Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5003811" data-attributes="member: 18280">And yet.......Frankly, there are those who are disagreeing that I would say are generally reasonable people.I agree.&nbsp; That's why I tried to seperate the game and the framework.IMHO, and certainly when I use the term, a &quot;sandbox&quot; is a game in which there are plot threads occurring in the world, whether or not the PCs follow them, and where the PCs direct the &quot;action&quot; of the game toward the plot threads that they are interested in.&nbsp; It is (partially, anyway) still the job of the GM to make this setting &quot;work&quot; in terms of game play.If you are playing a system where the kobold encounter can be played relatively quickly (1e, OD&amp;D, Basic Fantasy, RCFG), then that encounter doesn't detract from the game.&nbsp; If you are playing a system where the kobold encounter is going to grind (3e, 4e), then you might want to reconsider placing it in the first place.&nbsp; Or you could consider having the kobolds scatter, or throw themselves on the PCs' questionable mercy, preferably before the grind/glazed-over look begins.Being impartial in terms of the game itself doesn't mean that you have to have a sucky framework in which that game takes place.&nbsp; Originally, wandering monsters were there to make &quot;Greyhawking&quot; a less than viable option, as well as to add to the faux realism of the experience.&nbsp; When used in this way, these encounters are part of the game.&nbsp; When exploring, finding out what is there is part of the game.&nbsp; When they occur &quot;just because&quot; they are part of the framework, and even Gary Gygax gave the advice to ignore them if they were damaging the game (in the 1e DMG).Parsing out what you are doing when you engage in an activity like a role-playing game might seem like mere pedantry, but it allows you to gain deeper insight into how the parts relate to the whole.&nbsp; This in turn allows you to make the entire thing better.IMHO, of course.&nbsp; YMMV.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 5003811, member: 18280"] And yet.......Frankly, there are those who are disagreeing that I would say are generally reasonable people. I agree. That's why I tried to seperate the game and the framework. IMHO, and certainly when I use the term, a "sandbox" is a game in which there are plot threads occurring in the world, whether or not the PCs follow them, and where the PCs direct the "action" of the game toward the plot threads that they are interested in. It is (partially, anyway) still the job of the GM to make this setting "work" in terms of game play. If you are playing a system where the kobold encounter can be played relatively quickly (1e, OD&D, Basic Fantasy, RCFG), then that encounter doesn't detract from the game. If you are playing a system where the kobold encounter is going to grind (3e, 4e), then you might want to reconsider placing it in the first place. Or you could consider having the kobolds scatter, or throw themselves on the PCs' questionable mercy, preferably before the grind/glazed-over look begins. Being impartial in terms of the game itself doesn't mean that you have to have a sucky framework in which that game takes place. Originally, wandering monsters were there to make "Greyhawking" a less than viable option, as well as to add to the faux realism of the experience. When used in this way, these encounters are part of the game. When exploring, finding out what is there is part of the game. When they occur "just because" they are part of the framework, and even Gary Gygax gave the advice to ignore them if they were damaging the game (in the 1e DMG). Parsing out what you are doing when you engage in an activity like a role-playing game might seem like mere pedantry, but it allows you to gain deeper insight into how the parts relate to the whole. This in turn allows you to make the entire thing better. IMHO, of course. YMMV. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification