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

[hawkeyefan]

These things are completely different. If you plan a plot ahead of time, you already have a plan for what the players should be doing. If you are reacting to actions the players take and creating around that, you are letting them go do whatever. I've been on a railroad and I have been in a pure ad lib session (one that wasn't a sandbox but where the GM just ad libbed everything). Those are two totally different experiences on the player side

I think that there are a lot of factors here. I was responding to a specific exchange in an attempt to clarify the point. In a basic way, they are both examples of the GM deciding.

How the GM decides... what factors are being considered... those may make the things different.

I agree that how a GM makes this decision is going to matter. And in a sandbox a lot of people are going to prioritize what makes the most sense in terms of consistency, believability, established facts of the setting. But I also do think you can take this too far and leave out the fun if you aren't careful.

Yeah, the how is the important part.

As for a sandbox... I think I have a very different take on what it is. To me, a sandbox has always been a noun. It's a thing. You guys speak about it like it's a verb. Something you do. I think this is why a lot of the questions about what it means come up... because to me, the "how" of a sandbox is unclear.

When you're asked about processes, you never reply with specifics, and you talk about how you hate prescribed methods and so on... so what does sandbox mean? It seems to be a range of methods that are up to the GM to choose. Which is pretty indistinct.

I ran a game of Spire: The City Must Fall and I would say that the setting was very much a sandbox. How was it so? I can actually provide specifics on my methods and the material that made it so.

Who says the GM is just randomly deciding?

The exchange I was responding to was about a GM deciding things on whim.

 

[CleverNickName]

The exchange I was responding to was about a GM deciding things on whim.

I just want to chime in and say that this isn't a problem (unless you don't trust your DM to make these decisions fairly, and that's not really a "rules" problem). Not only that, the DM is both allowed and encouraged to make such decisions, per the rules in the DMG.

Folks here in this thread (and elsewhere) often cite this as a flaw or problem to be avoided/overcome/corrected. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it's consistent with the 5E D&D rules...it is what the devs intended.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think that there are a lot of factors here. I was responding to a specific exchange in an attempt to clarify the point. In a basic way, they are both examples of the GM deciding.

How the GM decides... what factors are being considered... those may make the things different.

Okay but the GM deciding something isn't railroading

When you're asked about processes, you never reply with specifics, and you talk about how you hate prescribed methods and so on... so what does sandbox mean? It seems to be a range of methods that are up to the GM to choose. Which is pretty indistinct.

I provide you guys with the tools and procedures I use. But I also clarify that they aren't prescriptive (just as Rob has). I don't think there is any lack of clarity on how I run a sandbox. I just put out content that is open enough that a different GM can apply the tools to their own approach. I don't think every sandbox has to run the same, but there are basic ideas and parameters to them: open world adventure, a place to explore, the players being able to take initiative and steer the adventure through their actions, a sense of things being alive and dynamic (i.e. the world and NPCs are not static), having a variety of tools like encounter tables, event tables, generators, travel procedures, etc. Again, sandbox isn't attempting to reinvent the wheel. It isn't saying: this is a whole new game. It is saying this is an open approach to running an RPG. People can of course quibble, and debate. I don't own the term, and I think this is just how I look at it. But me and Rob have given you guys example after example, procedure after procedure, and all I can see is responses that we aren't answering your questions (and maybe that is true because you seem especially focused on the very incremental details of the interactions between the players and GM and we are not; and on having consistent procedures from table to table, and I think we aren't). Other posters have done the same. We aren't just giving you hot air. But if you looks at our stuff, we are offering up pretty clear approaches and procedures that we generally follow, as well as principles about rulings and such. We just generally refrain from saying "this is how it has to be done or it isn't a sandbox" and I have a particularly fluid and evolving approach where I am experimenting from one campaign to another with new procedures and tools.

But check out my the good sandbox + thread and you will see I post a lot in there about what I do (I already know fro responses there are people for whom this is inadequate but I think I gave enough information for most people to get how I approach things). Just keep in mind that is a + thread and it is for sharing sandbox not having another one of these debates

I ran a game of Spire: The City Must Fall and I would say that the setting was very much a sandbox. How was it so? I can actually provide specifics on my methods and the material that made it so.

I don't think you need a whole lot beyond the GM asking the players what they want to do, and if the players say they want to go anywhere, or do anything, even if it doesn't seem particularly like it would be fruitful for adventure, the GM says "Okay let's see what happens". What procedures specifically the GM uses there will vary from game to game, and even GM to GM, but the core idea is being open to going anywhere or trying anything, and of course there are some assumptions (like you expect a setting map, location descriptions, etc) but those assumptions I think are flexible points.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What if they do see the appeal?

Sure, it's possible. But we were talking about the idea that prep adds depth, and so I was asking how deep a setting may seem to the players after only an hour of play.

In my experience, how deep the setting will feel after only an hour of play is going to depend on what the players bring to the game.

To me, a lot of the problems that have been mentioned... the players deciding to nope away from the GM's cool setting stuff and similar issues... arise because the GM has a significant amount of investment in the setting before play even begins, and the players simply will not have that right away, if at all. They may be content with what play involves, they may even flat out love everything from the very start... if so, that's great!

But if that doesn't happen. Or if things take too long to "get to the good stuff", it's possible the players may get bored or antsy or not pick up what's being put down by the GM... they may then seek to find some interest in some other way.

If on the other hand, the sandbox is generated as a group activity, using the ideas of all participants, and using methods that are tailored to this approach... there's little chance of such a mismatch in setting investment.

Or, what if you have a group of people working together to build the world. Or what if you have a GM who is constantly asking for player input and using it when building the world. Or what if you have players who like learning about the world. Or what if you have a GM who is amenable to changing parts of their world that the players don't like. Or what if you have players who don't care but the GM enjoyed the work anyway.

These would all be different situations than the one I described.

My friend is planning on running a game set in the Persona universe. I've never seen it or played it. Or read it, if it's also a manga. I know next to nothing about it besides what they've told me. I'll learn almost everything about it by playing. But I trust them as a GM.

And it's really no different from playing in a pre-made setting like the Realms or Ravenloft.

Sure. And here's the thing... those settings aren't exactly deep, either. There's metric f-tons of material for them, especially the Realms, but most people wouldn't really call the Realms all that deep in and of itself. Can it be made so? Sure, parts of it... with the right group. Otherwise it's very much just a mish mash of genre and tropes and so on.

Such as? I'm not doubting you, but I either haven't read those games or glossed over those parts of them.

Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark both spring to mind. They both include advice about changing the game... so it's not that either is saying that every single rule needs to be followed absolutely at all times. But each has plenty of direction on how to GM and what to do or not do, and why.

No...? What sort of games are you playing where random is the same as plotted?

Well, if I'm being railroaded, do you think it really matters if it's something that the GM wrote weeks before or that he just decided?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think that there are a lot of factors here. I was responding to a specific exchange in an attempt to clarify the point. In a basic way, they are both examples of the GM deciding.

How the GM decides... what factors are being considered... those may make the things different.



Yeah, the how is the important part.

As for a sandbox... I think I have a very different take on what it is. To me, a sandbox has always been a noun. It's a thing. You guys speak about it like it's a verb. Something you do. I think this is why a lot of the questions about what it means come up... because to me, the "how" of a sandbox is unclear.

When you're asked about processes, you never reply with specifics, and you talk about how you hate prescribed methods and so on... so what does sandbox mean? It seems to be a range of methods that are up to the GM to choose. Which is pretty indistinct.

I ran a game of Spire: The City Must Fall and I would say that the setting was very much a sandbox. How was it so? I can actually provide specifics on my methods and the material that made it so.



The exchange I was responding to was about a GM deciding things on whim.

Yeah, as someone who played D&D when it was the only RPG in existence, my understanding of 'sandbox' (and I believe the term originated in the D&D community of the '70s) was simply a game free of meta-plot. The GM devised a setting, complete with adventure locations and such, usually in the form of a 'wilderness' (Judges Guild famously published one) and the players were expected to go explore. AT MOST the GM supplied maps, rumors, MAYBE a patron who could be used as a device to point them towards a viable adventure location.

The GM could react to PC actions, but there was little of the concept of a 'living world' where stuff happened off screen and such.

Generally these games would evolve in various ways, usually towards more direct GM involvement in directing the course of play. This usually started with breadcrumbs and often veered into more direct means. Either direct force on a PC "You are arrested! Do X to win freedom!" Etc. Or indirect "The orcs invade! Raise an army or your castle is toast!" You can see this in old TSR modules and Gary's campaign.

 

[AlViking]

I think that there are a lot of factors here. I was responding to a specific exchange in an attempt to clarify the point. In a basic way, they are both examples of the GM deciding.

How the GM decides... what factors are being considered... those may make the things different.



Yeah, the how is the important part.

As for a sandbox... I think I have a very different take on what it is. To me, a sandbox has always been a noun. It's a thing. You guys speak about it like it's a verb. Something you do. I think this is why a lot of the questions about what it means come up... because to me, the "how" of a sandbox is unclear.

When you're asked about processes, you never reply with specifics, and you talk about how you hate prescribed methods and so on... so what does sandbox mean? It seems to be a range of methods that are up to the GM to choose. Which is pretty indistinct.

I ran a game of Spire: The City Must Fall and I would say that the setting was very much a sandbox. How was it so? I can actually provide specifics on my methods and the material that made it so.



The exchange I was responding to was about a GM deciding things on whim.

First, it's generally not making things up "on a whim" in my experience. Second, when you determine something can make a difference. When it comes to map details if I plan everything ahead of time I can't tailor what they find based on what the players are expressing an interest in or based on the context of the game. In general I have large scale mapping figured out ahead of time, but let's say the group decided that they needed supplies before going into the mountains. This is something I hadn't anticipated and I don't have any major settlements mapped out ahead of time.

If they're on the windward side of the mountain where there's more rain there will be higher population density and more settlements so there's a good chance of a decent sized village being nearby. I either decide that there is one that has the supplies they're seeking nearby or think about the odds of there being one and determine it randomly. If they were on the lee side of the mountains, the odds of there being a village may drop significantly. If there is a village I need to think about recent developments, for example if someone has put a bounty on the characters and then what the odds are or any number of things. There are also things that I will add that make the game more fun or engaging.

If I had planned everything out ahead of time, none of that would have happened, I would have just looked at the map and said there were no villages indicated. Neither option is better or worse but it does lead to different results. I tend to think of a sandbox as an ever-changing thing. There are things that have been established or that I've thought through ahead of time but up to the moment something is revealed to the players it's not set in concrete. That's kind of the whole reason for sandboxes to exist for me.

 

[robertsconley]

This is about the history of the term Sandbox Campaign.

and I believe the term originated in the D&D community of the '70s)

The term originated as part of the marketing of Necromancer Games WIlderlands Box set in the early 2000s.

Yeah, as someone who played D&D when it was the only RPG in existence, my understanding of 'sandbox' (and I believe the term originated in the D&D community of the '70s) was simply a game free of meta-plot. The GM devised a setting, complete with adventure locations and such, usually in the form of a 'wilderness' (Judges Guild famously published one) and the players were expected to go explore. AT MOST the GM supplied maps, rumors, MAYBE a patron who could be used as a device to point them towards a viable adventure location.

However, as you noted, people were playing sandbox campaigns back in the 70s. It didn't have a specific term like it does now. Until the mid-2000s, the term "sandbox" was used as an uncommon replacement for "setting.". If you have the Dragon Magazine Archive, every use of sandbox in an article uses this context.

The authors of the boxed set and Necromancer Set felt that sandbox campaign was the best description of what all of us did with the Wilderlands. We adapted it from the use of sandbox games in computer games like Civilization. Games that have had no overall plot, just a setting and some mechanics you can use to interact with it.

 

[robertsconley]

Also, for those who want to trace the evolution of the term sandbox campaign, the Enworld is a good place to search. It archives start around 2002 when sandbox was still being used interchangeably with setting up to the late 2000s when discussions about sandbox campaigns started.

Use the advanced search and the 'Older than' date field.

From a wilderlands thread circa 2006

A thread asking about the Sandbox style from 2007

2008 is when discussion about sandbox style/campaign started picking up.

 

[Manbearcat]

I've been thinking on Blades in the Dark vs Scum & Villainy as well as Neverwinter Campaign Setting 4e vs PoL 4e. I think there is absolutely a central lesson here in terms of "what constitutes a sandbox." I probably need to develop my thoughts more, but I think the central points of transition to and away from sandbox are:

• Is there a prepped and keyed map with crucial sites, where novel qualities of locales, spatial dimensions, and spatial relationships are nailed down and of sufficient resolution such that they are actionable for the players' and GM's respective decision-spaces?

• Are there a fairly sizable number of factions with clear and provocative motivations which animate them and are enough of them at-odds with each other to generate momentous conflict which compels players to declare a side?

• A coherently constrained space.

I think you need to have all three of those things and of a sufficient magnitude for play to cross the "Sandbox Rubicon" threshold. I think the differences between Blades in the Dark and Scum & Villainy (which are tied up mostly in that first and third bullet points, but a little bit of that second bullet point as well) do really good work to demonstrate just how big of a difference, subtle perturbations in this formulation can make. In contrast with Blades in the Dark, Scum & Villainy has substantial "No Myth Creep" (let's call it) which you absolutely detect all through play when you both run it and play it. In S&V, there is an active element of building-out setting locales, dimensions & spatial relationships, and factional conflict in real time which is just not present in Blades. Those things are already nailed down and animate play in BitD.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is about the history of the term Sandbox Campaign.


The term originated as part of the marketing of Necromancer Games WIlderlands Box set in the early 2000s.

However, as you noted, people were playing sandbox campaigns back in the 70s. It didn't have a specific term like it does now. Until the mid-2000s, the term "sandbox" was used as an uncommon replacement for "setting.". If you have the Dragon Magazine Archive, every use of sandbox in an article uses this context.

The authors of the boxed set and Necromancer Set felt that sandbox campaign was the best description of what all of us did with the Wilderlands. We adapted it from the use of sandbox games in computer games like Civilization. Games that have had no overall plot, just a setting and some mechanics you can use to interact with it.

Certainly not getting into any argument. I think the usage back in the early The Dragon days is a bit more specific than you credit, but it is notoriously difficult to retroactively parse shades of meaning at an earlier time. IMHO We described Wilderlands of High Fantasy as 'sandbox' and used the term to describe similar games. Some of the famous classic campaign logs that have been published over the years detail such campaigns. But let's agree not to get into a debate about it, certainly the concept existed way back, and terminology has never been very exact! It's also quite likely to have been used in slightly different ways in various circles. A lot of my late-70s gaming took place at The Bunker in Copperas Cove, TX (Fort Hood). My experience is we definitely had a specific gaming culture.