Sandbox RPG: help me understand

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Uh, the campaign starts when the game starts. I actually assume I must not know what you're asking, because if I'm reading that correctly, it's so axiomatic that it seems like an absurd question.

Our disagreement is specifically on when the game starts I think.

If I've read you correctly, you're saying the game only starts once characters are generated and that the character creation process is entirely separate from the game. I'm saying the opposite; it's an integral part of the RPG.

Why does a definition of a playstyle need to tell you when an RPG has started?

Because the definition states that an integral part of a sandbox is that '"the players have the ability to "trash the campaign"'. And I agree. The players, not the characters. So they need to be able to trash the campaign when creating PCs, not afterwards.

If they can, then they can. The definition has nothing to do with if they do or do not.

Almost all campaigns claim that the PCs can do anything. In some they can. But there's also a lot of campaigns where that's an illusion, because of the assumption that they'll stay within set parameters. I think we'd agree those are false sandboxes though?

What "original premise"? And no, character creation does not take place "in the game", no one is role-playing yet.

An original premise like "you're all members of a thieves guild". That's a qualifier; it states that the early stages of the campaign will follow that particular route. It's a GM direction.

And sorry, but at no point does the definition suggest that character creation isn't part of the game. Of course it's part of a RPG as a whole. And again, "The players have the ability to "trash the campaign". The players have the freedom to choose who they play.

Why wouldn't it be?

"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."

It breaks that.

...you didn't read the definition?

OK, that's me being flippant. But your questions all seem to be either self-evidently answered by the definition, or completely unrelated to it

Nope. I know I'm repeating myself here, but I'm arguing for a broader definition of trashing the campaign. And about when "their actions not limited to staying within the bounds of a preconceived premise" actually kicks in; especially as the definition makes clear that we're talking about player actions, not PC actions.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Also,

"Again the Sandbox was meant to describe a type of setting, not a playstyle."

Rob Conley, 2010, Stack Exchange ;)

 

[TristramEvans]

Our disagreement is specifically on when the game starts I think.

Is it? Because AFAIK, you're the first person in this thread to ask "when does the game start"? That question seems completely unrelated to any playstyle.

If I've read you correctly, you're saying the game only starts once characters are generated and that the character creation process is entirely separate from the game. I'm saying the opposite; it's an integral part of the RPG.

OK. So if you play a game with pregens the game never actually starts? What?

How do you roleplay a character who doesn't exist yet?

Because the definition states that an integral part of a sandbox is that '"the players have the ability to "trash the campaign"'. And I agree. The players, not the characters. So they need to be able to trash the campaign when creating PCs, not afterwards.

How? I have no idea what you're talking about. How does a player "trash the campaign" by creating a character?

Almost all campaigns claim that the PCs can do anything. In some they can. But there's also a lot of campaigns where that's an illusion, because of the assumption that they'll stay within set parameters. I think we'd agree those are false sandboxes though?

Yes? I mean, if you call the game a sandbox and it isn't, I guess that is a "false sandbox", in a binary sense.

An original premise like "you're all members of a thieves guild". That's a qualifier; it states that the early stages of the campaign will follow that particular route. It's a GM direction.

sure.

And sorry, but at no point does the definition suggest that character creation isn't part of the game. Of course it's part of a RPG as a whole. And again, "The players have the ability to "trash the campaign". The players have the freedom to choose who they play.

"The players have the freedom to choose who they play." - That's not part of the definition.

I'm not sure what you mean by "character creation isn't part of the game". You create characters before you start playing, right? Do you consider driving to the GM's house "part of the game"?

Anyways, regardless of my bafflement at this particular line of questioning, this obviously has nothing to do with sandboxes because the same question can be asked regardless of the playstyle, right?

"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."

It breaks that.

Are you saying that...character creation takes place in the gameworld? Like, obviously you can't be saying that, so I have no idea how any statement about character creation "breaks" any statement about events in the gameworld?

Nope. I know I'm repeating myself here, but I'm arguing for a broader definition of trashing the campaign. And about when "their actions not limited to staying within the bounds of a preconceived premise" actually kicks in; especially as the definition makes clear that we're talking about player actions, not PC actions.

I guess I'll just wait for you to explain how character creation (or even the lack thereof) can "trash the campaign" -

 

[TristramEvans]

Also,

"Again the Sandbox was meant to describe a type of setting, not a playstyle."

Rob Conley, 2010, Stack Exchange ;)

Well, we may be using the terms playstyle and setting slightly differently, OR Rob may have been responding to a particular use of the term playstyle in a context I'm unaware of.

I'm going to say that a sandbox encompasses both the setting and an approach to GMing, which was how I meant "playstyle" here.

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't find it strange that character generation should be viewed as 'part of the game'. I actually thinks its pretty obviously a part of the game. I don't know that this has any inpact on playstyle one way or the other though.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Is it? Because AFAIK, you're the first person in this thread to ask "when does the game start"? That question seems completely unrelated to any playstyle.

Because it's an extension of the question "if I say you're all playing pirates is it still a sandbox?". And to determine that, we need to establish when the players have freedom.

OK. So if you play a game with pregens the game never actually starts? What?

How do you roleplay a character who doesn't exist yet?

Pregens are obviously a different way of establishing character, but yeah, the creation of pregens is still part of the campaign in my book. (And I would automatically rule out the possibility of any game with pre gens being a sandbox, qualified sandbox possibly).

How? I have no idea what you're talking about. How does a player "trash the campaign" by creating a character?

"In this campaign you'll all be playing mercenaries"

"I'm not, I'm playing a merchant".

sure.

In which case I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about or if we even are on the important stuff! 90% of my point is that anything with that kind of starting point is a qualified sandbox and you're agreeing with that here?

"The players have the freedom to choose who they play." - That's not part of the definition.

"The players have the ability to "trash the campaign", their actions not limited to staying within the bounds of a preconceived premise,"

Players, not characters. The players can take actions not limited by preconceived premise. So it's heavily implied by the definition; the player actions should not be limited in this way.

I'm not sure what you mean by "character creation isn't part of the game". You create characters before you start playing, right? Do you consider driving to the GM's house "part of the game"?

Driving to the GM's house isn't in any RPG rulebook I'm aware of. Character generation is. I think this one is just a brick wall; I see all the relevant rules as part of the wider game, you only see the game starting when people shift IC. Is that a fair summary?

Anyways, regardless of my bafflement at this particular line of questioning, this obviously has nothing to do with sandboxes because the same question can be asked regardless of the playstyle, right?

Yes and no. Other playstyles don't have player freedom of action as a core part of their definition.

Are you saying that...character creation takes place in the gameworld? Like, obviously you can't be saying that, so I have no idea how any statement about character creation "breaks" any statement about events in the gameworld?

Obviously not. I'm saying predetermined starting points both give the early game an objective and even more critically quite obviously steer the game in a specific direction.

(And character creation kinda takes place in the gameworld, just not in an IC sense. But obviously, it needs to conform to the setting, hence the "no space marines" caveat which doesn't count as a qualifier in my book).

But in a sense, character gen is a very abstracted way of representing IC decisions anyway. If a character is a wizard, we can assume that at some point in their background that character chose to study as a wizard. We just don't play through that because it's not the focus of most RPGs.

I guess I'll just wait for you to explain how character creation (or even the lack thereof) can "trash the campaign" -

See above. You can reject the premise given at character gen.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

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 occurred. 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.

I have probably mentioned this a thousand times already, and this is more a side note, but I have generally stuck with the term living world (and in more focused scenarios living adventure). People use the term separately I think as a synonym for world in motion. But for me living world and living adventure have had slightly different meaning. I first started using it after seeing an idea in Feast of Goblyns called the "wandering major encounter", which basically just clearly stated the approach to important NPCs in Ravenloft from the first module on. The idea being that you treat the NPC as being alive, as moving around like a player character. There was a passage in that section where it said "They live!". I don't know why but that had a massive impact on how I ran games, and completely changed things for me. So I started calling adventures like Feast of Goblyns Living Adventures and began incorporating that into my gaming (before I did sandbox, so sometimes in more structured adventures). But I found if you start with this idea, it often naturally leads you to very sandboxy places anyways (because you are having your NPCs, your groups, etc respond more to what players are doing and taking more initiative. There may also be elements of world in motion with the world continuing regardless of whether the PCS are there or not, but the focus is generally on NPCs relevant to the party.

Again, when I first encountered this it would have been the very early 90s when Feast of Goblyns first came out (I think 90 or 91). So I was very much playing in the styles of the time (nothing like sandbox now). But this moved me more and more towards running monster hunts and running adventures where, once the players came into contact with the scenario, even if that scenario was expected to happen, things could go in all kinds of directions.

I don't know how many other people were as influenced by this as I was. I haven't heard to many people comment on it beyond myself. But between this module (and that passage in particular) and the foundation laid out in the Van Richten books, that becomes one half of how I would approach more open adventure structure years later as a GM.

 

[hawkeyefan]

"Pirate campaign" is more than a starting point, it's a specific intention to how the PCs will operate in the setting. I do say stuff like that, but I don't claim that it's a full sandbox.

Well again I wasn’t necessarily meaning that in its most literal sense, more as a general descriptor. Maybe they’re pirate hunters or merchants or pirates or some mix of all that gets thrown together.

Although I don’t think such a starting premise goes against the idea of a sandbox, especially as I’d typically expect player buy in of the initial starting point/situation.

If you don't start it from germination, you end up with large numbers of linear dungeon crawls being sandboxes because technically the PCs could go anywhere, there's just an unspoken assumption they'll stick to the GM's prepped material.

This is part of what baffles me. Like, the groups I play with, the process is generally a GM suggests a basic idea or concept or setting, and the players decide if they’re onboard. If so, then the game will proceed.

At what point does the need to know what, if any, limits are in place? If they’re interested in what's been proposed, why would that even really be a concern?

Like the 5e campaign I mentioned is one I’d consider a sandbox. But I don’t think any of the players are concerned about being able to go to the other side of the world. Why would they want to? We don’t even know what’s there at this point.

Also,

"Again the Sandbox was meant to describe a type of setting, not a playstyle."

Rob Conley, 2010, Stack Exchange ;)

I think there’s something to this, but I see them as connected. The setting is the box, the way the players interact with the setting is the sand. This is where we get the metaphor from.

I don't find it strange that character generation should be viewed as 'part of the game'. I actually thinks its pretty obviously a part of the game. I don't know that this has any inpact on playstyle one way or the other though.

Yeah, I tend to see it as part of the game. And I have read/played plenty of games that specifically make it part of the game.

Making it a separate step from play seems to be so that the requirements of the sandbox definition don’t need to apply to both? I guess?

 

[BedrockBrendan]

I don't find it strange that character generation should be viewed as 'part of the game'. I actually thinks its pretty obviously a part of the game. I don't know that this has any inpact on playstyle one way or the other though.

I think the main way I have encountered character creation approaches impacting playstyle, and this is not just with sandboxes but with any type of campaign or adventure, is how much people do a session zero, and how many roots are put in place for the campaign at character creation. The two extremes I encounter are one where players set down deep backgrounds, with ties to the world, possible adventure hooks, and other characters, and one where characters are almost blank slates aside from a name and stats at charter creation (the idea being more that the character emerges from play and experience). Both are fine (I do both) but I think choosing one or the other impacts playstyle a bit

 

[robertsconley]

The potato farming example was, by design, somewhat hyperbolic. I was trying to index the difference between natural outgrowths of the fiction (as you describe quite well robertsconley ) and some need to cater to every possible instance of player caprice and whimsy. We all agree, I think, that natural evolution of the fiction in play is fine, no matter where it leads. It's possible that my immense distaste for entitled players has poked its nose in here and mudded the waters. Mea culpa.

Thanks for clarifying that. But there was a reason for including potato farming in my response. Because like in life players make capricious decision as their character. It not common for the reasons I mentioned earlier. In the Nomar campaign the decision of the party to buy out their contract arose out of one players deciding they should decamp to the other frontier and gave a good enough argument to convince the rest of the group to agree. I know this because that players just six month played another campaign of mine that centered on that area. So the player knew it quite well out of game*. And from early in the campaign he wasn't keen on the campaign starting out working for the Baron of Abberset. And the players felt he didn't exhaust the adventuring potential of that area from the last campaign and wanted to explore it some more.

So while the actual decision arose out of play, the group discussed this as their character in-game, and the opportunity came about after a successful dungeon adventure following a map they found. That player was metagaming to get what he wanted which to adventure on the other frontier. But it not like I seen this type of bullshit before and while the player skated the line he didn't cross it. The line being he didn't do anything that his character wouldn't otherwise do.

More than that there was a good reason for Sir Cei Kerac to go there as part of the character background that the player and I hashed out at the beginning of the campaign. Namely his was a bastard as a result of his mother being raped by a Viking and wanted vengeance. When we hashed this out, I knew there was possibility of a shift in locale.

*This may seem like a big flaw in my schemes, but I account for this and use it to my advantage. If folks want the long version ask me on another thread.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yeah, I tend to see it as part of the game. And I have read/played plenty of games that specifically make it part of the game.

Making it a separate step from play seems to be so that the requirements of the sandbox definition don’t need to apply to both? I guess?

Well, a lot of what in this thread get called 'qualifiers' start to creep in during Char Gen, so maybe. Given the definitions in the thread I don't really run or even care much about unqualified sandboxes (apparently) and I don't feel and pressure to try and achieve that lofty status. Most of my games tend to have very co-op session zeros and char gen teds to be pretty focused and in step with the agreed-upon premise. C'est la vie.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think the main way I have encountered character creation approaches impacting playstyle, and this is not just with sandboxes but with any type of campaign or adventure, is how much people do a session zero, and how many roots are put in place for the campaign at character creation. The two extremes I encounter are one where players set down deep backgrounds, with ties to the world, possible adventure hooks, and other characters, and one where characters are almost blank slates aside from a name and stats at charter creation (the idea being more that the character emerges from play and experience). Both are fine (I do both) but I think choosing one or the other impacts playstyle a bit

For sure. My taste runs to pretty deep thematic char gen and rather a lot of connecting one PC to another and also to the game world. The feeling of context this creates for the players (including the GM) is probably very much a 'qualifier' on the notion of sandbox, but I'm ok with that. That's not to say I don't want characters to emerge during play, I very much do, I just also want them to start off with some legitimate-feeling connections to the diegetic frame. I'm not a big fan of that common D&D feeling where the players are rootless wanderers with no connections to anything.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Most of my games tend to have very co-op session zeros and char gen teds to be pretty focused and in step with the agreed-upon premise. C'est la vie.

I do session zero a lot as well, but I tend to think of session zero as a new school approach (and while I don't think I would make it a part of the definition of sandbox myself, I do think I associate strongly with sandbox just rolling characters and throwing them into the world with minimal stuff in terms of background----at most a few sentences to describe the character).

But fundamentally I think people should play games the way they feel comfortable playing them. There is no point in worrying about whether your table hits an online platonic ideal of a a playstyle or a particular definition or school of thought. At the end of the day, you are there to entertain yourself and your players, not people who aren't even at the game. Again, for me this was something that really helped me improve my own GMing: not letting posters online get into my head, and just using online conversation to find and explore tools. It is easy to get caught up in these playstyle debates, and sometimes you take that conflict with you to your table in ways that make the game overly rigid. So I think being adaptable as a GM and dealing with the reality that is in front of you, not a theoretical framework you encounter online is the way to go. For me the issue of how to use and define these terms is really just a matter of making communication easier, avoiding issues that could confuse players or readers, but not about a prescriptive use of language (I have long been in favor of descriptive definitions in the hobby, not prescriptive ones).

But I also understand these kinds of debate because sometimes playtstyle arguments center on controlling a term (I am fine with a term changing, but want to use terms that reflect real organic change and real use: and there I think people can reasonably debate what the broad use of a term is). At the same time, even when a term changes, I think knowing the roots is helpful. To go back to the heavy metal example. I might show the song Black Sabbath or the Song War Pigs, to a modern metalhead, and maybe they haven't heard them, and maybe they sound nothing like their idea of metal (as the term has probably come to mean something very different from that kind of riffle). But you don't have metal without the song black sabbath (and to me it will always be the most platonic ideal of metal there is). So I also think as meanings fo these terms change (and I am not saying it has, I still think broad use of sandbox is basically the one Rob and Tristram are putting forth), there will be this tension between the origin of the word and the current use of the word at times (at least until we get to the gaming equivalent of old english). But that doesn't mean I think every metal band should always and only sound like black sabbath, never deviating from the blueprint they put forth (though my favorite subgenre is Doom Metal which essentially always keeps sabbath as a base)

 

[BedrockBrendan]

For sure. My taste runs to pretty deep thematic char gen and rather a lot of connecting one PC to another and also to the game world. The feeling of context this creates for the players (including the GM) is probably very much a 'qualifier' on the notion of sandbox, but I'm ok with that. That's not to say I don't want characters to emerge during play, I very much do, I just also want them to start off with some legitimate-feeling connections to the diegetic frame. I'm not a big fan of that common D&D feeling where the players are rootless wanderers with no connections to anything.

I tend to do it by campaign, but since wuxia campaigns have been the bulk of my play for the past eight years or so, I tend to take an approach that emphasizes putting down roots like family and sect (including the possibility of characters in the party being relatives). I also tend to adapt in terms of depth to what my players like. Some players in my group might go very, very deep. Some might just give a couple of sentences. I find what works best, at least for me as a GM, is the family and sect, with players establishing just enough background for motivation (I'd say a paragraph is probably enough in most cases but it can vary). But within that, again because it is wuxia and this idea of wandering and coming into your own is very important, I think there is still that element of the character being crafted by the adventures they go on too and the decisions they make (rising up in the martial world is often a recurring thing in the campaigns).

 

[CRKrueger]

Well, a lot of what in this thread get called 'qualifiers' start to creep in during Char Gen, so maybe. Given the definitions in the thread I don't really run or even care much about unqualified sandboxes (apparently) and I don't feel and pressure to try and achieve that lofty status. Most of my games tend to have very co-op session zeros and char gen teds to be pretty focused and in step with the agreed-upon premise. C'est la vie.

It doesn't matter if the character has deep background and lots of ties to Paris at the start of play. What matters is if they have the ability to put all that behind and set sail for Tortage.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think the main way I have encountered character creation approaches impacting playstyle, and this is not just with sandboxes but with any type of campaign or adventure, is how much people do a session zero, and how many roots are put in place for the campaign at character creation. The two extremes I encounter are one where players set down deep backgrounds, with ties to the world, possible adventure hooks, and other characters, and one where characters are almost blank slates aside from a name and stats at charter creation (the idea being more that the character emerges from play and experience). Both are fine (I do both) but I think choosing one or the other impacts playstyle a bit

Yeah, you can run a sandbox with either approach, you’ll just likely be using slightly different tools or methods to do so. It’s a matter of how the characters connect to the setting, and then how that determines what the GM needs to do.

My group tends to do character generation together so that at least some connections are established, very often many. But even then, there’s still plenty left to be established as a result of play.

We don’t always do that. Sometimes we leave more to be established through play.

Well, a lot of what in this thread get called 'qualifiers' start to creep in during Char Gen, so maybe. Given the definitions in the thread I don't really run or even care much about unqualified sandboxes (apparently) and I don't feel and pressure to try and achieve that lofty status. Most of my games tend to have very co-op session zeros and char gen teds to be pretty focused and in step with the agreed-upon premise. C'est la vie.

Right. I think we likely lean the same way, tending toward strong player involvement and working together to kind of establish the initial dynamics of the group and how they fit in the world.

Maybe that approach puts the participants less in a wandering mode? Maybe the “need” to be able to pack up and leave isn’t as much a concern. Or it’s less likely to even come up?

 

[Fenris-77]

It doesn't matter if the character has deep background and lots of ties to Paris at the start of play. What matters is if they have the ability to put all that behind and set sail for Tortage.

Sure, that's fair. I don't have rails in my games so that's always possible, just maybe not likely.

 

[AsenRG]

Our disagreement is specifically on when the game starts I think.

If I've read you correctly, you're saying the game only starts once characters are generated and that the character creation process is entirely separate from the game. I'm saying the opposite; it's an integral part of the RPG.

For me, only lifepath chargen counts as "part of the campaign".
All the other kinds? Write whatever on your character sheet, as long as it conforms to the rules (i.e. no going over on points) and you're not being a dick by abusing the system.

Because the definition states that an integral part of a sandbox is that '"the players have the ability to "trash the campaign"'. And I agree. The players, not the characters. So they need to be able to trash the campaign when creating PCs, not afterwards.

I disagree with that as well. In fact, I'd say that "characters having the ability to trash the setting" is the integral part of the sandbox.
The players? They're sitting around my table/a restaurant table/game club table/in their own beds (if I'm running on Discord) and eating whatever's available.

Almost all campaigns claim that the PCs can do anything. In some they can. But there's also a lot of campaigns where that's an illusion, because of the assumption that they'll stay within set parameters. I think we'd agree those are false sandboxes though?

Qualified, please!
All games I run are sandboxes. Some are more qualified than others.

An original premise like "you're all members of a thieves guild". That's a qualifier; it states that the early stages of the campaign will follow that particular route. It's a GM direction.

Ayup, hence qualified sandbox.

Nope. I know I'm repeating myself here, but I'm arguing for a broader definition of trashing the campaign. And about when "their actions not limited to staying within the bounds of a preconceived premise" actually kicks in; especially as the definition makes clear that we're talking about player actions, not PC actions.

So how far would you take that? If I say "we're starting the game in Not-England" and I get two kung-fu masters and a Half-Tengu...should I now make it a game set in Not-China?
What if one of them felt he needs more points for a decent kung-fu master and instead of the 65 dice I give them according to Nemesis rules he used 85, as the next "step" in campaign levels? What if all three did?
In short, I agree that chargen is not "part of the game", and should be dealt with according to the GM's rules. Your characters can trash the setting later...but please make them according to the instructions* - those are the cards I'm dealing you, now let's see how you're going to play them!

*And those instructions can very well be "make a rules-legit character"...but it doesn't mean "you all start as former pirates from the same ship, now what do you do" is any less of a sandbox. It would be a qualified sandbox if you're expected to be pirates and remain pirates (or, conversely, to try and atone) - but not if it's up to the characters what they're going to do.

Also, did I miss your post where you're answering me whether rolling on a table for an armourer is illusionism? I asked you many questions in that post, but that's the one I'm the most interested in.

This got me thinking.

The term "Quantum Ogre" got me thinking, and not for the first time.

It can mean, I think, that whatever the players choose to do, they will be forced to face a very specific enemy during the adventure - in that case, an Ogre. They will ineluctably face that particular Ogre during this adventure, because the Game Master has taken a liking to it (or for whatever reason), and he (or she) will impose it upon the players.

It can futhermore mean - but not necessarily - that this Ogre will vary in dangerousness to the PCs (its hit points go up if it's in danger of being killed "too easily" ; its Armor Class varies if the PCs manage to hit it "too much", etc.).

All of the above is a consequence of the Game Master wanting to force a particular outcome on the players. And this intent is looked upon as "bad GMing" - an evaluation that I won't dispute.

But for me, this is completely different from improvisation - which AsenRG mentioned in response to Black Leaf.

I improvise all the time, when GMing, as do most GMs, I think.

If the PCs are wandering through a city, there's a good chance that I envision this city more in terms of what the place feels like
- hostile, friendly, whatever in between,
and what opportunities it affords the wandering adventurers
- this is the city of the famous Ikshtar bordello ; the Duke of Parnesh rules the place in name only, the Great Priest is the real power here, and he's the head of the religion one of the PCs devoutly adheres to
and less in terms of concrete facts - like what armourer lives in what street, and even where is the armourers' street.

So, when the PCs get into a particular armourer's shop, I've no idea what that particular NPC is like, but it's no problem because the instant they see him (or her) a description will pop into my head, and he will reveal all the quirks that makes a good and interesting NPC (if I'm in my GMing Zone).
The only think that I miss, generally, is that particular NPC's name, which is the reason I have a handy list of NPCs names (which is linguistically correlated to the region the PCs are travelling in).

So, for me, the term "Quantum Armourer" defines that NPC - in a good way ! That means he was in a indeterminate state before the PCs met him but AFTERWARDS he will remain the same - the PCs meeting him have made his wavefonction collapse.

Perhaps that is illusionism - I'm not really sure what that means - but for me it's an essential part of roleplaying games, and a frequent occurence at my table.

I would even dare to say that I couldn't envision to master a sandbox game* without such "illusionism".

* not that I have ever mastered one

That is a great description of how I run games as well. Except I add a 3d6 roll at moments to see if there's some kind of surprise, and extreme results modify what I had in mind.
If it's illusionism...well, then I can do nothing!

I'd say Improvisation is the GM reacting to the players, Illusionism is forcing the players to react to the GM

I think that is almost sig-worthy. Except it really should add "so as to elicit the desired response, making sure the outcome is the same".
Because sometimes the setting should make them react. That's not illusionism either, it's the daimyo sending a ninja after you because you behaved badly on his party.

I like DM David's definition:

"You offer the players a choice that seems to matter, and then rearrange the game world so all the options lead to the same outcome."

Yup.

 

[robertsconley]

Also,

"Again the Sandbox was meant to describe a type of setting, not a playstyle."

Rob Conley, 2010, Stack Exchange ;)

Playstyle as the campaign being about something. Like if you ran a campaign in the 1930's expecting players roleplay as if they are characters out of a film noir. That campaign has a specific playstyle. Or the example I gave in the answer, wandering the setting.

Later still, the term got attached to a specific playstyle as mentioned by mxyzplk. However this is beyond what myself and other Wilderland authors intended. The problem is that people take the hard-core simulation of wandering the map too literally. This often results in frustration as many PC groups feel rudderless and the game feels without direction. In fact, if you read through various forums posts, such as on ENWorld, you see these campaigns fail more than succeed.

The part you were referring is this.

Again the Sandbox was meant to describe a type of setting, not a playstyle. But you can't control how these things go on the internet, so hence the confusion.

And that not as clear as it could have been. Something I learned write out better in the years since I wrote that in 2010.

 

[CRKrueger]

Jeez don’t you guys say things like that? “Pirate campaign” in like the flavor and or setting….a quick phrase to give a sense of how or where the game will start and not a statement of what it will and must always be?

No one says “sandbox” without more information. That’s why I think the word is better used as a descriptor of the general approach toward play instead of some idealized version that’s like an RPG black swan.

Don’t even these pure sandbox campaigns start in a specific area or with some specific situation or some similar starting point? How else can the game begin?

That's why I said several times exactly that. There are certain questions, Where, When, Who, etc that are necessary for the game to begin. They are not constraints on play, the PCs have to get within talking distance of each other somehow. After that, though, there are no constraints on play.

People like to talk about "but what if the players find some hot fish wife sisters and settle down?" Well, then they settle down. That never happens though. Not because we are following a "gentleman's agreement" or something, or playing to genre or anything else. It's because the players agree to play in that setting because they want to experience that setting.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

People like to talk about "but what if the players find some hot fish wife sisters and settle down?" Well, then they settle down. That never happens though. Not because

Actually I think this does happen, but not in the retiring from adventure entirely way. What I found with long term sandbox campaigns was almost every player eventually wanted to have a legacy of some kind. That might mean establishing an organization like a sect. But more often it meant marrying and having children. I found this very useful because once players do settle down a bit, it just means you can engage adventures over longer time scales if you want. For example if the players are managing a sect (or say a keep in a medieval fantasy setting), and you are dealing with a large scale conflict, you may be handling things less on a daily basis and be doing bigger skips over things like seasons (obviously depending on what the players want to do, but I just see more I spend spring doing X when the players establish themselves in this way). So once this happens, your wife, your kids, all that stuff starts becoming very important. It doesn't mean the game is suddenly about the boring details of domestic life.

I found this a natural fit for my wuxia campaigns because the major wuxia trilogy, condor heroes, is a bit like star wars in that it is a generational saga (the second book in the trilogy is about the children of the characters from the first book: in particular the protagonist in the second book is the son of the bad guy in the first----or at least the son of the guy who ends up going bad).

 

[Endless Flight]

I can’t imagine playing in a game where the world isn’t in motion. If you play in a supers campaign, for instance, it would seem silly for the world to be static as villains’ plots are always in motion.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's why I said several times exactly that. There are certain questions, Where, When, Who, etc that are necessary for the game to begin. They are not constraints on play, the PCs have to get within talking distance of each other somehow. After that, though, there are no constraints on play.

I think we’re mostly in agreement here. Although I’d say that whatever the starting situation is does constrain play. Whatever it is that puts the characters within talking distance should continue to influence events for at least a little while, whether it’s geography or something else. It may not be something that continues to constrain things indefinitely, but it kind of has to initially.

Meaning, for example, if play begins in Arkham, MA then it will be far easier for the PCs to get to Boston than to Timbuktu.

People like to talk about "but what if the players find some hot fish wife sisters and settle down?" Well, then they settle down. That never happens though. Not because we are following a "gentleman's agreement" or something, or playing to genre or anything else. It's because the players agree to play in that setting because they want to experience that setting.

Yeah, I think part of my issue is that whenever someone says “but they need to be able to run off to X” it seems arbitrary, which to me indicates that the players aren’t interested in the setting.

If it’s not arbitrary…if there’s a reason for them to go to X, that’s something I’d expect a sandbox game to be able to handle.

But if people are good with the initial premise and have no desire for their characters to leave for X, I don’t see that as a violation of a sandbox.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

For me, only lifepath chargen counts as "part of the campaign".
All the other kinds? Write whatever on your character sheet, as long as it conforms to the rules (i.e. no going over on points) and you're not being a dick by abusing the system.

Lifepath gen is an odd one. It doesn't involve the kind of decisions that someone would make about what kind of career they follow, but it definitely makes character background decided by something other than campaign assumptions or other metaconcerns.

I disagree with that as well. In fact, I'd say that "characters having the ability to trash the setting" is the integral part of the sandbox.
The players? They're sitting around my table/a restaurant table/game club table/in their own beds (if I'm running on Discord) and eating whatever's available.

You disagree with the definition then; it specifically says players. (I'm not necessarily of the view that the definitions are set in stone rather than something that can organically evolve or be altered. But if people are taking that position, that part is definitely in it).

Qualified, please!
All games I run are sandboxes. Some are more qualified than others.

Honestly, not in many cases. If the freedom to do anything is based on the assumption that will never actually happen, it's not a sandbox in any way. You often see RPGs described as "games where you can do anything" but that's not the case for all campaigns.

Ayup, hence qualified sandbox.

Agreed.

So how far would you take that? If I say "we're starting the game in Not-England" and I get two kung-fu masters and a Half-Tengu...should I now make it a game set in Not-China?
What if one of them felt he needs more points for a decent kung-fu master and instead of the 65 dice I give them according to Nemesis rules he used 85, as the next "step" in campaign levels? What if all three did?

Good question.

Firstly, I'd separate setting from careers etc. And I would take into consideration whether the character decisions made are ones that an individual would be able to choose, or if they're an accident of birth. To use the pirate example:

You are all residents of a cityport and you are all very poor - Full sandbox.

You are all residents of a cityport, you are all very poor so you have all decided to take up piracy - qualified sandbox.

Which I think also answers your other questions.

Player wants more points - A mechanical question entirely separate from the in game setting.

You can't play a kung fu master because there would be none in this setting at this time - The reality of the game setting.

In short, I agree that chargen is not "part of the game", and should be dealt with according to the GM's rules. Your characters can trash the setting later...but please make them according to the instructions* - those are the cards I'm dealing you, now let's see how you're going to play them!

As far as I'm concerned, anything that actively involves the GM choosing specific cards is a qualified sandbox. "You can't trash the campaign yet because I'm not ready" - also qualified sandbox.

*And those instructions can very well be "make a rules-legit character"...but it doesn't mean "you all start as former pirates from the same ship, now what do you do" is any less of a sandbox. It would be a qualified sandbox if you're expected to be pirates and remain pirates (or, conversely, to try and atone) - but not if it's up to the characters what they're going to do.

It's a qualifer (and qualified sandboxes are necessarily lesser sandboxes, just different sandboxes). I probably should have made that clear earlier. But it's absolutely a metadecision, nothing to do with the game world.

Also, did I miss your post where you're answering me whether rolling on a table for an armourer is illusionism? I asked you many questions in that post, but that's the one I'm the most interested in.

Sorry, I missed that. No, it's not. Random gen is one of the easiest ways to avoid illusionism in a sandbox.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Meaning, for example, if play begins in Arkham, MA then it will be far easier for the PCs to get to Boston than to Timbuktu.

Not really relevant but I put Arkham at the Beverly/Salem/Danvers area myself (which would make getting to Boston very easy)

 

[robertsconley]

If I've read you correctly, you're saying the game only starts once characters are generated and that the character creation process is entirely separate from the game. I'm saying the opposite; it's an integral part of the RPG.

What Sandbox and it's body of term and techniques are about is running a tabletop roleplaying campaign. Use whatever RPG system that works with with how the group think and supports the setting the best. In general for Sandbox campaign character generation starts prior to the start of play. It is not part of the campaign the same way as writing a setting is not part of a campaign.

Other RPGs do it different. They wrap up setting creation and character generation as part of playing the whole thing. The systems I use for my Sandbox campaign have character generation and setting creation as separate activities. I find systems that wrap up character generation and setting creation as part of a campaign a bad fit because they involve too much metagaming. Forcing the individuals group to continuously switch viewpoints from the godlike view of an author to the more limited view of a character within the setting. For others their mileage may vary.

Because the definition states that an integral part of a sandbox is that '"the players have the ability to "trash the campaign"'. And I agree. The players, not the characters. So they need to be able to trash the campaign when creating PCs, not afterwards.

There is nothing to trash as the only possible result of character generation rules is a character that could exist within the setting.

An original premise like "you're all members of a thieves guild". That's a qualifier; it states that the early stages of the campaign will follow that particular route. It's a GM direction.

You keep using that word premise. Sandbox campaigns don't have a premise at least in the literacy sense. What they have is a setting, 18th century Earth, and an initial context, the set of circumstances the players as their characters start out in, like being a crew of a pirate ship. The initial context is not the premise of the campaign, only the starting point.

You are having a lot of trouble imagining a campaign without a premise. Where things are start with only the setting, the characters, and the circumstance in which they first find themselves in.

 

[TristramEvans]

Because it's an extension of the question "if I say you're all playing pirates is it still a sandbox?". And to determine that, we need to establish when the players have freedom.

Pregens are obviously a different way of establishing character, but yeah, the creation of pregens is still part of the campaign in my book. (And I would automatically rule out the possibility of any game with pre gens being a sandbox, qualified sandbox possibly).

"In this campaign you'll all be playing mercenaries"

"I'm not, I'm playing a merchant".


In which case I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about or if we even are on the important stuff! 90% of my point is that anything with that kind of starting point is a qualified sandbox and you're agreeing with that here?

"The players have the ability to "trash the campaign", their actions not limited to staying within the bounds of a preconceived premise,"

Players, not characters. The players can take actions not limited by preconceived premise. So it's heavily implied by the definition; the player actions should not be limited in this way.

Driving to the GM's house isn't in any RPG rulebook I'm aware of. Character generation is. I think this one is just a brick wall; I see all the relevant rules as part of the wider game, you only see the game starting when people shift IC. Is that a fair summary?

Yes and no. Other playstyles don't have player freedom of action as a core part of their definition.

Obviously not. I'm saying predetermined starting points both give the early game an objective and even more critically quite obviously steer the game in a specific direction.

(And character creation kinda takes place in the gameworld, just not in an IC sense. But obviously, it needs to conform to the setting, hence the "no space marines" caveat which doesn't count as a qualifier in my book).

But in a sense, character gen is a very abstracted way of representing IC decisions anyway. If a character is a wizard, we can assume that at some point in their background that character chose to study as a wizard. We just don't play through that because it's not the focus of most RPGs.

See above. You can reject the premise given at character gen.

OK, I guess I kinda understand what you are saying now. And I disagree on several points, but let me start here:

"I see all the relevant rules as part of the wider game, you only see the game starting when people shift IC. Is that a fair summary?"

I guess? I mean, I honestly never thought about it before because the notion of "when a game starts" has never had any effect on play, to the point I'm inclined to not even disagree with you at all, because I don't see it as having any particular meaning as it seems we both agree that "when people shift to IC" represents a distinct activity, which is the only thing that's relevant to me. I feel no need to call that "the game starting" (even if, as I type that, in the recesses of my mind I seem to remember that particular shift quite often being preceded by the words "Let us begin").

I guess to me the analogy is....Legend of Zelda. When I pop it into the Nintendo and press "start" , you could say that's when the game starts. But that brings you too a title screen and then to a screen where you enter your character's name. I guess I don't think of myself as actually "playing the game" until after that and the screen opens to reveal the first scene of Hyrule and I can move my little Link with the controller and interact with the gameworld.

But, as I said, it's never been something I've given any thought to and so I'm not inclined to take a stand on it.

However, acknowledging the distinction that exists between the game-related stuff that happens before and after "people shift IC", I am inclined to entirely reject your assertion "And character creation kinda takes place in the gameworld" - no, it entirely happens before the players shift into IC (mainly because there is not yet a C to be I).


That aside, let me tackle the two concepts where you and I disagree, namely the definition of "player freedom" and the use of the word "premise" in this specific context

So, let me start with the first one. "Player freedom" in this context I've explained numerous times from my PoV, so to quote myself:

The character that a person is playing is able to do anything, go anywhere in the gameworld as if they were a real person living in a real world that exists.

In other words, it's freedom entirely within the context of "IC". Now, obviously that is not what you mean by player freedom. But I think it's what most of us who run sandboxes mean - robertsconley, CRKrueger can correct me if I'm wrong.

The player has the freedom to make choices as their character within the context of the setting, not "the player can do anything they want". Granted, this wasn't specified in the definition, because, well, to be blunt, in my 30+ years roleplaying and talking on roleplaying forums online, you are the first person I've ever encountered to EVER present the situation that you are proposing (outside of the context of "storygames" that redistribute GM authority to the players), which is probably why I was so befuddled at the beginning of this interaction.

It does leave me with many questions as to how you run games in that manner, or even philosophical quandaries that have popped into me head while considering your words like - what are the acceptable degrees of a character creation approach at which point you think it is taking away player freedom, since you stated pregens disqualify your campaigns from being sandboxes in your mind - like, random rolling characters obviously gives players less choices than point-buy, which gives less freedom than character modelling. So can something be "less free" and still acceptable to you? Or, what if the system chosen by the GM doesn't allow a player to create a merchant? Or what about games with Levels or certain classes that are only available when the Player character has gained experience in another class (like WFRP'ss Advanced Professions or whatever those "Specialty Classes" were called in 3rd edition). Speaking of which, wouldn't "Complete Freedom" allow the Players to dictate what system is used for the game?

And even in typing these questions, I think I may have inadvertently stumbled on the unspoken heart of the matter - that you and I fundamentally disagree on what parts of the game are the exclusive purview of the GM vs that of the players.

You see, I consider character creation to be a reflection of 2 choices: the setting of the game and the system being used to play the game. And both of those I consider to be entirely the domain of the GM. They are part of "The GM's game" which is usually pitched to the player's .The GM can voluntarily give up their right to decide on some of these things, but they can't be compelled to by a player - the player can either decide to play in the GM's game or not. In the same way that there are likewise aspects of the game I consider entirely within the purview of the players.

So the GM decides not only the system used for chargen, but also if the characters created are appropriate for their game. This, to me, is entirely disconnected and unrelated to whether a game is being run as a Sandbox, a railroad, a linear adventure, etc. Now, I'm not going to claim I'm "right" about that in some absolute (let alone ethical) sense, only that that is a fundamental underlying concept of RPGs to me, so if you disagree with me about that, it's an impasse, We can only "agree to disagree".


And as to "premise" - well, no one here has defined it at all, so it's been used in multiple ways in the course of this thread.

And, honestly, I'm kinda tired at this point and don't want to wax on about different definitions and whether it should be redefined or a more specific term substituted or whatnot. Let's just say, when folks claim that D&D "has a built-in premise" - no, that's not how the word "premise" is being used. But I don't think that matters so much as just acknowledging that running a Sandbox (that isn't Qualified) means that the GM has no expectations regarding the player's choices in the game (with the unspoken caveat applied to ALL role-playing games - "...as long as they are role-playing their characters").

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm having a lot of trouble imagining myself wanting to run a campaign without a premise, so there's that. To each his own.

 

[AsenRG]

People like to talk about "but what if the players find some hot fish wife sisters and settle down?" Well, then they settle down. That never happens though. Not because we are following a "gentleman's agreement" or something, or playing to genre or anything else. It's because the players agree to play in that setting because they want to experience that setting.

Actually, it happens in my games...and in BedrockBrendan 's obviously.
And, just as in his games, it doesn't mean an end to adventures - not any more than getting a keep and your own barony means an end to adventures at 9th level in D&D...

Actually I think this does happen, but not in the retiring from adventure entirely way. What I found with long term sandbox campaigns was almost every player eventually wanted to have a legacy of some kind. That might mean establishing an organization like a sect. But more often it meant marrying and having children. I found this very useful because once players do settle down a bit, it just means you can engage adventures over longer time scales if you want. For example if the players are managing a sect (or say a keep in a medieval fantasy setting), and you are dealing with a large scale conflict, you may be handling things less on a daily basis and be doing bigger skips over things like seasons (obviously depending on what the players want to do, but I just see more I spend spring doing X when the players establish themselves in this way). So once this happens, your wife, your kids, all that stuff starts becoming very important. It doesn't mean the game is suddenly about the boring details of domestic life.

I found this a natural fit for my wuxia campaigns because the major wuxia trilogy, condor heroes, is a bit like star wars in that it is a generational saga (the second book in the trilogy is about the children of the characters from the first book: in particular the protagonist in the second book is the son of the bad guy in the first----or at least the son of the guy who ends up going bad).

Ayup...and even if it's not an organisation - they're now part of a community. In fact, they're part of overlapping communities.

Let's stick to the hot fishwives for the sake of the example.
OK, the village elders now have some out-of-villagers to deal with. Do they have to prove themselves? And BTW, what does the village need? Can they throw the "new faces" at it, and see what they can achieve?
Then there's the overlapping, even if smaller, family community. The miller got a blue-painted leather robe for his wife from a trader passing through town. Now it's the talk of the village, since it really suits her eyes (and nobody else has a similar one). Your fishwives have some green eyes, but green leather is even harder to come by (and the trader went on his way anyway, they just didn't have enough money to buy themselves similar clothing, or simply felt stingy at the time - you were procuring what the elders wanted). Honey, do you feel like making a trip to the next town in the near future? We know you had to leave in a hurry, but it's not too much bother, right?

 

[hawkeyefan]

So

Ayup, hence qualified sandbox.

Does anyone have an example of an unqualified sandbox? I don’t even see how one could exist.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

So


Does anyone have an example of an unqualified sandbox? I don’t even see how one could exist.

I would say an unqualified sandbox is one where players make characters and you drop them in the setting, letting them do what they want. If you put tighter constraints on it (like you all need to be government officials or you have to stick within this part of the setting), I would say it is qualified or limited (and to be clear, this is my preferred approach these days.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I would say an unqualified sandbox is one where players make characters and you drop them in the setting, letting them do what they want. If you put tighter constraints on it (like you all need to be government officials or you have to stick within this part of the setting), I would say it is qualified or limited (and to be clear, this is my preferred approach these days.

But where does this sandbox take place? What are the characters doing? What brings them together?

Isn’t answering these questions vital to be able to play? And once answered, aren’t they qualifiers?

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Does anyone have an example of an unqualified sandbox? I don’t even see how one could exist.

I ran a campaign in a kind of Mediterranean Ancient setting, where the party made characters, started near a city on a trade road, and just roamed about doing what they wanted to. That I would consider an unqualified sandbox. Nothing was off limits, and they weren't given a premise to follow (beyond the premise of the game itself)

 

[TristramEvans]

So


Does anyone have an example of an unqualified sandbox? I don’t even see how one could exist.

There's a pretty long example I typed up near the beginning of this thread

 

[AsenRG]

So


Does anyone have an example of an unqualified sandbox? I don’t even see how one could exist.

"Make rule-viable characters that fit New York 1937, and know each other, then we go from there". And the "what happens after that" is what matters: can they do anything within the bounds of the setting and reality of the gameworld (which might well include voodoo magic and mesmerism)? Then it's sandbox.

Also, I'm not too sure everyone would agree (I suspect Black Leaf wouldn't), but I believe that "make characters in setting A, starting at city B, that have been pirates for a while (not necessarily voluntarily - shanghaied into service after being captured is a thing), but after that you can go anywhere in the setting and don't have to remain pirates" qualifies. To me, it's about what happens after chargen.

Please note, you can all take the Pirate career at the start, some of you can take it later in life for a single term, or nobody needs to have taken it...you were just pirates for a couple of months, not enough to earn anything (but infamy). When I plan to run a non-qualified sandbox, I am (usually) just using this kind of restrictions as means of making sure the character know each other and can call on each other for help.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

But where does this sandbox take place? What are the characters doing? What brings them together?

Isn’t answering these questions vital to be able to play? And once answered, aren’t they qualifiers?

Unless they are qualifiers in the sense of putting limits on the sandbox itself, I don't think so. I don't think establishing a setting, making characters, etc suddenly makes it a qualified sandbox. I think where these details can make it qualified is when they either set parameters or tighten the ability for the game to go in any direction. Obviously there are some gray areas. But this is why I said earlier, I am not particularly interested in things like character creation in terms of whether it is a sandbox. I think the more important thing is how much freedom the players have to explore, and if they are free to explore the whole setting, free to break anything or anyone in the setting if they want to try. Generally I am not as worried about edge cases though. People are using the term premise and I think that is a handy one because a premise isn't just we are going to start in the Caribbean, it is 'this is a piracy campaign'. If the premise needs to be cleaved to, I think you are putting more of a limit on the sandbox (but I do think you have to take these things on a case by case basis because fundamentally it is about how much freedom you are giving the players: if they know they can set the ships to sail for some other place in the world and become gold miners or something, then I don't think you are in a qualified sandbox. If they know they aren't supposed to do that, then you are probably in one. Still, I think a pirate sandbox is a perfectly good campaign and can afford a lot of freedom within that context. I just think it is handy to distinguish between having a premise that needs to be cleaved to and having a more open approach (neither is superior to the other).

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Also a more useful way of framing it might be an old school sandbox versus a new school sandbox (since a lot of what people are talking about on one side are more new school techniques: things like session zero). Not that we need more jargon but that might get at the heart of where the divide actually is

 

[TristramEvans]

And once answered, aren’t they qualifiers?

Uh, no, not in the context of the term "Qualified Sandbox".


QUALIFIED SANDBOX
Anything that a person in that setting can do, PCs can do, with several pre-agreed upon exceptions.

They are not "exceptions to what a person in that setting could do".

 

[Lundgren]

I can’t imagine playing in a game where the world isn’t in motion. If you play in a supers campaign, for instance, it would seem silly for the world to be static as villains’ plots are always in motion.

Superheroes tend to be more reactive to the villains' plots, so a game where it only reacted to what the PCs were doing would be a strange thing.

Still, I'm guessing some would run it where only one villain is currently active. The rest is somehow just sitting on their own hands, and the world is pretty static. Then the campaign is a string of such adventures. It would be a lot easier for the GM to run, and would probably fit quite well with some of the older source material (can't really say for any comic made during the 90's or later).

The GM for such a campaign would be able to focus more of the time preparing stuff around that particular villain's schemes, so there are most likely players that prefers that game over one where the GM spent time thinking about what the other NPCs are up to.

Personally, while I never have got around to participate in a superhero game, I personally think the one with several villains/NPCs doing their own stuff, and are at different stages in their schemes, sounds more fun.

 

[AsenRG]

I can’t imagine playing in a game where the world isn’t in motion. If you play in a supers campaign, for instance, it would seem silly for the world to be static as villains’ plots are always in motion.

...you'd be surprised at some campaigns I've played in.