D&D 4E 4e Design and JRR Tolkien

[Raven Crowking]

I wouldn't say that was a prevalent style of gaming back then. Some GM's I know started things out that way, but that was because we the players already had ideas and goals in mind after talking with the GM about his world and what in general it was like. We the players would craft our broad goals and try to pursue them. There was a greater amount of 'we have a dungeon and our job is to clear it out and get rich in the process' or 'you are hired to do X by Lord Y'.

Certainly YMMV based on group and/area. But IMHO, it was a much more prevalent game style, and it is a far, far superior one.

EDIT: For an idea about how prevelant the sandbox style was, read through the advice given in earlier editions of the game, as well as in earlier Dragon magazines. Lots of advice on how to build (and run) areas. Lots of advice about creating places PCs may explore, and things they may be interested in. Indeed, lots of advice about how to get your PCs interested in exploring the areas you've created (i.e., no automatic assumption that they must do so). Some of this might have been heavy-handed (Isle of the Ape, for example) but it all assumes that the PCs won't merely be content (outside of tournament play) with the railroading that is modern "adventure" design.



RC

 

[PeterWeller]

I think using modules to determine whether or not there was a prevalent or more prevalent sand-box style isn't very effective. For example, many of the modules that Hussar cited can be slotted into a sand-box style campaign with little or no modification. After all, sand-box style doesn't preclude the existence of BBEGs or linear, plot driven adventures. It does mean that the players, for the most part, decide whether or not they want to engage these enemies and stories. Sometimes, that can be out of their hands. A sand-box campaign doesn't mean that there aren't other forces at work in the world, forces that may oppose and want to eliminate or ally with and employ the players, but ultimately it is the player's goals that serve as the driving force of the campaign, as opposed to a more singular story driven campaign where there is an ultimate goal (often saving the world, or at least a corner of it) that sets up and drives the majority of adventures.

To give a clearer example of what I'm saying, let's compare arguably the two largest and most popular science fiction franchises: Star Trek and Star Wars. For this comparison, we're going to stick with the "original" material: original cast Star Trek and original trilogy Star Wars. Trek, in my opinion, exemplifies the sand box style of campaign. Each adventure is essentially its own story, connected to the others only through a shared cast of characters. Now, plots may develop that link multiple adventures together ("Space Seed" to Wrath of Khan for instance), but these plots develop out of the initial actions of the characters. Star Wars, on the other hand, exemplifies the story driven style campaign. The characters have a quest that they must complete. There are individual quests woven into this (Luke must become a Jedi, the heroes must rescue Han from Jabba), but these quests feed back into the main plot (Luke must train as a Jedi to defeat Darth and the Emperor; the heroes must rescue Han because they need his abilities and leadership if they are to defeat the Empire). While the heroes personal goals and motivations may draw them into this major plot (Han Solo needs money, takes Obi-Wan's job), in many cases, they are fated at the start to play a major role (whether they like it or not, Luke and Leia are going to be part of the story).

Another example of comparison may be Fallout 2 vs. Final Fantasy X. Fallout does start you out on an important quest, but you don't have to try and complete that quest, and it is mostly unrelated to the actual BBEG of the game. In addition, most of the adventures you go on and areas you explore have nothing to do with the BBEG. Final Fantasy X, on the other hand, has you setting out on the main quest right from the get go, and just about everything you did feeds into this main plot line, to defeat Sin, the BBEG.

Now, I want to point out that I've just been talking about this at the campaign level. I agree with Hussar that most adventures have included a clear BBEG to fight, and his or her defeat often marks the completion of that adventure, or at least its climax.

 

[Glyfair]

This is a good point, and you're right, group stability does play a huge role in the length of a campaign.

In fact, it can be argued that the lack of stability lead to the change to "more focused narratives." Why build a campaign on the idea that it will last for years if your experience has shown it won't?

Certainly YMMV based on group and/area. But IMHO, it was a much more prevalent game style, and it is a far, far superior one.

In my experience (direct & indirect) it wasn't prevalent (although more than today, at least in D&D). During that period I hang out at a game club with many groups associated with it (even those who didn't play there). I found the "bash in the dungeon door" style (which wasn't really "sandbox style) and "write a story" groups to be most common. The story groups would have sessions that were "sandbox" in style, but the overall campaign flavor was towards a plot and story.

 

[PeterWeller]

In fact, it can be argued that the lack of stability lead to the change to "more focused narratives." Why build a campaign on the idea that it will last for years if your experience has shown it won't?

Does a sand box style campaign need to last for years, though? Granted, if you're planning on playing a set of characters for years and years, the sand box style is probably going to make things a lot easier, but does that make it a poor style for a short campaign?

 

[Hussar]

That is why this encyclopedia includes entries on material which many critics and readers might not consider pure fantasy, and which the definition of fantasy suggested below makes no attempt to encompass.

Fair enough. And explains why I'm having a problem using the definition that RC is using. Considering they emphatically state that they are using the broadest definition possible, it's not really surprising that some (like me) would not care for that definition.

Trek, in my opinion, exemplifies the sand box style of campaign. Each adventure is essentially its own story, connected to the others only through a shared cast of characters. Now, plots may develop that link multiple adventures together ("Space Seed" to Wrath of Khan for instance), but these plots develop out of the initial actions of the characters.

Ahh, there's our disconnect. I don't define this as sandbox, I define this as episodic. The problem with pointing to Trek is that the characters in Trek actually never had any choice about their next adventure. Their next adventure was entirely scripted. An episodic campaign is exactly this - a series of adventures with the only link being common characters.

To me, sandbox style gaming is almost entirely player driven. It's far closer to (please excuse the computer gaming analogy) something like Ultima V where you start at place X and then it's pretty much entirely up to the players where they go next. If they decide to drop adventure Y and go off for adventure Z that's groovy, since it's already set what is over that next hill.

In episodic, you never really go over that next hill because the adventure is right here.

Does a sand box style campaign need to last for years, though? Granted, if you're planning on playing a set of characters for years and years, the sand box style is probably going to make things a lot easier, but does that make it a poor style for a short campaign?

Oh, no, I agree, you don't have to have a multi-year campaign to make sandbox style gaming work. Isle of Dread is a prime example of sandbox gaming. Here's the Island, you start at the village, what do you want to do? World's Largest Dungeon takes pretty much the exact same direction. You start at Point A, somewhere off in the unknown is the Exit. How you get there is entirely up to you.

But, being able to drop an adventure into a sandbox game isn't quite the same though. That doesn't make that adventure a sandbox style adventure. Cult of the Reptile God is not a sandbox adventure. You could plop it on the map and if the players happen to go to Orlane, that's the adventure they have, but, that doesn't change the fact that the adventure itself isn't sandbox style in the way something like Isle of Dread or even Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil is.

I'm most certainly NOT saying that it never happened. That wouldn't be true. My quibble is the idea that it was somehow prevalent.

Glyfair, however, is a much better person to answer whether or not it was prevalent in the pages of early Dragon or not. In modules? Not so much. At least, no more than today.

 

[Hussar]

A later thought occurs to me.

The main difference, in my mind between an episodic campaign and a sandbox campaign is who is in the drivers seat.

In an episodic campaign, the DM remains pretty firmly in control. Essentially, each session, the players show up and adventure through whichever scenario the DM has cooked up. Yes, player choice remains important within the constraints of that given scenario, but, the option of simply pulling up stakes and moving on to a different scenario isn't really viable. It's possible, if the DM is willing to wing it, but, in an episodic campaign, the assumption is that the players are going to at least meet the DM halfway.

In a sandbox campaign, the players are in control. The DM has plotted (to varying degrees of detail) all of the reasonable elements that the players could reach at any given time and the players essentially tell the DM what they want to do based on whatever goals the players come up with. If the players decide to follow that rumour about trolls out into the hills, then decide to switch gears and head back to try to find that magic thingummy they heard about a while ago to help them with the trolls, that's not a problem. The DM is less proactive, and more reactive.

To be fair, I agree with RC about this being a very rewarding style of game. I think it really does go a long way to being a barrel full of fun. OTOH, it requires a LOT of prep work beforehand to do it right, and, it requires players that are willing to be proactive. I've had this go sideways on me in the past when faced with a group that essentially just wants to go along with whatever adventure I had planned, rather than acting on their own initiative.

Honestly, I think that sandbox style gaming is fairly rare. To the point where a lot of players have never been faced with it before and don't know how to react when they are. Later D&D hardly invented the railroad adventure after all. IME, episodic campaigns were the norm - the DM had whatever adventure ready that week and you pretty much had to do that adventure or not game. The unspoken understanding was that so long as the adventure didn't suck too badly, we'd go along with it. And, by and large, the adventures didn't suck.

Truly open ended campaigns, like Isle of Dread were a rarity IME. I also wonder how well sandbox style campaigns fare in a large range of levels. How do you make your sandbox big enough to handle 2nd level PC's and 17th level PC's?

 

[JohnSnow]

The other thing worth pointing out is that a true sandbox campaign requires an incredibly experienced DM. It should be marked "for advanced DMs only" and is NOT a suitable style to try to introduce to beginning DMs.

That's because no matter how detailed you make your setting, there's always the chance the PCs will decide to do "something else." A campaign that has a series of adventure options, (like three or four) at any given time, has the illusion of being a sandbox campaign, but isn't really. However, it can certainly seem like one to the players.

A true sandbox means that the DM is DMing "off the cuff," which is extremely difficult to do. Truth to tell, most DMs, even when they're going "off the cuff" have a series of pre-prepared adventure locales and encounters. The players may get to determine where those things take place, but the adventure is still, in one sense, a railroad. By contrast, the number of DMs who will fully detail each adventure possibility in reach at any given time, or make up a totally new adventure as the session plays out, can probably be counted on two hands.

Like many DMs, I like to present the illusion of a "sandbox" or "living world," but the truth is that even if I've pre-detailed 4 (or even 10!) options, it's still JUST an illusion.

 

[Gentlegamer]

\
A true sandbox means that the DM is DMing "off the cuff," which is extremely difficult to do.

Perhaps when the rules require a certain level of complexity in generating stats for various encounters, this is true. It is less true when it is easy to whip up stats (that are rules-system consistent) on the fly.

 

[JohnSnow]

Perhaps when the rules require a certain level of complexity in generating stats for various encounters, this is true. It is less true when it is easy to whip up stats (that are rules-system consistent) on the fly.

Less true perhaps, but untrue? I don't think it's just coming up with rules that's difficult, but rather that being a creative storyteller on the fly is a rare skill. Because of that, even if the rules don't get in the way, it takes an extremely skilled "storyteller" to be able to come up with an adventure "on-the-fly." It can be done, but most of the time, something slips in terms of believability, creativity, or consistency. And it's most certainly not a task that any but the most experienced DM should attempt.

A lot of people think they're good at it, but most extemporaneous adventures, bluntly, suck. The characters tend to be more caricatures, and the stories cliché, even assuming the DM is good at coming up with stuff on the fly without going "um" a lot. I've tried running adventures with only rough outlines myself, and it wasn't the stats that were the problem, but the story. It went "okay," but I know the adventures would have been better with more prep. However, sometimes you don't have that kind of time.

I doubt I'd enjoy an entire campaign like that with anyone but the absolute most competent storyteller. Maybe my assessment of "10 or less" is low, but I seriously question how many people are really "good" at it.

 

[PeterWeller]

Hussar, that's a good point about Trek. Your point that Kirk and friends were trapped in their weekly scenario without the ability to just say, "screw this," and leave does make Trek a weak example of a sand box style campaign. I was really only thinking about it in the sense of setup and central campaign conceit. Trek's Five Year Mission is basically a call to go out and explore the giant sand box that is space, similar to the central motivation of a sand box campaign, "explore this(these) world(s)." But you're right, when you look at it on an adventure basis, Trek still rail roads its "party" through a series of scenarios, and thus is more episodic than sand box.

I agree that a sand box campaign has the players' choices and motivations at the fore. You're right in that the DM is largely playing a reactive game. John Snow is also right in that it's a difficult style of campaign to DM, and really, it's more about creating the illusion of a sand box than it's about creating a full sand box. A DM will never be able to do enough prep work to cover every single thing the player's may want to do. Instead, you'll probably detail out the things that they are most likely going to want to do, and half the time, that prep work won't be enough, and you'll end up having to wing it. It's hell of difficult and hell of rewarding for everyone involved. Players and DMs have to be very experienced with the game for this to work.

Edit: I should point out that I think that an entirely reactive DMing style when running a sand box style campaign can be detrimental. I believe that sometimes the DM should take proactive measures and introduce his own plots into the game. The reason for this is that if the campaign is truly trying to emulate a big sand box, other "players" should be active in that sand box. The world and the story shouldn't only develop on the players' whims; the DM is responsible to have other actors at large, either in assistance to the players or at odds with them. This, IMO, creates the most vibrant and interesting campaigns.

Edit the second: I should also say that the nature of a sand box campaign does not preclude developing a single ongoing plot. If the players decide their ultimate goal is to become gods and thus embark on a quest in the sand box to determine if they can do so, and if they can, do so, there will be an overlying story arc to everything. The important point being, of course, that the players decided to embark upon that quest by their own choosing.