Is railroading always bad?

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
My point was more that once the party bites on a hook that story is necessarily constrained by the possible connections between the various NPCs and factions as well as by physical location. Not linear maybe, but also not what some people seem to be indexing when they say sandbox, which I think best describes the downtime, or in between jobs part of that kind of campaign. Mostly I'm trying to point out that sandbox play doesnt lack structure, and structure implies at least some restriction of useful ways to proceed.

Not the same as railroading at all of course but thats why I feel like some definitional work might be useful here
Not the same as railroading but it also means that a sandbox game doesn't necessarily avoid railroading.

Just because the party have chosen to do X, doesn't mean that playing through X won't end up being a railroad.

(And often it's the smaller opportunities for decisions that crop up during the course of play that are the more important to the players)

A sandbox is more of a macro-structure and railroading usually is more of a problem on a level below that.
 
Until they do just that except in my case it was to build an inn.

Part 1
Part 2

If a referee wants to take a sandbox campaign to the next level then jettison any expectation of what will be happening.
Whether it is remain in the employ of the Baron of Abberset in my case, or remain in the Aquilonian Black Dragons.

(skipped)

Note that the sandbox operates on multiple levels, not just what people traditional consider "THE ADVENTURE" like Against the Giants or the Temple of Elemental Evil. What I recounted for the Nomar campaign is rare but not rare for the next level down of individual goals.


This is why if a referee is to be truly comfortable in a running a sandbox campaign the best way of doing that is building up what I call the Bag of Stuff, mental or physical lists of characters, locales, personalities, creatures, items, plans, and motivations that fit with one's campaign, that can be used in a pinch then to be fleshed out in specifics after the session.
Yes, that's a great example! And that is how it should be, if you ask me:shade:!

Also, we've had campaigns that started like this. There's adventure to be found almost in any set-up, though it might not be murderhobo roaming:thumbsup:.
 
I still don't get a good feel for what Emergent Play is as opposed to Sandbox play. I see a lot of dancing around it, but no one willing to state what they mean and what a definition is in such a way that there can be a differentiation. Anyone want to take this on?
 
I still don't get a good feel for what Emergent Play is as opposed to Sandbox play. I see a lot of dancing around it, but no one willing to state what they mean and what a definition is in such a way that there can be a differentiation. Anyone want to take this on?

Here's what I proposed:

Emergent play = any game where "what happens" is a result of the players' decisions, and not a matter of what the GM has pre-written.

I was using that term because others have conflated "sandbox" with TristramEvans TristramEvans ' "Complete Freedom" game, and so I felt a term for any kind of "open" game would be useful that didn't have that connotation.
 
Emergent play = any game where "what happens" is a result of the players' decisions, and not a matter of what the GM has pre-written.
Player decisions can be part of emergent play, but a lot of it can come from the system as well. If the game flies off in a different direction because of a random encounter, that would be emergent play. I define emergent play as when things happen in a game that nobody, the PCs or the GM, saw coming at the start of the session.
 
I still don't get a good feel for what Emergent Play is as opposed to Sandbox play. I see a lot of dancing around it, but no one willing to state what they mean and what a definition is in such a way that there can be a differentiation. Anyone want to take this on?
For my part I don't think there is any noteworthy distinction.

Without using any jargon, what most folks are getting at on this topic is a campaign is run by a human referee, as if the setting has is own reality and the player enter as their character free to do whatever what motivates them and what their character abilities allow.

It is often but not always like taking a trip to someplace potentially interesting in our world. Particularly if the trip of a long duration and there isn't much of a schedule attached so one is free to do things on their own timetable.

It been shown that this kind of experience can be done within the time one has for a hobby with pen, paper, some dice, and a set of wargame rules. There are some practical limitations, but numerous accounts have demonstrated that this is effective and players felt that they had ventured into the setting and were able to the thing they would have been able to do as if they actually visited there in person.

Note this is not quite the same feeling as one gets from immersing themselves into a specific character. This particular feeling is shared both by people who immerse themselves into a character and people who are effectively playing a version of themselves with the abilities of the character. Along with most who do something in between.

That is about as plain as I can make my take without using any jargon term. Now there are more details, as there are a variety techniques one can use to make a setting have its own reality within the time one has for a hobby. Therein lies many of the disputes along with a dispute over whether this is possible at all. Another point of contention is that while possible it is difficult so that it is a niche style. Akin to say playing a wargame like Axis & Allies versus Europa by GDW a notoriously complex and detailed WW2 wargame.
 
Last edited:
Player decisions can be part of emergent play, but a lot of it can come from the system as well. If the game flies off in a different direction because of a random encounter, that would be emergent play. I define emergent play as when things happen in a game that nobody, the PCs or the GM, saw coming at the start of the session.

Wrapping back around to Blades in the Dark, stuff like heat and entanglements at the end of scores are the type of mechanics that encourage emergent play.
 
Wrapping back around to Blades in the Dark, stuff like heat and entanglements at the end of scores are the type of mechanics that encourage emergent play.
I played Blades in the Dark and you just don't get to pretend to be your character instead you have to metagame constantly (like flashback) and play creative dice interpretation. It is not railroading but it is just as far from sandbox and open play as one can get.
 
I played Blades in the Dark and you just don't get to pretend to be your character instead you have to metagame constantly (like flashback) and play creative dice interpretation. It is not railroading but it is just as far from sandbox and open play as one can get.

Honestly, I don't take your opinion on Blades seriously in any way ever since you tried to declare it wasn't even an RPG. I often feel like you know what you are talking about, but the moment anything strays outside of your area of experience, you have no basis for understanding it at all.

Open world/sandbox has nothing to do with associated vs disassociated mechanics (to steal some terminology from Justin Alexander Justin Alexander), it just has to do with whether the characters can try anything reasonable for their characters to do.

It's like declaring something "not sandbox" because it doesn't have a sandwich in it. You might have sandwiches in your sandbox, but sandwiches are irrelevant to the definition of a sandbox.

Also, your response is completely irrelevant as I was discussing specific mechanics in relation to emergent gameplay, which has nothing to do with the discussion of whether BitD as a whole is a sandbox.
 
I agree with Norton on this. Blades may have a lot of non trad mechanics, but it's absolutely set up to encourage sandbox play.
 
Player decisions can be part of emergent play, but a lot of it can come from the system as well. If the game flies off in a different direction because of a random encounter, that would be emergent play. I define emergent play as when things happen in a game that nobody, the PCs or the GM, saw coming at the start of the session.

In my experience, you don't need random information from the system to really make this happen - players and the GM having their own takes on things is usually enough to take the gameplay in unforeseen directions.

Not that input from the system is bad in any way, of course. It can be a really useful thing to have.

I played Blades in the Dark and you just don't get to pretend to be your character instead you have to metagame constantly (like flashback) and play creative dice interpretation. It is not railroading but it is just as far from sandbox and open play as one can get.

Whatever the term is, I think there's use in having an umbrella term that is useful for "games where the GM doesn't prepare a set of encounters that the players are expected to play through, in order". One big enough to contain both "Complete Freedom" games as well as things like BitD.

Shit, maybe it's just as simple as linear vs. non-linear. Though I'd argue that games like the BioWare stuff on computers are still fundamentally linear - they let you shuffle things around in order sometimes, but you're still going through pregenerated content and going through the story written by the designers.
 
Whatever the term is, I think there's use in having an umbrella term that is useful for "games where the GM doesn't prepare a set of encounters that the players are expected to play through, in order".
My comment is that statement is so broad that it is doesn't narrow anything. It like saying "games that use the rules of a wargame* to handle combat between individual characters." Sometime that true of all RPG that has combat as part of their rules. One has go to go a few step further and look at the what role "not preparing encounters" plays in the overall system to make a useful distinction

One big enough to contain both "Complete Freedom" games as well as things like BitD.
Blades in the Dark works the way it does by making the focus of the campaign very narrow. The individual mechanics are fine-tune to not only making campaigns based around capers but also following the episodic structure the rules outline. It does a great job of this and a lot of people find it appealing. Also it makes running capers for many a lot easier. When done well capers are a lot of fun but they are not easily for the average referee to setup in a way that is interesting. Blades in the Dark does well.

But step outside of it narrow focus and it fall apart. Yes you can use the idea behind BiTD and with some work point the system at other situations. A fantasy city guard campaign echoing Hill Street Blues for example. But once you step outside whatever being focused, the system doesn't save the referee any work. Nor does help the situation players want to handle doesn't lend itself to an episodic format.

The only point of commonality with what I do, is that both style start with a description of a setting, a bunch of characters with information and background tying them to the setting, and not pre-conceived notion of how the campaign is going to unfold.

Shit, maybe it's just as simple as linear vs. non-linear.
I can't speak for anybody else using the term sandbox but for me, what distinguish my campaigns and what I write about, that you get to make a character and visit a world or a time as that character. You can do anything you want as your character as if you were really there. Don't worry about what I have to do, just focus on the situation at hand, and react as if you are there.

That it. I can't put it any plainer than that. All the implications of my work stems from what I describe above. From the rules I create or pick to use, to how story is handled** I don't know how many people view the way I do. I do know it some folks seem to find it useful as they buy, download, or view my stuff on the topic more than a few times.

BiTD is not about the above. Instead it about the following in their own words.

Blades in the Dark
is a tabletop role-playing game about a crew of daring scoundrels seeking their fortunes on the haunted streets of an industrial-fantasy city. There are heists, chases, occult mysteries, dangerous bargains, bloody skirmishes, and, above all, riches to be had — if you’re bold enough to seize them./QUOTE]

Done in the following way

A session of Blades in the Dark is like an episode of a TV show. There are one or two main events, plus maybe some side-story elements, which all fit into an ongoing series. A session of play can last anywhere from two to six hours, depending on the preferences of the group.

To me the overall system clearly and ably supports the above. However it is not about visiting a setting and experiencing it as if you are really there as your character. Instead it designed to produce the experience of watching something like Ocean's 11 although way more interactive and doing this alongside friends.

Though I'd argue that games like the BioWare stuff on computers are still fundamentally linear - they let you shuffle things around in order sometimes, but you're still going through pregenerated content and going through the story written by the designers.

My view that CRPGs are roleplaying games where the player interact with a setting as their character with their actions adjudicated by software algorithms. Software algorithms are the source of CRPGs advantages and limitations. The primary limitation is that that algorithms represent somebody decision on how things ought to go. This is papered over, often quite well, by the fact that CRPGs can be made by teams of people. So the finished CRPG represent not just one person's decisions but the decisions of dozens of people of how things ought to go. If the situation and outcomes are done well, the designers can make the odds high that a player will not only not notice the walls of the game, but not care about them as it far more interesting to follow the threads that are there. But push it, you will quickly run into the walls setup by the limitations of software algorithm coupled with that the fact we have finite resources on our desktop or consoles in order to show things.

Which is why the advantage of tabletop roleplaying is on its use of the human referee. While TT RPGs can never compete in scope or spectacle as CRPGs. WIth a skilled referee, a TT RPG can present a far more interactive and flexible experience than a CRPG can. The devil in the details is that to make this enjoyable in the time one has for a hobby, you need the right techniques and support.




*Yes my contention is that all RPG combat systems are wargames. But not all RPG combat system would be appealing as a standalone wargame shorn of the larger system. Some are quite rudimentary compare to a standalone wargame focused on combat between individual.

** Story is your recollection of what happen to your character and the party during the course of the campaign.
 
I think part of the problem is that there is a continuum of how open a game is. One one end there is some ideal where literally anything a player could think of having their character do is possible and supported and as engaging as the participants want, even to the point of playing papers and paychecks, at the other end is a game so strongly scripted that even if the participants are rolling dice, the dice are all but ignored.

And I do strongly believe that there are plenty of games with "story game," or "meta-gaming" or whatever you want to label them, mechanics that are indeed role playing games, and as such are possible to play on the open end of the spectrum vs. the closed end. Now "what you can do" or how successful it will be may be wrapped up in the mechanics, but as long as the player can say "I do this" and "this" isn't a restricted set of choices and the GM (or table in the case of GMless games) is able to guide play to some kind of resolution that isn't predetermined, then a "sandbox" game is possible. I would point out that many of the "story game" designers talk about fiction first: Describe what the characters are attempting to do first, THEN apply the mechanics. That's exactly what Rob talks about all the time with his gaming. Now maybe those games have fewer of the meta-gaming mechanics that have the players jockeying to use their fate points or whatever, but note that even in Rob's games, I'm sure some players jockey to try and use the magic spell they have memorized or the magic item they have or whatever. Are those really different than Fate Aspect? I think it can come down to how the players and GM actually play the game.

All that said, I really hope Rob works towards a well edited publication laying out his methods because clearly he's been doing open ended "sandbox" games for a long time. Now others may have some different techniques, and let's see those published as well...
 
In my experience, you don't need random information from the system to really make this happen - players and the GM having their own takes on things is usually enough to take the gameplay in unforeseen directions.

Not that input from the system is bad in any way, of course. It can be a really useful thing to have.
I agree that you don't need randomness for emergent play, and that it can come entirely from PC or GM decisions in play. I wasn't so much disagreeing with your definition as I was expanding it.
 
Here's what I proposed:

Emergent play = any game where "what happens" is a result of the players' decisions, and not a matter of what the GM has pre-written.

I was using that term because others have conflated "sandbox" with TristramEvans TristramEvans ' "Complete Freedom" game, and so I felt a term for any kind of "open" game would be useful that didn't have that connotation.

I don't see how something can be considered a sandbox without meeting that definition.
 
I don't see how something can be considered a sandbox without meeting that definition.

Without meeting what definition? Sorry, it's not clear there.

I'd agree that any "sandbox" would have to meet that definition. 100%. But.... while some people would say that "emergent play" and "sandbox" are equivalent, others ( robertsconley robertsconley ) are taking a more limited definition of sandbox as requiring "Complete Freedom" per TristramEvans TristramEvans .

IOW, let's just use the example of Blades in the Dark. It's not a game where the players can just do "anything", and yet it is not a game where the GM is planning and preparing the specific content/encounters/scenes/whatever that the players are going through. I'd argue that it and the "Complete Freedom" game have more in common with each other than they do with the linear/preplanned game.

Is BitD a sandbox? People in this thread disagree on it. Is there a term that can capture the difference between BitD/"Complete Freedom" games and linear games? Like, both of those are "foo" games. All "complete freedom" games or "sandboxes" are foo games, but not all foo games are complete freedom games.
 
What is a foo game?

Sorry, my programmer is coming out :grin:

"foo" is just a "metasyntactic variable". It just means "there's something that goes here, but I don't know what it is." It's a placeholder name. (Technically, in programming it indicates that what goes there is unimportant. In this case, I'm saying that the specific word isn't important and I don't want that to distract from the idea)

So in that case, I'm asserting that there's a class of games (meaning: at the table, not rules), where the GM does not preplan a series of encounters and constrain the payers to them. That class of games should have a name, and since we don't know what the name is right now (everything proposed has had pushback), I'm using "foo" as a placeholder until and unless we come up with a name.

These games would include things like the "Complete Freedom" games. They would include more constrained games (like CRKrueger CRKrueger 's Aquilonian Black Dragons example). They would include games like Blades in the Dark, which constrain both the general overview of the campaign as well as some constraints on how it is structured. (Note that I'm not saying these things are all the same - just that they have this one property in common. People may well like anything on this spectrum).

What they wouldn't include is things like the original Dragonlance modules, where there was A Story and a Set of Encounters that is going to be followed, one way or another.
 
Without meeting what definition? Sorry, it's not clear there.

I'd agree that any "sandbox" would have to meet that definition. 100%. But.... while some people would say that "emergent play" and "sandbox" are equivalent, others ( robertsconley robertsconley ) are taking a more limited definition of sandbox as requiring "Complete Freedom" per TristramEvans TristramEvans .

IOW, let's just use the example of Blades in the Dark. It's not a game where the players can just do "anything", and yet it is not a game where the GM is planning and preparing the specific content/encounters/scenes/whatever that the players are going through. I'd argue that it and the "Complete Freedom" game have more in common with each other than they do with the linear/preplanned game.

Is BitD a sandbox? People in this thread disagree on it. Is there a term that can capture the difference between BitD/"Complete Freedom" games and linear games? Like, both of those are "foo" games. All "complete freedom" games or "sandboxes" are foo games, but not all foo games are complete freedom games.

I dunno. BitD is a self-contained system designed to play in it's own tiny sandbox using it's own bucket and shovels that only allow you to build whatever you want directly as indicated by the terms of the system?

What are we arguing here? Does it *matter* whether or not someone thinks BitD is an "RPG"? Could I argue that Monopoly is also an RPG? Sure - I'm roleplaying being a slumlord via meta-mechanics and talk as much shit as I want between rolls where my character happens to be a filthy sentient boot in Jail.

What is "emergent" in the game is what the players engaging in the game agree their game is describing in some meaningful manner. I think the big problem here is people's capacity to see surfaces, and depths, and not being able to distinguish between them.

Trying to derive meaning from game mechanics requires some capacity of interpretation. Do the mechanics gloss over a thousand details that in such a scenario with a single roll? Or do the game mechanics demand you describe how you do things across a variety of skills requiring multiple rolls which inherently builds up tension.

Everyone has their sweet-spot for detail. I think it's silly to argue "is it an RPG" when the goal is really asking "Does this game do what I want it to do? And do I, as a GM, need to script everything out in order for the game to work?"

Depends on the game you're trying to run. Depends on the GM's skills. Depends on the system being used to give the experience you're trying to have. The more abstract the mechanics the less visceral the experience. I like visceral.

BitD I put in the same category as 4e. Highly abstract. Very narrow. Can be fun in the right circumstances. Probably fun for people that don't like diving into gaming waters like I want to provide my players. Is it an RPG? I don't care - since mechanically neither do what I want them to do. You call them Global Thermonuclear War if it makes you feel good.

Like I said - a good GM can make Checkers an "RPG". Doesn't mean its a good one.
 
My impression is the only objections to BiTD have nothing to do with Sandbox or Linear or Emergent play, rather that it is a tangent based on the Storygame vs Traditional RPG debate


which I should think we can all agree is an argument that goes nowhere, so probably best ignored.

But I am unclear how a "system" itself could be considered any of those things, since surely it's entirely based upon the type of game the GM runs. Are people saying that it's not possible to run a linear game with BiTD or that the GM "cannot" for some reason use a pre-prepared adventure?
 
About BiTD versus what I am talking in regards to Sandbox campaign.

What makes games like Blades in the Dark useful and fun? By imposing a specific set of rules, with a specific structure it can handle a complex situation or in BiTD case a class of complex situations in a way that fun and enjoyable as a hobby.

What I talk about allows the use of any set of any wargaming rule as long as it focuses on what individual characters are capable of and supports resolving the results of the actions of individual characters. As long the rules focus on specific characters doing specific things it is usable for kind of campaigns I run.

This supports kitbashing different systems to handle different types of action to a greater or less level of detail. A common example is combat between individual characters. It also easily usable with unified systems with all the rules coming from a single source provided one keeps in mind that no set of rules can cover everything that possible in a setting.*

But THE problem of trying to do what I focus on is the sheer number of potential detail. A referee is a human being and we are engaged in what supposed to be an enjoyable hobby. There is the fact people think differently enough that there no one set of techniques to manage this if the goal of the campaign to have the player visit a setting as their characters. Then different situations work better with different styles of rules. For example if the players command an army and get into battle then using a set of mass combat rules may be the way to go provided there is a way of translate what the players do as individual on the battlefield to the mass combat system**.

So unlike Blades in the Dark, any book I will be writing about sandbox campaigns is more about how you use rules not providing rules. While I will be using using my Majestic Fantasy RPG, based on the classic editions, anytime I refer to a set of rules, you could rip out those examples and sub in GURPS or Savage Worlds and 80% of what I write about will be applicable.

*I realize this gets into the rulings not rules debate but this stems from an important principle of my campaigns, that the setting itself forms the rules of the campaign. The system is just reflects the elements of the setting as a set of procedures in greater or less detail depending on taste. So if the system fails to have a procedure then one must look to what has been described about the setting to make a ruling. Setting includes how character within it are described.

**Which is why I am a huge huge fan of both AD&D Battlesystem 1e, and GURPS Mass Combat. Two different levels of details but both work great at resolving the overall battle and the PCs impact on the battle.
 
But I am unclear how a "system" itself could be considered any of those things, since surely it's entirely based upon the type of game the GM runs. Are people saying that it's not possible to run a linear game with BiTD or that the GM "cannot" for some reason use a pre-prepared adventure?

In general I think you are right, but I think in BitD some of the rules for complications from scores and such would make running a linear adventure harder (not impossible though).
 
A sandbox game implies nothing is happening to motivate the characters to do anything. I mean, I ASSUME they are bored with their lives that they're willing to throw them away in a wild life of danger.
In our Boot Hill campaign, my character, a vaquero named Eladio Luna, wanted to buy a ranch, raise cattle and horses. Rich's character, 'Mad' Murdo Cunningham, a Pinkerton detective and ex-Union Army artilleryman, wanted to fight crime and make a lot of money doing it. Alex's character, Cap'n Jack, son of a bushranger and an Aborigine woman, inherited a farm, wanted to grow sheep and cows.

They attempted to do these things in a world of rustlers, sheriffs, vigilantes, road agents, bandidos, town marshals, gunfighters for hire, prairie fires, tornadoes, blizzards, bad waterholes, regulators, Apaches, Commanches, land speculators, card sharps, saloon girls (with and without hearts of gold), moonshiners, miners, railroad men, the Santa Fe Ring, a hacendado, wolves, grizzly bears, rattlesnakes and the United States cavalry.

To achieve their goals, the players and their characters need to push against the world, and when they do, the world pushes back. Hilarity - and adventure - ensues.

There's a reason that every story, from a novel to a television/movie to verbal . . .
A roleplaying game is none of those things. It's different, and the difference is what makes it glorious.

But 'sandbox game' doesn't have that. The world is more or less static until the players wander into that part of it.
A brutal winter, a Ring-inspired attempt to take over a town and the range around it, the face-off between two violent factions in a town election, a couple of range wars - our setting was anything but static.

Adventuring is not 'fun' from the perspective of the average person who lives there, so...
Risking disgrace, dismemberment, and death? Of course it's not 'fun' to the average person, but the player's characters aren't 'average persons' - they're ADVENTURERS, in whatever context that means vis-à-vis the setting.

What motivation is there? Boredom? Nihilistic desire to kill anything, including themselves? Thrill seeking?
Fortune and glory, kid. Fortune and glory.

But seriously, is that really all you can think of as motivation for self-directed characters? A character can't try to protect the helpless, bring peace to a conflict, without being led there by the referee?

Player decisions can be part of emergent play, but a lot of it can come from the system as well. If the game flies off in a different direction because of a random encounter, that would be emergent play. I define emergent play as when things happen in a game that nobody, the PCs or the GM, saw coming at the start of the session.
Good point - that's why emergent play is also called, 'play to see what happens.' It's why we roll for reactions, morale, chance encounters, events instead of just making it all up ourselves.
 
I dunno. BitD is a self-contained system designed to play in it's own tiny sandbox using it's own bucket and shovels that only allow you to build whatever you want directly as indicated by the terms of the system?

I mean, yeah, but that doesn't stop it being a sandbox. In the same way, I think you could run a sandbox in Legend of the Five Rings, even if you required all the players to be samurai.

My definition of sandbox is broader than Tristam and Faylar; I don't think it precludes setting constraints.

To use your literal sandbox analogy, I see it less like having to use your own bucket and spade and more not being able to build a pillow fort inside it. Sandboxes come with sides and limitations, they're just less limited than a slide in what you can do in them.
 
But I am unclear how a "system" itself could be considered any of those things, since surely it's entirely based upon the type of game the GM runs. Are people saying that it's not possible to run a linear game with BiTD or that the GM "cannot" for some reason use a pre-prepared adventure?

I generally agree - like 99% of the time. However, BitD does have fairly strict guidelines on how it's supposed to be played - it would be pretty hard to play it "by the rules" and make it a linear game.
 
I generally agree - like 99% of the time. However, BitD does have fairly strict guidelines on how it's supposed to be played - it would be pretty hard to play it "by the rules" and make it a linear game.
Given that the most likely outcome of any dice roll is some variant on 'success with complications' the game is designed to generate drama through things going wrong. The Devil's Bargain mechanic is also designed for this. It puts a significant improvisational workload on the DM. The majority (at least 2/3) of the action in my S&V game arises from unplanned tangents.
 
Given that the most likely outcome of any dice roll is some variant on 'success with complications' the game is designed to generate drama through things going wrong. The Devil's Bargain mechanic is also designed for this. It puts a significant improvisational workload on the DM. The majority (at least 2/3) of the action in my S&V game arises from unplanned tangents.

Plus the whole structure of the game - "here's the city, here's the territories, which one are you going to hit up?" And then that impacts things. It's designed from teh ground up to give interesting player choices in a way the GM can't predict.

Could you get rid of that structure and use just the action resolution to make a linear game? Maybe, but as you said, even that would be hard.
 
Without meeting what definition? Sorry, it's not clear there.

The definition that I quote in my post? i.e. "Emergent play = any game where "what happens" is a result of the players' decisions, and not a matter of what the GM has pre-written."
 
The definition that I quote in my post? i.e. "Emergent play = any game where "what happens" is a result of the players' decisions, and not a matter of what the GM has pre-written."

I think the better definition is what happens is determined by the intersection of the player's decisions, the GM playing the world, and the game system itself.
 
The definition that I quote in my post? i.e. "Emergent play = any game where "what happens" is a result of the players' decisions, and not a matter of what the GM has pre-written."

Then yes, I'd agree.

As I said previously in in my initial response to that, by using those definitions, any sandbox must be an emergent game, but not all emergent games are sandboxes (going by the "Complete Freedom" definition of sandbox - aka robertsconley robertsconley 's definition).

Or to use CRKrueger CRKrueger 's examples, the "let's play a game in Hyboria" and "you're Aquilonian Black Dragons" games are both emergent. Only the first would qualify as a 'sandbox' by robertsconley robertsconley 's definition or by TristramEvans TristramEvans 's "Complete Freedom" definition.

I think the better definition is what happens is determined by the intersection of the player's decisions, the GM playing the world, and the game system itself.

Yeah, that's probably true. I could sign on to that.
 
Yeah, I see no reason to stretch the definition of Sandbox to apply to other situations - it has a purpose and a use, and there are many other types of games that can be definied differently so that expectation matches actuality.It seems to me Emergent play can apply to numerous playstyles that are yet to be assigned specific monikers.

One variation I'd suggest is based on a term from mystery fiction - the Locked-Room Scenario
 
I think the better definition is what happens is determined by the intersection of the player's decisions, the GM playing the world, and the game system itself.

I'd ammend that last clause to "the application of the game system" to also account for Rulings vs Rules style play,

and I'd qualify determined with "solely determined" to distinguish from games where a mix of approaches are used.
 
Emergent game - a game where what happens is solely determined by the intersection of the player's decisions, the GM playing the world, and the application of the game system itself.

Something like that?

Sounds good to me
 
Personally if I were writing it up I’d include examples.

No definition is safe from people that are trying to pick it apart, and examples often are more clear than any definition. But it’s a good start.
 
so does that mean if an individual wanted to call themselves a GM and run a game they call "Slumlords of Atlantic City" and use the Monopoly game as their system, where the only fundamental difference between playing the game natively is a roleplaying stage between players and NPC's that live on the card-locations on the board occurs between each player's rolls, is that a sandbox?

Nothing else fundamentally changes - all RP is simply for color and the edification of the GM and the Players because "That's How They Roll(tm)"... if someone came in here and made this claim that 1) this is an RPG 2) This is a Sandbox... do you take it seriously?

Because I don't. I'm not saying they're assholes, or they're not having the *BEST TIME EVAAAAR!!*, I'm saying my standards of engagement in how I use such terminology is higher in resolution.

/shrug.

Edit: And I'm not even saying "It's not an RPG or a Sandbox" - I'm saying that if you're willing to settle for "that", then rock on. I'll chalk it up as an outlier definition that may fit the bill technically. But it's not something I personally would enjoy playing.
 
I think the better definition is what happens is determined by the intersection of the player's decisions, the GM playing the world, and the game system itself.

I just don't see the difference between emergent play that would make a sandbox game not emergent play? That's the question that I'm asking.
 
I just don't see the difference between emergent play that would make a sandbox game not emergent play? That's the question that I'm asking.

Sandbox is emergent play.

Not all emergent play is necessarily "sandbox", at least by all common definitions of the term.

Like, if I were to take a pass at it, i'd say:

Sandbox - emergent play with a setting but no premise ("You're playing in Hyboria!")
<new term> - emergent play with a premise ("You're playing Aquilonian Black Dragons!")
 
Is the discussion really about what is a sandbox traditionally meant? vs. what people want to pretend it *now* means? Or is this a discussion about

"What *exactly* is a Sandbox"? Because I think the people that actually run Sandbox campaigns for decades have said it fairly clearly. If we're trying to stretch the terminology to include things that don't really lend it self to what Sandbox GM's use as a vernacular for a style of play... then we're really talking about semantics not actual reality.

Can you run BitD as a "sandbox". I'm sure you can. Just like I *can* run Monopoly, Checkers, and Twister as "sandboxes" by adding RP to them *technically*. If the goal is to say "SEE! SANDBOX!". Yay? I guess?

A better question would be "Would you use BitD to run a deep Thieves Guild campaign in a specific setting where the conceits of the world allow for many things beyond just the Thieves Guild - it's an entire world out there after all." - The answer is emphatically no.

But there is VERY good chance I could lift mechanics/elements to use in such a game for "quick-n-dirty" play. But it's not robust or granular enough for what I'd choose for a sandbox of my own design. It doesn't give me enough of what I want. Much like I love the game Talisman, but I don't consider that game a Dungeon Crawling RPG either even though it probably has all the elements of one.

The terms to me also have standards.
 
so does that mean if an individual wanted to call themselves a GM and run a game they call "Slumlords of Atlantic City" and use the Monopoly game as their system, where the only fundamental difference between playing the game natively is a roleplaying stage between players and NPC's that live on the card-locations on the board occurs between each player's rolls, is that a sandbox?

Nothing else fundamentally changes - all RP is simply for color and the edification of the GM and the Players because "That's How They Roll(tm)"... if someone came in here and made this claim that 1) this is an RPG 2) This is a Sandbox... do you take it seriously?

Because I don't. I'm not saying they're assholes, or they're not having the *BEST TIME EVAAAAR!!*, I'm saying my standards of engagement in how I use such terminology is higher in resolution.

/shrug.

Edit: And I'm not even saying "It's not an RPG or a Sandbox" - I'm saying that if you're willing to settle for "that", then rock on. I'll chalk it up as an outlier definition that may fit the bill technically. But it's not something I personally would enjoy playing.

I'm not sure what the fuck you are talking about because this has literally no resemblance to anything anyone in this thread is talking about.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top