I've been watching the thread: Published examples of sandbox style? (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=479057#post479057) with my usual dismay over all this 'sandbox' strangeness, and have a few thoughts. Instead of posting there I figured I'd start something new.
See I "get" this sandbox thing, meaning I understand the concept being bandied about so meaninglessly. Why do I say that? Because ANY setting is by definition a "sandbox". It is a place to exist that has specific boundaries. But really when does a "sandbox" stop being a "sandbox" when it is the size of:
- What I grew up with calling a city block (say 100ft x 100ft)?
- A neighborhood (a square mile or two)
- A small town/keep (upwards of 20 square miles)
- A small city (upwards of 500 square miles)
- A significant portion of a continent (several thousand square miles)
- An entire continent (North America, EU, or AUS?)
- An entire planet? (Earth, Minbari, Rigel, Regina?)
- A significant portion of Space? (sub-sector or even sector in Traveller?)
- A single arm of a galaxy?
- A single total galaxy?
- The Universe?
So is an adventure or setting or campaign I write considered a 'sandbox adventure' if the area is limited to say size #1 through #4, or can it be as large as say #6? Is there some kind of concurrence in the industry how big an area the adventure/setting can be and still be considered a "sandbox".
OR
Is the "sandbox" just a single self contained "adventure", no matter how far around a setting you travel?
Basically I see this: *EVERY* adventure is a 'sandbox adventure'. Why? Because it frames in and restricts the scope of where the characters can go, what they can do. Doesn't matter the size or shape of the actual area defining, by the fact it is an adventure with a clearly defined and limited scope means it is a 'soapbox' adventure.
To me the tossing around this term 'sandbox' is some way of sounding fancy and technical, just the way companies like Microsoft (and magazines) went from saying "Internet Based" to "The Cloud" to sound sexy new fresh.
Everything's a sandbox.... whether it's that 3 ft x 3 ft box your parents put in your back yard, or the 20 ft x 20 ft one at the local park.
I believe, but claim no authority, that your list entries 1. through 11. are all sandbox if your adventures revolve around open exploration. It implies exploration directed by the players, instead of a more closed, scripted scenario like Ravenloft or others that occur in a relatively controlled setting.
You do not understand the concept of "sandbox play".
Vmerc is correct for once. Sandbox play is not a definition of the campaign's area, but of a way that play is structured.
Bingo.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;479384Vmerc is correct for once.
And you are pleasant, as always.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;479384You do not understand the concept of "sandbox play".
Vmerc is correct for once. Sandbox play is not a definition of the campaign's area, but of a way that play is structured.
Then maybe some enlightenment in your oh so polite knowledge?
Scripted vs not?
Actually looking at the resources in the thread I pointed to, the "sandbox" has no adventure, no goals... it is just the "place to play" there is no real adventure preset.
Y'know polite but empty answers mean nothing. Scripted? you mean linear? or railroading? (both if you mean the original Dragonlance modules). What if exploration is part of the finding the answer. Are "dungeons" scripted or just linear or are they just "sandboxes with filling"?
At least I explained my viewpoint, not just one tiny incomplete (to me) answer with a few "yeah what he said" and one "pat on another posters back".
Quote from: GamerDude;479394Y'know polite but empty answers mean nothing. .
Polite but empty is all I've got, Jack. Just ask Pseudo. Scripted's in the dictionary and I ain't got one of those. Ask anyone.
A sandbox game is one in which the DM creates and fleshes out a setting which the PCs explore. The PCs set and strive to accomplish their own goals, with the DM playing a reactive role. It contrasts with scripted campaigns in generally not having a singular overarching conflict or goal that PCs are trying to resolve or accomplish at any given time.
The West Marches (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/78/grand-experiments-west-marches/) are a well known example.
You can even have an over plot in sand box: it's just that the players can walk from it or access it to do a quest in a different way.
My computer just crashed and won't start. Fuck. Typing on an iPod sucks.
Quote from: GamerDude;479394Then maybe some enlightenment in your oh so polite knowledge?
Scripted vs not?
Actually looking at the resources in the thread I pointed to, the "sandbox" has no adventure, no goals... it is just the "place to play" there is no real adventure preset.
Y'know polite but empty answers mean nothing. Scripted? you mean linear? or railroading? (both if you mean the original Dragonlance modules). What if exploration is part of the finding the answer. Are "dungeons" scripted or just linear or are they just "sandboxes with filling"?
At least I explained my viewpoint, not just one tiny incomplete (to me) answer with a few "yeah what he said" and one "pat on another posters back".
No, there can be adventures present and lots to do...but the 'SAndbox' game is based on the GM allowing the players to go where they want, explore what is interesting, go into tangents that may not be expected, without trying to put them back on track.
The SAndbox GM needs to create the feel that the characters are part of a world that will exist and move with or without them. This does not mean they cannot be important, succesful, etc, quite the opposite. They exist in a world where events have weight and velocity, but their actions can actually effect and change the direction of the events. We have often called this creating the "World in Motion".
The Sandbox type of gameplay infers that the GM will reflect the reaction that the setting has to the players actions, without trying to coerce certain actions out of the players.
When one talks of a sandbox games, there are elements that can be scripted. There are also elements that follow specific plots and plotlines.
With a normal adventure or setting there are two or three interwoven plot lines. Progress players make are easily defined by specific goals and rewards, usually created by the GM prior to a session. It's not quite a railroad, however it is narrowly focused and deals with only a small subset of player goals and objectives. Most adventure modules fall into this category.
Sandbox games on the other hand are defined by many more goals and objectives. The GM usually creates a large number of plotlines and populates the gaming world with many mixed encounters for these plotlines so that the players have more options to choose from than time to complete. The open-ended nature creates a world that is more believeable and it is easier to become immersed because the world contains more than the players can concieve. Add to the mix a generous heaping of random encounters that will auto-generate new plotlines and you have your sandbox campaign.
Often many of the encounters and plots the GM creates are never used for the players and the game. Some of these unused plot lines and encounters will affect the game time line however, it will also affect NPC's, and ultimately the players, whether they choose to participate or not. This adds an additional game element that is not present in normal adventures.
Sandbox. The richest gaming environment, a world in motion around the players where even the players lack of, or outright refusal to make any decision, may affect the outcome of the game.
The nice thing about a sandbox is you can easily fit in one or more traditional adventures that are more narrowly focused. You can't fit a sandbox into many of the modules or more narrowly defined campaigns however, without breaking the player's suspension of belief that is necessary for immersion.
The most useful definition of the term "sandbox" that I've heard is this: "Allowing players to choose the scenario."
In other words, you get a sandbox when the entire world is designed as a situation (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/prep-scenario.html), allowing the players to decide what their next adventure will be.
The opposite of a sandbox is an adventure path (where the players are expected to follow the planned sequence of adventures). The extreme opposite is starting each session by saying, "You've just entered the dungeon I prepped for this week's game. Whaddya doin'?"
(Most campaigns, of course, aren't going to be hanging out at the extreme ends of this spectrum.)
The geographic size in which the campaign is taking place is pretty much irrelevant to whether or not it's a sandbox. Your adventure path can criss-cross a galaxy without ever giving meaningful scenario choice to the players; and I've run highly successful sandboxes which have been confined to a single city.
Another place where confusion tends to arise is that people treat "railroad" and "sandbox" as opposites of each other. This tends to distort the meaning of both terms. (If you're curious about this, I can expound at greater length.)
Quote from: GamerDude;479378See I "get" this sandbox thing, meaning I understand the concept being bandied about so meaninglessly. Why do I say that? Because ANY setting is by definition a "sandbox".
But scene-by-scene railroads are not sandbox campaigns. Right?
I'm trying to imagine it:
"This scene is a sandbox! You are free to raise, or nor raise, your right eyebrow at the Lasombra vampire. Not at the Brujah though, he's a Prince and your PC knows that raising an eyebrow would be disrespectful..."
Quote from: Vmerc@;479381I believe, but claim no authority, that your list entries 1. through 11. are all sandbox if your adventures revolve around open exploration. It implies exploration directed by the players, instead of a more closed, scripted scenario like Ravenloft or others that occur in a relatively controlled setting.
That's right.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;479438The opposite of a sandbox is an adventure path (where the players are expected to follow the planned sequence of adventures). The extreme opposite is starting each session by saying, "You've just entered the dungeon I prepped for this week's game. Whaddya doin'?"
If only that
were the extreme opposite Justin, the world would be a much happier place! Check out the OP in this thread:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=311549
Edit: Many people would consider Moldvay/Mentzer Basic D&D style "You've just entered this week's dungeon" as a form of sandbox play, albeit the sandbox is on the small side, being just a one-week dungeon.
Some people say that you can have a sandbox campaign/adventure with scripted "set pieces" like a highway robbery event, or an orc camp that the players run across whenever they are in an appropriate place. I've used this technique when I was having an off night.
Ultimately, though, I think the truest sandbox is where the players have the ability to go anywhere on the map at will and face the consequences or rewards. When I've felt most like I was running a sandbox, the highway robbery happened as a result of something that the players had encountered; like a despotic baron putting the screws to peasant class while leaving merchants untouched; and the orc camp was there because it was written at those coordinates on the map. In other words, everything that happened was "written on the map" literally or figuratively. In a good sandbox campaign, there is always new stuff to do, because what they do drives what opportunities arise. With or without those opportunities, the can make their own goals, and as they do things, the ripples turn the games into a campaign.
Quote from: GamerDude;479394Then maybe some enlightenment in your oh so polite knowledge?
Scripted vs not?
Actually looking at the resources in the thread I pointed to, the "sandbox" has no adventure, no goals... it is just the "place to play" there is no real adventure preset.
Y'know polite but empty answers mean nothing. Scripted? you mean linear? or railroading? (both if you mean the original Dragonlance modules). What if exploration is part of the finding the answer. Are "dungeons" scripted or just linear or are they just "sandboxes with filling"?
At least I explained my viewpoint, not just one tiny incomplete (to me) answer with a few "yeah what he said" and one "pat on another posters back".
I think it has come up as a term to disguinguish play where exploration and character freedom are paramount. In a sandbox the players are under no pressure to go where the GM wants them to go or follow the plot the GM wants them to follow. So I think it has both to do with how the GM preps and how the game itself is played.
Personally I find the label useful. There are definitely several other ways to approach the game (and sandbox isn't really how I run most games--though I suppose I use elements of the style). It can be helpful for a group to put a label on the kind of adventure they are looking for (in the same way that it can be handy to say you want RPG heavy or hack n slash). I've seen a bunch of other labels emerge over the years to describe everything from the focus of the game to the way it is played and they are useful so long as you don't allow yourself to be restricted by them or forget that there is more than one way to describe the same kind of play. Labels like this are fine IMO. The only time I take issue when them is when they are used in an exclusionary way to make others feel like they know less than you do about RPGs.
Sandbox game:
Make a map. Put a bunch of points of interest on it (say, 7-10). Avoid having some house-on-fire, must-be-addressed situation (if the Evil Overlord is marching on Hobbit-Town, and doing anything but stopping him will end the game, it's not much of a sandbox).
Then give the map to the PC's and ask them what they do.
In my view, that's a sandbox.
Couple of notes: it doesn't even have to be a literal map. If the PC's are at a fancy dress ball, and there are a dozen NPC's who are interesting (have quests, or trouble, or other scenarios, or whatever), that could be a map. In that the case, the question isn't so much "where do you go?" but "who do you talk to?"
Another note: Optimally, if the PC's go somewhere you didn't have an encounter for, you come up with something based on the framework established. In the game I'm running now, the PC's skipped the dungeon in front of them and went to find a bar to start a fight in. I obliged with a fight, and figured they'd attract the attention of the local aristocrats.
I think the core to the sandbox is
1) Not having much of a plan (or at least not a short-term one)
2) Having enough interesting stuff in the game so that the PC's won't spend all their time in Boring Town unless they go find the one dungeon (scenario) you plotted out.
Cheers,
-E.
My definition of sandbox:
Here's a map of the area. It may be divided up into hexes. There are a bunch of encounters already placed. Now the players wander around as they will and do the adventures that they actually run into. I may have them hear rumors that will lead them in a preferred direction, but they are free to ignore them.
Quote from: GamerDude;479378I've been watching the thread: Published examples of sandbox style? (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=479057#post479057) with my usual dismay over all this 'sandbox' strangeness, and have a few thoughts. Instead of posting there I figured I'd start something new.
See I "get" this sandbox thing, meaning I understand the concept being bandied about so meaninglessly. Why do I say that? Because ANY setting is by definition a "sandbox". It is a place to exist that has specific boundaries. But really when does a "sandbox" stop being a "sandbox" when it is the size of:
The term sandbox in the context of settings was used by the development team of the Wilderlands Boxed set to describe what you use it for. I didn't come up with the term. I don't remember who first used it. But we all started using it afterwards.
The basic idea that the keyed hex format make it easier for the referee adjudicate the players wandering the landscape than the traditional travelogue format that 90% of settings used.
Most of us on the boxed set project stuck with the Wilderlands for 20+ years used variants of the sandbox campaign. As a consequence we found it useful for more than just adjudicating wandering the landscape.
We picked the term sandbox from computer games as it applied to games that allowed the player free rein of the gameworld. That usage seemed to be the most useful for describing what we did with the wilderlands.
However it is also some confusing as sandbox used in other contexts. As shown in the comments to my answer on stackexchange. (It is the second one from the bottom)
http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/662/what-is-sandbox-play
However the Wilderlands team was the first to use it to describe a style of campaign play.
Why we made a distinction is that in the 70s nobody knew how to publish a setting. The earliest example were Tekumel, Greyhawk and the Wilderlands. Tekumel and more importantly Greyhawk were written in a travelogue format. The Wilderlands used a keyed hex map, similar to Traveller (although it came out a nearly the same time, so I don't think they are related).
Because of the prominence of the Greyhawk folio, the travelogue format became the dominant method of publishing a setting. The keyed hex format was little used.
For me personally one of my main interests in publishing is to revived the keyed hex fomat.
There been issues with people starting their own sandbox campaigns with more failing and succeeding. That because there to much focus on the players wandering the landscape. The heart of the sandbox campaign is that it is driven by the player's choice rather than the referee's plot. Wandering the landscape is just one example of a sandbox campaign although one that very easy to understand.
So I been slowly putting together a book on the sandbox campaign, blogging and posting various ideas to see what folks think. My goal is to make explain clearly all that you can do with a sandbox campaign where it is the player's choices that drive the action rather than plot.
Quote from: GamerDude;479378Because ANY setting is by definition a "sandbox". It is a place to exist that has specific boundaries. But really when does a "sandbox" stop being a "sandbox" when it is the size of:
Before the wilderlands boxed set, before computer games, sandbox was used in gaming to refer to the field of play. It comes from the literal sandbox that miniature wargamers use for battlefields.
For example in Dragon Issue #247 on page 123 we see this "Grubb has a phrase for working with existing games, settings, and characters: playing in other people's sandboxes." Later we see "Having gone freelance three years ago, Grubb has explored new sandboxes."
So it understandable why there confusion over the term
Quote from: GamerDude;479378So is an adventure or setting or campaign I write considered a 'sandbox adventure' if the area is limited to say size #1 through #4, or can it be as large as say #6? Is there some kind of concurrence in the industry how big an area the adventure/setting can be and still be considered a "sandbox".
It a style of campaign where it's the player's choice the drive the action not the referee's plot. What plot is the events of the setting that swirl around the players for them to interact with or not. The creativity of the referee comes in play from thinking how the setting's NPCs and other entities react to what the players do. Picking from various plausible consequences the most interesting.
Quote from: GamerDude;479378To me the tossing around this term 'sandbox' is some way of sounding fancy and technical, just the way companies like Microsoft (and magazines) went from saying "Internet Based" to "The Cloud" to sound sexy new fresh.
Well it was used to sell a very expensive boxed set, so you are half right. But the other half is that it is a style of play that many don't know about and that seen little support since Judges Guild went out of business. And the hobby can always use more choices.
Quote from: GamerDude;479394Actually looking at the resources in the thread I pointed to, the "sandbox" has no adventure, no goals... it is just the "place to play" there is no real adventure preset.
The adventure comes from the referee setting up a situation where interesting adventures can happen. It vague because there are a diversity of things that can be combined to make an interesting place to adventure in. Also different groups has a different idea of what they find interesting.
I successfully ran a campaign where everybody was a member of the city-guard. And a campaign where the players wandered the landscape which is the traditional view of a sandbox campaign.
Quote from: GamerDude;479394Are "dungeons" scripted or just linear or are they just "sandboxes with filling"?
Locales are places to adventure in. They can be anything that used for roleplaying to date. In fact many referee running sandbox campaign keep a stack of modules, encounters, etc on hand to pull from when the players do something totally unexpected and they need to put together something quickly on the fly.
Quote from: GamerDude;479394At least I explained my viewpoint, not just one tiny incomplete (to me) answer with a few "yeah what he said" and one "pat on another posters back".
I am considered by many to be one of the major proponents of the sandbox campaign style so I hope my explanations are clearer.
Quote from: LordVreeg;479414This does not mean they cannot be important, succesful, etc, quite the opposite. They exist in a world where events have weight and velocity, but their actions can actually effect and change the direction of the events. We have often called this creating the "World in Motion".
An one you invented and I happily swiped for my own use. It is a great term to describe this. Again thanks.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;479407A sandbox game is one in which the DM creates and fleshes out a setting which the PCs explore. The PCs set and strive to accomplish their own goals, with the DM playing a reactive role. It contrasts with scripted campaigns in generally not having a singular overarching conflict or goal that PCs are trying to resolve or accomplish at any given time.
Now THAT is a reply that answers my question.
Thank you!
And now I know what my campaigns "are": Monstrous maxiumum strength sandboxes with tons of 'scripted' locations and hooks scattered throughout the sandbox that the PC's can grab or not (of course if they don't grab some, the evil mountain of doom shall spew again and the hordes of legions shall reign their terror across the lands). *grin*
Quote from: GamerDude;479624Now THAT is a reply that answers my question.
Thank you!
And now I know what my campaigns "are": Monstrous maxiumum strength sandboxes with tons of 'scripted' locations and hooks scattered throughout the sandbox that the PC's can grab or not (of course if they don't grab some, the evil mountain of doom shall spew again and the hordes of legions shall reign their terror across the lands). *grin*
then this was a good thread.
Who'd have thunk it?
Quote from: GamerDude;479624And now I know what my campaigns "are": Monstrous maxiumum strength sandboxes with tons of 'scripted' locations and hooks scattered throughout the sandbox that the PC's can grab or not (of course if they don't grab some, the evil mountain of doom shall spew again and the hordes of legions shall reign their terror across the lands). *grin*
I'll send my finest musician into the hills to blow a fanfare 'cross the lands.
Quote from: estar;479592Well it was used to sell a very expensive boxed set
Mind you, it cost me less than I paid for the Neverwinter Campaign Setting hardback last month! :eek:
Quote from: LordVreeg;479632then this was a good thread.
Who'd have thunk it?
This... was a gud.. con-ver-sa-shun. (The Last Samurai - one of my absolutely favorite movies).
I wonder... you know I'm a fan of the sandbox style; and yet.. is it really fair to judge that the success of travelogue over hex-description settings was a question of just "early adoption"? You make it sound like it was really a random fluke that RPG settings went one way and not the other, but could the reason really have been that more people overall felt they got more out of the former than the latter?
RPGPundit
Quote from: LordVreeg;479414No, there can be adventures present and lots to do...but the 'SAndbox' game is based on the GM allowing the players to go where they want, explore what is interesting, go into tangents that may not be expected, without trying to put them back on track.
The SAndbox GM needs to create the feel that the characters are part of a world that will exist and move with or without them. This does not mean they cannot be important, succesful, etc, quite the opposite. They exist in a world where events have weight and velocity, but their actions can actually effect and change the direction of the events. We have often called this creating the "World in Motion".
The Sandbox type of gameplay infers that the GM will reflect the reaction that the setting has to the players actions, without trying to coerce certain actions out of the players.
This is a good explanation. The sandbox game provides opportunities/events for the players to take and react to but these are largely optional. It also reacts to the players initiative and actions. It works particularly well in crime games and is the most realistic set up to to run those games.
Quote from: RPGPundit;479840I wonder... you know I'm a fan of the sandbox style; and yet.. is it really fair to judge that the success of travelogue over hex-description settings was a question of just "early adoption"? You make it sound like it was really a random fluke that RPG settings went one way and not the other, but could the reason really have been that more people overall felt they got more out of the former than the latter?
RPGPundit
At the time (1977-1982), there were additional external factors at work that dramatically changed the course of RPG marketing and development. Many people didn't get the chance, early on, to compare the different styles. Recently over on Hill Cantons there was an interview with Rob Kuntz posted regarding that. I'm linking this here for reference:
http://hillcantons.blogspot.com/2011/08/no-borders-or-limits-conversation-with.html (http://hillcantons.blogspot.com/2011/08/no-borders-or-limits-conversation-with.html)
Rob had this to say about 0D&D:
"The original game as envisioned saw the province of personalized creation on all levels as the only dominant purpose of the game as first play-tested, written, and promoted in commercial form."After 1980 I wasn't seeing the third party publisher materials like Judges Guild products at my FLGS. They had been cut out of the distribution chain, so the only way to order was direct via mail order. You had to know about them first, to order from them. At the conventions, after the release of 1eAD&D, the older games were no longer supported. In fact, in 1980 and 1981 I couldn't even register my OD&D game at Ghengis Con, and instead was told to run an AD&D game instead. This was the effect of the RPGA working with TSR and the convention organizers.
What do you suppose my chances would have been of getting a Wilderlands style sandbox adventure into the pre-reg book, when I couldn't even get my homebrew 0D&D game in?
It definitely wasn't a random fluke.
Quote from: S'mon;479485Edit: Many people would consider Moldvay/Mentzer Basic D&D style "You've just entered this week's dungeon" as a form of sandbox play, albeit the sandbox is on the small side, being just a one-week dungeon.
To speak frankly: They'd be wrong.
The scenario might be non-linear, but without scenario selection you don't have a sandbox.
More generally, the entire genesis of the term "sandbox" was, in fact, to specifically differentiate a particular style of play from the "this is your scenario for the week" style of play. It seems perverse to try to make the term apply to the very style of play it was trying to explain an alternative to.
QuoteIf only that were the extreme opposite Justin, the world would be a much happier place!
As I mentioned in my OP, the terms "railroad" and "sandbox" should not be treated as antonyms. Treating them as such tends to distort the historic and useful meaning of both terms.
Let me see if I can unpack that statement a bit:
Railroading, in the purest sense of the term, is something that happens at the gaming table: The GM negates the choice made by a player in order to enforce a pre-conceived path through the adventure.
In practice, of course, the term has bled over into scenario prep. We talk about "railroaded adventures" all the time, by which we generally mean linear scenarios which are designed around the assumption that the PCs will make specific choices at specific points in order to reach the next part of the adventure. If the PCs don't make those choices, then the GM has to railroad them in order to continue using the scenario as it was designed.
By contrast, non-linear scenarios don't assume that the PCs will make specific choices.
So if you're looking for antonyms, those are the useful opposites:
(1) GMs negating player choices vs. players being free to make any choice.
(2) Scenarios assuming specific PC choices/actions vs. scenarios that don't.
(These are both scales with wide areas of gray between the extremes.)
IME, this is what most people mean by railroad/linear vs. non-linear play/design.
Meanwhile, off to one side, we have the term "sandbox". The most useful definition for sandbox I've heard is something along the lines of, "Allowing players to choose the scenario." IOW, you get sandbox play when the entire world is designed as a situation (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/prep-scenario.html), allowing the players to decide what their next adventure will be.
And here's where we run into the problem with treating "sandbox" as the opposite of "railroad". Because the opposite of a "sandbox" is a campaign in which the players don't have control over scenario selection: The opposite of sandbox is the prototypical campaign in which the GM comes prepared with a specific scenario for the game session and the players are expected to play through that scenario.
The catch is that I think most people would consider "the GM has a scenario and the players are expected to play it" to be extremely light railroading (if they considered it railroading at all). IOW, I think the severity of railroading is perceived to increase from the outside in: Predetermining that a particular scenario is going to be played is very light railroading. Predetermining the sequence of encounters is heavier railroading, but not as severe as predetermining the exact outcomes of those encounters ahead of time.
So when we cast "sandbox" and "railroad" as antonyms, we actually end up treating the lightest form of railroading as if it were the extreme form of railroading. And, in response, the meaning of "sandbox" gets warped towards meaning "any sort of non-linear design". Neither distortion is useful.
My final two-bits:
Railroading: Railroading happens when the GM negates the choice made by a player in order to enforce a pre-conceived path through the adventure.
Linear Design: Designing a scenario around a predetermined sequence of events and/or outcomes.
Non-Linear Design: Designing a scenario in which specific outcomes or events are not predetermined, allowing freedom of player choice.
Sandbox Campaigns: Campaigns in which the freedom of player choice is extended to include the choice of scenario. (And, specifically, it is the PCs choosing the scenario within the context of the game world.)
Quote from: RPGPundit;479840I wonder... you know I'm a fan of the sandbox style; and yet.. is it really fair to judge that the success of travelogue over hex-description settings was a question of just "early adoption"?
To a large degree, however, there was never actually a competition in terms of published products.
It's like the megadungeon: Pre-2000 there were, at most, two megadungeons published in any form whatsoever --
Caverns of Thracia (which is a little undersized to be a true megadungeon) and
Ruins of Undermountain (which was incomplete but significantly popular nonetheless).
Similarly, the only published example of a sandbox hexcrawl were the Wilderlands. I don't think TSR
ever produced a hex-keyed campaign setting.
So if you look at the style of play described in OD&D, it basically never existed on the store shelf. It's not that people chose not to buy those products -- it's that, by and large, those products didn't exist.
I think the early TSR designers really failed to understand that people would want (and possibly even need) an example of how to prep their own material. So they unwittingly provided examples that didn't actually reflect how the game was "supposed" to be played.
And, eventually, this became the tail wagging the dog: This is what adventure modules look like; so this is what our next adventure module will look like.
When people started looking for more than the "set-piece" scenario-of-the-week, of course, it's possible that megadungeon and sandbox play might have provided the solution. But those products didn't exist (and weren't created). (And even the rulebooks weren't describing those styles of play any more.) In fact, the people who might have created them were stubbornly insisting (and many of them continue to insist) that hexcrawls and megadungeons can "never be published". Instead, it was Dragonlance that took the skeleton of the "convention series" and turned it into the first adventure path.
A real watershed moment, IMO, is when module B3 was recalled and redesigned. Whatever flaws the original B3 possessed, it was a complete mini-setting a la B2. The dungeon also specifically included passages to lower levels that the DM was supposed to provide: It was the seed for a proper megadungeon campaign.
The redesigned B3 closed those tunnels, removed most of the larger setting material, and turned the adventure into a canned scenario.
I've almost always run the scenario of the week. I usually have two or three prepared so that my players can choose to walk away from one. I also let them do things their own way, calling up things from previous games or asking for me to provide connections that I wouldn't have thought of. For example, I had a rogue fighting with kamas in a recent game. The party rogue wanted to track her and rightfully pointed out that she was the only person ever to fight with paired kama, so he should be able to investigate where that training came from. That's all fine.
But I probably show up to each game knowing what scenario the party is going to go for, even if I have 2 or 3 prepared. Even if I had a hex map, it wouldn't change that.
Lets say there is a magic sword at a magic lake they can quest for, a goblin cave to clear out, and farmer brown is asking for help to get his kid back, no doubt they are going to help farmer brown first. Then they will get the sword to help them clear out the goblins. Sure, they could tell farmer brown to go fuck himself and take on the goblins without the sword, but why would they do that other than to test the limits of the rails?
To me, the value in scenario selection, in sandbox, doesn't sound as important as deciding how you are going to interact with the big picture. Deciding which NPC to side with or where to set up a keep are nice decision to get to make, and of course there will be repercussions for whatever they pick. Having a detailed setting they can reference when they make that decision is nice so it can be meaningful. I don't know that it is important to avoid NPCs pushing the party to take a quest, or take obviously good quests off the table.
The whole sandbox thing sounds like it would be a lot more trouble to run for a bunch of neutral or evil selfish PCs that can take liberty in screwing anyone they want, who avoid helping people and don't go to dungeons.
Quote from: Cranewings;479911To me, the value in scenario selection, in sandbox, doesn't sound as important as deciding how you are going to interact with the big picture. Deciding which NPC to side with or where to set up a keep are nice decision to get to make, and of course there will be repercussions for whatever they pick.
All of those things you just listed (deciding to build a keep, deciding which NPC to ally with at a macro-level, deciding where to build the keep) are scenario selections.
QuoteThe whole sandbox thing sounds like it would be a lot more trouble to run for a bunch of neutral or evil selfish PCs that can take liberty in screwing anyone they want, who avoid helping people and don't go to dungeons.
The real distinction is between PCs with coherent goals and those without.
You can anticipate that they'll do farmer-sword-goblins because you know that they prioritize saving innocents and are practical about gathering resources before tackling large problems.
If I'm running an amoral group that I know prioritizes the acquisition of personal power, then I similarly predict that they'll tackle the sword first.
The most useful tool in your prep arsenal, however, is pretty basic: "What are you guys planning to do next week?"
Quote from: Justin Alexander;479902Railroading: Railroading happens when the GM negates the choice made by a player in order to enforce a pre-conceived path through the adventure.
Linear Design: Designing a scenario around a predetermined sequence of events and/or outcomes.
Excellent definitions, but let me add that the writer/publisher of a commercial product can be just as railroading cramming a totally linear scenario down the GM's and player's throats.
Let me give an example (NOTE: for honesty I worked on staff for this company for an entire month, leaving when it became clear the only opinion that really meant anything was the owners, dissension was attacked with a 'take no prisoners' mentality"
The company is Terra/Sol Games, third party publisher for Mongoose Traveller.
The adventure is "Somnium Mundus" or "Dream World".
Setup - PC's can be local cops, drug dealers looking to score, criminals looking to rob the dealers, rival gang looking to bust up someone cutting in on their turf, a group of mutants looking to stop the operation (the drug is new, and affects humans AND mutants in very nasty ways).
NOTE: Several points the plot 'rational' is changed depending on which group listed above the PC's are.
SCENE 1: For some reason the PC's are in a club which has the main floor and the basement (each really separate clubs, separate entrances, no stairs/access directly between them). The idea is the place is going to be raided (only cop group knows this) and so *EVERYONE is getting arrested, there are so many cops on the raid literally NO ONE gets away (per the text). Hopefully you stop the bad guys from remotely thrashing the computer (sitting open on a desk monitor on) and grab their PDA before they smash that.
SCENE 2: The police station. Ok so you have the city, national, and planetary police in on this task force. If you're cops you are told you go to scene 3 period. Any other group the NPC who interrogates your group will do everything to intimidate you into "investigating" a location gotten out of one of the dealers. They will go so far as citing their version of the US's Patriot Act to hold you indefinitely without charging you, put you in one of the large holding cells and setting up a small riot to scare the crap out of you,but scene 2 does not end until the PC's agree to raid the location given by the drug dealers. You ARE going to do this (break in, enter, and steal information from computers because the cops don't have enough for a warrant).
SCENE 3: Warehouse, security cameras and guards outside/on roof. Standard 2-bay loading dock in back. You have to sneak in to get the info. If you mention in front of the cops about using firearms you'll be told no (no group I ever ran did that!). If you manage to break in, get the info, get out wow you're a hero can go on your way. Typically the PC's can get firearms and shoot their way in. of the six groups I ran? they ALL had fire arms, started shooting, one guard dead one seriously wounded and down, third hurt badly, fourth not touched. THEN over their comm units (if they have them) their interrogator starts screaming to stop shooting/cease fire - turns out the interstellar cops were running this as a front you just killed one and sent two other agents to the hospital - and it's YOUR fault.
Adventure ends with the locals arguing with the interstellar cops.
PC'S CHOICES:
1) To not play this adventure at all
2) Once on this train hold on since it's a hyper-sonic bullet train taking you on a ride down the railroad
3) Refuse to do the raid for scene 3 and enjoy the increasingly nasty tactics the local cops use to break your resistance
4) Wonder how you got into this mess.
This is literally a uber linear rail-road adventure of fun and misery.
Fortunately, the damm thing is free - if anyone ever had to pay for it they would have grounds to demand their money back.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;479908To a large degree, however, there was never actually a competition in terms of published products.
It's like the megadungeon: Pre-2000 there were, at most, two megadungeons published in any form whatsoever -- Caverns of Thracia (which is a little undersized to be a true megadungeon) and Ruins of Undermountain (which was incomplete but significantly popular nonetheless).
I'd consider TSR's T1-4
Temple of Elemental Evil from the mid 80s to be a (small) mega-dungeon. Another possibility is Judges Guild's
Dark Tower, though again on the smalish size compared to later products.
Quote from: SionEwig;479920I'd consider TSR's T1-4 Temple of Elemental Evil from the mid 80s to be a (small) mega-dungeon. Another possibility is Judges Guild's Dark Tower, though again on the smalish size compared to later products.
T1-4 probably qualifies as a large lair rather than a true megadungeon.
You're probably right when it comes to
Dark Tower.
Quote from: RPGPundit;479840I wonder... you know I'm a fan of the sandbox style; and yet.. is it really fair to judge that the success of travelogue over hex-description settings was a question of just "early adoption"? You make it sound like it was really a random fluke that RPG settings went one way and not the other, but could the reason really have been that more people overall felt they got more out of the former than the latter?
I think that the giant (TSR) just overwhelmed the dwarf (Judges Guild) by having more exposure. And the Greyhawk Folio was a more professional product than the any of the Wilderlands releases.
In sci-fi games the reverse is true because of Traveller.
From doing a fair amount of these hex base location it can be more difficult to manage than a travelogue especially as the number of hexes go up. If you want to do a good job and have stuff in nearby hexes build off of each other.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;479908Similarly, the only published example of a sandbox hexcrawl were the Wilderlands. I don't think TSR ever produced a hex-keyed campaign setting.
Keep on the Borderlands and X1-Isle of Dread are similar in style to the Wilderlands. The important element is that you have a series of keyed location scattered across the landscape. Not that it is hex based. But B2 is high limited in it's scope, and X1 is confined to very large islands. So it seems that both were viewed as one off designs and not a general method.
Hey, check it out! I just made my first Hex Map for my new game coming up. Used the bat in the attic articles for ideas and bought hexographer pro. Good shit.
(http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa343/CraneStrike/mymap.png)
Very cool man.
Edit: Wait a minute, those rivers are flowing in the correct direction and manner!
Nice.
Quote from: GamerDude;479918Let me give an example (NOTE: for honesty I worked on staff for this company for an entire month, leaving when it became clear the only opinion that really meant anything was the owners, dissension was attacked with a 'take no prisoners' mentality"
The company is Terra/Sol Games, third party publisher for Mongoose Traveller.
The adventure is "Somnium Mundus" or "Dream World".
PC'S CHOICES:
1) To not play this adventure at all
2) Once on this train hold on since it's a hyper-sonic bullet train taking you on a ride down the railroad
3) Refuse to do the raid for scene 3 and enjoy the increasingly nasty tactics the local cops use to break your resistance
4) Wonder how you got into this mess.
This is literally a uber linear rail-road adventure of fun and misery.
Hmmm... Interesting. I still have their flyer on my desk from GenCon. At the show after I had been looking over their booth for some time, a rather lovely looking blonde greeted me and ask me if I had any questions about the twilight sector.
Yes. As it turned out. I did.
"Was this designed for Mongoose Traveller, or did Terra/Sol have a brand new Traveller license from Marc Miller?"She didn't know, but would find out. I signed up for the mailing list and got an email about ten days later from Mike Cross thanking me for meeting him. (we never met... unless he was a she...) Them post-show form letters can be downright awkward, hey?
Anyway the
Twilight Sector looked interesting, as well as the
Netherell fantasy campaign setting (Still wondering if this is a 2d6 fantasy setting). In addition to the
Twilight Sector, there were five other products at the show and advertised on the flyer as well.
1.
Beyond the Open Door Adventure/Sourcebook2.
Twilight Sector Setting Update #13.
Starfarer's Gazette #14.
Six Guns: Gauss Weapons5.
Ship Book: MiradorDo you happen to have any of these books, and if so, what is your opinion of them?
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;480020Very cool man.
Edit: Wait a minute, those rivers are flowing in the correct direction and manner!
Nice.
Thanks man. Yeah, I try to keep it realistic as much as I can, sense I know that realism is cash in the bank I'm spending as soon as the game starts.
The program is nice because a lot of the icons are useful for zooming in on a hex. I could blow up any farm hex and put the village on it. I can even do a village by itself and do camp fires, buildings, animals... it's pretty handy.
Quote from: estar;480005Keep on the Borderlands and X1-Isle of Dread are similar in style to the Wilderlands. The important element is that you have a series of keyed location scattered across the landscape. Not that it is hex based. But B2 is high limited in it's scope, and X1 is confined to very large islands. So it seems that both were viewed as one off designs and not a general method.
X1 is probably as close as TSR got, IMO.
B2, T1, D1, S4, and a couple of others all show clear signs of having been designed as "sandbox seeds" (whether they used hexes or not). Reading any of them you can clearly see that the expectation was that a DM would take that core material and just start grafting on additional material to create a sandbox for themselves.
But what TSR never produced was the next level of product: The fully-realized sandbox that would show neophyte DMs both how to run it and what the "final product" would look like.
The other thing that disappeared from the game was the "default wilderness adventure". This, like the "default dungeon adventure", existed in sort of rough, prototypical form in the OD&D rulebooks. But in the 1E rulebooks this "default play mode" material got lost as the manuals transitioned to "reference book". The description of "default dungeon adventure" survived in the Basic Set (and was given dozens of examples in published modules), but the "default wilderness adventure" didn't make it.
Note: I'm not talking about rules for wilderness travel. I'm talking about the actual, playable structure. In the Mentzer
Expert Set, for example, you can see the vestigial remnants of the OD&D default mode. Lots of details are given for "designing the wilderness" and rules are provided for wilderness travel. But the actual style of play described for the wilderness is "give your players a plot hook for the week".
Damn; I still love hexmaps.
RPGpundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;480050Damn; I still love hexmaps.
RPGpundit
And I do, too.
Not only they're pretty as hell: in my current 7th Sea game I'm sick as fuck of calculating distances from point A to B using a metric tape because the maps are printed on the inside covers of the bloodt books, and have no grid. They're gorgeous maps not designed for any practical use.
Maybe I got too spoiled with Griffin Island or the TSR setting boxes, but gridded setting maps (either squares or hexes) are the way to go as far as I'm concerned.
Quote from: GameDaddy;4800231. Beyond the Open Door Adventure/Sourcebook
2. Twilight Sector Setting Update #1
3. Starfarer's Gazette #1
4. Six Guns: Gauss Weapons
5. Ship Book: Mirador
Do you happen to have any of these books, and if so, what is your opinion of them?
NOTE: First let me say what I always say when giving such an in depth opinion on anything I - check out the free materials, see what you think. If this has any appeal to you then go spend your money. This is just my opinion and shouldn't be the only thing you base your decisions on. If you get it and enjoy it, more power to you.
Netherell is a outside contract "fantasy' setting that is actually one of the planets in the Twilight Sector setting. In the TS setting there is one planet that was fought over by two "stellar nations" and is "owned" by one and interdicted (think Traveller RED Zone). The magic is supposedly Psionics but I won't spend my money to read it - I only have what Mr. Cross told me about it.
TS is a setting for the Mongoose Traveller mechanic under the OGL.
Ok, just to clarify, the core book has info on "the entire setting" but it's a mere taste. Then you get to the part about the ONE world where anything significant is going to happen. A world that physically is an identical twin to Earth, but different in political structure/organization.
The Starfarer's Gazettes and the Six Guns were written by Martin J. Dougherty (long long time writer for Traveller, GURPS Traveller, d20 Traveller and some Mongoose Traveller. He's the one reputable author in the group).
There are two waves of material from T/S: The original 2009 offerings, and the late 2010/2011. The original were written by Mr. Cross and a buddy - actually Mr. Cross's old Traveller campaign he decided to make a buck off of (so he told me).
As for what I have, it's core book, both "updates", Starfarer's Gazette, the three free adventures, and the Six Guns (I did the edit on it, got no credit).
The Core book is marginal to "ok" depending on what you're looking for - no where in it do they explain 90%of the material is immaterial because everything is going to be focused around the Twilight Sector/Terra-Sol, (later this was expanded to include one a joining sector). Oh, these aren't nice Traveller sectors, it is a Traveller SUBsector. They didn't like "Twilight SubSector" and didn't want the work of a full sector. 7 or 8 planets over 2 sub-sectors is it.
The free adventures, "Into the Star is a solo adventure focusing on a pregen character that is a mutant (they love their 'mutation' rules of two tiny short bland tables and the explanations). I've already described Somnium Mundus, and the last free adventure is "Ancient Trails - And So It Begins..." which is just four encounters built on a bare framework of why you're even making the trip. Trust me most of the encounters are like 100% Role Play and the one combat is ship combat, the corsair run by local pirates which pretty much will out gun anything the players typically have.
The one paid adventure, "Beyond the Open Door", didn't look too bad, lots of background info adding to the core book, but I didn't give the adventure part an in-depth read since by then I was really tired of the severe lack of quality.
The "Update #1" (the one they charge for?) it's ALL in the adventure "Beyond the Open Door". It's the the background information "formatted to make great player handouts". No, in my opinion its them wanting a cash infusion. You absolutely don't need it. You can copy/paste anything you wish to give players put it in a word processing document and print it out, save yourself the cost of the PDF.
"Update Alpha" is their free update (the numbered updates will cost you, the lettered updates will be free) put out to give some info and keep people coming back. Take it or leave it.
Ship Book:Mirador I was in discussions while it was being written but never got to see much of it (even though I was supposed to be an editor).
Here's how the company works. Ok, to start was Mr. Cross and his buddy doing all the writing (2009), then a large break, then Mr. John Lees joining. As was explained on the forums in voice chats and emails - Mr. Lees is very prolific but also does not want his writing changed. So he does his writing and the editing and the layout handing back a finished product for the first review. In the public section of their forums he repeatedly made comments of "I've already written over 6,000 words on this I'm not changing anything now no matter what you say" and "I'm the one writing this book so I know what I'm talking about" ending with "*I* am THE keeper of Twilight Sector canon no one else knows it better than I".
Why don't they bounce this guy or even coral him in? Because he's prolific and they can't afford to loose his productivity.
Let me close with again stating my note - check out the free materials, see what you think. If this has any appeal to you then go spend your money. This is just my opinion and shouldn't be the only thing you base your decisions on. If you get it and enjoy it, more power to you.Any further discussion by me of Twilight Sector and Terra/Sol Games will have to happen in PM.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;480020Very cool man.
Edit: Wait a minute, those rivers are flowing in the correct direction and manner!
Nice.
Nice map, but the rivers on the east side of the mountain range are behaving very strangely: two rivers are both splitting, then a split from each merges into one? That's incredibly unlikely IRL except maybe in a coastal delta.
Quote from: S'mon;480094Nice map, but the rivers on the east side of the mountain range are behaving very strangely: two rivers are both splitting, then a split from each merges into one? That's incredibly unlikely IRL except maybe in a coastal delta.
:hmm:
maybe it's a canal?
Quote from: S'mon;480094Nice map, but the rivers on the east side of the mountain range are behaving very strangely: two rivers are both splitting, then a split from each merges into one? That's incredibly unlikely IRL except maybe in a coastal delta.
It does make more sense as a canal.
I spend some time at D6online forums (for OpenD6, what was done with The D6 System when WEG was being sold off in 2008 - derived from the original WEG SW D6 system). I say "some time" because the focus there is very narrow and only open to new ideas that fit within that narrow viewpoint.
But, someone just started a thread about finding blog references defining the difference between "sandbox" GMing and non-sandbox or, as the poster put it "Railroading" GMign.
I took exception to the way he put it because, well, just because it is not a perfect all expansive wonderful marvelous sandbox with pc's wandering in like some cartoon series, but a wide variety of possible GMing styles.
What I don't understand (and figure I can have a more educated discussion of here) is why this "if its not the all mighty 'sandbox' is it considered to be a straight jacket" style?
let me give an example from my Hackmaster days:
The group was in town (small city) to rest up, resupply, repairs etc. I described them as walking into one of the many small "town squares" throughout the city used for markets and stuff. Across the square was a Temple of Odin old roof caved in etc. As they looked up they spotted someone forcing his way out through the broken doors clothes torn then tumble down the steps leaving bloody footprints
What do you do? (1) "We run over to help him" (insert someone checking the door, cleric trying to examine and heal the poor man etc.) (2) He suddenly gasps reaching up grabbing the the closest person (putting blood on them, to go with the blood now on the cleric from the exam) whispering "Theo HORROR.. must... stop... the... Horrrorrr" and dying.
(3) After about 30 seconds, the local patrol enters the square, blows on their whistle and then they runover... ok party arrested... captain of the guard for the district gives them choice: (4) go to jail for murder (two PCs having the victims blood all over them) or go into temple investigate (he doesn't have the manpower and isn't inclined to send anyone else in).
NOW: Choices -
1) Entering the square, when the guy comes out they can go another way avoid him
2) They didn't have to get so close and examine the victim
3a) They could have run from the town guard
3b) They could have fought the town guard (not smart)
4) They could have gone to prison.
Now, to me that is four points at which the PC's got to make their own decisions not a single thing was 'forced' or railroaded. Their options may have sucked at times but they had options and choices. So is this sandbox, railroad, something in between?
I have answered before that 99% of games, even tthose that claim to be a 'sandbox', are actually a % of sandbox. Hell, I write adventures...even if the players are 100% free to do as they will, I've set up a few sign posts in my time that scream, "Do as you will...but you're a bunch of idiots for ignoring this!"
There may be some confusion due to overlap with computer-system and computer-game usages.
However, when I first encountered the term a few years ago in the RPG context, it seemed to be a way to distinguish what 'campaign' meant in the 1970s D&D context -- the wargame hobby context in which the original booklets were expected to be read -- from meanings more common today.
The latter tend to assume a structure based on a DM-designed sequence of events. Regardless of just where one prefers to draw the line of 'railroading', that game structure is fundamentally different from the old one.
It's the difference between a multiple-choice "Pick Your Path" book and the Napoleonic board game Empires in Arms -- except that D&D and its ilk originally offered a greater range of possible moves even than a typical grand strategy game with a Game Master adjudicating player conceived (rather than formally stereotyped) moves.
Quote from: GamerDude;480552I spend some time at D6online forums (for OpenD6, what was done with The D6 System when WEG was being sold off in 2008 - derived from the original WEG SW D6 system). I say "some time" because the focus there is very narrow and only open to new ideas that fit within that narrow viewpoint.
But, someone just started a thread about finding blog references defining the difference between "sandbox" GMing and non-sandbox or, as the poster put it "Railroading" GMign.
I took exception to the way he put it because, well, just because it is not a perfect all expansive wonderful marvelous sandbox with pc's wandering in like some cartoon series, but a wide variety of possible GMing styles.
What I don't understand (and figure I can have a more educated discussion of here) is why this "if its not the all mighty 'sandbox' is it considered to be a straight jacket" style?
let me give an example from my Hackmaster days:
The group was in town (small city) to rest up, resupply, repairs etc. I described them as walking into one of the many small "town squares" throughout the city used for markets and stuff. Across the square was a Temple of Odin old roof caved in etc. As they looked up they spotted someone forcing his way out through the broken doors clothes torn then tumble down the steps leaving bloody footprints
What do you do? (1) "We run over to help him" (insert someone checking the door, cleric trying to examine and heal the poor man etc.) (2) He suddenly gasps reaching up grabbing the the closest person (putting blood on them, to go with the blood now on the cleric from the exam) whispering "Theo HORROR.. must... stop... the... Horrrorrr" and dying.
(3) After about 30 seconds, the local patrol enters the square, blows on their whistle and then they runover... ok party arrested... captain of the guard for the district gives them choice: (4) go to jail for murder (two PCs having the victims blood all over them) or go into temple investigate (he doesn't have the manpower and isn't inclined to send anyone else in).
NOW: Choices -
1) Entering the square, when the guy comes out they can go another way avoid him
2) They didn't have to get so close and examine the victim
3a) They could have run from the town guard
3b) They could have fought the town guard (not smart)
4) They could have gone to prison.
Now, to me that is four points at which the PC's got to make their own decisions not a single thing was 'forced' or railroaded. Their options may have sucked at times but they had options and choices. So is this sandbox, railroad, something in between?
It depends though right. I am way too lazy to do a real sandbox. In a real sand box the GM should have all sorts of ongoing activity that exists on its own. i can do a world in motions but a sandbox is too much work.
think about computer games.
WoW and others MMOs are basically a sandbox. Youc an go anywhere and do anything world's your oyster young lad. World events will occur and batles will be fought (of course in a MMO change is very slow so and after all minor events the world resets)
Adge of Fable is like a Sandbox but it isn't really. You think you can go anywhere and do anything but there is a central plot and a lot of stuff will direct you towards it.
Assassin's Creed is a railroad. You are kicked onto an adventure and you can wander about but in the end you can only get to the next bit if you complete some set tasks.
So in your example if the PCs could have watched the injured Priest of Odin wander about from the tavern across the square and enjoyed a pint or two as the guards turned up and killed him. Then gone off and joined a trade caravan, that already 'existed' and was already leaving the town and looking for sellswords, then it's a sandbox. (in my game you can do all that but I would have just invented the trade caravan and if you had investigated the temple then the trade caravan would not have left town because it wouldn't have existed).
Real sandboxes are really rare. In fact I posit that they can only really exist in a computer environment and of course there your options are limited by the programming so whilst the world might be a sandbox your interaction with it is not true sandbox play.
You can create sandboxes that feel really real and I expect that a number of GMs on here have pretty convincing sandbox environments.
Quote from: GamerDude;480552So is this sandbox, railroad, something in between?
Are you just running your setting or do you have a story in mind with a grand finale? It is consistent with what you planned before or just out of the blue sky?
There is no black and white it is various shades of gray. If a player choose to play a character with a regimented lifestyle say a paladin or solider. Then a lot of what happens to their character results from the actions of the NPCs i.e. the GM.
In my opinion is that when you strip everything away what defines a sandbox campaign is where the referee doesn't expect any particular action from the players. The players do their thing, the referee runs the NPCs and the setting. Then adjudicates the results. Done right the result is a setting that feels like a living breathing place in which the characters have the scope to achieve their goals.
Is it "superior" than alternative methods of refereeing? No. It has trade-offs like every style of play.
If the plot is compelling, and the adventures are well written an adventure path can be extremely exciting to play. Even though the player's choices only effect the journey, not the destination.
Likewise in a sandbox players can find themselves rudderless and totally clueless on what to do next. Finding the situation their characters are in to be dull and uninteresting.
Quote from: jibbajibba;480938Real sandboxes are really rare. In fact I posit that they can only really exist in a computer environment and of course there your options are limited by the programming so whilst the world might be a sandbox your interaction with it is not true sandbox play.
You can create sandboxes that feel really real and I expect that a number of GMs on here have pretty convincing sandbox environments.
The essential trick to running a sandbox is having a good Bag of Stuff. For example picture a peasant cottage. Now vary it and make another. Think of six or so variations. Why do they vary? Use that not to remember six specific types but rather as lego style parts that fit together to create an infinite number of peasant cottages.
With practice you can learn to do this with any element of your campaign. Then your work consists of making high level notes and using that to jog your memory as you create the details at the tables.
With this technique, you can match what computers do and beat them. The only catch is that you need to take notes fast for details you want to remain consistent on.
This shares some ideas with the Palace of Memory technique, where a person uses the visual memory of a well known location to memorize stuff.
I got the idea from the way I collect miniature and miniature props. I try to get "boring" stuff. Beds, tables, chairs, etc. Stuff that I can pull out and create 90% of the adventure locations. I realized if it works with my miniatures it can work with running a campaign.
To test myself about six months ago I took a map, six NPCs, and a title, Night's Bride Coven. and ran a complete adventure off the cuff. It worked a lot better than I thought it would and the players had a good time.
The reason I write about sandbox a lot is to figure how to teach people what I know and to get them to be able to do what I do, without needing to play for 30 years like I did. I think it can be done with the right approach.
I got a ton finished. I'll post it tomorrow or friday before the game. I didn't detail the whole area, but I detailed the map more and wrote up all the settlements and places the party can get without going through a difficult forest. Idenified a bunch of NPCs to write up and have a lot of plot ideas that popped out of writing up the settlements.
Thanks a lot for your help Estar.
Quote from: estar;480987Are you just running your setting or do you have a story in mind with a grand finale? It is consistent with what you planned before or just out of the blue sky?
Both...
I run the setting the PC's go as they will
BUT
I also have stories going on in the background, with news and hints and hooks showing up here and there. These stories progress no matter what the PCs do, but if they grab a hook and get involved then their involvement will affect how that story unfolds and the end result.
I see it as "real life", where we all here plenty of stories from on our street to somewhere across the globe. Do we get involved with any of these? Do we sign up to go fight warlords in some part of Africa, or do we get involved with relief efforts in the Sudan to fight the effects of drought etc.
So they PCs get news of some very bad person rising to power in the next country, or some local baron starving his serfs, or that someone is telling tales of some ruins 5 days south of where you are that no one ever recalls seeing before. Do they get involved in any of this, investigate any of this, or do they hang a left at the next fork in the road and avoid it all seeking their own fortunes? If they don't things will unfold a certain way, if they do get involved that has an effect on that story line - sometimes just a little and sometimes totally changing it.
Then, there was this one time a Fighter Camp...
Good points all around.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;479908To a large degree, however, there was never actually a competition in terms of published products.
It's like the megadungeon: Pre-2000 there were, at most, two megadungeons published in any form whatsoever -- Caverns of Thracia (which is a little undersized to be a true megadungeon) and Ruins of Undermountain (which was incomplete but significantly popular nonetheless).
A lot of people bring this up, but I considered RoU's empty areas as a feature. I developed my own content for them, from elaborate puzzles to lairs inhabited by hostile adventurers to simple colour. Only got about 2/3 of Level One finished, but it was enough for the campaign we were playing. And it had another upside; when I played in the same place under a different GM, I knew a few of the core areas, but could be surprised by the rest. I am surprised most people don't see the product that way - I think it's a good example of providing a few examples of doing things, then letting personal creativity take the rest.
WRT megadungeons,
Greyhawk Ruins qualifies, but it is not a really good product - better than most 2e dungeons, but hardly a classic.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;479908And, eventually, this became the tail wagging the dog: This is what adventure modules look like; so this is what our next adventure module will look like.
When people started looking for more than the "set-piece" scenario-of-the-week, of course, it's possible that megadungeon and sandbox play might have provided the solution. But those products didn't exist (and weren't created). (And even the rulebooks weren't describing those styles of play any more.) In fact, the people who might have created them were stubbornly insisting (and many of them continue to insist) that hexcrawls and megadungeons can "never be published". Instead, it was Dragonlance that took the skeleton of the "convention series" and turned it into the first adventure path.
That would be correct. As Old Geezer has pointed out before, tournament-style modules dominated TSR's output in the years when the products we usually consider classics were published. Most of them are relatively closed, oriented on a specific goal, and more deadly than the D&D the TSR staff were actually playing. Which is fine when designing for competitions, but they were mostly used in home campaigns, and came to shape expectations and provide design prototypes.
The Temple of the Frog from the Blackmoor supplement, published a few years earlier, shows every feature of a sandbox-friendly scenario: it accommodates very different approaches to accomplishing goals, and those goals aren't pre-determined. You have a locale and its internal dynamics (something that also belies the common notion that early D&D was solely about simplistic hack-and-slash), but the way it is used in a campaign is not pre-set... it is implied the frog-cultists are meant as antagonists, but not even that is set in stone. Modules based on the Temple of the Frog model would have lead to the proliferation of vastly different attitudes about adventure design - if Temple of the Frog hadn't become an obscure archaism by the time most people took up gaming.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;479908A real watershed moment, IMO, is when module B3 was recalled and redesigned. Whatever flaws the original B3 possessed, it was a complete mini-setting a la B2. The dungeon also specifically included passages to lower levels that the DM was supposed to provide: It was the seed for a proper megadungeon campaign.
The redesigned B3 closed those tunnels, removed most of the larger setting material, and turned the adventure into a canned scenario.
That's a good example, and in a way, I really like the old B3. It has its wonky elements, but as you wrote, it is open and it has a mini-setting to adventure in. What I also like about it is that it is genuinely eerie: it has a hint of "wrongness" missing from D&D fantasy. For starters, there is no princess to save: you can meet her and her lover, but both of them are accursed ghosts without a means in the module to save them (and beyond the abilities of a low-level party to save or even defeat them). They are also found in a well-hidden secret room the party might not even come across.
QuoteA single pedestal with a glass case on top of it stands in the middle of this room. A small brown box with strange runes carved into it is inside the glass case.This is the room that holds the ruby known as “My Lady’s Heart.” As soon as the glass case is touched, both Lady Argenta and her knight in silver and blue armor will appear. They are not illusions. They are ghosts (AC 7, F5, hp 30,30, #AT 1, D 1-6 + aging, MV 150’ (50’), Save F5, ML 12, AL C) and have come to protect the ruby. They will attack any person in the room. (For more information on ghosts, see the New Monster Section in the back of the module.) The ruby lying in the velvet lined teakwood box is not as large as rumor or the portrait of Lady Argenta in room UL 7 would have led the characters to believe. It is only 1” in diameter but is worth 10,000 gp.
And that's all that remained of Lady Argenta and her knight. End of the story. That's harsh, and from the POV of someone who would approach the module from the sort of fairytales the background might imply, just fucked up.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;479908X1 is probably as close as TSR got, IMO.
B2, T1, D1, S4, and a couple of others all show clear signs of having been designed as "sandbox seeds" (whether they used hexes or not). Reading any of them you can clearly see that the expectation was that a DM would take that core material and just start grafting on additional material to create a sandbox for themselves.
Some of the UK modules also have sandbox-friendly elements, but right - they are starting points that may turn into a sandbox campaign, and lack the following steps to help someone develop them into one.
Quote from: estar;480990The essential trick to running a sandbox is having a good Bag of Stuff. For example picture a peasant cottage. Now vary it and make another. Think of six or so variations. Why do they vary? Use that not to remember six specific types but rather as lego style parts that fit together to create an infinite number of peasant cottages
(Snip)
The reason I write about sandbox a lot is to figure how to teach people what I know and to get them to be able to do what I do, without needing to play for 30 years like I did. I think it can be done with the right approach.
See to me there is a differnce between a snadbox and a world in motion and what you describe is more a world in motion (although right at the top end perhaps)
I think a real sandbox involves having multiple events running in parallel
I can track maybe a dozen in my head with aid aide memoire but beyond that I just cheat. So I will decide who wins the battle on the plains rather that letting it resolve I won't bother to play our the wizards research etc. A computer simulation will run all that stuff and each time the outcome will be different (if its well written). That to me is a true sand box.
I can simulate it and I do ( but ad libed asopposed to planned ) but would never try to run one for real
Quote from: GamerDude;480552I spend some time at D6online forums (for OpenD6, what was done with The D6 System when WEG was being sold off in 2008 - derived from the original WEG SW D6 system). I say "some time" because the focus there is very narrow and only open to new ideas that fit within that narrow viewpoint.
But, someone just started a thread about finding blog references defining the difference between "sandbox" GMing and non-sandbox or, as the poster put it "Railroading" GMign.
I took exception to the way he put it because, well, just because it is not a perfect all expansive wonderful marvelous sandbox with pc's wandering in like some cartoon series, but a wide variety of possible GMing styles.
What I don't understand (and figure I can have a more educated discussion of here) is why this "if its not the all mighty 'sandbox' is it considered to be a straight jacket" style?
let me give an example from my Hackmaster days:
The group was in town (small city) to rest up, resupply, repairs etc. I described them as walking into one of the many small "town squares" throughout the city used for markets and stuff. Across the square was a Temple of Odin old roof caved in etc. As they looked up they spotted someone forcing his way out through the broken doors clothes torn then tumble down the steps leaving bloody footprints
What do you do? (1) "We run over to help him" (insert someone checking the door, cleric trying to examine and heal the poor man etc.) (2) He suddenly gasps reaching up grabbing the the closest person (putting blood on them, to go with the blood now on the cleric from the exam) whispering "Theo HORROR.. must... stop... the... Horrrorrr" and dying.
(3) After about 30 seconds, the local patrol enters the square, blows on their whistle and then they runover... ok party arrested... captain of the guard for the district gives them choice: (4) go to jail for murder (two PCs having the victims blood all over them) or go into temple investigate (he doesn't have the manpower and isn't inclined to send anyone else in).
NOW: Choices -
1) Entering the square, when the guy comes out they can go another way avoid him
2) They didn't have to get so close and examine the victim
3a) They could have run from the town guard
3b) They could have fought the town guard (not smart)
4) They could have gone to prison.
Now, to me that is four points at which the PC's got to make their own decisions not a single thing was 'forced' or railroaded. Their options may have sucked at times but they had options and choices. So is this sandbox, railroad, something in between?
I think it might be helpful for you if you let go of that anger over this issue. I understand it, anyone promoting one-true-wayism like that annoys me too, but I'm learning to let go of it and move on and am better for it IMO.
Personally, I normally prefer the sandbox style because I enjoy exploration and simulation. However, there are plenty of "railroad" type adventures/campaigns that are awesome. Red Hand of Doom is mostly "railroad", but it was a fucking blast to play through. The "railroad" added a sense of tension to the game, gave a sense of urgency. Many investigation games have elements of "railroad" in them by necessity... the characters have to follow a trail of clues. Nothing wrong with that either. Also, as has been said, most games contain elements of both. The "railroad" can contribute a direction for the characters to travel in... motivation in other words, while the sandbox gives the players choices about what "railroad" to follow, or how to follow it. Best of both worlds :) You are perfectly within your rights to enjoy playing or GMing either style, or both. There is no One True Way.
Quote from: Sigmund;481072I think it might be helpful for you if you let go of that anger over this issue. I understand it, anyone promoting one-true-wayism like that annoys me too, but I'm learning to let go of it and move on and am better for it IMO.
Personally, I normally prefer the sandbox style because I enjoy exploration and simulation. However, there are plenty of "railroad" type adventures/campaigns that are awesome. Red Hand of Doom is mostly "railroad", but it was a fucking blast to play through. The "railroad" added a sense of tension to the game, gave a sense of urgency. Many investigation games have elements of "railroad" in them by necessity... the characters have to follow a trail of clues. Nothing wrong with that either. Also, as has been said, most games contain elements of both. The "railroad" can contribute a direction for the characters to travel in... motivation in other words, while the sandbox gives the players choices about what "railroad" to follow, or how to follow it. Best of both worlds :) You are perfectly within your rights to enjoy playing or GMing either style, or both. There is no One True Way.
(Glad you feel that way as slow as Tuesday night went...gaming in molasses...all discovery)
Quote from: jibbajibba;481032See to me there is a differnce between a snadbox and a world in motion and what you describe is more a world in motion (although right at the top end perhaps)
I think a real sandbox involves having multiple events running in parallel
I can track maybe a dozen in my head with aid aide memoire but beyond that I just cheat. So I will decide who wins the battle on the plains rather that letting it resolve I won't bother to play our the wizards research etc. A computer simulation will run all that stuff and each time the outcome will be different (if its well written). That to me is a true sand box.
I can simulate it and I do ( but ad libed asopposed to planned ) but would never try to run one for real
World in Motion example in Igbar (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955474/Daily%20Life%20in%20Igbar). Many, many events, some honestly tied together, but in the order that the players are becoming aware of them.
Quote from: LordVreeg;481107(Glad you feel that way as slow as Tuesday night went...gaming in molasses...all discovery)
It's all good. :D
Haha, ah jeez. I've counted three seperate and completely contradictory definitons thus far in the the thread.
OP a "sandbox" is a term originally used in computer programming to describe a fixed area beyond which you may not go, often for debugging, and within which there are fixed rules, also known as a "walled garden", which gained fame after AOL applied the principle to its userbase.
It has clearly trickled through to the RPG world where its definition has been warped beyond redemption to mean whatever whoever is using it wants it to mean at the time, season with passive aggression to taste. Along with "gonzo", another teeth grinder, you may as well just mentally fill it in with "blank". Basically it has no dictionary definition in this context.
If you wanted to use it by its normal meaning, it would be a dungeon. You have set doors you can open, set routes you can follow, set encounters you can have. You can't drill up to the surface to explore anywhere else. That would be a sandbox.
Quote from: The Traveller;481150It has clearly trickled through to the RPG world where its definition has been warped beyond redemption to mean whatever whoever is using it wants it to mean at the time, season with passive aggression to taste.
Well hey there, The Traveller. :hatsoff:
Quote from: Melan;481154Well hey there, The Traveller. :hatsoff:
Heh, sorry, I'm not my usual cordial self. Some Malaysian dude told me he'd perform a bit of impromptu surgery after puppy ran up his sister's skirt on a reload run to the off licence, which brings to three the number of death threats I've gotten in the last couple of days, and its not even the weekend yet.
/ Listening to: Tom Waits, small change (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1T41908p54).
Quote from: jibbajibba;481032I think a real sandbox involves having multiple events running in parallel
I can track maybe a dozen in my head with aid aide memoire but beyond that I just cheat. So I will decide who wins the battle on the plains rather that letting it resolve I won't bother to play our the wizards research etc. A computer simulation will run all that stuff and each time the outcome will be different (if its well written). That to me is a true sand box.
(a) Your definition of sandbox is radically different from how everyone else in the world uses the term.
(b) Your definition of sandbox is functionally unplayable.
Ergo, it's a pretty worthless definition.
Quote from: The Traveller;481150It has clearly trickled through to the RPG world where its definition has been warped beyond redemption to mean whatever whoever is using it wants it to mean at the time, season with passive aggression to taste.
What I've seen is that anyone with any actual experience with a sandbox campaign has a pretty consistent and universal definition of the term.
It's people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about that tend to post nonsense definitions that don't make any sense.
Quote from: The Traveller;481150Haha, ah jeez. I've counted three seperate and completely contradictory definitons thus far in the the thread.
OP a "sandbox" is a term originally used in computer programming to describe a fixed area beyond which you may not go, often for debugging, and within which there are fixed rules, also known as a "walled garden",
which gained fame after AOL applied the principle to its userbase.
Yes and later to computers games that allow the player free rein to roam the world.
And earlier to a place where one's imagination roams. This developed from the idea of a child's sandbox. Which is the context that used in Dragon magazine when sandbox is used.
Quote from: The Traveller;481150It has clearly trickled through to the RPG world where its definition has been warped beyond redemption to mean whatever whoever is using it wants it to mean at the time, season with passive aggression to taste. Along with "gonzo", another teeth grinder, you may as well just mentally fill it in with "blank". Basically it has no dictionary definition in this context.
I think it clear that in this context that it refers to a style of running a RPG campaign. What that style entails is still be being hashed out.
Quote from: Melan;481026A lot of people bring this up, but I considered RoU's empty areas as a feature. I developed my own content for them, from elaborate puzzles to lairs inhabited by hostile adventurers to simple colour. Only got about 2/3 of Level One finished, but it was enough for the campaign we were playing.And it had another upside; when I played in the same place under a different GM, I knew a few of the core areas, but could be surprised by the rest. I am surprised most people don't see the product that way
I'm not.
(1) For most people buying pre-packaged material, they're doing it because they don't want to do the prep work.
(2) I, personally, don't mind revising and adding to a product I purchase. But here's the trick: I can do that whether the product is complete or playable or not. There's really no scenario in which "we didn't finish writing this" is actually a feature. About the only product I'm willing to give a pass on this is B1 (because it was specifically designed as a teaching module).
To put it another way: If RoU had been a fully-keyed product, it's highly likely that I would have run it at some point. If I had, it's likely my version would have ended up just as customized as yours. But since it isn't fully-keyed, I've never played RoU. I just occasionally take it off the shelf and go, "That's nice." And then wander away again.
To put it a third way, I recently posted on a blog about my personal "heirarchy of interest" in a megadungeon product:
(1) Memorable, detailed locations
(2) Memorable, creative, and unique inhabitants
(3) Generic, but fully-detailed locations
(4) Generic stat-line creatures
(5) An empty map
(#1 ranks above #2 because I believe that restocking is a crucial part of running a successful megadungeon (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/5/roleplaying-games/re-running-the-megadungeon). Thus creatures are ephemeral and locations are the most important thing.)
RoU just has way too much of #5, IMO. I can generate a map equivalent to one of the poster maps in RoU with about 30 minutes of work. Drawing squares on graph paper just isn't that challenging.
Everyone knows how good players are at really articulating what they want out of a game.
Sandbox helps the ref... The players take the lead and go on a wild hair, the GM can build what he needs for the player's story to continue, and not in a droll fashion, but in an epic manner.
Just like kids in the sandbox build what they want, with a sandbox game the GM builds what the players want. The sand is the framework for the rest of the setting. It's malleable. You can make cool things with it. When the players see... they want to make cool things with it. Next thing you know, you have a great campaign going.
Quote from: Sigmund;481072Personally, I normally prefer the sandbox style because I enjoy exploration and simulation. However, there are plenty of "railroad" type adventures/campaigns that are awesome. Red Hand of Doom is mostly "railroad", but it was a fucking blast to play through. The "railroad" added a sense of tension to the game, gave a sense of urgency. Many investigation games have elements of "railroad" in them by necessity... the characters have to follow a trail of clues. Nothing wrong with that either. Also, as has been said, most games contain elements of both. The "railroad" can contribute a direction for the characters to travel in... motivation in other words, while the sandbox gives the players choices about what "railroad" to follow, or how to follow it. Best of both worlds :) You are perfectly within your rights to enjoy playing or GMing either style, or both. There is no One True Way.
Horror in the Orient Express is one of the best campaigns I've ever run and you have to follow the route of the train to find the parts of a McGuffin. It does not get much more linear than that. And it is awesome, I've run it 3 times and my groups have always loved it.
Quote from: estar;481177Yes and later to computers games that allow the player free rein to roam the world.
Only by computer gamers (not programmers mind you) that hadn't clue one what they were talking about, since it means the exact opposite.
Quote from: estar;481177And earlier to a place where one's imagination roams. This developed from the idea of a child's sandbox. Which is the context that used in Dragon magazine when sandbox is used.
The only thing right in this sentence is "child's sandbox". Walled garden. Limited space where you can do limited things. Whatever some hack from Dragon might have been under the impression it meant, it didn't mean imaginative freedom.
Quote from: estar;481177I think it clear that in this context that it refers to a style of running a RPG campaign. What that style entails is still be being hashed out.
I don't understand what needs to be hashed out. Its like having a discussion over a typo.
Quote from: The Traveller;481236Only by computer gamers (not programmers mind you) that hadn't clue one what they were talking about, since it means the exact opposite.
The only thing right in this sentence is "child's sandbox". Walled garden. Limited space where you can do limited things. Whatever some hack from Dragon might have been under the impression it meant, it didn't mean imaginative freedom.
I don't understand what needs to be hashed out. Its like having a discussion over a typo.
You are nitpicking about language. Language evolves. In the last twenty years sandbox has been extended to mean computers that are setup to be a limited test environment, games that offer free-ranging environments, and now a style of running a RPG campaign.
Myself and those on the Wilderlands design team had no idea that it would catch on when we started using sandbox to describe what we did with the hexcrawl style maps.
I suppose you have issues with hexcrawl which is a recently invented term as well.
Quote from: The Traveller;481236stuff
You can argue about language use, etymology or computer programming as much as you please. Meanwhile, we will be over here designing and playing sandbox campaigns. :)
Quote from: The Traveller;481236Only by computer gamers (not programmers mind you) that hadn't clue one what they were talking about, since it means the exact opposite.
The only thing right in this sentence is "child's sandbox". Walled garden. Limited space where you can do limited things. Whatever some hack from Dragon might have been under the impression it meant, it didn't mean imaginative freedom.
I don't understand what needs to be hashed out. Its like having a discussion over a typo.
It is possible for a single word to mean different things in different contexts. In all honesty, programmers ripped it off from little children out in the yard, so if they can use it to mean what they want, we can use it to mean what we fucking want too. If we and anyone else wanna use the term for this, what's it to you? Don't like it, too fucking bad, elitist jerk-off. Go back to debugging in your sandbox.
Quote from: estar;481247I suppose you have issues with hexcrawl which is a recently invented term as well.
Hexcrawls are awesome, though I prefer using drawn maps with a piece of string or a ruler for that more authentic feeling. They do come into their own when you're doing territorial warfare style stuff though, makes it handier to track whose flag is flying where.
Quote from: Melan;481250You can argue about language use, etymology or computer programming as much as you please. Meanwhile, we will be over here designing and playing sandbox campaigns. :)
What gets me is that some of the defintions used in the thread so far are actually bang on correct. Just seems like a waste of effort arguing round in circles after something when a) there's not much agreement on what it means and b) even if there was it wouldn't really do much anyway. It all seems a bit Forge-ey, and effort that could be used actually having fun playing games. I'm not much of a theory man myself to be honest, it's too easy. Creativity, real imagination, now that's hard.
Quote from: Sigmund;481252It is possible for a single word to mean different things in different contexts. In all honesty, programmers ripped it off from little children out in the yard, so if they can use it to mean what they want, we can use it to mean what we fucking want too. If we and anyone else wanna use the term for this, what's it to you? Don't like it, too fucking bad, elitist jerk-off. Go back to debugging in your sandbox.
Sorry man, I just prefer to save my freewheeling bullshit for the descriptive prose.
:p
Quote from: estar;481247You are nitpicking about language. Language evolves. In the last twenty years sandbox has been extended to mean computers that are setup to be a limited test environment, games that offer free-ranging environments, and now a style of running a RPG campaign.
Myself and those on the Wilderlands design team had no idea that it would catch on when we started using sandbox to describe what we did with the hexcrawl style maps.
I suppose you have issues with hexcrawl which is a recently invented term as well.
Indeed.
One suspects regional, company, and industry derivations.
'sandbox' was is full use in rpg terminology in my area in the mid/late 80's (as I have mentioned before) and always meant the open, player driven environment in the crpg world as well.
Doesn't mean anyone else is wrong, just means our environmental Venn diagrams were not Intersecting.
Quote from: The Traveller;481256Hexcrawls are awesome, though I prefer using drawn maps with a piece of string or a ruler for that more authentic feeling. They do come into their own when you're doing territorial warfare style stuff though, makes it handier to track whose flag is flying where.
What gets me is that some of the defintions used in the thread so far are actually bang on correct. Just seems like a waste of effort arguing round in circles after something when a) there's not much agreement on what it means and b) even if there was it wouldn't really do much anyway. It all seems a bit Forge-ey, and effort that could be used actually having fun playing games. I'm not much of a theory man myself to be honest, it's too easy. Creativity, real imagination, now that's hard.
Sorry man, I just prefer to save my freewheeling bullshit for the descriptive prose.
:p
Why do you imagine you are the one who gets to decide which definitions are "correct"? Why would you imagine roleplayers should have to use the same definitions for terms used in jargon as computer programmers? Why would you imagine anyone gives a fuck what you would save "freewheeling bullshit", or anything else for that matter, for? RPGers have been using the term "sandbox" the way estar uses it for a long while now. If you have a problem with that, it's your fucking problem. I'd appreciate it if you would stop threadcrapping with this computer programming bullshit. Language evolves, words like "sandbox", "gay", "surf", etc.. change. Get over it.
Quote from: Sigmund;481262RPGers have been using the term "sandbox" the way estar uses it for a long while now.
Have they really? So why are there a half dozen different definitions wafting around the thread, most of which contradict each other?
Now I'm fairly sure from your posting history that you aren't particularly interested in a discussion, more in seeing who can act like the biggest internet hardman by introducing the most profanity into a sentence, so I'll just say please learn to use the "enter" key, it's the second biggest on your keyboard, and it makes reading your posts much easier. Paragraphs my friend, now there's a nitpick we could all learn from.
:p
Quote from: The Traveller;481265Have they really? So why are there a half dozen different definitions wafting around the thread, most of which contradict each other?
Now I'm fairly sure from your posting history that you aren't particularly interested in a discussion, more in seeing who can act like the biggest internet hardman by introducing the most profanity into a sentence, so I'll just say please learn to use the "enter" key, it's the second biggest on your keyboard, and it makes reading your posts much easier. Paragraphs my friend, now there's a nitpick we could all learn from.
:p
Wtf are you asking me for? Ask the people you think are contradicting the most commonly used definition. We've had quite a few discussions around this forum about "sandbox" games and we've been having them for quite a while now. Where were you before?
You don't know me from Adam, and you also aren't looking at my posting history very hard, or you'd know your little attempt at insulting me won't work. Funny how the guy who comes into a thread to crap all over it and be a troll tries so hard to make the guy calling him out for it look like the one in the wrong... that happens so often I'm starting to think there's a threadcrapping school you assholes go to. Oh, and I use profanity so pussies like you will get your little panties in a bunch over it, it's funny when people make such an issue over mere words. This is the way I talk.. here, on the phone, and in real life. If you can't handle it, once again, that's your problem. If you want to think that's me being "the biggest internet hardman", go right ahead, I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it. I'd be perfectly happy to provide you with my contact info though. You can call me and I'll tell you over the phone you're being a cock. Wanna stop by my work? I'll tell you face-to-face you're being a cock. You want to talk about the topic? Rock on then, otherwise you're going to be treated like the threadcrapping cock you're being.
Quote from: Sigmund;481267Wtf are you asking me for? Ask the people you think are contradicting the most commonly used definition. We've had quite a few discussions around this forum about "sandbox" games and we've been having them for quite a while now. Where were you before?
You don't know me from Adam, and you also aren't looking at my posting history very hard, or you'd know your little attempt at insulting me won't work. Funny how the guy who comes into a thread to crap all over it and be a troll tries so hard to make the guy calling him out for it look like the one in the wrong... that happens so often I'm starting to think there's a threadcrapping school you assholes go to. Oh, and I use profanity so pussies like you will get your little panties in a bunch over it, it's funny when people make such an issue over mere words. This is the way I talk.. here, on the phone, and in real life. If you can't handle it, once again, that's your problem. If you want to think that's me being "the biggest internet hardman", go right ahead, I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it. I'd be perfectly happy to provide you with my contact info though. You can call me and I'll tell you over the phone you're being a cock. Wanna stop by my work? I'll tell you face-to-face you're being a cock. You want to talk about the topic? Rock on then, otherwise you're going to be treated like the threadcrapping cock you're being.
Dearie me, some people just can't take a compliment. I was suggesting the use of paragraphs so I could further
enjoy your delightful posts. What an angry man.
Anyway, I'm not quite sure, but I think that might be death threat number 4.
:D
Quote from: The Traveller;481273Dearie me, some people just can't take a compliment. I was suggesting the use of paragraphs so I could further enjoy your delightful posts. What an angry man.
Anyway, I'm not quite sure, but I think that might be death threat number 4.
:D
Over-dramatic much? At least you're not threadcrapping anymore. Insulting me might at least provide folks with some amusement, unlike you being an elitist over terms computer programmers use.
Quote from: Sigmund;481277Over-dramatic much? At least you're not threadcrapping anymore. Insulting me might at least provide folks with some amusement, unlike you being an elitist over terms computer programmers use.
No quite seriously, three of them so far this week. I think the last guy was just a random dick, but the other two sounded like they meant business. The topic of the thread my friend is "Why or What this "Sandbox" thingy." I provided an answer so we could all shake hands and move on, plus banter, and some people disagree, which is fine by me.
Quote from: The Traveller;481278No quite seriously, three of them so far this week. I think the last guy was just a random dick, but the other two sounded like they meant business. The topic of the thread my friend is "Why or What this "Sandbox" thingy." I provided an answer so we could all shake hands and move on, plus banter, and some people disagree, which is fine by me.
You didn't post about "Why or What this 'Sandbox' thingy", you posted about how we are all using the term "sandbox" wrong. If you can't tell the difference perhaps further education is in order. Gamerdude was asking what we are refferring to when we talk about "sandbox" RPGing. How about answering that in the context of the thread, without all the threadcrapping bullshit about how nobody else in the thread knows what they are talking about. Or, keep insulting me, at least you might get lucky and post something funny. I have a meeting to go to, enjoy.
Quote from: Sigmund;481279I have a meeting to go to, enjoy.
Always do...
Quote from: The Traveller;481256Hexcrawls are awesome, though I prefer using drawn maps with a piece of string or a ruler for that more authentic feeling. They do come into their own when you're doing territorial warfare style stuff though, makes it handier to track whose flag is flying where.
Glad you enjoy the format. I try to do my part in popularizing them (i.e. Points of Light, Blackmarsh, etc)
Quote from: The Traveller;481256What gets me is that some of the defintions used in the thread so far are actually bang on correct. Just seems like a waste of effort arguing round in circles after something when a) there's not much agreement on what it means and b) even if there was it wouldn't really do much anyway. It all seems a bit Forge-ey, and effort that could be used actually having fun playing games. I'm not much of a theory man myself to be honest, it's too easy. Creativity, real imagination, now that's hard.
I try keep clear of Forge land by focusing on practical advice that I have actually used myself. I don't claim what I do is the ultimate form of roleplaying, but good techniques if you want to do X, Y, and/or Z for your game.
I ran running boffer LARP events for over 10 years and in live-action roleplaying you are forced to run linear plots because you can't physically move props, setups, and people around fact enough to replicate what is normally done around a tabletop.
Because of this I developed an understanding of other styles of play, and lose what "one true wayism" I had about the way I referee.
I don't talk much about other styles because sandbox is where my expertise is. Where I have the most to teach, write and talk about.
Quote from: The Traveller;481265Have they really? So why are there a half dozen different definitions wafting around the thread, most of which contradict each other?
Because it is a relatively new area of discussion despite it's origins at the beginning of the hobby. Serious discussion on sandbox campaigns only started around 2006-2007. It was only last year (2010) that people started talking about managing sandbox campaigns. Folks noticed there were reports about sandbox campaigns failing. "World in Motion" was coined by LordVreeg and quickly adopted by myself and others only last year.
So it not unexpected that the situation is the way you described it.
For my part I am writing a book on it that I hope to release next year. It going to take a while because I want individual parts to be useful in of themselves rather than some Ron Edwards style philosophical musing.
For example not only I will talk about mapping but include an appendix on how to use Inkscape for mapping (a free and open vector drawing software). So if the buyer get nothing else out of the book they have a decent tutorial for drawing maps.
Since I am publishing as part of my hobby I don't release things until I feel they are done right rather than trying to chase some market fad or meet monthly bills .
Quote from: estar;481291For my part I am writing a book on it that I hope to release next year. It going to take a while because I want individual parts to be useful in of themselves rather than some Ron Edwards style philosophical musing.
Might I suggest coining another phrase to describe these types of campaigns so? From what I can see there are two broad ideas on the definition - closed dungeon crawls and open ended campaigns. These are complete opposites, so maybe this could be an opportunity to disambiguate while putting your own permanent mark on industry terminology?
Quote from: The Traveller;481292Might I suggest coining another phrase to describe these types of campaigns so? From what I can see there are two broad ideas on the definition - closed dungeon crawls and open ended campaigns. These are complete opposites, so maybe this could be an opportunity to disambiguate while putting your own permanent mark on industry terminology?
Hey, now this we can talk about. I would not automatically assume those two things are different. A "closed" dungeon crawl can still be open-ended in it's own fashion if there is no set path the adventurers need to follow through the dungeon, or over-arching mission or plot the characters need to be involved in. Exploring the Underdark (or sections of it) can be very "sand box" it seems to me. Also, I'd say your view of the sand box having defined borders is not mutually exclusive with estar's sandbox of open-ended play. Even the map of the Wilderlands has borders. If the characters were to cross the edges of the map, they'd be crossing into a different sand box is all, but the Wilderlands campaign makes the assumption (and reasonably so IMO) that the characters will remain in the Wilderlands. It's just a bigger sandbox. In the case of Keep on the Borderlands, the sandbox is much smaller, but still supports the building of whatever sort of sandcastles one wants to build within it, so to speak.
Quote from: Sigmund;481300Hey, now this we can talk about. I would not automatically assume those two things are different. A "closed" dungeon crawl can still be open-ended in it's own fashion if there is no set path the adventurers need to follow through the dungeon, or over-arching mission or plot the characters need to be involved in. Exploring the Underdark (or sections of it) can be very "sand box" it seems to me.
The megadungeon is an open-ended environment ripe for exploration. It's an
under-world, literally.
Quote from: Benoist;481301The megadungeon is an open-ended environment ripe for exploration. It's an under-world, literally.
Indeed.
Quote from: Sigmund;481302Indeed.
:)
This is kind of why there is a logic to the argument that you actually can't publish a complete megadungeon: because the underworld environment is, by its very nature, always expanding, and often in unexpected ways. The actual life of the megadungeon is so closely dependant on what actually happens at the game table and how that it is next to meaningless to want to provide an enormous labyrinth in print and pretend that is the whole of the megadungeon experience right there.
I would consider books and boxes like Rappan Athuk or the Castle of the Mad Archmage to be
game aids that provide a basic frame for you to play and expand into your own megadungeon from there, but they aren't
actual megadungeons themselves, in a sense.
Quote from: Benoist;481304:)
This is kind of why there is a logic to the argument that you actually can't publish a complete megadungeon:
I think you can if you approach it as a setting sourcebook rather than as a tournament style dungeon like Gygax's Upper works or the excellent Mad Archmage series.
Unfortunately the only megadungeon I used is Tegal Manor and I haven't done anything original in this area. So it little more than an idea at this point. But my gut feeling is that it is the right approach to publishing a mega dungeon.
Quote from: estar;481308I think you can if you approach it as a setting sourcebook rather than as a tournament style dungeon like Gygax's Upper works or the excellent Mad Archmage series.
Unfortunately the only megadungeon I used is Tegal Manor and I haven't done anything original in this area. So it little more than an idea at this point. But my gut feeling is that it is the right approach to publishing a mega dungeon.
You can do it that way for great results, I'm sure. The experience, the natural adaptability of the DM to run the thing and expand it, to make it his megadungeon, isn't provided though. That's what I meant. A sourcebook-style supplement can provide you the tips, advice, and tools to get there, but it won't be the experience itself. This is true of any adventure module to some extent, but especially in something like a megadungeon environment. There's something deeply personal about it. There's an investment and a shaping of the world happening through play that just doesn't happen to the same degree in a scripted adventure module.
To the point I was tempted to write something in my previous post to the extent of : "Castle Greyhawk has already been published in full: it's called the
Dungeon Master's Guide."
Quote from: Benoist;481310You can do it that way for great results, I'm sure. The experience, the natural adaptability of the DM to run the thing and expand it, to make it his megadungeon, isn't provided though. That's what I meant.
A sourcebook-style supplement can provide you the tips, advice, and tools to get there, but it won't be the experience itself. This is true of any adventure module to some extent, but especially in something like a megadungeon environment. There's something deeply personal about it. There's an investment and a shaping of the world happening through play that just doesn't happen to the same degree in a scripted adventure module.
To the point I was tempted to write something in my previous post to the extent of : "Castle Greyhawk has already been published in full: it's called the Dungeon Master's Guide."
I understand what you are getting at. It always been my opinion that anything done by people can be taught so that others can do it as well. (Using common sense in regards to individual talent)
The DMG is a great piece of writing but it is also very general (as it needed to be). I think that a more specific work focused on a particular site would be a value to referees.
All I know for sure at this point that a tournament style writeup of a mega dungeon is too long, and to hard to learn from as the details of hundreds of rooms overwhelm the reader.
I pretty sure such a megadungeon product would have dozen or specific area written up tournament style (think Kuntz's Bottle City), more general description of the other areas of the dungeon, good tools to generate content on the fly both at the table and in between sessions.
Plus a lot of the content, even the general advice, would be locale specific. So there would be value for different author to come up with their own version. Dwimmermount would be diffferent than Greyhawk, which would be different than the Mad Archmage Dungeon, and so on.
And all of this would be far more compact than a tournament style dungeon and fit easily into a 64 or 128 page book.
I am glad you responded as I think I may just hit on the way I am going to write up the Main Campaign Area for the Majestic Wilderlands.
Quote from: Sigmund;481300Hey, now this we can talk about. I would not automatically assume those two things are different.
Well for the purposes of planning a campaign, there is a fair bit of difference. I mean technically the laws of physics provide hard and fast limitations, thus creating a sandbox everywhere, but that's not what the definition means.
What a GM needs to do is decide whether he or she wants a tightly controlled campaign or a loose, open ended game. The first is pretty easy, you can create infinite amounts of dungeon levels with the big boys book of monster, trap, and layout random encounters and still have it within the walled garden.
The second is a lot harder. I'm working on some mechanics myself at the moment to create such an open ended campaign world. The difference is you need to keep track of groups and power players in the world, and much more difficult, their relationships to one another and the group. If it were software the problem would be trivial, this is the kind of thing computers excel at. Reducing it to something useable with pen, paper and dice, and more importantly
fun, thats the trick.
You need to be able to run it fast and easy and yet produce reasonable results, while tracking the interlocking relationships of possibly dozens of groups and how they interact with one another both on their own time and with the assistance of PCs. Do they affect nodes, encounters or pre planned events, and how? Do they create their own event nodes, as the PCs affect the world? What kind of events occur without PC interaction, and how do they affect the plans of the GM? What keystone events will have certain effects? Can this be generalised?
This to my mind is the holy grail of roleplaying games. If it can be achieved, the effects will be significant and far reaching.
Quote from: estar;481308I think you can if you approach it as a setting sourcebook rather than as a tournament style dungeon like Gygax's Upper works or the excellent Mad Archmage series.
Unfortunately the only megadungeon I used is Tegal Manor and I haven't done anything original in this area. So it little more than an idea at this point. But my gut feeling is that it is the right approach to publishing a mega dungeon.
I have a few I have created for my games. One or two might be publishable, despite my system.
Hmm.
Quote from: Benoist;481304This is kind of why there is a logic to the argument that you actually can't publish a complete megadungeon:
Not any sort of "logic" that's worth wasting any time on. Under such "logic" it's also impossible to print campaign settings and adventure modules. Similar "logic" would conclude that it's impossible to publish
Hamlet because it doesn't include the actors or the set.
It's also similar to when people say that a published adventure can't be a railroad because, after all, the published text can't FORCE the GM to railroad the players.
Quote from: The Traveller;481265Have they really? So why are there a half dozen different definitions wafting around the thread, most of which contradict each other?
Because idiots like you who don't know what they're talking about keep posting bullshit.
Everyone in this thread who has
actually run a sandbox campaign is using basically the same definition. One of those people is a guy who was on the team who first used the term in its modern sense in the roleplaying industry.
Not only are you ignorant. You are willfully ignorant. And attempting to use your own willful ignorance as proof that knowledge is impossible.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;481387Because idiots like you who don't know what they're talking about keep posting bullshit.
Everyone in this thread who has actually run a sandbox campaign is using basically the same definition. One of those people is a guy who was on the team who first used the term in its modern sense in the roleplaying industry.
Not only are you ignorant. You are willfully ignorant. And attempting to use your own willful ignorance as proof that knowledge is impossible.
Go git em tiger.
Quote from: LordVreeg;481378I have a few I have created for my games. One or two might be publishable, despite my system.
Hmm.
Sure, the general idea would be teach folks how to run your megadungeons , highlight special rooms/areas, etc. Not describe them room by room. It a small difference but one that make it feasible to publish and for another person to run it. And it may make it more marketable as it would be easier to cherry pick.
Come to think of it somebody kind of did this already, Vornheim. The book isn't a building by building description of the city but more about how the author ran it and all the tools he used. It isn't generic either as there are a lot of specific details about Vornheim itself.
Quote from: The Traveller;481292Might I suggest coining another phrase to describe these types of campaigns so? From what I can see there are two broad ideas on the definition - closed dungeon crawls and open ended campaigns. These are complete opposites, so maybe this could be an opportunity to disambiguate while putting your own permanent mark on industry terminology?
Well, along with the rest of the Wilderlands teams I already made a mark with coining Sandbox campaign.
As for closed dungeon crawls vs open end campaigns. I don't see them as the same things. The first is a type of locale, the latter is a type of campaign. My view is that locales can be used with any campaign style. You can run an adventure path with a dungeon crawl, or a sandbox campaign with a dungeon crawl.
A restrictive initial setup like every character is a member of the city guard can be a sandbox campaign. The difference is in who is driving the action, the players or the referee.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;481387Everyone in this thread who has actually run a sandbox campaign is using basically the same definition. One of those people is a guy who was on the team who first used the term in its modern sense in the roleplaying industry.
Two of those people. ;)
Otherwise, yeah.
Quote from: estar;481419As for closed dungeon crawls vs open end campaigns. I don't see them as the same things. The first is a type of locale, the latter is a type of campaign. My view is that locales can be used with any campaign style. You can run an adventure path with a dungeon crawl, or a sandbox campaign with a dungeon crawl.
Yeah that was used as an example of sufficient clarity that the intention couldn't be mistaken, an approach I'm finding of value in certain parts of the internet. It's not to literally say that sandboxes can only be dungeons.
Am I right in saying that you're one of the first people to use "sandbox" to mean "an open ended gaming experience"?
Quote from: The Traveller;481475Am I right in saying that you're one of the first people to use "sandbox" to mean "an open ended gaming experience"?
Yes but not the person who coined it. I don't know who did but I do remember reading my email that day and going "That the way to describe what we, the members of the Wilderlands team, did with the Wilderlands." Since then I used the term, to describe how I run my games.
It has become more refined over the years as myself and other learned what needed clarification and expansion. For example Lord Vreeg's World in Motion nicely describes what many of us do in the middle of a sandbox campaign to give it a sense that it is a living breathing place. Myself and the wilderlands team never really explained how to start a sandbox campaign and so started writing about the pre-game, the value of assumptions, so that players have some context in which to make their initial decisions.
So its like when someone tries to argue with me about the definition of Swine, or Lawncrappers?
RPGpundit
What do you guys think was the first sandbox module/campaign/setting in the industry ?
I would speculate RQ´Griffin Mountain (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2010/07/retrospective-griffin-mountain.html) (released in 1981), but Im not sure about it.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;481175(a) Your definition of sandbox is radically different from how everyone else in the world uses the term.
(b) Your definition of sandbox is functionally unplayable.
Ergo, it's a pretty worthless definition.
What I've seen is that anyone with any actual experience with a sandbox campaign has a pretty consistent and universal definition of the term.
It's people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about that tend to post nonsense definitions that don't make any sense.
Well no WoW is a sand box as are most MMOs.
I would agree that its an almost platonic state that you can't do without a computer simulated environment.
Now you can reduce the size of the sandbox to make those things increasingly easy to manage down to Traveller's example where the sandbox is a dungeon. Now in that dungeon you may have a true sandbox that a human can run.
I think most people that run sandbox games would admit that they cheat and that they alter timelines and make ad hoc decisions to make the game more enjoyable for the players, after all that is the GMs job. However, every time you do that, everytime you delay the emergence of Cthulu by a day or let the Seige of Aniqua run for another day you are altering the veracity of the sandbox environment. I think this is inevitable which is why I think that Rail-road to sandbox is a continum and all games are played somewhere in between the two extremes and how it is pitched is unto the Players and the GMs prefered style.
Quote from: silva;481833What do you guys think was the first sandbox module/campaign/setting in the industry ?
I would speculate RQ´Griffin Mountain (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2010/07/retrospective-griffin-mountain.html) (released in 1981), but Im not sure about it.
Wilderlands in '77. Although one could probably make a case for City-State of the Invincible Overlord as a city-based sandbox in, IIRC, '76.
I think there's really no debate that Wilderlands was the first real sandbox setting.
RPGPundit