Linear story VS sandbox

arminius · May 12, 2015, 12:16:40 AM

Sounds like "all roads lead to Cthulhu" to me.

S'mon · May 12, 2015, 04:06:51 AM

Quote from: LordVreeg;831036When I finish making some sense of the wine cellar's organization and figure what I am drinking tonight, we can go over the difference between 'set piece' and 'World in Motion'.
But a GM must always realize 'World in Motion' is applied to 'set piece', when they bump into each other.

Yes, set pieces become part of the world in motion as soon as they 'activate' - either the PCs encounter the set piece, or too much time has passed & the GM decides it happens off-stage.

S'mon · May 12, 2015, 04:13:54 AM

Quote from: Blusponge;831058Hrm. Seems like I need to brush up on my venacular a bit. I wasn't aware the "amusement park" was a term set in stone. See I guess I don't consider my style of play to be sandbox because players don't have complete autonomy. Don't get me wrong, I give them a lot of freedom to move around, and if they turn their back on a plot I roll with it. But it's not like I turn them loose on the world—I turn them loose on my plot. I generally have an "ending" in mind when I start. It's not set in stone—that would be ridiculous—but its there. I could tell you right now, with 90% certainty, where the finale is going to be taking place and what the PCs will be up against. And, to me, that goes against the sandbox philosophy.

But, maybe I just don't understand the breadth of these terms.

Justin, I've read your stuff. If you say I'm running a sandbox I'd be an idiot to argue with you.

Tom

This bears no resemblance to the Amusement Park concept, which is (like an amusement park!) nested linear content - 'rides' - within a campaign area 'park' where the players/punters have freedom to move around.

As Arminius says, you seem to be doing an 'All Roads Lead To Cthulu' thing - a matrix of possible adventures leading to an intended campaign climax. But it's hard to be sure from what you say, you might be running a largely linear Paizo Adventure Path type campaign, just without hard railroading.

The Butcher · May 12, 2015, 09:19:34 AM

The jargon is getting positively thick here. You can almost understand why Ron Edwards went to such lengths to establish a glossary for his own theorywank.

soltakss · May 14, 2015, 03:24:48 AM

Quote from: The Butcher;831109The jargon is getting positively thick here. You can almost understand why Ron Edwards went to such lengths to establish a glossary for his own theorywank.

Yes.

When I GM, I have a setting and the players get to go adventuring in the setting. Sometimes they are my adventures, sometimes their adventures, but above all we try to have fun.

I don't particularly care whether it is sandbox, railroad, amusement park or whatever.

LordVreeg · May 14, 2015, 10:10:01 AM

Quote from: The Butcher;831109The jargon is getting positively thick here. You can almost understand why Ron Edwards went to such lengths to establish a glossary for his own theorywank.

It's this crappy thing called 'communication' that spurs this on. We have these hobbies we all play, and crazy us wants to actually talk about it.

I personally don't find it that bad.

S'Mon, yes, that is how I build them as well. Whether it is an adventure or a meeting that triggers more meetings. That is what the 'Set Piece' is. Something the GM creates for the players to possibly encounter in a place; but if the course of events, PC derived or just event derived, (the 'World in Motion') dictate it would no longer exist or would exist in a changed state, that must be taken into account.

Bedrockbrendan · May 14, 2015, 12:41:49 PM

My rule of thumb for jargon is it mainly becomes an issue when you need to use multiple terms in paragraph or sentence, making it impossible to pick up from context. That seems to happen when folks fall into the habit of coining new terms out of impulse rather than a strong need. I am always wary of I see someone throw out four or five pieces of jargon to explain something.

The Butcher · May 14, 2015, 01:32:08 PM

Quote from: LordVreeg;831417It's this crappy thing called 'communication' that spurs this on. We have these hobbies we all play, and crazy us wants to actually talk about it.

I personally don't find it that bad.

It's bad, and not really conductive to meaningful communication, when people use the same words and idioms to refer to different things. I've seen a couple of people call perfectly functional sandboxes "amusement parks", for instance.

tenbones · May 14, 2015, 02:59:29 PM

Same here.

We're doing round-robbin dead-horse beating now.

LordVreeg · May 14, 2015, 03:27:41 PM

*SIGH*
It is the same as any other technical conversation. Which I have all day long, so perhaps why I recognize this as the same thing.

I see a lot of people trying to get into the same space, and I don't consider it bad at all.

The hobby keeps growing, and so will the verbiage.

S'mon · May 14, 2015, 03:32:49 PM

Quote from: The Butcher;831109The jargon is getting positively thick here. You can almost understand why Ron Edwards went to such lengths to establish a glossary for his own theorywank.

You're mean to the little S'mon.

(I'm a legal academic*, we like jargon/precise definitions. Makes talking about stuff easier).

*Who just had a tough day/week.