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

[bloodtide]

You can't do "nearly anything" in any structured game. There will always be limiting factors. Heck, I can't do "nearly anything" in real life but I don't think my life is linear.

As I said, the players are concerned about the limiting factor of the DM.

What the characters do can and frequently does change the entire direction of a campaign to something I had not anticipated.

This is true for a lot of DMs, even more so new or casual DMs.

Roz would have motivation and personality but I don't predetermine whether or not he will help them. It may be highly unlikely based on his motivations but I will never say never. On a side note I don't think I've ever had 12 paragraphs about an NPC. It could come close if it included a lot of history of interactions with the characters.

Right: this is the whole point. Anything the DM makes up about the game world limits the players. Even if you write "character is unlikely to help", many players will see that as a personal attack. They want NPC Roz to be a near blank slate. So, if they randomly decide to role play asking Roz to join them, or roll some type of check to do so, they want a it uninfluenced by the DM.

Some few of us DMs make up a lot of detail. It is fun for us. Sure lots of casual DMs write notes on Mcnapkins around a ketchup stain ...

The only way anything would change is if the players have influence over the world outside of what the characters say and do.

Right, this is what I'm saying a sandbox is

What is your definition of sandbox, because your posts don't seem to be operating from any standard definition of sandbox I have encountered

I don't have much of an official definition.

I see most people just use "sandbox" as a buzz word for "cool".

The only thing that comes close to a definition is: An improv game where the DM-player makes up few details and the players are indirectly in control of the game through their characters actions.

The only other thing mentioned is the couple of seconds where the players "choose what they want to do". But to take an action for five seconds does not seem to be enough to call it a sandbox game.

Anyway, I'm certainly not going to be able to convince you otherwise. You do you.

I do keep asking about others Sandbox games. So far. all I've seen is "the players can pick what to do for a couple seconds". And okay, that is fine.....but what is done for the whole rest of the game that makes it a sandbox?

The only thing I see that fits is the low detail improv game, as that effects every event and encounter in a game for all the hours it is played. Or a Linear game where the characters are forced to to most things in a set order, again for all the hours of game play

 

[payn]

We’re in “No True Sandbox” territory here.

Wait till we reach “the second a player accepts a sandbox adventure hook, they have self railroaded themselves”

 

[zakael19]

As I said, the players are concerned about the limiting factor of the DM.

This is true for a lot of DMs, even more so new or casual DMs.

Right: this is the whole point. Anything the DM makes up about the game world limits the players. Even if you write "character is unlikely to help", many players will see that as a personal attack. They want NPC Roz to be a near blank slate. So, if they randomly decide to role play asking Roz to join them, or roll some type of check to do so, they want a it uninfluenced by the DM.

Some few of us DMs make up a lot of detail. It is fun for us. Sure lots of casual DMs write notes on Mcnapkins around a ketchup stain ...

Right, this is what I'm saying a sandbox is


I don't have much of an official definition.

I see most people just use "sandbox" as a buzz word for "cool".

The only thing that comes close to a definition is: An improv game where the DM-player makes up few details and the players are indirectly in control of the game through their characters actions.

The only other thing mentioned is the couple of seconds where the players "choose what they want to do". But to take an action for five seconds does not seem to be enough to call it a sandbox game.


I do keep asking about others Sandbox games. So far. all I've seen is "the players can pick what to do for a couple seconds". And okay, that is fine.....but what is done for the whole rest of the game that makes it a sandbox?

The only thing I see that fits is the low detail improv game, as that effects every event and encounter in a game for all the hours it is played. Or a Linear game where the characters are forced to to most things in a set order, again for all the hours of game play

Look, it’s a colloquial term that stands in contrast to a pre-written plotted campaign/adventure game in a relatively conventional RPG milieu. Degree of absolute freedom may vary, but I don’t think that taking an open hexcrawl filled with situations or possibilities which the players can pick and choose to engage with (or disengage with and try something else), and where they can pick a goal of session play to be the same thing as a linear adventure.

 

[Retros_x]

It seems like people are arguing over what a sandbox even is.

And yet we need distinctions and categories to have meaningful discussions. Without labels we need to tell the contents everytime we talk about it. Distinct labels are an important shortcut, they create a reference we can use instead of the full definition everytime. Imagine a world where we only have the label "fun activity with friends" without any further distinction. Have fun telling what you did at the weekend without using those labels and categories.

OP did the right thing and clarify their definition so everyone knows what we talk about. Unfortunately other people need to discuss this definition instead of using this definition to discuss the actual topic. This I think is the source of frustration you and many others have with labels: People who discuss the label instead of actual topic. It leads to nowhere most times.

Its like discussion if a burger is a sandwich instead of what a good burger needs. I would much more talk about the latter than the former, because it has some potential merit for my life.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Wait till we reach “the second a player accepts a sandbox adventure hook, they have self railroaded themselves”

Man is born in a free-form non-linear adventure, and everywhere he is in a railroad!

 

[AlViking]

As I said, the players are concerned about the limiting factor of the DM.

This is true for a lot of DMs, even more so new or casual DMs.

Right: this is the whole point. Anything the DM makes up about the game world limits the players. Even if you write "character is unlikely to help", many players will see that as a personal attack. They want NPC Roz to be a near blank slate. So, if they randomly decide to role play asking Roz to join them, or roll some type of check to do so, they want a it uninfluenced by the DM.

Some few of us DMs make up a lot of detail. It is fun for us. Sure lots of casual DMs write notes on Mcnapkins around a ketchup stain ...

Right, this is what I'm saying a sandbox is


I don't have much of an official definition.

I see most people just use "sandbox" as a buzz word for "cool".

The only thing that comes close to a definition is: An improv game where the DM-player makes up few details and the players are indirectly in control of the game through their characters actions.

The only other thing mentioned is the couple of seconds where the players "choose what they want to do". But to take an action for five seconds does not seem to be enough to call it a sandbox game.


I do keep asking about others Sandbox games. So far. all I've seen is "the players can pick what to do for a couple seconds". And okay, that is fine.....but what is done for the whole rest of the game that makes it a sandbox?

The only thing I see that fits is the low detail improv game, as that effects every event and encounter in a game for all the hours it is played. Or a Linear game where the characters are forced to to most things in a set order, again for all the hours of game play

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.

Do a quick search on what the term means. Go ahead, I'll wait. Done? Cool. What I found was something like the following from Playing in the Sandbox – Archstone Press

• Player-driven adventures: The GM lays out the toys in the sandbox (the world, NPCs, Factions, problems/adventure hooks, etc.), and the players decide what to build with those toys (the shape of the story).
• High player agency: Players are free to act and solve problems in whatever way they see fit, or not at all. There’s no need for the GM to contain the player’s creativity to meet their own expectations for the story. In fact, the GM should have no expected story in mind at all, beyond predictions towards how the world will react to the players’ plans.
• A living world: The world must react to the players’ actions, and to the players’ inaction. Regardless of what the players do, the NPCs and factions should have their own goals that they are working towards in the background, which may or may not be interrupted by the players’ own machinations. The world should not revolve around the players, but must take their presence into account. The world must always be changing, not a static background that only moves when a light is shined on it.

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.

 

[AnotherGuy]

As a player I could enjoy a linear adventure, if I knew what I was getting into from the start.
I would struggle though with a linear campaign.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

We’re in “No True Sandbox” territory here.

“Real sandboxes have never been tried”

 

[Bedrockgames]

As a player I could enjoy a linear adventure, if I knew what I was getting into from the start.
I would struggle though with a linear campaign.

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

 

[Lanefan]

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.

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."