Sandbox Objectivity

[Ravenswing]

The problem is making it good i.e. fun and interesting. And that in my experience makes railroads just as challenging any other structure for running a campaign.

Are they? You're not asserting, surely, that sandboxes are good, fun and interesting all on their own, and that it doesn't take skill to do that?

Exactly where does the 'skill' come in when we're talking about bulk prep?

Well, for one, to gauge with what elements, and on what level, the players interact. Are they interacting with the movers and shakers: the Queen, the Archmage, the Admiral, the Matriarch of the faith? That needs a particular infrastructure and design. Are they focusing instead on the top kick of the district Watch platoon, the journeyman wizard making a living off of petty divinations, the neighborhood parish priestess? That needs a different infrastructure and design. Are they doing both? And not only in Warwik City, but in Seasteadholm, Thevelin, Maskholm and Thelamie Town to boot? Erk, you got work to do.

For another, if you're doing bulk prep beyond random gen tables, and you aim to do a good job at it, you want to avoid being hackneyed and repeating yourself endlessly. If the Green Triangle Tavern and the Grey Cat Tavern and the King Gadelen Tavern and the Golden Wheel Tavern all have bluff, portly (male) innkeepers, sultry slatterns in low-cut blouses, beef and ale, a frou-frou minstrel twanging a mandolin by the fire, a beefy drunkard sure to provoke a bar fight, and a 180-proof house liquor with a weird color and an offbeat name, then you're just mailing it in and the players' eyes will glaze over.

Surely that's the mark of a poorly prepared GM? If a player says they want to do X, let them do X. If that derails the plot, nudge them back, if it pushes them further down the railroad, everythings gravy. The thing is they'll never realise its a railroad because you've never taken away their agency.

A party that doesn't run into the limits of a railroad really fast is either a bunch of desperately unimaginative players, or a group that buys into the concept and has a tacit social pact not to stray beyond the rails. Because Robiswrong isn't: players figure it out.

 

[Brock Savage]

I don't think it stops being a sandbox just because the box is bounded - it's not unreasonable to ask the players to stay within the starting map for a time - especially if a GM is new at running a sanbox.

But that kind of setup is a good way to flex the muscles and learn the skills. Simply being in the same area and making decisions will mean that it will be natural for the pcs to make enemies and allies and the world around them to react to begin reacting to them, and you learn the skills of runnning the world.

Agree. I am working with soft boundaries in my hex crawl but I don't think that makes it any less of a sandbox. A 10x10 hex map doesn't seem like much but trust me, coming up with 100 unique, interesting, and gameable locations is no joke (I don't like empty hexes and I don't use random tables to generate content). I don't put any hard boundaries and say they can't leave the hex map but I've made it clear there is little point unless they have a specific goal in mind. So yeah, my players are free to leave the hex map and return to the Realm of Man but there's really no point in returning to a monster-haunted wasteland dotted with stone-age villages that have no treasure.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Anything of your own concoction is harder because it takes effort. It's a quality about good *anything* that you put in some effort to pursue optimal results. And as someone that regularly writes their own content, sandboxes, and has done many linear adventures, and written and designed content for publication I can say unequivocally that writing a sandbox, especially for publication, is so many orders of magnitude more difficult than writing a linear adventure I can't even begin to underscore that.

As someone that exclusively runs sandbox, doing a linear adventure is completely trivial to me. But that's because of how I set up a sandbox. So this is probably worth discussion in this thread alone. I'll put a post up about what I do for setup later.



I get this. My wife is a book editor (fiction), and I help her business as a consultant on plot and structure for her clients. Genre is a big deal that I've come to realize even fans of their respective favorite fiction genres don't really understand the nuts and bolts of that genre in their very own fiction. Translating that to an RPG is even more difficult based on the context of the kinds of campaigns you're running.

I'll speak to Supers because I've been running MSH since it dropped... and I run it sandbox. And yes, it's very challenging for people to run it as such because there are a TON of wheels moving in a sandbox that never have to be asked in a somicbook that people simply don't think about in a game. As a fiction-structure, comics are GREAT for doing linear-gameplay. Mission of the month = 1 issue! naturally. More organically in play, one adventure is a story-arc that could be 1 to more sessions.

As a sandbox, Supers requires all the things I'd do in a normal sandbox, but you have to break your conceptions of superheroes being reactionary (which is something that really sucks in Sandbox games in general, but that's a player-issue). Peter Parker as Spiderman wasn't "reactionary" if you think about it. He had a day-job - doing work for the Bugle. He had all his relationships he had to maintain - Aunt May, Mary Jane. His college work. His friends - Harry, Betty, Jughead and Reggie. And through it all he was Spiderman doing adventures. That's quite a bit of grist for the mill in a Sandbox RPG. MSH has rules to apply to all of those things, which you as a GM have to extrapolate out for *all* the PC's and NPC's alike. I always tell GM's for supers, leaving their civilian identities to sit in the dust is wasted content. It gives their characters depth and more stuff to do - even generates TONS of content for their superhero identity. Think of all the times Matt Murdock had to solve his cases issues as a lawyer AS Daredevil.

This isn't rote for every character, mind you, but it requires curating on your part as the GM to figure out what will work for your sandbox.

The goal should be for the GM to take each and every opportunity to force engagement with your players through their PC's. It makes their characters and the setting more full. That is assuming you even want to run a sandbox. If not... just do an adventure of the week until you get bored.

Time is a big consideration too. The everpresent time-dilation effect of comics is RUINED in sandbox Supers campaigns (at least in MSH). So that's a factor when you're considering training times, and people doing real-life things that simply take so much time you want to move forward, that you can cover those prime years pretty quick, unless you start in the heat of things.

This might another good thing to discuss in the Setup process - just some bullet points for genre specifics.

And the moment you introduce a supervillain doing something in the city, it is no longer a "pure sandbox". It is no longer a situation where players can do "anything they want to do". Or maybe they can. But if they do the game ceases being about superheroes.

"Rhino is fucking up a bank". "Welp I'm going to go watch a movie" "uh. ok"

I get it, you think you are giving great advice, but you aren't actually even addressing what I'm talking about. The conceits of the game put constraints on the actual decisions people can make and it still be about the thing you set out to play.

As soon as a supervillain enters the picture, the play pivots to stopping that supervillain. It's no longer "pure sandbox". It can have sandbox elements, but unless your characters just don't give a shit (in which case they aren't really superheroes), they are going to put a premium on stopping that supervillain.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Also, superheroes are absolutely reactionary. They kind of have to be for the most part. To have something illegal to stop... something illegal has to be happening for you to react to.

There are exceptions, Iron Man has dipped into proactive stuff before. Punisher is pretty proactive (though I would argue his type of proactive "superheroing" is not actually superheroic). But they are just that exceptions.

As a whole superheroes react to the shit happening. (Take your own example of Spidey. One of the many issues with Spidey is that he always has 80 million things going on. He's ALWAYS reacting because he has very little opportunity to even attempt to be proactive).

 

[hawkeyefan]

To be honest, there is a reason that the breakpoints in my sessions when running games is at the point that the players decide what their goals for the next session is.

Now sometimes they then don't follow what they just told me they were going to do next, and I have more improv to do that session. But generally we'll end on the planning step of the next part of whatever their plan is. That way I have more time to make NPCs for that location/organization/etc they want to interact with, plan out any locations they planned to hit up, etc.

Yeah, that makes sense.

What I took the comment to mean was that with a sandbox, the GM is largely still often prepping what the PCs interact with, it can just happen in an order dictated by player decision. So rather than A-B-C-D-E the players can opt for D-A-B-E-C or whatever they like.

Now again, I don't entirely agree with that, and I think the distinctions are important, but there is a bit of something there.

Also, I've run APs, I've run sandboxes, I've run about everything in between (I like Savage Worlds Plot Point Campaigns quite a lot).

Honestly, they are all pretty damn fun if you know what you are doing and have the right playgroup. I do think APs can be easier to run, but I think a lot of people still suck at running them, because they don't think they should do any prep/alteration to the AP to customize it to their party.

Doing linear adventures of your own concoction is harder. And has a LOT of prep. Actually more prep than I do for sandboxing. I'd say if you are running your own settings and writing your own content, sandboxing and linear are both about the same in difficulty. At least from my personal experience.

(Additionally, there are some genres that are just damn hard to do as pure sandbox, and I find trying to run them that way creates a worse game. Such as superheroes. In general, superheroes are reactive, not active forces. Also, when a supervillain shows up and starts fucking up your town, if your superheroes go "eh, we don't want to deal with that" they aren't very much playing superheroes. So there is a certain amount of direction in a superhero game, even if you leave the overall method of how to deal with the villain open).

I'm currently playing a supers game which is much more proactive in that the players can pick the kinds of missions they want to pursue, and the villains or groups that they want to interact with, but that approach is a bit counter to the genre standard.

 

[tenbones]

And the moment you introduce a supervillain doing something in the city, it is no longer a "pure sandbox". It is no longer a situation where players can do "anything they want to do". Or maybe they can. But if they do the game ceases being about superheroes.

"Rhino is fucking up a bank". "Welp I'm going to go watch a movie" "uh. ok"

Wait what? Why do you think that? So the Rhino fucks up the bank and your "hero" goes to watch a movie... aaaaaand? You think that's how the world reacts in a sandbox? You don't think there are no repercussions for that? That's your job as a GM to enforce the conceits of your setting which is fundamental to running sandbox.

So just because an NPC does what an NPC would do - doesn't make a sandbox not a sandbox. Do you think the NPC's stand around until PC's interact with them? That's not a good way to do it.

I get it, you think you are giving great advice, but you aren't actually even addressing what I'm talking about. The conceits of the game put constraints on the actual decisions people can make and it still be about the thing you set out to play.

As soon as a supervillain enters the picture, the play pivots to stopping that supervillain. It's no longer "pure sandbox". It can have sandbox elements, but unless your characters just don't give a shit (in which case they aren't really superheroes), they are going to put a premium on stopping that supervillain.

I don't think you know what a sandbox is. Or you're pretending not to. Nor what genre is (at least the Superhero genre). And why would you even be running a game of superheroes for players *that don't want to play superheroes*?!?!?!?!

I'm only using your example - something I'm more than familiar with. I mean... part of GMing anything is having player buy-in.

The solution to players that don't want to play heroes in a superhero game is to reflect the world that has ambivalent metahumans doing nothing. Great. That's on you as a GM - then what?

As an aside - this sounds like another typical example of me trying to engage with you in what is ostensibly a thread about sandboxing - and you bait and switch your own example by not engaging in either the topic of Sandboxing, or the genre-specific needs of Sandboxing Supers - both of which I happily advocate for.

But I know, you can't help it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Also, superheroes are absolutely reactionary. They kind of have to be for the most part. To have something illegal to stop... something illegal has to be happening for you to react to.

There are exceptions, Iron Man has dipped into proactive stuff before. Punisher is pretty proactive (though I would argue his type of proactive "superheroing" is not actually superheroic). But they are just that exceptions.

As a whole superheroes react to the shit happening. (Take your own example of Spidey. One of the many issues with Spidey is that he always has 80 million things going on. He's ALWAYS reacting because he has very little opportunity to even attempt to be proactive).

That's the characters though. If you give the players a bit of say, then you can kind of shift things a bit so that it's more proactive. This is what I was getting at in my last post, but I don't think I was clear.

Let the players drive things a bit and you can run it that way.

 

[tenbones]

Also, superheroes are absolutely reactionary. They kind of have to be for the most part. To have something illegal to stop... something illegal has to be happening for you to react to.

There are exceptions, Iron Man has dipped into proactive stuff before. Punisher is pretty proactive (though I would argue his type of proactive "superheroing" is not actually superheroic). But they are just that exceptions.

As a whole superheroes react to the shit happening. (Take your own example of Spidey. One of the many issues with Spidey is that he always has 80 million things going on. He's ALWAYS reacting because he has very little opportunity to even attempt to be proactive).

So you know nothing about comics too.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's grossly oversimplified.

The kernel to that assumption is that "laying tracks" from a sandbox perspective is creating content for the PC's to explore. It's something a rhetorical non-Sandbox GM would say.

I think the big mental difference in sandbox GMing is this (and I'm shooting from the hip on this so feel free to shoot back).

Sandbox GM's with any experience are less concerned with what the players do with their PC than they are with how the world is set up to react to actions of the PC's.

I don't "lay" tracks for my PC's. I'm playing this big Meta-NPC called the Setting. And game for me is to make the sun rise and set, and the NPC's that matter do what the NPC's that matter do on a daily/nightly basis, which may or may not include killing, banging, plotting, admiring, helping, hindering the PC's. And to do this the NPC's interact with the world around them, even when the PC's aren't there, and it's my job as the GM to know what everyone in the world is doing and why they're doing it, and pulling all the triggers when they need to be pulled. Often this happens as direct reaction to the PC's shenanigans, but not always.

I do agree that it's an oversimplification, but it was an interesting comment. Or at least, I thought so.

I don't know if I agree with the rest of your post, though. What you're describing here is basically that you are in control of the world. Sure, you have it react to the PCs, and give them things to react to, too, I get that.....but that level of GM control is kind of what the initial comment was about.

Like over here by the falls is where the goblins are, and in the swamp there are lizard men, and beyond the hills there are the ruins of the lost city......whatever elements are in the sandbox are still there ahead of time, right? This can be mitigated in some ways, but I do think this description fits a lot of games that get labeled a sandbox.

So it's possible to view a sandbox as the players being able to visit the "stops" on the railroad in any order they like. And then it's a question of how different from the railroad is it actually in practice.

Now, I don't entirely buy that. As I said above, there are ways that can be mitigated. But I can see the criticism.

 

[TristramEvans]

I do agree that it's an oversimplification, but it was an interesting comment. Or at least, I thought so.

I don't know if I agree with the rest of your post, though. What you're describing here is basically that you are in control of the world. Sure, you have it react to the PCs, and give them things to react to, too, I get that.....but that level of GM control is kind of what the initial comment was about.

Like over here by the falls is where the goblins are, and in the swamp there are lizard men, and beyond the hills there are the ruins of the lost city......whatever elements are in the sandbox are still there ahead of time, right? This can be mitigated in some ways, but I do think this description fits a lot of games that get labeled a sandbox.

So it's possible to view a sandbox as the players being able to visit the "stops" on the railroad in any order they like. And then it's a question of how different from the railroad is it actually in practice.

Now, I don't entirely buy that. As I said above, there are ways that can be mitigated. But I can see the criticism.

I'm kinda confused by the argument being put forth here, so I'll just say this is how I approach a sandbox:

The game takes place in a living world. The people in the world go about their lives, events happen and the NPCs and creatures react, and everyone is pursuing their own agendas. And the PCs have complete freedom to explore that, to insert themselves into situations, to alter the course of events, and the world reacts to them.

 

[Justin Alexander]

I'm using the fairly forgey definitions of:

Well, there's your first mistake.

I really don't agree that the skillset of running a Railroad/AP is different than running a Sandbox.

In the spirit of the thread:

This is because you've objectively bad at running non-sandbox campaigns. You have the "play the setting" skills, but you objectively lack all the other skills that an AP GM needs. Because you're objectively less skilled at running an RPG, you're incapable of creating The Experience for your players without the limited crutch of the sandbox structure.

 

[Black Vulmea]

And the moment you introduce a supervillain doing something in the city, it is no longer a "pure sandbox".

If you're a superhero, the campaign is a collection of loose linear adventures.

If you're a supervillain, it's a sandbox.

 

[EmperorNorton]

If you're a superhero, the campaign is a collection of loose linear adventures.

If you're a supervillain, it's a sandbox.

I had a really long post I was trying to type but honestly you summed it up much faster.

 

[tenbones]

This is because you've objectively bad at running non-sandbox campaigns. You have the "play the setting" skills, but you objectively lack all the other skills that an AP GM needs. Because you're objectively less skilled at running an RPG, you're incapable of creating The Experience for your players without the limited crutch of the sandbox structure.

And what skills are those that AP GM needs that isn't covered by running a Sandbox?

As for being incapable of creating The Experience for my players with my limited skills - you'd have to give me an example of such a finely crafted AP that routinely produces this effect for all GM's.

I'd *love* to see it.

Edit: I also take the Quigley Defense on AP's. I'm damn good at running them. I just never had much use for them in the last few decades.

 

[Baulderstone]

This has been a really interesting conversation. Let's just step back the snark a little bit. I'd hate for this thread to go off the rails.

 

[ffilz]

If you're a superhero, the campaign is a collection of loose linear adventures.

If you're a supervillain, it's a sandbox.

Do the heroes HAVE to wait for the villain to trash the bank? Can they gather information to find out who might be villains and where they're based and such?

Maybe the villain trashing the bank is the in media res situation that kicks off the campaign, that needn't make the game not a sandbox.

Maybe not all the PCs rush to the bank, maybe some look for other ways to address the situation.

 

[TJS]

I think part of what's going on here is the level of openness.

I don't think a living world equals a sandbox. It's entirely possible to play a game in a liing world and still feel like you don't have a lot of freedom. Say you're part of a military structure or you're party has a lot of do gooders like paladins or something like that.

I think there's more to a good sandbox then a living world. You have to structure things so that the players have a reasonable degree of practical openness to act.

From my limited understanding of (or interest in) the superheroes genre, it doesn't, on the surface at least, look like the best candidate for sandbox play. But I can honestly say I've never read a superhero comic so...

I've played games in the past where the GMs would insist that the players were free to do anything, and then the GM would just keep dumping singular situations on the party that were clearly designed to offer the party a single clear choice of action based on who their characters were and what the story was. There was not a reasonable alternative choice of action on the table.

To my mind it's when you start thinking about how to create that openness that discussion of sandboxes gets interesting.

These days when running sandboxes I'm very careful with the characters players make - because it's very easy for players to make characters that may lead to all their subsequent choices in the game I intend to be run being utterly predictable (unless I put in more work than I want to anyway.)

 

[Justin Alexander]

As for being incapable of creating The Experience for my players with my limited skills - you'd have to give me an example of such a finely crafted AP that routinely produces this effect for all GM's.

Your assertion that GM skill should have no impact on the quality of play is FASCINATING given the "objective" premise for this thread.

 

[Stumpydave]

It doesn't really matter how much of a sandbox you provide. The moment players decide on a course of action the less relevant elements fall to the wayside. If they decide "Objective A" needs reaching you've left the freedom of the sandbox for that more linear course. Maybe they'll fail in their quest for "Objective A", maybe they won't, when the deviate or give up, the 'sandbox' comes back into play.

Personally I can't see the argument here - they're either playing their characters and you're adjudicating the world, or none of that is happening. Sand box or railroad is just terminology and approach.

 

[tenbones]

Your assertion that GM skill should have no impact on the quality of play is FASCINATING given the "objective" premise for this thread.

You said

but you objectively lack all the other skills that an AP GM needs.

I never said I couldn't run AP's. YOU said that. You should be able to objectively qualify that - what are those skills? And how do you know I don't have them just because I'm not specifically talking about them.

Yes - I'm also fascinated by this projection.

Edit: And I'm not sure where I said GM skill should have *no* impact on quality of play?!?!??! I advocate for GM's to become good for the purposes of making good games for players to play. This seems like a pretty intense stretch. Of course GM skills impact quality of play. That's crazytalk. Or you have really bad inference skills.

 

[Brock Savage]

I've played games in the past where the GMs would exist that the players were free to do anything, and then the GM would just keep dumping singular situations on the party that were clearly designed to offer the party a single clear choice of action based on who their characters were and what the story was. There was not a reasonable alternative choice of action on the table.

You and me both. I have been baited and switched into crummy sandboxes more times than I can remember.

On the other hand I think a default player activity for a sandbox is extremely helpful so long as it is made clear at session zero or the campaign pitch. It could be nearly anything (find treasure, fight crime, investigate the Mythos, create shareholder value, etc) but without a default activity I notice a lot of sandbox groups flounder around in frustration trying to "find the fun".

 

[Fenris-77]

What makes it a sandbox is that there is no set deadline, no set outcome, it's just something that's going on and the PC have to deal with it either in their civilian lives or as heroes, or both.

I think this bit might be causing a stumble or two. If you take a look at the range of definitions of what sandbox play looks like the focus is generally on player freedom to explore and pick the bits they want to interact with. That is pretty representative of how people talk about fantasy sandbox play anyway. The bolded bit above is pretty outside how a lot of people think about sandbox play and is a much stronger index to linear play of some sort. You argue that the difference is the freedom of approach and lack of a deadline (among others), and I appreciate why you'd say that and where you're coming from. However, if the players have to deal with the issue, somehow, I don't think you can reasonably say it doesn't have a deadline. If the PCs don't act things will progress apace right?

Things happening like that is pretty key to sandbox play (at all levels of importance, and I'm pretty sure you yourself have mentioned this more than once, something about clockwork...). Once you have a problem the players have to deal with, and a deadline for action (or consequences for inaction, pick your poison) you have, at the very least, moved well past player freedom to explore as they see fit. It is now constrained by some very appropriate genre expectations. Honestly if this didn't happen in a Supers game it would probably suck, Supers need to do Supers shit or what's the point. What the game has at that point is something I'd call teleos, it has a direction or a trajectory, which is what some of the other people in the thread are pointing to. Once you have that teleos, I'd submit the difference between a sandbox and a railroad is one of degree rather of kind.

 

[tenbones]

What do you think the *natural* corollary of that is? PC's discover the Red Skull is plotting do <X>, what do the PC's do? Nothing? Okay Red Skull's plans may (or may not) happen. The world reacts. MEANWHILE the PC's were having other adventures doing what they do. You know... like ALL the other superheroes in their respective books that didn't show up in that month's issue of X-men when they fought Magneto to save the world. Yes, the world goes on.

If the premise that sandbox play *must only* revolve around player agency and that outside of that microcosm nothing else is happening - that to me is a complete misunderstanding of sandbox GMing.

Player agency is for the players and the GM to feed. If players don't want to engage, that's a different proposition that exists for any kind of RPG - not just Sandbox. It's analogous to Railroad games where the players don't want to go to B because <X>.

Sandbox GMing means you play the ball where it lands. And it might land on top of the PC's favorite city - because they did nothing. And it might not. But the reasons of how that plays out due to their activity or lack thereof is part of the game.

 

[Fenris-77]

I wasn't sayin you aren't sandboxing, nor do I disagree about the genre appropriate way to roll there, I'm pointing out what I see as a significant area of misunderstanding.

 

[Fenris-77]

I agree completely, this was me trying to index a communication breakdown, not prove a point about tenbones or his game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm kinda confused by the argument being put forth here, so I'll just say this is how I approach a sandbox:

The game takes place in a living world. The people in the world go about their lives, events happen and the NPCs and creatures react, and everyone is pursuing their own agendas. And the PCs have complete freedom to explore that, to insert themselves into situations, to alter the course of events, and the world reacts to them.

Sure, I would largely agree with that description.

I think that what happens sometimes in sandbox games is the “living world” aspect is missing. So the locations or the NPCs or hooks are out in the sandbox waiting for player interaction.

So it’s more a bunch of smaller railroads that the players can choose in whatever order makes sense rather than a larger railroad.

That these smaller linear mini-adventures are out there unchanging until engaged by the players.

I think that this kind of approach is often described as a sandbox, but it’s missing that reactive nature of the “living world” that you’ve noted.

 

[TJS]

I think this may be the stumbling block. Player freedom doesn't mean "freedom from consequeces". The consequences of a superhero not stopping or solving a crime are natural extensions of them being part of a living world. Superheroes are, by their nature (or "Calling"), driven to stop a supervillain, to save lives, and to prevent disasters, but that's no different than a player in a fantasy game choosing to role-play a Paladin.

Yes, but there's a dynamic there and different places you be in regard to that.

You can run a game that is essentially a picareque exploration where consequences tend to be mostly local and the players have the option of leaving town and mostly escaping those consequences*. In this kind of game part of the fun is that the players can do things almost on a whim. They might hear about the city of the two headed lizard folk over the mountains and just galivant off to check it out.

You can also run a game in which there is a developing situation which the players cannot ignore - one way or another they're going to get caught up in it. I don't think it is wrong to think this is a game that has something more in line with what would be recognised as a plot.

I tend to think of these as two different modes of play, even if the first tends to almost inevitably turn into the second at some point. It's one reason why I don't think the term Sandbox is all that useful if used so broadly.

*I seem to remember Shadows over Bogenhafen has a little section that explains what will happen if the players just wig out and run away. News will start coming their way of all the really horrible things happening in Bogenhafen from wherever they have safelty esconced themseves (safety from Chaos being somewhat relative in Warhammer).

 

[TristramEvans]

I think that this kind of approach is often described as a sandbox, but it’s missing that reactive nature of the “living world” that you’ve noted.

I guess that's more of a Schrodinger's Sandbox?

 

[xanther]

I guess that's more of a Schodinger's Sandbox?

Better than Skinner's Sandox, have played in some of those.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I find the idea that superheroes have to be reactive a bit weird.

It seems to stem from a super high level misconception of sandboxes - that the players have to be directing everything. That's not really real. Things can happen that the players care about and don't want to have happen. That's totally cool.

It's still allowing proactive players so long as they can choose if and how they engage in it.

When their moves start getting forced by enemy actions, then they're reactive. But if they know Red Skull is starting some plan, and they figure out how they want to tackle it? They're still being proactive in my book.

Frankly, the "oh, you have NPCs do stuff? You're basically doing the same thing as railroading! It's not a 'true' sandbox!" seems more of a strawman by railroad fans. Excuse me, linear adventure.

I don’t think superheroes being reactive is that odd. It’s pretty baked into the concept. They save the day, right? Something happens, they restore the status quo.

Now I don’t think that means that you can’t run a sandbox superhero game or anything like that....I’m currently running one.

Nor do I think that they can’t be proactive in ways. Once the threat is established, they may take proactive measures of dealing with it and so on.

But in a general way, I get the reactive nature of the protagonists in the genre. It’s very present in superhero comics and movies.

 

[robiswrong]

For me, this is the crux of Sandbox vs Rail-Road play (without conflating Railraods and Linear adventures).

In my games, there's nothing the players "cannot" do (or at least attempt to do), insofar as making choices as their characters. Playing a Superhero is a "buy-in" on the players part before the game, but the expectations only come from accurate role-playing. I will never force them as the GM, or using the gameworld or genre coneits, to make any choice. They could end up becoming villains. They could call up the Avengers and ask them to handle it. They could retire and run a hot dog cart. I basically won't impose any restrictions on them that wouldn't be placed on them if they were living people in a real world wherein the events are really happening.

Depends on how "can't ignore" works.

Like, "the orcs are invading your town" is something you can't ignore. But there's lots of ways you can respond to that - you can proactively attack the orc army. You can arrange the defenses of the town and train them. You can just wait and fight them when they get there. You can convince the townsfolk to leave and arrange a caravan out. You can just sneak out and bail on the town.

But the only thing you can't do is, basically, "nothing".

I'd still call that a sandbox.

I don’t think superheroes being reactive is that odd. It’s pretty baked into the concept. They save the day, right? Something happens, they restore the status quo.

Now I don’t think that means that you can’t run a sandbox superhero game or anything like that....I’m currently running one.

Nor do I think that they can’t be proactive in ways. Once the threat is established, they may take proactive measures of dealing with it and so on.

But in a general way, I get the reactive nature of the protagonists in the genre. It’s very present in superhero comics and movies.

At some level, you can zoom out far enough that everything is reactive. If you put elements in the game world, and the players deal with that, you can argue they're reacting to that.

I don't think it's a useful distinction in gaming terms.

What is interesting to me is whether or not players have the freedom to deal with the problems they choose to deal with in their own way, or whether they're forced to react every step along the way. "Oh, we found a clue in Billsville, guess we go there. Oh, we were ambushed on the way, have to fight them. Oh, our contact in Billsville says we have to kill the Smurple before he'll help us." and so on.

 

[TristramEvans]

Ima just going to leave this here to make a point about proactive heroes...

 

[hawkeyefan]

I guess that's more of a Schrodinger's Sandbox?

I suppose, sure. I tend to find most published modules or scenarios that are described as sandboxes to fit this description. Certainly not all, but most.

 

[Black Vulmea]

Do the heroes HAVE to wait for the villain to trash the bank? Can they gather information to find out who might be villains and where they're based and such?

And if there's nothing for them to find, then it's back to the secret base to 'polish the bat signal,' if y'know what I mean.

They can patrol, develop contacts, and so on, but the rubber doesn't meet the road until the alarm bell rings. There must be crime for them to be crime fighters.

I last ran Boot Hill and I'm preparing to run GangBusters, which, while they aren't supers games, present law enforcement characters with the same sitch. The onus is on the referee to ensure villainy's afoot, which means player agency is dependent on the referee in ways it's not for the criminals.

And there's nothing wrong with that. Superheroes responding to supervillains do have all sorts of latitude in how they deal with the threat; more often than not they're vigilantes, which toes puts a foot over the line between hero and villain anyway. There's still plenty of player agency offered in such a set up.

I ran a fair number of 'mission-oriented sandboxes,' in which player characters have in-game supervisors and assigned goals to achieve - espionage, military, and law enforcement campaigns all fit this mold - and I understand the importance of giving players the reins in situations where they're constrained by the setting.

 

[Baulderstone]

I find the idea that superheroes have to be reactive a bit weird.

Same here. Just going by Marvel movies, many of them have plots driven by the hero.
Thor- He actively decides to invade Jotunheim and consequences ensue.
Winter Soldier- Captain America actively pokes his nose into what is going on a SHIELD and won't let it go. Consequences ensue.
Age of Ultron- Tony Stark actively uses his inventing superpower to make a super-robot. Consequences ensue.
Endgame- The heroes come up with a plan for a time heist. Consequences ensue.

And I haven't even seen most of those movies.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think this may be the stumbling block. Player freedom doesn't mean "freedom from consequeces". The consequences of a superhero not stopping or solving a crime are natural extensions of them being part of a living world. Superheroes are, by their nature (or "Calling"), driven to stop a supervillain, to save lives, and to prevent disasters, but that's no different than a player in a fantasy game choosing to role-play a Paladin.

So I think this is an interesting point, and connects to your other post about player buy in.

But when you take this scenario and apply it to another genre....and maybe remove a few edge cases like paladins or Jedi and purely do-gooder types...then it kind of seems a bit different.

Here’s a villain who’s showed up to cause a problem! The crew of mercs in my Mothership campaign may decide to engage with this in some way. Or they may decide this is more trouble than it’s worth, and avoid it altogether.

If they do that....they leave the sector and head elsewhere...then having consequences follow them around seems odd. It’s like the GM’s story shows up and taps on the window “Can I come in yet?”

I think it genre and player buy in and most of all expectations of play are what matter here most. In a supers game, this may be perfectly reasonable. In another kind of sandbox, it may be almost antithetical.

 

[TristramEvans]

If they do that....they leave the sector and head elsewhere...then having consequences follow them around seems odd. It’s like the GM’s story shows up and taps on the window “Can I come in yet?”

I'm not sure how the consequences "follow them around" in a game where the players are playing superheroes any moreso than your example. I think the consequenes are personal - they know they have failed to act as heroes. Is that any different than a space pirate being haunted by muders they could have prevented or lives they could have saved? The only difference I'm seeing is a focus on the moral dimesion of the characters.

 

[Fenris-77]

Even sticking inside the supers genre you can get all kinds of scenarios where some amount of i do nothing might be the right move. For example a high powered group that's struggling with being a tool of the state, just to pick a random example. That's not the same as just not doing anything at all of course, and the expecation is probably that the group works out their issues and saves the day, for some value of saves. With supers we're talking about playing the game you signed up for, which mostly doesn't involve going for shawarma and a schvitz instead of saving the world. That expectation dosen't prevent a game from being a sandbox, any more than the same expectation turns a linear adventure into a railroad.

 

[Endless Flight]

I’d be lying if I said the games I run have been pure sandbox. They have a veneer or facade of a sandbox but they are usually more linear when you get down to it.

 

[Voros]

As someone currently immersing myself in the TSR Marvel Super Heroes game, I think situations like are great for sandbox play. It's extremely in the Marvel wheelhouse for a character to have valid reasons to be not foil the bank robbery. "Aunt May is counting on me, and besides, I'm sure the cops can handle a mook like the Rhino." The Karma system in the game expects that kind of thing to happen.

In my opinion, it isn't proper sandbox play if events aren't occurring around the PCs, and most good games built around sandbox have mechanisms for generating them. BedrockBrendan mentioned his table for generating activity by the PCs enemies as a great example.

Now, to take your side on the issue, it can be an obstacle to sandbox play if you present a world-ending threat. I don't like it if you sell me on a sandbox game where we can do what we want, then introduce a plot thread about Galactus coming to devour the world immediately. We either have to follow it, or it is game over. That always feels like rug pull.

Maybe but sometimes as they say life gets in the way of our careful plans. I'm thinking here of a game for instance set during WWII.

If it was a superhero game it would be pretty difficult to NOT get involved.

Does that make it not a sandbox? I don't think so otherwise the sandbox concept itself becomes an artificial conceit to just maintain its own 'sandboxiness.'