What makes a Sandbox?

[S'mon]

My list so far:
- The primary meta-game goal is discovery/exploration, which subordinates the meta-game goals of plot and cohesion
- The game is high on GM control of background, but low on GM control of events. In terms of trajectories, they remain constant until affected by the PCs, and the secondary effects of the PCs' actions.
- The environment is rich in things to do, rather than one thing being obviously more interesting than other choices.
- Encounters and events are emergent rather than programmatic.
- When the players affect the environment, the GM presents logical consequences from a realistical standpoint, rather than a poetic viewpoint.

Good stuff, I think this is a good list which addresses the OP's query well.

Hm, the quality of discussion on this thread seems to have improved greatly recently, for some reason...

 

[Nagol]

The "box" part of "sandbox" is what figuratively separates it from the actual world of reality. It is not meant to imply that any limit or restriction can be placed on it such that one person can define its limitations for another (except insofar as what is agreed upon by mutual participants in a game). It's an arbitrary outline to metaphorically define it as a virtual space.

In context with your previous statement, and my clarification, that is to say that it is not a "defined play area" as a concept, only in practice.

I always think of the box as being the game constraints imposed by the campaign i.e. if the campaign is to be based on a privateer ship in the Carribbean and all PCs must be human, that defines your sandbox.

 

[Mark]

I always think of the box as being the game constraints imposed by the campaign i.e. if the campaign is to be based on a privateer ship in the Carribbean and all PCs must be human, that defines your sandbox.

Sure for a single given sandbox that is the case but when discussing a "sandbox" conceptually the limits of the virtuality fall just short of reality and that division is the conceptual "box" that exists.

 

[S'mon]

I always think of the box as being the game constraints imposed by the campaign i.e. if the campaign is to be based on a privateer ship in the Carribbean and all PCs must be human, that defines your sandbox.

For me a sandbox would cover a defined geographical area, in this case the Caribbean. Conversely, "you must be English privateers, you must stay with the ship" are somewhat un-sandboxy elements; in a regular sandbox game the PCs would be free to get off the ship and go do something else, maybe sign on a merchant ship, adventure in Port Royal, or (most likely IME) keep the ship but turn pirate and start attacking their former employers/charterers. I wouldn't want to be a Sandbox Nazi about it though.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Saying X defines a sandbox, is a fallacy, if it also applies to other styles.

Unless X is merely part of the definition. If you say I can't define American football in terms of balls or players because other sports also have balls or players, then we would be at something of an impasse.

If I were to look at defining a sandbox, I would say this:

(1) First, you need to understand the distinction between prepping a plot and prepping a scenario.

(2) A sandbox is what happens when you apply the same design aesthetic to the entire structure of the campaign.

The easiest way to understand this design aesthetic, IMO, is through a negative definition: A sandbox campaign is one in which the GM does not negate choices made by the players in order to enforce a preconceived path.

I think there are ways to:

(a) Prep the campaign to make it less likely that the GM will be tempted to enforce a preconceived path.
(b) Prep the campaign to make it easier to run the sandbox.
(c) Prep the campaign to make the sandbox richer and more enjoyable.
(d) Use a sandbox to achieve specific goals which are possible and/or easier in a sandbox which would be impossible and/or harder to achieve outside of a sandbox.

But I also think it's quite possible to sit down with absolutely no prep whatsoever and run a sandbox campaign. I think it's even possible to sit down with a published module designed to encourage and/or require horrible railroading and still run it as part of a sandbox (by ignoring those portions of the module that require railroading, even if it means much of the rest of the module becomes useless).

If the GM has already decided there are no dragons in the area, but retcons in a dragon lair, where before there was none, as a response to player request, that seems to me to be an approach to world building which is against the sandbox ethos. If it is more fun for all concerned then it's not a problem, though. It's not inherently badwrongfun.

IMO, there's no meaningful difference between "I want to play in a campaign where I fight dragons" and "I want to play in a campaign where I'm a fantasy hero". This would be particularly true if both statements are made before the campaign even begins; but remains true, IMO, even if those statements are made after the campaign has begun.

The degree to which either desire can be successfully catered to depends on a number of factors (including the fun of the other players and the GM), but the idea that a Traveller sandbox stops being a Traveller sandbox because somebody said "I want to pilot a spaceship" seems irrational to me.

 

[Merkuri]

A definition of sandbox that requires there be no box seems silly to me, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

The metaphor doesn't have to be perfect. The term "sandbox" outside of gaming refers to a place where you can do anything. It's often used to describe a place where people test things out or play around for fun.

This idea of "go play in the sandbox, do whatever you want" is more important than the metaphor of an enclosed space with sand where children play, IMO. I think it's possible to have an infinite sandbox, or a sandbox whose boundaries are those of the campaign world itself. It can be as limited as a village or as wide as a galaxy.

In fact, I would go as far as to say that a "true" or "perfect" sandbox should have no such boundaries besides what is feasible in the campaign world. The DM may start the characters off in a valley with high mountain walls, but if the PCs get adventurous enough to find their way above, around, or through those mountains then the sandbox should expand outside it. In the extremely unlikely event that the PCs find their way to launch themselves completely off of the planet and head into space, a "perfect" sandbox would allow them to do this and include space in the "box".

(Note, when I use the term "true" or "perfect" to describe a sandbox I'm referring to a campaign taken to the most extreme level of "sandbox". I'm not trying to indicate that this is a "perfect" campaign or the "true" way to play, it's just one end of a spectrum.)

 

[S'mon]

IMO, there's no meaningful difference between "I want to play in a campaign where I fight dragons" and "I want to play in a campaign where I'm a fantasy hero". This would be particularly true if both statements are made before the campaign even begins; but remains true, IMO, even if those statements are made after the campaign has begun.

The degree to which either desire can be successfully catered to depends on a number of factors (including the fun of the other players and the GM), but the idea that a Traveller sandbox stops being a Traveller sandbox because somebody said "I want to pilot a spaceship" seems irrational to me.

Are you saying you think dragons are as central to fantasy as spaceships are to Traveller? I'd have to disagree, there are lots of dragonless fantasy settings. Classic modernist swords & sorcery like Conan or Fafhrd/Mouser does not have dragons, for instance. Elric's world has dragons, but Moorcock's other fantasy settings don't. Dark Sun has/had one, godlike, dragon.

 

[Nagol]

For me a sandbox would cover a defined geographical area, in this case the Caribbean. Conversely, "you must be English privateers, you must stay with the ship" are somewhat un-sandboxy elements; in a regular sandbox game the PCs would be free to get off the ship and go do something else, maybe sign on a merchant ship, adventure in Port Royal, or (most likely IME) keep the ship but turn pirate and start attacking their former employers/charterers. I wouldn't want to be a Sandbox Nazi about it though.

Whereas I don't think constraints constructed into the campaign environment and understood by the players affect sandbox play.

The choice of genre, ruleset, and cultural choices affect the nature of play and skew the character choices. Restricting (or expanding for that matter) choice further doesn't affect decisions and responses of characters once play begins.

"You must stay with the ship" would affect sandbox play whereas "You start with a right to 1/10 share of loot recovered by the ship and a share of the debt required to purchase the letter of marque" does not.

 

[S'mon]

In fact, I would go as far as to say that a "true" or "perfect" sandbox should have no such boundaries besides what is feasible in the campaign world. The DM may start the characters off in a valley with high mountain walls, but if the PCs get adventurous enough to find their way above, around, or through those mountains then the sandbox should expand outside it. In the extremely unlikely event that the PCs find their way to launch themselves completely off of the planet and head into space, a "perfect" sandbox would allow them to do this and include space in the "box".

(Note, when I use the term "true" or "perfect" to describe a sandbox I'm referring to a campaign taken to the most extreme level of "sandbox". I'm not trying to indicate that this is a "perfect" campaign or the "true" way to play, it's just one end of a spectrum.)

To me "sandbox" implies a box, since it is a term derived from CRPGs with an inherently limited play area. What you describe, the go-anywhere do-anything game, was called an 'Open' campaign in the 1e Dungeoneer Survivor's Guide, and that's my preferred term. It was the default play style in the 1e DMG and really everywhere until Dragonlance introduced the Linear campaign. Sandboxes can be Open, within the box, or a Matrix, like Vault of Larin Karr, where the PCs can go anywhere but everything is connected.

I agree though that a sandbox can potentially be a world, or a large chunk of a world - eg the Wilderlands of High Fantasy. It could be a big chunk of galaxy, eg the Traveller Third Imperium (though a Sector-wide sandbox is more common), or the old Elite computer game's thousands of worlds (all in 48K of memory!).

 

[S'mon]

"You must stay with the ship" would affect sandbox play whereas "You start with a right to 1/10 share of loot recovered by the ship and a share of the debt required to purchase the letter of marque" does not.

Yes, I agree with that.