"Sandbox" vs. "RPG": mutually exclusive?

[Sydanyo]

I think there seems to be some kind of confusion of what sandbox means.

You're right.

It means a hole dug in your back yard, with a wooden frame inserted into the hole, and the hole filled with fine grain sand, with which and in which children play.

As far as computer games go though, sandbox games existed long before EVE was even conceived, or people even played multiplayer games.

 

[wisdom000]

Hrm.

It seems that most of the differences of opinion I've seen so far stem from a philosophical / practical standpoint of what CDPR may or may not be able to do, in terms of budget / resources constraint, towards the design of the game.

We don't know much about it, other than:

1. the setting is Cyberpunk 2077

2. it will be an open sandbox world

3. it will be an RPG.

Historically, when someone says "sandbox," many people think of the granddaddy of sandbox franchises: GTA, and its many and myriad clones.

So, what do you think, folks? Is it possible to have a "sandbox" game in the GTA style, with strong / well done RPG elements? Or, do you think CDPR is going in a different direction with the "sandbox" concept?


(Full disclosure: if CDPR were able to make a GTA-styled sandbox, with strong, well-done RPG elements, I'd be as giddy as a ripperdoc with an untraceable black-market Dragoon, missing its Bod Pod.

Not that I am holding out hope that this will be the direction they take, mind you; I'd just be well pleased if they did.)

First I wonder, what the hell does RPG even mean in video games any more?

When I was growing up, video game rpg meant top/down superdeformed characters, endless fiddly progressions, turn based fighting, really repetitive and aggravating music, and watching people play them made me want to claw my own eyes out they were so boring to me.

Then somehow RPG's seemed to lose the top down views, and the characters went from super deformed cartoons to androgynous waifs carrying giant ass swords.

None of these games EVER seemed to be anything close to a tabletop experience to me... they just seemed to use level and hit point based progression mechanics ripped off from Dungeons and Dragons.

Now I have no idea what an video game RPG is anymore..Some people say Fallout 3 is an RPG, other people say the first people are wankers. Some people say Sleeping Dogs is an RPG, other people say its nothing but a rip-off of GTA. (Which is a wierd thing to say, since most games classically called RPG have looked pretty much identical to me... I couldn't tell you the difference between final fantasy and star ocean, or baldurs gate and elder scrolls, or skyrim and witcher.... but then again I don't play fantasy games, so I really have no clue. Other people call Deus Ex an RPG, but it really just felt like an FPS, with little difference from a game like Army Of Two, or whatever...

It seems the only real defining characteristic of an RPG, is that the game has some measure of character progression.

In that, I say both Sleeping Dogs and even San Andreas qualify.... and they certainly evoke a tabletop feeling more than anything like Final Fantasy or even Deus Ex does. Hell, in that case even Saints Row 3 qualifies as an RPG.


So to answer your question pal... hell yes its possible to have a sandbox game with well done RPG elments. Sleeping dogs more than proves this. Could there be even more rpg elements... of course, and since these elements seem to be basic advancement... and plot choices... then yes again... it's been done, it's been proven. Can they implement it more better and more fully. Of course they can, and the resources required to do that are pretty minor, as long as they don't start adding in elaborate cgi cut scenes and dongus like that.

 

[ncolic]

Even in PnP some level of moderation and manipulation is needed in a RPG game, For the plot/story to advance and be more engaging. Its no different in CRPG games, although it much harder to be subtile about these manipulations.

For the record i dont consider Diablo an RPG game. Just because it has character levels/skill/item doesnt mean its an RPG. For those who forgot it mean Role Playing Game. As someone above said its more about Freedom of choice then any other thing, but also its about decent story to play through it.

For a game being a sandbox brings it closer to be an RPG game, just because of the choises you can make , so yes they are ofcourse mutually exclusive
; but in itself it's not enough. If sandbox is the skeleton core of it , story and proper interaction with the gameworld is the meat of it. If you want a make a good RPG both of them have to be done properly.


As long as they can nail the atmosphere of cyberpunk and make the game engaging enough, this game will be a very good experience.

 

[wisdom000]

Freedom to be whoever you want to be, whatever you want to be, however you want to be, whenever you want to be. Freedom to do whatever you like, with whomever you like, to whomever you like.

The rulebook is only there to give you a set of guidelines you can agree to follow, and the GM is simply there to act as a referee if there are any guidelines, and if any disputes concerning those arise. However, neither is needed. Yes, you can roleplay without a rulebook. Yes, you can roleplay without a game master.

Having a game be a sandbox game, instead of moving on rails, and having the freedom to run around in a vast space instead of having to move in a walled off tube, that's much more like a true RPG than anything else in a video game.

So yeah... A sandbox environment doesn't "exclude" the RPG element. It strengthens it.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Absolutely, A-men, and pass the cheese dip.

 

[Sydanyo]

Even in PnP some level of moderation and manipulation is needed in a RPG game, For the plot/story to advance and be more engaging. Its no different in CRPG games, although it much harder to be subtile about these manipulations.

A PnP RPG doesn't need to have a GM-driven "plot". It can all be whatever the players want it to be. It just takes a great GM to run such a game. We've had those, and they were amazing. We've also had games that had absolutely no GM whatsoever. We've also played games that had absolutely no rules whatsoever. Sometimes shit didn't quite work as planned, but most of the time it was great.

Absolutely, A-men, and pass the cheese dip.

I think the quote and the quotee don't match there.

 

[wisdom000]

I think there seems to be some kind of confusion of what sandbox means. The only game that I know that comes close to a pure sandbox would be Eve. Sandbox means everything is created by the players which means economy and in-game items.

Sandbox hasn;t meant that SINCE Eve... a word, regardless of origin, only means as much as people think it means. To most people, "sandbox" and "open world" are synonymous.

Just like to most people, when talking comics, Trade Paperback and Graphic Novel are synonymous, A trade paperback is a collection of stories presented in one book. Watchmen is a Trade Paperback. It was originally a 12 issue miniseries. A graphic Novel is an original work, larger than a standard a comic, and sometimes, but not always, presented in a larger format. X-Men, God Loves, Man Kills is a Graphic Novel.

Just like most people call a weapons magazine a clip. A clip is actually something else entirely. Both a clip and a Magazine hold bullets, but they deliver them to the weapon in entirely different ways.


But the terms have become synonymous because people don't care... they are similar enough that if you try and correct them, you just sound like a pedantic wanker trying to make a semantic argument about differences no one cares about.

This is also why you have people thinking Irony means coincidentally unfortunate... because of that fucking song...

But arguing it gets pretty pointless, and eventually you just accept it and move on... or you rail against it and look like a nutter...

 

[braindancer12]

If anyone can do it, CDPR can do it.

sure they know what they do

 

[Garrison72]

CDPR has been pretty straightforward, saying this is the first time the studio has tackled such a design concept. And that they want no invisible walls, a completely open world. For fans of The Witcher, this direction is a bit bewildering.

 

[dragonbird]

CDPR has been pretty straightforward, saying this is the first time the studio has tackled such a design concept. And that they want no invisible walls, a completely open world. For fans of The Witcher, this direction is a bit bewildering.

Yup, and we're hitting a hopefully short-term clash of cultures - Cyberpunk PnP fans hoping for open world/sandbox, Witcher fans hoping for story-driven.

But we all need to remember - this is a CDPR game. Open world isn't going to be some clone of Skyrim, or GTA. Story-driven isn't going to be a linear choices-don't-matter adventure game with some fedex quests thrown in.

 

[wisdom000]

I'll take every crappy inch of Bethesda compared to Rockstar's attempt at games...besides, Bethesda makes RPG's. Rockstar does not. Is anyone seriously going to tell me that Rockstar makes RPG's? So will people quit referencing these cheap douchebags, like they're the only ones who know open-world?

DUDE.... Rockstar may be a lot of things, but cheap they ain't...

Not sure why you have gone all spastic on Rockstar, if you don't like their games then fine... but chill out.

I loved Fallout 3... I loved New Vegas even more... but they were both buggy as hell, I could barely finish New Vegas because after an hour, or after fast traveling, the whole game would slow down so much I had to completely reboot my system. Yes, I know Obisidian did New Vegas, but they used Bethesdas engine.

I haven't played their other games, because I don't do fantasy.

But I also love Rockstar, and while I have no clue why you hate them to such a degree that I keep expecting you to pop a vein, I can definitely tell you I have never had anywhere near the problems with any of their games I had with Bethesdas, even though I have played each GTA game seperately for at least if not more (definitely more in the case of San Andreas) that I did with Fallout.

And yes, San Andreas definitely had RPG elements.

 

[ncolic]

A PnP RPG doesn't need to have a GM-driven "plot". It can all be whatever the players want it to be. It just takes a great GM to run such a game. We've had those, and they were amazing. We've also had games that had absolutely no GM whatsoever. We've also played games that had absolutely no rules whatsoever. Sometimes shit didn't quite work as planned, but most of the time it was great.

I guess you get me wrong, i am such a GM. The way to do it have decent NPC's with their own goals, things that progress with or without player involvement. Thats the plot i am talking about , not forcing player in to that plot.

You might be just a person that living his life, but if world war 3 starts, your live will be effected, that doesnt mean GM should force you join the navy or be a general, and player shouldnt complain about not being able to affect the outcome if he had chosen to be involved. Or if you are a gotham citizen in Dark Knight Rises, you will be affected by the plot, no mater what you chose to do.

All i am saying there should be something going in the background , something interesting, and you should chose to get involved with it or ignore it. Either way you should be faced with the concequences.

Now with out a gm, with out rules, and just with the concept of the characters you are playing , you can play hours just with players with good RP skills. We sometimes let out gm go to sleep and continue our ingame discussion. But that doesnt work on Video games, or even in most PnP games without proper players. That kind of quality players are hard to find.

And while doing these, as a GM , if you feel that your players are feeling lost , without knowing what to do, but wanting to do something, then you have to intervene, before game becomes boring for them. In a PnP game , most important thing is your players. Its not intervention to rail them back to the plot, its intervention to guide them back to the fun. There is a huge difference between them.

Thats why, one of the most hard gametypes to pull of is sandbox RPG because , a player should have a freedom, but shouldnt feel lost while playing your vast world.

PS: I never said GM driven plot. It is an NPC driven Plot that you need the game to feel alive. If your NPC's dont have goals, plots, ideas of themselfs, they are just stats and they dull the game as a whole. The huge but subtile difference between a GM-Driven Plot, and NPC Driven plot is how the game will feel when playing.

 

[Sydanyo]

You might be just a person that living his life, but if world war 3 starts, your live will be effected

...

All i am saying there should be something going in the background , something interesting, and you should chose to get involved with it or ignore it. Either way you should be faced with the concequences.

...

PS: I never said GM driven plot. It is an NPC driven Plot that you need the game to feel alive. If your NPC's dont have goals, plots, ideas of themselfs, they are just stats and they dull the game as a whole. The huge but subtile difference between a GM-Driven Plot, and NPC Driven plot is how the game will feel when playing.

NPC's are the GM, or via the GM the pre-written plot for those NPC's. The GM (or via the GM the pre-written plot) decides what those NPC's do. I don't understand the difference between "NPC driven plot" and "GM driven plot", since the GM either creates the plot or uses a ready made story. Even if some story the GM utilizes details exactly how the NPC's act, it's still the GM who decides whether they act that way or not. No book is going to tell the GM what to do. The GM is above everything in that regard.

I guess if you thought of the GM as a player-like entity, there'd be a difference, but GM's aren't supposed to be that. GM's aren't supposed to "play" the game.

As for a background story going on, I'm going to have to disagree with you completely on this. There's absolutely no need for a background story which affects the players in any way whatsoever. If the players have their own thing going on, they can be the driving force behind anything and everything interesting that's taking place in the game world. Otherwise it can be status quo.

I guess it does boil down to what kind of players you have in the group, and how much you respect them as a GM. I personally have always seen, and still see, the GM as nothing but a tool for the players' happiness. He's there to accommodate the players, and to make sure they'll have a hell of a time. The GM does a service, and he's not there to do his own thing. That's why good GM's are so hard to find, GM's who enjoy making the players have a fun time. If you've got such a GM, and if the players have a plot or a thing they're pursuing, then there needs to be no background plot, at all.

 

[wisdom000]

I think the quote and the quotee don't match there.

Oops, fixed....

 

[ncolic]

NPC's are the GM, or via the GM the pre-written plot for those NPC's. The GM (or via the GM the pre-written plot) decides what those NPC's do. I don't understand the difference between "NPC driven plot" and "GM driven plot", since the GM either creates the plot or uses a ready made story. Even if some story the GM utilizes details exactly how the NPC's act, it's still the GM who decides whether they act that way or not. No book is going to tell the GM what to do. The GM is above everything in that regard.

The Difference is as a GM not trying to hold on to a plot or trying hard to make it happen, while making use your NPC is doing everything in their power to reach their goals, or falling to despair, or giving up completely depending on the character of the said NPC. The more Player-like you can make your NPC's without influencing in your power as a GM (like not summoning 4 goons to protect him in a pinch to next door, when they couldnt be possible be there in that NPC's power) the more interactive and responsive your NPC's and as a result your world will become. That will lead a better player experience.(although i admit i sometimes cheat while GM'ing and let them live on certain situations, because i dont like meaningless PC deaths. Even that reduces the experience sometimes since when they know they can die anytime, they play more like persons then superhero's w/o a kryptonite to counter them)

I guess if you thought of the GM as a player-like entity, there'd be a difference, but GM's aren't supposed to be that. GM's aren't supposed to "play" the game.

GM's are not player-like entities, but they must create playerlike entities as NPCs. And more variantly and more numberous they can create them the better. But they should never take sides, or think themselfs as the "player of the main nemesis". Anything and everything should be able to be scrapped if it hinders the players engagement with the game (i dont wanna use term "fun" since it implies light hearted pleasure, which doesnt cover despair, feeling of revenge, sorrow, etc...)

As for a background story going on, I'm going to have to disagree with you completely on this. There's absolutely no need for a background story which affects the players in any way whatsoever. If the players have their own thing going on, they can be the driving force behind anything and everything interesting that's taking place in the game world. Otherwise it can be status quo.

Player being the main driving force behind everything is the best way for the use of backstory. If you dont have proper characterization for your NPC's you cant respont to their actions properly. Some will resist them , some wanna be like them, some wanna arrest them , others will just ignore them. While some NPC's declare war on them , others will want revenge for the collateral damage that caused some loved ones die. If you dont have a norm for the world you create before the players begun to pour their influence, then you dont know what they changed and how, and when you dont know them, you cant respont properly.

Perhaps calling it backstory is wrong , perhaps calling it a Norm for the World is better. An idea how the world was, would be if the players didnt join the fray.

I guess it does boil down to what kind of players you have in the group, and how much you respect them as a GM. I personally have always seen, and still see, the GM as nothing but a tool for the players' happiness. He's there to accommodate the players, and to make sure they'll have a hell of a time. The GM does a service, and he's not there to do his own thing. That's why good GM's are so hard to find, GM's who enjoy making the players have a fun time. If you've got such a GM, and if the players have a plot or a thing they're pursuing, then there needs to be no background plot, at all.

I agree with that completely. (i redefined what i want to express with background plot above.)

PS: Sorry for derailing the thread so much , OP.

 

[wisdom000]

NPC's are the GM, or via the GM the pre-written plot for those NPC's. The GM (or via the GM the pre-written plot) decides what those NPC's do. I don't understand the difference between "NPC driven plot" and "GM driven plot", since the GM either creates the plot or uses a ready made story. Even if some story the GM utilizes details exactly how the NPC's act, it's still the GM who decides whether they act that way or not. No book is going to tell the GM what to do. The GM is above everything in that regard.

I guess if you thought of the GM as a player-like entity, there'd be a difference, but GM's aren't supposed to be that. GM's aren't supposed to "play" the game.

As for a background story going on, I'm going to have to disagree with you completely on this. There's absolutely no need for a background story which affects the players in any way whatsoever. If the players have their own thing going on, they can be the driving force behind anything and everything interesting that's taking place in the game world. Otherwise it can be status quo.

I guess it does boil down to what kind of players you have in the group, and how much you respect them as a GM. I personally have always seen, and still see, the GM as nothing but a tool for the players' happiness. He's there to accommodate the players, and to make sure they'll have a hell of a time. The GM does a service, and he's not there to do his own thing. That's why good GM's are so hard to find, GM's who enjoy making the players have a fun time. If you've got such a GM, and if the players have a plot or a thing they're pursuing, then there needs to be no background plot, at all.

Just like in another thread... I kind agree and disagree with you both.

A good GM can craft a world and story the players can react to.

A great GM crafts a world and story in reaction to the players.

But a fantastic GM can do both, without the players ever knowing the difference.

People have different approaches to GMing, some GM's like to plot out things in advance, and have an over arching story. Some GM's who go about this route a crappy railroaders who accept no deviation. Others can roll with the punches even when the players fly waaaaaaaay off the rails and do something wonky.

Other GM's give control of where the game goes to the players, merely having the world react to their actions. This is good stuff as well, but just like the players frustrating the story gm by running off the rails, players can throw off the sandbox gm by not having any of their own direction, and the game stalls... unless the GM is gifted and gets creative.

Personally, I run with no preparation in terms of over arching plots, I don't stat up npc's, I don't do any of that. I run off the cuff. Sometimes I run a campaign where the players have free reign to do what they wish... and I have run some insanely long and successful games doing it this way. Other times I make sure the characters have focus, have a shared career that keeps them on the same page, and gives them things to do... like a cop, military, or nomad campaign.

But regardless of whether the game starts off with a central theme/story or not, what the players do, how they choose to do it, or whether they choose to do it at all, is completely up to them. I will never force anyone down any track. However I also always have several events that are going to happen, if the players choose to interact with these events, or prevent these events or whatever, is up to them... but things happen in these worlds, even in the most sand boxy games I run, the world does not revolve around the players. Also, the reactions to the players actions tend to have far reaching and often long lasting effects.

 

[spiderword]

Good thread. I guess that the term "Sandbox" was originally used for PnP RPGs. With such word it was indicated a way of playing very common in the early days of RPG gaming. In such mode the Players simply have to "Explore" a hunge map. Nearly each piece of the map had a feature something that the Game Master or Narrator could use for a Story. Most of times these Adventure were separated but they coulded also linked together. Than the Narrative style kicked in. Instead of exploring randomly things Players had to follow a story. However none said you couldn't add your random Exploration in. It just needed some fixing. These kind of "Game Moods" of course were, in a way or another, reproposed in Videogames. I don't see them as mutually exclusive. With enough effort you can create a Sandbox setting where you are free to do whatever you want but as the same time add a fixed Narration, fixed events that if you follow will push word your Game Narration. It just need to be done properly and I guess we're in good hands.

 

[braindancer12]

Sandbox vs. RPG? we dont want one of them we want a Sandbox-RPG hybrid we want both

 

[wisdom000]

Sandbox vs. RPG? we dont want one of them we want a Sandbox-RPG hybrid we want both

Yes... Agreed....

 

[PafetkBazerka]

'Sandbox' is such a libereraly used term these days I'm not sure what it means it anymore. But first and foremost I thought it came from a computor game developers point of view. When creative tools are used to simulate a 'sand box' to create maps, and missions etc. (and sometimes released with the game YAY) It often results in a 'sandbox' style game where the environs are larger and more free roaming options become available. Sometimes to the point where it feels like an 'open world'.

In 30 years of PnP RPG'n (Ok not so much in the last 10-15 but it still happens) I don't recall ever hearing 'sandbox' used to describe a playstyle over the table.

Gets stranger to think that games that wouldn't be considered 'sandbox' by definition such as Never Winter Nights are infact very sandbox in its possibities and MOD tools. While at the same time its still perfectly possible to create a linear 'corridor' using something like cryengine even though the dev tool practicaly imitates a sandbox.

But back to the question "Sandbox" vs. "RPG": mutually exclusive? The short answer is no. There is no specific reason to do away with RPG elements just because they created a large 'Sandbox' environment. But if we are talking about "sandbox' being some sort of free roam play style with little in the way of direction and weak push pulls (ie player motivation), then there may be issues with getting involved with a story, and IMHO that would be bad.

 

[username_3641692]

I'll take every crappy inch of Bethesda compared to Rockstar's attempt at games...besides, Bethesda makes RPG's. Rockstar does not. Is anyone seriously going to tell me that Rockstar makes RPG's? So will people quit referencing these cheap douchebags, like they're the only ones who know open-world?

Why you hate so much, I bet you payed those games.I know that may not say much. but they are there, and everything that is particular and more when you talking about SANDBOX open world. it always people will be comparing them. because they are famous and is the same aim as the GTA and all the games that are sandboxes.

They haven't even come close to doing it. Both Witcher games feature open areas, but the actual concept of exploration, of discovery, is almost absent. They are brand new at this.

Maybe with this game they will do it. that i think is the reason for they announce this game launch for 2015.