Player involvement - and Sandboxes

[The Ghost]

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.

That's a very good point. I remember a trip to Pearl Harbor I took a couple of years ago and listened to my father talk with all these old sailors about their time in the Navy. Here were a half-dozen people who had never met before but through their experiences during WWII instantly were able to relate to one another. It was a very cool experience for me.

When I was younger I ran through a number of the old Greyhawk modules. I remember going to my first GenCon and talking with many other gamers and listening to their stories about running through those modules and how their experiences were similar to and, sometimes, different from mine. So I totally get where you're going with this.

 

[Ariosto]

Yes, catsclaw227, it is a perennial tragedy. I don't know how many people have ended up playing Tunnels & Trolls in actual campaigns instead of going through Solo #13 Sewers of Oblivion. Far too many have never shared the experience of Mario Brothers or Pokémon because they were playing RuneQuest or Traveller instead. I even know of people who play Empire of the Petal Throne when they could be watching American Idol!

"Oh, but we can do both" is a line I've heard time and again. Next thing you know, they're too raptly intent on their campaign to care about Return to the Tomb of Horrors Revisited.

 

[catsclaw227]

Yes, catsclaw227, it is a perennial tragedy. I don't know how many people have ended up playing Tunnels & Trolls in actual campaigns instead of going through Solo #13 Sewers of Oblivion. Far too many have never shared the experience of Mario Brothers or Pokémon because they were playing RuneQuest or Traveller instead. I even know of people who play Empire of the Petal Throne when they could be watching American Idol!

"Oh, but we can do both" is a line I've heard time and again. Next thing you know, they're too raptly intent on their campaign to care about Return to the Tomb of Horrors Revisited.

I'm sorry. Color me a bit confused.

I'm not sure which and what part of my post you are referring to.

Also, I can't tell if you are being a bit snarky or totally serious. I was talking about D&D modules and the neat part about the shared experience they can provide.

There are great campaigns that never use a published module - I've played in quite a few of them. I'm not saying one is better than the other, just pointing out the merits of one.

 

[Ariosto]

I'm sorry. Color me a bit confused.

Yes, I think there is some confusion in your assertion that actually playing Dungeons & Dragons or Traveller in the full mode in which they were originally designed to be played is somehow incompatible with also playing commercially published scenarios -- if people want to do so.

If people who in fact have not merely the choice of one or the other, but the option of both, really do overwhelmingly choose the "home-cooking campaign" exclusively, then I guess that might say something. I think it's a bit myopic, a bit one-sided, to bemoan their "missing out on a collective experience".

How about all the people who think a "campaign" is just a string of canned situations? How about those who think of an "adventure" as something that happens to them rather than what they do?

Are they not also missing out? What of the once widely shared experience of playing in what once were known as adventures and campaigns?

Somehow, the homogenized and pasteurized product keeps getting put in this privileged position.

 

[MerricB]

I would say that it is obvious that fuller campaign interaction is part of the desire to play in a sandbox game, but IMHO you have simply failed to go far enough with your analysis.

The exclusion of sandboxing was, indeed, deliberate. It wasn't because I don't enjoy sandbox play, for certainly I do, but rather I didn't want to automatically install sandboxes as the highest form of D&D without examination of the levels of engagement with the campaign I discussed in my original post.

The situation is somewhat complicated - at least to me - by an unclear definition of what a sandbox is. Some areas that I might argue are inside or outside the definition of a sandbox are disputed by others. So, no sandbox as the next level - at least in the OP!

One aspect of the campaign that fascinates me is from where comes the motivation for the adventures the PCs come on: Is it imposed from above from the DM - such cases of running APs, GDQ, I3-5, this is a motivation imposed on the PCs. Conversely, when you run a setting where you've described the home base and what lies around... but then leave the choice up to the players. To then go even more in the direction of player motivation... when the players actually come up with the adventure ideas (we want to explore an orc lair in the mountains; there's one there because we say so!)

There is no doubt that some form of adventure structure as imposed by the DM is popular; see the GDQ and other adventures of its ilk. (Personally, I'm even more fond of Necropolis). These adventures read as connected sandboxes: you have a great deal of freedom within each sandbox, but limited freedom in your progression along the chain. There is an overall linear structure to the entire beast, albeit not as restrictive as many APs.

A related question that poses itself is this: in campaigns where the group is always travelling and not returning to the same locations (see especially GDQ, but others likewise), how much engagement and devotion can the players gain towards any one location? There is much to be said for the settled home base: when you spend a lot of time in one location, it can become a lot more real than the "drive-by" aspects of places like the Shrine of the Kuo-toa.

(One of the great aspects of the Vault of the Drow is how much time you could conceivably spend there, although I wonder how many DMs and players were good enough at the game to run it in such a manner; sadly, I've never run GDQ, although I've played or run most of the other great classic series).

I know that in my play of the Savage Tide AP, we really got a great relationship with the home town Sassarinne going - but, alas, such did not reoccur when we reached the Isle of Dread and had the new settlement. This is in stark contrast to my Great Kingdom campaign where the group made three trips to the Isle of Dread and had much rapport with the isle; interestingly, it was based on the creatures and situations to be found there, rather than NPCs, so a pleasing level of engagement with the game can be found even without PC-NPC interaction; occasionally the situation is enough!

Cheers!

 

[catsclaw227]

Yes, I think there is some confusion in your assertion that actually playing Dungeons & Dragons or Traveller in the full mode in which they were originally designed to be played is somehow incompatible with also playing commercially published scenarios -- if people want to do so.

When have I asserted any such thing?

If people who in fact have not merely the choice of one or the other, but the option of both, really do overwhelmingly choose the "home-cooking campaign" exclusively, then I guess that might say something. I think it's a bit myopic, a bit one-sided, to bemoan their "missing out on a collective experience".

I loved home cooking my own campaigns. I did it exclusively from 1983-1990 with three different groups in SoCal, Portland OR, and Tucson AZ, using the 1e AD&D ruleset. I had developed, at that point, a world that I sandboxed in with each group, over those years, with nothing but my core 3 rulebooks (and the Fiend Folio, sorry, couldn't help it).

I have not bemoaned anything.

Thread after thread, anytime I post something in a thread that has to do with sandboxing, you seem to singularly pick out my posts to breakdown. For some reason you believe that I don't play it right, or you think I don't believe you play it right. Where does this come from?

How about all the people who think a "campaign" is just a string of canned situations? How about those who think of an "adventure" as something that happens to them rather than what they do?

Are they not also missing out? What of the once widely shared experience of playing in what once were known as adventures and campaigns?

Somehow, the homogenized and pasteurized product keeps getting put in this privileged position.

Geez. Let's get this straight once and for all. If I play the game different than you, who cares? I don't have any of the opinions that you claim that I have, as you state above.

I am not saying that a totally home-brewed adventure is worse or better than published ones. Where are you getting that idea? I home brewed all my adventures for many, many years. I am not against that.

 

[Ariosto]

"Playing modules" as a staple was actually pretty feasible in 1988, but not so much in 1978.

If it were not for the Judges Guild -- whose flagship products were the "sandbox" City State and Wilderlands materials -- there would have been mighty slim pickings for "dungeon modules" the first few years. If one was not acquainted with those, then Wee Warriors was probably also not a household name.

"The Temple of the Frog" occupied half of Supplement II (1975) -- so reading it was certainly a common experience (one not so conducive to exciting play afterward). I think there were also some scenarios in Dragon Magazine.

TSR's first separate modules came out in 1978: the Giants trilogy used for the Origins tournament that year. Those were for levels 8-12. Also published that year were the Drow trilogy (9-14), The Tomb of Horrors (10-14), and B1 In Search of the Unknown (1-3, although easily restocked for higher levels).

So, the Players Handbook had just become available (no DMG until the next year) -- and 7 modules out of 8 were for "name"-level characters! As I recall, it would take a lot more treasure in B1 just to get half a dozen PCs to second level.

Hey, if you had been playing for four years, or maybe even just a couple, then you could have old-style characters of high level, right? For all Gygax's hot air about it being a whole new game, it didn't look all that different. It ought to be possible to transfer experience.

Ah, but where would one have gotten that experience?

1979 brought B2 Keep on the Borderlands, T1 Village of Hommlet -- a couple more low-level modules -- and S2 White Plume Mountain (5-10, not likely to occupy many sessions). (8+3= 11 modules in 1979)

You would still need a lot of other material to get characters (and players) from 1st level up to 8th+ so they could play the previous year's releases.

1980 gave us the World of Greyhawk folio. "Sandbox", anyone? Also A1, the first of the Slavers series (4-7) and time-limited scenarios C1 (3-7) and C2 (5-7). S3 Expedition to the Barrier Peaks was another high-level affair (8-12), as was the probably superfluous Q1 (10-14). (11+5= 16 modules in 1980)

Leaving out the G-D reprints, '81 gave us 8 more modules: the other three Slavers; B3, L1 and U1 (more low levels); X1 and I1 (4-7). (16+8= 24 modules in 1981)

We got 9 more in '82: B4 and U2 (low); X2 and X3, I2 and I3 (mid); N1 (low to mid); S4 and WG4 [no such things as WG1-3] (mid to high) (24+9= 33 modules in 1982)

There was a bumper crop in 1983 -- 13 (IIRC), not including the invisible-ink solos -- with several "adventure paths" possible. One might still need to "fill in gaps", but 47 modules sure provided more packaged fun than zero.

Again, there had been dungeon modules from JG starting with Tegel Manor (1977). Citadel of Fire came out in 1978.

In 1979, JG published about another dozen, including a solitaire dungeon. The 1980 output was about half a dozen, as other games got attention -- along with more "sandbox" material. There were another 8 (I think) D&D or AD&D modules in 1981, which IIRC was the year TSR withdrew its licenses and the "Universal Fantasy" releases began.

All along, there were assorted materials of other utility, such as the Village Books, the Books of Treasure Maps, and the Dungeoneer and Pegasus magazines. Strictly in terms of what I offhand would call "dungeon modules", though, I estimate totals of 2 in 1978, 13 (not counting the solo) in 1979, 19 in 1980, and 27 in 1981.

Adding those "Approved" modules to TSR's, the totals are
1974: none
1975: none
1976: *0
1977: *1
1978: 10
1979: 24
1980: 35
1981: 51
1982: 60
1983: 73

* not counting Wee Warriors' Palace of the Vampire Queen (1976), The Dwarven Glory (1976? 77?), and Misty Isles (1977?), which I don't think got much distribution.

In 1984, TSR turned out about 30, including the first 5 in the Dragonlance Saga. 1985-87 were about 20 new modules per year -- or about as many in the 3 years 1984-86 as with JG combined in the 7 years 1977-1983 -- for 160+ total (not counting later JG, or Mayfair's "Role Aids"). By the debut of 2E, figure about that many from TSR alone.

 

[LostSoul]

I wonder if Burning Wheel - with its emphasis on player character goals in the form of Beliefs - isn't well-suited to sandbox play.

Certainly I feel that the last BW game I took part in was very "sandboxy" in feel, down to the D&D hex map the DM provided.

 

[Ariosto]

I home brewed all my adventures for many, many years. I am not against that.

That's nice. It's not the issue.

The issue is your conflating it with "sandbox gaming", and taking jabs at that in ways that just do not hold up to even cursory examination.

Look, here's the bottom line from first-hand experience: Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, I played in and refereed both campaigns and modules.

It very simply was not the "either-or" matter that you presented. It was not necessary to shove a potted "adventure" into a campaign in order to play it, just because there happened also to be campaigns!

Nor was it necessary to rely only on "home brewed" material for a "sandbox". The City State of the Invincible Overlord is a pretty splendid shared experience, and there are plenty more in the Wilderlands!

The one option that was not feasible for my gang was to play only modules.

 

[Doug McCrae]

There is no doubt that some form of adventure structure as imposed by the DM is popular; see the GDQ and other adventures of its ilk. (Personally, I'm even more fond of Necropolis). These adventures read as connected sandboxes: you have a great deal of freedom within each sandbox, but limited freedom in your progression along the chain. There is an overall linear structure to the entire beast, albeit not as restrictive as many APs.

I'd describe that as an adventure path consisting of non-linear adventures, not a sandbox. As I use the term, 'sandbox' refers to campaigns, not adventures. But I can understand what you mean, the essence of the sandbox concept is player freedom.

You're right to say that the definition of sandbox is unclear.