What makes a Sandbox?

[Ariosto]

I could arbitrarily redefine "Adventure Path" as a theoretical absolute, and bash you over the head with that dogma every time you try to talk about your experience with this or that ... thing you're no longer allowed to call an "AP".

And when you come up with some other term? I can disenfranchise you again. And again. I may not be able literally to silence you, but I can keep you from being able easily to speak for yourself.

 

[Ariosto]

Although perhaps you meant semiotics...

A semiotic of pettifogging, you mean?

See, by your definition the "collaborative world building" cannot be excluded. So, Snoweel's complaint and Firelance's accusation are just as meaningless as everything else that falls into the clutches of devotees of the absurd.

 

[Snoweel]

I could arbitrarily redefine "Adventure Path" as a theoretical absolute, and bash you over the head with that dogma every time you try to talk about your experience with this or that ... thing you're no longer allowed to call an "AP".

You're assuming I have any kind of emotional investment in that or any other term*. In psychological terminology that's called 'projection'.

I'd be happy to discuss what does and doesn't constitute an 'Adventure Path' and I'd be able to remain objective and dispassionate.

And if it was determined that 'AP' was only a theoretical absolute then I'd be happy to change my usage of the term.


* actually I have a problem with use of the word 'church' to describe D&D religions but that's an issue for another thread (probably on another board).

And when you come up with some other term? I can disenfranchise you again. And again. I may not be able literally to silence you, but I can keep you from being able easily to speak for yourself.

You can do all this but you can't help us define 'sandbox'? That seems such a waste, considering you're possibly the subject matter expert.

 

[Snoweel]

See, by your definition the "collaborative world building" cannot be excluded.

Why does it need to be?

And if it just has to be excluded, surely we can attach a caveat with respect to character creation?

 

[Ariosto]

I'm only an 'expert' on getting bashed repeatedly by people whose only apparent interest was in interrupting and derailing conversations with insistence on their semantic quibbles because they just could not bear to let people talk about old-style D&D.

It's a kind of online hooliganism.

But, backed into a corner, I draw a line. Every attempt to use more "politically correct" language gets knocked down by the ruffians themselves. So, guess what?

They can have "sandbox", and make it as "railroad" as they please. I had no need of the term for more than 30 years! And, as a plain and simple matter of fact, they can hardly claim that I'm not allowed to call my "D&D campaign" just that.

 

[Snoweel]

I'm only an 'expert' on getting bashed repeatedly by people whose only apparent interest was in interrupting and derailing conversations with insistence on their semantic quibbles because they just could not bear to let people talk about old-style D&D.

It's a kind of online yobbo-ism.

But, backed into a corner, I draw a line. Every attempt to use more "politically correct" language gets knocked down by the ruffians themselves. So, guess what?

They can have "sandbox", and make it as "railroad" as they please. I had no need of the term for more than 30 years! And, as a plain and simple matter of fact, they can hardly claim that I'm not allowed to call my "D&D campaign" just that.

I'm really, really sorry.

 

[Witty Comeback]

As the OP, if there is a mod out there who would be so kind as to lock this up, I'd appreciate it.

I guess that it was a little naive to expect a civil discussion about an (apparently) emotionally-loaded term.

 

[Beginning of the End]

ven if the DM provided rumours about a dozen dungeons of varying types, these players still might not be satisfied because they don't want to engage in open exploration.

(a) What do they want?
(b) Why don't they go look for it?

What if they want a mystery to solve or a plot to thwart?

Set up a detective agency. Pop down to the local law enforcement office and say, "You guys hiring? Any bounties that we could try to collect?" Read the paper and look for any interesting kidnappings, disappearances, or the like that they could poke their noses in.

There's nothing wrong with openly communicating with your GM about what your goals are and what you'd like to see in the campaign, but that communication with the GM doesn't require that your character sits on his ass and waits for God to deliver something interesting for him to do as if it were a pan pizza.

...and asking all their contacts if they "have any mysteries to solve or plots to thwart" sounds kind of hokey.

The exact opposite actually sounds true to me.

Can you imagine if Frank Miller had written BATMAN: YEAR ONE like that? Batman puts on his bat-suit and then sits around stately Wayne Manor waiting for a mystery to fall into his lap? That was hokey even after he built himself a rep so that Commissioner Gordon would call him on the bat-phone.

If you want to deal with local crime you either hang a sign out so that victims know to come looking for you; or you beat the pavement; or you put your ear to the ground.

 

[Snoweel]

If you want to deal with local crime you either hang a sign out so that victims know to come looking for you; or you beat the pavement; or you put your ear to the ground.

All your examples assume the kind of setting where a complex informational infrastructure already exists.

Newspapers? Detective agencies? Local law enforcement agencies?

I'm talking about the default Points of Light D&D setting. The town guard just aren't that sophistocated. If the PCs want to become embroiled in and thwart a world-shaking conspiracy (even a town or region shaking conspiracy) then that conspiracy needs to exist.

If it's not there no amount of proactivity will find it.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I'm talking about the default Points of Light D&D setting. The town guard just aren't that sophistocated. If the PCs want to become embroiled in and thwart a world-shaking conspiracy (even a town or region shaking conspiracy) then that conspiracy needs to exist.

You're arguing that it's impossible to slay dragons in a sandbox setting because you can't slay dragons that aren't there.

It's simply not true that the only way to do a dragonslaying adventure is to:

(a) Tell the DM you want dragons; and then
(b) Sit on your ass and wait for him to send somebody around the local tavern to tell you where the dragon is.

And for exactly the same reasons, it's simply not true that the only way to confront a world-shaking conspiracy is to sit on your ass and wait for the DM to send someone around to the local tavern and say, "There's a world-shaking conspiracy over yonder!"

If you have a sandbox that doesn't contain any of the things you like, that's a problem. But the problem isn't that you're playing in a sandbox. At worse, it's that you're playing in the wrong sandbox.

And, honestly, you're far less likely to run into this "you can't find that here" problem in a sandbox (which is designed to have many different options) than in a linear campaign (where you only have one option, and if it isn't what you want to be doing, then you're screwed).

You're literally the guy walking into PetSmart and concluding that you can't buy TVs in a store.