Pathfinder 1E Sandboxes? Forked from Paizo reinvents hexcrawling

[Sammael]

Not from what I have seen. Why would one routinely choose a dungeon at random? Why (other than for solitaire play) would dungeons generated wholly at random predominate?

Seeing the question of your "old skool" definition as at best a red herring, I wonder on what basis you consider that randomness to characterize most AD&D adventures at any given period. It is certainly not the game I saw described in the books and magazines, although that included probabilistic features as part of the Dungeon Master's tool kit.

Not random, as in randomly generated (although the 1st edition AD&D DMG had a random dungeon generator, and I played under DMs who used it for non-solitaire play). Random in the sense of "oooh... we want to go against the slavers this week" (DM pulls a dungeon filled with slavers). Next week would be "oooh... did you say something about giants? Give us giants!" (DM pulls a dungeon filled with giants). And so on, and so forth. The plot was really thin, because most people simply wanted to go into progressively more interesting dungeons to kill progressively more difficult foes in order to gain progressively better loot.

 

[Ariosto]

The plot was really thin, because most people simply wanted to go into progressively more interesting dungeons to kill progressively more difficult foes in order to gain progressively better loot.

That is in the first place not random. It is a strategy.

It is in the second place (at least in my view) not the "sandbox" under discussion here, if it is just a string of "dungeon modules" without context. The context is the "sandbox". Just playing modules is just "playing modules", not especially different between 1979 and 2009.

At least in my circle, that would not even have been called a "campaign", but on the other hand it seems to be what is often called such today -- so there is no radical conflict in meanings to try to avoid with such a substitute term as "sandbox".

Finally, you have not revealed your source for this supposed information about "most people".

 

[catsclaw227]

There is no "game" in that area - at that point it drifts off into collaborative storytelling.

False. You can "drift off into collaborative storytelling" all you like, with any amount of dice-tossing, but the contention that role-playing necessarily is "no game", it is to laugh!

I think what he meant by there being no "game" in that area (and how I understood his comment) was that there weren't any rules supporting what to do once you had your stronghold. The stronghold was simply a purchase from a list of items (once you had your gold and received your rules-allowed followers.)

Here's his full quote, with the "game" sentence put back into context:

In 1e, followers were a class feature, not a goal. Strongholds were a list of structure prices in the DMG. There's noting about incorporating your new stronghold into the existing politics of the game world, and there was nothing about how adventurers should do governance of populations, rise in the national power hierarchy - nothing telling you what you had do or could do with the thing once you had it. There is no "game" in that area - at that point it drifts off into collaborative storytelling.

I don't think he's saying that anything beyond getting a stronghold is just collaborative storytelling, just the part on how you "game" the fact you have a stronghold now.

I haven't seen any rules for how your new stronghold fits into the politics of the campaign, or how adventurers should handle their villagers and local population, or how to manage a rise in local or national power hierarchy, then I must have missed them in all the years of playing 1e. If they exist, then I stand corrected.

 

[catsclaw227]

Not random, as in randomly generated (although the 1st edition AD&D DMG had a random dungeon generator, and I played under DMs who used it for non-solitaire play). Random in the sense of "oooh... we want to go against the slavers this week" (DM pulls a dungeon filled with slavers). Next week would be "oooh... did you say something about giants? Give us giants!" (DM pulls a dungeon filled with giants). And so on, and so forth. The plot was really thin, because most people simply wanted to go into progressively more interesting dungeons to kill progressively more difficult foes in order to gain progressively better loot.

I had two different DMs during the early 80's that ran their games just like this. I even did it in the beginning when I was learning.

Even later, at university, when we wanted to get our game on, but I didn't have any of my old campaign world materials, I did this, but without the ooooohhhhs and aaaaahhhhs.

Tomb of Horrors, for example, wasn't a place on our campaign map. It was a dungeon we ran with PCs we built just for the adventure. I remember, just after running the Slaver's series (A1-4), I was looking at Ghost Tower of Inverness, eyeing the levels and saying to myself "This looks good to run before we do White Plume Mountain."

 

[Sammael]

Finally, you have not revealed your source for this supposed information about "most people".

Most people I gamed with, or discussed older editions of D&D with. I thought that it was implied that each and every one of us can only talk about their own experiences, and not universal cosmic truths?

So, riddle me this: a world filled with dungeons, which players can visit at their own pace and leisure, and choose to explore in any order, is, in your opinion, not a sandbox? The GM is not trying to force anything here; let's assume there's nothing in the world other than dungeons and villages where PCs can sell loot.

Of course, they can then decide to build a dungeon of their own (could be fun). Or start a chain of shops that buy loot from other adventurers. Or try to discover why all these random dungeons exist. Or, ultimately, try to leave the world, because a world filled with dungeons is not to their liking.

Sounds sandboxy to me.

 

[S'mon]

I haven't seen any rules for how your new stronghold fits into the politics of the campaign, or how adventurers should handle their villagers and local population

There are several relevant essays in the 1e DMG. In particular the one on handling your population is titled 'Peasants, Serfs & Slaves' AIR, and focuses on the likelihood of peasant uprisings against your tyrannical rule.

 

[Ariosto]

I haven't seen any rules for how your new stronghold fits into the politics of the campaign, or how adventurers should handle their villagers and local population, or how to manage a rise in local or national power hierarchy, then I must have missed them in all the years of playing 1e. If they exist, then I stand corrected.

If one really can do nothing at all in the game without being led through it step-by-step in a handbook, then one might have trouble just getting one's character out of bed.

"Imagination, intelligence, problem solving ability, and memory are all continuously exercised by participants in the game". (PHB, "The Game")

Not everyone is necessarily ready for Advanced D&D, even simply as a text that assumes some prior grounding in the game.

[edit] Yes, Gygax claimed that "it will stand alone", but I think that can hardly be more true than that the DMG "has been written and edited in order to make the whole as easily understood as possible without taking anything away from its complexity and completeness."

At any rate, not everything that is potentially part of the game could get detailed treatment in the essential books. A great many subjects of interest to particular people got covered in magazine articles and other publications.

It was not the purpose of the text to set "the politics" of anyone's, much less everyone's campaign. See DMG pp. 88-89, "Social Class and Rank in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" and "Town and City Social Structure".

It was not the purpose of the text to tell you how you as a player "should" do anything, beyond the general advice in the PHB ("Successful Adventures", pp. 107-109). Read, e.g., Machiavelli's The Prince, if you want advice on such matters.

The books set out defaults for:
territory development by player characters
monthly revenue per capita from trade, taxation and tithes (PHB, by character class)
employment of hirelings, from carpenters to spies
ships and sieges
disease
personae of non-player characters
morale and loyalty
encounter reactions (oddly or not, in the "Combat" section)

... and a lot of other things.

 

[Ariosto]

So, riddle me this: a world filled with dungeons ...

You said nothing about a world.

Thus, the condition

if it is just a string of "dungeon modules" without context

 

[catsclaw227]

If one really can do nothing at all in the game without being led through it step-by-step in a handbook, then one might have trouble just getting one's character out of bed.

Oh come one.... you know that is NOT what I implied. You are a smart guy, I am pretty sure you know what I am trying to say.

I don't think anyone said or implied that the players and PCs would be bedridden if they didn't know how to handle situations that weren't described in the book.

Can we not play a game of semantics and lawyers here? I don't want to do that dance.

"Imagination, intelligence, problem solving ability, and memory are all continuously exercised by participants in the game".

Not everyone is necessarily ready for Advanced D&D, even simply as a text that assumes some prior grounding in the game.

It was not the purpose of the text to set "the politics" of anyone's, much less everyone's campaign. See DMG pp. 88-89, "Social Class and Rank in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" and "Town and City Social Structure".

It was not the purpose of the text to tell you how you as a player "should" do anything, beyond the general advice in the PHB ("Successful Adventures", pp. 107-109). Read, e.g., Machiavelli's The Prince, if you want advice on such matters.

I never said that it WAS the "purpose of the text". I was clarifying what I thought Umbran meant with his statement. It appeared to me like you took it out of context without the rest of his paragraph.

A relatively smart or experienced DM or player could figure these out, maybe with some difficulty if they were trying to emulate Medieval Europe, maybe not. I am not debating that.

But most people I knew played their first games of D&D from the 1e AD&D PHB/DMG/MM. Heck, there wasn't even a BECMI when I learned how to play, and initially, I didn't know of another RPG other than Advanced D&D. This was also the case of my fellow gamers in 1979 and 1980.

But if someone wanted to build a stronghold and then manage his demesne, it seems logical that he would turn to the DMG or PHB to show him how to do it in mechanical terms, am I right? If the information isn't the books, then it is just winged by the player and the DM, therefore really just collaborative storytelling, because there aren't rules or mechanics managing these things. How else would you describe it?

I wasn't implying, inferring, or stating anything else.

 

[Ariosto]

But if someone wanted to build a stronghold and then manage his demesne, it seems logical that he would turn to the DMG or PHB to show him how to do it in mechanical terms, am I right?

Only if someone were unclear on some utterly fundamental things besides "the DMG is for DMs".

"I want to manage a rise in local or national power hierarchy" is just too vague and abstract for anything but a vague and abstract game. Try Risus, maybe. "I've got 4 dice in my Richard J. Daley cliché!"

In AD&D, it's like managing any other campaign. First, you inform yourself by engaging the game world via your character. Then, you form a plan of action and -- again, by engaging the game world via your character -- carry it out.