Quote from: A Memorex for the KrakensPardon my ignorance, but what exactly do you all mean when you use the term "sandbox"?

A "sandbox" is a term generally used - and not just in gaming - to mean an area where you can feel safe to do whatever you want, as any changes in the sandbox are not passed through to the larger structure. By extension - in RPGing - a sandbox campaign is a campaign where the PCs can go in any direction and do whatever they want to do, and no one will get pissed because the story got broken.

-clash

[blatant plug]This is how Mythic works.[/blatant plug]

It saves a lot of additional upfront setting creation effort, and allows games to surprise the GM too.
Certainly not a bad thing.
=

I do this a lot in my games.

A slightly different twist on it is this situation: I set up a challenge for the players with no real idea how to overcome it. I just sit back and let the players come up with the solution. When they have an idea that sounds reasonable to me, I let them make some die rolls and give them a decent chance to succeed. I've stopped wasting time coming up with "outs" for them myself.

I find this creation through play thing Cali talked about works well with NPCs. Players often ask questions about an NPC or start assuming motives or connections I never thought of.

Great thing for GMs to have in their toolboxes.

Quote from: CalithenaI knew Sett had some Forgista inside him somewhere deep down inside. He couldn't hate them so much if they didn't have something in common.

He does, but it's the reverse of what he thinks. He thinks he used to be Forger-like because he used to ret-con things for player input. But in fact he's Forger-like now because he says, in effect, "System Matters." He believes that following the rules of a particular game, to the letter, will bring out the best play.

That's Forge-thought, right there. "System Matters."

Which of course I disagree with. The rpg system is just a tool to shape the kind of game you want. Just as a carpenter or mechanic will happily fiddle with their tools to give them the crafting results they want, so too will I happily fiddle with a game system to get the results I want. The system is just a means to an end, not an end in itself. Fuck System, People Matter.

:forge:

Quote from: Kyle AaronHe does, but it's the reverse of what he thinks. He thinks he used to be Forger-like because he used to ret-con things for player input. But in fact he's Forger-like now because he says, in effect, "System Matters." He believes that following the rules of a particular game, to the letter, will bring out the best play.

That's Forge-thought, right there. "System Matters."

Which of course I disagree with. The rpg system is just a tool to shape the kind of game you want. Just as a carpenter or mechanic will happily fiddle with their tools to give them the crafting results they want, so too will I happily fiddle with a game system to get the results I want. The system is just a means to an end, not an end in itself. Fuck System, People Matter.

:forge:

Interesting take, Kyle.  But I wonder - when you say you "happily fiddle with a game system to get the results [you] want," aren't you saying the exact opposite of what you intend - that indeed system does matter?

Perhaps another thread, but it just struck me as a conundrum - or perhaps I'm missing something...

Quote from: James J SkachInteresting take, Kyle.  But I wonder - when you say you "happily fiddle with a game system to get the results [you] want," aren't you saying the exact opposite of what you intend - that indeed system does matter?

No. Sorry, I expressed myself badly.

A "system" in this sense is anything fixed. The players get to look it up and argue about it. So for example "house rules" are "system".

I'm talking about fudging things, so that Calithena's caterpillars might be at -1 to fight in bright light for this group, but -3 or 0 for his next group. He's fudging things.

To be clear about how I see things,

• the system is all the stuff written down or said explicitly which someone can check and argue with you about. A system is consistent and explicit.
  
• GM judgment is about things the rules just imply, or which they don't cover, or where two rules seem to contradict each-other. GM judgments may be made into house rules, and thus become system. A judgment is somewhat consistent, and explicit.
  
• Fudging is the GM going against the system. If the GM consistently fudges one particular area, then really that's a judgment. A fudge is inconsistent, and implict or tacit, often not spoken.

If you think System Matters, you'll never fudge, and will minimise judging, you expect all good to proceed from the RAW (rules as written). If you think People Matter, then you may or may not fudge; usually you will, but if you've a whole group who think that System Matters, then the best way to make them happy is never to fudge, and to minimise judgments, too.

Settembrini thinks that the best game comes from following the rules. So do the Forgers. Their only disagreement is which particular rules they should use. But they both think, "System Matters."

To continue with the analogy which confused the issue, and try to improve it: rules are to an rpg session what a chisel or saw or other tools are to a carpenter. They have no innate value, they're used to shape something else. Certainly there are good tools and bad tools, but as the saying goes, "it's a bad tradesman who blames his tools." That's why people say that you can have a good session with a crap game and a good group, but can't have a good session with a good game and a crap group. It's because the people matter more than the system does to the success of a game session. The skill of the carpenter is more important than the quality of their tools, or even the suitability of those tools to that task. A master carpenter can make a better table with a blunt old chisel and a rusty saw than I could make with a whole workshop of the best stuff.

It appears to be a conundrum only if you're thinking that I'm saying that we don't need systems at all, if it's either/or. I'm not. I'm saying that people are more important than systems, I'm not saying that systems are utterly irrelevant.

Certainly you do need some system or other, just as a carpenter can't do much with their bare hands. But that doesn't mean that the system is extremely important. Knowing how to use it is more important.

I am ambivalent about the technique. On one hand, running with player input makes for a smooth-going game. On the other hand, going too smooth can take away that... that special feeling which makes sandbox settings with their bumps and false starts cool. If everything is explained and everything has meaning, nothing is mysterious. If every solution which sounds good works, it is no longer about solving a challenge. In reasonably open situations, like Calithena posted, using light to drive off the centipedes is no big deal. But when you are dealing with the Tomb of Horrors, accepting similar solutions is cheating - yourself and your players.

So my trouble is that if retconning rules the campaign, accomplishments become meaningless, and the players vs. setting element vanishes, because they have become the setting. It is no longer objective. I accept that Donjon is a very creative idea and a new way of looking at gaming (there, I said it, slay me now), but if a full campaign would be set up like that, I would get turned off. I prefer a clear separation between player and GM functions/competences. What the players have in their hands is the ability to focus or direct the GM's attention and interact according to the capabilities of their characters and their own skills as players - not alter immutable variables and build their own playing field.

It wasn't a "retconn" !!

 A player thinks of something brght and clever based on what the GM has said.

 Thats not a 'retcon' - its just good thinking.

 Hell, in my games if a player says  "Yeah but according to physics (chemistry ...etc..) this is what normally happens. Can we do this....?"
 Thats just good thinking.

 My reaction ?: "Holy shit ..you're right that would work ."

 "Okay I guess your character CAN do that."


- Ed C.

And again people go off the deep end, ascribing a pro-active effort to a natural phenomenon.  come on guys, Donjon?  Mythic?

Lighten the fuck up already.  You're making the exact same mistake the Forge does.

For the record, Calithena's example is not a good example of a retcon. Later ones (e.g. the fishbottle turning into a major artifact) are. On the other hand, I don't seek others' approval for running my games exactly as I like, and neither should you.

I just think people are over-analyzing a GM call by Calthena - that was actually a common sense ruling and nice little bit of business that he got to add to his universe.

- Ed C.

For once I agree with the guy with the Mars bar on his forehead.

Shared creativity-- with the GM having final veto --is one of the reasons I game. If a player (or indeed anyone else) comes up with a cool idea that beats my own then I'll happily incorporate it. It's important to use this sort of thing sparingly though, otherwise system and setting becomes mutable to the point of being dispensible.

I think the critical point of Calithena's post is that the situation occured during play. Most gamers like to feel that there's a solid bedrock supporting their decisions and actions. If the rules for Improved Trip change in mid-game because the GM becomes enamoured of another interpretation then certain mechanical decisions during chargen may be invalidated. Likewise for setting-- if the thieves guild you picked as your pc's arch nemeses suddenly become a force for proactive societal change then you're left dangling.

As with all things it's a matter of degrees, tempered by sound judgement. The principle is sound, but the execution requires maturity informed by a solid understanding of your players expectations. If you have that, then you're golden.

The thing is:

There´s two levels on which we can look at this.

1) being creative: how do the building blocks for a game get built?
Like, how was Greyhawk created? In that, there is no ret-conning, because it´s a creative process.

2) DM-advice: ret-conning takes away the sense of achievement from the players.

@Forgista: No I´m not. I´m not a purist for rules, but I´m a purist for situation. A spaceship is a spaceship is a spaceship. And the Spiders are Spiders are Spiders. If it wasn´t decided beforehand, that the spiders are light-sensitive, they will not be light sensitive, because they ARE NOT light sensitive. I know I´m purist/radical for sandboxing in that way, but nothing more. It has got zero to do with rules, but everything with world consistency. A world were Spiders change their nature, because it would be kewl in one special moment isn´t consistent enough for me.

oh gawd Sett!! IT wasn't a retcon!

 Something in the game happened.
 A player reasoned what might be the cause.

The GM figured it was plausible and got a new bit of continuity for future encounters.

 No Ret Con there. (!!)  Just some bloody normal gaming.

 Calthena ? If I'm wrong on this ..YOU can tell me. Sounds to me like you run a fair and decent game.

- Ed C.