Quote from: gleichman;627830I seem to recall that Sauron's victory was (for the Free People), a world ending event. Shadow forever, and nothing but a life of slavery if there was life. Hardly a 'life continues, let's have adventures' outcome.

I am not a tolkein loremaster, but I believe you are right it would basically be world ending. But LOTR is just one model for epic world changing threat. If I did lord of the rings, and again have only read the tilogy havent read all the other material behind the story, i might shift to a post apocalyptic style campaign if Sauron actally won (but again the specifics of lord of the rings could make even that challenge. However Sauron is an extreme example. The issue here is its entirely possible to set up a major threat like that and have the game continue if should the players fail. And like I said before you can go as dark with it as you want (i was in a game where the halflings were hunted down and nealy wiped out after such a threat defeated the good guys).

QuoteTo be fair to Midnight, their villian wasn't Sauron and they can do as they wish. But I find the statement that it was to be a world where Sauron won laughable.

It was the basic idea but it wasnt a carbon copy of lotr. Really they are answering the question, what if that type of villain won.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;627835It was the basic idea but it wasnt a carbon copy of lotr. Really they are answering the question, what if that type of villain won.

No, they are answering a different question.

What if there was adventure after *a type* of villian won. A very different question. Again, one I don't mind- but don't compare it to Sauron. It is at best hyperbole and at worst misleading marketing.

Quote from: gleichman;627833It's makes a lie of the claim that a Sandbox allows complete freedom. In effect they were building their inn out of the Sand and you walked over and kicked it down and told them they should have built something else.

Now mind, I would have done the exact same thing. But I wouldn't have called my campaign a Sandbox and bragged about how free my players are in what they can do.

In the end, a Sandbox can't exist. It can be a beginning, but if the concept is not abandoned, the world is effectively dead and the players are doing nothing more than some version of power tripping.

.

This seems like a very weak argument to me. Clearly a sandbox CAN exist. If he lets the pcs start up an inn and ignore the threat, and DOESN'T have severe direct consequences, that is allowing player freedom and not a railroad. You could argue it makes for boring play, that the structure is difficult to maintain and keep fun, but it is obvious it exists.

Either way most games are somewhere in the middle, and not at either end of the railroad and sandbox extremes.

In my own games i have lots of fun and interesting things going on, but i let the plyers do what they want and I dont punish the for deviating from stuff i may have planned. If they decide to open an inn and smuggle tea instead if investigate the dissapearance of the duke's daughter, i shift gears and think of what sorts of challenges their tea smuggling opertion might face. The consequences for not investigating the dukes daughter are that the duke either finds someone else to do the job or she is sadly murdered by her captives (depending on the specifics the duke might hold a grudge against the pcs, but the intensity of the consequences and how directly they impact the characters will be dependent on the circumstances----not my desire to shepherd them).

Quote from: gleichman;627837No, they are answering a different question.

What if there was adventure after *a type* of villian won. A very different question. Again, one I don't mind- but don't compare it to Sauron. It is at best hyperbole and at worst misleading marketing.

Which is why I said it was pretty much built on the premise they were answering the question what hpoens when that type of villain won. Clearly they get their start fom lotr but take it in their own direction. And it is visibly inspired by Sauron. Your insistance that it as to be an exact match to lotr to claim any connection to it at all is frankly a bit baffling.

Anyways, i am pretty sure the books themselves dont make such a comparison (would need to check to be sure). Ths s simply how fans of the book typically describe it----and i personally feel it retty mich captures the concept.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;627838This seems like a very weak argument to me. Clearly a sandbox CAN exist.

That's actually what I wrote, if you notice the "but if the concept is not abandoned" phrase and the rather dire results that follow.

Those dire results are to me, a campaign that may as well not exist as it has no value. But to be clear, yes- things without value do exist.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;627839Ths s simply how fans of the book typically describe it----and i personally feel it retty mich captures the concept.

I have found that few people online understand even the most basic concepts of Middle Earth, and I don't see why they shouldn't be corrected when they say stupid things like "Midnight is what would happen if Sauron won".

I'd be happier if they say "if Sauron-Lite" won, and then it would seem that they at least had an idea of what Lord of the Rings was about.

Quote from: gleichman;627841That's actually what I wrote, if you notice the "but if the concept is not abandoned" phrase and the rather dire results that follow.

Those dire results are to me, a campaign that may as well not exist as it has no value. But to be clear, yes- things without value do exist.

I think you are ignoring the spectum of consequences here. Some adventures it willnmake sense for the party to be directly affected by dire consequences, in others they ould have a direct but less significant impact, while in others the decision is inconsequential. It isnt a choice between a dead world and a railroad.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;627845I think you are ignoring the spectum of consequences here. Some adventures it willnmake sense for the party to be directly affected by dire consequences, in others they ould have a direct but less significant impact, while in others the decision is inconsequential. It isnt a choice between a dead world and a railroad.

I'm not ignoring the spectum. I'd be happy to agree to one.

In fact go back and read the description I gave of my Middle Earth campaign, note that I said it included Sandbox elements. Note that in another post I've said that a Sandbox is perfectly acceptable beginning (or restart).

I have no issue with a spectum, what I have issue with is the way the term is used online- which admits no spectum and condemns campaigns such as my own as railroads. I think the term Sandbox is this site's version of the term Story-Game, a knee-jerk overused term that even the people claiming it don't fully understand the implications of.

Quote from: gleichman;627843I have found that few people online understand even the most basic concepts of Middle Earth, and I don't see why they shouldn't be corrected when they say stupid things like "Midnight is what would happen if Sauron won".

I'd be happier if they say "if Sauron-Lite" won, and then it would seem that they at least had an idea of what Lord of the Rings was about.

It isnt about demonstrating how well a person understands lotr, but about quickly communicating the concept of a game world. "Midnight is basically a serting where Sauron wins" is in wide use because it conveys what the hpgame s about. You are quite literally the only person I have met who had any triuble understanding what hat is supposed to indicate. People basically get you re nt trying to say it exactly what would happen had Sauron won.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;627847"Midnight is basically a serting where Sauron wins" is in wide use because it conveys what the hpgame s about.

No it doesn't. And that's the problem. That everyone else you've encountered thinks it does only shows how widespread ignorance and/or laziness is, it doesn't make them correct.

Quote from: gleichman;627849No it doesn't. And that's the problem. That everyone else you've encountered thinks it does only shows how widespread ignorance and/or laziness is, it doesn't make them correct.

Yes it does, if you understand what "Midnight is BASICALLY a setting where Sauron wins" means. Even without the qualifier, I think it is obvious you are not creating the expectation of an exact match to lord of the rings.

Quote from: gleichman;627787That question wasn't directed at you.

I do however have one that is. Your players have decided to forget about the war, and build an inn. You claim this completely took you off guard (which puts the lie to your claims of talking to the players before to make and thus being sure of what they want to do).

Will the result of that war have any chance of preventing them from building that inn? Not merely make it difficult, prevent it (or destroy it)?

If the answer is yes, your Sandbox is as railroaded as any typical game.

If the answer is no, and I expect to be so, than your plot hooks are trivial as I've previously claimed.

Oh, Bullshit.  
This was addressed earlier.  Actions, even the lack of actions, have consequences.  If the GM has already decided or can easily deduce that the effects of the war spreading would destroy or hamper economic development or travel in the area the the players want to build their Inn, that's the GM playing the world's reaction to the actions of the players, not a railroad.  The Railroad is when the GM decides beforehand to punish the players for actions, or for avoiding the plot/storyline he has created,not when just playing the way the world reacts to the players.  
Sandbox 101.

Quote from: gleichman;627846I'm not ignoring the spectum. I'd be happy to agree to one.

In fact go back and read the description I gave of my Middle Earth campaign, note that I said it included Sandbox elements. Note that in another post I've said that a Sandbox is perfectly acceptable beginning (or restart).

I have no issue with a spectum, what I have issue with is the way the term is used online- which admits no spectum and condemns campaigns such as my own as railroads. I think the term Sandbox is this site's version of the term Story-Game, a knee-jerk overused term that even the people claiming it don't fully understand the implications of.

I will respond to this, as I said earlier that these concepts as absolutes don't really exist, they exist as ends of a continuum.  My own games are what I describe as 80-85% sandbox, since I readily admit to creating more plot and World in Motion storylines based on what the players like and seem to enjoy.  I will agree fully that the methods I and Rob and Ben and others use are guidelines towards creating what is an enjoyable game, and as we get older these games get better and more meaningful, but the term 'Sandbox' and the tolls used to create it are not absolutes.  Especially with personal-level plotlines, I am guilty for sometimes creating/allowing the dice to create a bit of a soap opera.  My players enjoy the web of relationships and intrigue in town, so be it.

Quote from: gleichman;627846I have no issue with a spectum, what I have issue with is the way the term is used online- which admits no spectum and condemns campaigns such as my own as railroads. I think the term Sandbox is this site's version of the term Story-Game, a knee-jerk overused term that even the people claiming it don't fully understand the implications of.

Not everyone agrees on this though. I certainly dont care what style game you run (be it story or railroad). But I do also enjoy maximizing player freeom and incorporating some sandbox elements in my game (i am definitely anti railroad in how I run games, but I dont personally care if you want to run something with more structure to it). Your reaction is just as extreme as the one you are accusing therpgsite of.

Quote from: gleichman;627833It's makes a lie of the claim that a Sandbox allows complete freedom. In effect they were building their inn out of the Sand and you walked over and kicked it down and told them they should have built
something else.

What you are missing is the fact they are fully aware that a war is going on. Also the fact there a lot of things that has to happen before gets bad enough before it will sweep over their inn. The fall of Nomar is not like getting a few days warning before a Hurricane Katrina. In this type of situation the players will have ample time to take proactive measures of whatever they want to do.

The setting has a life of its own. One determine partly by my own calls but if you took the time to read my post you would have read that I also use random tables and wargames to make sure what generating is fair not a result of my bias.

Quote from: gleichman;627833Now mind, I would have done the exact same thing. But I wouldn't have called my campaign a Sandbox and bragged about how free my players are in what they can do.

Our definitions of freedom are different. In my campaigns players are as free as we are in real life to make their fate.

Quote from: gleichman;627833Middle Earth is not a Sandbox.

I personally wouldn't call what happened to our inn building Frodo a railroad, but that's actually a bit of a different subject and I'm sure there are some here would indeed call it that if I proposed doing something similar in a campaign.

What happen to the inn building Frodo is the exact same situation as my inn-building merchants. Both are building inns in the midst of a world experiencing larger events that will ultimately effect the fate of their respective inns.