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

[Hussar]

I don't think the players need to add to the game world in order to make it more of a sandbox than a linear game. All they need is the option to choose direction; admittedly the choices are limited to the world as the GM imagines but it is still far more freedom than playing typical published modules like Tomb of Annihilation. In ToA you may have some freedom on how to go through the jungle but you know that sooner or later you're going to have to face the big bad. That overall trajectory being predefined is what, to me, defines a linear game.

My games may not be pure sandbox but they certainly aren't linear either.

I totally agree with this. And that's generally my point. When people claim "My game is a sandbox", I tend to read it as more of a "feeling" than an actual fact. Mostly because IME, it's mostly likely that a sandbox is more "You have more options for doing stuff" than in a linear game. It's a question of degree, not kind. I mean, the Curse of Strahd is a pretty open sandbox campaign module. But, like you said, you're going to face Strahd in the end. You start at A, proceed through B-F in order of choice and then arrive at the G spot at the end.

While I realize that this particular thread is about D&D, there are games where the players create as much world-content as the GM, or even more. For instance, in Fabula Ultima, players make the world while GMs merely "take part" in the world-planning sessions.

Which suggests the lesson here might be, if you want a 100% true sandbox, either play a game other than D&D or use another game's suggestions in your D&D game.

Again, totally agree with this. D&D isn't particularly well suited to pure sandboxing because the players simply don't have any ability to change the setting. It's too reactive to be what I would call an actual, non-linear sandbox. That was certainly my experience with Ironsworn where I literally had no idea what would happen by the end of each session, even though I was running the game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I totally agree with this. And that's generally my point. When people claim "My game is a sandbox", I tend to read it as more of a "feeling" than an actual fact. Mostly because IME, it's mostly likely that a sandbox is more "You have more options for doing stuff" than in a linear game. It's a question of degree, not kind. I mean, the Curse of Strahd is a pretty open sandbox campaign module. But, like you said, you're going to face Strahd in the end. You start at A, proceed through B-F in order of choice and then arrive at the G spot at the end.

But this isn't how most sandboxes function. You can do this for sure. But there usually isn't a big bad to confront at the end of a sandbox. That isn't what they are usually about

Again, totally agree with this. D&D isn't particularly well suited to pure sandboxing because the players simply don't have any ability to change the setting. It's too reactive to be what I would call an actual, non-linear sandbox. That was certainly my experience with Ironsworn where I literally had no idea what would happen by the end of each session, even though I was running the game.

But sandboxes are grounded in traditional play where the players don't have powers outside their character to alter the setting. I mean you can do a sandbox with powers over setting. But that isn't really how sandboxes have functioned, so saying D&D is bad at sandbox because it lacks something most sandbox campaigns don't even have, feels off

 

[Lanefan]

And every single option is created, controlled and made available by you the dm. I can’t get a Spelljammer because you haven’t added it. I can’t only have a chance of finding a spelljammer if I explore the setting you have created in a manner that you find acceptable.

Iow, it’s pretty much no freedom at all. It’s all just reacting to the DM’s ideas. In order to find a spelljammer, I must travel to Nexus. While in Nexus I presume I would need to speak with specific people and/or go to specific locations in order to find said Spelljammer.

How is this not linear?

Just because simple in-fiction causality means that sometimes one thing has to lead to another doesn't mean it's all linear. In reality, just because in order to drive my car I need to first do a series of other things - find the keys, make sure I have my license with me, put some shoes on - doesn't make any of that process linear; and at any time I have and retain the ability to choose to do it differently e.g. drive barefoot, or not go out at all.

To take that one step further, once I'm in my car and on the road the streets are themselves largely a sandbox - I can go anywhere I want assuming I follow the rules of the road (which kinda map to game rules). Your position seems to be it's not a sandbox unless I can also drive through buildings and sports fields and deep water and anywhere else I want, and-or unless any passengers I may have each get their own gas-brake pedals and steering wheel so we can try going in multiple direction at once. Seems a bit ludicrous to me.

Also, that it's completely within the DM's purview to create the setting and elements therein doesn't make anything about it linear. As I just posted in the other, newer thread, the sand in the sandbox (directly analagous to the campaign setting) is there because the DM put it there. It's only when the DM starts telling players what to do or not do with that sand that linearity - and railroading - arises.

 

[Hussar]

But sandboxes are grounded in traditional play where the players don't have powers outside their character to alter the setting. I mean you can do a sandbox with powers over setting. But that isn't really how sandboxes have functioned, so saying D&D is bad at sandbox because it lacks something most sandbox campaigns don't even have, feels off

My argument is that what people claim as sandbox play is just regular play with a thin veneer of pretend choice. The players can choose A or B or C, only so long as the DM approves of those choices of course, and, if the players choose something, the DM then prepares that something, develops that scenario, the players then play through that scenario and then choose the next scenario.

Typically the DM has various events and whatnot going on in the setting to provide hooks that lead the players to one or another story.

The players are simply driving down whatever roads the DM provides. At no point do they get to make new roads.

 

[Hussar]

Just because simple in-fiction causality means that sometimes one thing has to lead to another doesn't mean it's all linear. In reality, just because in order to drive my car I need to first do a series of other things - find the keys, make sure I have my license with me, put some shoes on - doesn't make any of that process linear; and at any time I have and retain the ability to choose to do it differently e.g. drive barefoot, or not go out at all.

Sorry, no. It absolutely does make things linear. If you have to proceed through A->B->C, that's, by definition linear. That's what linear means.

So, in our Spelljammer example, the players go to a Sage, find out where the portal to Nexus is, go to Nexus, find out where the Spelljammer is, go to the Spelljammer. That is, by definition, linear. You cannot skip any of the steps. There is only one path from A to C.

What you call a sandbox, I call episodic. For the players to actually have real choices, means that they can actually choose something that ISN'T 100% provided by the DM. Otherwise, it's just a la carte or buffet vs set menu. You're still in a restaurant eating food that someone else has cooked. It's the same food, it's the same restaurant, it's the same waiters, just presented differently.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My argument is that what people claim as sandbox play is just regular play with a thin veneer of pretend choice.

I understand your argument, but I don't think it reflects the actual experience of sandbox

The players can choose A or B or C, only so long as the DM approves of those choices of course, and, if the players choose something, the DM then prepares that something, develops that scenario, the players then play through that scenario and then choose the next scenario.

That isn't how a sandbox works. Normally for a sandbox a GM has a whole setting planned out with all kinds of places, sites, situations, NPCs, factions, towns, etc. The players decide where they want to go and what they want to do. This could be something like a typical adventure (I.e. when they hear about Iron Temple, and its Thousand Painful Deaths flower, they might go there, but a lot of the action frequently revolves more around things the players are initiating with NPCs and power groups). All that said, if the players have three viable choices, which is a small number for a sandbox, that is not the same as just having one choice: the adventure the GM planned that night.

Typically the DM has various events and whatnot going on in the setting to provide hooks that lead the players to one or another story.

Again, I don't think most sandbox GMs are thinking in terms of leading players to stories. Every GM is different, but I tend to think more in terms of NPCs and their motivations. Adventures seem to arise more in my experience from an interaction between NPCs and PCs that usually produce directions and results neither the players nor the Gm would have predicted.

The players are simply driving down whatever roads the DM provides. At no point do they get to make new roads.

The point is there really aren't roads in a sandbox. You might have some to start to help players get used to taking initiative, and it is totally fine if you want a sandbox with roads (there is no problem with using structures within a sandbox you are more comfortable with) but the ideal is to not have roads

I am not saying they are the best adventure structure. I am not saying you should think they are great (there are a lot of downsides and challenges to sandbox). But what you are describing doesn't sound like a sandbox to me

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sorry, no. It absolutely does make things linear. If you have to proceed through A->B->C, that's, by definition linear. That's what linear means.

That isn't what a linear adventure is. Having events happen over the course of the evening doesn't mean the adventure was a planned linear scenario.

So, in our Spelljammer example, the players go to a Sage, find out where the portal to Nexus is, go to Nexus, find out where the Spelljammer is, go to the Spelljammer. That is, by definition, linear. You cannot skip any of the steps. There is only one path from A to C.

That isn't a linear adventure. That is the players choosing to go to a sage, then to Nexus, then to the spell jammer. Unless the GM prepped those as the paths he wanted the players to go down, that isn't what linear adventure means at all

What you call a sandbox, I call episodic. For the players to actually have real choices, means that they can actually choose something that ISN'T 100% provided by the DM. Otherwise, it's just a la carte or buffet vs set menu. You're still in a restaurant eating food that someone else has cooked. It's the same food, it's the same restaurant, it's the same waiters, just presented differently.

Sandboxes can and do both, and they do a third thing as well. Sometimes players go somewhere you don't anticipate and you have to plan for where they want to go. But more often you improvise based on what already exists. Also what is so bad about the GM making the setting content. The issue sandboxes solve is the complaint that they are only allowed to order a burrito. Even if it is just effectively a menu, and I don't think it is as there is usually a lot more going on in a sandbox, that still fulfills a promise of freedom of choice. This impossible goal of it only being true freedom if the GM is somehow removed from the equation makes no sense (it just seems like people have a stylistic axe to grind)

 

[gban007]

Sorry, no. It absolutely does make things linear. If you have to proceed through A->B->C, that's, by definition linear. That's what linear means.

So, in our Spelljammer example, the players go to a Sage, find out where the portal to Nexus is, go to Nexus, find out where the Spelljammer is, go to the Spelljammer. That is, by definition, linear. You cannot skip any of the steps. There is only one path from A to C.

What you call a sandbox, I call episodic. For the players to actually have real choices, means that they can actually choose something that ISN'T 100% provided by the DM. Otherwise, it's just a la carte or buffet vs set menu. You're still in a restaurant eating food that someone else has cooked. It's the same food, it's the same restaurant, it's the same waiters, just presented differently.

But does that assume they stay the course, and don't opt to do something else once find out where portal is or once get to Nexus? They may opt to never go on the Spell jammer?

 

[mamba]

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.

no, in the sandbox they can go wherever and follow the ideas that interest them, that is not an illusion

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.

that is what makes it a (typical) TTRPG

 

[Bedrockgames]

no, in the sandbox they can go wherever and follow the ideas that interest them, that is not an illusion


that is what makes it a (typical) TTRPG

Yeah when people label sandboxes an illusion it is not accurate because illusion is being presented a choice you don't really have (i.e. you think you have a choice between two doors with two different things behind them, but really both doors lead to the same thing). If you are given real choices of places to go, that is real choice, not an illusion