Quote from: Abyssal MawIt's a retelling of the adventures of Robilar. Robilar was Rob Kuntz's character in Gygax's Greyhawk campaign. Basically this is a very rough campaign log, for something that took place nearly 40 years ago.

Quite an insight into the style of early D&D.

The way Robilar smashed up the Temple of Elemental Evil and released the demon goes a long way to explaining Gygax's admonishment to DMs not to let their players run roughshod over them. It's not so much about proving who's boss, as it is preventing powerful PCs from dramatically reshaping the dungeon/campaign in a way that spoils the fun of other players. Again, it's important to understand that the D&D experiences that inspired Gygax's advice were very different from typical play today. In the example above, Gygax ran multiple contemporous gaming groups using the same dungeon and wilderness settings, and at least some of the players had entirely selfish in-game agendas. Many of the problems Gygax had to face as a DM are unfathomable to a guy who runs one game with the same four players.

Quote from: SeanchaiI touched on this briefly in the other thread, but does it really provide 500 miles worth of details? It seems to me that there will be a lot of blanks on the map.

Quote from: SeanchaiI don't have the Wilderness product folks keep mentioning, but would the Known World boxed set by Goodman Games be considered a sandbox? I could reference it and provide more concrete examples of what I'm talking about.

The product itself isn't a sandbox setting as it doesn't provide local detail. But combined with the DCC series then some areas of the setting lend itself to sandbox play.

For the Known World to be a sandbox "out of the box" it would need to have subdivided itself into regions and then provide dozens of locations for that region spaced about 10 to 15 miles apart at the minimum (a day's walk).

Note that any setting can be turned into a sandbox the question is how much time the referee can put into it. For a 8.5 by 11 map spanning 200 miles by 190 miles it took me 12 hours of work to get to a first draft. It took me an initial 10 hours to do the map. There are about 50 locations filling 8 pages single spaced. Expand to a continent sized area you are talking a LOT of work.

It by far easier to make a map of the region slap a few labels on it and just make up shit as you go. Note that there is nothing wrong with this but there are disadvantage as well as advantages. If you have the time you can give your players a lot of freedom in the game.

The main reason that has worked for me is that I been doing this for 20 years so a) I know my campaign forwards and backwards, and b) I got a ton of notes on everywhere as well as the original material.

I think there is a room in the market for a well made product that enables sandbox play out of the box without costing $70.

Rob Conley

P.S. For a full wilderlands style map it takes me 24 hours from start to finish for me to create a map that size either by hand or computer.

Quote from: SeanchaiOkay. New wrinkle. Sandboxes and system. What's the deal? Are some intimical to sandboxes and, if so, why?

From what I'm hearing, it doesn't sound like they even cross paths.

If there's a system that can't run a sandbox style game, I almost certainly don't want to play it. And the same if it can't run plotted games.

I don't think system matters much in terms of whether you're sandboxing or not, although different games might be better or worse for it. Rolemaster, with its 30 pages of charts that you could use to create almost an entire world on the fly, was incredibly well suited to sandboxing. If you went off the map, new stuff could be generated in seconds.

My Life With Master leaps to mind as a game that could be poorly suited to sandboxing. I don't know the system, so think it might be able to handle it, but the game is geared towards playing out a particular story, not running around an ever-expanding world.

Quote from: SeanchaiAs said in my original message, what I've heard collectively about sandbox play hasn't sounded any different than almost any game I've ever run with any system I've ever used.

Are you familiar with Paizo's Adventure Paths? They are fundamentally different from sandbox play. Each adventure is carefully tailored to a specific power level. The designers mathematical formulate each encounter within an adventure to drain a certain amount of PC power. The adventures are linked together by a pre-scripted plot. If the PCs wandered off to become pirates or killed the guy who was supposed to be their patron, the whole train would careen off the track.

Quote from: SeanchaiOkay. New wrinkle. Sandboxes and system. What's the deal? Are some intimical to sandboxes and, if so, why?

From what I'm hearing, it doesn't sound like they even cross paths.

If it even remotely simulates a complete society an RPG can be used for a sandbox. Given that an Ars Magica sandbox will feel differently than a GURPS sandbox or a D&D sandbox.

Games with a narrow focus, (like Vampire the Masquarde) would cause a lot of work for a GM to do a sandbox. This wouldn't be true of the World of Darkness as a whole.

Quote from: VBWyrdeAh that might explain it.  Heh.  Ok.  At least I will now know what is meant on the forums by "sandbox".     Thanks.

Also, thanks for the explaination for the historical context of the term Estar.  I see.

yes, this is the problem these days with RPG forums we spend more time arguing the semantics of terminology than gaming.:haw:

I think Aces & Eights, both the rules and the setting material given really encourage sandbox play.  The setting they give is an alternate America but the details are really in the town of Lazarus and they are coming out with a very detailed supplement on it.  Everything is covered.  Each plot of land has an owner.  There is an active property market.  Players can then go in and buy a piece of land, build a store and start working their careers (be it barber, lawyer or hoe).  The town already has its town council, its judges, its gangs, its lawmen.  The players can join up with that living world and as far as they are in it, it will mess with them.

So the town is the sandbox.  However, like kids playing in a sandbox, you can always take your little army men and have them climb over the wall and go wander around outside the sandbox as well.

Quote from: HaffrungAre you familiar with Paizo's Adventure Paths? They are fundamentally different from sandbox play. Each adventure is carefully tailored to a specific power level. The designers mathematical formulate each encounter within an adventure to drain a certain amount of PC power. The adventures are linked together by a pre-scripted plot. If the PCs wandered off to become pirates or killed the guy who was supposed to be their patron, the whole train would careen off the track.

Dragonlance, the first adventure path, had exactly this issue when I ran it back in the day. The closest thing to an adventure path that would work for a sandbox is some type of prepackaged situation with a timeline. The idea is that the situation would have an impact on the world the players are going through regardless of their action. For example a civil war within a kingdom. The situation would be dramatic enough or interfering enough that the players will want to deal with it.

All games have plot.  It's a natural byproduct of stuff happening.  If your game didn't have plot, it'd be pretty fucking dull.

There difference is whether said plot is an emergent property of play, or something pre-planned and essentially scripted out by the GM.  The former is sandbox play, the latter is more the de riguer of the "storyteller" focus that Vampire introduced, where the GM comes up with a "story" prior to play, and the players sort of waltz through it.

Or to put in parallel comparison, it's a difference between the "story" of a game of Civ4, and the "story" of Gears of War.  In the former, there is no predefined plot structure whatsoever, but the nature of the simulation environment ensures that a story of your civilization emerges, and is often a much more meaningful story to the player because he is it's ultimate creator, by way of his actions and responses and goals in the game.  Whereas in something like Gears of War, the player is a largely passive participant in the designer's story, at least where the overall events are concerned.

Quote from: estarDragonlance, the first adventure path, had exactly this issue when I ran it back in the day. The closest thing to an adventure path that would work for a sandbox is some type of prepackaged situation with a timeline. The idea is that the situation would have an impact on the world the players are going through regardless of their action. For example a civil war within a kingdom. The situation would be dramatic enough or interfering enough that the players will want to deal with it.

Aha!  So, in this case would this be considered Sandbox, or not?  When I said earlier that I've always played Sandbox, I didn't realise this also should be taken into account as a factor.   While I do allow the PCs to roam around the world wherever they decide to go, I also have a lot of back story going on around them that they can choose to interact with or not.   Thus, when the game begins, it is very possible that the adventure starts during a period of civil war, and the king is looking for a few good men to run a mission to the south.  The Players don't have to take that mission, but it's there if they decide to.   So is this style considered Sandbox, scripted, or some sort of hybrid?  Or what I usually would still call, "gaming"?

It may or may not be sandbox depending on the setup. If it starts off with "the king wants you to do something" it's not. If it's "the king wants you to do something, but you don't have to" it's closer. If it's "the PCs decide to go looking for a job and learn that the king is hiring" it is.

It's all about how the PCs are introduced to the situation and whether its in any way forced or nudged. If there's a nudge there (PCs sought out) then it isn't sandboxing.

Quote from: James McMurrayIt may or may not be sandbox depending on the setup. If it starts off with "the king wants you to do something" it's not. If it's "the king wants you to do something, but you don't have to" it's closer. If it's "the PCs decide to go looking for a job and learn that the king is hiring" it is.

YES!  Great example.

Quote from: VBWyrdeThe Players don't have to take that mission, but it's there if they decide to.   So is this style considered Sandbox, scripted, or some sort of hybrid?  Or what I usually would still call, "gaming"?

Look are you offering the players a mission? or is an NPC offering a mission? It if it is the latter then it is a situation that is found in a sandbox game.

For me the essence of a sandbox is simulation of reality. Because it is a fantasy game it can also be viewed as reasoning from the premise of the settings. If you are trying simulate reality then by definition players are free to wander here and there wherever their movtiatation takes them.

Now you are not a computer running a mindless simulation. You have a choice in how the world works and what is presented. Use this knowledge to make it fun and interesting for yourself and your players.

The problem that exists is with rpg products not supporting sandbox play. There are only a handful mostly cities and one very expensive boxed set.

Quote from: VBWyrdeIn either case sandbox represents a constraint.   However, what you are describing as the "sandbox" type of world setting appears to be the opposite.   So I'm not fond of the name.  Is there an alias that is used for Sandbox?   Or could we derive one?   Or, conversely, am I missing something?   Thanks.

SURE there's a constraint, if you set one up.

I like the term 'sandbox' because it suggests the concept of 'play', as in 'play in the sandbox', and it also suggests 'making castle sout of sand'.

Quote from: James McMurrayIt's all about how the PCs are introduced to the situation and whether its in any way forced or nudged. If there's a nudge there (PCs sought out) then it isn't sandboxing.

I think this is too narrow. In reality a king may be seek out the PCs. If the character backgrounds warrant this. You are right if it is just some joe-shmoo fighter. But I had character parties that were highly mission oriented from the get go. For example a campaign I ran where everyone was a City-Guard.

It was sandbox because at anytime they could have quit and gone off and do their own thing. But that would be out of character and during most of the campaign no logical reason why any of the characters would do that.

Understand everyone agreed to be a member of city-guard. The spirit of the moments was something like this

"Hey rob that thief campaign was good, I know what we can do next?"

"Sure what you do you suggest."

"In all the years we been playing we given the City guard hell. Let try being the guards this time around and see how we do?"

And so they were the guards for a year. From this came Knight Killer Crossbows, Alarm Sticks, and other techniques that greatly evened the odds between the City Guard and adventurers.

The difference here from a traditional party setup choice came before the game started. The players collectively agreed to put themselves in a more limiting circumstances to see how they could overcome the challenges. They know I would play fair and hard presenting the situations as they would really unfold.

We did this for wizards, thieves, and two different temples.