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

[Bedrockgames]

Yes, that is Kevin Crawford's advice across the *Without Number series of games.

And I would say it is probably even the norm of most sandboxes GMs at this point

 

[Micah Sweet]

To me, @Hussar seems perfectly aware of that difference, and is not confusing it. He seems to be pointing out that choosing from stuff that the GM presents to the players is still about the GM's idea of how things in the setting, and hence the game, hang together.

I don't see @Hussar having asserted that anyone is being railroaded on a single adventure.

What he is saying, as I read it - and in response to another poster's example of the Spelljammer - is that if the players want to pursue the goal of obtaining a Spelljammer, then they have to go through the steps authored into the setting by the GM. That is, first they have to find someone (eg the sage) who can tell them where a Spelljammer might be found; then they have to find out how to get to that place; then they have to go there; etc. The players have to proceed through a series of steps, or events, that the GM has authored.

The fact that the players might change their focus to some other item on the GM's menu (to continue @Hussar's metaphor) doesn't change the fact that it is the GM's menu.

It's still the GMs world, because it's still a classic-style game. Whether or not making choices within that world is enough agency for you is obviously subjective.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And if that is not enough agency for a player's taste? If they want more than a selection, but want to set their own agenda? Are they being unreasonable to either provide that feedback or move on to a game with more agency? Are players allowed to want more say?

Please describe what would be an acceptable amount of agency for you.

 

[mamba]

What he is saying, as I read it - and in response to another poster's example of the Spelljammer - is that if the players want to pursue the goal of obtaining a Spelljammer, then they have to go through the steps authored into the setting by the GM. That is, first they have to find someone (eg the sage) who can tell them where a Spelljammer might be found; then they have to find out how to get to that place; then they have to go there; etc. The players have to proceed through a series of steps, or events, that the GM has authored.

what is the alternative, the players just saying ‘I heard there is an abandoned Spelljammer just beyond that hill there, let’s go there and take it’?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Except when you write "objective setting," you actually mean subjective decisions by the GM.

Objective from the perspective of the PCs. Like all games with a GM where the rules don't enforce strong restraints, trust is a major factor.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And I would say it is probably even the norm of most sandboxes GMs at this point

It is certainly my preferred method.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

C’mon folks, leave this poor [rant] alone.

There’s a perfectly good place to discuss sandboxes over here:

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

Apr 19, 2025

Inspired by the latest turn that the [rant] thread has taken...

Let's talk about linear and/or/vs sandbox campaign styles!

So, first, let's back up and define "campaign" for our discussion purposes:

Campaign:
1. The DM decides on a campaign setting, be it published or homebrewed or a bit of each, and pitches it to some players
2. The DM outlines the campaign guidelines, including table etiquette, where and when they'll meet, ruleset/books available, house rules, etc.
3. The DM describes how character creation will be accomplished including any limitations and latitudes
4. LG!
Note...

• Swarmkeeper
• Replies: 280
• Forum: *Dungeons & Dragons

• 

 

[Campbell]

Please describe what would be an acceptable amount of agency for you.

There is no set amount. There are times where I am willing to accept less agency if it means a more compelling gameplay, setting, story or because what we are trying to do demands it. But I think mindful of what we are giving up is good practice. I also mostly speak up for the idea that it's alright to advocate for the things you want and seek them out. That you are not being unreasonable for doing so (unless you are trying to force the things you want on others).

I also just prefer there to be an awareness of the broad range of agency, acknowledgement of all forms of gaming. To include them all in the conversation.

 

[Faolyn]

No, they are not. The players have declared they want to go to a Spelljammer ship. The DM provides every step along the path that leads them from where they are to where they want to go. They go to this sage because the DM tells them that they need someone to help them find a portal to the Nexus. They travel to the Nexus because that's where the DM tells them they have to go. Once in Nexus, they talk to the NPC's that the DM tells them that they need to talk to in order to find a Spelljammer. And, once they have followed the completely linear path from A to B to C to D, they arrive at the Spelljammer ship.

Other than the initial hook of "We want a Spelljammer ship" the players have zero input into how the adventure plays out. It's entirely linear. That the players get to choose from the DM's menu doesn't make any real difference - it's still just reacting to whatever the DM has put into play.

I said earlier that other games can do it, but it's also possible to use those games' techniques in D&D.

Player: We wanna get a Spelljamming ship.

GM: OK, so how do go about doing that?

Player: Well, we're going to need to buy a helm first, I guess.

GM: Well, the helm is a pretty powerful and specialized magic item. Where would you get it?

The GM doesn't have to decide what steps need to be taken. The players can do that. They might say "there's probably a scholar who knows something about it" or "have we heard of any artificers or wizards who are into building forms of transportation?" Or they could even say "We're going to go to the biggest port city we know of, since they'll either have helms already or have someone there who can get one."

Then all the GM is doing is coming up with the name of the scholars, artificers, helms-brokers, or whoever, and any complications that may arise during this Quest For The Helm.

(For all we know, the PCs could even say "we make a helm!" in which case the GM and players could work as a group to figure out the components and spells necessary.)

I was recently reading the game Ryuutama, and that codifies a rule for something that a lot of us already do: rolling to see not if you can do something, but how well you do it. It's basically "roll your dice; the higher you roll, the better, here's a chart so you know how well." Simple enough to translate into D&D. So if the D&D players ask "have we heard of any artificers" and they roll low, the PCs know of an artificer, but they're not very competent or use dodgy materials or they have enemies or something that produces a complication that will be fun but not actually restrictive. And if they roll well, there will be different fun complications.

Even if the openest of sandboxes, there will still be a few "directed quests." The PCs can't just get the artificer to make them a spelljammer helm for free, after all. Their choices will be limited: pay for the helm in coin, do a quest for the artificer, steal the helm (or pay for the helm and steal their money back), or threaten the artificer into making the helm for them. The fact that there are limited ways to actually get their hands on the helm doesn't make this part non-sandboxy, because it's up to the players what route they take.

(Example: In an old game I was in--this was in GURPS, not D&D, and using a third-party D&D3x adventure--we needed to get an artifact that was being held in an extradimensional bank. The adventure assumed we'd pull a heist, because that's what proper PCs do. Instead, we found the grave of the artifact's original owner, hired a lawyer, and used the GURPS equivalent of speak with dead to get the owner's permission to use the artifact.)

So even using plain ol' D&D, you can, with a few adjustments--mostly to the table's mindset--turn it into a player-driven sandbox.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And thus, the thin veneer. The players say, based on the information you have given them, we choose A from the menu. You then cook A. After that, they choose B from the menu, and you cook B. So on and so forth. There's no real sandbox here since the only difference is the number of choices on the menu. At no point is there not a menu. The fact that you "plan for the next session" pretty much means that any choice the players had was only in reaction to whatever roads you choose to lay down.

I don't think that follows.

You can have a dinner plan with no menu; you just ask people what they want, and to the best of your understanding, cook that. At the very least the "menu" is planned by the people asking, not you. "Planning for" is more getting the ingredients and preparing what they've asked for, within your capabilities.

I mean, to the degree a campaign has structure at all, it may somewhat constrain what options are present, but any other case essentially says that that a sandbox can't be a box or filled with sand.