Pathfinder 1E Sandboxes? Forked from Paizo reinvents hexcrawling

[Coldwyn]

I´m a bit torn re: Sandboxes.

Sure, I´d like to experience free roaming, plot hook hunting and exploring.
OTOH I like to take part in an epic story with a developed plot, ties to the campaign background and so on.

 

[Ariosto]

As soon as the game moves from the 'open' model ("Here's the world. What are you going to do?") to the closed environment ("Whoopee! Into the dungeon!") it tends to enter a linear phase. ... I always treated dungeons like mental down time.

For my druthers, a linear dungeon had better be something special. If I'm going to take on a merely ordinary linear scenario, then I want at least less claustrophobic scenery. Also, I see the dungeon as the place to find a higher frequency of puzzles, traps and tricks. Different DM/player preferences need take no account of "ideals" (which seem to me bizarre things in which to dress personal tastes even in fantasy games).

One thing I like about an open game, right down to having a lot of options at most points in a single session, is that as players we can go for a pacing and range of activities that suits us. We can make our own lines if we want lines.

If that doesn't work for other folks, then let them use whatever does suit them.

 

[Beginning of the End]

So, what exactly do you get out of the game?

Entertainment.

I enjoy seeing the unexpected at my gaming table. It is precisely this form of entertainment that RPGs can uniquely supply. (The only thing even remotely like it is improv theater; and that form is severely limited in practice.)

In fact, I think the game you described needs no GM at all.

I certainly need a GM to get what I want out of an RPG. When I play an RPG I want to roleplay: I want to assume the role of a character and make choices as if I was that character.

I don't mind storytelling games, but those types of dissociated mechanics don't scratch the same itch for me. I need someone to provide the game world. But, at the same time, I don't someone taking away my meaningful choices.

I'm really confused. Feel free to label me dense. My groups include several PhDs, and, believe me, when presented with a sandbox, those guys literally freeze.

The question is: "What does your character want?"

If they can't answer it without having you hold their hands, then you're right: A sandbox isn't for them.

Of course, I'm a little confused how these players can simultaneously (a) have no ability to create their own agendas and yet (b) be completely dysfunctional because they all have different agendas and can't cooperate to accomplish their mutual goals.

I'll admit that if you really have a group of players that exists in some sort of quantum uncertainty between "herd of cats" and "helplessly comatose", then a sandbox sounds like a really bad idea. You should steer well clear of it.

 

[Sammael]

I really think we have a rather serious communication issue here. I.e. either I fail at communicating, or you are intentionally not understanding me.

The players can create agendas for their characters. They just don't know how to pursue them unless presented with clear options or choices which relate to those agendas.

And please, for the last time, stop putting words in my mouth. I don't take away meaningful choices. I don't take away any choices. I provide some choices, and players can feel free to add their own choices and go for them. Sometimes, they do. They just, as a rule, don't do it all the time, and, if left without any obvious choices, they tend to spend their games ruining each other's time with pointless bickering. Most groups I've gamed with or heard about are exactly the same.

I guess my sample of players must be aberrant, since your position seems to be that my group of players are some sort of freaks of nature. Curiously enough, I only introduced about 1/3 of them to role-playing, so I guess it's not my fault they all turned out that way. Please send me replacement players, I'll pay you when they arrive.

 

[Coldwyn]

Sammael and Umbran are having a point here. Players take points from rules and find ways to incorporate and use them. It´s not like the rules dictate the options and they need to be taken by the hand, but they are a much needed framework from which to formulate a strategy.
It´s been said before, but without rules for castles, why build one? Without rules for political maneuvers, why try them? If the game would lack rules for overland travel, why do it? Btw, "rules" and "guidelines" are interchangeable in the above statements.
So, now don´t answers with some 1E or Gygax-DMG stuff because that´s no answer at all.

 

[Ariosto]

I´m a bit torn re: Sandboxes.

Sure, I´d like to experience free roaming, plot hook hunting and exploring.
OTOH I like to take part in an epic story with a developed plot, ties to the campaign background and so on.

One can make an epic story. The kind of temperament I think best suited to a "sandbox" is one that finds it more satisfying to see that come about as a surprising development. Someone who thrills to the vulnerability of beginning characters in some games, the dramatic turns of fortune sometimes hanging on a single dice roll, the challenge to tilt the odds with cunning, the feeling when after failures one at last succeeds -- there's a prime candidate.

Ties to the campaign background are (in my opinion) very important in a freer game, but the focus often is more on developing them in play.

Most such campaigns in my experience are conceived of as open-ended. For that reason, their DMs tend not to have "end of the world" stuff going on. More common is some ongoing (often cosmic) struggle that (perhaps only very subtly) connects disparate elements in the background. High-level characters get to see their deeds as accomplishments of some significance in that greater scheme.

 

[Coldwyn]

One can make an epic story. The kind of temperament I think best suited to a "sandbox" is one that finds it more satisfying to see that come about as a surprising development. Someone who thrills to the vulnerability of beginning characters in some games, the dramatic turns of fortune sometimes hanging on a single dice roll, the challenge to tilt the odds with cunning, the feeling when after failures one at last succeeds -- there's a prime candidate.

Ties to the campaign background are (in my opinion) very important in a freer game, but the focus often is more on developing them in play.

Most such campaigns in my experience are conceived of as open-ended. For that reason, their DMs tend not to have "end of the world" stuff going on. More common is some ongoing (often cosmic) struggle that (perhaps only very subtly) connects disparate elements in the background. High-level characters get to see their deeds as accomplishments of some significance in that greater scheme.

WHat you´re talking about is Intent -> Action -> Resolution -> Story.
Here I agree with you, there is a chance that some meaningful story evolves, maybe even an epic one, but an equal chance for a huge amount of meaningless fragments without rhyme or reason to it.
Should a meaningful story evolve and players ask the dm to expand upon it, we´re leaving sandbox counry behind and move over to a plot-driven scenario.

That´s the point where I´m questioning the whole sandbox concept: Sandboxed evolve story, stories evolve plot, plots need prep time and willfull participants, we´ve moved away from the sandbox.
That leads me to the conclusion someone elde posted upthread: There should be no DM in a sandbox game.

 

[LostSoul]

That´s the point where I´m questioning the whole sandbox concept: Sandboxed evolve story, stories evolve plot, plots need prep time and willfull participants, we´ve moved away from the sandbox.

You don't need a plot (or as Ariosto says, the plot), you just need some NPCs who are doing things. NPCs with goals who are able to act on those goals.

You need 3 things so far as I can tell. A setting, PCs with goals, and NPCs with goals. Maybe 4 - there needs to be some source of tension between these elements.

 

[Coldwyn]

You don't need a plot (or as Ariosto says, the plot), you just need some NPCs who are doing things. NPCs with goals who are able to act on those goals.

You need 3 things so far as I can tell. A setting, PCs with goals, and NPCs with goals. Maybe 4 - there needs to be some source of tension between these elements.

That´s why I´ve written "evolve". You´re correct with the starting premise of setting, players, nsc and tension. When the game starts, continuity happens, which begets story.
As long as the players don´t act or don´t do anything with impact on the world, all´s static. The moment they interact with something in the sandbox, continuity sets in and a plot forms.

Basic example would be: After a random encounter with some slavers, one player is intrigued and wants to follow up on this by investigating slave trade. Based on what he learns about this, he decides to act against it and so on.

IMHO a plotless Sandbox, call it a static one, would have stopped after the random encounter. If I understoof Ariosto correctly, then that´s plot enough.
That´s a point that someone (Umbran?) asked about way upthread, too, which went unanswered so far.

Should they really follow up on the slavers, then the sandbox isn´t needed because now we have something going on with the players following the leads.

Edit: I think I should have used the word "emerges" instead of evolves. Ah, well, posting in a foreign language

 

[Nagol]

That´s why I´ve written "evolve". You´re correct with the starting premise of setting, players, nsc and tension. When the game starts, continuity happens, which begets story.
As long as the players don´t act or don´t do anything with impact on the world, all´s static. The moment they interact with something in the sandbox, continuity sets in and a plot forms.

Basic example would be: After a random encounter with some slavers, one player is intrigued and wants to follow up on this by investigating slave trade. Based on what he learns about this, he decides to act against it and so on.

IMHO a plotless Sandbox, call it a static one, would have stopped after the random encounter. If I understoof Ariosto correctly, then that´s plot enough.
That´s a point that someone (Umbran?) asked about way upthread, too, which went unanswered so far.

Should they really follow up on the slavers, then the sandbox isn´t needed because now we have something going on with the players following the leads.

I've countered this by supplying a future timeline for events that potentially affect areas of context. If the players do not get involved here then these changes will occur over this timeframe. If the players do not affect this then these event wil occur.

The is no particular plot or expectation for any interaction, but I work out thee effect non-interaction will have. After each session, I spend 10-20 minutes walking the list, adding new event chains and adjusting affected ones.