Plots in a Sandbox

[Ariosto]

Ariosto's most recent post where he carefully scoffs at another poster's definition of the term 'sandbox'

There was no such post. There was no such definition -- the absence of which is precisely upon what I remarked.

I'm compelled to find out where the line is drawn between 'sandbox' and 'not sandbox'

That is just what I was wondering, because different people seemed to mean quite different, and even vigorously opposed, things.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I will disagree that loading such that they cannot ever stop everything is integral to making choices meaningful. The existence of other plots can alter or enhance the meaning of a choice, but is not required.

You are allowed to disagree, of course.

If the group chooses to stop Evil Plot #17, that choice is meaningful in and of itself, whether plots #1-16 exist or not.

"Meaningful" is always subjective. IMHO, it is not. YMMV.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

What I tend to dislike is the player having no intel and ending up in the lair of the 20th level bad guy when he's first level.

How many instances make up this tendency? It is utterly unprecedented in my experience, and certainly not suggested in any D&D set of my acquaintance.

 

[Ariosto]

I prefer to have small dungeons so the players are not locked up in them for a while.

Might it be simpler just not to lock up your players?

 

[Ariosto]

Turns out it was an adventure that we were about 8 levels below where we needed to be to have a chance at survival, but we had no information indicating this might be the case.

You Might Be Out of Your League (in Old D&D) If You're 3rd Level And:

There's a magic-user animating dead, conjuring elementals, teleporting, or casting death spell, disintegrate, globe of invulnerability, etc..

There's a cleric plane shifting, imposing quests, raising the dead, summoning an insect plague or flame strike, parting water, etc..

There's a fighter beating 10 normal soldiers at once, repeatedly.

There's a demon (type I through VI), a very old or ancient dragon, a 12-headed pyro-hydra, a purple worm, a vampire, etc..

"A word to the wise is not necessary."

 

[LostSoul]

Ariosto, I value your input, but stop being a douche.

Engage other posters in honest conversation; stop with the lame one-liner replies and with the "well, in old D&D" crap. That doesn't add to the conversation, because we're not trying to compare systems here at all!

I want to know how a DM makes judgement calls for certain goals of play. That's all. Leave the posturing at home.

 

[Ariosto]

Is it "bad form" in a sandbox to set things up so that there is a point where there are too many things going on in the game world for the PCs to deal with all of them, forcing the PCs to pick and choose to deal with one of them, resulting in "bad things" happening somewhere else no matter what?

I don't see how.

Is it really "bad form" to have always more "bad things" to kill/ take their stuff/ head off at the pass/ get into moral quandaries over/ get angsty about/ whatever?

Just the opposite, resolved the Lords of Demonland Goldry and Spitfire, Juss and Brandoch Daha.

 

[Ariosto]

"well, in old D&D" crap.

Oh? I'm just recognizing that the particulars of what "eight levels" means might be different in another game.

What's curious is that it should be so different that players can't tell the difference by any method other than Russian Roulette.

 

[The Shaman]

Is it "bad form" in a sandbox to set things up so that there is a point where there are too many things going on in the game world for the PCs to deal with all of them, forcing the PCs to pick and choose to deal with one of them, resulting in "bad things" happening somewhere else no matter what?

. . . wait for it . . . wait for it . . .

Now that I write it out like that, I think the answer is clear: obviously not.

Satori.

You just don't want to make the bad things "OMG im pwning ur wrldz".

Well, you can, if you and your players don't mind living with the consequences of the adventurers failing completely. A front-row seat for the apocalypse certainly offers some intriguing gaming possibilities.

However, I think it's possible to have all sorts of interesting intrigues and adventures that don't involve epic events.

 

[Umbran]

"Meaningful" is always subjective. IMHO, it is not. YMMV.

Fair enough. There's always a weakness in specific hypotheticals, so I won't posit one. However, as a more broad statement: I'm coming from the standpoint that the choice to take risk upon yourself for the sake of the good of another is meaningful. Similarly, the choice to not take that risk is also meaningful.