Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3889436" data-attributes="member: 18280">PeterWeller is correct when he says, "Maybe it would be more correct to say that early D&D was more focused on ongoing narratives, while the later versions of the game have focused more on contained narratives."Examine, if you have the opportunity, any non-tournament early D&D module.  They were not designed as "adventures"; they were designed as "modular areas you could find adventure in".  Who is the BBEG of Keep on the Borderlands, for example?  What encounters were you to have, and in what order?This is similar, in many ways, to your average Tarzan novel.  Tarzan may or may not have a goal when he wanders into some strange area.  What Tarzan wants intersects with what the inhabitants want, and he has a number of interesting encounters (which are not always necessary to read in the order they occur in....ERB was truly the King of the Wandering Monsters").  Tarzan reacts to the inhabitants and area based on his goals, gets what he wants, and leaves.  Sometimes rulers topple because of him; sometimes not.  Sometimes when captured he is happy to escape; sometimes he wants payback.S&S fiction is very similar.  It is about (very often) the intersection of goals of self-interested parties.  Conan doesn't fight the Black Circle because he wants to prevent them from overrunning Middle Earth; he fights them because they interfere with his goals.The "sandbox style" of gaming that you hear of so often in reference to 1e was basically "Create an area in which adventures can take place, seed it with potential allies, potential villians, and strange places.  Then let the PCs develop goals, sit back, and watch what happens."(This is why, for example, big dungeons were so cool back then; the PCs weren't forced into them.  When a PC's goal meant entering the dungeon, he entered the dungeon to meet that goal.  There was a level of personal involvement that just doesn't exist when you, as a player, are told what you must do if you want to do any gaming at all.)For my money, "sandbox style" is the absolutely best style of gaming, on either side of the screen.  It requires less work to DM (unless, of course, statting takes forever, as in 3e....), requires more player involvement, and is far more rewarding.  YMMV.  Certainly, the mileage of some (many?) varied, or this style would still be the norm.  I am very, very happy to see sandbox style returning with 4e (points-of-light is a crucial sandbox element, preventing the DM from having to create too much upfront).  Apparently, we might see the Forbidden City from I1 fully fleshed out as a sandbox setting in 4e.  Even if I didn't switch, that's a product I'd buy!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />RC</blockquote>

Verification