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

[Morrus]

Spergy fixating

This type of language is not appropriate here.

 

[AlViking]

Perhaps. I would argue that the DM throwing any hooks, even with such noble intentions, is pulling at least slightly away from sandbox-y campaigning. That doesn't suddenly make it not at all a sandbox (it's a fuzzy boundary, something can be kinda sandbox-y or fairly so or extremely so etc.) Just meaning that the DM throwing out hooks is an action that points toward DM direction rather than player direction.


Good point. I personally have pretty heavily negative interest in "character versus character" gameplay, so I often overlook this. But yeah, given the lack of a core "thread" to follow, personal vs party goals becomes an open question. Kinda fits under the umbrella of "behavior that might be disruptive" but it's definitely distinct enough to mention separately.


Well, note the difference between what you're saying and what Bloodtide has said. You're correctly understanding it as "typical D&D for Lanefan." But when they have used the phrase, they mean...like the basic way almost anyone plays.

Let's assume a hypothetical scenario. The characters are sitting in a tavern. The GM asks them "What for you do?" with no other prompting or information. Assuming the players are proactive they'll chat with people about rumors, look for a job board, perhaps think about what they've been doing recently an discuss if they could pick up some unresolved issue.

That would supposedly be a sandbox, right? Except that's what I'm also providing as hooks. Reminding them that even though they recovered the Cat's Eye gem they hadn't caught the thief, or that there's a rumor or job posting.

But I also think people are over-focused on plot hooks. Player's approach, the decisions they make, what they do is frequently as, or more, important than what they do next. I'm also not really concerned whether I'm running or playing a "pure" sandbox. I don't think it really adds anything to the conversation, all games are on a spectrum of sandbox to extremely linear so nitpicking details or establishing specific narrow criteria for what a sandbox is or is not.

 

[GrimCo]

Hooks are like toys someone else left in the sandbox. You can pick up toy truck or excavator and play with it, or you can ignore it and start building sandcastle with hands. You are still playing in the sandbox. It's bunch of sand, what and how you play with it, it's up to you. To further playground analogy, linear adventure is like someone brought couple of shovels, some buckets and said- let's build cool castle with moat. Tools are provided, game plan is provided, but end result and path to it is up to players.

 

[bloodtide]

I've never seen anything like what you describe. I have never heard of it from anyone but you. I have spent pushing 20 years frequenting various forums, talking with friends, and delving into the TTRPG space. You, and only you, have brought this idea of the "player-DM" who sits there quietly doing nothing but nodding at the players' declarations.

Well, that is odd. It is very common.

I strongly suggest that, given the sheer number of people who are reacting incredulously at your descriptions, you reconsider whether this style is actually common, or is perhaps either specific only to your general gaming sphere, or a misunderstanding on your part.

It is just the bare honest I use. If I were to say a DM that "Runs a fair and balanced game and is a fan of the players and characters", you would see plenty of people say "that is me".

I assure you, it is not. It is one style. There are others. I wouldn't enjoy playing a game with the specific kinds of stuff that most sandbox games do, because I'm not good with that particular kind of thing. I suffer analysis paralysis when given that kind of creative freedom; I call it the tyranny of the empty page. I am quite good with only very very minor constraints, but give me total freedom and my brain shuts down. It's like...if I have a hundred options, I can filter them and pick one that is best by whatever metric seems reasonable. But when I have nearly infinite options? My proverbial filter clogs and nothing gets through.

I agree with you here. I love being a player that does their own thing, but I was quick to find that like 3/4 ths of all players were not like that. Tell a player they can do anything and they just sit there and say "I dontknow".

E.g. the DM has written a loose plot arc. It has an inciting incident, a big event that will happen in the middle, and a climactic conclusion at the end. How the players get to each part (well, perhaps not the inciting incident), and more importantly what they do in each part, isn't controlled. There could be a lot of things that happen along the way. None of this involves "controlling" the PCs in the ridiculously over-the-top way you describe, but it does involve (more or less) saying, "Hey guys, I have this cool story, are you okay with playing through that?"

I might work out in a game of smart people where everyone agrees on nearly everything. But it falls apart fast outside of that group.

Nope. It's not a matter of leaving things vague. That's just, as you say, a linear game that isn't pre-written, though admittedly such a game is more responsive to the players. In a sandbox, there isn't anything to keep vague in the first place. There is just a world with stuff in it and events happening in/to it, and PCs who may or may not get involved. Such a game requires motivated players who won't wait for "the adventure" to come to them. (Quotes because there is no single adventure!) The players need to actively set goals for themselves both individually and as a group, because a sandbox DM isn't going to push them through anything. Such a game will bog down and become dull and boring if the players are not active participants asking questions, coming up with ideas, and pushing the situation forward.

To me this sounds like a prequel to a game and is a huge waste of time. I know many players love this: get together and sort of play a game by doing random Slice of Life type stuff. And many players love to do this for endless hours. And if you find this fun, then go ahead and have fun. It is just not for me.

But....eventually, many players get to the point where they want to do an adventure. And this is where details and the linear game come in.

And yet you keep being told that this is really, really weird. That people find your descriptions incredibly unusual and even blatantly insulting to playstyles you don't personally practice. In the face of such a response, I recommend reflection. Is your personal experience truly representative? Or have you been witness to unusual DMs, or an unusual local gaming culture? The latter seems rather more plausible considering how wildly divergent your ideas are from what everyone else in this forum has experienced.

Humans are weird....

 

[Reynard]

PCs need to come with motivations, and players need to employ those motivations. Players that agree to a player driven sandbox campaign bear significant responsibility for the success of that campaign.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, that is odd. It is very common.

It is just the bare honest I use. If I were to say a DM that "Runs a fair and balanced game and is a fan of the players and characters", you would see plenty of people say "that is me".

Except that the description you keep giving is NOTHING like what such DMs run.

That's where the disconnect is. The phrases you used just now--"Runs a fair and balanced game and is a fan of the players and characters"--has jack-all to do with your so-called "player-DM".

I agree with you here. I love being a player that does their own thing, but I was quick to find that like 3/4 ths of all players were not like that. Tell a player they can do anything and they just sit there and say "I dontknow".

I might work out in a game of smart people where everyone agrees on nearly everything. But it falls apart fast outside of that group.

High intelligence is unrelated, and consistent universal agreement, while useful, isn't required. Clear and open communication is dramatically more important than either. Initiative and creativity are likewise more important than intelligence or unmitigated agreement.

It's definitely not a style for everyone--and I am inclined to say that most people aren't enthused by it. As said, I'm one such person. The classic D&D sandbox game doesn't really go for me very much.

To me this sounds like a prequel to a game and is a huge waste of time. I know many players love this: get together and sort of play a game by doing random Slice of Life type stuff. And many players love to do this for endless hours. And if you find this fun, then go ahead and have fun. It is just not for me.

As said: I don't think this is a thing for you, either. You are a very traditional DM, and I don't mean "trad" in the style-labels sense, I mean that you run things in a way loosely similar to Gary Gygax, from what I've heard. The DM is still front and center, still orchestrating and leading and prodding etc., etc., but whenever a rules-adjudication thing happens, you aim for impartiality and consistency--but your word is law, and if folks want to question it, they are welcome to depart the table. That, too, is not a style I'm particularly enthused about, but that doesn't mean it's bad or wrong, it's just not for me.

But....eventually, many players get to the point where they want to do an adventure. And this is where details and the linear game come in.

No, you misunderstand. This is the adventure for folks who like this style. You have incorrectly fixed a specific idea in your head as "this is what an adventure is", but "an adventure" is broader than that. What you consider to be a "prelude", old-school sandbox fans consider to be the prime experience. Much like, for example, I consider the gritty barely-surviving stuff to be at best the prelude to a deeper, thematic, unfolding story of a group of comrades figuring themselves and each other out while they do some cool stuff and probably save things (people, cities, nations, the world, a critical artifact, etc.)

Humans are weird....

And?

Just because humans do not cleanly fit in boxes does not mean that it can't be true that a thing you've observed is not as common as you think. Or, as I think is actually the case here, you are projecting your (consistently false and venomous) image of a playstyle you don't like, don't use, and neither understand nor wish to understand, onto something that is dramatically different from the playstyle you keep describing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And yet you keep being told that this is really, really weird. That people find your descriptions incredibly unusual and even blatantly insulting to playstyles you don't personally practice. In the face of such a response, I recommend reflection. Is your personal experience truly representative? Or have you been witness to unusual DMs, or an unusual local gaming culture? The latter seems rather more plausible considering how wildly divergent your ideas are from what everyone else in this forum has experienced.

Yeah, charitably, Bloodtide is living in some kind of odd gaming pocket (such things can occur). Otherwise you have to assume the personal experience of everyone else and things like some of us that have been talking to gamers widely spread out for half a century have somehow missed this "common style".

 

[Lanefan]

My feeling on hooks is they should make sense and not be overly abundant. Sometimes you need them if players are not comfortable taking initiative in a sandbox (or still getting used to taking initiative). But overall, the issue hooks present is they can very much feel like "Here is the adventure for you to go on" and sandboxes, at least in my view, should feel more organic. But hooks can also be part of the world existing around the players. So by all means if it makes sense for someone to reach out the players for aid due to their reputation, that can be a hook. But it should make sense.

The key time for hooks is right at the start of the campaign, in order to give the players a sense of what's out there and also to get the campaign started. Personally, as DM I go a step further and find a way to hard-line the first adventure (always a stand-alone) to start things off; after they've done that one they're much more on their own as to what to do next (and if they can't make up their minds I've a whole tackle box full of hooks to drop).

I've done some PvP sandboxes and the thing they bring that is good is player versus player is its own fuel. The can just sit back and let the players pursue goals related to their conflict. Some of the issues though are:

1) Expectation alignment. This is a huge potential issue, and one you sometimes have to drill down for because this is an area where I find players are more reluctant to bring up concerns they might have. So you have to make sure everyone is on the same page

2) Splitting up the party. If it is PvP there is a lot of reason for the players to go in different directions. There is an art I think to managing the split up party. If you are comfortable and the players aren't getting bored by it, this can work. My technique is to use a timer if I am shifting back and forth. I usually switch every 15 minutes, but will let things go an extra five or so if something very important and engaging is going on.

If it's one or more individual characters going off on their own for any length of time I'll often do that during the week either by email or over a beer at the pub. If they split into two actual parties and stay that way I'll either run one party for an adventure then put it on hold to run the other, or I'll start running two nights a week.

If it's individual characters plotting and planning against each other in quasi-real time then I'll try to do it all at once by secret note.

3) Balance and fairness. Normally players are working together so party imbalances are often more about spotlight issues. With PvP, the GM is much more on the hook for making sure things feel fair. This doesn't mean total parity. Part of PvP is players trying to gain advantage over one another, maybe even getting very powerful abilities to do defeat the other players. But you have to be very methodical in a lot of aspects of play so that fairness is part of it

Fairness and neutrality is vital. IME most of the real hairy CvC stuff tends to happen at low level, well before any major imbalances have had time to manifest.

 

[Endie]

Well, that is odd. It is very common.

“Contrafibularities? Why, ‘tis a common enough word down our way.”

Even before you posted about watching 10-20 games in a day, I suspected that you were one of those people who watches a lot but doesn’t get to play. Your highly idiosyncratic view of what role playing games are like in practise seems like a unique concoction born of letting your algorithm shape your imagination of what happens in real life.

Let’s Play type affairs played and published online, explicitly for public consumption, are no more like normal role playing games than professional porn is like sex.

 

[FrogReaver]

What defines a sandbox is that the players decide what to engage with, when and how. It does not mean that The Keep on the Borderlands can't be present in the sandbox, or that the GM establishing locations, characters, factions and situations with which to interact makes it not a sandbox.

So etimes people conflate hexcrawling with sandboxes. Most hexcrawls are sandboxes, but not all sandboxes are hexcrawls. Moreover, where a sandbox is crafted, random, or something in between has no impact on whether it is a sandbox.

Just to reiterate: what makes something a sandbox is that within the bounds of the box, the PCs have agency to choose how they will engage with all the toys in the sandbox.

It’s funny because I’ve always differentiated hexcrawl from sandbox in my mind. But I think my idea of sandbox comes more from crpgs than ttrpgs.