Pathfinder 1E Sandboxes? Forked from Paizo reinvents hexcrawling

[Desdichado]

Such world-sim is very dangerous to the game IMO as it puts the world, not the players, centre-stage. For me the attraction of sandbox play is player empowerment - "Go anywhere, do anything", not player maerginalisation - "The world is chugging along just fine without you, thanks".

That's only "dangerous" if you share that particular desire, though. There's a big difference between the game revolving around the players, and the world revolving around the players. I'm hard pressed to imagine a scenario where the former could be discarded and a good game could result, but it's easy to imagine that happening for the latter.

 

[Orius]

I think the promise of sandbox play is the player freedom and consequent sense of empowerment; of carving out your own destiny. For the GM it's the excitement of not knowing what's going to happen, no pre-scripted storyline but a saga genuinely emergent in play.

I think that's probably what it is. The players can largely go wherever and do whatever they like while the DM doesn't has to keep trying to force them back onto rails and keep the adventure from imploding.

I would think that major publishers would be the first ones to focus on this. A true "sandbox" campaign shows what tabletop roleplaying can do that none of the modern competitors do. The RPG allows you to try what you want without any real limit except the imaginations of the players and GM. Even the supposed "sandbox" computer games are limited by the programming. If the game isn't programmed for you to take off your shoes and hit someone with them then you can't.

That is probably another big influence, if you want a plot on rails, you can just fire up a console RPG. Sandbox tabletop games have the most flexibility since they're limited only by human imagination.

 

[Bluenose]

It seems to me that the suggestion that it has been "completely forgotten" is a vast overstatement. Others have already pointed out that several other games have sandboxy world design.

Take a look at the White Wolf games for a moment. Nary a railroad module in sight, but huge amounts of setting information detailing groups in the game world - absolutely ripe for sandbox play! Never mind the reputation that "storytelling" is about forcing the players down a railroad - the most freedom of initiative I've had in games, the most sandboxy experience I've ever played through, has been in White Wolf, not D&D.

My most "sandboxy" experience was playing Griffin Mountain when it first came out.

I think you've hit on something that matters, sandbox play has been alive and well in RPGs, boardgames and computer games for years, just not so popular with the major D&D publishers. Paizo have shown they can be like Bioware and make a story-driven campaign, now they have to be like Bethesda and make something very different. I rather suspect that a lot of people who like what they currently do won't like Kingmaker, and vice-versa.

 

[Rechan]

spect that a lot of people who like what they currently do won't like Kingmaker, and vice-versa.

Unless Paizo buggers it, trying to do both in Kingmaker.

 

[Rechan]

You don't follow a specific plot line that is handed to you - you can choose any thread you find, or create your own.

This doesn't quite make sense to me.

Isn't that how RPGs work, not just sandboxes?

In a Sandbox the PCs can choose to not take any of the hooks presented, and just go off road.
In a Story-driven game, the PCs can choose to not take any of the hooks presented, and just go off road.

If the players don't bite the hook, I was under the impression it's bad form to make them follow it.

In either situation the DM can say "Well I don't have anything prepared, so see you guys next week" or the DM can wing it, regardless of whether it's a Sandbox or not.

 

[meomwt]

It's notable that Barakus is a good sandbox that's almost entirely static as described, everything just reacts to the PCs. A partial exception is the city adventures which can involve some events that hook in the PCs.

Vault of Larin Karr by the same author is rather more sophisticated, with a sketched sequence of events the PCs need to deal with, as well as many static encounters.

Thing is, the book as written is just a means of saving a DM from creating his own sandbox. A clever DM can engage the PC's by having stuff happen - kobolds raiding a caravan, dragon seen flying over the city, guilds vying for power.

Just because the setting is described doesn't mean that the DM has to keep it like that. Indeed, any good DM will be fudging, tinkering and finding ways to make the sandbox come alive with stories and possibilities.

 

[Desdichado]

If the players don't bite the hook, I was under the impression it's bad form to make them follow it.

That's the theory, but not necessarily the reality.

Although I wonder... you seem to be implying (or maybe this is just what I got out of it) that perhaps people are using sandbox too inclusively, i.e. "It's more sandboxy than a railroad, therefore... I'm running a sandbox!"

 

[Stoat]

Although I wonder... you seem to be implying (or maybe this is just what I got out of it) that perhaps people are using sandbox too inclusively, i.e. "It's more sandboxy than a railroad, therefore... I'm running a sandbox!"

I won't speak for Rechan, but I get the impression this is frequently true. I've seen a couple of folks here argue that they were running sandbox games that, when you drill down to what they're doing, don't look much different from my episodic, "pick from one or two options given by the DM games."

 

[Rechan]

Although I wonder... you seem to be implying (or maybe this is just what I got out of it) that perhaps people are using sandbox too inclusively, i.e. "It's more sandboxy than a railroad, therefore... I'm running a sandbox!"

I'm going to assume that Railroad (in this context) = Plot.

If that's the case, then I'm saying that a sandbox is nothing more than a web of railroads. The PCs just see a lot of trains and choose which one to get on.

In a Railroad game, the PCs can get off the train. But then the GM has to scramble to drop new trains in front of the PCs.

 

[S'mon]

That's only "dangerous" if you share that particular desire, though. There's a big difference between the game revolving around the players, and the world revolving around the players. I'm hard pressed to imagine a scenario where the former could be discarded and a good game could result, but it's easy to imagine that happening for the latter.

That's what I mean - it's dangerous because it raises the possibility of the game *not* revolving around the players, marginalising the interests of all but one person at the table. In that way it can resemble uber-GMPCs, railroaded pre-written plots, and other deprotagonising game elements.

Obviously it's fine to have PCs be unimportant in the world, as long as they're the most important thing in the game.