I'm thinking about sandboxing lately. Mostly I'm trying to find out how deep I could bury those bones, but that's for another post or two. This is about something else.
Having a sandboxy game is not as easy as reading blogs makes one want to believe. In reality, without reading blogs and working on the game in one way or another, it is hard for a player to "get" the OSR and the ideas (or philosophies, if you like) that keep evolving in our little neck of the woods. Today I want to write about some things that occured to me during our last two sessions.
Railroading is appreciated... (?)
Yes, really, I've been told so by one of my players. He said something like: "Just point us in the right direction and we'll do what needs to be done!" How did that happen, one might ask. Well, I gave them a sandbox, enough hints about the dangers and some rumours to complete the package. They were free to do whatever they wanted and go wherever they wanted. I was content with the results. And I was eager to give this way of playing the game a shot. Their desperate need for quests (or better yet, a script) was the reason for this not to work. They were intimidated by the possibilities.
It reminded me of a story (urban legend? quote? could have been a joke...) I'd heard somewhere some time ago. It was about someone commenting the fall of communism with: "Do we have to do now what we want?!"
Anyway. This shouldn't be a surprise in our consumption oriented society, but I really believed they wanted to have all those possibilities. No dice. They wanted to be entertained. At least some of them want to know the direction and the possible outcome (that is: who's the enemy and how much xp could be gathered).
It's no ones fault, to be honest. All of them have jobs and lifes to take care of and if you only play once a month, it's hard to connect with a game. Railroading is an efficient way to enjoy the tropes and fun the game offers, without the need to invest too much. And as a DM it's sometimes hard to understand the effort needed to get involved in a game.
We'll try now to play for 2 to 3 hours a week via g+ or skype between games. Hopefully it will close the gap between sessions and help the game. The way we play right now, giving the game a very strict narrative structure (that is: a railroad) seems to be the only solution.
You have to improvise eventually
What is a sandbox able to accomplish? Ideally it produces a world engine that substitutes arbitrary DM decisions with a randomized resolution system and generates a story without, in theory, needing a narrative structure per se. But is that true? I believe it is to some extend. It makes sense to use reaction tables or setting-specific random encounters. And having a complete and reactive setting at hand is one of the nicest tools a DM could have.
There is a point, though, where a DM has to be more precise than that. It is possible to create a totally random encounter, up to gender, race, age and adventure seed. But a DM connects the dots and the narrative structure becomes important at some point. Essentially, it is always the exact point when he starts talking to his players.
That's not railroading, it's just the need in every kind of communication to create a coherent narrative. A DM decides where he starts to tell the story, but sandbox or not, he needs to frame what is happening to make it a consistent experience for the players. I read somewhere that playing it sandbox-style results in a picaresque narrative, but I'd argue that this is true for playing roleplaying games anyway (just going by the definition of the term picaresque novel and the nature of roleplaying games in general).
Truth is always a matter of perspective
In the end I came to believe that sandbox is an artificial construct and not very helpful at that. The same goes for the infamous railroad. I'd have to call disbelieve on both, as far as playing the game is concerned. They are legit when discussing how a DM prepares his game/setting/etc. (because it needs terms to describe different methods and all that), but when playing the game, narrative structure is always imperative. How to get to the point where the people start talking to each other in the game is either unimportant (in the game) or, in a worst case scenario, distracting.
There is no true railroad, because every DM needs to improvise just by using a language and interpreting the rules. There is no true sandbox, because a narrative structure will evolve from every game. Funny thing is, in a players perception there might not even be a difference.
That's not railroading, it's just the need in every kind of communication to create a coherent narrative. A DM decides where he starts to tell the story, but sandbox or not, he needs to frame what is happening to make it a consistent experience for the players. I read somewhere that playing it sandbox-style results in a picaresque narrative, but I'd argue that this is true for playing roleplaying games anyway (just going by the definition of the term picaresque novel and the nature of roleplaying games in general).
Truth is always a matter of perspective
In the end I came to believe that sandbox is an artificial construct and not very helpful at that. The same goes for the infamous railroad. I'd have to call disbelieve on both, as far as playing the game is concerned. They are legit when discussing how a DM prepares his game/setting/etc. (because it needs terms to describe different methods and all that), but when playing the game, narrative structure is always imperative. How to get to the point where the people start talking to each other in the game is either unimportant (in the game) or, in a worst case scenario, distracting.
There is no true railroad, because every DM needs to improvise just by using a language and interpreting the rules. There is no true sandbox, because a narrative structure will evolve from every game. Funny thing is, in a players perception there might not even be a difference.