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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="aramis erak" data-source="post: 8163515" data-attributes="member: 6779310">Uh, No, that first one isn't properly a sandbox. At least not in the way it's been used in wargaming and RPG theory. Why? Because "quest" is not appropriate for sandbox. In a proper sandbox, there is no quest to be main nor side quest. There are things happening in the foreground, which players experience, and possibly things happening "off-screen" (for lack of a better term), which may or may not be immediately visible to players. There may be jobs to do, if one looks for them, but any quest cannot be side, because it's what is driving the interaction, and is set entirely by the player(s)In a proper sandbox, the only thing special about PCs in setting is that, when none of them are in play, time stops for the sandbox. Unless, of course, the GM has established otherwise. (I had a campaign that, in between the 2-3 session annual adventures, time passed at the same rate as the real world, as an example.)A well done sandbox is like a montessori method classroom: interesting things to do, and which ones you do is your choice, within the limits of available seating. Always more things than you can get to, so that even if one works ahead, there is always something left to do.The moment the GM gets into setting quests for players, they've exited the sandbox mode into open world quest mode. It's different. It's a different flavor of agency as well, because once you start into side vs main quests, you get into story trumping the sandbox.</blockquote>

Verification