Player involvement - and Sandboxes

[Raven Crowking]

Interestingly enough, this is exactly how it happened.

Players are a cowardly and superstitious.....er....predictable lot.

Thus, it's not a true sandbox, since there are some "railroad tracks" in place (though the players can get off the train and get back on however they wish).

There is, IMHO, no requirement for a sandbox to be static. Indeed, I would encourage any GM to include overarching elements in a sandbox. There is a difference between "plot" (as in the plans of NPCs) and "plot" (as in the narrative of a story). If you can get off and on the rails whenever and however you wish, I am not sure how you can say there are rails there at all?

Anyway, it sounds like a fun game.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Apparently great minds think alike

......Or fools seldom differ!

 

[catsclaw227]

This had me thinking...

While there seems to be a lot of in interest in sandbox style games (including my own interest), it also seems to come entirely from DM's. I'm not sure I have seen anyone yet mention that this is the style of game they want to PLAY in - it all seems to be "I'm thinking my next game will be sandbox style", or "help me with my upcoming sandbox campaign" discussions, etc. Granted, some would say we have a lot of DM's here at ENW, but this seems to be the same across the various discussion boards I frequent.

The two DM's I play under seem to fit into this category as well. Both talk about opening their game up more, or running a sandbox-style game next, but neither of them (both players in my campaign) would be that into PLAYING in one.

I explained to my current players (and former players) how I would approach such a game - how I think it would be fun, what would make it cool, etc - and with one exception, there was a great lack of enthusiasm.

This exact thing happened with with me and my group these past three months.

I'm running Scales of War, we're about to start Den of the Destroyer (late heroic). Reading the many sandboxing threads, and feeling a bit nostalgic about the 1e games I ran, I offered up the idea to my group that we can open up the game a bit more, let them follow-up some threads or ideas that they liked and slowly migrate from the AP to a sandbox.

They just sorta stared at me and then asked, "You don't want to run the AP anymore?"

They clearly hadn't asked for this kind of change or a sandbox game, but I assumed that they would like it more because, well, the idea of a sandbox is really cool.

But my players like the mostly scripted AP, and they also enjoy rambling along with the greater story. They said that they don't feel railroaded at all (that was a relief to hear, I was worried about that) and wondered where this idea was coming from.

After a long discussion, one of their biggest concerns was that it would create more work for me. They didn't want their DM to become burned out, and/or want to switch things out again.

They also said they didn't want to have situations where they were sitting around in a tavern asking each other "What next?" I explained that this likely would never happen, since there would be adventure hooks and idea hooks abound, but they didn't like that idea.

It boiled down to wanting to be participants in a story, beating the crap out of monsters and taking their stuff, and generally enjoying a non-high maintenance game (whatever that is, I still am not sure what they meant by that.)

I guess I have a beer-n-pretzels group that plays the game as if its important, but in reality they mostly like to just go with the flow.

 

[The Shaman]

While there seems to be a lot of in interest in sandbox style games (including my own interest), it also seems to come entirely from DM's. I'm not sure I have seen anyone yet mention that this is the style of game they want to PLAY in - it all seems to be "I'm thinking my next game will be sandbox style", or "help me with my upcoming sandbox campaign" discussions, etc. . . . It seems as though the idea of running such a campaign (and all of the new/creative energy explored in developing the idea) is the most appealing aspect - but the end result is something that most simply don't care to participate in - it requires too much work for players perhaps, having to drive the game from their seats, etc. At least this is how things appear to be from my end, with those I know, and from what I see in various discussions.

Is the idea of a "sandbox" game, from a DM's perspective, more appealing than the reality from a Player's perspective? From my angle, it just might be.

First, as a player, I vastly prefer sandboxy games. Left to my own devices, I am more than able to stir up enough trouble for any three parties of adventurers, provided the referee has his feces collected.

Second, it's been my experience that gamers who entered the hobby starting roughly in the mid-Eighties or later assimilated a model of roleplaying games which put a strong emphasis on having a plot, or at the very least a series of structured adventures. What I've found, particularly on returning to gaming after a break from about 1989 to 2002, is that player expectations were heavily molded by the adventures and settings prevalent in the hobby since that time.

For many gamers, in my experience, adventures have a plot, with villains and climactic encounters, and the goal of the adventure is to deliver the adventurers to that climax after passing through a series of tension-building encounters; settings, which might on the surface appear to offer sandboxy play, are heavily metaplotted, often backed up by the adventures published for that setting.

The advice to referees was similarly slanted toward this style of play, whether in the pages of the rules or in the articles published in the different gaming rags. One Dragon article on structuring play like a television series stands out in my mind.

So I think quite a few players are conditioned to expect this from roleplaying games. Asking these players to take the initiative in the game is asking them to step outside the comfort zone which in some cases is what they've literally grown up with as gamers.

Third, as Sammael and Raven Crowking described upthread, it doesn't take a whole party of players like me to make a sandboxy game work; usually one or two is more than adequate, and the rest can use those players' initiative in pursuing in-character goals as a substitute for the referee-driven style of play with which they are more familiar and comfortable. It doesn't take four or five Tony Robbins' clones sitting around the table to make a sandboxy game work, in my experience.

Fourth and last, as was alluded to in another thread recently, discussion about sandboxy games has taken on a slightly higher profile on forums like this one. The discussion was always there, but it was mostly buried in threads about this or that topic. Now sandboxy play is the topic with a bit more frequency, so more referees are expressing interest in trying out a style of play which may be wholly new to them, or simply one they haven't done since they were quite young and are curious about how age and experience might have changed their approaches to it.

Since most rpg forums seem to be heavily weighted toward referees, it's not much of a surprise that interest among referees could be greater than among players. Much of the discussion is directed to and for referees rather than players - a new thread on playing in sandboxy settings might be useful, actually.

All in my humble opinion and personal experience, with expectations about mileage subject to your variation.

 

[The Ghost]

But, RC, assume for a second that everyone is playing nice. So, you have five separate, mutually exclusive (in the sense that one does not in any way impact the other) goals at the table. So, we help Bob first, then Jane, then Sue, then Dave then me. Then we go back to Bob (again, assuming we don't complete everyone's goal the first time around).

So, we spend ten sessions, two of which are devoted to any particular goal. Ten sessions later, the group and/or the campaign dies and no one got anywhere near their goal, even though everyone was helping everyone else.

It doesn't require jerk players. Everyone can be 100% supportive of everyone else, but, because the campaign doesn't survive longer than 30-50 sessions, no one actually manages to achieve any goals.

One last thought on this while I was out to lunch... When I ran through our Savage Tides Adventure Path game our party was TPK'd around level 13 or so - we failed at the larger goal of defeating Demogorgon. When I ran through our Shield Lands Sandbox game our party was TPK'd around level 13 - we failed at our larger goal of defeating Iuz. In both campaigns we did succeed at a number of smaller goals, however. I felt a greater sense of pride and accomplishment at the end of our Shield Lands game than I did at the end of our Savage Tides game, even though both campaigns ended with, well, a TPK.

I think part of that sense of accomplishment comes from knowing - as a player - that what I achieved was personal to me and it was unknown whether or not I could achieve it. Whereas in the AP, what I achieved was generic to everybody who bought the adventure and the results were what they were (if I complete the adventure in Dungeon XXX then the adventure in Dungeon XXY happens).

 

[catsclaw227]

I think part of that sense of accomplishment comes from knowing - as a player - that what I achieved was personal to me and it was unknown whether or not I could achieve it. Whereas in the AP, what I achieved was generic to everybody who bought the adventure and the results were what they were (if I complete the adventure in Dungeon XXX then the adventure in Dungeon XXY happens).

Yes, I can understand that perspective, but one thing that sandbox gaming misses out on is the shared experience of running or playing in an adventure. Obviously, if the sandbox uses published adventures, this isn't the case, but many sandboxes don't use any published adventures.

There is a lot to be said about the collective experience of running an AP or series of adventures. There is certain kind of camaraderie that occurs between gamers that may have never even met before, but instantly relate to events or encounters that have been played from a published work. I've seen and experienced these conversations at FLGSs, at conventions, and here on EnWorld.

 

[Raven Crowking]

one thing that sandbox gaming misses out on is the shared experience of running or playing in an adventure

I have never played any D&D game, or any rpg, sandbox or otherwise, that did not include adventures.

There is certain kind of camaraderie that occurs between gamers that may have never even met before, but instantly relate to events or encounters that have been played from a published work.

Ah; you mean modules.

Well, you can run either a sandbox or an AP with or without the inclusion of the published work of others. It depends upon how much heavy lifting you are willing to do.

I've used Keep on the Borderland in Holmes Basic, 1e, 2e, and 3e. Sooner or later, I will use it in RCFG.

Conversely, I could just as easily create an AP from whole cloth and run it.


RC

 

[catsclaw227]

I have never played any D&D game, or any rpg, sandbox or otherwise, that did not include adventures.

Ha, ha. Funny. I am sure you knew what I meant.

Ah; you mean modules.

Well, you can run either a sandbox or an AP with or without the inclusion of the published work of others. It depends upon how much heavy lifting you are willing to do.

I've used Keep on the Borderland in Holmes Basic, 1e, 2e, and 3e. Sooner or later, I will use it in RCFG.

Conversely, I could just as easily create an AP from whole cloth and run it.

Yes, but I am talking about the shared experience of playing published adventures. Yes, you can have them in sandbox play; I ran a bunch of 1e adventures in my sandbox campaign. But there are a lot of sandbox-style games where DM's don't use any published adventures.

Now, the purpose of my post wasn't to say that one was better than the other. Certainly, no value judgment one way or the other. I was simply responding to a comment The Ghost made about the sense of accomplishment he felt.

 

[Beginning of the End]

And, speaking as someone who has had WAY too many games peter out and fail due to real life issues (both as a player and a DM), I've spent far too much time on what amounts to foreplay. I start a campaign (again, either as a player or a DM), put lots of effort into it, really try to engage in it, and then, six, eight months later, the group is seventh level, Bob and Suzie are going off to do something else, Dave's started working night shift and can't make game night and poof, campaign ends just as we are really getting going.

The irony here is that a properly run sandbox sidesteps the problem of disappearing players and player conflicts entirely.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ha, ha. Funny.

Now, the purpose of my post wasn't to say that one was better than the other. Certainly, no value judgment one way or the other. I was simply responding to a comment The Ghost made about the sense of accomplishment he felt.

Which is fine; I was just pointing out that your caveat has to do with level of homebrewing, rather than sandbox vs. AP. Of course, I agree that in a well-run sandbox, the players might not realize that they've encountered areas (etc.) from a given module.


RC