Sandbox Objectivity

[Endless Flight]

I’m opening the thread back up.

There may be some warnings incoming. Be kind to others.

 

[TJS]

Blades in the Dark is a sandbox, at least as people in this thread use the word. I played in a session last night. The session started, we recapped what happened in the last session, I stated what I wanted to do, we did that thing,. Next session a gang war will almost certainy break out due to the things we did in this session. How is that not a sandbox?

I don't really see how a gm throwing situations at a party which they have to deal with is a sandbox, but a broad premise the game expects the players to stick to isn't. Seems to me the second is freer than the the first.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Blades in the Dark is a sandbox, at least as people in this thread use the word. I played in a session last night. The session started, we recapped what happened in the last session, I stated what I wanted to do, we did that thing,. Next session a gang war will almost certainy break out due to the things we did in this session. How is that not a sandbox?

I don't really see how a gm throwing situations at a party which they have to deal with is a sandbox, but a broad premise the game expects the players to stick to isn't. Seems to me the second is freer than the the first.

The sandbox designation seems mostly to have to do with the idea that the players are driving play by determining what their characters may pursue. Or at least that this would be the default mode of play; there may be times where events happen that demand certain responses or actions on part of the PCs, but those should be more exceptions than the norm. The players drive the action, and the GM determines how the world responds to what the characters do.

If that's the case, then it's a description that fits Blades in the Dark perfectly. Anyone who says it does not is either working with a different take on what a sandbox is, or else they have other issues with Blades and those are cluttering their view.

 

[EmperorNorton]

"A villain shows up and does <X> what do you do?" (much like Justin's video premise "You're in the village of <X> what do you do?) - and you're confused. Well no kidding. At no point in this thread have we even started talking about how one sets up a sandbox. And if this is your example - it's highly likely doomed to fail.

I would like to point out that treating what I or Justin said as a literal example of how we would present it in game rather than a simplification of an in game situation to illustrate the point being made is utterly bizarre to me.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

When it comes to terminology, it is worth remembering we all come from different places (often entirely different countries), we came to these terms through different online forums and sites, as well as different games. And for many of us, it was part of a search for something because we were unsatisfied with prevalent adventure structures...so finding a term like sandbox often was the most handy label we could find for what we wanted. For me, I had never heard the term till sometime around 2009, but had been cobbling together my own ideas based on re-reading the old editions, online conversations and testing out stuff at the table that didn't railroad the party. It was ultimately a product of not wanting railroads, being sick to death of path-like and linear adventures and wanting the game to be just as driven by the dice as by what the players try to do (rather than an attempt to shape dice results into a coherent plot or sequence of events). For me, sandbox was as useful model I came across. And I also liked the idea of living adventure which I picked up from the Ravenloft line back in the day (pretty similar to living world and world in motion, but not exactly). Putting those two concepts together in a way that worked for me, was important for me funding a way to run a game that was satisfying (there were plenty of other structures I liked too, such monster hunts, investigative scenarios, and situational adventures----the last is something I often bring into my sandboxes). I also try not to worry about the purity of these terms and ideas at the table. I try to deal with the players I have in front of me and the game as it is unfolding. I find being overly rigid about sandbox as a concept was just as obstructive to my enjoyment as chasing an adventure path.

 

[robertsconley]

The sandbox designation seems mostly to have to do with the idea that the players are driving play by determining what their characters may pursue. Or at least that this would be the default mode of play; there may be times where events happen that demand certain responses or actions on part of the PCs, but those should be more exceptions than the norm. The players drive the action, and the GM determines how the world responds to what the characters do.

That only part of it. The other part is "as their characters". In a sandbox campaign players don't have a metagame ability to influence the outcome of events. What happens or doesn't happen occurs of what they do or don't do as their characters. So if you run into an complication during a heist, you can't flashback to why the overcame it. The player has the prepare as the character one would if was actually happening.

In short if you need a flashlight you need to remember to pack a flashlight as your character. Otherwise you face situation without having a flashlight.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

The sandbox designation seems mostly to have to do with the idea that the players are driving play by determining what their characters may pursue.....

I think if you stop at this part, you miss the heavy expectation of the exploration end. The sandbox also assumes a setting created by the GM, for the players to explore. And that setting should be alive and push back sometimes on the party, respond to their actions, etc. Also, you character is going to still have limits on them. In a sandbox you will be limited by things like what power you have, what your social position is in the setting (a character who is a court official can chooses what he pursues more than a first level nobody, with no standing). Sandbox isn't just about the players choosing where to go, what to do, what to focus on. There is definitely more to it than that. Not sure what that means in terms of blades in the dark being a sandbox, as I don't have much experience with it.

 

[Fenris-77]

robertsconley - I don't think that's a part of a general use definition of sandbox at all. I've never even heard that before reading your post. Im sure that works for you of course, but its not common usage.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

robertsconley - I don't think that's a part of a general use definition of sandbox at all. I've never even heard that before reading your post. Im sure that works for you of course, but its not common usage.

I have no idea what the standard is, and maybe it is just from traveling in the same circles as Rob, but his description of it is the most common one I see. To the point that because my own sandboxes use more dramatic elements than seems to be the standard, I often call it Sandbox+Drama so there isn't confusion (though to be clear, it isn't drama in the drama system sense either: just dramatic logic is fair game). Something like flashbacks, could probably work fine in a sandbox, but I would say that seems like a pretty unorthodox technique that would be a surprise to many people if they just signed up for 'sandbox' (especially given how much association the term has with the OSR and old school gaming). That isn't a knock on flash-backs, I think they are fine. And I think the more varieties of sandbox there are, the better, but I can definitely see the style clashes a mile away in this kind of thread. And I think respecting differences, without getting aggro and setting up walls, is the way to go. I still haven't quite wrapped my head around Blades in the Dark, but ,if it is asandbox, based on the descriptions I've seen here and what I've read, it is at least a more new school approach to sandbox. There is definitely a difference between what you are describing and the kinds of sandboxes I have come to expect from designers like Rob.

 

[robertsconley]

When it comes to terminology, it is worth remembering we all come from different places (often entirely different countries), we came to these terms through different online forums and sites, as well as different games.

Which is why when I use jargon I try to include at least a terse explanation of what I am talking about.

To whit (not directly specifically at you)

Whatever what one does with with systems like BiTD or PbtA it is not what I do with systems like GURPS, Fantasy Hero, AGE, Fudge, or my own Majestic Fantasy rules. Players only interact with the setting as their character. Mechanics I use mostly deal with resolving players doing specific things as their character. The mechanics I use that have a boarder scope generally focus on handling "off-stage" details like whether your 20 employee trading house turned a profit this season. Or whether your manor had a good harvest and how much you gain from it.

While you can only interact with the setting as your character, the flipside of doing this is that you are free to do anything within the setting as your character. The only serious out of game limitation I found is the fact this is a group social activity and there is only one referee running the campaign. Even then within reason I learned to handle the party doing their separate thing during a session and campaign.

Metagame mechanics where you can manipulate events as a players distract from the above. This is not a recent observation but originated in the 1990s and cemented by my experimentation with Whimsy Cards. To me BiTD, PbtA and similar RPGs are variants of Whimsy Cards with the same issues for how I run a campaign. But like Whimsy Cards, many hobbyists find them fun and interesting in their own right.

The biggest challenge I face in doing all this is making sure player have the information their characters would have. Doing this in a way that is fun and interesting as a hobby. In that aspect I continually do things out of game to make sure that happens. Because if it doesn't, then players wind up playing twenty questions or feeling like they throwing darts in the dark. Both outcome I found are not well liked and not considered fun by the vast majority of the hobbyists I gamed with.

I consistently labeled this as running a sandbox campaign for 15 years. But also haven't expected anybody to understand what I mean by sandbox campaigns for 15 years unless I explain it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That only part of it. The other part is "as their characters". In a sandbox campaign players don't have a metagame ability to influence the outcome of events. What happens or doesn't happen occurs of what they do or don't do as their characters. So if you run into an complication during a heist, you can't flashback to why the overcame it. The player has the prepare as the character one would if was actually happening.

In short if you need a flashlight you need to remember to pack a flashlight as your character. Otherwise you face situation without having a flashlight.

I don't think that has anything to do with a sandbox. This may be your preference, but no, I have never heard anyone describe this as a requirement of a sandbox before.

I think if you stop at this part, you miss the heavy expectation of the exploration end. The sandbox also assumes a setting created by the GM, for the players to explore. And that setting should be alive and push back sometimes on the party, respond to their actions, etc. Also, you character is going to still have limits on them. In a sandbox you will be limited by things like what power you have, what your social position is in the setting (a character who is a court official can chooses what he pursues more than a first level nobody, with no standing). Sandbox isn't just about the players choosing where to go, what to do, what to focus on. There is definitely more to it than that. Not sure what that means in terms of blades in the dark being a sandbox, as I don't have much experience with it.

Well, I did go on to add the below:

The players drive the action, and the GM determines how the world responds to what the characters do.

So I think we're on the same page for the most part. I don't think he setting needs to be the GM's creation, but I think the GM has to be responsible for the setting and has to have the setting respond to the PCs, right? Whether they do so through their own judgment or application of rules and tables and such....the players have their characters do stuff, and the GM responds.

I agree with you about the fictional elements such as financial or perhaps cultural status playing a role in what is allowed or attainable. The setting of Blades describes a very stratified culture, with a mostly informal caste type system in place. The nobles are more free than the merchants who are more free than the laborers, and so on. The idea of the setting is that the whole system is corrupt and skewed, and the PCs are actively going against that system rather than accepting their "proper" place in society.

So yes, those kinds of limits you mention absolutely should play a part in depicting the setting and in how play goes.

 

[robertsconley]

robertsconley - I don't think that's a part of a general use definition of sandbox at all. I've never even heard that before reading your post. Im sure that works for you of course, but its not common usage.

I don't think that has anything to do with a sandbox. This may be your preference, but no, I have never heard anyone describe this as a requirement of a sandbox before.

Part of the issue with me talking about this is that I was part of the group that came with the term Sandbox as a type of RPG campaign. We adopted because it was used to describe a type of computer game that was similar in spirit to how we all ran our Wilderlands campaign.

And what I stated "as your character' was one of the common elements that our respective campaigns shared. It originated in the fact that many of us in that group started out as wargamers and part of the fun was seeing what we could do within the limitations of the situations. In the case of our Wilderlands campaign, it was seeing how far we or our players could go as their character being able to do only what the character could do.

It been part of how I describe sandbox campaigns since I started using the term over 15 years ago.

As for how common it is, the reality is that the term and idea of sandbox campaigns are a small niche of the larger hobby and industry. My most popular works and posts along with noted authors of sandbox material like John Stater (Land of Nod) are dwarfed by an order of magnitude by traditional adventures and advice. So the different definitions that are out there doesn't surprise me.

Then there the OSR effect where a label gets expanded to encompass far more than what it was originally applied to.

All of this is fine. There no "standards" body that anybody answering too. But it doesn't change the fact that when first used by me and others, it refers to a type of campaign where players are free to anything in a setting as their characters. And as your character means what the character can do within the setting.

Just OSR was first used by the group interested in playing, publishing, and promoting the classic editions of Dungeons & Dragons.

If you want to call forms of open ended play sandboxes. OK I guess. But with that you might as well use it in the way it a first used back in the day. As a synonym for any RPG campaign or setting. You can see this by searching through the Dragon Magazine Archives for the word sandbox.

Dragon #25, Tim Kask

He still clings to the shibboleth that wargamers are classic cases of arrested development, never having gotten out of the sandbox and toy soldiers syndrome of childhood.

Dragon #247, Page 123

Grubb has a phrase for working with existing games, settings, and characters: playing in other people's sandboxes.

Later in the issue

Having gone freelance three years ago, Grubb has explored new sandboxes. I worked on Mag Force 7's Wing Commander and Star Trek (original series) trading card games, ...

In this issue "sandbox" was used interchangeably with how most roleplaying gamers use campaign.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Part of the issue with me talking about this is that I was part of the group that came with the term Sandbox as a type of RPG campaign. We adopted because it was used to describe a type of computer game that was similar in spirit to how we all ran our Wilderlands campaign.

And what I stated "as your character' was one of the common elements that our respective campaigns shared. It originated in the fact that many of us in that group started out as wargamers and part of the fun was seeing what we could do within the limitations of the situations. In the case of our Wilderlands campaign, it was seeing how far we or our players could go as their character being able to do only what the character could do.

It been part of how I describe sandbox campaigns since I started using the term over 15 years ago.

As for how common it is, the reality is that the term and idea of sandbox campaigns are a small niche of the larger hobby and industry. My most popular works and posts along with noted authors of sandbox material like John Stater (Land of Nod) are dwarfed by an order of magnitude by traditional adventures and advice. So the different definitions that are out there doesn't surprise me.

Then there the OSR effect where a label gets expanded to encompass far more than what it was originally applied to.

All of this is fine. There no "standards" body that anybody answering too. But it doesn't change the fact that when first used by me and others, it refers to a type of campaign where players are free to anything in a setting as their characters. And as your character means what the character can do within the setting.

Just OSR was first used by the group interested in playing, publishing, and promoting the classic editions of Dungeons & Dragons.

If you want to call forms of open ended play sandboxes. OK I guess. But with that you might as well use it in the way it a first used back in the day. As a synonym for any RPG campaign or setting. You can see this by searching through the Dragon Magazine Archives for the word sandbox.

Dragon #25, Tim Kask



Dragon #247, Page 123



Later in the issue



In this issue "sandbox" was used interchangeably with how most roleplaying gamers use campaign.

I will say that even among sandbox advocates, that isn't a universal definition. Look at Tristram for instance. Using this post as reference (he can correct me if I'm wrong about his opinion, or misunderstood it here):

I don't know what it means either. I don't mind your "World in motion" alternative term, but to me, there's just Sandbox, Linear, or Railroad, and they're all very clearly distinguished in my mind based on player choice.

In a Railroad, player choice doesn't matter. You are playing through the GM's pre-set plot and any attempt to subvert that will end up in Schrodinger's Ogre. The only free choice a player can make in a Railroad is to die.

In a Linear Adventure, there's a set plot, but the players are free to pursue various avenues to complete that plot and have a degree of freedom and choice within the confines of the "what has to happen".

In a Sandbox game, there's no plot, the gameworld simply exists, and as things are going on in it, the players can chose to involve themselves in the various lives that are unfolding, and the GM (embodyig the world) reacts to their involvement and determines the natural consequences.

As he said, to him, there are 3 types. Railroad, Linear, Sandbox. From this reading I'd have a hard time figuring out where he would put something like BitD if it wasn't in Sandbox. So, for him, I'd assume, that things like flashback mechanics wouldn't break the game from being a sandbox.

(Again, he can correct me if I'm misinterpreting here).

 

[robertsconley]

If your character's a spy, a policeman, a soldier, conflict lands at your feet, delivered by higher authorities, and your character can't reasonably say, 'Nah, I'm going to go see what's going on down at the dock tonight,'

Yes it not reasonable, but in my campaigns, the player can decide that what their character can do. They know the consequences, yet for reasons decided that was the course of action. In my experience, this generally doesn't happen. The players start out as a cop, or a member of the military because that was interesting to them and the group. They are aware of the price of disobeying orders. But in some campaigns they face the same choice as Captain Sheridian did in Babylon 5's Severed Dreams. Do what they think is right or follow orders.

The main out of game consideration that consistent throughout my campaigns is related to the fact that the players are part of a social group. And I had the group decide to go A-Team and disobey order or instructions and go off and do their own thing. Knowing the consequences of doing so.

So here the thing. Over the years of doing this I have dealt with many players who acted in bad faith out of game. That is not a problem with the type of campaign being run, sandbox or something else. That is a OOG problem with the player acting like an asshole. And I deal with it accordingly on that basis.

What I am talking about above is when players are roleplaying their characters in good faith. I found that over the years, my commitment to letting players do whatever their character can do has reaped benefits despite in the vast majority of cases they stick with the original premise of the campaign. Why? Because of the in-between cases.

Your reply focuses on cops and members of military taking a pretty extreme option of disobeying order or instruction. Well there is a whole host of options players can choose as their character that fall short of that. By establishing that they can whatever it they can do as their character. It make the player and the group comfortable in exploring ALL the options. Nothing is dismissed out of hand because they worry out of game that it might upset me as the referee. The result over time result in more interesting campaigns in my opinion. Again despite on the surface most still wind up with the players sticking with the original premise.

 

[TristramEvans]

As he said, to him, there are 3 types. Railroad, Linear, Sandbox. From this reading I'd have a hard time figuring out where he would put something like BitD if it wasn't in Sandbox. So, for him, I'd assume, that things like flashback mechanics wouldn't break the game from being a sandbox.

(Again, he can correct me if I'm misinterpreting here).

Of course BiTD isn't a sandbox.

It's a game system. "Sandbox, Linear and Roailroad" describe what a person does with the system, how they run a campaign, not the system itself.

BiTD shouldn't even be a part of this conversation.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Of course BiTD isn't a sandbox.

It's a game system. "Sandbox, Linear and Roailroad" describe what a person does with the system, how they run a campaign, not the system itself.

BiTD shouldn't even be a part of this conversation.

Except robertsconley is saying that BitD cannot be run as a Sandbox due to the flashback mechanic disqualifying it. By his definition, unless you eject the flashback mechanic entirely, it is impossible to run BitD as a Sandbox.

Would you say that the flashback mechanic being used in a campaign disqualifies it from being a sandbox?

The reason I used your post to illustrate my point is that if everything else is run how you describe it as a Sandbox campaign, but flashbacks exist, I can't see how that would make it a linear or railroad campaign. So if flashbacks make it not a sandbox campaign then... what does it make it?

 

[robertsconley]

I will say that even among sandbox advocates, that isn't a universal definition. Look at Tristram for instance. Using this post as reference (he can correct me if I'm wrong about his opinion, or misunderstood it here):

I am aware of the differing definition people have. I consider that par for the course especially for a term that grew organically. Even the the original group I was part of didn't run all of the campaign the same way. Although being able to only act as as one's character was something we shared in common.

Switching gears:

Being able to metagame means that out of game one is able to revise, recon, or paper over events in the campaign. The problem with that ability as far as Sandbox campaign goes is that is lessen the significances of the choice the player make as their characters. Forget a flashlight? No problem spend a fate point, create an advantage and you just happen to find on that somebody discarded. Too many guards at the door? Or forgot to do a recon first? Fine, have a flashback about how you took the guards out drinking earlier in the day and now they are on duty, drunk and easy to sneak past.

In a nutshell that what metagaming mechanics allow. Allow the players themselves to shape the events of a campaign in a desired direction. The result can be fun but it not the same kind of fun of trying to tackle the same situation knowing only what the character knows, being able to do only what the character can do.

There value judgement which is better or worse. Only that they are different and represent different experiences. If you want to label both as sandbox, then I am going to disagree. The same if you want to call them both Alpha. To me one is Alpha type of campaign, the other is a Beta type of campaign.

Again not all forms of open ended play are the same thing.

 

[robertsconley]

The reason I used your post to illustrate my point is that if everything else is run how you describe it as a Sandbox campaign, but flashbacks exist, I can't see how that would make it a linear or railroad campaign. So if flashbacks make it not a sandbox campaign then... what does it make it?

A campaign focused on creating a collaborative narrative. A campaign focused on a open ended story. Take your pick. However it is neither linear or a railroad but rather it own thing that emerged along with other similar systems since 2000.

 

[CRKrueger]

I actually posted a video about the "blank void" fallacy earlier today, so I'm going to pimp that.

This is what I'm talking about when I say Living World, and pretty sure what Tristram means when he says Clockworks/Gears. There are so many situations in the campaign generating natural organically-created logical adventure hooks from them and the PCs interaction with the situations, that after a while, the campaign can run itself, and in fact huge sections of it can evolve and progress without any input from PCs whatsoever.

Rob C and Justin call this a Sandbox, and I used to use that term too to describe it, but that term, like many of them, is being disambiguated into a much more generic term.

 

[EmperorNorton]

A campaign focused on creating a collaborative narrative. A campaign focused on a open ended story. Take your pick. However it is neither linear or a railroad but rather it own thing that emerged along with other similar systems since 2000.

Which isn't the point I'm trying to even make when responding to Tristram? Like I get you think it makes something completely different.

I was pointing out that he said there are 3 types of games. And it clearly doesn't fit into any of those if he agrees with your definition of Sandbox.

So like, your answer is beside the point, because I don't believe you've ever defined there are only 3 types of campaigns.

I will say though, that you have a very skewed perspective on why people play the kinds of games I do, and why I use them. Cause I'm not focusing on making a "collaborative narrative" when I play BitD.

 

[TristramEvans]

Except robertsconley is saying that BitD cannot be run as a Sandbox due to the flashback mechanic disqualifying it. By his definition, unless you eject the flashback mechanic entirely, it is impossible to run BitD as a Sandbox.

Would you say that the flashback mechanic being used in a campaign disqualifies it from being a sandbox?

The reason I used your post to illustrate my point is that if everything else is run how you describe it as a Sandbox campaign, but flashbacks exist, I can't see how that would make it a linear or railroad campaign. So if flashbacks make it not a sandbox campaign then... what does it make it?

The problem is that, no matter the answer, BiTD still isn't a sandbox. A sandbox is a choice by you in how you approach a game as a GM. People can argue that individual mechanics don't belong in a sandbox but as the GM it's your choice what, and how, to apply the mechanics from any game.

There's no Seal of Approval that's ever going to be put on BiTD saying "this is a Sandbox"

 

[EmperorNorton]

The problem is that, no matter the answer, BiTD still isn't a sandbox. A sandbox is a choice by you in how you approach a game as a GM. People can argue that individual mechanics don't belong in a sandbox but as the GM it's your choice what, and how, to apply the mechanics from any game.

Is there a reason you won't actually answer the question I asked?

Does the flashback mechanic being used in a campaign make that campaign not a sandbox? And if it does, what does it make that campaign of the three categories you gave?

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Which isn't the point I'm trying to even make when responding to Tristram? Like I get you think it makes something completely different.

I was pointing out that he said there are 3 types of games. And it clearly doesn't fit into any of those if he agrees with your definition of Sandbox.

So like, your answer is beside the point, because I don't believe you've ever defined there are only 3 types of campaigns.

I will say though, that you have a very skewed perspective on why people play the kinds of games I do, and why I use them. Cause I'm not focusing on making a "collaborative narrative" when I play BitD.

I am trying to help bridge the gap here, I am not trying to force you in a box you don't want to be in. But I suspect part of the issue here (because I have seen this split emerge not just here and among these posters but among gamers in lots of places, often when games like BiTD are mentioned) is there is blending going on. Again, I can't really comment on blades in the dark itself, just on what people are saying. But Rob's definition of sandbox has a lot of currency, and I think it is a pretty widespread usage among old school, OSR fans. I am aware the term has evolved in other sectors of the hobby. But I think what is going on is things are being added to the sandbox that make it slightly new or slightly hard to categorize for folks using Rob's definition. I don't think what you are doing sounds strictly narrative to me, it sounds like something that is coming from a PbA school of thought, with a heavy dose of genre emulation, and is blending that with a sandbox concept. If this is incorrect please feel free to correct me.

Just a note, I welcome this development. I think it is good if sandbox gets more widespread application and if there are a variety of sandboxes out there. At the same time, I think it is helpful to try to figure out where we are getting confused over terms, and also not try to make any game sound like it can be all things to all people (a game like BiTD looks like it does many things very well but some of those things are possibly going to create issues for some of the old school sand box players). Again, this is where I think qualifiers can be handy. Rob's thinking goes back to the early days of sandbox and is what I would probably call closest to the original classic concept. I would probably be inclined to call what you are suggesting being more new school sandbox or possibly 'sandbox world' approach. I think that would clarify a lot. For the record, my own sandboxes deviate quite a bit from the classic uses of the term (and again, that is why I often use qualifiers when talking about them).

If I got anything wrong regarding BiTD, feel free to correct that. I am just trying to find a good way for us to talk about sandboxes and sandbox variants without killing each other

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Is there a reason you won't actually answer the question I asked?

Does the flashback mechanic being used in a campaign make that campaign not a sandbox? And if it does, what does it make that campaign of the three categories you gave?

I think Tristam is saying is (to him) sandbox isn't about system, it is about setting and GM approach. I.E. D&D isn't sandbox either, but certain types of D&D campaigns are sandbox

 

[EmperorNorton]

I think Tristam is saying is (to him) sandbox isn't about system, it is about setting and GM approach. I.E. D&D isn't sandbox either, but certain types of D&D campaigns are sandbox

Yes, I understand that point. But I think people are missing my point.

rob is saying "this is my definition", I was specifying that even among sandbox advocates, that isn't really universally how it is used. I pointed out Tristram's take on it because he specifically called out only 3 types of campaigns, and that his categorization kind of makes the point that his definition is different from rob's.

That was my only point. That Tristram and rob have different definitions of sandbox.

Honestly rob has made a response and I respect that response because his response is "yeah, he probably does, and I'm cool with that". Tristram's is where I'm getting a bit weirded out because all I'm trying to do is go "ok, does your definition and rob's definition match or not?" and I can't for the life of me figure out why he won't answer that.

(and if his definition and rob's definition are the same, how WOULD he classify a game that follows his general thoughts on Sandbox gaming, but includes flashback mechanics, because it doesn't fit into any of the three categories he stated).

 

[TristramEvans]

Is there a reason you won't actually answer the question I asked?

Does the flashback mechanic being used in a campaign make that campaign not a sandbox? And if it does, what does it make that campaign of the three categories you gave?

For me, it's a completely different question. It makes it a Storygame.

So, if someone thinks a storygame isn't an RPG, then of course they don't think it can be a RPG Sandbox.

 

[EmperorNorton]

For me, it's a completely different question. It makes it a Storygame.

So, if someone thinks a storygame isn't an RPG, then of course they don't think it can be a RPG Sandbox.

Wait, do you think BitD isn't an RPG? (This isn't a value judgment, I'm actually just asking because I never got the impression that you thought "narrative" rpgs weren't rpgs).

 

[TristramEvans]

Wait, do you think BitD isn't an RPG? (This isn't a value judgment, I'm actually just asking because I never got the impression that you thought "narrative" rpgs weren't rpgs).

I don't really divide things like that. The whole RPG moniker doesn't matter to me like it's a specific thing that needs to be protected or distinguished, because it never was, not since it left Arneson's table and hit the public outside of the wargaming community. There's always been different playstyles, and "RPG" encompasses that. The closest that exists to a proprietary word specifically for non-narrative, immersive gameplay and games is "Old School", which I think is slightly misleading and inaccurate, and places undue importance on D&D because of the OSR.

 

[sharps54]

How about Adventure Game as opposed to Story Game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I’m just going to say that the vast majority of what players do in Blades in the Dark is as their character. Disqualifying it as a sandbox because of the presence of the Flashback rules is pretty silly.

And I say this because as TristramEvans points out, Blades is a System, yes, but it is a system designed to specifically do the things a sandbox does. That is its intended playstyle.

It’s not a game that says “here’s a core mechanic and you can use this how you see fit” although of course people can do what they want. But everything about the game, from mechanics to setting elements and play processes is designed to promote sandbox style, player driven play.

 

[EmperorNorton]

I don't really divide things like that. The whole RPG moniker doesn't matter to me like it's a specific thing that needs to be protected or distinguished, because it never was, not since it left Arneson's table and hit the public outside of the wargaming community. There's always been different playstyles, and "RPG" encompasses that. The closest that exists to a proprietary word specifically for non-narrative, immersive gameplay and games is "Old School", which I think is slightly misleading and inaccurate.

Ok... I'm inclined to agree with your point here.

But it is leading me to again being confused by your answer on the other question. Is your definition of sandbox different than rob's definition of sandbox? Like that was the only point I'm trying to make, and it feels like I'm having to pull teeth to get an answer.

 

[Endless Flight]

I don’t see how a flashback mechanic invalidates a game as an RPG.

 

[Baulderstone]

Ok... I'm inclined to agree with your point here.

But it is leading me to again being confused by your answer on the other question. Is your definition of sandbox different than rob's definition of sandbox? Like that was the only point I'm trying to make, and it feels like I'm having to pull teeth to get an answer.

Just to throw my own answer in here, I don't think it matters. Rob has a definition of sandbox that works well for him. You do as well. My opinion lines up closely with BedrockBrendan in not being too heavily married to one particular style, and being flexible about works at the table. If your players dig flashbacks, that should take precedence over whether it maintains the purity of your campaign's definition as a sandbox.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don’t see how a flashback mechanic invalidates a game as an RPG.

From what I can tell, it’s because it requires an action on the player’s part, of which the character would be unaware, and if you’re not in character 100% of the time, then you’re not role-playing, so it’s not a role-playing game.

Now it seems that you also can’t be playing in a sandbox game.

I mean, I get that people have their own definitions or their own experiences that have informed how they define things....but sometimes these distinctions seem very odd to me.

 

[TristramEvans]

M

Ok... I'm inclined to agree with your point here.

But it is leading me to again being confused by your answer on the other question. Is your definition of sandbox different than rob's definition of sandbox? Like that was the only point I'm trying to make, and it feels like I'm having to pull teeth to get an answer.

Maybe? I definitely know my definition is different from hawkeyefan's. What it comes down to isthat play experience is contrary to Immersion, which is my primary goal. So in regards to the possiility of a Narrative Sandbox, I simply don't know. I don't know how that would work, but because I don't have any experience approaching games from that PoV, I can't say that there isn't a way it could be done, just because I can't concieve of it. All I know is that the Sandbox comes down to how one GM's the game, a game system in and of itself can't do it.

 

[TristramEvans]

How about Adventure Game as opposed to Story Game.

It's just as ambiguous. There were numerous RPGs calling themselves Adventure Games back in the day.

 

[Baulderstone]

It's just as ambiguous. There were numerous RPGs calling themselves Adventure Games back in the day.

This one comes to mind.

 

[Endless Flight]

From what I can tell, it’s because it requires an action on the player’s part, of which the character would be unaware, and if you’re not in character 100% of the time, then you’re not role-playing, so it’s not a role-playing game.

Now it seems that you also can’t be playing in a sandbox game.

I mean, I get that people have their own definitions or their own experiences that have informed how they define things....but sometimes these distinctions seem very odd to me.

Well, it would also invalidate any game that uses any hero points, karma points, bennies and any other resource management. My favorite game DC Heroes would not be considered an RPG then. But it is.

 

[CRKrueger]

How about Adventure Game as opposed to Story Game.

I’ve seen several games (after everyone was using RPG) that use that term.

I’m just going to say that the vast majority of what players do in Blades in the Dark is as their character. Disqualifying it as a sandbox because of the presence of the Flashback rules is pretty silly.

And I say this because as TristramEvans points out, Blades is a System, yes, but it is a system designed to specifically do the things a sandbox does. That is its intended playstyle.

It’s not a game that says “here’s a core mechanic and you can use this how you see fit” although of course people can do what they want. But everything about the game, from mechanics to setting elements and play processes is designed to promote sandbox style, player driven play.

Depends on your definition of Sandbox.

 

[TristramEvans]

I think Tristam is saying is (to him) sandbox isn't about system, it is about setting and GM approach. I.E. D&D isn't sandbox either, but certain types of D&D campaigns are sandbox

Yeah, this exactly.