects game design and all sorts of things.
If we don't define the set of actions a PC knows how to do do we assume they can do exverythign we can describe.
This maps to this discussion in as much as do we describe what they can do from their perspective in character or do we have to step outside of character. Do we solve the puzzle as Drak the 19 year old 1/2 orc assassin or as Jibbajibba the 43 year old IT Manager.

I will probably regret getting into this topic but I am not sure this is the right distinction. I think the assumption in Silvia's post, judging by his prior arguments, is how much power the player has to affect the setting. It isn't about whether he plays the character as himself or as Jark the Insignificant, it's about whether his only tool to affect the setting is Jark or if he can alter it by telling the GM he wants X to appear in the game. There is a difference between saying 'I go to the capital to see if they have a silk guild' versus 'can you put a silk guild  with political intrigue in the next town'. To me, that is the key difference. Does the the game allow you to contribute to the setting as a co-GM or does it expect you to limit your power to your character. My guess is anything containing the former would not be considered a pure sandbox by the majority of tabletop rpg fans (what they do in video games other media that sandboxes doesn't necessarily apply to how we use the word).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;661944I will probably regret getting into this topic but I am not sure this is the right distinction. I think the assumption in Silvia's post, judging by his prior arguments, is how much power the player has to affect the setting. It isn't about whether he plays the character as himself or as Jark the Insignificant, it's about whether his only tool to affect the setting is Jark or if he can alter it by telling the GM he wants X to appear in the game. There is a difference between saying 'I go to the capital to see if they have a silk guild' versus 'can you put a silk  with political intrigue in the next town'. To me, that is the key difference. Does the the game allow you to contribute to the setting as a co-GM or does it expect you to limit your power to your character. My guess is anything containing the former would not be considered a pure sandbox by the majority of tabletop rpg fans (what they do in video games other media that sandboxes doesn't necessarily apply to how we use the word).

That's a pretty good definition I think.
It's certainly different from "Thudd realises that the rocks are arranged int eh Fibonacci sequence and so places 21 stones on the entrance stone in front of the portal"

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;661944I will probably regret getting into this topic but I am not sure this is the right distinction. I think the assumption in Silvia's post, judging by his prior arguments, is how much power the player has to affect the setting. It isn't about whether he plays the character as himself or as Jark the Insignificant, it's about whether his only tool to affect the setting is Jark or if he can alter it by telling the GM he wants X to appear in the game. There is a difference between saying 'I go to the capital to see if they have a silk guild' versus 'can you put a silk  with political intrigue in the next town'. To me, that is the key difference. Does the the game allow you to contribute to the setting as a co-GM or does it expect you to limit your power to your character. My guess is anything containing the former would not be considered a pure sandbox by the majority of tabletop rpg fans (what they do in video games other media that sandboxes doesn't necessarily apply to how we use the word).

Not directly related to your point (which I agree on):

Incidentally, limits are what defines the literal sandbox. It isn't just a heap of sand somewhere, nor an endless beach. The sandbox has a frame, which is where the players sit, while the characters live on the sand inside the frame.

Worldbuilders have fun building the castle. Roleplayers have fun living in the castle. The way I see it, storygame players like to do a bit of both: have a share in the castle/worldbuilding at the cost of some immersion.

Where it breaks down for me, though, is when such interventions happen as a sort of deus ex machina where the character living in the sand asks the player watching over him for a favour. Player fiat?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;661944I will probably regret getting into this topic but I am not sure this is the right distinction. I think the assumption in Silvia's post, judging by his prior arguments, is how much power the player has to affect the setting. It isn't about whether he plays the character as himself or as Jark the Insignificant, it's about whether his only tool to affect the setting is Jark or if he can alter it by telling the GM he wants X to appear in the game. There is a difference between saying 'I go to the capital to see if they have a silk guild' versus 'can you put a silk guild  with political intrigue in the next town'. To me, that is the key difference. Does the the game allow you to contribute to the setting as a co-GM or does it expect you to limit your power to your character. My guess is anything containing the former would not be considered a pure sandbox by the majority of tabletop rpg fans (what they do in video games other media that sandboxes doesn't necessarily apply to how we use the word).

Yep. Sandbox play assumes a hard limit on players only making changes to the game world during play via what their characters do. Although I'd add that there's also a limit on the GM, who cannot add anything to the world in response to player goals, either... since that would mean that the players were indirectly able to break the in-character limitation. The world is the GM's character, and sandbox GMs aren't allowed to change things except through their character, either.

Although I'd allow leeway during pre-play set-up. There's nothing wrong with the group co-creating a sanbox setting, then players creating characters in that setting. It's just that, once play begins, players can't change the setting except through in-character actions.

Similarly, there's nothing wrong with the GM making up sandbox details on the fly, as long as the details aren't being tweaked to fit the characters, or dramatic necessity, or other out-of-world concerns. A pure high-improv sandbox is what I call a "sketchbox", because it involves leaving details of some areas sketchy, maybe nothing more than a couple sentences like "There are dragons and giants in the northern mountains, but also rumors of a lost dwarven kingdom." When the players go to mountains, the GM starts filling in details, and the details become fixed as they are revealed in play.

Quote from: talysman;662010Yep. Sandbox play assumes a hard limit on players only making changes to the game world during play via what their characters do. Although I'd add that there's also a limit on the GM, who cannot add anything to the world in response to player goals, either... since that would mean that the players were indirectly able to break the in-character limitation. The world is the GM's character, and sandbox GMs aren't allowed to change things except through their character, either.

Although I'd allow leeway during pre-play set-up. There's nothing wrong with the group co-creating a sanbox setting, then players creating characters in that setting. It's just that, once play begins, players can't change the setting except through in-character actions.

Similarly, there's nothing wrong with the GM making up sandbox details on the fly, as long as the details aren't being tweaked to fit the characters, or dramatic necessity, or other out-of-world concerns. A pure high-improv sandbox is what I call a "sketchbox", because it involves leaving details of some areas sketchy, maybe nothing more than a couple sentences like "There are dragons and giants in the northern mountains, but also rumors of a lost dwarven kingdom." When the players go to mountains, the GM starts filling in details, and the details become fixed as they are revealed in play.

So if Biff Roeldpla makes a comment IC the DM is never, never allowed, saying to himself "Oh shit why didn't I think of that I should use that" to use something a player says IC to affect the Sandbox, because when he does it is no longer a Sandbox and instantly becomes some ..other thing?

Quote from: jibbajibba;661934That for some reason got me thinking about puzzles. Old TSR dungeons were full of puzzles. Riddles, giant Chessboards, etc etc littered the ancient dungeons of yore.
When solving these things how many players attempted to do it in character and how many just put their mind to it?

From Old Geezer's descriptions of Gary's original sessions, it seems pretty clear that he saw D&D as a sort of lateral thinking puzzle game.  Certainly some of his later Sorceror's Scrolls columns make it very clear that he had no use for "immersion" as this site likes to define the term.

My experience with engineering, classical/medieval history and experimental archaeology is that most moderns couldn't think like the average Dark Ages mercenary if their lives depended on it.

Quote from: Sommerjon;662026So if Biff Roeldpla makes a comment IC the DM is never, never allowed, saying to himself "Oh shit why didn't I think of that I should use that" to use something a player says IC to affect the Sandbox, because when he does it is no longer a Sandbox and instantly becomes some ..other thing?

... Because I'm somehow talking about rigid binary definitions of "sandbox"?

There are two obvious alternatives to what you're saying:

(1) The separation between in-character and out-of-character effects applies only to actual play. That is, you can't say "Oh shit, why didn't I think of that? I should use that RIGHT NOW" and change what's already been decided, and still consider it a pure sandbox. In fact, changing stuff in play like that is considered cheating on the GM's part.

(2) It's a continuum. I keep talking about "pure" sandbox. You could have a slightly less pure sandbox. One or two impurities is OK. A regular rule to allow out-of-character changes to setting during play is not. It's something else, or a hybrid at best.

Quote from: talysman;662041... Because I'm somehow talking about rigid binary definitions of "sandbox"?

There are two obvious alternatives to what you're saying:

(1) The separation between in-character and out-of-character effects applies only to actual play. That is, you can't say "Oh shit, why didn't I think of that? I should use that RIGHT NOW" and change what's already been decided, and still consider it a pure sandbox. In fact, changing stuff in play like that is considered cheating on the GM's part.

(2) It's a continuum. I keep talking about "pure" sandbox. You could have a slightly less pure sandbox. One or two impurities is OK. A regular rule to allow out-of-character changes to setting during play is not. It's something else, or a hybrid at best.

I think it is also something where the issue is it is not essential to what a sandbox is. It could happen and you would still have a sandbox, but silva was arguing, i think, that players contributing creatively outside their character (i.e. there should be a goblin faction here when we arrive) is as essential to the sandbox as player characters having the freedom to explore the setting. To me it seems like a redefinition of the concept in order to put narrativist mechanics at the forefront of the style. I could be wrong, since he may have meant something else, but i think that is where this part of the discussion stems from. And I am not saying what he describes isnt viable or fun, it just isnt what most folk think of as sandbox.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;662049silva was arguing, i think, that players contributing creatively outside their character (i.e. there should be a goblin faction here when we arrive) is as essential to e sandbox as player characters having the freedom to explore the setting. To me it seems like a redefinition of the concept in order to out narrativist mechanics at the forefront of the style.

Ya Think? :hmm:

Quote from: BedrockBrendanI could be wrong, since he may have meant something else, but i think that is where this part of the discussion stems from. And I am not saying what he describes isnt viable or fun, it just isnt what most folk think of as sandbox.

You ain't wrong.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;662049I think it is also something where the issue is it is not essential to what a sandbox is. It could happen and you would still have a sandbox, but silva was arguing, i think, that players contributing creatively outside their character (i.e. there should be a goblin faction here when we arrive) is as essential to the sandbox as player characters having the freedom to explore the setting. To me it seems like a redefinition of the concept in order to put narrativist mechanics at the forefront of the style. I could be wrong, since he may have meant something else, but i think that is where this part of the discussion stems from. And I am not saying what he describes isnt viable or fun, it just isnt what most folk think of as sandbox.

Yes.