It's difficult to say for sure based on what you shared, but going on just that information... there's nothing that speaks to what the players want out of play. Why were they pursuing rumors of Dark Elves? What might connect them to the Raven Marks? Are the players interested in the idea of rebellion or some kind of struggle with the downtrodden? Or in exposing thieves who might be masquerading as rebels? Is anyone in the party affiliated with a nature deity or have some kind of goal to protect nature? Anything that would connect them to the conflict between the loggers and druids? And so on. What about any of these things speaks to the players and their characters?
Again, there's nothing wrong with any of it. But it seems like a menu of GM options and the players get to choose from it. That doesn't really seem all that player driven to me.
If I understand correctly, there are two main points you are making.
- “There’s nothing that speaks to what the players want out of play.”
- “It seems like a menu of GM options and the players get to choose from it."
I’ll start with the second.
Yes, it
does resemble a menu of options—one created by someone else, because that’s how the world often appears when you first encounter it. That’s why it’s a recurring motif in sandbox campaigns. If you walked into my hometown tomorrow, nothing in it would be about you—your goals, your wants. The same was true for me when I was born there. But after decades of living there, parts of the place now reflect my choices, my efforts, and my values.
From your perspective, it’s a static menu. From mine, it’s a living world, because of what I’ve done in it. We both started with the same impersonal environment, but over time, our actions changed our relationship to it.
That leads to your first point: “There’s nothing that speaks to what the players want out of play.”
In my experience, unless the sandbox campaign begins with something that connects the player characters to the setting, some context for their goals or place in the world, it tends to go nowhere. That’s what we saw with many failed sandbox campaigns here on ENWorld in the late 2000s.
I didn’t encounter this problem, and neither did others I knew who ran similar styles. When I looked back, I realized the difference was what I now call the
Initial Context. It wasn’t always a detailed backstory or a list of goals and motivations, but it was always
something, a foundation the players could use to begin acting meaningfully in the world.
So what happens after that? Let’s return to the hometown analogy. If you moved there, there’d be a reason, say, a new job. That’s your Initial Context. When you arrive, the town looks like a list of unrelated options. But between your job and your personal interests, certain things will stand out. Maybe you join the chess club. As you engage, both with your job and that club, the world starts to reflect your presence.
You are an
active participant. Through your choices and interactions, your goals begin to shape part of the world around you. And if all goes well, your experience becomes one of meaningful change.
That said, I get the sense, from the depth of discussion you’ve had here and on other forums, that this isn’t the full extent of the implications you see in how sandbox campaigns are run, including my own living world approach. So I’d like to continue the conversation, especially to hear more about the other consequences you think arise from this style of play, as well as your thoughts on what I’ve just laid out.
As a note, I chose not to use your examples directly because I felt we’d risk talking in circles without really reaching the heart of the matter. That’s why I used the hometown example, to highlight my perspective and the reasoning behind it. However if you want my thoughts on those later I will be happy to discuss it.
