Sandbox vs. Railroad spectrum as applied specifically to Transhuman Space

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Yeah, it's the one spot where I think you *have* to at the very least tell players to pick their own way to make a cohesive group. Which actually can be anything from 'met in a tavern and fell in deep love at first sight' to 'been buddies since childhood'.

So you say, "Here's a world, come up with a campaign concept and make characters for it."
The players say "Here's a campaign and characters for it."
Then you run their campaign?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

How do you achieve that without some kind of established premise to the campaign and some restrictions on character creation? I've been trying to get Peter to explain this to me for years, and I still don't get it. If you just say, "Here's a world. Make a character." then unless the players decide to create a premise on their own (or assume one as given as in the 'You all meet at a tavern' chestnut) why should they have anything to do with each other or any kind of situation that you plan to introduce in the game (short of a global crisis)?

Yes. You need some sort of restriction, as I discussed in an earlier comment. You can get in by the GM defining it at the outset or by the players all agreeing to it—but if the players don't agree, the GM doesn't have a campaign; they have an MMU setting.

But those restrictions aren't railroading. Both sandbox and railroading share the assumption that control is binary: you throw the switch to GM and you get railroading, or you throw it to Players and you get sandbox. Neither model allows for a collaborative process.

Bill Stoddard

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

So you say, "Here's a world, come up with a campaign concept and make characters for it."
The players say "Here's a campaign and characters for it."
Then you run their campaign?

I even once did something like that. (The premise was limited: 4 adventurers that came from random other worlds in a magical accident.)
Results weren't pretty, to say the least. Then again, it was my second campaign - I was young and foolish.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Yes. You need some sort of restriction, as I discussed in an earlier comment. You can get in by the GM defining it at the outset or by the players all agreeing to it—but if the players don't agree, the GM doesn't have a campaign; they have an MMU setting.

Yeah, that's been my position on this issue everytime it's discussed. Which is why it's perplexing that you seem to think I don't agree with you.

But those restrictions aren't railroading.

I agree, but I must admit I'm curious what Peter says about that. Are those kinds of restrictions "insane/incompetent" or not?

Both sandbox and railroading share the assumption that control is binary: you throw the switch to GM and you get railroading, or you throw it to Players and you get sandbox. Neither model allows for a collaborative process.

Which results in the "crucible" as you've defined it, which seems to me to be the general description of the majority of successful games as they are actually played, at least in my experience.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Yeah, that's been my position on this issue everytime it's discussed. Which is why it's perplexing that you seem to think I don't agree with you.

I don't know about past discussions, but in this one, at least, I was not supposing that. That's why I began my comment to you with "Yes."

Bill Stoddard

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I don't know about past discussions, but in this one, at least, I was not supposing that. That's why I began my comment to you with "Yes."

Sure, I was thinking about past discussions.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

So you say, "Here's a world, come up with a campaign concept and make characters for it."
The players say "Here's a campaign and characters for it."
Then you run their campaign?

I have tried that. In my first cycle of games with prospectus, one group of players signed up for 2300 A.D. I offered them their choice of a common focus for their various characters. They picked one. I starting running sessions in what they picked, and after three sessions they agreed that it was dull and they were ready to shut down.

Now I'm usually a bit more active. The players mostly pick the common focus when they pick the campaign. Then I implement what they've picked.

Bill Stoddard