The Sandbox and the Railroad

[Emerikol]

I like to think I play sandbox compaigns but some criticisms of the sandbox on here don't apply that much to my games.

To me a sandbox is not a lack of adventures or adventure hooks. It's a very deeply designed piece of the world where a bunch of plot threads are running on a clock all the time. The players choose which plot thread to follow and get involved in as the game progresses. So my groups have adventures in the sandbox.

The key for me and what characterizes a sandbox
1. You really develop the NPCs/Monsters so that they are doing things regardless of what the PCs do. You keep a calendar and things keep happening even if the group takes a day off in game time.

2. You provide a means to graduate from one sandbox to another when the party is kind of satisfied with the current one.

3. The villainous PC's should be up to no good. So the party can oppose them and become heroes. The more you make it real to the good people of the sandbox and play that angle up, the more gratifying it will be for the PCs to be heroic.

4. An adventure is a railroad technically. What I see as a true railroad is the adventure path. I've played them and they can be fun for sure but at this stage of life I prefer sandboxes full of adventure opportunities.

5. It is harder for the DM but for me more rewarding. You want the genesis of a lot of adventures but you don't have to have everything 100% detailed out. You can write a synopsis and when the party heads out you can develop the minute details before the next session.

6. Sandboxes build NPC relationships which are fun. They build a sense of community and make the PCs heroes early to their community even if it is small. It also provides continuity. Even after the PCs move on their starting home will be someplace they might occasionally check back on. They may even go back and decide to build their castle nearby if that is a possibility.

So for me to be a true railroad, you have to know you are going to adventure path #3 even though you are currently on adventure path #1.

 

[pemerton]

Well, as long as it's easy...

Here's another take:

If people want to post about playing D&D, and issues that have come up playing D&D, go to town!

If they want to wonder how those issues might be resolved, that sounds sensible.

If they don't want to consider any of the resources that are out there, and easily discoverable, that might help solve those issues, well that's a bit odd but their prerogative.

If they're going to assert that those issues can't be solved, or - based on experience only with D&D and variants - are present in all RPGs, some contradictions can be expected!

 

[Tony Vargas]

Here's another take:

If people want to post about playing D&D, and issues that have come up playing D&D, go to town!

If they want to wonder how those issues might be resolved, that sounds sensible.

If they don't want to consider any of the resources that are out there, and easily discoverable, that might help solve those issues, well that's a bit odd but their prerogative.

If they're going to assert that those issues can't be solved, or - based on experience only with D&D and variants - are present in all RPGs, some contradictions can be expected!

I understand your frustration....

...but, I was obliquely asking for more examples of how Dungeon World was "both railroad and sandbox." That sounded interesting.

 

[dragoner]

...but, I was obliquely asking for more examples of how Dungeon World was "both railroad and sandbox." That sounded interesting.

Though he said: "...neither railroad nor sandbox"; except that I am interested in how that works also.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

A sandbox is just playing in dirt.
A roller coaster is a very fun type of railroad.
Everything is subjective.

 

[pemerton]

Dungeon World is a well known RPG that, if played in accordance with the rules, is neither railroad nor sandbox.

I was obliquely asking for more examples of how Dungeon World was "both railroad and sandbox." That sounded interesting.

Though he said: "...neither railroad nor sandbox"; except that I am interested in how that works also.

Like [MENTION=6943731]dragoner[/MENTION] said, neither railroad nor sandbox. Not both railroad and sandbox.

Here's a rough account of what a railroad is:

Railroad: The main events of the shared fiction are determined by the GM, either in advance, or perhaps by improvisation in the course of play. By determining and event I mean deciding what fictional elements it will include (or at least the main ones) and deciding how it starts and what important consequences flow from it. (Speaking loosely, this is "the story".)

The function of player contributions to the fiction is largely to add colour (often by way of characterisation) and perhaps to determine some minor details of events, some matters of sequencing, and perhaps some minor events.

Examples of minor details: How exactly do the heroes beat the bandits? (The player often get to decide this, if even only through their choices about their PCs' capabilities.) Do the heroes get the clue by interrogating a bandit, or by having a friendly townsperson give it to them after they've killed all the bandits? (It's quite common for modules to have suggestions about how to supply necessary clues if the default way of supplying them fails for some reason connected to player decision-making.)

Examples of matters of sequencing: Do the heroes first fight the bandits and then meet the dryad, or vice versa? Which elemental node do the heroes explore first? (The Alexandrian's node-based design is a theory of this.)

Examples of minor events: Anything that ever got labelled a "side quest".​

Here's a rough account of what a sandbox is:

Sandbox: The GM authors a (relatively) large number of fictional elements in advance of play. The GM establishes some starting event or starting situation which positions the PCs so that their players can, without too much trouble, declare actions that will engage one or more of those fictional elements. (The most stereotypical version of this: the heroes are in a tavern and here rumours of a nearby dungeon.) Play unfolds from there, with the players (via their PCs) learning about more and more of the fictional elements established in advance by the GM, and declaraing actions for their PCs that engage with those elements. (This is often described as "exploration".)

Note that the "in advance" needn't mean before the first session. But it does mean prior to the players learning about them through the play of their PCs. The limit case of "in advance" is rolling on a random table to supply the material needed for the GM to tell the players what it is that their PCs are learning about. But I think most people's experience is that a fully-randomised sandbox is likely to be a bit unsatisfactory from the excitement point of view! Clever design of the elements - eg in the sort of way [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] has talked about upthread, and as [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION] has described in older threads - is better for producing engaging sandbox RPGing.​

The main difference between a sandbox and a railroad is that in the latter the GM authors the main events (and the elements that constitute them), whereas in a sandbox the GM authors the main elements but the events (both which events occur and what sequence they occur in) are initiated by the players. In a sandbox there is no such thing as a "side quest" in the way that there is in a railroad.

In any event, we can now see what a RPG that is neither railroad nor sandbox might look like, because it's not as if those two things cover the field of ways in which fictional elements and fictional events might be generated.

For instance, we can imagine the players generating the elements but the GM establishing events. We can imagine players generating both elements and events, with the GM's role then being adjudication rather than authorship. And, because RPGs unfold over (real world) time, we can also imagine different ways of distributing the authorship of elements, and/or events, over that time of play. In both a railroad and a sandbox, the GM's authorship - of events in the first approach, of elements in the second - is to an important extent independent of actual play. But it is possible to author events and/or elements in the process of play or in response to play.

For instance, if a player makes a Navigation (or Orienteering, or Survival, or whatever) check to travel from A to B, and it fails, in some systems (eg Dungeon World) the GM is entitled to narrate that failure as "A storm comes up, the trail is washed out, and the river floods. What do you do?" That is not a sandbox - the element of the storm was not authored in advance of play, independetly of player action declarations for their PCs as something for them to "explore". Nor is it a railroad - the event of the hero being caught in a storm that makes the onward journey hard was not authored in advance, but rather was authored as a response to a failed check.

A game in which most events are initiated by the players, and in which many or even most elements of the shared fiction that are established by the GM are established in response to, or as part of the adjudicaiton of, the events that the players initiate, will be neither a railroad nor a sandbox. I think this is a reasonably fairly high-level description of how DW plays, if played in accordance with its rules.

Here's another example:

A game in which most events are initiated by the GM, but in which many or even most element of the shared fiction that makes up those events comes either from the players, or from the outcomes of the resolution of prior events, will be neither a railroad nor a sandbox. It's not a sandbox because it reverses the authorship roles: the GM rather than the player initiates events, but the elements of those events are not authored by the GM in advance but are established either by the players or by the actual outcomes of prior play. And it's not a railroad because you can't author this sort of series of events in advance, because you can't have elements that are generated from play until play actuallay happens. I think this is a reasonably fair high-level description of how "scene-framing" RPGs work (eg Burning Wheel, DitV, and one approach to 4e which has been widely discussed on these boards).

 

[Psikerlord#]

My preference is a sandbox region with a bunch of hooks for the players to investigate if they wish. The GM needs to be ready to improvise (#PrepToImprovise), particularly if the players start a side trek of their own. GM also needs to be ready to follow through on the provided hooks (which might include pre-plotted adventures, or loose adventure skeletons, or part of an adventure path they've yoinked from elsewhere and plopped down in their world, etc).

What I dislike is playing an adventure path through 1-20 over 12-24 months. That is far too locked in bullsh*t imo, and removes the core advantage TRPGs enjoy over computer games... meaningful player choice.

 

[MichaelSomething]

For a sandbox gone wrong, look at No Man's Sky when it first came out...

Warning: Video has cursing in it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf9egxQsZyY

 

[Imaculata]

To me a good sandbox campaign has little adventure hooks spread all over the world for the players to interact with. Some of these may lead them on an adventure, that could be like any normal linear adventure. But once completed, they return to the world and have all the options open to them again. The players choose where they go next, but it is up to the DM to still provide a cohesive narrative that ties it all together. As mentioned earlier, this means that npc's should be able to act whether the players interact with them or not. The villains continue their evil schemes if they are unopposed by the players, but this is a choice they are allowed to make.

For example, the players may have been provided with a quest hook to find out what happened to a ship that recently sank. But the players decide that they want to explore a nearby island instead, and go on a fun jungle expedition. In a linear adventure this would derail the campaign. In a sandbox however, this is perfectly fine. The DM is prepared to improvise on the spot, or has enough material prepared so that he can branch off into a random side adventure.

 

[Lanefan]

To me a good sandbox campaign has little adventure hooks spread all over the world for the players to interact with. Some of these may lead them on an adventure, that could be like any normal linear adventure. But once completed, they return to the world and have all the options open to them again. The players choose where they go next, but it is up to the DM to still provide a cohesive narrative that ties it all together. As mentioned earlier, this means that npc's should be able to act whether the players interact with them or not. The villains continue their evil schemes if they are unopposed by the players, but this is a choice they are allowed to make.

For example, the players may have been provided with a quest hook to find out what happened to a ship that recently sank. But the players decide that they want to explore a nearby island instead, and go on a fun jungle expedition. In a linear adventure this would derail the campaign. In a sandbox however, this is perfectly fine. The DM is prepared to improvise on the spot, or has enough material prepared so that he can branch off into a random side adventure.

And sometimes one adventure can still end up organically leading to the next, even in a full-on sandbox.

The first adventure might be dealing with some raiding goblins; but in doing so the party realizes there's someone paying the goblins to raid in specific places. Once done with the goblins themselves the party might decide to follow the money up the line and deal with whoever was paying the goblins...and so it goes, eventually becoming its own little series of adventures.

Lanefan