Pathfinder 1E Sandboxes? Forked from Paizo reinvents hexcrawling

[robconley]

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.

Because the players are following the leads doesn't mean the campaign style ceases to be a sandbox. If they are in City-State and find out they need to go to Viridistan in order to stop the slavers, there are still all the locales that lie between the two cities. Some the player will avoid other they can't.

 

[robconley]

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.

A sandbox campaign create an epic situation through the plans of the NPC and the events that result. The referee will have a plot but it function more like a plan of battle that changes as the PC alter the circumstances.

 

[Reynard]

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.

That doesn't even make any sense, almost as if you are being intentionally obtuse. The whole point of the sandbox is exactly what you decribed: some element of the setting (slavers) piques the interest of the players, and hilarity (and epic slave rebellions) ensue. The DM put slavers in because he needed an "S" in his random encounter table, and now the PCs have embarked on a campaign they'll be telling their grandkids about.

That's why we play in sandboxes.

 

[Desdichado]

Could you give some examples of that? You seem to be replying to a bunch of people who aren't posting in this thread.

There's been a ton of them in this very thread. I don't know why you say I'm replying to people who aren't posting in this thread, I've responded directly to comments in thread with that characterization. :shrug:

In your game, OTOH, that's the point where you say, "I brought a north-south-east-west game to the table tonight. Are you going to engage it, or insist on doing your own thing to the detriment of the session and the group overall?"

Ah, no. See, I thought you were mischaracterizing my game. That is not what I say. If my players said, "Screw the crossroads, I want to teleport directly to the Abyss and pick up succubus chicks at the Abyss Bar," or whatever, assuming they do in fact have the capability to do that, then that's what we'd do.

The point is, if the players are at a crossroads and I describe four avenues, then 99 times out of 100, they're going to pick one of the avenues that I described to pursue.

You seem to be implying that for a game to be a sandbox, you not only need to have a GM willing to do whatever the players want to, but you also have to have players who purposefully make choices that not the immediately obvious ones based on the GM's descriptions.

I'll give you one thing, though, that's no longer a too-inclusive characterization of a sandbox.

 

[Desdichado]

I think it only requires players who aren't spoiled 5 year olds. Do you really have this much trouble finding people who aren't completely unfamiliar with the concept of "cooperation"?

Well, there you go, Ariosto and The Shaman. You wanted to see an example of sandbox proponents descending into badwrongfun insults? Look no further.

I thought it unlikely that we'd get through the entire thread without some examples showing (not that we haven't had some already; what was the line Melan wrote? "If you lack imagination, maybe Adventure Paths are better for you after all" or something like that?) Because it happens every time I've seen a permutation of this discussion.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

On the other hand, I'm getting no small degree of satisfaction of seeing my claims, which were questioned more than once in this thread, born out right here before our eyes.

 

[Desdichado]

Your lack of knowledge is not more convincing to me than the statements of the designer himself.

He doesn't lack knowledge. He might well be referring to the fact that Gygax and Arneson, to all appearances, had significantly different GMing styles themselves.

Besides, quit with the "appeal to authority" fallacy already. We've already gone over this. How Gygax played the game isn't very relevent to how my group has played, or wants to play, the game.

And since we don't play OD&D or AD&D, Gygax isn't even the game's designer anyway.

 

[Raven Crowking]

On the other hand, I'm getting no small degree of satisfaction of seeing my claims, which were questioned more than once in this thread, born out right here before our eyes.

Criticizing an argument =/= criticizing a playstyle.

If a person makes an argument that indicates, as a corollary to that argument, a problem with their playstyle (if the argument is accurate), pointing this out suggests not that the playstyle is bad, but that the argument is based on false premises.

I see nothing else here.

AFAICT, the evidence of your claims of wrongbadfunnism are "Products of Your Imagination".


RC

 

[The Shaman]

You wanted to see an example of sandbox proponents descending into badwrongfun insults? Look no further.

And it's only taken you three hundred and eight posts to find one sentence of over-the-top hyperbole to validate your disdain.

Hobo, play what you like. Like what you play. I'll do the same.

 

[Jhaelen]

And it's only taken you three hundred and eight posts to find one sentence of over-the-top hyperbole to validate your disdain.

Hobo's entirely correct, though. I've seen it in pretty much every thread that at some point entered the territory of 'classic' vs. 'modern', 'sandbox' vs. 'railroading', or 'simulationist' vs. 'gamist'.

After a couple of pages with insightful comments the thread explodes, often overnight, and the you get dozens of pages with nothing except the same two or three people exchanging more or less well hidden insults, arguing over technicalities and intenionally misinterpreting each others posts, until one side is too tired to continue or one of the admins closes the thread.

YAWN.

This thread should have died ages ago.