|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 20, 2016 19:30:18 GMT -5
I don't know when I first started using the term "sandbox", I do know that it predates my access to the internet. I use it as the term to describe the most unlimited, open-ended and boundaryless way to play OD&D. I look forward to reading both of robkuntz forth-coming books to greater inform my understanding of how Arneson did it. IME everything that I have ever been exposed to that would not be a "sandbox" as I use the term, sharply circumscribes the possibilities that are available in the game. I await better terminology. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 20, 2016 19:51:52 GMT -5
Sandbox is a very limiting term and depends on how one describes it. The term sandbox campaign that everybody uses these days in the context of a type of tabletop roleplaying campaign was coined in the mid 2000s as part of the promotion of the Necromancer Games Wilderlands of High Fantasy boxed set. A bunch of us who are authors of the boxed set, I was one of them, were looking for a way to describe the way we used the Wilderlands in our respective campaigns. We adopted term sandbox campaign from open world computer games (Minecraft, Valve's Garry's Mod, etc). These computer games were described as sandboxes where you could do anything you want with the tools. While we all had our own take on the Wilderlands pretty much all of us used it as an open world where players can go anywhere they want. I didn't come up with the term, but when I saw it in the email mailing list I started using it and so did the other authors. From there it spread and spread. I want to stress unlike some of the other stuff that crop up with the various revival and renaissance we never claimed that it was how people gamed back in the day. We just claimed how that we gamed when we used the Wilderlands in our campaign. Today, 2016, the term Sandbox Campaign is used by me (and others) to describe campaigns where the direction is primarily set by the players acting as their characters first. My job as referee of a sandbox campaign is to adjudicate what they do as their character but also to follow up on the consequence of what they do and not as their character. The closest the sandbox campaign comes to a more traditional RPG campaign is at the start when I layout the initial situation. After that it purely drive by a cycle of the players doing stuff and me figure out what happens next in the setting. As a final note sandbox was used infrequently before in reference to sand tabled used miniature wargaming. Also in terms how D&D is like returning to a childhood sandbox or used interchangeably with campaign. However it was not used as a type of roleplaying campaign. Computer games got it from the early sources, we on the Boxed Set project in turn borrowed from computer games. Some examples include: Dragon #25, Tim Kask
He still clings to the shibboleth that wargamers are classic cases of arrested development, never having gotten out of the sandbox and toy soldiers syndrome of childhood. Dragon #247, Page 123Grubb has a phrase for working with existing games, settings, and characters: playing in other people's sandboxes." Later in the issueHaving gone freelance three years ago, Grubb has explored new sandboxes. I worked on Mag Force 7's Wing Commander and Star Trek (original series) trading card games, ... In this issue sandbox was used interchangeably with how most Roleplaying gamer use campaign Robert--Please read my entire point before quoting me out of context. None of this matters according to my quote, which is consonant with design theory rather than adopting one designer's, two designer's, relative statements to form a loose and ultimately variable consensus. Now. You or others may indeed ascribe to that philosophy, but within the avid scope and range of interpretation and application of design it cannot be pinned as an absolute. Thus my greater supporting points that you elected to not include. The problem with the OSR is that they are attempting to codify and thus box applied design principles rather than understanding the base systems that engender their wider ranges of applicability. Thus most applications are personal. This has lead to a "school of thought" as these coalesce. This then is forwarded by consensus as all schools of thought have done in the past. However, RPG design in its ultimate reach, and as proven by Gygax and Arneson, has no box. It has only history, a past and a future. Schools of thought normally settle in the present and more often become calcified. This is in DIRECT contradiction from a design overview (Gygax's and Arneson's 1974), from a system's view (Arneson's, 1971) and from general understanding of open systems. This is why I reject such entrenched thought. It has become a nice moniker for whatever the movement is, I could care less, for it does not uphold the tenants of the game if it does not retain the design openness of the former. And by trying to define what something must be by consensus you contradict the basic game's philosophy as I've noted. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Sept 20, 2016 20:08:42 GMT -5
Sandbox is a very limiting term and depends on how one describes it. The term sandbox campaign that everybody uses these days in the context of a type of tabletop roleplaying campaign was coined in the mid 2000s as part of the promotion of the Necromancer Games Wilderlands of High Fantasy boxed set. A bunch of us who are authors of the boxed set, I was one of them, were looking for a way to describe the way we used the Wilderlands in our respective campaigns. We adopted term sandbox campaign from open world computer games (Minecraft, Valve's Garry's Mod, etc). These computer games were described as sandboxes where you could do anything you want with the tools. While we all had our own take on the Wilderlands pretty much all of us used it as an open world where players can go anywhere they want. I didn't come up with the term, but when I saw it in the email mailing list I started using it and so did the other authors. From there it spread and spread. I want to stress unlike some of the other stuff that crop up with the various revival and renaissance we never claimed that it was how people gamed back in the day. We just claimed how that we gamed when we used the Wilderlands in our campaign. Today, 2016, the term Sandbox Campaign is used by me (and others) to describe campaigns where the direction is primarily set by the players acting as their characters first. My job as referee of a sandbox campaign is to adjudicate what they do as their character but also to follow up on the consequence of what they do and not as their character. The closest the sandbox campaign comes to a more traditional RPG campaign is at the start when I layout the initial situation. After that it purely drive by a cycle of the players doing stuff and me figure out what happens next in the setting. As a final note sandbox was used infrequently before in reference to sand tabled used miniature wargaming. Also in terms how D&D is like returning to a childhood sandbox or used interchangeably with campaign. However it was not used as a type of roleplaying campaign. Computer games got it from the early sources, we on the Boxed Set project in turn borrowed from computer games. Some examples include: Dragon #25, Tim Kask
He still clings to the shibboleth that wargamers are classic cases of arrested development, never having gotten out of the sandbox and toy soldiers syndrome of childhood. Dragon #247, Page 123Grubb has a phrase for working with existing games, settings, and characters: playing in other people's sandboxes." Later in the issueHaving gone freelance three years ago, Grubb has explored new sandboxes. I worked on Mag Force 7's Wing Commander and Star Trek (original series) trading card games, ... In this issue sandbox was used interchangeably with how most Roleplaying gamer use campaign Thanks for this helpful history of this term. I've always thought it was a great metaphor for the balance between open ended play for the players (sand) within the bounds of the rulings of the referee (box). Of course the shape of the box, the kind of sand, all can change over time. But it really helps folks "get it." Thanks for your part in getting that word out there. That said, I am really looking forward to this thread getting back on topic with gronan's helpful advice! |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 20, 2016 20:31:14 GMT -5
I don't know when I first started using the term "sandbox", I do know that it predates my access to the internet. I use it as the term to describe the most unlimited, open-ended and boundaryless way to play OD&D. I look forward to reading both of robkuntz forth-coming books to greater inform my understanding of how Arneson did it. IME everything that I have ever been exposed to that would not be a "sandbox" as I use the term, sharply circumscribes the possibilities that are available in the game. I await better terminology. Well. It must be hard for some to understand open systems. Gary, myself and Arneson, our gamers, friends, literally hundreds of people, required no terminology. Why? Because we all did it differently. It was personal application. Now it seems everyone wants to codify and agree that these terms apply to the same "design approaches". There's quite a dissonance in design thought going on these days and its seems to be radiating from all spheres of D&D. When I look at the independent designers, the indies, they seem to get it. It's hard to describe an open system if one is always attempting to close it down for applicable means, which is what the majority of DMs want. But then again there is a lot of assumptive designs being pushed which entail specificity and calcification of thought. I see more edging inside of the box than pushing the confines of terms and positions, such as this one. Sandbox is a design tool is it not? Or is it a specific position with no other understanding due to the confines it has been constrained to? I am not here to create new terms but only to say that suppositions and terms are all relative under the game's open philosophy. While conducting a workshop on design in Lucca Italy a young man, Italian and an aspiring designer, told me afterwards that he had come to learn what other designers do but walked away with something the opposite and more fulfilling: How to think like a designer. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 20, 2016 21:35:14 GMT -5
I started as a science fiction fan that read any fantasy I came across and over the years moved more and more away from science fiction and more and more toward fantasy and that was influenced by OD&D starting in 1975. I discovered ERB early on and have an affection for Sword & Planet, discovered REH and added Sword & Sorcery and continued to add bits and pieces from many sources over the years. As I started out with a great love for chemistry before my color blindness closed many avenues. However, I was infected with a love of labels/names and a label/name for everything and a place for everything. Categories, organization and such. Somewhat fortunately (viewed one way), my naturally disorderly thoughts has always been at war with the early instilled drive for order, yep the battle between law and chaos. Understanding design in the way and to the depth that robkuntz does is admittedly often an uphill battle between my heart and my mind. I am hindered in some ways by the public education (or lack thereof) that I endured during my formative years and aided in some ways by my voracious reading habits. In many areas my mind is shackled by the straitjacket forced upon me by a public education* and the path to uninhibited open thought and soaring imaginative leaps of fancy are hard won. On one level, I understand how terms/names limit and define, and on another level I see them as bringing clarity to my own thoughts if not to anyone else. Interesting to contemplate thinking about things without using names for the things you are thinking about. However, as I know that turning off the little voice in your head and seeing the words in ever larger blocks and understanding them without the sub-vocalizations leads to increases in both speed and comprehension (something I taught myself as a child), this too seems a nut that I will crack sooner or later, hopefully sooner. *in a very rural area and of similar quality to the worst of todays inner city schools; however, with an occasional unexpected intrusion of light. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 20, 2016 22:40:36 GMT -5
Robert--Please read my entire point before quoting me out of context. None of this matters according to my quote, which is consonant with design theory rather than adopting one designer's, two designer's, relative statements to form a loose and ultimately variable consensus. Now. You or others may indeed ascribe to that philosophy, but within the avid scope and range of interpretation and application of design it cannot be pinned as an absolute. Thus my greater supporting points that you elected to not include. The problem with the OSR is that they are attempting to codify and thus box applied design principles rather than understanding the base systems that engender their wider ranges of applicability. Thus most applications are personal. This has lead to a "school of thought" as these coalesce. This then is forwarded by consensus as all schools of thought have done in the past. However, RPG design in its ultimate reach, and as proven by Gygax and Arneson, has no box. It has only history, a past and a future. Schools of thought normally settle in the present and more often become calcified. This is in DIRECT contradiction from a design overview (Gygax's and Arneson's 1974), from a system's view (Arneson's, 1971) and from general understanding of open systems. This is why I reject such entrenched thought. It has become a nice moniker for whatever the movement is, I could care less, for it does not uphold the tenants of the game if it does not retain the design openness of the former. And by trying to define what something must be by consensus you contradict the basic game's philosophy as I've noted. I focused only that aspect of your post because I seen people write about sandbox in that way it because they don't know the recent history of the term in regards to D&D campaigns. If my explanation of the current usage of the term Sandbox in regards to roleplaying campaign isn't useful to you then so be it. I don't have a ring of telepathy for this kind of stuff. I probably should wrote this as part of my response to explain where I was coming from. And I did read the rest of your post and until your book comes out with the fuller explanation I don't have any opinion one way or the other. I will say, as I said in other posts, that I am eager to read it and not just because of your place in history but also because it obvious to me that you put some major thought and work into. And ever since I saw what that did for Playing at the World and Hawk & Moor I will support anybody else doing that kind of work for our hobby to paint a richer picture of its founding. The problem with the OSR is that they are attempting to codify and thus box applied design principles rather than understanding the base systems that engender their wider ranges of applicability. Thus most applications are personal. This has lead to a "school of thought" as these coalesce. This then is forwarded by consensus as all schools of thought have done in the past. However, RPG design in its ultimate reach, and as proven by Gygax and Arneson, has no box. It has only history, a past and a future. Schools of thought normally settle in the present and more often become calcified. This is in DIRECT contradiction from a design overview (Gygax's and Arneson's 1974), from a system's view (Arneson's, 1971) and from general understanding of open systems. This is why I reject such entrenched thought. It has become a nice moniker for whatever the movement is, I could care less, for it does not uphold the tenants of the game if it does not retain the design openness of the former. And by trying to define what something must be by consensus you contradict the basic game's philosophy as I've noted. I agree that learning using the ideas behind open system is going. But your criticism of the OSR as a whole is off base. The OSR as it stands today is the opposite of entrenched. There are dozens of publishers all producing products using the classic D&D mechanics in all kinds of way. Beyond the OSR, there are other family of RPGs like Fate that have a similar thing going on. Paizo Pathfinder and Wizard's D&D 5e also have their own galaxy people doing different stuff with their respective rules the heart. Now I will say there are elements of the OSR that do have an entrenched mentality. Most of them are quite open about it. For example OSRIC and the crew at Knights and Knave. They are all about preserving AD&D in a form that can be used to publish more AD&D 1st adventures and supplements. Moreso they gravitate toward the books of AD&D directly authored by Gary Gygax as opposed to the later book in the series. But then there is the Lamentation of the Flame Princess RPG which is a recognizable version of classic D&D. But doesn't preserve any particular edition. Instead it author uses it focuses on weird horror preferably in the 16th and 17th century rather than the middle ages. The reason for this is not because of any school of thought it because of two things: technology and legal. More specifically for technology; print on demand, digital publishing, and the Internet. For the legal aspect is the fact that the d20 SRD has everything you need to create a RPG close to a classic edition of D&D and it is under the Open Game License. The means and the rights being available to anyone willing to do the work means there are dozens of publisher each doing their own thing. I don't agree that the assertion OSR is calcified or that it even a school of thought. It doesn't fit a label that includes products as diverse as OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardry, Lamentation of the Flame Prince, White Star, Stars without Number, Spears at Dawn, Dark Albion, my own Majestic Wilderlands, Vornheim, Maze of the Blue Medusa, Black Hack, and so on. Finally does it lessen the need for your book? Make your insights about genius of Dave Arneson any less important? No it doesn't. In fact is more important now because people are always pressing the envelope in the hobby in this day and age. Anything that can help them, myself included, is welcomed. And your book has added bonus of being from the viewpoint and research of somebody who there when it all began. So while I don't agree 100%, know I do appreciate your insight and I do read the entirety of your posts. And I hope you understand where I am coming from and why I reply the way I do. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 21, 2016 7:28:18 GMT -5
Let me go back to my statement that, "A sandbox," as currently understood,"is a design tool is it not?" Now let's go to the title of this thread: "Help in Making a Sandbox." Making is of course also "creating" and "designing". Now we can approach this in two ways. From a borrowed and tried and true standpoint, the imitative view, what's worked for us MIGHT work for you. This is the parading of acquired knowledge which has only one proximal correspondence to the initial question. It does not tell how, why, when or under what specific (campaigns are specific are they not?) conditions that an untested array of information may or may not be applicable. It is suggestive: "See if this works." More often this will not develop personal application reasons for doing what has been suggested. It defaults to PLUG N PLAY, which is of course the mainstay philosophy of the OSR tenant, that of expediency. The other way is as I suggest to build designers who think like designers rather than budding DM-designers who default to standardized models and opinions. This of course takes into account that the Worlds that we create are different and unique from each others. So my position will always be to get to know design first by thinking through the game and its open properties.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 21, 2016 7:48:04 GMT -5
RC quoth: "I don't agree that the assertion OSR is calcified or that it even a school of thought."
We will go 180 divergence here and for reasons I have stated many times in interviews and online posts: That the model being used is itself a closed model created by TSR. It is a default marketing model. That by itself has become a defacto prescription for how one manipulates the data and event streams within the model's box. This can only result in a calcified POV in design thought until the model itself is replaced, which I have not seen happen since the advent of AD&D.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 13:02:47 GMT -5
I really, really, really don't want this to devolve into quibbling over definitions. But in the spirit that it might be helpful, the term "sandbox" as I first encountered it relating to RPGs was in response to what had become other, more mainstream ways of playing D&D and RPGs in general.
The most common model is "play module after module." These modules often are very restrictive not only in goals, but in possible actions. "You are at a crossroads. The Module Place of Game Play is to the east." If the players want to go North, they can't; either the ref is honest and says "there's nothing there", or something "in game" prevents them. The obvious question, of course, is "then why have the stupid crossroads?"
Another fairly common model is "you are participating in my plot." Vampire took this and ran like hell with it; that world didn't just have NPCs who were doing things with whom the PCs could interact, they had what they called a "Metaplot" -- that is, the story of the world was already TOLD, and nothing the PCs could do would change it. Imagine playing in a Lord of the Rings game where everything that was going to happen in the books was set in stone; if you ran into Merry Brandybuck in Bree and he pissed you off and you tried to kill him, YOU WOULD BE PREVENTED (somehow) even if you were 15,000th level and he was a zero level hobbit.
The term "sandbox" arose organically, so it didn't have a precise definition; terms often arise that way. But the most common meaning of "sandbox" that I've encountered is (approximately) the model Dave and Gary both used; that is, here is a world full of people and places, and ... important part here... the PCs can do what they want. (Or try to do what they want; conflict may occur. But you know what I mean.)
Of course, any advice I give is from my viewpoint and somewhat derivitave, but I can at least explain why I think something is worth considering. As Von Clausewitz said, "First you have to know what the rule is, second you must know why it's the rule, for only then will you be able to know when the time comes to break it." I can say "This has worked for me", and "this is why it worked for me." I then trust people to be creative enough to use their own imaginations. The master's happiest day is when the pupil overtops him.
Basically, the idea that RPGs consist of "Make up some Shoot you think will be fun" has all but disappeared. I am delighted any time anybody asks a question that reaches beyond the conventional consumer-based model, as Rob has so aptly described it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 13:10:04 GMT -5
Okay. Gronan's advice for budding "sandbox" referees, part 2.
Don't be afraid of mistakes.
Nobody starts out a 100% perfect referee. It's a skill, and like any skill it takes practice. There is this very common perception that "being a referee is so incredibly hard only a tiny, tiny number of savants blessed by the Gods can do it."
I grew up on a ranch with 95 Arabian horses. I know horseshit when I see it. That there? That there is horseshit.
Part and parcel with making mistakes is TRANSPARENCY. There has to be clear, honest communication between the players (including the referee as one of the players, in this case.) I highly recommend actually saying "I haven't done this a lot, so I will make mistakes. I will try to get better as I go, and if something I decide really messes things up we can discuss it."
You can be a tyrant about your world... nobody but ME gets to say what Lord Gronan likes or doesn't like, nobody but ME gets to decide what the stats of monsters are (more about this later), et cetera. But you as world demiurge are partially separate from you as referee of the game. Learn to listen to your players. Much like soldiers and students, some grumbling from the Grognards is natural, and just part of the background radiation. But if you notice that serious numbers of your players seem to not be having fun, talk about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 21, 2016 13:19:10 GMT -5
Let me go back to my statement that, "A sandbox," as currently understood,"is a design tool is it not?" Now let's go to the title of this thread: "Help in Making a Sandbox." Making is of course also "creating" and "designing". Now we can approach this in two ways. From a borrowed and tried and true standpoint, the imitative view, what's worked for us MIGHT work for you. This is the parading of acquired knowledge which has only one proximal correspondence to the initial question. It does not tell how, why, when or under what specific (campaigns are specific are they not?) conditions that an untested array of information may or may not be applicable. It is suggestive: "See if this works." More often this will not develop personal application reasons for doing what has been suggested. It defaults to PLUG N PLAY, which is of course the mainstay philosophy of the OSR tenant, that of expediency. The other way is as I suggest to build designers who think like designers rather than budding DM-designers who default to standardized models and opinions. This of course takes into account that the Worlds that we create are different and unique from each others. So my position will always be to get to know design first by thinking through the game and its open properties. My opinion is that you can't design a campaign. You can design a setting for a campaign. You can design NPCs and locales for the setting. You can design a sequence of events for the players to experience as their characters. You certainly design the rules. But when it comes to putting it all together, it all about management not design. It is similar to the difference between knowing how to be build a house and knowing how to manage a construction crew to build a house. My goal through what I write is to teach referees to be better managers. More specifically how to be better manager of sandbox campaign because that the style of management I am more familiar with. And what I found that there is no substitute for the experience of actual play. That there is a huge benefit in learning stuff in the form of "I tried X, for Y reasons and Z resulted. That due to the open ended nature of the rpg campaign, that list of "Tried X, for Y reasons, and Z resulted", can only be tied together by saying "Be willing to learn, and be willing to adapt.". Having said that, learning how to design is very important. It allows the referee to get a better handle on preparing content for a campaign as well as adjudicating things as they come up. Learning design techniques, will allow the referee to make sure that the rules he uses handles everything he and his player consider important in the setting at the level of detail they make them happy. RC quoth: "I don't agree that the assertion OSR is calcified or that it even a school of thought." We will go 180 divergence here and for reasons I have stated many times in interviews and online posts: That the model being used is itself a closed model created by TSR. It is a default marketing model. That by itself has become a defacto prescription for how one manipulates the data and event streams within the model's box. This can only result in a calcified POV in design thought until the model itself is replaced, which I have not seen happen since the advent of AD&D. The only thing the OSR has in common with TSR are the rules. What about all the commercial publishing that goes on? Especially the stuff that is obviously imitative. It because the barriers to commercial publishing are that low. Because many people are willing to help other people in getting their material published. Need help with art, layout, or any other technical aspect of the process. It just a message and a click away. I personally done maps for people in a barter arrangement for art or help with editing. Then you have the open game licensing and dozens of separate independent publishers. The situation both logistically and intellectually is as far as you can get and still be in the RPG hobby. Again yes there are publishers and hobbyist who produce stuff that is derivative of TSR. That their choice. But you are ignoring the multitude of people who don't. Where the only thing the same is the rules they use. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 13:19:47 GMT -5
Gronan's words of beer, flatulence, and perhaps a touch of wisdom for referees, part 3.
In regards to player characters: Eliminate the words "should" and "will" from your vocabulary. "The players will do X" is anathema to any referee of quality, as is "the players should X." Abandon ALL ideas of what player characters might do. They HAVE to have total and complete freedom.
For instance: Say there are pirates in your world. The player characters might decide to ignore the pirates completely. They might decide to go fight the pirates. They might decide to go JOIN the pirates. Or they might decide to TAKE OVER the pirates.
As referee, you MUST be completely at peace with EACH of these decisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 21, 2016 13:28:54 GMT -5
I really, really, really don't want this to devolve into quibbling over definitions. But in the spirit that it might be helpful, the term "sandbox" as I first encountered it relating to RPGs was in response to what had become other, more mainstream ways of playing D&D and RPGs in general. The most common model is "play module after module." These modules often are very restrictive not only in goals, but in possible actions. "You are at a crossroads. The Module Place of Game Play is to the east." If the players want to go North, they can't; either the ref is honest and says "there's nothing there", or something "in game" prevents them. The obvious question, of course, is "then why have the stupid crossroads?" Another fairly common model is "you are participating in my plot." Vampire took this and ran like hell with it; that world didn't just have NPCs who were doing things with whom the PCs could interact, they had what they called a "Metaplot" -- that is, the story of the world was already TOLD, and nothing the PCs could do would change it. Imagine playing in a Lord of the Rings game where everything that was going to happen in the books was set in stone; if you ran into Merry Brandybuck in Bree and he pissed you off and you tried to kill him, YOU WOULD BE PREVENTED (somehow) even if you were 15,000th level and he was a zero level hobbit. The term "sandbox" arose organically, so it didn't have a precise definition; terms often arise that way. But the most common meaning of "sandbox" that I've encountered is (approximately) the model Dave and Gary both used; that is, here is a world full of people and places, and ... important part here... the PCs can do what they want. (Or try to do what they want; conflict may occur. But you know what I mean.) Sounds good to me and better written than my more lengthy attempts at explaining things. Of course, any advice I give is from my viewpoint and somewhat derivitave, but I can at least explain why I think something is worth considering. As Von Clausewitz said, "First you have to know what the rule is, second you must know why it's the rule, for only then will you be able to know when the time comes to break it." I can say "This has worked for me", and "this is why it worked for me." I then trust people to be creative enough to use their own imaginations. The master's happiest day is when the pupil overtops him. This is the reason why even though I disagree with Rob Kuntz on various points, I am eager to read his book. I know he done the work and the research and I will learn something from it. Basically, the idea that RPGs consist of "Make up some Shoot you think will be fun" has all but disappeared. I am delighted any time anybody asks a question that reaches beyond the conventional consumer-based model, as Rob has so aptly described it. I going disagree on that part. Oh it there. I will even agree that it is majority view by far. However it no longer matters what the vast majority view. Because technology and legal development have evolved has made it stupidly easily for anybody to get something out there the way they think it ought to be. The same technology as expanded the range of potential players to game with to the entire planet. And effects things at the local level. I know of several sites, mostly on Facebook, where local gamers exchange campaign notices, and arrange for specific times to game face to face. One valid piece of advice for somebody wanted to run a Sandbox campaign would be to look on Roll20 for groups saying they are playing a sandbox campaign and try it as a player. If they are fun to game with then stick around a while and see what you learn. Obviously not everybody wants to do this or comfortable doing this but it possible today. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 21, 2016 14:33:38 GMT -5
"I going disagree on that part. Oh it there. I will even agree that it is majority view by far. However it no longer matters what the vast majority view. Because technology and legal development have evolved has made it stupidly easily for anybody to get something out there the way they think it ought to be. The same technology as expanded the range of potential players to game with to the entire planet. And effects things at the local level. I know of several sites, mostly on Facebook, where local gamers exchange campaign notices, and arrange for specific times to game face to face."
To me this does not make sense in relation to what Gronan was saying. First it does not dispute his 'all but disappeared" statement and then veers into majorities, of what may I ask? The idea of a sandbox has little to do with "getting things out there" which seems to point to publishing and not to making things up, i.e., creating, and seems, therefore, to reinforce my own views stated earlier up thread that plug and play has replaced creating and making it your own. This is a nod to the model I have noted and thus the philosophy that has now come to replace it by the OSR at large.
|
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 22, 2016 8:02:26 GMT -5
To me this does not make sense in relation to what Gronan was saying. First it does not dispute his 'all but disappeared" statement and then veers into majorities, of what may I ask? The idea of a sandbox has little to do with "getting things out there" which seems to point to publishing and not to making things up, i.e., creating, and seems, therefore, to reinforce my own views stated earlier up thread that plug and play has replaced creating and making it your own. This is a nod to the model I have noted and thus the philosophy that has now come to replace it by the OSR at large. My point is that the internet has changed radically how niche hobbies develop over time. It doesn't matter if the larger hobby resorts to pre-canned products. The people who prize doing it yourself can find and share information. Moreso with the internet they can be found by random people who may wind up finding that this style of play appeals to them. Which will at the very least sustain the niche. Second, I don't accept the idea that just because it something published that it is plug and play. You are about to publish a book, by your logic anybody following its prescriptions will be engaged in Plug and Play behavior. And to be clear I am being sarcastic, I get the intent of your book and support where you are going with it. You are using the medium of writing to communication your experience and what you found through research. I am being defensive about the OSR because I know a good deal many of the people who publish and why they publish. And their goal is show other hobbyists the possibilities. Most OSR products are written in the expectation that it will mashed, twisted, torn apart, and combined with with other things including original work by the campaign's referee. Kitbashing is expected to be the norm among OSR publishers not the exception. And people very interested become better designers hence the appeal of your book to many. Your characterization of the OSR as prizing Plug and Play as you put it is not accurate. It certainly not true of what I published as i took great care in formatting them to make it easy for people to tear section out of them and ignore the rest. I make sure I explain the most important design principles in the book itself. And use my blog for the rest. I publish primarily because it allow me to present my stuff in a better format than the wall of text and jpegs that is my blog and my older web site. I can pay for art and people obtain it readily in print form. The fact I turn a small profit is just icing on the cake. And I am not unique in doing this. Finally I hope you realize I respect the work you done and looking forward to read what you do in the future even though I may not agree with everything you say. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Sept 22, 2016 9:56:57 GMT -5
For instance: Say there are pirates in your world. The player characters might decide to ignore the pirates completely. They might decide to go fight the pirates. They might decide to go JOIN the pirates. Or they might decide to TAKE OVER the pirates. Hee. I was running "The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh," which includes a group of smugglers with a ship. The module pretty much assumes the players will either kill or drive away the smugglers, then learn of an impending attack on the town, and prompts the referee to nudge the players toward stopping the attack (in the next module). My players sneaked aboard the ship, charmed the captain, and ordered him to sail away so they could go exploring the coast. I came up with an underwater sea hag adventure for the next session. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 22, 2016 11:39:03 GMT -5
To me this does not make sense in relation to what Gronan was saying. First it does not dispute his 'all but disappeared" statement and then veers into majorities, of what may I ask? The idea of a sandbox has little to do with "getting things out there" which seems to point to publishing and not to making things up, i.e., creating, and seems, therefore, to reinforce my own views stated earlier up thread that plug and play has replaced creating and making it your own. This is a nod to the model I have noted and thus the philosophy that has now come to replace it by the OSR at large. My point is that the internet has changed radically how niche hobbies develop over time. It doesn't matter if the larger hobby resorts to pre-canned products. The people who prize doing it yourself can find and share information. Moreso with the internet they can be found by random people who may wind up finding that this style of play appeals to them. Which will at the very least sustain the niche. Second, I don't accept the idea that just because it something published that it is plug and play. You are about to publish a book, by your logic anybody following its prescriptions will be engaged in Plug and Play behavior. And to be clear I am being sarcastic, I get the intent of your book and support where you are going with it. You are using the medium of writing to communication your experience and what you found through research. I am being defensive about the OSR because I know a good deal many of the people who publish and why they publish. And their goal is show other hobbyists the possibilities. Most OSR products are written in the expectation that it will mashed, twisted, torn apart, and combined with with other things including original work by the campaign's referee. Kitbashing is expected to be the norm among OSR publishers not the exception. And people very interested become better designers hence the appeal of your book to many. Your characterization of the OSR as prizing Plug and Play as you put it is not accurate. It certainly not true of what I published as i took great care in formatting them to make it easy for people to tear section out of them and ignore the rest. I make sure I explain the most important design principles in the book itself. And use my blog for the rest. I publish primarily because it allow me to present my stuff in a better format than the wall of text and jpegs that is my blog and my older web site. I can pay for art and people obtain it readily in print form. The fact I turn a small profit is just icing on the cake. And I am not unique in doing this. Finally I hope you realize I respect the work you done and looking forward to read what you do in the future even though I may not agree with everything you say. Well The idea of adventures are to be played as is. That's why companies make them and very few gamers use them otherwise. From most of my inquiries of people who play these they are played as is. This started with AD&D. If the OSR was really about DIY it would concentrate on what we were doing BITD, making it yourself, MIY. One only needs the rules, a fertile imagination and some primary source material for that (encyclopedias, etc.). The thrust of the OSR, according to one of its stalwarts is all about "Product" Note. There is no distinction made as to what kind and degree of product. But the proof is in the pudding as they say. Just like with post AD&D the product is more often pre-made adventures. If the OSR had any depth whatsoever it would be sending the past message of DIY with an appropriate line of PRIMARY products that wholly represented that expansive concept. There would be more in-print coverage on design, design philosophy and the possible future of Arneson's far-ranging concept. There is none. Zero. It is not happening, and has not happened as far as I can note. The same disposable model is in place from TSR's day, and for all the talk about diversity and tinkering the product lists remain the same and people line up for more of the same, just as they do with WotC and Paizo (as these two also embrace TSR's disposable model). Now let's get back to the Sandbox topic. I'm finished with the sub text here and I maintain that (currently) the OSR is not advancing the concept, it is circling it as TSR did and as suggested above. Good luck with your trajectories, always! RJK |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 22, 2016 15:25:26 GMT -5
Yes, let's get back to the OPs original post and the purpose of the thread. I apologize for not having had the time or energy to split this into two threads several posts up thread, while the derailment (which I likely started) is very interesting to me; however, I think it may be best revisited after robkuntz books are published. I imagine that he will feel more free to give specific answers once that has happened. I feel like that discussion is apples and oranges and that we are not all on the same page. Not because there is no consensuses, I am not looking for that anyway, but because of a lack of common ground. The books should provide common ground for that discussion. In the meantime people might want to revisit their posts and copy them to keep them handy and then when the book is read, they can be expanded and/or revised as each author sees fit. So back to the thread: I would like to thank bestialwarlust for this topic, in a lot of ways I think these things tend to get short shrift. Whether you call it a "sandbox", "world", "campaign world", "campaign" or "setting" or something else it is a lot of work. Whether you create the whole thing from scratch using all of your existing knowledge and influences or whether you take from a dozen sources (more or less, sometimes a lot more) and tweak (a lot or a little) it to make it your own or even if you mainly use "modules" as is but want to weave them together in a way that is unique to you and your game, it is still a lot of work and for someone new it would be easy to be overwhelmed. What type of advice someone needs depends on what they want to do. Here are three looks and they likely could be subdivided a lot, but this is likely enough. 1. If someone has limited time and wants to just use "modules" as is, with just enough tweaking to weave them together in a way that makes it unique or somewhat unique to their game - that would be one subset and one line of advice. 2. If someone has more time or desires something more unique and they are going to pull from a lot of published sources and tweak it a lot to make it different and to fit what they want their game to look like - that would be one subset and one line of advice. 3. If someone has a lot of time or doesn't worry about the time and just wants to build something unlike anything else anywhere and are going to build it all from scratch and their personal inspirations and influences to create their game - that would be one subset and one line of advice. Each of these would require different advice and different approaches, IMO. There are many different ways to accomplish each one of these and the one that works best for you, depends on you. There is nothing wrong with any of these as long as it meets the needs of the ref/DM and his players. Let me know what you think of the above, should there be three different threads to address the different needs and goals that the advice receiver may have? |
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Sept 22, 2016 21:10:36 GMT -5
I find that breakdown quite clear, and would enjoy seeing what came up in those three threads.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 23, 2016 5:57:01 GMT -5
I find that breakdown quite clear, and would enjoy seeing what came up in those three threads. OK, what would we tittle those three threads? How about: 1. Advice for the Casual DM 2. Advice for the Gamer DM 3. Advice for the Designer DM What do you (all) think? Any suggestions? Then we could take the advice in this thread and apply it to those new threads and go beyond that and get more specific for each of the three types. The needs of each is quite different. Time wise I fall under 1, but game wise I am 3 in spite of my lack of time. (Maybe someday I can retire.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 23, 2016 6:33:01 GMT -5
All DMs are designers whether they realize it or not. It's the level, the degree and type that they ascribe to. Very generally speaking the three work, but they come with some very broad assumptions such as what is the real difference between a gamer DM and a designer DM as in degree? It also seems to root one into a select category. Pros and cons all the way around, but such is the case with generalizations. Shrug. If it were me I'd put MIY (Make it Yourself) as the base of Classic D&D and not DIY. DIY in fact exposes the three categories as you note, whereas MIY is actually #3 and the historical beginning of RPGs, and it is the platform that I still defend and adhere to. I would call #3 Make it Yourself just for that reason as all DMs, as I note, design to greater or lesser extents.
|
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 23, 2016 6:53:55 GMT -5
I find that breakdown quite clear, and would enjoy seeing what came up in those three threads. OK, what would we tittle those three threads? How about: 1. Advice for the Casual DM 2. Advice for the Gamer DM 3. Advice for the Designer DM What do you (all) think? Any suggestions? Then we could take the advice in this thread and apply it to those new threads and go beyond that and get more specific for each of the three types. The needs of each is quite different. Time wise I fall under 1, but game wise I am 3 in spite of my lack of time. (Maybe someday I can retire. ) I don't view #2 being different enough from #3 to warrant a separate thread. We all design our stuff (settings, NPCs, etc.) by standing on the shoulders of our cultural heritage. But in 2016 that heritage includes many RPG supplements. But more importantly how you use the inspiration of the World Of Greyhawk is no different than using the inspiration caused by Howard's Hyperborean. You know what? Belay that, while the referee's in #2 and #3 are putting in the same amount of time, using literary sources as inspiration vs. RPG sources may be different enough to warrant separate threads. I am beginning to think that perhaps a sub forum is in order so the various topics can get its due. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 23, 2016 7:16:49 GMT -5
Thank you both for your input and I would like to hear from other members too! This is my attempt to get us all on the same page, so we are all talking about oranges or about apples or about fruit salad at the same time. As is pointed out there are always problems with labels and if two or three of us were having a conversation with the basis of having an existing relationship that involved playing together we likely could have those conversations without labels; however, this being the internet and the range of extremes in experiences and knowledge, I think we need some labels in order to have a coherent conversation, and perhaps can move beyond the labels as we gain better understanding of what each of us are saying or trying to say. I also think that exploring and contrasting DIY and MIY would be a fruitful line of discussion. What say Ye!
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 23, 2016 7:35:23 GMT -5
Thank you both for your input and I would like to hear from other members too! This is my attempt to get us all on the same page, so we are all talking about oranges or about apples or about fruit salad at the same time. As is pointed out there are always problems with labels and if two or three of us were having a conversation with the basis of having an existing relationship that involved playing together we likely could have those conversations without labels; however, this being the internet and the range of extremes in experiences and knowledge, I think we need some labels in order to have a coherent conversation, and perhaps can move beyond the labels as we gain better understanding of what each of us are saying or trying to say. I also think that exploring and contrasting DIY and MIY would be a fruitful line of discussion. What say Ye! DIY applies to all the categories. By making a campaign, picking and choosing resources to do so. MIY strictly describes that the resources are primary information sources and not already pre-made RPG resources, the former being what was used/advocated to construct the historical foundation of RPG world/campaign creation (Blackmoor, Greyhawk, Kaiibruhn, my brother's Zothar and MAR Barker's Tekumel, et al). This would be for MIY Category #3, though since it is the premiere category for RPG campaign/world crafting (starts in 1971 with Blackmoor) I believe it should be category #1 : ) |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 23, 2016 8:05:35 GMT -5
Thank you both for your input and I would like to hear from other members too! This is my attempt to get us all on the same page, so we are all talking about oranges or about apples or about fruit salad at the same time. As is pointed out there are always problems with labels and if two or three of us were having a conversation with the basis of having an existing relationship that involved playing together we likely could have those conversations without labels; however, this being the internet and the range of extremes in experiences and knowledge, I think we need some labels in order to have a coherent conversation, and perhaps can move beyond the labels as we gain better understanding of what each of us are saying or trying to say. I also think that exploring and contrasting DIY and MIY would be a fruitful line of discussion. What say Ye! I think that further support the idea that a subforum is warranted so the conversation about sandbox can evolve more natural. If people want to debate apples and oranges that can be confined to one thread while other threads are focused on other topics. Grouping this all under a single Sandbox Campaign sub form will be a useful bookmark for the entire topic. |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Sept 23, 2016 8:22:56 GMT -5
Since I have, due to needs from Real Life, wandered the many levels of MIY and DIY plus all the whatevers in between, I wonder if GMs such as me would be considered FIY (Fake It Yerself).
|
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 23, 2016 9:16:33 GMT -5
Since I have, due to needs from Real Life, wandered the many levels of MIY and DIY plus all the whatevers in between, I wonder if GMs such as me would be considered FIY (Fake It Yerself). I think they are artificial distinctions of a continuous spectrum. The primary consideration is in my opinion "Does work with the way I think within the time I have and will I have fun with it." If you want to be a master then learn it all. Lean how to run a railroad in a way that fun, learn how to run a sandbox campaign, run a campaign centered around an adventure path, learn how to roleplaying in 3rd person, roleplaying in 1st person, roleplay as yourself, roleplay as a different personae, how to run somebody else adventure, learn to create your own adventure, how to modify somebody else adventures, how to create NPCs, monsters, spells, hell learn how to create an RPG, how run a campaign focused on the narrative outcome (story), etc. It all grist for the mill and you will be better off with the stuff you do prefer. For example I ran some session of Fate and as well as a single campaign. I don't care for the game and not likely to do so again with a single exception* but I am better off for having done so. *I have an idea for a Dresden Files campaign and it would easier to use Fate and run it my way rather kitbashing my own. But remember this learn what you find is fun to learn, if it becomes tedious or a chore double check yourself and ask whether this is what you want to be doing with your time with your hobby. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 23, 2016 9:26:41 GMT -5
Since I have, due to needs from Real Life, wandered the many levels of MIY and DIY plus all the whatevers in between, I wonder if GMs such as me would be considered FIY (Fake It Yerself). You've had how many years running your campaign and games? I don't believe you need any counseling from any one. : ) |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 23, 2016 9:31:17 GMT -5
Since I have, due to needs from Real Life, wandered the many levels of MIY and DIY plus all the whatevers in between, I wonder if GMs such as me would be considered FIY (Fake It Yerself). Should we make a special place just for you Chet!??!  |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Sept 23, 2016 10:39:18 GMT -5
I don't believe you need any counseling from any one. ;: ) That's not what my crazy Granny said. ("Sanity does not run in our family" was what she said.) |
|
)
