Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5401983" data-attributes="member: 22779">My basic issue with sandboxing is generally pacing.&nbsp; Which, to me, is exactly what the Thief VS the King example represents.&nbsp; It's not that stealing from the king is bad or good, it's that it can very, very quickly grind the game to a complete standstill while we attempt to resolve what happened.Add to that the possibility that it can take considerable time to resolve and that only one player at the table actually cares, and you can have a very, very boring session.&nbsp; Not that you necessarily will.&nbsp; It might be a great one.&nbsp; But, IME, more often than not it's going to be a couple of hours of wanking about until it gets resolved one way or another.And this can be the issue with sandbox campaigns.&nbsp; Because you've got competing interests at the table, particularly if you have one player who simply cannot repress impulses, you can possibly result in a situation that Ken Hite talks about with stagnant games.&nbsp; You wind up with the Seinfeld version of a campaign - it's a campaign about nothing! - because the players can never come together long enough to actually accomplish anything.Note, I'm not saying this is a likely outcome.&nbsp; In the right group, it's fine and will likely not happen.&nbsp; And, I wonder if having stable groups where the players know each other very well has any relationship to how well people find sandboxes work.In newer groups, where the players don't know each other that well, I've seen this go so horribly, horribly wrong.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />The one good thing about railroads is that the pacing can be stepped up far higher.&nbsp; In a railroad, you trade player freedom for pace.&nbsp; Sure, you can't choose to do X, Y or Z, but, you will progress through things much faster, so, it's not boring.Again, this isn't necessarily the only result.&nbsp; Railroads can go horribly, horribly wrong as well.&nbsp; But, at the end of the day, suiting the campaign style to the group will result in a much better game all around.&nbsp; For some groups, sacrificing pace for choice is worth it.&nbsp; For others, not so much.&nbsp; It's all about getting what you want.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5401983, member: 22779"] My basic issue with sandboxing is generally pacing. Which, to me, is exactly what the Thief VS the King example represents. It's not that stealing from the king is bad or good, it's that it can very, very quickly grind the game to a complete standstill while we attempt to resolve what happened. Add to that the possibility that it can take considerable time to resolve and that only one player at the table actually cares, and you can have a very, very boring session. Not that you necessarily will. It might be a great one. But, IME, more often than not it's going to be a couple of hours of wanking about until it gets resolved one way or another. And this can be the issue with sandbox campaigns. Because you've got competing interests at the table, particularly if you have one player who simply cannot repress impulses, you can possibly result in a situation that Ken Hite talks about with stagnant games. You wind up with the Seinfeld version of a campaign - it's a campaign about nothing! - because the players can never come together long enough to actually accomplish anything. Note, I'm not saying this is a likely outcome. In the right group, it's fine and will likely not happen. And, I wonder if having stable groups where the players know each other very well has any relationship to how well people find sandboxes work. In newer groups, where the players don't know each other that well, I've seen this go so horribly, horribly wrong. :D The one good thing about railroads is that the pacing can be stepped up far higher. In a railroad, you trade player freedom for pace. Sure, you can't choose to do X, Y or Z, but, you will progress through things much faster, so, it's not boring. Again, this isn't necessarily the only result. Railroads can go horribly, horribly wrong as well. But, at the end of the day, suiting the campaign style to the group will result in a much better game all around. For some groups, sacrificing pace for choice is worth it. For others, not so much. It's all about getting what you want. [/QUOTE]

Verification