What makes a Sandbox?

[pawsplay]

Where characters don't have differences in ability? Could you give me an example of such a system?

d02. Every time a challenge is encountered, flip a coin.

A different sort of puzzle is presented by something like Fantasy Craft, in which all NPCs are scaled automatically. The remaining differences (the number and type and potency of special traits they have) mean that NPCs are, by default, about 90% tailored and 10% pre-done, whatever your intentions.

Another sort of problem: Marvel Super-Heroes. Since characters are essentially static, is it possible to meaningfully categorize those encounters as status quo or tailored?

 

[Krensky]

Where characters don't have differences in ability? Could you give me an example of such a system?

Anything using the Crafty NPC system. Spycraft 2.0, Fantasy Craft, d20 Modern if you're using Adamant's Foe Factory.

In the case of Fantasy Craft (because I did the numbers recently for something else) the difference between BAB and NPC Defense (AC) for a full BAB class like a Soldier to an 'average' NPC (Defense V at Menace II) is -1 at 1st level to +2 at 20th level.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Are you saying you think dragons are as central to fantasy as spaceships are to Traveller?

No. I'm saying that fulfilling player's requests like "I want to play Shadowrun" or "I want to play a dragonslayer" or "I want to play in a byzantine empire with lots of political intrigue" doesn't eliminate the possibility for sandbox play, even if it means that the desired material needs to be generated.

It's certainly possible that those desires can't or won't be catered to (for any number of legitimate reasons); but what I'm saying is that the act of catering isn't antithetical to running a sandbox. (IMO)

Here's a related question: some people seem to think that running a sandbox means knowing what is going on with every part of the created world, even if the PCs haven't seen it yet.

Is this a necessary part of that game style? Discuss.

No. And, furthermore, it's impossible.

Prepping some "offstage" material can be a useful technique for successful sandbox play, but it's only useful in moderation and certainly isn't a mandatory part of playing in a sandbox.

 

[S'mon]

No. I'm saying that fulfilling player's requests like "I want to play Shadowrun" or "I want to play a dragonslayer" or "I want to play in a byzantine empire with lots of political intrigue" doesn't eliminate the possibility for sandbox play, even if it means that the desired material needs to be generated.

It's certainly possible that those desires can't or won't be catered to (for any number of legitimate reasons); but what I'm saying is that the act of catering isn't antithetical to running a sandbox. (IMO)

Obviously the group could discuss what sort of campaign they want to play, then the GM create a Shadowrun sandbox, a Byzantine sandbox, or a dragon-featuring fantasy sandbox. I was talking about retconning an existing campaign setting to accommodate player requests, eg inserting dragons into a no-dragons fantasy setting, as being un-sandboxy.

 

[Merkuri]

I was talking about retconning an existing campaign setting to accommodate player requests, eg inserting dragons into a no-dragons fantasy setting, as being un-sandboxy.

What if it wasn't retconned? What if the appearance of dragons in a world that was previously dragon-free made sense? Like, the PCs accidentally triggered something in an old temple that woke the dragon that had been sleeping beneath its floors, forgotten by the world after millenia of slumber. Or some ambitious wizard somewhere actually created the first dragon from spare parts.

I think that communication between players and DMs about what they want out of a game is essential for a good play experience, and is independent of the type of campaign you're playing. If the DM discovers that the players were expecting something or want something that he had not previously envisioned in the campaign then I think having the DM add that element does not automatically make a sandbox into a not-sandbox.

 

[Janx]

To Beginning of the End: what I should have said was:
saying X is exclusive to a sandbox when it in fact is a trait other styles use is a fallacy. Somebody had made a few statements to that effect, and that's what I was trying to counter.

Here's a related question: some people seem to think that running a sandbox means knowing what is going on with every part of the created world, even if the PCs haven't seen it yet.

Is this a necessary part of that game style? Discuss.

I accept that a DM can't fully document every element of a world, even in a narrow area, and that therefore new stuff will have to be generated. Therefore, not knowing what is going on in unseen parts of the world doesn't seem to be a requirement, at least to me.

It does seem that a sandbox GM should have "more" stuff prepared, especially beyond just one "plot area"

On the whole 'i wanna fight dragons" thing, is it possible this is a general problem, and not a sandbox problem?

If I'm about to run the "Horde of Orcs" adventure path, and one of the players says "orcs are boring, I wanna fight dragons." I've got the same problem. Do I bring in dragons, or don't I?

Seperate from players just asking for "whatever they want tailored to them", there's the issue of what make sense for the world and what's going on already. I think every GM has that dilema from time to time.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Player choice at the adventure level is what makes a sandbox. If the GM has only prepared one adventure for the evening then it's not a sandbox. If he has half-a-dozen up his sleeve plus a willingness, and ability, to do something else entirely then I'd say it's definitely a sandbox.

Where the dividing line is I'm not sure, but it doesn't matter. Precise definitions are both irrelevant and impossible where this sort of roleplaying terminology is concerned.

Two factors make it a lot easier to run a sandbox:
1) Weak PCs
2) A Monster Manual

The easier it is to challenge the PCs, the easier it is to run a sandbox. It's really easy to run a sandbox game for 1st level D&D PCs. It's really hard (not impossible) to run a superhero game as a sandbox.

The default D&D PC goal - find monster homes to loot - as opposed to say, defend civilization from the most pressing threat, also makes sandbox play a lot easier. Superhero PCs don't really have a choice of action. A bad guy pops up, and they gotta knock him down. Less altruistic D&D characters can decide what to kill at their leisure - goblins or lizardmen today? Or elves?

Thus certain PC motivations/personalities can restrict the players freedom of choice so much that it's no longer a sandbox.

 

[Mark]

Player choice at the adventure level is what makes a sandbox. If the GM has only prepared one adventure for the evening then it's not a sandbox. If he has half-a-dozen up his sleeve plus a willingness, and ability, to do something else entirely then I'd say it's definitely a sandbox.

Where the dividing line is I'm not sure, but it doesn't matter. Precise definitions are both irrelevant and impossible where this sort of roleplaying terminology is concerned.

Two factors make it a lot easier to run a sandbox:
1) Weak PCs
2) A Monster Manual

The easier it is to challenge the PCs, the easier it is to run a sandbox. It's really easy to run a sandbox game for 1st level D&D PCs. It's really hard (not impossible) to run a superhero game as a sandbox.

The default D&D PC goal - find monster homes to loot - as opposed to say, defend civilization from the most pressing threat, also makes sandbox play a lot easier. Superhero PCs don't really have a choice of action. A bad guy pops up, and they gotta knock him down. Less altruistic D&D characters can decide what to kill at their leisure - goblins or lizardmen today? Or elves?

Thus certain PC motivations/personalities can restrict the players freedom of choice so much that it's no longer a sandbox.

Interesting perspective. I would add that higher level PCs are more likely to have a good idea of their place in the world and the specific things they wish to accomplish and thus are less likely to push the boundaries of a sandbox, instead favoring well-devised, longterm plans.

 

[S'mon]

What if it wasn't retconned? What if the appearance of dragons in a world that was previously dragon-free made sense?

Then it wouldn't be retconned. Refer to my prior post where I discuss te various possibilities.

 

[firesnakearies]

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 that this is the best answer to the "What is a sandbox?" question that I've seen in this thread.


$