Quote from: jan paparazzi;738211This thread goes in all directions.

Still I don't see how you could sandbox a game about a person being possessed by an evil spirit and killing people. If that doesn't come at my players path, then they might do other stuff like well maybe they go shopping or plan their holiday or something.

The players must get the assignment and must do the murder solving. I could do a sandbox, but that means the murders just might go on without even involving the players in it.

Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of sandboxing, especially if it creates more organic games.

While I don't think there are definitive definitions of these things, I would draw a distinction between

• The players (mostly) follow their own agenda ("sandbox")
• The players react to someone else's actions (E.g. a serial murder) (not sure what to call it)

#1 is what I'd call a "sandbox" -- the PC's don't have any (significant) forces acting on them and no imperative calls-to-action.

#2 isn't a railroad or an illusion or anything -- the PCs can react however they want, including completely disengaging (although disengaging probably means the end of the game or such a significant change in the game that it wouldn't look anything like the original scenario)

In my experience quite a few fun, successful games are model #2:

• Top Secret (or other spy or military games), where the PCs are getting missions from their Administrator or C.O.
• Super Hero Games, where the PC's are reacting to crimes, chasing criminals, etc.
• Call of Cthulhu, where the PC's are given something curious and disturbing to "investigate"
• Any D&D scenario that starts with a specific call-to-action, where the consequences for disengaging mean, basically, not playing

Here's another thought: over time, a sandbox game will likely morph into #2, as the PC's become powerful and well-known enough to have responsibilities to take care of (stopping serial murderers) or enemies who will move against their interests most probably inspiring a reaction.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;738211This thread goes in all directions.

Still I don't see how you could sandbox a game about a person being possessed by an evil spirit and killing people. If that doesn't come at my players path, then they might do other stuff like well maybe they go shopping or plan their holiday or something.

The players must get the assignment and must do the murder solving. I could do a sandbox, but that means the murders just might go on without even involving the players in it.

Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of sandboxing, especially if it creates more organic games.

I just had a session in my samdbox where this happened exactly: local swordsman was possessed by an evil vulture spirit and running wild on local villagers. When i planted that seed, I figured eventually another wandering hero or group would help resolve the situation (in about a month or two). So it wouldnt just hang there, unsolved until all villagers were dead.

My players passed through the village initially, heard the stories of the local killings, but had more pressing business so moved on. They only went back the following session because the player who had pressing business elsewhere missed the session and the rest of the group was interested in returning to the village to solve the murders. But this sort of thing pops up all the time, and often times the players just pass it by.

The trick is you dont plant stuff too deeply. You have a bunch of seeds like that floating around, but you dont get invested in any of them. I actually found it freed me up a lot as a GM. Letting the characts wander and do what they want was quite liberating and eventually starting leading to its own adventures.

That said, it is jsut one way to run a game. I don't always do sandboxes. But they defintely can be fun if you give them a try and you relax a bit about how you approach the session.

I think what some people mean when they say Sand box would be better described as Player Driven rather than Plot Driven. Especially for games with more detailed premises than "Wandering Adventurers".

Player Driven worlds respond to the PCs actions and responses to what goes on around them. Nothing is set in stone. For instance of the PCs are investigating a murder and get lucky or have some clever insight early on they can skip to bagging the killer right away or they might screw up and the murderer gets away, perhaps to show up again or do whatever other plans they had in mind. There are no set encounters after the introduction moment or moments. Just clues, NPCs with motivations, possible threats, etc. The world proceeds as logically as the GM can accomplished based on the players actions and their consequences, in game reasons, the premise and steered by genre and other narrative elements.

These games create "stories" but they're what happens in the game once the PCs make choices, some times guided by a premise like "you're police detectives" or "paranormal researchers". The stories created may not fit in the traditional mold and structure of stories for their basic genre, of course. even if they have the thematic and stylistic trappings that's part of giving the PCs freedom.

Quote from: -E.;738213In my experience quite a few fun, successful games are model #2:

• Top Secret (or other spy or military games), where the PCs are getting missions from their Administrator or C.O.
• Super Hero Games, where the PC's are reacting to crimes, chasing criminals, etc.
• Call of Cthulhu, where the PC's are given something curious and disturbing to "investigate"
• Any D&D scenario that starts with a specific call-to-action, where the consequences for disengaging mean, basically, not playing

Here's another thought: over time, a sandbox game will likely morph into #2, as the PC's become powerful and well-known enough to have responsibilities to take care of (stopping serial murderers) or enemies who will move against their interests most probably inspiring a reaction.

Cheers,
-E.

Thanks for the additional explanation.

I think my game is like the Cthulhu game. A world of darkness mortal game (or hunter, which is in a way an add-on to the mortals game) is like Cthulhu. They get something weird to investigate. Because there isn't any set Mythos, it can be anything.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;738216I just had a session in my samdbox where this happened exactly: local swordsman was possessed by an evil vulture spirit and running wild on local villagers. When i planted that seed, I figured eventually another wandering hero or group would help resolve the situation (in about a month or two). So it wouldnt just hang there, unsolved until all villagers were dead.

My players passed through the village initially, heard the stories of the local killings, but had more pressing business so moved on. They only went back the following session because the player who had pressing business elsewhere missed the session and the rest of the group was interested in returning to the village to solve the murders. But this sort of thing pops up all the time, and often times the players just pass it by.

The trick is you dont plant stuff too deeply. You have a bunch of seeds like that floating around, but you dont get invested in any of them. I actually found it freed me up a lot as a GM. Letting the characts wander and do what they want was quite liberating and eventually starting leading to its own adventures.

That said, it is jsut one way to run a game. I don't always do sandboxes. But they defintely can be fun if you give them a try and you relax a bit about how you approach the session.

I think I know how I can do this. It will be more like the Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines game. A bunch of seeds floating around in the city. A murder in the dock, a haunted mansion in the slums, a kidnapping in downtown, patients disappearing in the asylum. It does seem like a lot of work, but maybe I should't flesh them out too much. Going for a really broad game preperation and not a really deep one.

Quote from: Nexus;738218I think what some people mean when they say Sand box would be better described as Player Driven rather than Plot Driven. Especially for games with more detailed premises than "Wandering Adventurers".

Player Driven worlds respond to the PCs actions and responses to what goes on around them. Nothing is set in stone. For instance of the PCs are investigating a murder and get lucky or have some clever insight early on they can skip to bagging the killer right away or they might screw up and the murderer gets away, perhaps to show up again or do whatever other plans they had in mind. There are no set encounters after the introduction moment or moments. Just clues, NPCs with motivations, possible threats, etc. The world proceeds as logically as the GM can accomplished based on the players actions and their consequences, in game reasons, the premise and steered by genre and other narrative elements.

These games create "stories" but they're what happens in the game once the PCs make choices, some times guided by a premise like "you're police detectives" or "paranormal researchers". The stories created may not fit in the traditional mold and structure of stories for their basic genre, of course. even if they have the thematic and stylistic trappings that's part of giving the PCs freedom.

Character driven is another word for it. Character driven vs. plot driven.

Strangely enough WW games always want you to make a web of NPC's with their motivations and their relations towards each other. Guy A hates guy B because he betrayed him once. Guy B knows guy C killed someone during a frenzy. Stuff like that.

Oddly enough they also want you to write stories with a beginning, a middle and an end. Although the part about a story arc is absent in the latest edition of vampire. Ok, I think I might give it a shot.

Yeah, I think the interpretations coming up here is far more fixated on the negative connotations of plot, and not noticing the 'un-plot-like' (read: not a railroad) function of the abstract outline.

From the graph I cannot see anything that declares any fixed progression. And they are so abstract as to necessitate GM detail, and thus natural readjustment to PC actions. I don't own a PPC, so my personal perception stops there, but from what's been said and seen I don't see railroad concerns unless one runs it mindlessly.

Further, I dig -E.'s distinction between the two major methods of character driven responses. In fact, if I may reword them a bit:

1. Players act, driving their own agenda. (predominant sandbox campaign impulse)
2. Players react, driving a counter-agenda (hopefully their own) v. BBEG. (predominant mission campaign impulse)

It is easy for #1 to slip into ennui and stagnancy, as analysis paralysis can affect less pro-active parties and new players. This is a point estar often warns about.
It is easy for #2 to slip into spoon fed trail of solutions that the party follows, as many a railroad-y published module has shown. This is a failing many rightfully rant about.

Yet all together I don't see how one precludes the other. Several games thrive on a mission-based structure. And given how spacious and freeform sandboxes are, it seems like a natural fit to embed missions within. You can have a spread of active and reactive parts in a sandbox, as each creates their own failure consequences of less quest hooks and setting badness respectively. The chart so far looks like just a quick communication method of active & reactive hooks within a campaign scope.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;738211Still I don't see how you could sandbox a game about a person being possessed by an evil spirit and killing people. If that doesn't come at my players path, then they might do other stuff like well maybe they go shopping or plan their holiday or something.

Yes exactly that. A sandbox referee shouldn't be welded to any one thing that is going on. Like in my example I in essence "threw away" my detailed prep twice.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;738211The players must get the assignment and must do the murder solving. I could do a sandbox, but that means the murders just might go on without even involving the players in it.

Here the thing, if the murder was handed to the players as an assignment. then they must be in a position where

a) they would be handed assignment related to people being murder.
b) said position is probably a dominate aspect of their lives.
c) If the sandbox referee is doing his job right, that meant that the players choose to have their character be in such position either as result of previous events or as part of the initial start of the campaign.

They have the choice of ignoring the assignment but they would then suffer the consequences and that what the campaign would be about from that point onwards. The consequences of ignoring the assignment resulting in their removal from the position.

Quote from: -E.;738213#1 is what I'd call a "sandbox" -- the PC's don't have any (significant) forces acting on them and no imperative calls-to-action.

I think those criteria go way overboard, and I can't think of any examples corresponding to them. That doesn't mean there aren't any out there, but it suggests that's not what people are usually talking about.

Again, consider the hobby game scene in which D&D debuted. You've got objectives, and forces working against your attaining those. BUT you can move all over the map, employing whatever priorities and strategies you please.

It's a big map -- most often in the old days a large number of hexagons permitting movement along six axis at each point -- not something with as few branches as the sample flowchart posted in this thread.

The bottom line to me:

(A) If you really value "sandbox" freedom, then any schematic can be no more than provisional planning for a subset of contingencies. It cannot be a prescriptive and enforced limit on the universe of possibilities.

EDIT: There CAN be -- as a rule ARE -- limits on the universe of possibilities in a game. If you get into territory in which this has become some abstruse philosophical point, then you have wandered out of the domain that's practically relevant to the matter at hand.

(B) If you place more value on a pick-a-path structure, which can ensure that things fall within certain parameters, then we can talk about techniques for doing that. But please, let us dispense with nonsense conflating it with "sandbox," because that is just counterproductive.

Quote from: Phillip;738341I think those criteria go way overboard, and I can't think of any examples corresponding to them. That doesn't mean there aren't any out there, but it suggests that's not what people are usually talking about.

Again, consider the hobby game scene in which D&D debuted. You've got objectives, and forces working against your attaining those. BUT you can move all over the map, employing whatever priorities and strategies you please.

It's a big map -- most often in the old days a large number of hexagons permitting movement along six axis at each point -- not something with as few branches as the sample flowchart posted in this thread.

That flowchart has 60+ adventures on it, quite a few of which have no prereqs other than being in the right location, not to mention the full PPC, in the actual book, provides descriptions of a large number of locales and random encounter charts involved in travel from location to location, or the fact that using a PPC doesn't lobotomize the GM into being unable to improvise.

The idea of a PPC isn't to be "THIS IS THE ONLY THING YOU CAN EVER DO" its a whole bunch of stuff that is easily accessible to the GM so he doesn't have to make up everything. Its no different than picking up a premade dungeon and placing it on your world map somewhere in a hex crawl.

Another thing that people seem to ignore is that most of those adventures have only setup of the situation and goals. Seriously, they don't write up 60+ full paizo adventure path adventures with set scenes and all that jazz. The players have plenty of freedom to employ whatever means they want to complete the goals of the adventure... or just not do it at all. Or take money up front and then just say fuck it and run away with it... granted there might be some people after them if they do that.

Quote from: Phillip;738341I think those criteria go way overboard, and I can't think of any examples corresponding to them. That doesn't mean there aren't any out there, but it suggests that's not what people are usually talking about.

Again, consider the hobby game scene in which D&D debuted. You've got objectives, and forces working against your attaining those. BUT you can move all over the map, employing whatever priorities and strategies you please.

It's a big map -- most often in the old days a large number of hexagons permitting movement along six axis at each point -- not something with as few branches as the sample flowchart posted in this thread.

Well, I think this is the biggest problem. WoD games are modern city games. You are not a wandering adventurer. You stick in one place. Your appartment.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;738368That flowchart has 60+ adventures on it, quite a few of which have no prereqs other than being in the right location, not to mention the full PPC, in the actual book, provides descriptions of a large number of locales and random encounter charts involved in travel from location to location, or the fact that using a PPC doesn't lobotomize the GM into being unable to improvise.

The idea of a PPC isn't to be "THIS IS THE ONLY THING YOU CAN EVER DO" its a whole bunch of stuff that is easily accessible to the GM so he doesn't have to make up everything. Its no different than picking up a premade dungeon and placing it on your world map somewhere in a hex crawl.

Another thing that people seem to ignore is that most of those adventures have only setup of the situation and goals. Seriously, they don't write up 60+ full paizo adventure path adventures with set scenes and all that jazz. The players have plenty of freedom to employ whatever means they want to complete the goals of the adventure... or just not do it at all. Or take money up front and then just say fuck it and run away with it... granted there might be some people after them if they do that.

Yep, I think a lot of people in this thread think PPC's are completely written out. They aren't. It has a few main quest and a lot of side quests. And none of them are fleshed out. It's just a premise of one page perhaps.

Quote from: estar;738337Yes exactly that. A sandbox referee shouldn't be welded to any one thing that is going on. Like in my example I in essence "threw away" my detailed prep twice.

Ok I think I can do that. It will be a really broad setting with numerous NPC's like serial killers, cults, criminal organisations and of course a lot of different spirits, spirit ridden and spirit claimed roaming the streets. And of course a lot of regular folks as well. It's worth a shot. It might be a much more natural setting this way. I don't need to keep track of the story all the time. And it keeps things interesting if there is a lot of stuff happening behind the scenes without my players knowing it. I played with this idea before.

Quote from: estar;738337Here the thing, if the murder was handed to the players as an assignment. then they must be in a position where

a) they would be handed assignment related to people being murder.
b) said position is probably a dominate aspect of their lives.
c) If the sandbox referee is doing his job right, that meant that the players choose to have their character be in such position either as result of previous events or as part of the initial start of the campaign.

a. Yes.
b. Yep they are investigators/hunters. They either form a single cell or they are part of an organisation doing stuff like that.
c. Yes, hunters hunt. They could got back to their dayjobs, but that isn't very exciting. A pure mortals game is different. There you need to set up some motivation for them to discover what goes bumb in the night. But that means "writing" and that feels contrived to me. That's usually the tricky part. Why would a college student investigate a haunted mansion? He wouldn't, unless he is nuts. I usually take the easy road and let them be either police or private investigators. Maybe I should ask them what they want to achieve and serve them what they want.

Quote from: estar;738337They have the choice of ignoring the assignment but they would then suffer the consequences and that what the campaign would be about from that point onwards. The consequences of ignoring the assignment resulting in their removal from the position.

I don't think it would be negative. Life would just go on. If there are not curious about it, then nothing really happens. Maybe I should make it more personal to get them invested.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;738384I don't think it would be negative. Life would just go on. If there are not curious about it, then nothing really happens. Maybe I should make it more personal to get them invested.

If it wouldn't have negative impact if it was ignored, then why would it matter if the PCs got involved or not in the first place?