Pathfinder 1E Sandboxes? Forked from Paizo reinvents hexcrawling

[Desdichado]

No.

"Hobo said Raven Crowking is a dink" would be putting words into your mouth.

"From the tone of his posts, I surmise Hobo thinks Raven Crowking is a dink" is not putting words into your mouth.

You mis-spelled di... Oh. Nevermind.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You mis-spelled di... Oh. Nevermind.

I can't +rep you right now, but I would if I could, for showing your sense of humour. Er, and possibly for your observational abilities.

That said, making assumptions about what people mean by what they say, and testing those assumptions, is a normal -- and necessary -- part of communication.


RC

 

[The Shaman]

I can't +rep you right now, but I would if I could, for showing your sense of humour. Er, and possibly for your observational abilities.

"You must spread some Experience Points around before giving to Hobo again."

Well, I tried.

 

[coyote6]

"You must spread some Experience Points around before giving to Hobo again."

Well, I tried.

Covered.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I haven't been willing to cite a single example. I don't feel the need to "prove" to anyone that I've seen a vibe of antagonistic pro-sandbox posters over the years.

Fair enough. I'm getting a vibe that you're just trolling the forum by making up wacky, incendiary claims out of thin air.

No, my game is not a sandbox.

And yet you claim that your campaign walks like a sandbox, quacks like a sandbox, and plays like a sandbox.

I value player freedom a lot, but I also deviate (and have described as such where I do in this thread already) from the paradigm on some key areas.

Oh, I'm sorry. There's some unspecified "paradigm" which you "deviate" from. You've specified what that "paradigm" is and how you "deviate" from it somewhere else... but I'm guessing you won't actually cite that, either.

The defining characteristic of the sandbox campaign is that the players are free to choose whatever course of action they want without the GM enforcing an outcome based on a preconceived sequence of events. That's the "paradigm" of a sandbox campaign.

You claim your players have that freedom. If they actually do have that freedom, then you're running a sandbox. There's no "deviation" from the paradigm. If they don't have that freedom, then you were lying when you said they did.

Lemme know which of these options is the truth.

Until then, I'm afraid I'm going to have to go back to assuming you're acting in bad faith in this thread. You are to be congratulated for a highly successful trolling.

 

[LostSoul]

All you need for a sandbox is setting, protagonists, antagonists, and conflict? I think the DragonLance modules fit that description.

I would argue that the protagonists of the DragonLance modules aren't the PCs. In order for that to be the case, their actions in the early modules would have to change what's going on in the later modules and they'd have to be able to set their own goals.

I'm pretty sure you could run the first module as a sandbox, though I don't think there's enough material there to be very interesting for long. (I tried back in '88. We had a couple of the modules but, other than the first, we could never figure out how we were supposed to run them; they assumed too much.)

 

[catsclaw227]

Some gamers inform each other outside the game with questions like, "How do the rules handle XXX?" or "Are there some mechanics I can follow that show me how to handle managing my lands?"

Ask, and ye shall receive an answer.

If the "problem" is that you have too little interest and initiative to ask, then either
a) it's not really a problem to you; or
b) you've got problems dice can't solve; or
c) you're just a hypothetical straw man

This response has nothing to do with the text of mine you quoted.

I stated gamers ask metagame questions outside the game, maybe sitting around watching TV or hanging out. You had inferred that the the way to find out how something worked mechanically is "by engaging the game world via your character".

I was simply saying that there are often times that players ask about mechanics outside the game. And if they ask about something that there isn't a stated mechanic, then the DM and the players make it up. They collaborate on how it works to forward the story.

I have no idea what your response above is even talking about.

Your lack of knowledge is not more convincing to me than the statements of the designer himself.

My lack of knowledge? I am not asking you for help on how to do something. I was giving examples of how some gamers do things... and <OMG> it might be different than the way you do it! There most certainly is more than one way that different groups play the game. If you want to continue to argue this.... well, then I don't know what to say.

But I would appreciate it if you would quit being condescending with your veiled superiority. My lack of knowledge?

So, catsclaw227, I invite you to fill in that "XXX" blank. What exactly do you want to do in terms of "managing your lands"?

Driving out enemies, collecting taxes, building structures, raising and equipping armies, aerial and naval operations, sieges, personalities of NPCs and your beloved "mechanical" factors for interactions with them -- those are all covered. You can appoint a steward/castellan to look after the logistics of keeping up your castle garrisoned, supplied and in good repair. You can hire sages, "the encyclopedias, computers, expert opinions and sort of demi-oracles of the milieu all rolled into one".

Agriculture, mining and (especially) trade are usually concerns beneath your station, apart from taxing them. It's not the sort of thing for which there was very much demand for rules in "adventure" games. However, if you really want to get into fodder, bushels, pigs and ducks ... the C&S Sourcebook (1978) says Fiat Lux! Yes, even the famously comprehensive C&S had initially glossed over matters "down on the farm".

As I said before... I wasn't asking for advice or examples because I didn't know how to handle things.

I was simply following up on Umbrans statement that without in-game mechanics for things, then the MECHANICS for how something works must be house-ruled by the group. Therefore, you are simply collaborating on how it works to forward the campaign/story/issue.

Was I so vague and unclear that you don't understand what I am trying to say?

 

[Ariosto]

They collaborate on how it works to forward the story.

No. The referee makes a ruling, or we collaborate on how it works, to play the game.

We don't need or want your "the story", much less your opinion that our game is not a game.

 

[catsclaw227]

No. The referee makes a ruling, or we collaborate on how it works, to play the game.

We don't need or want your "the story", much less your opinion that our game is not a game.

Play the game, advance the story, continue the campaign... I use these terms interchangably. I am sorry if the phrase "forward the story" is so disdainful to you.

And when did I state (or even imply) that your game was not a game?

I have never stated anything about your game. I was speaking in general terms. But I think you know that already.

 

[KidSnide]

Play the game, advance the story, continue the campaign... I use these terms interchangably.

The more I read threads like this, the more I think half the divide is a terminology issue. IME, "forward the story" is the part of the RPG in which the PCs do something of consequence,* as opposed to the part in which they shop, divide magic items or play the ever-popular "who can be the biggest smartass" sub-game.

Even if the GM doesn't come to the game with a story in mind, one is still generated by the actions of the PCs.

-KS

* Of course, what's "of consequence" can vary a lot. One person's handwave is another person's gameplay.