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

[Swarmkeeper]

No. A sandbox is not some kind of quantum superposition the game is in only when the PCs-players are deciding between hooks to pursue.

So a sandbox with discrete linear adventures within it is still a sandbox?

For instance, the DM is running a sandbox campaign with a map that has lots of points of interest. In hex G3, there is a cave reported to have a mythical sword deep within it. The party wants to retrieve it so head off to hex G3 to delve into that cave. Is that session (or sessions) not considered a linear adventure with a sandbox campaign?

 

[Bedrockgames]

So a sandbox with discrete linear adventures within it is still a sandbox?

For instance, the DM is running a sandbox campaign with a map that has lots of points of interest. In hex G3, there is a cave reported to have a mythical sword deep within it. The party wants to retrieve it so head off to hex G3 to delve into that cave. Is that session (or sessions) not considered a linear adventure with a sandbox campaign?

This seems to be confusing the idea of players moving in a linear direction towards a goal, with a linear adventure structure. Those aren't the same.

That said, I don't the presence of a linear adventure inside a sandbox makes it less of a sandbox (so long as the players are free to not engage it, or engage it in a non-linear way). But in most I think linear adventures are less common or not the goal

 

[Swarmkeeper]

In the Before Time of the game, the players will pick what they want to do. And by definition any goal is linear. It has to be, otherwise you could never reach the goal.

The difference is the execution.

In the Linear Game the players have to follow the DMs path towards the goal: the path is the only way to go.

The Sandbox game allows the players to do whatever they want, under the vague linear tent, and no matter what they do it is a path towards the goal. The players are the path.

So an adventure with start and a goal that has multiple paths towards said goal - what I've defined as a Moderate Linear Adventure - is considered a sandbox in your mind?

A-->B-->D
or
A-->C-->D
or
A-->B-->C-->D
or
A-->C-->B-->D

A is the start
B and C are intermediate points on the path towards the goal
D is the goal

Let's say the DM has prepared B and C ahead of time - does that make the adventure linear?
Let's say the players proposed B and C and the DM improvised what those scenes looked like - does that make the adventure a sandbox?

 

[overgeeked]

So a sandbox with discrete linear adventures within it is still a sandbox?

As long as the broader campaign structure is still recognizably a sandbox, yes.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

This seems to be confusing the idea of players moving in a linear direction towards a goal, with a linear adventure structure. Those aren't the same.

Say more on this difference - I think this may be an important point.

 

[overgeeked]

Say more on this difference - I think this may be an important point.

It’s who makes the choice and when.

The referee designs a linear adventure ahead of time for the players to follow. If the referee also removes choice, it devolves into a railroad.

The players choosing to pursue their goals in a straight line does not make their choices a linear adventure.

 

[zakael19]

So a sandbox with discrete linear adventures within it is still a sandbox?

For instance, the DM is running a sandbox campaign with a map that has lots of points of interest. In hex G3, there is a cave reported to have a mythical sword deep within it. The party wants to retrieve it so head off to hex G3 to delve into that cave. Is that session (or sessions) not considered a linear adventure with a sandbox campaign?

So let's take something like Dolmenwood, a world set up specifically to facilitate fairly open ended hex-crawl play. This includes endless tables of random encounters by zones, rumors, NPC encounters in specific hexes, wants/needs/goals for various factions & characters; etc.

On top of that, it's set up to naturally drop in various of the OSE or community dungeons.

I don't consider this to be linear by default, because a) by and large there's nothing gating the players off from wandering in a random direction within the boundaries of the map (and possibly being eaten by grues, but still) to find adventure; b) well made dungeons may have a goal but the purpose is generally getting treasure out while still alive; and c) there's no plot through line by default.

I think it's really the latter bit that's key. Once you start saying "ok, we're here to rescue the Lady's daughter - and to do that you must a/b/c (but maybe you can skip B, you'll just have a harder time), and that's the purpose of play." Now you're in linear adventure mode IMO.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Say more on this difference - I think this may be an important point.

I think taking a position on the map where the players decide to go off on a particular goal, drawing a line to that goal and calling it a linear adventure is not correct. A linear adventure has a linear structure the GM has planned in advance.

 

[AlexofBarbaria]

"Railroad" is definitely the pejorative for linear. It's like "disorder" -- a difference is only a disorder when it causes problems for a person, which depends on them and their situation. Linearity is only railroading when it's frustrating or cheesy and harms the player's suspension of disbelief.

I think of the linear-sandbox spectrum in terms of whether the players have agency at the encounter, adventure or campaign level (or arc for long campaigns).

IME the vast majority of players want agency in encounters and call it railroading otherwise. E.g. they notice the DM fudging attacks and saves. That's lame for almost everyone.

It's more of an even split at the adventure level. Some players seize upon inter-encounter strategic play, wallflowers tend to get a bit bored and would prefer to ride along with the DM's story rather than their fellow players' (harebrained) schemes. It's common to hear players say they're fine with a linear adventure if it's good, i.e. other aspects easily make up the difference. This level covers the difference between 5 room and 50 room dungeons, or for scene-based adventures, the defined flowchart vs. freeform "here's some NPCs, roleplay and see what happens". DMs tend to gravitate to sandbox adventures (and prefer more proactive players) as they become more efficient at prep. At the same time, more complicated systems favor more linear adventures, because encounter creation/modification becomes harder and more time-consuming.

Out to the campaign level, most players don't really want agency IME. They prefer having a set goal/final showdown to look forward to. E.g. we're playing the Ashardalon adventure path; we don't know how we'll get there, but it's going to culminate in a showdown with Ashardalon. Few would call this railroading. A total lack of external narrative momentum actually feels less immersive and more boardgame-y. You spend more time thinking about what you (the player) want to do, less what your character would do to achieve their goals.

 

[bloodtide]

So... what are the adventurers doing in a sandbox if not, at least some of the time, going on adventures?

A big part about Sandbox play is the "Game About Nothing" (like the TV show Seinfeld). An Open Sandbox lets the players have their characters do nearly anything they wish on a whim. And quite often this is non-combat, non-adventure Slice of Life stuff. The character's might go shopping or attend a play or such things. This is common in open type online video games

And how can it be said these adventures are not loosely connected when they all exist in the same game world?

I guess you can say loose connections....but it is still like episodic TV...where other shows/adventures really don't matter.

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.

Well, not escaping.....

You can see people on online games, where they might even pay, but they don't really play the game much. They don't care about the Quests, and Levels and all that. They just want to socialize and hang out. Or they pick some minor part of the game they find fun....maybe like growing corn...and they become a corn farmer.

And activities like Second Life, where you can make a house or whatever and just show it off.

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"?

Yes. In Pure Sandbox Play the goal is simply to play. Or use up time.

So a sandbox with discrete linear adventures within it is still a sandbox?

Yes, as it is about how you play out the game.

For instance, the DM is running a sandbox campaign with a map that has lots of points of interest. In hex G3, there is a cave reported to have a mythical sword deep within it. The party wants to retrieve it so head off to hex G3 to delve into that cave. Is that session (or sessions) not considered a linear adventure with a sandbox campaign?

Woah....so a more typical Sandbox does not have that much detail. Maybe the dm-player makes a map, but they sure are not making points of interest. Once the DM starts to create more then a small amount, the game slides down the slipper slope to being a Linear Game.

A more Sandbox game simply has a 'unknown cave' marked on it. And a player or two then say, and alter game reality, "there is a powerful magic sword in that cave we want", and the DM-player bows quickly to say "yes players". And because the players said the sword was in the cave, it is okay for the game to be linear about that single player approved bit of data. So the characters have to travel to the cave to get the sword.

Say more on this difference - I think this may be an important point.

If the players approve of a small part of the game world being Linear, then it is okay for the dm-player to make a linear encounter around that single player approved item.

But the players still have the majority control over the whole game world and what and how and why and when they want to do nearly anything.

So an adventure with start and a goal that has multiple paths towards said goal - what I've defined as a Moderate Linear Adventure - is considered a sandbox in your mind?

you are missing the structure part.

Anything except a True Sandbox game that is pure chaos, needs to have at least a slight Linear Framework. Otherwise it is pure chaos. A goal in linear, but that does not effect the game play.

Take two groups, they both say "we will save the princess".

In the Linear Game the DM preps for the game, often tons of maps and text and work and effort..even to the point of writing an adventure. And the DM locks in all the details. Before the game starts the DM can tell you the what, why, how, where of the whole 'save the princess ' idea. Who did it, why, how, where she is and all sorts of details. It is all set by the DM....the players have no say. During the game the players must follow the DMs path to find the princess and save her, based on all the details.

The sandbox game....all the details are left open. Often the DM-player provides no details...but may provide a light dusting of vague details. Everything about the whole idea is to be set by the actions of the player characters. Whatever the players choose to do under the idea 'save the princess' becomes the game reality of saving the princess. The DM-player her has little or no power and simply makes what the players tell them to make and have the PCs save the princess.