Why 'Sandbox' is a meaningless phrase

[ImNotTrevor]

The case that has lead to this was that Quantum Ogres,

Yep. That's bad practice.

not preplacing encounters,

Encounters rolled from a table are fine. So are ones that make sense given the fiction.
If you're going to restate our position, please do so accurately.

changing things on the fly

Depends on what is changing and why.
Again, please don't distort the opposing position.

and railroading players without telling them. All this according to people on these forums equals lying.

I tell Jeff that I won't steal his money. Later, I do. He doesn't know i did.
Did I lie?

The funny thing is this makes improvisation equal lying too. Especially when you have nothing prepared, no stat blocks not the world or anything

Only if you distort the opposing position so much that it becomes a strawman.

Come on, I expect this kinda thing from DU, not you.

[Cluedrew]

Like how one person says ''monks suck'' and then Everyone just says ''yup, we agree 100%''.

What are you talking about? Monks are an awesome archetype. I love the combination of spiritual wisdom and dedication they represent. The combat styles that are associated with them are also cool. I like the idea of "perfecting simple things" which is an idea many of them are based around.

[Scripten]

What are you talking about? Monks are an awesome archetype. I love the combination of spiritual wisdom and dedication they represent. The combat styles that are associated with them are also cool. I like the idea of "perfecting simple things" which is an idea many of them are based around.

Shh! No deviation from the Collective! We talked about this in the private chat that everyone but DU is party to, don't you remember?

[Darth Ultron]

Yep. We totally all agree on everything, because there are never arguments over builds and classes and what's balanced or not on this forum. Nope, everybody agrees all the time, except you, you iconoclastic genius, you.

Well, I mostly see me and a couple others vs the Everyone Collective. You sure don't see a diversity of thought and options.

So you admit that you're actively mischaracterizing what people say and do and erecting a straw man in order to claim "everyone" (except you, you iconoclastic genius, you) is lazy and doesn't actually design the settings they claim they do.

No?

Because what a lot of others are saying is that what you insist they all are doing is not at all what they're doing. They don't have their players "just wander." Their players are self-directed, interested in achieving certain things with their PCs and investigating the setting to find ways to do them. Or latching on to hooks as things that will enable them to advance their goals or prevent their goals from being undermined.

Right, I say any normal game adventure must have a linear plot and story. Then people say ''no my game is not like that at all''. So I say, ok, so your type of game is a random mess then? And the people say no, but then say their game adventure has linear plot and story, but they don't call it that.

The forest is not empty, but has a number of things going on in it. That you must say, "Ah, but clearly a DM who doesn't railroad is a bad and lazy DM who didn't put things in the forest!" indicates the hollowness of your position.

Well, my point is more that the DM is the one putting things in the forest. The good, and even average DM does prepare the forest ahead of time with encounters. The bad, lazy or casual DM often just not prepare anything.

The issue isn't disagreement (there is no "everyone collective", there's many people that disagree about just about everything here.). The issue is that everyone else uses the word "wizard" to mean "guy that casts spells and has spell slots and uses arcane spells", while you're using "monk" to mean that, and apparently something else to mean what the rest of us mean by "monk".

That is not the problem, and your example is way too bias.

See, your pointing to a very obvious and easy example in a book where you are right: conformation bias. Like really anyone can pick up a Players Handbook and read ''monks get no spells'' right there on page 11, so anyone who says anything else is just ''crazy''.

But that is not what is happening. There is no ''easy book with all the answers''.

It's not that we disagree. It's that using different words for the same concepts make communication impossible.

It's not impossible. I say ''a good adventure is linear'' and add ''by linear I'm using the normal dictionary meaning of 'one logical thing happening after another'. So see I added the definition I (and all other non-gamers) use for the word. Now, yes, the Everyone Collective sees the word ''linear'' and then reads ''evil bad no fun jerk DM monster that forces the players to do things'' . But see, that does not matter. All they need to do is read what I wrote, and not go by what they ''think'' they see.

[JNAProductions]

It's not impossible. I say ''a good adventure is linear'' and add ''by linear I'm using the normal dictionary meaning of 'one logical thing happening after another'. So see I added the definition I (and all other non-gamers) use for the word. Now, yes, the Everyone Collective sees the word ''linear'' and then reads ''evil bad no fun jerk DM monster that forces the players to do things'' . But see, that does not matter. All they need to do is read what I wrote, and not go by what they ''think'' they see.

That's not what linear means. According to Google...

arranged in or extending along a straight or nearly straight line.

Now, that's not quite accurate to D&D, but the generally accepted use is that a linear adventure has one set path. You go from point A to point B, all the way to whatever letter the DM has in mind for the end.

Whereas in a non-linear game, you'd have Points A, B, C, up to whatever you made, simply placed in the world. Players are free to visit (or not visit) each point in any order, or even look to go somewhere completely different.

[Darth Ultron]

This is where I would consider that DM to be a bad DM. In almost any system, especially D&D, the player's character should be able to judge the relative difficulty of any given action and have a reasonable estimation of the results of success or failure. John shouldn't be surprised if his character dies.

This is silly, and impossible, or at least very, very, very improbable.

If the DM says ''you see a lone goblin with a dagger'' are you the type of player that says ''I rush an attack the stupid weak goblin!"? Why do you assume that ''all goblins are weak?" If you see a ''lone human'' or a ''lone dwarf'' do you think the same thing? Is there some reason you don't think such foes can't have say class levels or templets or such? Why can't an orc be a 7th level barbarian?

Or how about a physical challenge: how do you know how hard it is? Are you basing it off the DMs description? So if they say ''stone wall'' you think ''easy'', but if they say ''smooth metal wall'' you think ''hard''. You can't really ''tell'' how ''hard'' something is....other then the vague ''easy and hard''. And how do you ''judge'' things you don't know about....like your barbarian goes to smash a wooden door, and fails. You whine and cry as ''wooden doors are easy and your super awesome barbarian must smash all wooden doors!"; but of course the wooden door has an arcane lock on it, that you don't know about as your character Karg the Door Smasher can't detect magic. So gueeing that door is ''easy'' just by looking is wrong.

There are lots of bad jerk DMs and lots of bad jerk players....that is just life. Too many DMs will just say ''oh it's a river'' with just vague words and too many players think thier character is Superman and are like ''I jump over the river and high five the man in the moon and land on the other side."

I've also thought that DU seems to have a very weird view of what a "path" is in a RPG context. To the rest of us, it's quite clear that you can have very logical non-"random" games without any pre-planned DM (or player) paths.

I said you can have a random game of randomness just fine.

Now, that's not quite accurate to D&D, but the generally accepted use is that a linear adventure has one set path. You go from point A to point B, all the way to whatever letter the DM has in mind for the end.

Whereas in a non-linear game, you'd have Points A, B, C, up to whatever you made, simply placed in the world. Players are free to visit (or not visit) each point in any order, or even look to go somewhere completely different.

Right the ''generally accepted use'' by the anti-DM Everyone Collective.

An adventure, has to be linear as does have a set thing to be done....And arranged in or extending along a straight or nearly straight line, like your goggle says. The adventure is ''The dragon of Red Pass'' and the players pick this adventure willing agree to slay the dragon. It can be simple straight line, like the characters simply find the dragon and (try to) kill it(path A) OR the players can (try) some other way to kill the dragon like set a trap for the dragon somehow(path B), assemble a dragon slaying group(path C), find and use an ancient anti dragon weapon artifact against the dragon(path D), attempt to 'join up' with the dragon and then backstab it(path E) and on and on.

The non-linear game you are describing, the players just randomly do whatever they want, is the random mess of the game, and is not even an adventure. It's just a random activity.

[Lorsa]

First problem, like I mentioned before, every really, really, really needs to take a step back and stop making everything so anti-DM.

If I am anti-DM, then I am anti-myself, which seems a bit counterproductive. I have been a DM at least 95% of the total time I've been roleplaying in my life.

Second, advanced illusionism has nothing at all to do with Railroads.

Now I'd guess in the ''everyone terms'' advanced illusionism is partly what you call ''not metagaming''. Assuming your calling ''not metagaming'' just not just a player knowing/using the rules for their own advantage. Advanced illusionism is a bit more then just ''rule metagaming'', as it also covers ''common sense metagaming''.

Like my example, some people that go and see a Stage Magic show Know For a Fact that it's all fake and is all just tricks...and yet they simply ignore and don't think about that and let themselves be amazed by the magic tricks. Some people, are just clueless, and think it's ''real'' somehow....Or any TV show/movie. Some people Know For a Fact a great many things about any such work of fiction...and yet they simply ignore and don't think about that and let themselves be amazed. For example, I have not seen Avengers Infinity War yet...but I already know the Avengers will win the war. And here, again, some people are clueless.

Have you heard of the phrase "suspension of disbelief"? It seems to cover half of what you are talking about. The other half is ignorance/stupidity, but that is a different matter entirely.

So you want to make a term that describes either "not metagaming", or "ability to suspend disbelief", OR "being really stupid"?

[Lorsa]

But that is not what is happening. There is no ''easy book with all the answers''.

There are, in fact, two books with easy answers.

1. A dicitonary
2. The way the majority of people uses words

In fact, #1 is typically gathered from #2. This means that, if you perceive an "Everyone Collective" using words one way; they are right. That is simply how language works.

It's not impossible. I say ''a good adventure is linear'' and add ''by linear I'm using the normal dictionary meaning of 'one logical thing happening after another'. So see I added the definition I (and all other non-gamers) use for the word. Now, yes, the Everyone Collective sees the word ''linear'' and then reads ''evil bad no fun jerk DM monster that forces the players to do things'' . But see, that does not matter. All they need to do is read what I wrote, and not go by what they ''think'' they see.

As was pointed out; that is not what linear means.

What you are referring to is "cause and effect". This can be part of linear or non-linear adventures just as well (but doesn't HAVE to be part of either). A linear adventure can fail to deliver on "one logical thing happening after another". So can a sandbox.

BUT, even the most improvised of sandbox games can (and should) have "cause and effect" built into it. In fact, it is the very CORE of being a good sandbox.

Do you want to modify your statement to "a good adventure adheres to cause-and-effect"?

[Darth Ultron]

If I am anti-DM, then I am anti-myself, which seems a bit counterproductive. I have been a DM at least 95% of the total time I've been roleplaying in my life.

I'm sure your just like most people: When anyone else does X, they are wrong...but when you do X, you are always right.

Have you heard of the phrase "suspension of disbelief"? It seems to cover half of what you are talking about. The other half is ignorance/stupidity, but that is a different matter entirely.

That phrase is not inclusive enough.

So you want to make a term that describes either "not metagaming", or "ability to suspend disbelief", OR "being really stupid"?

I just use an accurate term for what I mean.

There are, in fact, two books with easy answers.

1. A dicitonary
2. The way the majority of people uses words

In fact, #1 is typically gathered from #2. This means that, if you perceive an "Everyone Collective" using words one way; they are right. That is simply how language works.

Except all the ''role play slang'' is NOT in the Dictionary.

As was pointed out; that is not what linear means.

The dictionary disagrees with you here.

What you are referring to is "cause and effect". This can be part of linear or non-linear adventures just as well (but doesn't HAVE to be part of either). A linear adventure can fail to deliver on "one logical thing happening after another". So can a sandbox.

BUT, even the most improvised of sandbox games can (and should) have "cause and effect" built into it. In fact, it is the very CORE of being a good sandbox.

Do you want to modify your statement to "a good adventure adheres to cause-and-effect"?

We'll, good you agree that sandbox is a meaningless phrase.

Not sure where your going with ''cause and effect'', assuming your playing a game that makes sense...that has to happen.

[Max_Killjoy]

Just another example of DU insisting that his way of doing or seeing something is "normal", and everyone else's is "jerk" or whatever.

Linear has nothing to do with logical.

[Lorsa]

I'm sure your just like most people: When anyone else does X, they are wrong...but when you do X, you are always right.

I don't think people that DM does something wrong. In fact, I encourage people to DM. That would give me more time to be a player once in a while.

I just use an accurate term for what I mean.

The problem is that you are trying to build upon an already established term "Illusionism", with the exception that your term has nothing at all to do with the old term.

That gets confusing.

Except all the ''role play slang'' is NOT in the Dictionary.

Which means you have to use method #2 to find the right meaning of words.

The dictionary disagrees with you here.

I can see two meanings of linear that could potentially be applied to RPGs:

1.
arranged in or extending along a straight or nearly straight line.

2.
progressing from one stage to another in a single series of steps; sequential.

Have you found another common usage of linear that you are referring to?

Now, when people talk about "linear play" or "linear adventures" or "linear RPGs", they usually loosely refer to the first definition. Additionally, they view the adventure as having been arranged in a straight line before play even begins. That is, the DM has arranged all the events ahead of time and the players will simply follow it.

The reason for this is that the second one would actually be meaningless in a RPG context. All RPG adventures, or gameplay, or whatever, IS progressing from one to another in a series of single steps. Play IS sequential. At least, or especially, when viewed in retrospect.

You might as well say "people's lives are linear". Which is true, but also completely lacking any profoundness or ability to set two lives apart.

I should note here that "logical" is not part of the definition of "linear" in any way at all. The DM can arrange the game to follow a line which does not make sense to anyone. It's still linear.

Basically, what we want to do, what has always been the point, is that we want to characterize different types of RPGs. We are not looking at what makes them similar, but what makes them different.

This is why the use of "linear" refers to "the events of the adventure are set up by the DM beforehand" and "sandbox" loosely speaking as "the events of the adventure are NOT set up by the DM beforehand, though the actual GAME WORLD might be".

You DO understand how "events" are different from "game world" right? How preparing which NPCs live where or what they do and their motivations and whatever is NOT the same as having decided in which scene the players will encounter each NPC?

"Things follow in a logical manner" is NOT the same as "linear".

We'll, good you agree that sandbox is a meaningless phrase.

Not sure where your going with ''cause and effect'', assuming your playing a game that makes sense...that has to happen.

Yeah, if you want a game that makes sense, that has to happen. Which means that things can make sense regardless of if the DM has decided on the outcome before the players take actions, or after.

Adhering to "cause and effect" does NOT automatically make a game linear. A linear adventure is something else. And a linear adventure is also different from a sandbox adventure.

[Darth Ultron]

Just another example of DU insisting that his way of doing or seeing something is "normal", and everyone else's is "jerk" or whatever.

Linear has nothing to do with logical.

It does in a TRPG. At least most of them, the ones that make sense.

Now, when people talk about "linear play" or "linear adventures" or "linear RPGs", they usually loosely refer to the first definition. Additionally, they view the adventure as having been arranged in a straight line before play even begins. That is, the DM has arranged all the events ahead of time and the players will simply follow it.

The reason for this is that the second one would actually be meaningless in a RPG context. All RPG adventures, or gameplay, or whatever, IS progressing from one to another in a series of single steps. Play IS sequential. At least, or especially, when viewed in retrospect.

So are you saying ''everyone'' aggress all TRPG's are lineal, by the second definition....but ''everyone'' knows that, so it does not need to be said or acknowledged?

And, I'd point out your ''addition'' is the problem. ALL TRPG must be linear as in ''arranged in or extending along a straight or nearly straight line". If you have a character that wants to go to place A, you have two options: the straight line linear path (''my character walks to location A") or the nearly straight line("my character goes into town and hires a guy on a magic carpet to fly my character to location A"). So, now, wait, stop and look: All TRPG's are linear BY the definition, WITHOUT your ''addition''.

You DO understand how "events" are different from "game world" right? How preparing which NPCs live where or what they do and their motivations and whatever is NOT the same as having decided in which scene the players will encounter each NPC?

Again, this is your ''addition problem''. Just drop your wacky ''addition'' and everything works out fine.

[Lorsa]

So are you saying ''everyone'' aggress all TRPG's are lineal, by the second definition....but ''everyone'' knows that, so it does not need to be said or acknowledged?

It's been said by many people many times that, when viewed in retrospect, it might not be possible to discern a linear game from a sandbox one. Everybody knows that RPGs progress in a series of steps. If you want to be philosophical, it is rooted in the fact that time, while relative, is always linear (by the loose definition, we avoid mathematical definitions here).

And, I'd point out your ''addition'' is the problem. ALL TRPG must be linear as in ''arranged in or extending along a straight or nearly straight line". If you have a character that wants to go to place A, you have two options: the straight line linear path (''my character walks to location A") or the nearly straight line("my character goes into town and hires a guy on a magic carpet to fly my character to location A"). So, now, wait, stop and look: All TRPG's are linear BY the definition, WITHOUT your ''addition''.

You're either missing the point entirely or... well, best leave implications unspoken.

Anyway.

A linear adventure has the DM deciding that the players will go to locations/events/encounters/story points/whatever in the following order: A->B->C->D->E.

A non-linear adventure has a structure where the DM leaves it open for the players to decide themselves which locations/events/encounters/story points/whatever they want to go to and in which order. So, for example, the players may choose: A->D->C and then the DM may realize that E is no longer a logical conclusion of these set of actions and therefore decide that instead the players encounter F, which then has the players decide they want to go to G so the final result is: A->D->C->F->G. Which is very different from the linear adventure.

BOTH of these DO end up with a game with a sequence of events. Both were logical, follow cause and effect and whatnot.

ONE is a linear adventure, the other is NOT.

Again, this is your ''addition problem''. Just drop your wacky ''addition'' and everything works out fine.

At this point I will ask you a very simple question.

I have two hats here. One says "I fail to understand", the other says "I'm a troll". Which one do you want? Pick one.

[Max_Killjoy]

The only way that RPG campaigns are a binary choice between "random chaos" and "linear" is if real life is as well.

Or to put it another way, "linear" and "cause-and-effect" are only related if one believes that the real-world future is set in stone, a sort of ultra-determinism that asserts that everything that will ever happen was already decided to the smallest detail at the instant of the big bang.

Actual cause-and-effect only means that causes precede effects and that effects have causes -- it doesn't require determinism or a linear world.

[Quertus]

An adventure, has to be linear as does have a set thing to be done....And arranged in or extending along a straight or nearly straight line, like your goggle says. The adventure is ''The dragon of Red Pass'' and the players pick this adventure willing agree to slay the dragon. It can be simple straight line, like the characters simply find the dragon and (try to) kill it(path A) OR the players can (try) some other way to kill the dragon like set a trap for the dragon somehow(path B), assemble a dragon slaying group(path C), find and use an ancient anti dragon weapon artifact against the dragon(path D), attempt to 'join up' with the dragon and then backstab it(path E) and on and on.

The non-linear game you are describing, the players just randomly do whatever they want, is the random mess of the game, and is not even an adventure. It's just a random activity.

It does in a TRPG. At least most of them, the ones that make sense.

ALL TRPG must be linear as in ''arranged in or extending along a straight or nearly straight line".

The only way that RPG campaigns are a binary choice between "random chaos" and "linear" is if real life is as well.

Or to put it another way, "linear" and "cause-and-effect" are only related if one believes that the real-world future is set in stone, a sort of ultra-determinism that asserts that everything that will ever happen was already decided to the smallest detail at the instant of the big bang.

Actual cause-and-effect only means that causes precede effects and that effects have causes -- it doesn't require determinism or a linear world.

Yeah, I'm... at a loss here. In a linear adventure, the players must slay the Dragon at the end of the path. In a branching adventure, they will have various paths to take to accomplish that goal; in a truly linear adventure, there is only one possible path.

In a sandbox, as in most* people's perception of IRL, the Dragon simply is. The players can attempt any number of ways to try to kill it (how many may actually work will depend on the game, the GM, etc), or to actually ally with it to accomplish some other goal, or even ignore it entirely.

So, where is the disconnect here? Do you, DU, believe that the story of your life had to be exactly the way it was? That you had to take the job you did, marry the woman you did, have the children you did, for it to make sense and not be "random and meaningless"? Do you believe that the only alternative to everyone on the Playground holding the opinions they do, and making the posts they've made, is random meaningless chaos?

Or can you conceptualize free will, and the ability to hold whatever opinion one chooses, and take whatever path one desires** in life?

Can you not conceptualize and comprehend the possibility of an RPG being played with the freedom most believe without question that they have in life, and that not being random or meaningless?

* I am not discounting the possibility of linear, deterministic reality.
** subject to the limitations of the rules of reality.

[Milo v3]

I'm sincerely surprised people are still trying to convince Darth Ultron that words actually mean what they mean to 99% of the population and match their dictionary definitions. He's already said over and over that his definitions for these things are completely different to everyone else and he is unable to ever alter his argument.

[Darth Ultron]

Yeah, I'm... at a loss here. In a linear adventure, the players must slay the Dragon at the end of the path. In a branching adventure, they will have various paths to take to accomplish that goal; in a truly linear adventure, there is only one possible path.

But your doing the same thing to make a problem where one does not exist.

Like you agree :ALL TRPG must be linear as in ''arranged in or extending along a straight or nearly straight line". A

And that is good, Stop right there. Period. The End.

But you don't, you have to add on ''linear must allways mean the DM is a jerk and forces the players to do one thing''. And, yet again, I'm saying don't go there.

Like for the car example:

Your friend Fred has a flat screen TV he wants to give you. So your goal is simple: go get the TV. Between your house and his house are lots of roads, and your free to pick any way you want to get to his house...you can drive a mostly straight line, or you can drive in a wide circle around...but in both cases you will get to Freds house.

And that is it, the Dictionary definition of Linear: arranged in or extending along a straight or nearly straight line"

BUT, then your automatically adding well what if every time you drive your car you MUST take the bumpy road, drive blindfolded and set your car on fire.

And I'm saying just STOP...you can drive your car and, NOT light your car on fire(or wear a blindfold or take the bumpy road).

In a sandbox, as in most* people's perception of IRL, the Dragon simply is. The players can attempt any number of ways to try to kill it (how many may actually work will depend on the game, the GM, etc), or to actually ally with it to accomplish some other goal, or even ignore it entirely.

Again, the whole point is that is a normal game...one where the DM absolutely does not force the players to do anything ever.

Can you not conceptualize and comprehend the possibility of an RPG being played with the freedom most believe without question that they have in life, and that not being random or meaningless?

.

Again, the game is not reality.

[Milo v3]

Like you agree :ALL TRPG must be linear as in ''arranged in or extending along a straight or nearly straight line". A

And that is good, Stop right there. Period. The End.

Question, what do you think about TRPG campaigns where there is no planned destination? It seems very easy for me to run a game where it's not arranged in a straight line. And there are even whole RPGs which are specifically designed for non-linear games.

[1337 b4k4]

Your friend Fred has a flat screen TV he wants to give you. So your goal is simple: go get the TV. Between your house and his house are lots of roads, and your free to pick any way you want to get to his house...you can drive a mostly straight line, or you can drive in a wide circle around...but in both cases you will get to Freds house.

Honestly Darth, you're really being obtuse, and usually I'm at least partially on your side of things. There's a difference between waking up in the morning and following an hourly schedule that you planned out the day before, and waking up and spending the day doing what you want, even if the end result is the same. At the end of the day, you have a linear series of events, but how those events were put into place is different.

A linear game is like the planned day, you might deviate slightly from what's in the book, but ultimately you'll follow the plan that was pre-determined. And it doesn't require a jerk DM either, there's nothing badwrongfun with players agreeing to play a linear adventure or campaign. A sandbox game is like the unplanned day. Nothing about not having the day planned out ahead of time implies your day won't be productive or useful, and likewise nothing about not having the game events plotted out before hand means that nothing productive will get done.

[flond]

Question, what do you think about TRPG campaigns where there is no planned destination? It seems very easy for me to run a game where it's not arranged in a straight line. And there are even whole RPGs which are specifically designed for non-linear games.

Don't you know, hexcrawls and BECMI play are just random.

[Quertus]

But your doing the same thing to make a problem where one does not exist.

Like you agree :ALL TRPG must be linear as in ''arranged in or extending along a straight or nearly straight line". A

And that is good, Stop right there. Period. The End.

But you don't, you have to add on ''linear must allways mean the DM is a jerk and forces the players to do one thing''. And, yet again, I'm saying don't go there.

Like for the car example:

Your friend Fred has a flat screen TV he wants to give you. So your goal is simple: go get the TV. Between your house and his house are lots of roads, and your free to pick any way you want to get to his house...you can drive a mostly straight line, or you can drive in a wide circle around...but in both cases you will get to Freds house.

And that is it, the Dictionary definition of Linear: arranged in or extending along a straight or nearly straight line"

BUT, then your automatically adding well what if every time you drive your car you MUST take the bumpy road, drive blindfolded and set your car on fire.

And I'm saying just STOP...you can drive your car and, NOT light your car on fire(or wear a blindfold or take the bumpy road).




Again, the whole point is that is a normal game...one where the DM absolutely does not force the players to do anything ever.




Again, the game is not reality.

Quertus, my signature character for whom this account is named, had numerous goals. One of them was to create a specific magic item. I never told any of my GMs about this goal. About 25 DMs later, Quertus had finally collected the spells and components necessary to achieve this particular goal.

"Creating this item" was never the plot of the game. It's just something that happened as the natural consequence of Quertus' desires and adventures. The appearance of this item, and even the materials used to create this item, were entirely dependent upon what Quertus found. Technically, one or two of the functions of the item changed from my original specifications based on availability; ie, was its luminescence caused by the Light spell or by Fairy Fire? Well, that depends on which Quertus finds.

In what way was the creation of this item following a linear path?

-----

I'm really not seeing how your bumpy car analogy parallels this discussion - certainly not compared to my parallel of the life of a character vs the life of a person.

It's especially confusing that you dismiss my analogy with "one is not the other", while making an analogy of your own. So, clearly, you know what an analogy is. But I find your analogy no easier to follow than, well, most of your examples.

-----

One thing I may follow is your belief that "linear" is inherently an attack on the GM. Lemme just say, you should stop accusing everyone else of being "anti-DM" - attacking the GM is my shtick!

Now, as to you trying to say that every game must extend among a straight line... I mean, I think I know what everyone else means when they use those words, but I'm not sure what you mean. Does your life extend among a straight line? Has Quertus'?

But, perhaps more importantly, if, by your definition, every game is linear, then "linear" would become a meaningless phrase to differentiate games. The word "mammal" has meaning because not all life forms are mammals. Thus, in a thread you created to decry another word, sandbox, as meaningless, why would you offer up a definition of "linear" which removes its meaning?

[Darth Ultron]

Question, what do you think about TRPG campaigns where there is no planned destination? It seems very easy for me to run a game where it's not arranged in a straight line. And there are even whole RPGs which are specifically designed for non-linear games.

Yes, As I've type dozens of times...sigh....yes there are many games out there for every type of play, but here in this thread I'm only talking about the huge number that are ''just like D&D'': with things like a GM, a setting, player characters, etc. I'm not talking about every game ever made ever. Some people want to play the game where they just sit around and tell ''and then'' type stories, and there are games for that. But that is not the type of game I'm talking about.

Honestly Darth, you're really being obtuse, and usually I'm at least partially on your side of things. There's a difference between waking up in the morning and following an hourly schedule that you planned out the day before, and waking up and spending the day doing what you want, even if the end result is the same. At the end of the day, you have a linear series of events, but how those events were put into place is different.

A linear game is like the planned day, you might deviate slightly from what's in the book, but ultimately you'll follow the plan that was pre-determined. And it doesn't require a jerk DM either, there's nothing badwrongfun with players agreeing to play a linear adventure or campaign. A sandbox game is like the unplanned day. Nothing about not having the day planned out ahead of time implies your day won't be productive or useful, and likewise nothing about not having the game events plotted out before hand means that nothing productive will get done.

What? How do you get ''following an hourly schedule that you planned out'' and ''day doing what you want'' to lead to the same result at the end of the day? And this is a bad example as BOTH people are spending the ''day doing what they want''.

Like ok....on Saturday Adam and Zeno both want to build a shed in their backyard. So Adam prepares for this by buying the needed materials during the week, making sure he has the needed tools, gets some detailed plan instructions on 'how to build a shed', invites some friends over to help, and pre places a pre order for a 'seven foot sub' for lunch for everyone. Zeno sits on his sofa and watches TV all week. Come Saturday Adam follows the instructions and builds his shed, while Zeno sits on his sofa, watches TV and does not build his shed. So by 6pm Saturday, Adam has a new shed, and Zeno does not.

Now Adam did Plan A, but lets say Bob wanted a shed too, so he does Plan B: he hires a guy to build a shed for him. So, at the end of the day, both Adam and Bob have new sheds...they took different paths to get that goal, but they both got to the same goal.

In what way was the creation of this item following a linear path?

Well, your wacky metagame example is just too wacky to think about...and it's about YOU the person, and I'd rather not get so personal.

I'm really not seeing how your bumpy car analogy parallels this discussion - certainly not compared to my parallel of the life of a character vs the life of a person.

It's especially confusing that you dismiss my analogy with "one is not the other", while making an analogy of your own. So, clearly, you know what an analogy is. But I find your analogy no easier to follow than, well, most of your examples.

Someone..was it you made the car analogy.

Now, as to you trying to say that every game must extend among a straight line... I mean, I think I know what everyone else means when they use those words, but I'm not sure what you mean. Does your life extend among a straight line? Has Quertus'?

Again, you can't mix reality and the fiactional game.....really, this keeps coming up: does everyone think the events and actions in the game are somehow real exactly like reality?

But, perhaps more importantly, if, by your definition, every game is linear, then "linear" would become a meaningless phrase to differentiate games. The word "mammal" has meaning because not all life forms are mammals. Thus, in a thread you created to decry another word, sandbox, as meaningless, why would you offer up a definition of "linear" which removes its meaning?

Threads just go all over the place. Linear is a meaningless phrase will be another thread...it will be so much fun. I'll pick like a couple classic, well written modules(not the bad jerky railroad ones that, yes, do exist) and ask ok, is this module that lets the players do ''whatever they want(in the module adventure) " linear and watch how Everyone says YES. Then I'd ask where in the module does it say the DM must force the players unwinnigly to do encounter A1..and when Everyone could not do that the fun would really start.

[Earthwalker]

Yes, As I've type dozens of times...sigh....yes there are many games out there for every type of play, but here in this thread I'm only talking about the huge number that are ''just like D&D'': with things like a GM, a setting, player characters, etc. I'm not talking about every game ever made ever. Some people want to play the game where they just sit around and tell ''and then'' type stories, and there are games for that. But that is not the type of game I'm talking about.
.

WOW…

DU: Sandbox is a meaningless phrase. No one plays sandboxes.
People: I play sandboxes.
DU: Well I have said multiple times sandboxes are games people play but I aren’t counting them. So my statement is true. Sandboxes is a meaningless phase.

Page 16 of the thread.

[Lorsa]

Yes, As I've type dozens of times...sigh....yes there are many games out there for every type of play, but here in this thread I'm only talking about the huge number that are ''just like D&D'': with things like a GM, a setting, player characters, etc. I'm not talking about every game ever made ever. Some people want to play the game where they just sit around and tell ''and then'' type stories, and there are games for that. But that is not the type of game I'm talking about.

And D&D can be played with a GM, a setting, player character etc and NOT be linear. So what are you trying to say?

When I am a DM, I make what you call "adventures". Yet, my games are not linear games. Can you get your head to figure out how this works?

Again, you can't mix reality and the fiactional game.....really, this keeps coming up: does everyone think the events and actions in the game are somehow real exactly like reality?

You can make comparisons.

If you write down the events of my life vs. the events of my PC's life, you can look at both as stories and compare them.

Then you can ask yourself how, if reality is able to produce a coherent story without having a pre-planned linear path, a RPG could not.

The only difference between reality and a RPG is that a DM decides upon the actions of basically everyone in the world but the players' characters. This really doesn't matter in regards to the question though.

If reality can produce a coherent story without a pre-planned linear path, so can a RPG.

Threads just go all over the place. Linear is a meaningless phrase will be another thread...it will be so much fun. I'll pick like a couple classic, well written modules(not the bad jerky railroad ones that, yes, do exist) and ask ok, is this module that lets the players do ''whatever they want(in the module adventure) " linear and watch how Everyone says YES. Then I'd ask where in the module does it say the DM must force the players unwinnigly to do encounter A1..and when Everyone could not do that the fun would really start.

Linear adventures does not equal railroading. We've said that a hundred million times.

However, for a linear adventure, if the players decide (and are allowed to) take actions that do not bring them to, say, encounter A1, A2 and A3, then the adventure has no answer how to bring them to the ending B. So the linear adventure would fail.

A non-linear adventure DO NOT have a specific ending (be it B, C, D or whatever) in mind. Therefore, it's an open question where the players will end up in the end.

[Segev]

I'm sincerely surprised people are still trying to convince Darth Ultron that words actually mean what they mean to 99% of the population and match their dictionary definitions. He's already said over and over that his definitions for these things are completely different to everyone else and he is unable to ever alter his argument.

The trouble is that he also isn't consistent in his own usage of the definitions. Sure, he'll claim he is, and use the same (or close enough) definitions when cornered on it, but in actual usage, he just waits for people to start using his claimed definitions before snapping them to much narrower ones that more closely agree with how "everyone" uses them in order to claim that people who disagree with his actual premise were lying when they said they disagreed with him.

He's playing semantic games - poorly - to try to trick his way into winning an argument and claiming a mantle of superior wisdom for having seen through "everyone else's" self-delusions. See, to him, we're all blind, foolish children who need a DM to lead us by the hand, and if we try to do anything the DM didn't guide us to, we're wicked brats throwing tantrums and delighting in ruining his carefully-designed dinner party. And any disagreement with this is just us lying about how we're throwing tantrums, because we're "bad players" of the sort he regularly sends "crying" from his table.

[kyoryu]

If you boil away all of the strawman attacks, ad-hominems, apparent inability to accept the statements of other people, and unique use of terms, the point isn't actually that unreasonable:

"If you're in a linear game and you know it, just suspend your disbelief a little bit and go with the flow of what's going on."

It's not an unreasonable statement.

He kinda reminds me of jedipotter - both have very set styles of play, don't believe that anyone can successfully do anything apart from what they're doing, and quickly descend into insults when people disagree with them. And both occasionally make actually useful points, if you can get to them underneath all the other junk.

[Scripten]

He kinda reminds me of jedipotter - both have very set styles of play, don't believe that anyone can successfully do anything apart from what they're doing, and quickly descend into insults when people disagree with them. And both occasionally make actually useful points, if you can get to them underneath all the other junk.

I could have sworn that someone had found out that they were one and the same. Maybe I am remembering wrong, though.

[kyoryu]

I could have sworn that someone had found out that they were one and the same. Maybe I am remembering wrong, though.

I'm really sure they're not. Jedipotter is an old-school, dungeon-centric kinda GM from what I recall, while DU is more of a linear story kinda guy.

[Quertus]

Yes, As I've type dozens of times...sigh....yes there are many games out there for every type of play, but here in this thread I'm only talking about the huge number that are ''just like D&D'': with things like a GM, a setting, player characters, etc. I'm not talking about every game ever made ever. Some people want to play the game where they just sit around and tell ''and then'' type stories, and there are games for that. But that is not the type of game I'm talking about.

"And then" style games are more world building than sandbox exploration.

D&D can be played where "there is a dragon, your mission is to kill it". D&D can also be played where "there is a dragon" is simply a fact, and deciding what to do about that fact (ignore it, kill it, sneak in and loot it, ally with it, ask it to review the book you've been working on, etc) is up to the characters.

What? How do you get ''following an hourly schedule that you planned out'' and ''day doing what you want'' to lead to the same result at the end of the day? And this is a bad example as BOTH people are spending the ''day doing what they want''.

Like ok....on Saturday Adam and Zeno both want to build a shed in their backyard. So Adam prepares for this by buying the needed materials during the week, making sure he has the needed tools, gets some detailed plan instructions on 'how to build a shed', invites some friends over to help, and pre places a pre order for a 'seven foot sub' for lunch for everyone. Zeno sits on his sofa and watches TV all week. Come Saturday Adam follows the instructions and builds his shed, while Zeno sits on his sofa, watches TV and does not build his shed. So by 6pm Saturday, Adam has a new shed, and Zeno does not.

Now Adam did Plan A, but lets say Bob wanted a shed too, so he does Plan B: he hires a guy to build a shed for him. So, at the end of the day, both Adam and Bob have new sheds...they took different paths to get that goal, but they both got to the same goal.

And while Adam and Bob built sheds, Quertus built a magic item, Woody tried out new vices, Khan led a sermon on the importance of sermons, and Armus gathered Intel on the livestock attrition rates in border towns.

The question is, is building a shed the goal, or is the goal whatever the characters set for themselves?

Well, your wacky metagame example is just too wacky to think about...and it's about YOU the person, and I'd rather not get so personal.

Actually, it's about the character for whom this account is named...

Again, you can't mix reality and the fiactional game.....really, this keeps coming up: does everyone think the events and actions in the game are somehow real exactly like reality?

Analogies don't require "exactly like".

Threads just go all over the place. Linear is a meaningless phrase will be another thread...it will be so much fun. I'll pick like a couple classic, well written modules(not the bad jerky railroad ones that, yes, do exist) and ask ok, is this module that lets the players do ''whatever they want(in the module adventure) " linear and watch how Everyone says YES. Then I'd ask where in the module does it say the DM must force the players unwinnigly to do encounter A1..and when Everyone could not do that the fun would really start.

I mean, most published modules are linear / branching path. However, there is one that people keep mentioning - Keep on the Borlands, maybe? - where the module has a number of elements, and what the players react to, who they ally with, etc, is seemingly up to them to determine. Or perhaps I'm giving that module too much credit, having never seen or played it.

[Cluedrew]

Actually, I think the core Darth Ultron's stance actually makes sense if you accept a certain set of premises. The problem is he isn't actually willing to admit at least one of those premises and so does all of this... dancing to try and generalize it so you don't need those premises to justify the game style. So of course the punch-line to this the premise that he doesn't want to admit: Unskilled GM. Or to be more precise about it: A GM at my skill level.

Which is actually how I arrived at this conclusion. I have read many of his examples, and explanations of how things work out and they don't match many games I have played. But they match a lot of the games I have run. Put simply my game tend to be highly linear, involve co-GMs or devolve into "meaningless" (but not always unfun) gameplay. Because at present that is the limit of what I can do.

So I guess part of the reason I have more patience for Darth Ultron than others* is when he starts going on, I see the me that after a disastrous game decided to blame the players (or even the structure of the medium) instead of deciding to try and improve. So Darth Ultron, if you ever want to try to run these "impossible" games, maybe we could brainstorm together. But until then, I think you will rage in circles and convince no-body on this matter.

This ended up being a bit more... heartfelt than I first intended.

* besides being patient generally.