Quote from: thecasualoblivion;382954In defense of the railroad somewhat, I have seen gaming groups where there was a distinct lack of initiative. A player driven sandbox falls apart when the players don't drive the game, and those sort of players tend to be perfectly satisfied following the rails of a railroaded game.

The first 4E D&D game I DM'd was a sandbox in the 4E Forgotten Realms.  It turned out the players didn't have a lot initiative on their own part.  The game ended up being rudderless, and eventually fell apart.

We ended up dropping my game abruptly, where one of the other players took up the DM chair.  With this new DM, we played through Thunderspire Labyrinth more or less as written.  The other players and I were fine with this arrangement.

Awhile later, I found another group where I ended up DM'ing a sandbox 4E D&D game in Golarion.  With this group, the players were more experienced and had a lot of initiative in driving their own game.  For this group, the sandbox was a better fit.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;382954In defense of the railroad somewhat, I have seen gaming groups where there was a distinct lack of initiative. A player driven sandbox falls apart when the players don't drive the game, and those sort of players tend to be perfectly satisfied following the rails of a railroaded game.

I'm fairly sure someone upthread alluded to this, but I don't believe an entire campaign need be entirely one or the other (sandbox or railroad).  I've run what some would call a sandbox campaign but had particular evenings where the players themselves just couldn't light a fire under their own asses.  I think it is a quality of a good GM to perceive these cues and quietly put up a few rails so that the whole evening isn't an entire loss.  

And if I've learned one thing since starting this thread it is that even in the early development of the game, different people were playing in different ways, irrespective of what the designers "meant."  That ability to be played so many different ways is, in my opinion, one of the joys of D&D.

Quote from: winkingbishop;382798But why do we presume that this style of play was what the original D&D authors intended?

I don't.  I consider the sandbox as one of several useful bits that got applied to many different games by many different ways.  The old school scene tends to underline the sandbox because it is one of the techniques from the early history of the hobby that nearly went the way of the dodo, at least in terms of public discussion of the game.  Taking the sandbox more seriously than that seems to me like an ill-advised step towards ritualistic observation rather than an artistic choice.

Quote from: ggroy;382987The first 4E D&D game I DM'd was a sandbox in the 4E Forgotten Realms.  It turned out the players didn't have a lot initiative on their own part.  The game ended up being rudderless, and eventually fell apart.

Yeah, 'dip and run' is one of the downsides of a true sandbox.

The trouble with sucky sandboxers is that they would suck in anything they do. DM-chaff.

Helpful as ever!

Quote from: jrients;382994The old school scene tends to underline the sandbox because it is one of the techniques from the early history of the hobby that nearly went the way of the dodo, at least in terms of public discussion of the game.  Taking the sandbox more seriously than that seems to me like an ill-advised step towards ritualistic observation rather than an artistic choice.

Like many attempts to recover, restore, or rescue something that has fallen into obscurity or disfavor, this may simply be a matter of overcompensation.

Quote from: Settembrini;382999The trouble with sucky sandboxers is that they would suck in anything they do. DM-chaff.

Not true.  A significant part of the hobby, in my experience, consists of casual gamers who simply don't have the personality or desire to drive a game as a player and, not coincidentally, don't have a desire to GM.  They want to consume the game experience fairly passively, in much the same way that they might watch a movie or television show or play a video game.  And while it's common for people who engage in online discussions of role-playing, who themselves often take how they make-believe with toys and dice way too seriously, to mock and look down at such players, I personally find it difficult to fault someone who doesn't want to work hard to have fun in their free time.  It's like complaining that people who only watch movies but don't have the initiative to go out and fund and film their own movies are somehow unworthy.

Such players sprinkled in among a few proactive players can add quite a bit of flavor to a game while avoiding the problems that can occur if every player is proactive and wants to control the direction the game is going in.  And an entire game full of casual players is actually the perfect match for a GM who wants to tell a railroaded story because it satisfies everyone involved, even if such games cause problems for proactive players.  Isn't fun the whole point of playing?

No, it isn´t. Those people are self-mutilated-gaming-cripples. They harm themselves and the hobby. No amount of "fun" they have vindicates such behaviour.

Quote from: Settembrini;383023No, it isn´t. Those people are self-mutilated-gaming-cripples. They harm themselves and the hobby. No amount of "fun" they have vindicates such behaviour.

They are not. They are the players with the numbers to grow the hobby. if your casual gamers are buying supplements and campaign resource books, they are funding the expansion and continued success of the RPG they are playing.

Deliberately excluding a segment simply because they don't play the game the same way as your group does is one additional reason RPGs have been eclipsed in popularity by computer and console games.

If the playing experiences are good enough the casual player would be tempted to invest even more into the game, no?

Quote from: estar;382957It wasn't until after around 1985 I started running into gamers that didn't have any wargame background whatsoever. And it wasn't until Vampire came out and attracted it's group of fans that I encountered them in large number.

Can I ask how old you are? The first big growth of D&D (from hundreds to thousands of players) was 1977 to 1979, and mostly among college students and wargamers. The second, and far big explosion (from thousands to hundreds of thousands and then millions), was between 1980 and 1984, and mainly among 12 to 17 year olds. Precious few of the guys I knew who took up D&D in grade 7 or 8 had any wargaming experience, and that was confined to Squad Leader.

Quote from: GameDaddy;383032They are not. They are the players with the numbers to grow the hobby. if your casual gamers are buying supplements and campaign resource books, they are funding the expansion and continued success of the RPG they are playing.

Even if they never buy anything, many people game with their friends.  If your friends are willing to sit down and game with you, then you are likely to keep role-playing.  If your friends would rather go to a movie, watch a football game, play a video game, get drunk, or do anything but role-playing, then you are likely to spend a lot of time doing those things with those friends rather than role-playing, becoming someone who might buy books and dream of playing but who doesn't actually play.

I continue to be amazed that what is essentially a social hobby is filled with so many anti-social people.

Quote from: Haffrung;383037Can I ask how old you are? The first big growth of D&D (from hundreds to thousands of players) was 1977 to 1979, and mostly among college students and wargamers. The second, and far big explosion (from thousands to hundreds of thousands and then millions), was between 1980 and 1984, and mainly among 12 to 17 year olds. Precious few of the guys I knew who took up D&D in grade 7 or 8 had any wargaming experience, and that was confined to Squad Leader.

I was in 8th Grade during the 1979-1980 school year. I had a friend named John who had a closetful of wargames like 1776 he was in 7th grade I was in 8th. We played constantly throughout the winter of 77 and fall of 78. During the summer of 1977 I was teased about not playing D&D by a kid waving a what I know now to be a copy of the White Box of OD&D. Somewhere i got a copy of Holmes D&D played it with John, the fall of 78 we got a copy of the AD&D Player's Handbook (I paid 7.50 john paid 7.50) and was disappointed that it didn't have combat chart. After the release of the DMG in late 79 D&D became the primary focus of our gaming time. But Wargames continued especially games like Civilization that worked well with large numbers of players.

Quote from: jrients;382994I don't.  I consider the sandbox as one of several useful bits that got applied to many different games by many different ways.  The old school scene tends to underline the sandbox because it is one of the techniques from the early history of the hobby that nearly went the way of the dodo, at least in terms of public discussion of the game.  Taking the sandbox more seriously than that seems to me like an ill-advised step towards ritualistic observation rather than an artistic choice.

Agreed. I may write about it a lot and it a dominant part of my game but what i boils down is that players are free to pursue their own agendas in the Majestic Wilderlands. It doesn't mean I am passive about plot. The world continues around the player with the NPCs pursuing their own agenda. Some of which the players interact with and other they don't. Some will impact the player whether they want too or not, other don't unless they choose to be part of them.

Some of my games are heavily mission oriented because the players choose to be part of an organization. Other games have the players bouncing around from place to place doing whatever. Most of my campaign are a hybrid.

Sandbox campaign are a tool, a method of organizing a campaign, and a another method of organizing a setting. There are other methods that can work with their own set of trade offs.

Quote from: jrients;382994I don't.  I consider the sandbox as one of several useful bits that got applied to many different games by many different ways.  The old school scene tends to underline the sandbox because it is one of the techniques from the early history of the hobby that nearly went the way of the dodo, at least in terms of public discussion of the game.  Taking the sandbox more seriously than that seems to me like an ill-advised step towards ritualistic observation rather than an artistic choice.

It's like estar, winkingbishop and others have observed on the thread: it's a question of synergy between the campaign organization and the players. Under the best of conditions, with proactive players willing to explore the world and make the most out of it, the sandbox will shine. If you've got passive players, then you'll need as referee to make sure the play experience matches their expectations, which means you'll have to use triggers, hooks, and maybe even "quietly put up a few rails", as WB was saying, for them to enjoy the game.

So yes, I don't think the sandbox/open world play style is a panacea with all groups in all circumstances, far from it.