Do you run or play in a Sandbox or Linear game

[ExploderWizard]

Also, I think that running a module as a site in a sandbox game, still makes that a sandbox game. So just because you are running an AP does not necessarily mean that it is not a sandbox game.

To an extent yes. My current campaign is using a module for the beginning area of the campaign. Adventure elements from the module are also being used but the players are not limited to these. At any time they can decide to cease activities in the area and seek thier fortunes elsewhere. There is a difference between a module and an AP. A module contains content that can be used or ignored. An AP assumes A then B then C, etc. You can certainly use material from an AP in a sandbox game but if the players are not following the "path" then it becomes more like a module than an AP.

 

[Sadrik]

Interesting that is 40 sandbox to 40 linear. I would have expected much more linear.

 

[Ariosto]

Meh. There's no such thing as a real sandbox game. Consider its supposed properties:

- The PCs can go anywhere they want to, with no predetermined plot.
- For all the locations that the PCs never visit, life goes on, consequences happen.

The problem with these two things is that they're all but impossible to implement in a tabletop RPG.

What is your source for this definition? "There's no such thing as a real sandbox game" does not seem a sound basis, when it is very clear that the reason people started using the term in the first place was in order to talk about real games. What this really looks like is a straw man, a rhetorical attempt to take someone else's language and misrepresent someone else's position -- and perhaps it managed to trick you.

Common sense suggests to me that if it cannot really exist, then it is in fact not what people have been talking about.

In particular, I have never, ever encountered the second claim. There is no game necessity for running some kind of simulation-model of every acre and creature in the world. As you observe,

Even computer games don't usually do a good job of that.

Where computer games really fall down is in accommodating unanticipated things. Any option is closed unless it is somehow incorporated into the program ahead of time.

That is the great advantage of human moderation! A Game Master possesses a vast knowledge base from real-life experience, and the ability quickly to extrapolate from known facts via the power of imagination.

 

[Snoweel]

Common sense suggests to me that if it cannot really exist, then it is in fact not what people have been talking about.

Not true.

Things can exist in theory that don't exist IRL. It happens all the time.

The idea that an absolute sandbox doesn't exist just means that those claiming to run a sandbox are in fact running their game as close to the ideal of a sandbox as possible.

Whereas those not claiming to run a sandbox (or claiming to not run a sandbox) almost certainly still have sandbox elements in their games to varying degrees, since not even the most railroady adventure completely does away with player choice.

Meaning whether or not a game is a sandbox comes down to DM intent; it is entirely subjective.

 

[Ariosto]

Snoweel: Yes, it is true. I assume that was just carelessness on your part, a confusion of the actual statement you claim to refute with one that you would like to refute.

The evidence upon which this common sense works is that I first encountered the usage as meaning what "D&D campaign" formerly meant. That usage most definitely referred to real games, and the reason for the term's introduction was eminently sensible: "D&D campaign" no longer has that common referent (which is a matter not only of my first-hand experience but of copious historical record).

Where I have seen really bizarre definitions, they have come from people bitterly opposed to that kind of game. A couple of posters here seem to specialize in telling other people what we "must" think, how we "must" play, what our games "must" lack, and so on. They refuse to give any credence to what we have to say for ourselves, taking an attitude of, "What are you going to believe? Me or your own eyes?"

I will most definitely believe my own eyes, and will take with a grain of salt repetitions of lines clearly meant to be traducing.

 

[Snoweel]

Snoweel: Yes, it is true. I assume that was just carelessness on your part, a confusion of the actual statement you claim to refute with one that you would like to refute.

The evidence upon which this common sense works is that I first encountered the usage as meaning what "D&D campaign" formerly meant. That usage most definitely referred to real games, and the reason for the term's introduction was eminently sensible: "D&D campaign" no longer has that common referent (which is a matter not only of my first-hand experience but of copious historical record).

Where I have seen really bizarre definitions, they have come from people bitterly opposed to that kind of game. A couple of posters here seem to specialize in telling other people what we "must" think, how we "must" play, what our games "must" lack, and so on. They refuse to give any credence to what we have to say for ourselves, taking an attitude of, "What are you going to believe? Me or your own eyes?"

I will most definitely believe my own eyes, and will take with a grain of salt repetitions of lines clearly meant to be traducing.

What has this got to do with anything I wrote?

And if it doesn't, why reference me in your post? You haven't refuted my point; you haven't even addressed it.

 

[Ariosto]

Snoweel, that was a precise reply to what you wrote. You wrote "Not true" in response to my statement, "Common sense suggests to me that if it cannot really exist, then it is in fact not what people have been talking about."

First of all, you are simply and obviously in no position to call me a liar on that point. I most definitely know my own mind, and you most definitely are not privy to my thoughts. It is an elementary matter of identity.

Secondly, I went on to relate some facts informing my common-sense assessment.

Thirdly, not only am I certain of the matter in cases (and but one would suffice) that prove false any such sweeping assertion concerning everyone -- but I have absolutely no evidence that anyone at all "claiming to run a sandbox are in fact running their game as close to the ideal of a sandbox as possible."

The ONLY sources I have seen proposing such an ideal do so in order to knock it down. That's like letting "conservatives" and "liberals" define each other's ideologies however is convenient for bashing. It is no way to get a true picture of the traditions actually informing thoughtful people.

 

[Imaginary Number]

I voted for "mostly linear" because I think that's the way my players perceive what we do, but like many of the posters above I didn't think the choice was an easy one. Typically when we start a campaign I have a discussion with the players about what sort of characters they want to have and what sort of stuff they want to do. I then sketch out an area on a map with one or two potential home bases and some adventure hooks designed to appeal to the characters, and I try to let them choose among the hooks I've presented to do what they want. That seems pretty "sandbox-y." However, because I am a human with a limited amount of time, I need to make some judgments in advance about what I think the players will do and prepare accordingly. For example, even if the characters hear both about the Caves of Chaos and the Dungeon of Doom at the beginning of the campaign, I may have decided for whatever reason that the players are more likely to want to go to the Caves of Chaos and have planned lots of encounters there while having only a vague idea of what's going on at the Dungeon of Doom because I think that they won't want to go there until later. My players know this and (here's the rub) they also know that everyone at the table (including me) has more fun if we play through adventures that I've planned in advance. I like to think that I'm reasonably good at improvising, and indeed some of the memorable moments for our group involve things I worked out on the fly, but the fact of the matter is that its generally more rewarding for my players (and me) to have encounters that I've thought through in advance and to receive magic items and loot with a cool backstory rather than to have me come up with those things off the top of my head. My players therefore have an incentive to seek cues from me for what I have prepared for any given session, and I'm almost always happy to give those cues to them. That seem more "linear-y" in that my judgment and expectations as a practical matter bound the players' meaningful choices of action. So I think my game is a hybrid, and I think that's also what most other DMs are doing.

 

[Ariosto]

Rookie GMs should stick with linear ...

That's just the opposite of the old conventional wisdom, in which DMs were advised to start with dungeons and wilderness. The problem with a linear scenario is that it so easily gets out of line. Events A, B, and C are prerequisites for D, E and F ... and players have a disconcerting tendency to come up with surprises that blow up the best-laid DM plans. It takes some skill to construct (or just to run) a plot-line scenario and keep it on track, and challenging, and not too heavy-handed.

 

[Snoweel]

Snoweel, that was a precise reply to what you wrote. You wrote "Not true" in response to my statement, "Common sense suggests to me that if it cannot really exist, then it is in fact not what people have been talking about."

First of all, you are simply and obviously in no position to call me a liar on that point. I most definitely know my own mind, and you most definitely are not privy to my thoughts. It is an elementary matter of identity.

I'm not calling you a liar; I am saying you are wrong. There's quite a difference and in fact, while you can claim to be the sole authority on the former, you can't with the latter.

Secondly, I went on to relate some facts informing my common-sense assessment.

'Common-sense' is an unhelpful term. It implies ignorance of the underpinning assumptions and groupthink-type reinforcement of ideas that are fervently held exempt from closer scrutiny.

Thirdly, not only am I certain of the matter in cases (and but one would suffice) that prove false any such sweeping assertion concerning everyone -- but I have absolutely no evidence that anyone at all "claiming to run a sandbox are in fact running their game as close to the ideal of a sandbox as possible."

We have four threads active full of evidence supporting the simple premise that - if it is possible to divide campaigns into the absolute categories of 'sandbox' and 'not sandbox' - then one or the other of these must be a theoretical absolute. They cannot both be absolutes because there are more than two types of campaign; every game is unique.

The only alternative is an abitrary line that is drawn between them, but nobody has yet been able to agree on that line, or put forward a convincing case as to why they should be the sole arbiter.

The ONLY sources I have seen proposing such an ideal do so in order to knock it down.

I was told yesterday that my own game was a sandbox, despite me running the WotC published AP (post 39 of this thread). So if my game is a sandbox, and I don't care either way ("A turd by any other name is still a turd") then is 'not sandbox' even possible? Maybe 'not sandbox' is the theoretical absolute? In which case everybody claiming to run a sandbox is right and I admit I was wrong.

But I don't think 'not sandbox' is an absolute, possible only in theory, because I have seen too many posters question whether somebody else's alleged sandbox actually is a sandbox.

That's like letting "conservatives" and "liberals" define each other's ideologies however is convenient for bashing. It is no way to get a true picture of the traditions actually informing thoughtful people.

Well of course only stupid people would disagree with you.