Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9078552" data-attributes="member: 42582">I didn't say they used the word "sandbox". But they talked about the things you and [USER=85555]@Bedrockgames[/USER] talked about: GM creation of setting, the players declaring actions that move their PCs through the setting, GM as neutral arbiter of actions. Discussion of this can be found in White Dwarf - Lewis Pulsipher in relation to D&D, other contributors in relation to Traveller; to a reasonable extent in Gygax's DMG; and tools for doing it, such as random events charts, are found in various places including the original OA. Campaign Law for Rolemaster also presents world-building as oriented towards a sandbox approach to play.I remember having conversations about RPG world-building with a friend who was also a serious humanities/social science student (we are now both academics in our fields) over 30 years ago. I still have notes about NPCs, factions, places and possible events that I made back then.The contrast between arena-type play, dungeon-of-the-week type play, GM storytelling, and "open world" exploration-type play was plainly evident in the RPG club I was a member of in the early 1990s. I can't recall now if we had a neutral vocabulary that we used to talk about it - given the preferences I and my friends shared, we talked about serious vs non-serious play, and railroads. Serious play involved rich settings with backstory that was relevant to and manifest in the current play, and relatively richly-realised characters. The approach was a sometimes unstable combination of, or alternation between, purist-for-system simulationism against a backdrop of GM authorship of setting, and vanilla narrativism.That post doesn't say anything about Burning Wheel, Apolcalypse World or similar RPGs.The play of Burning Wheel or Apocalypse World doesn't use or rely on literary concepts such as "narrative" and "story". They do not involve anyone collaborating on a story. In fact the whole point of the design is that no one needs to collaborate on a story or use literary concepts such as "narrative" or "story".This is a very general description. I don't see how it doesn't apply to BW and AW.This is also very general.A game of AW could involve protecting the hardhold. A game of BW could involve conquering a kingdom.This is a key step in starting the play of BW or AW.As I already posted, these passages are where one can find the difference.Both BW and AW involve players formulating goals for their PCs. But the GM is not a neutral arbiter. The GM's decision-making, as guided by the action resolution rules, is expected to have regard to the goals the players have adopted for their PCs.</blockquote>

Verification