rex
Level 1 Medium
Posts: 13 
|
Post by rex on Dec 30, 2015 9:16:01 GMT -6
Which do you prefer and why?
My suspicion is that I'm in the minority here. I prefer Progression adventures (not my term)--the "quest," the "task-driven" game, if you will, over sandboxes. Why? By having a specific goal in mind, "the quest", I've found the authors can get into the meat, the details, the nitty-gritty of module writing and provide a game with more immersion, engagement, depth, and ultimately, provide a game that's more satisfying than the typical sandbox for me, the player.
I've found sandboxes to be too general for my tastes, too broad, a certain lack of focus inherent in their design. By providing a "world" to explore with objectives only the player can define, the depth, that engagement, the meat-and-potatoes of any one adventure is absent. Not that I need everything spelled out for me, or that I'm too lazy to fill in details based on guidelines or tables, but for the price tag I prefer details.
Some examples of each type from my sparse collection of modules just to make things clear.
The Keep on the Borderlands: I see this module as a 100% sandbox. There's no objective to the game, at least not one set in stone. One can essentially explore how they wish, and define and conquer their own goals.
King's Festival (B11): A Progression adventure. Find where the invaders have taken the town's cleric and rescue him.
Chateau d'Amberville (Castle Amber): 80% Progression, 20% sandbox (toward the end you must journey through Averoigne, and that is a sandbox. Otherwise, it's a Progression game with an objective--investigate the castle, find the three keys necessary for escape.)
________________________
Okay, now that you have my reasons for preferring one to the other, which do you prefer and why? Maybe someone can make me see the err of my ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by capvideo on Dec 30, 2015 11:14:21 GMT -6
Quests and sandboxes aren’t opposite each other; the opposite of a sandbox is the railroad. A sandbox provides the player characters the opportunity to discover, take on, or otherwise engage a quest if that’s what the players want. A good sandbox will have several hooks that can be used as quests; if you look in pure sandbox dungeons from Thracia to Stonehell, you’ll see things in them that could very well interest players enough for them to turn into a quest. Likewise, if the GM is inserting custom things into adventures, the players might find one of the Hammers of the God in, say, the Dragon’s lair in Thracia, research its origins, and then discover that there are more Hammers hidden in a mountain…
This is very different from a railroad, such as Dragonlance, where player initiative really doesn’t matter. DL3 starts where DL2 was supposed to end, whether DL2 ended that way or not in any particular campaign.
Castle Amber fits easily into a sandbox game: it’s a short adventure, the player characters can go where they want, and the adventure itself doesn’t kill the world if they fail. Even though it has very specific goals, the method of reaching those goals are wide open. Each world literally is a few paragraphs, leaving the resolution of those goals up to the players. That’s pure sandbox.
The Keep on the Borderlands could very well end up being a task-driven game, in fact, the introduction recommends it. The player characters can decide to clear out the area of evil, for example.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone who “likes” sandboxes complain about having goals. The question is, who sets those goals and what happens if the player characters start diverting from the goal. Does the game force the players to move their characters toward the goal, or do the players move their characters toward the goal by their own choice? That is where the complaints about non-sandbox games normally are. Ones where the player characters are observers while the plot train steams forward regardless of their actions.
I’d also point out that while I haven’t read King’s Festival, your description of it makes almost all modules “Progression” adventures. If just rescuing the hostage is a Progression adventure, what goals aren’t Progression adventures? Is getting the magic item at the bottom of the dungeon a Progression adventure? Is escaping with your life a Progression adventure? Is making enough money to afford better armor and equipment a Progression adventure?
Most PCs have goals, after all. If having a goal is all it takes to be a Progression adventure, then all sandboxes are Progression adventures.
|
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Dec 30, 2015 11:27:25 GMT -6
The game isn't about testing your ability to stay on the path - that's what D&D has turned into. If you want a resulting good story, don't look to games or sports. They are different things. You can win ugly or lose pretty, but only the end result matters in a game.
The D&D game is a cooperative game with differing difficulty levels for everything. For modules these rated areas mirror the Dungeon! boardgame. Your goal as a player is to improve your XP score and advance in the role you are playing. Each role includes a different system to focus on and different game mastery to improve in as a player.
There is no narrative aspect to the game. This is pure goal setting and accomplishment by the players. Pure gaming.
You can certainly prefer what you enjoy. But please don't confuse D&D with computer open world simulations or "sandboxes". D&D modules are supposed to be highly balanced, specifically to the differing class levels.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Dec 30, 2015 12:47:49 GMT -6
Echoing what others have said: I prefer a sandbox with clear adventure hooks. When I ref, I always give three hooks. It helps perpetuate the feeling of autonomy while limiting my prep to only three detailed scenarios. As soon as PCs start acting in the setting, their own behavior leads to in-game eventualities. Pretty soon they've set up all their own hooks! All I have to do is surprise them every now and then. Recently some bandits started stealing their treasure because they were amassing too much in one place and not using it to build strongholds! That, to me, is what is good about a sandbox. In the end, the players wind up "writing their own story" (not in the sense you don't like, howandwhy99, please note the scare quotes!). |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Dec 30, 2015 18:53:30 GMT -6
I actually think the 5E Starter Set almost hit the sweet spot for me in terms of sandbox vs. progression. Lots of potential quests, but no great pressure to follow them in a linear fashion and nothing preventing players from striking out on their own (at the mention of the word "dragon" they said, "screw that" and found something else to do). I like sandboxes but I prefer to at least present quests as opportunities to my players. They will usually pick them up in the end, even if I have to modify them to fit with their direction of play - I'm not wasting all that creative effort!  |
|
oldkat
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 431
|
Post by oldkat on Dec 30, 2015 22:41:48 GMT -6
Just my opinion, but I think any/every DM's world is a sandbox, where the characters drift from one adventure to another. Whether it is because they decide to go east instead of west doesn't matter all that much in the end of all things. Without adventures, quests, hooks, whatevah, you have a bunch of characters sitting around in a tavern wondering which barmaid to harass, and which npc to avoid, while getting drunk.
|
|
mindcontrolsquid
Level 4 Theurgist
"There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man..."
Posts: 118
|
Post by mindcontrolsquid on Dec 30, 2015 22:54:41 GMT -6
Without adventures, quests, hooks, whatevah, you have a bunch of characters sitting around in a tavern wondering which barmaid to harass, and which npc to avoid, while getting drunk. In my experience that sort of behavior leads to quite a few adventures anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Dec 31, 2015 1:08:19 GMT -6
Without adventures, quests, hooks, whatevah, you have a bunch of characters sitting around in a tavern wondering which barmaid to harass, and which npc to avoid, while getting drunk. In my experience that sort of behavior leads to quite a few adventures anyway. In my experience that sort of behavior usually leads to the running away sort of adventure.  |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 31, 2015 6:40:30 GMT -6
Sounds like I'm going to echo much of the previous sentiment. My ideal is a sandbox style setting with muliple plot hooks, where players can sift through the information and decide what path to take. Sometimes I might throw a specific goal or objective to them, but often they get to choose and act upon it.
Keep in mind that I never ran a true "module" in my first 15-20 years of playing OD&D. I had stuff like CSIO from Judges Guild and some of their little places like Thunderhold and Tegel Manor, but none of those were linear modules in the way they are marketed today. (The 5E hardbacks seem highly restrictive to me in that way, as they have a clear path where the players must be guided in order to get to the final battle. I have a hard time doing that.)
|
|
rex
Level 1 Medium
Posts: 13
|
Post by rex on Dec 31, 2015 10:47:25 GMT -6
When I ref, I always give three hooks. It helps perpetuate the feeling of autonomy while limiting my prep to only three detailed scenarios.And this is one of the salient points I was referring to when I introduced this thread. This pertains to published modules: With only 32 pages to invest (and in some cases 16 pages) is it possible for the authors of a "sandbox" adventure to go into the details, focus on the specifics of adventure design with several scenario possibilities to cover? With Progression adventures they can due to its tight focus. Nonetheless, some very good points have been raised. Sandboxes with hooks. Hmm...any recommendations? |
|
oldkat
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 431
|
Post by oldkat on Dec 31, 2015 14:14:33 GMT -6
Judges Guild setting is one big sandbox; you (the GM) are supposed to 'arrange' certain locations to be occupied by certain 'thingies' (encounters, modules, castles, whatevah), then plunk the pcs down in some village, town, seaport, whatevah, and give them rumors and legends and gossip drawing them to investigate what they choose.
|
|
Keps
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 118
|
Post by Keps on Jan 9, 2016 14:24:04 GMT -6
All valid points are being mentioned(mostly because we're old and so is this topic) but PLAYERS in a sandbox often argue(or discuss way too long) about what to do next. Each "hook" benefits character classes differently causing the problem. The Elf doesn't want to go into the sewers, the Cleric wants to cleanse the catacombs, the Wizard would rather investigate the Tower etc. Usually they start a hook and leave it incomplete before trying the next one. DMs often do not introduce a new hook until old ones are complete(which is railroading). Time is usually standing still in a sandbox. There is no festival next week, the ship doesn't sail on the 1st etc. DMs also spend too much time determining "what happens when" the PCs choose an alternate option(just slamming the door would be railroad).
Although sandbox style seems more true from a creators POV, letting the Characters choose the story, but IMO, players need direction and most all of them would rather play the "DM's" game than just make one up as they wander along.
Character backstories also crash sandboxes. "I'm looking for my lost sister/lost Holy Sword/lost Dwarven mine". Usually the DM throws out these backstories because they conflict with theirs(but they can't let the PCs know that), but they dangle a clue if the PCs presses for it(which they always do) and then the whole group is trying to decide who's backstory to journey towards.
As a player, sandbox sucks unless the other players let your character be the lead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2016 15:06:15 GMT -6
Sandbox forever. Give me CHOICES. Any game with "You are going to go here and do this," I'm out the door. I want to explore and do whatever the hell I want to! I want to be a mercenary, be a hero, be a wanderer. I want to stride forth and tread the jeweled thrones of Earth beneath my sandaled feet. Don't try to stuff me into a box, my soul is too big to fit.
One of the big problems really is that players have come to expect to be spoon fed. In the original D&D rules Gary said
"Obtaining such news is usually merely
a matter of making the rounds of the local taverns and inns, buying a round of
drinks (10-60 Gold Pieces), slipping the barman a few coins (1-10 Gold Pieces)
and learning what is going on. Misinformation is up to the referee."
Even when I tell players this, and tell them they need to go find adventure, players who started playing within the last 20 years have no idea what to do, or even how to talk to NPCs.
Also, I don't BUY modules. I agree with Rob Kuntz; modules and premade worlds are the single worst thing that EVER happened to this hobby.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2016 15:09:00 GMT -6
All valid points are being mentioned(mostly because we're old and so is this topic) but PLAYERS in a sandbox often argue(or discuss way too long) about what to do next. Each "hook" benefits character classes differently causing the problem. The Elf doesn't want to go into the sewers, the Cleric wants to cleanse the catacombs, the Wizard would rather investigate the Tower etc. Usually they start a hook and leave it incomplete before trying the next one. DMs often do not introduce a new hook until old ones are complete(which is railroading). Time is usually standing still in a sandbox. There is no festival next week, the ship doesn't sail on the 1st etc. DMs also spend too much time determining "what happens when" the PCs choose an alternate option(just slamming the door would be railroad). Although sandbox style seems more true from a creators POV, letting the Characters choose the story, but IMO, players need direction and most all of them would rather play the "DM's" game than just make one up as they wander along. That is not "sandbox," that is "incompetence." Get better players. Character backstories also crash sandboxes. "I'm looking for my lost sister/lost Holy Sword/lost Dwarven mine". Usually the DM throws out these backstories because they conflict with theirs(but they can't let the PCs know that), but they dangle a clue if the PCs presses for it(which they always do) and then the whole group is trying to decide who's backstory to journey towards. As a player, sandbox sucks unless the other players let your character be the lead. Horsesh*t. Get players who know how to act like adults and talk about what they're going to do. I don't play with whiny little crybabies who fuss if they don't always get their own way. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2016 15:14:35 GMT -6
When I ref, I always give three hooks. It helps perpetuate the feeling of autonomy while limiting my prep to only three detailed scenarios.And this is one of the salient points I was referring to when I introduced this thread. This pertains to published modules: With only 32 pages to invest (and in some cases 16 pages) is it possible for the authors of a "sandbox" adventure to go into the details, focus on the specifics of adventure design with several scenario possibilities to cover? With Progression adventures they can due to its tight focus. Modules are horrible and nobody should buy them. Make up some sh*t you think will be fun. Nonetheless, some very good points have been raised. Sandboxes with hooks. Hmm...any recommendations? Sure. Well, I never have "only one thing" for the players to do. For instance, a typical starting set of adventure hooks might be:
* a caravan going to Far Khitai is hiring guards
* a mercenary band is recruiting for a skirmish in West Nowhereistan
* the Temple of the Eager Virgin reports that somebody has stolen the Golden Hootercups of Eternal Perkiness and is offering a reward
* the King is offering a reward for the head of the notorious highwayman Celerus the Nutpuncher
* the village of Post Hole has been attacked by gargoyles and three sheep killed
If the players say they want to board a ship and set sail for the Islands of Concupiscent Redheads to hunt the elusive Doublebreasted Bedthrasher, I can make finding a boat last for an entire evening, and prepare the adventure before next session. Or, more importantly, prepare the next session or two. I don't have to know what the entire world looks like, I just have to be one session ahead of the players.
Furthermore, even if they bite on an adventure hook, the players can do what they like. They may fail to find Celerus the Nutpuncher even if they look for him. Or he may punch them in the nuts and defeat them. Or maybe they'll join his Squeaky Men. Or maybe one of the players will punch HIM in the nuts and decide that SHE is the new Celerus the Nutpuncher.
|
|
Keps
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 118
|
Post by Keps on Jan 9, 2016 16:18:24 GMT -6
Sandbox forever. Give me CHOICES. Any game with "You are going to go here and do this," I'm out the door. I want to explore and do whatever the hell I want to! I want to be a mercenary, be a hero, be a wanderer. I want to stride forth and tread the jeweled thrones of Earth beneath my sandaled feet. Don't try to stuff me into a box, my soul is too big to fit. That's a lot of "I"s. Thanks for making my point. If you played instead of DMed, your co-players better be your little brother and your cousin. "Get better players" you say? Have you joined a Con game/gaming hall pick-up game or an online game in the last quarter century? Playing with strangers, a group of strangers should be questing towards something as a unit until they learn how to play together. |
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 9, 2016 16:51:02 GMT -6
gronanofsimmerya wrote:
The setting of Greyhawk and the modules to supplement it are some of Gary's finest work. I am sure that when he published them he was not imagining they would squelch the imagination. More so and much to his credit, this work elaborated aspects common to history and fantasy in the imagination of most players. A gift really.
There is some truth to this, however, it's not just a millennial issue; much of the society as a whole can't handle responsibility without a script and this seeps into the small niche of gaming to be sure.
Dirtskull wrote:
And this is precisely where the debate begins, that is, in how the sandbox, the campaign world or setting, is handled.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2016 17:05:08 GMT -6
1) I both play AND DM 2) I have run a game at Gary Con every year for the past 4 years. Always full, always people I don't know. I also ran a pickup game in NYC in 2012. And I let my players decide what to do. And IN EVERY CASE THEY FIGURE SOMETHING OUT. And once again I have people asking me what games I'm running, and registration for GaryCon hasn't even STARTED yet. Like I said, play with players who are smart enough to sh*t unassisted. Thanks for proving MY point, Cupcake. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2016 21:22:16 GMT -6
 Come on, guys, let's keep things civilized.Having DMed a multitude of groups, in private and in public, I can second some of the statements here: Some players are, quite literary, too stupid to play in a sandbox. I generally favor open concepts in my games, and try to empower my players as much as possible - and still, every few games, there's one or two guys who can't handle it. It's usually a matter of inexperience, but it's also a matter of a general approach to gaming. Not to sound like an old curmudgeon, but many modern gamers don't read; this is pretty noticeable in such situations: It's literacy and social competence they lack, plain and simple. They see situations that are not out of a textbook, or follow an obvious script, and are completely overwhelmed. |
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 9, 2016 22:07:44 GMT -6
Raphael Pinthus wrote:
Well said. I think literacy in general has always been endangered, unless one grew up in the former Soviet Union and many parts of Europe. Literacy, however, no longer means solely books, which are now considered just one of many forms of media. For the attention deficient, books demand more than many younger players are willing to surrender of themselves. Sadly, console gaming and comic books drive the imagination and context for most of them.
|
|
Keps
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 118
|
Post by Keps on Jan 9, 2016 22:26:00 GMT -6
1) I both play AND DM 2) I have run a game at Gary Con every year for the past 4 years. Always full, always people I don't know. I also ran a pickup game in NYC in 2012. And I let my players decide what to do. And IN EVERY CASE THEY FIGURE SOMETHING OUT. And once again I have people asking me what games I'm running, and registration for GaryCon hasn't even STARTED yet. Like I said, play with players who are smart enough to sh*t unassisted. Thanks for proving MY point, Cupcake. I do apologize for using your comment to make my point. I guess you were just the next person posting and you were just expressing your individual opinion on the topic, not necessarily trying to disagree with me. However, nothing stated above is relevant to my comment. DM preference vs player preference is kinda what I was going for. Ideally, as players, sandbox seems the best until you are in a group that can't agree. As a DM, sandbox is also ideal, no prep, you can be as lazy as you want, make up the most ridiculous sh*t on the fly as you want etc. OSR/rules light versions of every game allows to not need to even bring a rule book to the table, sandbox is awesome. If the players take forever and never accomplish anything, it doesn't matter because there was nothing to accomplish to begin with. What if...in B2, if the players don't kill the Evil Priest by session 6, the whole Chaos Cultists(with the Medusa & Minotaur)attack the Keep? Too railroady? To much DM prep? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2016 23:06:17 GMT -6
Okay, good enough, I wasn't replying to you in particular either.
But the statement "As a DM, sandbox is also ideal, no prep" is simply incorrect. Sandbox, in fact, requires MORE prep. Sandbox doesn't mean "roll stuff in the monster manual randomly", it involved building a world for players to explore with multiple choices.
Well, I never have "only one thing" for the players to do. For instance, a typical starting set of adventure hooks might be:
* a caravan going to Far Khitai is hiring guards
* a mercenary band is recruiting for a skirmish in West Nowhereistan
* the Temple of the Eager Virgin reports that somebody has stolen the Golden Hootercups of Eternal Perkiness and is offering a reward
* the King is offering a reward for the head of the notorious highwayman Celerus the Nutpuncher
* the village of Post Hole has been attacked by gargoyles and three sheep killed
That is not "be as lazy as you want."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2016 23:31:43 GMT -6
DM preference vs player preference is kinda what I was going for. Ideally, as players, sandbox seems the best until you are in a group that can't agree. I quote the signature I used to use on another forum: Problems with your gaming group/GM/player(s)?
Sit down and have an intelligent, adult discussion with them to achieve a reasonable compromise.
And when that fails, kill them and take their stuff. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2016 23:33:16 GMT -6
|
|
oldkat
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 431
|
Post by oldkat on Jan 10, 2016 1:17:36 GMT -6
This could just be the smoking gun as to why the sandbox concept vs. the preset module-adventure is so misunderstood by a large portion of the gaming community. Many associate the sandbox with some kind of totally random game, where everything is happenstance. Perhaps they've played under GM/DMs that run their worlds thus, and badly, and have left a lousy impression of what a sandbox world is on the players. But its harsh to label published modular adventures or settings as the "single worst thing" to happen to the hobby. I don't see any difference in them, and the planned world of a GM/DM, that has designed several hooks, quests, expeditions to dangle in front of parties, spread across a thought out wilderness/dungeon populated with challenges in the form of tricks/traps/monsters. The only difference I see, is that a GM/DM that has the time and creative desire to do it his/her way, has no need for such assistance. For the rest of the real world of gamers, such isn't the case. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2016 2:02:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 10, 2016 8:19:48 GMT -6
The rpg.net thread is a pretty good one. I think this guy Lars comments, early on, sums up how I view it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 10, 2016 10:36:04 GMT -6
hillcantons.blogspot.com/2011/08/no-borders-or-limits-conversation-with.htmlLet's be clear here, Kuntz doesn't reject modules. He comes out against the codification of rules that took shape with AD&D, the result of a marketing initiative to sell packaged and designed adventures, against the formulaic promotion of modules via conventions and the RPGA, the overuse of the A-B-C linear design of module writing (which he appears to refer to as "dungeon adventures") and the recycling of tropes and typical monsters, some of which he concedes were done in "good ways". Kuntz's is recoiling at what he considered a limitation on his creativity and what he refers to in module design as "dull". He writes, "the DM’s route to any fantastic achievement in such literature was through a very personal course, most certainly inspired by reading and study or other such related matter, but not actually “implanted” or done for them. I see it as would an engineer who designs, tests and then builds a car. There is great worth in all of its many stages and definitely in the end result and it is all yours". Secondly, he is dismayed by the corporate consolidation of TSR to expand markets and grow revenue. Something, many of us I expect, find disturbing on a global perspective. As an author of modules, himself, (parts of S3 Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, The Original Bottle City, Garden of the Plant Master to name a few) he writes, "Thus my philosophical quandary was resolved by adhering to a design-path that will ultimately end when I see no more creative expansion within it. While adhering to this notion I have always hoped to inspire others to emulate a truly creative and mixed path that will in turn expose new possibilities in design for both DMs and aspiring designers".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2016 15:44:01 GMT -6
I think one big problem about this discussion is botched semantics; it's not about "sandbox vs script", it's about different degrees of player empowerment in the very same games.
It's not about rpg concepts, or philosophy of play, it's about possessing the skillset necessary to give up situational control as a referee. - From what I read here, and on other fora, most gamers with a certain degree of experience do this, anyway; they just call the rose by another name.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jan 10, 2016 16:13:41 GMT -6
My three prepped scenarios are loose and sketchy "rumors-type" scenarios. Not miniature movie plots. I just mean the prep I need to do for the rumors that are true.
As a ref, I would just guide players unfamiliar with this approach. "Folks, you could look around to see if there are any posted advertisements. You can by a round at the tavern and ask for rumors. Etc."
Sometimes I'll just have a magistrate come looking for folks at the tavern.
|
|
