When a sandbox is not a sandbox

[The Shaman]

Are you going to respond to all of my posts now to tell everyone you don't play the same way I do? I think we realize that at this point.

When you reply immediately after me, using a term I used but in a completely different way from how I'm using it, then I'm going to make clear that what you're talking about is nowhere near what I'm talking about.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In my opinion, a sandbox should change in response to what the adventurers do, not what the players believe.

But it does give the players a lot of power though, doesn't it?

 

[The Shaman]

But it does give the players a lot of power though, doesn't it?

Absoutely, and as it should be, in my opinion.

 

[Fifth Element]

In my opinion, a sandbox should change in response to what the adventurers do, not what the players believe.

Typically a trivial distinction, since players generally do things based on what they believe.

 

[Fifth Element]

But it does give the players a lot of power though, doesn't it?

Nothing wrong with that. That's why I'll change plans based on what the players are doing or saying; hopefully it will make it more interesting for them.

 

[KidSnide]

In my opinion, a sandbox should change in response to what the adventurers do, not what the players believe.

Typically a trivial distinction, since players generally do things based on what they believe.

I don't think this is an entirely trivial distinction. When I'm playing in a game where I think the GM adopts PC ideas, I'll sometimes shoot off an entertaining sounding idea to see if I can convince the GM to make that the reality of the world. That doesn't work in Shaman's game. (I'd like to think that Shaman would be entertained - it just won't change the in-game "reality".)

Now, "solving" a mystery by positing an entertaining possible truth is a really fun game. In my experience, it's often more fun that actually solving the mystery (at least for mysteries of typical RPG quality). But, let's be clear, it's not the same thing as solving the mystery.

-SS

 

[Fifth Element]

I don't think this is an entirely trivial distinction.

Not entirely, no. But close enough for make-believe.

Now, "solving" a mystery by positing an entertaining possible truth is a really fun game. In my experience, it's often more fun that actually solving the mystery (at least for mysteries of typical RPG quality). But, let's be clear, it's not the same thing as solving the mystery.

That's related to the interesting philosophical thingy mentioned earlier. Since we're dealing with a make-believe world, things aren't "real" until the DM tells the players that they are.

When does the world's reality become set? Say the DM had a plan for the solution for the mystery when doing his session prep, but then thought of a better one on the drive over to the session, so he changes it. Is that different from changing the plan when hearing a better idea from a player? I don't think there's any practical difference.

 

[Mark]

Not entirely, no. But close enough for make-believe.

Not at all. Test balloons launched by players to weedle info from the DM and to avoid committing to actions fall flat in games I run unless the consequences are so obvious that they probably need not even ask. Doing something and believing something are very different indeed.

 

[KidSnide]

That's related to the interesting philosophical thingy mentioned earlier. Since we're dealing with a make-believe world, things aren't "real" until the DM tells the players that they are.

When does the world's reality become set? Say the DM had a plan for the solution for the mystery when doing his session prep, but then thought of a better one on the drive over to the session, so he changes it. Is that different from changing the plan when hearing a better idea from a player? I don't think there's any practical difference.

It's different because the way the players interact with the game is different. It doesn't matter when the GM makes an encounter up so long as it doesn't affect how the players interact with it. Going down a hole and finding an orc plays the same whether the GM planned it a year ago or made it up on the front porch.

If the GM changes the reality of the world based on player out of game action, then you've created a new game -- one in which the players have a new set of out-of-game actions (that notably aren't saying what their characters do) that they can use to influence the game world. As I said, this game is also fun, but it's certainly different.

-KS

 

[Fifth Element]

Not at all. Test balloons launched by players to weedle info from the DM and to avoid committing to actions fall flat in games I run unless the consequences are so obvious that they probably need not even ask. Doing something and believing something are very different indeed.

Fair enough - I wasn't considering things said by players designed to be picked up by the DM.