Sandbox Objectivity

[Fenris-77]

I'll admit, I just don't see the connection between flashbacks, or not, as having the slightest to do with playstyle (sandbox or not, whatever). I get that people like or don't like that sort of mechanic of course, but I don't see the connection. I'm 100% behind people saying I play sandboxes like this... but I fall short of supporting comments that are more in the vein of You aren't playing X because you don't play X like I do. No offense to anyone involved, but the origin of a term, or its original usage, do not necessarily have anything definitive to say about what that same term means many years later in common use across a hobby.

 

[TristramEvans]

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

I wouldn't say it does. I'd say the mechanic is a narrative conceit, along with the Schrodinger's toolbox.

But my point wasn't to restart the Storygame vs RPG debate outside of that thread. It was simply to acknowledge that if one sees Storygames as not RPGs, then of course they are going to view that as a game that cannot be used to run a Sandbox, because that was the argument as I was seeing it from certain posters: the narrative mechanics of BitD cancel out the Sandbox.

I dont think anyone has to agree with that divide to recognize it as the basis for the distinction some people are making.

 

[Moonglum]

A lot of the issues raised in this thread come across as pretty 'meta' to me. I have a simple understanding of what defines a roleplaying game that I'd call a 'sandbox': If the players are truly free to make their own decisions about where they go and what they do without being pressured by the DM to steer into his or her pre-imagined encounter, plot, etc., and if the DM lets the dice fall where they may when it comes to things that influence the progress of events, then it is a sandbox. If the players are functionally funneled toward certain places or situations or the DM fiddles with dice rolls to make events turn out the way he or she wants them to, then it isn't.

 

[TristramEvans]

A lot of the issues raised in this thread come across as pretty 'meta' to me. I have a simple understanding of what defines a roleplaying game that I'd call a 'sandbox': If the players are truly free to make their own decisions about where they go and what they do without being pressured by the DM to steer into his or her pre-imagined encounter, plot, etc., and if the DM lets the dice fall where they may when it comes to things that influence the progress of events, then it is a sandbox. If the players are functionally funneled toward certain places or situations or the DM fiddles with dice rolls to make events turn out the way he or she wants them to, then it isn't.

Yeah, that's pretty much it from my PoV.

 

[EmperorNorton]

A lot of the issues raised in this thread come across as pretty 'meta' to me. I have a simple understanding of what defines a roleplaying game that I'd call a 'sandbox': If the players are truly free to make their own decisions about where they go and what they do without being pressured by the DM to steer into his or her pre-imagined encounter, plot, etc., and if the DM lets the dice fall where they may when it comes to things that influence the progress of events, then it is a sandbox. If the players are functionally funneled toward certain places or situations or the DM fiddles with dice rolls to make events turn out the way he or she wants them to, then it isn't.

I'd mostly agree with this.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

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.

Rob is one of the early proponents of sandbox play, and has been talking about sandboxes longer than most of us have known the term. I think in any discussion about a term, you do have to respect where that term came from, and how it is generally used. I.E. "A definition of heavy metal that excludes black sabbath or judas priest, is not a workable definition, but it also needs to account for Death Metal". Rob's definition is the black sabbath of sandbox IMO. You can have new sandbox styles, but they probably could use some qualifiers. I don't know if it is the flashbacks specifically, if it is something in the governing philosophy, but I do sense something quite different in what Hawkeye and Fenris are calling sandbox and what Rob is calling a sandbox. Rob's sandbox is also different than mine, though he and I are probably closer in style than him and Fenris. All this is to say it matters because when you buy a game or join a campaign, you are paying in money or time, and it is like buying tickets to a concert. If I tell you, you are going to see black sabbath with me, and deicide shows up, it is going to be very jarring to say the least (still metal, but not black sabbath metal).

 

[Fenris-77]

As far as I can tell the only significant difference between my sandbox and Rob's is that I don't connect narrative mechanics to the notion in any way. As far as I can tell from his posts anyway. Sandbox is a playstyle, one closely bound up with a particular take on acceptable player agency, and one that heavily emphasizes player decision making as the prime mover of a campaign. I'm ok that we have different takes on it too, I'm not here to change anyone's mind about what they like, but it still seems very strange to me that after literally years of talking about and participating in sandbox play I'd never encountered this particular caveat until today. It certainly doesn't suggest to me that the idea is a common component of what many people mean when they talk about sandboxes.

 

[under_score]

Probably gonna regret jumping in here, but...
As regards Blades in the Dark and flashback mechanics and sandboxes, if you're doing a flashback that at the very minimum is constrained to not alter events in a way that alters the game world from getting to the point of origin from whence the flashback was invoked, that automatically rules out all sorts of options that I think even the most "impurest" of sandboxes would count as pretty basic requirements of a sandbox. You can't, during a flashback sequence, just spin off onto completely different adventuring lines, whether fitting the premise or not, because it's already established that the party ends up at that origin point. How does that fit into sandbox play at all?

 

[TristramEvans]

Probably gonna regret jumping in here, but...
As regards Blades in the Dark and flashback mechanics and sandboxes, if you're doing a flashback that at the very minimum is constrained to not alter events in a way that alters the game world from getting to the point of origin from whence the flashback was invoked, that automatically rules out all sorts of options that I think even the most "impurest" of sandboxes would count as pretty basic requirements of a sandbox. You can't, during a flashback sequence, just spin off onto completely different adventuring lines, whether fitting the premise or not, because it's already established that the party ends up at that origin point. How does that fit into sandbox play at all?

Yeah, it's a good point.

 

[robertsconley]

A lot of the issues raised in this thread come across as pretty 'meta' to me. I have a simple understanding of what defines a roleplaying game that I'd call a 'sandbox': If the players are truly free to make their own decisions about where they go and what they do without being pressured by the DM to steer into his or her pre-imagined encounter, plot, etc., and if the DM lets the dice fall where they may when it comes to things that influence the progress of events, then it is a sandbox. If the players are functionally funneled toward certain places or situations or the DM fiddles with dice rolls to make events turn out the way he or she wants them to, then it isn't.

I agree. But there is a new wrinkle.

In some system the players can influence the progress of events beyond what their character can do. My point about "as their characters" is the flip side of the DM letting the dice fall where they may. Now we have to consider whether the player let the dice fall where they may as well.

To be clear I am not talking about when they act as their character. But when they are using a system that has mechanics that allow the player themselves to manipulate the progress of events. In I view the idea of "letting the dice fall where they may" is a subset of the larger idea of letting players "trash" the setting. I use trash specifically because of its negative associations. A referee sets up a campaign, preps it, and while most are flexible there is a limit beyond which many feel that the players messed things up and they get annoyed out of game. This sentiment is echo in some of the response in this thread specifically in reference to campaigns where players are members of organization with a hierarchy and rules. If you plan a campaign about cops, the expectation that the players will remain cops.

While keeping in mind that hybrids are the norm not the exception, how do folks feel if the players decide not to be cops during session #4. They literally just "trashed" the original premise of the campaign and went east instead of the expected west of remaining cops.. And this is not theory for me either. I had to deal with this in a campaign back in 2012.

The players were member of a mercenary band that contracted to be in the service of the Baron of Abberset. A frontier barony. During one of their patrols they found an ancient underground strongpoint from the God's Dawn Wars. They explored and got a nice bit of treasure. In a space of a half hour, one player manage to convince the others to take the treasure, head north and leave the baron's service. They calculated the value of the remainder of the contract and when they stopped in the next town had a mercantyler send that amount to the Baron as compensation.

Completely changed the direction of the campaign and trashed much of my prep. And cleverly escaped the negative consequences remaining even after the payoff by travelling to the other side of the realm. (This was a medieval fantasy setting).

Also note I didn't ask for the campaign to be setup with the players being a bunch of merchants hired by the Baron of Abberset. It was their top choice after considering several other situation to start out in as character.

My take that when it comes to the progress of events both players and the referee need to let the dice fall where they may. Both the players and the referee need to accept that events and circumstance may "trash" what they planned. More than a few I know or seen be ticked off by these kinds of event occurring in their campaign. Both as players and referees.

So where the fun in all this? Provided it feels organic and not arbitrary the fun in in the challenge of thriving in a life lived within the setting with the abilities of the character. Tied with this is that the setting (NPCs, locales, etc) itself is interesting to live and adventure in.

 

[David Johansen]

I think my method is more playdoh than railroad or sandbox.

 

[robertsconley]

but it still seems very strange to me that after literally years of talking about and participating in sandbox play I'd never encountered this particular caveat until today. It certainly doesn't suggest to me that the idea is a common component of what many people mean when they talk about sandboxes.

I stated my guesses, all I can do is point out what I wrote (mostly on my blog) which ranges back to 2008. Back then system with metagaming mechanics were not as common. The main issue OOG was what you know as the player versus what you know as the character. My view then as it now that a player should not act on out of character knowledge. But also the same time as a referee, I will structure things so it doesn't matter if you know every stat block in the monster manual.

 

[Justin Alexander]

There's a howling wilderness of excluded middle between the two definitions most often seen in this kind of discussion. I mean, I don't consider myself a 'sandbox' or 'railroad' GM.

This is a big mistake that is frequently made: A sandbox is not the opposite of a railroad.

An RPG sandbox exists when the players can either choose or define what the next scenario is going to be. The opposite of a sandbox is saying, “I brought Keep of the Borderlands tonight, so that’s what we’re doing.” It’s the prototypical campaign where the GM comes prepared with a specific scenario for the game session and the players are expected to play through that scenario.

And this is where we run into the problem with treating “sandbox” as the opposite of “railroad”: Most people would consider “the GM has a scenario and the players are expected to play it” to be extremely light railroading (if they consider it railroading at all). In other words, I think the severity of a railroad is perceived to increase from the outside in: Predetermining that a particular scenario is going to be played is very light railroading. Predetermining the sequence of encounters is heavier railroading, but not as severe as predetermining the exact outcomes of those encounters ahead of time.

So when we cast “sandbox” and “railroad” as antonyms, we actually end up treating the lightest form of railroading as if it were the most extreme form of railroading. And, in response, the meaning of “sandbox” gets warped towards meaning “anything that isn’t linear”. Neither distortion is useful, with the former radicalizing our understanding of railroads and the latter eradicating the unique utility of the term “sandbox” by turning it into a synonym of “non-linear design”.

The opposite of the railroad is actually “default to yes." Instead of defaulting to a rejection of everything proposed by the players, it’s the state in which players are free to make any choice and for the consequences of those choices to be fully explored.

(You can even hypothetically have a sandbox campaign where the GM is mercilessly railroading everything except scenario selection. It's just unlikely because the values that would lead a GM to run a sandbox campaign aren't likely to simultaneously motivate them to railroad the outcomes of individual scenes.)

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".

That's a weird definition for "linear" because you're not describing a line.

Now this graphics gives the impression that Free Play is of equal weight to downtime and the Score. But the text has a chapter devoted to Downtime and a chapter devoted to the Score. Free play is mentioned only in passing and it by design.

This, of course, is also why you can't run sandbox campaigns in D&D: There's a whole chapter devoted to Combat and a whole chapter devoted to Spells. But social interactions are only mentioned in passing. And if your characters can't interact with NPCs except by fighting them or casting spells at them, how can it be called a sandbox?

I mean, we've been round this bend before. Like I said the last time you pulled these shenanigans: Any RPG you like exists in a quantum state of perfection because you can ignore the published rules whenever you choose, but this is, of course, completely impossible for any other RPG, even those containing entire chapters dedicated entirely to how the GM can change and customize the rules.

But how is it any different than people constantly asking me if the players could stop adventuring and opening a tavern in my games?

Oh, it's "The People" again.

But I guess I'll just ask a simple question - can a character in Blades in the Dark hop a plane to Japan to attend a friend's funeral? Can they decide to look into government corruption? Can they start a business?

It's you, Tristram. You're The People.

Remember the point of this thread is talking about how Sandboxes are objectively superior to Railroad adventures.

Let us not forget that you only believe this because you're objectively bad at running non-sandbox campaigns. You said yourself that you're the worst GM on the planet when it comes to running AP-style campaigns, and that's the kind of the objective fact that we just have to accept as true before any meaningful discussion can happen.

(Yes, I am going to continue relentlessly mocking your "my personal preferences are objectively superior to other people's personal preferences" rhetoric even when your personal preferences are fairly similar to my own. Why? Because that kind of delusional egotism deserves literally no response except mockery.)

 

[Endless Flight]

(You can even hypothetically have a sandbox campaign where the GM is mercilessly railroading everything except scenario selection. It's just unlikely because the values that would lead a GM to run a sandbox campaign aren't likely to simultaneously motivate them to railroad the outcomes of individual scenes.)

I basically said the same in the thread before. I came at it from the angle of a (deceptive?) GM who wants to railroad or do a very linear adventure but the players want a “sandbox”. They can pick what they want to do but will eventually end up where the GM wants them to.

 

[Black Vulmea]

Yes it not reasonable, but in my campaigns, the player can decide that what their character can do.

As I said, the adventurers push on the game-world and the game-world pushes back. They can go rogue if they choose, but there are consequences for that choice.

Again, I'm not talking at all about the perspective of the characters in the game - I'm talking about my process as referee, about the difference between shaking the tree and having a fruit basket dropped on your doorstep.

Ugh, that may be my worst analogy ever. ​

Moving on, since R robiswrong isn't feeling sufficiently engaged - - here're a couple more thoughts.

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.

So would I, and those situations can arise out of a random walk or by semi-intelligent design.

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.

Me neither.

As I'm prepping GangBusters, there's all sorts of illicit activity brewing in the dark corners of sunny southeastern New Mexico. Criminal player characters will want to tap into it; law enforcement characters will want to close the tap, or maybe draw off a little themselves. As it's a sandbox, it will be on them pursue their goals; the setting is brimming with resources for them to apply. In this, the players' characters are unquestionably proactive.

As subordinates, in a syndicate or a bureau, they may be obligated, or simply expected, to perform tasks on behalf of their superiors. In this, they are reactive, unless they choose to ignore or adulterate the task, in which case they are proactive in their rejection and create a whole new situation in the process.

I wonder if some of the Sturm und Drang about reactive situations in a sandbox has to do with playing in settings and genres where the adventurers are more or less 'unlimited free agents,' such as many fantasy settings?

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.

Right, if you read my example of the linear adventure I prepared for Flashing Blades, every step includes the caveat, 'or not.'

 

[hawkeyefan]

Probably gonna regret jumping in here, but...
As regards Blades in the Dark and flashback mechanics and sandboxes, if you're doing a flashback that at the very minimum is constrained to not alter events in a way that alters the game world from getting to the point of origin from whence the flashback was invoked, that automatically rules out all sorts of options that I think even the most "impurest" of sandboxes would count as pretty basic requirements of a sandbox. You can't, during a flashback sequence, just spin off onto completely different adventuring lines, whether fitting the premise or not, because it's already established that the party ends up at that origin point. How does that fit into sandbox play at all?

So I’ve read this a couple of times, and I don’t think I’m quite following.

Are you saying that because a Flashback has constraints, that goes against the idea of a sandbox?

Or am I totally misinterpreting your point?

In some system the players can influence the progress of events beyond what their character can do. My point about "as their characters" is the flip side of the DM letting the dice fall where they may. Now we have to consider whether the player let the dice fall where they may as well.

So, what do you do when a player in your game is making decisions solely as a player?

He says “Oh hell yeah, let’s go to the Caves of Woe. My character is claustrophobic but that’ll be exciting. Plus, I know Mike wouldn’t mind getting his hands on the holy sword for his paladin, and we heard it might be in the Caves.”

Does this render your game not a sandbox? Not a RPG?

Do you question the player? Do you remind him of his character’s claustrophobia? Are such traits generated randomly or is the player free to decide them?

If you did question the player, couldn’t they simply say “Okay, well, I think the holy sword is more important than my claustrophobia, so I’m willing to face my fear for the greater good!”

Does such a fictional veneer really matter? Aren’t the players on some level always doing what they want? Sure, the character might also have motives that justify the decision....or those can be quickly crafted to suit....since the player decides such things.

I think the important thing about a sandbox is that it’s the players that are driving things. This idea that it must solely be through their characters just seems odd to me.

 

[tenbones]

Let us not forget that you only believe this because you're objectively bad at running non-sandbox campaigns. You said yourself that you're the worst GM on the planet when it comes to running AP-style campaigns, and that's the kind of the objective fact that we just have to accept as true before any meaningful discussion can happen.

(Yes, I am going to continue relentlessly mocking your "my personal preferences are objectively superior to other people's personal preferences" rhetoric even when your personal preferences are fairly similar to my own. Why? Because that kind of delusional egotism deserves literally no response except mockery.)

Ooo you told me! LOL.

I think deep down you love me like Norton does. You want the D.O.N.G. Black Belt, that's what it is. You craves it!

 

[TristramEvans]

OK, I wanted to wait until conversaion died down on the forums for the night before responding to these.

But how is it any different than people constantly asking me if the players could stop adventuring and opening a tavern in my games?

People didn't constantly ask you that. I asked one set of questions similiar to that effect. That's it.

I'm exaggerating because a lot of people act like if that isn't an option and the game wouldn't pivot to that and follow them running a tavern, then I'm no longer "running a sandbox".

No, alot of people haven't acted like that. But I will state that plainly: yes, that means you aren't running a Sandbox. Because you have a premise for the game and you place priorty on that. There is no "pivot" in a Sandbox, the game just goes where it goes.

Like expecting people to stick to the premise of the game that was pitched immediately disqualifying a game from being a sandbox.

Yeah. It does. "Stick to my premise" is the opposite of the PoV of a GM running a sandbox.

What nobody is saying is that there's any reason you need to be running a sandbox. A sandbox is a specific approach to gaming: you as the GM present a world and the players are set lose in it, to do as they like. From your complaints here that's clearly not to your tastes. So what? Why does your game have to be defined as a sandbox?

(Oh and keep in mind these same people will tell you how superior sandbox play is).

Bullshit. And you know it.

So what I said about corrupting the conversation? What you complain about here?

Well clearly Tristram doesn't know that I'm talking about you (though not entirely some of the things I said in that were actually other people I've had conversations with who are in this thread and not you), because he thinks that I'm talking about things that no one in this thread has ever said and "corrupting the conversation".

Yep, this is exactly what I mean.

You see, in the next post, you claim you were talking about Tenbones:

Oh yes, because tenbones has never, ever, expressed the superiority of his playstyle. We literally had the discussion over whether it was against the rules or not. Are we now going to say that he didn't say it at all?

Are do you want me to call him out by name every time? I was avoiding doing that on purpose. But if you want to play the "no one in this thread has that opinion" bit I'll do it.

And as for the rest? Nah those can't be conversations I've had on these forums. With people in this thread.

But you also admit "(though not entirely some of the things I said in that were actually other people I've had conversations with who are in this thread and not you)".

So what you do is start with some not-entirely-honest description of questions that I asked you, and then you say "these are The same People" to bring up something Tenbones said.

Let's leave aside the Mod directive in the very first post in this thread to not use this thread as an excuse to continue the debate from the Moderation thread it was spun off from. Because it's not simply you complaining again that Tenbones said that he thinks Sandboxes are inherently superior (even if you've never once directly acknowledged or engaged in good faith his explanations and qualifications of that statement).

Instead let's talk about how by framing your post as a complaint about a undefined group, "The People", you both implied that I said things I did not and simultaneously implied that Tenbones said things that he did not, and used the vague moniker to hide behind so as not to have to address the falsehoods in the statement and to imply that there were multiple individuals doing this to you, presenting a victim narrative.

So, yeah, corrupting the conversation. Because it's not engaging with the conversation in the thread, it's not making a good faith argument, it's introducing tribalism into the conversation, and it's deliberately misleading.

It's a disengenuous way of interacting on a forum, and I'm specifically calling you out for it. Because you're better than this. You can make well-reasoned arguments, you can express ideas cleary, and you are generally an incisive and intelligent poster. That sort of thing isn't necessary for you to carry your weight in a debate or get your point across, and it's insulting to people who take the time to respond to you.

 

[Justin Alexander]

I think deep down you love me like Norton does. You want the D.O.N.G. Black Belt, that's what it is. You craves it!

What on earth would I do with your objectively microscopic D.O.N.G.?

It's even less impressive than that limp non-entity which passes for your "wit."

 

[TJS]

You know I've pretty much come to the conclusion that what a lot of people on this forum mean by 'sandbox' is what I tend to think of as "playing a role-playing game in a basically functionally manner".

 

[Nobby-W]

[ . . . ]
And this is where we run into the problem with treating “sandbox” as the opposite of “railroad”: Most people would consider “the GM has a scenario and the players are expected to play it” to be extremely light railroading (if they consider it railroading at all). In other words, I think the severity of a railroad is perceived to increase from the outside in: Predetermining that a particular scenario is going to be played is very light railroading. Predetermining the sequence of encounters is heavier railroading, but not as severe as predetermining the exact outcomes of those encounters ahead of time.

I think you may have just coined a useful term: Light Rail. A lot of campaigns, probably most, take this format - GM comes up with an adventure for the evening (whether by themselves or from a module), players do the adventure. There is not necessarily an overarching fixed plot, or it may only have a few key points like a BBEG. Sometimes players do something that affects the course of the campaign, which gets reflected in next week's adventure or some other adventure down the track, giving the process some sandbox-ish elements. Rinse. Repeat.

DLR

Trains from Bank, Tower Gateway and Stratford International to Lewisham, Woolwich Arsenal and Becton

tfl.gov.uk

 

[Ravenswing]

You can tell player who have never had the freedom when by happen stance they encounter the big bad and through good fortune and play actually take them out. Shocked, thrilled...the lack of plot protection goes both ways in a sand box.

In my case , it's when players who'd always played in railroads make all the right guesses, solve the plot and win the day ... several hours before the scheduled end of the game session. And I let them win. Without shucking and jiving, without forcing another layer onto things just because I'm scheduled to run until 6 PM.

The look on their faces is priceless, satisfying, and saddens me, all at once.

(snip)

The degree to which you wildly exaggerate, and conflate once or twice into "people constantly asking me," is the degree to which sensible folk call bullshit. I agree that players should buy into the milieu of the game. But agency needs to start there as well. If you're running a game which by definitions calls for a particular playstyle (like four-color supers, for instance), and your players refuse to buy into it, the problem is not that "pure sandboxes" don't exist, or any situation pertinent to this thread. It's that they don't want to play that game. Have they been hustled into something they didn't want to play? Have they been misled as to what's expected of them? Is the GM just not up to snuff?

Take my wife, for instance. She's been gaming her whole adult life; we met in a fantasy boffer LARP. I've mused about starting up a Scarlet Pimpernel game once or twice; hell, I wrote the damn thing, I'm entitled. Her response is that I'll be doing it without her. It's not that she's against French culture; she's a third generation Quebecois who speaks French. The critical bit -- and the reason she won't touch supers -- is that she thinks that codes against killing are BS, and feels that what you do with a villain is to give him a jail cell that's six feet long, three feet wide and six feet deep.

But she loves playing in my fantasy sandbox. One reason she loves one-on-one sessions is she can do whatever she pleases, not only unconstrained by railroad tracks, but even by the other players. The character she uses for these is her princess wizard, the most powerful PC in the campaign's history, all but retired from active group adventuring. (Among other things, she's upwards of 700 points, which the GURPS-cognizant would readily grasp.) She spends her time in politicking, in managing her estate, in using her wealth and magical powers to Do Good Deeds For Poor Strangers, and in doing occasional getaways to the gypsy encampment in her home city, where she happily blends in, and takes her sweet time over popping from stall to stall in North Market doing food shopping.

 

[TJS]

The degree to which you wildly exaggerate, and conflate once or twice into "people constantly asking me," is the degree to which sensible folk call bullshit. I agree that players should buy into the milieu of the game. But agency needs to start there as well. If you're running a game which by definitions calls for a particular playstyle (like four-color supers, for instance), and your players refuse to buy into it, the problem is not that "pure sandboxes" don't exist, or any situation pertinent to this thread. It's that they don't want to play that game. Have they been hustled into something they didn't want to play? Have they been misled as to what's expected of them? Is the GM just not up to snuff?

Thing is though, people earlier in the thread seemed to be saying that it's still a sandbox even if the central premise requires buy-in.

...but then in the case of Blades in the Dark it's not a sandbox because the central premise requires buy in.

Or at least that's what it looked like to me.

 

[AsenRG]

Not necessarily. It all depends on many factors. My point here is that if we think of a sandbox as involving players choosing what to engage with, and the GM keeps snowballing one story until the PCs finally get involved, that doesn't seem entirely sandboxy to me.

Which isn't to say that there can't be other sandboxy things going on in that game. It's more just about how most games are likely a mix of everything. There's going to be some linear stuff. There's going to be GM initiated elements. There are going to be parts of the game where the players are't necessarily free to choose whatever they want. Which is all fine.

To kind of look at my Mothership example.....I have Warlord Krazmalax invade the sector that includes a space station where my PCs hang out. Krazmalax and his forces become very present in that sector, impacting just about anything they'd like to do there in some way. If for some reason, my players feel it's best for the characters to avoid this guy and head to another sector, what consequences should I inflict on them? There are any number of ways I can handle it that would still have consequences in some way, but don't involve me as GM chasing them with a hook that they've decided not to bite. Forcing the Warlord thing....."after taking Sector Zeta, he now moves on to the sector where you fled!!".....seems very much like railroading to me.

I could simply drop the warlord by saying he was opposed by some other faction or his forces fell apart due to infighting or whatever. The consequences of that could be simply that the station the PCs hung out at has been significantly changed.....maybe some NPCs died in the turmoil, maybe security is now tighter, making things more difficult for them. There can still be consequences of all sorts.

Or maybe the players never have the characters return to that sector and they continue their escapades elsewhere, totally unrelated. Maybe there are no consequences. I mean, they opted to get away from all that.....shouldn't I as GM at least consider that decision when I craft the consequences?

Not saying there are really right or wrong answers here, just kind of pointing out how blurry all this can be, in my opinion.

As I stated before: the consequence is that they don't get anything from moving to a new sector, and have to start building new contacts/trust/reputations there.

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.

It is actually assumed that for you to be able to explore a sandbox, the sandbox should be a given and not adapt to whatever shape the players would like it to have. So I can see where robertsconley is coming from. And I suspect most old-school players would agree.

I just fail to care, frankly, because I'm not going to play BitD because of the flashback mechanic, regardless of whether it makes the game a sandbox or not...thus making the point extremely irrelevant to my interests!

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.

Not to me. To me, the idea is "you get a sandbox to explore and shape by your in-game actions". In that regard BitD might be disqualified merely by having options to shape the sandbox by out of game actions...but to me that point is moot anyway, since I'm unlikely to play it either way.

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?

A Shroedingerbox?
I mean, it seems like it's a sandbox in all regards except elements of the setting get to be changed in retrospect. So it's equal parts exploring the setting and writing the story of how you explored the setting.
Which I assumed is how you like to play anyway. And I want it to be clear that here*, the "it's not my jam" statement doesn't mean I would think any less of your game because of it. (I also don't like mint icecream and mint tea - but I don't think people who like either are weird for it).
I'd just think it's not to my taste, the same as I would think if you offered me mint icecream. In both cases I'd politely refuse, even though your group presumably likes mint icecream...
But hey, if you decide to get a box of some other icecream some time, keep me in mind - I might come and visit you, and we'd probably have a nice time talking about RPGs. Or at least settings.

And in the meantime, as Baulderstone said, you don't need to care whether your game is "pure sandbox" (what, no cats in your setting?) or a mutt of a sandbox and an indie game! Honestly, it won't matter.

*As opposed to the Schroedinger's Ogre in a traditional game where the players are assumed to not know it's a Schroedinger's Ogre. I'm sure you know my opinion of those.

 

[under_score]

So I’ve read this a couple of times, and I don’t think I’m quite following.

Are you saying that because a Flashback has constraints, that goes against the idea of a sandbox?

Or am I totally misinterpreting your point?

I mean that the endpoint of the flashback is established to whenever it began. You might be playing a sandboxy score or turf or whatever cool lingo they use, and you run into some problem you don't want to deal with, so you flashback to last week to play out how you would've prepared for this, so during the flashback play you're only playing to get to the already established heist you left off from, right?
Unless the game accounts for time travel paradox stuff, but I haven't gotten the impression that the game is about that either.

Oh, can you flashback within a flashback? You go back to bribe the guard, but now you don't have enough money so you have to flashback to the heist that would've earned you the money, but now you have to flashback to when you learned to crack that safe, and on and on like Memento.

 

[under_score]

Let us not forget that you only believe this because you're objectively bad at running non-sandbox campaigns. You said yourself that you're the worst GM on the planet when it comes to running AP-style campaigns, and that's the kind of the objective fact that we just have to accept as true before any meaningful discussion can happen.

(Yes, I am going to continue relentlessly mocking your "my personal preferences are objectively superior to other people's personal preferences" rhetoric even when your personal preferences are fairly similar to my own. Why? Because that kind of delusional egotism deserves literally no response except mockery.)

This silly game you're playing with tenbones, making idiotic inferences and claiming one thing said means another, besides being obvious troll behavior and in poor form for the board, is just kinda dweeby.
Didn't you used to write interesting blogs about games?

 

[Baulderstone]

I always wonder why so many apparently amazing GMs with players that love their games are filled with either with bitter belligerence or an overcompensating need to chest beat about awesomness of their approach while insulting others. You'd think people who were actually running fun games on a regular basis would be in a better mood.

 

[under_score]

I always wonder why so many apparently amazing GMs with players that love their games are filled with either with bitter belligerence or an overcompensating need to chest beat about awesomness of their approach while insulting others. You'd think people who were actually running fun games on a regular basis would be in a better mood.

I agree, but I think it cuts both ways. Awful lot of these arguments feature some folks that just have to have their preferences validated and can't seem to just enjoy their game regardless of what some internet weirdos think about it.

 

[Nobby-W]

I always wonder why so many apparently amazing GMs with players that love their games are filled with either with bitter belligerence or an overcompensating need to chest beat about awesomness of their approach while insulting others. You'd think people who were actually running fun games on a regular basis would be in a better mood.

Well, the superiority of the GMing style is objectively obvious, isn't it? It must be true - we've been told so many times.

 

[EmperorNorton]

But you also admit "(though not entirely some of the things I said in that were actually other people I've had conversations with who are in this thread and not you)".

So what you do is start with some not-entirely-honest description of questions that I asked you, and then you say "these are The same People" to bring up something Tenbones said.

Can I ask you a question? If you don't agree with Tenbones, why do you not actively disagree with him. You have no problem shitting on every single post I make. But you just let him spout off nonsense about his "objectively superior" style. Seriously it's one of the reasons I like Justin Alexander, because he is a fan of similar styles as Tenbones but he'll actually call him out on the dumb shit he says. (hell I'm a fan of similar styles as Tenbones, it just isn't the ONLY thing I'm a fan of, and I don't consider my preferences as anything but that, preferences).

You call me out for all kinds of shit. But Tenbones can straight up assign disingenuous motives to me and Justin and you literally do NOTHING.

Both of you shift the goalposts for entirely different reasons - You just want to do your contrarian-play-dumb-outrage thing, Justin wants to pontificate on why I am wrong then proceed to advertise his how-to video with a premise aimed at others that don't know what all of the rest of us Sandbox GM's already know, rather than you know - talk shop.

But you treat me like I'm the sole problem. I have to walk the narrowest lines or you come in to make sure I'm put in my place, but people who agree mostly with you? They can do whatever they want.

Also: Maybe when I'm talking about "people" it is because I'm talking about more than one person, all of who are participating in the thread, and all of whom only seem to want to jump in to disagree with me, never disagree with each other, and are liking each others posts? Some of it was you, some of it was tenbones, some of it was robertsconley. Maybe the problem is you trying to make it all about you when it wasn't.

 

[Baulderstone]

I agree, but I think it cuts both ways. Awful lot of these arguments feature some folks that just have to have their preferences validated and can't seem to just enjoy their game regardless of what some internet weirdos think about it.

Sure. That's the bitter side of the coin I was referring to. What it comes down to is that I am more inclined to listen to game advice from someone who seems to be having fun. I also don't get the antagonism to other play styles. If theyare being insulting to the ways other people play, who are they talking to? They clearly aren't trying to win people over to their style because they probably lost everyone that doesn't already agree with them the moment they insulted them. Are they talking just to hear their voice, or is it to score points with people on their "side" by pwning the other team?

Either way, it's stupid.

 

[TristramEvans]

 

[Baulderstone]

But you treat me like I'm the sole problem. I have to walk the narrowest lines or you come in to make sure I'm put in my place, but people who agree mostly with you? They can do whatever they want.

This is the kind of thing I am sick of. We thread-banned Krueger recently. We changed moderation policy recently in accordance with your complaints. And still we have to put up with your crap about how we unfairly single you out.

 

[Postmortem]

I’d party with that dude.

Bring back mullets.

 

[Baulderstone]

Some of it was you, some of it was tenbones, some of it was robertsconley. Maybe the problem is you trying to make it all about you when it wasn't.

I just want to underline this. When you get to the point where you are portraying Rob Conley, one of the most unfailingly polite people on the Internet, as one of the people harassing you, I don't think we can ever moderate this forum the way you want us to, aside from banning everyone that disagrees with you.

 

[TristramEvans]

(sigh)

 

[EmperorNorton]

I just want to underline this. When you get to the point where you are portraying Rob Conley, one of the most unfailingly polite people on the Internet, as one of the people harassing you, I don't think we can ever moderate this forum the way you want us to, aside from banning everyone that disagrees with you.

I didn't say he was harassing me. I was pointing out that he was one of the people who said some of the things I was talking about.

"but I don't normally run Blades in the Dark and have people go "well, we don't want to be criminals" either, but that is being used to say Blades in the Dark is too narrow to be a sandbox."

This was the part I was attributing to Rob. Maybe don't read everything I said as me saying people are harassing me? Cause I never did. I was explaining my disagreement, and explaining why I used "I go to the movies" as a joke, I was just using it as an extreme example of silliness.

Literally the only thing that elevated from "we're just disagreeing" to me being annoyed was tenbones "superior sandbox" stuff. And Tristram's one sided calling me out on shit while ignoring any of the bad faith shit that tenbones does.

Again, this thing where everyone thinks I'm frothing at the mouth 24/7 rather than just talking.

 

[under_score]

We thread-banned Krueger recently. We changed moderation policy recently in accordance with your complaints. And still we have to put up with your crap about how we unfairly single you out.

Again, this thing where everyone thinks I'm frothing at the mouth 24/7 rather than just talking.

Frothy or not, you sure attract a lot of active moderation for "just talking".

 

[TristramEvans]

The logical endpoint here is, of course, the dungeon itself - adventure as flowchart. I have to imagine that the popularity of the dungeon has something to do with this - an adventure format that works without hitting either arbitrary pre-plotting or having to (pretend to) keep track of a zillion things.

Welcome to The Pub Matthias! Sorry your first post got lost in the sea of hot topic replies. Not all the threads here are quite so spicy.

 

[johnmarron]

I'm in the process of wrapping up a 6 month Blades in the Dark campaign (final session next week), and I can say without hesitation that the game is specifically designed for sandbox play. My characters drove the entire campaign, deciding what they wanted to do each week (often at the start of the actial play session, so I had to wing everything). They interacted with NPCs, pursued personal agendas, heard rumors, took on jobs of their own choosing, pursued vendettas, all by their own choice. The city in Blades is just a big sandbox with lots of factions to interact with.

John