Sandbox Setting?

[Ariosto]

The fundamental premise in aboyd's example, of a planned "story arc" being inviolable, is directly opposed to the "sandbox" concept.

 

[Mallus]

The fundamental premise in aboyd's example, of a planned "story arc" being inviolable, is directly opposed to the "sandbox" concept.

Only if you treat concepts like "sandbox" and "story arc" like they're violently opposed ideologies. Practically speaking, it's easy to combine the two.

(I'm dogmatically anti-orthodox...).

I've seen plenty of campaigns that mixed a player-directed sandbox approach with things like recurring villains that were kept in play by behind-the-scenes DM chicanery. As a matter of fact, I've run a few...

 

[ggroy]

Only if you treat concepts like "sandbox" and "story arc" like they're violently opposed ideologies. Practically speaking, it's easy to combine the two.

Either extremes have their own problems. Too sandbox-ish, the game becomes rudderless and boredom may set in. Too railroad-ish/story arc-ish, the game feels too predetermined and boredom and/or futility may also set in.

I usually don't follow story arcs too closely, unless the particular players actually want things to be done in that manner. Several times I was in such a situation that after awhile, I ended up asking one of the other players to DM instead. It wasn't a style of DM'ing I particularly liked.

Usually I DM my games in a sandbox manner. I'll use some railroading if the players are lost and/or have very little to no direction. This is mainly to get them to go in a direction where I don't have to spend hours and hours dealing with the minutiae and boring details of saying "there's nothing here" over and over again.

 

[Ariosto]

Like them or dislike them, and compromise as you will -- but they are directly opposed. It's amazing how emotionally attached some D&Ders get to the notion that drawing distinctions is "bad".

If we sit down to play Chess, and I capture your queen, you're not allowed suddenly to decide that I actually captured a pawn and your queen is actually safe in whatever square you please. If we agree to play a game like that, then it's hunky-dory. Maybe we can even give it a name, such as "Gotcha Chess", so that we can talk about it without confusing everyone. To talk as if we were simply playing Chess, as the term is conventionally understood, would not be some kind of great virtue; it would just be foolish.

 

[Mallus]

Like them or dislike them, and compromise as you will -- but they are directly opposed.

Only if you frame the discussion that way. You could describe them simply as alternating approaches/methodologies, employed at different times during a campaign ie different does not imply in opposition.

It's amazing how emotionally attached some D&Ders get to the notion that drawing distinctions is "bad".

Drawing unhelpful distinctions is unhelpful. Now excuse me for a moment, I have to caption a cat...

 

[ggroy]

Before I even start a game at the beginning, I ask what type of game the players are interested in. If they're into a sandbox style campaign, that's what I'll DM for them. If they're interested in playing a module or adventure path as written in a railroad or semi-railroad manner, I'll tell them upfront that isn't my style and suggest that one of the other players would do a better job of DMing it than me. I'm fine with being a player in a railroad type game, if I'm in the mood for such campaign for several months.

 

[weem]

Before I even start a game at the beginning, I ask what type of game the players are interested in. If they're into a sandbox style campaign, that's what I'll DM for them. If they're interested in playing a module or adventure path as written in a railroad or semi-railroad manner, I'll tell them upfront that isn't my style and suggest that one of the other players would do a better job of DMing it than me. I'm fine with being a player in a railroad type game, if I'm in the mood for such campaign for several months.

I have been doing this for my upcoming (2nd) campaign and the answer from everyone has been the same... "a little of both".

I see it being said it is possible, it isn't possible, etc - I think it is to an extent. If I have a large story arc that is urgent/time sensitive, then that takes away from the sandbox possibilities because, the PC's are in a hurry and have to watch all their options go by as they run past them. But I think if the story slowly develops over time and if you can continue to open up a lot of other options that could detour them along the way (should they feel inclined to), then they may feel like they have an overall goal, but one that is okay to set on the back burner from time to time to explore other things that jump out at them.

But what do I know - I'm still working on the next campaign and have yet to nail anything down and all my previous campaigns have been (for the most part) driven by an important, pressing story arc that the PC's get into and never look back from. I have never tried the sandbox thing (which I like SOME aspects of).

That is currently my goal for the next campaign - more options while maintaining a story line that does not require them to go go go!

 

[Ariosto]

employed at different times during a campaign ie different does not imply in opposition.

No, but opposed means itself. I can go up and down at different times, but not both at once. If players can reap the consequences of their choices except whenever you decide they can't, then just say so. It's the exact same thing as their being unable except when you choose to permit it. Don't call it a "sandbox" when it happens to resemble one only by coincidence with your whims.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think the key concept for a sandbox is player freedom at the 'choosing the adventure' level. A GM could present linear adventures in a sandbox campaign but that wouldn't stop it being a sandbox, assuming the PCs were free to leave adventure A and go on adventure B, C or D instead. It gets tricky if there's some device like a portcullis at the start that traps the PCs in a linear dungeon. One could argue that at that point the game is no longer a sandbox.

By this definition, an adventure path must be the opposite of a sandbox, assuming the AP is being run exactly as presented. A GM could of course take an AP and turn it into a sandbox by adding lots of additional adventures. This would be very much like the Fallout 3 or Oblivion crpgs which both have 'main quests', but are definitely sandbox games because of the great number of 'side quests', the player's freedom to wander, and because the main quest can be abandoned and returned to at any time.

Even games as massive as Fallout 3 and Oblivion have limitations on player freedom. They are set in a finite area in which there are only a finite number of quests. I think that for a traditional sandbox such as The Vault of Larin Karr, the GM does need the player's agreement not to leave the 'adventure area'. Or to give him a chance to buy/create a new area if they do. This is mentioned in the West Marches website linked to above.

The sorts of game that Mallus is talking about are a bit different than Vault of Larin Karr, the West Marches, or the example I gave. The players have lots of freedom, but there are also plots and the environment is non-static. You could still call this a sandbox, but it's of a somewhat different kind, it's not a traditional static location-based D&D sandbox.

 

[weem]

I'm curious...

What if, while running a "sandbox" game, you simply asked (at the end of each session) "Give me a run-down on your actions for the next game... where do you intend on going from here?" etc.

Does this detract from the sandbox element, or is it a good way for a DM to know what to plan for the next game?