Player-led games vs. GM-led games

[Darth Ultron]

Darth Ultron, a sandbox isn't "random stuff." That you keep trying to claim it despite having people correct you repeatedly indicates a rather rude disrespect for your fellow playgrounders.

A sandbox had a lot going on. Whether it's in the background or not depends on what the players choose to pay attention to. Players get involved with the goings-on that interest them, or which interfere with whatever the players decide to work on. This can look similar to a plot-driven game, but differs because there isn't a sequence of events the players MUST be at to advance "the plot." Instead, stuff happens and if the players are there, they can change the outcomes.

The problem is your describing a normal plot game, not a sandbox. Or are you saying a plotted game and a sandbox are the same thing?

Like I said, the players can be all random for hours...but eventually the sandboxy players will pick a plot, because the only options are random stuff or have a plot and story. And most players will want to ''do something'' and that requires a plot and story.

Um, no, it's not.

Is there some new (maybe 5E?) definition of ''Sandbox''?

A normal plot game with a story is where a DM makes up the adventure details and encounters and everything else before the game. Then the players will ''run through'' that adventure. A plot has a very obvious end, often very simply ''you must do X'', so you will know when the adventure is over.

Such a game can also start with the DM dangling plot hooks in front of the players until they pick one....and then do everything in the above paragraph.

So a sandbox game is where.......something else happens?

[Thrudd]

A sandbox is a persistent world that the players explore and interact with on their own initiative and generally in the manner of their choosing. The GM is responsible for creating all the content in the sandbox, as always. The manner in which the GM generates content (random or "rule of cool" improvisation or exhaustive preparation) is not relevant to whether or not it is a sandbox.

[Darth Ultron]

A sandbox is a persistent world that the players explore and interact with on their own initiative and generally in the manner of their choosing. The GM is responsible for creating all the content in the sandbox, as always. The manner in which the GM generates content (random or "rule of cool" improvisation or exhaustive preparation) is not relevant to whether or not it is a sandbox.

Ok, but this definition is that a snadbox game is a normal plot type game?

And like I said the players take take hours to ''interact with the game world of their own initiative and in a way of their choosing''. Eventually most players will then ''want to start really playing the game'' and follow a plot. So, then your right back to the normal plot type game.

If there is no plot or story, then it's just all random....but everyone says that is not a sandbox, right?

[2D8HP]

Player-led vs. GM-led?, are just not what I care about.
Try Aimless or Worthwhile instead. I will give a couple of examples.
1) PC's are invited somewhere and the only real object is for the PC's to "introduce" each other, and while sometimes witty banter results, but just as often it becomes back-story monologue's, feather ruffling, and even PvP, all of which (especially when they go on too long) are lame, and player-led.
2) PC's are captured/invited somewhere and then some big-wig forces them into gladiatoral combats and/or contests for the big-wigs amusement or as "tests", or even worst forced PvP. GM-led and lame.

The PC's in an empty room is no adventure at all, and nothing but a one way ticket, with no choices to make or actions of any consequences isn't much better.

Good set-ups?
1) Treasure Island.
Who doesn't want treasure? Have the PC's find a map. Have a rival team compete for the treasure. Maybe the treasure "in the wrong hands", would be catastrophic (think Raiders of the Lost Ark).
Now that's an adventure!

2) Seven Samurai.
The PC's are hired by villagers to save them from bandits.
Perhaps the bandits are tougher than the PC's thought (think the Three Amigo's), do the PC's go back on there word and save their own hides, or do they fight to the death with honor, even if it only means "only the farmers win".
Now that's a story with meaning!

Do the PC's actions and/or choices have meaning for the welfare of themselves and/or anyone else?

The worst ending of all is "it was just a dream".

[thirdkingdom]

Ok, but this definition is that a snadbox game is a normal plot type game?

And like I said the players take take hours to ''interact with the game world of their own initiative and in a way of their choosing''. Eventually most players will then ''want to start really playing the game'' and follow a plot. So, then your right back to the normal plot type game.

If there is no plot or story, then it's just all random....but everyone says that is not a sandbox, right?

I'm not sure what you mean by "random". The game I am running uses ACKS, which is an OSR clone of the B/X ruleset. So it is definitely not some "new 5e definition", as you so snidely put it. About half of the encounters the players explored have been random, determined on the fly, and the other half have been set encounters (which, to be fair, I also largely generate randomly). However, there are certainly coherent plots woven through out the campaign. Some of these plots are the result of random rolls, others are because of the advancement of a deliberate timeline.

I think part of difficulty is the nomenclature. Let's assume for a minute there are three broad types of adventures:

1. Scripted Adventure (often referred to as "Adventure Paths"). These are the most tightly run games, with the players going from Location A to Location B to Location C. There's a very specific order in which you tackle things. There's an overarching theme of the adventure. Like, prevent the mad cultists from summoning the dead god, or whatever. If the players decide "I'd rather start up a merchant caravan and go to Point Z, which isn't a part of the written adventure, the game is pretty much over."

2. Semi-sandbox. I think that the 5e adventure Princes of the Apocalypse is a pretty good example of this. Overarching theme and plot (princes of elemental evil, prevent them from taking over the world, etc.) but you can tackle the different pieces in any order that you want.

3. Sandbox. There are a bunch of different things going on that the players can chose to interact with. It doesn't mean "plotless" or random. There might be a half-dozen dungeons scattered throughout the starting area that have no connection to one another. I usually run sandboxes with a couple of NPC parties doing stuff in the background, so it's quite possible for the PCs to find that someone has beaten them to a certain dungeon or plot hook. Also, there are a number of different plots that occur, regardless if the players interact with them or not. I keep a pretty detailed time tracker to figure out when stuff is going to occur.

Like, one of the dungeons could contain an orc chieftain who's raising an army to invade the lands of Man. If the PCs decide they'd rather invade the Tower of the Mad Necromancer, it's quite possible they come back to find that their hometown is under siege by an orcish horde. They've then got the ability to chose what to do next. Stay and help fight the orcs? Go on an infiltration mission to strike at the orcish homeland? Decide that the King's armies have got this, and they don't need to get involved?

I'm just not sure where you're coming from with your insistence that a sandbox has to be "random", or even what you mean by that.

[OldTrees1]

I'm just not sure where you're coming from with your insistence that a sandbox has to be "random", or even what you mean by that.

Based upon previous arguments his meaning seems to be a mixture of:
1) His disdain for players making him view them as meatbags with dice for brains and thus they act randomly unless controlled.
2) His distrust of the ability to derive unprepared material from a consistent world and thus presumes it is all made up on the spot.

Although there is not much to be gained in arguments with him you will still see people fall to the temptation once in awhile.

[Frozen_Feet]

All games with a GM should be GM-led. This goes way beyond and is not the same as "GM-driven".

A game being GM-led means the GM is in charge of the playgroup, oversees rules of the game and controls player participation. A game being GM-driven means it's the GM who acts within the game world, presents ideas, motivations and events for the characters, while the players react. A game-being player-driven means it is players who act within the game world, present ideas, motivations and events for the characters, while the GM reacts.

A player-led game would be one where rules, player participation etc. is managed by group consensus / voting. I see this sometimes with freeform games and my opinion of player-led games is not stellar.

[Quertus]

So, a sandbox isn't just a collection of random elements... but wouldn't a collection of random plot elements qualify as a sandbox?

EDIT:

All games with a GM should be GM-led. This goes way beyond and is not the same as "GM-driven".

A game being GM-led means the GM is in charge of the playgroup, oversees rules of the game and controls player participation. A game being GM-driven means it's the GM who acts within the game world, presents ideas, motivations and events for the characters, while the players react. A game-being player-driven means it is players who act within the game world, present ideas, motivations and events for the characters, while the GM reacts.

A player-led game would be one where rules, player participation etc. is managed by group consensus / voting. I see this sometimes with freeform games and my opinion of player-led games is not stellar.

I've been in plenty of games where the GM was not the one who knew the rules best, and so the rules were managed by someone else, by the group, or, once, by the duplex cookies of fate. And those worked out just fine.

I'm not sure what you mean by someone being in charge of player participation, however. I'm picturing someone with a gag, to stifle spotlight hogs, and torture devices, to force participation out of wall flowers. What did you really mean?

[Cluedrew]

What if you looked at "Player Driven" differently? I like to use the Dungeon World example.

I think the Powered by the Apocalypse system is a great example, they seem to be tuned for that type of game.

All games with a GM should be GM-led. This goes way beyond and is not the same as "GM-driven".

Perhaps that would have been a better term for it, but I think that is what GM-led here.

As for Sandboxes, although the lack of a single main plot is usually highlighted as a main feature. That should not be confused with the lack of plot overall. Or put a different way, the main plot is that of the characters themselves instead of the threat they face. I suppose if you examine the plot only in terms of threats the GM throws at the party, it could appear random but only because you are overlooking the thread that takes you from one to the other.

[thirdkingdom]

So, a sandbox isn't just a collection of random elements... but wouldn't a collection of random plot elements qualify as a sandbox?

EDIT:



I've been in plenty of games where the GM was not the one who knew the rules best, and so the rules were managed by someone else, by the group, or, once, by the duplex cookies of fate. And those worked out just fine.

I'm not sure what you mean by someone being in charge of player participation, however. I'm picturing someone with a gag, to stifle spotlight hogs, and torture devices, to force participation out of wall flowers. What did you really mean?

Aight, what exactly to you mean by "random"? It's a word I see some guys throwing around but I'm not really sure what you mean by it.

[Quertus]

Aight, what exactly to you mean by "random"? It's a word I see some guys throwing around but I'm not really sure what you mean by it.

Point. I'm just copying it from others, so one would have to ask them what they meant. I suppose I took it it mean "disconnected" or "independent". Lacking a unifying theme.

But it could just as well mean "rolled up on random tables"... And now I've distracted myself with imagining if this entire world were merely the product of God rolling on some random tables...

[2D8HP]

I'm not sure what you mean by someone being in charge of player participation, however. I'm picturing someone with a gag, to stifle spotlight hogs, and torture devices, to force participation out of wall flowers. What did you really mean?

Pizza?

Check.

Sodas?

Check.

Chips?

Check.

Paper?

Check.

Pencils?

Check.

Miniatures?

Check.

Gags?


Gags?

Guys, you should know by now that there's no game without gags and torture devices!

[Max_Killjoy]

Ok, but this definition is that a snadbox game is a normal plot type game?

No, it's not.

Or rather "normal plot game" vs... whatever the other option would be, is a pretty meaningless distinction.

A sandbox game can still have a plot, but more of that plot occurs because of the players/characters choices along the way, rather than being prewritten by the GM as a story to be presented.

[kyoryu]

Guys, really, don't engage with Darth Ultron on the whole railroad/sandbox thing. He's got himself convinced that either your game is a railroad and is good, or it's literally a string of random encounters.

There's zero point in derailing this thread on that subject.

[Lacuna Caster]

I'm not sure what you mean by someone being in charge of player participation, however. I'm picturing someone with a gag, to stifle spotlight hogs, and torture devices, to force participation out of wall flowers. What did you really mean?

I find that just going around the table clockwise and prompting for input works fine for most wallflowers and some spotlight hogs. If the latter are a real and persistent problem, the GM can eject them from play.

A sandbox game can still have a plot, but more of that plot occurs because of the players/characters choices along the way, rather than being prewritten by the GM as a story to be presented.

I think 'story' is a straightforward term for what you're describing. Without getting hung over semantics, I end to reserve 'plot' to describe the pre-scripted version.

[Segev]

The problem is your describing a normal plot game, not a sandbox. Or are you saying a plotted game and a sandbox are the same thing?

So your normal games do not have the structure that most "plotted out" adventures do, and are instead sandboxes. That explains SOME things, but seems at odds with others you've claimed about how you run your games. Particularly your claims about how everything has to be railroaded for it not to be, in your words, "random."


A "plotted-out adventure" is one where the PCs' roles are defined, and the PCs take on the prescribed role of protagonists. They play a lot like most Final Fantasy games (especially 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13), where the plot of the game is a scripted story that the PCs will be inserted into to play out. The more rigid the railroad, the less their decisions actually matter and the more their participation and "uniqueness" is in how they win combats and what quips and lines they use in RPing with each other, as they will progress the plot by doing what is scripted for them to do.

Less rigid rails will allow for some branching decision-points, maybe allow some NPCs to be friendlier or more hostile and have that impact how easy or hard later encounters are. Particularly flexible ones - and if it's not this flexible, it probably is better run as a cRPG - will tend to allow the PCs to "break script" and require some rewriting of the plot to account for their choices.

As you move to still more flexibility, you've crossed a threshold into more "sandbox" games, where the PCs are free to reject entire swaths of the plot, to make entirely different decisions about how to pursue the goals or even what their real goals are.

At a certain point, a threshold is crossed as we get more sandboxy, and the "empty slots" the script has open for the PCs are gone entirely. The "script," such as it is, is more an outline of what will happen if there are no PCs involved.

There is an enormous difference, here. This is the true paradigm shift between scripted plots (which are varying rigidity of "railroad") and sandboxes: The sandbox doesn't have a pre-defined role for the PCs, at all. The sandbox does have a solid idea of how things will progress with no PC intervention. And a well-written/designed one will have a lot of points where hooks poke out for PCs to latch on to and interfere. But the PCs are a disruptive influence on "the script" in a sandbox. This is intentional.

In a railroad-like game, where the PCs have roles they're meant to slot into, the notion of a "disruptive" player being the guy who bucks the expectations of the narrative and wants to have a goal out of line with what the plot calls for is a problem. In a sandbox game, that's not a problem because it's rather expected. PCs need goals of their own to motivate them in a sandbox game (though "House Mnemon needs mercenaries and is hiring" can be all the motive needed to initially get involved).

Sandboxes aren't "random," nor need PCs do "random things" to make a sandbox. PCs need to be able to do anything (within their mechanical capability) they want and have the world react appropriately.


Where most people argue with you, Darth Ultron, is your characterization of all "real" games as railroads where the PCs need to be led around by the nose. A true railroad has the PCs' path plotted out for them. A true sandbox has things that are going on which the PCs can try to ride along or disrupt.

Spoiler: disruptive player definition

Show

Please note that a "disruptive player" here is not the "hur hur I'm going to cause problems at the table" player. I don't mean that kind of disruption. I mean disruptive to the plot, such as the plot is.

In a railroad, this is a problem because the GM now has to rewrite everything since his storyline required that the PCs be motivated to perform specific actions and make specific choices, and bucking that or not caring about such-and-such goal has wrecked his artfully-constructed story with the PCs as main characters.

In a sandbox, this isn't a problem because it's expected. The GM has a good idea of how things would have gone if the PCs hadn't done anything to change the status quo, but he doesn't have specific "plot events" that must happen with the PCs behaving in particular ways to get to them or during them. Instead, he knows how things would go...and can figure out how everything reacts and changes to the PCs' actions.

His political intrigue at court might have a dozen factions and rivalries, and he knows that, barring outside interference, the Vizier's faction will ascend the throne when their abuse of the trust placed in them as a "neutral" party lets them arrange for the Merchants' Guild to assassinate the king and get the City Guard to declare martial law with the Vizier as the one trusted to administer it. When the PCs get involved, they may decide they like the king and protect him. Maybe they out the Merchants' Guild's plan, and gain the trust of the Guard for themselves. Or maybe they defuse the situation entirely, and learn that the Vizier was instigating it. Or maybe they broker a deal between the Merchants' Guild and the City Guard and get the City Guard on board with the assassination after all.

Or maybe they decide they'd rather look for monsters to hunt out in the wilderness. The GM may have to acknowledge that he hadn't prepared for that, and run some random wilderness encounters for that session and use those to inspire something going on out there. Meanwhile, while they're doing that, they return to find the Vizier running a martial-law-occupied city. IF they take interest, great, if not, well, the GM has learned their interests and populated the surroundings.

Heck, if his political intrigue had any outside pressures to consider, he may have incorporated those. The merchants wanted the king gone because he was taxing them but appeasing the orc bandits that prey on them, perhaps. So those orc bandits are out there for the PCs to run into when they go exploring for trouble, and they get involved in hunting them down. Or deciding to conquer THEM and unite them under their banner. Or escort merchants and make some money while they learn of the merchants' displeasure and plot to kill the king.


The big thing is that this sandbox isn't "random," as you characterize the term. Even the PCs' choices aren't "random" so much as "self-motivated" by what they're interested in.

Like I said, the players can be all random for hours...but eventually the sandboxy players will pick a plot, because the only options are random stuff or have a plot and story. And most players will want to ''do something'' and that requires a plot and story.

Again, that's not ceasing to be a sandbox. That's playing with the toys that are in the sandbox. And if you're allowing them to influence the plot (rather than just latch onto it and ride its rails to your pre-defined conclusion), you're still in a sand box. They might grab on to the plot and side with exactly who you expected...or they might take a shine to the "bad guys." Or they might think of solutions involving two other plot threads that you hadn't intended to be intermingled, and use one to solve the others.

A normal plot game with a story is where a DM makes up the adventure details and encounters and everything else before the game. Then the players will ''run through'' that adventure. A plot has a very obvious end, often very simply ''you must do X'', so you will know when the adventure is over.

See, that's the railroad version. You're leaving out the notion that a "plot," just like real life, doesn't have to end. Sure, achievements occur. Goals are met or forever lost. But new goals and new threats to the stability of goals achieved arise.

Just because the King was saved from the merchants' assassination doesn't mean the Vizier gives up on his plans to take the throne. Just because the PCs behead the Vizier doesn't mean his supporters aren't still bitter. Nor that their alliance of City Guards and Merchants doesn't have its own political tensions they must continue to balance.

Just because they went out to fight orcs rather than get involved in court politics doesn't mean that beating up all the orcs resolves all the problems. Nor that beating up all the orcs is the only solution. Just because they've united the orcs under their banner in a massive warband to lead against the city doesn't mean the city automatically falls. There's still that to play out.

A STORY has a beginning, a middle, and an end. But that doesn't mean that the PCs must slot into the GM's pre-selected roles and do his pre-selected events to make them happen. The story can evolve from PCs setting goals and making plans to achieve them, using the items in the sandbox - the various ongoing "plots" - as tools to get there.

In this version, the DM doesn't make up what the PCs have to do. He just comes up with the challenge...and lets the PCs figure out how to overcome it, by whatever means they can discover amongst the tools they have (or by whatever means they can create from the tools they have and the rest of the sandbox).

Such a game can also start with the DM dangling plot hooks in front of the players until they pick one....and then do everything in the above paragraph.

So a sandbox game is where.......something else happens?

A sandbox game is one where the DM doesn't say, "In this plot, the PCs do this, this, then this, and make these choices, and go to this event, and then they win, unless they fail and lose along the way." A sandbox game is one where the DM says, "This is what's going on. If the PCs get involved, it will alter according to their interaction with it. If they don't like the situation, they can fight it or change it by whatever means they have at their disposal, and I know enough about it to resist or cooperate."

Spoiler: A Rifts game I'm in

Show

The current "plot arc" of a Rifts game I'm in picked up after the PCs had established themselves as the lieutenants of a new Warlord of the Pecos (one of the PCs' number, Max, a dogboy sheriff). Warlord Max is building up his little economic empire, when he learns that another, highly unpopular warlord has been...replaced...by a demon-worshipping cult that is actively killing and kidnapping people rather than engaging in "proper" Pecos banditry.

Now, the GM had a pretty good idea that Max would oppose this. But the plans we came up with to fight it were not provided by the GM, and the GM had the bad guys reacting to us as much as we were reacting to them.

Additionally, if the party had decided that allying with the demon cult was what they wanted to do, the GM would have been surprised, but amply able to roll with that. And the threats would have likely been involved in building trust/gaining power within the demon-worshipping organization so we weren't mere cannon fodder, and in fighting against the REST of the Pecos as other warlords started to notice the problem and found the union of Max and Don Marco under a demon-worshipping banner to be...objectionable. Plus, eventually, we'd have gotten the attention of the elephant in the room, the Coalition States (who embody the notion of 'enough firepower' in this region).

That's a sandbox. It isn't random, and the GM does have things driving the plot and forcing PC reactions. But how the PCs react and what the PCs take action to do is up to us. We don't have pre-defined roles in a plot that's already written, and "scripted events" are, at best, rough guesses of the kind of thing that might occur if things go without PC disruption (or predictions based on likely PC choices, but which need not happen necessarily).

Note that the distinction with a "railroad" is that PCs aren't given a script they have to feel out and follow. The distinction is NOT a lack of "plot." It's just that the plot, if PCs hadn't acted, would have gone one way, but as the PCs got involved it went another, and it was shaped by PC choices, not by PCs following a pre-written script.

[Jay R]

It's worth pointing out that a player-led game is a game for which the DM creates hundreds of potential encounters, most of which never happen.

The original D&D dungeons and wilderness games were pretty much this - PCs go exploring and determine which small part of the DM's work they will ever see.

That's why I don't build sandboxes any more. I don't have that much designing time before the campaign can start these days.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think 'story' is a straightforward term for what you're describing. Without getting hung over semantics, I end to reserve 'plot' to describe the pre-scripted version.

That's fair, and maybe more accurate.

It's worth pointing out that a player-led game is a game for which the DM creates hundreds of potential encounters, most of which never happen.

The original D&D dungeons and wilderness games were pretty much this - PCs go exploring and determine which small part of the DM's work they will ever see.

That's why I don't build sandboxes any more. I don't have that much designing time before the campaign can start these days.

I think if you're going to sandbox, as a GM, you have to be willing to make up a lot of details as you go.

Thing is, that requires a stronger foundation of details in how the world/setting works, what is and is not possible, etc, beforehand, and a framework around which to improvise the details, in order to avoid contradicting yourself, painting yourself into a corner, setting up unforeseen implications, and so on.

This is part of why I get so worked up about solid worldbuilding, and so aggravating by notions that we should just wing it or that it doesn't matter.

[Stealth Marmot]

Guys, you should know by now that there's no game without gags and torture devices!

If he can't run the game without the gag, is it a Running Gag?

[Cluedrew]

[Darth Ultron has] got himself convinced that either your game is a railroad and is good, or it's literally a string of random encounters.

Particularly your [again, Darth Ultron] claims about how everything has to be railroaded for it not to be, in your words, "random."

I feel I should point what Darth Ultron seems to mean when he says railroading. This is what I figured out in a thread on railroading some months ago. When Darth Ultron says railroading he seems to say almost any act a GM preforms to guide the game. This includes creating plot hooks, points of interest that the PCs can examine and so on. His statements make more sense in this light... although it makes the term almost useless in my option. But we had that conversation already.

To Jay R: Player-led probably works better in games where do don't have to prepare encounters ahead of time.

[Frozen_Feet]

I'm not sure what you mean by someone being in charge of player participation, however. I'm picturing someone with a gag, to stifle spotlight hogs, and torture devices, to force participation out of wall flowers. What did you really mean?

I mean the GM sets limits on the minimum or maximum amount of participants, removes disruptive or rule-breaking players from the table, keeps track of time and makes sure each participant gets their turn, announces when the game begins and ends etc.

You know, the sorts of things a game master typically does in all sorts of games, not just RPGs. In Finnish, the established term for this role is "pelinjohtaja", literally game leader.

[kyoryu]

I feel I should point what Darth Ultron seems to mean when he says railroading. This is what I figured out in a thread on railroading some months ago. When Darth Ultron says railroading he seems to say almost any act a GM preforms to guide the game. This includes creating plot hooks, points of interest that the PCs can examine and so on. His statements make more sense in this light... although it makes the term almost useless in my option. But we had that conversation already.

Yes. The point is to say that doing anything is railroading, therefore railroading is good, and therefore people not liking railroading are just dumb.

It's a really stupid attempt at a logic trick.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yes. The point is to say that doing anything is railroading, therefore railroading is good, and therefore people not liking railroading are just dumb.

It's a really stupid attempt at a logic trick.

So it's not just me who picked up a whiff of that?

[kyoryu]

So it's not just me who picked up a whiff of that?

I like ice cream. Some people say that they don't like ice cream, and like cake. They're clearly wrong! And if you think about it, ice cream can have chocolate. And so can this so-called cake, which means that obviously what they're calling cake is really ice cream. So if you take chocolate, and strawberries, and other things out, then what's left is just just flavorless bread. So, really, you either like ice cream, which can have chocolate and strawberries, or you're saying you like flavorless bread for dessert. Because if the flavorless bread had chocolate or strawberries in it, it would be ice cream.

[Darth Ultron]

I'm just not sure where you're coming from with your insistence that a sandbox has to be "random", or even what you mean by that.

Your description does not make a Sandbox and different then a normal ''Scripted Adventure''. The player choice is mentioned...but, ok, the players pick ''adventure A'' and then it's a ''Scripted Adventure''.

You seem to be saying that a non-sandbox game can't have events in the background? Why?

How does a Sandbox give this ''amazing freedom'', but the ''Scripted Adventure'' does not?

As for Sandboxes, although the lack of a single main plot is usually highlighted as a main feature. That should not be confused with the lack of plot overall. Or put a different way, the main plot is that of the characters themselves instead of the threat they face.

So a Sandbox does not have a ''single main plot''? So a Sandbox has ''lots of little plots''....but as you can really only do one plot at a time, one must be picked as the ''single main plot'' so that is right back to saying a ''sandbox is a scripted adventure''.

Aight, what exactly to you mean by "random"? It's a word I see some guys throwing around but I'm not really sure what you mean by it.

I mean random as in ''something just thrown out of the blue for no reason other then something to do''. If you have any type of even ''tiny plot'', then it's a scripted adventure, not a sandbox.

A sandbox game can still have a plot, but more of that plot occurs because of the players/characters choices along the way, rather than being prewritten by the GM as a story to be presented.

I wonder what kind of pre written adventure your talking about? Any half way good adventure is full of ''what ifs'', that is how an RPG adventure is written. Every action or encounter needs a ''if the PC's do this or that'' or ''if this or that'' happens. And even with a pre written adventure, the DM will still improvise on the fly, as that is a big reason why the DM is even there.

[QUOTE=Segev;21375229]
Where most people argue with you, Darth Ultron, is your characterization of all "real" games as railroads where the PCs need to be led around by the nose. A true railroad has the PCs' path plotted out for them. A true sandbox has things that are going on which the PCs can try to ride along or disrupt.

Good post. I think I get it now.

1.Normal railroaded game: Where the players willing follow the plot to have fun with the DM.

2.Sandbox: Where the players don't follow anything of the DMs and willing disrupt the game.

That makes sense to me.

[Max_Killjoy]

I wonder what kind of pre written adventure your talking about? Any half way good adventure is full of ''what ifs'', that is how an RPG adventure is written.

Evidently... based on your posts... the kind you run.

1.Normal railroaded game: Where the players willing follow the plot to have fun with the DM.

2.Sandbox: Where the players don't follow anything of the DMs and willing disrupt the game.

That makes sense to me.

[thirdkingdom]

*headdesk*

[2D8HP]

Because if the flavorless bread had chocolate....

Mmmm chocolate.....
OK now I've completely forgot my thoughts.

*headdesk*

I still feel that neither all "Sandbox" or all "Railroad", correlate with lame or awesome. A sandbox can be aimless, and a railroad pointless.

The worst ending of all is "it was just a dream".

[Cluedrew]

I still feel that neither all "Sandbox" or all "Railroad", correlate with lame or awesome. A sandbox can be aimless, and a railroad pointless.

Well I would use the term linear instead of railroad, but in my mind railroading is essentially a linear adventure without player buy in.

Actually this thread has just given me an idea about how to frame those two types of games. A linear adventure is more plot-driven while a sandbox is more setting-driven. Now obviously they both have some of both (and character, the third building block in my model of stories), but the focus is shifted. Does that make sense to everyone (anyone?) else?

Now I'm wondering what you would call a game that is character-driven. It would probably correlate with a player-driven game though.

[2D8HP]

Well I would use the term linear
Now I'm wondering what you would call a game that is character-driven. It would probably correlate with a player-driven game though.

I really think you have an insight there.
I imagine that it's possible to have a character-driven game that at least at the start is not quite player-driven, and instead be system-driven by having random rolls for say the 5e D&D Flaws, Ideals etc., or the Pendragon Traits and Passions, and you role-play the resulting PC.
Early D&D had a touch of that as you rolled your "stats", and since choosing your class based on them was heavily encouraged and certain classes required certain alignments, voila! A randomly generated piece of a personality.
A character-driven game could also be GM-driven if the GM assigns the characters, but I imagine that many players would be more willing to accept random dice rolls than GM dictates determining who their PC is.