Quote from: estar;383049Some 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.

One doesn't preclude the other, absolutely. You can have a potentially open world and have specific stuff going on within it, like specific missions assigned to the PCs because they are part of the "Grand Lodge of Magickry" or whatever.

Was it Kyle who was saying that there was a happy medium to be found? Well in practice, in a significant number of cases, as far as game groups variations go, that's what's going to happen. A sort of hybrid between the open world and the railroad.

Quote from: GameDaddy;383032

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.

Well, yes. That's why I'm happy to see Paizo produce its Adventure Paths and whatnot for that purpose. Then as the hobby grows, you have opportunities to meet players who want to have other experiences with RPGs, feel somehow limited in what they actually play at the time, and that's when you can bring your sandbox to them.

The problem though is that for one such guy who wants to experience the sandbox, you'll have a host of them who will keep on drinking the Kool-Aid, and more games to accomodate their expectations. So... yeah. It's not all black or white, in this regard. Maybe it's preferrable to play with people who aren't coming with a whole host of gaming expectations to begin with. Introduce new people to the game. Have fun with them. You know.

Quote from: Settembrini;382803Although, I must highlight, the term "sandbox" is a dirty word nowadays.

I find this assertion puzzling. Where is it considered a dirty word. Compare its use to 'railroad', for instance.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;382824If players aren't out there with their characters making choices and doing different things, what's the point?

There's a rather large assumption here that if you're not using a pure sandbox, players have no choices to make. Like Kyle says:

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;382929It's the sane middle ground between those insane extremes.
...
It's a co-operative thing. It's neither pure sandbox nor pure railroad. Either of those by themselves is stupid.

He gets it absolutely right here.

Quote from: Fifth Element;383071There's a rather large assumption here that if you're not using a pure sandbox, players have no choices to make.

That's only true if you make an incorrect assumption about what I said.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;383087That's only true if you make an incorrect assumption about what I said.

I gave your post the most obvious reading. It was a good example of the extremism Kyle mentioned - otherwise why would you have mentioned players not making choices?

Quote from: Fifth Element;383071I find this assertion puzzling. Where is it considered a dirty word. Compare its use to 'railroad', for instance.

He doesn't mean that the term is used as an epithet. He means...the rest of the post, that you apparently didn't read.

I.e., "sandbox" isn't a historical term, it's a neologism or an import from somewhere else (most likely videogaming). It's been turned into a simplistic and sometimes distorted projection of the 70's.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;383106He doesn't mean that the term is used as an epithet. He means...the rest of the post, that you apparently didn't read.

I.e., "sandbox" isn't a historical term, it's a neologism or an import from somewhere else (most likely videogaming). It's been turned into a simplistic and sometimes distorted projection of the 70's.

Actually, the rest of the post is what I did find puzzling. In my experience the ones I've seen use the term 'sandbox' to describe their game are old-time gamers who still play AD&D or OD&D.

It may be a recent term, but the ones I've seen using it are certainly not new to the hobby.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;383106I.e., "sandbox" isn't a historical term, it's a neologism or an import from somewhere else (most likely videogaming). It's been turned into a simplistic and sometimes distorted projection of the 70's.

It originated among the authors of Necromancer Games' Wilderlands boxed set. And used to describe we were doing with the material and how other can use the Wilderlands boxed set.

Yes it is a "new term" borrowed from computer games. But it best described what James Mishler, myself, and other were doing with the Wilderlands for the past 25+ years.

I don't know who actually came up with it among our group. I do know we all started using it all at the same time.  Almost immediately, especially among those liked to push debates to extremes, we had to correct the idea that to use the Wilderlands the referee couldn't have any plot at all. That the game only consisted of players wandering from place to place.

Our main point was that the list of ruins, islands, lairs, castles, and villages made it really easy for us to respond to unexpected choices by the players. That the supplied detail acted as a idea generator and did not force us to always made shit up on the fly. Instead there was some basic information and a preview of what was ahead which made running the game smoother.

But your creativity wasn't stifled as there was a lot of details that needed to be made up in order to implement a particular locales.  As a side note most of the detail in the boxed set of the Wilderlands were local so it wasn't a big deal to rip out whole regions to put your own material in. Plus much of the overall background was so vague that you still reuse much of the original locales for whatever you wanted to do.

The problem has been and still remains that most campaign setting stuff are written as travelogues and not many people are doing stuff that support sandbox play. So we keep seeing rounds of explanations, misunderstanding, and more explanations.

Again the term is new the style is not. In fact it is the default mode of Traveller campaigns.

Quote from: John Morrow;383007A 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.

Yes. We call them "boring". They're the ones who drift from one group to another, claiming everyone else is boring. They usually have the largest collections of rpgs, because each time they're bored they wonder if it's the system, so they go buy another one.

They're pretty sad and lonely as gamers. That's because gaming isn't a passive experience like watching tv. Active participation is required. You can't sit at the table being entertained without doing anything anymore than you can play soccer without moving around the field trying to kick the ball.

Nobody's going to change soccer to accommodate having most of the players just stand around and only kick the ball if it hits them. Soccer is a game where people chase the ball and kick it to another player. If you don't like running around chasing balls, don't play soccer. Chasing balls is the entire point of soccer, take that out and it's not soccer anymore.

If you don't like participating in a game session actively... stay at home. Active participation is the whole point of roleplaying games, take that out and they're not rpgs anymore. The GM really would be a "storyteller", then. Which is a nice thing, I'm very much in favour of telling and hearing stories. That's one reason I organise the Geektogethers.

But passively listening ain't roleplaying games. Roleplaying games require active participation. Sorry.

Quote from: John MorrowI personally find it difficult to fault someone who doesn't want to work hard to have fun in their free time.

There's a difference between "making an effort" and "working hard." Gaming doesn't ask huge amounts of us, really. You have to roleplay a bit, but you don't have to be Helen Mirren. You have to use your tactical mind, but you don't have to go through Army infantry officer training. As I said, the game session's a co-operative thing - so long as you're making an effort and your ideas aren't totally ridiculous, the GM is going to work with you and let some of them go to the dice to see what happens.

It's an effort, but hobbies require effort. The model train guys have to lay out tracks, social volleyballers have to jump to block, rock climbers have to climb, quilters have to sew, and so on. But it ain't "working hard" unless you are truly, truly bone idle. Or an extremely boring person.

Quote from: John MorrowEven if they never buy anything, many people game with their friends. [...] I continue to be amazed that what is essentially a social hobby is filled with so many anti-social people.

What you're driving at here is that if we say, "we're here to game tonight," then we're anti-social. Uh-huh. So if I go down to the courts for the social volleyball league, and half the team has fucked off to the pub and we had to forfeit the match, I'm the anti-social one? Rightyo.

You can be committed to a hobby involving other people and still be social. It's not either/or. It is as you say a social hobby. That's why it's not passive like watching tv. That's why those guys who just sit there expecting to be entertained are boring - participation in the game session is a social action and experience.

"Many people game with friends, and -" I hear this all the time. What's forgotten is, how did they meet? How did they become friends? In many cases, they first met in a game session, and their friendship was developed by active participation in that game session. You talk, you interact, you share ideas, you tell stories of other game sessions or talk about your life outside gaming - this is part of the game session, and it's social, and it builds friendships.

The passive guys don't build friendships out of gaming, because they don't participate so nobody is interested in them, and they don't hang around long enough to befriend anyone, they're wandering off to the next group in search of their passive viewing experience.

A roleplaying game session requires your active participation. Again, it doesn't have to be an all-out balls-to-the-wall effort from everyone all the time. Just, you know, toss in a few ideas from time to time, talk to an NPC or two, look under the stone idol and that sort of thing. Be interested. We're here to play.

Chase the ball, and kick it to another player. Or get up from the table and go home. You can leave your snacks, though.

Quote from: Fifth Element;383109Actually, the rest of the post is what I did find puzzling. In my experience the ones I've seen use the term 'sandbox' to describe their game are old-time gamers who still play AD&D or OD&D.

It may be a recent term, but the ones I've seen using it are certainly not new to the hobby.

I don't blame anyone (least of all Rob) for coming up with the term, but it has been fetishized and distorted in use. Also, while I don't follow the "old school scene" very closely, you ought to be aware that some of the "old school" pundits are recent "converts", James Maliszewski (author of Grognardia) being a prime example.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;383118I don't blame anyone (least of all Rob) for coming up with the term, but it has been fetishized and distorted in use.

I wonder how much of that is just perception.  Didn't the gaming community have almost exactly this same conversation with the megadungeon standing in for the sandbox?  I remember people saying the "old school movement" was suffering from revisionism/one-true-wayism/fetishizing that, as well.  It was ignoring how people played.  It was ignoring the broader elements of the game and the "end-game."  Et cetera.

I think the so-called "OSR" is just a collection of individuals that talk about whatever they get interested or excited about, and that have overlapping interests. The focus moves from one subject to the next.  It used to be megadungeons.  Now its the "sandbox" campaign approach.  A few months from now it will probably be something else.  :shrugs:

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;383115Yes. We call them "boring". They're the ones who drift from one group to another, claiming everyone else is boring. They usually have the largest collections of rpgs, because each time they're bored they wonder if it's the system, so they go buy another one.

They're pretty sad and lonely as gamers. That's because gaming isn't a passive experience like watching tv. Active participation is required. You can't sit at the table being entertained without doing anything anymore than you can play soccer without moving around the field trying to kick the ball.

Nobody's going to change soccer to accommodate having most of the players just stand around and only kick the ball if it hits them. Soccer is a game where people chase the ball and kick it to another player. If you don't like running around chasing balls, don't play soccer. Chasing balls is the entire point of soccer, take that out and it's not soccer anymore.

If you don't like participating in a game session actively... stay at home. Active participation is the whole point of roleplaying games, take that out and they're not rpgs anymore. The GM really would be a "storyteller", then. Which is a nice thing, I'm very much in favour of telling and hearing stories. That's one reason I organise the Geektogethers.

But passively listening ain't roleplaying games. Roleplaying games require active participation. Sorry.

There's a difference between "making an effort" and "working hard." Gaming doesn't ask huge amounts of us, really. You have to roleplay a bit, but you don't have to be Helen Mirren. You have to use your tactical mind, but you don't have to go through Army infantry officer training. As I said, the game session's a co-operative thing - so long as you're making an effort and your ideas aren't totally ridiculous, the GM is going to work with you and let some of them go to the dice to see what happens.

It's an effort, but hobbies require effort. The model train guys have to lay out tracks, social volleyballers have to jump to block, rock climbers have to climb, quilters have to sew, and so on. But it ain't "working hard" unless you are truly, truly bone idle. Or an extremely boring person.

What you're driving at here is that if we say, "we're here to game tonight," then we're anti-social. Uh-huh. So if I go down to the courts for the social volleyball league, and half the team has fucked off to the pub and we had to forfeit the match, I'm the anti-social one? Rightyo.

You can be committed to a hobby involving other people and still be social. It's not either/or. It is as you say a social hobby. That's why it's not passive like watching tv. That's why those guys who just sit there expecting to be entertained are boring - participation in the game session is a social action and experience.

"Many people game with friends, and -" I hear this all the time. What's forgotten is, how did they meet? How did they become friends? In many cases, they first met in a game session, and their friendship was developed by active participation in that game session. You talk, you interact, you share ideas, you tell stories of other game sessions or talk about your life outside gaming - this is part of the game session, and it's social, and it builds friendships.

The passive guys don't build friendships out of gaming, because they don't participate so nobody is interested in them, and they don't hang around long enough to befriend anyone, they're wandering off to the next group in search of their passive viewing experience.

A roleplaying game session requires your active participation. Again, it doesn't have to be an all-out balls-to-the-wall effort from everyone all the time. Just, you know, toss in a few ideas from time to time, talk to an NPC or two, look under the stone idol and that sort of thing. Be interested. We're here to play.

Chase the ball, and kick it to another player. Or get up from the table and go home. You can leave your snacks, though.

Well-said.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;383115Yes. We call them "boring". They're the ones who drift from one group to another, claiming everyone else is boring. They usually have the largest collections of rpgs, because each time they're bored they wonder if it's the system, so they go buy another one.

No, I'm talking about the people who show up reliably every week, don't complain very much, roll what they are supposed to roll, respond to the GM, say what their character is doing when needed, respond to NPCs, and may even offer suggestions during group discussions about what to do from tie to time but who don't have any interest in setting the goals for the group or finding a story to pursue in the setting and don't mind being given missions and otherwise being led along by NPCs and other PCs.  Almost every group I've played with has had one or two of these people.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;383115A roleplaying game session requires your active participation. Again, it doesn't have to be an all-out balls-to-the-wall effort from everyone all the time. Just, you know, toss in a few ideas from time to time, talk to an NPC or two, look under the stone idol and that sort of thing. Be interested. We're here to play.

And I don't really disagree with that, and it's not really what I'm talking about.  It takes more than that to be dropped in a game setting and told be the GM, "Go figure out what you want to do yourselves.  I'm not providing an adventure for you."  You can find plenty of messages on role-playing message boards about GMs complaining that their players will roll the dice, respond to NPCs, and so on but will sit around and not go find adventure if the GM doesn't give them one to go after.  They are what Settembrini called "sucky sandboxers" and they make up a sizable part of the hobby.  So long as they are playing with a GM willing to feed them adventures or with other players willing to find adventures for them and lead the group, they aren't a problem.

That said, if there is a GM willing to tell stories to players who do sit there like a bump on a log and don't really participate and they are all having fun, what's the point of calling it badwrongfun and claiming they'd all be better saying at home?

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;383122I wonder how much of that is just perception.  Didn't the gaming community have almost exactly this same conversation with the megadungeon standing in for the sandbox?  I remember people saying the "old school movement" was suffering from revisionism/one-true-wayism/fetishizing that, as well.  It was ignoring how people played.  It was ignoring the broader elements of the game and the "end-game."  Et cetera.

I think the so-called "OSR" is just a collection of individuals that talk about whatever they get interested or excited about, and that have overlapping interests. The focus moves from one subject to the next.  It used to be megadungeons.  Now its the "sandbox" campaign approach.  A few months from now it will probably be something else.  :shrugs:

Two things:

1. A lot of "Old School" statements go along the lines of "This, to me, is D&D". Whether they mean it or not, this is an aggressive statement, or at the very least a passive aggressive one.

2. Modern D&D and the hobby in general evolved from how people played back in the day. If you read the introduction to 2E AD&D, David "Zeb" Cook described the changes made as better representing AD&D as most people were playing it. The OSR people are "louder" when it comes to talking about these games because they stuck with them as opposed to moving on to more modern games.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;383115Yes. We call them "boring". They're the ones who drift from one group to another, claiming everyone else is boring. They usually have the largest collections of rpgs, because each time they're bored they wonder if it's the system, so they go buy another one.

They're pretty sad and lonely as gamers. That's because gaming isn't a passive experience like watching tv. Active participation is required. You can't sit at the table being entertained without doing anything anymore than you can play soccer without moving around the field trying to kick the ball.

Nobody's going to change soccer to accommodate having most of the players just stand around and only kick the ball if it hits them. Soccer is a game where people chase the ball and kick it to another player. If you don't like running around chasing balls, don't play soccer. Chasing balls is the entire point of soccer, take that out and it's not soccer anymore.

If you don't like participating in a game session actively... stay at home. Active participation is the whole point of roleplaying games, take that out and they're not rpgs anymore. The GM really would be a "storyteller", then. Which is a nice thing, I'm very much in favour of telling and hearing stories. That's one reason I organise the Geektogethers.

But passively listening ain't roleplaying games. Roleplaying games require active participation. Sorry.


There's a difference between "making an effort" and "working hard." Gaming doesn't ask huge amounts of us, really. You have to roleplay a bit, but you don't have to be Helen Mirren. You have to use your tactical mind, but you don't have to go through Army infantry officer training. As I said, the game session's a co-operative thing - so long as you're making an effort and your ideas aren't totally ridiculous, the GM is going to work with you and let some of them go to the dice to see what happens.

It's an effort, but hobbies require effort. The model train guys have to lay out tracks, social volleyballers have to jump to block, rock climbers have to climb, quilters have to sew, and so on. But it ain't "working hard" unless you are truly, truly bone idle. Or an extremely boring person.

What you're driving at here is that if we say, "we're here to game tonight," then we're anti-social. Uh-huh. So if I go down to the courts for the social volleyball league, and half the team has fucked off to the pub and we had to forfeit the match, I'm the anti-social one? Rightyo.

You can be committed to a hobby involving other people and still be social. It's not either/or. It is as you say a social hobby. That's why it's not passive like watching tv. That's why those guys who just sit there expecting to be entertained are boring - participation in the game session is a social action and experience.

"Many people game with friends, and -" I hear this all the time. What's forgotten is, how did they meet? How did they become friends? In many cases, they first met in a game session, and their friendship was developed by active participation in that game session. You talk, you interact, you share ideas, you tell stories of other game sessions or talk about your life outside gaming - this is part of the game session, and it's social, and it builds friendships.

The passive guys don't build friendships out of gaming, because they don't participate so nobody is interested in them, and they don't hang around long enough to befriend anyone, they're wandering off to the next group in search of their passive viewing experience.

A roleplaying game session requires your active participation. Again, it doesn't have to be an all-out balls-to-the-wall effort from everyone all the time. Just, you know, toss in a few ideas from time to time, talk to an NPC or two, look under the stone idol and that sort of thing. Be interested. We're here to play.

Chase the ball, and kick it to another player. Or get up from the table and go home. You can leave your snacks, though.

Awesome post.