Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ClusterFluster" data-source="post: 8935772" data-attributes="member: 7040441">I'm only hearing of this phrase now. It seems matter-of-fact as a descriptor, but clearly it is intended with undue derision towards what I can only guess to be aimed at sandboxes. Drawing on the example you've given, this is primarily the strength of sandbox design, because the narrative depth is scalable to a group's tastes from any starting conditions. Otherwise, you wouldn't see it just beneath the surface of the game's fiction-derived mechanics.I have arguments with pure sandboxers about the validity of planned game narratives, as they think that the introduction of any goal beyond "amass gold from random encounters" is railroading, but they're missing the inherent flexibility of sandboxes: you can adventure on your first few levels without any story involved, adventure for a few more levels for a plot that must reach a specific climax, and then continue to adventure after that last story's end for another few levels without any story involved, just like at the start of the game. Or, invert that possible formula to be played as a story, then no-story, then a story again. Any combination works, including 20 levels of no story at all, just a sequence of epic tales to tell, which is fine. You can add a campaign setting, or withhold one in favour of a selection of thematic random tables, throughout all of that.I don't think that's the case of mainstream play at all, this probably has to do with individual player motivations, but I'm not sure what you mean by "guessing" here, and "mainstream" is probably D&D and such. If you mean "look for the fun" as in a sandbox game with a "fog of war," (territory unknown before exploration) I don't see why that's a bad thing; if there's no immediate indications as to where that fun is, there's no real pressure to find anything right away, it'll find you. If you'd rather, just take as practice adventuring to sharpen your narrative/lateral and strategic/tactical thinking.A heroic oligarchy working as a small team would be a set of "Great Men." The odd rivalry and misunderstanding between them doesn't really change that principle, especially if they can repair the bonds later. The Avengers and the Justice league are perfect examples: there's no defined leader, but collectively, they alone have the powers and resources needed to save the world from evil and destruction, not the average citizen otherwise.</blockquote>

Verification