Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 5043247" data-attributes="member: 15538">I'm willing to bank on less than scientific evidence in this case. Simply put, the history of D&D module publication is a series of basically unlinked scenarios, in many cases with little guiding players how to proceed other than an impetus to enter the dungeon/town/etc. Furthermore, the guidelines presented for strongholds and followers clearly indicate support for a player-driven support style. There are no published AD&d modules of which I am aware that involve monsters attacking a PC fighter's stronghold.Sorry to be frustrating, that's not my intention. I'm not trying to force my views on others through bald assertion. Nonetheless, and I thought it was important to correct a stereotype as well as to offer some observations that suggest something different about gaming culture than was implied by the person I was referring to. I am not traumatized by Darth Railroader, I was raised in the same cradle of episodic, anything-goes play experienced with and by many of my peers between 1983 and the mid 90s, across five schools and one university. Certainly, some people played more saga-style games (in the manner of The Gamers, for instance) but the game books themselves offered little mechanical support or guidance about how to go about such a thing. Modern RPGs have their roots in "Braunstein," which is essentially a point at which a straightforward wargaming simulation evolved into a situation where the players became embroiled in numerous secondary scenarios. That is gaming history, and I think it's important for people to understand that background. The accusation being made was that sandboxers are reactionary, when in fact, they are practicing a venerable craft that has its roots in the very first modern RPGs. The programmatic adventure is a descendent of the original form. Necessarily. Of course. The whole point of meaningful choice is that we respond emotionally. Clearly, "meaningless choice" is a term that is easily understood. Meaningful choice is simply it's opposite. Although it is used in a different way than in a common, conversational sense, that is because the subject being discussed is different. The word means what it does in ordinary English. Whether certain situations are "meaningful choices" is a dialectic. It's no more jargony than asking someone if that is a "good" golf club; obviously the discussion hinges on an understanding of golf and a consideration of what makes for a good club, but the word "good" is not being unfairly pressed into service. In the context of an RPG, is this choice meaningful? Some people might here "meaningful" and think "fulflling," but of course "choice" tells us we are not talking about a specific outcome. If the term "meaningful choice" sounds existential, it's because it is. RPGs, as narratives, as games, as diversions, are an imitation of life and its logos.I may have missed it, but I don't remember anyone claiming exactly that, and if they have, they aren't on my team. Meaningful choices is a characteristic of an RPG, of any form. Sandbox and programmatic games may differ in the number and degree of meaningful choices at important decision points. If someone asks, "How do you make a good pie crust?" and someone says, "Shortening and inconsistency," that does not imply that a bad pie crust does not have shortening or that a pancake is completely consistent or anything of that. It's just an injuction to look at some things peculiar to pie crusts that deserve special attention. Just as a pie crust needs good beads of oil in the dough, a sandbox game needs good, meaningful choices that allow the PCs to explore the setting largely at-will, though not without natural and logical contours and challenges.No, it's not. Actually, a collaborative, player-driven story campaign is almost the opposite of a sandbox. The basic characteristic of a sandbox is player choice in maneuvering their character through the game environment with less emphasis on direction, plot, GM agenda, and so forth. The meta-game goal of exploration and discovery trumps meta-game goals like plot and cohesion.Indeed. Would it be especially frustrating at this point if I stated that I usually run hybrid games, rather than purely sandbox? That's a good point, and if I've come across as sandbox-good/programmatic-bad, that is not only not my intention, but does not accurately express my views. I'm interested in being clear, not trying to proselytize a particular play style.</blockquote>

Verification