Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Torranocca" data-source="post: 8579990" data-attributes="member: 7035401">Let me clarify for the sake of an ongoing discussion. I understand clearly what other posters mean when they state “Sandbox” play vs “Railroad” play.One is not supported by the nature and structure of the game the other is supported but few players I have met would care to play that way.I run what is best described as a living game world. There are things happening and events playing out on their own time tables in these worlds. The players in my games have the freedom to get involved in events or not, create events or not, avoid events or not. These things and events all have a life of their own. My game settings are persistent and moving through time. If the players do nothing things happen. If they do something, things happen. There can be great fun for all as players intent plays out for good, ill or even unexpected or unforeseen consequences.I have seen and of course allowed  players actions to alter the events and the settings to great degree if they choose to take real actions, risks, attempts at heroics and so forth. I have also seen and allowed players to spend game session upon sessions playing “ dodge the story hooks at every opportunity” and wander around the game worlds site seeing and discovering new environments.  Guess it was fun for them, they kept coming back( seven player party) and telling me how much they loved the game and setting. ( boring and a bit frustrating for me, but there it is)Perhaps this is closer to “ sand box” as some of you surmise. I don’t know really. Someone earlier described a “ sand box” game as: if their character wanted to go to Northern barbarian tribes and make himself the leader, storyline or plot be damned, that is what the player was going to do. I can’t imagine a DM or even other players who would enjoy or agree to even play a game like that.</blockquote>

Verification