Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9672844" data-attributes="member: 71699">It's probably right to label Griffin Mountain (Kraft, Jaquays and Stafford, 1981) a classic sandbox (or at least, highly suitable for running one.) Chapter VII - Encounters - contains prepared encounters tied to regions. Additionally, there are encounters tied to Citadels and Points of Interest (location rather than chance-based.) I wouldn't use the language &quot;bypassed&quot; to describe players not encountering any particular one of these, even though they are prepared.One practice I associate with sandbox play is that the camera follows the players so that we narrate whatever they meet. Player characters could conceivably become aware of an &quot;encounter&quot; (in the Griffin Mountain sense of prepared NPCs and potentially locations for interaction) just before reaching it, and choose to draw the camera away. That would be in a sense &quot;bypassing&quot; that encounter.Another practice I associate with sandbox are NPC motives which are to be given effect. A motivated NPC could well send an encounter the players way (even in cases where that NPC is oblivious to them), and the player characters might well &quot;bypass&quot; that encounter. Such &quot;bypassing&quot; could become a lively and repeated element of play if player characters and NPC are actively engaged.In short, the &quot;planned sequence of events&quot; you envision might not describe sandbox play very well. An NPC could &quot;plan a sequence of events&quot; (meaning of course, that the GM plans a sequence of events) which is that their guards routinely patrol their castle walls. The NPC (of course, the GM) has in mind that anyone seeking to come over those walls will encounter their patrols. And then of course the player characters could &quot;bypass&quot; those patrol encounters (find a way over the wall that avoids them.)Still, it does not seem right to say that the GM planned a &quot;sequence of events&quot; where the players encounter those guards: the players dictate the sequence of events. Or perhaps one says &quot;GM plans&quot; but &quot;players decide&quot;.The dilemma then seems one of -- how can mode of play A work for persons seeking mode of play B? The problem is one of mismatching criteria: critiquing apples on failures to be pearish.What exact kinds of player agencies are at risk (not just &quot;player agency is at risk&quot; generically, but player agencies to do what in particular?) and why are those good criteria to judge sandbox by?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9672844, member: 71699"] It's probably right to label [I]Griffin Mountain [/I](Kraft, Jaquays and Stafford, 1981) a classic sandbox (or at least, highly suitable for running one.) Chapter VII - Encounters - contains prepared encounters tied to regions. Additionally, there are encounters tied to Citadels and Points of Interest (location rather than chance-based.) I wouldn't use the language "bypassed" to describe players [B]not [/B]encountering any particular one of these, even though they are prepared. One practice I associate with sandbox play is that the camera follows the players so that we narrate whatever they meet. Player characters could conceivably become aware of an "encounter" (in the Griffin Mountain sense of prepared NPCs and potentially locations for interaction) just before reaching it, and choose to draw the camera away. That would be in a sense "bypassing" that encounter. Another practice I associate with sandbox are NPC motives which are to be given effect. A motivated NPC could well send an encounter the players way (even in cases where that NPC is oblivious to them), and the player characters might well "bypass" that encounter. Such "bypassing" could become a lively and repeated element of play if player characters and NPC are actively engaged. In short, the "planned sequence of events" you envision might not describe sandbox play very well. An NPC could "plan a sequence of events" (meaning of course, that the GM plans a sequence of events) which is that their guards routinely patrol their castle walls. The NPC (of course, the GM) has in mind that anyone seeking to come over those walls will encounter their patrols. And then of course the player characters could "bypass" those patrol encounters (find a way over the wall that avoids them.) Still, it does not seem right to say that the GM planned a "sequence of events" where the players encounter those guards: the players dictate the sequence of events. Or perhaps one says "GM plans" but "players decide". The dilemma then seems one of -- how can mode of play A work for persons seeking mode of play B? The problem is one of mismatching criteria: critiquing apples on failures to be pearish. What exact kinds of player agencies are at risk (not just "player agency is at risk" generically, but player agencies to do what in particular?) and why are those good criteria to judge sandbox by? [/QUOTE]

Verification