D&D General Sandbox Campaigns should have a Default Action.

[Bedrockgames]

I find that players who primarily play traditional prep games have been trained to be reactive. The strong, sometimes inviolate, feeling is that the DM will put the adventure in front of them, and they need to accept it. It's not a preference to react, it's what they have to do to catch the hook of the adventure, so that's their default mode of play.

But there are RPGs with a lot more player direction. For example Apocalypse World has Fronts - things that are going to get worse unless the characters deal with them. And the players are quite adept at either picking a front or working towards another goal in a proactive manner. A large part of it is different expectations, and reinforcement that you pick what you do.

Just telling players primarily familiar with D&D and similar games that it's a sandbox still leaves them having to overcome their training inclinations and their assumptions about what they should be doing. And still may hit into other assumptions - I did that to a set of smart veteran D&D players having told them in session 0 that they would be setting direction and the world was non-level-specific. Half couldn't make up their mind, only one suggested anything outside the presented, which was research into a few of the presented, and the paladin eventually convinced the party to go for the one that was the biggest threat to order - but with the assumption that the world was level specific and it was the DM's job to make sure that whatever challenge they went after would be fun, even though session 0 established that it was not level specific and there would be threats to big to handle via combat.

A lot of sandbox material has come out of the OSR, which is traditional and very D&D oriented. I don't think there is anything there that is an issue. D&D has a long tradition of exploration based play and open exploration. It just also has a really long history and different approaches come in and out of fashion (when I started in the mid-80s most of the groups I played in were heavy exploration based, but by the time of the early 2E era there was much more of an emphasis on story, then in the 3E era it started as kind of a mix with a back to the dungeon approach but leaned more and more into adventures structured around encounters: dropped off with 4E so not as familiar with what came after).

Obviously when presenting any adventure structure that people haven't experienced before, you are going to have to overcome their expectations. In sandbox those might be expectations built from years of playing something more like linear adventure paths. But I am finding sandbox these days has a lot of currency as a term so I am not having to explain myself as much to new players. I don't play the current edition of D&D, but it sounds like, at least from what some 5E players in my groups have said, some of the modules have more sandbox like elements to them. So I haven't encounter that much of an issue with it. The biggest issue I have encounter honestly are with players who either came to D&D by watching live stream games or gamers who try to emulate that style. But you could just as easily have issues because someone is coming to it from a more story driven approach, a more adventure path approach, etc. Even then though, it hasn't been a massive hurdle. We all have our blinders when it comes to style and expectations.

When I started gaming it wasn't uncommon to play lots of different systems and games. And I game with a lot of people my own age with similar experiences, and find mostly what it takes is just explaining how you plan to GM the session.

Also, importantly not everyone is going to enjoy sandbox. Often it isn't an issue of a player being used to one style and not understanding the sandbox approach, it may just be they want a more structured adventure style.

The level specific expectation goes beyond D&D I think. That is a fundamental dividing line in the hobby. Some people want challenges to be tailored more to the party, others don't (personally I am in the latter camp). But I don't really see that as a product of people being trained to think a certain way (though in some cases it can be they don't realize other possibilities exist and it may take a bit for them to understand what a campaign not built around the party level would actually look like). Sometimes the best way to help people understand a sandbox is just throw them into it and find out.

 

[Blue]

A lot of sandbox material has come out of the OSR, which is traditional and very D&D oriented. I don't think there is anything there that is an issue.

Sure, but most players have either never played OSR, and a large number of them started after the editions of D&D that inspired OSR or have been retrained in the years since. Adventures for current editions, and the most recent editions, are written more expecting the player to follow them. Many homebrew adventures are also that.

You're not wrong, but that's the minority of D&D players.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I get it. I was more just trying to express that we aren't that far apart in our ways of thinking about sandboxes.

yeah I bet we really aren't and most of it is the magic 'behind the curtain'.

I am a very "broad strokes" world builder. I want things to feel consistent, but I also don't want to do a bunch of up front work. So I create a strong theme, tone and atmosphere, some foundational details, and then just hang everything on that while running.

I totally start that way and then I make a basic map with LOTS of blank on it and I normally come up with a dozen NPCs in concept and some monster ideas (maybe included in NPC maybe not) and I pitch that to the players and see what they bot Assume and what they add (sometimes they add by assuming things)

It doesn't provide the same sense of deep lore some players enjoy, but not every game is for every player. it does allow me to be responsive and improvisational and let the players explore what, how and what pace they want.

Yeah... I think if anything the one pro I would call out for myself would be that 'deep lore' I get to have cool reveals of things set up early... but it is a heck of a lot harder to do it my way so I am SURE you get more free time, and in play it sounds like Your players are WAY more open to giving ideas so I am a bit envious of that

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Sure, but most players have either never played OSR, and a large number of them started after the editions of D&D that inspired OSR or have been retrained in the years since. Adventures for current editions, and the most recent editions, are written more expecting the player to follow them. Many homebrew adventures are also that.

You're not wrong, but that's the minority of D&D players.

not one of my players has played an OSR... the closest is a 2e retroclone that we added 13th age elements to and a 3 session '1 shot' of 1e when I bought those leather bound special editions... but I still steal ideas for OSR all the time.

 

[Reynard]

Sure, but most players have either never played OSR, and a large number of them started after the editions of D&D that inspired OSR or have been retrained in the years since. Adventures for current editions, and the most recent editions, are written more expecting the player to follow them. Many homebrew adventures are also that.

You're not wrong, but that's the minority of D&D players.

The "nu-OSR" has a lot of cache with newer players. They aren't playing OD&D, but they are playing and talking about Knave and Into the Odd and Beyond the Wall other OSR inspired games.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure, but most players have either never played OSR, and a large number of them started after the editions of D&D that inspired OSR or have been retrained in the years since. Adventures for current editions, and the most recent editions, are written more expecting the player to follow them. Many homebrew adventures are also that.

You're not wrong, but that's the minority of D&D players.

Fair but part of my point is I am finding a lot of 5E players seem much more familiar with the concept of sandbox. I don’t play 5E so I just am going by what they have told me; but it does sound like sandbox elements aren’t uncommon in 5E material

 

[Scott Christian]

I take offence a little (only reason it is only a little is the example you are siteing and use below are not my style)

My apologies. I promise, it was not meant to be inflammatory, but more like a collective sigh, one in which we can approach the topic without preconceived ideas.

this DOES seem rails to me... if the PCs are not interested once I may escalate a little to see if they bite a second time (but I would let them do at least 2-3 things inbetween) but if they choose not to take the 2nd one I will assume they are not interested and have that plot hook eaten by either other adventures or a different plot.

back in 4e I had a NPC group of Dragon hunters and an NPC group of all arcane classes in the same campaign world and the PCs would hear of there exploits mixed in with there own from time to time... but in an early 5e campaign I had adventurers be rare so I had to have a new villian appear... (Wow, you ignored the orcs twice but a necromancer didn't where there were orcs are now ghouls and wights...) I ALWAYS follow the player lead, even if that means needing to adjust on the fly.

Sometimes (in less direct threat examples) this will mean a plot just sit unexplored... no one EVER went into that cave, or those strange lights went away but no one knows what they are...

I am glad to hear it. Even while reading the original quote that I took this from, it seemed very rigid.

And I think what you are typing is, in part, my point. What we call sandbox is still linear. Most of the time it's a railroad. Your above example about the strange lights just leaving the plot arc happens all the time in railroading too.

ugh where that COULD be fun once or twice (hey they forshadowed the orcs right) I would be pissed at a DM claiming a sandbox that pulled that in any regular rate.

I can see some players being turned off by this. I am not here to espouse what is better or worse, as all tables, DMs and players,, and the player-DM and player-player chemistry are all different. There is no accounting for it.

okay, but try this one out...

hook 1) the captain of the guard asks you to scout the orcs in the south east
hook 2) rummor has it the earthquake last week unearthed some ruins to the south
hook 3) there is a caravan leaving to go east in 9 days and they are looking for guards
hook 4) the town cleric is acting weird
hook 5) a local thieves guild member has fallen in love with the daughter of the captain of the town guard and he has told her she is not allowed to see him (she thought him cute UNTIL her dad said no way and that made it way hotter)

First, I like all of these!

PCs talk all this over and decide that the town to the north has a cool name, so they ask the DM what they know about it... the DM tells them it is a Magocracy with a counsel of wizards as the ruler and it is actually part of a tri city alliance with 2 cities farther north. One PC asks "is it only arcane magic that rules there?" the DM says "There are clerics but they are not part of the government" a diffrent PC says "Lets go see if we can get work there and they can pay us in new spells" and they head north.

when they get to the mageocracy they find that anyone without magic is treated as a 3rd class citazen, but most of the merchents and nobles know at least a cantrip or two... but the DM still has time to drop some hints to hooks

hook B1) the local blacksmith isn't really a caster but uses slight of hand tricks to keep up appearances... he is part of a resistance that wants equality
hook B2) 2 local children have gone missing... the town guard doesn't care since they are from non magical families
hook B3-B5) there is a hireing board with 3 diffrent jobs listed on it... all are going to a place to get something for a wizard family

The PCs can choose to go back to town A, do a hook from town B, or leave and go somewhere else. each town has 2-3 hooks like this in broad notes and the DM fleshes out based on what PCs do and show intrest in. there are 9 other cities (C-K) listed on the map but they also know that there are at least 2 cities north of the map part of an alliance with this mageocracy.

Second, I am not really trying to do a thought experiment with scenarios. I only used two scenarios to show the similarities. I can see some players being really turned off by this, as there seems to be no real story. Just a bunch of side quests. And if they are threaded together, it seems like the thread is so light, no one will remember it. That said, they all sound fun. But as far as sandboxing goes:

You have ten different questlines in one or two play sessions. It seems open, but again, to me, no more open than a regular linear adventure.

So this group goes back to town and takes on the tryst between the guard's daughter and thieves' guild. Ok. I assume, if they told the DM this the session before they played it out, the DM is going to prep. Maybe have her sneak away and they have to recover? Draw up some of the thieves' guild houses she might be in? Stat block some of the thieves? Maybe prepare a scene where they do find her with her lover as they are getting married on a pirate ship? Whatever it may be, there is some planning. And that runs linearly.

If you insist that the DM makes it all up on the fly. Great. But, I definitely don't think that definition should be sandbox, more like impromptu playing.

 

[Scott Christian]

Those are both railroads

This isn't how a sandbox is played at all. I can assure you plenty of people play sandbox campaigns where the GM doesn't plop the Orc encampment next to the ruins because he had that planned. The whole point of a sandbox is not just to let the players pick from different things that are on the map, but to forge their own path and to honor that. Now if you are relying heavily on tile maps that all need to be purchased or printed in advance, this might not be a great style (though I do know plenty of people who use that stuff and still manage to make sandboxes work).

But it is sandbox to some. And to you, it is not.

But your description is still linear. So what if you give the PCs a bunch of quests to start off with? They can go north, east, south, west, etc. Once they start a storyline, if the DM has done any prep, such as prep where the bad guys might be, weigh consequences, think about if there is treasure in the room, etc. Then they are suddenly playing linearly. The story is linear. It is not open. Just because the direction travelled was open or the rumor table was open means little. Once there is a story arc, it becomes linear.

Unless you are suggesting no prep. Just all made up on the fly. In that case it should be called impromptu, not sandbox.

I don't know. In my opinion, there are probably only two real playstyles, despite all the jargon thrown around - rehearsed and improve.

 

[Scott Christian]

A living world is one where actions have consequences and ignoring a threat is an action. Where threats persist even if the PCs don't get involved. I am advised this is a key component in a sandbox.

The real question here is who decides what these threats are? What if there is a dragon heading to the village. There is also a plague surfacing from the Underdark? A band of hill giants heading to the village? A dire purple worm coming in from the sea? And githyanki space pirates about to attack? Could the DM create a scenario where the PCs are unable to stop the disaster from eventually happening? Who decides how many?
Once that question is answered, then step back and strip away lines like railroad and sandbox.

 

[Scott Christian]

I have used every edition of D&D to do completely off the cuff games. You can lean on random charts and pre-designed motivations for villains, etc... You can do a bunch of world building beforehand, or none at all. The point is that you ask what the players want to do, say "Yes" and then fill in details as you go. It is liberating and a lot of fun.

These details you fill in, do they follow the story the players suggested? (I get they might contain irony or some plot twists. That is not what I am asking.) Or do they discount any input the player had as they started?
I ask because once you "fill in the details" you are creating the story. It is not a sandbox. You can say, "But the players can choose to have their PCs turn around and leave." But the same is true for a "railroad" or "linear" or "hexcrawl."
If you say none of it is pregenerated, how is that sandbox? How does that represent sandboxes definition in any way shape or form? It doesn't. It is impromptu. You are making stuff up on the fly rather than having it prewritten (rehearsed).