Jd Smith1
Hero
The GM always has to do prep for RPG's. Even to run an introductory module. Having to do some prep negate out of the box sandbox play? By that standard no RPG is ready to play so much as a starter set module 'out of the box', because the GM would have to still do some prep to run it. That's a ridiculous standard to hold over RPG's.
No, that's the standard you set when you made the claim that they are sandbox-ready 'out of the box'.
You don't have to work up 100's of locations in advance. That would be silly. You have a faulty idea of how much prep it takes to run a sandbox campaign.
You can do entire sandbox campaign with the PC's perusing their own goals. And the GM throwing possible Adventure Hooks aka the random quest at the PC's does not = railroad/non-sandbox. PC's always have a choice as the GM is not forcing them into some preplanned storyline for the campaign. [
Actually, that is exactly what a sandbox campaign means: the group can go anywhere, and find fully-fleshed-out locations, NPCs, and side quests ready and waiting.
Yes, that is the kind of sandbox play that is done by RPG's. many fantasy RPG's have random tables to roll on for all these kind of things. There is no core plotline in any well run campaign.
Seems you are comparing what you can do in videogames to the 'Adventure path' standard that has reared its head since 3e D&D.
That's not sandbox play; sandbox means that the players are not constrained. CRPGs have managed that; RPGs aspire, but cannot. And there are numerous award-winning campaigns, not to mention countless GM-written campaigns, built around a central plot. Yes, you can form a group from strangers in a tavern, and endlessly grind heavily-populated random ruins too.
However, many players like to be part of a larger undertaking than 'monsters from the old, illogically-placed ruins are terrorizing the countryside'. They enjoy, over 50-70 weekly sessions, to unravel larger goings-on, while pursuing individual goals and side-quests.
Point out what what videogames can't do? The obvious is obvious. And if they aren't obvious to you, then this whole little debate we are having is completely futile.
It's apparent that what you want out of your gaming experiences is more in line to what videogames deliver: You prefer the visual input and production values of videogames (willingly accepting their limitations to have it), to the minds eye of imagination. That's fine.
If it is obvious, point out what a CRPG can't do that an RPG can. So far, you don't seem to have found any point on which to stand.