Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8238354" data-attributes="member: 6696971">So this is an interesting question:&quot;Can a game be considered a Sandbox if it is basically 100 % Setting Solitaire and player input is relegated entirely to color/characterization?&quot;That would be the Z on my continuum.&nbsp; The volitional force that players expect to erect upon play is entirely smoke and mirrors.&nbsp; In order to ensure play is funneled toward interaction with particular features of the setting, the GM is deploying Force at a 100 % rate when a question of play trajectory arises.You have the aspect of a Setting having a model run, with a lot of different parameters considered and even authentic interactions with those parameters collide (Faction A collides with Faction B with Situation C also giving expression to the collision).&nbsp; However, all of the interactions are player-proof.&nbsp; They don't have a parameter in the model run.&nbsp; They think they do, but its a complete illusion.My inclination is to say that the sort of 100 % Setting Solitaire that I've depicted above with 100 % Illusionism GMing (as it pertains to player input onto the trajectory of play) is still a Sandbox.&nbsp; Players can interact with all the constituent parts of the Sandbox and they perceive their influence on the trajectory...its just that their perception is mistaken...its an illusion.&nbsp; They can build a house, they can do the dungeon (as the dungeon is to be done), they can order pastries from the baker, make friends with the mayor, protect the merchant caravan, slay the invading force.&nbsp; But its all either color/characterization that doesn't impact the trajectory of play or its Railroaded Setting Solitaire.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 8238354, member: 6696971"] So this is an interesting question: "Can a game be considered a Sandbox if it is basically 100 % Setting Solitaire and player input is relegated entirely to color/characterization?" That would be the Z on my continuum. The volitional force that players expect to erect upon play is entirely smoke and mirrors. In order to ensure play is funneled toward interaction with particular features of the setting, the GM is deploying Force at a 100 % rate when a question of play trajectory arises. You have the aspect of a Setting having a model run, with a lot of different parameters considered and even authentic interactions with those parameters collide (Faction A collides with Faction B with Situation C also giving expression to the collision). However, all of the interactions are player-proof. They don't have a parameter in the model run. They think they do, but its a complete illusion. My inclination is to say that the sort of 100 % Setting Solitaire that I've depicted above with 100 % Illusionism GMing (as it pertains to player input onto the trajectory of play) is still a Sandbox. Players can interact with all the constituent parts of the Sandbox and they [I]perceive [/I]their influence on the trajectory...its just that their perception is mistaken...its an illusion. They can build a house, they can do the dungeon (as the dungeon is to be done), they can order pastries from the baker, make friends with the mayor, protect the merchant caravan, slay the invading force. But its all either color/characterization that doesn't impact the trajectory of play or its Railroaded Setting Solitaire. [/QUOTE]

Verification