D&D General Lego Sandbox vs Open Sandbox (and other sandbox discussion)

[jgsugden]

Over the past few weeks there have been a few discussions about play styles that have made reference to Sandbox style campaigns. During the conversations I noted that people approached the idea of a sandbox a bit differently. I wanted to tease out some of those differences for discussion - and I thought one place to begin is looking at how we construct our sandboxes.

For these purposes, a Sandbox game is one in which the PCs do not have a specific path to follow or destination to reach in the adventure. Published campaign paths are generally more Railroad than Sandbox as they require you to meet certain elements in order to reach the final conclusion of the campaign. Some make efforts to be less Railroad and more open. However, the ones that force the PCs to a specific final encounter are for these purposes the definition is that the DM is not requiring a specific path or destination. [Edit: Removing Railroad references as there are concerns that my use of the term was unwise. It is not necessary.]

For reference, I'd break down the two major types of Sandbox campaigns as follows:

LEGO SANDBOX: The DM assembles options for the PCs to select from and drops hooks into the game that they can select.

Often, these hooks lead into published adventures (that cover up to a few levels of advancement for the PCs), but can also go into previously prepared homebrew materials as well. The element of import here is that when the PCs are exploring their sandbox there are crafted options from which they select in which the outline for the adventure, or the entire adventure, is already planned. The planning allows the DM to potentially connect various adventures and better lay seeds for future options - but that provides more structure and tends to push PCs in the direction of the options laid out, instead of allowing them to truly go in any direction. Lego is a reference to assembling, rather than improvising/crafting, elements in the campaign design.

Choose which path.

OPEN SANDBOX: The DM improvises with the PCs and lays track in front of whatever direction the PCs take an interest in, regardless of whether introduced by the DM or a player.

The DM could generally not predict what the PCs might be doing a few sessions down the road. If the DM does not have a deep understanding of their setting before the campaign, they define the campaign setting as they go. If they do have a thorough understanding (for example, if they run in the Forgotten Realms and have read a lot of lore material and intend to use it), they use the lore as part of their improvisation. This may manifest as ways to add to the direction the PCs seem to go by tying their actions into the lore (if the PCs are seeking out a wizard to cast a spell and the DM knows of the NPC wizard from the published materials that fits the bill) or as a limiter (they decide to search for a wizard to cast a spell but the setting material says there are no wizards of sufficient level within 1000 miles so the DM won't allow one to be found). The element of import here is that the when the PCs are exploring their sandboxes the options available are not planned out in advance, and might be something introduced/inspired by a player contribution that the DM will then need to craft around.

Go with the flow.

I think the answer most of us would give is that when we run Sandbox games we don't exactly follow either of these descriptions, but instead do something different, or do a combination of the two. For example, I'd expect some number of people to say they start with the Lego Sandbox but jump into an Open Sandbox if the players move in that direction organically. Others might talk about running a Railroad game to start and then transitioning to a Lego Sandbox and then at high level going to an Open Sandbox, or introducing a Railroad at the end of the campaign.

How do you run a Sandbox when you run one, and is it more along the lines of a Lego or Open Sandbox?

 

[payn]

Lego FTW. Im sure some open sandbox GMs can run a good game, but all my "improv truly open" sandbox experiences have been disasters.

 

[the Jester]

It seems like any stuff that you have pre-built in your setting, such as a pre-existing dungeon or an area that has detailed politics, leans into lego sandboxing by this definition. So I guess, by dint of having lots of details in my setting worked out, I lean toward lego sandboxing. But I think you're splitting hairs pretty finely- your definition of an open sandbox seems to lean very heavily toward a completely improvised game.

 

[payn]

It seems like any stuff that you have pre-built in your setting, such as a pre-existing dungeon or an area that has detailed politics, leans into lego sandboxing by this definition. So I guess, by dint of having lots of details in my setting worked out, I lean toward lego sandboxing. But I think you're splitting hairs pretty finely- your definition of an open sandbox seems to lean very heavily toward a completely improvised game.

I thought much the same. I think thats kinda the rub of a lot of these discussions. Folks are way too focused on labeling their specific sandbox style to a T, instead of just discussing running and playing games. Even the OP tosses around railroad as if its a certain definition and not derogatory at all, thus poisoning the well from the very start.

 

[Charlaquin]

By these definitions, my games are closer to Lego sandbox. Or, maybe a Lego sandbox within an open sandbox? I don’t actually limit my players to only selecting one of the hooks I offer that lead to prepared content, and even if they take a hook initially, there’s nothing stopping them from abandoning it and pursuing something else at any time. In theory, if the players want to wander off the beaten path and make their own fun in the brush, I’ll follow their lead and improvise around whatever they decide to do. But, in practice, it’s pretty rare that players would actually rather do that than follow an obvious lead into a more preplanned adventure. Once in a while you’ll get someone who mostly wants to test the boundaries, so they ignore the hooks and try something random just to see what happens. But usually that urge will be satisfied when the world doesn’t immediately break down, and then they’ll go back to biting the hooks.

 

[jgsugden]

.... But I think you're splitting hairs pretty finely- your definition of an open sandbox seems to lean very heavily toward a completely improvised game.

I thought much the same. ...

Again, this is a just a framework for discussion. However, I'd clarify the second to say that you start with improvisation and then build ahead of the directions your players head. If they head into a dungeon that you tossed in front of them when it had no real details in mind and then you build it out ahead of the next session that is still open by these definitions.

I did attempt to explain the difference and apologize if it is not clear.

... Even the OP tosses around railroad as if its a certain definition and not derogatory at all, thus poisoning the well from the very start.

I referenced Railroad in a way that did not require a specific definition. They were primarily examples of something that is not a Sandbox, and I feel few people believe Sandbox and Railroad styles are overlapping.

I also think it is not inherently derogatory as a description. Many people enjoy the published adventure paths. Those published materials would be identified as a Railroad by many people's definitions, including many that enjoy them.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Reynard]

My current sandbox campaign is largely populated by existing adventures, locations and other bits I have stolen from all manner of sources. I also reach for random tables, from Worlds Without Number to Shadowdark, to create stuff on the fly. And of course, my whims will carry me wherever based upon what the players do and the dice demand. So I am not sure whether these two definitions are especially useful in my case.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My current sandbox campaign is largely populated by existing adventures, locations and other bits I have stolen from all manner of sources. I also reach for random tables, from Worlds Without Number to Shadowdark, to create stuff on the fly. And of course, my whims will carry me wherever based upon what the players do and the dice demand. So I am not sure whether these two definitions are especially useful in my case.

This is mostly what I do as well. The setting is reasonably fleshed out and includes portions that lead to published or otherwise prewritten material, but I use setting logic and procedural generation to manifest the details as they are needed. Once generated, those details are part of the setting.

And of course I don't constrain the players to choose any path, or to make their own path and head off into the wilderness with no prompting from me.

 

[payn]

Again, this is a just a framework for discussion. However, I'd clarify the second to say that you start with improvisation and then build ahead of the directions your players head. If they head into a dungeon that you tossed in front of them when it had no real details in mind and then you build it out ahead of the next session that is still open by these definitions.

I did attempt to explain the difference and apologize if it is not clear.
I referenced Railroad in a way that did not require a specific definition. They were primarily examples of something that is not a Sandbox, and I feel few people believe Sandbox and Railroad styles are overlapping.

I also think it is not inherently derogatory as a description. Many people enjoy the published adventure paths. Those published materials would be identified as a Railroad by many people's definitions, including many that enjoy them.

...and im telling you that your use is derogatory and offensive, no matter how many people you think agree with you.

 

[jgsugden]

...and im telling you that your use is derogatory and offensive, no matter how many people you think agree with you.

Can you clarify how? Here are my references:

... Published campaign paths are generally more Railroad than Sandbox as they require you to meet certain elements in order to reach the final conclusion of the campaign. Some make efforts to be less Railroad and more open. ... Others might talk about running a Railroad game to start and then transitioning to a Lego Sandbox and then at high level going to an Open Sandbox, or introducing a Railroad at the end of the campaign...

What was derogatory and offensive about that description, and/or using the terms in that fashion? I am not seeing what you think might be derogatory.