The many types of Sandboxes and Open-World Campaigns

[hawkeyefan]

I might be using a more specific definition of "milestone." If you get n XP for finding something new, that's not milestone XP, that's an XP policy that rewards exploration. A milestone, to me, suggests by it's very name that it is a step toward some specific goal, which itself implies a specific path.

Yeah, milestone has that kind of linear element to it. I know folks don’t always mean it that way, but it’s implied.

I can’t stand the D&D XP system, so I always prefer an alternate take. We typically have handled it in a more loose way. Almost breaking the game up into smaller chunks that we’d consider “an adventure”, and then leveling up after an adventure or two. It’s imprecise, and requires a lot of input from the GM, but it’s better than tracking XP per monster defeated, etc.

Spire: The City Must Fall uses a kind of milestone-ish type of system, except it’s about the PCs changing the city. If you complete a session, and you can say “we changed the city” then you get an advance. There are minor, medium, and major advances, depending on how significant the change to the city is. Minor changes are those that affect a small area or neighborhood, medium affect a whole city district or two, and major are citywide. Note, the change need not be an improvement. So if the PCs remove a local crime boss in their district, they’d likely get a medium advance as a result.

This system works well with the game because it incentivizes the main focus of play but in a very broad manner. The goal of Spire is to resist the rule of the high elves. So the advancement system incentivizes players to have their characters try and effect change, but doesn’t stipulate how to do so, and may not even be concerned with success or failure.

 

[overgeeked]

I might be using a more specific definition of "milestone." If you get n XP for finding something new, that's not milestone XP, that's an XP policy that rewards exploration. A milestone, to me, suggests by it's very name that it is a step toward some specific goal, which itself implies a specific path.

Ah. I’m using it as defined in the 5E DMG, p261.

“You can also award XP when characters complete significant milestones. When preparing your adventure, designate certain events or challenges as milestones, as with the following examples:

• Accomplishing one in a series of goals necessary to complete the adventure.

• Discovering a hidden location or piece of information relevant to the adventure.

• Reaching an important destination.”

My adventure is the world. The first milestone is player-designated goals. The second is pure exploration. The third is also pure exploration.

You explore a hex, get XP. That’s a milestone. You discover a hidden feature of a hex or a location, get XP. That’s a milestone.

I get there’s a hint at “roads” from the name, but insisting it must mean roads and since sandboxes don’t have roads in that sense, therefore you can’t use milestones is a rather silly and bizarre thing to do. Especially when you accept the use of the same mechanics but insist it be called something else.

 

[bloodtide]

All too often I find players just use the vague words to equal good or bad. The player was told "sandboxes are good", so now they repeat "sandboxes are good". Though they have no idea what they are saying. Many players just say they want a sandbox and hope the DM knows what they are thinking.

As a DM I mostly just use the words to get a player to join the game or not. Tell a player the game is a 'sandbox' and they will roll up a character quick. Tell the player it's a railroad and they run away. I see both terms as meaningless, so it does not matter.

A big point is who chooses the adventure: The DM or the Players?

The Classic game style is the DM picking an adventure. The DM can inprov the adventure or have a pre written one. Many players would call this a "railroad" as they are "forced" to go on the DMs adventure.

The Sandy style is where the players just pick an adventure they want to do. So the players pick something, and then the DM improvs it or pre writes it out. Many players call this a "sandbox" as they got to pick the adventure.

Though "sandbox", "railroad", Classic, Sandy, Improv, pre written or anything else : the adventure will be exactly the same. The only difference is in the players eyes.

When the characters have to cross a bridge the DM will put an interesting encounter there. As soon as the Railroad minded players see an obstical they are going to scream "railroad". The Sandbox players will just be happy they get to "choose" things...like they would in ANY game.

I guess the sandbox has the same appeal as freedom. People say they want "freedom"....that is No Laws. But what they really want is only laws they like and agree with.

 

[kenada]

I couldn't use that. The players would just endlessly game it and get infinite XP from the jump.

If they’re going to “game it”, they’re going out and doing things. That’s the point. The mechanic is working as intended. On average*, it should take ~70 sessions to reach 14th level (the cap because my system is based on B/X) or ~140 to reach 20th level. I think that is a decent pace rather than “infinite XP from the jump”.

However, if someone is not engaging with the goal mechanics honestly, then that’s a social problem, which should be handled outside of the game.

---

* I assume at least one completed goal per session (worth 3 XP) and three helped party members (worth another 3 XP together). I also assume the group completes a mission every three sessions. That puts the average XP at 7 XP per session. It takes 469 XP to reach 14th level and 959 XP to reach 20th. That yields 67 and 137 sessions, but that seems like a false precision. My expectation is people won’t optimally help out other party members over that many sessions, and the actual average would be a bit lower.

 

[overgeeked]

If they’re going to “game it”, they’re going out and doing things.

No. In the sense of “My quest is to walk across the street, there I completed it, that’s 1,000,000 XP. Thanks.” Unless the DM has control over what a quest is, when it’s completed, and what the rewards are, most players will simply award themselves 20th level and declare victory.

However, if someone is not engaging with the goal mechanics honestly, then that’s a social problem, which should be handled outside of the game.

Yeah. That’s players. That’s what they do when given free reign. I’ve never seen a single player not try to game every system and subsystem they encounter when given the chance.

 

[Malmuria]

I’m playing an osr system (whitehack 3e), but not using xp for gold. My current set up is below. I haven’t played enough sessions with it to figure out if it “works,” by which I mean, does it do anything interesting. Also my players are brand new to rpgs, so don’t really have any expectations with regards to leveling up and what not. As much as anything, it’s an attempt to sum up what was “accomplished” during a session.

Experience (xp)	XP Value
Group
Major discovery
explore a new and dangerous location, find a rare treasure, make a definitive ally or enemy, confirm the veracity of rumors	100-500
Minor discovery
explore safe location, make some money, chat with locals, hear rumors	10-100
Individual	once per session
Invoke character background in some way	100
Further a personal goal or objective	100

 

[Hussar]

Also, a good sandbox isn't static. It's a living thing with multiple powers interacting with one another regardless of the existence of the PCs. This not only helps you figure what to do when the PCs wander off in a random direction, it also gives the PCs things to do that aren't just location based. There's a shadow war between the Assassin's Guild and the Necromancer Academy? Pick a side!

Swimming upstream a bit, but, the issue, if it can be called that, with this idea - that the sandbox isn't static- can lead very quickly to the sandbox no longer being a sandbox. After all, if you are telling the party to pick a side, then, well, it's not a sandbox anymore is it? It's still pretty open ended, but, you are restricting choices. And the more the setting "advances" over time, the more the players are incentivized to make a choice from a menu of choices.

At what point does that stop being a sandbox? Is it a sandbox so long as there are at least two choices? So long as there are two choices, it's not linear? That seems to be a rather one sided definition.

I find that many people delineate between sandbox and railroad, which is a false dichotomy. It's open vs linear and linear is not a railroad. You can railroad just as easily in a sandbox as not.

 

[kenada]

No. In the sense of “My quest is to walk across the street, there I completed it, that’s 1,000,000 XP. Thanks.” Unless the DM has control over what a quest is, when it’s completed, and what the rewards are, most players will simply award themselves 20th level and declare victory.

I made a follow up post on page one (page #18) where I outlined my XP rewards. They’re not discretionary. They’re prescribed. If you complete one or both goals, you get 3 XP. That’s it. The only thing the player gets to decide is whether they completed a goal. There is also a mechanism mentioned in post #16 for identifying inappropriate goals.

I admit I could have been slightly more specific about what constitutes a good goal. I took the opportunity to simplify/rewrite for that post and may have gone too far. For example, this is closer to what I had been using:

Individual Goals: What you want to accomplish in the session. A good goal should be something concrete and attainable that supports the group’s mission and isn’t trivial. If the group thinks a goal is inappropriate, you should replace it with a new one.

Edit: Reflecting on it some, it wasn’t quite that strict. Requiring support for the group’s mission feels like it might risk deprotagonizing the PCs. I apologize if this might change the context a little bit, but I felt it was important to correct.

Yeah. That’s players. That’s what they do when given free reign. I’ve never seen a single player not try to game every system and subsystem they encounter when given the chance.

RPGs are games. I expect players to want to engage them as games. I also expect players to engage in good faith, and I think most of them will do so. Yes, some won’t. I have a friend who is not welcome at my table because he’s a toxic player. That’s a social problem. No amount of rules will change that or make it worth having him back at my table.

 

[overgeeked]

I made a follow up post on page one (page #18) where I outlined my XP rewards. They’re not discretionary. They’re prescribed. If you complete one or both goals, you get 3 XP. That’s it. The only thing the player gets to decide is whether they completed a goal. There is also a mechanism mentioned in post #16 for identifying inappropriate goals.

Sure. I hadn't gotten to that bit. I was reacting to the "player controlled" part of your post. To me, that's an absolute non-starter. There's zero chance that will not be abused. Either the DM has control over it or it will be exploited.

I admit I could have been slightly more specific about what constitutes a good goal. I took the opportunity to simplify/rewrite for that post and may have gone too far. For example, this is closer to what I had been using:

Individual Goals: What you want to accomplish in the session. A good goal should be something concrete and attainable that supports the group’s mission and isn’t trivial. If the group thinks a goal is inappropriate, you should replace it with a new one.

Right. So not entirely player controlled, there's DM input and the DM retains final say. Because if you don't, the players will abuse it. That group decision part makes me think the players would simply agree to never reject any goal so they'd have an easier time of getting their goals through.

RPGs are games. I expect players to want to engage them as games.

Same. But most players' view of games and my view of games are generally wildly different. I view games as a fun, distracting past time to engage the imagination and while away a few hours dreaming and pretending...the vast majority of players I've ever played with seem to view RPGs as a death match of players vs the DM and the rules wherein the player tries to wring every last drop of benefit and perk they possibly can, twist language into knots, and argue until they're blue in the face to win, win, win, and win. That's literally the opposite of how I view games. I've yet to meet a single player in real life who takes my approach. When I mention this lots of people online say they're way more interested in playing and having fun...yet there are whole forums and subforums dedicated to "winning" RPGs in various ways...and maybe the occasional post about just relaxing and having fun.

I also expect players to engage in good faith, and I think most of them will do so.

To me that's pie-in-the-sky thinking. It's a Platonic Ideal but it's impossible in reality. They just won't.

Yes, some won’t. I have a friend who is not welcome at my table because he’s a toxic player. That’s a social problem. No amount of rules will change that or make it worth having him back at my table.

If I only ever played with people who didn't try to exploit every loophole and game the system, I'd never get to play. Ever. Getting close to 40 years playing RPGs and there's always several in every group, more often than not all of the players do that.

 

[kenada]

Right. So not entirely player controlled, there's DM input and the DM retains final say. Because if you don't, the players will abuse it. That group decision part makes me think the players would simply agree to never reject any goal so they'd have an easier time of getting their goals through.

The bar isn’t even that high! Goals are meant to be reminders to players to do something during the session. If players want to make boring crap goals, they’re going to get a boring crap game.