Pathfinder 1E Sandboxes? Forked from Paizo reinvents hexcrawling

[Desdichado]

"I didn't name it at all" is the false claim you made, with which I was taking issue. "Except in response to you" is not relevant, as I in fact did not name any game in the post to which you were replying -- which is plain enough to read for anyone who cares to do so.

Whether I "named it" or not isn't relevent either, since it's clearly not the point of the discussion.

Which is why I asked why you try to turn every discussion into a discussion of OD&D regardless of what it's actually about. This discussion is not about OD&D.

Now, there could be a side discussion about the idea you floated earlier on that the availability of OD&D in pdf form for a time caused the current fad of "sandbox or die". If you want to have that discussion, I'm OK with that.

But even that isn't a discussion about the specifics of the "OD&D instructions". It's a question about how likely that premise is in the first place. Personally, I'm rather incredulous of the notion that because OD&D was available in pdf form that suddenly there's a massive wave of playstyle change. And you've already kinda undermined your own point; as you said earlier, the OD&D playstyle was a massive group of gamers, and although a more "sandboxy" manner of play might have been associated with it, it's really the tail wagging the dog to suggest that the current sandbox fad is based on anything written in OD&D.

Returning to the point of that post, I think it no coincidence who as a rule is pressing the claim of some unattainable "truth" or "purity" -- and who is not.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Again.

That is not what your actual behavior suggests to me.

That's because you don't understand that the conversation you are having is not the one any of the rest of us are having. You are talking off on the side here about something else entirely.

If you understood that, my behavior would suggest exactly what I said; that I'd like to understand where the current fad of sandbox came from and what's driving it.

That's no convention among anyone I know except a few people here at ENworld who keep doing just what you are doing here.

I take it you know a statistically significant portion of all gamers, then?

It's a convention that I am very familiar with, and not just at ENWorld.

Where are the computer gamers talking about such a uselessly "pure" sandbox? I hear and read them talk about GTA, Fallout 3, Elder Scrolls, and Assassins Creed; Need for Speed: Most Wanted; Darklands, Elite ... a lot of actual games.

Uh... all over the place, dude. I posted the link to two separate wikipedia articles that covered the highlights.

It's a major subject in computer game design theory.

Likewise, I find RPG players talking about actual games, using the 'sandbox' term to distinguish those dungeons, wildernesses, towns, worlds, star sectors, etc., from ones that lock players into furthering "the storyline".

I don't know why you keep bolding actual games like its significant.

Well, maybe it is to you, because it is an attempt to justify your non sequitur as somehow relevant to the discussion that I tried to start and that I'm trying to have.

To me it's not. As I've said at least four times to you directly, which you seem to have not noticed or had trouble understanding for some reason, this discussion is about the concept generically. I asked the question in that context. We've had the discussion in that context. Everyone else here except for you is having the discussion in that context. What you are talking about is, technically, totally off topic for this thread.

 

[Jhaelen]

Where are the computer gamers talking about such a uselessly "pure" sandbox? I hear and read them talk about GTA, Fallout 3, Elder Scrolls, and Assassins Creed; Need for Speed: Most Wanted; Darklands, Elite ... a lot of actual games.

None of these games is a 'pure' sandbox. All of them (with the possible exception of Elite) have a main quest line that the player can follow if he wants (or ignore if he isn't interested).

An example of a 'pure' sandbox game would be SimCity (if you ignore the scenarios). Unless you're setting yourself some kind of goal, the game is completely open-ended.

There's a reason the makers of SimCity didn't call it a game. They called it a 'toy'.

 

[Desdichado]

My primary point is that one term is commonly meant negatively, and the other isn't. I can't think of a more neutral term for "railroad" or more negative term for "sandbox" at the moment. Any ideas?

Not really. That was what kinds sparked the original question, and why I started the thread. To me, at least, a sandbox is nearly as negative as a railroad. It suggests a game that has no point, no purpose, no focus, no theme, and one that ultimately isn't going to be fun for very long.

Even in the computer gaming world, from whence came the term. I think of my copies of Hulk Ultimate Destruction or Ultimate Spiderman which have missions, but also have "sandbox mode" where you can ignore the missions and just wander around doing whatever you feel like. To a point, that can be kinda fun, but after a little while, it gets extremely boring, and so you go on and do the missions. The idea that the sandbox mode could support extended play is, to my mind, almost ludicrous.

Yet, that seems to be what a wave of folks is promoting, at least in regards to tabletop games. I'm curious where sandbox took on this overwhelmingly positive approach; this almost sanctification of the concept (yeah, a bit hyperbolic, but I'm struggling to find the words here) came from. To me, it's clearly a recent phenomena.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say you were starting a pointless argument with this thread; this thread was originally just about "why all the sandbox discussion", was it not?

Ah. My bad.

Eh, I just interpreted that bit more broadly than you meant it, I think. I took it as being of broad application -- you plot a campaign to a point on the SB....RR line based on what happens at the table. And, based solely on action at the table, I think there are plenty of campaigns that you couldn't really tell whether they were complete rail jobs or total sandboxes where the PCs were so deep in the sand that the GM was making it all up as they go along.

Well, that's an interesting discussion too, and one that I was kinda leading into in one of my earlier replies to... someone. Maybe you?

The difference between sandbox and railroad is one that is only apparent at the actual table. I don't think any product can be termed a sandbox or a railroad, although certain products certainly lend themselves more easily to one or the other.

Maybe I'm just slightly more forgiving of the early stages of a railroad than most, but here's my take on it.

1) As a GM, I'm almost pathetically anal about making sure that the PCs decide what to do. I understand that few players are so self-motivated that they can go make a game happen out of nothing, but I always give the players lots of choices in terms of what they want to pursue and how they want to pursue it. So, although I facilitate the game by pointing out choices that exist to be made, the PCs are ultimately the masters of their own fate.

2) As a player, I tend to understand that there's a implicit understanding that we showed up to play the game that the GM prepared. If he offers us situations as hooks that are obviously THE hooks that we're meant to follow, then we don't fight it, we follow them. This is not a railroad. This is just, as Rechan stated earlier, "the game." It's kinda what most players and GMs implicitly understand as what is done.

3) To me, this veers into railroad territory when the GM disallows, causes to fail unexpectedly or unfairly, any attempt to follow the plot hook except exactly in the steps that he's predetermined. To use an example from one of the adventure paths, in Burnt Offerings from Rise of the Runelords, it's not railroading that we're expected to discover and explore the minor "dungeon complex" below the glass factory in Sandpoint. It is railroading if otherwise reasonable choices are arbitrarily disallowed, because that's not what the module has written in it.

(I know I've ran games where I successfully guessed everything the players did -- but I've been gaming with them for years and years, so it wasn't that hard. Then there are the instances where the players came from left field and headed for outer Freedonia, and I just had to roll with it. I don't think the players or an observer could've told which was which without peaking at my notes or reading my mind.)

Right; exactly my point as well. We're in complete agreement. Whether or not a game is a railroad can only be determined on the ground, when there's friction between what the GM thought the players were going to do, and what the players actually decided to do. If the GM railroaded them back onto his predetermined plot, then it's not a railroad. If the PCs chose to follow the plot, more or less, and it just happened to be what the GM thought they would do: also not a railroad. Railroads only happen when the PC's can't turn left or right because there's no track there for them to turn on.

If the players can't tell if they followed what you thought they would follow or not, because the experience is the same for them either way, then chances are you are good GM and are certainly not a railroader.

 

[Bluenose]

None of these games is a 'pure' sandbox. All of them (with the possible exception of Elite) have a main quest line that the player can follow if he wants (or ignore if he isn't interested).

An example of a 'pure' sandbox game would be SimCity (if you ignore the scenarios). Unless you're setting yourself some kind of goal, the game is completely open-ended.

There's a reason the makers of SimCity didn't call it a game. They called it a 'toy'.

Microsoft Flight Simulator is another example, at least as much 'pure sandbox' as SimCity (and presumably The Sims). But for something that is a game and a sandbox, go into the MMO world and look at Eve Online.

 

[S'mon]

I find Elite to be (still!) a lot of fun - I wish more games were like that! I think its the way it offers a variety of different goals that keeps it engaging - become an Elite rated combat pilot, make loads of money, get an uber-equipped ship - and lots of different ways to do it, from piracy to trading to bounty hunting to asteroid mining to battling Thargoids. And if you get bored you can always attack the Coriolis station...

The missions in most versions of Elite also add a bit of spice.

 

[The Shaman]

As many could rightly point out, the basic idea of the sandbox is an old one, and arguably, in many respects, the first format and playstyle associated with the genre. For many years, however, it's been "conventional wisdom" that some element of "sandbox" is fun, but that a "pure" sandbox is merely an endpoint on a spectrum of playstyles. A theoretical end point that no game could (or should) actually attempt to emulate.

Hobo, this sounds a lot like "no true Scotsman."

Like Ariosto, I get a little tired of people who dislike my preferred approach to roleplaying games taking it upon themselves to define the terms and conditions of that approach.

Lately, however, I see an awful lot of people toss out "sandbox" as if it were the Holy Grail of gaming.

Those who advocate a 'sandbox' approach to gaming are no more adamant or persistent than those who advocate a more story-oriented approach, in my experience. There has been a resurgence of interest in sandbox-style play on different rpg message boards, so these discussions assume a higher profile perhaps.

I'm trying to understand where this view came from, why it's become so suddenly very popular and ubiquitous on the internet, and... well, whatever else is going on with the idea of the sandbox.

I think Stoat nailed this in the very first reply to the thread.

My theory is that it's (A) a response to the popularity of Adventure Paths, and (B) related to the "Old School Renaissance."

A) Beginning with Shackled City and moving forward, Adventure Paths have been increasing popular and increasingly promoted. A certain backlash is inevitable. Folks grow tired of the more or less linear, scripted nature of the AP's and start looking for something more freeform and player driven. The sandbox is it.

B) As you say, sandbox gaming has a lot of old school cred. Its not surprising to see it rise in popularity along with the various OSR games.

I also note that a bunch of bigtime sandbox videogames have launched in the last three or four years. I'm thinking particularly about GTA IV and Fallout 3. I suspect that the popularity of those games and the hype around them helped bring the actual word "sandbox" into the conversation.

I think Stoat's explanation is spot on.

To me, at least, a sandbox is nearly as negative as a railroad. It suggests a game that has no point, no purpose, no focus, no theme, and one that ultimately isn't going to be fun for very long.

In my experience, the point, the purpose, and the focus develop in play, from the players' choices for their adventuring characters, rather than flowing from the referee.

My personal preference is to run my games in a status quo setting. The world is what it is, and it's incumbent upon the players and their characters to make their way in it. What this isn't is an endless series of "monster lairs" to be found and looted. It's a world filled with non-player characters who are doind stuff: they have agendas, friends, allies, and rivals, and as the adventurers explore the world and pursue their goals, they become enmeshed in those agendas as well involving those non-player characters in their own goals.

In my experience it's setting and pursuing adventurers' goals that drive the game, that give it point and purpose. For my current project those goals could be something like become a master superior of the Académie d'Armes, a marshal of the royal army, grand master of an order of knights, a bishop of the Church, or even replace Cardinal Richelieu himself as first minister of France. A player could also choose for his character to be a simple rake, gambling his family fortune, seducing a new mistress every week, and crossing blades with any who give him a sideways glance, if that's what the player wants and it will sustain the player's interest.

The key here is that the proactive pursuit of goals is the point of friction between the adventurers and the game-world. It's what generates conflict, and gives the game shape and focus over time.

Even in the computer gaming world, from whence came the term. I think of my copies of Hulk Ultimate Destruction or Ultimate Spiderman which have missions, but also have "sandbox mode" where you can ignore the missions and just wander around doing whatever you feel like. To a point, that can be kinda fun, but after a little while, it gets extremely boring, and so you go on and do the missions. The idea that the sandbox mode could support extended play is, to my mind, almost ludicrous.

Forgive me for asking the obvious, but you do understand there are fundamental differences between playing a computer game and a tabletop roleplaying game, right? That the experience of one is not necessarily analagous to the other?

 

[Desdichado]

Hobo, this sounds a lot like "no true Scotsman."

I don't know where that link is supposed to go, but it's a dead link.

Like Ariosto, I get a little tired of people who dislike my preferred approach to roleplaying games taking it upon themselves to define the terms and conditions of that approach.

*sigh* My only effort to define things is to put into common usage the definitions that I've seen many, many times over the years and get out of the way up front any confusion about what exactly is meant by the terms.

In other words, don't be so defensive. Or, "Lighten up, Francis." Take your pick.

Forgive me for asking the obvious, but you do understand there are fundamental differences between playing a computer game and a tabletop roleplaying game, right? That the experience of one is not necessarily analagous to the other?

You do understand that in making an analogy, I only imply that the specific analogy I'm making is analagous, and not other analogies that might be superficially similar to the one I'm making, right?

I made that analogy because it was pertinent to the point I was trying to make. Not because I'm trying to imply that computer games and tabletop games are in any other way analogous.

Please.

 

[The Shaman]

I don't know where that link is supposed to go, but it's a dead link.

Thanks, it's fixed now.

*sigh* My only effort to define things is to put into common usage the definitions that I've seen many, many times over the years and get out of the way up front any confusion about what exactly is meant by the terms.

The "true" or "pure" sandbox thing is a fallacious argument, aka "no true Scotsman." That's what I find pejorative, and needlessly so.

I made that analogy because it was pertinent to the point I was trying to make.

The problem is that it's a false analogy: "Sandbox computer games get boring after a while, so the same must be true of sandbox tabletop roleplaying games."

But crpgs and ttrpgs are not the same beast, they don't work the same way, don't suffer the same constraints, and therefore the analogy is misleading at best.

 

[S'mon]

Hobo, you don't like sandbox games. We get it. No need to keep on about how they're badwrongfun to those who do like them.

 

[Desdichado]

Thanks, it's fixed now.The "true" or "pure" sandbox thing is a fallacious argument, aka "no true Scotsman." That's what I find pejorative, and needlessly so.

No, that's not what it is. There's not even an argument involved. I defined the "pure" sandbox as a reference point. In fact, the entire premise of my thread was that it was always only a reference point, but a lot of discussion recently seems to be idealizing the sandbox. I wondered why. I also said that I'm not a huge fan of the sandbox style game.

That's it. Arguing about how "true" any given sandbox game is is missing the forest for the trees, IMO. That's, again, only meant to be a reference point, not necessarily describe any real games.

The problem is that it's a false analogy: "Sandbox computer games get boring after a while, so the same must be true of sandbox tabletop roleplaying games."

But crpgs and ttrpgs are not the same beast, they don't work the same way, don't suffer the same constraints, and therefore the analogy is misleading at best.

Well, you mis-stated the point I was making with it. It's not a false analogy and can't be, because it was just an expression of my taste. By definition it can' t be false.

Rather, state it ias, "I find sandboxes to get boring over time. There's no point, no focus, and no purpose. Here's an example of a sandbox game that I got bored with. It happens to be a computer game, but I'd have been equally bored with it in a tabletop environment."

That's not to say that I don't want the GM to not allow me to wander around town arguing with locals, poking my nose in stuff that interests me from time to time, or what have you, but I don't want to have to make my own game out of scratch. I'd like there to be things going on for me to react to.