Dumb terminology question...

[pawsplay]

A sandbox is a place to play. You can build castles or destroy them, but nobody "wins" sandbox, nor is there a clear beginning or end to sandbox time except how often you want to play. The connotation is "do stuff, see what happens."

I have never seen Plane Sailing's definition used anywhere. In fact, the "getting squished" by going to out-leveled areas is exactly what I could see happening in a sandbox game.

 

[Agamon]

A sandbox is a place to play. You can build castles or destroy them, but nobody "wins" sandbox, nor is there a clear beginning or end to sandbox time except how often you want to play. The connotation is "do stuff, see what happens."

I have never seen Plane Sailing's definition used anywhere. In fact, the "getting squished" by going to out-leveled areas is exactly what I could see happening in a sandbox game.

Yep, this is how I define it, too. Sandbox games allow more for player creativity with what happens in the game, whereas in more tightly focused games, the DM is the creator and the players' creativity is more or less focused to their PCs.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Those interested in the sandbox style play may want to read a couple of articles used recently in a university level RPG class. These articles deal with the idea of play, as unrestricted as possible, vs. work, which is perilously close to the quest mechanic of many games. These readings are aimed at video games, but they have obvious applications, I think, for RPGs.

Steven Poole, Working for the Man: Against the Employment Paradigm in Videogames
Steven Poole: Working for the Man

Espen Aarseth, I Fought the Law: Transgressive Play and The Implied Player
http://www.digra.org/dl/db/07313.03489.pdf

 

[Wombat]

Y'know ... I've been gaming for a long, long time and it is only recently that I have started seeing this term "sandbox" showing up regularly to describe open-ended campaigns...

Terms come and go, I suppose.

 

[Mark]

In general with regards to games--not just RPGs, but a lot of computer games use the term as well--it describes a game in which there is no set plots, storylines or "quests" at the beginning of the game. The players are free to wander about the "world" and do whatever they like or nothing at all... The world is simply presented to the players, and the players set their own goals without any prompting from the GM (or computer program). If anyone remembers the old PC game Elite: Frontier II, that would be a perfect example of a "sandbox" game. SimCity, at it most basic, is another good example.

Games with a strict storyline that must be followed to advance and "win" the game are in diametric opposition of sandbox games.

As mentioned above, the idea is that like in a sandbox, you are given the appropriate tools to play and build whatever you like and then you set free to do it.

I recently posted this in another thread on the matter.

Are some people claiming that creating a sandbox world is meant to have the DM regularly level-adjusting the entire world? My understanding has always been that you either create adventures for PCs based on their level or you create a world with fairly clear signs that certain areas are more dangerous than others, allowing the players to decide for themselves the level of risk they feel they can handle. If you regularly level-adjust the world, you are actually doing the former but just more of it.

And my understanding of the term "sandbox" is that you allow your players to climb in and go at it without sticking your hands in to make adjustments as they play. They motivate themselves, and encounter what is there, come what may.

 

[rounser]

Sandbox campaigns are where all the challenges you meet are level-appropriate. The world is designed with the PCs in mind, in effect. p48 of the 3.5 DMG calls this 'tailored' campaigns.

Status quo campaigns are designed with the world in mind. Everyone knows that there are kobolds in the woods and a dragon in the mountain over the other side of the dread swamp. If your 1st levels PCs make their way across the dread swamp and attempt to take on the dragon, they will get squished.

Nice distinction (although I think the jargon needs refinement). A couple of observations:

1) Tailored encounter design is D&D's core conceit, and it's a good one for playability. But tailoring everything to a Goldilocks "just right" level is bad for verisimilitude inside of a sandbox environment. The scope is too wide for "just right" to remain a believable coincidence.

2) The problem with status quo as I see it is that as the PCs level, only metagame knowledge will let them know what encounters are appropriate for them. What level can we do the Tomb of Doom? No NPC or signpost would know unless they're a spying deity, because they'd have to know how tough the PCs are now relative to the unexplored tomb. Likewise, dropping hints all the time or letting PCs always be able to flee when way, way out of their depth is highly artificial.

I think the best solution is a compromise between the two - the uncompromising and realistic but nigh unplayable "status quo sandbox" and the highly playable but uncompelling and unrealistic "goldilocks sandbox".

So here's my suggested compromise: The encounters scale alright, but only such that no encounter becomes unbeatable nor a walkover. This maintains danger and the core conceit, and also prevents yawnful cakewalks. So those giants will always be a tough fight (but not overpowering) if the PCs are too low level, and those kobolds will always be a fairly swift and easy fight (but not a cakewalk where rolling dice is pointless) if the PCs are too high level. Note that treasure will have to be scaled too. Probably need a computer program.

The occasional outlier as an exception to the rule also seems acceptable - Orcus will never be beaten by low level PCs, but players should probably guess that.

 

[Wycen]

Well, it is clear to me (after reading the posts in this thread) that the term sandbox is independently defined.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

in my opinion, a 'sandbox' is where you try things out.

This is how the term is used in software development, which is my background, so I find these other interpretations odd myself. I couldn't say if these other usages are misinterpretations of the software development usage or if they developed independently.

 

[rounser]

This is how the term is used in software development, which is my background, so I find these other interpretations odd myself. I couldn't say if these other usages are misinterpretations of the software development usage or if they developed independently.

I don't think the jargon usage of "sandbox" in this sense is related to a software development test or prototyping environment. I've seen it mainly used in the sense it's being used here with regard to open-ended computer games like GTA or Morrowind, especially city environments without a single plot where you can just wander around and cause trouble. See also Zelda's "overworld".

 

[Mark]

This is how the term is used in software development, which is my background, so I find these other interpretations odd myself. I couldn't say if these other usages are misinterpretations of the software development usage or if they developed independently.

I think it does stem from this interpretation but in software/video games there tends to at least be level restrictions. In essence, there are stacked sandboxes and the program disallows progression from one to the next until some predetermined player/character power-level is achieved. In a GM-run RPG, while the GM need not make adjustements, varying degrees of emphasis can be given to the signs and signals that cue players into the levels of risk and rewards available in the places they discover to explore.