I thought my reply was relevant enough to the blog that it ought to be cross-posted. Don't worry, it's in English.
For me, there is a distinction and it's very important.
Mainly, it's because I let myse-- no no, no, I suckered myself into the notion that a good RPG was fun, but a great one had plot, mise-en-scene, mood, themes, pacing...all the things that make a great movie, say, or a great book, or a thrill ride.
At one point, an influence came at me from an unexpected angle, and I set about rethinking my playstyle, my GMing, my...my everything.
The catalyst: Grand Theft Auto - Vice City.
I got really into playing that game, and became enraptured with the free-roaming, exploratory nature of it. It was an open world, with a few ground rules; it had definite plot threads to follow, sub-plots and side-plots, mini-games and great tunes.
I started thinking of Vice City as a fun (if not exactly safe) place to inhabit, and started thinking things like, "Why not do this on a table-top?"
Then, I noticed my Intercomputerweb gamer cronies talking about "sandbox"-style gaming, and I heard that GTA:VC's designers took a "sandbox" approach, and then I went, "Aaaah, sandbox. Yes, this is an idea that I like."
Then, on a trip out of town, I bought this solo RPG at a discount bookstore, and it had a map in it, and the first part of the solo said, "You wash up on shoe; which way do you go?" And I was, like, "HOLY CATS, THIS IS WHAT I, AS A GAMEMASTER, HAVE BEEN MISSING OUT ON."
The idea of sandbox-style games, therefore, is definitely of importance to me because although it's not new or revolutionary or even all shiny and neon and light-up and thumpy like New Order's "Blue Monday", it's the idea that re-energized me as a GM.
I'm gonna cross-post this to my blog.
So I did. BONUS IMAGE!
