Quote from: gleichman;627683If you punish your PCs for turning down your plot hooks, I don't see how you can in any meaningful call your campaign a sandbox.

A field of tar babies perhaps. Sandbox, no.

I think this entire argument may boil down to a definitional difference then, as I concur with Zak, Estar, etc. that you can and should have consequences in a sandbox. If you explicitly define out any consequences, then of course a sandbox becomes meaningless, because consequences are what give meaning to action.

I've written extensively about this on The Escapist: "... the great enjoyment elicited by tabletop RPGs is a result of creating a sense of agency among their players. In an RPG, by making choice X, the player can impose result Y, which is the essence of agency. And because tabletop RPGs are an experience shared within a meaningful social circle of friends and colleagues, result Y feels meaningful. In a real sense, in the context of our circle of friends, Nick really did save Erik's life last week. Moreover, because tabletop RPGs are enjoyed sequentially, in a campaign format, the number of choices made and the impact of those choices compounds over time. The game becomes more meaningful the longer it is experienced. This is why long-term campaigns are more fun than one-off sessions, and why playing with a bunch of close friends is more fun than playing solitaire or with a group of strangers. Sustained campaigns with close friends create a stronger sense of agency.
However, in order for a campaign to effectively create a sense of agency, the players must be able to make real (not faux) choices that have meaningful consequences on the players and their world. And that's a requirement which is, for instance, in direct opposition to storytelling, or making sure everyone has fun."

quote context: http://qote.me/tiFBue

Quote from: amacris;627693I think this entire argument may boil down to a definitional difference then, as I concur with Zak, Estar, etc. that you can and should have consequences in a sandbox.

I don't deny that consequences should apply once a 'hook' has been picked up in a Sandbox (even unintended consequences).

But if the players can be punished for refusing to pick up the hook, the term sandbox (as in the players determine what they wish to do) becomes meaningless. They no longer have such freedom, but are punished when they fail to jump through the hoops held before them.

Moreover, such players would always be punished for it's implied that there are many possible choices to make in a Sandbox- and the players must turn down some in order to pick the one to do now. Are they to be punished for all the options they decided against? Are they expected to complete the entire sandbox (like finishing a zone in a RPG) to escape punishment, doing each in their turn. Or does doing one out of third remove the punishment requirement. How far do I need to carry this to show how silly the idea is?

Zak S answer indicates to me that the term Sandbox is applied not because it actually applies, but because it's an acceptable and praised term to apply.

Quote from: amacris;627693I think this entire argument may boil down to a definitional difference then, as I concur with Zak, Estar, etc. that you can and should have consequences in a sandbox. If you explicitly define out any consequences, then of course a sandbox becomes meaningless, because consequences are what give meaning to action.

I've written extensively about this on The Escapist: "... the great enjoyment elicited by tabletop RPGs is a result of creating a sense of agency among their players. In an RPG, by making choice X, the player can impose result Y, which is the essence of agency. And because tabletop RPGs are an experience shared within a meaningful social circle of friends and colleagues, result Y feels meaningful. In a real sense, in the context of our circle of friends, Nick really did save Erik's life last week. Moreover, because tabletop RPGs are enjoyed sequentially, in a campaign format, the number of choices made and the impact of those choices compounds over time. The game becomes more meaningful the longer it is experienced. This is why long-term campaigns are more fun than one-off sessions, and why playing with a bunch of close friends is more fun than playing solitaire or with a group of strangers. Sustained campaigns with close friends create a stronger sense of agency.
However, in order for a campaign to effectively create a sense of agency, the players must be able to make real (not faux) choices that have meaningful consequences on the players and their world. And that's a requirement which is, for instance, in direct opposition to storytelling, or making sure everyone has fun."

quote context: http://qote.me/tiFBue

What's going on here is that gleichman dislikes the concept of a sandbox, so he attempts to reduce the definition of one to such a narrowly restricted imaginary beast that no one could possibly have fun with one, thereby proving him right all along.  (As somebody that had a bad time in a sandbox game one time in the 70s, clearly he's the authority on the subject.)

The strawbox strikes again!

You're putting words in Zak's mouth, Brian.

Consequences for not taking up a certain hook need not equal punishment.

Just as consequences for a certain action in any type of game need not equal punishment.

Quote from: One Horse Town;627703You're putting words in Zak's mouth, Brian.

Consequences for not taking up a certain hook need not equal punishment.

Just as consequences for a certain action in any type of game need not equal punishment.

I've stated elsewhere, always decisions, always consequences - that's what makes a sandbox campaign work.  Otherwise you've got hold of something else, there.

Quote from: gleichman;627685No, you don't get it.

I think that you're so interested in self-justification that you've reached the point where you don't even try to get it. Anything you disagree with must in your view be wrong, and you'll pick whatever term that's handy to call it wrong no matter how poorly it fits.

You're extremely consistent in this, and have never been worth the time I spent talking to you as a result. I will spend waste no more time on you.

Yes, I am consistent.  In many things.  
In this case, consistent with identifying your dislike of sandbox games, and using a ridiculous circular argument to try to explain it, and consistent in noting your lack of addressing other questions raised as to why only a railroad plot goal is meaningful.

Sorry to call it like it is.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;627705I've stated elsewhere, always decisions, always consequences - that's what makes a sandbox campaign work.  Otherwise you've got hold of something else, there.

Yep.  A good GM just plays the reaction of the setting to the pcs.  And often that means the pcs dealing with the consequences of their actions.

Quote from: Zak S;627392I have a ten foot pole if someone wants to touch that.

Maybe if no one ever talks to him he'll finally go away?

Quote from: One Horse Town;627703You're putting words in Zak's mouth, Brian.

Consequences for not taking up a certain hook need not equal punishment.

Do you really come from somewhere where the term 'Consequences' means warm bunnies and snuggles? In that context, it sure sounds like 'bad things' (tm).

But if he's actually rewarding them, that would be special.

And if those consequences are completely neutral to them, then why mention them at all. It wasted his time and mine.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;627702What's going on here is that gleichman dislikes the concept of a sandbox, so he attempts to reduce the definition of one to such a narrowly restricted imaginary beast that no one could possibly have fun with one, thereby proving him right all along.

No one would have fun being Conan?

I think somewhere along the way you lost what I was intending to mean, or never really picked it up to begin with.

Quote from: Piestrio;627709Maybe if no one ever talks to him he'll finally go away?

With rare exception, few here ever talk to me. Like you they snipe and call names.

I'm amazed at how complete the lack of curiosity is here. Even Elliot Wilen had nothing to say after I answered a direct question of his. Conversation isn't on anyone's mind it seems unless they happen to completely agree with what is being said.

Quote from: gleichman;627713With rare exception, few here ever talk to me. Like you they snipe and call names.

I'm amazed at how complete the lack of curiosity is here. Even Elliot Wilen had nothing to say after I answered a direct question of his. Conversation isn't on anyone's mind it seems unless they happen to completely agree with what is being said.

Bummer... I thought you had ignored me

I'll have to try harder.

Quote from: Piestrio;627714Bummer... I thought you had ignored me

I'll have to try harder.

I use my ignore list in a rather special way. I know you're worthless for example and stupid besides, and it reminds me.

But that doesn't mean I can't use some comment of yours to make a larger point.

Quote from: gleichman;627715I use my ignore list in a rather special way. I know you're worthless for example and stupid besides, and it reminds me.

But that doesn't mean I can't use some comment of yours to make a larger point.

Yay!

I'm worthless and stupid!

Weeee!

Am kinda busy, Brian, but thank you for your write up. I agree, it's not very sandbox-y. I do think you could have a "moral" sandbox where the overall goals and outlook of the PCs is a given, but broad strategic choices still give a lot of freedom, but your example doesn't seem to fall into that category.