Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 9074799">If I understand this correctly this can definitely occur in sandbox. It may not occur as it does in the kinds of games you prefer, but I often am very clear about what procedures I am using, how I am making decisions, etc. Even in cases where I have to make up a procedure on the fly my usual routine is to explain that process to the players and ask if they think it would fairly address what they are trying to do (and they often suggest changes that I incorporate). For me this just adds to the sense that everything is above board, and to the sense that the 'physics' of the world are legit (i.e. not just a product of me having outcomes I prefer) This matches how I have heard the term. I suspect most sandbox GMs would consider this overly rigid. I also suspect you, Manebearcat, might watch a sandbox game and discern a play loop. So I don't know that it is not present or excluded so much as not part of how we conceive of play if that makes sense. I am still not sure I follow this one about orbiting.There isn't a menu of hooks though. Again in sandbox the idea is you can do anything you want. The GM might provide possible starting points via conflicts that exist, and other details but the players can just press on and push for anything they want (again though usually limited through their characters). Again the starting points you are emphasizing (which can exist in a sandbox) are largely more what you find in something like a traditional linear campaign or something. You don't push hooks on players, and you don't hadn't them a list. Occasionally stuff like a mystery will emerge I find but more often than not the adventures arise much more organically (and often conflicts are created as PCs interact with NPCs and groups). I will say if the players declare an action, the action is always permitted in sandbox. What is not always certain is the outcome. They can't declare their action over the setting material for example (i.e. a player can't say "I assassinate the king and take his throne"----he could try to do those things but he wouldn't be able to declare such an outcome in most sandbox play). This is pretty optional in something like a sandbox. I do sandox+drama, and there is no problem introducing elements that connect to things the players have established about their characters (as an example a player wanted to explore a relationship with his character's long lost father and that became part of the campaign). Some sandbox players and GMs might bristle at this, but it isn't universal. And things like tables can tie specifically to these things. I have grudge tables for example. They are an important thing that makes my wuxia campaigns function and they always tie to things about the PCs (grudges can emerge in game, the player can establish them at character creation, etc). I have to be frank and say I just don't understand the language you are using here. So I don't think I can really respond to it in a way that is meaningful or devoid of confusion. Again this really varies. Like I said sometimes I have a lot of depth sometimes I have something closer to what you posted. I would say mostly these days my notes are more likely to resemble the example you gave. It can vary though Things are never independent of the PCs. If the PCs are not engaging a particular area and something is going on there, it may march on without them. But I am usually more focused on the stuff and people going on around the PCs. Sometimes I roll randomly to see what is going on in the broader world or advance the historical timeline, but that still is all stuff the players could potentially influence if they chose to. For factions I don't usually plan stuff out in an arc of any kind. If a conflict is going on, and the players are totally absent from that conflict, my default is to use tables or to roll opposing dice pools to see what the outcome is (and that stuff usually arises because of what the leadership are trying to do, not because I have a particular arc I want). And  a lot of times the reason I even being thinking about that with a given group is because the players interacted with them in some way I don't find this to be particularly the case. Yes there is often established setting material to fall back on for sure (dungeons are a useful thing to just have in the setting for instance). But a lot of what emerges is a result of play, not prep. I will often start with a number of of details hammered out for example. But that isn't a requirement. And the campaign doesn't begin and end with those things. It is entirely possible for example to want to run a wuxia campaign where there are 8 sects I have planned out in advance and the players never interact with a single one of them because they are more interested in exploring things I never thought of. What I will say is it isn't Hillfolk. The players won't generate that setting material simply by narrating things. But stuff will be generated in response to where they are going, who they are seeking, what they want to do, etc. Stuff like pre-generated quests are pretty rare for me and I think for a lot of sandbox GMs (this can vary tremendously though). I prefer adventures that arise organically. I don't like handing players quests. Sometimes players may do something that falls into that (i.e. hear about a legendary object and seek it out----and if they do where it can be found is something that would be determined based on either what makes sense or what is established). But those are pretty rare types of adventures. I will say there are usually concrete things in the setting. But I get the senes that the way you imagine me and my players interact with those things is very different from how we do (a lot of your descriptions of sim play seem to resemble the kinds of adventures I remember being put out in the early to mid 90s by TSR for example, which are exactly the types of adventure structures most sandbox GMs are seeking to avoid). Again I may not be 100% sure of what you mean, but this is not written in stone. I often build things around the PCs and connect them back to them. Not every GM does. I think if something like drama is important it is fair to incorporate threads from the PCs. But this is something that I think honestly varies a lot. In many sandbox discussions you sometimes encounter this platonic idea of a sandbox that is so realistic and so focused on naturalism that, for me at least, it wouldn't be very fun to play. I think the vast majority of sandbox GMs consider things like what the player characters were made to do, what types of things the players are interested in doing, etc. This may often need to be framed in naturalism, but it is still there. There are plenty of conceits to playability in sandboxes. Again I am not so sure. It is possible I am not fully following the language and confusing your points. But if I follow any that I have been responding to, I think sandbox play is a lot more varied than it is being given credit for here (at the very least it is quite different from early 90s era TSR modules)</blockquote>

Verification