What makes a Sandbox?

[Umbran]

Meaning can be subjective. As it relates to decisions made in a game it can also take on a more objective definition.

Yes, but, here's the thing - "player decisions have meaning" has a specific definition in this discussion, relating to player-direction, and players influencing the course of events. That very specific definition is in the jargon of the sandbox.

However, until you are deep, deep into the discussion, you do not know the jargon. Using words that have a general colloquial meaning as jargon confuses the issue.

If a decision made in play cannot influence the course of events it is meaningless.

With respect - yes and no.

In terms of another fandom, this is the Kobyashi Maru, the unwinnable scenario. Sure, when it is overdone, at the expense of the players, the players are frustrated or bored. Big surprise - overuse of a tool isn't constructive! That doesn't make it a tool that can never be used at all.

The GM who never lets his players influence the course of events is the great Villain of the sandbox picture. While of course there are some GMs in the world who fit this mold, he's sill largely fictional - the place where the gedankenexample used for analysis of structure turns into the Villain used for advocacy. A continuation of the polarization itno Us and Them.

Sure, removing player direction too much is annoying. Being so strident that you effectively tell fellow gamers on EN world that they are Villains, when you've never even played in their games, is no better.

 

[Janx]

As a non-sandboxer, let me clarify something as to why I'm bothering with this thread...

This thread is about "what makes a sandbox".

If you make a statement of "X makes it a sandbox" and "X" applies to my non-sandbox and possibly most every style, then you have failed to make a valid conclusion of what makes a sandbox.

For instance, my game uses player-direction (perhaps some less than a sandbox, or at least some people's sandboxes).

Therefore "player-direction makes it a sandbox" is not valid summary.

"Sandboxes heavily rely on player-direction" is a totally fine and probably true statement.

My point is, be aware that just because sandboxes use a technique or have a trait, doesn't mean other styles don't.

My hunch is that a sandbox has predominant traits that other styles don't. It seems "Adventure Path" is the opposite of sandbox (and maybe my style is in the middle somewhere).

If I propose that if their's and easy long road, and a short hard road and that making the encounters on both roads be the same is "bad DMing", it would hold that it is bad DMing to do in Adventure Path or in sandbox. Thus it is not relevant to the definition of sandbox.

In fact, I would expect Adventure Path to offer such choices and enforce their impact BECAUSE it is less open an environment (thus must create artificial examples of choices to be made).

Get what I'm saying?

 

[Scribble]

Related to what Janx said...

Lets say I'm a DM and I have a game where I want to "allow" my players to [try to] go where they want, and [try to] do what they want. (Which sounds like what people are implying is most important in a sandbox game.)

The players know this.

I then read the first adventure in an AP, and think it sounds cool. I throw out some "hooks" in the form of rumors, or perhaps even an NPC who wants to hire them... Whatever.

My players decide it sounds like a fun time, so they start the adventure.

Now, keep in mind the players are free to jump out of the adventure path at any time and do something else.

Is it a Sandbox?

 

[Janx]

To which I have to assert that there are no true railroads other than in theory.

There are railroads. I tend to look at it as an occurence, rather than the adventure itself. A mistake of the DM in intepreting PC actions.

Regardless of style, a DM is supposed to take player input on "what they try to do next" and determine if it succeeds and what happens next.

Railroading happens when the DM gets fixated on only allowing a narrow outcome or action to succeed, blocking everything else.

It is a fault of the GM and creates a game problem as the PCs are unable to exercise other viable options. The keyword being viable.

The DM's adventure notes could be the text of Treasure Island. If he's adapting what happens to fit the player's choices and thus deviation from the book is possible, then he is not railroading. If he blocks every choice except that which matches the events in the book, he is railroading.

While the nature of the DM content can encourage it, it is an error in DM judgement that causes railroads.

By my view, a DM could railroad in a sandbox. It has to do with him locking down viable choices. In a sandbox, it would probably happen when the DM determines a reaction event or "consequence" is supposed to happen and he gets wrapped up in trying to bring it about. Like the police coming to arrest the PC for armed robbery.

 

[Scribble]

By my view, a DM could railroad in a sandbox. It has to do with him locking down viable choices. In a sandbox, it would probably happen when the DM determines a reaction event or "consequence" is supposed to happen and he gets wrapped up in trying to bring it about. Like the police coming to arrest the PC for armed robbery.

See I agree with this, which is part of why I brought up the above post... I don't think that an "Adventure Path" is the opposite of Sandbox. An adventure is just a bunch of notes prepared in advance. APs just "assume" PCs will follow a particular course in order to continue with the notes.

The problem, I see is if a DM forces those assumptions to play out. If they do, because the writer did a good job predicting how the common gamer will react, cool, then the DM has a ton of pregen notes to use. If not? Well he has to wing it, or just go by other notes he has about the campaign world in general.

I think, as long as the DM doesn't attempt to force the assumptions, then an AP can very well be used in a "Sandbox" campaign.

 

[Janx]

Can one introduce new elements to a "sandbox" game that didn't exist before?

IE the DM finds a Dragon article about a new city. He really likes the city and it inspires his imagination... So he puts the city into the campaign world in an area the PCs have never traveled before.

Still a sandbox?

That's a good question. No I can't answer it, but I'd like to see yours and raise.

If a DM were to run impromptu, off the cuff, on the fly, he would have no notes, nothing. He'd make stuff up as the players asked questions and did stuff.

Is this a sandbox? Could it be a sandbox?

I would think that it could be run as a sandbox.

I would think that he could also spontaneously create an AdventurePath.

I would also think that a GM is always having to make stuff up, because inherently they are going ask a question, look at something, go somewhere that is not documented yet clearly exists (or would exist).

 

[KidSnide]

In discussing decision making, I think it's important to distinguish world-impacting decisions from player direction.

I have played in many games that I think of as extremely linear, and yet player decisions are extremely important. For example, a trope of tournament play is going through a series of encounters in which you have less choice about which encounters you play, but you have a large amount of flexibility about how to handle them (including the possibility that you effectively by-pass the encounter). You can't explore a new path, but you can take the one you're on in many ways. At various points, the players can make "key" decisions in which the plot can fork based on what the PCs decide to do.

In a game like this, player choice can have a major impact on the game world. In fact, it may be easier to affect the gameworld in this model than a normal sandbox, because the GM has set up scenarios to give influence to the PCs. (War of the Burning Sky is a well executed version of this type of game.)

What this type of game doesn't have is player direction because (absent some fork) it's the GM who is decides what adventure to play next.

-KS

 

[Janx]

In one of these threads with the word sandbox in it, Ariosto or somebody shaped like him mentioned that sandboxes are/tend to be location-based.

Let's roll with that as an extreme example for a minute.

Make a village. Assume a series of imaginary concentric circles around the region, where the farther out you go, the higher level the encounters (either pre-generated or just by random encounter table/level).

Also assume a scattering of dungeons, where the deeper you go, the more dangerous it gets.

The village has a mix of services, to meet the needs of a low level party. Farther away, is bigger towns, with "higher" level services.

The assumption is, to fight bigger stuff, travel farther, go deeper.

This is sort of the points of light model, and in reality how I suspect many D&D campaigns start.

Assuming the NPCs are boring, and the PCs like killing things and taking their stuff, you have a location-based sandbox. The players are free to go anywhere, and try to kill what they encounter.

What would a DM do to spice this campaign up? Probably make the NPCs more interesting, with job offers, betrayals, secrets, and opportunities to advance socially, etc. Once you start the "people" moving, then things are happening within the world beyond just the PCs actions. Suddenly, we're not just location-based, we're something else.

This doesn't break being a sandbox or not. But running a pure location-based sandbox is pretty cut and dry. Once you start modelling more complexly, the game style transforms.

Here's some sandbox console games I've played or seen:
Grand Theft Auto
Driver
Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion
Spiderman 2 (not the movie based one)

If you take out the "missions" or "plot" stuff, you can basically start the game, and go anywhere. The NPCs are all boring. You can kill them, or rescue them from random encounters. You can run from the cops. This is kinda like the location-based I'm talking about (I'm not talking about encounter difficulty, put that asside for the moment).

To make the game environment richer, you make the NPCs seem just as real as the PCs. You make them move about and make some of their actions intersect the PCs.

What I'm talking about describes what I think is the approximate evolution of D&D. The exact rate of change matters little. I suspect after the first game, Gary got some ideas and the next session was different.

As you start focussing on NPCs and their interactions, it becomes apparent that quests that are like stories becomes apparent. There aren't any stories about killing monsters and taking their stuff, though stories have that stuff in them. That causes a shift in how adventures are crafted and documented.

The danger of course, is that there are some pretty crappily designed adventures that look like railroads. Namely because documenting locations can be a fairly finite process. Documenting the possibilities and results of PC interactions with NPC goals is far more complex and tedious. So short-cuts get taken.

What has this got to do with sandboxes?

I suspect a sandbox DM should document locations and NPCs and their goals, but nothing else. He then runs off the cuff with regards to how they proceed (when it matters to the PCs) and moves the pieces around as needed.

Coincidentally, I don't tend to write time-lines in my adventures. I document the locations I think I'll need, and the NPCs involved with the 'story' and a rough outline of their goal and how it'll probably intersect with the PCs.

After that, I move stuff around as needed to keep the game going.

 

[Ariosto]

Get what I'm saying?

That you have a priori defined your game as "not a sandbox"?

That you somehow expect your unilateral decree to be binding on everyone else, preventing them from defining "sandbox" in any way that overlaps with your "non-sandbox"?

That you insist that a "sandbox" is in fact impossible, and so cannot be defined in any way that facilitates practical discussion?

 

[Ariosto]

In one of these threads with the word sandbox in it, Ariosto or somebody shaped like him mentioned that sandboxes are/tend to be location-based.

You're thinking of someone else, perhaps rogueattorney. Any possible use I might have for the term would depend upon its already having an accepted meaning. I regard language as being for the purpose of communication.