Game Theory Musings: Levels of Railroading

[Max_Killjoy]

I mean, of course its PC-centric. Ultimately, the PCs are the only force besides the GM that has any ability to affect the game world. Sandbox or railroad, the game world exists for the sake of the PCs, at a meta level. You say you've had NPCs change their minds, and had background events that affected the game world, but is that not still just "this is how things will be unless the PCs come in and compel a change"?

So, do you believe that things in the real world will be / will go a certain way no matter what, until you come in and compel a change?

Or are the things that might happen tomorrow half a world away, outside your involvement, uncertain until they actually happen tomorrow? Do the people there all have choices and decisions to make between no and then, just like you do?

[Keltest]

So, do you believe that things in the real world will be / will go a certain way no matter what, until you come in and compel a change?

Or are the things that might happen tomorrow half a world away, outside your involvement, uncertain until they actually happen tomorrow? Do the people there all have choices and decisions to make between no and then, just like you do?

"an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted on by an outside force."

its a law of physics, but I think it describes people and society just as well. People do have choices, but there is a fundamental logic and reason behind the choices they make, even if they aren't aware of it and cant articulate it. If you take away one of these outside forces that affect that logic and reasoning, the other ones continue to act.

More to the point, your definition of "PC-centric" seems to be so inclusive as to be meaningless. All games exist for the sake of the PCs. Ultimately, the world exists to serve them. Without them, the world cannot go on, at least as an RPG.

[Max_Killjoy]

"an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted on by an outside force."

its a law of physics, but I think it describes people and society just as well. People do have choices, but there is a fundamental logic and reason behind the choices they make, even if they aren't aware of it and cant articulate it. If you take away one of these outside forces that affect that logic and reasoning, the other ones continue to act.

More to the point, your definition of "PC-centric" seems to be so inclusive as to be meaningless. All games exist for the sake of the PCs. Ultimately, the world exists to serve them. Without them, the world cannot go on, at least as an RPG.

And to me, this is what you're describing when you say "the world exists to serve the PCs":

[Frozen_Feet]

Irrelevant. In a tabletop roleplaying game, nothing happens before one of the players wills it. How far the things that happen are determined beforehand in absense of interaction from other players is a matter of taste.

Whether a game is player character centric is a different consideration, and I can't for the life of me see the point of conflating "things only happen when player characters do stuff" with "things happen unless player characters do stuff". Because in the latter model, things are happening centered on something else than the player characters all the time.

Suppose I go to the sandbox and decide to build a multi-story castle to populate with toy soldiers if no other player interrupts me. It should be obvious that the process is centered on my desires and ideas, not those of the other players, in spite of the if-clause. How strongly I preplanned my castle doesn't matter.

[Florian]

And to me, this is what you're describing when you say "the world exists to serve the PCs"

More than irrelevant. The only thing that exists and matters are the folks playing the game, no "world", no "npc", no "characters" and stuff like "immersion" or "verisimilitude" are not required to play the game, they're only part of personal gusto and taste.

(Rise of an Empire voice): "Only the player exists... only the players.... and only a handful of dice is needed, dice...."

[Max_Killjoy]

More than irrelevant. The only thing that exists and matters are the folks playing the game, no "world", no "npc", no "characters" and stuff like "immersion" or "verisimilitude" are not required to play the game, they're only part of personal gusto and taste.

Or rather, the non-existence thereof is also a part of personal gusto and taste.

Your ongoing comments about other people's approaches to and experience of gaming come across as a claim that your approach is the one true pure core of what it is to "do RPGs", and that things other people want from gaming and you don't, are just tacked-on stuff that really doesn't matter.

Personally, I can't see how one could do the roleplaying part of "RPG" without the characters and their world and getting at least a little bit inside their head and into their world -- to me, it comes across as a complex boardgame, and the PCs as nothing more than playing pieces like the shoe or the scotty dog in Monopoly, without those elements.

(And that's part of what fails in the TPG model, it asserts that the PCs are "Toys" for all the reasons that they're not just toys / plastic pieces.)

[Keltest]

Or rather, the non-existence thereof is also a part of personal gusto and taste.

Your ongoing comments about other people's approaches to and experience of gaming come across as a claim that your approach is the one true pure core of what it is to "do RPGs", and that things other people want from gaming and you don't, are just tacked-on stuff that really doesn't matter.

Personally, I can't see how one could do the roleplaying part of "RPG" without the characters and their world and getting at least a little bit inside their head and into their world -- to me, it comes across as a complex boardgame, and the PCs as nothing more than playing pieces like the shoe or the scotty dog in Monopoly, without those elements.

(And that's part of what fails in the TPG model, it asserts that the PCs are "Toys" for all the reasons that they're not just toys / plastic pieces.)

Some people can make due with that stage shop you posted, others need a living, evolving Middle-Earth-esque world to operate in. Clearly you fall in the latter camp, but that doesn't mean the former doesn't exist. The depth of the game world isn't really relevant to whether or not its a sandbox campaign, although having more stuff existing certainly makes it more interesting.

[RazorChain]

Fair warning, this might end up being a long post and I'll probably get ninja'd writing it.

So the big suggestion I would like to put forth is this: We should indeed separate the act of Railroading from the level of linearity in a game. Firstly, this allows us to examine the behaviors associated with Railroading without presupposing any judgement on game style, which I believe is an important distinction. This isn't to say that I believe that your proposed levels of linearity are not useful, but rather that they are not as useful to a discussion on Railroading, per se.

When disucussing Railroading, we're always going to get into a matter of consent, because that's really the underlying issue. When a DM Railroads, they do something that violates the implicit or explicit consent which the players have offered when agreeing to play the game. This consent is given either by a general social contract (as we've seen from other threads, this is muddy and ill-defined), group discussions/votes, or explicit mechanics such as votes or game session primer documents. My primary RL game's primer, for example, discusses some of what a new player can expect in terms of campaign openness and informs them of some mechanical expectations.

I think we can explain the amount of Railroading in a game by breaking down behaviors, although the terms are just conveyances as of yet. I haven't really thought much about them and are pretty much pulled straight from thin air.

Solution Predetermination: This is when a DM accepts only one solution to a proposed problem. This is the DM that only allows the players one option per encounter. This is the Ogre that can't be reasoned with, can't be evaded, can't be lured away, etc, etc, etc. Just like all of the other behaviors, this is sometimes okay. If the players consented to a game with precise puzzles/encounters similar to a point-and-click video game, then the DM shutting down creative "wrong" solutions is acceptable. This occurs almost exclusively in mostly linear games and is a very common Railroading example.

Illusory Arbitration: This is a form of Illusionism where the DM first decides to allow game mechanics to arbitrate a situation but then (secretly) reneges on that decision. This might involve fudging dice rolls, changing target values, or otherwise overruling the mechanics of the game, along with the requirement that the players are unaware that this has happened. Sometimes, again, this is acceptable: If the players consent to the DM giving the Illusion of using the system to arbitrate situations while the DM is actually just deciding arbitrarily, then this is not Railroading. This kind of Railroading can appear in any style of game, including full-on National Park sandboxes.

Mono-pathing: This is another form of Illusionism where the DM offers the players the illusion of choice/agency while actually only offering a single path through the adventure. This is where the term Quantum Ogre comes up a lot, though the Quantum Ogre also (tends to) require that the players are aware of and actively attempting to avoid the Ogre, while I am proposing that Mono-pathing is any false illusion of choice. This is the dungeon with a T in the hallway that somehow always leads to the same room or the quest that lets you side with either faction, but one always betrays you while the other does not. As always, this is not always a bad thing: Sometimes the DM only has so much material prepared, after all. It's only Railroading if the players did not consent to it.

NPC-centrism: I'm not entirely sure about this one; it could probably be rolled into either Solution Predetermination or Mono-pathing. Anyway, this is when the DM offers the players an adventure where they think they are the heroes... until the DMPC or superpowered NPC comes to save everyone. Alternatively, this is also the villain that absolutely cannot be defeated. This is... well, Elminster, the SUE-files' self-insert NPC, or particularly bad interpretations of Strahd. As you may have guessed, this is also not Railroading if the players have consented or the NPC is somehow taken out of the picture or made to be defeatable. A well-run Strahd is the latter case, while our friendly Elder Gods in Call of Cthulhu are an example of an undefeatable enemy that is nonetheless not really in the picture. Generally, the worst cases of this are NPC allies, although they can also be handled without the DM Railroading.

I think you are forgetting "No-ism" where the GM simply denies you an action. You can't go there or you can't do that. If you want to roll for it you will fail. This could be rolled into solution predeterminiation but it is more of a path predetermination.

[Quertus]

Having heard its usage over the years, when most people say sandbox, that is what they mean. In part, there are some other parts, like the setting focus and having a lot of preplanned stuff in there that can be used, but doesn't have to be. The later is where the name sandbox seems to come from although the no ultimate goal is still a part of it. I suppose a really distant goal that you have a cornucopia of ways to reach might also count. It would probably have the same feel to it. On the other hand having mini-goals (side-quests) I don't think is "un-sandbox". Sort of like what Frozen_Feet said, you can have stuff inside the sandbox, but you shouldn't actually have to pick-up any of them.

So, at least I'm not completely insane.

Clearly, however, I've failed to get across the full extent of what I mean - and what I don't mean - when I say "sandbox". So perhaps I should start by trying to give a more detailed version of my definition (so people can then tear that apart).

To me, a sandbox is the opposite of linear play. In linear play, the content comes with a plot (goal and path(s) to that goal), and the game must sick to the path. In a sandbox, the content does not come with predefined paths, and the game can go whatever.

In a linear game, there is a wrong way to do things, a wrong way to play with the toys; in a sandbox, there is not. But that's wrong, from a certain point of view... So, let me try again: in a linear game, there is a wrong way to play with the toys inherent to the toys; in a sandbox, there is not. There may be possible and impossible, but not wrong.

What do I mean by that distinction? Largely, I mean the gentleman's agreement. I mean that, if you took the exact same content, and handed it to a different group, the game could look different, because they will have their own rules about attacking other PCs, sexual content, etc.

A toy car has wheels. It's good at rolling. A bucket has a flat side. It's good at standing. It has a big'ol good at holding things. But, turn it on is side, and it's not so good at holding things, and can roll. Toys have properties, and follow the rules of physics.

What don't I mean?

My definition doesn't care whether the universe is static or dynamic - whether it just sits there until the PCs touch it, or continues on with a life of its own. So, you can have a windy day sand box, where the toys tend to move around a bit, in accordance with the laws of physics. Or you can have a calm day sandbox, where the toys just sit there, and wait to be played with. Now, personally, I happen to generally disdain static worlds as unrealistic, but that is technically irrelevant to whether I'll call something a sandbox or not.

My definition of a sandbox doesn't care whether the GM has plotted out exactly what all the NPCs would do if the PCs didn't exist before the game even started, or whether they figure things out the moment they get to them. Personally, I probably do a bit of both.

My definition of a sandbox technically works regardless of the number of toys, although I have a difficult time imagining a sandbox with 0 toys. But...

What do I mean by "toys"? Notable things for the PCs to interact with. 1,000 villagers are "sand"; Bob the Miller is a toy.

Toys are not random. If this is a political sandbox, I expect the GM to have quite intentionally picked out a number of toys that he believes are good at being played with politically. A good sandbox GM will include a good variety of such toys, rather than having all those political toys feel same-y. To say that from the perhaps more important flip side, for every possible action, there should be toys that will respond to that action. Erm, that probably doesn't make sense... Let me try it in programming terms: for every method that can be called, there would, Ideally be one or more toys that respond to that method. That is, if you look at my (stolen/modified) trivial example of a political sandbox, you've got the king, the duke, the church, the thieves guild, the merchants, and the orc tribe. This sandbox is a bit too simple for my tastes, as there isn't really a good set of toys to play the "arranged marriage" game, for example. If, when a player hears "political sandbox", they get their heart set on dealing with arranged marriages, they will be disappointed. Worse is if they don't realize or cannot communicate what "political" means to them, and just consider the game (or the GM) "bad".

... Is that any clearer?

Nope, because what you describe is still totally static and lifeless with a very egoistical POV.

A sandbox can have any number of "moving parts" or "active elements" that run by themselves, follow an internal logic and don't in any way suppress agency, play-driven choices or the freedom to roam.

I actually expect a sandbox game to generally have more toys / moving parts / active elements than a Linear game.

Well you're writing legible sentences, but you've introduced another concept which needs to be blown up.

Every kid playing in a real sandbox brings with them their own ideas of what is or isn't proper thing to do with any toys they bring or any things they build from the sand. A sandbox is never "pure" from intentions of the players. Co-operative play is only possible when actions of a player stay proper in eyes of all the other players. Once this ceases to be true, a fight will break out, a player will take their toys and go home, or, if I made and own the sandbox, I will kick you out.

Again, we find it's not expectation of proper play which is the dividing line - the line again zig-zags around based on specifics of rules of conduct. And again, some rules are implicit from mere existence of an object. If I spend hours lovingly crafting a sandcastle, I probably don't want you knocking it down without asking me first.

As long as you still have sand to play around with, tho, these restrictions to your playspace don't really make much of a difference.

And here I sink my teeth in the idea of "BadWrongFun". So there's this idea that there isn't a single right way to play RPGs. Okay, cool. But this only implies there is multiple right ways to play.

It does not imply there are no wrong ways.

In the real sandbox, it's not proper to, for example, throw the sand out of the box. Because it harms all future attempts of play. It is measurably, objectively a wrong way to play.

In summary, you are correct that "It has nothing to do with the number of toys, and everything to do with how one is allowed to play with those toys". What you need to do is look closer and get more specific about what you think is proper play. Which kind of expectations and actions actually harm a sandbox structure (prevent free roaming, preclude goals set by you)? Which kind are just kinda there and don't mess with you untill you mess with them? And by contrast, which are necessary for the play to continue in the long run?

Here's something I've seen several times just this year - hopefully you can relate. You're at a park. The park has posted rules about no fighting, no kicking sand out of the sandbox, etc. There are kids playing. But one of the kids is boosting the others around, telling them what to do. ... Or, kids playing a game of make believe, one is trying to control what the other kids say. ... Or, in D&D, the GM / the plot needing certain things to happen a certain way, otherwise the plot / the module / the content falls apart into an incoherent mess.

I think, in discussing wrong ways to play, you sound like you're talking about the gentleman's agreement, which lives separately from whether something is a sandbox or not - just like whether play is structured or freeform is independent of the rules of the playground.

Some people can make due with that stage shop you posted, others need a living, evolving Middle-Earth-esque world to operate in. Clearly you fall in the latter camp, but that doesn't mean the former doesn't exist. The depth of the game world isn't really relevant to whether or not its a sandbox campaign, although having more stuff existing certainly makes it more interesting.

I think that I am forced to mostly agree.

Whether things make any sense when you look at them isn't technically required for a sandbox. However, unless "don't look at things too closely" is implicit or even explicit in the gentleman's agreement, you can quickly reach a point where the game crashes because the players did the "wrong" thing of looking at things too closely. So, there being wrong ways to play with the toys being part of my definition of the distinction of linear and sandbox, it is easy to feel that the two are related.

[Pex]

I liked this thread before it devolved to whose definitions of words were superior.

[Max_Killjoy]

I liked this thread before it devolved to whose definitions of words were superior.

Welcome to the typical RPG theory discussion once someone tries to impose their pet theory and its precise divisions and dichotomies as Truth^TM via controlling the definitions.

(See also, why I usually end up spending more time rejecting and resisting definitions than offering them up.)

[Quertus]

I liked this thread before it devolved to whose definitions of words were superior.

Shrug. I'm a rules lawyer at heart. What's the point of making a really good solution to the wrong problem? Since there is a great deal of difference in how people view the word "railroad", making a metaphor based on one of those definitions is bound to cause some friction.

So, which definition of railroad is the most useful to the hobby? Well, that's something we're working out. Or trying to. In theory.

Personally, I'd love it if there was a retcon way to pull off-topic stuff into it's own thread. Because, honestly, I'm not personally clever enough to just create new threads when appropriate. One of my many flaws. I hope my player got something really cool for all the flaws he gave me.

[Cluedrew]

I liked this thread before it devolved to whose definitions of words were superior.

Well to be fair before that pretty much boiled down to people going "Yup, but replace 'Levels of Railroading' with 'Levels of Linearity'" I'm not sure how long we could keep that going. I mean if you have something to add go for it. I'd jump onto that.

(See also, why I usually end up spending more time rejecting and resisting definitions than offering them up.)

Because problems are easier to find than solutions.

To Quietus: I missed this at first but... we don't need another thread on railroading. As much as I enjoy the deep dive I realized my option hasn't changed the last couple of threads on the matter. So I think I am done with that. On the other hand my option changed twice in the last caster/martial thread, so maybe than one is still worth talking about.

[martixy]

First, I didn't read the entire thread because who has time for that... (Disclaimer for if I'm repeating stuff already said. And based on the last reply, I don't want to either.)

We've established there is a continuity between railroading, rather than a binary state.
The next step is to realize that campaigns don't stick to the same level of railroading throughout their run either.
Like it might start constrained on a track and then open up to a greater world. Or might start open and fall into a track. Or bob and weave.

In any case, I'm probably doing a highway campaign, or maybe open road, the distinction there is really arbitrary. However right now, we're on a ship, which is as close to an airplane you'll get in the classic D&D.

[Darth Ultron]

To me, "this is what will happen no matter what, unless the players interact with that element" is just as PC-centric as "nothing will happen until/unless the PCs interact with that element".

But is not anything the DM does in the game FOR the benefit of the Players? The whole point of having anything happen in the foreground or back ground is to make a ''living breathing game world" For The Players.

[RazorChain]

To me, "this is what will happen no matter what, unless the players interact with that element" is just as PC-centric as "nothing will happen until/unless the PCs interact with that element".

In the Vampire campaign I ran for several years, there were multiple instances where I specifically had NPCs change their minds, or not make decisions until the situation actually came up, even through it was entirely in the background. There was a fight between two NPCs that made a major impact on the course of events off-screen, and I played that out several times to get a general sense of how it would go and what impact it would have on the "scene" for later investigations -- I didn't just decide from whole cloth.

How you simulate the world is less important to me than that the world gets simulated.

I do a lot of impromptu simulation. When the PCs get back to town Joe the town elder has died, he died happy in bed with that teenage milkmaid, the town is in shock and grief.

It doesnt have relevance to anything but Joe that sent the PCs to clear the goblins out of the mines is dead.

Me just deciding things is just as good as using some random mechanic.

When I resolve things in the background I can throw in twists that no random mechanics can come up with.

[Frozen_Feet]

Here's something I've seen several times just this year - hopefully you can relate. You're at a park. The park has posted rules about no fighting, no kicking sand out of the sandbox, etc. There are kids playing. But one of the kids is boosting the others around, telling them what to do. ... Or, kids playing a game of make believe, one is trying to control what the other kids say. ... Or, in D&D, the GM / the plot needing certain things to happen a certain way, otherwise the plot / the module / the content falls apart into an incoherent mess.

Yes, you've identified a player bossing others around. What you haven't identified is specific ways of bossing people around that make or break sandbox play. Or any of the reasons why other players would tolerate someone bossing them around. You're being too general.

I think, in discussing wrong ways to play, you sound like you're talking about the gentleman's agreement, which lives separately from whether something is a sandbox or not - just like whether play is structured or freeform is independent of the rules of the playground.

No. I'm talking of explicit rules of play and rules of play which are implied by actual game elements and actions. An outspoken "gentlemen's agreement" is a type of the former, an unspoken "gentlemen's agreement" which comes from outside the game is neither.

Again: a purposefully made sandbox itself implies a goal. It's a specific mode of play with specific boundary conditions, and because of that, there are good ways and bad ways to play which are specific to this mode. I'm asking you to identify those.

"Don't kick sand out of the box" is the metaphorical example precisely because it is not independent of the sandbox - it directly stems from construction of the box, and only makes sense within confines of the box.

[Quertus]

No. I'm talking of explicit rules of play and rules of play which are implied by actual game elements and actions. An outspoken "gentlemen's agreement" is a type of the former, an unspoken "gentlemen's agreement" which comes from outside the game is neither.

Again: a purposefully made sandbox itself implies a goal. It's a specific mode of play with specific boundary conditions, and because of that, there are good ways and bad ways to play which are specific to this mode. I'm asking you to identify those.

"Don't kick sand out of the box" is the metaphorical example precisely because it is not independent of the sandbox - it directly stems from construction of the box, and only makes sense within confines of the box.

If I create a sandbox, there are no rules inherent to the sandbox.

There are rules inherent to the system.

There is the gentleman's agreement.

If the sandbox has a label (ie, "political sandbox"), then there is the expectation that the sandbox be played with in accordance with the label.

I can see "don't leave the created content" as a common sandbox rule, but it is not actually required for all sandboxes. See Minecraft. Content can be added dynamically to a sandbox without it suddenly no longer being a sandbox.

So, no, there are no rules inherent to the sandbox base class as far as I can see. Unless you count the rules to the GM: "don't create a plot, let the players do that", and "however they play with your toys is fine".

Why, what do you expect to be common rules of all sandboxes?

[Florian]

@Quertus:

Do you know the old Jabberwocky poem? This is basically the level of sense you make by using things in an insular and self-referencing matter, without being able to explain what you mean.

It´s nice to jabber about a gentlemen's agreement when you can´t even define why you need it, what's the source of the disagreement it should bridge or avoid and how it should look.

And yes, everything comes equipped with inherent rules, goals and limitations. That's the basic nature of existence. And also yes, there're things that are badwrongfun and should be named as such - something that the D&D community avoids like the plague.

[Quertus]

@Quertus:

Do you know the old Jabberwocky poem? This is basically the level of sense you make by using things in an insular and self-referencing matter, without being able to explain what you mean.

It´s nice to jabber about a gentlemen's agreement when you can´t even define why you need it, what's the source of the disagreement it should bridge or avoid and how it should look.

And yes, everything comes equipped with inherent rules, goals and limitations. That's the basic nature of existence. And also yes, there're things that are badwrongfun and should be named as such - something that the D&D community avoids like the plague.

Actually, the gentleman's agreement can be handled as a black box just fine for this conversation. It is it's own set of limitations, independent of whether the game is a sandbox or linear. Done.

The point is, the way I play and understand the game, there are no limitations* inherent to the tag "sandbox". Although the limitation, "play in accordance with the label, if any" matters for a foo sandbox (political, exploration, etc), and "remain within the confines of the created content" seems likely but not required (as demonstrated by Minecraft).

Again, what limitations do you see as inherent to a sandbox?

EDIT: I believe that the term "gentleman's agreement" is interchangeable with "social contract".

* player side, that is. On the GM side, the limitations are "don't create a plot - leave that to the players", and "let the players play with your toys however they want". However, there is the player side responsibility to actually, you know, do that whole "create a plot" thing.

[Frozen_Feet]

If I create a sandbox, there are no rules inherent to the sandbox.

There are rules inherent to the system.

This is falsest of false dichtomies I've seen in a while. Inherence is a red herring. The rules of the system are explicit rules of your sandbox, full stop. Furthermore, the explicit rules of the system also imply goals. For the most trivial example, if the sandbox game is constructed as a hexcrawl, this has implications for pathfinding. "Move from A to B in least amount of hexes" is a player goal that only makes sense in a hexcrawl, it is implied by structure of the game.

There is the gentleman's agreement.

You have not defined what this should even be. You equating your "gentleman's agreement" to "social contract" is entirely unhelpful. First: if it is unspoken, it is questionable if there is an actual agreement. Second: any unspoken deals are social contracts, but so are the explicit game rules. Third: like already said, any outspoken agreement is just game rules. Fourth: I'm still not asking for general rules of conduct, I am asking for rules specifically suited or not suited for a sandbox game.

If the sandbox has a label (ie, "political sandbox"), then there is the expectation that the sandbox be played with in accordance with the label.

That's a functional rule for games which happen to be something else in addition to a sandbox, but says nothing specific to sandbox games.

I can see "don't leave the created content" as a common sandbox rule, but it is not actually required for all sandboxes. See Minecraft. Content can be added dynamically to a sandbox without it suddenly no longer being a sandbox.

This is almost getting somewhere. Ask yourself: what kind of content makes a sandbox and what kind of content can be added without detracting from it? By contrast, is there a type of content the adding of which makes the game not a sandbox?

So, no, there are no rules inherent to the sandbox base class as far as I can see.

If "sandbox" can at all be considered a "base class" of scenario types, it must have a distinctive identifying features. (Inherence is once again a red herring.) If you cannot identify and list those, were back to me saying "sandbox" is not at a discrete thing and cannot be placed on a spectrum.

Unless you count the rules to the GM: "don't create a plot, let the players do that", and "however they play with your toys is fine".

Why, what do you expect to be common rules of all sandboxes?

I was asking you. Do you think those rules are necessary for good sandbox play?

[Quertus]

This is falsest of false dichtomies I've seen in a while.

That was not a dichotomy, false or otherwise.

Inherence is a red herring.

Perhaps a poor word choice, but it's the crux of the matter. Kinda the opposite of a red herring, actually.

Whether a rule is caused by virtue of something being a sandbox (as opposed to, say, the rules of the game, or the social contract) is vital to clarifying the meaning of a sandbox.

-----

Perhaps an example will help.

We're playing a game, and a player says, "I jump to the moon".

The rules layer tells you something about appropriate responses:

"OK, make a jump check, DC 5.044 billion"

"yes, and..."

"That will generate paradox. Were there witnesses?"

"No. Just no."

The rules layer provides checks against game physics, which will vary by system:

Can the PC make a DC 5.044 billion jump check?

Do they have the appropriate spheres?

Do they have enough ranks in Hyper-leap?

Is it cool?

The social contract is generally independent of system, game, etc, and will vary by group. At this layer, eh, we might check for...

Is it PvP?

Is it profanity?

Is it sexual content?

Would it trigger Bob's paralyzing fear of spiders?

Now, as to sandbox vs linear...

The "linear" layer of checks adds checks like:

Is this the plot?

Does this affect the plot?

Does this destroy the plot?

The sandbox layer checks...

...

... nothing.

The sandbox version of the sandbox/linear layer adds no additional checks. Definitionally, the sandbox layer adds no additional checks to determine the validity of a move.

It's not that a sandbox has no rules; rather, it's that the sandbox layer of the game imposes no additional rules.

[Frozen_Feet]

Whether a rule is caused by virtue of something being a sandbox (as opposed to, say, the rules of the game, or the social contract) is vital to clarifying the meaning of a sandbox.

A sandbox game is literally constructed from its rules. This becomes blindingly apparent when you're talking of, or even try to imagine, any computerized sandbox game. That is wht saying "well this is inherent to te game rules and not the game being a sandbox!" is a false dichtomy and a load of crap.

Also, no such thing as "the" social contract. Again: the explicit game rules themselves are a social contract. The logical corollary to that is that, since a sandbox game is constructed from its rules, when run by living humans, the sandbox is a social contract. The distinction you're making is artificialand arbitrary. It is no wonder you can see no rules in the "sandbox layer", because you have mentally portioned off all things that could be there and labeled them something else.

[Florian]

@Quertus:

This is why you fail so horribly at gaming theory, because so can´t critically examine your own state of knowledge.

Let´s use the technical term "exploration" to look at the main activities you want in your game, especially when looking at a quite nebulous concept of "sandbox".
The things you want to explore are possible "setting", "travel and survival", "character", "combat", "social interaction", "emergent plot" and "organization/kingdom management".
This list by itself is already a set of "top level rules" how one thinks that a "sandbox game" should look like, maybe even concretizing something like wanted the overall tone change at "name levels" by automatically switching over to "kingdom management" or anticipating something likes "planes walking".

Now it´s decision time how exactly you want to model these activities on the concrete rules level and by extension, what game system and house rules to use to facilitate that. For example, Pathfinder doesn't come with any rules for hex crawling per se. These are included in Ultimate Campaign and supersede the prior movement-based rules, and are expanded into travel and survival rules in Ultimate Wilderness, which alters and supersedes both prior versions. The choices which of the three rules sets to use will drastically alter the look and feel of crawling a hex.

Same as with the "kingdom management". Do you want to handle it as "emergent" (ie. "We've killed the hobgoblins and captured the fort, it´s powers now!") or do you want to run that with the Kingdom rules from Ultimate Campaign, that will alter how some basic rules like time, gold and the Leadership feat work? And so on, and so on....

[RazorChain]

A sandbox game is literally constructed from its rules. This becomes blindingly apparent when you're talking of, or even try to imagine, any computerized sandbox game. That is wht saying "well this is inherent to te game rules and not the game being a sandbox!" is a false dichtomy and a load of crap.

Also, no such thing as "the" social contract. Again: the explicit game rules themselves are a social contract. The logical corollary to that is that, since a sandbox game is constructed from its rules, when run by living humans, the sandbox is a social contract. The distinction you're making is artificialand arbitrary. It is no wonder you can see no rules in the "sandbox layer", because you have mentally portioned off all things that could be there and labeled them something else.

I'm with Quertus. Sandbox is independent of rules. I can make settings and a sandbox before I pick out rules or maybe I just go with freeform and don't use any rules.

I can even adapt a ruleset to my sandbox

[Max_Killjoy]

@Quertus:
This is why you fail so horribly at gaming theory, because so can´t critically examine your own state of knowledge.

It's comments like this that demonstrate why RPG theory continues to fail.

[Keltest]

It's comments like this that demonstrate why RPG theory continues to fail.

If you don't want to participate in the conversation, then don't. Sitting here and sniping at people benefits nobody, least of all yourself.

[Frozen_Feet]

I'm with Quertus. Sandbox is independent of rules. I can make settings and a sandbox before I pick out rules or maybe I just go with freeform and don't use any rules.

Untrue. Just like it is untrue to say freeform has no rules. (Just two of the biggest rules from freeform boards of these forums: no controlling other people's characters, defender describes effect of any attack.)

Like Quertus, you've just portioned those rules to some differently labeled category and hence fail to recognize them as rules. When you decide your game has a night-day cycle, you have decided upon a rule. When you decide how many humans live in the game's setting, you have decided upon a rule. A playable game does not exist without a scenario, and any gameable details of the scenario are rules which define the game's move space.

Again, this becomes blindingly obvious if you ever try to computerize a game. Though it should become obvious at the tabletop also the moment you actually try to play your game, because at that moment at latest you have to decide how the setting interacts with the player, and from that point the run of the game is shaped by your decisions. The supposed indepence doesn't exist in a playable game.

I can even adapt a ruleset to my sandbox

No-one here is saying all sandbox games have the same rules. I'm asking you to identify which rules distinctly lend themselves to sandbox play, and which distinctly do not.

[Max_Killjoy]

If you don't want to participate in the conversation, then don't. Sitting here and sniping at people benefits nobody, least of all yourself.

So telling someone that their elitist-sounding, "your failure to agree with us is a failure to understand the subject matter" comment is typical of why the subject is largely rejected... is "refusing to participate in the conversation".

Right...

[Florian]

It's comments like this that demonstrate why RPG theory continues to fail.

It´s still a simple problem of people not being able or willing to separate objective (a car) from subjective (my driving experience with that car). The later might often be more dependent on the car stereo and if music you enjoyed was on air.

You should know that best, with your focus on immersion and your character. We could well ask the question: Are associated mechanics a fundamental necessity for the game itself? No, they are not. Are associated mechanics a fundamental necessity for the enjoyment of the game by some players? Yes, they most definitely are. Now we could go on and ask the question whether using associated mechanics will reduce the joy for those that don't deem it necessary and will probably land by a no, but should give some thoughts about what happens should the answer be a yes. This is why we do engage with theories. Frankly, the three of you, you, DU and Quertus, argue on the same gut-feeling and pure personal experienced level, a pattern that can be seen repeated in both ongoing "differences in the editions" discussions.

So, if someone can´t answer the question whether "sandbox" is a distinctive play style or whether "sandbox" is a method of playing that can be adapted to multiple play styles, the answer is mood, same as the secondary question here, whether a play style will come along with its own defined rules or whether the rules are separate from the play style, ex. RAW.

So there's nothing "elitist" about asking the question "Ok, tell my what you think about that car and then tell my how your driving experience was" and not accepting "It was good, some old Metallica songs were on air" as an answer.