Pathfinder 1E Sandboxes? Forked from Paizo reinvents hexcrawling

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This doesn't quite make sense to me.

Isn't that how RPGs work, not just sandboxes?

In a Sandbox the PCs can choose to not take any of the hooks presented, and just go off road.
In a Story-driven game, the PCs can choose to not take any of the hooks presented, and just go off road.

If the players don't bite the hook, I was under the impression it's bad form to make them follow it.

In either situation the DM can say "Well I don't have anything prepared, so see you guys next week" or the DM can wing it, regardless of whether it's a Sandbox or not.

My main point of contrast is the adventure path. That is essentially a story-driven game. Everything ties into one story. Sure, the players can chooce not to follow it. But then they are no longer playing the adventure path.

In a sandbox, that's not the case. There are multiple "stories" going on - each hook, each element in the sandbox is its own story. It might be linked to others, but might also not be.

Let's make it a Lego difference:
- On the one hand, you have the Lego Star Destroyer. Countless of Lego pieces, all to be used to create one giant Star Destroyer.
- On the other hand, you have several Lego parts from countless of Lego sets - trains, castles, houses, space ships.

If you want a Star Destroyer, the first set is awesome, and the second set might not allow you to build one, or at least not one of that size and with that level of detail. But, maybe you rather want to build a city and a castle? Maybe you use some fo the city parts to build a larger space ship.
You will probably be able to use the Star Destroyer for that, too, but there might be a few useless pieces, or the colors don't match your expectations (why is everything in this city gray?).

 

[S'mon]

Thing is, the book as written is just a means of saving a DM from creating his own sandbox. A clever DM can engage the PC's by having stuff happen - kobolds raiding a caravan, dragon seen flying over the city, guilds vying for power.

Just because the setting is described doesn't mean that the DM has to keep it like that. Indeed, any good DM will be fudging, tinkering and finding ways to make the sandbox come alive with stories and possibilities.

I agree - I just have an issue with Umbran's description of the goal of sandbox play as a kind of world-simulator where stuff happens without PC activity. That does not fit any published sandbox I've seen and it doesn't bear much resemblance to any I've run. There are sim-games, they tend to be more like Birthright - PC as dominion ruler, so the player still has meaningful agency.

 

[Rechan]

My main point of contrast is the adventure path. That is essentially a story-driven game. Everything ties into one story. Sure, the players can chooce not to follow it. But then they are no longer playing the adventure path.

In a sandbox, that's not the case. There are multiple "stories" going on - each hook, each element in the sandbox is its own story. It might be linked to others, but might also not be.

Yeah, but if the PCs just choose to leave the sandbox entirely - the entire area the DM has fleshed out - that's different how? They're no longer on the pre-set sandbox.

Either way, they all have stories and the PCs can ditch them.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm going to assume that Railroad (in this context) = Plot.

I'm not certain that that's a good assumption.

If that's the case, then I'm saying that a sandbox is nothing more than a web of railroads. The PCs just see a lot of trains and choose which one to get on.

If I were to use your analogy, then I'd describe my games as the PCs driving a rogue locomotive all over the wilderness. If there are any tracks at all, then I'm laying them just a few minutes before the locomotive charges over them by trying to keep an eye on which direction its headed.

Then again, I'm not sure your analogy really fits. Railroad means that there's one plot, and one way to roll out the plot, and the train only makes stops at specific predetermined points. Sandbox means that theres no plot, and player characters just wander all over the landscape interacting with elements of it as they please.

Which is why I think most people and most games fall somewhere on the spectrum between them. Few people would really look at the literal endpoint and be happy with it, I'd bet.

In a Railroad game, the PCs can get off the train. But then the GM has to scramble to drop new trains in front of the PCs.

In a railroad game, by definition, you can't get off the tracks without the game ending.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yeah, but if the PCs just choose to leave the sandbox entirely - the entire area the DM has fleshed out - that's different how? They're no longer on the pre-set sandbox.

Either way, they all have stories and the PCs can ditch them.

I can only do so much to try to explain the differences. Fundamentally, yes, you can always go entirely "off" any rails in an RPG and do something that the DM is just not prepared for.

But there is a difference between comitting to a 15 to 30-level storyline and between selecting one of several short-term storylines.

There is also a different perspective for the DM. He really doesn't know what the players will do in 10 levels. he doesn't know the end game will be against Tiamat or Orcus or some such. That can be both refreshing and more challenging for the DM. But it also means different reactions - if you expect the end to be about the PCs fighting Tiamat, the DM will do more things to lead the PCs into that direction. The players will accept more "railroading" and be more willing to overlook stuff that is against their charaters typical motivation just for the sake of the adventure. They don't have to, sure, but they tend to.

But if not even the DM knows what's going to happen in 3 levels, this changes. He can listen more to the players and adapt the scenarios. He canc reate new ones.

Of course that isn't the idea of a "static" nor a "simulated" world. But as I said - I wouldn't use simulationism as the important term here. Because it constraints what a sandbox probably will be. Maybe then the term sandbox is used not "pure" enough for you or others, but then we'll probably need a new term. There is no little point in descriptions if they don't describe anything real, but there is a lot of point to finding descriptions for something that people do and experience.

 

[Celebrim]

I agree - I just have an issue with Umbran's description of the goal of sandbox play as a kind of world-simulator where stuff happens without PC activity.

I don't agree with that as a description of the goals of sandbox play either, though on the other hand I'm not actually clear on whether that is an accurate description of Umbran's point.

I will say that most sandbox DM's have as a guideline in their world creation, that, if you were in fact to flip a simulation switch and let the world run in simulation mode without player input that the world you created would 'make sense' and be self-perpetuating. That is, the DM of a sandbox game tends to assume that in a well created world monsters in the dungeon wouldn't starve for lack of food, all the high level NPC's wouldn't die off faster than new ones would be made/trained, ecosystems wouldn't collapse do to unsustainable ratios of predators to prey, towns actually have sufficient industry to economically support their populations, the various enduring factions in the game space are reasonably able to defend themselves from competing factions, and so forth.

But while most DM's building sandbox games assume this and I myself would try to make my sandbox world have these simulationist characteristics, I wouldn't necessarily suggest that internally consistant simulation of this sort is an inherent aspect of all styles of play that we could call 'sandboxish' or even that this aspect is the critically important goal in sandbox world creation. Personally, I think that the key aspect of sandbox style play is the willingness of the DM to improvise and shift the focus of his world building away from his preconcieved notions of what is important in response to player 'narrative' choices. That doesn't necessarily have to happen in a way that creates an internally consistant and independent world. For example, a 'infinite branching dungeon' which the DM is generating on the fly based on player choices is a form of sandbox play (and probably the oldest form) even if it means ancient red dragons in sealed 40'x40' rooms with 10' wide exits. Sandbox play is really more about not saying 'no' and not putting arbitrary barriers to player choice than it is making a world that can run by itself. You could say that the essential feature of a sandbox world is that all (or almost all) the walls in the dungeon, both real and metaphorical, are flagged 'DESTROYABLE' in a way thats really impossible for a cRPG or even an adventure path.

Of course, where this gets really confusing is that in GNS theory, 'simulationist' doesn't mean 'realistic' in the way I've been using it to this point in this post. Technically, in GNS a game is simulationist if the primary aspect of play is exploration of the imagined space, irregardless of whether that space is realistic or internally consistant. So under GNS theory, most if not all sandbox play is 'simulationist' even if it doesn't meet the standard of being 'an internally consistant world'.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm going to assume that Railroad (in this context) = Plot.

If that's the case, then I'm saying that a sandbox is nothing more than a web of railroads. The PCs just see a lot of trains and choose which one to get on.

In a Railroad game, the PCs can get off the train. But then the GM has to scramble to drop new trains in front of the PCs.

When speaking of plot it is important to distinguish between plot, and THE plot. In a sandbox environment, plots can all be traced to an entity of some sort in the campaign world. These plots will only involve the PC's to the degree of knowledge the plotting entity has about them. As the PC's take action, the plots and plans of these entities will naturally factor in the PC's over time.

THE plot is a grand plan for what the DM wants to happen in the campaign and these events directly involve (if not depend on) the actions of the PC's. If the DM has decided that a given event will happen, and that event directly involves the PC's then it is probably part of THE plot.

So a sandbox laden with various plots does not have to be a web of railroads unless a strand followed becomes THE plot.

 

[Umbran]

I agree - I just have an issue with Umbran's description of the goal of sandbox play as a kind of world-simulator where stuff happens without PC activity.

I made no such description of "the goal". What you say here does not represent my meaning in the slightest.

I said a sandbox can be used for simulation (and is particularly suited for it, even) if such were your goal.

I reject the notion that styles and modes of play have goals - they aren't sentient, they have no desires. People have goals. Play styles are tools that may be used to try to reach those goals. Most tools are semi-specialized, such that they are better at helping you reach some goals than others. But many tools are useful for reaching multiple goals.

 

[Umbran]

As many could rightly point out, the basic idea of the sandbox is an old one, and arguably, in many respects, the first format and playstyle associated with the genre. For many years, however, it's been "conventional wisdom" that some element of "sandbox" is fun, but that a "pure" sandbox is merely an endpoint on a spectrum of playstyles. A theoretical end point that no game could (or should) actually attempt to emulate.

I think that's a fair assessment.

Lately, however, I see an awful lot of people toss out "sandbox" as if it were the Holy Grail of gaming. I'm trying to understand where this view came from, why it's become so suddenly very popular and ubiquitous on the internet, and... well, whatever else is going on with the idea of the sandbox.

I would guess that those who are speaking as you've seen are not talking about the actual endpoint. As you say, the endpoint is not a practical play style. Consider, instead, that they're talking about games that seem, to them, to be close enough to the endpoint - a region of the spectrum that's towards one end.

Why has it become suddenly popular and ubiquitous? I would guess you are seeing one of the basic dynamics of fandom. In general, once something reaches a certain level of visibility (which seems correlated to, but not the same as, popularity) the thing will develop some fans. And fans will talk a thing to death.

This is not entirely a bad thing. All that talk can surface some useful stuff for analysis.

Sandbox play is by no means new, but I think the language and discussion frameworks that allow people to readily engage in collaborative analysis are relatively new.

I also wouldn't be surprised if the edition wars are a bit to blame - they have led folks into thinking about gaming more in terms of dividing things up into sides. 3e/4e -> New/Old school -> Sandbox/Railroad.

 

[Rechan]

Railroad means that there's one plot, and one way to roll out the plot, and the train only makes stops at specific predetermined points.
Sandbox means that theres no plot, and player characters just wander all over the landscape interacting with elements of it as they please.

I have trouble believing either of those distinctions. BEcause they are so radically off the reservation in what I understand.

Because with the first, if the PCs just say "No, Mr Mysterious guy in the tavern, we aren't interested", or they attack that guy because they think he's suspicious, then the game's over, everyone pack up your dice, the plot is gone.

Meanwhile, the other - I don't even understand how something can have "no plot" and be a game. So it's just a series of 'here be monster lair, enter and kill monster'? The PCs stumble across a cult who are doing something. THAT IS A PLOT. Something is happening. They can choose to ignore the cultists and keep on truckin', but those cultists are DOING something, and the PCs, deciding tog do something about it, that is a plot. I mean, in a Sandbox game there are missions everywhere, but those missions ARE MISSIONS, implying therefore, plot.

If ther'es no plot, and it's just the PCs wandering everywhere, not only is everything therefore in stasis, everything the PCs interact with has no motivation beyond just interacting with the PCs. The way you're describing it, it sounds just like sight seeing.

I have no clue what is going on in sandbox sessions, because after people get to "You go where you want", it all sounds like the description of Seinfeld - "It's a game about nothing!"

I don't think these definitions are realistic to how people play RPGs. Either the terms need to be better defined, or it's like saying "There's two flavors of ice cream: Vanilla, which is only ice cream harvested by blind virgin nuns who churn the icecream by hand and ship it by pigeons to your grocery store, or Chocolate, which is only ice cream harvested from cocoa plants in southwestern Brazil and churned by monkeys and delivered by a guy named Fred". The definitions are so narrow and extreme that the terms lose any real practical meaning in usage.

If the choice is "15-30 level Plot vs. Sight Seeing Tour Where Nothing Happens" and "everything in between", that's... just not helping the discussion at all.