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

[Reynard]

I'll agree with that. I just don't particularly like the notion that sandbox is open to the PCs doing "whatever" because at there is always a certain point where things fall outside the scope of what the DM will allow. The walls of the box are somewhere. The difference is how much room the players have until they find them. A railroad has very tight walls. A linear adventure is a little wider. A sandbox depends on the size of the box, be it a region, a continent, a world or the Multiverse itself.

It also depends on the toys in the sanbox. If the GM does not like (just by way of example) weird fantasy magitech stuff, there is no possibility of the players engaging with that sort of thing in that particular game.

That is why I think it is worthwhile to remember that "sandbox" is a definition of playstyle, not a list of ingredients. it means "the players decide what to engage with, how and when" as a playstyle. That's all.

 

[Reynard]

So... what are the adventurers doing in a sandbox if not, at least some of the time, going on adventures? And how can it be said these adventures are not loosely connected when they all exist in the same game world?

Not trying to be obtuse here, but I'm truly trying wrap my head around the premise of a campaign in which the players are running PC adventurers who are actively escaping from going on adventures. Maybe this is just a semantic misunderstanding.

Maybe the PCs are the Important People in their particular town and they, as a group, decide mostly to stay there and protect the town from the dangers of the sandbox. The GM uses their defined situations, random tables, "if the PCs do nothing" timelines and whatever else to inform the PCs when things happen they might care about. In the meantime, they do whatever the players enjoy, like opening inns or pursuing the vicar's daughter or whatever. This campaign still takes place in a sandbox, but the way the players choose to engage with it is turned on its head.

Note: I would not necessarily enjoy this as a player or GM, but it is still totally viable.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Just as a general point: I don't think preparation is a import defining feature in either case. you can run a linear adventure with the spaces/activities between the "plot points" made up on the fly or the result of random tables etc. The same goes for the sandbox. You can generate some or all of the sandbox as the players go.

Of course.
Which is why I said:

The amount of prep work and the amount of improv can vary wildly and is not necessarily correlated with the type of campaign style

In any case, I appreciate your clarification.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Maybe the PCs are the Important People in their particular town and they, as a group, decide mostly to stay there and protect the town from the dangers of the sandbox. The GM uses their defined situations, random tables, "if the PCs do nothing" timelines and whatever else to inform the PCs when things happen they might care about. In the meantime, they do whatever the players enjoy, like opening inns or pursuing the vicar's daughter or whatever. This campaign still takes place in a sandbox, but the way the players choose to engage with it is turned on its head.

Indeed. The argument then being that "opening inns" and "pursuing the vicar's daughter" are adventures which have goals. They aren't necessarily bold, daring goals that your typical D&D party of adventurers attempts but they are possible adventures that can be prepped and/or improved as needed.

Note: I would not necessarily enjoy this as a player or GM, but it is still totally viable.

 

[DragonLancer]

I've never much liked the sandbox/open world play style. As a player I get bored, or more accurately I get lost. I much prefer to have a story that I can follow and learn as I go. It's just how I prefer to play. As a Dungeon Master, I was brought into the hobby and raised (as it were) with the concept that a campaign was a story going forward. It has one off side adventures here and there but you follow a story created and moulded by the DM. I find it much easier and more enjoyable to DM (and play) campaigns like that.

I have run many of Paizo's adventure paths which follow the linear route. I don't consider them rail roaded because although have set goals, locations and the like, the players can use their own initiative which a good DM can use guide them. Often players can find another way around it if they don't follow what is in the book. I've seen it myself with my own players. So long as the DM goes along and modifies things along the way, you have a good campaign. It's only when the DM knuckles down and you can't deviate from the written plot that it becomes a railroad.

So, in my mind, the sandbox/open world approach can have that storyline but everything is largely left to the players. They decide where they go, who they talk to, if they want too get involved in that potential plotline, and they work with the consequences of their action or inaction. The linear approach has a fixed storyline in writing with hooks to follow and it is expected the players will follow them but they have freedom to follow those hooks how they will.

I know what I prefer from both sides of the DM screen but ultimately neither of them are bad/wrong, and as long as everyone is enjoying their game sessions both styles can exist side by side.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So... what are the adventurers doing in a sandbox if not, at least some of the time, going on adventures? And how can it be said these adventures are not loosely connected when they all exist in the same game world?

Not trying to be obtuse here, but I'm truly trying wrap my head around the premise of a campaign in which the players are running PC adventurers who are actively escaping from going on adventures. Maybe this is just a semantic misunderstanding.

What I mean is there aren't adventures in the sense of structured adventures waiting to be set off in many sandboxes. Again this is going to vary depending on how people implement sandbox play, but a lot of the time you are leaning more into players taking initiative and dealing more with situations where there isn't an adventure in the linear sense. There might be an initial set up but no A then B then C. And it is usually more around what the party wants to do

 

[KYRON45]

A lot of people making my original argument for me here.

You’re welcome.

 

[Reynard]

A lot of people making my original argument for me here.

You’re welcome.

Congratulations, you successfully predicted that different people would have different opinions. Amazing.

 

[KYRON45]

Congratulations, you successfully predicted that different people would have different opinions. Amazing.

I just enjoy the conversation.
Soon someone will blame it all on WotC or 4e.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

What I mean is there aren't adventures in the sense of structured adventures waiting to be set off in many sandboxes. Again this is going to vary depending on how people implement sandbox play, but a lot of the time you are leaning more into players taking initiative and dealing more with situations where there isn't an adventure in the linear sense. There might be an initial set up but no A then B then C. And it is usually more around what the party wants to do

Ok - this is perhaps still too vague for me. Are you saying that, in pure sandbox play, there are no end goals for "what the party wants to do"? Or, and I think this is more likely, are you saying that just because an "adventure" has a start (A) and an end (D), it's not considered linear b/c of the many different successful paths to get from A to D (B, C, B+C, B1, B1+B2+C2, etc)?