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

[Thomas Shey]

Sandboxes work better for the groups of pro active players. Yes, it gives players more freedom to do what they want. But also, it puts responsibility of coming up with what to do on the players. If players don't have clear ideas about their characters goals and at least some idea how to achieve them, then games can feel like nothing happens.

It also requires a certain degree of energy on the part of players that in some cases just isn't there. Some people want--no, I'll go as far as to say need--something to get them moving and some direction. Otherwise they struggle in a way they don't find pleasant.

Linear adventures work great for reactive players. It removes responsibility of coming up with ideas what to do from players. DM comes up with stuff, players react to stuff that happens.

Yeah. People don't have to like it, but some people really like having their chalk marks.

 

[bloodtide]

No, it doesn't, mostly because this whole "dm-player" you keep talking about doesn't exist, and is instead the fictional strawman you built to attack a style you have explicitly said you don't like, don't understand, don't want to understand, and seem particularly dedicated to taking down.

A lot of games have the DM be just a player. It is also a popular game play style.

A sandbox game is one where, to some extent, the party has no goals fixed and required by the DM. A game that is relatively quite light on sandbox-y characteristics would be, for example, one where there is a linear plot, but at every "stop" along the way, there's a lot of freedom and such freedom can have long-term consequences. One that is relatively heavy on sandbox-y characteristics just has a map with stuff the GM knows is on it, and the players entirely decide what to look into, what they care about, etc.

The problem I have is this sounds like a normal game.

As the 'anti sandbox' would be a jerk DM where the DM ran the PCs. "okay, your characters walk forward and fall into the trap...ahahaha...fooled you!" type of DM.

And the DM can leave everything vague....but after a bit of time things will be set, and then it is all just a linear game right?

Since I know you both like to invent your own "word-salad" terms and love throwing around that phrase to dismiss arguments, a relatively simple list of sandbox-y characteristics would include (but isn't limited to):

• No required "plot"/"events", just stuff that happens as the world turns.
• PCs can do things that might be "disruptive" in a linear/railroad game, like killing authority figures or leaving town before the monster attack etc.
• The players themselves decide what things matter to them, and may change their minds about this
• The DM primarily acts as "referee" (in the old-school game sense), rather than as an author or guide
• Players are responsible for seeking out information, leads, and points of interest--the DM won't throw hooks/prompts at them
• Atypical/idiosyncratic goals, like "set up a potion shop" or "sail around the world" etc., are common or even encouraged
• Wandering monsters, infestations, and various other threats that move, grow, or change over time

Thank you for a list I can understand.

And I would like to note here: if you read this and think "well this is just typical D&D", I recommend considering whether the problem is that this list is wrong...or whether it might, possibly, be the case that your definition of both "sandbox" and "typical D&D" maybe isn't quite correct.

Well, I'm at a far extreme myself.

And....look, I can watch 10-20 games played every weekend. Anything I have every typed has been from one of those games: so they do happen. Plus I have seen tons of game played both in real life and online. A lot of things do see do be common....

 

[Lanefan]

Since I know you both like to invent your own "word-salad" terms and love throwing around that phrase to dismiss arguments, a relatively simple list of sandbox-y characteristics would include (but isn't limited to):

• No required "plot"/"events", just stuff that happens as the world turns.
• PCs can do things that might be "disruptive" in a linear/railroad game, like killing authority figures or leaving town before the monster attack etc.
• The players themselves decide what things matter to them, and may change their minds about this
• The DM primarily acts as "referee" (in the old-school game sense), rather than as an author or guide
• Players are responsible for seeking out information, leads, and points of interest--the DM won't throw hooks/prompts at them
• Atypical/idiosyncratic goals, like "set up a potion shop" or "sail around the world" etc., are common or even encouraged
• Wandering monsters, infestations, and various other threats that move, grow, or change over time

There are probably several more I'm not thinking of (I am finally becoming sleepy after taking meds), but these are a few typical characteristics.

That's a pretty good list. The only quibble I'd have is that sometimes the DM will throw out hooks - but always plural, never just one - either to help give the players some ideas (especially early on, before things have got rolling in the campaign) or to muddy the waters a bit.

One other key element can be (but isn't always) that the PCs' goals aren't always in synch and that sometimes they might even be working at cross purposes. In other words, sometimes they focus on party goals and other times (or maybe even at the same times!) they focus on individual PC goals.

And I would like to note here: if you read this and think "well this is just typical D&D", I recommend considering whether the problem is that this list is wrong

I do read this as being typical D&D from my own experience, and the list is pretty close to bang on.

 

[mamba]

The problem I have is this sounds like a normal game.

it is a normal game, not sure why you think it is not, or asked the other way around what you think the playstyle of a normal game is

I do read this as being typical D&D from my own experience, and the list is pretty close to bang on.

 

[Bedrockgames]

it is a normal game, not sure why you think it is not, or asked the other way around what you think the playstyle of a normal game is

Yeah this is the thing about sandbox. They aren't reinventing the wheel really or doing anything totally different. My campaign notes for my old adventure path days of 3E look very similar to my sandbox campaign (at least in terms of maps, probably not for entries). The main difference is in a sandbox you are letting players know they can go anywhere on the map they want. A path is a lot more focused and that isn't the expectation (but those are still fluid enough that you have to map because players aren't locked on a path, there was just an expectation that the adventure would have that structure to it). In my experience sandbox play is just about how the GM goes about making good on that promise that you can explore whatever you want, and do whatever you want.

 

[Desdichado]

It’s a perfectly useable term. The people who insist on fixating or taking it too literally will either find similar “problems” with the new term or force people to use overblown, hyper-specific nonsensical jargon to say the exact same thing. That is to say, the problem isn’t the term it’s the people fixating or taking it too literally or arguing just to argue.

Indeed. Spergy fixating on pedantry is pretty much always a sign of a bad faith attempt at discussion. I see it and immediately disengage these days. Life's too short to waste on such silliness.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

nevermind

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's a pretty good list. The only quibble I'd have is that sometimes the DM will throw out hooks - but always plural, never just one - either to help give the players some ideas (especially early on, before things have got rolling in the campaign) or to muddy the waters a bit.

Perhaps. I would argue that the DM throwing any hooks, even with such noble intentions, is pulling at least slightly away from sandbox-y campaigning. That doesn't suddenly make it not at all a sandbox (it's a fuzzy boundary, something can be kinda sandbox-y or fairly so or extremely so etc.) Just meaning that the DM throwing out hooks is an action that points toward DM direction rather than player direction.

One other key element can be (but isn't always) that the PCs' goals aren't always in synch and that sometimes they might even be working at cross purposes. In other words, sometimes they focus on party goals and other times (or maybe even at the same times!) they focus on individual PC goals.

Good point. I personally have pretty heavily negative interest in "character versus character" gameplay, so I often overlook this. But yeah, given the lack of a core "thread" to follow, personal vs party goals becomes an open question. Kinda fits under the umbrella of "behavior that might be disruptive" but it's definitely distinct enough to mention separately.

I do read this as being typical D&D from my own experience, and the list is pretty close to bang on.

Well, note the difference between what you're saying and what Bloodtide has said. You're correctly understanding it as "typical D&D for Lanefan." But when they have used the phrase, they mean...like the basic way almost anyone plays.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Perhaps. I would argue that the DM throwing any hooks, even with such noble intentions, is pulling at least slightly away from sandbox-y campaigning. That doesn't suddenly make it not at all a sandbox (it's a fuzzy boundary, something can be kinda sandbox-y or fairly so or extremely so etc.) Just meaning that the DM throwing out hooks is an action that points toward DM direction rather than player direction.

My feeling on hooks is they should make sense and not be overly abundant. Sometimes you need them if players are not comfortable taking initiative in a sandbox (or still getting used to taking initiative). But overall, the issue hooks present is they can very much feel like "Here is the adventure for you to go on" and sandboxes, at least in my view, should feel more organic. But hooks can also be part of the world existing around the players. So by all means if it makes sense for someone to reach out the players for aid due to their reputation, that can be a hook. But it should make sense.

Good point. I personally have pretty heavily negative interest in "character versus character" gameplay, so I often overlook this. But yeah, given the lack of a core "thread" to follow, personal vs party goals becomes an open question. Kinda fits under the umbrella of "behavior that might be disruptive" but it's definitely distinct enough to mention separately.

I've done some PvP sandboxes and the thing they bring that is good is player versus player is its own fuel. The can just sit back and let the players pursue goals related to their conflict. Some of the issues though are:

1) Expectation alignment. This is a huge potential issue, and one you sometimes have to drill down for because this is an area where I find players are more reluctant to bring up concerns they might have. So you have to make sure everyone is on the same page

2) Splitting up the party. If it is PvP there is a lot of reason for the players to go in different directions. There is an art I think to managing the split up party. If you are comfortable and the players aren't getting bored by it, this can work. My technique is to use a timer if I am shifting back and forth. I usually switch every 15 minutes, but will let things go an extra five or so if something very important and engaging is going on.

3) Balance and fairness. Normally players are working together so party imbalances are often more about spotlight issues. With PvP, the GM is much more on the hook for making sure things feel fair. This doesn't mean total parity. Part of PvP is players trying to gain advantage over one another, maybe even getting very powerful abilities to do defeat the other players. But you have to be very methodical in a lot of aspects of play so that fairness is part of it

 

[EzekielRaiden]

A lot of games have the DM be just a player. It is also a popular game play style.

I've never seen anything like what you describe. I have never heard of it from anyone but you. I have spent pushing 20 years frequenting various forums, talking with friends, and delving into the TTRPG space. You, and only you, have brought this idea of the "player-DM" who sits there quietly doing nothing but nodding at the players' declarations.

I strongly suggest that, given the sheer number of people who are reacting incredulously at your descriptions, you reconsider whether this style is actually common, or is perhaps either specific only to your general gaming sphere, or a misunderstanding on your part.

The problem I have is this sounds like a normal game.

I assure you, it is not. It is one style. There are others. I wouldn't enjoy playing a game with the specific kinds of stuff that most sandbox games do, because I'm not good with that particular kind of thing. I suffer analysis paralysis when given that kind of creative freedom; I call it the tyranny of the empty page. I am quite good with only very very minor constraints, but give me total freedom and my brain shuts down. It's like...if I have a hundred options, I can filter them and pick one that is best by whatever metric seems reasonable. But when I have nearly infinite options? My proverbial filter clogs and nothing gets through.

(This, incidentally, is one small part of why I like PbtA-type games. They have the player-driven experience, but in a way that drives the players to respond to this current situation right at this very moment, which is enough to jump past my analysis paralysis and get moving. But PbtA-type games are a whole different subject, I just thought I'd mention this aside.)

As the 'anti sandbox' would be a jerk DM where the DM ran the PCs. "okay, your characters walk forward and fall into the trap...ahahaha...fooled you!" type of DM.

Do not make it black and white. There are shades of grey between.

E.g. the DM has written a loose plot arc. It has an inciting incident, a big event that will happen in the middle, and a climactic conclusion at the end. How the players get to each part (well, perhaps not the inciting incident), and more importantly what they do in each part, isn't controlled. There could be a lot of things that happen along the way. None of this involves "controlling" the PCs in the ridiculously over-the-top way you describe, but it does involve (more or less) saying, "Hey guys, I have this cool story, are you okay with playing through that?"

Similarly, any time any DM runs a pre-written adventure, that is necessarily not a sandbox. But I know for a fact you know that people play such modules/adventures/APs/etc.

And the DM can leave everything vague....but after a bit of time things will be set, and then it is all just a linear game right?

Nope. It's not a matter of leaving things vague. That's just, as you say, a linear game that isn't pre-written, though admittedly such a game is more responsive to the players. In a sandbox, there isn't anything to keep vague in the first place. There is just a world with stuff in it and events happening in/to it, and PCs who may or may not get involved. Such a game requires motivated players who won't wait for "the adventure" to come to them. (Quotes because there is no single adventure!) The players need to actively set goals for themselves both individually and as a group, because a sandbox DM isn't going to push them through anything. Such a game will bog down and become dull and boring if the players are not active participants asking questions, coming up with ideas, and pushing the situation forward.

Thank you for a list I can understand.

I am glad it was helpful.

Well, I'm at a far extreme myself.

And....look, I can watch 10-20 games played every weekend. Anything I have every typed has been from one of those games: so they do happen. Plus I have seen tons of game played both in real life and online. A lot of things do see do be common....

And yet you keep being told that this is really, really weird. That people find your descriptions incredibly unusual and even blatantly insulting to playstyles you don't personally practice. In the face of such a response, I recommend reflection. Is your personal experience truly representative? Or have you been witness to unusual DMs, or an unusual local gaming culture? The latter seems rather more plausible considering how wildly divergent your ideas are from what everyone else in this forum has experienced.