Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What separates a sandbox adventure from an AP?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6553758" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I don't think that's the only difficulty. I'm not even sure it's the main difficulty.</p><p></p><p>I've just read through I3 Pharoah, regarded by many as a classic adventure. It has a goal that I think many players would like - loot an ancient pyramid and thereby restore life and water to the barren desert.</p><p></p><p>But the adventure has huge chunks of material that are not really relevant to that goal at all: they don't speak to the lost pharoah, nor to the ancient-ness of the pyramid, nor to the theme of restoring life to the desert. They are just pretty traditional dungeon encounters, tricks and traps.</p><p></p><p>Furthermore, the adventure makes no provision for connecting the PCs to its goal in any deep fashion: in fact, its premise is that the PCs are strangers to the desert, to the pyramid and to the overall situation.</p><p></p><p>Many lesser adventures display the same phenomenon: the goal of the adventure is, essentially, a McGuffin or plot device. It lures the PCs in, but it doesn't actually inform the players' experience in playing the adventure. Even in Pharoah, the ostensible theme is relevant in making sense of certain clues and unravelling certain tricks, but it doesn't inform the play experience in any deep fashion.</p><p></p><p>It's not actually an adventure about restoring a wasteland to life by engaging with a lost and ancient culture.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Both these claims are contentious.</p><p></p><p>What is the essence of a roleplaying adventure? The PCs find themselves confronted with some sort of challenge or situation to resolve; they try to resolve it; and this attempt at resolution has consequences.</p><p></p><p>Who controls what the PCs are confronted by? In a sandbox, the ideal is that the players control this (choosing from a list prepared by the GM). In scene-framing play, the GM chooses the details of this, paying attention to what the players have indicated about the sorts of situations they want their PCs to engage in (a simple example: the player of a cleric of Thor probably wants to confront giants or ogres). In a railroad, the GM chooses this unilaterally.</p><p></p><p>Who determines the consequences of resolution? In a sandbox, the ideal is that the GM adjudicates changes in the setting based on the outcomes of the PC's actions. So the players can try and drive change, mediated via the GM. What can go wrong? Lazy GMing - the GM doesn't want to change his/her original list of challenges to take on. A boring setting that has little scope for interesting or meaningful change. A GM who is wedded to campaign metaplot.</p><p></p><p>In scene-framing play, the ideal is that the outcome of one confrontation should generate the seeds of the next, using the same method of GM uptake of player signals. So the players absolutely can drive the game. What can go wrong? The GM misreads the players' signals, or frames the players into boring challenges.</p><p></p><p>In a railroad, the consequences are already determined before play begins. In the case of an Adventure Path, they have been written down by the AP authors. There may be marginal variations in response to player choices and player actions, but ultimately the path of events, and of challenges, is predetermined. That's what makes it an Adventure Path. What can go wrong? The players wanted to drive the game, rather than work their way through the GM's story.</p><p></p><p>So player-driven play is possible, and there are at least two versions of it: sandboxing and scene-framing. Maybe others too that I'm not familiar with.</p><p></p><p>That doesn't sound like a sandbox. It sounds closer to <a href="http://inky.org/rpg/no-myth.html" target="_blank">No Myth</a>.</p><p></p><p>A strength of No Myth over sandboxing is that the setting is guaranteed to be responsive to the interests and concerns demonstrated by the players. In that way it is very player driven. But for some players, of course, this is a weakness rather than a strength, because they want a gameworld that is "real" and exists as an object of exploration independent of their interests and desires. For those players, traditional sandboxing is preferable.</p><p></p><p>(You seem to allude to this desire, by some players, for a "real" gameworld when you say "I don't think the players ever thought I was making it up at the spot.")</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6553758, member: 42582"] I don't think that's the only difficulty. I'm not even sure it's the main difficulty. I've just read through I3 Pharoah, regarded by many as a classic adventure. It has a goal that I think many players would like - loot an ancient pyramid and thereby restore life and water to the barren desert. But the adventure has huge chunks of material that are not really relevant to that goal at all: they don't speak to the lost pharoah, nor to the ancient-ness of the pyramid, nor to the theme of restoring life to the desert. They are just pretty traditional dungeon encounters, tricks and traps. Furthermore, the adventure makes no provision for connecting the PCs to its goal in any deep fashion: in fact, its premise is that the PCs are strangers to the desert, to the pyramid and to the overall situation. Many lesser adventures display the same phenomenon: the goal of the adventure is, essentially, a McGuffin or plot device. It lures the PCs in, but it doesn't actually inform the players' experience in playing the adventure. Even in Pharoah, the ostensible theme is relevant in making sense of certain clues and unravelling certain tricks, but it doesn't inform the play experience in any deep fashion. It's not actually an adventure about restoring a wasteland to life by engaging with a lost and ancient culture. Both these claims are contentious. What is the essence of a roleplaying adventure? The PCs find themselves confronted with some sort of challenge or situation to resolve; they try to resolve it; and this attempt at resolution has consequences. Who controls what the PCs are confronted by? In a sandbox, the ideal is that the players control this (choosing from a list prepared by the GM). In scene-framing play, the GM chooses the details of this, paying attention to what the players have indicated about the sorts of situations they want their PCs to engage in (a simple example: the player of a cleric of Thor probably wants to confront giants or ogres). In a railroad, the GM chooses this unilaterally. Who determines the consequences of resolution? In a sandbox, the ideal is that the GM adjudicates changes in the setting based on the outcomes of the PC's actions. So the players can try and drive change, mediated via the GM. What can go wrong? Lazy GMing - the GM doesn't want to change his/her original list of challenges to take on. A boring setting that has little scope for interesting or meaningful change. A GM who is wedded to campaign metaplot. In scene-framing play, the ideal is that the outcome of one confrontation should generate the seeds of the next, using the same method of GM uptake of player signals. So the players absolutely can drive the game. What can go wrong? The GM misreads the players' signals, or frames the players into boring challenges. In a railroad, the consequences are already determined before play begins. In the case of an Adventure Path, they have been written down by the AP authors. There may be marginal variations in response to player choices and player actions, but ultimately the path of events, and of challenges, is predetermined. That's what makes it an Adventure Path. What can go wrong? The players wanted to drive the game, rather than work their way through the GM's story. So player-driven play is possible, and there are at least two versions of it: sandboxing and scene-framing. Maybe others too that I'm not familiar with. That doesn't sound like a sandbox. It sounds closer to [url=http://inky.org/rpg/no-myth.html]No Myth[/url]. A strength of No Myth over sandboxing is that the setting is guaranteed to be responsive to the interests and concerns demonstrated by the players. In that way it is very player driven. But for some players, of course, this is a weakness rather than a strength, because they want a gameworld that is "real" and exists as an object of exploration independent of their interests and desires. For those players, traditional sandboxing is preferable. (You seem to allude to this desire, by some players, for a "real" gameworld when you say "I don't think the players ever thought I was making it up at the spot.") [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What separates a sandbox adventure from an AP?
Top