Quote from: HaffrungAny setting or campaign book that deals largely with politics and cultural background is not sandbox. For example, last night I was reading an Earthdawn setting supplement called Nations of Barsaive. The thing is chock full of NPCs, political factions, history, cultural notes, economic policy, storylines involving schemes and personal rivalries.

While I agree with your general definition for the most part, I find the above statement erroneous.  Sandbox to me implies a living world with stuff going on.  There can be plotlines, relationships, NPCs, etc. but it is entirely up to the players to interact with all those things.  They can drop them or get involved.  Often, though, it will be the players who create those things with their own actions.

Quote from: Abyssal MawTotal agreement.

The real issue is whether or not you inject the 90's style "here's the plot" structure. If you do at all, it's not a sandbox.

Well there is plot and there is plot. For example you have plot that is epitomized by the Dragonlance lance the antithesis of sandbox if there is everone.

However in my sandbox I have events. By that I mean I make up a future history for my campaign and break down into various events. Players can have an impact on these events but if they choose to do other things then they happen. And the result may have an impact on the players.

For example there is impending civil war in my Majestic Wilderlands campaign. While it will have impact on the players, it up to them how to deal with. They made very well choose to leave the region and find a more peaceful location. Or get fully involved. Or, most likely, deal with the problem as an obstacle to their goal.

The essence of sandbox play is that the player's choices have meaning and consequences. You respect and follow up on their choices even if it means that some pet plot of yours will fall by the wayside.

So hypothetically: my party enters hex A and the Easter Bunny, who resides there in his basket of doom, kills our Stripper/Ninja and then flees. If we go mad with a desire for revenge and chase that flop eared fucker across hexes c-d (this is a plot, no?),  dealing with the keyed encounters in those hexes one way or another (including avoiding them altogether) is it still sand box?

Quote from: estarThe essence of sandbox play is that the player's choices have meaning and consequences. You respect and follow up on their choices even if it means that some pet plot of yours will fall by the wayside.

Absolutely.  There's a backdrop in our setting right now of a kobold invasion, a terrible war brewing, and some long-forgotten relics beginning to surface.  The party has made choices that's completely ignored some of those issues, explored others more than I ever thought they would, and even managed to appropriate an airship (in an area where NO ONE has an airship).  You ask yourself how the setting is affected by their actions, adjust backdrop accordingly, and let them party on.

Sandbox style play is real enough that some players can hate it, while they love other games you've run with a different play style.

Its a whole different kind of monster, one that depends on a player being interested in charting his own course, and not every player will like that.

RPGPundit

To me it means: all shared gaming space (in and out of game). That's it. No more, no less.

Quote from: AosSo hypothetically: my party enters hex A and the Easter Bunny, who resides there in his basket of doom, kills our Stripper/Ninja and then flees. If we go mad with a desire for revenge and chase that flop eared fucker across hexes c-d (this is a plot, no?),  dealing with the keyed encounters in those hexes one way or another (including avoiding them altogether) is it still sand box?

Very much so. The difference is in who creates and drives the plot. In this instance it's the PC driving their own plot trained across the DM's world, so it's definitely sandbox.

Quote from: RPGPunditIts a whole different kind of monster, one that depends on a player being interested in charting his own course, and not every player will like that.

Less than fully pro-active players can be kept on board if at least one player is willing to drag the party along for the ride.  Some players resent being shepherded along like this, even (especially?) when you point out that doing something is always better than nothing happening.

Quote from: walkerpWhile I agree with your general definition for the most part, I find the above statement erroneous.  Sandbox to me implies a living world with stuff going on.  There can be plotlines, relationships, NPCs, etc. but it is entirely up to the players to interact with all those things.  They can drop them or get involved.  Often, though, it will be the players who create those things with their own actions.

Ya know, walker, if we keep agreeing like this, The Prince of Darkness is going to have to purchase a winter wardrobe...

I see this, IMHO, false dichotomy being promoted.  I'm not sure if it's my lack of historical perspective on sandbox.  To me, it's the idea that the world is not static - that it's moving and changing and exists separate from the PC's.  How they react to it, and it to them, is the game.

So sandbox play does not preclude addressing character goals - even if it includes chasing that god damned bunny across the world to chop his Cottontail of Death down to a Nub of Harmlessness.

Perhaps sandbox implies a more static baseline than that with which I am familiar. Hmph.

Quote from: Abyssal MawMost current and recent "game theory" does not address sandbox at all. Game theorists usually struggle with the issue of "how" to inject the "here's the plot" (do we railroad? Do we just constrain the rules so that nobody can possibly talk about anything else but the plot? Do we set up a story-game style 'premise' that has to be addressed?, etc.

The "Simulation" category in the original rec.games.frp.advocacy Threefold (GDS) was all about world-oriented play where decisions are made based on what's happening in the game world rather than metagame concerns like story, challenge, how the players feel about it, etc.  It was mangled by Ron and the Forge theoriest when (A) they moved GM guided stories (which they didn't like) under the GNS Sim category and (B) decided that their Sim included genre and story simulatoin, which involves metagame considerations.  This is why the GDS Simulation or world-oriented people are among the least happy with the GNS, becausae it doesn't make a distinction that's fairly important.

And to me, that's the core of sandbox play.  The Sandbox may be set-up with story-oriented or challenge-oriented considerations, but once play starts, things play out as if the setting were a real place and things don't adjust to suit the players or their characters.  At least in the pure form.

Quote from: James McMurrayVery much so. The difference is in who creates and drives the plot. In this instance it's the PC driving their own plot trained across the DM's world, so it's definitely sandbox.

Thanks.

Quote from: AosSo hypothetically: my party enters hex A and the Easter Bunny, who resides there in his basket of doom, kills our Stripper/Ninja and then flees. If we go mad with a desire for revenge and chase that flop eared fucker across hexes c-d (this is a plot, no?),  dealing with the keyed encounters in those hexes one way or another (including avoiding them altogether) is it still sand box?

Yes. Why wouldn't this be sandbox?

Rob Conley

Quote from: estarYes. Why wouldn't this be sandbox?

Rob Conley

I don't know, maybe that's why I asked the question?

Quote from: RPGPunditIts a whole different kind of monster, one that depends on a player being interested in charting his own course, and not every player will like that.

Yes I have run into this. The trick finding out what motivates the player and play to that. I had campaigns where the players started as total flunkies of some higher ups. Basically adventures started with an order or a mission.

But being the manipulative DM I am, I paid attention to what the player actually liked and threw that into the adventure and let the players respond naturally. After about a dozen sessions of this the players started making their own choices.

Anti social, burn the village down players also don't fare well with how I run my sandbox. While I plot responses realistically, I also have ready made "answers" to some of the more anti-social things people do. For example in the early 90's I had the PCs play City Guards for one campaign and threw anti-social adventurers at them and recorded how they dealt with them.

However there are players who want to be anti-social. So there been a handful of time I ran an "evil" sandbox game. Designed out a whole "evil" infrastructure for players to use as a home base as they rampaged and pillaged across the Wilderlands. This proved useful later as antagonists for a later more traditional setup.

Sandbox games don't have plots in the dramatic sense, they have plots in the sense of plans, intentions, and actions.  The Easter Bunny Revenge Squad is an example of the PC's plotting.  Whether their plot will have a dramatic climax or fizzle out mya depend on one or more die rolls.  Perhaps the ranger fails to track and the Easter Bunny is never seen again.  Perhaps in a year of game time they opt to set some traps or something.

This exact sort of thing happened in the last sandbox campaign I played in.  My crew and I got sick and tired of all these goddamn dragons.  So we decided that all dragons were Curly Bill and we were on Wyatt Earp's revenge ride.  "From now on I see a reptile scale, I kill the beast wearing it."  That decision drove the rest of the campaign, no matter what else was going on around us.