Sandbox, narrative and emergent gameplay

I'm still saving parts of a discussion that just doesn't seem to end (it started with Raph's articles about the levels). As I already suggested, it's possible to have linear paths and narratives within a sandbox but the scope and "aim" of the sandbox is completely different. So we should be cautious when bringing them together. From the theory point of view they are opposed and should be brought apart. Integrating only those elements that are coordinate with the goal, without putting it at a risk.

As Raph wrote, one can fit in the other. But not the other way around.

--

Damien Neil:
Narrative is opposed to sandbox play. Or to look at it another way, in a sandbox the narrative comes from the player.

Planescape: Torment has great narrative; some of the best ever done. It isn't a sandbox, however. You have a great deal of freedom in shaping who the Nameless One is--good, evil, kind, cruel, cunning, foolish--but you're always going to be the Nameless One.

Desslock:
The best RPGs facilitate sandbox play AND have a good narrative - they aren't mutually exclusive. Again, I'll point to Ultima VII.

These two comments aren't contradictory and both true from my point of view.

It's the definition of "sandbox" that creates the incomprehension.

Ultima 7 had many elements of a sandbox but only those elements that are, in fact, not contradictory or problematic for the narrative. The true essence of a sandbox, instead, presumes the presence of 'toys' that are then used and manipulated by the players the way they like.

Simply put: a true sandbox assumes and opens up emergent gameplay. Something that isn't predictable, as: not already planned and scripted.

For example the AI patterns would be naturally part of a sandbox because they open up behavious that weren't preplanned and are supposedly able to adapt to a truly dynamic environment.

Now the point is: there is ZERO emergent gameplay in Ultima 7. This is why its "sandbox" flavor still allows for "narrative". An NPC in Ultima 7 will ALWAYS behave the way it was intended. This is what Charles calls a "character" and feels missing in Morrowind. An *identity*. Authorship. Something that belongs to a story someone is telling you (univocal, one-way). And this REQUIRES the author to have a COMPLETE CONTROL over what happens.

The dichotomy about "sandbox" and "narrative" is not superficial as it was described (by saying that they can coexist and should).

What we consider and see as "freedom" in Ultima 7, or any other game that offers different patterns and give the player the possibility to make a choice, is not a "sandbox". It's just narrative++. It's double, triple work and nothing else.

When you allow different types of solutions to a problem in a Ultima game or Baldur's Gate or whatever, you NEVER generate emergent gameplay. you just need the devs to exponentially multiply their work. Creating different stories and patterns for each "branch".

The model here is still the one of the "narrative". It's just requires more work. But the *same type of work*. So it's not technically a sandbox. The characters are still defined. They can be defined for different patterns, for example you can have a situation where you can save a NPC from a band of orcs or let it die and loot him. But it's still within the space of possibility of what the AUTHOR planned. You are still within a STRICTLY DIRECTED story. Just one that has more than one pattern (multiplying the work you have to do to produce the exact same amount of content, so the first thing that is cut in games, since it's a waste of precious time. Games have budgets and budgets are about time.).

Simply put: it's still the author to have the whole control. Not the player.

A true "sandbox", on the other side, IS, as Damien Neil wrote, opposed to narrative. A true sandbox assumes that the toys you make available to the players can then be used *creatively* (this is why the sandboxes are incredibly fun and incredibly hard to create). This assumes emergent gameplay. As: stuff that wasn't planned ahead and scripted. As: the player assumes the true control of a game where some parts are truly dynamic.

You know what's the practical conclusion of this theory? This one:
- YOU DO NOT WANT to have emergent, "sandbox" gameplay in a game (or a part of a game) that is focused on a narrative.

Do you want a practical example? Morrowind again. All those tricks that the players find to get some cool loot basically break the game from that point onward. Because they go beyond what the devs expected. So beyond what the game was designed for. So beyond the intended scope of the game. If MW was a mmorpg these would be considered exploit. Not "cool points". They are cool to experiment. But they break the gameplay once their are used (because they don't belong to this type of game. So they should be used in different contextes where they are more effective and don't break everything else).

If you want a narrative (and characters, and involving, immersive stories) you DO NOT WANT to give the control to the player. NEVER. The very best narrative is the one of "make believe". Where the author has the full control while the player think to have it. Even in the cases where the player can choose different patterns (as explained above) the control is still completely in the hands of the author. Who just pre-planned and pre-scripted those different patterns.

Simply put: a story, to be a good story, needs identity. It needs a narrator. A storyteller. It CANNOT allow "freedom". The story must belong to someone. It's history. It CANNOT change.

Ultima 7 didn't allow for freedom and that's why the story is good and why it's one of the best RPGs out there still today. What it does is segment the game in smaller pieces that then the player can "order" the way he likes. But those pieces still maintain a *strong identity* and don't really allow for freedom or emergent gameplay.

Ultima 7 is all about a discovery (exploration, even for the dialogues, where you discover the characters). It's built of many smaller pieces as many NPCs it has. But all these pieces are basically static. Strictly defined. They are constants. Before you enter the game, they are already all there. Britannia is supposed to have a life on its own, whether you are there or not. Before you arrived.

So. It's absolutely true from my point of view that narrative is opposed to sandbox gameplay. And it's true that Ultima 7, for example, only took the few elements of a sandbox that didn't ruin the narrative.

It's not about giving the player the freedom. It's about giving him the illusion of it (if you want the narrative).