The Other Sandbox Gaming Thread

[Black Vulmea]

I recommend it to anyone interested in sandnbox games.

I read the "MC" pages linked in the blog post you quoted, and the really sad thing is that even your carefully selected, out-of-context quotes can't conceal the fact that either you don't really understand what you're talking about with respect to sandbox play or you're completely full of shit and trolling for lulz.

Either way, your post stinks of flop sweat.

[Black Vulmea]

"Gamemastering" by Brian Jamison

Here's a sample of what Shawn considers good advice.

'Ware the Wargamer
A subset of the Realist category is theWargamer. I've considered this carefully and am convinced that wargamers aren't really interested in participating in a roleplaying game.

Why? Wargamers are obsessed with winning, which means others have to lose. The more people who lose, the happier a wargamer is. This usually means other players will need to lose frequently for the wargamer to be happy. Wargamers want games to have rigid rule systems with well-defined victory conditions. Fine, except few roleplaying games have these attributes, which means any wargamer on the team is going to be constantly frustrated and will actively sabotage the game.

I recommend leaving wargamers off of any roleplaying invitation list. This is not to say that all people who enjoy wargaming won't enjoy or be able to roleplay, just that the players have to understand and agree that a roleplaying game is fundamentally different from a wargame.

Speaking as a wargamer, fuck you, asshat.

[silva]

I read the "MC" pages linked in the blog post you quoted, and the really sad thing is that even your carefully selected, out-of-context quotes can't conceal the fact that either you don't really understand what you're talking about with respect to sandbox play or you're completely full of shit and trolling for lulz.

Either way, your post stinks of flop sweat.

Nice trollada dude.

Now you can sit back and relaaaaax...

[Phillip]

So, recommended tips for this style of play?...

What existing settings would say work best for sandbox gaming?

Addressing the second first: one in which the player-characters have a lot of free agency, as opposed to just doing a routine job as directed by a boss.

So, for example, the Roaring '20s of Gangbusters is a milieu in which gangsters are not the only ones taking initiatives; detectives, journalists, politicians, even federal agents have considerable room for initiative on the same playing field.

A highly regulated environment is not so well suited, but the same space may look different to people coming from different walks of life; the situation is where it's at.

What's even more important is that the players be the sort who want to take initiative!

It's also better suited to more players. Just the same four guys always going around joined at the hip probably won't do much compared with several times as many people in fluctuating alliances. A smaller player group puts more work on the GM to create dynamics.

[Zak S]

The most important thing about trad sandobox gaming is the players getting information to make choices (though never so much it overhwelms them:
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2010/03/conan-knew-more-about-cimmeria-than.html ) and the GM knowing at least enough about the area to give them that information.

It also helps to have lots of random content available if the PCs go to an unexpected place.

The most important thing about building a setting is connections between locations. The more connected the locations, the less it is just a set of episodes.
Here's an example of a simple usable sandbox setting (you could totally do Red Tide with this:
http://save.vs.totalpartykill.ca/grab-bag/hexenbracken/
)

In this kind of game, the players discover what is there (like pieces of a puzzle) and then build new things out of what's there

For a game like Apoc World, there's a distinct difference: the players have an ability to control what's going on not by using their PCs mechanically to discover what's there, but simply by advancing in the game by any means. i.e. in AW and similar collaborative-worldbuilding games, the players help invent (rather than discover) what's on the map. It's less like a puzzle to be solved than having a seat at the table during the story meeting halfway through the series. So: a different kind of game.

Another important thing in a sandbox game is having a target-rich environment--the PCs have to be the kind of folks who'd find something useful wherever they went and their environment has to be one that would give them something useful wherever they go:
explorers in an unknown place
greedy people in a place full of treasure (traditional D&D)
revolutionaries in a universally oppressive place
etc

[silva]

Hi Zak!

I wouldnt say the sandbox experience proposed by Apocalypse World and Wilderlands of High Fantasy/Griffin Mountain are so different as you seem to imply. They are different, I agree, but not so much as to produce entirely different “gaming experiences”, I think.

You see, I think the only (and really significant) difference is in how the setting is established – in the first case the setting is an extension of the characters, while in the second case the setting is already pre-created (so it will probably the characters who are an extension of the setting). By the time “ball is rolling” though, the experience is practically the same: Both games will be strongly driven by the players, while the GM just reacts and adapts based on its prep/anotated info (which can be either encountered on pre-created tables ala Wilderlands, or on personal notes by the GM – like AW tools for registering the setting, for example).

The other possible difference (and this is a small one towards the ending experience, I think) between these two sandbox styles is that the AW GM will probably rely more on its own imagination/improve ability while the Wilderlands/Griffin Mountain GM will rely more on pre-created tables, for quickly reacting to the players and generating stuff on the fly. But this is so relative and subjective that, in practice, I don’t doubt GMs could end up using both methods for both games, really.

In the end though, I think the “sandbox experience” will be really similar, if we understand its main definition is “player-driven gameplay, in a dynamic and reactive environment”.

(damn, even the Fallout PC games scratch my sandbox itchings nicely! so Im suspect to tell )

[Benoist]

I don't know about others, but I'm getting pretty tired of having to rehash the story v. living setting distinction in threads like this one having fuck all to do with that particular debate. It seems it's coming up over and over again, and it's tiresome to see conversations getting dragged down one after the other like this, to me at least.

[jeff37923]

For SFRPG sandboxes, I highly recommend Andy Slack's article from White Dwarf entitled "Backdrop of Stars". Classic Traveller's own Book 0 - Understanding Traveller also is not half bad.

The keyword in sandbox play to me is flexibility. You as GM will be in a semi-reactive mode waiting for your Players to choose where they want to go and what goals they will pursue, then you must present reasonable challenges for them.

[Phillip]

Here's a connection to a collection including that Andy Slack article:
www.travellerbibliography.org/whitedwarf/ctrrr.pdf

[silva]

I don't know about others, but I'm getting pretty tired of having to rehash the story v. living setting distinction in threads like this one having fuck all to do with that particular debate. It seems it's coming up over and over again, and it's tiresome to see conversations getting dragged down one after the other like this, to me at least.

Sorry Ben, but Im ignorant on the matter. I thought we were talking about sandbox gaming in tabletop RPGs here, no ?

Except, of course, if youre implying the game cited by me (Apocalype World) is not an rpg, in which case I will have to remember you that last time we discussed it around here (on a "I tried Dungeon World" thread by.. as it Silverlion ? ) we all agreed it was a perfectly normal RPG.

If that's not the case, or Im talking some bullshit here, please enlightnen me.

[Phillip]

Let the players work out some of the background for you. They, too, can design a planet, an alien, a ship; sometimes this develops into whole subsectors run by another gamer in which you can adventure.

Is this what Benoist is freaking out about?

[Benoist]

Sorry Ben, but I'm ignorant on the matter.

As if.

Is this what Benoist is freaking out about?

Not freaking out. I know, this is the internet, but still. Just tired of it.

[The Traveller]

I don't know about others, but I'm getting pretty tired of having to rehash the story v. living setting distinction in threads like this one having fuck all to do with that particular debate. It seems it's coming up over and over again, and it's tiresome to see conversations getting dragged down one after the other like this, to me at least.

And it's being done by the exact same tag team every time as well. I wouldn't mind but if you look up this very issue on story-games the general consensus seems to be that RPGs and shared narrative games are different beasts. More like:

 -  - tabletop games
 -  / - - - - - - - - \
RPGs   -  -   -  Shared narrative games

Which doesn't sound too far off the truth, so my suspicion is these few fuckwits are trolling for grogs rather than discussing in good faith.

[jeff37923]

Im talking some bullshit here

Ding! Winner!

[jeff37923]

Is this what Benoist is freaking out about?

I can't speak for him, but there are indeed some pitfalls to this approach that a GM needs to be aware of to make sure it progresses smoothly. An example is in post #2 of this thread.

And thank you for the article link!