A Question Of Agency?

[Bedrockgames]

A sandbox can very well feature a menu of adventures. A valid sandbox can be a town, a bit of wilderness, and a bunch of themed dungeons. This is exactly a menu of adventures. There's no one true sandbox. Granted, you're making a reasonable point if you're contesting just the fact that a sandbox need not be a menu of adventures, but you aren't doing any favors by returning a "must" with a different "must."

The point is, Sandboxes are not just a menu of adventures to select from. And the reason is the living world/world in motion component. The players actions, particularly with NPCs and factions, but with other elements of the setting, generate adventure content that the GM never considered, thought of, or would have come up with. This is very important. And it is something that doesn't happen in a lot of games. The players are constrained by being locked inside their character. They don't have power over the setting. But like a person in real life, they are free to go about and do what they want within those constraints (and those are constraints but I think constraints that are meant to approximate real world ones, a pretty reasonable boundaries for agency)

 

[Fenris-77]

The point is, Sandboxes are not just a menu of adventures to select from. And the reason is the living world/world in motion component. The players actions, particularly with NPCs and factions, but with other elements of the setting, generate adventure content that the GM never considered, thought of, or would have come up with. This is very important. And it is something that doesn't happen in a lot of games. The players are constrained by being locked inside their character. They don't have power over the setting. But like a person in real life, they are free to go about and do what they want within those constraints (and those are constraints but I think constraints that are meant to approximate real world ones, a pretty reasonable boundaries for agency)

I would agree that this is true of the kind of sandbox you're talking about, and it is pretty glorious. Would you agree that there are other sandbox games though, ones where the player side input is possibly more restricted (by table convention and desires, not anything nefarious) to picking from the menu of proffered hooks and just following the breadcrumbs from there? I realize that we're likely to trip over competing definitions about 'proper' sandboxing, but perhaps we can set those aside for the nonce and agree that there are a bunch of types of games that get called 'sandbox' and that there are some differences there that we can also profitably explore.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No, you've missed the rhetorical flourish, here. It's specifically that the play can announce actions to try and find his brother -- that the GM can unilaterally decide the outcome of these actions is beside his point, he's just saying that they can try.

Again, why this is thought to be a mark of distinction is beyond me.

I would say this isn't a reasonable characterization of what would happen in our campaigns. The player is trying to look for his brother. The brother being alive or dead isn't an outcome of that attempt (that is a whole separate decision that the GM makes independent of the search). And the search is going to involve a series of steps, many of which may involve a variety of rolls, or involved interaction with setting elements (depends on the game, the style etc). It is very hard to say how much the GM will simply be deciding here. In terms of setting content, yes the GM will be deciding what is going on in the setting (where the brother is, his condition, who knows about him, where he has been, etc). But being able to create facts about the setting, to me that is just not agency. That is something else entirely.

I want to make an important point here, sandboxes do not preclude the use of things like social skills and investigations skills. That is a separate playstyle discussion (one we've had here many times). Different games, different Gms all tackle the 'player skill' thing differntly and 'interacting with the world' differently'. I reached a compromise in my system, where, though I prefer more of a vacuum around social and investigative skills, because I understand how popular they are and how expected they are, I have a full suit of mental skills and plenty of skills that can be applied toward investigation (I do try to conduct the rolls to maximize interaction with the setting, but those skills are still there).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's definitely roleplaying.

What makes a game a game in my estimation is that games have objectives and conflict or obstacles to overcome. Games can be played more or less skillfully. Like I can say based on your play you played Apocalypse World well. I can also say you made a poor showing of it when you played D&D. Same for Burning Wheel. Same for Poker. Same for chess.

I should clarify that I am talking about the player here and getting treasure or making moves in Apocalypse World is just as valid as a character's long term plans here. Ideally the more character and player are in simpatico the better, but it's not like required.

To be frank, I think your definition of 'game' is unnecessarily limiting and doesn't correspond to how word is actually used. Like it or not, even LARP without any rules for resolving actions is 'a game.'

I play quite a bit of board games and a lot of tabletop wargames, but ultimately I want a pretty radically differnt experience from an RPG.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I would agree that this is true of the kind of sandbox you're talking about, and it is pretty glorious. Would you agree that there are other sandbox games though, ones where the player side input is possibly more restricted (by table convention and desires, not anything nefarious) to picking from the menu of proffered hooks and just following the breadcrumbs from there? I realize that we're likely to trip over competing definitions about 'proper' sandboxing, but perhaps we can set those aside for the nonce and agree that there are a bunch of types of games that get called 'sandbox' and that there are some differences there that we can also profitably explore.

Yes I would. And I think those kinds of sandboxes are fine, I wouldn't knock them, because sandboxes are hard to run and hard to prep. Some people have called those subway station campaigns (because it isn't a railroad, but it is more like a series of adventures and adventure paths you can select from). I think subway is pejorative though, and probably misses a lot of the nuance that crops up in them. I think a very important factor to consider in the kind of campaign I run, is the presence of factions and live NPCs. If it was just a bunch of potential adventure locations, then the options would indeed be a lot more limited, but the direction the campaign can take when you have players interacting with factions and NPCs, really opens up the world.

I also think sandboxes are a structure people should experiment with. I think it is a great style to play in, but it is one with a reputation for being difficult to run, and having a higher possibility of being aimless on the player side. So there should be different kinds of sandbox. My Drama+Sandbox for example that I talk about in Ogre Gate, is not a pure sandbox. That concept would bother a lot of people in OSR circles. However I did try to do it in a way I felt would be tolerable to that crowd. One way I did this was by making fate a real force in the setting.

Also, I don't just run sandboxes. I ran several very long wuxia sandboxes in a row, and realized I just wanted to go back to players hunting monsters and investigating mysteries for a little while, so did a monster of the week type game. Sandbox is great, but it isn't the only structure out there. I quite like investigations with a 'ticking time bomb' in them. I like situational character driven adventures, and I like monster hunts.

 

[Bedrockgames]

ones where the player side input is possibly more restricted (by table convention and desires, not anything nefarious)

To be clear about my opinion here, there is nothing nefarious in my opinion about a table deciding they want to play a certain way. If people all want to participate in an adventure path, they should be able to do that without feeling bad about it. If people all agree 'this is tonights adventure', that is fine too. I think it can be exhausting and time consuming to prep sessions and not everyone is going to want to prep and play in a way, where prepped material doesn't get used. And most players understand that if they sidestep an adventure, that could mean they are sidestepping hours of work the GM did that week. If I were in a campaign where there was an adventure each session, that the GM had planned, I wouldn't be a jerk and avoid that adventure (because that is hours of work, and I would know going in the adventure wasn't designed for that). With sandboxes, it is different because the GM preps knowing not all the prep will come in to play, knowing things will take a life of their own at the table, and the players know it is okay to 'not go on the adventure', that they are there to explore and interact how they want to.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yes I would. And I think those kinds of sandboxes are fine, I wouldn't knock them, because sandboxes are hard to run and hard to prep. Some people have called those subway station campaigns (because it isn't a railroad, but it is more like a series of adventures and adventure paths you can select from). I think subway is pejorative though, and probably misses a lot of the nuance that crops up in them. I think a very important factor to consider in the kind of campaign I run, is the presence of factions and live NPCs. If it was just a bunch of potential adventure locations, then the options would indeed be a lot more limited, but the direction the campaign can take when you have players interacting with factions and NPCs, really opens up the world.

I also think sandboxes are a structure people should experiment with. I think it is a great style to play in, but it is one with a reputation for being difficult to run, and having a higher possibility of being aimless on the player side. So there should be different kinds of sandbox. My Drama+Sandbox for example that I talk about in Ogre Gate, is not a pure sandbox. That concept would bother a lot of people in OSR circles. However I did try to do it in a way I felt would be tolerable to that crowd. One way I did this was by making fate a real force in the setting.

Also, I don't just run sandboxes. I ran several very long wuxia sandboxes in a row, and realized I just wanted to go back to players hunting monsters and investigating mysteries for a little while, so did a monster of the week type game. Sandbox is great, but it isn't the only structure out there. I quite like investigations with a 'ticking time bomb' in them. I like situational character driven adventures, and I like monster hunts.

Yeah, I think it's a positive trend in the thread that a concerted effort is being made to not knock playstyles. I've played subway games and they can be a lot of fun. I think people in some corners of the hobby need to be less precious in trying to defend their personal preferences. I tend to look at the idea of 'sandbox' as a spectrum of things, not one thing, and that spectrum is a toolset I can use as a GM to help frame the what and how in any given campaign. My sandboxes tend to be organized on more of a Dungeon World model, with fronts and threats, but that's just one more place on the spectrum. In short, I would probably talk about how 'sandbox-y' a particular game is rather than whether or not it meets some arbitrary standards of what a sandbox 'should be'.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, I think it's a positive trend in the thread that a concerted effort is being made to not knock playstyles. I've played subway games and they can be a lot of fun. I think people in some corners of the hobby need to be less precious in trying to defend their personal preferences. I tend to look at the idea of 'sandbox' as a spectrum of things, not one thing, and that spectrum is a toolset I can use as a GM to help frame the what and how in any given campaign. My sandboxes tend to be organized on more of a Dungeon World model, with fronts and threats, but that's just one more place on the spectrum. In short, I would probably talk about how 'sandbox-y' a particular game is rather than whether or not it meets some arbitrary standards of what a sandbox 'should be'.

And I think that is all good. I was very pleased to see sandbox and old school stuff getting more love at Story-Games.com. I stopped seeing this as a zero sum game along time ago. It is also why I keep mentioning Hillfolk, because immersion has always been important to me, and I developed this idea that if I broke the line between my character and the world, my immersion would break as well, but I found HIllfolk incredibly immersive (and that is the kind of game where you can narrative stuff into being, and everything is structured around scenes where each character wants something). Also, just thinking back, I loved games like TORG with the dramadeck, and Hong Kong Action Theatre! was probably the biggest martial arts RPG influence on me of any game (and in that one, you basically play an actor getting roles in martial arts movies ---the movies are the adventures, but they are understood to be films). So I have been a big point of opening my mind about this stuff and just focusing on what works at the table. So while I am happy to defend sandbox and OSR style games, those aren't the only kinds of games I want to play. And the bottom line, even in a given style is what's fun and what keeps the game alive. If I have a list of criteria for a good sandbox, and all those criteria are checked off, but people are bored or not engaged, I got to do something different. If you are trying to maintain a years long campaign, you can't just rigidly adhere to an ideology. You have to be flexible and willing to see if some principle you are operating by doesn't always work once in a while (which might mean throwing in an unusual mechanic or adventure structure once in a while---if only to mix things up).

 

[Bedrockgames]

My sandboxes tend to be organized on more of a Dungeon World model, with fronts and threats, but that's just one more place on the spectrum. In short, I would probably talk about how 'sandbox-y' a particular game is rather than whether or not it meets some arbitrary standards of what a sandbox 'should be'.

And this is good in my opinion. And I would agree it is a spectrum. I was mainly talking in terms of what people think of as the iconic sandbox, and the iconic OSR campaign. But my style is probably best described as OSR adjacent, because I don't typically use D&D based rules systems. The element that is most important to me in a sandbox, is the living adventure aspect. And my understanding of that comes from Ravenloft (and particularly Feast of Goblyns) so my views are already a bit unorthodox here. I definitely wouldn't hold up my campaigns as reflecting the standard OSR sandbox. But I do draw a great deal from that sector of the hobby

 

[FrogReaver]

To be frank, I think your definition of 'game' is unnecessarily limiting and doesn't correspond to how word is actually used. Like it or not, even LARP without any rules for resolving actions is 'a game.'

I play quite a bit of board games and a lot of tabletop wargames, but ultimately I want a pretty radically differnt experience from an RPG.

Yep. I’ve seen games as games talked about. But then I think about games like Minecraft and I cannot reconcile those kinds of positions to that game.