What makes a Sandbox?

[Snoweel]

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

No.

I'm arguing that if there are no dragons in a sandbox setting and you want the DM to include some then you should be able to talk to him out of character.

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.

It is if you've looked everywhere for dragons and not found any.

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!"

Spare me your stupid, one-dimensional strawman examples.

If you'd been paying attention, earlier in the thread I said:

If ... the elements required for the adventure the players and DM have decided upon don't yet exist in the PCs' perceptions - e.g. an Orc horde, a lost Dwarven city, a planar portal, a certain dangerous artifact, etc - then they have to be revealed to the characters (and the players obviously) in a way that maintains verisimilitude.

Supposing the NPC-coming-to-moan-about-it has been overdone lately, then the hook needs to be delivered another way (an Orc patrol, a Dwarven tomb-robber, a wizard's diary, an abandoned village, etc).

Rendering your simplistic example just another dishonest attempt to muddy the waters and make this all about lack of PC proactivity, when clearly the setting is just as likely to be the problem.

If you have a sandbox that doesn't contain any of the things you like, that's a problem.

We agree!

But the problem isn't that you're playing in a sandbox.

I never said it was.

Disavow yourself of the idea that I (or anyone else) has a problem with sandbox play.

Unless 'sandbox play' negates the possibility of collaborative input into world-building (like if the players just find the setting itself boring).

At worse, it's that you're playing in the wrong sandbox.

And, one hopes, a sandbox that may be made right for everybody.

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).

I would hope you're aware that you're stating the obvious, as well as further confusing the issue by essentially claiming that 'sandbox' = any-campaign-that-doesn't-suck.

The purpose of this thread is to define 'sandbox', which you'll see if you look at the thread title. The reason this issue of collaborative world-building has come up is because we want to know if it invalidates an otherwise sandbox campaign as being a 'sandbox'.

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

No, I would figuratively be that guy. Only I'm not.

You, however, are literally the guy joining the growing number of posters making clumsy and ill-fitting analogies in an attempt to misrepresent any position you disagree with, while trying to look clever.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[The Shaman]

The meta-game goal of exploration and discovery trumps meta-game goals like plot and cohesion.

I like this.

 

[Snoweel]

I like this.

I agree. It seems like a defining point with more-or-less universal consensus.

 

[The Shaman]

The departure here is your view of "an adventure" as something apart from player choice. Gygax used the term instead as a synonym for "expedition" -- in other words, with the emphasis on venture rather than on 'ad'. The adventure was thus the sum of player choices, from setting a goal through every step toward attaining or abandoning the objective.

This is one of the reasons I've gotten away from calling anything I prep an "adventure." In my experience the way the word "adventure" is used by many gamers to describe a sequence of more-or-less connected events with a beginning, middle, and end. (And before anyone jumps to conclusions, I'm not in any way suggesting that all adventures imply or require railroading.)

For my own campaigns, I prep beginnings in some depth and then stop. For example, my random encounter tables include some special events. Each special event is a situation, a moment in time, with no specific connection to anything else. For the random encounters I know the circumstances of the present situation: who are the people involved, why are they here, and what are they doing? After that, I have nothing specific planned. From what I know of the background I can draw some logical inferences from the people and the place about what happens next, but I make no specific plans because my goal is to apply what I know of the non-player characters and their environment in response to the adventurers' decisions.

What I know with some certainty is how an encounter may begin; how far subsequent events may cascade is a mystery to me, and I have no investment in any particular outcome.

 

[S'mon]

Afraid I'm going to have to disagree. As in other things, it is a matter of degree. In point of fact, players regular engage in world-building in D&D, simply by creating PCs. Every PC represents the birth and life of one person in the game world. Even the least collaborative games have such elements.

Taking my current sandbox game as an example - the players define their PCs' backgrounds, but they do not get to define the contents of the sandbox, the area to be explored which is the focus of campaign activity (in this case
, Quail Valley). The PCs are strangers to the campaign area. Any 'building' in the sandbox is done in-world, in-character, by the PCs themselves building castles, establishing thieves' guilds, etc.

Large scale collaborative world-building, ie giving the players authorial input to the setting, is inimical to the primary purpose of sandbox play, which is exploration (and possibly conquest) of the sandbox. However collaborative play is not a bad playstyle! Collaborative play can be great, and I've used it in the past to good effect, especially in PBEMs. I'm reading 4e the DMG2 right now and it has interesting suggestions on collaborative play, though they seem a bit jarring with the general approach of 4e.

 

[S'mon]

I think you've misquoted me. I wrote about twenty lines.

Or is 'smug and dismissive' your answer to everything?

Pot, kettle...

 

[Snoweel]

Pot, kettle...

I might be a lot of things, but smug and dismissive isn't one of them.

I make an effort to address other posters' points. Like I'm doing right now.

 

[S'mon]

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.

It seems to be just snoweel being a jerk, calling people snide, stupid etc. If it were not for his input to the thread you would probably have got a useful discussion.

 

[Snoweel]

Taking my current sandbox game as an example - the players define their PCs' backgrounds, but they do not get to define the contents of the sandbox, the area to be explored which is the focus of campaign activity (in this case
, Quail Valley). The PCs are strangers to the campaign area.

Could one run a sandbox where the PCs are not strangers to the campaign area? Where their backgrounds can potentially have a greater impact on the setting?

Any 'building' in the sandbox is done in-world, in-character, by the PCs themselves building castles, establishing thieves' guilds, etc.

Large scale collaborative world-building, ie giving the players authorial input to the setting, is inimical to the primary purpose of sandbox play, which is exploration (and possibly conquest) of the sandbox.

But does it invalidate a campaign as 'sandbox'? Or does it just make the campaign less of one?

Or does the distinction not even matter?

However collaborative play is not a bad playstyle!

I don't think anyone ever said it was. This thread has never been about 'good' or 'bad', but about defining terminology. There seems to be some defensiveness about this topic that is completely unwarranted.

Collaborative play can be great, and I've used it in the past to good effect, especially in PBEMs. I'm reading 4e the DMG2 right now and it has interesting suggestions on collaborative play, though they seem a bit jarring with the general approach of 4e.

I recently finished DMG2 and I think I may agree with you. Can you give an example of what you mean?

It seems to be just snoweel being a jerk, calling people snide, stupid etc.

I certainly have called people snide due to certain posters continually trying to misrepresent me, while I have never attempted the same.

As for stupid, I only used it to describe numerous instances of ill-fitting analogies intended to misrepresent my position.

If it were not for his input to the thread you would probably have got a useful discussion.

I would suggest engaging with the post rather than attacking the poster though I suspect you're trying to initiate a dogpile.

How sad.

 

[Umbran]

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

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.

That is more than enough of that.

Folks, internet psychology (claiming you know why another speaks) isn't okay.

Outright insults and threats that you are going to treat another poster badly are even less okay.

There will be no more of this nonsense from these two in this thread. Don't be like them.