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

[Enrahim]

I'm not sure I would like to run or play in a sandbox where everything is being created on the fly. There should be the large blocks in place, at least for something more than a 1-shot or intro game. There should be the idea of a village with an inn and temple and a few NPC names. There things and people can be expanded on as they are interacted with with the smaller blocks. If the innkeeper names James suddenly had an eyepatch when the PCs first meet him, fine. If he suddenly has a problem with rats in the basement, fine. Even if there was no basement before, fine. But there should be the expectation of a village someplace with an inn.

I know many including myself can make up a lot of stuff, but is it the best or even the funnest way? Is it fair the the players and DM?

First the standard caveat with all categorization: All games are of course a mix of all such "ideals", so there are likely no game where litteraly everything is made on the fly. But there are definitely succesful sandbox games that lean more into on the fly content creation. I have had one full year weekly campaign heavily leaning into on the fly sandboxing as described in my other post. There are also well known patterns supporting this kind of play like in game random table rolls and formalised player driven content creation.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm saying there's a distinct difference. If you want to insult a GM call their game a railroad. If you want to discuss a campaign with predefined events call it linear.

I'm not going to argue about this any more, but this is not just a personal opinion, railroads are widely accepted as bad form. Google it if you don't accept my definition but you'll come across blogs like this one: Hot Topic 1 - Railroading: What does it mean and should it be used or avoided? | Gamemaster University Blog

Of course railroads are widely accepted as bad form, because being bad form is part of the definition. Again, it’s like saying “being boring is widely considered bad form.” Yeah, of course it is, because “boring” is a personal assessment of something being negative in a specific way.

Put another way, almost nobody will disagree that railroads are bad. But people will disagree about whether or not a game they both played in was a railroad.

 

[AlViking]

Of course railroads are widely accepted as bad form, because being bad form is part of the definition. Again, it’s like saying “being boring is widely considered bad form.” Yeah, of course it is, because “boring” is a personal assessment of something being negative in a specific way.

Put another way, almost nobody will disagree that railroads are bad. But people will disagree about whether or not a game they both played in was a railroad.

For me it's typically been fairly obvious, and there are some linear campaigns that come very close to railroads.

I prefer running sandboxes but if I know I'm playing a game with predetermined events and goals I'm okay with it as well.

 

[Theory of Games]

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

 

[jgsugden]

I'm not sure I would like to run or play in a sandbox where everything is being created on the fly...I know many including myself can make up a lot of stuff, but is it the best or even the funnest way? Is it fair the the players and DM?

My natural impulse is to agree as my orderly mind likes the structure and the belief that only through proper planning can I construct the genius edifice that is my next adventure (joking), but I played with DMs that were master storytellers with minds for detail and creativity that put my overconfident self to shame. Some, select, few, great DMs can run a game on the fly that will blow your mind. The main advantage is that without the prior constraints of a planned structure they can weave the game more tightly around the characters and player choices which can, in turn, make the game more impactful to the players. It isn't for every type of player, and it isn't something I'd expect out of most DMs - but if you're the right type of player and get the opportunity to experience this type of magical game ... cheers.

... If you want to insult a GM call their game a railroad. If you want to discuss a campaign with predefined events call it linear.

I'm not going to argue about this any more, but this is not just a personal opinion, railroads are widely accepted as bad form. Google it if you don't accept my definition but you'll come across blogs like this one: Hot Topic 1 - Railroading: What does it mean and should it be used or avoided? | Gamemaster University Blog

I'm letting myself get dragged back in for one more thought here:

One perspective does not mean there are not other perspectives. If you read through the post here from 2007 as opposed to yours from 2012, you'll see there are other perspectives. A label has only the meaning we give it ... and we should always be cautious about putting evil into a label when the intent behind it was not. Yes, you can try to draw comparisons to truly offensive labels ... but those arose from a bad place while this one did not. It originally was just something to juxtapose against sandbox and there was rampant discussion of the railroad nature of adventures, especially the Dark Sun ones, when they were released ... I'm betting that a linguist studying the negative perceptions of the term could track it back to those early internet discussions...

I will also say that when you run a game, constraining player options can be a tool within the storytelling. The reason railroading can be frustrating (when done in the derogatory way that some define it) can be a tool that creates tension that can be manipulated and released to move a story. I use it in my "introductory" homebrew campaign that I run for new groups of players. In the setting, the PCs are in a community, something bad happens, and the entire community flees across the seas to a new land. The first four levels of adventuring take place before and during that escape. While there are technically options, there is a clear path that all 7 groups I've run through the start of the campaign have taken. A choice nobody takes is not really a choice, right? The players follow substantially similar versions of the same path until the escape is complete - and we find them in a new land they know nothing about, with a huge number of refugees, and with no real leadership or plan. Going from the frantic escape with a set course to an open field of possibilities and so many nebulous needs without clear direction on how to pursue them has been jarring and uncomfortable every single time - and the resolution of that discomfort sets the course for the next 12 levels of adventuring.

 

[Enrahim]

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

The way I read it it had more to do about the granularity. A heavily prepped strongly interconnected living world with no concretized adventure locations seemed to fall into the open sandbox. While the lego approach is more like the hex crawl with several somewhat disjoint adventure locations. Isle of dread and kingmaker would be what I consider two well known published lego sandboxes. Meanwhile just playing based on a standard setting book would quickly be an open sandbox (and I think Halls of Arden Vul might possibly be considered the most detailed open sandbox ever published)

It also do not specify who specifies the content of the sandbox. You could imagine the players buying a module for the GM to put into a lego sandbox, and open sandboxes can easily be made to allow for huge amounts of player input (as exemplified by my experiences described in a previous post)

In a previous post I argued the dimension you talk about here seem to be orthogonal. There might be correlation, but I can easily envision an improvised lego sandbox and a very heavily prepared open sandbox with my understanding of those terms.

 

[Theory of Games]

The way I read it it had more to do about the granularity. A heavily prepped strongly interconnected living world with no concretized adventure locations seemed to fall into the open sandbox. While the lego approach is more like the hex crawl with several somewhat disjoint adventure locations. Isle of dread and kingmaker would be what I consider two well known published lego sandboxes. Meanwhile just playing based on a standard setting book would quickly be an open sandbox (and I think Halls of Arden Vul might possibly be considered the most detailed open sandbox ever published)

For the record, most campaigns/modules published by TSR, WotC, Paizo and Goodman Games are all classic sandboxes. Especially when you consider that the dungeon itself is usually a sandbox. You're already turned around here: the OP describes "open sandbox" as "not planned in advance" and you say Halls of Arden Vul is "open".

But, Halls of Arden Vul has over 2,000 encounter descriptions and more than 10 NPC factions. If that isn't the definition of "planned", what is? See this why I stress the importance of terminology. We have to understand and agree what words mean, otherwise the discussion gets chaotic.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

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.

 

[AlViking]

My natural impulse is to agree as my orderly mind likes the structure and the belief that only through proper planning can I construct the genius edifice that is my next adventure (joking), but I played with DMs that were master storytellers with minds for detail and creativity that put my overconfident self to shame. Some, select, few, great DMs can run a game on the fly that will blow your mind. The main advantage is that without the prior constraints of a planned structure they can weave the game more tightly around the characters and player choices which can, in turn, make the game more impactful to the players. It isn't for every type of player, and it isn't something I'd expect out of most DMs - but if you're the right type of player and get the opportunity to experience this type of magical game ... cheers.

I'm letting myself get dragged back in for one more thought here:

One perspective does not mean there are not other perspectives. If you read through the post here from 2007 as opposed to yours from 2012, you'll see there are other perspectives. A label has only the meaning we give it ... and we should always be cautious about putting evil into a label when the intent behind it was not. Yes, you can try to draw comparisons to truly offensive labels ... but those arose from a bad place while this one did not. It originally was just something to juxtapose against sandbox and there was rampant discussion of the railroad nature of adventures, especially the Dark Sun ones, when they were released ... I'm betting that a linguist studying the negative perceptions of the term could track it back to those early internet discussions...

I will also say that when you run a game, constraining player options can be a tool within the storytelling. The reason railroading can be frustrating (when done in the derogatory way that some define it) can be a tool that creates tension that can be manipulated and released to move a story. I use it in my "introductory" homebrew campaign that I run for new groups of players. In the setting, the PCs are in a community, something bad happens, and the entire community flees across the seas to a new land. The first four levels of adventuring take place before and during that escape. While there are technically options, there is a clear path that all 7 groups I've run through the start of the campaign have taken. A choice nobody takes is not really a choice, right? The players follow substantially similar versions of the same path until the escape is complete - and we find them in a new land they know nothing about, with a huge number of refugees, and with no real leadership or plan. Going from the frantic escape with a set course to an open field of possibilities and so many nebulous needs without clear direction on how to pursue them has been jarring and uncomfortable every single time - and the resolution of that discomfort sets the course for the next 12 levels of adventuring.

There can be a fine line between a linear campaign and a railroad. I frequently do fairly linear stuff for the initial session(s) of a campaign myself. To me it's a railroad when you're just told that you get captured, that the bad guy always escapes because a portal opens up and someone pulls him away or miraculously escapes bonds. But it is more of an attitude on the part of the GM that no decision that goes in a direction that was not preordained is ever allowed.

I do not care if the term was once not considered negative by some people. There are a lot of terms that I won't repeat here that were once acceptable.

 

[Enrahim]

For the record, most campaigns/modules published by TSR, WotC, Paizo and Goodman Games are all classic sandboxes. Especially when you consider that the dungeon itself is usually a sandbox. You're already turned around here: the OP describes "open sandbox" as "not planned in advance" and you say Halls of Arden Vul is "open".

But, Halls of Arden Vul has over 2,000 encounter descriptions and more than 10 NPC factions. If that isn't the definition of "planned", what is? See this why I stress the importance of terminology. We have to understand and agree what words mean, otherwise the discussion gets chaotic.

Fully agree to your last sentence, which is why I try to clarify the terms. From the original post it is clear that some prepped content called lore can be available in an open sandbox

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.

It is also later clarified that it is the available options that is not planned.

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.

There are clearly room for interpretations here, but these two element together make me think that the crucial element here is not about improvising vs planning content, but rather about the level of planing around what is going to happen with that content.

So to further illustrate my understanding:
In a lego sandbox it would be natural to have local 5 room dungeons with a clear hook and objective in the end the players are expected to get hold of if they go to it. In an open sandbox a 5 room dungeon isn't a natural pattern to encounter at all. Rather there are locations that are intended to be interacted with in an open fashion, without any strong preconception of how the players are going to approach it.