D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[KYRON45]

So now aka

Of course you can have linear narratives in a sandbox. The important statement is in your post...a sandbox does not require the PCs to follow some kind of prescribed order.

yourself…if there are linear narratives IN the sandbox…is it still a sandbox?

This isn’t a confrontational series of questions. I’m trying to learn where the lines blur and does the fact that they can blur make them meaningless.

 

[KYRON45]

Since no answer is ever going to satisfy your endless questions "just to understand" when we've explained I'm done.

We’re all volunteers here friend. Have a great weekend.

 

[Faolyn]

So regardless of what you call it; sandbox or linear…both are just different ways of allowing the illusion of player agency as it pertains to what direction they are going in.

Regardless of what we call it; in the end…the players rely on the DM to engage them in the encounters that are run to make up the game.

So I stand by my original statement. A sandbox is just a disjointed linear campaign.

Regardless of what it’s called as long as you’re having fun; it’s fun.

No.

See, in a linear adventure, the GM has prepped for the town, the forest, and the cave, and maybe has a list of random encounters, but that's about it. If the player say "*(&@! that, let's go somewhere else"... there's no adventure. Game over.

In a sandbox adventure, the idea that the players may choose to not go to the town, forest, or cave is built in to the entire game. The players don't get to do those things, but that's OK because there's all that other stuff. Even if the rest of the map is blank, as in my adventure, the GM of a sandbox can grab a random location and plunk it down right in front of the PCs mid-game, or pause the gave until next week so they have time to write up something in full.

Of course, in a linear adventure, the GM can do that as well... but then it may not be a linear adventure anymore.

 

[KYRON45]

No.

See, in a linear adventure, the GM has prepped for the town, the forest, and the cave, and maybe has a list of random encounters, but that's about it. If the player say "*(&@! that, let's go somewhere else"... there's no adventure. Game over.

In a sandbox adventure, the idea that the players may choose to not go to the town, forest, or cave is built in to the entire game. The players don't get to do those things, but that's OK because there's all that other stuff. Even if the rest of the map is blank, as in my adventure, the GM of a sandbox can grab a random location and plunk it down right in front of the PCs mid-game, or pause the gave until next week so they have time to write up something in full.

Of course, in a linear adventure, the GM can do that as well... but then it may not be a linear adventure anymore.

So at any given moment; this kind of game can turn into that kind of game. Which is less about player agency and more about players breaking the social contract.

I find that terms like “sandbox” and “player agency” are very pretentious. But who am I right?

Is it player agency to screw the DM by not wanting to play the game we agreed on for no other reason than “player agency”?

And if at any time a “sandbox” game can stop being a sandbox game because on day two it became a “linear” game…I don’t know…why differentiate?

I’m just babbling. Thanks for engaging.

 

[Faolyn]

Both require a DM to run encounters.

Yes, all RPGs require the GM to run encounters. Unless you're playing in a system that doesn't have a GM.

I’m not debating definitions. I’m asking….if a sandbox allows for the eventuality of anything happening at any time….and we start doing “anything” and one anything leads to the next anything (assuming even the slightest narrative)….instant possible for a sandbox to have linear narratives?

Let me rephrase my earlier example.

The adventure is this: There's a monster (let's say a legendary divine chimera) in the cave. It sometimes comes out and eats the good citizens of the Town of Flarn. There's a being in the forest (let's say a forest witch) who has special knowledge that can strip the chimera of its magical enhancement, making it so it can be killed.

In a linear adventure, the goal is to slay the legendary divine chimera. The PCs must go from the Town of Flarn to the cave. The only option they have is whether or not they're first going to make a pit-stop at the witch's to get the special knowledge. If the PCs hear about the chimera and decide to nope out, the adventure is over.

In a sandbox adventure, slaying the chimera is not the goal. The PCs can do whatever they want. They'll likely hear rumors of the legendary divine chimera, but if they choose to not engage that's fine, because there are any number of other things they can be doing. In fact, the players can play in the sandbox for real-time years and never so much as see the legendary divine's chimera's paw/hoofprints. And that's fine.

So no, in order to remain a sandbox, the GM can't step in and say "you have to go kill the chimera."

Now, the GM can decide there are consequences in a sandbox for not slaying the chimera. The first time they go to Flarn, they hear the rumors. They decide to ignore them. The second time they go to Flarn, it's a ghost town because the chimera has eaten everyone. Likewise, the GM can say that if the PCs kill the chimera, they're heralded as heroes throughout the land.

 

[Faolyn]

So at any given moment; this kind of game can turn into that kind of game. Which is less about player agency and more about players breaking the social contract.

I find that terms like “sandbox” and “player agency” are very pretentious. But who am I right?

Is it player agency to screw the DM by not wanting to play the game we agreed on for no other reason than “player agency”?

And if at any time a “sandbox” game can stop being a sandbox game because on day two it became a “linear” game…I don’t know…why differentiate?

I’m just babbling. Thanks for engaging.

There's nothing pretentious about the term sandbox. It's just another method of play. It's best suitable for players who are very good at finding their own plot hooks, while linear adventures are best for players who prefer to tackle a goal that is given to them. Neither is better than the other.

 

[KYRON45]

There's nothing pretentious about the term sandbox. It's just another method of play. It's best suitable for players who are very good at finding their own plot hooks, while linear adventures are best for players who prefer to tackle a goal that is given to them. Neither is better than the other.

I guess my disbelief in the differentiation comes from this…

As a player it would never occur to me to not want to do what the DM presented. If I don’t want to do what the DM is offering; that’s it…the game is over.

As a DM I present an elevator pitch for a game I’m prepping and people either join in for that game or they don’t.

I’m not in touch with this whole….im a player and I’m gonna do what I want….or I’m a dm and you’re gonna do what I tell you.

It’s supposed to be a collaborative thing we’re doing. The best way to enjoy it is to agree to what’s happening.

I’ve been playing since 1987 and either the group is in as a group or it isn’t. The player agency for me is….deciding to play.

 

[ezo]

And if a sandbox allows for linear play any any point….do we need the term sandbox?

Yes, because you often have the opposite: linear play without the freedom to roam.

Complete sandbox:
DM: "Ok everyone, here's the map of the world. Where do you want to start? (players answer) The city of Freehold? Ok. This is what the city is like. What do you want to do there? (players ask questions about the city) Sure, the queen is organizing a festival for the Tradespeople due to an upcoming holiday, you can certainly go to the party!"

At which point the scenario is set, the DM rolls some encounters, improvs an adventure, etc. The world is there for the PCs to explore. If what the DM tells them doesn't sound interesting, they can tell the DM where they want to go to find out what might be happening elsewhere.

The players have (pretty much) complete agency. While they don't decide what is going on in the world when they get someplace, they are totally free to act to events however they wish or ignore them entirely.

"Common" sandbox:
DM: "Ok, you guys are starting in the city of Freehold. A lot is going on as there is an important festival coming up! You've heard the city watch is looking for extra help to keep the peace during the festivities. Also, a promenent merchant needs some goods brought from a nearby port but he's concerned about bandits along the way, so he's looking to hire. Oh, oh, and there's a royal ball at the castle... could be fun if you could get invitations. Any of that sound interesting? Huh?"

At which point the players decide together which "hook" sounds most fun to play and the DM moves things along as they do that particular adventure. Depending on how it goes, the other hooks might still be viable or might not, new ones come up, or the players might say, "Hey, let's head to the port now and see what ships are sailing where!"

The players have agency in making decisions given the limited choices. Often, if none of the options sound appealing, the DM will "wing-it" until something happens that the players are interest in and build an adventure based on it.

Non-sandbox (aka the railroad) or Linear:
DM: "So, you're in the city of Freehold heading to the Watch Command because they need help for the upcoming festival in honor of the city's tradespeople. When you arrive, the guard doesn't seem keen to let you in. What do you want to do?"

Now, the party is directly set on the adventure path the DM wants to run. If the players try to deviate too far, the DM will force them via encounters or whatever to "get back on track" -- hence why it is called a "railroad".

The players have no real agency other than what they do at a particular moment in the adventure.

Of course, as others have said its a spectrum between the extremes. My own games run somewhere between Common Sandbox and Railroad, ebbing and flowing more towards one or the other at different times. I've run games which were complete sandboxes, but players have to have a lot of buy-in and interest in the game world for those to work well on any level IME.

 

[ezo]

The player agency for me is….deciding to play.

Yeah, I get this completely. For me, if I decide to play I go with the flow for what the DM has prepped simply because knowing the DM is prepared means IMO the adventure will more likely be fun. If I force the DM (as if I could LOL) to go "off-base" and improv, many DMs IME struggle with that and find it frustrating (myself included at times!).

The idea is "the DM did all this prep work, and basically wasted their time if we don't play it.".

As a DM for over 40 years at this point, I can improv well enough once in a while if the players want to move off script, but it would get old and really annoying if they did it regularly. Only when you have a fairly developed game world (either in your head or on paper!) and can answer player questions quickly and with sufficient detail to allow them to really make their own decisions and drive the narrative, does a "complete sandbox" work at all.

I've only had one group that was able to do that. IME most players want one or more hooks to draw them into an adventure. Once they're hooked, they tend to have fun and are happy with it.

 

[KYRON45]

Yeah, I get this completely. For me, if I decide to play I go with the flow for what the DM has prepped simply because knowing the DM is prepared means IMO the adventure will more likely be fun. If I force the DM (as if I could LOL) to go "off-base" and improv, many DMs IME struggle with that and find it frustrating (myself included at times!).

The idea is "the DM did all this prep work, and basically wasted their time if we don't play it.".

As a DM for over 40 years at this point, I can improv well enough once in a while if the players want to move off script, but it would get old and really annoying if they did it regularly. Only when you have a fairly developed game world (either in your head or on paper!) and can answer player questions quickly and with sufficient detail to allow them to really make their own decisions and drive the narrative, does a "complete sandbox" work at all.

I've only had one group that was able to do that. IME most players want one or more hooks to draw them into an adventure. Once they're hooked, they tend to have fun and are happy with it.

I read a lot of stuff on these forums that make me ask….what game is everyone playing?!?