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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5133311" data-attributes="member: 18280">There is a difference, though, between not being shown, and not seeing.  I, for one, do not agree that your definition is in common usage.  Clearly, too, there are other proponents of sandbox-style games who do not share your definition.  As a fellow with a scientific background, I would expect you to consider your own observer bias, and not liken your observation of other people's opinions to noting a change in temperature.  One is subjective, the other is empirical; one can be measured, the other not.Perhaps a more open mind is in order?(Of course, you would be fair to call me the pot talking to the kettle here; I have certainly failed to take into account my own observer bias in times past, and undoubtably will again - despite best intentions - in times future.)That is possible.An AP where the players do not know it is an AP, and where the players never try to get off the path, may be functionally the same as a sandbox.  But as soon as a player pushes the boudaries, deliberately or not, the premise is tested.  At that point, the GM must decide between maintaining the AP or not.  There are some means of maintaining the AP that might initially look like they are allowing for player choice, while always manipulating the players back to the rails.  In these cases, IMHO, the game is not a sandbox.Alternately, the GM can allow the game to go where the players will, using what he knows of the AP setting to create the world around them.  In this case, especially if maintained, the AP may become a sandbox.RC</blockquote>

Verification