Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 5017334" data-attributes="member: 54710">I think one of the difficulties this discussion has been having is that a good sandbox game works in almost the same way as a good story game -- we just think about them differently.  In my mind, the biggest different between a sandbox game and a story game is whether the game is focused on situations for the PCs to explore (and then affect) or on goals for the PCs to accomplish (or fail at accomplishing).  Of course a sandbox game needs goals (or it will be very dull) and a story game needs situations (or it will lack any flexibility), the question is which comes first in the mind of the GM.In a good game of either type, (1) the PCs will work towards goals that the players (and their characters) have bought into (2) in a situation that is flexible enough to let the PCs approach the goal in a number of ways.  Those aren't sandbox or story - they're just good D&D.On a practical level, the biggest difference is who has responsibility for deciding what the PCs do on a macro level.  In a sandbox, the GM responds to the PC's goals (usually built in character creation and evolving over time).  In a story, the GM provides the goals and the PCs build characters who are motivated to accomplish them.  (Or, the PCs and GM collaborate to figure out what the game will be about and build characters and world together.)There are powerful merits to both approaches.  Although I think of myself a story gamer, I also believe that it is absolutely and immensely vital (1) that the PCs "buy into" the goal and (2) that the story of the game be "about" the PCs in almost every meaningful way.  I also admit that a sandbox approach is an almost surefire way to accomplish #2 and an excellent way to accomplish #1, at least in as much as the PCs choose their goals and, therefore, are more likely to buy into them.But I also think it's important for the PCs to pursue goals in which the pursuit is interesting.  Of course, a good situation is likely to produce an interesting adventure, but I (as a story-focused player) prefer my GM to point me towards their best material.  Of course, a good sandbox GM can provide guidence concerning which situations are the most interesting ones to explore, but I don't think a sandbox GM who always points the PCs towards the next best situation is all that different from a story GM.And, of course, I should add that this is all about personal preference (and, probably, which types of /bad/ games you've experienced).  Personally, I don't care for exploration.  I care about accomplishment.  And, so, I like my GMs to put things to accomplish in front of me -- don't waste my time making me find them.  And help me figure out which ones I should do first, because that decision is usually not interesting to me.But I get that freedom and the ability to explore is also something that many players (and GMs!) like.  So I don't think there is anything wrong with pursuing a game that is focused more on responding to player desire than pointing the player to what the GM thinks is his (or her) best material.-KS</blockquote>

Verification