Do you run or play in a Sandbox or Linear game

[Raven Crowking]

Pawsplay - a question. During character creation, is it okay to limit player choices?

Not pawsplay, but IMHO yes.

If it is, why is it okay then and not after the game starts?

Once a character has been accepted into the game, it is part of the game. This is different than a conceptual character pre-game. Again, IMHO.

When I ran an all evil 3.5 D&D game, I flat out stated that it was a PVE environment - no killing other PC's. I left it entirely up to the players to sort out the details, but, I strictly forbade attacking other PC's.

Is that acceptable behavior from the GM?

IMHO, yes.

"I won't prevent you from making that choice, but if you do you will not be invited back." I.e., don't game with people who want radically different things from the game than you do. IMHO, this is a part of the social contract of the table, and might be bent or broken under extraordinary circumsntances.


RC

 

[Hussar]

"I won't prevent you from making that choice, but if you do you will not be invited back." I.e., don't game with people who want radically different things from the game than you do. IMHO, this is a part of the social contract of the table, and might be bent or broken under extraordinary circumsntances.

Which is pretty much my take one it as well. However, doesn't limiting player choices also fall under social contract? If we've agreed to play Game X and the player takes a radical right turn, isn't that a failure of the social contract? ((This also applies to the GM as well. If he's pulled a bait and switch on the players, I think they are well within their rights to get annoyed.))

I realize, of course, this will vary from campaign to campaign. In a more open campaign - a sandbox if you will - then obviously players have more freedom of choice. I would argue that even in a sandbox, you will never have complete freedom of choice, simply because "I stab all the other PC's in their sleep and steal their stuff" is generally not acceptable behavior at most tables. And, really, because you have four or five other people to compromise with, most of the time your choices will be ammended by those others at the table.

Like has been said earlier, it's all a spectrum anyway. You can have great games at either end or in the middle, it's all about the expectations going in.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It can be a breach of the social contract; depends upon what everyone thinks they are playing.

Again, it is helpful to keep in mind that after 5 minutes in a pub, most InterWeb disputes would prove to be pretty groundless (i.e., a lot of things taken out of context due to lack of visual and vocal cues). Likewise, most players (IME anyway) are able to parse out a social contract for a given game without too much bother. There are just a few who cannot, and they are not usually worth gaming with anyway!

 

[Mallus]

I voted "mostly sandbox", though I'm not sure many sandbox-proponents would agree with that.

I like to create environments, fantasy cities mainly, in which vaguely absurd fantasy adventure stories occur. I don't have those stories planned out in advance. I present my players with opportunities for adventure, give them places to explore, people to meet, chat up, and occasionally kill.

Basically, I ask them 'where do you go next and what are you trying to do there?' Once they tell me, I make some sh*t up prior to the session and off we go (well, that's not entirely right, I do a fair amount of world-building, but I don't ever do more that write-up the beginning of an adventure. I finish writing it as we play it out. How I can I possibly know which way it'll go beforehand?).

I don't stock a hex map full of crypts and things, write up encounter charts and suchlike. But I consider my campaign(s) sandbox just the same.

They can't be linear. There's no line...

Also, I vote for 'railbox'.