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.
D&D General Lego Sandbox vs Open Sandbox (and other sandbox discussion)
- Thread starter jgsugden
- Start date
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
Storied Gamist
I love how everybody's trying to get the last word on what a railroad is 
I love how everybody's trying to get the last word on what a railroad is
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.
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
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
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.Terminology is everything:
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
Legend
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.
As a note: I have seen both approaches work spectacularly well when handled by DMs worth being called masters.
DinoInDisguise
A russian spy disguised as a t-rex.
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.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Oh, I absolutely agree! I think that because improv is essentially prepping and executing simultaneously, it’s usually better to prep in advance if you can. It is, of course, impossible to predict everything you might possibly need to prepare, and even if you could it would take infinite time to do so. So, improvisation will always be needed, and I think it’s accordingly wise to use the time and effort you do have for advance prep to make the on-the-spot prep you’ll inevitably need to do easier.
A lot of my prep comes early on when we decide what kind of campaign we're going to run. I have a homebrew world I've used for a long time, so I can start a campaign in a wide variety of locations with different thematic elements. When we decide the broad outline of the starting campaign I pick a spot on the map, look up notes from previous campaigns if any, fill in details. Then I'll create a handful of factions and NPCs with a mix of helpful, adversary and neutral that will be relevant at the start of the campaign. I also generate random lists, NPCs, store names and so on, a chart that breaks down the different species that inhabit the city so when I come up with an NPC I can randomize it.
From there I can create hooks and options for the players to pursue. Once they choose an option they typically follow it for a session or three and at the end of that arc or between sessions they'll decide what they want to do next. There's always going to be some obvious options, things that I dropped hints about during the game or rumors that they pick up on. They can always add their own goals.
By having an idea where they're going next I can plan ahead, come up with who's involved, how and why. Most of my notes are on background of what's really going on, what important NPCs know and what their goals and attitudes are, that kind of thing. Since I run a living world I'll take into consideration things the characters have done in the past and if their reputation or previous connections make a difference.
The last thing I do is crack open DndBeyond and start looking for monsters and NPCs that would make sense for combat encounters. My encounter planning is minimal, typically a sentence or two if that and a list of monsters and how many there are. Most of the time I include something like there will be 4 bandits if I want a medium encounter or 6 for a hard encounter. I will also include a couple extra encounters of things they could come across when they go in an unanticipated direction, something they do on a regular basis.
When running the game most of what happens is improv. I don't usually do detailed maps, I don't really care how they approach the encounters, whether they fight NPC X or make them an ally. I don't have preplanned goals or any idea of what they must accomplish, just their starting goal and what potential obstacles and aids there are. The rest is up to them.
From there I can create hooks and options for the players to pursue. Once they choose an option they typically follow it for a session or three and at the end of that arc or between sessions they'll decide what they want to do next. There's always going to be some obvious options, things that I dropped hints about during the game or rumors that they pick up on. They can always add their own goals.
By having an idea where they're going next I can plan ahead, come up with who's involved, how and why. Most of my notes are on background of what's really going on, what important NPCs know and what their goals and attitudes are, that kind of thing. Since I run a living world I'll take into consideration things the characters have done in the past and if their reputation or previous connections make a difference.
The last thing I do is crack open DndBeyond and start looking for monsters and NPCs that would make sense for combat encounters. My encounter planning is minimal, typically a sentence or two if that and a list of monsters and how many there are. Most of the time I include something like there will be 4 bandits if I want a medium encounter or 6 for a hard encounter. I will also include a couple extra encounters of things they could come across when they go in an unanticipated direction, something they do on a regular basis.
When running the game most of what happens is improv. I don't usually do detailed maps, I don't really care how they approach the encounters, whether they fight NPC X or make them an ally. I don't have preplanned goals or any idea of what they must accomplish, just their starting goal and what potential obstacles and aids there are. The rest is up to them.
MichaelSomething
Legend
When your a master, you're good enough to do all sorts of things. What should an average DM do???
