I was trying to be polite and explain to you why your constant posts on this topic come across as threadcrapping when you reject the basic premise of the discussion. If I had decided to report you I would have just done it.
D&D General Sandbox and/or/vs Linear campaigns
- Thread starter Swarmkeeper
- Start date
I was trying to be polite and explain to you why your constant posts on this topic come across as threadcrapping when you reject the basic premise of the discussion. If I had decided to report you I would have just done it.
KYRON45
Hero
Again I thank you for your…idk….pitty?
I’m not sure what response you are after here as it seems to not be related to the OP?
It isn't, I don't think, about what is "allowed" so much as what lies within the bounds of the agreement folks started with. That is the "box" -- and this is true with sandboxes, linear adventure paths, and everything in between.
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
I agree with everything you have said since the first post.
I know what a sandbox is. That is not in dispute.
What I'm discussing...solely from my point of view is that there really isn't that much of a difference between soup and stew.
Both have their merits and both come down to expectations.
When I DM i don't use those labels. I tell the party where were starting, i tell them what the first scenario is so we can get rolling and then we make all the rest up as we go in the hopes that we can all have a good time and i can smack around some PCs.
That is fair. No one should have too use labels. If the labels create barriers to play for you, then not using them seems sound to me
overgeeked
Open-World Sandbox
It's only infamous because it's a nonsensical question. The style taking the name from the old wargaming sandboxes in no way implies that there must be or must not be a box that limits the game's play space.
I've literally run those games. Gave the PCs a Spelljammer or access to Sigil and off they went.
Only if there is a boundary. And whether there's a boundary or not in no way changes whether it's a sandbox game. It's just as much a sandbox game if you're limited to the Nentir Vale or if you're only limited by the referee's imagination and prep time.
No, because it's not the defining characteristic of the style you seem to think it is. You're taking the holdover name from 50+ years ago far too literally.
The closest you will ever get to a sandbox in any game would basically be story time where anyone can say or add anything to the narrative that they want whether or not it fits. However, that isn't particularly useful for a description of play for a TTRPG like D&D in most cases. You can come a bit closer with other systems, but D&D generally requires at least some prep ahead of time for both player and GM. In context of D&D there is still a spectrum but if we stay away from hypotheticals I think there is still a spectrum.
For example I don't run a game that is linear in the long term. I don't plan plots, I may have an idea of specific long term events that could be interesting but it's really up to the players to decide direction. Starting with a session 0, I explain the types of game I'm willing to run, general idea of the setting I'm planning on using and then we go from there. So general themes such as urban, exploration, sailing the seas, member of an existing guild or strangers thrown together are all discussed. Then as a DM I can suggest general options and we go from there.
However, I do ask the players what general direction we're going for the next session or two so that I can plan ahead. To make that happen I'll have suggestions of multiple possible things they can pursue and they can always suggest their own. If they suggest their own it has to be within the real of the established fiction of the world - they can't just decide to hop on a Spelljammer ship if none exists in the setting or if they don't have connections - but if the entire group decides to give up sailing and want to explore a city their ship is docked in they can.
Even when I do prep for the next session, I still don't have a linear plot in mind. I consider the likely events and how they will occur but for the most part I'll just think about the location they'll be in, who or what is there and what their motivations and goals are so I know how they'll respond to the actions of the characters. So my notes for a recent session included a reminder of a critical NPC and what they were thinking, and why the NPC would want the characters to investigate a possible threat. I included pertinent details on the groups on both sides of the conflict and then basically a handful of encounters that list the monsters with a line or two of how the monsters could be used.
I do think about possible breadcrumbs the group can follow with decision points where the decision has some actual meaning and impact but much like my possible encounters I generally have more than I actually use. I rarely ever want my players to be frustrated because they have no clear direction or basis for their decisions because having two paths with no indication of risk or benefit can simply be frustrating.
So I describe my games as more-or-less-sandbox. They aren't pure sandbox but they aren't linear either. The players will always be making hopefully informed choices (although occasionally the information is wrong of course) and choosing the direction of the game. So on a scale of 1 to 10 with 0 being "story time" and 10 being "hop on the train", I'd say I'm usually a 2 or 3 depending on what the group enjoys.
For example I don't run a game that is linear in the long term. I don't plan plots, I may have an idea of specific long term events that could be interesting but it's really up to the players to decide direction. Starting with a session 0, I explain the types of game I'm willing to run, general idea of the setting I'm planning on using and then we go from there. So general themes such as urban, exploration, sailing the seas, member of an existing guild or strangers thrown together are all discussed. Then as a DM I can suggest general options and we go from there.
However, I do ask the players what general direction we're going for the next session or two so that I can plan ahead. To make that happen I'll have suggestions of multiple possible things they can pursue and they can always suggest their own. If they suggest their own it has to be within the real of the established fiction of the world - they can't just decide to hop on a Spelljammer ship if none exists in the setting or if they don't have connections - but if the entire group decides to give up sailing and want to explore a city their ship is docked in they can.
Even when I do prep for the next session, I still don't have a linear plot in mind. I consider the likely events and how they will occur but for the most part I'll just think about the location they'll be in, who or what is there and what their motivations and goals are so I know how they'll respond to the actions of the characters. So my notes for a recent session included a reminder of a critical NPC and what they were thinking, and why the NPC would want the characters to investigate a possible threat. I included pertinent details on the groups on both sides of the conflict and then basically a handful of encounters that list the monsters with a line or two of how the monsters could be used.
I do think about possible breadcrumbs the group can follow with decision points where the decision has some actual meaning and impact but much like my possible encounters I generally have more than I actually use. I rarely ever want my players to be frustrated because they have no clear direction or basis for their decisions because having two paths with no indication of risk or benefit can simply be frustrating.
So I describe my games as more-or-less-sandbox. They aren't pure sandbox but they aren't linear either. The players will always be making hopefully informed choices (although occasionally the information is wrong of course) and choosing the direction of the game. So on a scale of 1 to 10 with 0 being "story time" and 10 being "hop on the train", I'd say I'm usually a 2 or 3 depending on what the group enjoys.
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
I think the 'box' for most people indicates, at the very least, a region, and certainly doesn't have to include multidimensional ventures. So you could give a map of a town and call it a sandbox, but I think most people would be a little confused by that. I do think though you can say "I am running this town..." or even "I am running this adventure....", "....like a contained sandbox". That would likely get the point across that characters roaming freely is the expectation.
In terms of how big it can be, I think that comes down to what the GM thinks they can manage. If they have a fairly fleshed out world, or they are very good at ad libbing, they might allow for a sandbox spanning a globe. But I think most are contained to a portion of the world. Something I do is I don't have limits, but if players go off in some crazy direction where I only have very rough sketch outlines of what is there, I might pause and say 'give me a week'. Sometimes I might just wing it though (and there are some decent tools out there for winging such things).
But I think most GMs want something that feels manageable
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
One reason I have never liked the term sandbox, even though I use it, is people tend to fixate on the box part.
For what it's worth I wish there were a better term as well. I'd be open to suggestion, I've just never seen any real alternatives.
jgsugden
Legend
We use labels to reduce large concepts to single reference points. When you argue about what a label represents, you're essentially arguing about the right way to organize the concepts. This is usually a waste of time as, at the heart, what we're usually more interested in the concepts represented by the labels more than the labels themselves.
In other words - stop worrying about whether you like the OP's definitions. You can note you think of it differently, but use them as references for the discussion and move on.
Most of my campaigns of D&D would fall in the area the OP has trouble distinguishing: Advanced Linear Adventure and Basic Sandbox Adventure. They essentially follow the 'Babylon 5' model as I like to call it.
Babylon 5 was the first American multi-season Sci-fi show that carried concepts from episode to episode and season to season as a core mechanic of the storytelling. You had episodic stories that wrapped up in a single episode, multi-episode arcs, season arcs, and multi-season arcs ... and they wove together to create the entire epic tale. That is what I strive to do.
When I start with a new group I run one campaign. I have run it many times since the 1980s when it was first created. It has dated elements.
It begins with the PCs being fledgling adventurers in a small walled Kingdom. They go on a typical low level "investigate this ruin" type adventure after being hired by someone that turns out to be working for the Royal Family. At the end of this 2 session dungeon all heck breaks lose. With only a few very vague foreshadowing bits hinting that something is up, a veritable army of monstrous humanoids and monstrosities attack the Kingdom. The invading force is far, far, far, far more powerful than the combined resources of the small walled Kingdom. I consider everything up to this point to be railroaded for the PCs. I give them one solid hook and expect them to take it.
At this point, the PCs hit a sandbox situation. They get a number of hooks: 1.) People are fleeing and need time to escape. The PCs can try to slow down the invading army. 2.) The Princess of the Kingdom disappeared right before the assault took place. Due to their involvement in that first adventure, the PCs are in a position to locate her. Someone asks if they are willing to do this. 3.) There are people trying to figure out why the invaders attacked. The PCs have a vested interest in figuring this out. 4.) Every sign indicates that no matter what, the invaders are too powerful to stop and people need to flee across the seas. Do the PCs go? 5.) A resistance organization forms quickly amongst those unable to flee and the PCs may get a chance to join if they do not flee.
Additionally, PCs might decide to loot, or use the opportunity to murderhobo through the enemy forces as much as they can.
As a DM, I prepare for the PCs to stay in the region or go across the seas to the "new land" where the heroes may try to help the refugees establish a new place to live with the constant threats of the new realm and the invaders following them around. I also prepare for that to unfold without them present while the PCs stay in the old lands. Either way, I consider this the "first Babylon 5 season". If you've watched Babylon 5, you may remember that there is a primary storyline for the show - and we only sniff hints of it during the storylines of the first season. That is true here. I drop foreshadowing hints about the main storyline through these first adventures ... but around the time the PCs reach level 5, those hints start to coalesce into threads and the PCs realize they are in a position to play a central role in an unfolding storyline.
Levels 5 to 11 involve adventures that add more understanding for the PCs. Using Babylon 5 as a reference, as sessions go by they learn more about the Shadows and Vorlons - and other First Ones / Elder Beings. They're gathering the puzzle pieces but do not have enough to see the big picture for a bit. There is no "big reveal". There is a constant swirl of information that is revealed and re-revealed (as players forget or miss significance) over time until one of them says, "Hey, do you think ...." and there is a collective realization of what is going on. This could happen very quickly (like level 6) or take a longer time (like level 11), but once it does the PCs will see the game board differently. They'll realize that certain situations they've ignored are meaningful. They'll realize that they have played a huge role in the fate of the entire setting. They'll realize that they have the MacGuffin that is at the core of the entire threat ... or that they did before they lost it a year back. Regardless, as they advance to that level where they can teleport, use divinations to get answers, and otherwise 'break the rules' that ground low level games they are in a position to adventure across the planes and try to deal with the threat.
There are a lot of ways that levels 5 to 17 can unfold. It is a huge sandbox of options where certain clues can be acquired. The threads that interest them most can be followed and information can be gathered about the rest through hearing news, using magic or through the natural interests of NPCs associated with some of those other storylines being interests that focus on the PCs due to their actions.
In the end, as they go from that point of realization the campaign goes through reductions and narrowing. Storylines resolve and influence the available options. As with Baldur's Gate 3 - something you decided to do in the Druid Grove in Chapter 1 may change what options you have in Baldur's Gate in Chapter 3. At that point, there is a big reveal. It is the twist or pivot around which the campaign resolves. Everything they've done so far is balanced against that pivot point and determines what options they can pursue. It is important to know that this pivot point was inevitable. Everything that mandated it would happen occurred outside the reach of the PCs. The pivot is going to happen - but what pivots around it is determined by the PCs. A wall was always crumbling and was always going to break ... the PCs are just determining what is on both sides of the wall as they go through the campaign.
Then they engage in the ENDGAME in which they decide how my campaign setting will go forward. So as not to reveal too much, the Babylon 5 equivalent would be: Do they aid the Shadows to cast off the Vorlon manipulations? Do they aid the Vorlons to put a threat to the destructive chaos of the Shadows? Do they try to stop the warfare between them? Or do they figure out how to conquer all of them using the tools they've gathered? They could also just decide to let it unfold without them as they focus on personal interests ... although I have not seen that happen yet.
When the campaign ends I hold a Q&A. I let the players ask anything. I start it by telling them of the Babylon 5 structure and then explaining how the puzzle pieces fit - especially the ones they did not explore. In all the time I've run this, there is one story hook that nobody ever touches - and I think it is really, really, really cool. I intentionally try to hype it up as I want the players to have freedom and write their own fates ... but when I describe it to the players they usually agree that they wish they'd taken the hook. Regardless, after the Q&A, the PCs are retired and the next campaign takes place in a version of my world that is heavily influenced by the results of the first campaign.
In my eyes, This is a railroad sandwich. I start with a linear story, explode into a sandbox, and then dig through the sandbox to reveal rails that bring them eventually back to a railroad event. From there, they're back on a railroad ... but they selected where the rails go.
I see this structure all over BG3. If you go to the end of the campaign there is a single resolution point. What options you have at that point are determined by everything you've done to reach that point. While the core elements of the end may be very similar for a Chaotic Evil Dark Urge and a Lawful Good Light Cleric ... the way it unfolds are hugely different - and you may make decisions that result in VERY different scenarios for the Sword Coast (or all planes). The same is true of this campaign.
The next campaign I run is usually my megadungeon. The PCs are helping an exploratory team secure a ruined village as a trading port along a trading route that has returned to relevance. Goin in, the players know this is a megadungeon campaign. They discover a huge manor house on the hill overlooking the village that is being reestablished and get a chance to explore it - and the dungeon beneath it - and the feywild, shadowfell, and ethereal reflections of it. They also discover all the extraplanar connections in it that take them to distant lands, to distant planes, and to distant lands. There is no 'big storyline' here - but instead a vast number of shorter mysteries that all interconnect a bit, but not in a way that heads towards a single resolution. As they advance in power the PCs can "unlock" additional parts of the megadungeon - allowing their advancing abilities to be the gatekeepers on the more difficult areas. It is akin to the megadungeon Matt Mercer added to campaign 2 of Critical Role - but with several hundred encounter options. This is an entirely different structure than the first campaign - but players have responded equally favorably to both.
In other words - stop worrying about whether you like the OP's definitions. You can note you think of it differently, but use them as references for the discussion and move on.
Most of my campaigns of D&D would fall in the area the OP has trouble distinguishing: Advanced Linear Adventure and Basic Sandbox Adventure. They essentially follow the 'Babylon 5' model as I like to call it.
Babylon 5 was the first American multi-season Sci-fi show that carried concepts from episode to episode and season to season as a core mechanic of the storytelling. You had episodic stories that wrapped up in a single episode, multi-episode arcs, season arcs, and multi-season arcs ... and they wove together to create the entire epic tale. That is what I strive to do.
When I start with a new group I run one campaign. I have run it many times since the 1980s when it was first created. It has dated elements.
It begins with the PCs being fledgling adventurers in a small walled Kingdom. They go on a typical low level "investigate this ruin" type adventure after being hired by someone that turns out to be working for the Royal Family. At the end of this 2 session dungeon all heck breaks lose. With only a few very vague foreshadowing bits hinting that something is up, a veritable army of monstrous humanoids and monstrosities attack the Kingdom. The invading force is far, far, far, far more powerful than the combined resources of the small walled Kingdom. I consider everything up to this point to be railroaded for the PCs. I give them one solid hook and expect them to take it.
At this point, the PCs hit a sandbox situation. They get a number of hooks: 1.) People are fleeing and need time to escape. The PCs can try to slow down the invading army. 2.) The Princess of the Kingdom disappeared right before the assault took place. Due to their involvement in that first adventure, the PCs are in a position to locate her. Someone asks if they are willing to do this. 3.) There are people trying to figure out why the invaders attacked. The PCs have a vested interest in figuring this out. 4.) Every sign indicates that no matter what, the invaders are too powerful to stop and people need to flee across the seas. Do the PCs go? 5.) A resistance organization forms quickly amongst those unable to flee and the PCs may get a chance to join if they do not flee.
Additionally, PCs might decide to loot, or use the opportunity to murderhobo through the enemy forces as much as they can.
As a DM, I prepare for the PCs to stay in the region or go across the seas to the "new land" where the heroes may try to help the refugees establish a new place to live with the constant threats of the new realm and the invaders following them around. I also prepare for that to unfold without them present while the PCs stay in the old lands. Either way, I consider this the "first Babylon 5 season". If you've watched Babylon 5, you may remember that there is a primary storyline for the show - and we only sniff hints of it during the storylines of the first season. That is true here. I drop foreshadowing hints about the main storyline through these first adventures ... but around the time the PCs reach level 5, those hints start to coalesce into threads and the PCs realize they are in a position to play a central role in an unfolding storyline.
Levels 5 to 11 involve adventures that add more understanding for the PCs. Using Babylon 5 as a reference, as sessions go by they learn more about the Shadows and Vorlons - and other First Ones / Elder Beings. They're gathering the puzzle pieces but do not have enough to see the big picture for a bit. There is no "big reveal". There is a constant swirl of information that is revealed and re-revealed (as players forget or miss significance) over time until one of them says, "Hey, do you think ...." and there is a collective realization of what is going on. This could happen very quickly (like level 6) or take a longer time (like level 11), but once it does the PCs will see the game board differently. They'll realize that certain situations they've ignored are meaningful. They'll realize that they have played a huge role in the fate of the entire setting. They'll realize that they have the MacGuffin that is at the core of the entire threat ... or that they did before they lost it a year back. Regardless, as they advance to that level where they can teleport, use divinations to get answers, and otherwise 'break the rules' that ground low level games they are in a position to adventure across the planes and try to deal with the threat.
There are a lot of ways that levels 5 to 17 can unfold. It is a huge sandbox of options where certain clues can be acquired. The threads that interest them most can be followed and information can be gathered about the rest through hearing news, using magic or through the natural interests of NPCs associated with some of those other storylines being interests that focus on the PCs due to their actions.
In the end, as they go from that point of realization the campaign goes through reductions and narrowing. Storylines resolve and influence the available options. As with Baldur's Gate 3 - something you decided to do in the Druid Grove in Chapter 1 may change what options you have in Baldur's Gate in Chapter 3. At that point, there is a big reveal. It is the twist or pivot around which the campaign resolves. Everything they've done so far is balanced against that pivot point and determines what options they can pursue. It is important to know that this pivot point was inevitable. Everything that mandated it would happen occurred outside the reach of the PCs. The pivot is going to happen - but what pivots around it is determined by the PCs. A wall was always crumbling and was always going to break ... the PCs are just determining what is on both sides of the wall as they go through the campaign.
Then they engage in the ENDGAME in which they decide how my campaign setting will go forward. So as not to reveal too much, the Babylon 5 equivalent would be: Do they aid the Shadows to cast off the Vorlon manipulations? Do they aid the Vorlons to put a threat to the destructive chaos of the Shadows? Do they try to stop the warfare between them? Or do they figure out how to conquer all of them using the tools they've gathered? They could also just decide to let it unfold without them as they focus on personal interests ... although I have not seen that happen yet.
When the campaign ends I hold a Q&A. I let the players ask anything. I start it by telling them of the Babylon 5 structure and then explaining how the puzzle pieces fit - especially the ones they did not explore. In all the time I've run this, there is one story hook that nobody ever touches - and I think it is really, really, really cool. I intentionally try to hype it up as I want the players to have freedom and write their own fates ... but when I describe it to the players they usually agree that they wish they'd taken the hook. Regardless, after the Q&A, the PCs are retired and the next campaign takes place in a version of my world that is heavily influenced by the results of the first campaign.
In my eyes, This is a railroad sandwich. I start with a linear story, explode into a sandbox, and then dig through the sandbox to reveal rails that bring them eventually back to a railroad event. From there, they're back on a railroad ... but they selected where the rails go.
I see this structure all over BG3. If you go to the end of the campaign there is a single resolution point. What options you have at that point are determined by everything you've done to reach that point. While the core elements of the end may be very similar for a Chaotic Evil Dark Urge and a Lawful Good Light Cleric ... the way it unfolds are hugely different - and you may make decisions that result in VERY different scenarios for the Sword Coast (or all planes). The same is true of this campaign.
The next campaign I run is usually my megadungeon. The PCs are helping an exploratory team secure a ruined village as a trading port along a trading route that has returned to relevance. Goin in, the players know this is a megadungeon campaign. They discover a huge manor house on the hill overlooking the village that is being reestablished and get a chance to explore it - and the dungeon beneath it - and the feywild, shadowfell, and ethereal reflections of it. They also discover all the extraplanar connections in it that take them to distant lands, to distant planes, and to distant lands. There is no 'big storyline' here - but instead a vast number of shorter mysteries that all interconnect a bit, but not in a way that heads towards a single resolution. As they advance in power the PCs can "unlock" additional parts of the megadungeon - allowing their advancing abilities to be the gatekeepers on the more difficult areas. It is akin to the megadungeon Matt Mercer added to campaign 2 of Critical Role - but with several hundred encounter options. This is an entirely different structure than the first campaign - but players have responded equally favorably to both.
Similar Threads
