What makes a Sandbox?
- Thread starter Witty Comeback
- Start date
That would be nice.
rogueattorney
Adventurer
I'll use published examples, not because I assume everybody uses them, but because I think they're examples of how TSR thought the game was being run at the time, and are indicative of the "received wisdom" gamers were getting from the company.
There were a number of published adventures starting in the mid-80's that were little more than guided tours when run as written. DL7 Dragons of Light and the first adventure in the OP1 Tales of the Outer Planes both spring to mind as paradigmatic examples.
Now, with DL7, the tools were there to run it as something else. For example, there was a wilderness map such that if the players "went off the rails" there was enough information for the DM to tell the players what they found there, with most of the encounters found designed to funnel the players back to the pre-ordained path. However, the assumption of the written module was that the players would be shipwrecked on an island, would be captured by hostile elves, would be rescued/re-captured by slightly less hostile elves, would be again rescued by a mysterious npc, would follow said mysterious npc without really knowing where they were going, and would eventually allow said mysterious npc to reveal the great macguffin that had Grand Campaign Significance.
In a sandbox campaign, the characters would be given the information of the existence of the great macguffin and a general idea of the location and if they so chose, could go quest to find it. If they instead chose to do something else, the campaign would move on. Perhaps they'd eventually learn that they should have gone after the great macguffin.
The first adventure in OP1 was even more egregious. No maps. Instead, the pcs are gated from plane to plane to have a brief rp'ing encounter with an assumed result, culminating in the Big Reveal at the end, where they fight the Level Boss who, of course, was their original employer in disguise. Nowhere in the adventure are the pcs given a chance to effect the outcome of the adventure until the end where they either win or lose the combat. The DM isn't given any tools to broaden the adventure for when the characters "go off the rail." Simply put, if you take away the pre-ordained events, there wouldn't be anything to it.
The commonalities of the adventures were that both were event focused rather than locale focused, both featured npc protagonists and assumed passive pcs, both operated on the assumption of pc ignorance rather than pc knowledge. Both pushed the pcs to take the path of least resistance to earn the reward at the end, which stood on its head the "high risk, high reward" assumption of 1e AD&D.
To me, the big change I've seen over the last 25 years - and maybe I'm completely off base and my experience isn't typical - when people talk about session prep is that they tend to frame things in terms of what events will occur at the next session rather than what locations need to be prepped for the next session. It's a subtle difference, since both require much the same sort of work to be done (statting up potential combatants, mapping relevant areas, etc.). But I think it's a significant difference in mind set... the former narrows the possible events that may occur during the session by proscribing the general outline of possibilities, while the other broadens the possible events of the next session and the future campaign by creating more world to explore.
No, railroading is where the PCs are forced to play through stuff, and in particular the outcome of stuff, even though they actively seek to avoid it. It is not the same as a linear campaign.
"Orcs jump out" is not railroading. The PCs are free to react however they wish.
"Orcs jump out, ask for your help vs the dragon. You agree and head north with them to the dragon's cave" is (one form of) railroading.
Pawsplay, sometimes you make me want to rip my hair out in frustration. Your phrasing swaps back and forth between personal-anecdotal (which is fine) and assertion of how everyone else did things (which is much less fine).
To be clear - unless you've got some nice comprehensive study in your pocket, you know how most of your non-tournament games used to be played.
Yes, well I find it to be a lousy term. Here's why.
I can hand you a page of paper, with what looks like text characters printed upon it. Very similar to the Latin alphabet, but which some small variations. The characters are in an arrangement that's much like words, physically laid out like verse. It is not in English, or any other language you speak. Could you tell me if that text has meaning? Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm going to guess you'd say, "Not to me, but maybe to someone who could read this."
Maybe I just handed you a copy of the story of a mythical Baltic cultural hero, or maybe I just handed you the equivalent of a "Lorem ipsum" gibberish. You don't really have a way to tell - whether it has meaning to you doesn't tell you what the meaning might be to someone else.
I could hand you an English translation of the story of that cultural hero, and you could say it has meaning. Could you say it has the same meaning as it does to a member of that culture? Probably not.
"Meaning" is subjective. Moreover, the term is emotionally loaded.
"In sandbox games, player choice has meaning!" implies (and around here, sometimes is followed by an explicit statement that) in non-sandbox games, player choice has no meaning. Hubris. You don't get to say what does or does not have meaning at someone else's table.
I don't like the word linear. Rather than "tailored" you suggested "directed". But then, I'd not compare "sandbox vs directed". I'd compare "player-directed" vs "GM-directed". After all, isn't the central issue who has control of the direction? This decouples that central question from the details of implementation. Sandbox play is player-directed, sure. But is sandbox play the only way to get player-direction? I am pretty sure it isn't.
If you said, "Sandbox play is strongly player-directed. I find that it gives in-game choices greater meaning for me," I'd be happy as a clam. Because that's a far cry from, "In sandbox games, player choices have meaning!"
-----
I now have a bit of an aside that follows on here, though maybe it need to be forked to a different thread.
On EN World, and as I understand it in other gaming venues as well, discussion of theory and analysis of games is typically performed by proponents of a particular style or construction. The activities of advocacy and analysis wind up overlapping, and that is not the best route to doing a really good job at either.
We've seen this most strongly with the 3e/4e conflicts. But it has continued in the New School/Old School discussion, and now in Sandbox vs non-Sandbox. I expect the similarities of dynamic have been visible to those other than me.
It is something for each of us to consider in our individual writings.
Hey, I haven't even posted in this 5+ page thread yet...
On page 1, somebody mentioned the orcs and the crossroads. S'mon had a counter to it. I think it's a bit more complicated than either suggest.
Let's say the party was going east and the hit a crossroads. East, lies orcs.
If the party doesn't know about the orcs, and they turn south, does it really matter if the GM moves the orcs, or if there are "different" orcs, or no orcs?
How is this any different than the party facing 2 doors in a dungeon. One has orcs behind it, the other has treasure. With no information, whatever the party chooses is effectively a coin-toss. If the GM makes it so the orcs are behind the 1st door they choose, we can still reasonably assume that after killing the orcs, they're probably open door number 2 and get their reward.
I suspect that the orcs at the cross-road (or moving small stuff around for whatever reason) is looking at things from a micro-cosm level. Does it really matter? Is this a facet or concern of sandbox play, or does it apply to other styles?
I was under the impression that sandbox play could entail more than decisions about going right or left. At the macro-cosm level, I would think the REAL decisions are about should I do a bunch of heroic deeds and live that lifestyle, or start a crime syndicate? Should I run for Sherriff? Should I investigate the murder mystery.
Is the real point of a sandbox that there are a lot of activities the PC could get involved with, and the DM has little expecation of which he might choose?
I suspect that is of more import, than the exact nature of the encounters that occur during the pursuit of the player's chosen goal.
So long as the player chooses a goal, and the encounters that occur make sense in relation to that decision.
Thus, it's not about the simple right door or left door decisions. It's about the decision of what endeavor to engage in.
good point.
I don't run a sandbox. But I think my player's choices have meaning.
At the end of the "last" session, I ask them what they want to work on next. Then I write up material to support pursuit of that goal (like hunt down those pirates).
I'd be pretty miffed if at the start of the session, they say, "we changed out minds, we want to start a sewing factory!" Generally, that doesn't happen.
If players have a strong active goal, then I make that the focus of the session. If now, it's a side topic interwoven with something I've made up that "affects" them in a way I'm certain they'll deal with.
So it's partly GM-directed, and player directed. I prefer it to be player directed with advance warning for me. But I also like the throw in some of my own ideas. Which also inherently happens in player directed. Somebody's gotta come up with challenges to the player's goals, otherwise it'd be boring.
I think my point is, don't assume that the only alternative to sandbox play is pre-published DragonLance AdventurePath. Many of us write our adventures the day before the game, and make it fit our players. So I'm saying, it ain't the only way to get player-directed play.
ExploderWizard
Hero
Meaning can be subjective. As it relates to decisions made in a game it can also take on a more objective definition.
If a decision made in play cannot influence the course of events it is meaningless.
Lets say the PC's are making a brave stand defending a temple of light against hopeless odds. They have 2 options: fight or flee.
Fight: the demons kill the party.
Flee: the demons chase, catch, and kill the party.
As it relates to the game world this is a meaningless choice. To the players, standing and fighting means something.
Let us say that the deity of the temple is taking note of events. If the PC's fight against all hope to protect the temple then the deity will be moved enough to return them to life. If the PC's flee the temple then they will be left to thier fate.
Now the choice is both objectively and subjectively meaningful.
Ignoring the phrase "in a sandbox", that making both paths have the exact same stuff, despite the specified difference, would be bad DMing because it takes away the informed choice.
The key being, informed. If it was just 2 roads with no data on either, then it really doesn't matter which the players pick or if the DM switches it, or if the players or DM flips a coin.
Once the players have intel, if the DM makes both paths be the same, he is thwarting player choice, and that is railroading within that encounter.
Because of that, I don't think this example has anything to do with sandboxes, because it is a bad DM behavior, regardless of style.
that's a good example.
My interest is that the player have "meaningful" choices more often than not.
The reality is, there's a ton of "choices" that are foregone conclusions, or of momentary consequence.
Thus, it's not a big deal to me that the DM recycled the orcs east of the crossroads to confront me when I turned south. It's just another encounter. What is a big deal is when I turn south to move around the orc forces (and avoid them) and still encounter buttload of orcs because they 'moved'. It's a context thing, I guess.
Similar Threads
