Pathfinder 1E Sandboxes? Forked from Paizo reinvents hexcrawling

[Umbran]

What you seem to be talking about, re: Sandboxes, is a lack of information required to set goals.

What I am talking about, re: linear games, is a lack of information required to determine what the goal the GM set is.

While that seems a theoretical possibility, I don't recall ever seeing it in any of the linear games I've played. You see, that's kind of the point of the linear game, the raison d'etre of the railroad - getting the characters to go from point A to point B. Either they know what the goal is, or they don't need to know it, as they'll be carried along to it regardless. If they fumble away from the goal, the GM pushes them back towards it.

That pushing seems to me to be the major complaint against the linear style. I don't see it credible that we now have to worry about the linear games that don't push the players to the goal.

It would not seem unreasonable to me to say that the major point of linear play is to remove the need for player strategic choices, so that they may focus on the tactical ones.

 

[Ariosto]

The fact is, I doubt very much that you can prove that is a "fact."

Or in other words, cite?

Cite what? I claim no more than what should be obvious, so if you do not see it then the problem is that you mean something different by "requires players to be entrepreneurs" than what I mean -- and so mean something different by "sandbox" than anything I have ever encountered except perhaps as a straw man.

My question is, was, and probably yet shall be: why the sudden high visibility of sandboxes?

Cite?

A correllary to that could be why do the sandboxers continue to put forward the implied--if not explicitly stated--notion that a sandbox approach is the best approach and the default "mode" of D&D, or even roleplaying as a whole, when clearly there are vast swaths of groups out there for whom the approach would fall completely flat?

Cite?
The citations for "default mode" of D&D are chiefly the handbooks themselves, and magazine articles in which the designers discussed their game. That is a matter of historical record. It is the original context for a lot of things that some people have characterized as "bad" about the design because they want it to be a different game.

Now, of course, there are D&Ds that are different games. It may be that someone somewhere thinks that "sandbox" is the "best" approach for 4e, but I have not encountered such an opinion. Obviously, neither have I seen the view that it is "best for role-playing as a whole" -- only your claim that "the sandboxers" put it forward.

It's just that a sandbox approach isn't a one-size-fits-all approach to gaming. For certain groups, it's a terrible approach. For others, it's a great approach.

Please, show us where people are actually calling it a one-size-fits-all approach to gaming.

 

[The Shaman]

There's a huge difference, because one concerns the behavior of the characters... namely, your example of being assassins, pit fighters, etc., while the other concerns the behavior of the players.

I think a player who can say, "I hit the demon with my axe!" can also say, ""I'll go searching for a demon so I can hit it with my axe!"

You don't need to be Tony Robbins.

I don't think so. I support a more passive cause and effect relationship there, i.e., modules that had a bit more of a "story" framework became more prevalent because people liked them and they sold well. The idea that gamers were conditioned by modules, especially in an environment that's famous (or perhaps infamous, depending on whom you ask, I suppose) for its do-it-yourself attitude seems to be a case of the tail wagging the dog rather than the other way around.

I'll tell you what I remember: many of the people who were publishing adventure modules for roleplaying games were also trying to publish novels, and their literary pretensions leaked in; a few of them actually succeeded, and the gaming publishers with fiction divisions saw the advantages of connecting the dots between novels and adventures.

The 'do-it-yourself' attitude of early gaming was replaced by games with multiple published settings and scores of adventures tied to the publishers' fiction divisions. This was the environment in which most gamers after about 1985 or so learned about roleplaying games.

But let me ask you a question. When it becomes obvious that the campaign is winding down, either because everyone's losing interest, eyeing some other game, setting or character concept, do you just stop? Or do you try to end the game on a high note by wrapping stuff up? Of does that never happen, and you're actually still just playing the same campaign taht you started, I dunno, years and years ago?

Every game I've played has ended not because of anything in the campaign, but because the players could no longer play regularly: going away to college, moving, starting new jobs, or other real-life, out-of-game issues.

I think you're misunderstanding my campaign running style. There aren't any lines attached to mine either, except as I make them up, usually completely on the fly, once the hooks are bitten into. That's just commonly used vocabulary, not meant to be a fully robust analogy with fishing.

It's commonly used vocabulary because of the prevalence of story-driven adventures in the hobby, Hobo.

 

[Raven Crowking]

While that seems a theoretical possibility, I don't recall ever seeing it in any of the linear games I've played.

I have.

And others have never seen it re: sandboxes, at least to any problematic degree.


RC

 

[WizarDru]

I highly recommend reading the entire blog.

That's rather interesting stuff, there. I like the thought he put into the dungeon concept and the 'the further you go, the more dangerous it gets' combined with 'hotspots'.

I'm not sure how well this would work in one of my games, but I could see it being a lot of fun with the right group.

 

[Ariosto]

Sammael, I think the problem is partly in your choice of the word "extremes" and the phrase "completely homogeneous in their desires and capabilities". Neither to my mind applies to getting together for any game that comes to my mind, with any people I know. Neither is anybody with whom I am inclined to socialize going to force anyone to play any game.

It would not seem unreasonable to me to say that the major point of linear play is to remove the need for player strategic choices, so that they may focus on the tactical ones.

Yes, I think that is very much to the point. Too much filler in between the scenarios wherein the real game (in that model) lies can be a waste of time. In wargame terms, do we want to play a whole "what if" campaign, or do we just want to get right down to the battles?

 

[Reynard]

My question is, was, and probably yet shall be: why the sudden high visibility of sandboxes?

I think it is likely a backlash to the "AP centric" gamestyle of the last few years, in the same way that the "story driven" settings and adventures dominated the late 80s and early 90s as a response to years of dungeon crawling. The pendulum swings...

A correllary to that could be why do the sandboxers continue to put forward the implied--if not explicitly stated--notion that a sandbox approach is the best approach and the default "mode" of D&D, or even roleplaying as a whole, when clearly there are vast swaths of groups out there for whom the approach would fall completely flat?

Because gamers -- especially gamers active online -- tend to be opinionated and vocal. They also tend to believe that what they like is a better way, and what others like is an inferior way, and the more diametrically opposed to their preferences, the more inferior. This isn't to dig on gamers: I am one and have the same tendencies (though i do try and be thoughtful and articulate when not full of beer). Gaming is a form of fandom, and fandom breeds... incivility at times.

 

[Desdichado]

Cite what? I claim no more than what should be obvious, so if you do not see it then the problem is that you mean something different by "requires players to be entrepreneurs" than what I mean -- and so mean something different by "sandbox" than anything I have ever encountered except perhaps as a straw man.

It's obvious to you, because that's already the way you think. The fact that you think that anything that seems obvious to you must, of necessity, be objectively obvious is a big part of the reason why I struggle to have any kind of meaningful conversation with you.

Of course, there's also the fact that:

Cite?

Cite?

You ask me twice in a row to cite my own original post and follow-up posts in this thread.

This is really one of those times where I regret that the rolleyes smilie was removed from the ENWorld roster, because sometimes there just aren't words.

The citations for "default mode" of D&D are chiefly the handbooks themselves, and magazine articles in which the designers discussed their game. That is a matter of historical record. It is the original context for a lot of things that some people have characterized as "bad" about the design because they want it to be a different game.

I know that you really, really want to refer back to your OD&D texts in this debate, but I don't know how to be more clear that they're completely beside the point.

D&D is just a ruleset. If there is advice and I emphasize that it is just advice, on playstyle, who really cares? Each group uses the rules for the game that they enjoy. This thread has always been a game about individual playstyle preferences, not something that you can find in a rulebook.

Although I do find it ironic that since the spirit of OD&D is one of "do it yourself" and fill in the blanks how you want, that you'd keep trying to refer back to the rulebooks as if they're some kind of sacred text. Way to miss the forest for the trees.

Now, of course, there are D&Ds that are different games. It may be that someone somewhere thinks that "sandbox" is the "best" approach for 4e, but I have not encountered such an opinion. Obviously, neither have I seen the view that it is "best for role-playing as a whole" -- only your claim that "the sandboxers" put it forward.

Please, show us where people are actually calling it a one-size-fits-all approach to gaming.

To a very real degree, each individual game is its own game. Even two games of OD&D with the same group of players, using the exact same characters, and the exact same subsets of rules could be dramatically different games. And yes, one could be a sandbox and one could be a railroad.

As for your last request, perhaps you're struggling with the concept of "I seem to perceive a subtext across multiple discussion across multiple venues." Of course I'm not going to give you specific links. If you don't see that same subtext, then you've already said so: move along already.

 

[Desdichado]

I think a player who can say, "I hit the demon with my axe!" can also say, ""I'll go searching for a demon so I can hit it with my axe!"

You don't need to be Tony Robbins.

That's a facile comparison, though. Saying, "I'll go searching for a demon so I can hit it with my axe!" isn't very likely in any game I've ever heard of, to actually find you a demon to hit with your axe.

I'll tell you what I remember: many of the people who were publishing adventure modules for roleplaying games were also trying to publish novels, and their literary pretensions leaked in; a few of them actually succeeded, and the gaming publishers with fiction divisions saw the advantages of connecting the dots between novels and adventures.

The 'do-it-yourself' attitude of early gaming was replaced by games with multiple published settings and scores of adventures tied to the publishers' fiction divisions. This was the environment in which most gamers after about 1985 or so learned about roleplaying games.

I remember that too. I started playing D&D before then. I still would't call the classic pre-"Hickson Revolution" modules exactly sandboxes either.

Plus, you're still demonstrating an "if TSR built it, then people came" attitude that I don't think tracks well with the reality in the marketplace. Those modules sold really, really darn well. That's why TSR started making more and more and more of them.

Every game I've played has ended not because of anything in the campaign, but because the players could no longer play regularly: going away to college, moving, starting new jobs, or other real-life, out-of-game issues.

That's beside the point. It doesn't matter why it ended, the question is, what do you do when you see a game ending in sight?

It's commonly used vocabulary because of the prevalence of story-driven adventures in the hobby, Hobo.

Also beside the point. In any case, I wasn't trying to argue with you about terminology (there's been plenty enough ridiculous arguing about pedantic nitpicky details in this thread, as opposed to actual useful discussion), just to clarify how things operate in my game.

 

[Ariosto]

It's obvious to you, because that's already the way you think.

I believe the problem really is that we are talking about different things. I am talking about, for example
Chess
Checkers
Stratego
Go
Othello
Mancala
Backgammon
Parcheesi
Risk
Axis & Allies
Scrabble
Connect Four
UpWords

All of those effectively confront a player with, "It's your move! What will you do?" It is up to the player to form a strategy, or else to wander in short-sighted reaction or randomness.

D&D is just a ruleset.

So? It is in fact the answer to your question, just as H.G. Wells's Little Wars is the answer to the question of why people aver that the "default mode" of playing LW involves a curtain, and a particular model of toy cannon, and does not involve dice.

This thread has always been a game about individual playstyle preferences, not something that you can find in a rulebook.

That's an interesting statement, all considered.

Although I do find it ironic that since the spirit of OD&D is one of "do it yourself" and fill in the blanks how you want, that you'd keep trying to refer back to the rulebooks as if they're some kind of sacred text.

It is not ironic, because it is nothing more than your hyperbole. At any rate, one might wonder by what "medium" you know what "the spirit of OD&D is".