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

[AlViking]

I think we should separate the style of play from the negativity of railroading, because a DM's respect for player agency isn't beholden to a mythical definition of their chosen style of play.

Simply saying, "I run sandbox games" doesn't mean you railroad more or less than someone who claims to run plot driven, linear campaigns. There is actually no connection what-so-ever. And it is, in my opinion, incorrect to presume that the campaign type has such weight on the game.

Otherwise, I feel like we are just promoting a one-true-way.

And just to be clear - I don't think you should ever call someone's game a railroad unless you are absolutely certain the GM never allows any freedom to make a decision large or small.

But at this point, I agree that we should put this to rest.

 

[Theory of Games]

I love how everybody's trying to get the last word on what a railroad is

 

[AlViking]

I love how everybody's trying to get the last word on what a railroad is

 

[AlViking]

There are always going to be a spectrum of game styles, most do not fit purely into one style or another. I might even say that my games are not open sandbox and not really lego sandbox as defined by the OP either. I have a homebrew setting that I've used for a long, long time (which also leads into living world ideas) and I never use modules written by someone else.

But I do ask for what direction the characters are headed from a list of options or some idea they have so I can prep for the next session. So while most of my prep notes are just a list of NPCs, factions, monsters that might be encountered, location details and historical knowledge that might be significant, I do also consider likely paths. If the characters are tracking down a mysterious string of murders I'll be sure to note clues that they can follow and what different NPCs might know.

So I plan for at least somewhat linear paths as what I expect. The players can, and sometimes do, color far outside the lines of what I had anticipated and that's where I get into heavy improv, but at a high level I do know what's likely to happen and what's already there.

 

[Charlaquin]

Terminology is everything:

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/662/what-is-sandbox-play

Here, "Lego " and "Open" sandboxes are fundamentally the same because with both the GM comes up with ideas and the players choose which idea to interact with.

The key difference is "Lego" sandboxes are "planned" while "open" sandboxes are not. Thus, the OP seems to be describing "Prepped" campaigns vs. "Improvisational" campaigns.

I prefer prep. I like when the setting and NPCs are established before the players get involved. I can always improvise bits - it's what we do in this hobby - but I need a "map" so I know where the party has been, where they are and where they can go.

But pure improvisation can be fun for certain groups

I also am of the opinion that improvisation is just planning and implementing simultaneously. So, I’d argue that an improvised game isn’t essentially different than a prepared game, except in that the improvised game’s preparation happened as it was being run instead of in advance. Maybe I’m just being meaninglessly pedantic, but to me, framing the prep/improvisation divide in these terms makes a big difference in how I conceptualize each practice.

 

[jgsugden]

The oddball thing here is that people are so hung up on definitions that they ignore the underlying question. Using whatever terminology you'd like: I wanted to tease out how we construct our sandboxes. I'd like to hear your experiences running or playing in Sandbox games, with a focus on how much is planned in advance (choose your path/option) vs improvised on the spot (go with the flow/create the path during play).

As a note: I have seen both approaches work spectacularly well when handled by DMs worth being called masters.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I also am of the opinion that improvisation is just planning and implementing simultaneously. So, I’d argue that an improvised game isn’t essentially different than a prepared game, except in that the improvised game’s preparation happened as it was being run instead of in advance. Maybe I’m just being meaninglessly pedantic, but to me, framing the prep/improvisation divide in these terms makes a big difference in how I conceptualize each practice.

I think your idea that improvisation is essentially planning done in real time is fine. It actually might help new DMs demystify improv. But the need for prep is still meaningful. This is not because improve and prep are different-as you note they are essentially the same thing. But it's important because human brains aren't super computers.

What I mean by that is that our brains have limited improvisational bandwidth. You can only hold so many ideas in working memory before quality starts to slip. Good prep covers this weakness. It doesn’t eliminate the need for improv—it creates scaffolding that frees up mental energy and enhances your improvisation when it counts. It raises the floor.

Sly Flourish’s “secrets and clues” approach is a great example of this kind of prep. It doesn’t script outcomes. It just loads the DM’s notes with potential ideas that can be deployed flexibly during improv. If a better idea comes up in the moment? Great, use it. If not, the prep provides a fail safe.

The key point is that prep extends your creative capacity. It gives your brain more time to develop good ideas before you're under pressure. It’s not about control, or shudder railroading. It’s about building the mental infrastructure that lets you improvise better.

DMs shouldn't be afraid of prepping for sessions. They should just learn how best to prep for the game they wish to run, because prepping, when done correctly, will always improve the resulting game.