Why 'Sandbox' is a meaningless phrase

[Quertus]

I only have time for a short reply, so I'll reply to Quertus first.

Gee thanks!

(I really didn't have a reply to the rest of your post, it seemed to name sense to me.)

Except this does not make sense.

Normal game-In the first couple second of gameplay the players decide on a goal and decide on a method to do that.

So-called Sandbox game-the players take huge amounts of time to just wander and explore, but then eventually decide on a goal and way to do it.

So this comes back to the ''sandbox'' is just a long, mostly pointless pre game game. And in the end you have the same game.

You've lost the differentiation again:

Normal Linear game: "ok, guys, were playing through Tomb of Horrors - the objective is to collect as much treasure as you can and survive."

Of course, that said, the best way to accomplish this predefined task is to go completely off the rails.

In a sandbox, the Tomb of Horrors is just one of many possible optional attractions, that the party can choose to do whatever they want with - including nothing.

Saying that you want a sandbox... means different things to different people, but, to me, it means that a) the GM buys into the fact that, if they introduce the Tomb of Horrors, it's fine for the players to ignore it, or use it for some other purpose than gaining riches; b) the GM buys into the fact that, even if the PCs do engage the Tomb of Horrors, it's fine if they decide to slaughter all the inhabitants, and turn them into an undead slave army to strip mine for treasure.

Saying "sandbox" means that the GM buys into letting the goals - and the technique - rest entirely in the players' hands.

The ''Module'' thing just goes back to the DM hate, as everyone is saying that such a DM ''automatically is a jerk that railroads" and ''it's wrong for a DM to prepare anything''.

Like it's wrong for a DM to have an adventure where the characters would slay a dragon and use a dragon slaying lance to do it.

But it's right for the DM to just say ''there is a dragon''...and then leave. To the players have their characters do utterly random things. Then the DM comes back and picks at random something the characters are doing, and say it effected the dragon in whatever way the players wanted it done.

How in God's Green Earth could you possibly read what I post as being anti-preparation? Why, earlier in this very thread, I explicitly stated my personal preference as in opposition to improv.

Oh. Preparing solutions. Well, yes, I'm all for populating the sandbox, not saying that you must raise Ken"s hands over his head while Barbie grabs his waist. I firmly believe in letting the kids play with the toys however they like, rather than pulling out the Kragle on Taco Tuesday.

However.

Where you're lost is:

do utterly random things - no, not "my character roll licks the roll door and roll falls asleep". Rather, the players have their characters do whatever makes the most sense for those personalities to do given the information they have, mitigated my a table-appropriate amount of "my guy"-prevention metagaming.

the DM comes back and picks at random something the characters are doing - no, the GM is always there, and always adjudicating the results of all actions

And

in whatever way the players wanted it done - no, in whatever way the rules indicate the results of the action should be.

Now, if you're running true to form, you're next argument should be, "but, with a good GM who knows his players, the results of that would be identical to a railroad"...

[Max_Killjoy]

To Max_Killjoy: I thought that was obvious. Still I know a few other people who go for the deep dive, including myself.

Sorry, I just got entirely too sick of having to point out over and over that no one or almost no one was saying or had ever said whatever new thing that supposedly "everyone says".

[Darth Ultron]

I see your definition of a Normal Game has shifted again.

It's always been the same to me.

What's wrong with exploring a setting? What if that's the goal in and of itself? I had a game where the world was essentially a giant labyrinth. (Thanks to some wizard wars that went very badly)
The players had the goal of mapping the labyrinth, which obviously requires exploring it, and dealing with obstacles/threats as they are encountered. (Or in some cases, leaving signs to not go that way of it is both dangerous AND a dead-end. Which was a valid solution to some problems.) But there's no one big goal aside from Exploring the Labyrinth.

I never said there was anything wrong with it? And, I have said, some games are all about that and nothing else. Some players and DMs like this sort of game, and it's popular with the Casual Gamers.

Man, it's weird how many examples exist that contradict your statement AND are successful games that people have fun with. Weird.

Not so weird if you read what I type.

But the above example would never be the same game across multiple groups. Random encounters would be wildly different, objects would be encountered out of order, and etc.
In fact, the group I ran with missed out on about half the map in the 18 months we played for. So another group that exits out the East gate pf their town rather than the West gate would potentially have a game that shared NO CONTENT with the original game, despite being the same map.

Um, I'm not talking about things like both games have the exact group of orc bandits attack at 10AM or things like that. I'm talking about the DM makes/gets and adventure and the players have thier characters go through it.

Normal Game- Right at the start, the players pick an adventure and say ''our characters will go and slay he dragon of Dark Wood'' and the players come up with a clever idea to have a fake gold caravan trap for the dragon.., the Dm pulls out the Dragon of Dark Wood Adventure....and the gameplay starts.

So called Sandbox Game-the players take huge amounts of time to just wander and explore, eventually the players pick an adventure and say ''our characters will go stop the Red Flag Pirates" and come up with a clever idea to join the pirates and take themout from within...., the DM pulls out the Red Flag Pirates Adventure...and the gameplay starts.

Ah yes. People who are not guided by the nose will never engage their brains and make logical decisions, only purely randomized flailing, apparently.

Well, with the DM gone, there is no setting or world or even a game. It's just the Storytelling Activity where each player just says ''and then'' on their turn or all at once.

Normal Linear game: "ok, guys, were playing through Tomb of Horrors - the objective is to collect as much treasure as you can and survive."

In a sandbox, the Tomb of Horrors is just one of many possible optional attractions, that the party can choose to do whatever they want with - including nothing.

Well, first remove the bias. The anti DM bias other say does not exist. See how your first example is all about the DM making the decision and choice for the players and then forcing them to do only that. Then, of course, your second choice is ''the players can do anything(sort of).

Just tyr it with out the Bias:

Normal Game-The players pick the Tomb of Horrors adventure to run through. Then the DM says ''Ok, players, of your own free will, you have chosen for your characters to go to the Tomb of Horrors; lets get started."

So called Sandbox Game-So, the players can pick any adventure...just like the Normal game. So, yet again, it seems meaningless to highlight and point that out. So, most of the time, eventually the players DO pick an adventure.

Though sure the jerk players can also sit at the table and say ''we want to do nothing''.

Saying that you want a sandbox... means different things to different people, but, to me, it means that a) the GM buys into the fact that, if they introduce the Tomb of Horrors, it's fine for the players to ignore it, or use it for some other purpose than gaining riches; b) the GM buys into the fact that, even if the PCs do engage the Tomb of Horrors, it's fine if they decide to slaughter all the inhabitants, and turn them into an undead slave army to strip mine for treasure.

I don't see how both are not Normal Games. It's like nearly everyone has had some type of horrible game experience of the worst kind possible that has permanently effected them.

Normal Reality-A DM says ''the Tomb of Horrors is over in the nearby Dun Hills." The players nod and then have their characters go the other direction. And nothing else happens. Both the game and life roll one.

Other Reality-A DM says ''the Tomb of Horrors is over in the nearby Dun Hills." And the players are forced somehow(by the DM?) to ONLY go on that adventure and it's worse then a nightmare.

So if the Other Reality is the only one you know, I can see why you don't get the idea of a normal game.

Saying "sandbox" means that the GM buys into letting the goals - and the technique - rest entirely in the players' hands.

Again, this is a Normal Game.

do utterly random things - no, not "my character roll licks the roll door and roll falls asleep". Rather, the players have their characters do whatever makes the most sense for those personalities to do given the information they have, mitigated my a table-appropriate amount of "my guy"-prevention metagaming.

Well, the players don't want the DM telling them ''what to do'' or ''how to do it'', right? So, if the DM makes up anything...the players don't want that.

the DM comes back and picks at random something the characters are doing - no, the GM is always there, and always adjudicating the results of all actions

The DM need not go all that far away, just far enough so their effect of badwrongfun does not ruin the game for the players. And they can still adjudicate everything in favor of the players from a distance with just a thumbs up or such.

I guess the problem is the viewpoints.

If a DM makes a magic item to accomplish the adventure goal, the players will whine and cry about it.

If the DM just sits around....and the players come up with the idea of a magic item that will accomplish the adventure goal...and then the DM makes it and puts it in the game...then the players are happy.

[ImNotTrevor]

It's always been the same to me.

So your definition is inherently self-contradictory?
I'd say I was surprised but... I'm not.

I never said there was anything wrong with it?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'm not the guy to try that lie on. Your distaste for exploration has been hidden about as well as an elephant under a tea cozy.

And, I have said, some games are all about that and nothing else. Some players and DMs like this sort of game, and it's popular with the Casual Gamers.

See? Here it is.
"I never said it was bad. It's just for Casual Gamers, a group I have a long history of vilifying and insisting are inherently lazy and inferior in every way. Totally different."

Yes. And sardines are ok, too. They're just universally a sign of being a horrible, puppy-kicking charlatan, and anyone who likes them is inferior to me.

If that second paragraph sounds like i suck at hiding my distaste for sardines, then it is an accurate simulation of DU posts.

Not so weird if you read what I type.

Given that you've not been successful at comprehendingly reading hardly anything written in this thread, this makes me giggle.

Um, I'm not talking about things like both games have the exact group of orc bandits attack at 10AM or things like that. I'm talking about the DM makes/gets and adventure and the players have thier characters go through it.

An Adventure as a unit of play will produce roughly the same outcome regardless of who plays through it.
We're not talking about the adventure scale. We're talking about the Campaign scale.
I'm guessing that even you don't fully comprehend your own argument here.
Again, not surprising.

Normal Game- Right at the start, the players pick an adventure and say ''our characters will go and slay he dragon of Dark Wood'' and the players come up with a clever idea to have a fake gold caravan trap for the dragon.., the Dm pulls out the Dragon of Dark Wood Adventure....and the gameplay starts.

That's a Linear end of the spectrum.

So called Sandbox Game-the players take huge amounts of time to just wander and explore,

See how you call it "just wander and explore" implying with all the subtlety of a hand grenade that this is insufficient?

eventually the players pick an adventure and say ''our characters will go stop the Red Flag Pirates" and come up with a clever idea to join the pirates and take themout from within...., the DM pulls out the Red Flag Pirates Adventure...and the gameplay starts.

The different is there is no such adventure written out. What does exist is a layout of rhe organization, its procedures, its goals, its hangouts, major named characters' motivations, etc. Setting information.
From that setting information, reactions are pulled live.
If Thog the Pirate Orc lusts for mahogany tables, and the DM knows this, then Gold will be a bad bribe.
It doesn't need to be written down as an if/then statement anywhere. It's a reasonable piece of information to extrapolate from the notes.

Since the entire campaign functions like this, there aren't any "adventures" as a unit of game content.

Well, with the DM gone, there is no setting or world or even a game. It's just the Storytelling Activity where each player just says ''and then'' on their turn or all at once.

If this is how you imagine Sandbox games go, despite what has been described...
You've got worse reading comprehension issues than I imagined. I apparently may as well write in Russian. About the same amount will be comprehended.

[Cluedrew]

Sorry, I just got entirely too sick of having to point out over and over that no one or almost no one was saying or had ever said whatever new thing that supposedly "everyone says".

Well you don't have to, if you skip that point I can tell you with at least 99% certainty that someone else will. Actually the feeling of "having" to respond to Darth Ultron (especially when a bunch of people get it at once has done a lot more damage to threads than he could ever himself, so I would recommend ignoring that feeling.

It doesn't make much of difference in this thread, because that is what it is supposed to be about after all. But it could have saved other threads.

[Darth Ultron]

See? Here it is.

Not really sure what your getting at? Different people like different things.

An Adventure as a unit of play will produce roughly the same outcome regardless of who plays through it.

What? Have a group run through an adventure and it will be different every time.

See how you call it "just wander and explore" implying with all the subtlety of a hand grenade that this is insufficient?

Odd, it just looks descriptive to me.

From that setting information, reactions are pulled live.

I think your mixing Setting and Adventure.

Since the entire campaign functions like this, there aren't any "adventures" as a unit of game content.

Right, for the Never Ending Pre Game.

Like out of the 1000 things in the setting kingdom, the DM makes 20 or 30 things. Then, as the characters randomly and aimlessly wander and explore the DM just randomly improvs stuff right in front of the characters. So it's do random action, random improv, repeat.

And then after say a couple hours the players and DM have ''collaborated'' to make the worst mess of an adventure ever. It's a lot like the casual or lazy DM has the players help ''make'' the adventure. Then the players pick a adventure mess, and the DM runs that based on the pregame mess.

Like lets take my Big Rats Adventure(D&D 3.5E 1st level, super low op, for Kidz).

Normal game-The tiny town of Sweethaven has a problem: Giant Rats. In the first couple seconds of the game the characters see a sign for 'adventures needed' and head over to Sweethaven. The DM has already made the adventure setting of Sweethaven and the lands around it. So the DM knows the exact location of the rat lair, has a time table, and knows all the details about the adventure. So, for example, the DM knows what is in each of the towns 30 buildings and has a list of all the npcs in town. So the players can do things like problem solve for real: like they draw a map of the town, mark where the giant rats have attacked and narrow down a small area of where the lair likely is as they rightly figure more attacks happen in and around the lair.

Other game-Here the characters just aimlessly wander. So first off this activity takes a long time, days and weeks. So, a bunch of wandering. So on day 11 of the aimless wander, the characters stumble into the improv town of Splat. The characters continue their aimless wander around Splat, seeing places and talking to NPC, all that the DM improvs as the characters move around. The DM, being cool, does not bother to take notes, after all they know everything about their novel setting and what could possible go wrong? So on day 17 of the aimless wander activity and the characters have randomly wandered all over Splat, and the DM has randomly improv ed everything right in front of them. So also on day 17 the players, finally, say ''lets do something more adventurous" . So the DM randomly tosses out a random idea and says ''um, oh, um, well, there are monsters eating people in town. And here the mess begins. The characters have been in the town of Splat for six days, and not a single npc ever mentioned monsters eating people in town(because on days 11-16 the DM had not randomly improved that information so the characters could never find it as it did not exist). So, at best, the DM can try to Spin some of the random mess to make some sort of sense. Like they will say ''er, um, er, um, well, remember that missing dog from day 12...um, er, ah ha! the monsters got it!" At worse the Dm will just make a mess out of a mess out of a mess: Like on days 17 they random imporv- ''Oh, um, the town has no mayor, the monsters ate him". Of course the players point out their characters did in fact meet the mayor on day 13 and had dinner at his house. Opps, awesome impriv mess with no notes DM made a mess. So now things have to be messed up more and retconed. And then when the players do try and find the monster lair, they have nothing to go on by the improv mess. Like the players will be ''Ok, we check out the Grateful Dead Cemetery, that we randomly found on day 13 to be nice and quiet" and the DM is like ''er, um, no, er, um,there are monsters there that have been there for weeks!" and so on and so on into the worst mess adventure ever.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well you don't have to, if you skip that point I can tell you with at least 99% certainty that someone else will. Actually the feeling of "having" to respond to Darth Ultron (especially when a bunch of people get it at once has done a lot more damage to threads than he could ever himself, so I would recommend ignoring that feeling.

I know I don't have to, that's why I put it on ignore.

The point was that if I was going to respond, that response would almost always include for the simple sake of accuracy and fact some variation on "that's not what anyone is saying".

I lost interest in watching it tell the same lies over and over again.

[Lorsa]

Right there are players, and a good number of them, that want to follow the DMs lead. It's common with Casual Players.

But everyone is not talking about such a game.

We are talking about such a game. We are also talking about it in a way that describes it as "NOT a sandbox". Since one type of normal game can be excluded from the term "sandbox", it makes it a meaningful phrase.

Yes, the DM might want the characters to stay on a path, but this has little to do with the DM's prep. Even if the characters went to the Red Tower, the DM can just improv it or just grab a copy of The White Tower and use it as the Red Tower.

So it's not impossible.

You make quite a lot of assumptions, which are not always true.

1. The DM might not WANT to improv, or be very poor at it, and therefore not be able to simply create the Red Tower on the fly.
2. The DM might not want to swap the White Tower to become the Red Tower. In the DMs mind, the White Tower is the White Tower and the Red Tower is not created. Also, even IF the DM makes the switch, what happens afterwards when the players want to go to the White Tower? The DM can't very well use the same tower for both.

For some DMs, the only thing they can DM are the things they have prepared, and as such it IS impossible for them to allow the players to go anywhere outside of these things.

Well, I know we will disagree on all the above terms. Even more so as I think all three are always part of any TRPG(minus the ''jerk'' and ''blatant'' parts).

Nevermind that Participationism and Illusionism are mutually exclusive?

I'm not sure about all the terms, but it's a good way to play the game.

And open-ended adventures are different from linear adventures.

This is as I have said, the introduction pre game. Where they characters just wander, and then pick something to do.

Even if YOU think it is a "pre-game", to many people it is simply part of "the game". Gameplay starts the moment the DM describes the location the characters are situated in and allows them to perform actions.

And this is a great example of an Illusion, and to make my own term, lets say Phantom Choice. The players don't like the idea of ''just'' sitting down and starting an adventure in like ten seconds: the game starts, the DM says dwarf Blarg wants to hire you for a job, the characters say yes and the adventure is a go. They feel forced to do the one adventure the DM has made. This is badwrongfun to a lot of players. So the ''sandbox'' alternative is to have the characters randomly wander and explore; and this can make the players happy for hours (?) And sure, this is the whole game for some...just aimless, pointless meaningless wander and explore. But most players want to ''do something'' with a bit more detail and meaning. So the DM drops lots of Phantom Plot Hooks to adventures....and eventually the players pick one. I guess the players are happy as they (think) they have picked the adventure.

A better description of a "sandbox" alternative, that would still have adventures (which are not required), would be that the DM says there are, let's say three people looking to hire. The dwarf Blarg, the elf Eiaolag and the gnome Swinibrinigulag. All these three are looking to hire the players for three distinctively different jobs with entirely different challenges (let's say the dwarf one involves more fighting, the elf one more social interactions and the gnome one more logical puzzles). This makes the choice a real one instead of a Phantom Choice as you describe.

Though they are still picking from the DM's list. So it's not like the players altered the game reality with their choice. A DM can easily have a bag of adventures, all ones the DM likes of course; so if the players pick adventure six, it does not matter much.

It matters to the players.

And, even if the players do utterly ignore the DM and the setting and just come up with their own adventure idea. The DM is still the one that makes the adventure. So, no matter what the player choose, they are still getting an adventure made and run and controlled by the DM. So you will always get the DMs personal style and quarks no matter what. After all the DM is still the same person, no matter the adventure. So the players can switch from ''orc'' to ''drow'' but that won't change the adventure too much. The DM could even take an 'orc adventure' and just say ''drow'' instead of orc each time it comes up.

Any DM that has an adventure involving orcs being the same as one involving drows is a bad DM. I thought we were talking about good DMs?

The basic gameplay will mostly be the same. If the DM does not like to use poisons, then they just won't show up in the game. Even if the players pick the adventure of ''fight the plane of infinite poison'', the DM will still down play the poison. Sure the DM can give the players whatever they specifically ask for, but the rest is on them.

Sure, the DM's style WILL matter. But a good DM has more flexibility than a bad DM, and the ability to make more adventures that are actually different from each other.

Not really sure what your getting at? Different people like different things.

If you want to acknowledge that it's okay to like different things from you, you should use neutral language, not derogatory language.

What? Have a group run through an adventure and it will be different every time.

Only if the adventure is of the open-ended kind. For linear adventures, this isn't true. Besides, ImNotTrevor was talking about "roughly the same outcome", not that the adventures would be identical.

Odd, it just looks descriptive to me.

Eh, wait a minute? First of all, describing something as "just wander and explore" includes a derogatory value judgement. If you want to be descriptive you should say "a game where the goal is exploring the setting" or something such.

But that's not the end of you say. If you just go back and read your own posts, you'll see that you describe these games as "aimless" and "meaningless". Meaningless is MOST DEFINITELY not descriptive. It's making a derogatory value judgement.

IF you want to be neutral you could say "I agree that this is a valid playstyle, but personally I find it meaningless".

Which is the same as when I say "I agree that agreeing to play with a railroading DM is a valid playstyle, but personally I find it meaningless".

Learn the difference between descriptive language and value judgements, and use them properly.

I think your mixing Setting and Adventure.

I think he was describing how you could have a perfectly good and fun game by ONLY preparing Setting and NEVER Adventure.

Right, for the Never Ending Pre Game.

Like out of the 1000 things in the setting kingdom, the DM makes 20 or 30 things. Then, as the characters randomly and aimlessly wander and explore the DM just randomly improvs stuff right in front of the characters. So it's do random action, random improv, repeat.

And then after say a couple hours the players and DM have ''collaborated'' to make the worst mess of an adventure ever. It's a lot like the casual or lazy DM has the players help ''make'' the adventure. Then the players pick a adventure mess, and the DM runs that based on the pregame mess.

Like lets take my Big Rats Adventure(D&D 3.5E 1st level, super low op, for Kidz).

Normal game-The tiny town of Sweethaven has a problem: Giant Rats. In the first couple seconds of the game the characters see a sign for 'adventures needed' and head over to Sweethaven. The DM has already made the adventure setting of Sweethaven and the lands around it. So the DM knows the exact location of the rat lair, has a time table, and knows all the details about the adventure. So, for example, the DM knows what is in each of the towns 30 buildings and has a list of all the npcs in town. So the players can do things like problem solve for real: like they draw a map of the town, mark where the giant rats have attacked and narrow down a small area of where the lair likely is as they rightly figure more attacks happen in and around the lair.

Other game-Here the characters just aimlessly wander. So first off this activity takes a long time, days and weeks. So, a bunch of wandering. So on day 11 of the aimless wander, the characters stumble into the improv town of Splat. The characters continue their aimless wander around Splat, seeing places and talking to NPC, all that the DM improvs as the characters move around. The DM, being cool, does not bother to take notes, after all they know everything about their novel setting and what could possible go wrong? So on day 17 of the aimless wander activity and the characters have randomly wandered all over Splat, and the DM has randomly improv ed everything right in front of them. So also on day 17 the players, finally, say ''lets do something more adventurous" . So the DM randomly tosses out a random idea and says ''um, oh, um, well, there are monsters eating people in town. And here the mess begins. The characters have been in the town of Splat for six days, and not a single npc ever mentioned monsters eating people in town(because on days 11-16 the DM had not randomly improved that information so the characters could never find it as it did not exist). So, at best, the DM can try to Spin some of the random mess to make some sort of sense. Like they will say ''er, um, er, um, well, remember that missing dog from day 12...um, er, ah ha! the monsters got it!" At worse the Dm will just make a mess out of a mess out of a mess: Like on days 17 they random imporv- ''Oh, um, the town has no mayor, the monsters ate him". Of course the players point out their characters did in fact meet the mayor on day 13 and had dinner at his house. Opps, awesome impriv mess with no notes DM made a mess. So now things have to be messed up more and retconed. And then when the players do try and find the monster lair, they have nothing to go on by the improv mess. Like the players will be ''Ok, we check out the Grateful Dead Cemetery, that we randomly found on day 13 to be nice and quiet" and the DM is like ''er, um, no, er, um,there are monsters there that have been there for weeks!" and so on and so on into the worst mess adventure ever.

If you don't WANT to understand, there's really nothing we can do. Don't ask questions if you're not willing to listen.

[Florian]

Why don't we just take a look at some concrete examples? (I won't post my campaign notes here, because I don't really have the nerve to translate them to english)

Let´s say, "The Vault of Larin Karr" by Necromancer Games, "Sword of Air" by Frog God Games and "Kingmaker" by Paizo.

[Corneel]

I've never seen such a magnificent illustration of the Dutch proverb: "Wat baten kaars en bril als de uil niet zien wil."

[JNAProductions]

what use are [the] candle and [the pair of] glasses if the owl doesn't want to see

Meaning, "If somebody doesn't want to learn or cooperate, there's no use in helping him or her to do so," right?

[AvatarVecna]

Meaning, "If somebody doesn't want to learn or cooperate, there's no use in helping him or her to do so," right?

Something similar to the probably-more-familiar "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink".

[ImNotTrevor]

Not really sure what your getting at? Different people like different things.

You don't state things as opinions. You state them as facts. There is a difference between:
"I prefer linear games"
And
"People who don't play linear games are plebians."

What? Have a group run through an adventure and it will be different every time.

Uhuh. Ok.

Odd, it just looks descriptive to me.

I think your mixing Setting and Adventure.

I'm a very patient person.
And I'm running out of patience for re-explaining basic concepts to someone who refuses to read.

Right, for the Never Ending Pre Game.

Remember your constant, unsubtle insults?
This is one of them.

*a long tirade of blatant misrepresentation and failure to comprehend basic concepts, as well as thinly veiled insults*

Your fantasy world is super cute. Not how anything works, but very cute.


I honestly just feel bad for not following my own advice. Sorry everyone, I fed the troll. I'll stop now.

[Xuc Xac]

Something similar to the probably-more-familiar "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink".

"There are none so blind as those who will not see." ("will not" being an archaic way of saying "doesn't want to")

[Darth Ultron]

1. The DM might not WANT to improv, or be very poor at it, and therefore not be able to simply create the Red Tower on the fly.
2. The DM might not want to swap the White Tower to become the Red Tower. In the DMs mind, the White Tower is the White Tower and the Red Tower is not created. Also, even IF the DM makes the switch, what happens afterwards when the players want to go to the White Tower? The DM can't very well use the same tower for both.

1.It's true that some DMs don't want to do something or they might not have the skill to do something.
2.This is simply describing a Bad DM.

Nevermind that Participationism and Illusionism are mutually exclusive?

Only by the Everyone Collective definitions that you also agree with 100%.

To me:
Participationism-is just playing the game.
Illusionism-is a person either being fooled by and illusion or willing letting themselves be fooled.

Even if YOU think it is a "pre-game", to many people it is simply part of "the game". Gameplay starts the moment the DM describes the location the characters are situated in and allows them to perform actions.

Right, I'm counting the game starting once the adventure starts.

It's like going on a road trip. I'm not counting the road trip staring until I physically back my car out of my driveway and get on the road. You are saying the road trip starts as soon as you get in the car. And the big difference is I start my car and leave the driveway in about ten seconds. You sit in your car, on your driveway, for several hours.

This makes the choice a real one instead of a Phantom Choice as you describe.

The DM makes three adventures, and the players pick one. This is 100% a Phantom Choice. Sure the players either are 100% fooled into thinking this is a real choice or are 100% letting themselves be fooled.

It matters to the players.

Yes, the Illusion does matter to the players. They are either clueless, and think the adventure ''emerged from thin air'' or just ''forget'' that they know the DM made the adventures.

Any DM that has an adventure involving orcs being the same as one involving drows is a bad DM. I thought we were talking about good DMs?

I agree the person would be a bad DM

Sure, the DM's style WILL matter. But a good DM has more flexibility than a bad DM, and the ability to make more adventures that are actually different from each other.

Also true.

If you want to acknowledge that it's okay to like different things from you, you should use neutral language, not derogatory language.

I'm not in the Collective, so I don't know all your wacky codes and such.

Only if the adventure is of the open-ended kind. For linear adventures, this isn't true. Besides, ImNotTrevor was talking about "roughly the same outcome", not that the adventures would be identical.

Well, all normal adventures are linear, so it's true that each 'use' of an adventure would be unique and different.

Eh, wait a minute? First of all, describing something as "just wander and explore" includes a derogatory value judgement. If you want to be descriptive you should say "a game where the goal is exploring the setting" or something such.

Ok, so your just mixing words around?

But that's not the end of you say. If you just go back and read your own posts, you'll see that you describe these games as "aimless" and "meaningless". Meaningless is MOST DEFINITELY not descriptive. It's making a derogatory value judgement.

Well, yes, and like I have said in several posts: I'm talking about Action Adventure type TRPG where the players specifically make characters like a orc barbarian, secret agent or Jedi to go on an action adventure module. There are more mundane games, like where you have a chief character that bakes cakes and that IS the whole game. I'm not talking about that type of game. I'm talking about where Bok the orc barbarian sits around at a bar playing darts (''ok, the DC to hit the dart board is 6") instead of going on an adventure and fighting monsters and such. So, yes this type of game play is aimless and meaningless.

I think he was describing how you could have a perfectly good and fun game by ONLY preparing Setting and NEVER Adventure.

His setting is an adventure. Though, in a brilliant move of real Illusion, this DM is hiding the adventure IN the setting...so the players don't know it is there.

Let´s say, "The Vault of Larin Karr" by Necromancer Games, "Sword of Air" by Frog God Games and "Kingmaker" by Paizo.

Sound good to me, but we will need to find ones everyone has....and I have none of the ones you mentioned.

You don't state things as opinions. You state them as facts. There is a difference between:
"I prefer linear games"
And
"People who don't play linear games are plebians."

You might just be too sensitive.

[ImNotTrevor]

I love when they try to bait you back after you refuse to engage anymore. Trolls are predictable like that.


Anyways, now that we're all refraining from taking the bait, how about a mild reframing of the discussion?

Game genres tend to have actual definitions, such as the actual definition of a Roguelike game having the following:

A small handful of key features that must ALL be present. (3-5)
A larger selection of related features that CAN BE included, but aren't strictly necessary. (They're common enough to mention.)

If we were defining the Sandbox Genre, what kinds of items would be in the Required list and what would be in the Desired list?

For myself:
Required:
-Location-based rather than Story-based structure
-Game has a Current State and Past States in writing, but no Future States are written down.
-PC decisions are real, impactful, and have logical consequences.

Desired:
>in-depth setting details
>large-scale map that is highly populated
>factions with goals that take actions between sessions with actual consequences.
>multiple-party structures supported
>Random Encounter tables used frequently
>long-term ramifications of PC actions can be perceived later on.
>Central area to serve as "home base"
>ability to improve this "home base" over time.

Anything else anyone would add, remove, or alter the wording of?

[Darth Ultron]

For myself:
Required:
-Location-based rather than Story-based structure
-Game has a Current State and Past States in writing, but no Future States are written down.
-PC decisions are real, impactful, and have logical consequences.

I need a bit more clarification as to what your talking about.

1.What is location based? It sounds to me like the DM just makes places, then sits back and waits for the characters to go to them.

And the story based is ONLY if the DM makes a massive detailed static novel-like epic. And, for some reason, you would not count a light paragraph note about some goblin thieves to be a 'story' (and granted it is a weak cartoon like story...but still a story).

So, you seem to be saying you don't want the game to have any story....but then the game is a random mess of nothing.

2.How do you avoid the future? Like it would seem very basic that the goblin thieves want to rob the High Bank. But that is a future thing, right?

So how can you have a game that makes any sense when the DM is just going to say ''um someone will do something sometime" but has no idea what.

And, so, does it matter if the future stuff is not written down? Like if the DM has all the future stuff thought out in detail, that does not count right?

3.Well, this one is obvious.

Desired:

Seems simple enough.

[Xuc Xac]

It's like trying to explain sailing to a train enthusiast who keeps asking how the boat can do anything other than blow around at random without any tracks to guide it.

If you want a thorough explanation of what a sandbox really is, it's kind of long but you can start reading here.

[Quertus]

Normal Game- Right at the start, the players pick an adventure and say ''our characters will go and slay he dragon of Dark Wood'' and the players come up with a clever idea to have a fake gold caravan trap for the dragon.., the Dm pulls out the Dragon of Dark Wood Adventure....and the gameplay starts.

So called Sandbox Game-the players take huge amounts of time to just wander and explore, eventually the players pick an adventure and say ''our characters will go stop the Red Flag Pirates" and come up with a clever idea to join the pirates and take themout from within...., the DM pulls out the Red Flag Pirates Adventure...and the gameplay starts.

Hmmm... I wonder if this is where a big part of the disconnect is. See, you say, "and this is where the gameplay starts". Thing is, some of us have been playing the game for quite some time by this point. Some people start playing at the Character Creation minigame; others simply view it as a chore. Some people relish writing up back stories; others view them as an annoying entry fee. Some people delight in the Character Description Phase; others consider it a waste of time. Some people enjoy talky bits; others zone out. Some people love tactical combat; others consider it a good time to catch up on tweets.

For some people, exploring the world is the game; for you, it's the pre-game. Speaking for myself, it's my favorite part of the game.

But.

That is technically irrelevant to what a sandbox is and isn't.

What makes it a sandbox is that the content is created before the players choose a goal or technique. The GM pulls out the game Monopoly... then the players decide to play Go Fish with the coloured property cards. A sandbox is the group - especially the GM - buying in to the fact that there is no One Right Way to "win" the game, or even One Right Game to be played with a given set of content.

2.This is simply describing a Bad DM.

How so?

Only by the Everyone Collective definitions that you also agree with 100%.

To me:
Participationism-is just playing the game.
Illusionism-is a person either being fooled by and illusion or willing letting themselves be fooled.

Here you are just straight up wrong. That is, if you recognize that Everyone uses a word a certain way, then Everyone is right. You should adapt your vocabulary to conform to predefined standards.

[AvatarVecna]

It's like trying to explain sailing to a train enthusiast who keeps asking how the boat can do anything other than blow around at random without any tracks to guide it.

If you want a thorough explanation of what a sandbox really is, it's kind of long but you can start reading here.

Requesting permission to sig this beautiful masterpiece.

[Mordaedil]

Generally I tend to think the game starts when you start roleplaying, not the rolling of the dice, but the interaction between PC's, NPC's and what have you and really getting into the spirit of playing your character and that is almost always before we decide on a goal.

[jayem]

For myself:
Required:
-Location-based rather than Story-based structure
-Game has a Current State and Past States in writing, but no Future States are written down.
-PC decisions are real, impactful, and have logical consequences.

I think I'd add:
Something to the first to distinguish it from things like Morrowind.

The Future State having a dependence on the current state, to fully distinguish it from a hex-crawl.
(In addition it is of course then obvious that "The Orc's are planning to attack the villages" is a valid current statelet).

I think the 3rd would differ depending on if we're talking about the DM or situation. I.E sometimes life is linear, sometimes it is sandboxy. (though if a 'sandbox' GM starts the players off in a 'linear' situation e.g. a prison for multiple sessions, then questions should be asked)

>factions with goals that take actions between sessions with actual consequences.
Presumably only if their is a gap between the sessions? (or do you mean recalculating what they did 'in' the session)

but note these three amendments are distinguishing the sandbox from other less-linear games.

[Lorsa]

I love when they try to bait you back after you refuse to engage anymore. Trolls are predictable like that.


Anyways, now that we're all refraining from taking the bait, how about a mild reframing of the discussion?

Game genres tend to have actual definitions, such as the actual definition of a Roguelike game having the following:

A small handful of key features that must ALL be present. (3-5)
A larger selection of related features that CAN BE included, but aren't strictly necessary. (They're common enough to mention.)

If we were defining the Sandbox Genre, what kinds of items would be in the Required list and what would be in the Desired list?

For myself:
Required:
-Location-based rather than Story-based structure
-Game has a Current State and Past States in writing, but no Future States are written down.
-PC decisions are real, impactful, and have logical consequences.

Desired:
>in-depth setting details
>large-scale map that is highly populated
>factions with goals that take actions between sessions with actual consequences.
>multiple-party structures supported
>Random Encounter tables used frequently
>long-term ramifications of PC actions can be perceived later on.
>Central area to serve as "home base"
>ability to improve this "home base" over time.

Anything else anyone would add, remove, or alter the wording of?

I think you should add a third category, that is "these features may NOT be a part of a sandbox".

Some things are defined more by what they exclude than what they include. I mean, this is why Darth Ultron's term "Railroading" fails completely. It doesn't exclude anything, rather it seems to involve everything the GM does.

I would argue that the second on your "required" list is more of an "this is excluded" term. You say that "no future states are written down". Since it's described as a negative, it seems to fit in the "NOT this" category.

For example, I would add "the GM does NOT plan for how the PCs should solve the problems". In a way you could say it's included in the "no future states", but I feel it's important enough to warrant a specific point anyway.

[Lorsa]

1.It's true that some DMs don't want to do something or they might not have the skill to do something.
2.This is simply describing a Bad DM.

And in both these cases, the world would function like in a video game where the players can't step outside of the programmed world.

Only by the Everyone Collective definitions that you also agree with 100%.

Because that is how language works.

I think that many RPG terms could have better names. But I can understand the concepts and in order to advance understandable communication, choose to use the same words as everyone else.

It's equivalent to how I think that "Butterfly" is a stupid name for a beautiful flying insect which should obviously be named "Scorpion" instead. But, in order to make myself understood, I still call them butterflies. Otherwise I might enter into a few strange situations where I tell people "look at that beautiful scorpion on your leg" and having them run away screaming.

Right, I'm counting the game starting once the adventure starts.

It's like going on a road trip. I'm not counting the road trip staring until I physically back my car out of my driveway and get on the road. You are saying the road trip starts as soon as you get in the car. And the big difference is I start my car and leave the driveway in about ten seconds. You sit in your car, on your driveway, for several hours.

Except that your analogy is poor for describing what you mean by the game starting.

What you are actually saying is that the road trip starts once the people in the car has decided on a destination. I mean, they could just as well leave the driveway in ten seconds, then ask each other "uhmm... how about we take Road 666 cause it sounds like the Highway to Hell which goes well with our roadtrip music?". So they drive on Road 666 without really knowing where it will end up, and when the sun goes down the look for the closest motel. The next day they might choose another road, say Road 69 because it sounds sexy and off they go.

What you are saying is that this is NOT a roadtrip UNTIL they've decided "hey guys, let's go to Miami!". For the people in the car, the roadtrip started the moment they left the driveway, even if they didn't have a specific goal in mind other than "let's drive around America and see what happens".

The DM makes three adventures, and the players pick one. This is 100% a Phantom Choice. Sure the players either are 100% fooled into thinking this is a real choice or are 100% letting themselves be fooled.

You come to my birthday party.

I offer you the choice between Strawberry Cake, Chocolate Cake and Marzipan Cake.

How is that a Phantom Choice?

Yes, the Illusion does matter to the players. They are either clueless, and think the adventure ''emerged from thin air'' or just ''forget'' that they know the DM made the adventures.

Being able to choose between different kinds of cake at a birthday party matters to some guests. Does that automatically make them either clueless and think the cake "emerged from thin air" or just "forget" that they know I made all the three cakes myself?

I'm not in the Collective, so I don't know all your wacky codes and such.

You mean the social codes of civilized society?

Well, all normal adventures are linear, so it's true that each 'use' of an adventure would be unique and different.

Except this is mutually exclusive. If an adventure is linear, then each use of it would be the same. If it's an open-ended adventure, THEN each use would be unique and different.

Ok, so your just mixing words around?

Basically, yes. But the outcome of the word mixing is important.

Well, yes, and like I have said in several posts: I'm talking about Action Adventure type TRPG where the players specifically make characters like a orc barbarian, secret agent or Jedi to go on an action adventure module. There are more mundane games, like where you have a chief character that bakes cakes and that IS the whole game. I'm not talking about that type of game. I'm talking about where Bok the orc barbarian sits around at a bar playing darts (''ok, the DC to hit the dart board is 6") instead of going on an adventure and fighting monsters and such. So, yes this type of game play is aimless and meaningless.

Two points.

1. Again you are saying that it is not a valid playstyle to enjoy a chief character that bakes cakes game. This contradicts your earlier statement of how you never claimed any playstyle is badwrongfun. YOU JUST DID.

2. We are also talking about games where players make characters like an orc barbarian, secret agent or Jedi and go on an adventure to fight monsters and such.

His setting is an adventure. Though, in a brilliant move of real Illusion, this DM is hiding the adventure IN the setting...so the players don't know it is there.

Okay. To be honest, if you think "sandbox is a type of game where the setting is an adventure", you would at least be closer to understanding than you were in the beginning.

You might just be too sensitive.

I doubt you could find a less sensitive person on these boards than ImNotTrevor.

[Mordaedil]

Lorsa, Darth Ultron intentionally puts out statues of dead confederate generals to antagonise democrats at his table, he's not a person that will give an inch on anything, nevertheless for ease of communication.

I mean, he's literally got a persecution complex demonstrated by calling us the "Collective". That's on verge of believing the Earth is flat.

[Darth Ultron]

Hmmm... I wonder if this is where a big part of the disconnect is. See, you say, "and this is where the gameplay starts". Thing is, some of us have been playing the game for quite some time by this point. Some people start playing at the Character Creation minigame; others simply view it as a chore. Some people relish writing up back stories; others view them as an annoying entry fee. Some people delight in the Character Description Phase; others consider it a waste of time. Some people enjoy talky bits; others zone out. Some people love tactical combat; others consider it a good time to catch up on tweets..

Do people really count character creation as playing the game? That sure seems like game preparation to me. I can sit down an make a character, but I would never say I'm ''playing the game'' doing that.

For some people, exploring the world is the game; for you, it's the pre-game. Speaking for myself, it's my favorite part of the game...

This is a point of miss communication.

Yes, exploring the world is fun. But I'm talking about the aimless, pointless, meaningless random wander and explore where nothing of any real consequence happens at all. Like the characters walk a couple of feet and the DM (very video game like) says ''Bob the farmer says hello adventurers'' and then characters walk another couple feet in a random direction and..oh, no a giant rat..oh..combat!

But I'm sure your not talking about that (right?). Your talking about exploring the world with direction and doing meaningful things that have real in-game consequences....and in order to have all that you need to have a plot, story, frame work, and so on. Or in other words ''an adventure''.

A sandbox is the group - especially the GM - buying in to the fact that there is no One Right Way to "win" the game, or even One Right Game to be played with a given set of content.

Again, really, this is the whole point of TRPGs and what makes them unlike other games. The ''anything''(sort of) can happen, and you can't ''win'' or ''loose'' the game. And again, as this is so basic to TRPGs, it's meaningless to say ''sandbox'' to point out something everyone already knows.

How so?

Well, the idea here is the players have 'surprised' the poor DM by going to a place he has not prepared: The White Tower. The DM does have the Red Tower made but refuses to use it. The first reason given is the DM ''can't'' use the ''same'' tower for both....but this does not make any sense. Why can't two towers be identical? It's not like it is impossible for two towers to have the same floor plans and have things like five guards at the back door. And even if the Red Tower is the ''tower of fire'' and the White Tower is the ''tower of air'', it really does not take all that much work/time to just say ''in the room are five air elementals(and not fire elementals, as per what is written on the page).

But if a DM just throws up their hands and says ''nope can't do anything'', then they are a Bad DM.

Here you are just straight up wrong. That is, if you recognize that Everyone uses a word a certain way, then Everyone is right. You should adapt your vocabulary to conform to predefined standards.

I'm not a conformist. Everyone says ''X''. You hear that and are like ''Yup X'' and blindingly agree 100%. I don't.

And in both these cases, the world would function like in a video game where the players can't step outside of the programmed world.

Just note this has nothing to do with the game: it's all on the jerk bad DM.

What you are actually saying is that the road trip starts once the people in the car has decided on a destination. I mean, they could just as well leave the driveway in ten seconds, then ask each other "uhmm... how about we take Road 666 cause it sounds like the Highway to Hell which goes well with our roadtrip music?". So they drive on Road 666 without really knowing where it will end up, and when the sun goes down the look for the closest motel. The next day they might choose another road, say Road 69 because it sounds sexy and off they go.

What you are saying is that this is NOT a roadtrip UNTIL they've decided "hey guys, let's go to Miami!". For the people in the car, the roadtrip started the moment they left the driveway, even if they didn't have a specific goal in mind other than "let's drive around America and see what happens".

Well, to add more detail:

Me- I'm planning the road trip DAYS in advance. Everyone will decide on a destination. I'll pick a route(as I'm the one driving). I will check the car out. I will prepare water bottles (for myself) by freezing them and well as snacks. And I will count none of this as ''going on the roadtrip''. When on Wednesday we sit around and talk about going on the roadtrip, I don't say ''we left for are roadtrip Wednesday night as soon as we said the word 'roadtrip'', and then have normal days and ''really'' leave on the road trip on Saturday morning. We get in the car and go....in seconds, and I don't count the road trip starting until we leave the driveway.

Your way is, just doing whatever you do all week. Then Saturday morning you have everyone come and get in the car, you start the engine and say ''what should we do?" Everyone will talk it over for a while...and pick something to do. They might randomly pick road trip, and then talk some more about where to go. And...eventually...everyone will pick a place to go. And then, you will finally leave the driveway......but oddly your going to count the road trip as starting from the moment everyone got into the car(even before anyone had decided they wanted to even go on a road trip).

You come to my birthday party.

I offer you the choice between Strawberry Cake, Chocolate Cake and Marzipan Cake.

How is that a Phantom Choice?

Are they all the same Cake other then flavor? If so then it's a Phantom Choice. No matter what, I will get the same type of cake 'base', but just with a flavor I like to quite literally sugar coat it.

This is the ''meaningful choice'' everyone whines about. It's only a choice if you offer me 1-sugar free, 2-yummy sugar, 3-something other then cake.

Being able to choose between different kinds of cake at a birthday party matters to some guests. Does that automatically make them either clueless and think the cake "emerged from thin air" or just "forget" that they know I made all the three cakes myself?

Yes, some guests will always, always be a problem. But most guest will just be like ''yum cake!"

1. Again you are saying that it is not a valid playstyle to enjoy a chief character that bakes cakes game. This contradicts your earlier statement of how you never claimed any playstyle is badwrongfun. YOU JUST DID.

What? If your playing the Bake-a-Cake RPG, and the whole point of the game is to have a chief character to bake a cake, then it is ''valid''. I'm not sure how you don't get that?

2. We are also talking about games where players make characters like an orc barbarian, secret agent or Jedi and go on an adventure to fight monsters and such.

Right. Go on an adventure....NOT do meaninglessly pre adventure stuff.

I doubt you could find a less sensitive person on these boards than ImNotTrevor.

ewwww

Lorsa, Darth Ultron intentionally puts out statues of dead confederate generals to antagonise democrats at his table, he's not a person that will give an inch on anything, nevertheless for ease of communication.

I mean, he's literally got a persecution complex demonstrated by calling us the "Collective". That's on verge of believing the Earth is flat.

Wait...I'm a Southerner, history fan/buff and a civil war reactor. So it is fair to say my home has some Confederate Civil War era decorations. I do have things like Lee and Grant book ends. Mixed with other stuff...Darth Tater, General Sherman and Warpath(the G1 transformer) all guard my candy dish. I have a poster of Abraham Lincoln saying his famous quote from 1870 of ''You can't believe everything you see on the Internet''.

So I do have a lot of historical related stuff. And yes some people don't like history. But that is not my problem.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's like trying to explain sailing to a train enthusiast who keeps asking how the boat can do anything other than blow around at random without any tracks to guide it.

Exactly.

It's like trying to explain the 3rd dimension to a square.

[Darth Ultron]

It's like trying to explain sailing to a train enthusiast who keeps asking how the boat can do anything other than blow around at random without any tracks to guide it.

Or more like....

I get that you can take a boat (sort of) anywhere. But you don't just want to wander around the vast empty ocean doing nothing much but just sitting around. You want to have a goal and go somewhere for a reason.

Like we both start in New York and want to take a vacation in Miami. So not do anything but go to Miami and start the vacation. I get on my train, follow the tracks and get to Miami. You get on your boat plot and follow a direct course that takes you to Miami.

Now sure, you could have wandered all over the seven seas....but your one and only goal is to get to Miami, so why would you do that?

And sure you could get in your boat, pick an utterly random direction and go. And for your whole vacation aimlessly wander in the ocean. Maybe you will randomly ''find land'' somewhere and stop at some random place and do a random thing or two. But mostly you will likely just see endless water and sit around on the boat. And with luck you won't randomly run out of wind, gas, food or water as you aimlessly wander (note: this is why you don't do this on a boat). But why?

[ImNotTrevor]

I doubt you could find a less sensitive person on these boards than ImNotTrevor.

Mind if I Sig this? I kind of love this reputation..

[Lorsa]

Mind if I Sig this? I kind of love this reputation..

Not at all. That is, I don't mind it.