Why is it a bad thing to optimise?

[pemerton]

I think the term "sandbox" has muddied the waters with reactions from elitism to derision and varied meanings across that sceptrum. A sandbox at its core should be a setting with events that the players react to. Do we agree? If so, then what would you call a campaign that starts in a Paizo AP setting and the initial events of the AP unfold? My players react to the events and decide how they will deal with them. They are not forced to follow any path and may in fact decide to go raise sheep instead. Yet they choose to follow the cause of adventure and often follow a path quite similar to what the AP's author anticipated. AP are often derided for their "railroadish" nature. So which is it really?

<snip>

I think our games would all run very similarly and the only differences we are arriving at are disputes of language.

To be honest, I don't know if our games would run similarly or not.

I know, for example, that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has posted in the past that when he wants to run a game that is driven by player engagement with thematic material, he doesn't use D&D. Whereas that is how my D&D game plays. Which makes me think that Hussar's D&D games are at least somewhat different from mine. (Some of this came out on the recent Is D&D About Combat? thread.)

You say that your game is based around an adventure path, which the players choose to follow rather than "going to raise sheep" instead. As I understand it, an adventure path has a more-or-less predetermined villain, and a more-or-less predetermined series of scenes that the PCs will proceed through before confronting that villain. When the players choose to engage the adventure path, as best I understand it, they are choosing to pick up on hooks that the module authors have built into the path. They follow the module author's leads as far as importance and theme are concerned.

If my understanding of adventure path play is correct, this is quite different from how I run my game. My game is based on framing situations that engage the players in virtue of the details (backstory, previous actions, thematic concerns that they express, etc) of the players' PCs. The key thematic ideas of the campaign are emergent from play, not settled in advance.

And I'm pretty confident that [MENTION=26473]The Shaman[/MENTION]'s game plays diffferently again. He uses a combination of detailed setting notes and random tables that "encode" the setting and genre to support his players engaging in genre-reflective exploration of and engagement with early modern France.

I agree that some sandboxers talk in elitist terms, as if the only alternative to a sandbox is a railroad. I don't agree with that at all. But I'm hesitant to therefore conclue that our games are all very similar. The distribution of situational and plot authority across players and GM, and the mechanical and other tools used to achieve this and build on it, make a difference. That is why (for example) playing classic AD&D is a different experience to playing Dragonlance, or playing Burning Wheel!

EDIT:

The DM is and has always been know to have certain controls over what happens in the game world.

It makes a huge difference to play, though, what sort of control the GM has.

For example, is the GM obliged to respect the players' decisions about resource use? About PC backstory? About thematic significance? Contrast the rules text on these issues found in (say) The Burning Wheel with the text on these issues found in (say) 2nd ed AD&D. Or whether or not a game even supports the notion of "sidequest" (AD&D 2nd ed does; BW doesn't).

To just lump this all under "GM control" is to elide all the differences that are in play in the range of mainstream approaches to playing and GMing an RPG.

 

[Kobold Boots]

That doesn't sound "sandboxy" to me.

In a sandbox setting, players explore the world. They don't create it.

In my experience, opinion, mileage, and all that.

Explaining why it is sandbox would require me to:

1. Define sandbox for the purposes of my post, which will result in another thread in this post with a dictionary definition and at least three more telling me why my definition doesn't suit someone else's definition. Not worth it.

2. Elaborate on my process, which would require a lengthy post and attachments that I don't have on my laptop at the moment, taking this thread further off topic. Not necessary.

I'll try something simple instead:

It's sandbox because my players are exploring their likes and dislikes as a unit before they start playing together. They're helping with the frame of the box and are thus outside the box.

 

[S'mon]

Yes, absolutely.

Why is that on the Mountain Random Encounter Table? Why are the PC's IN the mountains in the first place?

The mountains? Those are setting. That's where the action takes place. Several tons of falling rocks slamming in the party, killing their horses, sweeping them off the cliff face, forcing them to get lost - how is that not plot?

So to you, anything that happens in the game is 'plot'? I think you have a very broad definition of the word.

To me, a plot would be pre-scripted stuff like "Lady Marcombe will murder the Earl of Dulwich in the Tea Room". Random encounter with orcs or landslides is not plot, even if it TPKs the PCs.

 

[S'mon]

I have to agree with others. I think we're crossing hairs with the terms "setting" and "story." I think we'd find that our styles of play are much more similar than it seems in this discussion. You make it sound like you plop down the setting map in front of your players and ask "Now what do you do?" I'm sure you don't actually do that. I'm sure you present your players with events occurring around them and then ask "Now what do you do?"

Yes, that's right - I'll typically have a bunch of stuff happening and see how the PCs react. I like to have more than one idea of how a campaign could go, as well as relatively unforeseen events such as PCs TPK'd, PCs murder employer, PCs join with bad guys etc. My current Loudwater game feels like a kind of branching path setup, it's interesting looking at some of the paths the PCs have not taken.

In more sandboxy stuff (eg Lost City of Barakus, Vault of Larin Karr) I will have a keyed map with lots of stuff on it & expect a pro-active approach to exploration, perhaps with a default campaign goal.

 

[S'mon]

I think I didn't elaborate enough and you misunderstood me. I'm not saying a DM should tailor around precise abilities of the PCs necessarily. You should use whatever method you wish to set the DCs of specific tasks. You could have predetermined in your setting that deciphering that particular ancient script was a DC 30 task. When the time comes and you decide to use that script and you see that the best Arcana in the group is +10, then you should be aware that there is a 95% chance the characters will fail and be at least mentally prepared for common courses of action they may consider taking at that point.

Why do I need to be mentally prepared for failure? Failure has the same result as no-attempt. The only thing I might want to prepare here is the content of the script, should they succeed in deciphering it.

I do tend to be pretty good at winging stuff - better than I am at running published adventures, maybe - so maybe preparation is less necessary for me to worry about; I don't know.

 

[S'mon]

I really don't see the need to cloud the issue when plot is a perfectly serviceable word here.

I think it's a highly obfuscatory word here.

When I plot, I intend that events will unfold according to my desire. Guy Fawkes plotted to blow up Parliament.

 

[Hussar]

So to you, anything that happens in the game is 'plot'? I think you have a very broad definition of the word.

To me, a plot would be pre-scripted stuff like "Lady Marcombe will murder the Earl of Dulwich in the Tea Room". Random encounter with orcs or landslides is not plot, even if it TPKs the PCs.

Again, how is this not plot? Plot=events or situations (to use Pemerton's term). The keyed encounters in a dungeon are plot. The random encounter table is also plot. These are events that occur during the game that must be resolved.

I think you're conflating plot with scripted. Plots do not need to be scripted.

I think it's a highly obfuscatory word here.

When I plot, I intend that events will unfold according to my desire. Guy Fawkes plotted to blow up Parliament.

Now this is just plain wrong. You've changed from using plot as a noun, which it's been clear all the way along that by Vyvyan Basterd and myself have been using it as a noun to using it as a verb, which has a different meaning.

However, even using your definition, unless your game is a string of completely unrelated random encounters, you have events that will unfold according to your desire. Any adventure or scenario will chain events together in a (hopefully) logical fashion. The DM (generally) will determine what follows next.

The PC's survive the rockslide but do not have their mule or supplies. The DM now presents the situation of trying to cross the mountains without their climbing gear. What do the PC's do?

That, right there, is still plot.

It's most certainly not setting.

 

[S'mon]

Again, how is this not plot? Plot=events or situations (to use Pemerton's term). The keyed encounters in a dungeon are plot. The random encounter table is also plot. These are events that occur during the game that must be resolved.

Presumably you'd agree that events in the real world are not plot?

Presumably though you'd say that whatever happens in a computer game of Neverwinter Nights is plot. Then, what happens in a game of Nethack is plot, because somebody inputted the algorithmns to randomly generate the dungeons?

Then, is what happens in a game of Space Invaders plot? In that case, a game of (real life) tennis must be plot?

I think your definition of 'plot' as 'stuff happening in the game' is worthless.

 

[Hussar]

Just adding a thought.

Looking at the responses, this is what I mean by plot being a bad four letter word. I have no idea why. I mean, "Evolving setting"? Really? Just step up and say plot. It's exactly what you mean. Event A occurs. For whatever reason, could be DM framed, could be player driven, could be randomly generated, doesn't matter. Event B chains off of Event A because none of us play in a purely abstract game where consequence has no meaning.

Event B might be linear, it might not. Depends on the campaign and what, exactly, Event A was. But, Event B will be tied to Event A.

And, since we're talking about a series of events in a fictional construct, that's plot.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Just adding a thought.

Looking at the responses, this is what I mean by plot being a bad four letter word. I have no idea why. I mean, "Evolving setting"? Really? Just step up and say plot. It's exactly what you mean.

It's really not what I mean at all. Don't say what I mean when you're wrong, please.

As always, play what you like