Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 9673197" data-attributes="member: 177">So, I think I see part of the issue:&nbsp; The players don't know what they don't know.There is typically some minimum of information a player needs to have in order to make informed decisions and have wants and desires.&nbsp; Before they have that minimum information, they cannot generally be expected to know what they are looking for to ask for it!&nbsp; So, while you feel like that answers the question, it doesn't really address the initialization.&nbsp; And it gets worse when you start talking about &quot;passive rolls&quot; - because in this context, failure to make a roll (passive or otherwise) is failure to even find adventure!&nbsp; I think the &quot;VR&quot; thing is an overshoot.&nbsp; It is also aside the point - what ER would like and why or why not, is not the question.&nbsp; They didn't ask anyone's opinion on what they'd like!&nbsp; So, inserting that is not an answer.You're not being asked to be a salesman.&nbsp; Nobody is buying from you here.I can understand some of ER's frustration, though, because I think the way folks talk about it is... over glamorizing it a bit?&nbsp; There's a simple practical answer (between my own experience running traditional sandboxes, and how folks talk here) that covers most of the ground:This is largely a Skilled Play issue.&nbsp; How players and GMs manage in a traditional sandbox is established over time by learning how each other work, and playing to it - so it is kind of idiosyncratic, and sometimes difficult to clearly articulate, as it isn't a clear process-based solution.&nbsp; And, those skills don't work perfectly all the time, nor do they work instantaneously.&nbsp; Compared to some other forms of play, there is, especially early in a campaign, a certain amount of &quot;muddling about&quot; in traditional sandbox play before players find a solid direction they want to go in.If we go into the trilemma with the understanding that the players and GM already know a lot about how each other works, then how they can stay out of the failure modes is more understandable.&nbsp; And it also describes how many sandboxes fail - early, before that shared knowledge is established, those failure modes are much more likely to appear.So, for example, my own players have low tolerance for &quot;muddling about&quot; looking for elements they want to engage in - we only play about twice a month, weekday evening sessions, so they have a high desire to get to clear action.&nbsp; As a group, they also tend to suffer from option paralysis and over-analysis.&nbsp; Thus, they don't ask me to run traditional sandboxes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 9673197, member: 177"] So, I think I see part of the issue: The players don't know what they don't know. There is typically some minimum of information a player needs to have in order to make informed decisions and have wants and desires. Before they have that minimum information, they cannot generally be expected to know what they are looking for to ask for it! So, while you feel like that answers the question, it doesn't really address the [I]initialization[/I]. And it gets worse when you start talking about "passive rolls" - because in this context, failure to make a roll (passive or otherwise) is failure to even find adventure! I think the "VR" thing is an overshoot. It is also aside the point - what ER [I]would like[/I] and why or why not, is not the question. They didn't ask anyone's opinion on what they'd like! So, inserting that is not an answer. You're not being asked to be a salesman. Nobody is buying from you here. I can understand some of ER's frustration, though, because I think the way folks talk about it is... over glamorizing it a bit? There's a simple practical answer (between my own experience running traditional sandboxes, and how folks talk here) that covers most of the ground: This is largely a Skilled Play issue. How players and GMs manage in a traditional sandbox is established over time by learning how each other work, and playing to it - so it is kind of idiosyncratic, and sometimes difficult to clearly articulate, as it isn't a clear process-based solution. And, those skills don't work perfectly all the time, nor do they work instantaneously. Compared to some other forms of play, there is, especially early in a campaign, a certain amount of "muddling about" in traditional sandbox play before players find a solid direction they want to go in. If we go into the trilemma with the understanding that the players and GM [I]already know [/I]a lot about how each other works, then how they can stay out of the failure modes is more understandable. And it also describes how many sandboxes fail - early, before that shared knowledge is established, those failure modes are much more likely to appear. So, for example, my own players have low tolerance for "muddling about" looking for elements they want to engage in - we only play about twice a month, weekday evening sessions, so they have a high desire to get to clear action. As a group, they also tend to suffer from option paralysis and over-analysis. Thus, they don't ask me to run traditional sandboxes. [/QUOTE]

Verification