Pathfinder 1E Sandboxes? Forked from Paizo reinvents hexcrawling

[Hussar]

I think it is likely a backlash to the "AP centric" gamestyle of the last few years, in the same way that the "story driven" settings and adventures dominated the late 80s and early 90s as a response to years of dungeon crawling. The pendulum swings...

Nicely said. And I think this has a lot to do with it. The AP's of the past five (?) years, plus the rather large number of "campaign in a box" adventures that have garnered a lot of bandwidth on the forums has a lot to do with this.

The part where I might disagree with you is the idea of "story driven" settings. That hasn't been true for a long time. Even in 2e, you had buckets of sandbox settings - Planescape, Darksun just to name two. In 3e, there were dozens and dozens of settings presented as sandboxes.

For every Dragonlance, you've got at least ten sandbox campaign settings.

However, modules have gone the other direction. Modules are typically fairly linear and story driven.

Could it be that modules and campaign setting guides either appeal to different playstyles, or perhaps, fill two different needs?

Because gamers -- especially gamers active online -- tend to be opinionated and vocal. They also tend to believe that what they like is a better way, and what others like is an inferior way, and the more diametrically opposed to their preferences, the more inferior. This isn't to dig on gamers: I am one and have the same tendencies (though i do try and be thoughtful and articulate when not full of beer). Gaming is a form of fandom, and fandom breeds... incivility at times.

Heh.

 

[Reynard]

Could it be that modules and campaign setting guides either appeal to different playstyles, or perhaps, fill two different needs

A lot of "sandbox" campaign settings are such simply by virtue that nothing else ever comes out for them.

I think "modules" fall into two broad categories: places and plots. Place modules kind of went out of vogue for a while, but came back with Necromancer and Goodman (and perhaps some others). I think plot modules are much more common, though, because a lot of module designers try and imagine what the group would do, or their module is really the novel they'd like to write, or whatever.

What I think is missing is what I call the "Adventure Creation Kit" -- a "module" that's really just a collection of related people, places and things. Everything the DM needs -- maps, NPCs, adversaries, etc... -- to craft and adventure in an hour or so or even on the fly. Kind of the shovels and toy trucks in the sandbox, as it were.

 

[Ariosto]

So, the Planescape and Dark Sun lines didn't have the "meta-plot" laid on them like the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk products? I think they look pretty interesting (especially Planescape) in either case, but that would quite surprise me.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, I think that is very much to the point. Too much filler in between the scenarios wherein the real game (in that model) lies can be a waste of time. In wargame terms, do we want to play a whole "what if" campaign, or do we just want to get right down to the battles?

Yes. In more general terms - the game as a whole is largely built on the tactical scale. the vast majority of the mechanics, and so the expected interesting interactions, are on the tactical scale.

Whether it be combat, or personal angst-ridden character development, the detail is on the tactical level - so, to a large degree, linear games are simply "cutting to the chase".

This kind of curves back to what I was talking about in terms of information the player's got. When working on the tactical scale, the shorter term, the player by and large knows the rules, can make judgments and plans. The game gives them diddly-squat for working on the strategic scale. If the GM doesn't provide everything they need to know to make educated guesses, you're apt to see a tendency to balk at doing so.

For example - the game lacks a decent economic model, or socio-political models. So, the player hasn't got a clue about what it takes to become a lord with a castle. So, he's unlikely to choose that route, unless the GM is giving him separate explicit support for that goal. Sufficient support starts looking like a linear model, even if it is player-initiated.

 

[The Shaman]

That's a facile comparison, though. Saying, "I'll go searching for a demon so I can hit it with my axe!" isn't very likely in any game I've ever heard of, to actually find you a demon to hit with your axe.

Seriously, Hobo? No one in any roleplaying game you've ever played decided that his character would hunt demons or dragons or vampires or giants? You've never encountered a player who couldn't self-direct even that tiny bit?

I still would't call the classic pre-"Hickson Revolution" modules exactly sandboxes either.

Most published adventures for D&D at that time started their lives as tournament modules, so no, I wouldn't expect them to be.

Plus, you're still demonstrating an "if TSR built it, then people came" attitude that I don't think tracks well with the reality in the marketplace. Those modules sold really, really darn well. That's why TSR started making more and more and more of them.

They coincided with peak interest in tabletop roleplaying as a hobby. Of course they sold well. And they also convinced a generation of gamers that was how to play the game.

That's beside the point.

No, actually that is the point. I've never run a game that wound down, because we played as long as we could until out-of-game issues overtook it, so your question is irrelevant to my experience.

Also beside the point.

Again I beg to differ.

You tell me that you don't really use plots, so 'plot hook' is just a convenient expression. But why is it a convenient expression? Because it's used by a broad swath of gamers. And why is that? Because plots are part of preparing adventures for most gamers.

So when a gamer on a message board starts talking about running a game that doesn't have plots or plot hooks, it might pique the interest of a gamer who's never really done it any other way.

And that's directly on point to your initial post.

 

[Ariosto]

The game gives them diddly-squat for working on the strategic scale. If the GM doesn't provide everything they need to know to make educated guesses, you're apt to see a tendency to balk at doing so. ... So, the player hasn't got a clue about what it takes to become a lord with a castle. So, he's unlikely to choose that route, unless the GM is giving him separate explicit support for that goal. Sufficient support starts looking like a linear model, even if it is player-initiated.

A game like that would not be my first choice for a feudalistic "sandbox" -- but I don't get how "sufficient support starts looking like a linear model". At what have you been looking?

To say that a "sandbox" must be insufficiently supported would make no sense. So, I'm missing something here.

 

[The Shaman]

In more general terms - the game as a whole is largely built on the tactical scale. the vast majority of the mechanics, and so the expected interesting interactions, are on the tactical scale.

I assume by "the game" you're referring to D&D, but while that may be true of some editions, it's most decidedly not true of all editions. 1e AD&D had strongholds and henchmen and followers awaiting high-level characters, with rules in the DMG for maintaining same. BD&D took this even further. It was also typical of the way OD&D was played in its earliest days, as described by the participants.

But I think it's also important to note at this juncture that not all games are D&D. One of my favorite features of Flashing Blades is that it assumes most adventurers will be part of a regiment or a knightly order or a cleric of the Church or a member of a club. Player characters begin the game with an opportunity to be immediately grounded in the structures of the game-world, with contacts, secret loyalties, property, and so on.

It doesn't take elaborate rules to make this happen, however. All it takes, in my experience, is a bit of encouragement by the referee. For example, reward the adventurers with more than treasure. Make a fighter a knight, a cleric a member of a confraternity, a magic-user a guild member. Offer them "ties to the community," as they like to say in the lawyer dramas on the tee-vee-box. Once upon a time, there was an edition of D&D that even offered some prestigious character classes expressly for this purpose.

Give the adventurers something to think about other than where their next +1 is coming from and you're on the road to encouraging strategic play, in my experience. Your mileage may do whatever it is your mileage does, of course.

 

[Hussar]

A lot of "sandbox" campaign settings are such simply by virtue that nothing else ever comes out for them.

I think "modules" fall into two broad categories: places and plots. Place modules kind of went out of vogue for a while, but came back with Necromancer and Goodman (and perhaps some others). I think plot modules are much more common, though, because a lot of module designers try and imagine what the group would do, or their module is really the novel they'd like to write, or whatever.

What I think is missing is what I call the "Adventure Creation Kit" -- a "module" that's really just a collection of related people, places and things. Everything the DM needs -- maps, NPCs, adversaries, etc... -- to craft and adventure in an hour or so or even on the fly. Kind of the shovels and toy trucks in the sandbox, as it were.

I LURVE that kind of module. Although, I think it's not called a module anymore. Mystic Eye Games had a series called Urban Blight (and a few others whose names escape me at the moement). Urban Blight detailed about 15 or 20 locations in any city (mostly) that were EXACTLY what you are talking about. You had a fantasy casino, a library, a fence shop, that sort of thing. Great, great stuff. I adored that book.

I never bought them, but weren't the "Fantastic Locations" series from WOTC supposed to be the same thing? And Paizo has something similar in its GameMastery line.

I think the "Adventure Creation Kit" is alive an well, but they're just not called modules anymore.

 

[Sammael]

Sammael, I think the problem is partly in your choice of the word "extremes" and the phrase "completely homogeneous in their desires and capabilities". Neither to my mind applies to getting together for any game that comes to my mind, with any people I know. Neither is anybody with whom I am inclined to socialize going to force anyone to play any game.

AFAIK, the word "extreme" is an accepted scientific term for a data point that's as far away from the "middle ground" as possible, hence my use of the term do describe both "all sandbox, all the time" and "all railroad, all the time." It's quite obvious (to me, at least) that the middle ground is a mix of the two which, from my experience, makes for the best experience in a varied group of people.

Incidentally, I think the two can be objectively categorized as extremes if we imagine an axis labeled "structure," with "sandbox" all the way left (unstructured) and "railroad" all the way right (structured). It's just an easy way to visualise it.

As for "homogeneous," I once played (very briefly) with a group that wanted to re-create the Dragonlance novels verbatim in their game. Aside from me, the group was pretty homogeneous in their desire - and they obviously wanted to be railroaded as much as possible. So, such groups do exist, they're just very rare.

You never played under a GM who, for example, insisted on running railroady AP adventures as written? I agree that once a player's gotten a taste of a particular GM's style, that player can always decide not to play under that GM if their styles don't mesh. But there are plenty of examples of people who continue playing because they want to socialize with their circle of friends, or because that's the only game in town, or because there are some elements of the game that they still like.

So, the Planescape and Dark Sun lines didn't have the "meta-plot" laid on them like the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk products? I think they look pretty interesting (especially Planescape) in either case, but that would quite surprise me.

Both Planescape and Dark Sun had heavy metaplots that eventually destroyed both campaign settings. The metaplots weren't included in the base campaign settings, though.

It's worth noting that the original (Gray Box) FR campaign setting was completely metaplot-free and was, in fact, a perfect sandbox setting. But fans asked for metaplots, and TSR delivered...

 

[Glyfair]

However, modules have gone the other direction. Modules are typically fairly linear and story driven.

There can certainly be a thread just on the discussion of this. I would suggest there are a lot of reasons.

A few suggestions:

1) Story driven adventures are easier to fit in a smallish space (especially with today's rules sets requiring larger statblocks).

2) Most non-story driven adventures are site based, and site based modules haven't been popular recently

or....

2b) Site based adventures aren't considered adventures as much any more. Site based products are more sourcebooks now than adventures (Hammerfall was probably an adventure in the old days, and Sharn City of Towers might have been written as one as well).