Quote from: Spinachcat;942771Why couldn't the Space Opera GM just tell his players "hey, I want to run a campaign about space nobles who crash land on a primitive planet. If you want to play, make PCs for that"?

Wouldn't that solve all the handwringing?

If that really any different than the Fantasy GM who tells his players "hey, I want to run an all-Dwarf LotR campaign about the retaking of Moria, so make PCs for that."?

What I pitched for Star Frontiers with the added explanation that once that was resilved they could do whatever they pleased. And they did. Inadvertently getting caught up in the Dramune Run and Face of the Enemy events on their own and resolving both in some brilliantly novel ways.

And they handled Volturnus in some unexpected ways too since they could and did.

Quote from: tenbones;942848"Fuck you. Show me."

* pulls card * What does "show fuck you me" mean? :eek:

Quote from: Omega;942884Inadvertently getting caught up in the Dramune Run and Face of the Enemy events on their own and resolving both in some brilliantly novel ways.

Please start a Star Frontiers thread! I'd love to hear what the PCs did. Also, your thoughts on how Dramune Run holds up.

Interesting to hear the idea of sandbox games being thought a new thing. TFT's campaign book describes how to run hexcrawls as if it's just the way to run a campaign. I wonder if it isn't the newer games and newer players and computer game expectations and story games and modules and published settings that have led to people needing to have a terms and explanations for sandbox and hexcrawl, and also weird overstated ideas about them, and contrasting them to plot-based railroads as the base assumptions, instead of them just being an obvious logical way to run a campaign? Have a world, have a map and stuff in it, have at least some travel rules, see what happens. I guess I may be more out of touch with what's out there in games/players I avoid than I realize. ;->

People played in all kinds of styles when I was a kid and teen, some in the OSR seem to claim that every module and campaign 'back in the day' was sandbox-based but that is more just a retroactive projection than a fact. Seems to me that a variety of playstyles became the norm pretty rapidly and is reflected in even a cursory review of early modules.

Gygax's modules were only partly sandboxes for instance, Keep on the Borderland and Vault of the Drow are there but so are the fairly linear G1-3, Dungeonland and Through the Looking Glass, Temple of EE, etc. I'd say the premier sandbox is Isle of Dread but that was written for B/X. B/X may be popular with the OSR but I remember as a teen it was hard to get anyone to play since it was considered the 'kiddies edition.'

Blaming video games for a supposed lack of sandbox-style play is very 'get off my lawn!' If anything today's mainstream big budget video games are so obsessed with sandbox structures that it is tiresome.

Quote from: tenbones;942848you know, I had this big response to Grove. I deleted. Cranebump has the right angle. I'll put my spin on it and pull a card from Black Vulmea's deck. Oh look it says -


"Fuck you. Show me."

Check the rest of the deck. Every card says that.:-)

Quote from: Voros;942942People played in all kinds of styles when I was a kid and teen, some in the OSR seem to claim that every module and campaign 'back in the day' was sandbox-based but that is more just a retroactive projection than a fact. Seems to me that a variety of playstyles became the norm pretty rapidly and is reflected in even a cursory review of early modules.

SHHHH!  You're facts are going to get you dogpiled on how WRONG you are for not following the all mighty OSR creed!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;943027SHHHH!  You're facts are going to get you dogpiled on how WRONG you are for not following the all mighty OSR creed!

No, that's usually reserved for idiotic posts, like the one you just made.  Jesus, you're starting to sound like Doc Sammy with his anti-Goth crusade, only even more silly if that's possible.

When dealing with published modules you certainly can find a lot of them that aren't very "sandbox", many of them were tournament modules meant to be done in 4 hours or so.  But if you want to go by the "facts" and not revisionist history, then you have to admit that one series that was put forward above as a linear design, G1-3, included information on how to run them all separately if desired, and that linear G led to the D1-3, with literally miles of underdark paths, and multiple cities/factions for the characters to get caught up in.

If you propose the fact that if modern OSR guys are a little hazy in remembering how Sandboxy everything was, then you should also admit that the highly plotted linear module, as we know it today, didn't really exist prior to say the DL series, and even if you go back to DL and reread, you'll find the earlier ones were probably less linear than people remember.

Funny that you mention DL as I just posted in another thread about how the DL series is less linear than many claim. And I tried to hedge a bit in my post by using the term 'fairly linear' regarding G1-3.

Really, most early dungeons are linear by design, probably one of the reasons they were so used at the begining of the game as it gave the DM a small and fairly manageble world to work with. Dungeonland is a good example, although supposedly 'outside' in a pocket dimension the party's path is pretty strictly limited. I don't consider that a criticism, The Land Beyond the Magic Mirror is my second favourite piece of writing by Gygax (the first is Shrine of the Kuo Toa). I think the distinction between linear and sandbox is more of a spectrum rather than a hard distinction.

My friends and I never used the term 'sandbox' even as we moved into playing in that style unconsciously as the campaign advanced. I actually wonder if that term has been borrowed from video games or that being teens in a pre-internet world we were just unaware of it, although I did read Dragon. Would be interesting if someone could track down its first use in D&D.

I see the OSR as a bit like punk rock, a mixture of a the reactionary (minus negative connotations) and innovation. The punk rockers went back to 50s rock n' roll, early beat and garage rock in an attempt to revive the form and explore alternate possibilites. There's also an emphasis on utility, lack of pretension (which becomes its own pretension) and minimalism.

So people looking back realized that B/X and BECMI were more than 'kiddie editions' and the value of things like lower level play, 'random' tables and sand-boxes. Now some sages out there probably knew the value of those things from the beginning and never gave them up but the evangelical way these 'truths' are repeated by those who never played B/X or 1e sometimes has the dogmatic edge of the newly converted. It also starts to feel a bit like all those Baby Boomers who claim to have attended Woodstock or for my generation all those who claim they saw Black Flag play the local community hall. So many wise people in retrospect.

In particular I was surprised to find all the love of B/X as I remember looking over my copy of the Cyclopedia and thinking 'I wish I could find someone to play this with' but no one was interested as they had all 'grown up' and moved on to 1e or 2e.

Quote from: Skarg;942939Interesting to hear the idea of sandbox games being thought a new thing.

It not a new thing. What new is DISCUSSING it as a distinct type of campaign. That originated as part of the marketing of the Wilderlands Boxed Set in the mid 2000s.

Quote from: Skarg;942939TFT's campaign book describes how to run hexcrawls as if it's just the way to run a campaign.

Campaigns and adventures played as a sandbox has been around since the beginning of the hobby. It wasn't discussed as anything distinct however.

Quote from: Skarg;942939I wonder if it isn't the newer games and newer players and computer game expectations and story games and modules and published settings that have led to people needing to have a terms and explanations for sandbox and hexcrawl, and also weird overstated ideas about them, and contrasting them to plot-based railroads as the base assumptions, instead of them just being an obvious logical way to run a campaign? Have a world, have a map and stuff in it, have at least some travel rules, see what happens. I guess I may be more out of touch with what's out there in games/players I avoid than I realize. ;->

The sandbox campaigns, whatever it is called, got downplayed because of the fact that most of the earliest published adventures were tournament dungeons. Then Dragonlance hit and has it own impact. Then in the AD&D 2nd edition era the setting was king with a detailed unfolding backstory. Again sandbox campaign existed just nobody talked about them as such. It was more about how to write good adventures, adventures paths, and settings with a rich backstory. Then when Vampire hit there was a shift about roleplaying detailed character backgrounds. Gradually the idea took hold that RPGs are about collaborating to create stories.

The Necromancer's Games Wilderlands Boxed Set project crystallized this because it was the work of a dozen authors that were all been running Wilderlands campaigns for years. In the email discussions it was obvious that there somethings we did in common when running a campaign. After the release of the boxed set, people legitimately asked what was it good for and why it was worth $70. Somebody on the email list coined said "Why don't we call it a sandbox campaign, like those computer games, that have are called sandbox games because of their open world?" I was one of the early adopters as I consider the term a perfect fit. All of our campaigns focused on different things but one common thread was that the players were free to wander the landscape or interact with anybody they wanted to do.

For most of us this came about because the original Wilderlands had a comprehensive but combat list of where and what existed at the local level. So it was very easy to see what was over the next hill or what was on the next street. From that starting point the whole discussion about sandbox campaign as a distinct type of campaign ensued.

Quote from: Skarg;942939Interesting to hear the idea of sandbox games being thought a new thing.

It not a new thing. What new is DISCUSSING it as a distinct type of campaign. That originated as part of the marketing of the Wilderlands Boxed Set in the mid 2000s.

Quote from: Skarg;942939TFT's campaign book describes how to run hexcrawls as if it's just the way to run a campaign.

Campaigns and adventures played as a sandbox has been around since the beginning of the hobby. It wasn't discussed as anything distinct however.

Quote from: Skarg;942939I wonder if it isn't the newer games and newer players and computer game expectations and story games and modules and published settings that have led to people needing to have a terms and explanations for sandbox and hexcrawl, and also weird overstated ideas about them, and contrasting them to plot-based railroads as the base assumptions, instead of them just being an obvious logical way to run a campaign? Have a world, have a map and stuff in it, have at least some travel rules, see what happens. I guess I may be more out of touch with what's out there in games/players I avoid than I realize. ;->

The sandbox campaigns, whatever it is called, got downplayed because of the fact that most of the earliest published adventures were tournament dungeons. Then Dragonlance hit and has it own impact. Then in the AD&D 2nd edition era the setting was king with a detailed unfolding backstory. Again sandbox campaign existed just nobody talked about them as such. It was more about how to write good adventures, adventures paths, and settings with a rich backstory. Then when Vampire hit there was a shift about roleplaying detailed character backgrounds. Gradually the idea took hold that RPGs are about collaborating to create stories.

The Necromancer's Games Wilderlands Boxed Set project crystallized this because it was the work of a dozen authors that were all been running Wilderlands campaigns for years. In the email discussions it was obvious that there somethings we did in common when running a campaign. After the release of the boxed set, people legitimately asked what was it good for and why it was worth $70. Somebody on the email list coined said "Why don't we call it a sandbox campaign, like those computer games, that have are called sandbox games because of their open world?" I was one of the early adopters as I consider the term a perfect fit. All of our campaigns focused on different things but one common thread was that the players were free to wander the landscape or interact with anybody they wanted to do.

For most of us this came about because the original Wilderlands had a comprehensive but combat list of where and what existed at the local level. So it was very easy to see what was over the next hill or what was on the next street. From that starting point the whole discussion about sandbox campaign as a distinct type of campaign ensued.

Quote from: Voros;942942People played in all kinds of styles when I was a kid and teen, some in the OSR seem to claim that every module and campaign 'back in the day' was sandbox-based but that is more just a retroactive projection than a fact. Seems to me that a variety of playstyles became the norm pretty rapidly and is reflected in even a cursory review of early modules.

Nobody in the OSR claims that every module and campaign was sandbox based back in the day. From even before the term Old School Renaissance was coined fans of classic D&D in the 2000s people promoted, played, and published a diverse range of types of campaign and adventures. In fact it was quite possible if you read a specific set of bloggers and publishers that classic D&D was all about gonzo.
Whatever speculation about how people played back in the days quickly paled after all the Q&As and antedotes were published on various classic D&D forums and the publication of Playing at the World and Hawk & Moor.

Today you don't have to take anybody's word for it, it out there for anybody to read.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;943027SHHHH!  You're facts are going to get you dogpiled on how WRONG you are for not following the all mighty OSR creed!

Of course you never post any link to anything that supports you assertion that there is a OSR Creed other than it a bunch people who like to play, publish, and promote stuff for classic D&D. For some reason you think it pretentious to be enthusiastic about older RPGs, and god forbid you should anything to support them and promote like any other RPG is promoted in the hobby and industry.

Quote from: CRKrueger;943045No, that's usually reserved for idiotic posts, like the one you just made.  Jesus, you're starting to sound like Doc Sammy with his anti-Goth crusade, only even more silly if that's possible.

When dealing with published modules you certainly can find a lot of them that aren't very "sandbox", many of them were tournament modules meant to be done in 4 hours or so.  But if you want to go by the "facts" and not revisionist history, then you have to admit that one series that was put forward above as a linear design, G1-3, included information on how to run them all separately if desired, and that linear G led to the D1-3, with literally miles of underdark paths, and multiple cities/factions for the characters to get caught up in.

If you propose the fact that if modern OSR guys are a little hazy in remembering how Sandboxy everything was, then you should also admit that the highly plotted linear module, as we know it today, didn't really exist prior to say the DL series, and even if you go back to DL and reread, you'll find the earlier ones were probably less linear than people remember.

While I have to agree that the G Series isn't the linear mess that DL was, I think we walk a fine line when we talk about sandboxes that include modules, versus a truly open world. If I place adventure modules all over the game world, which players can find and choose to explore, isn't that really just me creating hubs for the mini-railroad? I guess my question is, how open does the world need to be to be called a true sandbox.? Because it seems to me that presenting a series of smaller, prepackaged "storehs" is no better or worse than having your group show up to hear, "okay, you find yourself standing before the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief."  I guess the difference is that you can ignore the bait, but is it still a sandbox if the world is entirely prepackaged bait?

Quote from: cranebump;943133While I have to agree that the G Series isn't the linear mess that DL was, I think we walk a fine line when we talk about sandboxes that include modules, versus a truly open world. If I place adventure modules all over the game world, which players can find and choose to explore, isn't that really just me creating hubs for the mini-railroad? I guess my question is, how open does the world need to be to be called a true sandbox.? Because it seems to me that presenting a series of smaller, prepackaged "storehs" is no better or worse than having your group show up to hear, "okay, you find yourself standing before the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief."  I guess the difference is that you can ignore the bait, but is it still a sandbox if the world is entirely prepackaged bait?

How is any world not prepackaged bait?  I create a city, NPC's with goals and motivations, I determine stuff that NPCs are up to, figure out what PCs are likely to get involved with and detail those and draw up maps.  Is that prepackaged bait?

If something isn't prepackaged, it's procedurally generated or just asspulled on command.  

The facts that...
1. A threat exists.
2. This threat exists physically somewhere.
3. If you want to end the threat, travelling to the physical location will probably be necessary.
...don't preclude a sandbox.  A sandbox has edges, it is not the Sahara.  What makes it a sandbox is whether I can decide to go or not, whether I deal with the giants myself or call in a marker from the Great Gold Wyrm whose egg I returned to have her do it, whether I can take over the place and lead the Giants to a New World Order.

The What is the least important part of the linear/sandbox divide, the more important questions are Why, How and most importantly, *IF*.