Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 5129553" data-attributes="member: 2205">It seems that a sandbox faces some risk if the personalities of the players aren't adapted to it.  I said earlier that a sandbox requires players (not necessarily characters) to think and act like entrepreneurs, but maybe that's too simplistic a characterization.If none of the players think that way, then they are likely to be frustrated and unhappy with a sandbox beginning, in which they feel like they have to go beat the streets looking for work rather than have, "this is the adventure right here, guys" signs all over the place.  I've seen groups that have that dynamic.  Sandbox style seems particularly poor for that group.  If one player thinks entrepreneurially, and the others are content to follow his lead, then the sandbox can work like gangbusters.  But what if two players think entrepreneurially?  What about three?  What about all of them?If also seen plenty of campaigns fall apart because they offered too many options... and the various players never really agreed on which ones they wanted to pursue.It's all well and good to say, as The Shaman does, that the sandbox doesn't require groups to stay together, but realistically speaking, if you don't, then what exactly kind of game do you have?  If everyone's trying to go different directions, that's not a viable game.  Like I said from the very beginning, my experience shows that an overly sandboxy game can be just as problematic as an overly railroady game.  Both of the examples of game fail that I mentioned in this post?  I've seen 'em.  First hand.A sandbox style is not a one-size-fits-all solution to how to game.  With the right group, it can be a lot of fun.  There's a lot of potential for it to go wrong with the wrong group, though, and I think the wrong groups are probably pretty prevalent.</blockquote>

Verification