Sandbox gaming

[Ariosto]

Procedurally generated material has played a huge role in the hobby. Gygax's Dungeon Masters Guide in 1979 was just the latest source of algorithms to generate, for instance, terrain for impromptu wilderness expeditions.

 

[Ariosto]

On demand generation of material between sessions is facilitated by Referee control over scheduling sessions.

"Hey, G.O.D., since it's going to be a while before the Holy Rollers get back from the Otiose Oubliette of Ozymandias, John and I want Sargon and Zog to sail the Black Swan to the Ataraxian Archipelago."

"What do you intend there?"

"We want to look for the source of those incredibly lifelike little statues said to originate there."

"Okay. I'll need some time to work up some stuff, and I've got the gang from Fin's Freehold tonight. How about sometime this coming weekend?"

 

[Celebrim]

It is no more a matter of a lot of material we expect not to use than it is when we draw up the maps and armies for a game inspired by the Seven Years War or the Second World War.

False analogy, as your own elaboration makes clear. Still there is a kernal of truth, in that in both a complete WWII simulation and a Sandbox, the designer includes alot of detail not simply because he expects it to be relevant, but because he is trying to simulate something and isn't sure from game to game what will be relevant. The drive or desire for completeness and not merely that the situation be boiled down to a small set of essentials only, is driving not only the desire for a WWII simulation that has Delaware on the map but also an RPG that has a random prostitute encounter table. It's there not because you expect to need it, but because it is there.

It may not be the case that every piece or every space is directly involved in a battle every game, but the scope contributes to range of different histories possible. Exploring those is what gives a game extended play and replay value...The role-playing game in its seminal form has no ending. Whatever becomes of any single character, whether death or glory, play can always continue with other characters.

- emphasis added

Therein lies the problem with your analogy. If a roleplaying game is infinite in scope, then the question never becomes one of 'replay value' (as it were), since in theory we could continue in the same game forever. In a wargame, for a given tactical scale and operational theater, we can say that the game is 'completely described'. But the game world of a roleplaying game can never be completely described. The game world is too vast, the interaction with it too detailed, and it is indeed effectively (and sometimes explicitly) infinite.

Procedurely generated material is sandbox in spades. You need a 100,000 widget random generator not because you expect the players to encounter 100,000 widgets, but because it represents the range of what you imagine could be there. You might only need 6, but you prep for infinity.

 

[Ariosto]

False analogy, as your own elaboration makes clear.

How, pray tell?

... in that in both a complete WWII simulation and a Sandbox ...

What's the difference? I certainly intended my references as examples of the latter (in pertinent respects) in any case.

If a roleplaying game is infinite in scope, then the question never becomes one of 'replay value' (as it were), since in theory we could continue in the same game forever.

It is the very same question of more opportunities to use the same material, whether we distinguish "multiple games" or are looking at the "same game" that has gone on for years.

In a wargame, for a given tactical scale and operational theater, we can say that the game is 'completely described'.

You can say that as willy-nilly as any sweeping claim -- but that won't make it true! Your view of the game master's role seems simply to be informed by insufficient acquaintance with such wargames. Most particularly, you are ignoring Dungeons & Dragons and its predecessors!

As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign.

Also

We advise, however, that a campaign be begun slowly, following the steps outlined herein, so as to avoid becoming too bogged down with unfamiliar details at first. That way your campaign will build naturally, at the pace best suited to the referee and players, smoothing the way for all concerned. New details can be added and old "laws" altered so as to provide continually new and different situations. In addition, the players themselves will interact in such a way as to make the campaign variable and unique, and this is quite desirable.

Just what, of any relevance to the issue at hand, you seek to derive from the postulate (supposing it were true) is in any case obscure.

(edit = added quotations from D&D Vol. 1, 1974)

 

[chaochou]

There is a reason for that....

I disagree with a lot of your post. But I don't see any real value in debating it, or the usefulness of a 'classic' definition outside of the historical context which coined it.

RPG design is evolving and the language is evolving too such that what constituted 'sandbox' in 1985 is not necessarily what it is now. In the fluid world of RPG theory I don't see any consensus on a definition right now.

And I certainly don't see the value in asserting a definition which focuses on the method ("You must prepare a world or it's not sandbox") rather than the result ("You are empowering player decisions so it is sandbox"). Such an approach looks like a recipe for stagnation to me.

Such lengthy and probably fruitless debate aside, this thread was intended as a discussion of practical play to try and maximise fun and minimise recurring complaints associated with sandbox play (like 'directionless' or 'nothing to do').

I'm here to see those ideas. How about you?

 

[nedjer]

Sandboxes surely shouldn't really exclude or preclude linear gameplay within the box, as a sandbox is about player choice (flexible material you choose to shape) and offering a safe haven where consequences are limited. (If you choose to have linear sequences of play in a sandbox you're making a choice about how you use the sand).

At any rate it's the qualities of sand, as malleable and safe, that originally defined sandbox. A sandbox sure seems likely to encourage non-linear play due to the level of choice sand offers, but it doesn't seem necessary to form a sandbox.

 

[nedjer]

this thread was intended as a discussion of practical play to try and maximise fun and minimise recurring complaints associated with sandbox play (like 'directionless' or 'nothing to do').

I'm here to see those ideas. How about you?

OK, I'm good with that. So much so that I've not long since put up a third posts on challenges for opening up player choice. Stuff like this:

• Business and Commerce
• Conquest and Colonisation
• Counter Insurgency
• Crime and Corruption
• Disasters and Crisis Management
• Espionage and Infiltration
• Internecine Warfare
• Mysteries and Investigations
• Research and Experiment
• Rebellion or Revolution
• Survival Scenarios
• Warfare and Sieges

The list grew longer and the posts are over at Thistle Games in the sig

 

[Mark CMG]

Being literal-minded about the concepts of "railroading" and "sandbox" campaigns/settings is always going to cause people to miss the point.

 

[Ariosto]

...to try and maximise fun and minimise recurring complaints associated with sandbox play (like 'directionless' or 'nothing to do')...

Avoid do-nothings too lazy even to exercise the common sense that reveals that there cannot be "nothing to do" when the notable difference is that there is more to do than just one thing!

There are plenty of more passively consumed entertainments for such folks. Even in the RPG field, more tightly structured scenarios are plentiful.

If "directionless" is a flaw rather than a feature for you, then you want something else. The freedom to choose our own directions is the appeal for those of us who like this game form!

 

[Ariosto]

Alternatively, one can so sequester the activities of a group of initiative-lacking players that their "sub campaign" only rarely interacts with the wider, more rough-and-tumble milieu. Some or all may by stages develop the skills necessary to graduate to full participation.

Breaking out of the reservation can even be the "graduation test".

However, it may also be the case that a full campaign just is not their cup of tea. Some people have very eclectic tastes, enjoying a wide variety of game forms -- but even they may find a few unappealing simply because game and personal taste or temperament don't match up.