New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 448
  1. - Top - End - #211
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Wyoming

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    The mindsets narrative makes more sense, and I often see it referred to as "sharing the spotlight".

    Often times, this term only applies to players; but in practice I see it apply to GMs and players as well. Sometimes, it is up to the GM to be in the spotlight, and other times the various players. This is a give-and-take that is organic at the table though. All players (GM and Character drivers) should be looking for when to shift that spotlight around and when to hold onto it.

    The Mindsets makes more sense to me as I have never seen a pure Authored or a pure Emergent game in action and I have played plenty of games of various systems. I have seen more of the "spotlight shifting" between GM and players though based on the needs of the table at the time as it fluctuates between authored and emergent sections.
    *This Space Available*

  2. - Top - End - #212
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by truemane View Post
    If we're emulating, then the rules need to ensure the players find the right clues, regardless of what happens.
    Why? I was trying to follow your point about the difference between simulating vs emulating (which is an age old contrast IMX), but then you lost me when you threw this out as an example of a requirement of emulating.

  3. - Top - End - #213
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by truemane View Post
    But to me, the enterprise-level dichotomy here isn't Railroading vs Agency. I think that's one result of the thing, not the thing itself. The map, not the land, as it were.
    I actually disagree with the idea of a core dichotomy/top level split at all. They end up being much less useful and create more issues.

    In this case, what I'm really proposing is two contrary descriptors.

    Quote Originally Posted by truemane View Post
    The core dichotomy is: What are the rules for? Are they meant to simulate or emulate?

    Are the rules there to reasonably, validly, realistically (or, more precisely, with verisimilitude) simulate a stable, objective universe which the players move through and act on? Or, are they meant to emulate a specific kind of experience, even if that experience isn't realistic?
    Oh, hi, GNS/GDS.

    Again, those are useful distinctions, but I don't think they're a core-level categorization tool.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  4. - Top - End - #214
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by truemane View Post
    It seems to me that, when we fight about railroading or agency, what we're really fighting about is what are the rules actually for?
    They are: for arguing about in the internet or, a tool set for creating a play experience.
    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    I actually disagree with the idea of a core dichotomy/top level split at all.
    Your title has the conflict you are saying you don't want built right into it.
    "Authored" vs. "Emergent" That structure implies that they are in opposition.
    (Perhaps we see here a case of inadvertently poisoning one's own well)
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2022-05-04 at 12:28 PM.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  5. - Top - End - #215
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    Besides the motivating example about why you might want to mix these structures, I think everything I said was about the order in which you go through, or can go through, scenes. kyoryu seemed to be trying to get at that* matter.

    When you have one scene you it sits alone. But if you have two scenes are they ordered (A and then B), unordered (A and B, or B and A) or branching (A or B, but only one)? I'm still debating if optional (maybe A then B) is its own thing or not, it might be branching plus ordered where only one branch has a scene ((- or A) then B). And none of this is getting into any effects on scenes beyond when and if they are visited.

    Spoiler: Footnote
    Show
    *
    Confusion. Let's step back a pace.

    Suppose you're about to go talk to the king, to try to get him to send his army to fight the Orcs.

    That's the (intended) upcoming scene.

    Now, there's "playing that scene straight", the way it was "written". But there's also the parallel universe where the Duke who was going to oppose you was murdered. Or the parallel universe where the Count who was going to help you has been maneuvered out of the city. Or the parallel universe where the "king" is actually your mind-controlled Doppleganger / Simulacrum / puppet.

    The play through each of these scenes is different. The difficulty of each of these scenes is different. But are they different scenes, or the same scene?

    I was a) taking them all to be the same scene; b) taking you to be discussing the ability to set up that difference between the variant scenes.

    So... if the GM is gonna railroad the players into "the next scene IS talking to the king to (try to) get him to send his army", but allows the players the agency to setup the variables within that scene however they desire... a) is that what you're talking about; b) isn't that still "Authored" path?

  6. - Top - End - #216
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    Your title has the conflict you are saying you don't want built right into it.
    "Authored" vs. "Emergent" That structure implies that they are in opposition.
    (Perhaps we see here a case of inadvertently poisoning one's own well)
    sigh

    It seems like you're looking for reasons to argue here.

    I'm saying those properties are opposed. Not that they are a top level categorical split.

    IOW, my position is that things can be blue, or they can be red. I am not arguing that "blue things vs. red things" is a top-level split by which we should start categorizing.

    Quote Originally Posted by me
    I actually disagree with the idea of a core dichotomy/top level split at all. They end up being much less useful and create more issues.

    In this case, what I'm really proposing is two contrary descriptors.
    Descriptors are not categories. Think more like "tags".

    So we've had two essential groups of tags proposed - authored/emergent and gamist/simulationist/dramatist. (I'll prefer GDS over GNS, kthx). While not arguing about the accuracy of either, these can exist in vairous combinations, along with other descriptors.

    Authored and Simulationist (probably pretty rare)
    Authored and Dramatist
    Authored and Gamist

    Emergent and Simulationist
    Emergent and Dramatist
    Emergent and Gamist (also probably rare)

    I argue that neither of these groupings are a good top-level split for categorization, because any individual might place higher priority on one of those descriptors than the other set. Someone might say "I really like emergent play, regardless of GDS tag" and some people might say "I really like Dramatist play, regardless of whether it's emergent or authored".

    (I'd guess based on observation that many tags are loosely correlated with each other - most simulationist folks tend to like more emergent games, and good gamist stuff seems a bit harder to do unless it's authored, as that kind of balance/design is kinda useful for good gamist play. There'd be other examples from other tag groups too, I'm sure)
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  7. - Top - End - #217
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    I'm saying those properties are opposed. Not that they are a top level categorical split.

    IOW, my position is that things can be blue, or they can be red. I am not arguing that "blue things vs. red things" is a top-level split by which we should start categorizing.
    And this is where I disagree. They exist simultaneously within every campaign in differing amounts at different levels and different times. And both exist in different people (or even within the same individual) except in extreme edge cases. And I'm not even sure that they're a complete set: Authored + Emergent == 1 is not definitional at this point. There may be other properties (or approaches) that are not included in either one.

    They're manifestations of a single property (or my preference is to consider them approaches to that property), but they're not binary opposites. They describe one of many axes that are relevant to this particular thing. Effectively, they're a subset of "how do you share the content-creation arena between participants in this game." And it shifts and changes. So portraying them as opposed properties creates a lot of heat but not a lot of light. And using them to describe games (even at the "campaign played at this table at this time" meaning) is extremely over-inclusive, while not describing essential differences. A campaign may shift from dominantly having a single specific scope being created and iterated by the DM to being created and iterated by the players and back many times during the span of events. And different scopes may have different time-averages.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  8. - Top - End - #218
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    I have always used railroading as the GM warping the setting / rules of the game to stop the PCs from doing something.

    It doesn't have to be a single path, or even a linear scenario.

    There can be a thousand open doors, but if one of them is barred to the players, it is still a railroad. Assuming that the barricade is put there by DM FIAT and defended with paper thin excuses of course.


    Agree? Disagree?
    I think that's equivalent to the definition of "Railroading" that I use (anytime the GM changes/ignores game state / game physics to force or prevent a particular course of action or outcome, in opposition to player intent and the social contract). So, Agree?

    But, more importantly, "railroading" is not actually in any way the topic of this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by NichG View Post
    I think the abstraction into scenes is causing a misunderstanding here, since for some posters it's implying that all player interaction with the game happens during scenes and never between.

    I read Kyoryu's step #4 as potentially including decisions such as 'what do the characters do next at the macro level?'.

    So let's say the GM decides that the enemies are intending to retaliate. If the players say 'we return to town and sleep at the inn', then the next 'scene' happens at the inn. If the players say 'we return to town and scry on our enemy' then the next scene would instead be e.g. seeing the planning for the retaliatory strike. If the players say 'let's press our advantage and follow the lieutenant' then the next scene is at the enemy base. If the players say 'I'm done with adventuring here, let's Plane Shift to Elysium for a holiday', ...

    In one reading, these decisions are made in #2 before #3 is resolved. In another reading these are macro decisions made in #4 that can depend on the visible parts of what was decided in #3.
    Dang. I think you're right. And I liked that simple list, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    I was trying to keep it to the "GM contra player" idea of "who generates content".

    But yeah, I probably don't have the best phrasing. It's more about "who's holding the progress-the-narrative ball right now". Sometimes that's the players. Sometimes that's the DM. And the ball might be in different hands at different meta-scopes (Macro vs micro, etc). And people may like the ball to be basically entirely in the DM's court at the Super-Macro level but completely in their court at the Super-Micro, with some variation in between.

    Edit: I agree with the frustration at having pre-written, set-in-stone "builds" (either mechanically or personality/backstory or both). For me, figuring out what's going to happen is most of the fun. Even as a DM. I tend to sit in the Emergent mindset at many levels, although I'll grab the reins if they're let fall. Oddly, looking backward at a campaign or a character, things look really pre-determined. It looks like I had a plan all along and was just leading people through it. Despite usually hitting Saturday afternoon and not really having a clue how things will unfold. Playing online means I need to make maps ahead of time which does impose some constraints, but my "mind vision" and actual gameplay are...quite different. Because things come out of my mouth and I'm like "ok, let's run with that".

    Spoiler: rambling thoughts
    Show


    Different game systems have different "natural" set-points. "Traditional" games (aka D&D & D&D-likes) tend to put the ball more heavily into the DM's court at the macro-plus scopes but leave the micro/super-micro largely up to the players (with variation on all sides). Microscope doesn't even have that distinction at all--everyone is simultaneously the DM and the player. Games with more narrative tools or wiwth a different attitude (PbtA generally?) puts more of the ball in the players' hands at more of the levels. But these are just defaults--you can play D&D with a very "Emergent" mindset on all parties, although it takes a bit more work in some ways (and less in others). I'm not sure if you can GM a PbtA game in a very "Authored" mindset--I've heard that there is a really strong stance against that.

    But the key is that players and DM alike must have a meeting of the minds as to what mindset they're in. Because if both sides are fighting over the ball, bad things happen. Consider the four "pure" corner cases:
    * DM is Emergent, Players are Emergent. Great. No issues.
    * DM is Emergent, Players are Authored. Bad things. Featureless white room (in the pathological case). The DM is expecting the players to make decisions and seek things out, but they're expecting the DM to lead them to adventure. Frustration ensues. Neither side wants the ball.
    * DM is Authored, Players are Authored. Great. The players know they've signed up for the amusement park ride and settle in with popcorn. In one sense, this is the "TTRPG as JRPG" style.
    * DM is Authored, Players are Emergent. Bad things. Both sides want the ball. And so battles commence, with the DM trying to force the players back onto "the path" (even if he only decided what that was a few minutes ago[1]) and the players straining to escape the "rails".

    And this disagreement can happen at many different scopes.
    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    This is pretty close, yes.

    The GM can still have a lot of responsibility, though. As I said, in games I run, I do a reasonable amount of prep, and it's in no way a "static sandbox" where nothing happens unless the players initiate it. "Here's a problem, you decide what to do about it" is a common way of running emergent games (where usually it's best to get buy-in to the problem at a player-level rather than a character level).



    This is why I don't like "static sandboxes" in most cases, and why I think that though there are people that do like them, they're moderately niche. This "well, players just stare at their navels" seems to be a bit of a common strawman, with the next bit being "therefore, we must have linear games!"

    I guess another way of looking at it is (at least at the macro level) to look at who provides the problems and solutions:

    Authored subtypes:
    Linear game: GM provides the problem and the solution
    GM-as-facilitator: players provide the problem, GM provides the solution

    Emergent subtypes:
    "Story sandbox": GM provides the problem, players provide the solution
    "Static sandbox": players provide the problem and the solution
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    And this is where I disagree. They exist simultaneously within every campaign in differing amounts at different levels and different times. And both exist in different people (or even within the same individual) except in extreme edge cases. And I'm not even sure that they're a complete set: Authored + Emergent == 1 is not definitional at this point. There may be other properties (or approaches) that are not included in either one.

    They're manifestations of a single property (or my preference is to consider them approaches to that property), but they're not binary opposites. They describe one of many axes that are relevant to this particular thing. Effectively, they're a subset of "how do you share the content-creation arena between participants in this game." And it shifts and changes. So portraying them as opposed properties creates a lot of heat but not a lot of light. And using them to describe games (even at the "campaign played at this table at this time" meaning) is extremely over-inclusive, while not describing essential differences. A campaign may shift from dominantly having a single specific scope being created and iterated by the DM to being created and iterated by the players and back many times during the span of events. And different scopes may have different time-averages.
    I think I'm just getting more confused.

    I thought that the big thing about "Authored" vs "Emergent" was "which scene comes next"; that, in Authored, the GM *knows* that certain scenes will happen, and can thus plan them out meticulously, and guarantee that they aren't wasting their time doing so for a scene that will never be seen. Whereas, in Emergent, the players' actions determine the story, which scenes come next, which scenes even happen at all.

    Is there some non-stupid way to define these terms such that they aren't both mutually-exclusive and all-encompassing? I had kinda thought of that as a good litmus test for "did you define the terms reasonably" - is that wrong? I'm no longer sure which of the smart ways to define these terms is best, but if there's a valid way to define them such that they aren't all-encompassing, that would be important to know - it changes what we can say and assume before we've nailed down the finicky bits of the definitions.

    Further, I'm wondering whether discussions of Authored vs Emergent pathing are... hmmm... superfluous if we were to adopt the micro/macro agency stuff. Is there anything in an Authored vs Emergent discussion that isn't covered by discussion of micro and macro agency? Anything that is easier to discuss in terms of Authored vs Emergent?

  9. - Top - End - #219
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    I think I'm just getting more confused.

    I thought that the big thing about "Authored" vs "Emergent" was "which scene comes next"; that, in Authored, the GM *knows* that certain scenes will happen, and can thus plan them out meticulously, and guarantee that they aren't wasting their time doing so for a scene that will never be seen. Whereas, in Emergent, the players' actions determine the story, which scenes come next, which scenes even happen at all.

    Is there some non-stupid way to define these terms such that they aren't both mutually-exclusive and all-encompassing? I had kinda thought of that as a good litmus test for "did you define the terms reasonably" - is that wrong? I'm no longer sure which of the smart ways to define these terms is best, but if there's a valid way to define them such that they aren't all-encompassing, that would be important to know - it changes what we can say and assume before we've nailed down the finicky bits of the definitions.

    Further, I'm wondering whether discussions of Authored vs Emergent pathing are... hmmm... superfluous if we were to adopt the micro/macro agency stuff. Is there anything in an Authored vs Emergent discussion that isn't covered by discussion of micro and macro agency? Anything that is easier to discuss in terms of Authored vs Emergent?
    I still think the planned/unplanned dichotomy is the most significant new idea about this stuff (noting this is about the pre-planning of decisions about what will happen, not 'any form of game prep') The player vs GM control of direction doesn't seem particularly different than other older terminology, neither does any of the agency stuff.

    But the idea that one might want a game where people intentionally avoid thinking about 'what is likely to happen' or 'what am I going to do' in advance is interesting, and it resonates with my experience that the gameplay of planning and then executing a plan feels fundamentally different than decision-making under surprise conditions.

    I also like that in that framing, it's not a GM vs players thing - anyone at the table can contribute to an authored or emergent mindset. The paranoid divination wizard for example is an archetype that basically pushes (this sense of) authored mindset hard, requiring things to be predetermined far in advance of when they demand a reaction. So taking it that way, you can apply this to GM-less games too. I mentioned Microscope before as pushing what I felt was characteristic of emergence, but we could design an authored mindset version of that game that does encourage discussion and negotiation in advance before players define their events and scenes and such.
    Last edited by NichG; 2022-05-04 at 02:11 PM.

  10. - Top - End - #220
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheesegear View Post
    *Points to the thread*

    That depends on the DM's characterisation of Old Man Jenkins. Hell, his three dead sons could make an appearance later. Published WotC modules have backstories for everyone, including shopkeepers. Literally every NPC the players ever meet is an opportunity for roleplaying. If the players engage, keep bringing them back. If they don't...Get rid of that NPC and never show them again. It's not rocket science.
    Maybe i have played a couple of decades too long, but RPG shopping holds about as much excitement and thrill for me as real life shopping. And i am generally not more interested in made up shopkeepers private lives than in real world shopkeepers private lives. Nearly all the players i know feel quite similar, so shopping tends to get handle as abstract as the situation allows.

    But if you have players with a habit of doing smalltalk with shopkeepers, then it would indeed be wise to somewhat flesh out the shopkeeper.

    The tone of this thread suggests that A and C are non-options if you're a 'good DM'.
    I don't see it. How do ou get to that conclusion ?

  11. - Top - End - #221
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    I think that's equivalent to the definition of "Railroading" that I use (anytime the GM changes/ignores game state / game physics to force or prevent a particular course of action or outcome, in opposition to player intent and the social contract). So, Agree?

    But, more importantly, "railroading" is not actually in any way the topic of this thread.
    From past discussions, I thought you were one of the people who equated "authored" games with railroads.

    Kyoru sure seems to as well, the OP stats "We keep talking about sandbox and railroad/linear games," so it seems only natural that people are going to want to hammer out what those terms mean before redefining them.



    Personally, I disagree with the entire premise, because IMO sandbox games present no choices that "matter". If I want to wander around aimlessly, I can do that in real life. And that is what an actual, fairly run, sandbox is; wandering around hoping to stumble into something important. And most GM's will oblige you in that matter; the PCs always happen to arrive at just the right place and or time to stumble onto something big, but 99/100 times that isn't natural, its the GM forcing an authored element into an emergent experience.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  12. - Top - End - #222
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Jan 2008

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Personally, I disagree with the entire premise, because IMO sandbox games present no choices that "matter". If I want to wander around aimlessly, I can do that in real life. And that is what an actual, fairly run, sandbox is; wandering around hoping to stumble into something important. And most GM's will oblige you in that matter; the PCs always happen to arrive at just the right place and or time to stumble onto something big, but 99/100 times that isn't natural, its the GM forcing an authored element into an emergent experience.
    Emphases mine. Agreed.

    Like I said, I envision all 'sandboxes' as simply central train stations. You're still on rails no matter where you go, because the DM is usually if not always going to have something planned because random encounters all day, every day, is usually lame.

    You just get to choose which rails you're on, and sometimes - but not always - you have the ability to change tracks before the end of the line. Sometimes you get off at a station, and change trains.
    Spoiler: My Mum Says I'm Cool
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Anuan View Post
    Cheesegear; Lovable Thesaurus ItP.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lycan 01 View Post
    Cheesegear, have I told you yet that you're awesome?
    Quote Originally Posted by MeatShield#236 View Post
    ALL HAIL LORD CHEESEGEAR! Cheese for the cheesegear!
    Quote Originally Posted by Shas'aia Toriia View Post
    Cheesegear is awesome

  13. - Top - End - #223
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Personally, I disagree with the entire premise, because IMO sandbox games present no choices that "matter". If I want to wander around aimlessly, I can do that in real life. And that is what an actual, fairly run, sandbox is; wandering around hoping to stumble into something important. And most GM's will oblige you in that matter; the PCs always happen to arrive at just the right place and or time to stumble onto something big, but 99/100 times that isn't natural, its the GM forcing an authored element into an emergent experience.
    Sandboxes are not for "wandering aimlessly".
    Sandboxes are just environments full of places, people, situations. With a good seasoning of conflicts and volatility to serve as levers.

    Yes, the volatility is important so that the PCs can change things without being utterly overpowered. But volatility alone does not make a prescribed plot or behavior or story.

  14. - Top - End - #224
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    Sandboxes are not for "wandering aimlessly".
    Sandboxes are just environments full of places, people, situations. With a good seasoning of conflicts and volatility to serve as levers.

    Yes, the volatility is important so that the PCs can change things without being utterly overpowered. But volatility alone does not make a prescribed plot or behavior or story.
    And how are the players to become involved in said conflicts?

    Do you have a third path besides wander around aimlessly and hope to stumble into something or allowing the DM to insert authored content?

    Closest I can recall ever seeing are villain games, but those always leave a bad taste in my mouth as players get really salty about reactive antagonists.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  15. - Top - End - #225
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Apparently we've moved from not understanding what "railroading" is, to not understanding what a "sandbox" is.

    I will directly quote the relevant definition from a dictionary:

    Quote Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster
    2: a place, area, or environment that provides opportunities for variation and experimentation in a way suggestive of children playing in a sandbox

    : such as
    a: a video game or part of a video game in which the player is not constrained to achieving specific goals and has a large degree of freedom to explore, interact with, or modify the game environment.
    Wandering around, hoping to stumble upon something important, is a far cry from essence of a "sandbox" and if that's your understanding of a "sandbox game", you wouldn't have a good time playing such games and would have even worse time playing in an actual sandbox.

    The actual important feature of sandboxes, both figurative and literal, is that they allow for internally motivated action: the person in the box can choose for themselves what is important and pursue that instead of something externally dictated. Most of the emergent features in the box are a result of that person acting as an author within limits of the box: a castle is build from the sand because that person wanted to make a castle and took necessary actions to do so.

  16. - Top - End - #226
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    And how are the players to become involved in said conflicts?
    They learn about if. If you do an exploration sandbox, through their own information gathering/scouting. If not, you give them the simplyfied version at the start of the game as something their characters probably should know about their environment.
    Whether they then actually get involved is mostly player decision. If they don't that is fine as well. Then that particular conflict becomes background.
    Do you have a third path besides wander around aimlessly and hope to stumble into something or allowing the DM to insert authored content?
    I don't understand the question. The sandbox and its elements exist. If/what the players do with it or not and where that leads is all up in the air. Complety emergent gameplay. It is a bit like giving children a huge bag of lego bricks. Which ones they use what they build and what they play with what they build cannot be predicted from the outside. Nor do the children have to act aimlessly, they surely soon have an idea what to do when they see all the bricks.
    Closest I can recall ever seeing are villain games, but those always leave a bad taste in my mouth as players get really salty about reactive antagonists.
    Villain games tend to have proactive PCs and reactive environment, but that is only story convention. You can as easily make proactive games about building things up instead of destroying them.
    Last edited by Satinavian; 2022-05-05 at 02:04 AM.

  17. - Top - End - #227
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    This may be getting a bit off track; my point was that sandbox's inhibit the ability to make meaningful decisions, and that the extra ability to make trivial decisions is not worth the extra effort that everyone at the table has to put in to get anything back.

    If you could give me some examples of RPG modules or even video games which allow you to make meaningful decisions without authorial insertions, I would genuinely love to hear about them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    Villain games tend to have proactive PCs and reactive environment, but that is only story convention. You can as easily make proactive games about building things up instead of destroying them.
    It isn't about destroying vs. building up; its that reactive conflicts tend to be perceived by the players as coming out of left field to spoil their fun. In my experience, it doesn't matter what the players are doing, if an enemy shows up to stop them, they read it as a screw job that the DM pulled out of his or her behind.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  18. - Top - End - #228
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Jan 2008

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    Apparently we've moved from not understanding what "railroading" is, to not understanding what a "sandbox" is.
    Wrong. We still don't agree on to what level the DM's ability to control and dictate the entire world, impinges on the players' agency.

    You have one side arguing that literally anything the DM creates, infringes on player agency, and as such framing the definitions of 'railroads' and other words like sandbox around player agency, is a non-starter. Because if you think about it more than not-at-all, the DM controls and dictates the entire world, which effectively controls the choices the players can make. Ergo, players never actually have agency, at least not in the proactive sense. The players only have an array of choices made available to them via the DM (e.g; You have the choice of chocolate or vanilla, but you want peppermint. Sucks to be you.)

    As such, true Ermergent gameplay is exceedingly difficult, because most DMs don't really want to make a lot of stuff up at the table. Which means that even if you think you can 'go where you want', the fact has the DM has already decided almost always what is - and isn't - there. This is most strongly evidenced by maps. You can't actually do what you want in a sandbox. You can still only choose to do what the DM has put there. It's still Authored content, by the DM. Outside of the players' agency.

    You have the other side seemingly believing that player agency only matters in the scene-by-scene sense. That is, you come across a band of Goblins. You should be able to fight them, talk to them, run away, do nothing, etc. There isn't a fixed conclusion to the scene and the players can choose to do what they want, based on what they think is best and based on what their characters are good at. The players have agency in the sense that they can act and end the scene how they want, since the DM hasn't really planned anything beyond 'you see Goblins' and will narrate whatever comes after based on the players' actions, and not rather a fixed conclusion that they already have.

    However the first side then argues 'Who put the Goblins there in the first place? You can only choose to react to the Goblins. You can't choose to not react to the Goblins, because that's the scenario that the DM created' (You can choose to Disengage...From the Goblins. But you are still reacting to the fact that the Goblins are there.). If the debate argument is framed around player agency vs. DM control...Then the DM always wins, so long as the DM is the one determining what scenarios get encountered in the first place. The players don't have agency in what they encounter, only what they do, once they encounter it.

    Then we go Macro, back to the map, back to the 'sandbox':

    You can go anywhere you want (you have agency...). But you can only go to places the DM has made (...but not really), or will make. Even if a player comes up with an idea, even if a player comes up with a plot hook...The entire world is still bound by the DM's willingness and/or imagination to engage. You can't do what the DM just doesn't have. This is where the definition of sandbox doesn't make sense to the people making the first side, because the environment(s) are still created by the DM, outside the players' agency.
    Spoiler: My Mum Says I'm Cool
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Anuan View Post
    Cheesegear; Lovable Thesaurus ItP.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lycan 01 View Post
    Cheesegear, have I told you yet that you're awesome?
    Quote Originally Posted by MeatShield#236 View Post
    ALL HAIL LORD CHEESEGEAR! Cheese for the cheesegear!
    Quote Originally Posted by Shas'aia Toriia View Post
    Cheesegear is awesome

  19. - Top - End - #229
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    If you could give me some examples of RPG modules or even video games which allow you to make meaningful decisions without authorial insertions, I would genuinely love to hear about them.
    I'll ignore modules for a moment as most of which i use are out of print and not in English so you can't look them up.

    For popular computer games, Minecraft would be an example. It only provides you stuff to engage with, what you do with it or not is on you.

    Or, if you want more opposition, how about Europa Universalis 4. No Win condition whatsoever. It is basically you yourself choose a country and choose your own goals to pursue. There are easy goals and hard goals and all the other countries always do stuff as well. There are country missions you could pursue but those are just some optional challenges with rewards. Might be worth doing if you need the reward or for bragging rights, but that is all there is to them. You do what you think is fun to do and chose your own goals and challenges. As a (primarily) single player game it also doesn't care about whether you start super powerful or not.

    It isn't about destroying vs. building up; its that reactive conflicts tend to be perceived by the players as coming out of left field to spoil their fun. In my experience, it doesn't matter what the players are doing, if an enemy shows up to stop them, they read it as a screw job that the DM pulled out of his or her behind.
    Well, my players are different and i am not going into yet another discussion about about your players and table dynamics.

  20. - Top - End - #230
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    I'll ignore modules for a moment as most of which i use are out of print and not in English so you can't look them up.

    For popular computer games, Minecraft would be an example. It only provides you stuff to engage with, what you do with it or not is on you.

    Or, if you want more opposition, how about Europa Universalis 4. No Win condition whatsoever. It is basically you yourself choose a country and choose your own goals to pursue. There are easy goals and hard goals and all the other countries always do stuff as well. There are country missions you could pursue but those are just some optional challenges with rewards. Might be worth doing if you need the reward or for bragging rights, but that is all there is to them. You do what you think is fun to do and chose your own goals and challenges. As a (primarily) single player game it also doesn't care about whether you start super powerful or not.

    Minecraft takes it one step further than I did; it has no lore, no plot, no story, no meaningful decisions whatsoever. So yeah, perfect example of what I am talking about.

    Europa is a bit different in that you are playing as a nation rather than an individual, so its kind of an apples to oranges comparison.

    I really was more talking about games that are like somewhat like an RPG in structure; where you are an individual or small group of individuals exploring a world and having adventures of one sort or another.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  21. - Top - End - #231
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheesegear View Post
    As such, true Ermergent gameplay is exceedingly difficult, because most DMs don't really want to make a lot of stuff up at the table. Which means that even if you think you can 'go where you want', the fact has the DM has already decided almost always what is - and isn't - there.
    It is not for every GM, yes. Which is why literally no one in this thread has ever claimed "This is how everyone should run games.".
    You can go anywhere you want (you have agency...). But you can only go to places the DM has made (...but not really), or will make. Even if a player comes up with an idea, even if a player comes up with a plot hook...The entire world is still bound by the DM's willingness and/or imagination to engage. You can't do what the DM just doesn't have. This is where the definition of sandbox doesn't make sense to the people making the first side, because the environment(s) are still created by the DM, outside the players' agency.
    You are under the misconception that a GM filling a sandbox before play makes the whole game not emergent. That is plainly wrong. Emergence is about what happens, not what is.
    The events are not supposed to be player created in emergent gameplay. They are supposed to emerge from player actions and circumstances.

    You can think of it as this :

    For authored play the GM provides things for the players to do.

    For emergent play the GM provides things for the players to engage with.

    ------------------------------------------

    That aside, the GM is not universally the one providing the gameworld. There are many groups using official settings and following canon strictly. Or playing in "the real world but X" with google as setting supplement replacement.
    There are also various versions of collaborative worldbuilding where players literally build the world they later want to adventure in.
    Or we have the all time classic of rotating GMs sharing a world and a group of PC who do episodic stuff.

    @ Tlakeel

    If you don't like EU because of nations instead of people, use Crusader Kings from the same publisher.

    Or, though a bit less full of options (you probably want mods for more variety and a less bland setting), take Mount & Blade and you are quite close to the regular RPG formula.
    Last edited by Satinavian; 2022-05-05 at 03:29 AM.

  22. - Top - End - #232
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    It is not for every GM, yes. Which is why literally no one in this thread has ever claimed "This is how everyone should run games.".

    You are under the misconception that a GM filling a sandbox before play makes the whole game not emergent. That is plainly wrong. Emergence is about what happens, not what is.
    The events are not supposed to be player created in emergent game play. They are supposed to emerge from player actions and circumstances.
    For me, its not about which side is better or how it should be done.

    I just disagree with the OP saying that "But fans of emergent games want different things - they want their decisions to matter." because in my experience sandbox games have a lot more trivial decisions, but linear games undoubtedly have more decisions that matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    @ Talakeal

    If you don't like EU because of nations instead of people, use Crusader Kings from the same publisher.

    Or, though a bit less full of options (you probably want mods for more variety and a less bland setting), take Mount & Blade and you are quite close to the regular RPG formula.
    Its not that I don't like EU, its that games that simulate running a nation are fundamentally different and not really relevant to running an NPC, just like racing games or sports games or fishing games aren't really applicable.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  23. - Top - End - #233
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Minecraft takes it one step further than I did; it has no lore, no plot, no story, no meaningful decisions whatsoever. So yeah, perfect example of what I am talking about.
    Now it's clear you don't know what a meaningful choice is.

    In a game, a meaningful choice is one that selects between two mutually exclusive game states. And it should be bloody obvious how this applies to building a hut versus a castle versus a working redstone computer. On a more human level, the reason to build a hut versus a castle versus a working redstone computer stems from internal motivation, imagination and skill of a player: the player's desire to do these things is what gives meaning to specific actions they take to achieve these goals.

    Minecraft does not need externally dictated lore, plot or story, because the game engine is lenient enough to allow for players to create their own lore, plot and story. Same as a real sandbox. You don't walk to a pile of sand expecting someone to have hidden meaning in the grains. You walk to a pile of sand and build a sand castle because the idea of making one feels meaningful to you.

    The same goes a long way to explaining why players, in a sandbox game, might get upset at overt external interference. How would you feel, in a real sandbox, if after hours of building an intricate castle, some mofo came and knocked it over without a warning? It's not that you can't bake adversarial elements into a sandbox game - you can, and most such games do. It just changes the metagame quite a bit, because then it's no longer sufficient for a player to set and follow their own goals, they need to understand goals of other players and how those influence theirs. The more players there are, the more complex it gets.

    ---

    @Cheesegear: that's a new record in talking past me. You say I'm wrong about people not understanding what a sandbox is, then don't even deal with the definition of a sandbox I just gave, and proceed to, based on notion that some people use a definition of railroading I've explicitly called out as bad, work to a conclusion that such people don't understand the definition of a sandbox.

  24. - Top - End - #234
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Jan 2008

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    You are under the misconception that a GM filling a sandbox before play makes the whole game not emergent. That is plainly wrong. Emergence is about what happens, not what is.
    Okay.

    The DM writes a scenario, and plans for the three most obvious solutions that they can think of:
    - If players do [X], then [X1] happens.
    - If players do [Y], then [Y1] happens.
    - If players do [Z], then [Z1] happens.

    The players, encounter the scenario. The most obvious solution [X], is probably a trap. So they go with [Y]. The players use their agency to react to the scenario in a way they think is meaningful...

    ...It is not meaningful. The DM moves to the authored section marked [Y1] and continues their authored adventure.

    They are supposed to emerge from player actions and circumstances.
    And many, many, many DMs will always be one step ahead of their own players.

    'I can't [spell]!'
    Counterspell.
    *Shocked Pikachu*

    And that's where you come into problems when you describe things so...Generally. The players think that they are making 'emergent choices'...But they simply aren't. The DM often knows what you're going to do, before you do it, and has planned his scenarios accordingly. Written his set pieces accordingly. The players often don't know that they're being countered, 'cause they're simply taking the story as-is. Seriously. Why wouldn't an enemy caster have Counterspell? It makes sense.

    'Haha. I bet you weren't expecting me to come through the window!?'
    Yes I was...You can tell from all the dead birds on the window sill, that the window is trapped. The Wizard is well aware of opposing Wizards with Crow Familiars and has deliberately set up a trap to stop Familiars from spying through the window. It works just as well against humans.
    'This Wizard is obviously paranoid. We'd better be more careful.'
    Yes. I am certainly not aware of your playstyle, and what your characters can do. This is all just emergent, amirite?

    You can think of it as this :

    For authored play the GM provides things for the players to do.

    For emergent play the GM provides things for the players to engage with.
    I see a distinction without a difference. Especially since you don't provide examples.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    @Cheesegear: that's a new record in talking past me. You say I'm wrong about people not understanding what a sandbox is, then don't even deal with the definition of a sandbox I just gave
    I don't have a problem with your definition of sandbox. I have a problem with your definition of sandbox, as it pertains to player agency. And my point is that a sandbox can't actually exist in a game with a DM. So talking about a sandbox's definition is a waste of time, because I simply don't believe that such a thing exists, within the realms of giving players actual agency. When talking about Emergent Gameplay, and more specifically Emergent Decisions, a sandbox doesn't actually give that, because all the decisions made inside said sandbox, are being influenced by what the GM has created and/or is willing to do.

    I believe railroads exist.
    I believe that 'sandboxes' are just more railroads with extra steps and illusionism. Because it's all authored content - it's all DM Fiat.
    Last edited by Cheesegear; 2022-05-05 at 07:22 AM.
    Spoiler: My Mum Says I'm Cool
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Anuan View Post
    Cheesegear; Lovable Thesaurus ItP.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lycan 01 View Post
    Cheesegear, have I told you yet that you're awesome?
    Quote Originally Posted by MeatShield#236 View Post
    ALL HAIL LORD CHEESEGEAR! Cheese for the cheesegear!
    Quote Originally Posted by Shas'aia Toriia View Post
    Cheesegear is awesome

  25. - Top - End - #235
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    I'm saying those properties are opposed. Not that they are a top level categorical split.
    Then perhaps it was all pre poisoned by the railroad/sandbox dichotomy, since that is a related topic.
    IOW, my position is that things can be blue, or they can be red. I am not arguing that "blue things vs. red things" is a top-level split by which we should start categorizing.
    And things can be purple. That's I think where we may still disagree, but maybe not.

    IMO, your strongest point in this discussion has been your point made to me as regards your experiential basis for seeing a distinction in play. The play's the thing, not categorization.
    If we (as this discussion has progressed) limit these properties to scenes (or to linked scenes?) then perhaps the distinction you are trying to make comes across better.

    Seems to me that your proposed opposed terms are more like a sliding scale, or a zone, than a hard on/off switch.
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2022-05-05 at 07:33 AM.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  26. - Top - End - #236
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2013

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheesegear View Post
    The DM writes a scenario, and plans for the three most obvious solutions that they can think of:
    Stop, you're already wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheesegear View Post
    . And my point is that a sandbox can't actually exist in a game with a DM. So talking about a sandbox's definition is a waste of time, because I simply don't believe that such a thing exists, within the realms of giving players actual agency. When talking about Emergent Gameplay, and more specifically Emergent Decisions, a sandbox doesn't actually give that, because all the decisions made inside said sandbox, are being influenced by what the GM has created and/or is willing to do.

    I believe railroads exist.
    I believe that 'sandboxes' are just more railroads with extra steps and illusionism. Because it's all authored content - it's all DM Fiat.
    I'm sorry that you are incapable of running or even fathoming a sandbox game, but your experience is not universal.

  27. - Top - End - #237
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by messed up that multiquote
    I believe railroads exist.
    I believe that 'sandboxes' are just more railroads with extra steps and illusionism. Because it's all authored content - it's all DM Fiat.
    No, it's not all DM Fiat.

    My experience with any number of old school campaigns (as in, Original D&D game and filling in the hexes as you explored the wilderness away from the old ruins and frontier town where we started) includes us going to hexes (we didn't use the Outdoor Survival map, it was a blank map that got filled in as we explored, the DM wasn't into world building so much) and encountering things (since a d6 said that we did - that's RNG, not DM Fiat) and a table roll created an encounter with a large number of pilgrims. (RNG again, not DM Fiat).
    It could have been 70 orcs, but the RNG didn't provide that.
    And we played out that encounter (scene?) with an eye towards making sure we survived and that we somehow benefitted from that encounter (we got a few of the pilgrims to join us based on the role play between the DM and the players) and then we wandered off to the next hex during the next game day, where we encountered nothing but forest ... but it could have had owlbears, or an evil high priest, or any number of things in there that we might run away from, parley with, fight ... it all emerged from what we encountered.

    He had his own key for where ruins or old temples might be, and if we ever found them. It was possible to get lost in the wilderness (we had our hexes on our rough player map; he had 'actual' hexes in case we rolled the "you are lost!" result). Which brings me back to "mapping as you play" being a lost element of trad games that I kind of miss. (Tomb of Annihilation brings that back a little bit, the hex crawl in a grand wilderness; the group I played it with were not able to grok that style very well, although I loved the nostalgia trip it gave me. The DM did have one of the guides lead us astray ... and a few times we just got lost).

    In a different kind of game, Golden Sky Stories, the various things we did to try and cheer up the sad child who our little spirits / Kami met was a result of the players playing off of what the other players did. It was a very different feel to D&D, and all that the facilitator did was describe the child's reaction and choices in response to what the players did or were doing. (And I think that is where the OP is going with emergent play). DM Fiat was absent beyond having the initial conditions established (we all had our pieces on the Go square, to use the Monopoly analogue again).
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2022-05-06 at 10:22 AM.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  28. - Top - End - #238
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheesegear View Post
    Okay.

    The DM writes a scenario, and plans for the three most obvious solutions that they can think of:
    - If players do [X], then [X1] happens.
    - If players do [Y], then [Y1] happens.
    - If players do [Z], then [Z1] happens.
    You can run things this way. But this is not universal.
    And i know that this is not universal because i don't run things this way.
    No matter how often you tell me that games i run don't exist, it won't convince me. You are just plain wrong.

    The way you discribe, you may call it the Cheesegear way if you want, is part of what the OP calls "authored".

    I see a distinction without a difference. Especially since you don't provide examples.
    A couple of years i ran the the "Von eigenen Gnaden" module. That one was meant to be a sandbox, but the authors had had no experience with sandboxes whatsoever so i had to do a lot of extra prep work.

    The core theme is that the PCs get handed the power over a small town in a region torn by war and civil war where the overall order had broken down and various warlords, mercenary bands and fortune seekers roamed the land and started to claim little territories. Now the module did provide a map but aside from few exceptions nothing about all the other settlements or about all the different warlords.

    So i started to prepare. Settlement for settlement. What was special there, who ruled there, political relations to all the neighbours, little secrets.
    For all the warlord as well. Power, ambitions, secrets, plans, troops, enemies and allies, preferred tactics, reasons to like or hate them.

    I also prepared a rudimentary economy system and battle system shamelessly stolen from SIFRP because really, the module didn't even have rules for any of that.

    Then i prepared some greater, externally triggered events for the region and put those on the timeline.

    And... that was all i needed to prepare for the sandboxy part of the campaign.
    I never prepared "If PCs do X, X1 happens". I didn't waste my time at all here trying to think about what the players would do with any of that or how i would react to it.
    Last edited by Satinavian; 2022-05-05 at 08:17 AM.

  29. - Top - End - #239
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheesegear View Post
    Okay.

    The DM writes a scenario, and plans for the three most obvious solutions that they can think of:
    - If players do [X], then [X1] happens.
    - If players do [Y], then [Y1] happens.
    - If players do [Z], then [Z1] happens.

    The players, encounter the scenario. The most obvious solution [X], is probably a trap. So they go with [Y]. The players use their agency to react to the scenario in a way they think is meaningful...

    ...It is not meaningful. The DM moves to the authored section marked [Y1] and continues their authored adventure.
    How do you define meaningful?
    The simple fact that the players can make different decisions and have the scenario react in different ways makes their decision very much meaningful in my eyes. The GM might have anticipated several possible solutions, but that doesn't change that the outcome depends on what the players choose to do. That is agency. Agency doesn't mean that the GM has no prior idea of what might happen. It means the solution the players come up with affects the direction the scenario proceeds.

    Whether this is fully authored or has an emergent component depends on what happens when players come up with solution Q. If the result is Q1, that is an emergent result. If the result of Q is X1, Y1, or Z1, then I wouldn't call it emergent, as there isn't a way to go beyond what the GM has prepared.

    So far, several people seem to argue that prepared content = authored and in the reverse, a game is only emergent if there's no prepared content. I don't think that's correct. I think an emergent game is one where the players are not restricted to authored content, but can go beyond it or even skip authored content entirely when their decisions lead into a different direction. As such, I'd consider authored vs. emergent to be a description of what options are available to the players, not which options they choose to take.
    What did the monk say to his dinner?
    Spoiler
    Show
    Out of the frying pan and into the friar!


    How would you describe a knife?
    Spoiler
    Show
    Cutting-edge technology

  30. - Top - End - #240
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheesegear View Post
    I don't have a problem with your definition of sandbox. I have a problem with your definition of sandbox, as it pertains to player agency.
    You don't have a problem, except you do have a problem. Sense, this does not make.

    Player agency is the ability of players to make meaningful decisions, "meaningful" meaning decisions that cause mutually exclusive game states. There is no overarching obstacle preventing a game master from giving players enough agency to set their own objectives, thus facilitating a sandbox game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheesegear
    And my point is that a sandbox can't actually exist in a game with a DM.
    Humbug. It did not apparently occur to you that a game master can hold a game in a literal sandbox, allowing players to shape the sand as they see fit, and use the resulting terrain as a game map.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheesegear
    So talking about a sandbox's definition is a waste of time, because I simply don't believe that such a thing exists, within the realms of giving players actual agency. When talking about Emergent Gameplay, and more specifically Emergent Decisions, a sandbox doesn't actually give that, because all the decisions made inside said sandbox, are being influenced by what the GM has created and/or is willing to do.

    I believe railroads exist.
    I believe that 'sandboxes' are just more railroads with extra steps and illusionism. Because it's all authored content - it's all DM Fiat.
    You have completely failed to establish that sandbox games cannot exist. They do exist as matter of fact, so your belief is false. No-one who has played in a literal sandbox and understands how to design a game that has qualities of one has reason to take you seriously. Having a game master and limits to a game world, do not prevent emergence and player agency anymore than physical boundaries of a sandbox do. The idea that all content in a sandbox is authored by a game master is exactly false - if a player plans a castle for my game, my ability to accept or deny the idea does not in any shape or form mean that I came up with it! The player did! They authored it, and are using the tools I provided to implement it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •