Melan,
Context, theme and complexity are created not outside of, but through play. The central entity is probably not the "game world" but the campaign; that is, the collected consequences and collective memories of the gaming that has taken place.
A "sandbox" computer game is a bad model for understanding a "sandbox" tabletop campaign because the computer can only give you what it was previously told it can do and you can only give it back what the user interface allows you (hint: it allows you very little). There is exchange but there is no growth, no added value. You can change things in the world but you can't really shape/co-build it. When you stand up from the screen, you haven't accomplished anything lasting.
The dilemma of sandboxing is, do the players want a creative process where they contribute a lot to the direction of the game (note, this isn't "co-DMing" in the way indie style games are), or do they prefer a more passive form of entertainment where they don't have to do that (not a value judgement)?
The sandbox campaign is, in many ways, the purest form of what I'm looking for because it allows for any choice without artificially negating any of them.
Hi Melan,
Thinking about your concept of 'sandbox' games vs. Hobo's, it does seem to me that's you're talking about two different things. So I thought about your two different spectrums, so to speak--yours between a game driven by the GM's overall plan vs. a game driven by player choices, and his between a totally open field of exploration and a railroad--and I stuck those two axes on top of one another, and this is what I came up with:
GM DRIVEN AND
NARROWED OPEN CAMPAIGN
(GOOD 'TRADITIONAL' GAME)
OPEN CAMPAIGN THAT STAYS CLOSED CAMPAIGN
OPEN AND NEVER REACTS (RAILROAD)
(BAD 'SANDBOX' GAME)
PLAYER DRIVEN AND
NARROWED OPEN CAMPAIGN
(GOOD 'SANDBOX' GAME)
On the right we have a railroad, a campaign in which everything that happens is prescribed by the GM and the player's can't ever make meaningful choices. The campaign does develop and change, but only according to the GM's plan.
On the left we have the opposite, a campaign that is extremely open and allows the players to go anywhere on the map, but in which the world doesn't really change or react to the players' choices. The players can't really create their own story because the world doesn't react to them; they can't really pursue their goals or get invested in a particular place or NPC. The players can explore the world freely and make lots of big choices, but as the campaign world doesn't really develop or react or change, the choices are relatively meaningless. This is Hobo's idea of a true sandbox: a theoretical extreme that is not desirable and in which the players' choices are just as meaningless as in a railroad. This is also probably the tabletop equivalent of a sandbox computer RPG. It is a game in which your first quote above is reversed: the focus is the "game world," not the "campaign."
On the top we have a good 'traditional' campaign. The DM is the one who ultimately drives the story, but he gives the players plenty of meaningful choices and perhaps works some of their personal character goals into the overall story. The game world is open at the start and in theory, but later and in practice it is narrowed when the GM focuses it on a particular location or plot.
On the bottom we have your idea of a 'good sandbox,' Melan. Once again the game world is open at the start and in theory, and once again it is narrowed later and in pratice. But now it's the players who narrow it by focusing the campaign on a particular NPC or location using their characters' goals. Now it's the players who initiate the story, and it's the GM who does most of the reacting.
Anyway, I thought I was terribly clever in coming up with that diamond-shaped two-axis thing. Do you think it has any meaning?
EDIT: *sigh* How do I keep my formatting so I can make my pretty diamond-shaped figure?
