Sandbox gaming

[pemerton]

I would xp you, but I can't.

No worries. I'm just trying to stick to your original idea for the thread.

That doesn't describe the games I run. Ive written up an outline prep in the OP. I can't see how it fits your definition and, in fact, I've never, ever run a sandbox game according to that definition.

On the other threads ("Railroading" and "GMing by the nose") I've been distinguishing the sort of play you describe from a classic sandbox precisely because it doesn't involve exploration. But the problem I've been encountering is that there is a common (but false) inference from "not sandbox" to "linear in the sense of pre-determined resolution". Now, to block that inference you describe your game as a sandbox, and get told that it's not really one!

My conclusion - when you're playing a situation-based game where conflicts between PCs and NPCs and among the PCs are what drives the game onward, you won't find much joy on ENworld when you try and describe your game! (With a couple of exceptions, such as LostSoul and The Shaman.)

 

[Celebrim]

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").

Because, the two methods will achieve different results. And the two sorts of results and methods will be enjoyed to differing degrees by differing people. But, as you don't want to debate it, I won't go any further.

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 agree that you've given an example of how to use certain techniques to address some of the problems which arise from sandbox play, and from your description it sounds like you are having fun. However, claiming that because the techniques address potential limitations of sandbox play, that they are therefore 'sandbox play', is like claiming that the DL modules or the Age of Worms adventure path are sandboxes because they use techniques that address the potential limitations of sandbox play. Sandbox play isn't the only sort of 'good play'. There is no need to defensively decorate everything you do with the term.

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

I'm here to make sure that screwdrivers don't get mistaken for hammers and vica versa. If you don't truly understand the tools and structures available to you as a GM, you might get the job done - you can in fact hammer things with a screwdriver - but you're going to have unexpected failures and you won't understand the cause.

The short of my posts is this. I think you are describing potentially useful techniques for empowering players. However, I don't think you are describing 'sandboxing', which is a yet another set of techniques. Moreover, the same techniques you describe can be used for things that I consider 'railroading', and indeed have experienced occasions when they were used to disempower the players. (In sort of the same way that extensive preperation can be, depending on how it is used, very empowering or very disempowering to the players.) As you say yourself, "Vitally, the GM does not try to pre-judge the outcome or possible outcomes." I think if you want to talk about what you approach actually shares with 'sandboxing', I think you have to focus on that aspect.

 

[Ariosto]

We can "empower players" to do all sorts of things, but if the scope of those things "doesn't involve exploration" then it is an innovation beyond the role-playing games we're talking about -- which in turn went a step beyond the wargames from which they evolved.

Getting creative enough to come up with something excitingly novel does not seem to me something of which to be embarrassed. I don't see a lot of people rejecting the "RPG" label and insisting that D&D is really just a wargame, only all the wargamers have been doing it wrong.

 

[Celebrim]

On the other threads ("Railroading" and "GMing by the nose") I've been distinguishing the sort of play you describe from a classic sandbox precisely because it doesn't involve exploration. But the problem I've been encountering is that there is a common (but false) inference from "not sandbox" to "linear in the sense of pre-determined resolution". Now, to block that inference you describe your game as a sandbox, and get told that it's not really one!

You have the false inference that just because the two of you have game worlds that are responsive to the PC's that you are playing the same game (or maybe you are and I've just misread you). From what I've been able to tell, you two are may well be playing "a situation-based game where conflicts between PCs and NPCs and among the PCs are what drives the game onward" but that otherwise you don't have a lot in common. Other than being responsive to players and throwing bangs at them to heighten narrative tension, the sort of play preparation you two have described is very different.

And for another thing, "a situation-based game where conflicts between PCs and NPCs and among the PCs are what drives the game onward" also describes my game. It's so vague as to be meaningless. Likewise with the term, "responsive". Because if the game he described was responsive or collaborative at an in game level only, then I'd agree it was - like yours - a sandbox. But he's talking about collaboration in world building at a metagame level. That violates some basic sandbox goals, or if it doesn't, then it at least changes the priorities around from those you normally see in a sandbox.

Let's put it this way. In the video game world, games like Grand Theft Auto, EVE Online, and Minecraft are generally considered to be examples of sandbox games. That definition by example is pretty widely agreed on, and there strong parallels between those games and the sort of games that are traditionally called sandbox games in the pen and paper world. They aren't however examples of the sort of games that chaochou describes in the video game world. The closest you can come in the video game world to the sort of game chaochou describes isn't playing Minecraft or Grand Theft Auto or Red Dead Revolution, but the act of making a video game collaboratively.

 

[chaochou]

<yawn>

Still here derailing this thread?

If you want to be the self-appointed keeper of the 'one true way of the sandbox' feel free to take it elsewhere. Start the thread. Call it something like 'Only my definition of sandbox counts'. Knock yourself out.

Bye bye.

 

[gamerprinter]

Plans to make sandbox material for Kaidan...

Once the initial adventure arc for Kaidan: a Japanese Ghost Story is complete, I have plans for a larger 1st - 20th level campaign set in Kaidan, however, in between those two publications I have a goal for creating some sandbox material for the setting.

There are three major islands of the Kaidan archipelago, and one of them is quite big. My plans are to create Gazatteers for each island, two for the larger island, followed by one gazetteer for the Imperial Capital, then one final one for the Nine Sacred Sites of Kaidan.

Each gazetteer will feature a detailed map of the entire island or areas of concern with dozens of cities, towns, villages, temple sites, ancient battlefields, and points of interest. Each listing will include basic description of the area of interest, leading NPCs, plots and agendas, and additional known particulars. I also want to create a list of statted NPCs, statted specific monsters, magic items unique to a region. Smaller encounter scale detail maps will focus on specific areas of interest - ready for use as an encounter location.

Many of the points from the first post in this thread could occur for a gaming group. Rather than inventing the setting themselves, its my job to create a setting usable for a linear campaign as well as for sandbox. The PCs will basically pick a province and set of communities to represnt their home and starting place. Use the gazetteer to give them ideas on what is going on place to place. GM and party make things up as they go along.

I don't want to create much of an over-plot or meta-story, here. The goal is to provide detailed locations to explore with a minimum of description available. Yet having fully statted NPCs and monsters make doing so much easier.

While I still want to create a more specific larger campaign, creating gazetteers brings more tools to gaming groups for the anything can happen type of games. This is my plan anyway.

GP

 

[The Shaman]

But I don't see any real value in . . . a 'classic' definition outside of the historical context which coined it.

Words mean things.

I can call a tin cup a gold nugget, but that doesn't make it worth $44.62 a gram.

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.

I think there is much more consensus than not among actual practitioners.

I find that most of the disagreement comes from gamers who do not run status quo, 'sandboxy' settings; some of the disagreement comes from lack of familiarity, some for reasons on which I won't speculate.

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.

Methods are one of the tools by which we achieve results, particularly replicatable results. I'm not a FoRE*-player, but I believe this is one of the reasons 'System Matters' is a part of game theory.

One can prepare a complete world and not run a sandbox game (e.g., the AD&D Dragonlance modules). One can run a sandbox and prepare only a very small portion of a world (e.g., Keep on the Borderlands). One can empower player decisions without running a sandbox (e.g., pemerton's game). And one can run a sandbox without empowering player decisions, I suppose (Celebrim's 'rowboat,' perhaps?).

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.

Prep to improvise: A lot of my preparation is focused on improvising during actual play. I begin by getting a good handle on the genre; I want actual play to capture the feel of the source material. After that I immerse myself in the setting; for historical games that means studying the relevant history and geography, for fictional settings it means inventing the same. Finally I prep lots of npcs, from bare stat-skeletons for generic recurring figures like a barman, a guard, or a merchant to fully-fleshed-out unique npcs.

This allows me to set scenes and roleplay characters on-the-fly in response to what the adventurers are doing; perhaps more importantly, it allows me to use simple encounters ("2D6 bandits") as a tool to reinforce both the setting and the genre (the infamous highwayman La Capuche Noire and his band of vile miscreants, or a family of Auvergnat 'hillbillies', frex).

Random encounters are the 'living' setting: Random encounters are in media res situations the adventurers face in the course of the game. An encounter with "2d6 guards" isn't six guards walking down the street; it's the sieur de Boisrenard, sergeant to the provost-marshal of Paris, and five archers dragging a man out of his house in manacles while his lovely young wife pleads for mercy.

One of the elements of genre-emulation that's difficult for me to reconcile with a status quo setting is coincidence; coincidences are a regular feature of cape-and-sword stories, but I don't want to force coincidences on the adventurers. My way around this is to make coincidences a function of the environment of the game, by plugging unique npcs into various encounter tables, so that a coincidental meeting is something of a genuine coincidence generated by the dice in the course of actual play.


* FoRE = Friend of Ron Edwards

 

[pawsplay]

One of the elements of genre-emulation that's difficult for me to reconcile with a status quo setting is coincidence; coincidences are a regular feature of cape-and-sword stories, but I don't want to force coincidences on the adventurers. My way around this is to make coincidences a function of the environment of the game, by plugging unique npcs into various encounter tables, so that a coincidental meeting is something of a genuine coincidence generated by the dice in the course of actual play.

I semi-formalize that as the central Problem of Simulation. I think it's a pothole for Forgey theory and some of its relatives, but more importantly, it's a practical concern for designers, whether that designer is a game publisher or any GM behind the screen. My favorite thought problem is this one: Is it truly possible to kill James Bond in a James Bond 007 game?

I don't have a good and final answer. I'm not sure there is one. But given the characteristics of RPGs, I think allowing James Bond to die is the stronger approach. However, if your preference is that he does not, it doesn't matter that you are choosing the less strong approach in terms of what an RPG can give you. I think the promise of RPGs is that, while in a comic, the Batman and Joker may duel, in an RPG, it's possible for the Joker to win. That adds a force to the story that tends to be less present in passively experienced media. It's possible to psychologically ascertain the likely resolution of a story told poetically, but there is no real certainty once dice and system get involve.

In a way, sandbox v. linear games are different approaches to harvest that seed. The sandbox situates itself on the promise of actual freedom. The linear game draws its power from the authenticity of emotions in uncertain situations.

So, Batman v. Joker sandbox. Now in a linear scenario, inspired by the graphical storytelling source, you really have a question of how and when Batman will defeat the Joker. Things like Robin dying or going crazy are functions of the writer's intentions to explore Batman's psyche. In a sandbox scenario, all this is upended. Will Batman defeat the Joker? Will he remain engaged in the battle? Robin could die and be replaced by a cyborg alien sidekick. Gotham could have half its population killed by nerve gas and Bruce Wayne could become a feudal overlord struggling to impose order on a shattered city. Batman could get boxed in and killed.... maybe Robin and Gordon have to take over. So, linear game, possibility of failure exists, and traditionally, the game is weighted in the favor of victory. In a sandbox game, those parameters are devalued. There is no failure, except on a concextual basis, stuff just happens; Batman may experience failure, or Batman's player may experience failure, but if the result is engaging emotionally and logically, the game itself is successful. What else is going on in Gotham, besides Batman facing off against ever-weirder mobsters?

I think especially when you are attempting genre emulation, hybrids are more common than sandboxes (possibly more psychologically challenged than is wanted for meat and potatoes emulation) or very linear games (popular enough, but in some sense, redundant with the original non-RPG medium).

 

[Siuis]

Commenting for the Subscription mostly

EDIT: here's the thing. Sandbox is a noun (game type) and railroad is a verb (method of play). Apples and oranges, and lots of misplaced vitriol. The same goes with the word plot- y'all should specify whether you mean a villains plot (plan to be executed) or Story plot (predetermined course of events, like in a play or book), so no one is up in arms over a simple misunderstanding. We're all friends here, right?

EDIT again: just noticed you wanted specifics. I'll have to come back and put some of those down. Examples and general advice I can do, bur concerted and sleep dep don't mix.

Seems to be an awful lot of hostility in these threads... Oh well. I think sometimes we forget that the DM and the players work in tandem. Each one has a role, if one or the other doesn't do their work the game fails to function as it should. Nor is it the Players vs. the DM

If you tell players to make up characters with no back story so many times (not all times, or anything emphatic) the players have little emotional vestment other than the sheet of numbers before them. Or to make a backstory ect. and then ignore it or act like it is a hindrance to your game

On the other end when you ask them to create a rich backstory with factions and npcs and relationships. It becomes complicated because you either ignore that or you now have to build things into your world you didn't envision(sometimes this is simple most times now). Then they ignore any work you may have done to spur hooks/quests/adventures/adventure pats ect. D&D is not an MMORPG, if you create boundaries and landscape and then say you do the rest some players inevitably decides their fighter wants to be a beet farmer...

So I think that we forget that we as players and dms have to work together. D&D was built for adventures. The pc are supposed to be adventurers. And the players have to work together also, where as they don't feel railroaded into the others backstory and such.

emphasis mine.

This struck a chord with me. I went to my current DM and asked him what was in store next session (we camped for the night and were told there was going to be a ruckus). I'm playing a character sufficiently different from myself that too much of surprise will revert me to tactical kill-bot, instead of Threnoiðia, 300 year old tiefling Law incarnate. We went over the likely course of events, and I went over my likely responses (with a hearty "we're screwed"). We are working together, and that's what's important. While being on a very, VERY narrow path with few options, we as PCs and people are shaping the results. I'm not being told I'm going to get captured by slavers, I'm told they tracked us with hounds (and a tracking falcon! Neat!) and as a player I know from experience they'll beat me. But I get to try and make a difference.

My last DM decided on something, and executed it without possibility for change; there was literally no action I could take or refrain from taking that would alter the game's course. And not in a believable way, either. Even if something came up randomly (he'd roll out an NPC, who happened to be a female gnome thief) he would immediately plan out the result (the thief tries to make PC #3 fall in love, and takes #2s wallet) and it would have to happen. All the way down to scoring higher than 70 on sleight of hand so she wouldn't get caught, to having charm as an SLA to force the romance.

That's where I can contribute; when to stop planning! I'm very detailed in my notes. Did a war campaign that started with three months of doing finances on a kingdom level, for example. But the end result was always up in the air. By all means, NPCs should have a plan, you as DM should have a story. That story is "this is what happens if the PCs don't interfere". But once the PCs do interfere, the story changes. It has to or you're not playing a game anymore. If the story would be the same no matter what the PCs do, then they may as well do anything, because none of it matters. I've literally killed the princess of a kingdom and then we got married and had kids as my reward for beating the quest. I want no part in that, and will get upset after "the king demands you marry his daughter" becomes "you marry his daughter". In the former, I can still refuse (even if doing so is bad).

 

[chaochou]

On the other threads ("Railroading" and "GMing by the nose") I've been distinguishing the sort of play you describe from a classic sandbox precisely because it doesn't involve exploration.

I'm interested in what constitutes exploration in your view. Does it have to be geographical?

Apologies if you've discussed this on another thread.

Prep to improvise: A lot of my preparation is focused on improvising during actual play.

Random encounters are the 'living' setting: Random encounters are in media res situations the adventurers face in the course of the game.

I find the idea that these have been separated interesting. Not that I'm disagreeing with it, but I'm curious as to how much of a distinction you see between them.

For example, you could improvise that there's a woman fleeing a decrepid house clutching a moneybag, hotly pursued by a noble trying to pull on his shirt. Or you could roll 'noble' on a random encounter table.

Does it matter at that moment which meta-game method you used? I'm not seeing the distinction in the in-game result, despite two different methods. Is there some cumulative effect of 'random' encounters which over time must produce a different game to one which is solely improvised?