D&D General Sandbox and/or/vs Linear campaigns

[Thomas Shey]

This is a good point. Already in my 5E sandbox, u am running into the problem of PCs leveling up too quickly. They are going to level out of their "zone" before they ave a chance to explore it.

I had this happen back in my 3e campaign. I'd not internalized the difference in both advancement speed and how much stronger level differences could be in it compared to, well, OD&D, and it showed when I tried to design an extensive dungeon which I subconsciously expected them to, maybe, level once during when as I recall they ended up doing it four times. That was, to be charitable, a problem.

(Not that this is entirely a problem of just modern D&D style games, but in the Ancient Times it was more likely to be the opposite end when, especially when using outdoor encounter tables to populate areas, PCs could all too easily accidentally wander into areas where they really weren't up for the job if the GM was not up to proper signaling, and, well, most of us were new to it...)

 

[Reynard]

So would you say Milestone leveling is better for Sandbox play?

I don't think the choice between milestone or counted xp is related to that. It's more about 5E just being to fast. I don't think milestone leveling works well for a sandbox because (to abuse the analogy) milestones are found along roads.

I prefer counted XP because I like players being able to choose the level of risk and reward they after. I just need to cut the XP from the design rate (probably by half).

 

[Staffan]

So would you say Milestone leveling is better for Sandbox play?

I would not. Sandbox implies a high amount of PC agency in choosing where to go and what to do, and I feel this requires a certain amount of objectivity when it comes to XP/leveling. You don't level up when you've Done The Thing, because there's no One Thing to do.

It's very possible that the rapid advancement of 5e is incompatible with larger sandboxes, because 1-2 "adventures"/locations/events would be enough to level up (going from level 4 to 11 takes about 10 hard or 15 medium encounters per level in 5.0, and after that it goes down to 6-7 hard or 10 medium encounters/level) and while bounded accuracy is a thing it mostly applies on the individual monster level, not to a whole adventure. If I was looking to do a sandbox campaign, I would probably use a flatter system – likely Hjältarnas Tid (which is basically a fantasy version of the Troubleshooters).

 

[aco175]

The player-dm does not get to ask the players of characters questions: they just keep quiet and do as they are told. The sword is where the players want it to be or where the game rules or fiction or chance want it to be.

This would be very foreign/strange to me as a forever DM. I do not think I would ever not place the sword in a place that I design. I design places with the intent that they would be fun for the PCs to explore. Maybe I could see something along the lines of having a PC search a library and find information on a magic sword and I ask the player where is it- but then I design the dungeon with a hint or two that the PC uncovered.

 

[GrimCo]

I tend to run both linear-ish adventures and sandboxes.

Linear adventures are usually more work and require players to buy in and create characters that have motive to go on said adventure built into them. They are linear in a sense that there is defined starting point and end point ( with binary outcome - good and bad ending) but road can be straight or twisty, depending on choices players make.

Sandboxes on the other hand, i love those. My campaign notes for those are few bullet points (mostly cool monsters i wanna try out). Players get settings description, what happens in the small part of the world they are in, and after that, it's all up to them. This one requires way more engagement on the player side. There is no story arc per se. They need to figure out what their characters wanna do, what motivates them. It's heavy improv, usually zero prep work ( yea, i'm lazy, sue me), but their decisions and actions shape game world. If they say they wanna investigate local thiefs guild, then there is local thiefs guild. If the wanna search for ruins of long lost empire, then there are some ruins. If they wanna just enjoy fantasy slice of life, i can figure something up on the fly.

 

[Laurefindel]

It's only linear in retrospect. They might have had a plan, but only luck would allow for following that plan to be "linear." Rather, having a goal and working one step at a time toward it using the features of the fictional playspace is essentially the definition of sandbox play.

I disagree; it still was a sandbox game.

Now the story that the players made out of it might look linear in retrospect, but the resulting fiction =/= game process. Likewise, sandbox =/= aimless wandering without purpose. Sandbox =/= incoherence; it just means it wasn’t scripted to achieve that specific goal (or any goal at all).

Now take the PCs accomplishments and write a whole adventure designed to recreate their story (for another audience) and you’ll likely come with a linear adventure, but it doesn’t take anything away from the sandbox style of the original game.

 

[Endie]

I disagree; it still was a sandbox game.

Now the story that the players made out of it might look linear in retrospect, but the resulting fiction =/= game process. Likewise, sandbox =/= aimless wandering without purpose. Sandbox =/= incoherence; it just means it wasn’t scripted to achieve that specific goal (or any goal at all).

Now take the PCs accomplishments and write a whole adventure designed to recreate their story (for another audience) and you’ll likely come with a linear adventure, but it doesn’t take anything away from the sandbox style of the original game.

That’s Reynard’s whole point: you’re just repeating it back to him. He is saying precisely that the sandbox experience can be retold as a linear narrative, but that this is illusionary.

Essentially, retelling the experience as a narrative is like Flatland, where the 2D inhabitants cannot perceive the third dimension of the spaces they interact with. That doesn’t mean that they’re not there.

 

[Reynard]

I disagree; it still was a sandbox game.

Now the story that the players made out of it might look linear in retrospect, but the resulting fiction =/= game process. Likewise, sandbox =/= aimless wandering without purpose. Sandbox =/= incoherence; it just means it wasn’t scripted to achieve that specific goal (or any goal at all).

Now take the PCs accomplishments and write a whole adventure designed to recreate their story (for another audience) and you’ll likely come with a linear adventure, but it doesn’t take anything away from the sandbox style of the original game.

How are we disagreeing here?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I disagree; it still was a sandbox game.

Now the story that the players made out of it might look linear in retrospect, but the resulting fiction =/= game process. Likewise, sandbox =/= aimless wandering without purpose. Sandbox =/= incoherence; it just means it wasn’t scripted to achieve that specific goal (or any goal at all).

Now take the PCs accomplishments and write a whole adventure designed to recreate their story (for another audience) and you’ll likely come with a linear adventure, but it doesn’t take anything away from the sandbox style of the original game.

What does “scripted” mean in this context? That linear adventures are “scripted” while sandbox adventures are not? And/or does part of being “scripted” mean there is a specific goal for a particular adventure but specific goals are just happy accidents in sandbox play? Something else?

 

[Laurefindel]

How are we disagreeing here?

Ah, hum, I guess we don’t! I read your message too fast and misunderstood. Mea culpa, sorry about that.