Pathfinder 1E Sandboxes? Forked from Paizo reinvents hexcrawling

[BenBrown]

Not to start an SNG food fight, but I think that sandboxes really appeal to Simulationist gamers. The idea of the world running on its own, not waiting on the PCs.

As compared to published adventure paths, perhaps. However, I'd be wary of tossing around the term "simulationist" here, as plot-driven campaigns can be equally simulationist--they're just simulating something else.

But I don't see how that works; when folks here talk abotu sandboxes, it seems all the little things in the sandbox are just in a time stasis, their motives and goals just frozen until the PCs stumble across them. If it were a real world, all the things that happen would happen whether the PCs get involved or not, rather than just waiting for the PCs to walk up to them.

A lot of worlds people set up are like this in their own home campaigns. It's something I hear about a fair amount. It is, however, difficult to do in published product without a good deal of "metaplot", which can grate on a lot of players nerves. You can publish how the world will go without the PC's interference, but the actions of the PCs is so wide-open that publishing how the world reacts in response to all their potential moves is impossible. Then you end up with a sense of "nothing the PCs do makes any difference."

 

[billd91]

You couldn't do a helicopter mission unless you get access to a helicopter. This is different from a "true" sandbox where you could initiate a "quest" or hook that you are just not prepared for, not capable of doing, etc.

While a mission that requires a character to be <some metagame value> would, I think, be contrary to the ideal sandbox, I don't see missions requiring an in-game resource being contrary. Of course you can't accept a helicopter mission if you don't have access to a helicopter. Nobody's going to hire you for a job that needs a helicopter if all you've got is a sports car. Missions or adventures can have sensible, in-game prerequisites and still be true to the sandbox.

Now, for all I know, gaining access to a helicopter in GTA may be the result of a metagame consideration. If so, it's the gaining of the resource that's contrary to a "true" sandbox, not needing a helicopter to fulfill helicopter jobs.

 

[Rechan]

as plot-driven campaigns can be equally simulationist--they're just simulating something else.

I really don't buy that, but ok.

A lot of worlds people set up are like this in their own home campaigns. It's something I hear about a fair amount. It is, however, difficult to do in published product without a good deal of "metaplot", which can grate on a lot of players nerves.

See, I never hear about this happening ever. Any time I see folks talk about "Sandbox", there's very little plot involved. It's just there until the PCs show up. I'm not referring to modules at all, but the impression I've taken from how folks here talk about Sandboxes.

Also, many modules typically assume the PCs actions and do move forward. In fact, Windjammer points out in his thread that the biggest criticisms of the APs are that they're very NPC-plot heavy. The NPCs have their plot, that keeps on trucking despite heroic efforts of the PCs, and so they don't really influence it anyways.

 

[Rechan]

While a mission that requires a character to be <some metagame value> would, I think, be contrary to the ideal sandbox, I don't see missions requiring an in-game resource being contrary. Of course you can't accept a helicopter mission if you don't have access to a helicopter. Nobody's going to hire you for a job that needs a helicopter if all you've got is a sports car. Missions or adventures can have sensible, in-game prerequisites and still be true to the sandbox.

Except that I'm saying that "True" sandboxes would have PCs coming across things that they aren't equipped to deal with. The thing is THERE, where the PCs have the equpment to tackle it or not. To give a crude example. there's a deep vertical cavern. If the PCs don't have the rope to access it, then they're not going to get in; the place doesn't change to accommodate the PCs.

 

[rogueattorney]

Not to start an SNG food fight, but I think that sandboxes really appeal to Simulationist gamers. The idea of the world running on its own, not waiting on the PCs.

But I don't see how that works; when folks here talk abotu sandboxes, it seems all the little things in the sandbox are just in a time stasis, their motives and goals just frozen until the PCs stumble across them. If it were a real world, all the things that happen would happen whether the PCs get involved or not, rather than just waiting for the PCs to walk up to them.

That's a fundamental misunderstanding on how a sandbox is supposed to work.

Upon reading some of the old Greyhawk and Blackmoor play accounts (see, for example, Gygax's Dragon articles from 2000-2004), I see a lot more gamism than simulationism in the original sandboxes.

 

[Windjammer]

Also, many modules typically assume the PCs actions and do move forward. In fact, Windjammer points out in his thread that the biggest criticisms of the APs are that they're very NPC-plot heavy. The NPCs have their plot, that keeps on trucking despite heroic efforts of the PCs, and so they don't really influence it anyways.

In fact my biggest fear about the Kingmaker Adventure Path is that, come instalment #33 (#34 at latest), the Paizo authors will revert to that model.

I'm not sure you read my OP in that thread 100% correct. It's not that (for all we know) NPCs in Kingmaker will be static. To the contrary, they'll come running after the PCs who have the cheek to establish their own political domain (say, NPCs who regard the PCs as usurpers). So the shift isn't from 'moving' to 'static' NPCs, from NPCs with plans to NPCs without plans. The shift is on the axis of who's reacting to whom, and who's foiling whose plans. That's where I see the change of direction in Kingmaker.

As I say (and imply in my OP in that thread), my biggest fear is that the adventure path might abandon this change of direction even before it's concluded. You can read the adventure descriptions on Paizo's website, and I can't rule out that parts #34-36 have the PCs running after NPCs doing stuff in another country.

 

[rogueattorney]

Except that I'm saying that "True" sandboxes would have PCs coming across things that they aren't equipped to deal with. The thing is THERE, where the PCs have the equpment to tackle it or not. To give a crude example. there's a deep vertical cavern. If the PCs don't have the rope to access it, then they're not going to get in; the place doesn't change to accommodate the PCs.

Exactly. And that's where ambitious pcs with their own goals come in. They can't get across the chasm. So what do they do? Hire dwarves to build a bridge. Consult a sage on the location of a magical flying device. Explore other parts of the dungeon to find a way around. Research a magic spell. Decide they don't really care what's on the other side and go somewhere else.

The point is that it's a non-linear campaign. It doesn't matter whether the pcs get on the other side or not. If they do, cool. If not, cool.

 

[Desdichado]

What's amazing to me is how foreign the "sandbox" concept seemingly is to so many people. Then I recall that it's been literally 25 years since anyone in the mainstream of rpg publishing has promoted/supported sandbox play. The "story" has been the fundamental design goal in published materials for so long that many either never knew or have forgotten that the "sandbox" is what we used to just call our "D&D campaign."

Well, first off... speak for yourself. The only hexcrawling I ever did 25-30 years ago was in those old TolkienQuest books. While I think the default playstyle was more sandboxish "back in the day" it rarely was a "true" sandbox even then.

That's the part that I find most surprising. The some people would prefer a game that has more sandboxy elements than an Adventure Path? Sure, that's easy to understand. That someone would promote a pure sandbox as a desireable goal in gaming?

That's where I'm struggling a little more. A "pure" sandbox is an extreme condition, far removed from any game that I've ever played in, even back in the late 70s and early 80s.

I really think it's just the fact that some in the Internet community have called attention to the fact that one of the fundamental styles of rpg support (not necessarily the rules, but adventure/scenario design) has been completely forgotten over the years, and that it's time to re-examine it and play with it again.

It may have been forgotten, but it's not like it just slipped away from us as gamers or something. I think it was a clear case of supply and demand. Something sparked a resurgence in demand for a playstyle that had been "out of vogue" for years; one that designers migrated away from purposefully because a few story elements sold really well.

:shrug:

 

[billd91]

Except that I'm saying that "True" sandboxes would have PCs coming across things that they aren't equipped to deal with. The thing is THERE, where the PCs have the equpment to tackle it or not. To give a crude example. there's a deep vertical cavern. If the PCs don't have the rope to access it, then they're not going to get in; the place doesn't change to accommodate the PCs.

And I'm saying that the guy needing employees with a helicopter will not hire anybody without one. And that's perfectly compatible with sandbox play too. The prospective employer is also THERE and he's not going to change his requirements based on what the PCs bring either.

I think the way your phrased the issue - being unable to do a helicopter mission without a helicopter not being sandbox - is mistaken. It's no different from being unable to perform any missions in that deep, vertical cavern without the means to access it. There are simply gatekeeper tasks (getting into that deep cavern or getting hired by the employer who needs a helicopter crew) that necessarily must come first. Being unable to access the missions behind the gatekeeper because you cannot fulfill the gatekeeper task doesn't make them less sandboxy.

 

[coyote6]

What's amazing to me is how foreign the "sandbox" concept seemingly is to so many people. Then I recall that it's been literally 25 years since anyone in the mainstream of rpg publishing has promoted/supported sandbox play.

I don't think that's true, really. There was plenty of sandbox-style support in GURPS throughout the '90s, for example -- they never used the word "sandbox", but no one really did. I think the term gained currency with the publication of GTA III+.

For another example, Twilight: 2000 existed mostly in the last 25 years, and while there was story in their adventure lines, they were also very very "sandboxy". "Your ragtag band of survivors roll into Krakow; here's what's going on; here's who's who, and what they're up to; here's a McGuffin they can find, and here's who wants it [everyone, of course]. Go play" -- that's how I remember the T2k adventures going.