Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 8435726" data-attributes="member: 6802765">Where are you getting the idea of a "hidden menu" from? That isn't part of how I've specified the spectrum.And yes, implicit in the idea of being able to make an open-ended choice is that you may be doing something the GM hasn't prepped yet. (Depending on GM style, the GM might wing it or might pause to be able to prep first.)How open-ended a "good" sandbox is will of course be a question of taste. But a more-frequently open-ended sandbox is (as I've defined the spectrum anyway) more sandboxy than a less-frequently open-ended sandbox. If someone wants to suggest a different measure (or a more precise measure) of sandboxiness to define the spectrum, cool. But if we're getting to the point of discussing which definition for the spectrum is most useful, we're well past the point of agreeing that the spectrum exists.Or you could just let them go anywhere they want in the setting and (try to) do anything they want. Then you're definitely "letting them do anything". If instead the expectation is that the players pick from a list of pre-defined elements to "engage with", the decisions with that expectation would tend to pull a campaign towards the non-sandbox end of the spectrum, unless you're using a much broader definition of "engage with" than you appear to be.I'm saying the spectrum is still useful in the middle despite the messiness. I definitely wasn't agreeing with you that the spectrum only works at the edges. But I do agree with you that most campaigns will be in the middle--a campaign at either extreme would be quite unusual. Indeed, the fact that most campaigns are somewhere in the middle is one of the reasons I think it's important to look at sandboxiness on a spectrum in the first place.</blockquote>

Verification