D&D General Sandbox and/or/vs Linear campaigns

[KYRON45]

no, because even the one writing the 'definition' said it did not describe a sandbox

Fair point.

 

[Guest 85555]

True or False:
In sandbox play the party shows up and does whatever they want and the Dm has to adjust to that?

Why don't you just tell me what you are getting at rather than lead me down a chain of questions to prove whatever point it is you want to make about sandboxes

 

[KYRON45]

My preference is somewhere between moderate and advanced. A basic sketch of the map and all its marked areas is prepared, with more detail available for the PCs starting area and close environs. Multiple options are presented beyond that, and the PCs choices on what to pursue determine where the GM's future prep efforts are focused. Improv, random tables etc are used as needed in play (again based on the PCs choices), and to facilitate these situations the DM also has several dynamic locations prepared that can be dropped in and added to the setting in an appropriate way as needed.

I'm really not trying to be "that guy".
But this helps my point...in so far as its the point as it exists in my tiny tiny brain.
When i say that a sandbox is a myth (and its tongue in cheek, I'm not mocking anyone) what i mean is.....there always needs to be DM prep to some degree. And there also needs to be party buy in to what's available. The party isn't just blindly deciding what happens next.

 

[KYRON45]

Why don't you just tell me what you are getting at rather than lead me down a chain of questions to prove whatever point it is you want to make about sandboxes

I'm not trying to get at anything. There is no "gotcha" at the end of this rainbow. I'm just stating my point as far as the language people use is concerned.

 

[mamba]

When i say that a sandbox is a myth (and its tongue in cheek, I'm not mocking anyone) what i mean is.....there always needs to be DM prep to some degree. And there also needs to be party buy in to what's available. The party isn't just blindly deciding what happens next.

given that there is a DM, the party will not by itself decide what happens next, even though they strongly influence it. As to having to agree, yes, to a degree, you have to agree where in the world you are and what world you are in. The party does not decide where they end up when travelling north from their current location, that is already established.

 

[AlViking]

I'm not trying to get at anything. There is no "gotcha" at the end of this rainbow. I'm just stating my point as far as the language people use is concerned.

Since you reject any and all labels, maybe don't threadcrap?

 

[Guest 85555]

But this helps my point...in so far as its the point as it exists in my tiny tiny brain.
When i say that a sandbox is a myth (and its tongue in cheek, I'm not mocking anyone) what i mean is.....there always needs to be DM prep to some degree. And there also needs to be party buy in to what's available. The party isn't just blindly deciding what happens next.

I'm not trying to get at anything. There is no "gotcha" at the end of this rainbow. I'm just stating my point as far as the language people use is concerned.

But that prep doesn't have to point in a linear direction at all. The prep could simply be a situation in a town with no real sense of where that is going. You might have conflicts between groups there, you might have resources being disputed, and political situations unfolding, but there is no obvious 'the adventure is here'. It is very much an evolving set of circumstances where the players are pushing things where they want to go, and the GM reacting, expanding, adjusting and ad libbing. Now some sandboxes will have more linear structures embedded in them. And those are often described in different ways (i.e. subway systems or sandboxes with roads). But I do think the ideal sandbox is one where those kinds of linear pathways are minimized as much as possible (not saying that is the best kind of sandbox, just that does seem to be what people would hold up as the 'platonic sandbox')

You are probably not going to find a single way all sandboxes are run though, just like you wouldn't find a single way all adventure paths are run, but that doesn't mean it isn't a structure. As long as there are countless groups playing a given structure, there will be different ways of implementing the structure

 

[KYRON45]

given that there is a DM, the party will not by itself decide what happens next, even though they strongly influence it. As to having to agree, yes, to a degree, you have to agree where in the world you are and what world you are in. The party does not decide where they end up when travelling north from their current location, that is already established.

This is what i mean about the myth. The party needs the DM and the DM...sadly....needs the party.
Everyone takes these discussions so seriously and I'm just trying to insert a little levity.

 

[overgeeked]

I'd suggest not using ENWorld as the place to try to define things. We can't even agree on what an RPG is, so trying to define things like railroading, linear adventure, or sandbox are going to be harder still.

I mostly run open-world sandboxes. It's something like a mix of your moderate, advanced, and ultimate sandbox definitions. But not exactly.

Pre-made or homebrew world. Work up some notes on the starting town which includes NPCs, factions, situations-hooks, etc. Create a few nearby points of interest to explore and interact with, along with whatever NPCs, factions, situations-hooks, etc those require. Make sure they point to other points of interest or back to the town. Discrete points on an ever-expanding web, basically.

Check in with the players to find out what some of their goals or their PCs' goals are and incorporate them into the setting if they're more quick and immediate or start thinking of how to fit them in later if they're more long-term goals.

Giving the NPCs and factions goals and timers is also important. The PCs don't exist in a static world. I don't need to know what the PCs will do, only what the NPCs will do. Unless the PCs stop them, the snake cult is going to kidnap the prince in one month...and unless the PCs stop them, the snake cult is going to sacrifice the prince one month later. I know the king is going to be pissed if the adventurers fail and even more pissed if the PCs accept the job then abandon it. There is no pre-defined story. Only NPCs and factions with goals and interesting locations. Everything changes when the PCs get involved.

Drop the PCs in the starter town and let them go. Play is usually the PCs bouncing off NPCs and factions, picking up jobs or abandoning them, following their own goals or abandoning them, but all the while they're making an impression on the NPCs, factions, and setting. Action and reaction are key to making a sandbox feel like a living, breathing place. Consequences for actions or inaction. Rewarded for saving the dragon from the princess or hunted by the kingdom for abandoning the prince to the snake cult. Create a drama-tension rich environment and wind it up before dropping the PCs in and seeing what happens. You could rewind back to 1 and use all the same material for a different group and it would play out completely differently every time.

And of course the improv, always so much improv.

I have a stack of modules to drop in if I need them, a stack of random encounter tables if I need them, and the old pulp trope of send in a goon with a sword if I need to stall for time. If all else fails, I can simply put an obstacle between them and their current goal.

The difference between a sandbox and a railroad is night and day. The players have real choices in a sandbox whereas they don't in a railroad. At a guess this is a spectrum and whatever linear adventures are they are either somewhere between the two on that spectrum or orthogonal to that spectrum.

If you're looking for sandbox resources, there's a thread for that. Link to my post there. There's lots of great stuff out there for sandbox play.

 

[KYRON45]

Since you reject any and all labels, maybe don't threadcrap?

Why does it always seem like you are looking for a fight?
I'm having a discussion and you are trying to tell me how.