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. (...) And please, for the last time, stop putting words in my mouth.
I think the fact that you interpret anyone expressing their personal tastes as an attempt to put words in your mouth strongly indicates that you're failing at communication.
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.
Which doesn't make any sense to me. Do they all have nannies in real life telling them how to pursue their goals in life?
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.
Why would I suddenly want the GM to tamper with success?
I think you're falling prey to the "passive sandbox" fallacy. If the PCs' efforts to break up the Ring of Iron slavers' guild is beginning to have far-reaching political consequences, there's absolutely nothing about the nature of a "sandbox" which would prevent those consequences from continuing to play out.
There is nothing about a sandbox which prevents the GM from reacting to what the PCs are doing. It is, in fact, that reaction which makes the choices of the PCs meaningful.
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.
Sandboxes create a series of events. These events can then -- just like events in real life -- be related as a story. But just because compelling stories "evolve" in real life, it doesn't follow that at some point God starts making up pre-prepared plotlines for all of us to follow.
"You get free will until your lives become interesting" would be an interesting religious doctrine, but I don't think it a necessary one.
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:
And yet you still can't cite a single example. (Which I suppose is why you've started trying to create them out of wholecloth.)
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.
Then that's a sandbox.
Which would suggest your problem is the opposite of what most people are assuming in this thread: You're basically playing in a sandbox or mostly-sandbox campaign, but are so utterly unaware that other styles of play exist that you simply assume that "sandbox" must apply to all games.
I'm sorry to report that this is not the case: Linear prep GMs can be found all over the place.
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'm afraid you misunderstand: It doesn't matter what type of campaign I'm running. I don't want to play with spoiled 5 year olds who don't know how to cooperate with each other. RPGs are a group activity. Playing them with people who can't productively participate in group activities sounds like an interminable chore.
This should be common sense. It has nothing to do with sandboxes.
In truth, I would find that kind of immature behavior far
more destructive in a plotted game than a sandbox game: IMO, a plotted game works best when players agree to follow the plot. Players who can't play nice with the rest of the group can certainly be, in some sense,
forced to comply with the plot through the railroaders' bag of tricks. But I'd rather not deal with that kind of headache.
The situation seems to suit most of the gamers that are left in the market. However, at least a few either enjoy other things in addition, or don't enjoy linear scenarios much at all.
"Market" may be a key word here. Sandboxers don't need a perpetual influx of new material: They can always build something new in the sand. But plotters always need a new plot for next week.
On the other hand, they're a particularly good example too, because they can be played more as a sandbox by GMs who are willing to give the PCs more leeway and let things fall out differently.
In rewriting the material in order to accomplish X instead of Y, you are tacitly acknowledging that the unrevised product can be described as Y.
Since the difference is a continuum and not an on-off switch, of course, there's a fair degree of leeway to be found here. (Shades of grey and all that.)
So, yes, you can find the Dragonlance modules material that can be retasked for a sandbox campaign. But you can find the same thing in Tolkien's
Lord of the Rings.
In similar fashion, if you get a group together to perform
Hamlet it is certainly possible that half-way through they could suddenly switch over to performing
Hello Dolly. Style of ply is, in fact, determined
while you play -- not by whatever written material you may or may not be using. But that doesn't mean that the material you start with isn't going to have some influence on the way that material is typically used.
Particularly if you're talking about a new group of players who are still trying to figure out the answer to the question, "How is this game supposed to work?"
