Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5133131" data-attributes="member: 18280">This seems correct to me, although I will note that some editions are far better at supporting any given playstyle than others, and that is probably where the &quot;edition war&quot; subset enters the &quot;playstyle war&quot;.RC@ Hobo:&nbsp;&nbsp; Again, thank you for clarifying, and for doing so with civility.&nbsp; I believe I see where you are coming from.&nbsp; Although I don't accept your definition of &quot;sandbox&quot; as being functionally the same as mine, given your definition, your conclusions make sense.What I think has happened in this discussion is, in a way, as though I started talking about &quot;cars&quot;, meaning only my particular car, and people jumped in because my claims about the limited properties of &quot;cars&quot; only make sense from the perspective of &quot;cars&quot; = &quot;my personal car&quot;.Thus, claims made about the nature of a &quot;sandbox&quot; have been reacted to as though you were talking about something other than your personal definition of a sandbox.&nbsp; &quot;[A]ctively and wildly putting potential activities in front of [the players] to see which ones they find interesting&quot; does not disqualify a campaign from taking place in a sandbox, IMHO.&nbsp; Other threads dropping to the background, also, does not, so long as the threads remain and there are logical consequences for ignoring them.&nbsp; Your endgame sounds more like closing the sandbox, to me, so that (from your description) the big ball of options that is the campaign milieu is a sandbox, but the endgame is not.Others may differ, of course.&nbsp; If you don't think of your game as a sandbox, you certainly are under no compulsion to describe it as such!Going back to your original question, then, AFAICT there is no large upswing in interest in sandbox-style play as you define it.&nbsp; AFAICT, the interest in sandbox games stems from a world which is active and reactive, which means that there will be a good deal of input from the GM.&nbsp; The GM, however, doesn't control the direction of the action as much as he adjudicates the outcomes of actions and consequences thereof.&nbsp; As I understand it, anyway.&nbsp; Others' Mileage May Vary!&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 5133131, member: 18280"] This seems correct to me, although I will note that some editions are far better at supporting any given playstyle than others, and that is probably where the "edition war" subset enters the "playstyle war". RC @ Hobo: Again, thank you for clarifying, and for doing so with civility. I believe I see where you are coming from. Although I don't accept your definition of "sandbox" as being functionally the same as mine, given your definition, your conclusions make sense. What I think has happened in this discussion is, in a way, as though I started talking about "cars", meaning only my particular car, and people jumped in because my claims about the limited properties of "cars" only make sense from the perspective of "cars" = "my personal car". Thus, claims made about the nature of a "sandbox" have been reacted to as though you were talking about something other than your personal definition of a sandbox. "[A]ctively and wildly putting potential activities in front of [the players] to see which ones they find interesting" does not disqualify a campaign from taking place in a sandbox, IMHO. Other threads dropping to the background, also, does not, so long as the threads remain and there are logical consequences for ignoring them. Your endgame sounds more like closing the sandbox, to me, so that (from your description) the big ball of options that is the campaign milieu is a sandbox, but the endgame is not. Others may differ, of course. If you don't think of your game as a sandbox, you certainly are under no compulsion to describe it as such! Going back to your original question, then, AFAICT there is no large upswing in interest in sandbox-style play as you define it. AFAICT, the interest in sandbox games stems from a world which is active and reactive, which means that there will be a good deal of input from the GM. The GM, however, doesn't control the direction of the action as much as he adjudicates the outcomes of actions and consequences thereof. As I understand it, anyway. Others' Mileage May Vary! :lol: RC [/QUOTE]

Verification