- Joined
- Apr 24, 2017
- Messages
- 36,544
- Reaction score
- 108,583
Note: This thread has been excised , curated, and combined with several threads from long ago in the Pub's history to reinvigorate it, remove the useless bits, and refocus it towards it's original intention. As such, some f it might read a bit choppy, but overall it's a comprehensive collection of advice and resources for running Sandboxes, bereft of the tedious arguments over definitions.
Just as in the previous Mod+ thread, a few extra rules will be in place in this thread, and it will be more heavily moderated than the rest of the forum. In fact, I put off starting this thread until I knew I had the free time to devote to monitoring it. Also, as the last thread was a bit of a "dry run" experiment, we gave a lot of leeway even with the stricter rules in place, but that won't be the case here. If you want to join in the conversation, you need to keep up with the standard of discourse. In this way, we can debate in a way that's meaningful and productive.
So, the rules. They aren't going to be exactly the same as the last thread (with one BIG change I'll discuss forwith), but the spirit is the same
1. Responses, criticisms, and counterpoints should start with an assumption of good faith. What was said elsewhere online or on other threads is irrelevant to the conversation in this thread; if you believe the poster you are responding to is disengenuous, dishonest, or speaking with double meanings, no productive interactions can take place. The assumption of good faith is the bare minimum for a worthwhile discussion. If you can't do that with a poster, then do not interact with them. If you do reply to someone, take their words at face value without inferrences.
2. No generalizations about groups or what you think those groups believe. Everyone here is an individual with their own point of view, and no one here can, or shuld be expected to, answer for the opinions expressed by people elsewhere online. If you have a response to an individual's points then address them directly.
3. Avoid obvious logical fallacies, including but not limited to:
IV. By that same token, if you believe another poster is engaging in a logical fallacy, or, for that matter, breaking any rules of the thread, do not call them out, but report it to the mods. The moderators will have the final say on interpreting rules violations and acting on them (meaning if the Mods chose not to act, that shouldn't be an interpreted as a free pass to go after any perceived injustice). And, as always, issues with moderation specifically should be taken up in the Site Discussion forum only.
5. The default assumption is always that whatever a person states is their own opinion, and/or an expression of their own preferrences. No one should need to caveat their posts with this obvious fact, nor should anyone expect anyone else to validate their own opinions or preferences.
The most significant change in rules with this thread as opposed to the prior thread is that we are not, in this case, going to start from the assumption that everyone has their own, equally valid definition of the subject matter. While the last debate was focused around conflicting definitions, in this case we are discussing concepts that are extant and already defined. As such, this thread is going to start with several established definitions of terms to foster communication and allow us to move beyond debates over personal meanings or usage. Several definitions, starting with "Sandbox Campaign", were discussed in-depth prior to this thread being created and reached in consensus.
As new terms are introduced into the conversation and defined, they will be added to this first post.
***
DEFINITIONS
SANDBOX
An approach to playing RPGs, defined by how players and referee behave instead the details of a given system, wherein the players are granted complete freedom to do anything within the setting as their character, limited only by common sense restrictions. The players have the ability to "trash the campaign", their actions not limited to staying within the bounds of a preconcieved premise, while the GM acts as a neutral arbiter of events in the gameworld and the manner in which the gameworld responds to the players, without an objective or steering the action in any particular direction.
QUALIFIED SANDBOX
Anything that a person in that setting can do, PCs can do, with several pre-agreed upon exceptions.
WORLD IN MOTION
A specific form of Sandbox, coined by Vreeg in 2010, wherein the gameworld "lives and breathes" outside the PCs' scope; events occur which they may not even be aware of, or became aware some time after they actually occured. The inhabitants of the world have a will, motivations, goals of their which they will act upon, regardless of the PCs' own motivations, unless they are in direct relation to each other. "World in Motion" applies both to this approach to gamemastering a Sandbox, and the various Tools used to support and enable that playstyle.
SCHRODINGER'S SANDBOX
The opposite of a World-in-Motion campaign, a Sandbox where the content in the setting is developed randomly or by improvisation in response to the player's choices.
ARBITRARY RESTRICTION
the restriction would not exist if the gameworld was a real place and the characters were real people living in that gameworld. In other words, it cannot be rationalized "in game".
BAG OF STUFF
Term coined by @robertsconely meaning material that the human referee has internalized and can draw on to create elements of the campaign on the fly such as locales, characters, and plans.
INITIAL CONTEXT
Term coined by @robertsconely meaning the situation at the beginning of the campaign that the players are aware of as their characters, intended to give players the information needed to make informed choices from the start.
Just as in the previous Mod+ thread, a few extra rules will be in place in this thread, and it will be more heavily moderated than the rest of the forum. In fact, I put off starting this thread until I knew I had the free time to devote to monitoring it. Also, as the last thread was a bit of a "dry run" experiment, we gave a lot of leeway even with the stricter rules in place, but that won't be the case here. If you want to join in the conversation, you need to keep up with the standard of discourse. In this way, we can debate in a way that's meaningful and productive.
So, the rules. They aren't going to be exactly the same as the last thread (with one BIG change I'll discuss forwith), but the spirit is the same
1. Responses, criticisms, and counterpoints should start with an assumption of good faith. What was said elsewhere online or on other threads is irrelevant to the conversation in this thread; if you believe the poster you are responding to is disengenuous, dishonest, or speaking with double meanings, no productive interactions can take place. The assumption of good faith is the bare minimum for a worthwhile discussion. If you can't do that with a poster, then do not interact with them. If you do reply to someone, take their words at face value without inferrences.
2. No generalizations about groups or what you think those groups believe. Everyone here is an individual with their own point of view, and no one here can, or shuld be expected to, answer for the opinions expressed by people elsewhere online. If you have a response to an individual's points then address them directly.
3. Avoid obvious logical fallacies, including but not limited to:
- ad-hominem (attacking the character of the poster rather than the statement or argument they've made)
- strawmanning (inventing an argument no one made and arguing against that instead of an actual point made by a poster in this thread)
- appealing to emotion (pleading personal feelings in place of a valid or logical argument)
- see also special pleading, anecdotal arguments, tu quoque, etc. If you're not familiar with logical fallacies, google it, there's tons of sources online.
IV. By that same token, if you believe another poster is engaging in a logical fallacy, or, for that matter, breaking any rules of the thread, do not call them out, but report it to the mods. The moderators will have the final say on interpreting rules violations and acting on them (meaning if the Mods chose not to act, that shouldn't be an interpreted as a free pass to go after any perceived injustice). And, as always, issues with moderation specifically should be taken up in the Site Discussion forum only.
5. The default assumption is always that whatever a person states is their own opinion, and/or an expression of their own preferrences. No one should need to caveat their posts with this obvious fact, nor should anyone expect anyone else to validate their own opinions or preferences.
The most significant change in rules with this thread as opposed to the prior thread is that we are not, in this case, going to start from the assumption that everyone has their own, equally valid definition of the subject matter. While the last debate was focused around conflicting definitions, in this case we are discussing concepts that are extant and already defined. As such, this thread is going to start with several established definitions of terms to foster communication and allow us to move beyond debates over personal meanings or usage. Several definitions, starting with "Sandbox Campaign", were discussed in-depth prior to this thread being created and reached in consensus.
As new terms are introduced into the conversation and defined, they will be added to this first post.
***
DEFINITIONS
SANDBOX
An approach to playing RPGs, defined by how players and referee behave instead the details of a given system, wherein the players are granted complete freedom to do anything within the setting as their character, limited only by common sense restrictions. The players have the ability to "trash the campaign", their actions not limited to staying within the bounds of a preconcieved premise, while the GM acts as a neutral arbiter of events in the gameworld and the manner in which the gameworld responds to the players, without an objective or steering the action in any particular direction.
QUALIFIED SANDBOX
Anything that a person in that setting can do, PCs can do, with several pre-agreed upon exceptions.
WORLD IN MOTION
A specific form of Sandbox, coined by Vreeg in 2010, wherein the gameworld "lives and breathes" outside the PCs' scope; events occur which they may not even be aware of, or became aware some time after they actually occured. The inhabitants of the world have a will, motivations, goals of their which they will act upon, regardless of the PCs' own motivations, unless they are in direct relation to each other. "World in Motion" applies both to this approach to gamemastering a Sandbox, and the various Tools used to support and enable that playstyle.
SCHRODINGER'S SANDBOX
The opposite of a World-in-Motion campaign, a Sandbox where the content in the setting is developed randomly or by improvisation in response to the player's choices.
ARBITRARY RESTRICTION
the restriction would not exist if the gameworld was a real place and the characters were real people living in that gameworld. In other words, it cannot be rationalized "in game".
BAG OF STUFF
Term coined by @robertsconely meaning material that the human referee has internalized and can draw on to create elements of the campaign on the fly such as locales, characters, and plans.
INITIAL CONTEXT
Term coined by @robertsconely meaning the situation at the beginning of the campaign that the players are aware of as their characters, intended to give players the information needed to make informed choices from the start.
Last edited: