Pathfinder 1E Sandboxes? Forked from Paizo reinvents hexcrawling

[Desdichado]

RCK: I don't know that I've seen any descriptions here in this thread that would be contradictory to how I'm using the word sandbox, and plenty that would support it, other than some additional elements that some people say that their sandbox features. Many of these elements are in contradiction with each other, and can be dismissed, therefore, as "noise"---peripheral qualifiers that expand on the basic core idea of the sandbox. Which I've never seen anything to suggest that my encapsulation of it is incorrect, from a wide variety of sandboxy discussions over the years.

However, one thing that I think is notable; a lot of these additions to the paradigm mean that someone's sandbox game approaches my non-sandbox game in style quite a bit. Or perhaps vice versa. The point is, at the actual table, I wonder if it's not so easy to tell which game is a sandbox and which isn't without players who are deliberately pushing the boundaries to see. Maybe whether a GM declares his game a sandbox or not is more a statement of intent and attitude towards the game rather than a description that is starkly defined at the table.

:shrug:

 

[Ariosto]

Thus, claims made about the nature of a "sandbox" have been reacted to as though you were talking about something other than your personal definition of a sandbox.

Maybe that's because he said right up front that he was talking about other people's definition of a sandbox -- and then stayed the course of defining it for them/us.

Going back to your original question, then, AFAICT there is no large upswing in interest in sandbox-style play as you define it.

That's what I have been saying; what person after person here has said; what Hobo refuses to accept. He has said, again and again, that the premise is not open for discussion as far he is concerned. We must accept that "it is so", and confine ourselves to speculation as to why.

 

[Desdichado]

Might it not enter where an edition consistently puts forward one "play style" as the way to play the game, and mentions another (if at all) mainly to dismiss aspects of it as "not fun"?

How any one can read WotC's books and then claim with a straight face that "4E" is not designed to be played any particular way, that the designers are not telling people how to play it, is just beyond me. There doesn't seem to be any great difficulty for its partisans to wheel out "doing it wrong", "expecting it to be something else", etc., in response to observations by people who find it not working with their play styles.

And yet, people who do that also regularly object in threads to any hint that the Gygax-era editions were also designed.

I'm remarkably and blissfully ignorant of the specifics of 4e, but I remember quite clearly at the launch of 3e the motto of "Tools, not rules."

It's arguable whether or not the books themselves lived up to that advertising jingle (and its not my intent to pursue that argument either way... at least, not in this thread), but assuming a group bought into that idea, then certainly there was not "a" way that the rules could be used, but rather an idea that you take the tools that you like, use them as you like, ignore those you don't, and otherwise treat the rulebooks as a toolbox, not an instruction manual. In other words, there wasn't a single play style that the system was supposed to support.

 

[Desdichado]

That's what I have been saying; what person after person here has said; what Hobo refuses to accept. He has said, again and again, that the premise is not open for discussion as far he is concerned. We must accept that "it is so", and confine ourselves to speculation as to why.

Of course I refuse to accept it. It's contrary to my experience. It's very contrary to my experience. And I'd like to think that my experience isn't limited to provincial putterings around with a handful of local groups either.

You can tell me all you want that it's not getting warmer as winter ends and spring begins as well, but I'll refuse to accept that too.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Which I've never seen anything to suggest that my encapsulation of it is incorrect, from a wide variety of sandboxy discussions over the years.

There is a difference, though, between not being shown, and not seeing. I, for one, do not agree that your definition is in common usage. Clearly, too, there are other proponents of sandbox-style games who do not share your definition.

As a fellow with a scientific background, I would expect you to consider your own observer bias, and not liken your observation of other people's opinions to noting a change in temperature. One is subjective, the other is empirical; one can be measured, the other not.

Perhaps a more open mind is in order?

(Of course, you would be fair to call me the pot talking to the kettle here; I have certainly failed to take into account my own observer bias in times past, and undoubtably will again - despite best intentions - in times future.)

The point is, at the actual table, I wonder if it's not so easy to tell which game is a sandbox and which isn't without players who are deliberately pushing the boundaries to see. Maybe whether a GM declares his game a sandbox or not is more a statement of intent and attitude towards the game rather than a description that is starkly defined at the table.

That is possible.

An AP where the players do not know it is an AP, and where the players never try to get off the path, may be functionally the same as a sandbox. But as soon as a player pushes the boudaries, deliberately or not, the premise is tested. At that point, the GM must decide between maintaining the AP or not.

There are some means of maintaining the AP that might initially look like they are allowing for player choice, while always manipulating the players back to the rails. In these cases, IMHO, the game is not a sandbox.

Alternately, the GM can allow the game to go where the players will, using what he knows of the AP setting to create the world around them. In this case, especially if maintained, the AP may become a sandbox.


RC

 

[Reynard]

It's arguable whether or not the books themselves lived up to that advertising jingle (and its not my intent to pursue that argument either way... at least, not in this thread), but assuming a group bought into that idea, then certainly there was not "a" way that the rules could be used, but rather an idea that you take the tools that you like, use them as you like, ignore those you don't, and otherwise treat the rulebooks as a toolbox, not an instruction manual. In other words, there wasn't a single play style that the system was supposed to support.

Right, but the fact is that there are diminishing returns to using a particular game for a particular playstyle for which it was not specifically designed, relative to how close that playstyle is to the actual designed intent. If a game, for example, has a steep power curve, specific degrees of challenge, tight guidelines governing character wealth, and uses stat blocks etc that make improvisation difficult, it is not very well designed for a sandbox style campaign. It can be used for one, certainly, but it takes a lot more work on the part of the GM, which makes it less appealing for everyone involved than a more "AP" style game.

 

[Ariosto]

A lot of what we get out of texts is often what we are inclined to read in them. I think that there have been significant shifts in both over the past 20-30 years of D&D (and RPGs in general).

 

[pemerton]

Ariosto, I agree that it is pretty clear that 1st ed AD&D was written with a particular expectation of play style in mind - you can see it, for example, in the discussion of time in the DMG, and the advice to players towards the end of the PHB.

But I also think it is pretty likely that only a minority of AD&D players played in that style. My impression - from players I've met (in Australia), from reading these forums, from reading letters in 1980s Dragon magazine, I get the sense that many, perhpaps most, AD&D players were playing in a more scenario style, either similar to what Hobo has described, or moving from module to module (either purchased or GM-authored). Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert also encouraged this style of play, and it was pretty infuential on a lot of those players. (I don't think there was much adventure-path play back then.)

Now, one could say that these people weren't really playing AD&D, because they weren't playing it in the way that Gygax intended. But they all thought of themselves as AD&D players, and they were using the AD&D action resolution and character-building mechanics. So to say they nevertheless weren't really playing AD&D doesn't seem very helpful.

 

[Ariosto]

pemerton, my original post #407 was a lot longer, and went (as I have gone time and again before) into the cycle by which things change "in the field", which informs the next round of product from the "pros", which in turn establishes new base assumptions for the next generation of newcomers to the hobby.

So to say they nevertheless weren't really playing AD&D doesn't seem very helpful.

So, why do you in the first place suggest that "one could" say that? Why bring it up at all?

 

[pemerton]

So, why do you in the first place suggest that "one could" say that? Why bring it up at all?

I'd taken some of your posts to be along these lines - these sandbox threads have blurred a little in my mind, but I seem to remember you having said on an earlier occasion that "sandbox" is simply "D&D campaign".

I wasn't meaning to have a go atyou, but to suggest that the text in the AD&D rulebooks that talks about how to play has been widely ignored, and also to suggest why that is so (especially the influence of Moldvay/Cook). If I'm right that it has been widely ignored, then trying to explain sandboxes by reference to "how AD&D plays/is meant to be played" is going to be hard work - everyone thinks they know how AD&D plays (because they played it) but often without having had regard to those particular bits of text.