apparition13's point cuts to the chase, doesn't it?
Character-agency at the heart of an open world (generated and kept alive by tables/chance/GM refereeing): traditional rpg sandbox
Player-agency at the heart of an open world: storygame sandbox. Sandbox yes, but a storygamey one. Storygame yes, but indeed a sandbox - of sorts.
So while this discussion is in the right category now, what Silva talks about does look like a sort of sandbox to me - just not a traditional one. I'd be interested how such a world is kept consistent without the traditional 'boundaries' that lend it verisimilitude, though. does it feel real if anything can be changed from outside influence not by characters' actions but by by players' whim? or are players as bound by the sandbox's 'reality' in the storygame sandbox as the GM is in the traditional sandbox?
Is this a new thing with storygames?
Sounds reasonable to me, and a useful discussion.
Yup, Ladybird is right. Apocalypse World asks the MC to address the characters all the time. Anyway, I have a question in this regard...
Is your expected response assumed to be what the character would desire, or what you think would be more fun/dramatic?
Is there really a difference between those in practical terms (character-agency vs player-agency), in regard to sandbox gaming ?
Yes there is, in practical terms, and in regard to sandbox gaming.
The question is honest. I ask it because:
1. the most amazing sandbox experiences I had came from videogames where you control a party of characters instead of a single alter-ego (eg: King of Dragon Pass, Ultima 4, Darklands, etc) and this fact didn’t nullify the sandbox experience at all.
I'm having trouble groking this, because part of the sandbox experience is the possibility of unconstrained action. Aren't video games constrained? Can your King of Dragon Pass party decide "screw this, let's move to Pamaltea and open a tavern"?
2. I have doubts on the possibility to separate what your character thinks/wants from what you/the player in control of the character thinks/wants. It seems impossible to me In practical terms, but I admit never giving much thought to it.
The clearest example I can think of actually comes from a Ron Edwards game, Elfs. It is intended to be a comedy game of the slapstick variety. One of the stats is "dumb luck". If you decide to try and succeed at something with dumb luck, you declare two actions*, one that the character wants (hit the orc with my sword) and one the player thinks could be amusing (escape by tripping and tumbling through the door), and roll a dice pool vs. a target number. If you get any successes, the player action succeeds (the elf misses, but the momentum of the swing carries it through the door), if you get all successes, both do (the elf hits, and trips through the door). If you get no successes, both fail. (There doesn't seem to be a "character succeeds but player fails" option.)
In other words, the player is supposed to come up with funny actions, while the character is trying to be a dungeoneering Elf. Sometimes funny and dungeoneering will be the same thing, sometimes they will be in conflict.
If you're making decisions based on what the character would want, that's character driven. If based on what you want, humor, drama, etc., it's player driven. Any given decision can be compatible with both, but sometimes there is conflict between what you want (keep the party together) and what the character wants (split the party to pursue a private vendetta).
*I think this could work for Paranoia as well.