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

[Crimson Longinus]

This is definitely a consideration. I have been in campaigns where I was enjoying myself because the GM did let us do whatever. But I remember after a session one of my friends saying he didn't like it because it felt like nothing happened. I started doing sandboxes because I was personally frustrated running the linear adventure structures that were common in 3E (and to be honest I was just frustrated that I couldn't get players during that period to play as many games that weren't d20 in general). But I don't think it is fair to being critical of linear structures because they serve a very important function and lots of people like having linear adventure structures. I go by the general notion that if people are enjoying themselves, it is not a problem. And any structure might not be the right fit for a given player

I usually try to keep the world in motion that something is always happening even if the PCs didn't initiate it. Then the PCs can decide to get involved or not.

 

[bloodtide]

I reviewed a dozen or so posts and they all said basically the same thing. The GM provides a setting along with populating and providing multiple hooks but direction of the campaign depends on the decisions and choices of the players. Which is what happens in my games. It has nothing to do with collaborative world building.

Sorry, I got lost with all the words.

I did say player lead game where the players have all the power and the dm-player just does what they are told. That fits everything you posted.

This is definitely a consideration. I have been in campaigns where I was enjoying myself because the GM did let us do whatever. But I remember after a session one of my friends saying he didn't like it because it felt like nothing happened.

Odd I mentioned some Sandboxes being games about Nothing and it upset people.

 

[Reynard]

I usually try to keep the world in motion that something is always happening even if the PCs didn't initiate it. Then the PCs can decide to get involved or not.

It is often difficult to keep that all in mind, though. It takes real effort to track the world outside of the PCs. I am not saying it isn't worthwhile, btw -- just that it is hard.

 

[GrimCo]

But I remember after a session one of my friends saying he didn't like it because it felt like nothing happened.

Sandboxes work better for the groups of pro active players. Yes, it gives players more freedom to do what they want. But also, it puts responsibility of coming up with what to do on the players. If players don't have clear ideas about their characters goals and at least some idea how to achieve them, then games can feel like nothing happens.

I started doing sandboxes because I was personally frustrated running the linear adventure structures that were common in 3E (and to be honest I was just frustrated that I couldn't get players during that period to play as many games that weren't d20 in general). But I don't think it is fair to being critical of linear structures because they serve a very important function and lots of people like having linear adventure structures. I go by the general notion that if people are enjoying themselves, it is not a problem. And any structure might not be the right fit for a given player

Linear adventures work great for reactive players. It removes responsibility of coming up with ideas what to do from players. DM comes up with stuff, players react to stuff that happens.

 

[AnotherGuy]

It is often difficult to keep that all in mind, though. It takes real effort to track the world outside of the PCs. I am not saying it isn't worthwhile, btw -- just that it is hard.

I actually find that fun and not at all difficult.
I find listing them (the expected changes) and making notes helps.

I've got 4 Clocks running concurrently (4 APs, listed 3 here) along with their respective Adventure League Material.
Here are some of the items that I keep track of which may influence various NPCs the party interacts with.

Tyranny of Dragons Clock
Council gathers in Waterdeep which becomes quite the hub
Price of weaponry increases sharply as a war with Tiamat and her forces is imminent
Armourers, Bowyers/Fletchers, Smiths, Dracologists, Arcanists...etc are in demand
Magical items are actively sourced by the Council and turned into residuum to create teleportation circles in order to prepare for the movement of vast armies across the Sword Coast
The sightings and tracking of dragons, particularly chromatics leads, lead to wide speculative conspiracy theories
The Emerald Enclave provides the effects on natural life the Draakhorn is having and this is corroborated by livestock and pet owners.
Influx of mercenary groups
Religious gatherings/cults spring up spewing end-of-days scenario and the "gods have abandoned us"
Town criers and news pamphlets become common place
Messengers and diplomats work overtime as the Council requests ex-Lord Alliance members join the fight against Tiamat
Artists and bards craft works of art (for sale) and compose odes respectively about the Champions of the Council (the PCs)
The Council uses some of the above for good-PR
...etc

Storm Kings Thunder Clock
As per some of the above,
Wares becomes increasingly more expensive with the giants acting out throughout the North
Refugees from farms and small undefended homesteads seek out larger centres for safety - as the metropolises become overcrowded
...etc

Descent into Avernus Clock
As per some of the above,
With the powerbase of the Order of the Gauntlet compromised, the faction is on the verge of withdrawing from the Council to deal with the disappearance of Elturel
The disappearance of Elturel emboldens the doomsday cults with their rhetoric and conspiracy theories
...etc

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You're simply pushing a style of collaborative play that you prefer and claiming it's the only way to do a sandbox style game.

Minor point of order: I'm fairly sure Bloodtide is describing a style they explicitly don't like. (Or, rather, their utterly mistaken strawman version of a style they don't like.) Hence why they refer to things like "player-DM" who meekly sits there and does nothing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sorry, I got lost with all the words.

I did say player lead game where the players have all the power and the dm-player just does what they are told. That fits everything you posted.

No, it doesn't, mostly because this whole "dm-player" you keep talking about doesn't exist, and is instead the fictional strawman you built to attack a style you have explicitly said you don't like, don't understand, don't want to understand, and seem particularly dedicated to taking down.

It has nothing to do with "sandbox" regardless.

Odd I mentioned some Sandboxes being games about Nothing and it upset people.

Because it's a crappy, reductive argument.

A sandbox game is one where, to some extent, the party has no goals fixed and required by the DM. A game that is relatively quite light on sandbox-y characteristics would be, for example, one where there is a linear plot, but at every "stop" along the way, there's a lot of freedom and such freedom can have long-term consequences. One that is relatively heavy on sandbox-y characteristics just has a map with stuff the GM knows is on it, and the players entirely decide what to look into, what they care about, etc.

Since I know you both like to invent your own "word-salad" terms and love throwing around that phrase to dismiss arguments, a relatively simple list of sandbox-y characteristics would include (but isn't limited to):

• No required "plot"/"events", just stuff that happens as the world turns.
• PCs can do things that might be "disruptive" in a linear/railroad game, like killing authority figures or leaving town before the monster attack etc.
• The players themselves decide what things matter to them, and may change their minds about this
• The DM primarily acts as "referee" (in the old-school game sense), rather than as an author or guide
• Players are responsible for seeking out information, leads, and points of interest--the DM won't throw hooks/prompts at them
• Atypical/idiosyncratic goals, like "set up a potion shop" or "sail around the world" etc., are common or even encouraged
• Wandering monsters, infestations, and various other threats that move, grow, or change over time

There are probably several more I'm not thinking of (I am finally becoming sleepy after taking meds), but these are a few typical characteristics.

And I would like to note here: if you read this and think "well this is just typical D&D", I recommend considering whether the problem is that this list is wrong...or whether it might, possibly, be the case that your definition of both "sandbox" and "typical D&D" maybe isn't quite correct.

 

[DEFCON 1]

To which the only useful response, really, is something like "Well, then, next session make sure you make something happen. Rock the boat a little."

Heh heh... unfortunately, in my experience a lot of players who really love playing are also some of the most gun-shy and so afraid of losing that the idea of purposefully doing something that could get their character potentially killed is exactly the thing they WON'T ever do. If the DM threatens them as part of the gameplay... well, that's kind of okay for them because that's how the game works and they have a subconscious belief that any encounter the DM puts in front of them has been vetted by said DM to not be too deadly.

But they would never purposefully throw themselves into harms way because at that point who knows what kind of encounters they will come upon, and they could easily get overwhelmed and destroyed through their own choices. So it's safer to just not make a choice. Inevitable consequences are acceptable because they had no choice-- they were going to experience them regardless. But ones that came via their own decision-making? Nothing could be worse!

Yeah, it's completely silly... but that's just how some players are.

 

[AlViking]

One thing I do with my campaigns is when the players have achieved whatever immediate goals they have, or if they're close and it's the end of a session, I'll have a list of options of what they want to do next and let them know they can do something else completely. I'll recap a bit here and there, remind them of rumors. It won't ever be a case of them not knowing what to do next because I'll remind them of what's going on and the open options and I always have the "Whatever you want to do" option as one of them. Occasionally we'll just review where we are in the game and talk about if we want a change of pace.

The direction of the game, the choices the players make both during a session and when deciding what to do next is always up to them. But I always make clear the obvious paths, remind them of what their characters know. If people are waffling I'll sometimes set up a ranked poll they can answer when they've had time to think about it.

So in my games there should never be an issue of the players not knowing what to do next. They have clear options and if a player wants to do something different they can always raise it as an option to the rest of the group.

 

[payn]

Sandboxes work better for the groups of pro active players. Yes, it gives players more freedom to do what they want. But also, it puts responsibility of coming up with what to do on the players. If players don't have clear ideas about their characters goals and at least some idea how to achieve them, then games can feel like nothing happens.

Linear adventures work great for reactive players. It removes responsibility of coming up with ideas what to do from players. DM comes up with stuff, players react to stuff that happens.

Absolutely! What I have found is that my heart is really in the middle. I like the background and meta-plot for a game that both GM and player alike can sink their teeth into. There are times the player needs to be proactive, but also times they need to be reactive. When its working, its like a tennis match of back and fourth and feels magical. When its off its a never ending series of ball crashing into the net and folks not understanding how the scoring works. Some folks lean heavily into proactive or reactive and need to be tailor suited or the whole thing will crash and burn. YMMV