Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5044370" data-attributes="member: 8835">Unless you're playing in a world where the PC is a god and can make anything happen, a PC is always operating under constraints.if he has 10HP, he can't take 11 damage and walk away from itif he has 10GP, he can't hand out 11GP to a shopkeeperif he has no other means, he can't travel faster than by footThose would be &quot;rational&quot; limits within the context of the world.&quot;Evertime we get three miles from town, one of my PC's relatives is kidnapped!&quot; is a better example of the DM over-riding rational capabilities to create an artificial limit.&nbsp; And its more of actively blocking, rather than a limit.&nbsp; Actively blocking is a railroading symptom.Ignoring railroading symptoms as the extreme, I would think however, that &quot;making stuff up&quot; to entice the PCs to do the DM's thing, instead of giving them opportunity with no stick to choose their own path is anti-sandbox.Thus:giving the military PCs orders to travel to XYZ and do ABCkidnapping a relative by an enemy of the PCa dame with legs that don't quit drops by the office with a problem...these are valid events in a game.&nbsp; They tend to be the tools of non-sandbox DMs to route the party into the planned adventure.therefore, is it true that:a sandbox has fewer events that route PCs to a path, especially &quot;out of nowhere&quot;Basically, filter out &quot;stuff you can't do because your PC doesn't have the means&quot;, as not relevant to the conversation.I get the sense that a sandbox is &quot;prepared&quot; for the PC try to do whatever he has the means to do, though a PC might not actually attempt or consider it.&nbsp; Thus, while the paladin will &quot;never&quot; attack the city guards or rob a bank, if he did, the sandbox GM would roll with it and would just calculate the reaction of the world to his actions.Whereas an AdventurePath GM will have a what-the-heck moment.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Janx, post: 5044370, member: 8835"] Unless you're playing in a world where the PC is a god and can make anything happen, a PC is always operating under constraints. if he has 10HP, he can't take 11 damage and walk away from it if he has 10GP, he can't hand out 11GP to a shopkeeper if he has no other means, he can't travel faster than by foot Those would be "rational" limits within the context of the world. "Evertime we get three miles from town, one of my PC's relatives is kidnapped!" is a better example of the DM over-riding rational capabilities to create an artificial limit. And its more of actively blocking, rather than a limit. Actively blocking is a railroading symptom. Ignoring railroading symptoms as the extreme, I would think however, that "making stuff up" to entice the PCs to do the DM's thing, instead of giving them opportunity with no stick to choose their own path is anti-sandbox. Thus: giving the military PCs orders to travel to XYZ and do ABC kidnapping a relative by an enemy of the PC a dame with legs that don't quit drops by the office with a problem... these are valid events in a game. They tend to be the tools of non-sandbox DMs to route the party into the planned adventure. therefore, is it true that: a sandbox has fewer events that route PCs to a path, especially "out of nowhere" Basically, filter out "stuff you can't do because your PC doesn't have the means", as not relevant to the conversation. I get the sense that a sandbox is "prepared" for the PC try to do whatever he has the means to do, though a PC might not actually attempt or consider it. Thus, while the paladin will "never" attack the city guards or rob a bank, if he did, the sandbox GM would roll with it and would just calculate the reaction of the world to his actions. Whereas an AdventurePath GM will have a what-the-heck moment. [/QUOTE]

Verification