Pathfinder 1E Sandboxes? Forked from Paizo reinvents hexcrawling

[Desdichado]

You'd have a better idea how good (or poor) the fit would be if you didn't base your opinion on the quoted text alone.

I feel confident that spending hours of my time to confirm that last fraction of a percentage point confidence level is probably not a wise use of my available resources.

 

[Ariosto]

Other than that I "railroad" a bit for the first session or two until the players have found their own feet, and when I'm ready to stop, I start "forcing" things to come to a head and close out satisfyingly, what you describe as your sandbox sounds nearly exactly the same as how I describe my non-sandbox.

What's wrong with that? If you choose to insist that your game is always a non-sandbox, then that's your business.

In the real world, relatively few people have the personality to be entrepreneurs. Why would these same people want to do so in game, suddenly?

The fact is that people do, in the vast majority of games people play. That is what the "sandbox" means to me: playing a game with as much freedom as in playing a board game, plus as much more as the RPG is less limited in scope.

Lacking information with which to narrow down the possibilities, players will often succumb to option paralysis.

That's not a situation I have seen. Then again, I am used to playing with people who play other games that require making moves in an environment of many possibilities. In an RPG, a lack of information is usually a state that one can remedy. Having formed a question, one can take steps to find answers. It is rarely (if ever) really a matter of having no rational choices (in which case the rational choice would be to randomize selection).

Someone should be quite capable of playing in a D&D "sandbox" if he or she can play the children's game of "let's pretend" (to be Robin Hood's outlaws, or pirates or privateers on the Spanish Main, or Rogers' Rangers, or whatever).

 

[Desdichado]

What's wrong with that? If you choose to insist that your game is always a non-sandbox, then that's your business.

At the risk of repeating myself almost ad nauseum at this point, what's wrong with that is that you've created too inclusive a definition for sandbox, then. You call almost any game that's not an explicit railroad a sandbox. What's the utility of a label that inclusive?

The fact is that people do, in the vast majority of games people play. That is what the "sandbox" means to me: playing a game with as much freedom as in playing a board game, plus as much more as the RPG is less limited in scope.

The fact is, I doubt very much that you can prove that is a "fact."

Or in other words, cite?

That's not a situation I have seen. Then again, I am used to playing with people who play other games that require making moves in an environment of many possibilities. In an RPG, a lack of information is usually a state that one can remedy. Having formed a question, one can take steps to find answers. It is rarely (if ever) really a matter of having no rational choices (in which case the rational choice would be to randomize selection).

It doesn't seem useful to say that the problem someone else describes is one that you've never seen, and then immediately follow up with a qualifier about the limited subset of gamers with whom you play.

Someone should be quite capable of playing in a D&D "sandbox" if he or she can play the children's game of "let's pretend" (to be Robin Hood's outlaws, or pirates or privateers on the Spanish Main, or Rogers' Rangers, or whatever).

EDIT: Eh, nevermind.

The discussion would be greatly advanced if you'd not attempt to frame it in insulting terms, though. While technically true, that ignores all the nuances that we now have page after page after page of posts describing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Who says that's what I'm having trouble understanding? I never once asked that question.

Well, then I am having trouble understanding, because it seems to have come up.

My question is, was, and probably yet shall be: why the sudden high visibility of sandboxes? A correllary to that could be why do the sandboxers continue to put forward the implied--if not explicitly stated--notion that a sandbox approach is the best approach and the default "mode" of D&D, or even roleplaying as a whole, when clearly there are vast swaths of groups out there for whom the approach would fall completely flat?

(1) Because, when people hear the concept, they are interested. When they try the concept (with a good sandbox GM) they like it more.

(2) It is one of the most obvious things that tabletop games can do better than computer games.

(3) Some people (perhaps some vocal individuals or perhaps vast swaths of groups) are looking for alternatives to the tenets of AP-style D&D, which has grown stale for them. And,

(4) It is not at all clear that there are vast swaths of groups out there for whom the approach would fall completely flat. It is, however, clear that this is true for some vocal individuals.

Even in this second, more polite version of the thread that we've migrated to, I still feel like there's a vibe running through if of, "well why don't you like sandboxes?" and if I describe some pitfalls of sandbox play, I get told that I'm just doing it wrong. Or that my groups must lack imagination. Or whatever.

Well, if there is really a "sudden high visibility of sandboxes", and you really are concerned with why this is the case, then it makes sense that you accept the word of those involved in said "sudden high visibility of sandboxes" as to what sandboxes are, as well as why they are interested in them, and why they promote them.

When you argue about any of the above, it makes the initial question seem to be something other than what you are actually interested in.

People have been fairly explicit about this; you shouldn't still be wondering.

People have attempted to answer your earlier question & correllary. AFAICT, it was answered pretty accurately on the first page.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I feel confident that spending hours of my time to confirm that last fraction of a percentage point confidence level is probably not a wise use of my available resources.

Fair enough.

But, it might help answer your initial question & correllary, if you are still interested.

At the risk of repeating myself almost ad nauseum at this point, what's wrong with that is that you've created too inclusive a definition for sandbox, then. You call almost any game that's not an explicit railroad a sandbox. What's the utility of a label that inclusive?

Maybe he's a "big tent" kind of guy?



RC

 

[catsclaw227]

Of course it is.

It is just not necessarily the best way to run every game session.

ars ludi » Grand Experiments: West Marches

I quote from the above link (note that I am not the "I" speaking):

snip​

I highly recommend reading the entire blog.


RC

I haven't had a chance to read through the rest, but I am curious...

Judging from the description, all games start and end in the tavern, so that the players can set games, choose hooks, gather PCs, etc. The example shown describes players talking amongst themselves to plan the next adventure between sessions. Are there many players? Do players have multiple PCs of different level (one player mentions "I've been to the monastery and it’s too dangerous")?

What happens if the game session ends with a group of players and PCs already out on an adventure? Does this mean that the DM has two threads going at one time?

 

[Desdichado]

Well, if there is really a "sudden high visibility of sandboxes", and you really are concerned with why this is the case, then it makes sense that you accept the word of those involved in said "sudden high visibility of sandboxes" as to what sandboxes are, as well as why they are interested in them, and why they promote them.

I'm not concerned, I'm just curious. If every single other gamer on the entire planet does things differently from my group, I'm still not overly concerned about it.

When you argue about any of the above, it makes the initial question seem to be something other than what you are actually interested in.

I don't see how that follows, especially if the individuals in question claim to have been running sandbox style games all along. If that's true, then they can hardly be part of a greater visibility to the style than it had in the past... after all, that's what they've been doing all along, right?

People have been fairly explicit about this; you shouldn't still be wondering.

Answering a question explicitly doesn't mean that it's been answered satisfactorily. If logically it doesn't follow, then naturally I'll assume that there's more going on that what the relatively facile open/shut explanations presume.

People have attempted to answer your earlier question & correllary. AFAICT, it was answered pretty accurately on the first page.

And in response to that answer, also on the first page, I said that that solution wasn't convincing because of the time gap between the advent of adventure paths and the heightened visibility of the sandbox style in the last year or two. Or three. And although the thread has grown rather quickly and it's possible that I've missed it, I don't think that objection has even been replied to, much less answered.

I have, however, had several people point me back to the initial statement. Which hardly does wonders for overcoming my skepticism, because my objection to the original statement is still out there.

From a time depth, a correllation between sandboxes and OSR seems more likely. As does a quick glance at the people involved in the discussion. Which also leads me to wonder; is the whole sandbox issue a camouflaged front of edition wars after all? Someone earlier made that claim, and the more I think about it, the more I wonder if maybe there's not something to that.

 

[Ariosto]

The spoon-feeding part is, in my humble opnion, simple conditioning. It was not always thus, and it need not be so everafter. If more referees stop spoon-feeding their players, if more players assume greater responsibility for what happens in the game, I think you'd see a sea-change in how published adventures are written.

I don't think so. I support a more passive cause and effect relationship there, i.e., modules that had a bit more of a "story" framework became more prevalent because people liked them and they sold well.

I see a reinforcing selection process in the modules. I see a training to certain habits in an environment in which there are no "sandboxes" in which to develop skill at playing in them, because a reactive stance is from every side promoted as the proper way to play.

I see the difference even in people who once knew how to play actively.

As always, I think all extremes are bad unless the entire group is completely homogeneous in their desires and capabilities.

Why? Do you bring that condition to every game, or do you demand complete homogeneity only for an RPG? Where, in the real world, do you find it? Or are you just being "extreme" in your definition of "extremes" -- e.g., anything beyond the narrow band of your very particular enthusiasms?

 

[billd91]

I don't see how that follows, especially if the individuals in question claim to have been running sandbox style games all along. If that's true, then they can hardly be part of a greater visibility to the style than it had in the past... after all, that's what they've been doing all along, right?

I wouldn't say that follows at all either. It could be going on but nobody's happening to talk about it in terms that grab the main threads on a messageboard. But get one discussion going and watch how it snowballs.

From a time depth, a correllation between sandboxes and OSR seems more likely. As does a quick glance at the people involved in the discussion. Which also leads me to wonder; is the whole sandbox issue a camouflaged front of edition wars after all? Someone earlier made that claim, and the more I think about it, the more I wonder if maybe there's not something to that.

Even if it is related to the Old School Revival, it needn't be about clandestine edition warring. The distribution of a new edition may catalyze interest in older editions and styles quite benignly, particularly when the new edition or style doesn't scratch your itch as well as the old ones do. There's nothing like a new idea to stir up renewed discussion in older, related ideas.

 

[Sammael]

Why? Do you bring that condition to every game, or do you demand complete homogeneity only for an RPG? Where, in the real world, do you find it? Or are you just being "extreme" in your definition of "extremes" -- e.g., anything beyond the narrow band of your very particular enthusiasms?

I'm not sure I understand your... attack. What I wanted to say is that I think an "all sandbox, all the time" game is bad unless all players are interested in running such games, just as an "all railroad, all the time" is bad for a group of players that includes at least one player who doesn't like that particular style. In order to run a successful game, IMO, you have to either try to find a homogeneous group (i.e. a whole group of people who like the same "extreme" style), or, and I believe this is a much more common scenario, to mix'n'match sandbox and railroad until you find a mix that suits your group. Trying to force a playstyle on people who don't like it is disastrous.