Quote from: walkerpNo, I think the "seed" and the "giving" make it no longer a sandbox.

I don't think that's necessarily true, so long as the "giving" isn't a shove.  The reality is that even the sandboxes being praised here contains "seeds" that are "given" to the PCs.  Keep on the Borderlands doesn't have empty cobweb-filled dungeons or encounters with peasant women hanging out their laundry.  The Wilderlands doesn't detail hexes filed with uninteresting rocks or mud puddles.  The sandbox modules and settings detail things that could spawn an adventure and I think that it's fair game to design adventures and settings so that they contain plenty of opportunity for adventure (i.e., "giving" "seeds" to the players).  The key though is that once the PCs are injected into the situation, they are free to do whatever they want, even if that means never engaging with the adventure seeds or running into things that are over their head or beneath them.  

The setting should naturalistic rather than existing solely to engage the PCs.  I think the movie The Truman Show does a decent job of illustrating the difference, and how it can feel from a PC perspective.

Quote from: walkerpI think the major factor is that it is the players' choice as to what happens and where they go.  It's up to them to interact with the world.  They don't get missions handed to them or get caught up in situations without their own involvement.  They can literally set up a little shop and decide to do nothing but produce and sell stuff if they want.

I see nothing wrong with the PCs getting missions so long as that's what they've signed up for and/or it makes sense in the setting.  The setting can push the PCs to do things for in setting reasons.  The GM shouldn't be pushing things for metagame reasons (e.g., to tell a story, further a plot, make the game more fun for the players, etc.).

That said, I also think there is a spectrum here and it's not necessarily all-or-nothing.  A GM can run an essentially sandbox game with some metagame adjustments and so long as it doesn't involve shoving the PCs around or coercion.

Quote from: Pierce InveraritySlow day in Trollhaven?

I don't know. If I am a troll, well, you must be a dumb fuck, because you wandered in, didn't you?

Seanchai

Quote from: John MorrowI see nothing wrong with the PCs getting missions so long as that's what they've signed up for and/or it makes sense in the setting.  The setting can push the PCs to do things for in setting reasons.  The GM shouldn't bve pushing things for metagame reasons (e.g., to tell a story, further a plot, make the game more fun for the players, etc.).

Yeah.  Fizdalf the Wizard can assign the PCs a mission.  In some campaigns failing to take the mission would have metagame consequences.  ("Okay, you jokers.  I guess that means no game tonight.  Thanks for ruining all my prep time.")  In a sandbox there would still be repercussions, but they would be entirely internal to the campaign world.  ("Fizdalf throws you out of his tower and seeks help from an NPC party.  They set off on the quest.  Now what do you guys do?")

Quote from: estarNothing wrong with using modules in a sandbox. We only have so much prep time. Not all modules are suitable tho. I found that site based modules are easier to incorporate into a sandbox game. Also that shorter modules (like that booklet series from AEG) tend to have more site based modules and thus more useful. I alter the premise to fit the region.

Some of the modules I used were very plot driven, like Ravager of Time or Dragon Mountain. Others were site based. I tend to start with an adventure of some sort, and then go where the players lead me.

Quote from: McrowReally, not even an idea of where to start? That'd take an experience group of Role-players who know each other very well. Most groups I know of would simply stall out if they didn't even has so much as seed to start with. That's not to say that the character have to take that seed and run with it, just some point of reference.

Often, especially in our randomized Rolemaster games, that start point was "you know each other, now go exploring."

QuoteWell, that's certainly what starting with a seed would do. If the GM says "As you come over the hill you notice Corvalis (a small coastal village). There seems to be a disturbance in the town square, two men dressed in the garb similar to the Brothers of the Line holding a young woman at sword point."

Now is this no longer "sandbox"? The players don't have to get involved, it's their choice. They can watch the dudes lop her head off if they want and go have a stein of kek in the tavern if they want. Heck, they can go cheer for it for all I care.

Did the campaign start with that scene, or had they been traveling already and chosen to go to Corvalis (or at least the area where Corvalis is)?

I think you guys are making good arguments, but I still don't agree that giving seeds to the party is part of a sandbox.

What the party get is the place.  That's the sandbox.  There is tons of stuff in the place and the players can do with it what they will.  Depending on their profession, skills, background, etc. how they interact will certainly start drawing out seeds and giving them opportunity to take them.  But as a GM running a group in a self-agreed sandbox, I wouldn't have the party be approached in anyway that didn't make sense given their PCs and the context they were in.

Another point is that the PCs can certainly affect the sandbox.  As they grow more powerful, they may ultimately take control of it.

In some ways, now that I think about it, Keep on the Borderlands is very sandboxy.  I think a lot of sandbox stuff is basically the default way of playing back in the day, which is why some people are a bit surprised to hear it spoken about like it is something special.

Quote from: McrowWell, that's certainly what starting with a seed would do. If the GM says "As you come over the hill you notice Corvalis (a small coastal village). There seems to be a disturbance in the town square, two men dressed in the garb similar to the Brothers of the Line holding a young woman at sword point."

If it's an example of what's been called "Schrodinger's NPC", that is, that no matter when the PCs travel nearl Corvalis, they're destined to crest a hill, find a disturbance in the town swquare, and arrive at exactly the moment when the two men are holding the young woman at sword point, then it isn't what I would consider pure sandbox play but it can work with sandbox play.  Of course even some of the iconic sandbox examples being mentioned here can work like that from time to time.

I'll add that this is one of my main disappointments about Forge theory of Narrativism.  There is some good advice in there about how to set up PCs and game situations that they'll be deeply engaging that could be bolted on to almost any game but it gets lost in the ideals of Story Now! (which promotes games that are only about engaging a narrow set of things that matter to the PC and nothing else) and  System Matters (which promotes the creation of specialty games that focus on that one thing at the expense of all oters).  As someone mentioned in another thread, a lot of Forge games could make interesting settings, interesting aadventures, or (I would add) decent character creation advice for a traditional game.

Quote from: James McMurrayDid the campaign start with that scene, or had they been traveling already and chosen to go to Corvalis (or at least the area where Corvalis is)?

it's not from a real game, just an example I came up with off the top of my head.

In my games this would more than likely the players would come up with how they know each other and why they are traveling to Corvalis.

Quote from: walkerpI think you guys are making good arguments, but I still don't agree that giving seeds to the party is part of a sandbox.

A sandbox without seeds is like a real sandbox without sand.  The seeds give the players something to engage in.  While it's true that some players will create their own seeds even if you put them in a sandbox without them, I think the inclusion of seeds is a common practice even in the iconic examples being given here and that the inclusion of such seeds doen't preclude it being sandbox play.  You could argue that the seeds, themselves, are not actually a part of the sandbox but I would argue that once they are written into the setting, they are.

Quote from: walkerpWhat the party get is the place.  That's the sandbox.  There is tons of stuff in the place and the players can do with it what they will.  Depending on their profession, skills, background, etc. how they interact will certainly start drawing out seeds and giving them opportunity to take them.  But as a GM running a group in a self-agreed sandbox, I wouldn't have the party be approached in anyway that didn't make sense given their PCs and the context they were in.

Well, why does a setting or scenario designer put anything in to or detail anything in "the place"?  The goal is to make the setting an interesting place to adventure, regardless of what the PCs decide to do.  That's why utopias make for boring settings.  But all of those interesting things that get put into the setting are, in essence, adventureing seeds, whether it's something as broad as the presence of slavery and dark sorcery in a city or as specific as a particular slave trader who has a pact with a specific demon.  All adventuring seeds, just at different levels of detail.

Quote from: John MorrowIf it's an example of what's been called "Schrodinger's NPC", that is, that no matter when the PCs travel nearl Corvalis, they're destined to crest a hill, find a disturbance in the town swquare, and arrive at exactly the moment when the two men are holding the young woman at sword point, then it isn't what I would consider pure sandbox play but it can work with sandbox play.  Of course even some of the iconic sandbox examples being mentioned here can work like that from time to time.

No,not really. I would totally depend on when they get there.  Now if they went off and decided to go to a different town or were delayed or whatever then , no, they'd miss this situation. Sure, when or if they make it to Corvalis they might find out what happened to her if it's largely know in the town or if they locals even feel like talking about it.

Quote from: Mcrowit's not from a real game, just an example I came up with off the top of my head.

In my games this would more than likely the players would come up with how they know each other and why they are traveling to Corvalis.

I guess the basis of my questions was: is the initiating part of the scene (getting to Corvalis) the PCs' idea or the GM's? If it was the PCs that wanted to go, you're sandboxing.

Quote from: walkerpI
What the party get is the place.

You are forgetting circumstances. My Majestic Wilderlands has been run for 20 years. City-State is still the same place with 90% of what was in 1982 still present. However the circumstances are completely different. So the party starting out now would have a different experience than the same party in 1982.

Quote from: walkerpI wouldn't have the party be approached in anyway that didn't make sense given their PCs and the context they were in.

That is the initial seed right there. Marcus isn't a 1st level fighter in City-State. He is a 1st level fighter who a Tharbian of Clan Harsan who is interested in becoming the clan's master weaponsmith.

By having different backgrounds for characters that are otherwise mechanically the same you can have completely different sandbox campaigns.

Quote from: walkerpAnother point is that the PCs can certainly affect the sandbox.  As they grow more powerful, they may ultimately take control of it.

I explored the "Big fish in the pond" and try learn how to keep it challenging without falling into the trap of ever more powerful adversaries. I got the best feeling when one of my players went "Rob, I gotten everything I wanted at the start of the campaign. I can lay waste to entire villages. I don't know how you do it but I still got problems and I am not at the finish line yet."

The trick is to try to precede realistically from the premises of the setting. So a campaign can continue even after a player become Emperor. Now he has to be deal with being Emperor which brings a whole new set of issues.

Something tho a campaign just end naturally where the characters really doesn't need to adventure anymore. One campaign was about how "Gunpowder was invented in the Wilderlands" It involved a blacksmith character and a Black Lotus character (secret police of the Overlord). It took a year of actual play to resolve this one mission but at the end the blacksmith got his mastership in the guild and was giving the monopoly of casting bronze cannons and the Black Lotus character was prompted and given authority over the power works particularly security. The next session we all realized there was no reasonable way these characters would adventure again. So by mutual agreement we ended it.

Quote from: walkerpIn some ways, now that I think about it, Keep on the Borderlands is very sandboxy.  I think a lot of sandbox stuff is basically the default way of playing back in the day, which is why some people are a bit surprised to hear it spoken about like it is something special.

I think we have an older demographic here and that it biased because B2 was a commonly run module along with Judges Guild. I play a one day con every month I can with a local gaming club in Butler PA and while there are fun games it is not what I call sandbox.

Okay, so is sandbox play really improv play ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: John MorrowIAs someone mentioned in another thread, a lot of Forge games could make interesting settings, interesting aadventures, or (I would add) decent character creation advice for a traditional game.

Which why I like to use general purpose RPGs for my campaign. I also tend to favor ruleset that try to be realistic rather than abstract as it fits better with how my campaign progress.

However I think the ideal sandbox game would something like KenzerCo Aces & Eights. What I mean by this is that Aces & Eight has a set of core rules but has a dozen or so sub system (games within games) that simulate a different aspect of the Old West. Like system for mining, trials and so on.

I think a fantasy equivalent would be really good. Have a good solid core like D&D/D20 with a whole series of detailed subsystems to simulate specific aspects of the gameworld (Like running a barony). Judges Guild has some of this stuff and it really helped.

Some games have one or two of these but Aces & Eight has a lot. The sum of which makes for a different (and better IMO) RPG. I think FtA! show promise in this area as well.

Quote from: McrowNo,not really. I would totally depend on when they get there.  Now if they went off and decided to go to a different town or were delayed or whatever then , no, they'd miss this situation.

Opposite is that no matter what village they pick they will find "two men are holding the young woman at sword point" Thus the DM fiat has determined that no matter what the PCs do this plot hook will happen.

So a Sand box is like a MMO world (but once stuff is done it doesn't reset and happen again 5 minutes later).
Are there special terms for  -
*Linear plot (like in 1st person computer rpgs which are really tight and you can't actually visit some locations until they are 'unlocked' by previous actions)
*Timeline driven adventures (where there is an event that will occure on a day and the players can act freely in the world arround that but eventually that is going to happen unless they stop it - typically stuff like Call of Chthulu)
*Personal goal driven adventures (where each character has their own personal object set by themselves or the GM and they do this is a kind of a "sandboxed" world - you know "Indigo your goal is to find and kill the six fingered man that killed your father")

Personally I nearly always play a mix of timeline driven and personal goals and I think we would tire of a sandboxed world were there was no narative. Maybe that's why I don't use random encounters.