What makes a Sandbox?

[Merkuri]

A few months ago our group finished running the Savage Tide adventure path, and we saw our campaign go from a fairly "railroady" (not a true railroad, per say) campaign to a more wide open "sandboxy" campaign.

In the beginning we followed the adventure path. We could have broken from the path in the sense that we could have said "no" at any time, but we didn't want to for in-game and out-of-game reasons. Our characters were motivated to stay on path (man, did we want to kill that villain), and we knew that our DM had spent time preparing to run the AP for us and we didn't want to put all that prep time to waste. This felt like a "railroady" or linear or highly DM-directed campaign, depending on the terms you want to use.

Then at one point we visited the Isle of Dread and the campaign changed. No longer did we have one goal pulling us in one direction. We had several different hooks waiting for our characters and no hook seemed more important than the others. There was no longer a clear direction for the PCs to go in. At this point, the campaign felt like more of a sandbox. (We ended the game not long after that without finishing the entire AP).

Based on that example, I feel like the definition of a sandbox campaign should involve the number of plot hooks given to the PCs. These plot hooks could take any number of forms, but it seems usually they are linked to places on a map that need exploring.

To define my terms, I'm using the word "plot hook" to represent something that could lead to an adventure for the PCs. A note in a tavern looking to pay somebody to kill rats in their cellars is a plot hook. A map with lots of interesting locations noted on it is one or more plot hooks. A child crying in the street can be a plot hook (depending on why the child is crying).

So a campaign becomes a non-sandbox when the number of hooks available to the PCs is minimal. Certainly if there is only one hook then it is not a sandbox. But is it a sandbox if there are two hooks? Three? It's hard to tell when sandbox becomes non-sandbox, and I believe that (as others have said) "sandbox" is more of a continuum than a pigeonhole. You can look at a campaign and say, "That's definitely a sandbox" or "That's definitely not a sandbox" or "That's kind of a sandbox."

And I think a campaign can switch from sandbox to not-sandbox (or vice versa) pretty easily, as in my example above. The campaign can start out as a big sandbox with five or six hooks the PCs can bite, but if they bite into one hook and keep going with that hook, only biting on other hooks that look related to the first hook, then the DM may choose not to introduce any more hooks and keep going with that one plot-string, taking the campaign away from "sandbox mode". Then later on if the PCs seem to be getting tired of that one plot-string the DM can start introducing more hooks again and bring the campaign back into "sandbox mode".

So, to sum up, I feel like "sandbox" has more to do with the number of hooks available to the PCs than anything else. More hooks = more sandbox, fewer hooks = less sandbox.

 

[pawsplay]

That's what I said, and it in no way implies that the PCs are sitting around waiting for a plot hook. Instead, the PCs are in an inn because the players are between sessions, and because they don't like any of the hooks on offer, they have approached the DM with a proposal.

So they

1. are at an inn, and
2. don't intend to leave until the DM creates a situation appealing to them

I can understand the interpretation and emphasis is a little different, but it does not appear to me that what you said has been mischaracterized.

 

[Snoweel]

So they

1. are at an inn, and
2. don't intend to leave until the DM creates a situation appealing to them

I can understand the interpretation and emphasis is a little different, but it does not appear to me that what you said has been mischaracterized.

Their options are:

1. take up one of the (dissatisfying) hooks on offer,
2. put word out that they're willing to work for free if the job is interesting enough, or
3. wander aimlessly* because they're as likely to randomly bump into a desirable hook as it is to walk through the door of the inn.

What's wrong with the players and DM just discussing things at the end of the session and collaborating?

Are they even allowed to talk to each other away from the table?

* or not even wander aimlessly, just wander away from the area they're familiar with

 

[pawsplay]

Their options are:

1. take up one of the (dissatisfying) hooks on offer,
2. put word out that they're willing to work for free if the job is interesting enough, or
3. wander aimlessly* because they're as likely to randomly bump into a desirable hook as it is to walk through the door of the inn.

What's wrong with the players and DM just discussing things at the end of the session and collaborating?

Are they even allowed to talk to each other away from the table?

* or not even wander aimlessly, just wander away from the area they're familiar with

Who said anything was wrong with anything? Honestly, Snoweel, I am starting to suspect you are seeing offense intended where there was none.

 

[Snoweel]

Who said anything was wrong with anything? Honestly, Snoweel, I am starting to suspect you are seeing offense intended where there was none.

So what's the intent of stating the obvious, if not offense?

 

[Janx]

That you have a priori defined your game as "not a sandbox"?

That you somehow expect your unilateral decree to be binding on everyone else, preventing them from defining "sandbox" in any way that overlaps with your "non-sandbox"?

That you insist that a "sandbox" is in fact impossible, and so cannot be defined in any way that facilitates practical discussion?

Dude. I am trying to stay in the bounds of THIS thread and look at the topic differently.

I think everybody else here gets that.

Stop being a jerk.

 

[S'mon]

Let's do away with the insulting strawmen shall we?

There might be loads of plot hooks dangling around waiting for the PCs, who are only sitting in an inn because that's where they finished the last session but the players have decided none of the hooks seem interesting. They might tell the DM that his setting contains none of the kinds of challenges or situations that appeal to them but could we maybe have something like (blah)?

If the elements of (blah) don't exist in the setting then the players can surely ask the DM to include them. I understand they could always go elsewhere but for some people, finding a game isn't so easy. And anyway, a good DM should be able to accomodate his players.

I think you should go over to rpgnet d20 forum and read some of Old Geezer's posts, because nothing we say seems to be getting through to you.

There is nothing wrong with the approach you describe, but it is not sandbox play, which requires proactive PCs who will seek out adventure themselves (for the loot, XP, and thrill of discovery), not reject dangled plot hooks.

I just ran a 21 session linear campaign. I have in the past run cooperative world-building campaigns. Both approaches are fine. Neither is sandbox play. Sandbox play is not an inherently superior or 'best' mode, it is just one type of play. Some enjoy it more than linear play, some less. Some like cooperative play more than sandbox play, etc.

Edit: It seems like you're unwilling to accept sandbox play as a valid mode of play. If you don't like it, fine. That is not our problem, though. Stop telling other people they're doing it wrong.

 

[Snoweel]

Edit: It seems like you're unwilling to accept sandbox play as a valid mode of play. If you don't like it, fine. That is not our problem, though. Stop telling other people they're doing it wrong.

Where have I told anybody they're doing it wrong?

The only place I've used the term 'wrong' is when I asked "what's wrong with..."

I don't have a problem with sandbox play because to me it's just another label. I am curious though as to why everybody has a different definition, and this restriction on collaborative world-building seems to be a feature nobody's mentioned yet.

 

[Ariosto]

There's no proactivity involved in becoming privy to secrets. They're the kind of thing that either falls in your lap or it doesn't.

The Director of Central Intelligence can file that one away for the next big surprise attack.

 

[Ariosto]

and this restriction on collaborative world-building seems to be a feature nobody's mentioned yet

Well, "collaborative world-building" was not mentioned in the game description. I don't recall encountering it in the description of Contract Bridge, or Rise and Decline of the Third Reich, or Football, or any one of most other games either. And most people somehow don't get thereby paralyzed when it's their move.

"Dude, do you want to play Dungeons & Dragons or not?"
"Well, personally I don't like dungeons, for a variety of reasons. And I don't like this, or that, or ..."
"So, who put a gun to your head and forced you to come to the table? If you'd rather play Ticket to Ride, or Settlers of Catan, then you could have said so and I could have brought that instead."