Pathfinder 1E Sandboxes? Forked from Paizo reinvents hexcrawling

[The Shaman]

. . . [W]hen a discussion heads into sandbox territory, there's often a preachy vibe to the discussion. Sometimes this is benevolent "I'm really excited about this and want to share it" but it's not at all infrequent that it turns into BadWrongFunVille.

You've said this several times now.

Could you show me two examples of what you mean?

 

[Umbran]

Umbran, are you being deliberately comic?

Insofar as I find it funny that what folks got metaphorically beaten over the head and shoulders for suggesting a little while ago is now supposed to be acceptable practice, yes. I think it's pretty hilarious.

 

[robconley]

Well, the thread has become somewhat tiresome to try and maintain on course, so I'm going to let it go its own way at this point. But before I do, I'll offer up some observations. Probably just so they can be picked apart and criticized, but oh well.

Some observations of my own.
After Necromancer Games released the Wilderlands of High Fantasy boxed set was released the various authors, including myself, began to explain what the product was, and how they used it. Sandbox campaigning turned out to be the best term to package up what we were talking about and it stuck. No idea who came up with it specifically.
My own particular interest in the sandbox campaigns is developing the numbered hex map pioneered by Judges Guild and used in the Wilderlands Boxed Set. I feel it is a compact way of presenting a setting that is ready to run out of the box. Part of the reason behind my two Points of Light was to give an affordable example of format that didn’t involve shelling out $70 (the price of the boxed set).

My main pieces of advice to anybody wanting to run a sandbox campaign are

1) Things don’t happen in a background, unless there a special reason people for miles around are going to know there is a dragon lair on Grimbolt Mountain. They may not know exactly where it is but the fact there a dragon in the general area is going to be obvious. This the same for a variety of locales with dangerous creatures. Most however will have to be discovered by the PCs actively looking for rumors.

2) Plot can occur in a sandbox campaign and it is best implemented as a series of events written as if PCs didn’t exist. Consider this as a plan that will change once the PC get involved. They also may not want to be involved so plan for that.

3) The most effective use of a sandbox campaign comes when the character have a background that ties them into a region, culture, religion, or organization. This gives the player a context in which to start making decisions about what direction they want to pursue. I find this works best when limited to a page and developed from a private session between the referee and players talking back and forth.

Much of the details on this can be seen in my posts on my Bat in the Attic at Bat in the Attic

 

[Raven Crowking]

Insofar as I find it funny that what folks got metaphorically beaten over the head and shoulders for suggesting a little while ago is now supposed to be acceptable practice, yes. I think it's pretty hilarious.

Either I don't know what you are talking about, or you don't, and I can't be bothered to figure out which. But there is a really gaping disconnect here. I guess it will remain a mystery.

 

[Desdichado]

You've said this several times now.

Could you show me two examples of what you mean?

Yes, I have. Because I've seen that many times in discussions online about sandboxes.

However, those discussions are widely scattered across many venues and at least a couple of years of realtime. And I don't have the search function here, for those discussions that have happened here. Even if I did, it would be unreasonable to expect me to spend a lot of time trawling through the internet to provide a few examples for you. There wasn't a recent one that set me off or anything, it's just an idea that's been percolating in my mind.

I'm not sure why you (and Ariosto) are so insistent that I turn out examples. I'm not going to. You'll just have to accept that I've noticed that subtext in a lot of discussions about playstyle, and have confirmed it with other folks I've talked to and take it or leave it as is..

 

[Beginning of the End]

Maybe. I was talking about campaign design. In a matrix or linear campaign, the campaign can have an inbuilt tendency to build towards a climax. In an open campaign, the design does not, except inasmuch as the rules themselves include stuff like maximum level, territory development, or divine ascension; the progression comes from the players. I'd think we could agree on that.

I'm not really seeing a dichotomy here. While I suppose it's hypothetically possible to create a world where nothing relates to anything else, it doesn't seem particularly likely or effective. Insofar as that is true, therefore, all sandbox campaigns will possess "matrices". The only thing that varies is the depth, complexity, or number of those "matrices".

I think it depends on your goals with the campaign. If you want something that will feel like Lord of the Rings - or Dragonlance - then the sandbox approach is unlikely to give you it.

I'd disagree. All you need is a sandbox stocked with the appropriate elements and PCs willing to rise to the challenge. (And if they don't rise to the challenge? Then it's a different campaign.)

Totally agree. 100%. I think Sandboxing and Linear are simply two tools in the box, not really antagonistic approaches that must be adhered to.

Sandboxing is an innately non-linear tool. It's what happens when non-linear design is applied to scenario selection. Linear design is innately antagonistic to the sandbox.

Which isn't to say that blended approaches aren't possible: It's a continuum, not an on-off switch. But it is a trade-off not a co-habitation.

When your description of a "charitably characterized sandbox" focuses at least as much on elements that aren't unique to sandboxes, then I have to wonder why there's such an impetus to label such a game a sandbox, exactly.

That doesn't seem particularly surprising to me. There are a lot more things that go into a roleplaying gaming than linear or non-linear scenario design, and it would be really strange if all of those other elements should be completely dissimilar.

What you're saying is that there's no difference between baseball and football because the people playing them: (a) Use their hands and feet; (b) benefit from eye-hand coordination; (c) throw a ball around; and (d) are likely to be wearing uniforms when engaging in organized play.

I'm almost religious about making sure my players have enough environmental feedback to have several meaningful choices with regards to direction in which the campaign can go (...) there's also a very strong element, to me, of "this is the game the GM brought to the table tonight. Are you going to engage it, or insist on doing your own thing the detriment of the session and the group overall?"

What you're describing is not a sandbox. What you're describing is a forked path. The PCs are being given options, but their choices are limited to what the GM has put on the menu.

Nothing wrong with that. But it's not a sandbox.

Not a game I'd like to run or be a part of. Not even experimentally. That much chaos would make my head explode.

I think this is a relatively key crux: If you look at a description of player-directed action and see nothing but chaos, then a sandbox campaign isn't going to make sense to you. If you feel that the only way for a campaign to have structure or form or purpose is for the GM to supply it, then a sandbox campaign is essentially incomprehensible to you.

 

[Ariosto]

In 1e, followers were a class feature, not a goal.

That "class feature" depended on attaining an experience level, which in in turn depended on getting treasure. Treasure was also key to acquiring and maintaining henchmen, and a stronghold, and hirelings to staff the stronghold.

Thus, the common immediate goal of getting treasure facilitated the long-term goal of becoming a Baron, if one chose it.

In the original game, only clerics got followers.

Anyone could at any time have a stronghold, but establishing a new demesne cut from wilderness cleared of monsters was the way to get income from villages.

 

[The Shaman]

I'm not sure why you (and Ariosto) are so insistent that I turn out examples.

Because I'd like to understand what you're talking about. I'd like to see an example of what you find so offensive.

I'm not going to. You'll just have to accept that I've noticed that subtext in a lot of discussions about playstyle, and have confirmed it with other folks I've talked to and take it or leave it as is..

Funny, when Barastrondo made a similar claim in another thread, I asked him to come up with examples of fans of sandbox-style play calling 'badwrongfun' on other playstyles, and he couldn't, or wouldn't, either.

 

[Desdichado]

That doesn't seem particularly surprising to me. There are a lot more things that go into a roleplaying gaming than linear or non-linear scenario design, and it would be really strange if all of those other elements should be completely dissimilar.

I'm not surprised by it either, I'm merely objecting to the use of elements that are not specific to sandboxes to, in fact, define sandboxes.

As I've said before, conflating a sandbox with merely a reasonably well run game means that sandbox as a term has no usefulness whatsoever.

What you're saying is that there's no difference between baseball and football because the people playing them: (a) Use their hands and feet; (b) benefit from eye-hand coordination; (c) throw a ball around; and (d) are likely to be wearing uniforms when engaging in organized play.

No, I don't buy that analogy one bit. What I'm saying is not nearly so generic as what your analagous comparison is.

What you're describing is not a sandbox. What you're describing is a forked path. The PCs are being given options, but their choices are limited to what the GM has put on the menu.

Nothing wrong with that. But it's not a sandbox.

I'm struggling a bit with that too, and maybe you're also mischaracterizing me a bit. Even in a sandbox the players knowledge of what options there are to pursue is surely limited by how much the GM is able to communicate to them, right? Does a sandbox game cease to be a sandbox if the players decide to follow up on the very first thing that the GM describes? That seems to be what you're saying. You also seem to be saying that if my players tell me, "Y'know what, Mr. Hobo, none of those options sounds like something my character would like to do. How about I just attempt to kill the king and take his stuff, instead of check out all these potential adventure opportunities that he's describing to me?" then my answer would have to be "No, you have to pick one of these options." I can assure you, that's not true. If the PCs want to do something else, I can accomodate them. But they're picking from the options that I'm presenting them.

 

[Desdichado]

Because I'd like to understand what you're talking about. I'd like to see an example of what you find so offensive.

Funny, when Barastrondo made a similar claim in another thread, I asked him to come up with examples of fans of sandbox-style play calling 'badwrongfun' on other playstyles, and he couldn't, or wouldn't, either.

To be honest with you, the only thing about this that I find "offensive" is this "find me some specific examples, complete with links, or I'll assume that you're actually lying" vibe.