TheRPGSite

We been talking about "sandbox" play in another thread. I thought I'd spin it off into its own thread.

Personally, I don't get it. From what I heard, sandbox style play seems to be, well, just like regular ol' play. It seems to me that the differentiation between sandbox style play and any other type of play is largely semantics.

So...what makes sandbox so different than everything else?

Seanchai

I've never found another setting that is quite like the Wilderlands.

Slow day in Trollhaven?

Quote from: Pierce InveraritySlow day in Trollhaven?

I'm starting to think that denying things exist is going to become a pattern for Seanchai.

There isn't an overarching plot.

It depends much more heavily on the GM knowing the setting really well, or at least being able to wing it in a satisfyingly consistent manner.

The scale is more often WAY zoomed out by default, barring any otherwise artificial obstacles or walls. In other words, there is less than zero urge to even slightly nudge the players along a path.

I think that most campaigns are sandbox by default.

I prefer them If I can get them.

Edit: yes, I'm a sucker.

To me, sandbox play is play largely unfettered by seriously linear plot.  You give your players a nice big place to roam around in, they roam around and do stuff.  It's usually a little less exact on timing of events, direct plot points (note I said direct, I'm not saying you can't have plot in the sandbox), that sort of thing.   It is the anti-railroad, with barriers to characters normally coming only by natural means.  Most of my fantasy games have at least a bit of the sandbox to them--my vanilla homebrew world, Irrin, in my sig, is our roam-around-and-do-stuff sandbox, though it also hosts our more focused games.

I also tend to think of sandbox as "fewer GM controls and limitations on character direction".  That's my definition, as I use it--you're welcome to consider otherwise.  If it helps, for an example of a setting encouraging sandbox play, Wilderlands could be that.  Possibly also Pundit's setting coming up from FtA!?

Sandbox, balance, niche protection, abstraction, etc... are all just tools in a GM's toolbox.  Whether we fail to use or recognize them are our own faults or preferences.  I'm still learning to define the tricks of the trade and redefine them for the enjoyment of a player's perspective.

I've noticed a similar issue with Santa and the Easter Bunny.

AFAICT, sandbox play is pretty much where you get some characters and walk around the world doing stuff. It was the goal to which I aspired to when I started DMing, but have largely held off recently in favor of clearly defined PC goals that the players understood and were on board with.

It's kind of the opposite of a game where you can award points for scenerio objectives, which I brought up in the past.

I imagine it's hard to set up a pure sandbox, since a DM'd need to be able to simulate just about any part of the environment at a moment. It's the kind of play that the D&D environment books really shine in, since at that point, even terrain becomes an adventure. ("It's how far to Castle-on-the-Mountain?! That's going to take us through St. Rodrick's Desert unless we want to add three weeks to our overland travel time!")

The more goals you give to the PCs that they don't give themselves, the less of a sandbox it is. Immersionism and sandbox play go with each other pretty well, but they're not the same thing by a long streach.

Quote from: SeanchaiSo...what makes sandbox so different than everything else?

Sandbox is more detailed. You don't just say I travel 500 miles via caravan to the next adventure. Players have to make their way through that 500 miles. Products supporting sandbox will give you the detail needed to referee that 500 miles.

Rob Conley

Perhaps it's easier to examine what's not sandbox.

Any adventure with a scripted plotline is not sandbox. If the adventure has comments like "by the now, the PCs should have rescued the Wizard's apprentive and learned about the Crimson Brotherhood. At a dinner held in their honour, the grateful Wizard shows the party a map which bears the same symbol as the tatoos found on the Crimson Slayers," then it is not a sandbox adventure.

Any setting or campaign book that deals largely with politics and cultural background is not sandbox. For example, last night I was reading an Earthdawn setting supplement called Nations of Barsaive. The thing is chock full of NPCs, political factions, history, cultural notes, economic policy, storylines involving schemes and personal rivalries. However, were I to start a campaign somewhere on the map of that setting, I would have to make up 90 per cent of the actual stuff the PCs encountered during their wanderings - the detailed area maps, monsters, lairs, ruins, treasure, and other encounters on the road. Not sandbox.

Quite simply, then, sandbox is an open-ended play style with no presumption of a particular plot, and which uses a setting constructed at the scale of boots-on-the-ground PCs that is not tailored to any specific challenge level. Examples include the Wilderlands of High Fantasy boxed set, The Lost City of Barakus, and Keep on the Borderlands.

To answer the question in the title of the thread, to me sandbox play is the most real and least illusory style of fantasy gaming I have ever encountered.

In sandbox play any plots that appear are created from what happens after the setting is created, not the GM's goals during adventure prep. If that feels like normal play to you, congratulations, you're a sandboxer!

Quote from: HaffrungQuite simply, then, sandbox is an open-ended play style with no presumption of a particular plot, and which uses a setting constructed at the scale of boots-on-the-ground PCs that is not tailored to any specific challenge level.

Total agreement.

The real issue is whether or not you inject the 90's style "here's the plot" structure. If you do at all, it's not a sandbox.

Most current and recent "game theory" does not address sandbox at all. Game theorists usually struggle with the issue of "how" to inject the "here's the plot" (do we railroad? Do we just constrain the rules so that nobody can possibly talk about anything else but the plot? Do we set up a story-game style 'premise' that has to be addressed?, etc.

Sandbox gaming can be broken down into two types, which I think of as Matrixed and Unmatrixed.

Unmatrixed is the style where you use random tables and procedural generation a lot.  

Matrixed is where a large area (of a map, say) has been "keyed", but the players have free rein to wander. So a low level party could walk into a dangerous area, and the DM would just run the encounter. Or they could wander into an area that is far beneath their level, or where nothing really is.
Rob Kuntz style dungeons are a good example of this.

I think the sandbox is a may of describing adventuring on a map. Whether the map is keyed or not has a subtle difference.

Quote from: jrientsTo answer the question in the title of the thread, to me sandbox play is the most real and least illusory style of fantasy gaming I have ever encountered.

One of the things I do as a sandbox DM is run the world as a simulation. I keep asking what-ifs and extrapolating future possibilities from the "present" of the campaign.

The result is that players can interact with the campaign world in a very natural way. A trap that DMs need to watch out for is not to get too bogged down in details. It will probably take a novice a few sessions to find the right level of detail.

Quote from: HaffrungAny setting or campaign book that deals largely with politics and cultural background is not sandbox. For example, last night I was reading an Earthdawn setting supplement called Nations of Barsaive. The thing is chock full of NPCs, political factions, history, cultural notes, economic policy, storylines involving schemes and personal rivalries.

While I agree with your general definition for the most part, I find the above statement erroneous.  Sandbox to me implies a living world with stuff going on.  There can be plotlines, relationships, NPCs, etc. but it is entirely up to the players to interact with all those things.  They can drop them or get involved.  Often, though, it will be the players who create those things with their own actions.

Quote from: Abyssal MawTotal agreement.

The real issue is whether or not you inject the 90's style "here's the plot" structure. If you do at all, it's not a sandbox.

Well there is plot and there is plot. For example you have plot that is epitomized by the Dragonlance lance the antithesis of sandbox if there is everone.

However in my sandbox I have events. By that I mean I make up a future history for my campaign and break down into various events. Players can have an impact on these events but if they choose to do other things then they happen. And the result may have an impact on the players.

For example there is impending civil war in my Majestic Wilderlands campaign. While it will have impact on the players, it up to them how to deal with. They made very well choose to leave the region and find a more peaceful location. Or get fully involved. Or, most likely, deal with the problem as an obstacle to their goal.

The essence of sandbox play is that the player's choices have meaning and consequences. You respect and follow up on their choices even if it means that some pet plot of yours will fall by the wayside.

So hypothetically: my party enters hex A and the Easter Bunny, who resides there in his basket of doom, kills our Stripper/Ninja and then flees. If we go mad with a desire for revenge and chase that flop eared fucker across hexes c-d (this is a plot, no?),  dealing with the keyed encounters in those hexes one way or another (including avoiding them altogether) is it still sand box?

Quote from: estarThe essence of sandbox play is that the player's choices have meaning and consequences. You respect and follow up on their choices even if it means that some pet plot of yours will fall by the wayside.

Absolutely.  There's a backdrop in our setting right now of a kobold invasion, a terrible war brewing, and some long-forgotten relics beginning to surface.  The party has made choices that's completely ignored some of those issues, explored others more than I ever thought they would, and even managed to appropriate an airship (in an area where NO ONE has an airship).  You ask yourself how the setting is affected by their actions, adjust backdrop accordingly, and let them party on.

Sandbox style play is real enough that some players can hate it, while they love other games you've run with a different play style.

Its a whole different kind of monster, one that depends on a player being interested in charting his own course, and not every player will like that.

RPGPundit

To me it means: all shared gaming space (in and out of game). That's it. No more, no less.

Quote from: AosSo hypothetically: my party enters hex A and the Easter Bunny, who resides there in his basket of doom, kills our Stripper/Ninja and then flees. If we go mad with a desire for revenge and chase that flop eared fucker across hexes c-d (this is a plot, no?),  dealing with the keyed encounters in those hexes one way or another (including avoiding them altogether) is it still sand box?

Very much so. The difference is in who creates and drives the plot. In this instance it's the PC driving their own plot trained across the DM's world, so it's definitely sandbox.

Quote from: RPGPunditIts a whole different kind of monster, one that depends on a player being interested in charting his own course, and not every player will like that.

Less than fully pro-active players can be kept on board if at least one player is willing to drag the party along for the ride.  Some players resent being shepherded along like this, even (especially?) when you point out that doing something is always better than nothing happening.

Quote from: walkerpWhile I agree with your general definition for the most part, I find the above statement erroneous.  Sandbox to me implies a living world with stuff going on.  There can be plotlines, relationships, NPCs, etc. but it is entirely up to the players to interact with all those things.  They can drop them or get involved.  Often, though, it will be the players who create those things with their own actions.

Ya know, walker, if we keep agreeing like this, The Prince of Darkness is going to have to purchase a winter wardrobe...

I see this, IMHO, false dichotomy being promoted.  I'm not sure if it's my lack of historical perspective on sandbox.  To me, it's the idea that the world is not static - that it's moving and changing and exists separate from the PC's.  How they react to it, and it to them, is the game.

So sandbox play does not preclude addressing character goals - even if it includes chasing that god damned bunny across the world to chop his Cottontail of Death down to a Nub of Harmlessness.

Perhaps sandbox implies a more static baseline than that with which I am familiar. Hmph.

Quote from: Abyssal MawMost current and recent "game theory" does not address sandbox at all. Game theorists usually struggle with the issue of "how" to inject the "here's the plot" (do we railroad? Do we just constrain the rules so that nobody can possibly talk about anything else but the plot? Do we set up a story-game style 'premise' that has to be addressed?, etc.

The "Simulation" category in the original rec.games.frp.advocacy Threefold (GDS) was all about world-oriented play where decisions are made based on what's happening in the game world rather than metagame concerns like story, challenge, how the players feel about it, etc.  It was mangled by Ron and the Forge theoriest when (A) they moved GM guided stories (which they didn't like) under the GNS Sim category and (B) decided that their Sim included genre and story simulatoin, which involves metagame considerations.  This is why the GDS Simulation or world-oriented people are among the least happy with the GNS, becausae it doesn't make a distinction that's fairly important.

And to me, that's the core of sandbox play.  The Sandbox may be set-up with story-oriented or challenge-oriented considerations, but once play starts, things play out as if the setting were a real place and things don't adjust to suit the players or their characters.  At least in the pure form.

Quote from: James McMurrayVery much so. The difference is in who creates and drives the plot. In this instance it's the PC driving their own plot trained across the DM's world, so it's definitely sandbox.

Thanks.

Quote from: AosSo hypothetically: my party enters hex A and the Easter Bunny, who resides there in his basket of doom, kills our Stripper/Ninja and then flees. If we go mad with a desire for revenge and chase that flop eared fucker across hexes c-d (this is a plot, no?),  dealing with the keyed encounters in those hexes one way or another (including avoiding them altogether) is it still sand box?

Yes. Why wouldn't this be sandbox?

Rob Conley

Quote from: estarYes. Why wouldn't this be sandbox?

Rob Conley

I don't know, maybe that's why I asked the question?

Quote from: RPGPunditIts a whole different kind of monster, one that depends on a player being interested in charting his own course, and not every player will like that.

Yes I have run into this. The trick finding out what motivates the player and play to that. I had campaigns where the players started as total flunkies of some higher ups. Basically adventures started with an order or a mission.

But being the manipulative DM I am, I paid attention to what the player actually liked and threw that into the adventure and let the players respond naturally. After about a dozen sessions of this the players started making their own choices.

Anti social, burn the village down players also don't fare well with how I run my sandbox. While I plot responses realistically, I also have ready made "answers" to some of the more anti-social things people do. For example in the early 90's I had the PCs play City Guards for one campaign and threw anti-social adventurers at them and recorded how they dealt with them.

However there are players who want to be anti-social. So there been a handful of time I ran an "evil" sandbox game. Designed out a whole "evil" infrastructure for players to use as a home base as they rampaged and pillaged across the Wilderlands. This proved useful later as antagonists for a later more traditional setup.

Sandbox games don't have plots in the dramatic sense, they have plots in the sense of plans, intentions, and actions.  The Easter Bunny Revenge Squad is an example of the PC's plotting.  Whether their plot will have a dramatic climax or fizzle out mya depend on one or more die rolls.  Perhaps the ranger fails to track and the Easter Bunny is never seen again.  Perhaps in a year of game time they opt to set some traps or something.

This exact sort of thing happened in the last sandbox campaign I played in.  My crew and I got sick and tired of all these goddamn dragons.  So we decided that all dragons were Curly Bill and we were on Wyatt Earp's revenge ride.  "From now on I see a reptile scale, I kill the beast wearing it."  That decision drove the rest of the campaign, no matter what else was going on around us.

None of this is going to bring back my beloved Stripper/ninja, though. Nights around the campfire will never be the same. All I have now is the memories of that lapdance back in Hex 7240. Curse you, Easter Bunny!

Quote from: jrientsThis exact sort of thing happened in the last sandbox campaign I played in.  My crew and I got sick and tired of all these goddamn dragons.  So we decided that all dragons were Curly Bill and we were on Wyatt Earp's revenge ride.  "From now on I see a reptile scale, I kill the beast wearing it."  That decision drove the rest of the campaign, no matter what else was going on around us.

We had a similar situation once in a pseudo-sandbox campaign.* The PCs decided it was time to take care of the worldwide dragon problem and did some research into where dragons were located. Everything went well until they killed a dragon  that was allied with a coastal kingdom and keeping the pirates away from the shores. They didn't even know about it until they messed with a Great Wyrm Green, got their butts handed to them in a sling, and ended up signing a contract with a devil part of which involved them getting a resurrection for the dead dragon.

* I say pseudo because I ran a few modules during that time as well. None of the above was preplanned though.

Quote from: AosI don't know, maybe that's why I asked the question?

Sorry didn't mean to flippant. But what you described is a classic sandbox situation. Because it is your choices that drive the action.

Also understand just because I give you free rein as a sandbox DM doesn't mean I can't manipulate you toward a goal. I can play on your wants and goals to get you and the party going in a particular direction. I won't use DM fiat or gross manipulation to make it happen.

Also when I manipulating my players it is because I am role-playing the NPCs and forces around the players. For example I may decide that it would be interesting for this campaign to have the god Mitra take an interest in the group. So I am sending a lot of signs and portents and circumstance are manipulated to put the player in situations that help Mitra's cause. Meanwhile Set may have gotten wind of this and he trying to manipulate the players in another direction.

Sometimes this works spectacularly and other times it is a total dud and I move on.

Quote from: jrientsThis exact sort of thing happened in the last sandbox campaign I played in.  My crew and I got sick and tired of all these goddamn dragons.  So we decided that all dragons were Curly Bill and we were on Wyatt Earp's revenge ride.  "From now on I see a reptile scale, I kill the beast wearing it."  That decision drove the rest of the campaign, no matter what else was going on around us.

I had a game set in City-State start out where the players are on a grand espionage mission as members of the Black Lotus. Somehow it turned into a quest to own the ultimate potion shop.

Quote from: jrientsSandbox games don't have plots in the dramatic sense, they have plots in the sense of plans, intentions, and actions.  

I have to remember that. This is a good way of describing sandbox plot.

Quote from: James McMurray* I say pseudo because I ran a few modules during that time as well. None of the above was preplanned though.

Nothing wrong with using modules in a sandbox. We only have so much prep time. Not all modules are suitable tho. I found that site based modules are easier to incorporate into a sandbox game. Also that shorter modules (like that booklet series from AEG) tend to have more site based modules and thus more useful. I alter the premise to fit the region.

Quote from: walkerpWhile I agree with your general definition for the most part, I find the above statement erroneous.  Sandbox to me implies a living world with stuff going on.  There can be plotlines, relationships, NPCs, etc. but it is entirely up to the players to interact with all those things.  They can drop them or get involved.  Often, though, it will be the players who create those things with their own actions.

Oh, I agree completely. A sandbox game doesn't lack plotlines. But the plots exist on their lonesome - they don't presume the participation of the PCs.

So the bandit chief wants to rescue his mistress from the clutches of the Ogre Magi, and the treasure of the Ogre Magi contains a key to the vault beneath a ruined tower 8 miles away, which itself contains a powerful staff.

Now, the PCs may have a run-in with the bandit chief and be bribed or coerced into recovering the mistress from the Ogre Mage. Or maybe a PC is captured by the Ogre Mage and later rescues the mistress from the Ogre Mage and the bandit chief. Or maybe the PCs barge into the Ogre Mage lair and kill everything in it, including the mistress. Or maybe they find the mistress and ransom her to the bandit chief, and he in turn tricks them into entering the spectre-haunted tower. Or maybe the PCs explore the tower but can't open the vault and presume the bandit chief has the key, and so set an ambush to capture him (and later offer him to the Ogre Mage in exchange for the real key). Or maybe they wander into the ruined tower, a PC is killed by Spectre (which is way out of their league), and they hastily move on to another region.

So, if I understand what you guys say "sandbox" play is a game where the GM gives the players a seed and basically lets them wonder as they may?

If so, that's the only way I know how to play.:D

No, I think the "seed" and the "giving" make it no longer a sandbox.

I think the major factor is that it is the players' choice as to what happens and where they go.  It's up to them to interact with the world.  They don't get missions handed to them or get caught up in situations without their own involvement.  They can literally set up a little shop and decide to do nothing but produce and sell stuff if they want.

Quote from: McrowSo, if I understand what you guys say "sandbox" play is a game where the GM gives the players a seed and basically lets them wonder as they may?

I would add there needs to be low level detail pregenerated for the players interact with or actual play will be rough. But what you said above is the core of sandbox play.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd to me, that's the core of sandbox play.  The Sandbox may be set-up with story-oriented or challenge-oriented considerations, but once play starts, things play out as if the setting were a real place and things don't adjust to suit the players or their characters.  At least in the pure form.

That's a pretty good description of sandbox play, to me.

Quote from: walkerpNo, I think the "seed" and the "giving" make it no longer a sandbox.

I think that splitting hairs. You have to start with some situation simply because we are playing a game with characters. We don't start them off as babies and go from there. So there has to be an initial situation for the players to start their exploration from. Afterwards the game develops how it develops.

In my experience it is this initial situation that sets the whole tone of the subsequent sandbox campaign. You will get a different campaign where every one starts out with a high social standing versus a party of low life.

Another aspect of sandbox play that nobody has mentioned yet is it does not presume heroism (or any other agenda) on the part of the PCs. The PCs may befriend the gnome illusionist or they may steal her wand; they may cut a deal with the Ogre Mage or they may cut it to pieces; they may decide to work for the local lord, or they may join a band of outlaws. There's no presumption that some of the NPCs will be friends and others foes.

That's not to say you can't run heroic sandbox campaigns. But the setting material isn't created in a way that makes such a presumption.

Quote from: estarBut being the manipulative DM I am, I paid attention to what the player actually liked and threw that into the adventure and let the players respond naturally. After about a dozen sessions of this the players started making their own choices.

Personally, I ramp this up a little - I suppose I'm running pseudo-sandboxes more than I run actual sandboxes these days.

Specifically, I allow myself to manipulate the sandbox just a teensy bit, such that the factors that the players consider important in the gameworld become more important to the campaign, whereas factors that the players show absolutely no interest in fade away into the background.

For example, suppose in my sandbox setup there's a war brewing between Ecks and Wye. Let's say group A is really interested in the coming war - ideally they'd express that through their PCs' actions ("Let's offer our services as mercenaries to the highest bidder!"), but they might just say that they're interested. ("Man, I wish we could get involved in the Ecks/Wye conflict, but we really ought to finish off this bandit group before we hike over to that side of the map.") In this case, I'll make sure the Ecks/Wye hostilities become suitably important: a war does kick off, and the consequences are potentially world-shaking.

On the other hand, group B show utter disinterest in getting involved in the war, usually though both PC actions ("Let's not go there, it's too close to the Ecks/Wye border and I don't want to get stuck in their squabbles") and player comments ("Wait, is this guy recruiting for Ecks or Wye? I really don't want to get involved in that mess.") In this case, the war won't ever become important to the campaign: if the players are exploring an area far away from the two kingdoms, the war is fought and won while they are off, without too many far-reaching consequences, whereas if (for whatever reason) they're hanging around in the area the tensions will gently ease off.

Quote from: walkerpNo, I think the "seed" and the "giving" make it no longer a sandbox.

Really, not even an idea of where to start? That'd take an experience group of Role-players who know each other very well. Most groups I know of would simply stall out if they didn't even has so much as seed to start with. That's not to say that the character have to take that seed and run with it, just some point of reference.

QuoteI think the major factor is that it is the players' choice as to what happens and where they go.  It's up to them to interact with the world.  They don't get missions handed to them or get caught up in situations without their own involvement.  They can literally set up a little shop and decide to do nothing but produce and sell stuff if they want.

Well, that's certainly what starting with a seed would do. If the GM says "As you come over the hill you notice Corvalis (a small coastal village). There seems to be a disturbance in the town square, two men dressed in the garb similar to the Brothers of the Line holding a young woman at sword point."

Now is this no longer "sandbox"? The players don't have to get involved, it's their choice. They can watch the dudes lop her head off if they want and go have a stein of kek in the tavern if they want. Heck, they can go cheer for it for all I care.

Quote from: walkerpNo, I think the "seed" and the "giving" make it no longer a sandbox.

I don't think that's necessarily true, so long as the "giving" isn't a shove.  The reality is that even the sandboxes being praised here contains "seeds" that are "given" to the PCs.  Keep on the Borderlands doesn't have empty cobweb-filled dungeons or encounters with peasant women hanging out their laundry.  The Wilderlands doesn't detail hexes filed with uninteresting rocks or mud puddles.  The sandbox modules and settings detail things that could spawn an adventure and I think that it's fair game to design adventures and settings so that they contain plenty of opportunity for adventure (i.e., "giving" "seeds" to the players).  The key though is that once the PCs are injected into the situation, they are free to do whatever they want, even if that means never engaging with the adventure seeds or running into things that are over their head or beneath them.  

The setting should naturalistic rather than existing solely to engage the PCs.  I think the movie The Truman Show does a decent job of illustrating the difference, and how it can feel from a PC perspective.

Quote from: walkerpI think the major factor is that it is the players' choice as to what happens and where they go.  It's up to them to interact with the world.  They don't get missions handed to them or get caught up in situations without their own involvement.  They can literally set up a little shop and decide to do nothing but produce and sell stuff if they want.

I see nothing wrong with the PCs getting missions so long as that's what they've signed up for and/or it makes sense in the setting.  The setting can push the PCs to do things for in setting reasons.  The GM shouldn't be pushing things for metagame reasons (e.g., to tell a story, further a plot, make the game more fun for the players, etc.).

That said, I also think there is a spectrum here and it's not necessarily all-or-nothing.  A GM can run an essentially sandbox game with some metagame adjustments and so long as it doesn't involve shoving the PCs around or coercion.

Quote from: Pierce InveraritySlow day in Trollhaven?

I don't know. If I am a troll, well, you must be a dumb fuck, because you wandered in, didn't you?

Seanchai

Quote from: John MorrowI see nothing wrong with the PCs getting missions so long as that's what they've signed up for and/or it makes sense in the setting.  The setting can push the PCs to do things for in setting reasons.  The GM shouldn't bve pushing things for metagame reasons (e.g., to tell a story, further a plot, make the game more fun for the players, etc.).

Yeah.  Fizdalf the Wizard can assign the PCs a mission.  In some campaigns failing to take the mission would have metagame consequences.  ("Okay, you jokers.  I guess that means no game tonight.  Thanks for ruining all my prep time.")  In a sandbox there would still be repercussions, but they would be entirely internal to the campaign world.  ("Fizdalf throws you out of his tower and seeks help from an NPC party.  They set off on the quest.  Now what do you guys do?")

Quote from: estarNothing wrong with using modules in a sandbox. We only have so much prep time. Not all modules are suitable tho. I found that site based modules are easier to incorporate into a sandbox game. Also that shorter modules (like that booklet series from AEG) tend to have more site based modules and thus more useful. I alter the premise to fit the region.

Some of the modules I used were very plot driven, like Ravager of Time or Dragon Mountain. Others were site based. I tend to start with an adventure of some sort, and then go where the players lead me.

Quote from: McrowReally, not even an idea of where to start? That'd take an experience group of Role-players who know each other very well. Most groups I know of would simply stall out if they didn't even has so much as seed to start with. That's not to say that the character have to take that seed and run with it, just some point of reference.

Often, especially in our randomized Rolemaster games, that start point was "you know each other, now go exploring."

QuoteWell, that's certainly what starting with a seed would do. If the GM says "As you come over the hill you notice Corvalis (a small coastal village). There seems to be a disturbance in the town square, two men dressed in the garb similar to the Brothers of the Line holding a young woman at sword point."

Now is this no longer "sandbox"? The players don't have to get involved, it's their choice. They can watch the dudes lop her head off if they want and go have a stein of kek in the tavern if they want. Heck, they can go cheer for it for all I care.

Did the campaign start with that scene, or had they been traveling already and chosen to go to Corvalis (or at least the area where Corvalis is)?

I think you guys are making good arguments, but I still don't agree that giving seeds to the party is part of a sandbox.

What the party get is the place.  That's the sandbox.  There is tons of stuff in the place and the players can do with it what they will.  Depending on their profession, skills, background, etc. how they interact will certainly start drawing out seeds and giving them opportunity to take them.  But as a GM running a group in a self-agreed sandbox, I wouldn't have the party be approached in anyway that didn't make sense given their PCs and the context they were in.

Another point is that the PCs can certainly affect the sandbox.  As they grow more powerful, they may ultimately take control of it.

In some ways, now that I think about it, Keep on the Borderlands is very sandboxy.  I think a lot of sandbox stuff is basically the default way of playing back in the day, which is why some people are a bit surprised to hear it spoken about like it is something special.

Quote from: McrowWell, that's certainly what starting with a seed would do. If the GM says "As you come over the hill you notice Corvalis (a small coastal village). There seems to be a disturbance in the town square, two men dressed in the garb similar to the Brothers of the Line holding a young woman at sword point."

If it's an example of what's been called "Schrodinger's NPC", that is, that no matter when the PCs travel nearl Corvalis, they're destined to crest a hill, find a disturbance in the town swquare, and arrive at exactly the moment when the two men are holding the young woman at sword point, then it isn't what I would consider pure sandbox play but it can work with sandbox play.  Of course even some of the iconic sandbox examples being mentioned here can work like that from time to time.

I'll add that this is one of my main disappointments about Forge theory of Narrativism.  There is some good advice in there about how to set up PCs and game situations that they'll be deeply engaging that could be bolted on to almost any game but it gets lost in the ideals of Story Now! (which promotes games that are only about engaging a narrow set of things that matter to the PC and nothing else) and  System Matters (which promotes the creation of specialty games that focus on that one thing at the expense of all oters).  As someone mentioned in another thread, a lot of Forge games could make interesting settings, interesting aadventures, or (I would add) decent character creation advice for a traditional game.

Quote from: James McMurrayDid the campaign start with that scene, or had they been traveling already and chosen to go to Corvalis (or at least the area where Corvalis is)?

it's not from a real game, just an example I came up with off the top of my head.

In my games this would more than likely the players would come up with how they know each other and why they are traveling to Corvalis.

Quote from: walkerpI think you guys are making good arguments, but I still don't agree that giving seeds to the party is part of a sandbox.

A sandbox without seeds is like a real sandbox without sand.  The seeds give the players something to engage in.  While it's true that some players will create their own seeds even if you put them in a sandbox without them, I think the inclusion of seeds is a common practice even in the iconic examples being given here and that the inclusion of such seeds doen't preclude it being sandbox play.  You could argue that the seeds, themselves, are not actually a part of the sandbox but I would argue that once they are written into the setting, they are.

Quote from: walkerpWhat the party get is the place.  That's the sandbox.  There is tons of stuff in the place and the players can do with it what they will.  Depending on their profession, skills, background, etc. how they interact will certainly start drawing out seeds and giving them opportunity to take them.  But as a GM running a group in a self-agreed sandbox, I wouldn't have the party be approached in anyway that didn't make sense given their PCs and the context they were in.

Well, why does a setting or scenario designer put anything in to or detail anything in "the place"?  The goal is to make the setting an interesting place to adventure, regardless of what the PCs decide to do.  That's why utopias make for boring settings.  But all of those interesting things that get put into the setting are, in essence, adventureing seeds, whether it's something as broad as the presence of slavery and dark sorcery in a city or as specific as a particular slave trader who has a pact with a specific demon.  All adventuring seeds, just at different levels of detail.

Quote from: John MorrowIf it's an example of what's been called "Schrodinger's NPC", that is, that no matter when the PCs travel nearl Corvalis, they're destined to crest a hill, find a disturbance in the town swquare, and arrive at exactly the moment when the two men are holding the young woman at sword point, then it isn't what I would consider pure sandbox play but it can work with sandbox play.  Of course even some of the iconic sandbox examples being mentioned here can work like that from time to time.

No,not really. I would totally depend on when they get there.  Now if they went off and decided to go to a different town or were delayed or whatever then , no, they'd miss this situation. Sure, when or if they make it to Corvalis they might find out what happened to her if it's largely know in the town or if they locals even feel like talking about it.

Quote from: Mcrowit's not from a real game, just an example I came up with off the top of my head.

In my games this would more than likely the players would come up with how they know each other and why they are traveling to Corvalis.

I guess the basis of my questions was: is the initiating part of the scene (getting to Corvalis) the PCs' idea or the GM's? If it was the PCs that wanted to go, you're sandboxing.

Quote from: walkerpI
What the party get is the place.

You are forgetting circumstances. My Majestic Wilderlands has been run for 20 years. City-State is still the same place with 90% of what was in 1982 still present. However the circumstances are completely different. So the party starting out now would have a different experience than the same party in 1982.

Quote from: walkerpI wouldn't have the party be approached in anyway that didn't make sense given their PCs and the context they were in.

That is the initial seed right there. Marcus isn't a 1st level fighter in City-State. He is a 1st level fighter who a Tharbian of Clan Harsan who is interested in becoming the clan's master weaponsmith.

By having different backgrounds for characters that are otherwise mechanically the same you can have completely different sandbox campaigns.

Quote from: walkerpAnother point is that the PCs can certainly affect the sandbox.  As they grow more powerful, they may ultimately take control of it.

I explored the "Big fish in the pond" and try learn how to keep it challenging without falling into the trap of ever more powerful adversaries. I got the best feeling when one of my players went "Rob, I gotten everything I wanted at the start of the campaign. I can lay waste to entire villages. I don't know how you do it but I still got problems and I am not at the finish line yet."

The trick is to try to precede realistically from the premises of the setting. So a campaign can continue even after a player become Emperor. Now he has to be deal with being Emperor which brings a whole new set of issues.

Something tho a campaign just end naturally where the characters really doesn't need to adventure anymore. One campaign was about how "Gunpowder was invented in the Wilderlands" It involved a blacksmith character and a Black Lotus character (secret police of the Overlord). It took a year of actual play to resolve this one mission but at the end the blacksmith got his mastership in the guild and was giving the monopoly of casting bronze cannons and the Black Lotus character was prompted and given authority over the power works particularly security. The next session we all realized there was no reasonable way these characters would adventure again. So by mutual agreement we ended it.

Quote from: walkerpIn some ways, now that I think about it, Keep on the Borderlands is very sandboxy.  I think a lot of sandbox stuff is basically the default way of playing back in the day, which is why some people are a bit surprised to hear it spoken about like it is something special.

I think we have an older demographic here and that it biased because B2 was a commonly run module along with Judges Guild. I play a one day con every month I can with a local gaming club in Butler PA and while there are fun games it is not what I call sandbox.

Okay, so is sandbox play really improv play ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: John MorrowIAs someone mentioned in another thread, a lot of Forge games could make interesting settings, interesting aadventures, or (I would add) decent character creation advice for a traditional game.

Which why I like to use general purpose RPGs for my campaign. I also tend to favor ruleset that try to be realistic rather than abstract as it fits better with how my campaign progress.

However I think the ideal sandbox game would something like KenzerCo Aces & Eights. What I mean by this is that Aces & Eight has a set of core rules but has a dozen or so sub system (games within games) that simulate a different aspect of the Old West. Like system for mining, trials and so on.

I think a fantasy equivalent would be really good. Have a good solid core like D&D/D20 with a whole series of detailed subsystems to simulate specific aspects of the gameworld (Like running a barony). Judges Guild has some of this stuff and it really helped.

Some games have one or two of these but Aces & Eight has a lot. The sum of which makes for a different (and better IMO) RPG. I think FtA! show promise in this area as well.

Quote from: McrowNo,not really. I would totally depend on when they get there.  Now if they went off and decided to go to a different town or were delayed or whatever then , no, they'd miss this situation.

Opposite is that no matter what village they pick they will find "two men are holding the young woman at sword point" Thus the DM fiat has determined that no matter what the PCs do this plot hook will happen.

So a Sand box is like a MMO world (but once stuff is done it doesn't reset and happen again 5 minutes later).
Are there special terms for  -
*Linear plot (like in 1st person computer rpgs which are really tight and you can't actually visit some locations until they are 'unlocked' by previous actions)
*Timeline driven adventures (where there is an event that will occure on a day and the players can act freely in the world arround that but eventually that is going to happen unless they stop it - typically stuff like Call of Chthulu)
*Personal goal driven adventures (where each character has their own personal object set by themselves or the GM and they do this is a kind of a "sandboxed" world - you know "Indigo your goal is to find and kill the six fingered man that killed your father")

Personally I nearly always play a mix of timeline driven and personal goals and I think we would tire of a sandboxed world were there was no narative. Maybe that's why I don't use random encounters.

I think we are quibbling over terminology here with the word "seeds".  Circumstance is better.  I think of seeds as something given to the players to plant, water and care for.  But yes, I agree with all the above distinctions.

For me, there is a distinction and it's very important.  

Mainly, it's because I let myse-- no no, no, I suckered myself into the notion that a good RPG was fun, but a great one had plot, mise-en-scene, mood, themes, pacing...all the things that make a great movie, say, or a great book, or a thrill ride.

At one point, an influence came at me from an unexpected angle, and I set about rethinking my playstyle, my GMing, my...my everything.

The catalyst:  Grand Theft Auto - Vice City.

I got really into playing that game, and became enraptured with the free-roaming, exploratory nature of it.  It was an open world, with a few ground rules; it had definite plot threads to follow, sub-plots and side-plots, mini-games and great tunes.

I started thinking of Vice City as a fun (if not exactly safe) place to inhabit, and started thinking things like, "Why not do this on a table-top?"

Then, I noticed my Intercomputerweb gamer cronies talking about "sandbox"-style gaming, and I heard that GTA:VC's designers took a "sandbox" approach, and then I went, "Aaaah, sandbox.  Yes, this is an idea that I like."

Then, on a trip out of town, I bought this solo RPG at a discount bookstore, and it had a map in it, and the first part of the solo said, "You wash up on shoe; which way do you go?"  And I was, like, "HOLY CATS, THIS IS WHAT I, AS A GAMEMASTER, HAVE BEEN MISSING OUT ON."

The idea of sandbox-style games, therefore, is definitely of importance to me because although it's not new or revolutionary or even all shiny and neon and light-up and thumpy like New Order's "Blue Monday", it's the idea that re-energized me as a GM.

I'm gonna cross-post this to my blog.

Quote from: David ROkay, so is sandbox play really improv play ?

Only in the sense that all RPGs are improv. The GM can (and often does) still pregenerate the world around the PCs. The biggest difference is that he doesn't pregenerate the plot.

Quote from: jibbajibba*Linear plot (like in 1st person computer rpgs which are really tight and you can't actually visit some locations until they are 'unlocked' by previous actions)

Railroad. Usually applied negatively.

Quote*Personal goal driven adventures (where each character has their own personal object set by themselves or the GM and they do this is a kind of a "sandboxed" world - you know "Indigo your goal is to find and kill the six fingered man that killed your father")

Player driven play.

QuotePersonally I nearly always play a mix of timeline driven and personal goals and I think we would tire of a sandboxed world were there was no narative. Maybe that's why I don't use random encounters.

Sandbox != no narrative. Sandbox = no narrative driven solely by the GM, and no imperative to do task X. It doesn't mean that there isn't a group of angry cultists trying to call down Cthulu, but it does mean that the GM doesn't set things up so that the players will definitely encounter this group and be compelled to stop them.

It's just player directed "plot" right, they are just [attempting] to do something that they made up? You don't put on the requirement that to be sandbox everything of note in the world is pregen?

Quote from: blakkieIt's just player directed "plot" right, they are just [attempting] to do something that they made up? You don't put on the requirement that to be sandbox everything of note in the world is pregen?

Right. Most GMs will pregenerate a lot of the world, but some just grab some random tables and say "let's go!"

Quote from: James McMurrayRight. Most GMs will pregenerate a lot of the world, but some just grab some random tables and say "let's go!"

Okay but is it still sandbox if the players pregenerate the plot ? Or does sandbox mean no pregenplot by anyone ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: AosNone of this is going to bring back my beloved Stripper/ninja, though. Nights around the campfire will never be the same. All I have now is the memories of that lapdance back in Hex 7240. Curse you, Easter Bunny!

Maybe so.  But you've heard rumors of something called "Fenher's Jacuzzi of Resurrection"...they say it's over in hex 1267.

I ran across this just now:

http://www.pied-piper-publishing.com/index.php/robilar_remembers/lord_robilar_co

It's a retelling of the adventures of Robilar. Robilar was Rob Kuntz's character in Gygax's Greyhawk campaign. Basically this is a very rough campaign log, for something that took place nearly 40 years ago.

Read the account, and then try and imagine how the game was structured.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Maybe so.  But you've heard rumors of something called "Fenher's Jacuzzi of Resurrection"...they say it's over in hex 1267.

Looks like I'm a bit if shovel work and a Thoat ride away from an evening of "gentleman's" entertainment! Thanks doc, next time I come by Hex 3250, I'll have to look you up.

Quote from: darThere isn't an overarching plot.

To what part? The night's events? The span of time the game is supposed to run?

Because it seems to me that sandbox style games have to have some sort of plot. They may not start out with one, but it seems as if they have to gain at least a brief one. Someone in another thread said they literally play without one, moving from hex to hex, but I can't imagine many folks doing that or for long.

You mention overarching plot. How overarching is too overarching for it to be a sandbox?

Quote from: darI think that most campaigns are sandbox by default.

As said in my original message, what I've heard collectively about sandbox play hasn't sounded any different than almost any game I've ever run with any system I've ever used.

Seanchai

Quote from: Zachary The FirstTo me, sandbox play is play largely unfettered by seriously linear plot.

So would a module or pre-designed adventure that lacked a seriously linear plot also be a sandbox?

I'd imagine games can stop being sandboxes. How often do folks think that occurs?

Seanchai

Quote from: blakkieIt's just player directed "plot" right, they are just [attempting] to do something that they made up? You don't put on the requirement that to be sandbox everything of note in the world is pregen?

Look in theory it is possible to make up everything your head, on the fly and run a sandbox. However it takes truly exceptional skill to remember everything that went on before as well as keeping everything fresh and new. I don't think you appreciate the amount of detail that can be generated for use for a sandbox game.

The key to a smooth game is for a GM to be able to look at where the players are and know what there. The faster this happens the smoother the game is. But that is not the only benefit. You see you know only what you know. Without pregenerating stuff you know what in the surrounding empty hex . A superior sandbox experience not only deal with what in a given hex but connects to the surrounding hexes as well. Doing allows the players find out what is beyond the horizon and make a reasonable choice.

Quote from: Abyssal MawTotal agreement.

The real issue is whether or not you inject the 90's style "here's the plot" structure. If you do at all, it's not a sandbox.

Most current and recent "game theory" does not address sandbox at all. Game theorists usually struggle with the issue of "how" to inject the "here's the plot" (do we railroad? Do we just constrain the rules so that nobody can possibly talk about anything else but the plot? Do we set up a story-game style 'premise' that has to be addressed?, etc.

Sandbox gaming can be broken down into two types, which I think of as Matrixed and Unmatrixed.

Unmatrixed is the style where you use random tables and procedural generation a lot.  

Matrixed is where a large area (of a map, say) has been "keyed", but the players have free rein to wander. So a low level party could walk into a dangerous area, and the DM would just run the encounter. Or they could wander into an area that is far beneath their level, or where nothing really is.
Rob Kuntz style dungeons are a good example of this.

I think the sandbox is a may of describing adventuring on a map. Whether the map is keyed or not has a subtle difference.

Fascinating.  I've been playing sandbox all these years and never knew there was a name for it.   But then again, I'm not at all fond of the term "Sandbox" for this.  Sandbox, to my mind, is the baby area where kids play, or in businesses its a confined play area for data.   In either case sandbox represents a constraint.   However, what you are describing as the "sandbox" type of world setting appears to be the opposite.   So I'm not fond of the name.  Is there an alias that is used for Sandbox?   Or could we derive one?   Or, conversely, am I missing something?   Thanks.

Quote from: estarSandbox is more detailed. You don't just say I travel 500 miles via caravan to the next adventure. Players have to make their way through that 500 miles. Products supporting sandbox will give you the detail needed to referee that 500 miles.

I touched on this briefly in the other thread, but does it really provide 500 miles worth of details? It seems to me that there will be a lot of blanks on the map.

I don't have the Wilderness product folks keep mentioning, but would the Known World boxed set by Goodman Games be considered a sandbox? I could reference it and provide more concrete examples of what I'm talking about.

Seanchai

Quote from: AosSo hypothetically: my party enters hex A and the Easter Bunny, who resides there in his basket of doom, kills our Stripper/Ninja and then flees. If we go mad with a desire for revenge and chase that flop eared fucker across hexes c-d (this is a plot, no?),  dealing with the keyed encounters in those hexes one way or another (including avoiding them altogether) is it still sand box?

Here's a slightly tangential question: Does that ever not happen?

The specifics of the bunnies, strippers, and ninjas aside (there's a sentence you don't say every day), can you game without plot? Can you do it for more than a few hours?

It seems to me that the answer is no, that something always develops. Whether it's "Let's clear out this dungeon" or "I wonder where the monster's lair is at" or "Hmmmn, an oppressed village - let's figure out who is oppressing them and save the villagers!," plot always happens.

Seanchai

Quote from: estarLook in theory it is possible to make up everything your head, on the fly and run a sandbox. However it takes truly exceptional skill to remember everything that went on before as well as keeping everything fresh and new. I don't think you appreciate the amount of detail that can be generated for use for a sandbox game.

The key to a smooth game is for a GM to be able to look at where the players are and know what there. The faster this happens the smoother the game is. But that is not the only benefit. You see you know only what you know. Without pregenerating stuff you know what in the surrounding empty hex . A superior sandbox experience not only deal with what in a given hex but connects to the surrounding hexes as well. Doing allows the players find out what is beyond the horizon and make a reasonable choice.

I don't find it difficult at all, and I don't think I'm exceptionally skilled. In fact, the more I have previously created, the more likely I am to sub-conciously steer the players toward it. I much prefer winging things as much as possible once the game has started,

-clash

-clash

Quote from: SeanchaiHere's a slightly tangential question: Does that ever not happen?

The specifics of the bunnies, strippers, and ninjas aside (there's a sentence you don't say every day), can you game without plot? Can you do it for more than a few hours?

It seems to me that the answer is no, that something always develops. Whether it's "Let's clear out this dungeon" or "I wonder where the monster's lair is at" or "Hmmmn, an oppressed village - let's figure out who is oppressing them and save the villagers!," plot always happens.

Seanchai

The key is "Plot always happens." Plot and story are a byproduct of gaming.

-clash

Quote from: estarYes. Why wouldn't this be sandbox?

Because one of the things folks sometimes say about sandbox games is that they don't have a plot. They might just mean overarching or GM-driven plot, though.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiHere's a slightly tangential question: Does that ever not happen?

The specifics of the bunnies, strippers, and ninjas aside (there's a sentence you don't say every day), can you game without plot? Can you do it for more than a few hours?

It seems to me that the answer is no, that something always develops. Whether it's "Let's clear out this dungeon" or "I wonder where the monster's lair is at" or "Hmmmn, an oppressed village - let's figure out who is oppressing them and save the villagers!," plot always happens.

Seanchai

In my games something like this always happens. Probably because it's hard to fight bunnies while wearing a thong.

Seriously: Plot always comes into play in my games, i was just curios about it's relationship to the sandbox idea.

Quote from: VBWyrdeSo I'm not fond of the name.  Is there an alias that is used for Sandbox?   Or could we derive one?   Or, conversely, am I missing something?   Thanks.

Sandbox refers to the old sand tables used by miniature wargamers. Nearly any type of terrain could be sculpted out of the wet sand so a single table could be setup to represent nearly any historical or ahistorical situation.

Even in computing a sandbox by definition is indefinitely flexible as it used to simulate a variety of situations some expansive and some restrictive.

I think sandbox is the best terms to describe this style of play.

Quote from: David ROkay but is it still sandbox if the players pregenerate the plot ? Or does sandbox mean no pregenplot by anyone ?

I'd say no, but I've never played in a game where players completely pregenerated the plot, so my expereience with the style is nil.

Quote from: estarLook in theory it is possible to make up everything your head, on the fly and run a sandbox. However it takes truly exceptional skill to remember everything that went on before as well as keeping everything fresh and new. I don't think you appreciate the amount of detail that can be generated for use for a sandbox game.

Actually yeah, I think I do. And I just use a notebook. The players help too. They are usually really good about remembering what's important to them. ;)

Quote from: David ROkay, so is sandbox play really improv play ?

If I understand correctly, I don't think it can be or wholly be. As I understand it, there have to be details for the GM to use.

Seanchai

Quote from: James McMurrayI guess the basis of my questions was: is the initiating part of the scene (getting to Corvalis) the PCs' idea or the GM's? If it was the PCs that wanted to go, you're sandboxing.

Yes, it would be there choice. Typically I have a few very basic ideas of the general happenings and situations in a given geogrphical region. I try to give them a starting point that is as wide open as possible (generally a write up on the common knowledge of what's going on in the area) then let them decide where in the region to start and what they plan to do. Regions vary in size but generally include multiple settlements. Of course the players are free to do what they please and go where they please.

Quote from: VBWyrdeFascinating.  I've been playing sandbox all these years and never knew there was a name for it.   But then again, I'm not at all fond of the term "Sandbox" for this.  Sandbox, to my mind, is the baby area where kids play, or in businesses its a confined play area for data.   In either case sandbox represents a constraint.   However, what you are describing as the "sandbox" type of world setting appears to be the opposite.   So I'm not fond of the name.  Is there an alias that is used for Sandbox?   Or could we derive one?   Or, conversely, am I missing something?   Thanks.

I've never heard it called that outside forums. Around the table we just call it "gaming."

Quote from: SeanchaiTo what part? The night's events? The span of time the game is supposed to run?

Because it seems to me that sandbox style games have to have some sort of plot. They may not start out with one, but it seems as if they have to gain at least a brief one. Someone in another thread said they literally play without one, moving from hex to hex, but I can't imagine many folks doing that or for long.

I'll repeat, since it seems it got missed in the flurry:

Sandbox != No Plot
Sandbox = No Pregenerated Plot

QuoteYou mention overarching plot. How overarching is too overarching for it to be a sandbox?

Did it happen because the GM wanted to run adventure X, or because the GM stuck a seed somewhere, the PCs found it, and they opted to follow up on it?

QuoteAs said in my original message, what I've heard collectively about sandbox play hasn't sounded any different than almost any game I've ever run with any system I've ever used.

Congratulations! You're a sandboxer. :D

Quote from: SeanchaiSo would a module or pre-designed adventure that lacked a seriously linear plot also be a sandbox?

Probably. For example, several people (me included) have mentioned Keep on the Borderlands.

Quote from: McrowYes, it would be there choice. Typically I have a few very basic ideas of the general happenings and situations in a given geogrphical region. I try to give them a starting point that is as wide open as possible (generally a write up on the common knowledge of what's going on in the area) then let them decide where in the region to start and what they plan to do. Regions vary in size but generally include multiple settlements. Of course the players are free to do what they please and go where they please.

I'd definitely call that sandbox style.

Okay. New wrinkle. Sandboxes and system. What's the deal? Are some intimical to sandboxes and, if so, why?

From what I'm hearing, it doesn't sound like they even cross paths.

Seanchai

Quote from: James McMurrayI've never heard it called that outside forums. Around the table we just call it "gaming."

Ah that might explain it.  Heh.  Ok.  At least I will now know what is meant on the forums by "sandbox".  :)   Thanks.

Also, thanks for the explaination for the historical context of the term Estar.  I see.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIt's a retelling of the adventures of Robilar. Robilar was Rob Kuntz's character in Gygax's Greyhawk campaign. Basically this is a very rough campaign log, for something that took place nearly 40 years ago.

Quite an insight into the style of early D&D.

The way Robilar smashed up the Temple of Elemental Evil and released the demon goes a long way to explaining Gygax's admonishment to DMs not to let their players run roughshod over them. It's not so much about proving who's boss, as it is preventing powerful PCs from dramatically reshaping the dungeon/campaign in a way that spoils the fun of other players. Again, it's important to understand that the D&D experiences that inspired Gygax's advice were very different from typical play today. In the example above, Gygax ran multiple contemporous gaming groups using the same dungeon and wilderness settings, and at least some of the players had entirely selfish in-game agendas. Many of the problems Gygax had to face as a DM are unfathomable to a guy who runs one game with the same four players.

Quote from: SeanchaiI touched on this briefly in the other thread, but does it really provide 500 miles worth of details? It seems to me that there will be a lot of blanks on the map.

Quote from: SeanchaiI don't have the Wilderness product folks keep mentioning, but would the Known World boxed set by Goodman Games be considered a sandbox? I could reference it and provide more concrete examples of what I'm talking about.

The product itself isn't a sandbox setting as it doesn't provide local detail. But combined with the DCC series then some areas of the setting lend itself to sandbox play.

For the Known World to be a sandbox "out of the box" it would need to have subdivided itself into regions and then provide dozens of locations for that region spaced about 10 to 15 miles apart at the minimum (a day's walk).

Note that any setting can be turned into a sandbox the question is how much time the referee can put into it. For a 8.5 by 11 map spanning 200 miles by 190 miles it took me 12 hours of work to get to a first draft. It took me an initial 10 hours to do the map. There are about 50 locations filling 8 pages single spaced. Expand to a continent sized area you are talking a LOT of work.

It by far easier to make a map of the region slap a few labels on it and just make up shit as you go. Note that there is nothing wrong with this but there are disadvantage as well as advantages. If you have the time you can give your players a lot of freedom in the game.

The main reason that has worked for me is that I been doing this for 20 years so a) I know my campaign forwards and backwards, and b) I got a ton of notes on everywhere as well as the original material.

I think there is a room in the market for a well made product that enables sandbox play out of the box without costing $70.

Rob Conley

P.S. For a full wilderlands style map it takes me 24 hours from start to finish for me to create a map that size either by hand or computer.

Quote from: SeanchaiOkay. New wrinkle. Sandboxes and system. What's the deal? Are some intimical to sandboxes and, if so, why?

From what I'm hearing, it doesn't sound like they even cross paths.

If there's a system that can't run a sandbox style game, I almost certainly don't want to play it. And the same if it can't run plotted games.

I don't think system matters much in terms of whether you're sandboxing or not, although different games might be better or worse for it. Rolemaster, with its 30 pages of charts that you could use to create almost an entire world on the fly, was incredibly well suited to sandboxing. If you went off the map, new stuff could be generated in seconds.

My Life With Master leaps to mind as a game that could be poorly suited to sandboxing. I don't know the system, so think it might be able to handle it, but the game is geared towards playing out a particular story, not running around an ever-expanding world.

Quote from: SeanchaiAs said in my original message, what I've heard collectively about sandbox play hasn't sounded any different than almost any game I've ever run with any system I've ever used.

Are you familiar with Paizo's Adventure Paths? They are fundamentally different from sandbox play. Each adventure is carefully tailored to a specific power level. The designers mathematical formulate each encounter within an adventure to drain a certain amount of PC power. The adventures are linked together by a pre-scripted plot. If the PCs wandered off to become pirates or killed the guy who was supposed to be their patron, the whole train would careen off the track.

Quote from: SeanchaiOkay. New wrinkle. Sandboxes and system. What's the deal? Are some intimical to sandboxes and, if so, why?

From what I'm hearing, it doesn't sound like they even cross paths.

If it even remotely simulates a complete society an RPG can be used for a sandbox. Given that an Ars Magica sandbox will feel differently than a GURPS sandbox or a D&D sandbox.

Games with a narrow focus, (like Vampire the Masquarde) would cause a lot of work for a GM to do a sandbox. This wouldn't be true of the World of Darkness as a whole.

Quote from: VBWyrdeAh that might explain it.  Heh.  Ok.  At least I will now know what is meant on the forums by "sandbox".  :)   Thanks.

Also, thanks for the explaination for the historical context of the term Estar.  I see.

yes, this is the problem these days with RPG forums we spend more time arguing the semantics of terminology than gaming.:haw:

I think Aces & Eights, both the rules and the setting material given really encourage sandbox play.  The setting they give is an alternate America but the details are really in the town of Lazarus and they are coming out with a very detailed supplement on it.  Everything is covered.  Each plot of land has an owner.  There is an active property market.  Players can then go in and buy a piece of land, build a store and start working their careers (be it barber, lawyer or hoe).  The town already has its town council, its judges, its gangs, its lawmen.  The players can join up with that living world and as far as they are in it, it will mess with them.

So the town is the sandbox.  However, like kids playing in a sandbox, you can always take your little army men and have them climb over the wall and go wander around outside the sandbox as well.

Quote from: HaffrungAre you familiar with Paizo's Adventure Paths? They are fundamentally different from sandbox play. Each adventure is carefully tailored to a specific power level. The designers mathematical formulate each encounter within an adventure to drain a certain amount of PC power. The adventures are linked together by a pre-scripted plot. If the PCs wandered off to become pirates or killed the guy who was supposed to be their patron, the whole train would careen off the track.

Dragonlance, the first adventure path, had exactly this issue when I ran it back in the day. The closest thing to an adventure path that would work for a sandbox is some type of prepackaged situation with a timeline. The idea is that the situation would have an impact on the world the players are going through regardless of their action. For example a civil war within a kingdom. The situation would be dramatic enough or interfering enough that the players will want to deal with it.

All games have plot.  It's a natural byproduct of stuff happening.  If your game didn't have plot, it'd be pretty fucking dull.

There difference is whether said plot is an emergent property of play, or something pre-planned and essentially scripted out by the GM.  The former is sandbox play, the latter is more the de riguer of the "storyteller" focus that Vampire introduced, where the GM comes up with a "story" prior to play, and the players sort of waltz through it.

Or to put in parallel comparison, it's a difference between the "story" of a game of Civ4, and the "story" of Gears of War.  In the former, there is no predefined plot structure whatsoever, but the nature of the simulation environment ensures that a story of your civilization emerges, and is often a much more meaningful story to the player because he is it's ultimate creator, by way of his actions and responses and goals in the game.  Whereas in something like Gears of War, the player is a largely passive participant in the designer's story, at least where the overall events are concerned.

Quote from: estarDragonlance, the first adventure path, had exactly this issue when I ran it back in the day. The closest thing to an adventure path that would work for a sandbox is some type of prepackaged situation with a timeline. The idea is that the situation would have an impact on the world the players are going through regardless of their action. For example a civil war within a kingdom. The situation would be dramatic enough or interfering enough that the players will want to deal with it.

Aha!  So, in this case would this be considered Sandbox, or not?  When I said earlier that I've always played Sandbox, I didn't realise this also should be taken into account as a factor.   While I do allow the PCs to roam around the world wherever they decide to go, I also have a lot of back story going on around them that they can choose to interact with or not.   Thus, when the game begins, it is very possible that the adventure starts during a period of civil war, and the king is looking for a few good men to run a mission to the south.  The Players don't have to take that mission, but it's there if they decide to.   So is this style considered Sandbox, scripted, or some sort of hybrid?  Or what I usually would still call, "gaming"?

It may or may not be sandbox depending on the setup. If it starts off with "the king wants you to do something" it's not. If it's "the king wants you to do something, but you don't have to" it's closer. If it's "the PCs decide to go looking for a job and learn that the king is hiring" it is.

It's all about how the PCs are introduced to the situation and whether its in any way forced or nudged. If there's a nudge there (PCs sought out) then it isn't sandboxing.

Quote from: James McMurrayIt may or may not be sandbox depending on the setup. If it starts off with "the king wants you to do something" it's not. If it's "the king wants you to do something, but you don't have to" it's closer. If it's "the PCs decide to go looking for a job and learn that the king is hiring" it is.

YES!  Great example.

Quote from: VBWyrdeThe Players don't have to take that mission, but it's there if they decide to.   So is this style considered Sandbox, scripted, or some sort of hybrid?  Or what I usually would still call, "gaming"?

Look are you offering the players a mission? or is an NPC offering a mission? It if it is the latter then it is a situation that is found in a sandbox game.

For me the essence of a sandbox is simulation of reality. Because it is a fantasy game it can also be viewed as reasoning from the premise of the settings. If you are trying simulate reality then by definition players are free to wander here and there wherever their movtiatation takes them.

Now you are not a computer running a mindless simulation. You have a choice in how the world works and what is presented. Use this knowledge to make it fun and interesting for yourself and your players.

The problem that exists is with rpg products not supporting sandbox play. There are only a handful mostly cities and one very expensive boxed set.

Quote from: VBWyrdeIn either case sandbox represents a constraint.   However, what you are describing as the "sandbox" type of world setting appears to be the opposite.   So I'm not fond of the name.  Is there an alias that is used for Sandbox?   Or could we derive one?   Or, conversely, am I missing something?   Thanks.

SURE there's a constraint, if you set one up.

I like the term 'sandbox' because it suggests the concept of 'play', as in 'play in the sandbox', and it also suggests 'making castle sout of sand'.

Quote from: James McMurrayIt's all about how the PCs are introduced to the situation and whether its in any way forced or nudged. If there's a nudge there (PCs sought out) then it isn't sandboxing.

I think this is too narrow. In reality a king may be seek out the PCs. If the character backgrounds warrant this. You are right if it is just some joe-shmoo fighter. But I had character parties that were highly mission oriented from the get go. For example a campaign I ran where everyone was a City-Guard.

It was sandbox because at anytime they could have quit and gone off and do their own thing. But that would be out of character and during most of the campaign no logical reason why any of the characters would do that.

Understand everyone agreed to be a member of city-guard. The spirit of the moments was something like this

"Hey rob that thief campaign was good, I know what we can do next?"

"Sure what you do you suggest."

"In all the years we been playing we given the City guard hell. Let try being the guards this time around and see how we do?"

And so they were the guards for a year. From this came Knight Killer Crossbows, Alarm Sticks, and other techniques that greatly evened the odds between the City Guard and adventurers.

The difference here from a traditional party setup choice came before the game started. The players collectively agreed to put themselves in a more limiting circumstances to see how they could overcome the challenges. They know I would play fair and hard presenting the situations as they would really unfold.

We did this for wizards, thieves, and two different temples.

My thong itches.

Well see now estar, I'm not sure if that campaign does fall under the sandbox heading (very cool campaign idea, for sure, though).  Undoubtedly, you approached it as a living world that would continue on whatever the party did and in that sense, the setting was following the rules of the sandbox.  But I think this is just classic simulationist world-building.

By deciding ahead of time "we are going to be in this limited roles, under the structure of an authority that can order us around a cultural/professional role with a lot of restrictions" you are already, as a group, guiding the story growth of the campaign, focusing towards "the story of the guards".  I don't see that as a true sandbox.

QuoteBut I think this is just classic simulationist world-building.

And yet he gets defensive and weird when people assume he's with the Forge?

Quote from: walkerpBy deciding ahead of time "we are going to be in this limited roles, under the structure of an authority that can order us around a cultural/professional role with a lot of restrictions" you are already, as a group, guiding the story growth of the campaign, focusing towards "the story of the guards".  I don't see that as a true sandbox.

Same here. "You can leave the story at any time" isn't sandbox, it's non-railroaded plot. "Hey, they just left the story and headed for the pyramids of Dosequisia" would be the start of the full-on sandbox part of the game. Alternatively "you're all city gaurds, go do what you want in order to lower crime" could also be a sandbox.

I used the same techniques, tools, and setting for the guard campaign as for the "wandering around and do the hell I want" campaign. I needed the same level of detail to do both in a fun and entertaining way.

It is my view that sandbox should go where ever the players want it go. Sometime they want to be become the King's flunky and I will go with it and generate things for the new made flunky to do for the king. Again the difference between the guard and the flunky is that the players choose to be guards before the start of play.

If all sounds lot like a simulation well it is. Because frankly reality holds it own truth better than a contrived situation. By playing it realistic you will find that the players have a more choices than alternatives.

My techniques are a tool with the goal of maximizing opportunity and choice for my players. Doesn't mean it will work in all circumstances or situations. It has disadvantages in that it takes a lot of work to get it setup. Luckily I done most of the work long ago and I do now just adds to the already rich pile of stuff I use.

In the end the goal of using sandbox play giving the maximum amount of choices and opportunities to the players. If what you do does that then great. The mechanics of running a sandbox setting are complex enough that more than one approach is going to be viable.

Quote from: James McMurrayAlternatively "you're all city gaurds, go do what you want in order to lower crime" could also be a sandbox.

If I wasn't clear before, your comment accurately reflects how I ran the mage, thief, guard, temple campaign.

However for the guard it was more like "how we control these crazy ass adventurers overrunning the city". The result was instructive and let's say they don't mess with the city guards anymore in my campaign. I believe the thieves campaign was ran before the guards as well and they figured out how to deal with some of the issues brought up in that game as well.

Quote from: James McMurraySame here. "You can leave the story at any time" isn't sandbox, it's non-railroaded plot. "Hey, they just left the story and headed for the pyramids of Dosequisia" would be the start of the full-on sandbox part of the game. Alternatively "you're all city gaurds, go do what you want in order to lower crime" could also be a sandbox.

It now becomes clear that the use of the word Sandbox is in fact arbitrary and subject to a great deal of personal interpretation - one person's Sandbox is not the next person's Sandbox.   That's ok.   Use it if you like, but since there is no actual definition that is universally applicable, and it is therefore entirely open to anyone's interpretation, it is rendered semi-meaningless.  This, I find, seems to be the case with a great deal of the Theory stuff I've read about.   Some people seem to want to create a science out of RPG with Theory, but there's no authority yet established to actually codify and authorize the meaning of all of the terms people are strewing about, and therefore the terms themselves quickly become diffused in discussion, rendering them more or less meaningless.   Sandbox is a nice, though semi-useless for anything other than light discussion, term.   I think I'll substitute it for myself with "Free Play".   I like that term better.

Quote from: VBWyrdeIt now becomes clear that the use of the word Sandbox is in fact arbitrary and subject to a great deal of personal interpretation - one person's Sandbox is not the next person's Sandbox.   That's ok.   Use it if you like, but since there is no actual definition that is universally applicable, and it is therefore entirely open to anyone's interpretation, it is rendered semi-meaningless.  This, I find, seems to be the case with a great deal of the Theory stuff I've read about.   Some people seem to want to create a science out of RPG with Theory, but there's no authority yet established to actually codify and authorize the meaning of all of the terms people are strewing about, and therefore the terms themselves quickly become diffused in discussion, rendering them more or less meaningless.   Sandbox is a nice, though semi-useless for anything other than light discussion, term.   I think I'll substitute it for myself with "Free Play".   I like that term better.

What part of my usage are you disagreeing with? It's quite possible I'm misrepresenting the word, since I'm just talking about how I've heard it used and don't actually use it (or many other play style labels) myself.

Quote from: estarIf I wasn't clear before, your comment accurately reflects how I ran the mage, thief, guard, temple campaign.

However for the guard it was more like "how we control these crazy ass adventurers overrunning the city". The result was instructive and let's say they don't mess with the city guards anymore in my campaign. I believe the thieves campaign was ran before the guards as well and they figured out how to deal with some of the issues brought up in that game as well.

I'd love to hear about them if you've got the time to start a thread. It makes me want to run a guard campaign. It'd be a sort of urban Reverse Dungeon.

Quote from: James McMurrayWhat part of my usage are you disagreeing with? It's quite possible I'm misrepresenting the word, since I'm just talking about how I've heard it used and don't actually use it (or many other play style labels) myself.

Actually I'm not objecting to any one person's usage.  I'm pointing out that there is no authorized defintion (nor can there be since RPGs have at present no authorizing body that all RPGers feel is representative), and that therefore any discussion of Theory is somewhat pointless, since the basic terms are subject to personal interpretation.  I got this impression just now from the general back and forth nature of the discussion on Sandbox, wherein I find this to be the case.   Sandbox, therefore, it seems to me, is a term that can be lightly used to mean one of a number of similar, but not exactly the same, things in RPGs, ... and that's ok.   Personally, I like my term "Free Play" for the same meaning.   The term seems more representative to me of what the Sandbox is, by some, intended to mean.

Oh, cool. I got confused when you quoted me and then denounced the entire discussion. :)

"Sandbox" has been used, in the way we're using it here, in computer gaming circles for years.  See Doc Rotwang's post above.

But why don't we make that term mean something entirely different, and use another word to describe sandbox play?  I nominate "Beluga Play."

Quote from: KenHR"Sandbox" has been used, in the way we're using it here, in computer gaming circles for years.  See Doc Rotwang's post above.

But why don't we make that term mean something entirely different, and use another word to describe sandbox play?  I nominate "Beluga Play."

You've been spending too much time at the Forge, haven't you?  HAVEN'T YOU?!  Are you now or have you ever been a swine?

Quote from: J ArcaneYou've been spending too much time at the Forge, haven't you?  HAVEN'T YOU?!  Are you now or have you ever been a swine?

You and that brain-damaged head of yours... :)

Quote from: VBWyrdeActually I'm not objecting to any one person's usage.  I'm pointing out that there is no authorized defintion .

Well one problem is the lack of products for the style. The classic example is still Wilderlands of High Fantasy  and CSIO. With more product then the market can form a consensus of what supports "Sandbox" play and what doesn't.

Quote from: J ArcaneAnd yet he gets defensive and weird when people assume he's with the Forge?

Huh?  Did I use some forge language there?  Because if so, I wasn't aware.

Quote from: KenHRYou and that brain-damaged head of yours... :)

In seriousness, I don't remotely see anything wrong with using the term "sandbox" for this style of play given that its usage is  inbasically every respect identical to the usage in the vidgaming sector.

Quote from: VBWyrdeActually I'm not objecting to any one person's usage.  I'm pointing out that there is no authorized defintion (nor can there be since RPGs have at present no authorizing body that all RPGers feel is representative), and that therefore any discussion of Theory is somewhat pointless, since the basic terms are subject to personal interpretation.  I got this impression just now from the general back and forth nature of the discussion on Sandbox, wherein I find this to be the case.   Sandbox, therefore, it seems to me, is a term that can be lightly used to mean one of a number of similar, but not exactly the same, things in RPGs, ... and that's ok.   Personally, I like my term "Free Play" for the same meaning.   The term seems more representative to me of what the Sandbox is, by some, intended to mean.

I don't get your post.  At first you seem to discard the entire thread as useless.  I think within a discernible range, we have all come to a consensus on what Sandbox is.

But then in the second part, you seem to agree that we have come to a consensus, but you just don't like the word.  I can work with "Free Play" but as Sandbox has long been accepted in the video game world (where the distinction is starker because of the nature of the medium), I'll stick with it.

Quote from: James McMurrayI'd love to hear about them if you've got the time to start a thread. It makes me want to run a guard campaign. It'd be a sort of urban Reverse Dungeon.

Seconded.  Quite a clever idea.  Sounds very KoDT.  As GM, instead of coming up with monsters, you just come up with adventuring parties and just keep ramping up the munchkinness.

And sociopathology. It really is a great idea, and it would get a certain point across much better, and much more tastefully, than Costikyan's Violence.

Quote from: VBWyrdeIs there an alias that is used for Sandbox?

On rec.games.frp (Usenet) we used to call it "world-based" play, somewhat vaguely. I.e., the goal of simulating a world was enunciated, but the methods might be up for debate. E.g. (this is something I've been thinking about lately):

• Simple stochastic models for game-world elements at the point they impact the PCs, or detailed mechanistic models?

E.g. do you need to know the itinerary of NPC X and then superimpose it on the PCs' travels to see if they cross paths? Or do you just make him/her an item on your encounter tables?

• Essentially static world ("frozen in amber") , or timetable?

E.g., are the ruffians ready to cut the woman's throat at the exact moment the PCs arrive? Or is it that if the PCs arrive in January, the ruffians are nuisance and have a feud with the woman's family, on February 15 they're threatening to kill/kidnap her, in March she's dead. Except if the PCs show up sometime in the midst of the timeline, they can make it turn out differently. If they get there too late, they can still interact with the aftermath--the ruffians are now ruling the city in a reign of terror, for example.

• Wandering PCs vs. linked-in PCs?

If PCs start with or develop a place in the world, ties to NPCs, etc., then is it still a world-based game? I say yes, especially if you have timetables and random events that can impact the PCs or their relations, or if the PCs are ambitious (entrepreneurs in a way) who want to build their empire.

Aside from all that, I've also seen a term, "status quo campaign" that's very closely related, perhaps identical in meaning, to sandbox/world-based.

Quote from: James McMurrayRolemaster, with its 30 pages of charts that you could use to create almost an entire world on the fly, was incredibly well suited to sandboxing. If you went off the map, new stuff could be generated in seconds.

Which edition of Rolemaster would this be, and could one get much utility with just the GM's book in combination with an alternate system of one's choice?

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhich edition of Rolemaster would this be, and could one get much utility with just the GM's book in combination with an alternate system of one's choice?

It was 2nd edition. The charts are all in Creatures and Treasures. IIRC about the only thing they won't generate is major terrain. For instance, you won't roll "Mountain range." However "water source" was an option, with results that would tell you if it was a river or lake, what was in it, etc.

How useful it would be would depend on what system you're using. A lot of the results are creatures that are in the book, but many would share names with generic fantasy critters. If you're using AD&D the book has conversion rules so you can get the stats for a Killer Bunny.

Quote from: walkerpHuh?  Did I use some forge language there?  Because if so, I wasn't aware.

I'd be shocked to find out there was someone who'd made 1,180 posts here and never come into contact with the basic building blocks of GNS.

Terrain generation is in Campaign Law for RM2.  With that and Creatures & Treasures, you could theoretically generate a solid base for a world using dice.  Campaign Law also has some very good advice among the tables.

Quote from: James McMurrayI'd be shocked to find out there was someone who'd made 1,180 posts here and never come into contact with the basic building blocks of GNS.

Honestly, I'm doing quite well in this regard, see no evil and all.

Quote from: HaffrungAre you familiar with Paizo's Adventure Paths? They are fundamentally different from sandbox play. Each adventure is carefully tailored to a specific power level.

So is Keep on the Borderlands.

Seanchai

Quote from: estarIf it even remotely simulates a complete society an RPG can be used for a sandbox.

Does OD&D do so? I'd say no myself...

Quote from: estarGames with a narrow focus, (like Vampire the Masquarde) would cause a lot of work for a GM to do a sandbox.

How so? Is, say, the Chicago sourcebook for nWoD just a gigantic sandbox?

Seanchai

Quote from: James McMurrayI'd say no, but I've never played in a game where players completely pregenerated the plot, so my expereience with the style is nil.

James thanks for your answers. I think I more or less get it now. I find most of the talk here incoherent :D and wrapped up in identity politics except for yours and Seanchai's. So my last question.

Sandbox is a playstyle, right ? You can use it for most systems out there ? (Some settings/systems are specifically designed for this sort of play, but you can most trad systems for it)

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RJames thanks for your answers. I think I more or less get it now. I find most of the talk here incoherent :D and wrapped up in identity politics except for yours and Seanchai's. So my last question.

Ouch.  I'm missing something in these threads that others seem to be seeing.

Quote from: David RSandbox is a playstyle, right ? You can use it for most systems out there ? (Some settings/systems are specifically designed for this sort of play, but you can most trad systems for it)

I would say yes, but after your previous paragraph, it's hard for me to say if that is being filtered through my lens of identity politics (though what my identity is, I'm not sure; one of you will tell me, I'm sure).

Quote from: SeanchaiSo is Keep on the Borderlands.

Yeah, that makes me retract my initial assertion that it was a Sandbox module.  I think it has sandbox elements in it, in that it all sits there and exists with or without the adventurers.  But the level constraints of it (and how the Caves of Chaos get higher in level the higher in altitude you climb) is not sandboxy.  Rather it is sort of structured around a pre-defined story of adventurers killing harder and harder monsters and growing in experience and power as they do so.

Quote from: SeanchaiSo is Keep on the Borderlands.

I see you ignored the rest of my post. You know - the part about Adventure Paths following a scripted storyline.

Look, either you're remarkably obtuse and you don't understand something that almost everyone else here has no trouble understanding, or you really are just a fucking troll.

Maybe we could get a show of hands here.

Seanchai:

Obtuse?

Or Troll?

Quote from: HaffrungSeanchai:

Obtuse?

Or Troll?

Dude, move that poll to off-topic.

When I think of sandbox play, I think first about the player and the GM mentality about the play at the table. It's also pretty symbiotic, if they don't agree on the approach, trouble is likely.

A GM is taking a sandbox approach when he's open and receptive to the players moves and motivations. A GM who's sandboxing is treating every PC encounter like a potential hook, he knows there may be a chance that the players are gonna take something away from that moment and run with it.

Players are taking a sandbox approach when they are willing to take some of the reins in driving the action in game. Players who are sandboxing begin to figure out what they want from the world they're in and start to persue it.

Quote from: walkerp.... it's hard for me to say if that is being filtered through my lens of identity politics (though what my identity is, I'm not sure; one of you will tell me, I'm sure).

Just a little friendly ribbing, walkerp. I just meant that usually in discussions like these, some folks have a lot invested in their prefered style of play. As for your identity....post modern Swine ? (That's a joke, holster that gun....)

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI just meant that usually in discussions like these, some folks have a lot invested in their prefered style of play.

Regards,
David R

Of course I've got a lot invested.
You think stripper/ninjas are cheap to maintain?
You try getting all your gold pieces exchanged for one dollar bills. You have to go all the way to Hex 5678 for that.

Quote from: David RSandbox is a playstyle, right ? You can use it for most systems out there ? (Some settings/systems are specifically designed for this sort of play, but you can most trad systems for it)

Right all around! :)

Quote from: HaffrungI see you ignored the rest of my post. You know - the part about Adventure Paths following a scripted storyline.

Look, either you're remarkably obtuse and you don't understand something that almost everyone else here has no trouble understanding, or you really are just a fucking troll.

Maybe we could get a show of hands here.

Seanchai:

Obtuse?

Or Troll?

Your poll is flawed.
My posting history clearly proves  that these are not mutually exclusive characteristics.

Quote from: AosOf course I've got a lot invested.
You think stripper/ninjas are cheap to maintain?
You try getting all your gold pieces exchanged for one dollar bills. You have to go all the way to Hex 5678 for that.

That's why you should occasionally suck the Story Now! crackpipe....oh fuck it, you win again.

Regards,
David R

We're all winners here, David.

Quote from: David RJust a little friendly ribbing, walkerp. I just meant that usually in discussions like these, some folks have a lot invested in their prefered style of play.

You're right.  I'm getting way too invested.  Taking a step back for relaxation.

Quote from: David RAs for your identity....post modern Swine ? (That's a joke, holster that gun....)

Now this is a label I kind of like.  I think I may adopt it.

I say instead of worrying about what to call it, we do it.

But then we'd have nothing to talk about! :(

Quote from: walkerpBut then we'd have nothing to talk about! :(

The hell we wouldn't!  Play reports, anecdotes, what worked and what didn't, tips on dropping in modules, cool random charts...?

POSSIBILITIES, baby!  Dare to DREEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAM!

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!The hell we wouldn't!  Play reports, anecdotes, what worked and what didn't, tips on dropping in modules, cool random charts...?

POSSIBILITIES, baby!  Dare to DREEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAM!

I just posted on my City Guard campaign. I look at my notes and see what I can dig out for the other campaigns I ran both traditional and theme oriented.

Quote from: David RAs for your identity....post modern Swine ?

Did somebody call?

Quote from: SeanchaiSo is Keep on the Borderlands.

It is not. The giant black widow spiders in the forest? Fucking deadly on level one. The minotaur? A guaranteed PC-killer unless outwitted. The ogre? If you run into him at the beginning, and don't run... you will probably die.

Of course, the module doesn't encompass all levels of play. But carefully tailored - no, it is not.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!The hell we wouldn't!  Play reports, anecdotes, what worked and what didn't, tips on dropping in modules, cool random charts...?

POSSIBILITIES, baby!  Dare to DREEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAM!

You know I love you, Doc? Please don't tell my wife! She wouldn't understand!

-clash

Quote from: MelanOf course, the module doesn't encompass all levels of play. But carefully tailored - no, it is not.

I'd have been amazed if it did, since all levels of play didn't exist when it was written. :)

Quote from: flyingmiceYou know I love you, Doc? Please don't tell my wife! She wouldn't understand!

-clash

I barely understand.

Quote from: estarI just posted on my City Guard campaign. I look at my notes and see what I can dig out for the other campaigns I ran both traditional and theme oriented.

Linky-dinky-bo-binky?

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Linky-dinky-bo-binky?

Sho nuff (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9405)

And be forewarned, if you don't get that reference, we'll be confiscating your license to ill.

Quote from: James McMurraySho nuff (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9405)

And be forewarned, if you don't get that reference, we'll be confiscating your license to ill.

Worse yet we'll all know he's NOT the baddest mofo low down around this town

Quote from: James McMurrayI'd have been amazed if it did, since all levels of play didn't exist when it was written. :)

Fact is, there was stuff in B2 that would wipe the floor with Level 1 or 2 PCs. And I don't recall it being considered unfair, or a sign of bad design. The game wasn't designed for each encounter to use up 20 per cent of a party's resources, and for a tactically-adept party to defeat all encounters if they use their resources effectively. You just have to run from some shit.

Which is a good lesson for players when their PCs venture beyond the relatively safe confines of the Borderlands; in the wilderness, you can encounter anything (werewolves, wyverns, hundreds of orcs) regardless of your level. So keep a low profile, scout ahead, and be prepared to flee (and have a plan for fleeing) if you run into monsters you can't handle in combat.

That's sandbox play. And you just don't see it in today's WotC adventures or in Paizo's Adventure Paths.

Quote from: James McMurraySho nuff (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9405)

And be forewarned, if you don't get that reference, we'll be confiscating your license to ill.

I got the power of The Glow.

I think.  Might be a rash.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!I barely understand.

Because you post beautiful sense like that!

And because of the tie!

-clash

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!I got the power of The Glow.

I think.  Might be a rash.

Who's tha Mastah!!! Who's tha MASTAH!!!!!

Quote from: HinterWeltWho's tha Mastah!!! Who's tha MASTAH!!!!!

Bruce Leroy, that's who.

Excellent. You may all continue to ill in a fully licensed state.

Quote from: walkerpYeah, that makes me retract my initial assertion that it was a Sandbox module.

Yeah. I got busy last night and didn't get to re-read it, but I'm pretty darn sure it has (comparatively) lots of GM advice and might even say some of the things that folks have identifed as flags for non-sandbox games (i.e., "At this point, the party should be 2nd level...).

Seanchai

Quote from: HaffrungI see you ignored the rest of my post. You know - the part about Adventure Paths following a scripted storyline.

Look, either you're remarkably obtuse and you don't understand something that almost everyone else here has no trouble understanding, or you really are just a fucking troll.

Maybe we could get a show of hands here.

Seanchai:

Obtuse?

Or Troll?

You're just pissed because Keep and other of your previous OD&D modules aren't what you claim they are.

But, hey, if you really think I'm a troll, please put me on your ignore list.

Seanchai

Edit: Added the word "modules"

Quote from: MelanIt is not.

Sure it is. Says right on the cover that it's for beginning players 1st to 3rd level.

Seanchai

Quote from: James McMurrayI'd have been amazed if it did, since all levels of play didn't exist when it was written.

Yeah. Kind of to use it as an example of how it's not tailored to the levels it lists on the front cover when nothing else existed. It's not as if there were 538 monsters floating around and they said, "You know what, we're not going to limit ourselves to a weaker set of foe."

Seanchai

Quote from: James McMurrayExcellent. You may all continue to ill in a fully licensed state.

I don't need your approval, Mr McMurray.  How insolent of you to --

-- but, uh, if you have some dry-roasted peanuts...those, I need.

For my sandbox.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!I don't need your approval, Mr McMurray.  How insolent of you to --

-- but, uh, if you have some dry-roasted peanuts...those, I need.

For my sandbox.

Use the wet roasted ones. They make nicer mud balls.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!I don't need your approval, Mr McMurray.  How insolent of you to --

-- but, uh, if you have some dry-roasted peanuts...those, I need.

For my sandbox.

Errrrr!!!!

(http://www.fasterwebs.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/shonuff.jpg)

I need to see that movie again.

AND NOW, BACK TO OUR THREAD!

I can't believe I missed The Last Dragon references again!








Vanity could still have me.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!I got the power of The Glow.

When you got that  glow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34Dcx0S1JY8).

This is for Haffrung, who had a hissy fit and I didn't even call him an harebrained hypocrite this time. (Alliteration - two thumbs up!)

From Keep on the Borderlands, written by Gary Gygax, father of Haffrung's D&D. On page 4, about two thirds of the way down, "The DM is also the designer of the situations and must in mind the abilities of his or her players. It is the job of the DM to see that the situations and characters balance."

If you were here with me now, I'd give you a big smooth on your dumb ol' cheek. As you're not, you'll just have to settle for knowing I blew you a kiss as I finished typing the quote above.



For the rest of you, there are things in Keep on the Borderlands that seem to mesh with what's been presented about the sandbox style, but there's also a lot that doesn't, including some mention of pre-determination, wandering monster tables that get tougher as the players progress, etc.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiThis is for Haffrung, who had a hissy fit and I didn't even call him an harebrained hypocrite this time. (Alliteration - two thumbs up!)

From Keep on the Borderlands, written by Gary Gygax, father of Haffrung's D&D. On page 4, about two thirds of the way down, "The DM is also the designer of the situations and must in mind the abilities of his or her players. It is the job of the DM to see that the situations and characters balance."

If you were here with me now, I'd give you a big smooth on your dumb ol' cheek. As you're not, you'll just have to settle for knowing I blew you a kiss as I finished typing the quote above.



For the rest of you, there are things in Keep on the Borderlands that seem to mesh with what's been presented about the sandbox style, but there's also a lot that doesn't, including some mention of pre-determination, wandering monster tables that get tougher as the players progress, etc.

Seanchai

Sounds like a good example of something having a little of both playstyles included. Seems to me not everything has to line up with one or other of the extremes. I myself prefer sandbox-heavy games because I'm an explorer at heart, but I don't mind a good railroading sometimes too. Had a blast with Red Hand of Doom, and the Shackled City looks like it would be loads of fun too. Still, a good Wilderlands campaign with some hooks thrown my way occasionally, when the cash gets low, is my dream campaign.

Quote from: SigmundSounds like a good example of something having a little of both playstyles included. Seems to me not everything has to line up with one or other of the extremes. I myself prefer sandbox-heavy games because I'm an explorer at heart, but I don't mind a good railroading sometimes too. Had a blast with Red Hand of Doom, and the Shackled City looks like it would be loads of fun too. Still, a good Wilderlands campaign with some hooks thrown my way occasionally, when the cash gets low, is my dream campaign.

Hold on - are you suggesting the Red Hand of Doom fosters a different play experience than a sandbox Wilderlands campaign? Didn't you get Seanchai's memo: there are no different playstyles, and there's no such thing as sandbox play.

Quote from: HaffrungHold on - are you suggesting the Red Hand of Doom fosters a different play experience than a sandbox Wilderlands campaign? Didn't you get Seanchai's memo: there are no different playstyles, and there's no such thing as sandbox play.

Hey, didya hear, Gygax thinks: "The DM is also the designer of the situations and must in mind the abilities of his or her players. It is the job of the DM to see that the situations and characters balance."

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiHey, didya hear, Gygax thinks: "The DM is also the designer of the situations and must in mind the abilities of his or her players. It is the job of the DM to see that the situations and characters balance."

Seanchai

Yes, and? Using a Linear campaign approach makes that easier, if that's what the group desires in their games, but it's not impossible to balance encounters in a sandbox style campaign either. Most of the powerful and deadly threats are going to be extremely rare, and most likely holed up in areas of that map that are remote and said to contain great danger, otherwise the poor folk would be starving as the peasant farmers would have been killed off by bands of roving monsters. In exceedingly rare occasions, a beastie may come to inhabit an area more heavily lived in, in which case the rulers of the area would have the threat destroyed, if not by the pcs then by npc adventurers more capable of tackling the threat and in the meantime guards and warnings would be posted to minimize the damage to the population. If all else fails, run away from the dang "too-high-level-threat-accidentally-rolled-by-the-gm-and-then-stupidly (deep breath) still-injected-into-the-game-unadjusted-for-the-pc's-levels".

Quote from: SigmundYes, and?

And Gygax agrees, encounters should be balanced with the party.

Which wouldn't matter if Haffrung had been shouting, Pundy-style, that it's a 180 from how things used to be done in the day, that 3e, 3.5, 4e are forcing us all to play in a manner divorced from D&D's roots.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiAnd Gygax agrees, encounters should be balanced with the party.

Which wouldn't matter if Haffrung had been shouting, Pundy-style, that it's a 180 from how things used to be done in the day, that 3e, 3.5, 4e are forcing us all to play in a manner divorced from D&D's roots.

Seanchai

I just don't see what that has to do with there being different ways of designing and playing in a game world. I guess I'm missing something here.

Quote from: SigmundI just don't see what that has to do with there being different ways of designing and playing in a game world. I guess I'm missing something here.

It's only tangentally involved. It comes from Keep on the Borderlands, which is a go-to for folks when they talk about how to set up sandbox products.

But, really, I couldn't wait to throw it in Haffrung's face and just used to the closest thread to do so.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiIt's only tangentally involved. It comes from Keep on the Borderlands, which is a go-to for folks when they talk about how to set up sandbox products.

But, really, I couldn't wait to throw it in Haffrung's face and just used to the closest thread to do so.

Seanchai

Oh, ok. Enjoy.

Just read through the thread thinking I'd get a good idea of what "Sandbox style D&D" would be... I'm still not sure. :)

Would a module like B5: Horror on the Hill be a sandbox?  The players can wander about and interact with the encounters in any order they like.  Go back to town at any time.  Decide they're "finished" at any time.

Or do we "you're sitting in an inn.  what do you do?" style gaming?

I think players should have meaningful choices in the game.  For me that's at odds with both the "whatever you do you'll be getting no the Slave Caravan to Pax Tharkas" style of railroading in Dragonlance, as well as the "what's the terrain type on the hex -- I'll just make up something for tonight's session" style that *might* be what people are referring to as "sandbox".  In both of those situations the player's choices don't matter as much as they do when exploring a keyed map with set locations, encounters, etc.

Quote from: Stuartas well as the "what's the terrain type on the hex -- I'll just make up something for tonight's session" style that *might* be what people are referring to as "sandbox".

I think Rob or someone else may have said you can do sandbox that way, just that it isn't easy and it's not the only way.

The principle of sandbox play is what I think of as "approaching the ideal" of a completely keyed map as you say. But a certain amount of improv is inevitable, so it's a question of how much and how you do it. One principle that I think is important with improv is consistency with what's been established--the GM can't lightly "take back" what's been said, so improv can acquire depth as the process of building the setting one hex at a time develops and isolated elements become contextualized. The other principle is, well, principled improv based on the idea that the world has an underlying integrity governed by rules/laws/principles independent of the need to have balanced encounters, complex moral dilemmas or what-have-you. So the GM is making up the world on the fly but isn't pushing specific scenarios...at least not very hard.

EDIT: added the word "can" in my first sentence.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut a certain amount of improv is inevitable, so it's a question of how much and how you do it. One principle that I think is important with improv is consistency with what's been established--the GM can't lightly "take back" what's been said, so improv can acquire depth as the process of building the setting one hex at a time develops and isolated elements become contextualized. The other principle is, well, principled improv based on the idea that the world has an underlying integrity governed by rules/laws/principles independent of the need to have balanced encounters, complex moral dilemmas or what-have-you.

This is effectively how I used to approach Mage: The Ascension and now run Nobilis, both of which potentially feature vast kitchen-sink settings and grant the PCs relatively easy means to travel more or less anywhere as fancy takes them. Preparing individual locations meticulously in advance shouldn't cause problems as long as the GM is only dealing with a restricted region with well-defined boundaries, but that doesn't really work with games that start with the premise that "the galaxy is your playground".

Quote from: StuartOr do we "you're sitting in an inn.  what do you do?" style gaming?

To me that is the essence of sandbox style gaming. The Wilderlands style hexmap supports that style of play the best on the campaign level. However note the best doesn't mean it is the only way of doing it.

One thing that is making thing confusing is that some people have talked about switching from "Sandbox" to some other mode and then back. For me the concept is much more basic.

1) Are you going to let player have character that are part of your setting and let them explore in any direction.

Or

2) Do you have specific path for the characters to follow from the get go?

#1 Is what I call Sandbox gaming #2 is represented by Adventure Paths like Shackled City and Dragonlance.

Both styles can be broken down into elements that are the same or similar. For example an Adventure Path could have a segment where the player are wandering a plains trying to gather the pieces of a magic item from different nomad tribes.

A Sandbox game could have the players finding out that Hill Giants are raiding an area and that they are connected to the Frost Giants which leads them to the Fire Giants and eventually to the Underdark to the home city of the Drow themselves.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe other principle is, well, principled improv based on the idea that the world has an underlying integrity governed by rules/laws/principles independent of the need to have balanced encounters, complex moral dilemmas or what-have-you.

I consider this comment an important part of sandbox play. This is because reality even a fantasy reality holds its own truths which makes it more discoverable by players. It is more discoverable because it has internal consistency.

Quote from: StuartWould a module like B5: Horror on the Hill be a sandbox?  The players can wander about and interact with the encounters in any order they like.  Go back to town at any time.  Decide they're "finished" at any time.

Remember the player's choices will lead them into many situations. Sometime their choices will cause a very restrictive scenario to result. For example a group of PC in one my campaign got bagged by the slavers they were ambushing and were turned into gallery slaves. We had two session of role-playing. The first was focused on the whole galley slave bit, and by the second they figured out how to organize a revolt and took over the ship.

The idea is that you throw the info out on Horror on the Hill along with all the other nearby location and other reasonable locations then have the player choose where they go.

The key for using published modules with a sandbox is to view them as a toolkit. Don't look at them as a Dragonlance module or a DCC module, but rather what is this module about? A ruined Dwarven stronghold like Forge of Fury. A lich's tomb like Tomb of Horror? In general the shorter modules are the most flexible.

Build a box of these modules. When the players veer in an unexpected direction then you look at your location and see "Oh a lich's tomb, with the Lich Parave guarding the Sword of Truth. So you whip out Tomb of Horror. You remember to change Acerak (sp?) name to Parave and put the Sword of Truth in the big treasure room.

Granted this advice can be useful for any style but couplde with the hexmap and other stuff I mentioned in previous make it a lot easier to run a "Sandbox" style.

QuoteThe idea is that you throw the info out on Horror on the Hill along with all the other nearby location and other reasonable locations then have the player choose where they go.

That's not for me. :)

"Okay, so you guys are going to wander off, start raising Chocobos and get involved with local politics and forget about the dungeon?  Yeah.  You know, that's is awesome.

But for tonight's game, we're going to be having some characters go into this dungeon here.  So why don't we roll us some of those characters and then we'll get started."

:hehe:

Quote from: StuartThat's not for me. :)

"Okay, so you guys are going to wander off, start raising Chocobos and get involved with local politics and forget about the dungeon?  Yeah.  You know, that's is awesome.

But for tonight's game, we're going to be having some characters go into this dungeon here.  So why don't we roll us some of those characters and then we'll get started."

:hehe:

Whereas for me, having the (sometimes illusionary) freedom to go in any direction is much more attractive. When I GM, I prefer Sandbox style, in fact I'm looking into running an Ars Magica game set in Harn here soon hopefully, and one of the tools I use is much like Estar described, except I have several "adventures" (or encounters, or whathaveyou) that I will simply drop in the path of the PCs. This way, no matter which tavern in which town they end up spending the night in, they hear about the rich local merchants daughter that has been kidnapped by local bandits and is being held for ransom, or the plague of minor undead plagueing a local graveyard/crypt/ruin, etc... If I incorporate a long published adventure, I try to hook the players in such a way that they are kinda railroaded into it, but the overall campaign is sandbox style. The disadvantage I've found with sandbox style is that in my experience it plays better when the GM has a huge amount of prepared material, unless that GM is really good at improv. I'm not, I'm just fair at it, so I compensate by having a large number of npcs and monsters already prepared, and very detailed maps and locations of the entire island (which is why a hyper-detailed setting like Harn works best for me). I also have a number of "drop-in" adventures and encounters prepared. In my game, when a random encounter is rolled, I don't roll on a table to see what it is, I just pick one from my box that fits the area in which my PCs find themselves. All this is to promote consistency, and any time something is changed or an area is cleared I spend non-game time making the change to my setting so that if the area is visited again the change persists, which my players seem to enjoy. Gives them a sense of having an impact, through the actions of their PCs, on the game world. One of my former GMs ran a sandbox style campaign in Birthright and he was a master of improv, it was probably the best campaign I've ever played, loads of fun :) On the flip side, the last game I played in was Red Hand of Doom, and it was loads of fun too, and it's very much a "go do this or else" style campaign, but the in-game reason for that made sense, and gave the game a tense, forboding feeling that was enjoyable. The whole adventure reminded me of the flight of the Rohirrim to Helms Deep (movie version, since the elves showed up to help in our RHoD game too ;)  ), and the epic battle there.

Quote from: SigmundWhereas for me, having the (sometimes illusionary) freedom to go in any direction is much more attractive.

To me, "illusionary" is more and more becoming a key term to apply to sandbox style gaming.

Stuart wrote in another thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8161) a while ago:

Quote from: StuartSuspension of Disbelief is the willingness of a person to accept as true the premises of a work of fiction, even if they are fantastic or impossible.

My Suspension of Disbelief is broken when encounters seem to be "on hold" until the player characters show up (...)

To which I answered:

Quote from: Dirk RemmeckeAren't sandbox settings like Wilderness also prone to that phenomenon? I mean, there are all those hexes with situations (or seeds of situations) in stasis.
For instance:

Quote from: Wilderlands of High Fantasy, Chapter 9 "Ebony Coast", pg. 2802628 The Burial Ground (EL 4): A cairn covered by a thicket conceals the eternal resting place of three ancient heroes. Within each sepulcher is a silver dagger, scimitar, a box filled with moldy tobacco. Three medium vipers (CR 1; hp 9 each) will drop upon any intruder(s) from cracks in the arched roof.

The way this stuff is written there is no chance that those vipers are outside looking for food, or lying in a corner, digesting a mouse or rat, or are dead and eaten themselves by some other animal.
And it doesn't matter whether the heroes enter that hex in the beginning of a campaign, or one year into it. Three immortal vipers will be waiting for them.

It may be a different scope of event but conceptionally, I don't see a difference to the princess that is always being saved in the last possible, or most dramatic, pre-scripted moment.

The ideal of a sandbox is the fully statted, yet "interactive" hex map - but that ideal is so hard to attain (even the benchmark product with its hundreds of pages in an expensive, sturdy, packed-to-the-lid box doesn't reach that goal) that a DM simply has to fall back on "less pure" methods and play styles, and ultimately betray the sandbox idea.

Yeah, the GM is absolutley constrained by those descriptions.  If he deviates from the printed page, someone will fuck his shit up.

More seriously, though, how does having pre-scripted encounters constrain the players?  Are they still not allowed to wander where they please?

And descriptions like you find in the Wilderlands materials are presented as starting points.  Logically, if the players do something that will affect what's going on one hex over, the GM is expected to effect that change.  The sandbox is meant to be a live setting.  Encounters are placed to spark new plots and avenues for adventure; they're not a straitjacket, nor are they meant to be a static dungeon in the wild.

In the example you gave, if the GM felt that the PCs maybe don't need to find the cairn, maybe he just doesn't mention it.  The hexes are, what, 5 miles across?  That's a lot of square acreage, that is.

And I don't think having pre-scripted encounters to jog a session along is in any way betraying the sandbox idea.  I think it's been said from the start that you need seeds scattered about to kick-start the game in the first place.  No one has been arguing for a Platonic sandbox that I've seen.

Quote from: Dirk RemmeckeStuart wrote in another thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8161) a while ago...

To clarify -- what breaks my suspension of disbelief is when the PCs are smashing their way through a castle, get to room 14 and then decide to head back to town.  They return a day or two later and the scene in room 15 is the same as if they had never left.  The goblins (for example) are still playing cards blissfully unaware that half the castle has been wiped out.

A good example of this can be "heard" in the recording of "The Bane Warrens" on rpgmp3 -- the party heads into the dungeon in pursuit of a paladin who has a short head-start on them.  During the game, the players decide to return to town and "heal up" before continuing to look for the paladin.  When they finally catch up with him there's this weird out-of-synch timeline where he's been down in the dungeon for *DAYS* all by himself without setting up camp, resting, or anything.

I think a map with keyed encounters (even Vipers falling from overhead) can work very well.  What doesn't work so well is keyed encounters + a timeline / structured plot without some (or a lot of) extra work and notes.

The advantage of a human DM over a MMORPG is that ta human can use his or her judgment and creativity to bring the descriptions to life in rich detail.

The problem that a sandbox product like the Wilderlands sets out to solve is to give the DM a wealth of local detail that a Sandbox game thrives on without constraining the DM with shackles of a rigid overview.

The more pregenerated detail you have the easier it is to run a sandbox game. The local level nature of the detail serve to augment not constrain the DM's creativity.


Nearly all RPG products that gives you a lot of local detail is useful for sandbox play. The problem I see is that there not a lot that focus on a regional level (say 200 by 200 miles). You got a lot of grand settings or grand regions and a lot of dungeons but not a lot in between that really flesh out a region.

Quote from: StuartI think a map with keyed encounters (even Vipers falling from overhead) can work very well.  What doesn't work so well is keyed encounters + a timeline / structured plot without some (or a lot of) extra work and notes.

You are right. While locales are interconnected in what I wrote for the Wilderlands that was dwarfed by information that is esstentially timeless.

Quote from: StuartTo clarify -- what breaks my suspension of disbelief is when the PCs are smashing their way through a castle, get to room 14 and then decide to head back to town.  They return a day or two later and the scene in room 15 is the same as if they had never left.  The goblins (for example) are still playing cards blissfully unaware that half the castle has been wiped out.

I hate that too, although ultimately this isn't so much a downfall of a particular method of setting or adventure design as it is simply the GM being a lazy-ass slacker. Of course you modify the published encounters if the PCs showed up, caused a ruckus, and go away. Precisely how you do so, of course, depends on what sort of ruckus the PCs caused, and that's not really something that people producing sandbox products can really predict.

I've tried "sandbox" play before and have found that, in its purest form, it seems dreadfully dull.  I was in a campaign where we were adventurers (apparently a profession).  We were not tasked with anything in particular nor given any "seeds" or rumors or adversaries.  There was a dungeon nearby the city.  We went to it and we killed things.  The dungeon was laid out such that the deeper you went the harder it got.  There was also a wilderness nearby.  The wilderness was full of large monsters, so essentially we had to constrain ourselves to level 1 of the dungeon for the time-being or enjoy certain death.  The dungeon was full of wandering (random) monsters.  One often wonders why a king wouldn't divert the nearby river into the dungeon and flood it out, or simply seal up the entrance.  In any case, we entered and dealt with several corridors, traps, and monsters.  There was no real plot, no intrigue, no complications.  I felt like I was playing a version of Diablo with the storyline removed.  Nothing made any sense.  Monsters had treasure.  Goblins spawned from nowhere at the roll of the dice.  And for some reason the more powerful creatures downstairs were always content with their level.  There was no reason for the monsters to be there.  There was no reason to be in the dungeon.  No reason to do anything really.  Characters died and were replaced.  I just numbered them after a while.  No need for characterization, just send number 4 over there to check it out.  

I was told that at it's purest, this was sandbox, gaming in its highest form, completely player-driven.  And I just thought to myself, "Where's the fun part?  Risk=death.  There's no one to save, no one to defeat.  The goal seems to be to grave-rob forever, or until number 12 dies and I just decide to not come back to the table."  I'm a risk-taker as a character more often than not and I'll admit I leap before I look more often than I should, but it seemed there was nothing else to do besides, as the DM put it, "build up cash and make a castle".  This kind of "sandbox" seemed just as rail-roaded as anything else, just in a different way.  I was being made to play certain areas until I leveled for the sake of money.  What few quests existed were typically "root out the bandits" "save the princess" "bounty for goblins" etc. that began and ended quite predictably.

1) After reading this thread, my question is, "Is this really sandbox?"  If so, I have trouble understanding why it's attractive.  I like the freedom of characters (or the illusion of freedom) but I also enjoy a plot to give purpose to actions that are otherwise essentially meaningless and, most importantly, to allow characterization.

2) Is the worst nightmare of a sandbox DM the character who wants to be that dramatic hero?  It seems that the idealistic characters who seek drama and intrigue and complexity tend to suffer in such a setting.  Their players become bored, lacking reason to do much of anything.  It seems difficult to involve players in a world that really doesn't care if they live or die vs. one where they are subject to some degree of attention (in the form of plot hooks, etc.)

3) What happens in a sandbox setting when, like in the real world, people are compelled to do something? An order from the king, a contract with the devil, etc.  Does this transform the campaign from sandbox to linear even if the PCs put themselves in the situation? (I'm assuming cases where the alternative is death or death of a loved one)

4) What role does alignment have in such a campaign?  Is assessing a penalty for switching alignments freely too much of a restriction on player freedom?  Should alignment be checked at the door? agreed on beforehand?

also, to number 3, what if there's a situation the PCs didn't willingly enter?  Someone poisons them and promises an antidote in return for them stealing a statue, for example.  Is this too railroaded for sandbox?  Such a thing could occur just from them being in the wrong place at the wrong time (of course, that place and time might be decided upon by a DM on the fly or planned beforehand for that hex if it's after dark when they get there)

All the "sandbox" campaigns I've played ended in a TPK.

The GM was very ready to tell us what we'd done wrong, but when asked, couldn't tell us the right path we ought to have taken. It's like someone in a shop, "I'll know it when I see it." No, you won't. You'll never find "it".

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;302474All the "sandbox" campaigns I've played ended in a TPK.

Every rpg campaign I've ever played in ended with a TPK - sandbox or not.

Etters, welcome to the site!

The game you describe may have been run like a sandbox, but to truly make such a form of gaming shine, the GM has to invest time to make the world live.  So, no goblins appearing out of thin air, there should definitely be rumors and things happening around the PCs that you could latch onto, roleplaying should be important, etc.  All the good stuff you like about RPGs should be there, minus any preconceived plot.

To answer your question 1, it might have been a sandbox, but it wasn't a well made (or run) one.  To question 2, motivations and relationships should come up organically from play...the players have to do a little work, too, and work to find what their characters' aims are.

Sandbox <> nonsense.

Not having seen your game first-hand, it looks to be case of bad prep on the GM's part (we've all been guilty of that!).

With regard to question 3, don't worry about definitions too much.  Sandbox/linear/whatever.  Call it bathtub play.  Things happen during a campaign; yes, you can have a king tell the PCs to do something in a sandbox game.

For question 4, I don't see how the presence or absence of alignment would affect anything.  Alignment will affect you the same as in any other game...I rarely use alignment, but I can't see it being that big of an issue.

There's no reason why a sandbox can't have scheming NPCs, ongoing feuds, perils to the countryside, and political machinations. And there's no reason why the PCs can't immerse themselves in these plotlines and shape the destiny of the setting with their actions.

It sounds like your DM was running an ultra-orthodox, old-school sandbox, as proclaimed by the dour wonks on a forum like Grognardia. Either that, or he simply lacks imagination.

Quote from: mhensley;302482Every rpg campaign I've ever played in ended with a TPK - sandbox or not.

My condolences.

The only TPK I've inflicted on any of my groups since I left my teens was... well, they didn't die, they were imprisoned. It went like this: They were captured and imprisoned by a fascist republic group in a postapocalyptic Australia.

Racist Skinhead Violent Loon: "We're breaking out tonight, want to come?"
PCs: "Alright."
RSVL: "Who you gonna bring?"
PCs: "PC1, PC2, PC3, PC4, and this NPC we like."
RSVL: "Him? He's a fuckin' gook! No slopes!"
PCs: "Okay, we won't go."

GM: "Um, they're planning to break out at 3am, they told you. And will begin by knocking out the lights."
Players: "So?"
GM: "Well... it'll be dark... hard to tell race in the night."
Players: "Yeah but what if they did see him?"
GM: "In the chaos of the escape, all the shooting and fighting and shouting, they might not worry about it."
Players: "We can't be involved with such men!"
GM: "Aren't you the same guys who shot and killed a dozen men to avoid having a PC flogged?"
Players: "That was different."
GM: "And looted their bodies afterwards?"
Players: "Anyway, we won't go!"

At 3am, the skinheads overwhelmed some guards, took out the lights, stole a vehicle and rode it through the camp gates. The remaining guards chased after the violent escapees, the gates stood open...

Players: "We stay!"

Sometimes the players are determined to have their characters die. And then they blame the GM. But usually it really is the GM's fault :)

The great thing about a sandbox campaign is there is no "wrong" way to go. The terrible thing about a sandbox campaign is there is no "right" way to go. Which means that some GMs, unhappy with the way the PCs are going, will get pissed off and kill them off.

Welcome to theRPGsite, Etters! As for your post, I would say that what you described was a "failed sandbox" that was probably the result of a combination of bad GMing and possibly a bad choice of setting.

If the GM was good, he'd create a number of threats in the sandbox area, some minor, some intermediate, some major: He would then NOT play out the sandbox like a computer game, with monsters just sitting around waiting for the PCs to show up. He would have them doing things in "real time" of the setting. So you don't go after the Ice Wizard? That's fine, that's your choice, but in two weeks time the Ice Wizard's orc allies raid a village. Three months later he steals an artifacts, and in a couple of years, he's the setting's Sauron.

Its not railroading in a Sandbox game for the PCs to go to a town, enter a tavern or whatever, and have someone come up to them and offer them an opportunity for adventure. Its only railroading if they are FORCED to take that opportunity. If they decide they'd rather not take the risk, or they'd rather sail off to the southern jungle, that's their choice.
The GM's job is thus to constantly be finding ways to show them which way the opportunities lie, and to have these opportunities seem like part of a living world.

You can't have a good sandbox without emulation.

RPGPundit