Why 'Sandbox' is a meaningless phrase

[Darth Ultron]

I'm talking about 'dramatic questions', pro-active actions that prompt a response.


Your just not making any kind of sense here.

You talking about what if some people just sit around in a room and talk about fiction, you are not talking about any type of RPG with a DM and Players in the classic sense. Maybe you are talking about the other type of Storytelling game made of all equal players that just sit around and say ''and then".


The only difference is a purely emotional one, between having "discovered an activity" and "chosen an activity".

I agree, and think this is a good point.

So many players are wrapped up in the idea that they must be in control of the game and everything.

It been my basic point all along--->players pick something to do--->DM makes that something to do. Yet, some want to say the DM is not doing much of anything except servicing the players hand and foot, so that just makes no sense. And it's odd, that people are so anti-DM..you'd think they would just go play a Storytelling activity with no DM.



Finally to repeat, no we can't "assume it's not a sandbox, see it's not a sandbox". Yes the GM preps stuff on what happens so far, but then more stuff happens (perhaps the players fluff a delivery to a certain Hutt), and then the GM takes that into account and preps more stuff (maybe said certain Hutt is angry). Though I do think talking about the theory is silly without seeing it in practice and did try to resolve that.

Right...and at some point, after making all the above ''stuff'', the DM has made an Adventure. Again, this has been my point all along.

Step One: The players have a grand old time in the pre game sandbox just doing random meaningless fluff stuff, while the DM just sits back and reacts.

Step Two: The players, eventually, pick something of meaning and substance to do. In a Common game, THIS is where the DM makes the Adventure. In the Sandbox game....this is where the DM STILL just sits back and reacts.

Step three, Common Game: The real game play adventure starts.

Step three, sandy game: The players have a grand old time in the pre game sandbox just doing random but slightly less meaningless slightly focused and directed fluff stuff, while the DM just sits back and reacts.

Step four, sandy game: Eventually, yet again, after taking up a huge amount of time the DM will have the adventure made by the players random stuff, and finally the real game adventure can start.

[Rhedyn]

I just wanted to say that this discussion has inspired me to start a sandbox campaign in D&D 5e. I haven't really run any "pure" sandboxes with this particular group, so we will see how it works out.
I would say poorly.

5e only gives you tools for killing things. Without a story arch to strive through, you have little reason as a character to do much more than look for things to kill and spend all proceeds at the tavern.

[Pleh]

I would say poorly.

5e only gives you tools for killing things. Without a story arch to strive through, you have little reason as a character to do much more than look for things to kill and spend all proceeds at the tavern.

Do you mean a sandbox can't be successful unless the rules try to govern the fictional ecomonical structure? Psh. A combat focused sandbox can work just as well as a commerce based one.

Not having set rules about how your loot can be spent actually gives the players more flexibility, if the GM is receptive.

It's more fun with freeform economics in the sense that there's no certainty in your odds of success. Less calculations, more trying things to see what works.

[jayem]

I just wanted to say that this discussion has inspired me to start a sandbox campaign in D&D 5e. I haven't really run any "pure" sandboxes with this particular group, so we will see how it works out.

Best of luck. Can we hear how it does go?

I think you'll have to put a lot more work into prepping for the first 'Downtime'. It's no longer just a skim-able gap between activity.
Possibly be ready to complete the spell list with more utility spells. And decide how your universe deals with each ambiguity in the rulebook spells early (e.g. the permanent teleportation circle questions) as you can't just narrate them away.

[Pleh]

Best of luck. Can we hear how it does go?

I think you'll have to put a lot more work into prepping for the first 'Downtime'. It's no longer just a skim-able gap between activity.
Possibly be ready to complete the spell list with more utility spells. And decide how your universe deals with each ambiguity in the rulebook spells early (e.g. the permanent teleportation circle questions) as you can't just narrate them away.

Actually, if you're doing this much work to plan session 1, just go ahead and have a full session 0 with the group and go over the ambiguities together, so the players have some input about what details are too much to worry about or too little to bother with.

[Quertus]

"Pure" white and black are not even worth considering, because there's no RPG there. Either you don't play a role, or you don't play a game. As something that evolved as some kind of hybrid, both qualities must be present, rp and g.

I think I understood everyone else's responses, but this one eludes me. Are you somehow trying to correlate the terms "role-playing" and "game" to "linear" and "sandbox"? If so, which is which, in your mind?


It been my basic point all along--->players pick something to do--->DM makes that something to do.

And that point is wrong. That is one way to play the game, but not the only way.

Again, imagine this scenario: One GM created the world, then died. A second GM picks up the group, the first GMs notes, etc, and never creates a thing. They simply have the world react to whatever the PCs do, in accordance with the rules and proper role-playing of the NPCs.

Or, the restaurant analogy: in Pure linear, a food pipe is shoved in your throat, and exactly the prescribed amount of exactly the right foods goes in your belly at exactly the right time; in a sandbox, it's a buffet, where the user chooses what, when, and how much to eat. The chef cooks the food in either case, but the choices and delivery are decidedly different.

[Florian]

Do you mean a sandbox can't be successful unless the rules try to govern the fictional ecomonical structure?

Hm. Depends. Let me phrase it this way: Game systems with a very tight underlying structure, mostly those concerned about "balance", are not that well suited for a sandbox approach or a hex crawl. You'll have to deal with something that I mentioned regularly in this discussion: When your balancing point is, say, a "delve format" or "adventuring day", either incorporate that in the design or rework the system to fit your design. Up to the individual gm what is harder.

SWN? ACKS? Sure, let's go. Contemporary D&D? Not so much. I exclude PF from that, because it has more "sandbox friendly" sub-system (Exploration and Survival, Research, Downtime) that tie in with the CR and resource management system and actually enhance a sandbox approach.

[Pleh]

Hm. Depends. Let me phrase it this way: Game systems with a very tight underlying structure, mostly those concerned about "balance", are not that well suited for a sandbox approach or a hex crawl. You'll have to deal with something that I mentioned regularly in this discussion: When your balancing point is, say, a "delve format" or "adventuring day", either incorporate that in the design or rework the system to fit your design. Up to the individual gm what is harder.

SWN? ACKS? Sure, let's go. Contemporary D&D? Not so much. I exclude PF from that, because it has more "sandbox friendly" sub-system (Exploration and Survival, Research, Downtime) that tie in with the CR and resource management system and actually enhance a sandbox approach.

I guess I just say that because I feel like I would be comfortable running a game of Minecraft using the rules for D&D pretty much any Edition. Of course with D&D there's not all that much fun in telling DM about exactly where you place the blocks but rather I'd be fine with players saying I'd like to construct X structure in the DM telling them exactly how many resources are going to need for that and then allowing them to determine which method they like to use to obtain it

[EGplay]

Your just not making any kind of sense here.

You talking about what if some people just sit around in a room and talk about fiction, you are not talking about any type of RPG with a DM and Players in the classic sense. Maybe you are talking about the other type of Storytelling game made of all equal players that just sit around and say ''and then".
bwahaha no.
all examples given are written as action staken by the characters, not as a 'what if'-'and then' scenario.
my phrasing is intentional.

And no, maybe sandbox isn't a type of RPG in what you would consider a classic sense. after all, it involves reversing the dramatic question & answer dynamic, taking one aspect usually done by the DM and placing it in the hands of the players.


Step One: The players have a grand old time in the pre game sandbox just doing random meaningless fluff stuff, while the DM just sits back and reacts.

Step Two: The players, eventually, pick something of meaning and substance to do. In a Common game, THIS is where the DM makes the Adventure. In the Sandbox game....this is where the DM STILL just sits back and reacts.

Step three, Common Game: The real game play adventure starts.

Step three, sandy game: The players have a grand old time in the pre game sandbox just doing random but slightly less meaninglessful slightly focused and directed fluff stuff, while the DM just sits back and reacts.

Step four, sandy game: Eventually, yet again, after taking up a huge amount of time the DM will have the adventure made by the players random stuff, and finally the real game adventure can start.

bold parts edited by me to reflect how sandbox actually can go

Look, if you think that pro-active action cannot lead to meaning and substance, then why do you think they do when your BBEG's engage in the pro-active actions that in-game led to the content of the adventures? or do they just wander around randomly and meaninglessly until they come across their part of the content?

@ Florian:
I would say jayem and pleh got the right of it. I would like to add the following:
Both scenario's are high in player agency. The first one seems to be non-sandbox, where the second seems to be sandbox if the engaging part doesn't switch the dramatic question part back to the DM.
Because it doesn't have to, a DM can prepare enough material that is suited for reactive play.

I will later try to explain better if you want me to, it's getting late now

[Florian]

I think I understood everyone else's responses, but this one eludes me. Are you somehow trying to correlate the terms "role-playing" and "game" to "linear" and "sandbox"? If so, which is which, in your mind?

Nah. I´m proposing that "TTRPG" by self-definition has an upper and lower limit of player agency. Go above or below that and we´re doing something else, that maybe looks related.
Meaning that things like Arkham Horror or a plot-based game that uses heavy railroading fall in the "below" category, while things like pure improv is in the "above" category (by leaving the gaming aspect behind). So, no, no correlation.

[EGplay]

Nah. I´m proposing that "TTRPG" by self-definition has an upper and lower limit of player agency. Go above or below that and we´re doing something else, that maybe looks related.
Meaning that things like Arkham Horror or a plot-based game that uses heavy railroading fall in the "below" category, while things like pure improv is in the "above" category (by leaving the gaming aspect behind). So, no, no correlation.
Sure, that makes perfect sense. It does muddle the useful part of this discussion sometimes due to people disagreeing about where exactly "above" and "below" begin.
My thresholds differ from Quertus', which differ from yours, which differ from DU's etc.
It's important to remember these thresholds can vary without being wrong.

[Darth Ultron]

Again, imagine this scenario: One GM created the world, then died. A second GM picks up the group, the first GMs notes, etc, and never creates a thing. They simply have the world react to whatever the PCs do, in accordance with the rules and proper role-playing of the NPCs.

I guess that would count for published things too. But still, no pre made anything can ever cover everything. Like your saying DM Bob made so many notes to cover like a billion things in a setting? Is that even possible? Even just ''notes'' on a single small town would be dozens of pages. And the notes can't just say ''Gorm is the town blacksmith'', because IF the do, then the current DM will have to make up more stuff about Gorm to use the NPC.

I think it would be impossible for a GM to never, ever, create anything. A ''game in a bottle'' just is beyond silly.

And, ok, so then you have the GM that just sits back and reacts. That sounds so cool to the players, I guess. But after ''reacting'' for a couple hours, as the players randomly do stuff...the GM will have a lot of semi directed and focused notes needed to run a set finite part of the game....or an adventure. So, it takes longer then just the GM making the adventure...and it's a mess and much lower quality....but it is still an adventure.



bwahaha no.
all examples given are written as action staken by the characters, not as a 'what if'-'and then' scenario.
my phrasing is intentional.

I still don't get what your talking about. Like:

DM: Your characters hear a story about a group of goblin bandits on the road north of town.
PC: Question-"If a butterfly was made of butter how would that change eating corn on the cob?"



bold parts edited by me to reflect how sandbox actually can go

That's for your agreement. I see your a die hard sandbox reality gamer. It's one way to play the game.

[Mordaedil]

I guess that would count for published things too. But still, no pre made anything can ever cover everything. Like your saying DM Bob made so many notes to cover like a billion things in a setting? Is that even possible? Even just ''notes'' on a single small town would be dozens of pages. And the notes can't just say ''Gorm is the town blacksmith'', because IF the do, then the current DM will have to make up more stuff about Gorm to use the NPC.
It is most certainly possible.

Here's a thing that can do the entire job for you. (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/)

[EGplay]

I still don't get what your talking about. Like:

DM: Your characters hear a story about a group of goblin bandits on the road north of town.
PC: Question-"If a butterfly was made of butter how would that change eating corn on the cob?"



That's for your agreement. I see your a die hard sandbox reality gamer. It's one way to play the game.
That first step in your example is the DM posing a dramatic question, as per non-sandbox game. It invites a response from the players that will lead to interesting developments.
In a sandbox, the players pose the dramatic question, but obviously a different one fitting the actions their characters can take.
Therefore in a sandbox, your nonsense response by the players doesn't even come up, the DM responds.
Like I said, the PC's now behave as usually the progenitors of your plots would.

Are you saying my editing didn't shift the content away from your meaning? In that case, ladies, gentlemen and other, we have an admission that sandbox exists, is different, is possible, and potentially leads to a meaningful and focused game.

And no, I'm not die-hard sandbox. A feed-me-plots game is just fine too, but sometimes you want a change of pace.

[Segev]

I still don't get what your talking about.You demonstrate this consistently, so I believe you. This is a persistent problem for you, and you really, really need to work on it.


Like:

DM: Your characters hear a story about a group of goblin bandits on the road north of town.
PC: Question-"If a butterfly was made of butter how would that change eating corn on the cob?"It is things like this deliberate and insane misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what others say which gets in your way. Nobody has suggested this. You don't even quote something and say "this is what you're saying when you say that." You just pull it out of nowhere and assert it's what somebody you're talking to must have really meant.

You make no actual effort to understand; you seek to twist and distort until you can justify to yourself (because, believe me, you're not successfully justifying to anybody else) the most asinine straw men as what people are "really" saying.

Darth Ultron, do you really fail this hard? Or are you being deliberately obtuse because you enjoy seeing people boggle at the sheer random nonsense you can spew and vaguely connect to something that might have been said at one point?

Let me turn this around on you: If the players hear about a group of goblin bandits on the road north of town, and decide to go out there and take over the bandit group as their new leaders, does that demonstrate that they're "bad players" because they didn't decide to go out there and destroy the bandits?

[1337 b4k4]

You demonstrate this consistently, so I believe you. This is a persistent problem for you, and you really, really need to work on it.

It is things like this deliberate and insane misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what others say which gets in your way. Nobody has suggested this. You don't even quote something and say "this is what you're saying when you say that." You just pull it out of nowhere and assert it's what somebody you're talking to must have really meant.

You make no actual effort to understand; you seek to twist and distort until you can justify to yourself (because, believe me, you're not successfully justifying to anybody else) the most asinine straw men as what people are "really" saying.

Darth Ultron, do you really fail this hard? Or are you being deliberately obtuse because you enjoy seeing people boggle at the sheer random nonsense you can spew and vaguely connect to something that might have been said at one point?

As I noted 5 pages ago when I commented that we hadn’t seen any progress in 10 changes:


100% of your issues in this thread with understanding have been because rather than listening to what other people are saying, you just assume they're saying something you made up in your own head. Here's a proposal, the next time you start thinking or saying "i guess when you say X you really mean Y" you should stop, realize you're more likely than not wrong and go back and re-read.

Darth, at a certain point doesn’t it make sense to consider that if you’re the only sane person in the room, that maybe just maybe you might not be the sane one?

[Segev]

Darth, at a certain point doesn’t it make sense to consider that if you’re the only sane person in the room, that maybe just maybe you might not be the sane one?

Eh, I don't like using this argument. "Consensus" is just another way of saying "echo chamber," sometimes. In this case, I agree that Darth Ultron is exhibiting signs of being unwilling to accept reality, based on HOW he's engaging with those who try to discuss the issue with him, but just because you're in the minority (or the only person disagreeing with everyone else) in a group doesn't mean you're inherently wrong.

Imagine, for example, that you find yourself attending a political convention...for the party you ideologically oppose. Just because practically everybody else around you disagrees doesn't mean you should consider yourself wrong, does it?

[1337 b4k4]

Eh, I don't like using this argument. "Consensus" is just another way of saying "echo chamber," sometimes. In this case, I agree that Darth Ultron is exhibiting signs of being unwilling to accept reality, based on HOW he's engaging with those who try to discuss the issue with him, but just because you're in the minority (or the only person disagreeing with everyone else) in a group doesn't mean you're inherently wrong.

Imagine, for example, that you find yourself attending a political convention...for the party you ideologically oppose. Just because practically everybody else around you disagrees doesn't mean you should consider yourself wrong, does it?

No, but:
* if you can’t understand the other position
* if you’re literally unable to articulate your opponents position in any way that they would recognize
* if multiple people with multiple different views are able to understand this position
* if the only way you can figure that your opponents make sense is if they’re literally insane

Then there’s a much stronger chance that your wrong. Not because you’re in the minority or there’s some concensus but because the likelihood of you being the only person out of a vastly diverse group to know the “truth” is much much less.

To work with your analogy, I don’t like certain political views. I don’t think they make sense as views to hold at all. But for all of those views I can argue from starting axioms a form of the view that would be recognizable to any proponent of the views.

DU has failed to do that even once in this thread. And yet he continues to insist he’s the only sane one in the room.

[Xuc Xac]

Eh, I don't like using this argument. "Consensus" is just another way of saying "echo chamber," sometimes. In this case, I agree that Darth Ultron is exhibiting signs of being unwilling to accept reality, based on HOW he's engaging with those who try to discuss the issue with him, but just because you're in the minority (or the only person disagreeing with everyone else) in a group doesn't mean you're inherently wrong.


It does when arguing whether or not something is a "meaningless phrase". Consensus is how language works. If everyone else insists that "embiggens is a perfectly cromulent word", then they're right no matter how stupid it seems to you.



Imagine, for example, that you find yourself attending a political convention...for the party you ideologically oppose. Just because practically everybody else around you disagrees doesn't mean you should consider yourself wrong, does it?

If they're arguing "what position should all right thinking people hold?", then you can disagree. Just like you can disagree about "Is a sandbox better than a linear game?" If they are arguing "what positions should our party include in our platform?", then you can definitely be wrong. Just like DU is wrong about "Do sandboxes do anything differently than linear games?"

[Segev]

No, but:
* if you can’t understand the other position
* if you’re literally unable to articulate your opponents position in any way that they would recognize
* if multiple people with multiple different views are able to understand this position
* if the only way you can figure that your opponents make sense is if they’re literally insane

Then there’s a much stronger chance that your wrong. Not because you’re in the minority or there’s some concensus but because the likelihood of you being the only person out of a vastly diverse group to know the “truth” is much much less.


It does when arguing whether or not something is a "meaningless phrase". Consensus is how language works. If everyone else insists that "embiggens is a perfectly cromulent word", then they're right no matter how stupid it seems to you.

If they're arguing "what position should all right thinking people hold?", then you can disagree. Just like you can disagree about "Is a sandbox better than a linear game?" If they are arguing "what positions should our party include in our platform?", then you can definitely be wrong. Just like DU is wrong about "Do sandboxes do anything differently than linear games?"
Hm, good points. There are certain areas where "right" and "wrong" are defined by consensus, I suppose, when it literally is a matter of defining how a group interacts with itself. The more divorced from an objectively extant external "thing," the more likely that is to be feasible.

[Quertus]

Nah. I´m proposing that "TTRPG" by self-definition has an upper and lower limit of player agency. Go above or below that and we´re doing something else, that maybe looks related.
Meaning that things like Arkham Horror or a plot-based game that uses heavy railroading fall in the "below" category, while things like pure improv is in the "above" category (by leaving the gaming aspect behind). So, no, no correlation.

So, I feel like there's two axies here - one is how much responsibility to make choices the players have, and the other is how much power the PCs have to implement those choices. It feels like you're saying that it's not a game if the PCs always can just succeed at anything that they attempt - that, to be a game, their reach must always exceed their grasp.

Is that even closer to what you were attempting to convey?


I guess that would count for published things too. But still, no pre made anything can ever cover everything. Like your saying DM Bob made so many notes to cover like a billion things in a setting? Is that even possible? Even just ''notes'' on a single small town would be dozens of pages. And the notes can't just say ''Gorm is the town blacksmith'', because IF the do, then the current DM will have to make up more stuff about Gorm to use the NPC.

I think it would be impossible for a GM to never, ever, create anything. A ''game in a bottle'' just is beyond silly.

And, ok, so then you have the GM that just sits back and reacts. That sounds so cool to the players, I guess. But after ''reacting'' for a couple hours, as the players randomly do stuff...the GM will have a lot of semi directed and focused notes needed to run a set finite part of the game....or an adventure. So, it takes longer then just the GM making the adventure...and it's a mess and much lower quality....but it is still an adventure.

Let's suppose that there's nothing with a personality to interact with - just unintelligent beasts, forces of nature, inanimate objects, etc. Let's further suppose that the entirety of the relevant portion of the gaming world actually is defined, at least to a certain level of detail (the deceased original GM took detailed photographs of the state of the game world at T+0, but, if it somehow matters, the new GM will need to estimate the number of carbon atoms in the slightly used bottle of glue on the table in the kitchen of the third house on the left side of main street).

The new GM simply takes the starting game state, and the rules of the game, and arbitrates reality. This new GM never needs to create anything.

The PCs can search the houses for loot, search for clues as to what happened, raid the pantry for food, tear the houses apart for raw materials, set the houses on fire, whatever, without the new GM ever creating anything.


Darth, at a certain point doesn’t it make sense to consider that if you’re the only sane person in the room, that maybe just maybe you might not be the sane one?


Eh, I don't like using this argument. "Consensus" is just another way of saying "echo chamber," sometimes. In this case, I agree that Darth Ultron is exhibiting signs of being unwilling to accept reality, based on HOW he's engaging with those who try to discuss the issue with him, but just because you're in the minority (or the only person disagreeing with everyone else) in a group doesn't mean you're inherently wrong.

Imagine, for example, that you find yourself attending a political convention...for the party you ideologically oppose. Just because practically everybody else around you disagrees doesn't mean you should consider yourself wrong, does it?

I see that this has moved forward, but I'll still say that, having been on both sides of the "everyone else thinks this way" and seen the one person be right, that this by itself is dangerous wrong thinking.

Now, yes, in the context of, say, language, consensus does define reality. Mind you, this doesn't mean that different words or different definitions might not be better - more efficient, more effective, whatever - than what the consensus uses, merely that the consensus defines "right". "Right" does not mean "unable to be improved".

I can't fault DU for being unable to comprehend or be comprehended by the masses. That has less than no bearing on the correctness of his ideas.

His argumentation style, however, often receives a "needs improvement" grade.

[Darth Ultron]

That first step in your example is the DM posing a dramatic question, as per non-sandbox game. It invites a response from the players that will lead to interesting developments.
In a sandbox, the players pose the dramatic question, but obviously a different one fitting the actions their characters can take.


In the good group game it's is everyone working together. The DM makes the setting and plot hooks; then the players make characters and pick a plot hook to do.

I don't see it as a big deal if the players ignore the DMs plot hooks, look at the setting, and suggest their own hook to hook themselves. Like the DM makes the setting and has ''the wild coast is full of pirates" but does not make any specific plot hook for that...and then the players say they they want to be pirates. So, then the DM makes that hook and adventure.

I don't even see it as a big deal if the players ignore the setting and just say something generic like ''we build a castle for ourselves and want to rule the surrounding lands." Because, yet again, the DM makes that hook and adventure.

In any case: DM makes the setting/hooks/adventures and the players pick what to do.


Let me turn this around on you: If the players hear about a group of goblin bandits on the road north of town, and decide to go out there and take over the bandit group as their new leaders, does that demonstrate that they're "bad players" because they didn't decide to go out there and destroy the bandits?

No, but I think this does show the problem.

You seem to be thinking like this:

DM Plot: There are goblin bandits north of town, the characters MUST go and fight them and MUST raid their lair caves and MUST save the merchants daughter, SO SAYS the DM. The characters are just paws in the DMs story game.

Player Plot: There are goblins, and trolls and giants and rainbows and a whole beautiful world of amazing things. And maybe the characters do go ''encounter'' the goblins...but then anything might happen the world is full of endless possibilities!

Now this type of above thinking makes no sense to me, as I'm on:

Game Plot(made by the DM): There are goblin bandits north of town, and maybe the characters do go ''encounter'' the goblins...but then anything might happen the world is full of endless possibilities!


Darth, at a certain point doesn’t it make sense to consider that if you’re the only sane person in the room, that maybe just maybe you might not be the sane one?

I know I'm different.




To work with your analogy, I don’t like certain political views. I don’t think they make sense as views to hold at all. But for all of those views I can argue from starting axioms a form of the view that would be recognizable to any proponent of the views.

DU has failed to do that even once in this thread. And yet he continues to insist he’s the only sane one in the room.

As I'm someone who has Very Different Views then you do....I know it is not true.

[1337 b4k4]

As I'm someone who has Very Different Views then you do....I know it is not true.

I'm always up for a challenge, if for no other reason than I personally believe that being able to articulate your opponent's views in a way they would agree with is important for being sure you understand both what you're arguing against and that you've reached the proper conclusion in your own head. Probably best to take the challenge to a set of PMs instead of in this thread, unless other people are interested in seeing the results (to vote Yes, press 1 now), in which case I would insist on spoiler tags. If you want to take up this offer, send me a position that you and I disagree on that you feel I could not present an argument that you would recognize and agree with, present some base axioms (e.g. if we were talking about the necessity of a single GM in order for a game to be called a TTRPG, the base definition of a GM (as oppose to say a game show host) is useful. It's not strictly necessary but it does run the risk of having to go multiple levels down until we find a starting axiom to work with). Lastly if we're doing this in PMs, I would request that you please select another forum individual that you would be comfortable with and we should ask them if they would volunteer to "referee" of sorts.

[Mordaedil]

It's easier if you think of sandbox as games that are smart, intelligent and complex.

Meanwhile, the linear as games that are dumb, stupid and simple.

People who don't want to put a lot of work into their games play the latter and smart people play the former.

This is how Darth Ultron sounds and does not represent my actual point of view.

[Lorsa]

I would say poorly.

5e only gives you tools for killing things. Without a story arch to strive through, you have little reason as a character to do much more than look for things to kill and spend all proceeds at the tavern.

Whose to say the characters won't create their own story arc?

The characters have personality, and the world certainly has plenty of factions with different goals. The combination of the two can definitely provide a story.



Best of luck. Can we hear how it does go?

I think you'll have to put a lot more work into prepping for the first 'Downtime'. It's no longer just a skim-able gap between activity.
Possibly be ready to complete the spell list with more utility spells. And decide how your universe deals with each ambiguity in the rulebook spells early (e.g. the permanent teleportation circle questions) as you can't just narrate them away.

I will try to remember to let you know. So far it is in the planning stage.

As D&D 5e is still fairly new to me, I am uncertain of all the ambiguities. Do you mind informing me of what I should look out for?



Actually, if you're doing this much work to plan session 1, just go ahead and have a full session 0 with the group and go over the ambiguities together, so the players have some input about what details are too much to worry about or too little to bother with.

I always try to get input from the players, I just need to make sure that *I* understand all the ambiguities first. :smallsmile:

[Pleh]

I always try to get input from the players, I just need to make sure that *I* understand all the ambiguities first. :smallsmile:

I was jist trying to highlight the *amount* of extra input that might be advisable.

[Darth Ultron]

I'm always up for a challenge.

This could be a thread.


It's easier if you think of sandbox as games that are smart, intelligent and complex.

Meanwhile, the linear as games that are dumb, stupid and simple.

People who don't want to put a lot of work into their games play the latter and smart people play the former.



Good start, but you have them reversed.

The Normal Game is smart, intelligent and complex., as after all it takes a lot of time and work to make.

The Sandbox Game is dumb, stupid and simple., as it is jusr for the casual gamers that just want to toss some dice around for a couple hours.

[Segev]

You seem to be thinking like this:

DM Plot: There are goblin bandits north of town, the characters MUST go and fight them and MUST raid their lair caves and MUST save the merchants daughter, SO SAYS the DM. The characters are just paws in the DMs story game.

Player Plot: There are goblins, and trolls and giants and rainbows and a whole beautiful world of amazing things. And maybe the characters do go ''encounter'' the goblins...but then anything might happen the world is full of endless possibilities!

Now this type of above thinking makes no sense to me, as I'm on:

Game Plot(made by the DM): There are goblin bandits north of town, and maybe the characters do go ''encounter'' the goblins...but then anything might happen the world is full of endless possibilities!Ah, progress! At last!

The only two problems here are that you're assigning a value judgment (and ascribing one to me, as well) that I don't include. You're treating "endless possibilities" as if it were a sparkly happy rainbows-and-sunshine goal, which may or may not be utopian (and thus impossible), and accusing me of treating linear games as inherently locked-down and bad.

Neither is true.

The second problem is your assertion that it's a "Game Plot(made by the DM)" in the version you claim as your own.

What you described is inherently not made exclusively by the GM, since it requires player feedback in the form of IC choices and decisions which will fundamentally alter how the plot proceeds.

It's a sandbox. As described, in fact, there aren't any linear elements. Not to say there can't be, nor that it would be inherently bad if there were, but as you describe it in "your version," there aren't.



Good start, but you have them reversed.

The Normal Game is smart, intelligent and complex., as after all it takes a lot of time and work to make.

The Sandbox Game is dumb, stupid and simple., as it is jusr for the casual gamers that just want to toss some dice around for a couple hours.Actually, both sandboxes and linear games run by "dumb, stupid and simple" design will be rather poor. A sandbox game like that will be the empty world with no hooks and no idea what to do, waiting for the players to make up content for the GM to half-heartedly improvise around. A linear game like that will be a poorly-constructed railroad with tons of assumptions about what the players will do, and no tolerance for going off-script.

A sandbox game that is "smart, intelligent and complex" will be filled with detail about the current state, including in-depth NPCs and NPC organizations, ongoing and upcoming events (at least insofar as such things are planned without player intervention), and a number of hooks and points of interest to let the players grab hold and try to use or build tools in-setting to achieve their characters' goals.

A linear game that is "smart, intelligent and complex" will take great pains to have plans for most possible major choices the players can make, and details about the plans of NPCs and groups and their motivations behind them so that the DM can improvise if the PCs do something unexpected. It will have branches and a lot of if/then checks to plan out good ways to handle things, and, again, have enough detail that, if the PCs did something surprising that has ongoing impact, it's feasible to figure out how that alters later scenes without throwing the entire module's linear path out the window.

[Florian]

So, I feel like there's two axies here - one is how much responsibility to make choices the players have, and the other is how much power the PCs have to implement those choices. It feels like you're saying that it's not a game if the PCs always can just succeed at anything that they attempt - that, to be a game, their reach must always exceed their grasp.

Is that even closer to what you were attempting to convey?

(Sorry, friends are staying with me, so I don't have the time to post here very often and to the depth I usually try)

Ok, let me try....

Think of an even pyramid and mark the corners with (R), (P) and (G), or if you want, with (player), (gm) and (system). No worries, the terms in parenthesis are just placeholder right now, there're some more elaborate concepts behind it, that we can discuss, but are not necessary at this point.
Now think of some lines going from each corner straight to the center and imagine that lines having 10 even segments, counting the corner as zero and the center as ten.
As the last step, imagine a perfect circle centered on the tens, with the radius touching the marks 2-4 on the imaginary lines.

The radius of the circle is a bit flexible based on group/individual and the personal understanding of what TTRPG really is, which is still open to debate.

Anyways, what is within the circle marks the space and mix of what makes up the concept of TTRPG, the three kinds of agency we actually have and how they're weighted against each other.

So you got that wrong a bit. (Time´s up, will add more tomorrow)

[Darth Ultron]

The only two problems here are that you're assigning a value judgment (and ascribing one to me, as well) that I don't include. You're treating "endless possibilities" as if it were a sparkly happy rainbows-and-sunshine goal, which may or may not be utopian (and thus impossible)

Not really sure why you think this?



and accusing me of treating linear games as inherently locked-down and bad.

Again, I did not type ''Segev is X" and what do you see as ''bad''?



What you described is inherently not made exclusively by the GM, since it requires player feedback in the form of IC choices and decisions which will fundamentally alter how the plot proceeds.

See, this does not make any sense to me. The DM makes the plot, the players play through the plot. But, some how, your saying when a character turns left they alter the game reality and make a plot too? See that makes no sense.

Like, a Common game: Evil Baron has a vile plot to kill the king-----> Characters fight some thug bandits in the woods haired by the evil baron-----> this has no effect at all on the vile plot to kill the king.

It is like there is some sort of obsession to put the players way up on a pedestal for doing very little.

Unless the players go to an extreme and really dedicate time and effort, how do you see them changing a plot?

[Floret]

Unless the players go to an extreme and really dedicate time and effort, how do you see them changing a plot?

Simple: They do go to an extreme and dedicate time and effort.

That's the entire point of having proactive players setting their own goals and making their own paths in a sandbox. It won't work with reactive players unwilling to put in the effort.

[Lorsa]

Like, a Common game: Evil Baron has a vile plot to kill the king-----> Characters fight some thug bandits in the woods haired by the evil baron-----> this has no effect at all on the vile plot to kill the king.

They alter the plot of the band thugs in the woods, don't they?

[Mordaedil]

Good start, but you have them reversed.

The Normal Game is smart, intelligent and complex., as after all it takes a lot of time and work to make.

The Sandbox Game is dumb, stupid and simple., as it is jusr for the casual gamers that just want to toss some dice around for a couple hours.
Nope, read my entire post.

[EGplay]

@Segev: seems like some progress, yes:smallbiggrin:


Simple: They do go to an extreme and dedicate time and effort.

That's the entire point of having proactive players setting their own goals and making their own paths in a sandbox. It won't work with reactive players unwilling to put in the effort.

This is exactly it, although I would have added "or unable". A willing sandbox DM agrees to this, and therefore doesn't create a 'plot' that's set in stone. Instead, several 'plots' are created with the intention that the characters change them through play.




That first step in your example is the DM posing a dramatic question, as per non-sandbox game. It invites a response from the players that will lead to interesting developments.
In a sandbox, the players pose the dramatic question, but obviously a different one fitting the actions their characters can take.

(1)In the good group game it's is everyone working together. The DM makes the setting and plot hooks; then the players make characters and pick a plot hook to do.

(2)I don't see it as a big deal if the players ignore the DMs plot hooks, look at the setting, and suggest their own hook to hook themselves. Like the DM makes the setting and has ''the wild coast is full of pirates" but does not make any specific plot hook for that...and then the players say they they want to be pirates. So, then the DM makes that hook and adventure.

(3)I don't even see it as a big deal if the players ignore the setting and just say something generic like ''we build a castle for ourselves and want to rule the surrounding lands." Because, yet again, the DM makes that hook and adventure.

(4)In any case: DM makes the setting/hooks/adventures and the players pick what to do.

numbers added by me
The bolded parts contradict part two and three.
Note that it is through the actions of the characters that the players pose the dramatic questions, which entails it happens in-game through playing the game. Also note "questions" is plural: for a sandbox game, this reversal of dynamic is ongoing.


Now, how to prepare adventures as a DM who lets the players take the lead:
In your "we're going to be pirates" example, the following (and more) 'plots' may be ongoing simultaneously:
-the pirating adventures of our intrepid heroes
-the plans and reactions of pre-existing, and now rivaling, other pirate crews
-the military campaign the authorities have launched to battle piracy in the area
-the growing threat of "that which sleeps beneath", and any associated cultists

For the first, it's easy to allow the players the dramatic questions: they pick their marks, locations of engagement, and approach. Just have several potential victims out there..

For the second, most of the interactions are going to be reactive anway. The characters don't need to search them out unless they want to. Since these other crews already were each others rivals as well, the characters can choose to mostly ignore them except when attacked. Or they can try to take over/eradicate/incite in-fighting/other, it's up to them. Make some pirate factions, complete with plans and resources. Make sure to make changes to them if events merit this.

For the third, this this contains things set already in motion, but these can change as a result of the actions of the characters and the actions they may cause in the other pirates. Make an overal strategy and tactics, some military crews, and other resources. Make sure to change these when events merit changes. Also make sure to allow the players the dramatic questions, these crews are not here to go after their characters specificly.

The fourth pretty much happens on it's own unless the protruding orb is sealed. The cultists are merely heralding the coming of "The Terrible", not causing it, but some do know of the orb. If the characters pursue this they may gain useful information. Otherwise: too bad, they'll have to face the creature. Have some cultists ready along with potential info, and have a non-'rocks fall' timetable. Make sure to be open for other avenues of research, never have a single point of failure.

As none of this has to be done with a specific outcome in mind, none of it needs a preset course of future reality.
And as long as the DM allows the players the dramatic questions, leaving the answers (possibly in the form of counter-questions) for him/her self, he/she has a sandbox.

[Darth Ultron]

Simple: They do go to an extreme and dedicate time and effort.

That's the entire point of having proactive players setting their own goals and making their own paths in a sandbox. It won't work with reactive players unwilling to put in the effort.

I agree with this. Yet many others are saying that if the players do anything at all the plot must be altered like crazy. No one says the 'extreme dedicated part', maybe they just assume all others just know what they are talking about?


They alter the plot of the band thugs in the woods, don't they?

Well, I guess this is the selective plot problem: People just pick and chose what is a plot and what is not.

The players are in a sandbox with a very well defined and focused and set goal to do a single thing the DM has premade is NO a plot, it's just ''awesome gameplay''.
But a band of thugs in the woods is a PLOT.



The bolded parts contradict part two and three.

How? The DM makes the plot...the DM makes everything in the game, except for the PCs.

Are you talking about the wacky all knowing player game? Like the DM just sits back and the players get together and say ''the treasure chest is under the oak tree at location X". Then the players play their characters and say ''our characters to to the oak tree at location X and dig up the treasure chest'' and the DM just ''reacts'' by nodding his head 'yes' and doing nothing.



Now, how to prepare adventures as a DM who lets the players take the lead:
In your "we're going to be pirates" example, the following (and more) 'plots' may be ongoing simultaneously:
-the pirating adventures of our intrepid heroes
-the plans and reactions of pre-existing, and now rivaling, other pirate crews
-the military campaign the authorities have launched to battle piracy in the area
-the growing threat of "that which sleeps beneath", and any associated cultists

So, in all of the above your talking about the DM making an Adventure, right?



For the first, it's easy to allow the players the dramatic questions: they pick their marks, locations of engagement, and approach. Just have several potential victims out there..

So, to someone like me this is just ''playing the game''...but you make it into a whole production?



As none of this has to be done with a specific outcome in mind, none of it needs a preset course of future reality.
And as long as the DM allows the players the dramatic questions, leaving the answers (possibly in the form of counter-questions) for him/her self, he/she has a sandbox.

Ok, all the above is saying: The DM makes and adventure. You have the DM making pages and pages and pages of stuff and linking it all together to make sense, all about a single directed thing the players wish to do.

This is called an adventure. To use the fancy 5E wording, the Adventure is the Toolbox the DM uses to run the game.

And, um, wait.....so the DM makes the setting and adventure...lets the players ''ask questions''...and then the DM makes answers to the questions and keeps them to themselves? And that is a sandbox? Um, does that not make the asking questions even more pointless then it all ready is?

DM: Makes the pirate adventure.

Player asks question: "Are there any flying cows?"

DM: Secretly answers the question and keeps the answer to himself.

[Floret]

This is exactly it, although I would have added "or unable". A willing sandbox DM agrees to this, and therefore doesn't create a 'plot' that's set in stone. Instead, several 'plots' are created with the intention that the characters change them through play.

I suppose, though any inability would arise from a poor setup or the GM actively constricting things and actively working against it being a sandbox, at which point the whole idea of a sandbox is moot anyways.


I agree with this. Yet many others are saying that if the players do anything at all the plot must be altered like crazy. No one says the 'extreme dedicated part', maybe they just assume all others just know what they are talking about?

Are they? Maybe you misunderstood them, and definitely understood them differently from me, because I have not seen any such thing suggested.

It might be the problem you point out, that to them, the fact that the players have to put in effort seemed to be quite directly implied. To be fair, I shared that assumption.

So no, when people talk about their characters changing the world, they are referring to striving for actions (and commiting the effort, time, resources, etc.) that could conceivably bring about the change they intend to.
Or fail at it and create - by the GM making realistic consequences for failing at their attempt - change they very much didn't intend to.

For the topic, I do recommend taking a look at Apocalypse World. The full thing, not the stuff you find for free online. The playstyle outlined in it is not the only way to run a sandbox, and is probably not a common playstyle (Except for AW, ofc); but does outline, in rather a lot of detail, the difference in GM and player roles and mindset when running a sandbox compared to a linear game.

[EGplay]

I suppose, though any inability would arise from a poor setup or the GM actively constricting things and actively working against it being a sandbox, at which point the whole idea of a sandbox is moot anyways.
Still an inability though, but suffice to say that some players cannot sandbox usefully even when given the opportunity (see Segev's lament further up thread)

[Segev]

See, this does not make any sense to me. The DM makes the plot, the players play through the plot. But, some how, your saying when a character turns left they alter the game reality and make a plot too? See that makes no sense.

Like, a Common game: Evil Baron has a vile plot to kill the king-----> Characters fight some thug bandits in the woods haired by the evil baron-----> this has no effect at all on the vile plot to kill the king.

It is like there is some sort of obsession to put the players way up on a pedestal for doing very little.

Unless the players go to an extreme and really dedicate time and effort, how do you see them changing a plot?

The DM makes the setting. He may or may not make "a plot." A plot can emerge from the events that happen on screen.

If the evil baron has a plot to kill the king, and the DM threw thug bandits in the woods (otherwise, how are they there) that have nothing to do with the evil Baron's plot, then when the player characters go fight the bandits, the evil Baron's plot proceeds without the players' involvement. What the players choose to do with the bandits is the main plot of the story at this stage, then, because it's what the camera is focused on. Do they wipe them out and loot everything and then go back to town to party? A simplistic little adventure (or maybe not "simple," and involving a lot of strategy to do a proper dungeon-crawl-style raid on wiping them out), but valid. Meanwhile, when they get back, they learn that the king's been killed (assuming the Baron's plot moved that fast relative to the bandit-destruction). The PCs may react to that how they wish. Perhaps that causes them to take interest; perhaps it doesn't, and they pursue something else.

If the DM only had the Baron's Kill-the-King plot planned for, then it's a linear game and the players need to take the hint that that's the hook to follow. There probably shouldn't be random thug bandits in the woods that don't somehow play into the Baron's vile plot.

Meanwhile, in the sandbox game where you have the bandits, the baron, and probably a few other points of interest just as part of the world-building, what the players chose to do with the bandits may not intersect with the Baron's evil plot until the Baron has managed to make himself King and is imposing "Adventuring Taxes" on all loot taken.

Or, perhaps the players chose to set up in the bandits' fort as their new base of operations, and questions of whether they have a right to the land it's sitting on (because the bandits legally did not) start to arise, bringing the PCs into potential conflict with the local Baron, Earl, or other authorities. This may or may not be the evil Baron.

Or maybe the PCs are acquisitive types who collect minions, and find a way to take over the bandits. They begin proactively plotting ways to expand the operations, which brings them into conflict with the King's forces and, depending on how the Baron's plans are going, either has the Baron approach them to hire them and their bandits as mercenary forces, or the Baron come after them to prove how tough he is in his bid to become King.

These plots weren't planned by the DM, but he took what the PCs chose to do, evaluated consequences based on what he knew was going on in the world, and they emerged from the state of the setting and the things he'd established in it.

The DM "makes the plot" in the sense that he created content, and that he determines how the world reacts to the players' actions, but the players make the plot in a very real sense by providing him with the changes to his setting that determine to what his NPCs and the setting in general react.

[Max_Killjoy]

This is exactly it, although I would have added "or unable". A willing sandbox DM agrees to this, and therefore doesn't create a 'plot' that's set in stone. Instead, several 'plots' are created with the intention that the characters change them through play.


To me, it's the difference between predetermining what is going to happen, or determining what it is that all the non-PC "actors" involved want to happen.

The former is a story that the GM expects the players to play through.

The latter is the GM running the fictional world far more like the manner in which the real world works.


PS: in response to the general conversation, the "plot" of a story is not the same thing as an NPC having a "plot" to murder his rival, or whatever.

[Segev]

PS: The "plot" of a story is not the same thing as an NPC having a "plot" to murder his rival, or whatever.

This is an important distinction.

When most people say, "The DM makes the plot," they're referring to the plot of a story, not to the villainous plan of the bad guy. When they say, "The evil Baron is plotting to kill the king," they're referring to that villainous plan, not to the "plot of the story."

[Pelle]

To me, it's the difference between predetermining what is going to happen, or determining what it is that all the non-PC "actors" involved want to happen.


If you are able to simulate how the world reacts to the PCs based on the wants of the npcs, you are also able to simulate what will happen if there are no PCs or they choose to do nothing for some reason. I.e. you could know the future state based on the initial conditions, although you may have to update that future state based on the PC actions. Or, you can know what is going to happen, but continuously adjust it.

Do the DM need to close his eyes to what is most likely going to happen for it to be a sandbox?

[Segev]

If you are able to simulate how the world reacts to the PCs based on the wants of the npcs, you are also able to simulate what will happen if there are no PCs or they choose to do nothing for some reason. I.e. you could know the future state based on the initial conditions, although you may have to update that future state based on the PC actions. Or, you can know what is going to happen, but continuously adjust it.

Do the DM need to close his eyes to what is most likely going to happen for it to be a sandbox?

Er, you're missing Max's point.

of course you can simulate what would happen if there were no PCs. That's part of the point. The problem isn't there. THe problem is if, in having simulated your expectation of what will happen w/o PCs, you then try to force that to happen DESPITE the actions OF the PCs.

Or, alternatively, if you imagine not what would happen without the PCs, but try to imagine what the PCs will do and thus how things will go because of that.

The former is a nasty sort of railroad. The latter is potentially a perfectly fine linear game, but is no longer a "true" sandbox. (Unless you have literally no wedding to the estimations you made, and adapt on the fly when the PCs don't behave as you expected and thus your expectation of how it would have played out if they acted how you expected never comes to fruition.)

[Darth Ultron]

Are they? Maybe you misunderstood them, and definitely understood them differently from me, because I have not seen any such thing suggested.

It might be the problem you point out, that to them, the fact that the players have to put in effort seemed to be quite directly implied. To be fair, I shared that assumption.

Well, people just tend to say ''the players change the plot always'' and make it sound like it's all the time. And if I say ''out of 100 things the characters do, only 1 will effect the plot'' and they will say back ''no it is some other way I can't describe"




If the DM only had the Baron's Kill-the-King plot planned for, then it's a linear game and the players need to take the hint that that's the hook to follow. There probably shouldn't be random thug bandits in the woods that don't somehow play into the Baron's vile plot.

Meanwhile, in the sandbox game

I REALLY don't get this comparing Apples and Oranges, and the negative view of anything except a ''sandbox''.

You say..the game you don't like is the dull boring one where the poor players can only do one thing. Sad badwrong fun.

You say..the sandbox game is WOW so AMAZING and the players can do billions and billions and billions of things anyway they want to and at any time...it's just so WOW AMAZING!.

And yet again, like so many others, you have the sandbox as the pre game. And, yes, in ANY game...not just the super special ''sandbox'' game the players can pick from a billion things to do. This is in no way special to a sandbox.

Again it is:
1.DM makes the setting, including plot hooks.
2.Players pick something to do, either a DM hook or hook themselves
3.DM makes THAT adventure.
4.Players play through THAT adventure.

But, like many others you seem stuck on the ''pre game session zero'' and how amazing it is. Like yes, it is great for some players to come over...sit in the corner and TALK about all the tings they can do in the game once the game starts and they start playing the game.

So AFTER all that talking, even when they get in character and talk EVEN MORE about how they will, yet again, DO SOMETHING, very soon...once the game starts.

And eventually, the players pick something to do....and the game adventure can start.

So you are comparing the normal game, that is on 4. The players are playing through the adventure THEY picked to do that the DM MADE.

VS.

The Sandbox 1.5, where the players just talk and try and decide what to do.

That is apples and oranges. So if you want to compare game types, how about have BOTH games on the same number? Like both at 4? So both games are at ''players playing through the adventurer.




The latter is the GM running the fictional world far more like the manner in which the real world works.


AKA, like I have said: Reality Gaming. The DM is pretending that they are not the one doing things in the game...that there is a third force....that is doing things in the game ''for real''....while the DM is the one doing the things in the game(for real).


This is an important distinction.

When most people say, "The DM makes the plot," they're referring to the plot of a story, not to the villainous plan of the bad guy. When they say, "The evil Baron is plotting to kill the king," they're referring to that villainous plan, not to the "plot of the story."

So....wait what is the distinction? The Baron has an evil plot to kill the king, and when someone says ''plot'' they are talking about ''that villainous plot''....but, um, not ''"plot of the story" ?

Er..um...ok, ''what story?" I guess your saying there is another plot here? Where?

[EGplay]

How? The DM makes the plot...the DM makes everything in the game, except for the PCs.

You said you would allow players, through the actions of their characters, to create their own 'hook'. The DM can't very well then create that 'hook' since it already exists. That would be silly.


So, in all of the above your talking about the DM making an Adventure, right?

So, to someone like me this is just ''playing the game''...but you make it into a whole production?

Ok, all the above is saying: The DM makes and adventure. You have the DM making pages and pages and pages of stuff and linking it all together to make sense, all about a single directed thing the players wish to do.

In my first post here I already said there isn't necessarily a difference in how the scenes play out. Rather, there's a difference in approach.
In a sandbox, the players are the pro-active force through the actions of their characters.
Which things the DM has to link together when is something that has to become apparent through play.

Also, there is no single directed thing. The players, still through the actions of their characters, may pick up or drop any number of 'hooks' at the same time, or even introduce new directions through play.


And, um, wait.....so the DM makes the setting and adventure...lets the players ''ask questions''...and then the DM makes answers to the questions and keeps them to themselves? And that is a sandbox? Um, does that not make the asking questions even more pointless then it all ready is?

DM: Makes the pirate adventure.

Player asks question: "Are there any flying cows?"

DM: Secretly answers the question and keeps the answer to himself.

I have said several times what a dramatic question is. It is not a mundane one, as you pose above.
A dramatic question is a pro-active move or step, taken in an interactive environment, that prompts a response (and leads to interesting developments).

In chess, when I move my knight so that it is covered by my queen and threatens both my opponents' rook and bishop, then that move functions as a dramatic question, because my opponent must find a fitting response (an answer).

In a non-sandbox RPG, the DM usually does the equivalent through NPC quest givers.
In a sandbox RPG, the players usually do this through the actions of their characters.

[Segev]

I REALLY don't get this comparing Apples and Oranges, and the negative view of anything except a ''sandbox''.

You say..the game you don't like is the dull boring one where the poor players can only do one thing. Sad badwrong fun.

You say..the sandbox game is WOW so AMAZING and the players can do billions and billions and billions of things anyway they want to and at any time...it's just so WOW AMAZING!.Try again. You were doing better, but now you're back to pretending I said things I didn't. I think you're projecting, in fact. REmember how you were so flabberghasted that I would say you were saying linear games are great and sandbox games are terrible? That one was utopian rainbows and impossible was something I asserted you were claiming?

You're ascribing the same sort of positivity or negativity to me. I actually said, in nearly as many words, that linear games are fine. I also in no way said that the thing I termed a linear game was bad. Merely that it is not a sandbox.


And yet again, like so many others, you have the sandbox as the pre game. And, yes, in ANY game...not just the super special ''sandbox'' game the players can pick from a billion things to do. This is in no way special to a sandbox. Nope. You're failing at reading comprehension again.

Note how the sandbox had the players go and do stuff with the bandits, but the Baron's evil plot went on without them. Then, later, the fact that the king is dead and the Baron is making moves on the throne starts to impact the players' own plans and efforts with whatever they did with the bandits. How it does so depends heavily on what the players did and are doing.

For this to be "pre-game, and then linear," it would have to be, "Okay, guys, there is this hint about a plot against the King, and there are these bandits in the woods." "We go to the woods!" "Alright, doing the Bandit Adventure I planned out, then! Let's get to it!"

That's not what happened, though. There were two things: bandits, and the Baron's activities. Both are there. Both have stuff happening. Players can interact with either. The players chose to go to the Bandits, and did what they wished, there. They executed the site-based adventure by whatever means they wished. It turned out with a result fitting their choices on how to handle it. But that didn't suddenly become linear, with pre-planned sequences of events. Nor was it a "pre-game," because that "pre-game" step you're dismissing never stopped being present. They're constantly choosing how to go about their adventure, and the Baron's plot progresses whether they're pursuing it or not.


Again it is:
1.DM makes the setting, including plot hooks.
2.Players pick something to do, either a DM hook or hook themselvesGood so far...

3.DM makes THAT adventure.Nope. You're failing here.
The DM doesn't "make THAT adventure." He's already set it up. He doesn't stop the game, say, "Okay, now that you've chosen to go face the bandits, I need to plan out the way you'll encounter them, and how they'll react, and what events will guide you along the path to beating them." He's not writing a linear adventure. He's written a site-based adventure with notes on the NPCs present and what the group does. How the players go about taking them on is up to them. He doesn't need to plan specific events; the players' choices will create events based on how they go to interact.

This isn't magic. This isn't "better" than a linear adventure, either. It's just different. You're so hung up on the notion that the DM has to plan out the adventure path that you're insisting that it always happens, rather than understanding that the DM can just plan the world as it is.


But, like many others you seem stuck on the ''pre game session zero'' and how amazing it is.Nope. You're projecting again. We're not saying "this is amazing, and linear games suck. Sandbox good, linear bad!" Stop pretending we are; it's getting in the way of you actually reading what we're saying.


Like yes, it is great for some players to come over...sit in the corner and TALK about all the tings they can do in the game once the game starts and they start playing the game. I'm snipping out the rest of your failed attempt to tell us what we're saying, which we have already repeatedly demonstrated is not what we're saying. You need to try again at this reading thing, and see if you can get your head outside of your own preconceptions long enough to actually repeat back to us what we say, rather than making things up and claiming we said them.

[QUOTE=Darth Ultron;23005502]So....wait what is the distinction? The Baron has an evil plot to kill the king, and when someone says ''plot'' they are talking about ''that villainous plot''....but, um, not ''"plot of the story" ?

Er..um...ok, ''what story?" I guess your saying there is another plot here? Where?

The plot of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is that an 11-year-old boy learns that his parents were famous wizards who died when he was a baby, protecting him from a wicked sorcerer who also vanished. It is about him going to school with other young wizards and learning magic, making friends, and discovering that something nefarious is going on. It is about him learning which professors to trust, and which not to, and learning the skills he ultimately uses to stop the bad guy at the end of the novel.

That is the plot of the story.

Voldemort's plot is to use his parasitic presence on Professor Quirrel to sneak into Hogwarts, past their security, and to find a way get his metaphorical hands on the Sorcerer's Stone, which he knows Dumbledore has hidden somewhere in the castle. His plot involves using his position as Professor of Defense Against the Dark Arts (or at least, as the back of said Professor's head, and as said Professor's master) to learn the tests one must pass to get through the security.

Dumbledore's plot is to hide away the stone via a number of means, and as it becomes clear that agents of Voldemort are getting close, he devises the tests and secrets the stone in the Mirror of Erised, which his cunning plan is to make sure that it will only give it to one who does not desire it.


That is two plots that are plans characters have, and one plot of a story. Do you now see the distinction?

[Xuc Xac]

You need to try again at this reading thing, and see if you can get your head outside of your own preconceptions long enough to actually repeat back to us what we say, rather than making things up and claiming we said them.


This is almost exactly what I wanted to say, but I didn't post it because the forum's swear filter wouldn't let me say the word I wanted to use instead of "preconceptions".

[Corneel]

This is almost exactly what I wanted to say, but I didn't post it because the forum's swear filter wouldn't let me say the word I wanted to use instead of "preconceptions".
Posterior orifice?

[Darth Ultron]

You said you would allow players, through the actions of their characters, to create their own 'hook'. The DM can't very well then create that 'hook' since it already exists. That would be silly.

When you put a word in 'quotes', you don't really mean that word. The players never make a 'real hook', they are making more of a hook suggestion. Again: The DM makes everything except the PCs.



In my first post here I already said there isn't necessarily a difference in how the scenes play out. Rather, there's a difference in approach.
In a sandbox, the players are the pro-active force through the actions of their characters.
Which things the DM has to link together when is something that has to become apparent through play.


Again, your just talking about normal gameplay, right?



Also, there is no single directed thing. The players, still through the actions of their characters, may pick up or drop any number of 'hooks' at the same time, or even introduce new directions through play.


Right, in the pre game the players can pick a hook. I'm not really sure what you mean by the players can just drop and switch hooks. To me it sounds like your saying it is a great thing for the players to be jerks. They follow hook one for say and hour...then suddenly, randomly say ''drop this we do hook two", then do that for ten minutes and then do hook three. So after the night is over the jerk players have sort of started 25 hooks and just made a huge random mess of not doing much of anything of substance. A great game?



I have said several times what a dramatic question is. It is not a mundane one, as you pose above.
A dramatic question is a pro-active move or step, taken in an interactive environment, that prompts a response (and leads to interesting developments).

So, you are talking more session zero stuff right? Everyone sits around and TALKS about the game they will play soon, but are not playing the game.

Like how does it even work in game play? *PLayers choose the adventure to track down a troll bandit..and find his cave and approach it*
DM: the troll attacks!
Player:Wait! stop the game! I wish to pose a dramatic question! How many trolls does it take to change a torch?
DM:Ok, lets stop the game and talk about that awesome question.


You're ascribing the same sort of positivity or negativity to me. I actually said, in nearly as many words, that linear games are fine. I also in no way said that the thing I termed a linear game was bad. Merely that it is not a sandbox.

I'd note you said:

Linear games are this couple lines (bland)
Sandbox games get several paragraphs (awesome)



For this to be "pre-game, and then linear," it would have to be, "Okay, guys, there is this hint about a plot against the King, and there are these bandits in the woods." "We go to the woods!" "Alright, doing the Bandit Adventure I planned out, then! Let's get to it!"

So here you falling back on the mini-adventures. Everything the characters do is a mini adventure that lasts as long as the players want it to. And the DM does not need to make up much or even do much as the mini adventure will only last a couple minutes. In a normal game, this would only be an encounter.



They're constantly choosing how to go about their adventure, and the Baron's plot progresses whether they're pursuing it or not.

I guess the DM can keep track of dozens of things world wide that are happening...



The DM doesn't "make THAT adventure." He's already set it up. He doesn't stop the game, say, "Okay, now that you've chosen to go face the bandits, I need to plan out the way you'll encounter them, and how they'll react, and what events will guide you along the path to beating them."

But wait....WHY does the DM not make that Adventure? The wall of text that you say the DM ''does all sorts of stuff'', sure makes it sound like the DM is making an adventure.



This isn't magic. This isn't "better" than a linear adventure, either. It's just different. You're so hung up on the notion that the DM has to plan out the adventure path that you're insisting that it always happens, rather than understanding that the DM can just plan the world as it is.

I have always said the random mess of a activity is a fine way to game and a lot of people like it. But I'm not talking about that sort of game.



I'm snipping out the rest of your failed attempt to tell us what we're saying, which we have already repeatedly demonstrated is not what we're saying. You need to try again at this reading thing, and see if you can get your head outside of your own preconceptions long enough to actually repeat back to us what we say, rather than making things up and claiming we said them.

I see a huge difference between talking about the game and playing the game. For example...right now, with all the posts, we are NOT playing any TRPG.



That is two plots that are plans characters have, and one plot of a story. Do you now see the distinction?

Sure. I use the amazing word combo of ''story plot'' when I'm talking about a Story Plot. I would say NPC plot, when talking about an NPC plot. For a Game Plot, I use the words ''game plot''. I use the world plot alone to talk about any and all plots.

So Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone(or, ah, Philosopher's Stone) has:
Metaplot 1: this is the big who killed his parents and why and all
Metaplot 2: Harry is a young boy growing up and learning about magic and life..and metaplot 1
Storyplot: The year in the life at Hogsworth!
Villainplot: get the Stone (and, um, Rule the World!)
Mentorplot: hide the stone (and, um mentor Harry)

And if it was an Adventure, it would have a Gameplot: the direct personal events of the players.

Like Act one would be ''The train" where all the player characters meet. This *has* to happen, yes. It is part of the story. But only the biggest player jerk with sandbox delusions would say ''I don't get on the train and I go run off and play video games"....or in other words this player is saying they *don't* want to play this game adventure, and they can go home.
Act two, ''the Sorting Hat", again, yes *has* to happen.
Act three "School" has to happen, and here we get the first Encounter...Encounter 1: Troll in the bathroom. It *will* happen, as the players don't know it will happen...and can't stop it anyway. But there is no *set* out come of the encounter(though it would be smart for the players to try doing what they did in the book..wink wink).

And so on...

[Segev]

When you put a word in 'quotes', you don't really mean that word. The players never make a 'real hook', they are making more of a hook suggestion. Again: The DM makes everything except the PCs. And here you are again, telling people what they mean. Now, the reason why 'hook' was in quotes, in context, here? Most likely, he was stating that the players have a goal, and pick a means to achieve it amongst the things they perceive in the world. He's acknowledging that the GM may not have deliberately laid that out as a hook, but it IS a hook the players latched on to.


Again, your just talking about normal gameplay, right?Again, sandboxes are a subset of normal gameplay, as are linear adventures. You continue to fail at communication because you continue to pretend not to understand this. (Or to refuse to understand it, as is more likely.)


I'd note you said:

Linear games are this couple lines (bland)
Sandbox games get several paragraphs (awesome)I used few lines to define linear games because I presume, from the way you prefer them, that you understand what they are. You have demonstrated - by the very topic line of this thread - that you do not understand sandbox games, so they require more explanation.

Do you need/want me to describe linear games to you? Are you not aware of what they are?


So here you falling back on the mini-adventures. Everything the characters do is a mini adventure that lasts as long as the players want it to. And the DM does not need to make up much or even do much as the mini adventure will only last a couple minutes. In a normal game, this would only be an encounter.Weirdly, you're trying to apply your disdainful descriptive terms that you use to dismiss sandboxes as "not real gaming" to this, but what I outlined here was exactly the kind of linear gaming you keep advocating. Are you saying that linear games are nothing but mini-adventures?

I suggest you go back and very carefully read what you quoted me as saying, and perhaps a little bit of what came before and after it. You're failing reading comprehension so hard that you're arguing against your own position in your determination to misconstrue everything I say.


I guess the DM can keep track of dozens of things world wide that are happening...Many can. If I were using your rhetorical tricks, I'd say that good ones can.


But wait....WHY does the DM not make that Adventure? The wall of text that you say the DM ''does all sorts of stuff'', sure makes it sound like the DM is making an adventure. The DM doesn't make that adventure because he isn't writing the script. He isn't creating the plot, planning out the sequence of scenes. Instead, he has already written the location and its major points. He knows the stats of things involved. He knows the behaviors and goals of what's there. He had them because he needed them in order to place the location and the critters and everything so that they could have impact going forward.

In a linear game, since you get so horrified that I spend so little time describing it, the GM will say, "Alright, they're going to face bandits. They're going to encounter Little Bandito's squad, first, here in the forest on their way there. Unless they wipe him out, Little Bandito will inform the rest of the bandits that a strong group are coming. They'll then send out scout squads to find them, and begin moving things to their secret hidey-holes as the cowardly bandit king prepares to retreat, leaving his men to defend the keep.

If Little Bandito doesn't get away, then the PCs will find more squads going about their normal business.

Now, when they get to the keep, they'll be invited to join the bandits. If they accept, the bandits will try to kill them with poisoned food. If they refuse, the bandits will lure them into an ambush in the courtyard.

When they beat up the bandit lieutenants, they'll get clues to where the secret bandit hidey-hole is, which will let them find the real loot hoard and the bandit king.


That's a linear adventure. The players' actions and progressions are planned for, aand how they'll get through it is anticipated with the path paved for them. It's not a railroad, since there are meaningful choices, and if they wnader off the paved path, the GM has room to improvise alternatives, but he may well need to stop the game to make a different plan, if he can't run a good improve game.

It sounds like an exciting set of encounters, and it's very likely how a heroic troupe of adventurers would approach things.

If you think that's still saying horrible, mean, untrue, cruel things about linear adventures, I invite you to spell out an example of a good linear adventure that is spoken well of.


I have always said the random mess of a activity is a fine way to game and a lot of people like it. But I'm not talking about that sort of game. When you call it "a random mess," you're doing exactly what you deny you're doing. You're denigrating sandbox games as "bad." You also are addressing a straw man, again, because you keep insisting we're describing "a random mess," when we are not. You refuse to repeat back to us what we describe, instead creating this incomprehensible no-rules-apply-and-nothing-happens non-scenario and pretending that's what we said.

Again: you fail at reading comprehension. It is this behavior that makes us think you do so deliberately, and are therefore dishonest.



I'm snipping out the rest of your failed attempt to tell us what we're saying, which we have already repeatedly demonstrated is not what we're saying. You need to try again at this reading thing, and see if you can get your head outside of your own preconceptions long enough to actually repeat back to us what we say, rather than making things up and claiming we said them.I see a huge difference between talking about the game and playing the game. For example...right now, with all the posts, we are NOT playing any TRPG. Please read what you quoted me as saying, to which you responded.

Tell me how what you wrote is a response to what I said, rather than a non sequitor that amounts to you sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, "LALALA YOU JUST HATE REAL GAMES!"


I'll give you a hint: What I said was that you're failing to demonstrate that you understand what I'm saying. You then proceed to prove me right, by talking about something unrelated to what I said. Please try again. You've got to be smarter than this.




Sure. I use the amazing word combo of ''story plot'' when I'm talking about a Story Plot. I would say NPC plot, when talking about an NPC plot. For a Game Plot, I use the words ''game plot''. I use the world plot alone to talk about any and all plots.Okay. If you'll honor that distinction, I'll use that terminology. It does help with clarity.

Your sarcastic and insulting tone is also noted; please be aware that it makes you sound like a snotty child, and is not in any way persuasive. It just demonstrates that you feel you're being proven incorrect and need to reestablish some sort of protection for a fragile ego by pretending we're beneath you.

[ImNotTrevor]

You've got to be smarter than this.

He says, after 40 pages of evidence to the contrary from this thread alone, not to mention page upon page of evidence from other threads.


You need a better hobby than gobbling obvious bait.

[Scripten]

You need a better hobby than gobbling obvious bait.

I doubt we'll see this changing in these forums. DU's claimed and trashed the Railroad theory thread as well.

[Max_Killjoy]

I doubt we'll see this changing in these forums. DU's claimed and trashed the Railroad theory thread as well.

I don't understand why people keep trying.

[1337 b4k4]

I don't understand why people keep trying.

I'm generally happy to go around a time or two just in case there's someone else with similar concerns / questions and because usually early on there can be some interesting side conversation. But once you're back covering the same ground that was on page 1 and you're 30+ pages in, it starts to wear thin.

[RazorChain]

Well, people just tend to say ''the players change the plot always'' and make it sound like it's all the time. And if I say ''out of 100 things the characters do, only 1 will effect the plot'' and they will say back ''no it is some other way I can't describe"

I REALLY don't get this comparing Apples and Oranges, and the negative view of anything except a ''sandbox''.

You say..the game you don't like is the dull boring one where the poor players can only do one thing. Sad badwrong fun.

You say..the sandbox game is WOW so AMAZING and the players can do billions and billions and billions of things anyway they want to and at any time...it's just so WOW AMAZING!.

And yet again, like so many others, you have the sandbox as the pre game. And, yes, in ANY game...not just the super special ''sandbox'' game the players can pick from a billion things to do. This is in no way special to a sandbox.

Again it is:
1.DM makes the setting, including plot hooks.
2.Players pick something to do, either a DM hook or hook themselves
3.DM makes THAT adventure.
4.Players play through THAT adventure.

But, like many others you seem stuck on the ''pre game session zero'' and how amazing it is. Like yes, it is great for some players to come over...sit in the corner and TALK about all the tings they can do in the game once the game starts and they start playing the game.

So AFTER all that talking, even when they get in character and talk EVEN MORE about how they will, yet again, DO SOMETHING, very soon...once the game starts.

And eventually, the players pick something to do....and the game adventure can start.

So you are comparing the normal game, that is on 4. The players are playing through the adventure THEY picked to do that the DM MADE.

VS.

The Sandbox 1.5, where the players just talk and try and decide what to do.

That is apples and oranges. So if you want to compare game types, how about have BOTH games on the same number? Like both at 4? So both games are at ''players playing through the adventurer.



AKA, like I have said: Reality Gaming. The DM is pretending that they are not the one doing things in the game...that there is a third force....that is doing things in the game ''for real''....while the DM is the one doing the things in the game(for real).



So....wait what is the distinction? The Baron has an evil plot to kill the king, and when someone says ''plot'' they are talking about ''that villainous plot''....but, um, not ''"plot of the story" ?

Er..um...ok, ''what story?" I guess your saying there is another plot here? Where?



Ok I understand your confusion. No one is bothering to explain sandbox properly here.


The GM decides to run a sandbox. He draws up a map of his sandbox and places interesting things to interact with.

Like these things

1) The fallen tower
2) The Baddyboi goblin tribe that is harrassing the village of Raven's creek
3) The sunken temple of the forgotten deity
4) The spidersilk forest
5) The Castle Bloodstone, the seat of Baron Bannor Bloodstone, the wicked, wicked baron who is a sadistic, evil gnome.
6) The City of Port Blacksand, the city of thieves
and the list goes on with lots of interesting things.


Now the GM tells his players he's running his sandbox, they have to be proactive because he's not running a linear adventure. The players make their characters and get ready to play.

The Party starts in the wilderness and fight some random encounters because these are fun part of the sandbox. The party meets a peddler on the road that tells them to the south is the village of Raven's creek and to the North is the Castle Bloodstone, where the sadistic little....er...the glorious Baron Bloodstone resides. The party decides to go South to the village to find out more about the area. In Raven's Creek the party learns about the goblin tribe that is harrassing the villagers. The party decides to do something about it and invades the goblin mines and slays Chief Baddyboi. Now the party takes over the mines and uses the goblins as slaves and goes into mining business and ignores the rest of the Sandbox

[RazorChain]

Or wait....I get it....you could just make a setting...drop the PC's into the setting and don't tell them what to do. That is a sandbox as well.

[Max_Killjoy]

Ok I understand your confusion. No one is bothering to explain sandbox properly here.


The GM decides to run a sandbox. He draws up a map of his sandbox and places interesting things to interact with.

Like these things

1) The fallen tower
2) The Baddyboi goblin tribe that is harrassing the village of Raven's creek
3) The sunken temple of the forgotten deity
4) The spidersilk forest
5) The Castle Bloodstone, the seat of Baron Bannor Bloodstone, the wicked, wicked baron who is a sadistic, evil gnome.
6) The City of Port Blacksand, the city of thieves
and the list goes on with lots of interesting things.


Now the GM tells his players he's running his sandbox, they have to be proactive because he's not running a linear adventure. The players make their characters and get ready to play.

The Party starts in the wilderness and fight some random encounters because these are fun part of the sandbox. The party meets a peddler on the road that tells them to the south is the village of Raven's creek and to the North is the Castle Bloodstone, where the sadistic little....er...the glorious Baron Bloodstone resides. The party decides to go South to the village to find out more about the area. In Raven's Creek the party learns about the goblin tribe that is harrassing the villagers. The party decides to do something about it and invades the goblin mines and slays Chief Baddyboi. Now the party takes over the mines and uses the goblins as slaves and goes into mining business and ignores the rest of the Sandbox


Maybe it will help if we add that the Baron might well hear about this mine that's been cleared out, and send his men looking for the taxes no owed, or to take over, or to buy ore... depending on how that goes he could become ally or enemy or just customer or whatever... and so on from there.

[RazorChain]

Maybe it will help if we add that the Baron might well hear about this mine that's been cleared out, and send his men looking for the taxes no owed, or to take over, or to buy ore... depending on how that goes he could become ally or enemy or just customer or whatever... and so on from there.

And the PC's have protect their caravans on the way to Port Blacksand and deal with the thieves guild who want a cut of the profit

[Mr Beer]

There's no point in explaining what a sandbox is to DU for the millionth time since he absolutely refuses to admit to understanding any possible definition, no matter how simple or cogent, other than the wrong one that he chooses to use.

[RazorChain]

There's no point in explaining what a sandbox is to DU for the millionth time since he absolutely refuses to admit to understanding any possible definition, no matter how simple or cogent, other than the wrong one that he chooses to use.

I know I can explain it to him but I can't understand it for him. But I like to excercice in futility.

Do you frequent the Gurps forums under the same name?

[Mr Beer]

I know I can explain it to him but I can't understand it for him. But I like to excercice in futility.

Do you frequent the Gurps forums under the same name?

Yeah, that's me, really good forum. What is your nic there?

[RazorChain]

Yeah, that's me, really good forum. What is your nic there?

Afnord, though I mostly lurk there

[EGplay]

When you put a word in 'quotes', you don't really mean that word. The players never make a 'real hook', they are making more of a hook suggestion. Again: The DM makes everything except the PCs.

You never put the word in quotes, meaning you did really mean hook. I put it in quotes because we can't trust you to use the common meaning of these words.


nothing but misrepresentation

No, not session zero. Everything said clearly spelled out it happened in-game, by playing the game, through the actions of the characters, not players. The distinction is intentional.

I also said, quite clearly, that a dramatic question is not mundane one.
See the chess example.
It is a pro-active move or step, taken in an interactive environment, that prompts a response.

Honestly at this point, whether you want to understand or be contrary, it seems you're not even really trying anymore.

[Floret]

Well, people just tend to say ''the players change the plot always'' and make it sound like it's all the time. And if I say ''out of 100 things the characters do, only 1 will effect the plot'' and they will say back ''no it is some other way I can't describe"

Well when you take actions, it tends to influence things, right? Most actions will, of course, have rather limited influence - whether a character hunted fresh meat in the forest or just ate pre-packed rationd won't really affect anything except maybe their mood. Beating up a tavern might get you kicked out of the tavern (And asked to never come back), but the consequences quite possibly end there (Or when the innkeeps friends stop serving you in their shops).

But other actions? Killing a king will probably change a whole lot, depending on method, dtructure of the kingdom, etc. (All things the GM establishes, generally). Setting fire to a major city and making sure it isn't extinguished? Probably gonna mix up a bunch of things. Founding a village on the frontier to dig for gold? Also probably gonna change things, since word of the settlement and possibly the riches to be had gets around.

The question of what kind of actions with what kind of effort behind them are necessary to change things, and on what scale, isn't one of frequency - it is of the GM responding reasonably to the player's actions, and have the world (NPCs and possibly other factors - damming a river would probably create a reaction from the river, and the now-cut off farmlands) react to the players actions.

And that is the central conceit, btw. The GM does little except set up the world, and react to what the players do, having each element be influenced as much as it reasonably would be by their actions. (It might well be "Not at all". When the players do nothing to thwart the evil Barons plan (or just nothing successfull), his plans will probably just come to fruition.)


Right, in the pre game the players can pick a hook. I'm not really sure what you mean by the players can just drop and switch hooks. To me it sounds like your saying it is a great thing for the players to be jerks. They follow hook one for say and hour...then suddenly, randomly say ''drop this we do hook two", then do that for ten minutes and then do hook three. So after the night is over the jerk players have sort of started 25 hooks and just made a huge random mess of not doing much of anything of substance. A great game?

I must ask why you describe this behaviour as being that of "jerks"?

If the world has many things going on (Yes, the GM has a dozen or more things going on at the same time, and needs to keep track of them), and the players realise while following one hook, that something unrelated to that hook seems more pressing - or interesting - then, in a game that has a scenario/world prepared, switching over to doing things concerning another "hook" would just be possible, and since the GM has prepared the setting in a way that things happen at the same time, no ussue at all.

If the characters try to juggle everything at once, they have probably done something of consequence - announced themselves to every problem, abandoned a lot of people that need help, and drawn the attention of pretty much every bad guy - and if the world reacts to them having done this, problems are coming for them. Lots of problems.

Because "The GM has the setting react to the PCs actions" does not at all mean "The GM gives the PCs what they want". If you ****ed up? You're gonna feel it.

[Pelle]

Er, you're missing Max's point.

of course you can simulate what would happen if there were no PCs. That's part of the point. The problem isn't there. THe problem is if, in having simulated your expectation of what will happen w/o PCs, you then try to force that to happen DESPITE the actions OF the PCs.

Or, alternatively, if you imagine not what would happen without the PCs, but try to imagine what the PCs will do and thus how things will go because of that.

The former is a nasty sort of railroad.


I'm a little confused as to what different people mean, it seems to be a lot of different definitions going.

To me, if the DM forces things to happen despite of the PC actions, that is just railroading, but doesn't say anything about of the game is linear or sandbox (from the players/PCs point of view). The absense of railroading is not necessarily a sandbox.




The latter is potentially a perfectly fine linear game, but is no longer a "true" sandbox. (Unless you have literally no wedding to the estimations you made, and adapt on the fly when the PCs don't behave as you expected and thus your expectation of how it would have played out if they acted how you expected never comes to fruition.)

I'm not sure if you are referring to a specific example or not. So are you asserting that in a game where the players both choose their goals and their path, the game is linear if the DM can predict what the npcs will do if not affected by the pcs? I can understand not calling it a sandbox (hence why I asked), but not calling it linear. The players/PCs experience can be highly non-linear.

[Mordaedil]

Honestly at this point, whether you want to understand or be contrary, it seems you're not even really trying anymore.

If only everyone else could arrive at this and take the sensible resolution as a consequence of that.

At some point, you just got to let go of arguing with the wall.

[Quertus]

I don't understand why people keep trying.

Life? Eventually everyone dies. Descendents? Society? They'll be gobbled up by the death of the sun, or the heat death of the universe. Ultimately, all of existence is pointless. But people keep on trying anyway.

What's the difference between that and this, really?


If only everyone else could arrive at this and take the sensible resolution as a consequence of that.

At some point, you just got to let go of arguing with the wall.

The point is not to argue with the wall. The point is to go through the steps of formulating the argument with the wall. And for everyone to listen to and learn from everyone else's arguments.

In that regard, DU makes a great wall.

[Pleh]

Ok I understand your confusion. No one is bothering to explain sandbox properly here.

Well, I see DU isn't the only person not bothering to read people's posts around here.

What do you think this thread has been doing for 40+ pages?

[RazorChain]

Well, I see DU isn't the only person not bothering to read people's posts around here.

What do you think this thread has been doing for 40+ pages?

Sorry I thought it was so obvious that blue wasn't required :smallbiggrin:

[Florian]

What do you think this thread has been doing for 40+ pages?

Gotta agree with DU here: Trying, but failing at doing in any way beyond "you know it when you see it".

To advance something that Max_Killjoy wrote earlier, as with "Railroad"/"Railroading", "Sandbox"/"Sandboxing" is both a mode as well as a method of playing. While both keep player agency (and their decisions) intact as much as possible, the basic foundations look different. For someone coming from the method angle, the difference is non-existent, while coming from the mode angle will show two different kinds of game.

It would be helpful to understand that from the method POV, there is no difference between "Welcome to Greyhaw, now go explore!" and "Welcome to Castle Ravenloft, now go explore!".

It gets more muddled when we add system as the third corner point, as I mentioned earlier, because that can influence both, mode and method.

Two of the best examples for both, mode and method, we could talk about are Ars Magicka and Rogue Trader, because they exemplify how a "sandbox" can look like when all relevant parts are geared towards it.

[Pleh]

Well, best of luck to your efforts. I haven't seen anything you've written so far that does a better job defining sandbox, but maybe your version will work. We can always hope.

[Darth Ultron]

And here you are again, telling people what they mean.

Here, I was telling what I mean.



Do you need/want me to describe linear games to you? Are you not aware of what they are?

I think I get that you say such a game is a railroad game, but you don't call it that.



Weirdly, you're trying to apply your disdainful descriptive terms that you use to dismiss sandboxes as "not real gaming" to this, but what I outlined here was exactly the kind of linear gaming you keep advocating. Are you saying that linear games are nothing but mini-adventures?

Well, yes, I would say your style of gaming is always a mini adventure, not matter what else you want to call it.



The DM doesn't make that adventure because he isn't writing the script. He isn't creating the plot, planning out the sequence of scenes. Instead, he has already written the location and its major points. He knows the stats of things involved. He knows the behaviors and goals of what's there. He had them because he needed them in order to place the location and the critters and everything so that they could have impact going forward.

This just is the roundabout way of saying the DM does in fact make an adventure. You have the DM do this and that and this and that and a dozen other things (exactly like a Common DM does when they make an adventure). But after the DM puts in all that time and effort and work...you say 'oh, the DM has not really done much of anything'' and refuse to call the huge pile of created stuff the DM made an "Adventure". And if you were to write it all out, include maps and fluff and crunch and show it to any neutral third party, they would say ''oh, an adventure'. But, oddly, you would just say ''oh all of that is just 'stuff'".



In a linear game,

This all sounds good, though to me this sounds like any typical common RPG adventure.

AND this gets to my point: Everything you just said CAN NOT happen in a sandbox game. If it did, it would not ''be'' a sandbox game...it would be what you call a linear game. So how is the sandbox game different.

1.So, according to you in the L type game the DM just decides the bandits will attack the characters and the bandits just come out of nowhere. So what is different in the sandbox game? Ok, the only two things you mentioned so far are a sandbox DM CAN'T: Decide anything or make any decisions and can not improvise. So the sandbox DM makes a ''setting'' with huge details. And one of the details is ''where the bandits are''. So if the characters somehow get ''close'' to the bandits, the game/setting/third force will ''tell' the DM that it is ok for the DM to have the bandits attack the characters. But at no point does the DM ever make any type of decision.

Though, again, as I have said, this is a bit loopy as the DM IS in fact making decisions, and did create everything in the first place. So when the DM thinks the game/setting/third force is talking to them and telling them what to do...it IS the DM telling that to themselves. Like the DM makes the bandits, and make the note that says ''the bandits are greedy and will attack small groups of travelers". Then when the PC get close to the bandits, the DM can read that note(that they wrote, remember) and say ''yup, bandits attack, my note right here(that I wrote) says so. And this is Reality gaming: the DM is pretending the fictional game that is fictional in every way...is real.

2.So, according to you in the L type game is a living breathing world where the PCs can effect things, generally small local direct things, by their actions. So, again, for a sandbox game to be different, that has to be not true in a sandbox.

3.Again this is, according to you in the L type game is a living breathing world where the PCs can effect things, generally small local direct things, by their actions. So, again, for a sandbox game to be different, that has to be not true in a sandbox.

4.Again this is, according to you in the L type game is a living breathing world where the PCs can effect things, generally small local direct things, by their actions. So, again, for a sandbox game to be different, that has to be not true in a sandbox.

So:

Type L game, is an adventure, as you have said has all types of twists and turns and lots of things can happen...all depending on what the PCs do.
Sandbox game...will it is just the mini adventure of the bandits. There will be bandits, something might happen, the end.

But, I know you will say a sandbox can have everything the Type L game has....but I would then say, yet again ''what is a sandbox". If it is just like your liner game...then it is a linear game, right? There has to be something special and different about a sandbox.

For an example, I will describe another game type: The Random Roll Game. In this game the DM just assigns random numbers for each revenant thing in the game world. Then the DM rolls dice, looks at the results, and the PCs encounter whatever the DM rolled. So if the PCs are in the woods, the DM might just roll on the 'woods table' to see what is encountered...or might even just do a more generic roll a page of the monster manual. The DM improvs as needed....so if the DM randomly rolls 'shark' in the woods they are 'flying wood sharks in a tornado', for example. This game has no plot or story or substance. The PC's are little more then names and this game often has very little role playing. It has a lot of combat, but it does not have to be all combat. And they game make little or no sense.

Ok, see my example of a Random Roll Game (this was common in 1E, the 1E DMG even has pages of dungeon things exactly for this). Note how NOTHING in this game is like my Common game or your Linear game.



Okay. If you'll honor that distinction, I'll use that terminology. It does help with clarity.

A common game generally has several plots, though an adventure only has a couple. After all the whole point of an adventure is focus.

[Quertus]

You have the DM do this and that and this and that and a dozen other things (exactly like a Common DM does when they make an adventure). But after the DM puts in all that time and effort and work...you say 'oh, the DM has not really done much of anything'' and refuse to call the huge pile of created stuff the DM made an "Adventure". And if you were to write it all out, include maps and fluff and crunch and show it to any neutral third party, they would say ''oh, an adventure'. But, oddly, you would just say ''oh all of that is just 'stuff'".

Do you teach your players how to play the game? Do you tie them to a chair, glue their eyelids open, and inundate them with 72 hours non-stop video of rules text? You have talking and dice and sample characters, but, oddly, you claim that there's no brain washing.

Yes, the GM did lots of stuff. Probably more than for a linear adventure. But none of that was "create the adventure", or "create the plot". It was simply create the setting, content, etc. The onus is on the players to create the plot. To determine how to play with the toys.

[Segev]

I'm a little confused as to what different people mean, it seems to be a lot of different definitions going.

To me, if the DM forces things to happen despite of the PC actions, that is just railroading, but doesn't say anything about of the game is linear or sandbox (from the players/PCs point of view). The absense of railroading is not necessarily a sandbox. I apologize if I am short-tempered with you; dealing with Darth Ultron's willful misreading makes me have limited patience for people misreading what I'm saying, even innocently. I do not think I can respond with civility with more detail other than: go reread what I wrote, and try to figure out the context. Your responses to what I wrote make no sense to me, because they seem to be responding based on so much incorrect context and underlying assumption that I feel like I just told you water is wet and you asked me why I was claiming water had nothing to do with moisture.


Here, I was telling what I mean.Then you have very poor communication skills, because that looked like you were telling me what I supposedly said so you could refute it. If I take your claim that you're telling me what you mean at face value, then your entire post is meaningless, because you're telling me what you mean by "sandbox," and then using what you mean to "prove" it's meaningless. That's silly.

"When I say 'sandwich' I actually mean magical unicorns doing the Macarena. Therefore, anybody talking about sandwiches is talking about mythical creatures doing a dance I subjectively dislike, and so it's silly to discuss sandwiches."

Taking your claim at face value, that is the value your arguments have.


I think I get that you say such a game is a railroad game, but you don't call it that.Here's the problem: You're not listening. Or reading, rather. You're "thinking" you "get" what I mean, and then ignoring what I write in favor of what you want to think I wrote.

The very fact that you cannot tell me, by my definition, what the distinction between a "railroad" and a "linear game" is, tells me that you're failing at reading comprehension.


Well, yes, I would say your style of gaming is always a mini adventure, not matter what else you want to call it.Ah, but I wasn't describing "my style" of gaming. In fact, the thing you're dismissing as a "mini adventure" is a linear game.


This just is the roundabout way of saying the DM does in fact make an adventure. You have the DM do this and that and this and that and a dozen other things (exactly like a Common DM does when they make an adventure). But after the DM puts in all that time and effort and work...you say 'oh, the DM has not really done much of anything'' and refuse to call the huge pile of created stuff the DM made an "Adventure". And if you were to write it all out, include maps and fluff and crunch and show it to any neutral third party, they would say ''oh, an adventure'. But, oddly, you would just say ''oh all of that is just 'stuff'".Where did I say the DM hasn't done much of anything? I said, using your apparent definition of "an adventure" as a linear series of events "with lots of little details" about how the PCs will progress through the plot, that he is not making the adventure.

You're still dancing around, overloading terms and then pretending that you're not doing so. Honestly, I think you need to take a break from these discussions and just read other threads for a while, because you're so busy screaming that nobody says anything meaningful that you can't hear what anybody else is saying. You're just assuming they're saying what you want them to so you can dismiss it.


This all sounds good, though to me this sounds like any typical common RPG adventure.Well, of course it does. It is a common RPG adventure. It is a particular style of common RPG adventure that is linear.

So, using that, can you accept the definition of "linear?" I can try to distinguish a "sandbox" from it, for you, if you can accept that that, there, is a linear adventure, and that linear adventures are a subset of common adventures.


AND this gets to my point: Everything you just said CAN NOT happen in a sandbox game. If it did, it would not ''be'' a sandbox game...it would be what you call a linear game. So how is the sandbox game different. Good! We agree on this! That's a linear adventure, not a sandbox adventure! It relies on things progressing along a prescribed plot path. That is what makes it linear!

Now, go back and re-read the descriptions of sandboxes. In a sandbox, the DM doesn't plan all that "future" stuff. He doesn't plan the order of events, nor how the PCs will get from plot point to plot point. Instead, he plans the detailed location and NPCs, with their goals, resources, and behaviors, and establishes their current status. Then lets the players do what they will to investigate and plan what to do to deal with it.

In the sandbox, he knows that the bandit king is a coward who hides in their secret hidey-hole if he knows there's danger. He has not, however, specifically planned for how the PCs will learn this, only that it is a truth that, should they do something to reveal it, will be revealed to them. He knows the patrol schedules of Little Bandito and of the other lieutenants and their squads, and thus roughly what the chances are the PCs will encounter them if they're in certain places at certain times, but he doesn't specifically plan that they WILL meet THIS lieutenant as their first encounter.

He doesn't know where the party will take this, though he might have guesses. Whereas, in the linear adventure outlined, he has a pretty good idea where the party will take it, because he's sculpted the sequence of encounters to create plot points that will be designedly easy to follow, should they succeed in overcoming the challenges in each encounter.


1.So, according to you in the L type game the DM just decides the bandits will attack the characters and the bandits just come out of nowhere. So what is different in the sandbox game?I never said they'd come out of nowhere. I said that the linear adventure has a specific encounter planned, and thus it will happen. The PCs just happen, by fiat, to be initiating their investigation at a time that makes this encounter the one that they have. It's kind-of like a quantum ogre scenario, but not quite so egregious. Rather than "no matter where you go, it's Little Bandito," it's, "Little Bandito will just happen to be leading his squad so that you will find him when you go looking for bandits."


Ok, the only two things you mentioned so far are a sandbox DM CAN'T: Decide anything or make any decisions and can not improvise.On the contrary, a sandbox DM will have to improvise a lot more than a linear DM. If you're good at improv, you'll probably like sandbox games more than if you're not. If you're not good at improv, linear games are probably more your style. (Likewise, if you're good at storytelling, linear games are probably more your thing, while sandbox games will seem frustrating because you constantly have to adjust the story.)


So the sandbox DM makes a ''setting'' with huge details. And one of the details is ''where the bandits are''. So if the characters somehow get ''close'' to the bandits, the game/setting/third force will ''tell' the DM that it is ok for the DM to have the bandits attack the characters. But at no point does the DM ever make any type of decision. Er... I guess? You're couching it in all these domineering terms, as if the DM is somehow being held at gunpoint and compelled to or not to do something. The DM designed the setting. He knows the bandits' general location and behaviors, and has means of determining who will encounter the PCs and when.

Were I running this, sandbox-style, I'd look at my schedule of lieutenant patrols and look at the time and direction from which the PCs are coming in, and use that to determine who, if any, lieutenant they'd encounter. If it's questionable whether they'd run into him or slip by (because I designed the bandits with a hole in their patrol schedule, either on purpose or accidentally in a way that the PCs have stumbled across), I'll roll some dice based on the probability I find reasonable that they'd find/miss them.

I don't know if you think that's a DM making decisions or not. I think it is, but you seem to have strange ideas that depend whether you think we're talking about sandboxes or linear games. For reference, I am talking about a sandbox in the paragraph that begins with "Were I running this, sandbox-style."


Though, again, as I have said, this is a bit loopy as the DM IS in fact making decisions, and did create everything in the first place.It's only loopy because you're the one claiming I said the DM isn't making decisions.


So when the DM thinks the game/setting/third force is talking to them and telling them what to do...it IS the DM telling that to themselves.It's the DM looking at what he's set up, and making sure he stays consistent to that, yes. It's not anything "talking" to him.

I mean, seriously, Darth Ultron, listen to yourself. A linear adventure could be framed how you're trying to frame sandboxes so that the DM is never making any decisions, he's just letting the module tell him what to do. He has an intricate plan, and he will never improvise because that would ruin the plan!

That isn't how a good linear game runs, but the way you're talking about sandboxes is essentially identically wrong to how that is a wrong description of linear games.


Like the DM makes the bandits, and make the note that says ''the bandits are greedy and will attack small groups of travelers". Then when the PC get close to the bandits, the DM can read that note(that they wrote, remember) and say ''yup, bandits attack, my note right here(that I wrote) says so. And this is Reality gaming: the DM is pretending the fictional game that is fictional in every way...is real.How is that any different than the linear game? The DM makes the bandit plot, and makes a note that the first encounter will be with Little Bandito and his squad. Then, when the party investigates the bandits in the woods, he looks at his note(that he wrote, remember), and says, "yup, Little Bandito attacks, my note right here(that I wrote) says so." So are all games Reality gaming? The DM is pretending the fictional game that is fictional in every way...is real?


2.So, according to you in the L type game is a living breathing world where the PCs can effect things, generally small local direct things, by their actions. So, again, for a sandbox game to be different, that has to be not true in a sandbox. Actually, no. The "L type game" is usually not nearly as living and breathing a world, because the PCs can't affect things not accounted for in the plot without derailing the plot and requiring the DM to scrap a lot of planning to rewrite the whole thing.


3.Again this is, according to you in the L type game is a living breathing world where the PCs can effect things, generally small local direct things, by their actions. So, again, for a sandbox game to be different, that has to be not true in a sandbox. You remain confused, and are conflating sandbox elements into linear games and then claiming there is no such thing as sandboxes.

"Since you can put fish in taco shells, clearly fish must be different from tacos, but you just keep talking about tacos, so all fish must be tacos," argues Darth Ultron.


4.Again this is, according to you in the L type game is a living breathing world where the PCs can effect things, generally small local direct things, by their actions. So, again, for a sandbox game to be different, that has to be not true in a sandbox. You do realize that you're just repeating yourself with different numbers in front of the paragraphs, with absolutely no tie-back to what I said (not even a quote), so it's impossible to discuss your supposed point, right? You haven't made an argument that I haven't already refuted, nor given context for why you think it's different than the last time you wrote this same argument. Nor have you actually addressed my refutation. You're just repeating yourself.


Type L game, is an adventure, as you have said has all types of twists and turns and lots of things can happen...all depending on what the PCs do.
Sandbox game...will it is just the mini adventure of the bandits. There will be bandits, something might happen, the end.Nope.
The L game is an adventure with pre-planned series of events. The DM has plot points to hit, and sets up encounters that are designed to present those plot points. There may be some branching if/then elements, but it will generally stay on track.

The sandbox game is an adventure without a plan for any particular plot points. The plot points arise from the interaction of the PCs with the set pieces of the bandit camp.

The linear adventure can be screwed up by players "surprising" the DM, whether on purpose or accidentally, and having the plot points the GM planned for be...inaccessible.

If Count Orlock is the BBEG, and the plot calls for the PCs to struggle and strive through his minions to discover where his hidden lair is, and then find him and slay him at the culmination of the lengthy, detailed adventure, but in order to spur the PCs to seek him out, they encounter him executing some peasants for not tithing enough to him...and the PCs surprise the DM by managing to kill him then and there, that adventure is ruined.

In a sandbox version of this, the DM doesn't have Count Orlock as a scheduled villain. Should the PCs kill him when they first meet him, no big deal. The DM didn't plan out how the PCs would "find" his lair and all the detailed adventure parts to lead up to it. Instead, he just planned the situation as it stood. That situation has changed by the Count's death, and the DM just has to adjust current events, rather than an entire chain thereof.

However, if the PCs do fail to kill him, but want to seek him out, the DM has a lot less scheduled to help them along; he has a lot more improvisation and consideration to give, because he LACKS those details the linear adventure would have provided and has to determine them.

Thus, there are advantages to linear games, and advantages to sandbox games.


But, I know you will say a sandbox can have everything the Type L game has....Nope. See just above. You keep assuming I'm asserting sandboxes are somehow superior to linear games. I'm not. They're different. Both have strengths and weaknesses. You're the one who keeps trying to insist that one doesn't exist, or is so inferior that it's not a game. That you assume everybody arguing with you is trying to make the same argument, just about linear games, is part of your problem in understanding what people are saying.


A common game generally has several plots, though an adventure only has a couple. After all the whole point of an adventure is focus.A "common game" can be sandbox or a set of linear adventures. You keep trying to say, "a sandbox is a set of linear adventures where the PCs have to pick one." That's not what it is. We've described, post nauseum, what it is and how it differs.

Hopefully you can try to actually read what I wrote, here, rather than making up something you want me to have said and arguing against that, this time.

[Darth Ultron]

Ok I understand your confusion. No one is bothering to explain sandbox properly here.

People have said something like this before, but I will say again: This is a Common Game.

1.DM makes the setting, full of adventurous stuff. Fallen wizards tower here, goblin bandits here, sunken temple there, and so on.
2.The players look over all of this and pick something to do (aka, pick an adventure to go on).
3.The DM makes that Adventure and the players run through it.

So :
1.Game Start: Characters just 'pop' in the woods, and have some random combat encounters as they are fun.
2.The characters explore the setting learning about people and places and things...but not doing much of anything of consequence. Mostly they are just listening to the DM.
3.Eventually, the players pick something to do (it does not matter how or why), aka an adventure to go on.
4.The DM makes that adventure--->Players run through the adventure.

Now, 1-3 are the pre adventure as not much of meaningful substance happens. It's the appetizer or the teaser or the prolog. The Adventure is the meal with the Meat. Depending on the group 1-3 can take hours and hours. As has been said, some gamers do like to just randomly wander and explore. Of course most game sessions only last a couple hours, so if you take 4 or 5 hours doing nothing but 1-3, there is very little time left for the adventure.

But this works out as game session 1 will end, and the adventure has not yet started. And the DM can make the adventure in the time before game session 2.

All of this is a Common game. Really any typical TRPG follows this formula.

So this can't be a sandbox...unless a sandbox is a meaningless word that just means ''typical, common TRPG".


It is like everyone is saying that the jerk monster DM is the normal common DM type. Like 99% of the DMs in the world are the type like: SLAM "I am the DM and we will use the Black Doom Adventure, HAHAHAHA!". So then all the players rebel and make the ''sandbox game".

But, as I have said, the ''sandbox'' game IS the typical, normal game run by most of the good DMs in the world. And it's even the type of game promoted and showcased BY the TRPG companies. In fact the Monster DM type games are the uncommon ones. Yes they are out there, but it's not like it's Every Single Game.

Like for say every 10 DMs I know it is more like 2 good, 2 bad and 6 just average...but all the good and average ones do the above type of game. ONLY them two bad DM's do the bad game. So the typical common game outnumbers the bad games.


Do you teach your players how to play the game? Do you tie them to a chair, glue their eyelids open, and inundate them with 72 hours non-stop video of rules text? You have talking and dice and sample characters, but, oddly, you claim that there's no brain washing.

It's more like I have to de program gamers from all the stuff they get from the collective or online or whatever.



Yes, the GM did lots of stuff. Probably more than for a linear adventure. But none of that was "create the adventure", or "create the plot". It was simply create the setting, content, etc. The onus is on the players to create the plot. To determine how to play with the toys.

My point is once you create, oh more then a paragraph about anything...and say create two things linked together, you ARE making an adventure(with a plot). Like a DM makes thousands of words of detailed text and interconnected with more details and notes and more text and more text, and maps and game crunch. Anyone would look at all of that and say ''yup that is an adventure", but you would just say ''oh that is nothing to see here, move along."

And more so, you are doing the mini adventure for what would be an encounter in another game. So Common game--->characters are trying to expose the evil baron---> characters have an encounter with baron's thugs---> adventure continues. Your game--->Players you can do anything----->character's have mini adventure with random thugs(from the baron)--->Players you can do anything. So every time anything happens, it is a full adventure and once it is over, the game resets to ''ok, players you can do anything".

[Max_Killjoy]

A "common game" can be sandbox or a set of linear adventures. You keep trying to say, "a sandbox is a set of linear adventures where the PCs have to pick one." That's not what it is. We've described, post nauseum, what it is and how it differs.


I'm just marveling at the mindset on their part that all gaming comes down to "linear adventures", that all "adventures" are linear, and that anything outside of a "linear adventure" is "pregame" or "session zero" or "the players screwing around doing nothing".

By their apparent definition of "adventure", there are no "adventures" in a really sandboxy game. Doesn't make their definition or conclusion correct, but still.

[Pelle]

I apologize if I am short-tempered with you; dealing with Darth Ultron's willful misreading makes me have limited patience for people misreading what I'm saying, even innocently. I do not think I can respond with civility with more detail other than: go reread what I wrote, and try to figure out the context. Your responses to what I wrote make no sense to me, because they seem to be responding based on so much incorrect context and underlying assumption that I feel like I just told you water is wet and you asked me why I was claiming water had nothing to do with moisture.


Allright, sorry, I see what you mean by linear etc now. But then you didn't reply to what I was asking in the first place though, which is why I misunderstood what you meant. I wasn't asking about the difference between railroad and linear, but rather if people consider not being able to predict future events to be a necessary condition for a sandbox.

I got what Max wrote, and was using it as a starting point to ask another question for my own clarification.

[Max_Killjoy]

Allright, sorry, I see what you mean by linear etc now. But then you didn't reply to what I was asking in the first place though, which is why I misunderstood what you meant. I wasn't asking about the difference between railroad and linear, but rather if people consider not being able to predict future events to be a necessary condition for a sandbox.

I got what Max wrote, and was using it as a starting point to ask another question for my own clarification.

The viability of educated suppositions about future events based on current conditions doesn't preclude a game being highly sandboxy, any more than it precludes the real world from being really really sandboxy.

[Pelle]

The viability of educated suppositions about future events based on current conditions doesn't preclude a game being highly sandboxy, any more than it precludes the real world from being really really sandboxy.

Thanks! (extra letters)

[Max_Killjoy]

Thanks! (extra letters)

To clarify my own position, keep in mind that an "educated supposition" is not the same as a linear progression of events. There are millions of potential change points between now and next week, and anything that changes any of them could change everything that ends up happening. The idea of "everything will play out the same unless you do something to change it" is an artifact of individual human ego -- everyone else involved and the random happenstance of events also have a myriad of chances to change the outcome between now and then.

Also, humans tend to have an awful confirmation bias when it comes to their guesses about the future turning out right -- "I was right" matters far more to most human brains than "I based my prediction on the best available known facts".

An "ideal sandbox" as an abstract concept would be no more predictable than the real world... and most people overestimate their ability to predict the real world.

[Floret]

Darth Ultron, out of curiosity: Have you ever been a player?

[PhoenixPhyre]

To clarify my own position, keep in mind that an "educated supposition" is not the same as a linear progression of events. There are millions of potential change points between now and next week, and anything that changes any of them could change everything that ends up happening. The idea of "everything will play out the same unless you do something to change it" is an artifact of individual human ego -- everyone else involved and the random happenstance of events also has a myriad of chances to change the outcome between now and then.

Also, humans tend to have an awful confirmation bias when it comes to their guesses about the future turning out right -- "I was right" matters far more to most human brains than "I based my prediction on the best available known facts".

An "ideal sandbox" as an abstract concept would be no more predictable than the real world... and most people overestimate their ability to predict the real world.

This is all very true. A true sandbox is only predictable in very short time segments and for very local scopes--you can predict what the guys the party is talking to right now will do immediately after the party says something, but the knock-on consequences beyond that get fuzzy fast. And predicting how that will affect the next country over, well, that's not possible.

It's effectively a multi-dimensional wave propagation problem with really gnarly, time-dependent boundary conditions. For practical purposes in those cases we tend to use heuristics, rules of thumb and experimental trials, rather than precise calculations. Because those calculations are expensive and not very stable at best. Doing that in a game environment is not something I want to try.

[Pelle]

To clarify my own position, keep in mind that an "educated supposition" is not the same as a linear progression of events. There are millions of potential change points between now and next week, and anything that changes any of them could change everything that ends up happening. The idea of "everything will play out the same unless you do something to change it" is an artifact of individual human ego -- everyone else involved and the random happenstance of events also has a myriad of chances to change the outcome between now and then.

Also, humans tend to have an awful confirmation bias when it comes to their guesses about the future turning out right -- "I was right" matters far more to most human brains than "I based my prediction on the best available known facts".

An "ideal sandbox" as an abstract concept would be no more predictable than the real world... and most people overestimate their ability to predict the real world.

Yes I suppose, but if you are able to simulate what happens in the world when the pcs do something, you are equally able to simulate what happens if the pcs do nothing.

And even when they do something, the consequences of the actions aren't necessarily meaningful enough to change the predictions significantly. If the PCs want to spend their time on opening a bakery, will that change that the Baron will try to overtrow the King? Maybe, maybe not.

So should you try to look into the future given the current situation, or try to avoid it? Either way, personally I can't really help doing it somewhat, but that doesn't stop me from adjusting the predictions to what the pcs actually do.

[Pelle]

This is all very true. A true sandbox is only predictable in very short time segments and for very local scopes--you can predict what the guys the party is talking to right now will do immediately after the party says something, but the knock-on consequences beyond that get fuzzy fast. And predicting how that will affect the next country over, well, that's not possible.


Doesn't that require that the rest of the world is either static or improvised then? You still have to do that time stepping if time is passing in-game. So if you can't take all second order effects into account in a prediciton, you can't take it into account in the real case either.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Doesn't that require that the rest of the world is either static or improvised then? You still have to do that time stepping if time is passing in-game. So if you can't take all second order effects into account in a prediciton, you can't take it into account in the real case either.

You can predict, but you have to trade off either

* lower resolution/more fiat (as opposed to actual detailed workups)
* shorter time horizons/closer scope (so predicting tomorrow and next door vs next year and far away).

My flow goes:

Constant updates and detailed: the PCs' direct surroundings. This is updated on the same time scale as the narrative.
Slower updates and less detailed, but still actively considered: The interface layer between the PCs surroundings and the "bath". I might update this once per session, propagating PC actions outward and "bath" changes inward.
Very slow updates, averaged trajectories: the far away world. This only gets significant direct updates when something big happens, otherwise effects diffuse slowly (in both directions) over time.

Basically the idea is that the players respond very quickly to changes in the environment, but the environment changes much more slowly. This means you can decouple them to some degree. It's an approximation, but a decent one.

[Pelle]

You can predict, but you have to trade off either

* lower resolution/more fiat (as opposed to actual detailed workups)
* shorter time horizons/closer scope (so predicting tomorrow and next door vs next year and far away).

My flow goes:

Constant updates and detailed: the PCs' direct surroundings. This is updated on the same time scale as the narrative.
Slower updates and less detailed, but still actively considered: The interface layer between the PCs surroundings and the "bath". I might update this once per session, propagating PC actions outward and "bath" changes inward.
Very slow updates, averaged trajectories: the far away world. This only gets significant direct updates when something big happens, otherwise effects diffuse slowly (in both directions) over time.

Basically the idea is that the players respond very quickly to changes in the environment, but the environment changes much more slowly. This means you can decouple them to some degree. It's an approximation, but a decent one.

Agreed. Which is why you can with a higher degree of accuracy predict what happens far away. The PCs have to do something very meaningful to affect that significantly.

And also, in a prediction you can use a much higher temporal resolution, and/or include more second order effects, since in-game you don't have as much time to do the updates.

Edit: Note, here I'm not saying prediction is accurately guessing what the PCs will do, but rather simulating what the rest of the world is most likely doing. Those two might deviate fast, locally or globally, but that doesn't matter.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Agreed. Which is why you can with a higher degree of accuracy predict what happens far away. The PCs have to do something very meaningful to affect that significantly.

And also, in a prediction you can use a much higher temporal resolution, and/or include more second order effects, since in-game you don't have as much time to do the updates.

That's true. I tend to leave the "far away" pretty vague though, because I find I usually have better ideas as to what should go there when the action gets there than just unprompted. I like to leave myself a lot of wiggle room to modify anything not seen on camera yet.

[Pelle]

That's true. I tend to leave the "far away" pretty vague though, because I find I usually have better ideas as to what should go there when the action gets there than just unprompted. I like to leave myself a lot of wiggle room to modify anything not seen on camera yet.

So static or improvised then :smallsmile: Just a matter of scale, and what is feasible to include in the simulation...

[Mr Tumnus]

If people use the term Sandbox and other people understand what they mean by that term then it's not meaningless. Boom, thread solved.

[RazorChain]

If people use the term Sandbox and other people understand what they mean by that term then it's not meaningless. Boom, thread solved.

You good sir, just won the internet.

[Florian]

@Darth Ultron:

Let me try to explain the whole concept using the Rogue Trader RPG as an example. Sandbox enthusiasts might beg to differ because the underlying system is very clear here, but I don't care.
The example also uses very clear tasks for each side of the table.

First, let us talk about the starting setup:
1) The players have their ship, individual characters, group profit factor, crew morale and so on.
2) The GM has a map of the Koronus Sector, knows the planets (adventure sites), navy, aliens, heretics and so on.
3) The GM shares commonly available knowledge, aka "plot hooks" and also takes into account what the individual character may know beyond that. Got ties to the Inquisition or one of the Adeptus or the Underworld? Additional "Plot Hooks" available.

Second, now let's play the game and do something:
1) The players come up with an "Grand Endeavor", like, say, "We scout the sector for a potentially lost holy location and build up a secure pilgrims route from the Calixis sector to the location in the Koronus sector and back again, making a tidy profit off of it".
2) Both parties, GM and Players sit down together and talk about how that "Grand Endeavor" breaks down into "Chapters" and those again into "Steps". Keep in mind that the GM knows the setting secrets and the players know their characters and ship, both sides add according to their knowledge and means.
3) Now this is a very system-based game, so the GM now starts prepping a 24K points campaign, divided between 4 major chapters, which are the points that the players can actually influence the game world, made up of 3 interconnected adventures that will contribute towards finishing one chapter. That is a bit complicated to explain, but the GM has to create a challenge that can be solved on "normal" difficulty on 2000 points, but allows for 500 points above and below that to have added or subtracted effects.

Third, actual play:

1) The players can now launch ship and embark on their self-chosen quest. How it plays out, if they stick to it or change course, whether they make an impact on the game world, we will find out along the way, factor in and maybe repeat points (1) and (2) of the previous section.

[Thinker]

Sandbox is a description for a type of game to tell the players what they can expect. It's the difference between telling the players that you're running Ravenloft the module and telling them that you're running Ravenloft the campaign setting. In one, the GM already has in-mind a specific adventure path and the players all agree that they want to play that together. That's good. In the other, the players aren't really sure what adventures they will find. The GM might not know either beyond a few little-developed plot hooks. Then, based on how the characters interact with the world, each other, and the hooks, the GM can add more. That's good, too.

I've run games both ways and I've had varying degrees of success, but they've all been fun. Running games with already-defined parameters from the outset makes things easier when the players do what is expected, but can be made more difficult if they think outside the box, already have knowledge of the adventure, or simply go somewhere unexpected. Conversely, to run a sandbox, I have been most successful when I have figured out a handful of plots. Basically, I come up with what would happen if the player characters never got involved. I know a couple of major players in each plot, their ambitions, and their relative strengths compared to the players. I even have sort-of timers so if the players are interacting with one plot hook, another might progress or even finish. One of the difficult parts about sandbox games is getting the players engaged - sometimes you do have to bring a hook to them, rather than letting them stumble into one.

As with all things, it is better to be on the same page as the group you are playing with. If they want to play adventure paths and you like running them, do that. If you want to run a sandbox and they like to play in those, do that instead. Or do a mix of them - a sandbox can turn into an adventure path or vice versa pretty easily.

[jayem]

@Darth Ultron:

Let me try to explain the whole concept using the Rogue Trader RPG as an example. Sandbox enthusiasts might beg to differ because the underlying system is very clear here, but I don't care.
The example also uses very clear tasks for each side of the table.

That does seem to be a slightly different meaning/scale of 'sandbox', definitely to the one I'm using (and I think to most of the others).

In some senses it is more similar to the meaning DU sometimes uses. Had that been what I meant, if you ignore the prejudiced elements) some of his descriptions seem not that far off. For example in your step 2.2&2.3 (it seems to me perfectly fair to me to say) an adventure is created.

Step 3 is where I'd put the sandbox where I talk about sandbox. 2.2&2.3 take place through the medium of the PC's as the game is progressing, the cycle you describe happens on a fairly short scale.
---
If we have got at least two definitions, given the thread title we ought to put them in context. The alternative is to show that we both mean exactly the same thing (which doesn't seem to be the case, to me), or that one of us is flat out wrong and should yield the term (which I'd like more evidence).

So applying my concepts to how I understand what you've written to me it seems that your sandbox takes place at a more meta-game level than mine.
That is to say the designers have created the 'universe' and 'system' that has the resources and structure for the GM&Players to make their own games/adventures in before they play them. Whereas for me it's about the PC's in the game.
So e.g:
"X-box Oblivion" is not a sandbox(Florian) because the sandbox(Root) principles are not applied to the game creation. But is a sandbox(Jayem) because the sandbox(Root) principles are applied to game play (at least as best as can be done in a Crpg)
"PC Oblivion (which contains a map and quest editor)" is a sandbox(Florian) because the sandbox(Root) principles are applied. The base game/adventures remains a sandbox(Jayem), although a non sandbox(Jayem) game/adventure could be created,
"Half life&Source(Hammer editor)" is a sandbox(Florian) but not a sandbox(Jayem)
"XBox Half life" is not a sandbox(Florian) or sandbox(Jayem)

Aside from the common principles (which we probably ought to refine and check exist) there will also be overlap in practice too (if the world can't cope with the GM having agency, the players probably can't have much either, and if there's space for the PC's to modify the world through their own powers, then there's likely space for the GM to show some creativity before the game too)

I might have totally misunderstood your position.

[RazorChain]

People have said something like this before, but I will say again: This is a Common Game.

1.DM makes the setting, full of adventurous stuff. Fallen wizards tower here, goblin bandits here, sunken temple there, and so on.
2.The players look over all of this and pick something to do (aka, pick an adventure to go on).
3.The DM makes that Adventure and the players run through it.

So :
1.Game Start: Characters just 'pop' in the woods, and have some random combat encounters as they are fun.
2.The characters explore the setting learning about people and places and things...but not doing much of anything of consequence. Mostly they are just listening to the DM.
3.Eventually, the players pick something to do (it does not matter how or why), aka an adventure to go on.
4.The DM makes that adventure--->Players run through the adventure.


Yes, Sandbox can be seen as a normal game because the setting/campaign world in essence is a sandbox. Sandbox is virually just a detailed section of the campaign world. When people talk about sandbox game it's mostly about making the players set their own goals and interact with the world.



Now, 1-3 are the pre adventure as not much of meaningful substance happens. It's the appetizer or the teaser or the prolog. The Adventure is the meal with the Meat. Depending on the group 1-3 can take hours and hours. As has been said, some gamers do like to just randomly wander and explore. Of course most game sessions only last a couple hours, so if you take 4 or 5 hours doing nothing but 1-3, there is very little time left for the adventure.

But this works out as game session 1 will end, and the adventure has not yet started. And the DM can make the adventure in the time before game session 2.

All of this is a Common game. Really any typical TRPG follows this formula.

So this can't be a sandbox...unless a sandbox is a meaningless word that just means ''typical, common TRPG".

But mostly the GM doesn't have to make an adventure, the adventure is finished already. He has already made the Baddyboi tribe and the village of Raven's creek and now the PC's decide to interact with it.

Sandbox is different than module in the regard that the GM hasn't planned for how the PC's interaction with the Baddyboi tribe will go. The Baddyboi tribe is just there to be interacted with for good or worse. It doesn't have to start a linear adventure. The players can side with the Baddyboi tribe and destroy Raven's creek or they enslave the goblins, kill them all or make a deal with them to mine ore and attack the caravans of their competitors.




It is like everyone is saying that the jerk monster DM is the normal common DM type. Like 99% of the DMs in the world are the type like: SLAM "I am the DM and we will use the Black Doom Adventure, HAHAHAHA!". So then all the players rebel and make the ''sandbox game".

But, as I have said, the ''sandbox'' game IS the typical, normal game run by most of the good DMs in the world. And it's even the type of game promoted and showcased BY the TRPG companies. In fact the Monster DM type games are the uncommon ones. Yes they are out there, but it's not like it's Every Single Game.

Like for say every 10 DMs I know it is more like 2 good, 2 bad and 6 just average...but all the good and average ones do the above type of game. ONLY them two bad DM's do the bad game. So the typical common game outnumbers the bad games.





Most of the time the group decides upon what to play. If the consensus is to play Rise of Tiamat or another module then you aren't playing a sandbox, you are playing a module either of the GM's making or a published one. This is can also be seen as a standar game.

Then you have misison based games. Shadowrun and Cyberpunk very often revolve around an operation or a mission. You talk to your fixers, somebody pays you a lot of money to do this mission, you go and do that mission and use the money for weapons, armour and upgrades and rinse and repeat. This is the common game

Then you have a sandbox with a goal. I ran a game once which was about the PC's reclaiming their barony. So I just dropped them into the world where they had to figure out how they'd go about it. No scripted plot like in a module, just they deciding upon how to go about it. This is clearly the typical game

Then you have a sandbox where the players just find out how they want to interact with the campaign world. This is the normal game

All of those are typical standard common typical normal games.

[Darth Ultron]

Darth Ultron, out of curiosity: Have you ever been a player?

Of course? Odd question.


@Darth Ultron:


This is a lot of text to say:

1.DM makes the setting
2.Players pick something to do
3.DM makes an adventure


Sandbox is different than module in the regard that the GM hasn't planned for how the PC's interaction with the Baddyboi tribe will go. The Baddyboi tribe is just there to be interacted with for good or worse. It doesn't have to start a linear adventure. The players can side with the Baddyboi tribe and destroy Raven's creek or they enslave the goblins, kill them all or make a deal with them to mine ore and attack the caravans of their competitors.

In any game the DM can take the casual way of not preparing anything. So that is not special to a sandbox.

BUT the DM can't play the game from JUST the setting notes: they simply don't have enough detail. Unless this is a case of people using the word ''setting'' to mean something else. It seems like when people are saying ''setting'' they are more saying ''adventure'', other wise the setting would have a trillion trillion lines of notes.

And before we go off the deep end here, as I'm sure people will say it is common to make up a trillion trillion notes for every single thing in the setting or something silly like that, maybe someone can point to what you call a ''setting'' online? How about just here in a PBP?

Somehow I bet, even if someone points to one, it will only be a tiny couple of paragraphs.



Most of the time the group decides upon what to play. If the consensus is to play Rise of Tiamat or another module then you aren't playing a sandbox, you are playing a module either of the GM's making or a published one. This is can also be seen as a standar game.

It is a super low blow to just say ''normal game has an adventure'' and ''sandbox game does not(or more accurately pretends there is not one)". Or Reality Gaming.

[RazorChain]

Of course? Odd question.



This is a lot of text to say:

1.DM makes the setting
2.Players pick something to do
3.DM makes an adventure



In any game the DM can take the casual way of not preparing anything. So that is not special to a sandbox.

BUT the DM can't play the game from JUST the setting notes: they simply don't have enough detail. Unless this is a case of people using the word ''setting'' to mean something else. It seems like when people are saying ''setting'' they are more saying ''adventure'', other wise the setting would have a trillion trillion lines of notes.

And before we go off the deep end here, as I'm sure people will say it is common to make up a trillion trillion notes for every single thing in the setting or something silly like that, maybe someone can point to what you call a ''setting'' online? How about just here in a PBP?

Somehow I bet, even if someone points to one, it will only be a tiny couple of paragraphs.



It is a super low blow to just say ''normal game has an adventure'' and ''sandbox game does not(or more accurately pretends there is not one)". Or Reality Gaming.

This is what a Sandbox implies. Make a part of the setting detailed and that becomes the sandbox.

Sandboxes can be incredibly prep heavy depending on the GM.

Some GM's are good at improvising so they don' need trillion lines

The Sandbox has a lot of things prepared in advance that can become an adventure should the PC's choose to go there and interact with it.

So now you are going to exclaim "who the eff would waste their time preparing stuff that most likely never gets used?"

The answer to that is the GM's who like to run Sandbox campaigns

[Florian]

@jayem:

Before we proceed, let's have a look at Ars Magicka, shall we?

If you play it by the book, the whole group sits down and crates the Covenant, their individual Magi, the whole cast of Companions and Grogs. This step determines a lot about how this individual Saga will develop, because you're right now deciding on some factors, game elements and goals that will ship how the actual game will play out. In short, the whole group decides which toys should be placed in the sandbox to be used, then takes the next step and have the players make concrete requests on what "adventures" their Magi or troupe characters shall embark on, ie. "My Magus is working on spell X, so I send Sir Donald on a quest to seduce a Sylph and Sister Anna on a diplomatic mission to the Unseelie Court to barter for some Vis".

So, a partial problem in this discussion is that a lot of the participants only know the very small and limited "classic D&D-inspired sandbox", aka "Setting as the game world, static, site-based, let's hope for some emergent plot development". This is "A sandbox", but not "THE sandbox", only being one very old and often-used sub-set of how "sandbox" can look like, but in no way "generic" or "exemplary" for it and even a lesser and more insignificant part of the wider "sandboxing method of play".

You're right that the main difference we´re talking about here is the "emergent quality" and whether we deem it a necessary part of "sandbox play" to make the choices before creating the game world or based on how the game world is created.

Based on observation, the dividing line here is solely based on personal taste. Either you need the "natural feeling" of things developing on in-game interaction only or you accept the meta-level that is necessary when going for a more themed game, like "political sandbox".

[EGplay]

@jayem:

Before we proceed, let's have a look at Ars Magicka, shall we?

If you play it by the book, the whole group sits down and crates the Covenant, their individual Magi, the whole cast of Companions and Grogs. This step determines a lot about how this individual Saga will develop, because you're right now deciding on some factors, game elements and goals that will ship how the actual game will play out. In short, the whole group decides which toys should be placed in the sandbox to be used, then takes the next step and have the players make concrete requests on what "adventures" their Magi or troupe characters shall embark on, ie. "My Magus is working on spell X, so I send Sir Donald on a quest to seduce a Sylph and Sister Anna on a diplomatic mission to the Unseelie Court to barter for some Vis".

So, a partial problem in this discussion is that a lot of the participants only know the very small and limited "classic D&D-inspired sandbox", aka "Setting as the game world, static, site-based, let's hope for some emergent plot development". This is "A sandbox", but not "THE sandbox", only being one very old and often-used sub-set of how "sandbox" can look like, but in no way "generic" or "exemplary" for it and even a lesser and more insignificant part of the wider "sandboxing method of play".

You're right that the main difference we´re talking about here is the "emergent quality" and whether we deem it a necessary part of "sandbox play" to make the choices before creating the game world or based on how the game world is created.

Based on observation, the dividing line here is solely based on personal taste. Either you need the "natural feeling" of things developing on in-game interaction only or you accept the meta-level that is necessary when going for a more themed game, like "political sandbox".

This is why I spoke of the reversal of the "dramatic question - answer" (where a dramatic question is such an action you describe, prompting a response) dynamic.
This was, of course, phrased with an non-sandbox audience in mind.
For a game like AM, this 'reversal' is probably the norm.

The thing to me which what you do with AM has in common with what Max, Lorsa, Quertus, Segev et al are doing, is that they all either facilitate or result from this 'reversed' dynamic.

[Florian]

This is why I spoke of the reversal of the "dramatic question - answer" (where a dramatic question is such an action you describe, prompting a response) dynamic.
This was, of course, phrased with an non-sandbox audience in mind.
For a game like AM, this 'reversal' is probably the norm.

The thing to me which what you do with AM has in common with what Max, Lorsa, Quertus, Segev et al are doing, is that they all either facilitate or result from this 'reversed' dynamic.

While the two of us might understand each other, you're still committing one very grave mistake which is holding back this whole discussion.

Approximately one half of the people you named needs to go the "in-game route" to be able to answer the dramatic question, while the rest is either indifferent or accepting of the "meta route" to approach the topic. In short, the casus knacksus we´re circling around is whether to ask the dramatic question before or during actual play.

[Floret]

Approximately one half of the people you named needs to go the "in-game route" to be able to answer the dramatic question, while the rest is either indifferent or accepting of the "meta route" to approach the topic. In short, the casus knacksus we´re circling around is whether to ask the dramatic question before or during actual play.

I would argue for the game to be a sandbox, and not "just" a campaign where the players had a (albeit strong) input for game creation. As such, what you describe does not fullfill - at least my -definition of a sandbox. A sandbox would necessitate the input (including the dramatic questions) to be constantly present during play.

[RazorChain]

@Darth Ultron:

Let me try to explain the whole concept using the Rogue Trader RPG as an example. Sandbox enthusiasts might beg to differ because the underlying system is very clear here, but I don't care.
The example also uses very clear tasks for each side of the table.

First, let us talk about the starting setup:
1) The players have their ship, individual characters, group profit factor, crew morale and so on.
2) The GM has a map of the Koronus Sector, knows the planets (adventure sites), navy, aliens, heretics and so on.
3) The GM shares commonly available knowledge, aka "plot hooks" and also takes into account what the individual character may know beyond that. Got ties to the Inquisition or one of the Adeptus or the Underworld? Additional "Plot Hooks" available.

Second, now let's play the game and do something:
1) The players come up with an "Grand Endeavor", like, say, "We scout the sector for a potentially lost holy location and build up a secure pilgrims route from the Calixis sector to the location in the Koronus sector and back again, making a tidy profit off of it".
2) Both parties, GM and Players sit down together and talk about how that "Grand Endeavor" breaks down into "Chapters" and those again into "Steps". Keep in mind that the GM knows the setting secrets and the players know their characters and ship, both sides add according to their knowledge and means.
3) Now this is a very system-based game, so the GM now starts prepping a 24K points campaign, divided between 4 major chapters, which are the points that the players can actually influence the game world, made up of 3 interconnected adventures that will contribute towards finishing one chapter. That is a bit complicated to explain, but the GM has to create a challenge that can be solved on "normal" difficulty on 2000 points, but allows for 500 points above and below that to have added or subtracted effects.

Third, actual play:

1) The players can now launch ship and embark on their self-chosen quest. How it plays out, if they stick to it or change course, whether they make an impact on the game world, we will find out along the way, factor in and maybe repeat points (1) and (2) of the previous section.

This is what I call a campaign with a clear goal. I mostly just use the sandbox term for computer games because sandbox for me in rpgs is just the same as the setting

[Quertus]

This is why I spoke of the reversal of the "dramatic question - answer" (where a dramatic question is such an action you describe, prompting a response) dynamic.
This was, of course, phrased with an non-sandbox audience in mind.
For a game like AM, this 'reversal' is probably the norm.

The thing to me which what you do with AM has in common with what Max, Lorsa, Quertus, Segev et al are doing, is that they all either facilitate or result from this 'reversed' dynamic.

So, I've been trying to evaluate this.

To my mind, there's several things involved differentiating pure sandbox from pure linear.

In pure linear, the GM picks the goal, and the path. They pick the scenes, the order of the scenes, and the transitions. They say that you're going to the cabin in the woods, you're taking the path by the river, you'll hit X, Y, and Z, and, to do that, you'll need to accomplish Q, R, and T.

In a pure Sandbox, the GM creates the content. The players choose their goals, and their path to their goals. The scenes are not predetermined. Sure, there's a cabin in the woods, but the PCs might be here to see sights, or pick mushrooms, or search for dropped jewelry, or plan a future development, or hunt deer, or hunt people. And they'll go about accomplishing whatever subset of tasks they choose however they see fit, based on the content the GM provides them.

DU once wrote about, IIRC, a party trying to break down the front door to get to a bandit in his hideout. That's a scenario. As content, it's just a bandit who has a hideout. Now, let's say we take that content, but say that, instead, I'm a god, cast down to earth until I obtain X loyal followers.

If the GM has written the bandit well for a sandbox, they don't need to create a "the bandit interacts with the proselytizing deity" adventure - they simply roleplay the bandit (and his foolish lack of a back door) when the deity comes knocking.

Is that equivalent to what you said? Is the extent to which a game is a sandbox equivalent to the extent to which and times when the players get to ask the questions? Maybe. I'm still trying to grok that mindset.

[Max_Killjoy]

Is there anything wrong with the "dramatic question" * being asked both ways in the same campaign?

Can the GM and the other players ask and answer?

To me, it seems that both "table roles" have control of "in fiction" elements that are capable of actions that demand a response, and capable of responding to actions -- and that an action can be both a response and a new question at the same time.



( * While I don't like the term, I can work with it in the context of this conversation and keep in mind that it doesn't mean what it sounds like it means. )

[Quertus]

This is what I call a campaign with a clear goal. I mostly just use the sandbox term for computer games because sandbox for me in rpgs is just the same as the setting

Yes and no. A sandbox is a subset of the setting, carefully selected with a specific goal in mind. If I'm making a political sandbox, I won't populate it with, eh, whatever happens to be at the base of the windy mountain. If I'm making a high-level combat sandbox, I won't populate it exclusively with level 0 commoners.


Is there anything wrong with the "dramatic question" * being asked both ways in the same campaign?

Can the GM and the other players ask and answer?

To me, it seems that both "table roles" have control of "in fiction" elements that are capable of actions that demand a response, and capable of responding to actions -- and that an action can be both a response and a new question at the same time.

Wrong with? No, absolutely not. In fact, that's probably healthiest. But, for purposes of clarity in the discussion, can it be a pure sandbox, or pure linear, in such a scenario?

[Darth Ultron]

The very fact that you cannot tell me, by my definition, what the distinction between a "railroad" and a "linear game" is, tells me that you're failing at reading comprehension.

Well, you need to keep in mind I don't agree with your definitions of those two words, and I don't agree with the Everyone Collective definitions either. For example, right off the top, to me, there IS no linear game: every single TRPG that makes sense is ''linear''. To me it is not a separate special game type. And I see Railroading as a good thing...like fate or destiny...that yes the players, if they are of one set mindset, ''don't like it'' but they must accept it. And you only see railroading is badwrongfun...oh, unless everyone agrees to it, then it's ok...for them.

See I use the dictionary definition of linear, not the wacky RPG one. Gold coins are in the treasure chest--->character picks lock on chest--->character opens chest-->character takes gold coins, IS Linear. And any game that makes sense has that.



So, using that, can you accept the definition of "linear?" I can try to distinguish a "sandbox" from it, for you, if you can accept that that, there, is a linear adventure, and that linear adventures are a subset of common adventures.

I can't accept your definition of a linear game, no.



Good! We agree on this! That's a linear adventure, not a sandbox adventure! It relies on things progressing along a prescribed plot path. That is what makes it linear!

Right, any normal game that makes sense is linear.

But see this is where the problem starts, if you say a sandbox is not linear. Because not linear means ''random mess'.



Now, go back and re-read the descriptions of sandboxes. In a sandbox, the DM doesn't plan all that "future" stuff. He doesn't plan the order of events, nor how the PCs will get from plot point to plot point. Instead, he plans the detailed location and NPCs, with their goals, resources, and behaviors, and establishes their current status. Then lets the players do what they will to investigate and plan what to do to deal with it.

This is just mixing words. You say the DM does not make any plans, then describe a ton of stuff the DM does that is the description of ''making plans'...but you will say when the DM does all that stuff that is exactly like making plans, they are not making plans.

Example:Dragon has horde of gold, and the PCs steal it. So the DM makes the plan that the dragon will hunt down the PCs and get it's horde back.

A very basic plan, and one that would happen in a sandbox, right? So...if that does happen in a sandbox, how is that not the DM making a plan?

Like lets say the DM comes up with the plan that the dragon sends his group of kobold minions after the PCs, and they can track the arcane marked items from the hoard. And the DM has the plan that the kobolds will catch up to the Pcs and attack them.

A very basic plan, and one that would happen in a sandbox, right? So...if that does happen in a sandbox, how is that not the DM making a plan?

The only real difference anyone has said is the Reality Gaming: where the DM pretends that they are not doing anything and making and execution the plan. In the Reality Game, the DM will just say the kobold minions ''just happen'', somehow, and that THEY are not doing it....when THEY are of course doing it.



I mean, seriously, Darth Ultron, listen to yourself. A linear adventure could be framed how you're trying to frame sandboxes so that the DM is never making any decisions, he's just letting the module tell him what to do. He has an intricate plan, and he will never improvise because that would ruin the plan!

True, though the difference is I call that a bad game, and everyone would say such a 'sandbox' game was the greatest game ever.

1.DM does not make decisions and does what the adventure module says: Badwrongfun
2.DM does not make decisions and does whatever the ''setting notes''(that they made) say: Best Game 4evers!



So are all games Reality gaming? The DM is pretending the fictional game that is fictional in every way...is real?

No, no, no, the aware people know and accept they are playing a game. It is just the Reality Fans that what to pretend they are not playing a game...when they are, in fact, playing a game.

1.Any Normal TV show(or movie): I know it is fake fiction and made to be entertaining, but I accept that and just let myself be entertained. Before I watched Jurassic World I KNEW the dinosaurs would escape and kill people...yet I still watched the movie.
2.Reality TV: Wow, it is REAL! It is totally not like normal TV! They just turn on a camera and record whatever happens! It is so REAL! (Though, of course, once you calm them down you can maybe get them to understand that the reality show is, not, in fact, real. Some will understand.)

1.Normal Game play: Almost Everything that happens in the game world is done by the DM to make the game fun and interesting and exciting. Why are there wererat warlocks in the sewers? For fun! (though sure the DM can make a big long cover story about wererat migrations or whatever).
2.Reality Game play: Almost everything that happens in the game world is based off the notes the DM made and the whim of the DM, EXCEPT the DM will do crazy flip flops to say THEY are not the ones doing anything. Why are there wererat warlocks in the sewers? The DM has prepared a long winded defense of the setting they made about how they put the wererats there for all sorts of fictional reasons.




"Since you can put fish in taco shells, clearly fish must be different from tacos, but you just keep talking about tacos, so all fish must be tacos," argues Darth Ultron.

It is more like:

ME: I have a hamburger.
You: I have a Sandbuger!
Me: Oh? what is that, how is it different then a hamburger?
You: It is so cool, it is exactly like a hamburger, except I can pick and choose what I put on it!
Me: Um...but you can pick and choose what you put on a hamburger, so why the new word?
You:You don't understand! Look for my Sandburger I can say 'no lettuce' and then I put no lettuce on my Sandburger!
Me: Um, you can do that with a hamburger too....so why the new word?
You: Um, um, um, well with a Sandburger you don't have to eat it!
Me: Well, you don't have to eat a hamburger...
You:Oh! A Sandburger is so not linear! First we cook the meat patty, then we put it on a bun, then we add toppings!
Me: Well...that is linear...and exactly how you'd make a hamburger too....



This is what a Sandbox implies. Make a part of the setting detailed and that becomes the sandbox.

Sandboxes can be incredibly prep heavy depending on the GM.

Some GM's are good at improvising so they don' need trillion lines

The Sandbox has a lot of things prepared in advance that can become an adventure should the PC's choose to go there and interact with it.

So now you are going to exclaim "who the eff would waste their time preparing stuff that most likely never gets used?"

The answer to that is the GM's who like to run Sandbox campaigns

So, now your just saying a sandbox is anything? See the problem?

And it's not like using stuff is a problem for a good DM: they will use everything eventually.




In pure linear, the GM picks the goal, and the path. They pick the scenes, the order of the scenes, and the transitions. They say that you're going to the cabin in the woods, you're taking the path by the river, you'll hit X, Y, and Z, and, to do that, you'll need to accomplish Q, R, and T..

Ok, I get there are two ways to pick a goal and path:

1.DM picks
2.Players pick

So, why is it if the DM picks the game ''linear''?

It does not matter ''who picks'': the DM is still the one making the content(the setting, the adventure, etc). So, the DM says ''we will do the Bandits of bunglewood adventure'' or the players say ''we will do the Bandits of bunglewood adventure''.

[hamishspence]

In a sandbox, it's less "we do X adventure" and more "we visit X location" - the DM might even have randomly generated an encounter for Bunglewood which happens to be bandits.

[Darth Ultron]

In a sandbox, it's less "we do X adventure" and more "we visit X location" - the DM might even have randomly generated an encounter for Bunglewood which happens to be bandits.

So, your going with the idea that a sandbox is a group of mini adventures. What would be an encounter in an common game, is a mini adventure in a sandbox game.

[hamishspence]

The difference is that a "mini-adventure" can still be created in advance for a linear adventure - a module gotten out of Dungeon Magazine, for example - whereas in a sandbox, encounters often have to be "made up on the fly".

In a sandbox, "creating encounters" isn't the priority - catering to the players' desire to explore the world, is. Hence, the DM creating content as they go along, rather than importing existing content, or creating an adventure days or weeks in advance, and then having the players go through the adventure as planned.

Dungeon Magazine's "Adventure Path" campaigns - Savage Tide, Age of Worms, and so on - these typify the more linear end of the scale - there is an overarching plot, and the players have agreed with the DM ahead of time that the plot itself will be followed. The DM might tweak it, and try and make the players' choices meaningful - but the progression from start to finish is still present.

Sandboxes aren't done that way.

[Max_Killjoy]

There's also a difference between prebuilt encounters that arise from the plans and actions of NPCs -- that are harder to avoid because someone (as in a fictional person) is trying to make them happen -- versus prebuilt encounters that are going to happen simply because the GM wants them to happen and no amount of coincidence and contrivance is too much in the effort to make sure they happen.

For example, the difference between the ogre who is actively looking for the the PCs and might succeed, versus the ogre who will "just happen" to be on whatever road the PCs take out of town no matter what.


I guess to some people these aren't different? Because the PCs encounter the ogre no matter what? Because both encounters come out of the GM's mind?

But to me, they're distinctly and drastically different because of intent and because of method -- there's a gulf between the GM having an NPC do something because it's what that NPC would do in that situation, or the GM having an NPC do something because it's just what the GM wants or needs the NPC to do in this moment in order to advance the GM's agenda. And I think this is (in part) what I mean when I talk about it being so important to treat the NPCs and the other aspects of "the fiction" as if they are real, and not as elements of a game or story.

[Quertus]

If people use the term Sandbox and other people understand what they mean by that term then it's not meaningless. Boom, thread solved.

Yes. It has meaning to those of us who use it the same way. However...


@Darth Ultron:

Let me try to explain the whole concept using the Rogue Trader RPG as an example. Sandbox enthusiasts might beg to differ because the underlying system is very clear here, but I don't care.
The example also uses very clear tasks for each side of the table.

First, let us talk about the starting setup:
1) The players have their ship, individual characters, group profit factor, crew morale and so on.
2) The GM has a map of the Koronus Sector, knows the planets (adventure sites), navy, aliens, heretics and so on.
3) The GM shares commonly available knowledge, aka "plot hooks" and also takes into account what the individual character may know beyond that. Got ties to the Inquisition or one of the Adeptus or the Underworld? Additional "Plot Hooks" available.

Second, now let's play the game and do something:
1) The players come up with an "Grand Endeavor", like, say, "We scout the sector for a potentially lost holy location and build up a secure pilgrims route from the Calixis sector to the location in the Koronus sector and back again, making a tidy profit off of it".
2) Both parties, GM and Players sit down together and talk about how that "Grand Endeavor" breaks down into "Chapters" and those again into "Steps". Keep in mind that the GM knows the setting secrets and the players know their characters and ship, both sides add according to their knowledge and means.
3) Now this is a very system-based game, so the GM now starts prepping a 24K points campaign, divided between 4 major chapters, which are the points that the players can actually influence the game world, made up of 3 interconnected adventures that will contribute towards finishing one chapter. That is a bit complicated to explain, but the GM has to create a challenge that can be solved on "normal" difficulty on 2000 points, but allows for 500 points above and below that to have added or subtracted effects.

Third, actual play:

1) The players can now launch ship and embark on their self-chosen quest. How it plays out, if they stick to it or change course, whether they make an impact on the game world, we will find out along the way, factor in and maybe repeat points (1) and (2) of the previous section.

I could only half follow that example (you would have lost me completely on the points except that someone told me a bit about Rogue Trader once). But, as I understand what you just said, you're talking about a game where the players pick their goal, then the GM determines the steps to that goal.

That is not a sandbox.

It is, however, curiously close to what DU has described on several occasions, where the players pick something, then the GM builds that adventure.

Now, IIRC, you are both ESL. I'm going to put forth the hypothesis that you both speak the same native language, maybe both live in the same country. Further, that maybe somehow the word "sandbox" translates poorly from your native tongue, or, more likely, that someone in your country has coined a phrase that makes perfect sense in its insular, non-english context. However, when brought into the (equally insular) English gaming community, and translated as "sandbox", it's suddenly problematic, because we're already using that word to mean something else.

So, maybe... Google Translate... "Sandkasten" makes perfect sense. But it's not a sandbox. If this is the issue, we just need to get a new translation for your term, and have it added to our lexicon. Very important for the Everyone Collective (otherwise known as "clear communication").

Or maybe this is just some fluke coincidence, like how three tables I sat at used the exact same wrong rule. :smallannoyed: In which case, I'm at a loss to find a good solution.

[Segev]

Well, you need to keep in mind I don't agree with your definitions of those two words.
Because you can't accurately tell me what my definitions are, you have absolutely no way of knowing that.

All you can know is that you disagree with definitions you have decided are mine.

You then proceed to write very long posts arguing against those definitions. Which are straw men, because they are not the definitions I am using.

Until you can repeat back to me what my definitions are in a manner that I agree is what I said, using your own words, you will continue to fail. Because you are demonstrating a lack of willingness or ability to achieve that fundamental requirement to have a meaningful discussion, I am not even bothering to read the rest of the post from which I took your quote here. You're demonstrating that it's pointless to do so, because you will not demonstrate that you understand my position. You don't have to agree with it, but you do have to know what my position is before you can meaningfully argue against it.

Otherwise, you're just doing this:

<Segev> I think ice is cold, and if cold enough, doesn't qualify as "wet."
<Darth Ultron> Nonsense! How can you possibly say that ice isn't made of frozen water!? Here, let me explain how it is!
<Segev> I...never said it wasn't frozen water. I said it wasn't wet if it's cold enough.
<Darth Ultron> There you go again, talking about how ice "somehow" stops being made of H2O when it gets frozen!
<Segev> ...what do you think I think ice is?
<Darth Ultron> Well, you need to keep in mind that I don't agree with your definition.
<Segev> What do you think my definition is?
<Darth Ultron> Wrong!


The issue you're having is that you keep refusing to demonstrate that you're actually arguing against anything anybody is saying. You're too focused on proving them "wrong" by arguing against what you think they're saying, so you keep missing the mark.

"I am the greatest archer ever! I demonstrate this by shooting that peasant in the back behind the targets!"
"Uh, that's a shot, alright, but you still score no points since the competition is to shoot that target."
"Watch as I shoot that clay pidgeon that's flying by!"
"Still no points; you still haven't actually aimed at the target for this competition."

[Florian]

@Quertus:

Funny, that. I've picked Rogue Trader as an example as this is one of the most widely acclaimed systems to run full sandboxes. It´s like we´re talking about cars right now and you only understand a car as a car when it is a very specific Ford model (and Max understands only a very specific type of transmission). In short, your understanding seems to be wrong and/or outdated.

[Max_Killjoy]

@Quertus:

Funny, that. I've picked Rogue Trader as an example as this is one of the most widely acclaimed systems to run full sandboxes. It´s like we´re talking about cars right now and you only understand a car as a car when it is a very specific Ford model (and Max understands only a very specific type of transmission). In short, your understanding seems to be wrong and/or outdated.

The funny thing is, your Rogue Trader example does read as an RPG that's fairly sandboxy intent, with built-in mechanics, but with some of the player's decision points moved to "session zero". It seems not railroady at all because it comes across as very much invested in transparent buy-in and incorporating player input into setting and campaign design.

Like most games, it's not a "sandbox" or "linear" in the pure abstract conceptual sense (and I even think that excessive concern about pure abstract concepts is one of the stumbling blocks in these threads).


(Putting aside any disagreement about what "setting" means for the moment, if we can.)

[Quertus]

@Quertus:

Funny, that. I've picked Rogue Trader as an example as this is one of the most widely acclaimed systems to run full sandboxes. It´s like we´re talking about cars right now and you only understand a car as a car when it is a very specific Ford model (and Max understands only a very specific type of transmission). In short, your understanding seems to be wrong and/or outdated.

I mean, before this thread, I thought I knew what "sandbox" meant. Before I started posting on the Playground, I thought I knew what "Railroading" meant. I have... broadened my definitions somewhat in my time here.

Rogue Trader claims to be a sandbox game? News to me. I don't own Rogue Trader, I've never played Rogue Trader (although I'd like to, even though I'd be hilariously bad at it). So I can only go from what you've described. And what you're described is not a sandbox.

Now, if Games Workshop calls that a sandbox, and the Playground disagrees? Given their respective histories, my instinct is to go with the Playground. If it's just Games Workshop vs me? Eh, we're both a little crazy - it's a toss-up.


The funny thing is, your Rogue Trader example does read as an RPG that's fairly sandboxy intent, with built-in mechanics, but with some of the player's decision points moved to "session zero". It seems not railroady at all because it comes across as very much invested in transparent buy-in and incorporating player input into setting and campaign design.

To me, it came across as the difference between a buffet and "tell me what you want, and I'll make that for you". Historically, my mom would make me whatever I wanted for my birthday dinner. But I never called it a "buffet".


Like most games, it's not a "sandbox" or "linear" in the pure abstract conceptual sense (and I even think that excessive concern about pure abstract concepts is one of the stumbling blocks in these threads).

Most games aren't black or white, they're some shade of grey. But you're contending that it is detrimental in defining white to be explaining how grey isn't white?

Hmmm... Ok, to some extent, I can see the logic. It's good to focus on ways that something is white, rather than exclusively on ways that it isn't.


(Putting aside any disagreement about what "setting" means for the moment, if we can.)

We disagree on that term, too? :smallconfused:

[Boci]

So, your going with the idea that a sandbox is a group of mini adventures. What would be an encounter in an common game, is a mini adventure in a sandbox game.

The fact that this thread is still going means this has probably been explained to you and you disagree or don't understand, but I'll try.

You have a module. Modules typically have a pretty fixed idea of what the players will do. There are different levels of flexible. Some dungeon crawls basically offer the options of how to over come obsticals encountered in a strict order, whilst Expedition to Castle Ravenloft lets players wonder around the wilderness and gives them options to aproach encounters and factions from multiple angles, figurativly and metaphorically. A module would struggle to earn the sandbox tag. Maybe Kingmaker qualifies, I don't know, I've never played it.

Sandbox games give the players freedom to choose what they do. That would rather defeat the purpose of a module, you are paying money to be given the framework to a story.

Here's some useful ways to guestimate if a game could be considered a sandbox:

With perfectly kept DM notes, could another DM mostly recreate the game without asking for help from the origional DM? For example, a current game of mine involves players exploring the ruins of a dead or sleeping civilization on an island chain with 4 major factored. Could another DM recreate this expirience with my notes? Probably. They'd need the leaders of the factions and attitude, and the design of the ruins. With that, reruns of the scenario with new groups will still share a lot, there's only so many ways it can go, so I wouldn't consider this game a sandbox.

Now another I ran involved players exploring a gothic eatern europe inspired setting. Could a DM recreate this game with my notes? No. My notes would reflect the players chose to head to the northern marshes on their own, with no prompting from me, so when your group chooses to head to the wooded mountains in the east, you are now running a different game. This would be a sandbox game.

Does that help, or has someone else also said that?

[Thinker]

@Quertus:

Funny, that. I've picked Rogue Trader as an example as this is one of the most widely acclaimed systems to run full sandboxes. It´s like we´re talking about cars right now and you only understand a car as a car when it is a very specific Ford model (and Max understands only a very specific type of transmission). In short, your understanding seems to be wrong and/or outdated.

A lot of terms have different meanings to different readers. I say "car" and your definition might include SUVs, trucks, sedans, coupes, and station wagons. Mine might not. You might say "pasta" and I might think of ravioli, lasagna, spaghetti, and macaroni and cheese. You might not.

[Max_Killjoy]

I mean, before this thread, I thought I knew what "sandbox" meant. Before I started posting on the Playground, I thought I knew what "Railroading" meant. I have... broadened my definitions somewhat in my time here.

Rogue Trader claims to be a sandbox game? News to me. I don't own Rogue Trader, I've never played Rogue Trader (although I'd like to, even though I'd be hilariously bad at it). So I can only go from what you've described. And what you're described is not a sandbox.

Now, if Games Workshop calls that a sandbox, and the Playground disagrees? Given their respective histories, my instinct is to go with the Playground. If it's just Games Workshop vs me? Eh, we're both a little crazy - it's a toss-up.

To me, it came across as the difference between a buffet and "tell me what you want, and I'll make that for you". Historically, my mom would make me whatever I wanted for my birthday dinner. But I never called it a "buffet".


I'd say that it has sandboxy elements, based on the description.




Most games aren't black or white, they're some shade of grey. But you're contending that it is detrimental in defining white to be explaining how grey isn't white?

Hmmm... Ok, to some extent, I can see the logic. It's good to focus on ways that something is white, rather than exclusively on ways that it isn't.


The point is that arguing over whether something meets an abstract absolute conceptual meaning of "sandbox" (noun) in a binary is-or-is-not way doesn't really help us.

IMO, a conceptual ideal abstract "sandbox" would be a campaign where the "fictional" setting and all the NPCs are indistinguishable from visiting an alternate reality, and there were no need for a GM to make decisions and determinations. But the only a perfect reality simulator is another actual reality, and no player, GM or otherwise, has infinite time and resources.

This is why I keep pushing for "sandboxy" as an adjective -- people are much more willing to treat adjectives as nuanced and variable than they are nouns, and IMO it's far more useful to discuss the degree to which a system or campaign is "sandboxy", in what ways it is or is not "sandboxy", etc, than it is to endlessly debate whether or not "it's a sandbox".




We disagree on that term, too? :smallconfused:


There was specific disagreement between (IIRC) Florian and I as to what "setting" means in the RPG context, and I wanted to set that aside for now when I used the term. (Again IIRC) it's a matter of me regarding "fictional world", "secondary reality", and "campaign setting" as synonyms for the same exact thing.

[Floret]

Now, IIRC, you are both ESL. I'm going to put forth the hypothesis that you both speak the same native language, maybe both live in the same country. Further, that maybe somehow the word "sandbox" translates poorly from your native tongue, or, more likely, that someone in your country has coined a phrase that makes perfect sense in its insular, non-english context. However, when brought into the (equally insular) English gaming community, and translated as "sandbox", it's suddenly problematic, because we're already using that word to mean something else.

As someone who definitely shares Florians first language, and seems to disagree on the definition of sandbox (I agree with you that the described game of Rogue Trader sounds like something else, the birthday dinner analogy being rather apt)... It can't be the fault of German, I'm afraid.

Though Sandbox, if used in the way discussed in this thread, is just used as a amglocism and not translated.

[jayem]

@jayem:

Before we proceed, let's have a look at Ars Magicka, shall we?

If you play it by the book, the whole group sits down and crates the Covenant, their individual Magi, the whole cast of Companions and Grogs. This step determines a lot about how this individual Saga will develop, because you're right now deciding on some factors, game elements and goals that will ship how the actual game will play out. In short, the whole group decides which toys should be placed in the sandbox to be used, then takes the next step and have the players make concrete requests on what "adventures" their Magi or troupe characters shall embark on, ie. "My Magus is working on spell X, so I send Sir Donald on a quest to seduce a Sylph and Sister Anna on a diplomatic mission to the Unseelie Court to barter for some Vis".


Sorry for the late reply, it sounds like your talking about games with an additional game layer. So what I called the Meta layer (and session zero) isn't really, while what you called "Set-up", "Let's Play" & 'Actual Play' isn't really.

Reworking my original post for these.
The outer game in rogue trader/ars magica is (potentially) a sandbox by a common definition. In this outer game the player characters (I.E their mage ones) take positive action (that is their deceleration of 'adventures').
First, At the start of a turn:
1) The players have their ship, individual characters, group profit factor, crew morale and so on.
2) The GM has a map of the Koronus Sector, knows the planets (adventure sites), navy, aliens, heretics and so on.
...
Second, As part of their turn:
1) The players come up with an "Grand Endeavor", like, say, "We scout the sector for a potentially lost holy location and build up a secure pilgrims route from the Calixis sector to the location in the Koronus sector and back again, making a tidy profit off of it".
...
Third, the GM&Players determine the result of the attempted action
1) The players can now launch ship and embark on their self-chosen quest...
...
[if the action is complicated] maybe repeat points (1) and (2) of the previous section [in the same 'turn', or by splitting up the action over multiple 'turns']

The action is resolved in an inner game (in a similar way it also contains combat as an inner game). In Ars Magica there is a clear separation between the outer game and inner game (even the PC's change), other games could have a similar but more blury distinction.

The sandboxiness or not of this inner game is not under discussion, but if we were:
"How it plays out, if they stick to it or change course, whether they make an impact on the game world, we will find out along the way" is suggesting more sandboxy options. Whereas the more fixed future 'chapters' and 'steps' are, the inner game is less sandboxy. It may well be that it varies according to the mission (Do we need to say linear games are not always bad again).

[EGplay]

Is there anything wrong with the "dramatic question" * being asked both ways in the same campaign?

Of course not:smallbiggrin:. In fact, I like it better that way.


Can the GM and the other players ask and answer?

To me, it seems that both "table roles" have control of "in fiction" elements that are capable of actions that demand a response, and capable of responding to actions -- and that an action can be both a response and a new question at the same time.

Absolutely. That's why I gave the chess example, in that game it happens continuously. To me, the better game has this as a back and forth, and the best answers here often are a DQ themselves.
For a sandbox though, this should start with the players (through their characters' actions) and probably be more on the players side than te DM's.
For a non-sandbox, it's obviously the other way around.
For a linear game, I think (but am not at all sure) it's almost all one way, but this can conceivably be either side.

The back and forth thing can seem at least somewhat competitive to some, but doesn't have to be if you're all on the same page (chess is not competitive if you're not trying to win).
edit - Note that some RPG's, Fiasco for instance, can already be competive.


( * While I don't like the term, I can work with it in the context of this conversation and keep in mind that it doesn't mean what it sounds like it means. )

I know. It's the 'dramatic' thing, isn't it? It's just how I learned the term (dramatic doesn't neccissarily mean what a lot of people think it means).
And if you just call them 'questions' it'll be even more confused for mundane ones than already happened.


DU once wrote about, IIRC, a party trying to break down the front door to get to a bandit in his hideout. That's a scenario. As content, it's just a bandit who has a hideout. Now, let's say we take that content, but say that, instead, I'm a god, cast down to earth until I obtain X loyal followers.

If the GM has written the bandit well for a sandbox, they don't need to create a "the bandit interacts with the proselytizing deity" adventure - they simply roleplay the bandit (and his foolish lack of a back door) when the deity comes knocking.

Is that equivalent to what you said? Is the extent to which a game is a sandbox equivalent to the extent to which and times when the players get to ask the questions? Maybe. I'm still trying to grok that mindset.

Yes is it. Naming this a question is more common in competitive endeavours ("though it's still nil-nil, team (X) asked some very serious questions to team (J)"), but it can translate to this purpose as well. And the responses to these are frequently called answers already, even in RPG's.
To me, actions like that come with an unspoken "what is the reaction?"/"what happens because of this?". Maybe 'causal query' works as a replacement term?

[Max_Killjoy]

I know. It's the 'dramatic' thing, isn't it? It's just how I learned the term (dramatic doesn't neccissarily mean what a lot of people think it means).
And if you just call them 'questions' it be even more confused for mundane ones than already happened.


First, it's the "drama" thing, yeah. Not really a fan of drama that's ginned-up for the sake of drama, especially in RPGs.

Second, "dramatic question" is in my experience a writing term...

https://thewritepractice.com/the-dramatic-question-and-suspense-in-fiction/
https://www.writingclasses.com/toolbox/articles/the-major-dramatic-question

...so to see it applied to games in the manner it is here is a bit odd to me.




Yes is it. Naming this a question is more common in competitive endeavours ("though it's still nil-nil, team (X) asked some very serious questions to team (J)"), but it can translate to this purpose as well. And the responses to these are frequently called answers already, even in RPG's.

To me, actions like that come with an unspoken "what is the reaction?"/"what happens because of this?". Maybe 'causal query' works as a replacement term?


I think that sports usage is a "Euro-ism". In my experience, it's far more common to hear it in coverage of soccer/football beamed over from Europe, than to hear it in American coverage of sports.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The point is that arguing over whether something meets an abstract absolute conceptual meaning of "sandbox" (noun) in a binary is-or-is-not way doesn't really help us.

IMO, a conceptual ideal abstract "sandbox" would be a campaign where the "fictional" setting and all the NPCs are indistinguishable from visiting an alternate reality, and there were no need for a GM to make decisions and determinations. But the only a perfect reality simulator is another actual reality, and no player, GM or otherwise, has infinite time and resources.

This is why I keep pushing for "sandboxy" as an adjective -- people are much more willing to treat adjectives as nuanced and variable than they are nouns, and IMO it's far more useful to discuss the degree to which a system or campaign is "sandboxy", in what ways it is or is not "sandboxy", etc, than it is to endlessly debate whether or not "it's a sandbox".


I'm willing to agree to that. That, or use qualifiers--that is more of a sandbox, but that boils down to the same thing, so it's rather moot.



There was specific disagreement between (IIRC) Florian and I as to what "setting" means in the RPG context, and I wanted to set that aside for now when I used the term. (Again IIRC) it's a matter of me regarding "fictional world", "secondary reality", and "campaign setting" as synonyms for the same exact thing.

I've seen some waffling over that myself in various contexts. I use the same term for different layers depending on context, but I usually use setting == whole potential playable area (so for me the whole pocket universe).

[Florian]

@Quertus/jayem:

As I wrote earlier, things can become very alien or even unrecognizable once you begin shifting some parameters around or you switch the sequence of how things are usually done.

Ie., the "traditional" approach is "gm creates world, players explore world and find toys, players find something to do with the toys, gm deepens the developing scenario", while RT uses "Players declare what they want to do, gm creates world, the players start exploring and playing with the toys".

The "traditional approach" is functional for certain types of games and scenarios, but simply falls flat or is even a hindrance when trying other formats, like the "political sandbox" we have already talked about, which needs a "relationship map" instead of a "physical map", for obvious reasons.

It´s quite easy to compare different formats and see what happens when the parameters shift:

"Classic" (old-school D&D, ACKS, Traveller): "Welcome to Shadowdale/Undermountain, now go!"

"Expanded I" (oWoD, HEX, kingdom building): Either "Welcome to Berlin, neophyte bloodsucker, now go!" ...or... "Oh, I see you have a specific sire, a mentor and bought a social position? Ok, let's sit down and talk about the details before you can go".

"Expanded II" (Age of Sail, Political, Mercantile): The world and the available tasks are already known and understood, as are the basics of the cultures you will encounter. "Welcome to the East India Trading Company, young Dutchman, you know how we make our money, you know how private side business works, you understand how to get rich by trading and what port offers and wants what, now go! (This way to India, Japan is over there)".

"Expanded III" (Ars Magicka, Durance, Eclipse Phase): You're either a direct part of the entire world building phase, or you need complete and detailed setting information to play along.

I think it is quite obvious how the decision-making process shifts around here between "in game" and "out game" and how the individual "dramatic question" shapes up based on this. A bit expanded, we can also see a shift between "pre game" and "actual game", as well as a shift on where to expect "emergent plot or behavior" to happen. (No, I don´t into what difference a system-based approach can also make, but it should clear the picture why I mentioned a triangle earlier.)

This also should explain the thing about Settings I talked with Max in a different discussion. I use the term in the original version, which comes from goldsmiths ("Fassung" or "Einfassung" in german) and describes the support structure that holds everything of relevance in place - a wedding ring with a diamond uses a setting to attach the diamond to the ring. Things shift with the parameters we use, so using the above examples, for "classic", there is no difference between ring, setting and diamond (Greyhawk equals Campaign which equals Campaign World) while this changes the deeper we go into "expanded" territory.

[Max_Killjoy]

From another angle, looking up the definition of "setting" in American English, the first result is: 1. the place or type of surroundings where something is positioned or where an event takes place.

If one regards the world of the game as open to exploration and the PC's choices of destination, then anywhere they could theoretically go is "the setting".


The influx of ideas from acting / improv does give a different emphasis, with the "setting" there being more like "this scene takes place in the kitchen, so the setting of the scene is the kitchen of the small cottage" -- but the problem is that, at least in my experience, one rarely knows where all the "scenes" will be "played out" at the start of a campaign, so the setting always has to be bigger than that.

Plus, the more the fictional reality diverges from our reality, the more information the players need to understand their characters and other characters and what's possible and how things work, so the explicit setting has to keep getting bigger. A campaign set in "the real world, but..." has vast implicit setting.

[EGplay]

First, it's the "drama" thing, yeah. Not really a fan of drama that's ginned-up for the sake of drama, especially in RPGs.

Second, "dramatic question" is in my experience a writing term...

https://thewritepractice.com/the-dramatic-question-and-suspense-in-fiction/
https://www.writingclasses.com/toolbox/articles/the-major-dramatic-question

...so to see it applied to games in the manner it is here is a bit odd to me.

Could be that I am odd ;-).

To me, there is a simularity in function, especially if seen with a wider view than one merely for story telling.
Also it can actually remove unnecessary drama, by getting to the core of what's to be achieved.
Trust me, I'm no fan of drama either.

Even as described in those articles, dramatic questions don't create drama (or 'drama') or story, but tension.
Whether this tension is "will the star-crossed lovers find a way" or "let's see if this works" doesn't seem to functually matter to me.

[Florian]

@EGplay:

Wait and see. While "tension" and an antagonistic stance can be easily understood, don't expect it to happen when discussing "sandbox".

[Quertus]

I'd say that it has sandboxy elements, based on the description.

So, I've been thinking about it, and that's not what I see. What I see is hard-core linear with enforced Participationism. What do I mean by that?

Well, yes, it has sandbox elements, in that the players pick the goal, and even some elements of what the path should look like.

But, then, the GM creates the content to match that path, designs the scenes, and lays out the scoring for those scenes, including things like "successful diplomacy, 200 points. Successful bribe, +50 points. Failed bribe, -50 points. Has Navcom Negotiation Software, +50 points. Picked the tablecloth color to match the target, +50 points".

Let's ignore the often disassociated nature of the scoring mechanics, because that's irrelevant to whether it's sandboxy or not. The fact that there are scoring mechanics at all is... odd. That they are determined before the party chooses their path, and my example didn't leave room for the party to, say, attempt threats, kidnap the other sides family, etc, is clearly very linear territory.

What if the GM adjusted the scoring on the fly, to accommodate player plans that he hasn't considered? Would that be more sandboxy then? Maybe. The way it was described to me, a lot of it is too disassociated for me to properly evaluate. But I tend to suspect that any, "the negotiation succeeded, but you didn't score enough points, so this phase of the endeavour is a failure" - or, Heck, anything where the GM declares whether something counts as a success, instead of the party determining how they feel about the outcome, saying, "well, that cost us more than we expected, but negotiation successful, we win!", will be a linear element in my book.

And, of course, the GM laying out the sequence of events, and linear path to success are strictly linear elements.

Now, maybe I've misunderstood RT from the two half-understood descriptions I've been given. Maybe it really is a lot more sandboxy than I perceive it to be. But what I'm hearing is mostly hard-core linear with enforced Participationism.


The point is that arguing over whether something meets an abstract absolute conceptual meaning of "sandbox" (noun) in a binary is-or-is-not way doesn't really help us.

So... "Sandbox is a meaningless phrase"? :smalltongue:


As someone who definitely shares Florians first language, and seems to disagree on the definition of sandbox (I agree with you that the described game of Rogue Trader sounds like something else, the birthday dinner analogy being rather apt)... It can't be the fault of German, I'm afraid.

Though Sandbox, if used in the way discussed in this thread, is just used as a amglocism and not translated.

Thanks for confirming its not a language thing. Glad you liked the analogy.


Ie., the "traditional" approach is "gm creates world, players explore world and find toys, players find something to do with the toys, gm deepens the developing scenario", while RT uses "Players declare what they want to do, gm creates world, the players start exploring and playing with the toys".

But, with the predefined scoring, the RT GM has already placed value judgements, and determined the "correct" way(s) to play with the toys, right? That is a very non-sandboxy, Linear mindset.


"Expanded I" (oWoD, HEX, kingdom building): Either "Welcome to Berlin, neophyte bloodsucker, now go!" ...or... "Oh, I see you have a specific sire, a mentor and bought a social position? Ok, let's sit down and talk about the details before you can go".

Hmmm... This raises some interesting questions for me, but I can't exactly put my finger on why, let alone articulate my questions yet. I'll have to ponder this.

[Darth Ultron]

Because you can't accurately tell me what my definitions are, you have absolutely no way of knowing that.

Well, lets see:

Segev- ''Linear adventures are railroads" From here:http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=22563420#post22563420

[QUOTE=Segev;20282000]

Railroading is the removal of ability for PCs to have impact beyond that scripted for them by the DM before the PCs make any choices at all. As long as player choices can have consequences beyond those the DM has already planned, it is not railroading. Linear storytelling has a strong impetus to make certain choices, as they will have the most obvious impacts. It is not railroading if the players' choices can create new paths, create meaningful variants in the path(s), or the players can leave the path.

Railroading becomes obvious when players are either denied ability to try things that seem like they should work, when the world has increasingly improbable obstacles which only seem to impede the players' options but have limited impact on the world otherwise, or when player actions are never allowed to succeed or never can have effects that should seek to change how things will work out.



Of course not. It's railroading if, despite the PCs coming up with plans that SHOULD have a chance of working, the DM shuts them down because they avoid his planned "go here" adventure. It's railroading if the DM forces them to save the king even if the PCs come up with a plan that doesn't involve doing so at all.


Does the DM "see" this sole extant path? Does he plan for the PCs to take it? If so, this qualifies as the DM "having a plan."

Do the players come up with things that are NOT that path, and the DM allows them to try without arbitrarily creating obstacles which are insurmountable? That's not railroading.




Your "bridge encounter" is a railroad if nothing except crossing the bridge and fighting the bridge troll to the DM's desired conclusion (whether that's killing it or befriending it or taking its quest to go to the dragon's lair and get the macguffin that the DM wants the players to pick up before going to the Land of Shapesand) is possible.

If the players see the bridge and guess, "There's a troll guarding it," and they decide that they'd rather go a half-mile to the right and conjure their own bridge, or fly, or shoot arrows with ropes attached across upon which to swing...

...and the DM lets them try, with reasonable difficulties applied, then it isn't a railroad.

...but the DM makes it impossible, then it is a railroad.

Fair enough, though I think it inevitable that you'll have some element of this.

I suppose you CAN have a player-led linear adventure. The degree to which that's really feasible is questionable, however, since the player-led aspect of a game is what the players choose to do. If a player proactively seeks a linear adventure, that's good, of course, for the adventure, but the adventure itself is perforce GM-led. The GM is the one who has the map of the line and who keeps unfolding it before the players. "Player-led" requires an inherent amount of sandboxyness in that player choices forge the path forward, which almost by definition makes the adventure non-linear. (The sole exception is when the players just happen to always pick the linear path as their path forward, without the DM having to lead them to it in any way. This is...rare...to say the least.)

Well, there are a couple quick quotes I could find. But, of course, it's just a meaningless jumble right?

I can say, oh, look, that very first one you said: "Linear adventures are railroads" But you did not mean that, right? Or I read it wrong, right? Or I took it out of context, right?

See, this is the problem with your silly idea of ''quote proof'': It's pointless.



Does that help, or has someone else also said that?

It really just sounds like an organized game vs a random mess. A good DM makes and keeps lots of notes. Sure you could be a ''cool'' DM and keep it all in your head....but humans invented notes so you don't have to do it that way.

[1337 b4k4]

So I was thinking about gifts for my nephews this past week, and thought of another analogy for the difference between sandbox and linear game.

A linear game is a specific lego set (e.g. https://www.lego.com/en-us/themes/creator/products/family-villa-31069). It comes with some plans, and all the specific pieces needed to make those plans and nothing more. Building the set is a matter of following those plans to reach the outcome on the box.

A sandbox game is a general lego set (e.g. https://www.lego.com/en-us/themes/classic/products/lego-medium-creative-brick-box-10696). It does not come with specific plans to build a specific set. It's a box of lego bricks. You could build the same thing you can build with the specific set, or you can build something else entirely.

Both a lego sets. Both come with an assortment of lego. Both can be used to build anything that those blocks will allow. Both are normal toys and there's nothing wrong with getting one or the other. But one is specifically designed and oriented towards a specific outcome.

[jindra34]

Segev- ''Linear adventures are railroads" From here:http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=22563420#post22563420



Well, there are a couple quick quotes I could find. But, of course, it's just a meaningless jumble right?

I can say, oh, look, that very first one you said: "Linear adventures are railroads" But you did not mean that, right? Or I read it wrong, right? Or I took it out of context, right?

See, this is the problem with your silly idea of ''quote proof'': It's pointless.

No what you quoted is him say 'All railroads are linear adventurers' (which isn't quite true but close enough). The inability to understand that 'All A are B' can be true without 'All B are A' also being true is about 30% of the problem. You don't understand the logic of divergent grouping, and collective grouping. If you want help with that, I can pull out books from 7th grade advanced math and try and pound it into your skull, and then show you what we are trying to say again.
But lets try and see if you can understand this concept: If I've gotten your understanding of 'common' game right, it has about 5 subclasses of games, including branching path, sandbox, and non-railroad linear games. Can you grok that statement?

[Xuc Xac]

I can say, oh, look, that very first one you said: "Linear adventures are railroads" But you did not mean that, right? Or I read it wrong, right? Or I took it out of context, right?


Technically, it says "linear adventures are railroads if ___", but you missed that important bit at the end.

[RazorChain]

From another angle, looking up the definition of "setting" in American English, the first result is: 1. the place or type of surroundings where something is positioned or where an event takes place.

If one regards the world of the game as open to exploration and the PC's choices of destination, then anywhere they could theoretically go is "the setting".


The influx of ideas from acting / improv does give a different emphasis, with the "setting" there being more like "this scene takes place in the kitchen, so the setting of the scene is the kitchen of the small cottage" -- but the problem is that, at least in my experience, one rarely knows where all the "scenes" will be "played out" at the start of a campaign, so the setting always has to be bigger than that.

Plus, the more the fictional reality diverges from our reality, the more information the players need to understand their characters and other characters and what's possible and how things work, so the explicit setting has to keep getting bigger. A campaign set in "the real world, but..." has vast implicit setting.

This is why, for me at least, the setting has always been the sandbox. The notion of the sandbox is something I have only applied to computer games where used to descibed a free roaming open world games like Fallout or TES.

Table top roleplaying games didn't suffer from the limitation of technology only the time the GM could use on preparation. So in essence I can partly understand DU because when I started playing D&D my group would just roam around from dungeon to dungeon and kill things and get embroiled in some adventures along the way. But then again this could just indicate that DU is apathetic towards learning or adapting to new ideas/words/meanings

So the word myself and my group have always used is just setting and to describe a "sandboxy" game has been just a game without an central or overarching plot....or just player driven campaign. Heck even the game I'm running which is a character focused game could be described as a sandbox because the PC's are just running around and doing things that are pertinent to their characters and those things/npcs/plots only exist in the setting because the players put it there via their backgrounds.

[Lorsa]

Well, I guess this is the selective plot problem: People just pick and chose what is a plot and what is not.

The players are in a sandbox with a very well defined and focused and set goal to do a single thing the DM has premade is NO a plot, it's just ''awesome gameplay''.
But a band of thugs in the woods is a PLOT.

I know it's a bit late as this was like 4 pages ago, but still...

If you remember, this referred to the players changing the plot of the bandit thugs in the woods, but not the plot of [some evil guy trying to do an evil thing somewhere else].

This has nothing at all to do with selective plot, and everything to do with plot having different meanings.

Like was mentioned before, an NPC can have "a plot" to do something. This is not the same as "the plot" of the game.

The game is about the PCs. They are the protagonists.

In a book, the plot is about what happens to the characters that we get to follow, those that are written about. Even if some other character in the world has "a plot" to do something, this is completely irrelevant to the plot of the book.

This is the same in a RPG. The plot of the game is about what happens to the players. Therefore, when they kill the bandit thugs in the woods, they do alter "the plot". Both by their choice to kill them, and by how they choose to do so.

[jayem]

Technically, it says "linear adventures are railroads if ___", but you missed that important bit at the end.
The first link, which isn't quoted apart from the one sentence (and I missed, given DU's tendency to reinterpret quotes, this is easy) does not have the if, and is in order given.

It does however immediately get followed by a statement that not all railroads are bad. Which does not compute with it being 'bad wrong fun'.
It is in apparent disagreement with Cluedrew over the meaning of railroad. Which means one of them must be out of our alleged collective of agreement.
The second post (first quoted) seems to imply the opposite (as do the rest). "It [Linear Storytelling] is not railroaded if"
We do get a common thread of what (the core of) a railroad is running through those posts.
The disagreement is over the boundary not the core (specifically if the players ask to be railroaded are they being railroaded or not?).

[Boci]

It really just sounds like an organized game vs a random mess. A good DM makes and keeps lots of notes. Sure you could be a ''cool'' DM and keep it all in your head....but humans invented notes so you don't have to do it that way.

You'd have my notes for both games. The difference is, in the second, my notes on northern marshes (rulers, society, important NPCs, and likely monster encounters) would not help you recreate the game I ran for my players if yours chose to go to the wooded mountains in the west (I don't know why I said east the first time). You would run a game, you'd have notes on the rulers, the society, important NPCs and likely monster encounter), but it would be a different game to the first one because the players chose to head to a different part of the land.

[Darth Ultron]

Both a lego sets. Both come with an assortment of lego. Both can be used to build anything that those blocks will allow. Both are normal toys and there's nothing wrong with getting one or the other. But one is specifically designed and oriented towards a specific outcome.

I don't think these examples help...

1.Lego box one has 1000 pieces, and plans on how to make a car, plane, train and castle. And you can, of your own free will, follow the plans to make something OR you can make anything you want out of the pieces.

2.Lego box has 1000 pieces, and no plans. So you can make anything...just like you can with box one.

Now, with either box one or two you HAVE to have a plan to make something. You can't just randomly stick random pieces together and make anything. For example to call something a ''car'' it must have wheels that roll on the bottom. You can't just piles pieces together and say ''it's a car'' and you can't make something that looks exactly like a castle and say ''it's a car''.



This is the same in a RPG. The plot of the game is about what happens to the players. Therefore, when they kill the bandit thugs in the woods, they do alter "the plot". Both by their choice to kill them, and by how they choose to do so.

This is a whole other can of worms for another thread.

After all your idea of a 'player plot' is the 'after plot': What ever the players do is the plot....after.

Of course, a true player plot would be a railroad run by the DM....so like I said, a big can of worms.


You'd have my notes for both games. The difference is, in the second, my notes on northern marshes (rulers, society, important NPCs, and likely monster encounters) would not help you recreate the game I ran for my players if yours chose to go to the wooded mountains in the west (I don't know why I said east the first time). You would run a game, you'd have notes on the rulers, the society, important NPCs and likely monster encounter), but it would be a different game to the first one because the players chose to head to a different part of the land.

So...you are just saying an adventure would be different for each group? As if that is a big revelation?

[Boci]

So...you are just saying an adventure would be different for each group? As if that is a big revelation?

There were 2 examples remember? In the first, the set up meant the players were probably going to explore the ruins for the lost treasures, so the difference between how each group would expirience the adventure would be less pronounced.

[JNAProductions]

So...you are just saying an adventure would be different for each group? As if that is a big revelation?

What's being said is not that the details would be different, but that the WHOLE THING would be different. If you are, for instance, running Rise Of The Runelords, the same things happen every time. How the players react to them will change, and, not knowing much about the module, there may be different events, but the overall shape of the adventure is going to be similar every time.

Whereas in a sandbox game, the initial setting will always be the same (should you run the same game, that is) but what can happen after can and probably will vary IMMENSELY.

To construct a hypothetical, let's say you have a semi-branching linear game. Your end goal is to overthrow the evil vizier and reinstate the rightful king. Perhaps there are three main paths you can take-assemble allies from foreign lands, start a revolution among the people, or play as nobles and attack the vizier directly through political means. There are three main paths this adventure can take, and while each path should be pretty different, the goal is always the same, and should you play down the same path, it'll look pretty similar to any other group playing the same path.

But, take a sandbox. There's an evil vizier in the kingdom of Tudan. There's a dragon to the north claiming tribute from the farmers. There are bandits and orcish hordes to the south. To the west, the tritons live and practice their deep-sea alchemy. And east, we have the unexplored (but the DM knows that, past the mountains, there is a secret hermitage of eidolons). Now, while it might seem there are five main paths the players can take, there are actually a lot more, because the goal has not been set for them. In this example sandbox, there are five main things going on, but the players can ignore them entirely (hopefully their DM is good at improvising or has hella good notes!) or, more to the point, INTERACT DIFFERENTLY with the various setpieces and players. They do not HAVE to overthrow the vizier and reinstall the rightful king-they can aid him, they can dethrone him and claim the crown for themselves, they can ally with him and plot against him for any reasons they want. For the dragon, they can make a draconic cult, they could slay it, they could try to turn it into a dracolich to gain their own draconic minion. They can set their own goals-there is no predetermined plot.

[jayem]

I don't think these examples help...
1.Lego box one has 1000 pieces, and plans on how to make a car, plane, train and castle. And you can, of your own free will, follow the plans to make something OR you can make anything you want out of the pieces.

2.Lego box has 1000 pieces, and no plans. So you can make anything...just like you can with box one.

Now, with either box one or two you HAVE to have a plan to make something. You can't just randomly stick random pieces together and make anything. For example to call something a ''car'' it must have wheels that roll on the bottom. You can't just piles pieces together and say ''it's a car'' and you can't make something that looks exactly like a castle and say ''it's a car''.


Modern Lego has got more and more specific, if you take an old fire station it's made of exactly the same bricks you can use for everything else. you could easily canabilse it to make a school https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/lego/images/6/64/374.jpg

A bit later, you still have some flexibility, but there are more 'firestation' pieces. It looks prettier, but there are less options.
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/lego/images/6/6e/6385.jpg

And then even more so (note now the car chassis is now solid).
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/lego/images/b/bc/7240-2.jpg

[Max_Killjoy]

My "niece" loves Lego -- I make sure to get her the Classic boxes that are full of generic parts, and not the current half-prebuilt junk. Lego should be about the child's imagination, not build-by-numbers.

[Quertus]

My "niece" loves Lego -- I make sure to get her the Classic boxes that are full of generic parts, and not the current half-prebuilt junk. Lego should be about the child's imagination, not build-by-numbers.

My... "nephew"... strongly disagrees. He'd be a huge fan of the Kragle.

His dad and I are quite baffled, as we're more in your school of thought.

Still, I think it's a great metaphor. The more specific you make the pieces, the more the company can customize the appearance of the end product... and the less the end user can do so.

[Darth Ultron]

What's being said is not that the details would be different, but that the WHOLE THING would be different. If you are, for instance, running Rise Of The Runelords, the same things happen every time. How the players react to them will change, and, not knowing much about the module, there may be different events, but the overall shape of the adventure is going to be similar every time.

Whereas in a sandbox game, the initial setting will always be the same (should you run the same game, that is) but what can happen after can and probably will vary IMMENSELY.

To construct a hypothetical.....

Right, but you are comparing Apples and Oranges yet again.

1.Game One: The game setting has dozens of things going on and the players can do anything they want. The Players pick to do the Adventure: Save the King.

2.Game Two: The game setting has dozens of things going on and the players can do anything they want. The Players pick to do the Adventure: Fight the wererats.

So, yes, the games will be different?

[JNAProductions]

That's actually a good comparison. Apples and oranges are both fruits, and both tasty when ripe. But they are distinct things.

Likewise, a linear game and a sandbox game are both tabletop games, and both a lot of fun when done well. But they're separate.

And I'm not sure you read my example closely enough-the end goal in the first game is SET IN STONE. You WILL overthrow the vizier and reinstate the rightful king, or you die trying.

The second game has no set goal, and in fact, the goal can (and probably will) change mid-game. Players might start off attempting to reinstate the king, but find it too challenging, but since they've already ticked off the vizier, they can't really stay there. So, they head for the tritons' home, so they can have some measure of safety, and then adventure there. Or they might rush off to conquer the badlands, and proclaim themselves king of the orcs, but once that's done, the adventure need not end-they might set their sights on the kingdom of Tudan.

[Pleh]

Now, with either box one or two you HAVE to have a plan to make something. You can't just randomly stick random pieces together and make anything. For example to call something a ''car'' it must have wheels that roll on the bottom. You can't just piles pieces together and say ''it's a car'' and you can't make something that looks exactly like a castle and say ''it's a car''.

You don't need a plan. You can pick pieces whimsically without thought to what you are making, rather choosing pieces and connections purely based on how those pieces make you feel. After you've got a bit of structure established, you might pause and think about what you might be building. Maybe it reminds you of a car, so now you start fleshing out the aspects that seem car like. You still need no plan, because you can process this whole game only looking at what pieces you have one step at a time, never stopping to think ahead about anything you might do in the future, just looking at each piece and comparing it with the car to see if it can be used to improve the car.

It's not planned. It's exploratory.

[Darth Ultron]

And I'm not sure you read my example closely enough-the end goal in the first game is SET IN STONE. You WILL overthrow the vizier and reinstate the rightful king, or you die trying.

I seriously do not get why people keep bring this up.

Yes, there are bad jerk DMs that run nightmares of games and force the players to do things. BUT it is only them bad DMs. The other, common DMs will never, ever force anything ever.

Or is there some other type of game I'm missing, where the DM is a jerk monster and forces the players to do stuff?


It's not planned. It's exploratory.

Well, sure, you can make a random mess of an item. You can do that in an TRPG too.

You can not just stick 25 legos together in a random mess and say ''it's a car''.

Yes, you can sandbox and endlessly make abstract nothings with legos....but eventually most people will say they want to build something 'real'. And that is where the plan comes in.

[JNAProductions]

DU, when did I say linear games were bad? Having a single thing set in stone (your goal to overthrow the vizier) does not make a DM bad. It limits the scope and focus of the campaign, but that allows the DM to put their efforts into one area, rather than spreading out. It's not bad-and I don't think I ever said that it was bad.

A railroady DM does not simply set the goal (which, by the way, should be discussed in session 0 so everyone is on the same page), they set EVERYTHING. How do you beat the orcs? Fight them. Can't talk to them, can't get them to run, can't trick them or sneak past them. Just fight them. What's next? You have to go to the sage on the hill. No one else knows what you need to know, and if you try to go somewhere else anyway, he'll teleport you to him. THAT is bad. Linearity is not.

[Darth Ultron]

I'm the one that says if the DM forces the players to do things they are bad DMs. I'm not saying you said it.

I see only two ways:

1.The DM is a jerk that forces the players to do things.
2.The Dm forces nothing and the players can try all most anything.

I call the second one a normal game...and the freedom to try anything is a basic fundamental part of a TRPG.

Of course, I also say all games are linear(dictionary definition, not wacky gamer one) and are railroads(the good kind) too.

[Xuc Xac]

Yes, there are bad jerk DMs that run nightmares of games and force the players to do things. BUT it is only them bad DMs.


I'm the one that says if the DM forces the players to do things they are bad DMs. I'm not saying you said it.

I see only two ways:

1.The DM is a jerk that forces the players to do things.
2.The Dm forces nothing and the players can try all most anything.


Which group are you in?


I'm a hard core Railroading DM, and if you talk to me for more then a minute or so I will flat out tell you my game is a RAILROAD. So there is not hiding, no tricks...the 8000 pound railroad is right in front of you.

[flond]

I'm the one that says if the DM forces the players to do things they are bad DMs. I'm not saying you said it.

I see only two ways:

1.The DM is a jerk that forces the players to do things.
2.The Dm forces nothing and the players can try all most anything.

I call the second one a normal game...and the freedom to try anything is a basic fundamental part of a TRPG.

Of course, I also say all games are linear(dictionary definition, not wacky gamer one) and are railroads(the good kind) too.

Ok. Example time!

I'm in a fairly large cross section of games!

One of them is a monster mass Chronicles of Darkness game, where every time we play we decide which of the many plot threads we want to deal with, including
a. Our Beast has a weird stone head that appeared in their dreamscape. (this is entirely gm made)
b. I'm creating a series of blood magic spells synergizing with my splat's own magic (this is me made, the only thing the gm did was approve it).
c. Our mummy is working to take over a town, and presently has to deal with a bunch of vampires. (The mummy decided to take over this town of his own volition, though the vampires are GM made)
d. We're figuring out why an archmage asked for our help to drop meteors on a place. (I, with no prompting, asked if there was anything we could do as a favor to her)

Outside of literally starting a session in media res because, for example, we ended the last one in combat, we can pick up any of these threads and more at our leisure. And while things may happen, we are under no obligation to return to any of them.

Another is a legend of the five rings game. In it, we're investigators. We're assigned cases which all have principal people involved, premade facts, and areas to look at. We however, can pick our approaches for these cases, and the chips fall where they may. And if we need to kill ourselves, because we screw up that badly, and the evil gets away and unleashes 1000 years of darkness. That happens.

A third was a pathfinder adventure path. It appears somewhat like the l5r game, except scenes are already premade, with stat blocks in waiting. So it's far more linear. We go from place to place, and at most our success or failure means pieces are dropped or added to the grid. This is fine.

A fourth is going to be a traveler game. We'll be getting a system map, a ship with a mortgage on it, and a set of rules determining how much it costs to go places. With this, we ply our trade and try to figure out how to use the prebuilt encounters to make our fortune, with the ability to take or leave anything.

Do you see why these games are different, and why having "sandbox" vs "linear" is useful in telling people what your preferences are?

[Florian]

@flond:

You're asking the wrong question (or at least, something with your question is wrong).

A lot of people who still go on about "linear" in this thread focus on the design, not the execution, mistaking the importance of the later over the former.

You can, for example, take a map of Varisia and dump anything from Rise of the Runelords, Crimson Throne, the start of Jade Regent as well as Second Darkness and Shattered Star in it, along with everything available for Korvosa, Kaer Mage, Riddleport and the whole rest and we still have no concrete answer what it is we´re dealing with right there.

Throughout the thread, we´re following two assumptions:
- The "Sandbox Quality" means that player agency is fully given and that makes for a "normal game", in the sense that going to low or high in agency is not a TTRPG anymore.
- The decision making process can be on the meta-level before actual play, but decisions based on the in-game reality should actually reflect this, purely player-driven decisions or "whimsy" are not options. (Roughly meaning, to stick with the Varisia example, that you discover the game world, the different folks, NPC and sites, then base your decision-making on what you have encountered and not, for example, start some kingdom building because you, as player, came to the table with kingdom building in mind and didn't talk about that in session zero).

@DU:

You should switch terms. It´s "Roalercoaster", not "Railroad".

[Pleh]

Well, sure, you can make a random mess of an item. You can do that in an TRPG too.

Just because you build without a plan does not mean it is random or messy. It means it is *whimsical*, which is to say that it follows a paradigm of choices made from the creator's whimsy. It could end up creating an elaborate pattern the creator didn't anticipate, but recognizes later after the pattern starts taking form.

It's sort of like dreaming, where you let your subconscious take the wheel, at least to get you started. The trick is understanding that nothing your subconscious does is truly random, it merely seems random because you don't understand the context of what it is trying to do.

Most dreams you experience when sleeping seem random to your conscious mind because they seem to be trying to simulate reality (and they often don't do that well), but that's not what they're really doing. More often, dreams seem to be one of the ways the human brain processes emotions and cognitive dissonance while the conscious brain recharges.

Choosing lego bricks whimsically seems random and messy if you never take the time to look at it afterward and ask yourself, "why did I do that?"


You can not just stick 25 legos together in a random mess and say ''it's a car''.

Oh, yes you can. It may be a poor approximation of a car or impractical to implement, but you can call anything you create anything you want. You made it, so it is what you say it is. Again, this doesn't mean calling a single brick, "car" magically makes it good at being a car, but that doesn't stop you from using it as one (you just won't get very far).

Who hasn't seen a toddler take something like a lego brick, push it along the ground, make the engine noises, and pretend it's a car, despite lacking most of the necessary features?


Yes, you can sandbox and endlessly make abstract nothings with legos....but eventually most people will say they want to build something 'real'. And that is where the plan comes in.

Inkblots are literally abstract nothings, yet psychologists show them to people asking what they see because the human mind tends to imaginatively apply order into perceptions of chaos and how they do so can give the psychologist clues about how their brain is processing information.

This process of applying our own unique vision on a messy, random system and assert our own order upon it has an endless fun value.

So I've now identified 2 alternative game styles through legos that each do not require your ideas of planning in order to have endless fun with the toy: exploration and domestication.

The game of exploration needs no plan and has enthralled players since the dawn of the species, because it's just an act of examining things and testing them through interaction. Until you start placing constraints on how you can effectively explore a thing, there is no need for any planning whatsoever.

Domestication (for lack of a better term) is that fun of taking a thing and making it suit your preference, like chopping weeds out of a patch of grass, hanging a picture on the wall, adding lines to an inkblot to turn it into a picture, conolizing a wild frontier, or building a guild in a medieval fantasy city. You might plan you steps to getting there, but there's not any actual need to do so, it just improves your chance of success. The fun is in the doing and you might not set out to build a guild in a city, but as you're exploring, meeting people and doing work for people, you gradually become aware of the opportunity and desire to formalize what you're doing as building a guild and start actively pursuing it. Then later, if it doesn't seem to be working, you can abandon it and resume the random exploration.

At no point do people have to "be done" with random/whimsical actions in TTRPGs. Planning is just never essential at any point.

Edit: and most rpgs will have plans, exploration, and domestication, but the point is that some games key their entertainment on narrative, some on exploration, some on domestication. Once one of these is made primary, the other are often used as supplement, but they become ultimately unneccessary.

A DM might plan a maze to only be something for the players to have to get through to the quest on the other side, but the players might have more fun exploring all the nooks and crannies if there's optional treasure at the dead ends, or they might be impressed at it value as a fortification and wish to domesticate it as a stronghold.

The difference between sandbox and linear isn't usually the existence or lack of planning or agency, but the priority these elements have over one another for deriving the game's fun.

[Darth Ultron]

Do you see why these games are different, and why having "sandbox" vs "linear" is useful in telling people what your preferences are?

Really, it look more like a confusing mess...and yet again it is comparing Apples to Oranges and saying ''wow, look the apples are different".

1.Ok, players pick something to do and DM makes the adventure. Straightforward here.
2.DM makes the adventures, and players willing give up their right to pick and choose. Ok, straightforward again.
3.So published adventure path the players choose to do....but here you suddenly drop 'scenes' and 'stats', and make it seem like games one and two don't have them right? So game two has ''facts", but not ''scenes''....and suddenly this game is ''linear'', in that wacky RPG definition. Though I would point out games one and two are exactly like three and are linear also.
4.This is just a random mess were nothing much happens?



Throughout the thread, we´re following two assumptions:
- The "Sandbox Quality" means that player agency is fully given and that makes for a "normal game", in the sense that going to low or high in agency is not a TTRPG anymore.

Well, ''player agency" is meaningless, but I'll go with the basic idea that a TRPG is about choice.



- The decision making process can be on the meta-level before actual play, but decisions based on the in-game reality should actually reflect this, purely player-driven decisions or "whimsy" are not options.

If this is saying the players can't side table DM, then I agree.



You should switch terms. It´s "Roalercoaster", not "Railroad".

Roller-coaster? Why? What do ''they say'' that word means for a TRPG?



It's sort of like dreaming, where you let your subconscious take the wheel, at least to get you started. The trick is understanding that nothing your subconscious does is truly random, it merely seems random because you don't understand the context of what it is trying to do.

Assuming your not making something abstract that is a random mess, you have to have a plan to make anything else that is real. If your making X, then what you make has to be based of X...and sure you can customize it like crazy, but it will still be X. Like if you build a house it has to have an entrance/exit, otherwise the ''thing' can't be called a house.

Even a dream follows the base line of Reality...like where you are dreaming that you are walking in the woods or doing any other mundane thing. And dreams do have that dream aspect where anything can happen..like suddenly the woods be come made of candy...BUT that is only possible because the reality baseline tells you that is not how 'real' woods are.



Who hasn't seen a toddler take something like a lego brick, push it along the ground, make the engine noises, and pretend it's a car, despite lacking most of the necessary features?

Hummm, make that so called sandbox gamer and a blank sheet of paper...lol.



So I've now identified 2 alternative game styles through legos that each do not require your ideas of planning in order to have endless fun with the toy: exploration and domestication.

Yes, you are describing the Other games....the Storytelling games and the ''and then'' games. But I'm not talking about that sort of game.

[Corneel]

Well, ''player agency" is meaningless,
That there, that would explain a lot that is actually already painfully obvious.

[Darth Ultron]

That there, that would explain a lot that is actually already painfully obvious.

Stay tuned for the future thread: Why 'Player Agency' is a meaningless phrase....coming to a forum near you soon.

[Boci]

Well, ''player agency" is meaningless,

"The ability of players to meaningfully contribute to how the game unfolds as oppose to exploring and interacting with pre-determined challenges and merely getting to decide how each challenge is overcome" seems to have a pretty clear meaning. You may not like it (for reasons beyond me), but it is has meaning.

[Mordaedil]

Stay tuned for the future thread: Why 'Player Agency' is a meaningless phrase....coming to a forum near you soon.

Holy ****, you truly are the most baitiest troll.

[Thinker]

Stay tuned for the future thread: Why 'Player Agency' is a meaningless phrase....coming to a forum near you soon.

It seems like you're just saying anything that don't like or disagree with is meaningless.

[flond]

Really, it look more like a confusing mess...and yet again it is comparing Apples to Oranges and saying ''wow, look the apples are different".

1.Ok, players pick something to do and DM makes the adventure. Straightforward here.
2.DM makes the adventures, and players willing give up their right to pick and choose. Ok, straightforward again.
3.So published adventure path the players choose to do....but here you suddenly drop 'scenes' and 'stats', and make it seem like games one and two don't have them right? So game two has ''facts", but not ''scenes''....and suddenly this game is ''linear'', in that wacky RPG definition. Though I would point out games one and two are exactly like three and are linear also.
4.This is just a random mess were nothing much happens?



Except that there's a difference between a game where every session is fairly wide open to player choice (1+4) a game where the decision of goal was abdicated at the start of game (a type 2) and a game where each individual combat was preplanned and was locked in at start of game (a type 3). These all have a different feel and different gameplay loops. Different advantages. To say that they are all the same is equivalent to saying "all dice are the same, just grab some out of the pot. And be quiet about all that d whatever nonsense." which is either a)going to lead to problems as I'm rolling a d100 and you're rolling a d3. Or b) a sign that all you have is one small type of die (maybe you just have d6s (Or, in your case, maybe you have just Telltale style games))

[Segev]

Okay, confirmation that Darth Ultron is deliberately misconstruing things rather than innocently failing at communication has finally been achieved! One does not leave off "if" after "___ are ___" in a quote by accident.

Therefore, I can finally cease to try to understand Darth Ultron's mindset and logic. He is not engaging in any; he is simply trying to "win" by lying through his teeth and insulting anybody who disagrees with him.

Man, that's a relief. I apologize to anybody else who long ago grew weary of this for my part in prolonging these threads.

[Pleh]

Okay, confirmation that Darth Ultron is deliberately misconstruing things rather than innocently failing at communication has finally been achieved! One does not leave off "if" after "___ are ___" in a quote by accident.

Therefore, I can finally cease to try to understand Darth Ultron's mindset and logic. He is not engaging in any; he is simply trying to "win" by lying through his teeth and insulting anybody who disagrees with him.

Man, that's a relief. I apologize to anybody else who long ago grew weary of this for my part in prolonging these threads.

His points can still sometimes create opportunities to take the conversation further with everyone else. I still occasionally reply when I see a point I feel worth making with more hope that other people have something to contribute than DU.

[Darth Ultron]

Except that there's a difference between a game where every session is fairly wide open to player choice (1+4) a game where the decision of goal was abdicated at the start of game (a type 2) and a game where each individual combat was preplanned and was locked in at start of game (a type 3). These all have a different feel and different gameplay loops.

I just don't see the differences, so guess this might just fall under the whole illusion umbrella. Like any game play can start wide open where the characters can do lots of small stuff...but then once the game get to more adventure worthy things it will get focused and closed.

And I'm not sure how things ''feel'' different:

1.DM plans ahead and has a troll at the Black Bridge that comes out and attacks the characters.
2.DM has nothing, but then randomly has a troll at the Black Bridge that comes out and attacks the characters.

And the second one ''feels'' different?


Okay, confirmation that Darth Ultron is deliberately misconstruing things rather than innocently failing at communication has finally been achieved! One does not leave off "if" after "___ are ___" in a quote by accident.


I rolled a ''1'' for understand internet forum post....

[Mordaedil]

Man, that's a relief. I apologize to anybody else who long ago grew weary of this for my part in prolonging these threads.
It's been somewhat entertaining, in a nail-biting kind of way. But what it is important now is to just move on.

[flond]

I just don't see the differences, so guess this might just fall under the whole illusion umbrella. Like any game play can start wide open where the characters can do lots of small stuff...but then once the game get to more adventure worthy things it will get focused and closed.

And I'm not sure how things ''feel'' different:

1.DM plans ahead and has a troll at the Black Bridge that comes out and attacks the characters.
2.DM has nothing, but then randomly has a troll at the Black Bridge that comes out and attacks the characters.

And the second one ''feels'' different?


Firstly? Why would things get more focused and closed? The more powerful you get, the more of a mover and shaker you become, the more you're able to take on bigger things, and forge entire empires. Unless you've got a DM who's pushing for a Dragonlance style "final confrontation", you should be able to extend and pursue your aims just as much later on in the sandbox.

2. The difference here once again, is the difference between "choose on the map where you want to go and deal with what's there." vs "I've got an awesome fight scene planned at the bridge, so I narrate the characters ending up there"/ they follow the one plot thread I've got.

[Mordaedil]

Come on already.

[Darth Ultron]

Raise thread!


Firstly? Why would things get more focused and closed? The more powerful you get, the more of a mover and shaker you become, the more you're able to take on bigger things, and forge entire empires. Unless you've got a DM who's pushing for a Dragonlance style "final confrontation", you should be able to extend and pursue your aims just as much later on in the sandbox.

Well, you are talking about scope, not focus.

Yes, the PC's can do ''anything''.....but in reality they have to pick just One thing to do; as in reality you can only do one major thing at a time. Like say the PCs want to ''forge a mighty empire''. Ok, so they can say that for a couple hours and just be like ''wow, it is a great idea''. BUT...eventually, they have to do something.....something small and focused and closed: An Adventure. So the players need to pick a Step One to ''forge a mighty empire''. So they pick: Clear and claim some land...a good first step. So they pick a spot on the map, and travel there. This would start the Western Land Grab adventure: the characters would attempt to take over and control and rule a set area of land. This is a set, small, focused and closed adventure goal.





2. The difference here once again, is the difference between "choose on the map where you want to go and deal with what's there." vs "I've got an awesome fight scene planned at the bridge, so I narrate the characters ending up there"/ they follow the one plot thread I've got.

The first is a normal game, the second is a jerk DM game....it's very simple.

The good DM makes a good encounter no matter where the characters are or what they are doing....so it really does not even matter where the characters are or what they are doing.

A lot of average or bad DM's fall into classic trap of making a dull, boring world. This is typical when a DM makes a ''Bridge of Doom'' in the "Darklands" that leads to the "Forest of Doom"...and the whole rest of the world is just the dull, boring farmers. So this DM gets all upset when the players don't go to the Place of Doom.

The Good DM has an adventure filled world everywhere...there are dozens of ''bridges of interesting events'' to be encountered in every direction.

[Max_Killjoy]

Come on already.

Thread was almost off the front page...

[Segev]

Eh, we're practically back to page one of the thread, anyway, with Darth Ultron deliberately misrepresenting what people say and throwing "randomly" around like an insult to claim that anything that isn't a hard railroad is a total random mess. *shrug*

[Corneel]

Soon we'll reach closure. Even sooner if we keep posting.

[Boci]

The Good DM has an adventure filled world everywhere...there are dozens of ''bridges of interesting events'' to be encountered in every direction.

That's a sandbox. You are describing a sandbox. If there are dozens of "bridges of interesting events" that players can freely choose, that's a sandbox. If there is one bridge of interesting events, that a non-sandbox. For examples, modules, will typically not have a dozen "bridges of interesting stuff". There are not a dozens castles in "Expedition to Castle Ravenloft" that the players pick from. There is one. Doesn't make it a bad game, just means its not sandbox.

[RazorChain]

Soon we'll reach closure. Even sooner if we keep posting.


Heck....I'll chip in +1. One closer to closure

[PhoenixPhyre]

Heck....I'll chip in +1. One closer to closure

Are purple monkeys in baby carriages a sandbox trait or a linear game trait? I think that they're elephants.

[RazorChain]

Are purple monkeys in baby carriages a sandbox trait or a linear game trait? I think that they're elephants.

It depends if they are placed in the party's path by an Ogre or not.

On the Elephants, I think you should start a new thread about it because it seems an Elephant is an meaningless phrase in this instance

[Darth Ultron]

That's a sandbox. You are describing a sandbox. If there are dozens of "bridges of interesting events" that players can freely choose, that's a sandbox. If there is one bridge of interesting events, that a non-sandbox. For examples, modules, will typically not have a dozen "bridges of interesting stuff". There are not a dozens castles in "Expedition to Castle Ravenloft" that the players pick from. There is one. Doesn't make it a bad game, just means its not sandbox.

So your talking the side that each encounter is a mini adventure.

But, yet again, you descend to the Apples and Oranges. You are comparing a single adventure, to a campaign. It's like your comparing one chapter of a book to the whole story of the book.

Again, the whole point of an adventure is focus: The characters do one thing.

So like:

*Wide Open Gaming- Most games start here with just a couple characters and a setting. There is no plot, story, structure or anything: just some characters and random things and stuff. The player are free to have their characters randomly wander around and randomly explore the setting. The Players can talk to NPCs, listen to the DM describe things in the setting and do small mundane things like ''drink at a tavern'' or ''get their toe nails painted red". They can even have some small bits of random action or random combat, anything that only takes a couple of rounds and has no lasting meaning or impact on anything.

For some, the Wide Open Gaming is the end all of gaming, and they will stop right here and spend the rest of the game randomly doing the random wander and explore. Most players want more from the game though: More Action/Adventure. they want a plot, and story, and substance and an Adventure. And this leads to:

*Adventure Gaming-The players pick an Adventure and the DM makes that Adventure and runs the characters through it.

[Cluedrew]

It is in apparent disagreement with Cluedrew over the meaning of railroad. Which means one of them must be out of our alleged collective of agreement.Hey I got referenced, cool. And for the record I'm not in complete agreement with myself. I am currently debating if I should update my definition of railroading.

Previously I used "A player (usually the GM) forcing the adventure along a predetermined path." I am now considering framing it in terms of "forced linearity". Mostly comes from Grod's thread and it would nicely frame why I don't think linear and railroad are interchangeable. Problem is it is now dependant on another non-common definition (that of linear) to define it. So maybe I should say I was debating, I don't think I will anymore.

[Boci]

*Wide Open Gaming- Most games start here with just a couple characters and a setting. There is no plot, story, structure or anything: just some characters and random things and stuff. The player are free to have their characters randomly wander around and randomly explore the setting. The Players can talk to NPCs, listen to the DM describe things in the setting and do small mundane things like ''drink at a tavern'' or ''get their toe nails painted red". They can even have some small bits of random action or random combat, anything that only takes a couple of rounds and has no lasting meaning or impact on anything.

For some, the Wide Open Gaming is the end all of gaming, and they will stop right here and spend the rest of the game randomly doing the random wander and explore. Most players want more from the game though: More Action/Adventure. they want a plot, and story, and substance and an Adventure. And this leads to:

*Adventure Gaming-The players pick an Adventure and the DM makes that Adventure and runs the characters through it.

So I'm guessing you're just hoping we've forgotten this comment:


The Good DM has an adventure filled world everywhere...there are dozens of ''bridges of interesting events'' to be encountered in every direction.

Because that seems to clash with your binary and highly biased simplification above.

It ultimatly doesn't matter though. Even in the above post, with the twisted examples, you've still dissproven your thread. Sandbox is not a meaningless term. Even if you genuinly feel its not a good way to structure a game and dub it "Wide Open Gaming", it still has meaning. I don't like 4th wall breaking settings in RPs, doesn't mean "4th wall breaking settings"/"Stick-verse" is a meaningless term.

[Darth Ultron]

Because that seems to clash with your binary and highly biased simplification above.

I don't see a clash? No matter what the Players do they will go on an Adventure. It is really the whole point of the game.

[Boci]

I don't see a clash? No matter what the Players do they will go on an Adventure. It is really the whole point of the game.

Its a clash because you go from calling the same scanrio "there are dozens of ''bridges of interesting events''" to "They can even have some small bits of random action or random combat, anything that only takes a couple of rounds and has no lasting meaning or impact on anything." once I told you that you were describing a sandbox.

[Darth Ultron]

Its a clash because you go from calling the same scanrio "there are dozens of ''bridges of interesting events''" to "They can even have some small bits of random action or random combat, anything that only takes a couple of rounds and has no lasting meaning or impact on anything." once I told you that you were describing a sandbox.

I'm saying that once the characters leave town and go on an adventure, the bridge will be encounter one of that adventure.

You saying more the bridge encounter IS the whole adventure...or a mini adventure.

[Emperor Demonking]

That's a sandbox. You are describing a sandbox. If there are dozens of "bridges of interesting events" that players can freely choose, that's a sandbox. If there is one bridge of interesting events, that a non-sandbox. For examples, modules, will typically not have a dozen "bridges of interesting stuff". There are not a dozens castles in "Expedition to Castle Ravenloft" that the players pick from. There is one. Doesn't make it a bad game, just means its not sandbox.

But there are multiple rooms, aren't there?

If there was a setting and that setting was one large castle then a sandbox game wiould be just picking the rooms to go to. Wouldn't it?

I can't see how the nature of the game changes merely when the DM sets the game in a castle rather than castle-world.

[jayem]

I'm saying that once the characters leave town and go on an adventure, the bridge will be encounter one of that adventure.

You saying more the bridge encounter IS the whole adventure...or a mini adventure.

It's kind of the opposite. Something started before the town and includes the choice to go in the direction and the encounters following their decisions at the bridge. And whatever that something is, that's the important thing in that type of game.

I think it is though kind of true that you can't really define mid-sized purely self contained "adventures" in a connected non-linear segment. That is in a linear segment once the character leave town the bridge will be encounter one, X will be encounter two etc... In a non-linear segment X only may be encounter two*
(a road with steep sides would be a naturally occurring absolute example, a clear road with determined players would actually make for an interesting discussion, my trip to the shops would be a non-example)

*Consider the flight from the shire. They left the shire on the adventure to Crickenhollow. Nice clear road. Encounter 1 they met the Nazgul on the road. Encounter 2 was not the Nazgul on the bridge but Farmer Maggot in the mushroom fields, because they left the road as a result of Encounter 1.

[Boci]

But there are multiple rooms, aren't there?

If there was a setting and that setting was one large castle then a sandbox game wiould be just picking the rooms to go to. Wouldn't it?

I can't see how the nature of the game changes merely when the DM sets the game in a castle rather than castle-world.

If the entire setting is one castle, its not a sandbox setting (unless the castle is the size of the New York metropolitant area). A sandbox is about choice. The ability of players to choose, and not just which castle they go to, but also to leave halfway if we want, and the DM building his world in a way that that can happen. When I sit down to play raid the castle game, be it the module "Expedition to Castle Ravenloft" or the DM's own "Fort Caltessa", there is an understanding that we as players will not leave halfway through because we heard someone in the tavern talk about a lost sword buried on a tropical island. In a sandbox game, that would be acceptable (though ofcourse depending on how much we had done in the castle before leaving, the ruler might not want to leave it at that, but the players are still free to leave).

[Emperor Demonking]

If the entire setting is one castle, its not a sandbox setting (unless the castle is the size of the New York metropolitant area).

There are over eight million people in New York City. How many plot hooks/NPCs etc. do you think are in the typical sandbox game?

Or are you simply talking about imaginary geographic space, as I don't think that's relevant.


A sandbox is about choice. The ability of players to choose, and not just which castle they go to, but also to leave halfway if we want, and the DM building his world in a way that that can happen. When I sit down to play raid the castle game, be it the module "Expedition to Castle Ravenloft" or the DM's own "Fort Caltessa", there is an understanding that we as players will not leave halfway through because we heard someone in the tavern talk about a lost sword buried on a tropical island. In a sandbox game, that would be acceptable (though ofcourse depending on how much we had done in the castle before leaving, the ruler might not want to leave it at that, but the players are still free to leave).

But when one runs one's Greyhawk sandbox game, the player's do not have the choice to go to the Forgetten Realms so it can't be that on one side there are no limits and the other way there are.

Imagine a game where the players are free to go where they want. They choose to enter a cave. There is a cave-in - no they cause a cave-in to stop the dragon that they chose to antagonise. At that point they no longer have the choice to simply waltz out. The game has not become a linear one though, surely?

Of course, the players are free to try to escape that way. But even in the worst parody of the linear DM, the players are free to try to avoid the Ogre. They'll just fail.

You talk of an 'understanding' but imagine if you are running a game. It is a sandbox. Your good PCs have agreed to find the rare herb to save poor Suzy from her rare infection. After the players find the herb, they decide to ditch that quest to go looking for the lost sword. Is that not off-putting and hold-on-a-sec as it would be if the rare herb was act one of a linear adventure?

[Pleh]

Imagine a game where the players are free to go where they want. They choose to enter a cave. There is a cave-in - no they cause a cave-in to stop the dragon that they chose to antagonise. At that point they no longer have the choice to simply waltz out. The game has not become a linear one though, surely?

You're correct that games tend to be fluid and can rapidly shift in tone, but your example is actually great at undermining your point.

The characters cause a cave in to trap a dragon. You say they cannot simply waltz out? How do you define simple? If they can teleport and/or burrow, getting out of the cave is pretty easy.

The real question is: when the cave in happens, are the walls fortified with plot walls, or would the players be free to tunnel out with tools if they took the time to dig?

That's more where the line between linear and sandbox lies.

[Boci]

There are over eight million people in New York City. How many plot hooks/NPCs etc. do you think are in the typical sandbox game?

Or are you simply talking about imaginary geographic space, as I don't think that's relevant.

It is relevant. Sandbox games need size to operate, like how high magic needs, magic to work.


Imagine a game where the players are free to go where they want. They choose to enter a cave. There is a cave-in - no they cause a cave-in to stop the dragon that they chose to antagonise. At that point they no longer have the choice to simply waltz out. The game has not become a linear one though, surely?

Yes, obviously. Physical/magical barriers are a thing in both linear and sandbox games. The point I was making is that there isn't a barrier physical or magic stopping players from leaving Ravenloft (okay, I think the mists have a DC 16 fear effect maybe, hardly impenetrable). But players won't, because there's an understanding that you don't do that when the DM runs Expecition to Castleravenloft.


You talk of an 'understanding' but imagine if you are running a game. It is a sandbox. Your good PCs have agreed to find the rare herb to save poor Suzy from her rare infection. After the players find the herb, they decide to ditch that quest to go looking for the lost sword. Is that not off-putting and hold-on-a-sec as it would be if the rare herb was act one of a linear adventure?

No, its not. It would be a little jarring obviously (depending on the exact details and party makeup), but ultimatly in a sandbox, there's a whole world full of sick people. What if the players stop looking for the herb to save child to go and save a whole village from orcs?

Not to mention you've chosen a very sudden turn adventurewise. Returning to Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, spoilers for the adventure module:

There are 3 phases to the adventure,
1. They arrieve at the town and deal with the undead
2. They explore the wilderness
3. They enter the castle

The end of phase 1 or 2 offers far more organic and less off-putting break off points for the PCs to leave and do something else. At the end of phase 1 for example the PCs have saved a village from undead and found out the letter was not from the person whose signature they feated. Maybe they want to stay and figure out why they were tricked, maybe they want to leave. In a sandbox they are free to choose here.

[jayem]

If the entire setting is one castle, its not a sandbox setting (unless the castle is the size of the New York metropolitant area). A sandbox is about choice. The ability of players to choose, and not just which castle they go to, but also to leave halfway if we want, and the DM building his world in a way that that can happen. When I sit down to play raid the castle game, be it the module "Expedition to Castle Ravenloft" or the DM's own "Fort Caltessa", there is an understanding that we as players will not leave halfway through because we heard someone in the tavern talk about a lost sword buried on a tropical island. In a sandbox game, that would be acceptable (though ofcourse depending on how much we had done in the castle before leaving, the ruler might not want to leave it at that, but the players are still free to leave).
I would venture that in the context of the castle, the castle itself can be more or less sandboxy, to some extent independently of the wider setting. And indeed there would be cases for it to vary naturally according to setting, a castle is after all designed to limit your options, a prison even more so. However in the castle example even locally it can only be "A sandbox-except where actions might lead to you leaving the castle"

That said there would be a degree of "as above so below", because else there is a potential for a clash.

And in addition you could possibly shrink the PC's (e.g. the 'thrilling' roleplay of the domestic staff and the challenges they face) and keep the castle castle sized for a looong time. I'm not sure why you'd want to... but in such a case you could do that from pretty near sandbox (stuck in castle) to pretty near linear (with one location, consequences will come back).

[Emperor Demonking]

You're correct that games tend to be fluid and can rapidly shift in tone, but your example is actually great at undermining your point.


You say 'tone', are you referring to linear or sandbox there? As I'd don't consider that a matter of tone.


The characters cause a cave in to trap a dragon. You say they cannot simply waltz out? How do you define simple? If they can teleport and/or burrow, getting out of the cave is pretty easy.

The real question is: when the cave in happens, are the walls fortified with plot walls, or would the players be free to tunnel out with tools if they took the time to dig?

That's more where the line between linear and sandbox lies.

Yes, I was assuming the characters lacked burrowing or teleportation abilities.

Imagine a game, it's level one. It starts with the characters having failen to one edge of the 'World's scar' an incredible deep valley with roaming goblins. At this point there is nothing really ultimately for them to do but find somewhere where there's a way (although, sure, they'll look for treasure and deal with the goblins also). The goblins and the valley-face are not plot walls. But you'd agree that it'd be a miss old campaign if it billed itself as a Sandbox?

[Boci]

You say 'tone', are you referring to linear or sandbox there? As I'd don't consider that a matter of tone.


Yes, I was assuming the characters lacked burrowing or teleportation abilities.

Imagine a game, it's level one. It starts with the characters having failen to one edge of the 'World's scar' an incredible deep valley with roaming goblins. At this point there is nothing really ultimately for them to do but find somewhere where there's a way (although, sure, they'll look for treasure and deal with the goblins also). The goblins and the valley-face are not plot walls. But you'd agree that it'd be a miss old campaign if it billed itself as a Sandbox?

Depends how many ways out there are, but if there's only one, then yes, that isn't a sandbox, because as I noted above, sandboxes require space, not one location.

[Emperor Demonking]

It is relevant. Sandbox games need size to operate, like how high magic needs, magic to work.



So if one was to create a game where the hook was is than an evil wizard took a castle and froze it away in time where the players were free to do as they pleased in that castle (try to find a way out, catch the food thief, become competitors in the Distrzction Games, explorer the underground caves etc.) such a game would not be a sandbox? Would it be linear?




Yes, obviously. Physical/magical barriers are a thing in both linear and sandbox games. The point I was making is that there isn't a barrier physical or magic stopping players from leaving Ravenloft (okay, I think the mists have a DC 16 fear effect maybe, hardly impenetrable). But players won't, because there's an understanding that you don't do that when the DM runs Expecition to Castleravenloft.



No, its not. It would be a little jarring obviously (depending on the exact details and party makeup), but ultimatly in a sandbox, there's a whole world full of sick people. What if the players stop looking for the herb to save child to go and save a whole village from orcs?


If the DM puts a village being destroyed by orcs in front of the players, then I would expect the players to deal with it. Would you not find it jarring and off-putting if your good party just ignored the village attack in favour of finding the herb straight away?

(You may say: Ah, but what if the herb is time sensitive? Then I say that we're not dealing with a Sandbox/Linear distinction there. The worse parody of a Linear DM with his quantum sick girl and quantum Orc attack can put such a dilemma in front of the players.)



Not to mention you've chosen a very sudden turn adventurewise. Returning to Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, spoilers for the adventure module:

There are 3 phases to the adventure,
1. They arrieve at the town and deal with the undead
2. They explore the wilderness
3. They enter the castle

The end of phase 1 or 2 offers far more organic and less off-putting break off points for the PCs to leave and do something else. At the end of phase 1 for example the PCs have saved a village from undead and found out the letter was not from the person whose signature they feated. Maybe they want to stay and figure out why they were tricked, maybe they want to leave. In a sandbox they are free to choose here.

Imagine the players have never heard of the module. Upon defeating the undead and find out the truth about the letter, they decide that they want to learn more by going back to where the letter was delivered to them. What do you think the DM does in that situation?

[Boci]

So if one was to create a game where the hook was is than an evil wizard took a castle and froze it away in time where the players were free to do as they pleased in that castle (try to find a way out, catch the food thief, become competitors in the Distrzction Games, explorer the underground caves etc.) such a game would not be a sandbox? Would it be linear?

That set up could go either way, depending on the scope of the castle.


If the DM puts a village being destroyed by orcs in front of the players, then I would expect the players to deal with it. Would you not find it jarring and off-putting if your good party just ignored the village attack in favour of finding the herb straight away?

No. The players are not the police, at least not the only ones. If they want to save a sick child, that's fine. They have no obligation to save a village from goblins. If they want to save the village and delay finding the herb, whether the herb is time sensative or not, that's fine. Maybe they're evil PCs and make an alliance with the goblins instead, leading them to raid a town.

A sandbox game is about choice.


Imagine the players have never heard of the module. Upon defeating the undead and find out the truth about the letter, they decide that they want to learn more by going back to where the letter was delivered to them. What do you think the DM does in that situation?

In a sandbox game: "sure, you head back to the town where the letter was delivered, no random encounters on the way back. How will you find the messenger, you remember they looked like a..."

In Expedition to Castle Ravenloft? Have an NPC beg them not to go, have an enemy steal something, and if all else fails ask them OOC to stay because leaving Barovia is beyond the scope of the module.

[Emperor Demonking]

That set up could go either way, depending on the scope of the castle.



No. The players are not the police, at least not the only ones. If they want to save a sick child, that's fine. They have no obligation to save a village from goblins. If they want to save the village and delay finding the herb, whether the herb is time sensative or not, that's fine. Maybe they're evil PCs and make an alliance with the goblins instead, leading them to raid a town.

A sandbox game is about choice.


They're not evil PCs, they're good PCS. That was in the hypothetical. (I assume a sandbox campaign can be run with an all good party.)

If you wre running a Sandbox game is there anything that the party could ignore/break way from that would lead to you going to the party's paladin: "Do that and you'll fall?"



In a sandbox game: "sure, you head back to the town where the letter was delivered, no random encounters on the way back. How will you find the messenger, you remember they looked like a..."

In Expedition to Castle Ravenloft? Have an NPC beg them not to go, have an enemy steal something, and if all else fails ask them OOC to stay because leaving Barovia is beyond the scope of the module.

I'm not familiar with the module (I know its a classic) would it not be reasonable for an NPC to beg them to stay even in a sandbox? Or do you design the NPCS so that they're not the begging type?

But the big thing is obviously the 'if all else fails ask them OOC to stay', would you say that's the all-else-fails of all/almost all linear DMs?

[Boci]

They're not evil PCs, they're good PCS. That was in the hypothetical. (I assume a sandbox campaign can be run with an all good party.)

If you wre running a Sandbox game is there anything that the party could ignore/break way from that would lead to you going to the party's paladin: "Do that and you'll fall?"

Yes.


I'm not familiar with the module (I know its a classic) would it not be reasonable for an NPC to beg them to stay even in a sandbox? Or do you design the NPCS so that they're not the begging type?

Of course NPCs beg, but in a sandbox that's just roleplaying. In a linear adventure/module its also serves as *hint hint, beyond the planned scope of the game*.


But the big thing is obviously the 'if all else fails ask them OOC to stay', would you say that's the all-else-fails of all/almost all linear DMs?

Unless a DM wants to adapt the planed linear game into a sandbox game, if all else fails, yes they will need to ask the players OOC character to stay.

May I ask what's with the 101 questions?

[Pleh]

You say 'tone', are you referring to linear or sandbox there? As I'd don't consider that a matter of tone.

If not tone, then what?


Imagine a game, it's level one. It starts with the characters having failen to one edge of the 'World's scar' an incredible deep valley with roaming goblins. At this point there is nothing really ultimately for them to do but find somewhere where there's a way (although, sure, they'll look for treasure and deal with the goblins also). The goblins and the valley-face are not plot walls. But you'd agree that it'd be a miss old campaign if it billed itself as a Sandbox?

Valley face IS a plot wall, because it fences the heroes in, but it's a reasonable plot wall. A bigger plot wall is the removal of resources that the players could use to diversify their options

Eh. It can still become sandbox if the players are allowed to set down roots, conquer the goblin gangs, and become "Kings of the Scar" if they choose.

Difference between linear and sandbox is usually just Plot Walls. By stating, "there is nothing you are allowed to do but try to leave," yes, you set plot walls that bar resources and choice of direction. Sandbox only has a few walls to keep the sand in place while the players do whatever they choose, so linear games tend to more actively limit player options to keep them on the narrative, while sandbox games have static limits that can as easily be "climbed on" (turning obstacles into stepping stones) as they can be respected as limitations.

[Emperor Demonking]

Yes.

So if the paladin having given no indication to anyone that he wants to fall does ignore/break away from that which would cause him to fall, is that not just as jarring as if he broke away from part one of the adventure?


Of course NPCs beg, but in a sandbox that's just roleplaying. In a linear adventure/module its also serves as *hint hint, beyond the planned scope of the game*.



Unless a DM wants to adapt the planed linear game into a sandbox game, if all else fails, yes they will need to ask the players OOC character to stay.


So if the DM improvises(/has one ready) an adventure where the players track down the mesager (rather than go OOC and break the immersion) then he's now running a sandbox game?



May I ask what's with the 101 questions?

I think asking questions is the best way to co-discover with one another.

Edit:

If not tone, then what?


I don't know, if one's willing to go super-generic 'style'.



Valley face IS a plot wall, because it fences the heroes in, but it's a reasonable plot wall. A bigger plot wall is the removal of resources that the players could use to diversify their options

Eh, I don't see the difference between the valley face and the rocks of the cave-in (which was the example of not a plot-wall).


Eh. It can still become sandbox if the players are allowed to set down roots, conquer the goblin gangs, and become "Kings of the Scar" if they choose.

Difference between linear and sandbox is usually just Plot Walls. By stating, "there is nothing you are allowed to do but try to leave," yes, you set plot walls that bar resources and choice of direction. Sandbox only has a few walls to keep the sand in place while the players do whatever they choose, so linear games tend to more actively limit player options to keep them on the narrative, while sandbox games have static limits that can as easily be "climbed on" (turning obstacles into stepping stones) as they can be respected as limitations.

I think any realistic world will have obstacles, that although hypothetically can be exploited for benefit that would be awfully difficult and are more likely just going to be obstacles.

That you accept the possibility that the scar could be sandboxy is very interesting to me.

[Boci]

So if the paladin having given no indication to anyone that he wants to fall does ignore/break away from that which would cause him to fall, is that not just as jarring as if he broke away from part one of the adventure?

This a whole other kettle of fish. How/when a paladin falls ins't exactly clear by the rules, people tend to have varying opinions on how it should handle, should it even happen. Sufficient to say, any game with a paladin, linear or sandbox, should hammer down the specifics betweem the DM and the playing. Though yes, with the increased freedom of a sandbox game, its more of an issue there.


So if the DM improvises(/has one ready) an adventure where the players track down the mesager (rather than go OOC and break the immersion) then he's now running a sandbox game?

Pretty much yes. A sandbox rolls with the descisions players make, that's what makes it a sandbox.


I think asking questions is the best way to co-discover with one another.

And what exactly are you trying to discover? Are you still unclear on what a sandbox is?

[Emperor Demonking]

Pretty much yes. A sandbox rolls with the descisions players make, that's what makes it a sandbox.


So the DM run the 'find the messager' adventure. The players get nothing much out of it* save maybe a "go back to Castle Raveclaw" clue. That game's a sandbox?

* Not in a punishing way, that was just the nature of finding the messager.

I can definitely imagine a DM thinking that hyper-railroading is gauche, OOC breaking is gaucher but also (and with players that agree) is running one campaign/adventure that is to hit certain beats.



And what exactly are you trying to discover? Are you still unclear on what a sandbox is?

If one looks at the 'Scar of the World' example I gave, then you and Pleh disagreed on it. I am indeed not fully clear on what a sanbox is, and at least one of the of you aren't either. So we can learn together.

[Boci]

So the DM run the 'find the messager' adventure. The players get nothing much out of it* save maybe a "go back to Castle Raveclaw" clue. That game's a sandbox?

As long as there are other thing sto do in the world and the players simply choose to pursue this Ravenloft mystery instead of doing something else, yes.


If one looks at the 'Scar of the World' example I gave, then you and Pleh disagreed on it.

Not really. I was judging it on the tone you were presenting it with, Pleh was commenting on the potential of the setup. They're right, you could totally run such a set up as a sandbox (they mentioned several possible options that could involve), but the way you were describing it sounded like it was going to be a linear adventure.

Its about choice. If players can go and do what they want, its a sandbox. If the DM need to encourage them to stick within the scope of the game, either OCC or with IC hints, its probably not a sandbox game.

[Emperor Demonking]

As long as there are other thing sto do in the world and the players simply choose to pursue this Ravenloft mystery instead of doing something else, yes.


There aren't. So the DM letting them try to solve the Ravenloft mystery by tracking down the messager does not a sandbox make?




Its about choice. If players can go and do what they want, its a sandbox. If the DM need to encourage them to stick within the scope of the game, either OCC or with IC hints, its probably not a sandbox game.

The obvious question being: So if the players want to play the linear adventure then the linear adventure is a sandbox?

[Boci]

There aren't. So the DM letting them try to solve the Ravenloft mystery by tracking down the messager does not a sandbox make?

No. I said "A sandbox rolls with the descisions players make, that's what makes it a sandbox." Discions, plural. If its just once, then back to the main adventure with no other plothooksin the world, then no, it isn't a sandbox.


The obvious question being: So if the players want to play the linear adventure then the linear adventure is a sandbox?

No, its still linear, players just want it. A sandbox would have had a DM ready to give the players multiple options for what they can do, which would still be the case even if the players didn't take advantage of that.

[Emperor Demonking]

No. I said "A sandbox rolls with the descisions players make, that's what makes it a sandbox." Discions, plural. If its just once, then back to the main adventure with no other plothooksin the world, then no, it isn't a sandbox.



After the messager bust, the players are still suspicious o the Ravenloft place and decide to make a detour to the Great Library to see if they can discover some more. Then they warn the nearby kingdom of the undead menace. Sandbox?

Assume both player and DM have a goal in mind (destroy the Lich King Voltar). There are several ways that will be useful in doing this. There are no plot hooks that are not at least vaguely productive in stopping Voltar. Both players and GM are comitted to this. Do you know enough to know whether this is a sandbox or not?



No, its still linear, players just want it. A sandbox would have had a DM ready to give the players multiple options for what they can do, which would still be the case even if the players didn't take advantage of that.

In a tabletop game, i think the default for most DMs is that the player's have the options that their character would have. But the character has a character. At the start of the game, that means the player has an obligation to build a character that fits with the start of the game. After that then the game has narrative and personal weight. What sort of character gets a false letter that leads him to a mysterious land filled with undead and just forgets about it?

A game could be like this:
Rescue the pricess held three towns over -> The princess is asassinated by men bearing a strange mark, the player's learn it is the mark of the assassin guild three towns over-> The player's break into the assassin guild and the leader bargains for his life by telling them the princess was killed for a guy three towns away (/writes it in his journal come some (un)lucky rolls) -> The party kills the guy.

That's a linear game, surely? If every single town had a couple of quests that the player's were welcome to pick and choose then that does not change the fact that its a linear game.

[Boci]

In a tabletop game, i think the default for most DMs is that the player's have the options that their character would have. But the character has a character. At the start of the game, that means the player has an obligation to build a character that fits with the start of the game.

That's a decent rule of thrumb for whether or not a game can be considered a sandbox, how hard is it to build a character that fits with the start of the game. In a sandbox you would expect a lot of freedom, in linear games less so. In a sandbox game its fine for my character to be obsessed with the cultures of Melark Island chain. In a linear game that's going to be wasted if we never go anywhere near there.


After that then the game has narrative and personal weight. What sort of character gets a false letter that leads him to a mysterious land filled with undead and just forgets about it?

A fair few. They might have more important things to do, they might feel "this is a game, the only winning move is to not play", try to force the person behind the scenes to make another, perhaps bolder move and catch them out, ect.

I've stopped answering indevidual example of "Sandbox, y/n?" because it feels a little pointless. There's always going to be more. Sandbox games lets players choose how they explore the world, the more so this is featured, the more sandboxy it is, the less it is featured, the less sandboxy it is? When does a game stop being considered a sandbox? When player freedom drops below 6.49. Just kidding. This is a grey line as it can often be the case with lables (When does a setting stop being High Magic? How many good things can a setting have vefore its no longer grimdark?), but that doesn't mean they're not useful.

[Emperor Demonking]

That's a decent rule of thrumb for whether or not a game can be considered a sandbox, how hard is it to build a character that fits with the start of the game. In a sandbox you would expect a lot of freedom, in linear games less so. In a sandbox game its fine for my character to be obsessed with the cultures of Melark Island chain. In a linear game that's going to be wasted if we never go anywhere near there.


Only one player can really pick the 'obsessed by geographic location' character though. In a 'classic' game making a character is as difficult as the D starting in a tavern. Indeed, I might have thought a sandbox was trickier since it is more the player's job to explain why they're stuck together.



A fair few. They might have more important things to do, they might feel "this is a game, the only winning move is to not play", try to force the person behind the scenes to make another, perhaps bolder move and catch them out, ect.

I've stopped answering indevidual example of "Sandbox, y/n?" because it feels a little pointless. There's always going to be more. Sandbox games lets players choose how they explore the world, the more so this is featured, the more sandboxy it is, the less it is featured, the less sandboxy it is? When does a game stop being considered a sandbox? When player freedom drops below 6.49. Just kidding. This is a grey line as it can often be the case with lables (When does a setting stop being High Magic? How many good things can a setting have vefore its no longer grimdark?), but that doesn't mean they're not useful.

If you ask: What makes a setting Grimdark? And the answer given is a paucity of good things then one can test that hypothesis by asking if we can construct a Grimdark setting with a greater number/density of good things than a non-grimdark setting.

If you hypothesise that a Sandbox needs a great deal of space, then we ask if we can construct a Sandbox in a small space.
If I hypothesise that a Sandbox needs variety, then we ask if we can construct a sandbox with just bands of goblins.
If you hypothesise that its the number of hooks, then we ask if we can create a Linear game with loads of hooks.

So a Sandbox is about 'lets players choose how they explore the world'. Honestly, I don't understand what you mean by this. Do you mean 'lets players choose why they explore the world'? (How just has me thinking of caravans and hot air baloons, which I doubt you mean.)

[Boci]

If you ask: What makes a setting Grimdark? And the answer given is a paucity of good things then one can test that hypothesis by asking if we can construct a Grimdark setting with a greater number/density of good things than a non-grimdark setting.

Yes, and it will be just as pointless. People who enjoy Grimdark worlds likely don't care about establishing exactly when a world stops being grimdark, they just like it as a setting.


So a Sandbox is about 'lets players choose how they explore the world'. Honestly, I don't understand what you mean by this. Do you mean 'lets players choose why they explore the world'? (How just has me thinking of caravans and hot air baloons, which I doubt you mean.)

A sandbox is world without a plot specifically for the players, instead as a living world would, there 50+ plothooks that the players can stumble across and choose to what degree they persue this.

[Emperor Demonking]

Yes, and it will be just as pointless.

I could think of a lot of things more pointless.


People who enjoy Grimdark worlds likely don't care about establishing exactly when a world stops being grimdark, they just like it as a setting.


But if one is designing a game from the grimdark crowd, it would be worthwhile to check that they actually like the lack of hope and destruction round every corner, or if they actually like more dakka and supermen?

(At least if you're not content with making 40K with Orqs and The Empress to stay safe.)



A sandbox is world without a plot specifically for the players, instead as a living world would, there 50+ plothooks that the players can stumble across and choose to what degree they persue this.

I was indeed thinking something similar, that a Sandbox differs from the Linar game by what the sandbox lacks.

I disagree with the "as a living world would" part though. How many plot hooks do you stumble on in this living world.

Lord of The Rings - or even Bufy The Vampire Slayer - are realised worlds, but they don't have 50+ plot hooks at any one time. (Unless you're willing to count "Help farm mushrooms" or similar as plot hooks.")

[Boci]

But if one is designing a game from the grimdark crowd, it would be worthwhile to check that they actually like the lack of hope and destruction round every corner, or if they actually like more dakka and supermen?

Not by incrementally increasing the happiness factor and asking "is it still gimdark? what about now? and now?" That's good for using the PH scale to test for acidity, but not for lituary topics.


I was indeed thinking something similar, that a Sandbox differs from the Linar game by what the sandbox lacks.

I disagree with the "as a living world would" part though. How many plot hooks do you stumble on in this living world.

Family feuds, lost children, delivering letters, border tensions, bandit hunting, investigating rumours, helping law enforcement, finding the resting place of the hero who died in the mountains, local legends, running arrends for powerful PCs, wandering monsters, political ambitions, assassins guild, monster nestling ground, ect, ect.

And yes, you're not going to find all those plothooks in one town, hence why I said sand boxes need space, so the PCs can travel between settlments and even nations.

[Pleh]

I don't know, if one's willing to go super-generic 'style'.

"It's not tone, it's style"? Forgive me if I don't find much value in that distinction.


Eh, I don't see the difference between the valley face and the rocks of the cave-in (which was the example of not a plot-wall).

Rocks of the cave in *can be* a plot wall, if they are arranged to prevent players from bypassing them with normal character resources.

A valley face isn't a plot wall until its been arranged to prevent players from getting around it without following the preset narrative.


I think any realistic world will have obstacles, that although hypothetically can be exploited for benefit that would be awfully difficult and are more likely just going to be obstacles.

That you accept the possibility that the scar could be sandboxy is very interesting to me.

Again, yes, it's a spectrum, not a binary and it's dynamic, not static.

A linear adventure (you're stuck in a maze, find your way out) can shift sandbox if the players choose to subvert the game (claim the maze as their new home base and begin fortifying it rather than trying to escape). Sandboxes can be made more linear with some railroading. And it doesn't have to make a total switch. It doesn't have to be straight sandbox to total railroad. Even if conquering all the goblins in the scar isn't possible, it still might be possible to use diplomacy to get some goblins to help you.

[Emperor Demonking]

Not by incrementally increasing the happiness factor and asking "is it still gimdark? what about now? and now?" That's good for using the PH scale to test for acidity, but not for lituary topics.

THat's not what I'm doing. The one case where I did something like that was in dealing with your "No. I said "A sandbox rolls with the descisions players make, that's what makes it a sandbox." Discions, plural. If its just once, then back to the main adventure with no other plothooksin the world, then no, it isn't a sandbox." where one added an extra choice to dispute your claim that it was a question of plurals.





Family feuds, lost children, delivering letters, border tensions, bandit hunting, investigating rumours, helping law enforcement, finding the resting place of the hero who died in the mountains, local legends, running arrends for powerful PCs, wandering monsters, political ambitions, assassins guild, monster nestling ground, ect, ect.

And yes, you're not going to find all those plothooks in one town, hence why I said sand boxes need space, so the PCs can travel between settlments and even nations.

Being able to come up with 15 is hardly evidence of being able to come up with 50+. If each town has a handful of plot hooks aren't most of them superflous. Or are you happy with the players going to Town B being unhappy with all the hooks and having to go to Town C?





"It's not tone, it's style"? Forgive me if I don't find much value in that distinction.

"The tone of the campaign is Sandbox" does not feel idiomatic to me. You can only use 'style' because you can use style anywhere.


Again, yes, it's a spectrum, not a binary and it's dynamic, not static.

A linear adventure (you're stuck in a maze, find your way out) can shift sandbox if the players choose to subvert the game (claim the maze as their new home base and begin fortifying it rather than trying to escape). Sandboxes can be made more linear with some railroading. And it doesn't have to make a total switch. It doesn't have to be straight sandbox to total railroad. Even if conquering all the goblins in the scar isn't possible, it still might be possible to use diplomacy to get some goblins to help you.

Whether one can deal with a goblin encounter via diplomacy does not seem to me to be related to where it is on the linear-sandbox spectrum.

Your example of becoming more sandbox-y is something the players do. Your example of making it more linear is railroading hich is something DMs do. Would you agree that DMs make make a game more sanboxy and that player's can make it more linear?

[Boci]

Being able to come up with 15 is hardly evidence of being able to come up with 50+.

Being able to come up with 15 in less than 10 minutes is probably evidence I can come up with 50+. Also, you're being too literal. Its not like someone would say "I made a game with 49 plothooks" and I would respond, "Well, that's hardly a sandbox then". "50+ plot points" was my way of saying "a lot more plot points than a linear game would need, since it isn't a given players will take one".


If each town has a handful of plot hooks aren't most of them superflous. Or are you happy with the players going to Town B being unhappy with all the hooks and having to go to Town C?

Of course. That a very important part of the sandbox, a DM being fine with their players exploring the world until they find something they like.

[Emperor Demonking]

Being able to come up with 15 in less than 10 minutes is probably evidence I can come up with 50+. Also, you're being too literal. Its not like someone would say "I made a game with 49 plothooks" and I would respond, "Well, that's hardly a sandbox then". "50+ plot points" was my way of saying "a lot more plot points than a linear game would need, since it isn't a given players will take one".



Of course. That a very important part of the sandbox, a DM being fine with their players exploring the world until they find something they like.

If iin a sandbox it is quite ordinary for the players go to a town, find the plot hooks, decide that none of them are right for you then I think sandbox refers to a much smaller subset of games than I think I've seen it used for.

[ImNotTrevor]

If iin a sandbox it is quite ordinary for the players go to a town, find the plot hooks, decide that none of them are right for you then I think sandbox refers to a much smaller subset of games than I think I've seen it used for.

You're doing the Darth Ultron thing of substituting what a person actually said with a much stupider thing they didn't say, and pretending that's what they said.

Don't do the Darth Ultron thing.

[Emperor Demonking]

You're doing the Darth Ultron thing of substituting what a person actually said with a much stupider thing they didn't say, and pretending that's what they said.

Don't do the Darth Ultron thing.

He's happy with the players going to Town B being unhappy with all the hooks and having to go to Town C, but it doesn't happen?

Surely, if in a Sandbox it was extraordinary for the players to go to Town B and find nothing they like and have to go to Town C then when that does happen then the DM should not be OK with it. He should be worried. He should be thinking "Am I messing up my plot hooks?"

[ImNotTrevor]

He's happy with the players going to Town B being unhappy with all the hooks and having to go to Town C, but it doesn't happen?

Surely, if in a Sandbox it was extraordinary for the players to go to Town B and find nothing they like and have to go to Town C then when that does happen then the DM should not be OK with it. He should be worried. He should be thinking "Am I messing up my plot hooks?"

Why? Only a certain number of things can be happening in any given place at any given time, and the characters in Sanbox campaigns tend to have their own goals and desires. If I have 5 things going on in Aberg, and the players happen to not feel particularly urgent about any of them, that's fine. It causes me no problems. I have 20 other things going on and the problems in Aberg don't vanish because the players aren't looking. They escalate. And eventually, they'll get word of the nasty stuff going on out there and maybe turn around. If they don't, eh. There's lots of stuff going on. Maybe the players just aren't all that enamored with the Aberg NPCs and prefer the Beburg NPCs. That's fine.

You seem to assume that players not happening to find some of the 20 things going on in the world to be not what they wanna do for this session means I'm a bad GM. It means whims didn't happen to align in this small slice. Neat. Moving on.

[Pleh]

Your example of becoming more sandbox-y is something the players do. Your example of making it more linear is railroading hich is something DMs do. Would you agree that DMs make make a game more sanboxy and that player's can make it more linear?

Actually, linear/sandbox is mostly a balance on the focal point between DM and Player control of narrative.

Generally, more player agency makes the game more of a sandbox, while more Fiat restrictions makes it more linear.

Players don't make the game more linear unless they are specifically asking the DM to be more assertive in moving the plot. DMs make the game more sandbox by abdicating more narrative controls to the players.

[Emperor Demonking]

Why? Only a certain number of things can be happening in any given place at any given time, and the characters in Sanbox campaigns tend to have their own goals and desires. If I have 5 things going on in Aberg, and the players happen to not feel particularly urgent about any of them, that's fine. It causes me no problems. I have 20 other things going on and the problems in Aberg don't vanish because the players aren't looking. They escalate. And eventually, they'll get word of the nasty stuff going on out there and maybe turn around. If they don't, eh. There's lots of stuff going on. Maybe the players just aren't all that enamored with the Aberg NPCs and prefer the Beburg NPCs. That's fine.

But if its not at all ordinary in a sandbox game for the players to not find anything in a town to their liking then how are you so confident that they will like the Beberg NPCs. Or perhaps they've already been to Beberg, but well they travelled to Aberg for a reason. Perhaps you're a one trick pony.



You seem to assume that players not happening to find some of the 20 things going on in the world to be not what they wanna do for this session means I'm a bad GM. It means whims didn't happen to align in this small slice. Neat. Moving on.

You seem to assume that the players not finding anything at all to get their teeth in for the session - a situation uncommon is Sanboc games, we're told - is not indicicative of you being a bad GM. If that isn't, then what is?


Actually, linear/sandbox is mostly a balance on the focal point between DM and Player control of narrative.

Generally, more player agency makes the game more of a sandbox, while more Fiat restrictions makes it more linear.

Players don't make the game more linear unless they are specifically asking the DM to be more assertive in moving the plot. DMs make the game more sandbox by abdicating more narrative controls to the players.

DM Bob wants to run a sandbox game for Tim. Tim want to play a linear game. If Tim jumps at the first plot hook, he never lets any adventure go until fully resolved. Is he not making a linear game out of Bob's sandbox?

O is there a difference that I'm not seeing?

[Pleh]

DM Bob wants to run a sandbox game for Tim. Tim want to play a linear game. If Tim jumps at the first plot hook, he never lets any adventure go until fully resolved. Is he not making a linear game out of Bob's sandbox?

O is there a difference that I'm not seeing?

Ultimately, I would say, no.

It was always in the nature of Bob's sandbox that Tim could choose any plot hook and pursue it as much or as little as Tim preferred. The fact that Bob gave Tim the prerogative to make that choice (presuming he included alternative plot hooks Tim might have chosen instead) is what makes the game sandbox. If this was the only available plot hook in the "sandbox" that Bob made available, it would be linear.

For Tim to change the game to linear, he would pretty much have to refuse to take any of the plot hooks independently and ask Bob to just tell Tim where Tim needs to go next.

DMs make the game linear by railroading. DMs make games more sandbox by abdicating narrative control to players ("un-railroading"). Players make a game more sandbox by breaking through plot walls with creative choices. Players make games more linear by abdicating player agency to the DM.

[RazorChain]

But if its not at all ordinary in a sandbox game for the players to not find anything in a town to their liking then how are you so confident that they will like the Beberg NPCs. Or perhaps they've already been to Beberg, but well they travelled to Aberg for a reason. Perhaps you're a one trick pony.



You seem to assume that the players not finding anything at all to get their teeth in for the session - a situation uncommon is Sanboc games, we're told - is not indicicative of you being a bad GM. If that isn't, then what is?



Is it then better for the bad GM to run a linear game where his players can't escape his boring plots? I would think so. The GM might have to take to the streets in his van with a weapon to "enroll" some players into his boring games but at least they can't skirt his plots. If the GM so likes he CAN run a sandbox so long he just threatens his players to choose one of the plots or engage with the game.

So a bad GM can run a sandbox if he kidnaps his players and makes them play under a duress.

[Emperor Demonking]

Ultimately, I would say, no.

It was always in the nature of Bob's sandbox that Tim could choose any plot hook and pursue it as much or as little as Tim preferred. The fact that Bob gave Tim the prerogative to make that choice (presuming he included alternative plot hooks Tim might have chosen instead) is what makes the game sandbox. If this was the only available plot hook in the "sandbox" that Bob made available, it would be linear.

For Tim to change the game to linear, he would pretty much have to refuse to take any of the plot hooks independently and ask Bob to just tell Tim where Tim needs to go next.

DMs make the game linear by railroading. DMs make games more sandbox by abdicating narrative control to players ("un-railroading"). Players make a game more sandbox by breaking through plot walls with creative choices. Players make games more linear by abdicating player agency to the DM.

Is the existance of railroading necessary for a linear game?

What I mean is that urely a game could have lots of plot hooks but as long as one was clearly bigget then the game is linear. Imagine the story of Frodo and Sam. If the DM has planned that they will go to Riverdell, and The Mines of Moira, and the whole Mt Doom adventure then that would be a linear game, wouldn't it?

The existance of Tom etc. doesn't change that its linear. Well, its on the spectrum you might say. The introduction of Tom and letting the player choose when he leaves the ellowship etc. are making the game move from the pure linear game.

But the pure linear game is not a normal game. It isn't fair to say it is completely made up (There was a module mentioned earlier in the game where the players have to follow a strict checklist but their actions are completel immaterial with the end conflict being solved by a bigger force) but it isn't what people mean when they want to run a non-sandbox game.

But is it not fair that if that parody is all linear that full sandbox would be where the players go through the game doing murderhobo stuff or random stuf without real stakes, and then the existance of stakes and arcs (e.g. the gang leader that swears revenge) is the introduction of linear elements where even if the players want to optout of the gang leader plot they can't since those are the consequences?


Is it then better for the bad GM to run a linear game where his players can't escape his boring plots? I would think so. The GM might have to take to the streets in his van with a weapon to "enroll" some players into his boring games but at least they can't skirt his plots. If the GM so likes he CAN run a sandbox so long he just threatens his players to choose one of the plots or engage with the game.


I think that the player's not liking what you're providing - whether that's the players trying to run away from a linear plot, or the players not biting at any of the hooks - should have one open to the possiblity that one is doing something wrong.

Imagine you've gone fishing. All the other fishermen getting are loads of fish. You caught nada. Do you really just shrug your shoulders "Better luck next time".



So a bad GM can run a sandbox if he kidnaps his players and makes them play under a duress.

If there an implied only' there?

So if a GM is running a sandbox and the players are not held under duress, he must be a good GM?

[jayem]

Is the existance of railroading necessary for a linear game?

There's definitely a correlation. I think it's safe to say at some points you'll have the choice between railroading and giving up some linearity. But if you chose the battles carefully, you can minimize both.

But it would actually have lots of interesting bits. E.g. "Is it railroading if the players never touch the rails", "Is it linear if there could have been an alternative outcome, but wasn't". Do we count changing the 'pre-game' situation to enforce a path the same as changing 'in-game' consequences to enforce a path.

To go to the LoTR example,

Mount Doom is apparently the "only way". On the whole, I'd argue that the Frodo goes to mount doom preceded the decision to make the ring almost indestructible. The council of Elrond could in that case be considered as analogous to the GM railroading the PC's into committing to Mount Doom (except he was probably picturing picky fans). However:
Did we say linear games aren't always bad? Frodo gives the ring to the Eagle. Manwe goes thanks, would be a short story.
Even if the big picture is kind of fixed, that still leaves lots of space beneath, for things to be a bit sandboxy.
I'm not Tolkien, maybe the indestructibleness of the ring really did come first, maybe it nearly was the story of Frodo's flight west, until he got to the council of Elrond and thought better of it. (the story definitely did change to have more of Mordor, so to some extent that probably is true)

Moria of course the player characters tried to avoid, and failed. Again I'm not the author so I can't say if their failure was pure chance/lack of skill (sandbox), deliberately enforced to railroad them (railroading) , a consequence of a map designed to force them through Moria (railroad-scenario), a consequence of a map designed on other principles (sandbox). On the whole I'd say it was a mix of all of them (it being a novel not a game).*
This goes back to the first point you asked if it would be linear if it were planned Rivendell, Moria, Doom. In chapter 15 it looks like it's going to be Rivendell, Caradhras, Doom. What do you do?

*If I had a time machine to watch and question him, I could have a much better idea.

Rivendell they are pointed at. Retrospectively it's the obvious place (again one could question which came first)

[Quertus]

Maybe they're evil PCs and make an alliance with the goblins instead, leading them to raid a town.

A sandbox game is about choice.


Its about choice. If players can go and do what they want, its a sandbox. If the DM need to encourage them to stick within the scope of the game, either OCC or with IC hints, its probably not a sandbox game.

This.


No, its still linear, players just want it. A sandbox would have had a DM ready to give the players multiple options for what they can do, which would still be the case even if the players didn't take advantage of that.

This sounds more like branching linear.


They're not evil PCs, they're good PCS. That was in the hypothetical. (I assume a sandbox campaign can be run with an all good party.)

No, they're evil PCs. They choose to help the goblins take over the town. If this breaks the game, then it isn't a sandbox.

If the GM has already decided how his toys can be played with, it isn't a sandbox.

[Boci]

This sounds more like branching linear.

I guess, dependings how you define "multiple options". The quote was me responding to a scenarion in which the players only had 1 options.


No, they're evil PCs. They choose to help the goblins take over the town. If this breaks the game, then it isn't a sandbox.

If the GM has already decided how his toys can be played with, it isn't a sandbox.

I wouldn't go this far, since some DMs don't like running games for evil PCs, but I think such DMs could still run a game with the sandbox philosophy.

[Emperor Demonking]

This.



This sounds more like branching linear.



No, they're evil PCs. They choose to help the goblins take over the town. If this breaks the game, then it isn't a sandbox.

If the GM has already decided how his toys can be played with, it isn't a sandbox.

Good PCs are something that you agree exist in a sandbox, right? Then these are are good PCs. It's what is on their character sheet. It's what they wanted to do. There's nothing insightful in trying to break the hypothetical.

Or is it a question of player choice, and thus neither player nor DM will have expectation that the player character will stay true to his character. The party up to now has been good and gone around the world slaying evil. In a Sandbox game is it perfectly reasonable for the players to go 'eh, we're evil now"?

If not then wouldn't it be jarring if a player did try to get his paladin to organise the goblins to destroy the good village? More jarring, perhaps, than that same player trying to avoid seeing the second act hook-giver in a linear game?

Earlier in the thread, I mentioned Tim the player who follows the first hook he says. Well his DM now decides to run Expedition to Catle Ravenloft. He runs Castle Ravenloft. He ran a linear game, right. But the Adam never needed to break immersion by going 'can't do that', nor did he need to construct hints on the fly. But he still obviously ran a linear game, right?

[Pleh]

Is the existance of railroading necessary for a linear game?

What I mean is that urely a game could have lots of plot hooks but as long as one was clearly bigget then the game is linear. Imagine the story of Frodo and Sam. If the DM has planned that they will go to Riverdell, and The Mines of Moira, and the whole Mt Doom adventure then that would be a linear game, wouldn't it?

Be careful not to conflate the generic english word for "linear" (which just means it seem like a single line) with the RPG term by the same name.

Players that make a linear set of choices in a sandbox do not make the game itself linear. That's like saying a boat traveling in a line across the ocean turns the ocean into river following a linear path.

A linear game is like a river. You can follow it, or leave the river.

Now, yes, you say, "there can be multiple plot hooks with one primary arc." That'd be like some of the large, river like currents in the ocean. This tells us there's a spectrum between linear and sandbox games. In a single game, there can be varying degrees of linear and sandbox.

This does not make a sandbox become linear. Ice can exist in a desert and the desert doesn't stop being hot and arid. Fire can be in the arctic and the arctic doesn't stop being frozen in ice.


The existance of Tom etc. doesn't change that its linear. Well, its on the spectrum you might say. The introduction of Tom and letting the player choose when he leaves the ellowship etc. are making the game move from the pure linear game.

But the pure linear game is not a normal game. It isn't fair to say it is completely made up (There was a module mentioned earlier in the game where the players have to follow a strict checklist but their actions are completel immaterial with the end conflict being solved by a bigger force) but it isn't what people mean when they want to run a non-sandbox game.

But is it not fair that if that parody is all linear that full sandbox would be where the players go through the game doing murderhobo stuff or random stuf without real stakes, and then the existance of stakes and arcs (e.g. the gang leader that swears revenge) is the introduction of linear elements where even if the players want to optout of the gang leader plot they can't since those are the consequences?

Again, stay off the binary; it's full of misconceptions and strawmen. I only reference the binary to demonstrate the difference in how the two extremes tend to operate, but these are meant to be principles that get diluted in practice. It's much like seasonings for food; the spice cabinet doesn't make a very satisfying meal and most meals will balance disparate flavors. But tasting each spice by itself helps you understand how it is used in cooking.

Second, abandon the conception of a "normal" game and terms derived from such ideas. I understand what you're trying to say, but it's a really unhelpful term when you consider different styles of play (which must be exactly the focus of this discussion). All it's really doing right now is demonstrating your particular bias.

Yes, almost no games are "pure" sandbox or linear. It's probably better to call the theoretical, nonreal maximums "absolutes" while "pure" might be better reserved for practical maximums.

A "pure" (practical maximum) linear game might be a very narrow published adventure book. A "pure" (practical maximum) sandbox will likely be less "murderhobo" (murderhobo sandbox is more or less the formula to a Way of the Wicked game) and more like Minecraft, where there may not even be substantial plot hooks, just a world full of resources to explore and build in. Players might tackle a kingdom's economy, start and manage a guild, start and/or end a war, or just about anything.

Most games will probably have a linear arc framed in a soft or hard (more or less detail) sandbox, but we examine the elements in isolation only to observe their effect on the game so we can communicate how to fix issues that come from these elements falling out of balance.

"Railroading" can be considered a game suffering from too much linear flavor, not enough sandbox. The opposite problem is usually a self resolving problem: writer's block. A game with too much sandbox can feel aimless and lacking purpose (because it is aimless and without purpose until the players create these things). This is easy to fix by adding more linear (the DM makes a choice), choosing something at random and following it, or abandoning the game for lack of interest.

Moral of the story: understand the binary, but operate on the spectrum.

[Emperor Demonking]

Be careful not to conflate the generic english word for "linear" (which just means it seem like a single line) with the RPG term by the same name.

Players that make a linear set of choices in a sandbox do not make the game itself linear. That's like saying a boat traveling in a line across the ocean turns the ocean into river following a linear path.

A linear game is like a river. You can follow it, or leave the river.

Now, yes, you say, "there can be multiple plot hooks with one primary arc." That'd be like some of the large, river like currents in the ocean. This tells us there's a spectrum between linear and sandbox games. In a single game, there can be varying degrees of linear and sandbox.

This does not make a sandbox become linear. Ice can exist in a desert and the desert doesn't stop being hot and arid. Fire can be in the arctic and the arctic doesn't stop being frozen in ice.



Again, stay off the binary; it's full of misconceptions and strawmen. I only reference the binary to demonstrate the difference in how the two extremes tend to operate, but these are meant to be principles that get diluted in practice. It's much like seasonings for food; the spice cabinet doesn't make a very satisfying meal and most meals will balance disparate flavors. But tasting each spice by itself helps you understand how it is used in cooking.

Second, abandon the conception of a "normal" game and terms derived from such ideas. I understand what you're trying to say, but it's a really unhelpful term when you consider different styles of play (which must be exactly the focus of this discussion). All it's really doing right now is demonstrating your particular bias.

Yes, almost no games are "pure" sandbox or linear. It's probably better to call the theoretical, nonreal maximums "absolutes" while "pure" might be better reserved for practical maximums.

A "pure" (practical maximum) linear game might be a very narrow published adventure book. A "pure" (practical maximum) sandbox will likely be less "murderhobo" (murderhobo sandbox is more or less the formula to a Way of the Wicked game) and more like Minecraft, where there may not even be substantial plot hooks, just a world full of resources to explore and build in. Players might tackle a kingdom's economy, start and manage a guild, start and/or end a war, or just about anything.

Most games will probably have a linear arc framed in a soft or hard (more or less detail) sandbox, but we examine the elements in isolation only to observe their effect on the game so we can communicate how to fix issues that come from these elements falling out of balance.

"Railroading" can be considered a game suffering from too much linear flavor, not enough sandbox. The opposite problem is usually a self resolving problem: writer's block. A game with too much sandbox can feel aimless and lacking purpose (because it is aimless and without purpose until the players create these things). This is easy to fix by adding more linear (the DM makes a choice), choosing something at random and following it, or abandoning the game for lack of interest.

Moral of the story: understand the binary, but operate on the spectrum.

Outside this thread we do see people refer to a table to game as being a Sandbox game. What do you think they mean? As close to the absolute to still be workable? A game with at least a noticeable amount of Sandbox elements? More Sandbox elements than your typical 'linear arc framed in a soft or hard (more or less detail) sandbox'?

Because that's of course a range that includes the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of good games.

[Boci]

Outside this thread we do see people refer to a table to game as being a Sandbox game. What do you think they mean? As close to the absolute to still be workable? A game with at least a noticeable amount of Sandbox elements? More Sandbox elements than your typical 'linear arc framed in a soft or hard (more or less detail) sandbox'?

Because that's of course a range that includes the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of good games.

Why do you need to have such a precise understanding of what a sandbox game is? Do you have the same requirements for other tags used to describe a game style? Horror, high magic, heroic, old-school? Do you wonder if a horror game is a game with at least a noticeable amount of horror elements as oppose to a just more horror elements than your typical non-horror game?

[Emperor Demonking]

Why do you need to have such a precise understanding of what a sandbox game is? Do you have the same requirements for other tags used to describe a game style? Horror, high magic, heroic, old-school? Do you wonder if a horror game is a game with at least a noticeable amount of horror elements as oppose to a just more horror elements than your typical non-horror game?

I disagree that I'm looking for something particularly precise.

If I signed up to a horror game and discovered that it was just a normal module with Zombies and Vampires (a noticeable amount of horror elements) then I would object to that usage and claim that such a usage made the horror tag near-meaningless.

If I was playing an old-school game and learnt that by old-school, they simply mean that it is a game where you play a role since being an old-school game was simply defined as being one than had commonalities of old games then I would say passionately that that make the term 'old-school' near worthless as that's near-every D&D, and if the slim other minority needed to be distinguished (and I would not be convinced that it did) then it would be those that would get the term.

[Boci]

If I signed up to a horror game and discovered that it was just a normal module with Zombies and Vampires (a noticeable amount of horror elements) then I would object to that usage and claim that such a usage made the horror tag near-meaningless.

And yet some people would describe that as a horror game. If you read reviews Heroes of Horror reviews, some people will say its really effective, others say its a good book but its not really horror its describing. What horror means is subjective.

[JNAProductions]

And yet some people would describe that as a horror game. If you read reviews Heroes of Horror reviews, some people will say its really effective, others say its a good book but its not really horror its describing. What horror means is subjective.

But not meaningless. I definitely agree that someone saying "Horror game" is not a FULL description, but it's a good start. Same with sandbox.

[Emperor Demonking]

And yet some people would describe that as a horror game. If you read reviews Heroes of Horror reviews, some people will say its really effective, others say its a good book but its not really horror its describing. What horror means is subjective.

Heat was subjective. Loudness was subjective. Whether something (other than tastes) can be looked at objectively or subjectively is a function of our knowledge as much as it is a function of the object being looked at.

It is perfectly possible that the DM who describes his game with zombies is simply wrong. If somebody found Julia Roberts very scary, and insisted that Pretty Woman was a horror film then you would acknowledge him as being wrong surely?

[Boci]

But not meaningless. I definitely agree that someone saying "Horror game" is not a FULL description, but it's a good start. Same with sandbox.

Exactly. That's the function of tags, to give a general idea of what the game is trying to achieve. Breaking them down and analyzing the precise moment a tag can no longer be applied to a game is neither practical nor useful.


Heat was subjective. Loudness was subjective.

Why past tense? They still are subjective. Heat to me likely does not mean the same as it does to someone who grew up on the equator.

[Emperor Demonking]

Exactly. That's the function of tags, to give a general idea of what the game is trying to achieve. Breaking them down and analyzing the precise moment a tag can no longer be applied to a game is neither practical nor useful.


Nobody is looking for precise moment.

The difference between any horror motifs or mostly horror motifs is a very big one.

If you want to play a Twilight game and I want to play a Dracula game then we are being poorly served by a system that says vampires=horror.




Why past tense? They still are subjective. Heat to me likely does not mean the same as it does to someone who grew up on the equator.

Is there anyone who lives near the equator reading this? At what heat does ice start turning into water where you are? My experience is on the zero centigrade front.

[Boci]

Is there anyone who lives near the equator reading this? At what heat does ice start turning into water where you are? My experience is on the zero centigrade front.

There you are with the science again. There is no scale for litaury genres (I even joked about this previously that a sandbox game required a minimum of 4.59 units of player freedom), so any attempt to make it objective like that doesn't work.

And as noted, even with the objectivity of the temperature scale, heat is still subjective based on the climate you are use to.

[Emperor Demonking]

There you are with the science again. There is no scale for litaury genres (I even joked about this previously that a sandbox game required a minimum of 4.59 units of player freedom), so any attempt to make it objective like that doesn't work.


There weren't scales for loudness or heat either.




And as noted, even with the objectivity of the temperature scale, heat is still subjective based on the climate you are use to.

No heat is still objective. It can be measured. Different effects happen at different heat.

Sure there might be some questions involving heat that you'd look for answers for via survey or that would have different results based on the temperature looked for, but the objective nature of heat is still useful even for dealing with those.

[JNAProductions]

Heat is objective.

"Is it hot outside?" is subjective.

What kind of game you're playing is much closer to the latter than the former.

[Max_Killjoy]

As previously noted...

Tthe problem is trying to use "sandbox" as a yes/no category. As with many terms in these discussions, the doomed quest for conceptual purity in terminology leads to a lot of argument... but no utility. That is, trying so hard to determine whether a campaign "is" or "is not" a sandbox, worrying about the "purity" of a "sandbox game", doesn't really accomplish anything.

"Sandboxy" or "linear" work far better as adjectives. A campaign can be more or less sandboxy, more or less linear, and have both sandboxy and linear elements in its different aspects or at different times. A game doesn't have to be some sort of pure sandbox to be very sandboxy.

Stop worrying about what "kind" of game you're playing, or tailoring the rules and methods to fit some Quixotic ideal, and worry more about finding what actually works and how to communicate those things with other gamers.

[Emperor Demonking]

Heat is objective.

"Is it hot outside?" is subjective.

What kind of game you're playing is much closer to the latter than the former.
But isn't being able to say 'its 20 centigrade without much wind' much better than ust having to go 'WEll its subective' or 'well I enoyed it'.

In the horror game, is it not better to be able to say "other than vampires there aren't many hrror elements" or "Yeah there's vampires, gore, torture, maybe some jump scares" rather than having to "Its subjective" or"I think it will be enoyable".

Having a better understanding of what a Horror game means (which involves understanding the components of horror many of which probably have easily measurable parts) also enhances the ways for creativity. It is like the rimdark thing I discussed earlier, if you don't look at what Grimdark means then you're forced to just copy 40K or take a big risk. If you understand what Grimdark fans want then you can ditch the incidentals.


As previously noted...

Tthe problem is trying to use "sandbox" as a yes/no category. As with many terms in these discussions, the doomed quest for conceptual purity in terminology leads to a lot of argument... but no utility. That is, trying so hard to determine whether a campaign "is" or "is not" a sandbox, worrying about the "purity" of a "sandbox game", doesn't really accomplish anything.

"Sandboxy" or "linear" work far better as adjectives. A campaign can be more or less sandboxy, more or less linear, and have both sandboxy and linear elements in its different aspects or at different times. A game doesn't have to be some sort of pure sandbox to be very sandboxy.

But the thread isn't called for "Why 'Sandboxy' is a meaningless phrase" and in the wild, we see the term "Sandbox" used rather than "Sandboxy" used. This the basic question of whether a Sandbox game is one which is very sandboxy or at all sandboxy. And I don't think that's an unreasonable degree of precission to desire.

When I look at the Recruitment forms, I feel that it means very. But when I look at some discussions and people railing against linear games in favour of sandbox games, it seems that sometimes they are using the 'at all' definition.

And in a culture where Sandbox might mean 'any sandboxy elements at all' then the term is near meaningless even when 'sandboxy' is not.

[Boci]

In the horror game, is it not better to be able to say "other than vampires there aren't many hrror elements" or "Yeah there's vampires, gore, torture, maybe some jump scares" rather than having to "Its subjective" or"I think it will be enoyable".

No, because both those options are longer than "horror". Rather than have the whole world agree to what a horror game entails, it is much better to have a general understandanding of common horror tropes and then indevidually enquire what the tag means from the DM.

Following your objective standards, is Heroes of Horror describing a horror game, y/n, and why are the people who answered differently wrong?

[Emperor Demonking]

No, because both those options are longer than "horror". Rather than have the whole world agree to what a horror game entails, it is much better to have a general understandanding of common horror tropes and then indevidually enquire what the tag means from the DM.

Then why not just "game" since that's shorter than horror?

One does not need the whole world, it is a matter of the community. If a horror campaign setting becames one which has Vampires then "Horror" becomes a near-worthless term. Why is it reasonable to let the people who would have any setting with vampires in be horror ruin the use of the tag for others and force an equiry everytime.

Is it not more useful for a community to realise that vampires are not in themselves horror, although in classic terms have many horrific elements and are a motif asociated with horror and that a horror campaign should actually have direct elements of horror.

If I game designer wants to create a horror game that stripback much horror elements and subverts the ones that remain, is it not useful to tell if just keeping vampires and subverting them to bloodbank fiends will find much favour?

I can not see any reason why it would be better for people to have a shared understanding of the tropes common to horror rather than a shared understanding of what is a horror game.

In a world, where any D&D game featuring a band of four heroes in a world full of monsters and ghouls could be described as a horror game. Then that's a world where horror game will have lost meaning when refering to a D&D game.



Following your objective standards, is Heroes of Horror describing a horror game, y/n, and why are the people who answered differently wrong?

Don't know enough about Heroes of Horror to answer. Is it supposed to be 'describing' a horor game though?

[Quertus]

"Sandboxy" or "linear" work far better as adjectives. A campaign can be more or less sandboxy, more or less linear, and have both sandboxy and linear elements in its different aspects or at different times. A game doesn't have to be some sort of pure sandbox to be very sandboxy.

Thank you. Beat me over the head with this enough, and I might learn. Change is hard.


I wouldn't go this far, since some DMs don't like running games for evil PCs, but I think such DMs could still run a game with the sandbox philosophy.

I would. That element of the game is not Sandboxy if the players do not have the agency to make that choice.

Now, it can still be a generally Sandboxy game, worthy of the "sandbox" label, if it is a "heroic" sandbox.

However, if it is a "heroic " sandbox, then these heroes must still be free to pursue any heroic solution, from slaying the goblins, challenging their leader to a duel, redirecting a river to delay the goblins until help can arrive, negotiation, leading the retreat, praying (and trusting in the gods to sort the village out while they help the girl, or vice versa), or even selling their soul to the devil to have the power to solve both.

EDIT: I would say, "split the party to solve both at once", but "don't split the party" is often part of the group charter.


Good PCs are something that you agree exist in a sandbox, right? Then these are are good PCs. It's what is on their character sheet. It's what they wanted to do. There's nothing insightful in trying to break the hypothetical.

Or is it a question of player choice, and thus neither player nor DM will have expectation that the player character will stay true to his character. The party up to now has been good and gone around the world slaying evil. In a Sandbox game is it perfectly reasonable for the players to go 'eh, we're evil now"?

If not then wouldn't it be jarring if a player did try to get his paladin to organise the goblins to destroy the good village? More jarring, perhaps, than that same player trying to avoid seeing the second act hook-giver in a linear game?

Earlier in the thread, I mentioned Tim the player who follows the first hook he says. Well his DM now decides to run Expedition to Catle Ravenloft. He runs Castle Ravenloft. He ran a linear game, right. But the Adam never needed to break immersion by going 'can't do that', nor did he need to construct hints on the fly. But he still obviously ran a linear game, right?

Jarring? Sure. But a sandbox GM has signed up for jarring; a linear GM has signed up for things going according to plan.

The point is, if the GM declares a game a "sandbox", then any attempt on the party of the GM to enforce certain behaviors - to dictate the way in which their toys must be played with - is a failing on the GMs part. A falling to make the game Sandboxy.

There are exceptions to this. They include, but are not limited to, if the GM has limited the players agency by describing the sandbox with an appropriate adjective (political, heroic, exploration, etc), or if the group has rules / social contract / whatever against certain behaviors.

The GM is the interface between the players and the world. There is a heavy responsibility on the GM to be able to communicate effectively.


What horror means is subjective.


Heat is objective.

"Is it hot outside?" is subjective.

What kind of game you're playing is much closer to the latter than the former.

Subjective is the wrong word, IMO. One can easily see when a game is insufficiently Sandboxy to not l break when the players play with the toys the "wrong" way. A "pure" sandbox would simply never break. Any element that breaks when played with in unexpected ways is demonstrating inadequate Sandboxiness for the sandbox label. This seems measurable and not at all subjective to me.

[Boci]

Then why not just "game" since that's shorter than horror?

Because that says nothing. Even if horror can mean as little as "will feature zombies and vampires heavily" that's still a lot of information from just one word.


I would. That element of the game is not Sandboxy if the players do not have the agency to make that choice.

Taking taking that to its logical extreme though, if the DM isn't happy with the players forming a sex ring and getting into the humanoid trafficking business, or worse, does that mean its not a sandbox? I just think player and DM limits don't exclude a game being a sandbox.

[Emperor Demonking]

Because that says nothing. Even if horror can mean as little as "will feature zombies and vampires heavily" that's still a lot of information from just one word.


But it doesn't just mean "will feature zombies and vampires heavily" it might also mean "Features loads of traps" (that's another trope).

People who want a Twilight-style romance and people who want a Conan/Indiana Jones-style gauntlet don't have much in common with eachother which means that the tag becomes as useless as game (unless you really, really want your romance to have vampires or zombies and every such game is tagged with horrors) since the player when seeing it in the threadlist (or wherever) has no real idea if the game is going to be good for him.

Is it not better if the horror tag is reserved for things that horror fans will like, rather than anything with a horror trop. (The former being, I beleive, what we do see in healthy sites.)

[Boci]

Is it not better if the horror tag is reserved for things that horror fans will like, rather than anything with a horror trop. (The former being, I beleive, what we do see in healthy sites.)

If someone can come up with a definition that a statistically significant portion of horror fans agree, on sure. Until then, we're stuck with using horror to describe a game with elements we assosiate with horror, and then its everyone's own responsibility to find out what the DM meant specifically.

[Emperor Demonking]

If someone can come up with a definition that a statistically significant portion of horror fans agree, on sure.


If we use "A spiny, Asian evergreen tree (Citrus limon) widely cultivated for its yellow, egg-shaped fruit." as our null, then I don't think we need a particular large group for the definition "a game that trries to be scary enough for horrr fans" to see a (statistically significant) higher approval rate.

If we use "has vampires or traps or ghosts or darkness or masks.." as our null then that's not nearly as good, but I still think my quick thing would have it.

Now, that I think about it. Its not like you don't have a definition out there. You do, its "Have at least one element that is commonly accepted as a horror trope". It's not just a good one.



Until then, we're stuck with using horror to describe a game with elements we assosiate with horror, and then its everyone's own responsibility to find out what the DM meant specifically.

Go to your local bookshop. Look in the horror section. Do you see Twilight. If not then how do the bookshop avoid being "stuck with using horror to describe a [book] with elements we assosiate with horror"?

[Boci]

Go to your local bookshop. Look in the horror section. Do you see Twilight. If not then how do the bookshop avoid being "stuck with using horror to describe a [book] with elements we assosiate with horror"?

I won't see twilight, becaise its romance not horror. But I will see plenty of books that some will not consider to be horror. My neighbour doesn't consider The Ring to be horror. Having watched the Ring 2, I very much do.

[Pleh]

Outside this thread we do see people refer to a table to game as being a Sandbox game. What do you think they mean? As close to the absolute to still be workable? A game with at least a noticeable amount of Sandbox elements? More Sandbox elements than your typical 'linear arc framed in a soft or hard (more or less detail) sandbox'?

Because that's of course a range that includes the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of good games.

What are you trying to say? If Sandbox isn't strictly defined that it isn't defined at all? What a ridiculous notion.

The color Red represents an infinite number of individual shades that are all accurate to describe as Red. Same can be said for Blue.

We can clearly see the difference between red and blue, but somewhere between them on a color pallet is purple and there is no clear definition of what point at which the colors change. Just because there's no clear shifting point doesn't mean there's no difference between red and blue.

[Emperor Demonking]

I won't see twilight, becaise its romance not horror. But I will see plenty of books that some will not consider to be horror. My neighbour doesn't consider The Ring to be horror. Having watched the Ring 2, I very much do.

Like The Ring being a horror film, your neighbour being capable of being wrong if a fact of the world*.

You'll hear people argue that one is a prime number. That two is not a prime number. That pi is a whole number. That thry can square the circle. That they can build a peretual motion machine. Those people are wrong too.

Edit: * Although he might be being facetious.

[Boci]

Like The Ring being a horror film, your neighbour being capable of being wrong if a fact of the world.

Alternativly, neither are us are wrong, and since horror films are not primes numbers, its a little harder to judge cleanly.


Edit: * Although he might be being facetious.

She*. And she wasn't.

[Emperor Demonking]

Alternativly, neither are us are wrong, and since horror films are not primes numbers, its a little harder to judge cleanly.



She*. And she wasn't.

Just because its hard doesn't mean its impossible. Just because its impossible today doesn't mean it will be impossible tomorrow.

Which of us has the loudest burp? We can probably get an app that will tell us.

Which of us can draw the most convincing picture of a cat. There's no scientific notation for cat-convingness. But we can probably find an ap for that too.

We don't have an app for reading GM campaign notes and determing whether it is a horror campain? Well, I do not think we've hit the apex of human knowledge yet.


What are you trying to say? If Sandbox isn't strictly defined that it isn't defined at all? What a ridiculous notion.

The color Red represents an infinite number of individual shades that are all accurate to describe as Red. Same can be said for Blue.

We can clearly see the difference between red and blue, but somewhere between them on a color pallet is purple and there is no clear definition of what point at which the colors change. Just because there's no clear shifting point doesn't mean there's no difference between red and blue.

Red is a lot of shades. But when it starts being used for every shade that is not navy blue then it becomes near-meaningless.

Almost all games have some degree if sandbox element. If linear games have been so demonised and have had such an unfair reputation that any gamewhere the player has any choices is a 'Sandbox Game' then a 'Sandbox Game' is near-meaningless. If the only non-sandbox game is Bored of the Rings then sandbox is a meaningless phrase

If you asked me if a red shirt was a shirt that was wholly red, mosly red, a little red, or at all red then I would being able to say "At least mostly red, a possibly going a little lower than that if it shared the shirt with black and white".

When asked whether a Sandbox game was at all sandboxy, very sandboxy etc. You could only respond with

What are you trying to say? If Sandbox isn't strictly defined that it isn't defined at all? What a ridiculous notion.

The color Red represents an infinite number of individual shades that are all accurate to describe as Red. Same can be said for Blue.

We can clearly see the difference between red and blue, but somewhere between them on a color pallet is purple and there is no clear definition of what point at which the colors change. Just because there's no clear shifting point doesn't mean there's no difference between red and blue.

That is because 'Red' is a thing given a name, and 'Sandbox' is a name that one tries to give a thing. (And the creation of 'sandboxy' is a good try.)

[Boci]

We don't have an app for reading GM campaign notes and determing whether it is a horror campain? Well, I do not think we've hit the apex of human knowledge yet.

Even if that's true that it is inevitable that the app will one day exist, until it does, it still rather limits the conversation on the topic if you are looking for absolutes.

[Emperor Demonking]

Even if that's true that it is inevitable that the app will one day exist, until it does, it still rather limits the conversation on the topic if you are looking for absolutes.

Knowledge does not fall out of the sky. It is discovered.

[Xuc Xac]

That is because 'Red' is a thing given a name, and 'Sandbox' is a name that one tries to give a thing. (And the creation of 'sandboxy' is a good try.)

"Red" is an arbitrary label applied by humans to a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Some languages only have two words for colors (equivalent to "black/white" or "light/dark"). Before the word "orange" was added to the English language, the words "red" and "yellow" covered more shades. The fruit came first. It was described like "a norange is reddish-yellow in color". Over time "a norange" was misinterpreted as "an orange" and the color of the fruit was applied to reddish - yellow things as "orange - colored" until orange became a standard color.

The visible spectrum runs from red to violet and humans draw lines to cut it into sections of different colors, but not every language divided it in the same places or in the same number of places. Many Asian languages consider blue and green to be different shades of the same color. Russian considers light blue and dark blue to be two different colors.

We try to apply the name "sandbox" to game structures the same way we apply "red" to certain frequencies of light. Not everyone agrees where the edges are (or even if it's a separate thing from what's next to it) but it's not "less real" than physical phenomena.

[Emperor Demonking]

"Red" is an arbitrary label applied by humans to a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Some languages only have two words for colors (equivalent to "black/white" or "light/dark"). Before the word "orange" was added to the English language, the words "red" and "yellow" covered more shades. The fruit came first. It was described like "a norange is reddish-yellow in color". Over time "a norange" was misinterpreted as "an orange" and the color of the fruit was applied to reddish - yellow things as "orange - colored" until orange became a standard color.

The visible spectrum runs from red to violet and humans draw lines to cut it into sections of different colors, but not every language divided it in the same places or in the same number of places. Many Asian languages consider blue and green to be different shades of the same color. Russian considers light blue and dark blue to be two different colors.


People also thought there was fa force callrd levity that allowed things to float. That space was full of aether. And that things burn because of phligoston. People can be wrong.

We did not have orange. We now have orange. And the our civilisation advanced one step further.




We try to apply the name "sandbox" to game structures the same way we apply "red" to certain frequencies of light. Not everyone agrees where the edges are (or even if it's a separate thing from what's next to it) but it's not "less real" than physical phenomena.

When defining Sandbox, people generally only refer to one thing. What that thing is differs from person to person and even from time to time. And what that thing is although similar to one another are very distinct from one another. Games are not split between

Sandbox: The DM accepts jarringness, The DM offers a huge number of hooks, The players are allowed to make choices, The DM has a whole world mapped out, the DM has not planned any particular scenes for the players, The players roam acoss the land.
And other games?

But its a spectrum some people say. But the five things aren't linked that way. You're not cutting reality right when strapping the players to tracks becomes 'more sandboxy' when it stops by the whole world of towns (point four), it does not become more sandboxy when fully improvised (point five) etc.

It is not because it is not physical that is "less real" it is simply because it is wrong.

Imagine there are plmokn materials and non-plmokn materials. Plmokn maerials are ones that can be useful for humans. Plmokn materials are those that are not destructive to humans. The Plmokn distinction is not a real thing.

There is almost cettainly interesting subjects around the issue of what people call 'sandboxy' but when will never learn the truth of it, if one clings to 'sandboxy'. Earlier in the thread a couple of people (post 75) kept quoting a definition of Sandbox that included the line "Instead of featuring segmented areas or numbered levels, a sandbox game usually occurs in a “world” to which the gamer has full access from start to finish.". Is that really a useful point when talking about TTRPG or is Sandbox a phrase in search of a definition?

Two set ups:
1. The players are in the capital. They are part of the adventure's guild. They can explore the city, and every day ten new hooks are posted on the adventurer's guild wall.
2. The player's are part of the wide landscape. They can travel to different geographic locales at they pick. At the first locale they'll find the Goblins (aquatic, mountain, desert, field Goblins depending on their choice), at the second enter the mysterious crypt, at the third dead with the juvenile dragon.
Which is more sandboxy (or are they equals)? If you don't know then how would you begin to find out. Through what lens could you try to answer the question (with light it could be hue, wavelength etc.)?

[Boci]

Two set ups:
1. The players are in the capital. They are part of the adventure's guild. They can explore the city, and every day ten new hooks are posted on the adventurer's guild wall.
2. The player's are part of the wide landscape. They can travel to different geographic locales at they pick. At the first locale they'll find the Goblins (aquatic, mountain, desert, field Goblins depending on their choice), at the second enter the mysterious crypt, at the third dead with the juvenile dragon.
Which is more sandboxy (or are they equals)? If you don't know then how would you begin to find out. Through what lens could you try to answer the question (with light it could be hue, wavelength etc.)?

Since you're the one so interested in nailing down what sandboxy means, why don;t you share your answers to those questions first?