I know that I said it earlier, but for those who missed it,
these blog posts represent my opinions.
I am not going to write “in my humble opinion” after everything I write,
or even the web-slang “IMHO”. If you
read something that you find offensive, apparently being promoted as fact, just
assume the imaginary IMHO. It will make
both of our lives that much easier.
This exploration of sandbox-style gaming will begin to pull
together some of the disparate threads of the other “alphabet series” blog
posts in the Nest. This is simply
because the sandbox philosophy underlies many of the other posts in that
series.
So, what is a sandbox?
What exactly is meant by that term?
Why is it relevant today?
“Sandbox” is used in many ways, by many gamers, and the
basic idea has been muddied by a generation of “Adventure Path/Railroad”
players and GMs seeking to promote their particular modus operandi by obscuring
the meaning and benefits of the sandbox.
Sometimes this has been done innocently; sometimes not.
There are bloggers/posters I could point to who seem to make
a career out of their attempts to rewrite the text and experiences of those who
were involved with earlier gaming. Some,
of course, will fall prey to their bull----; especially among those whose
experiences encompass only “modern” games and/or gaming. Wiser, and more experienced, heads will not
be fooled.
In the context used here, a sandbox is a gaming environment
in which the direction of play is driven by the choices of the players, rather
than by a series of encounters/game actions that must occur to meet with the
Game Master’s chosen “plot”. A sandbox
is an attempt at a “breathing world” that the players experience, and that
allows them to follow their own interests within its context.
A sandbox is not featureless – it is not an endless ocean
without a star to steer by. As described
in earlier blog posts, choice requires both context and consequence to be
meaningful. A setting without context is
not a sandbox.
A sandbox is always in motion. This is a necessary part of both context, and
of creating a “breathing world”. A
sandbox contains within it the plots and schemes not only of the player
characters, but also of NPCs – both humans and otherwise. Some of these schemes the PCs will seek to
thwart; others they will seek to aid.
Still others they will never become aware of. In some cases, some PCs may be on either side
of a scheme, as fits their own interests.
It contains also natural events – diseases, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes,
tides, etc. – that simply occur when and where they do, regardless of where the
PCs are or what they are doing. The GM
does not decide what the PCs are “supposed to do” within the context they are
presented with. That is not his job.
A sandbox reacts to the PCs, to the NPCs, and to the events
occurring within its “breathing world”.
Actions have consequences. The
way the world changes is part of the context for future choices, and is a clue
as to the behind-the-scenes actions of NPCs and others.
A sandbox is not without thematic elements. It is not without motion. It is not without plot, except in one special
sense: It is without the GM deciding
what the PCs should do (i.e., determining the “plot” of the PC’s “story”). It need not be infinite in scope; it need not
allow any possible action (just as the real world doesn’t allow people to fly
like Superman or time travel like the Doctor).
Within its bounds, and within its contextual space, though, it must
allow the players to decide the course of their own character’s destinies. It must give them the tools to do so.
Because it bears repeating, the only thing that a sandbox
lacks is the GM making decisions for the Player Characters, either overtly or
covertly. And, that is a damn good thing
to lack.
In short, it is the opposite of an Adventure Path. And it is in opposition to a railroad. A sandbox seeks not to limit choice to a
narrow parameter, but to enable choice making that is rich in both context and
consequence. It does not tell a single
story, known in rough outline even before the events take place, but provides
an environment in which many stories take place. And those stories are “what happened” rather
than “what was destined to happen”. The
stories take place after play
There are people out there who possess amazing abilities as
storytellers, who can hold a group so rapt that they are completely unaware of
how narrow the range of their choices really is. There are storytellers good enough that, although
their audience is aware, they are engaged enough in the story that they do not
care.
Likewise, there are players who just want to engage in a
table top skirmish game. There are
players who don’t want to make decisions, who just want to go along with the
flow. There are definitely people who
want others to make choices for them, and who would prefer to engage in
something far less than a “breathing world”.
Essentially, they want the limited palette of a computer game at the
table, and often because they have never experienced anything more.
Yet, for those of us who actually enjoy role-playing games –
even if we also enjoy interactive storytelling games, skirmish games, and/or computer
games – the sandbox is the only format that even comes close to providing satisfaction.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to tell a story or play
a skirmish game. They are just not the
same thing as a role-playing game is.
Pretending otherwise started as a means to sell so-called “computer
role-playing games” and continued so that publishers could more easily sell other entertainments
akin to role-playing games. "Of course it's a role-playing game! It says so on the cover!"
It should be a no-brainer that, to the degree the Game
Master restricts players from making choices for their characters from the
standpoint (context) of their roles, he also restricts role-playing. To fully experience a role-playing game, a
sandbox is a requirement. Anything less
is…..less. In many cases, very much
less.
The sandbox remains relevant, because it is the singular
important thing that table top gaming does better than its competitors. Want to hear a compelling story? The control an author or director has over
characters/cast means that many novels and films will be better than your
amateur storyteller. If you want to
experience the same, you will expect a “computer role-playing game” to limit
your choices, and the railroading elements are therefore less likely to get in
the way. Want to be involved in a
skirmish? The computer does it better,
crunching all the numbers for you. Even
hanging out with your friends can be more fun with a barbeque or at a pub. And, if learning the game rules is work,
running a game is exponentially more so.
If gaming has become less relevant than it was in its Gygaxian
heyday, this is the reason why. RPGs
can offer many things in addition to the sandbox. When they fail to offer the sandbox as the
most basic mode of play, not only do they limit the “role-playing” allowed
within the context of the “game”, but they also tend to limit the “game”
allowed in context with the “role-playing”.
And they come into direct competitions with entertainments that do the
same, but do it better.
(How constraining play in a non-sandbox mode limits the
actual “game” is discussed in the “C is for…” posts in this series.)
NEXT: Part II: Why System Matters
No comments:
Post a Comment