What makes a Sandbox?

[pawsplay]

This is what I most equate with a sandbox. The DM must move the parts of the world forward as if the PCs didn't exist until the PCs interact with the part.

That's another independent dimension: mechanistic play versus dramatic play. Certainly, you can have a completely linear design in which things happen unless the PCs stop them. If the PCs lack the power to change events, you end up with Ye Olde Railroade.

 

[ExploderWizard]

What if the example isn't so cut and dry?

What if say, you have an orc camp. You know it's "in the woods" if the PCs go into the woods (doesn't matter which one) they meet the orc camp.

If they go into the swamp (again it doesn't matter which swamp) they don't.


Sandbox? Not Sandbox?

To me, a camp is a location based encounter. As a DM I should have some idea of where orcs would set up camp and where they would not. Depending on the game world it could actually matter a lot which woods the camp was in.

The camp could be in the the Grim forest to the West:
Orcs patrol that whole area, so it is very likely.

The camp could be in the Elven forest to the Southeast:
These woods are inhabited and guarded by wood elves. An orc camp here would have serious implications for the campaign. Did they kill the elves?

Now if I just decide to plop the orc camp into the Elven forest there are more things to consider and deal with.

 

[bert1000]

That's another independent dimension: mechanistic play versus dramatic play. Certainly, you can have a completely linear design in which things happen unless the PCs stop them. If the PCs lack the power to change events, you end up with Ye Olde Railroade.

I'm not familar with the definitions but I think I see what you mean if my example was "mechanistic play". But how can you have dramatic play within a sandbox? If the DM decides something happens because it would be more fun/dramatic (e.g., no matter what path the PCs take, they stumble on the orc den), then doesn't it stop being a sandbox?

IMO, a sandbox must contain player choice of where to go and what to do, and "mechanistic" places to interact with.

 

[Ariosto]

Rather, the DM sets up a scenario and then largely stands back and watches what happen.

The term Dungeon Master didn't actually appear in a D&D book, IIRC, until Supplement III.

The earlier term, referee, seems to have been pretty straightforward early in the Blackmoor campaign. The reference, in D&D Volume 1, to players taking the roles of monsters such as Balrogs or Dragons apparently harks back to early practice. The referee did not have to decide what Sir Fang or the Egg of Coot would do -- because the player of said power would decide for himself.

Even after the mapping and stocking of dungeons was left entirely in the hands of the DM, the referee role had plenty of scope because "the referee to player ratio should be about 1:20 or thereabouts" -- and because "it is probable that there will be various groups going every which way and all at different time periods."

The main part of the extra burden on a DM in emulating such a campaign with more limited resources is modeling the effects that another three or four times as many "adventuring parties" would have.

The original game design indeed "assumes proactive and ambitious player characters with goals who will, when left to their own devices, seek out these goals." A lot of "plots" could be expected from the collisions of such players' ambitions.

Nor was the number of such schemers limited to the number of players. There is no rule in the books against a player having more than one character in a campaign. Taking into account the suggested reckoning of time, a player might by such a rule be barred from play altogether for several weeks because of the circumstances of a single character. Moreover, what was the player who had attained the heights of "name" level to do? Was he to be barred for the rest of his Lord's or Wizard's or Patriarch's life from ever again engaging in adventures appropriate to worthies of lesser stature? The "endgame" then would seem to be character suicide. Absurd! And what of the player whose high-level character dies a final death? Must he be limited to playing a first-level character? What of those "dungeon modules" for sale in the shops? If a player has but one character in the campaign, then he'll need non-campaign characters for those as a routine matter.

In short, even a single player might be expected to have multiple characters pursuing multiple intrigues.

"A good dungeon should have no less than a dozen levels down, with offshoot levels in addition, and new levels under construction so that players will never grow tired of it." Why? What is the point of all that, if, at any given instant, "the party is level X"?

The point is that "the party" was not at all an assumption, much less that all its members should all be level X. The campaign had no "level". The underworld -- and the rest of the milieu as well -- was to accommodate the ongoing activities of a large cast of characters of quite various ambitions and capabilities, from petty thieves to wizards consorting with gods.

 

[Witty Comeback]

"The party encounters the raiding party no matter which direction they choose" - I disagree with ExploderWizard that that prevents sandbox play.

Let me expand on this example. Let's say the PCs want to travel to Castle X. On the way, the road splits into the High road and the Low road. The PCs spend some time gathering info to discern that the High road is shorter, but also known to be more dangerous. The Low road is a significantly longer route but thought to be safer.

The PCs choose a road. Is it fair, in a sandbox, to encounter the party no matter their choice? If so, in what way is there meaningful choice in that game?

 

[S'mon]

One point about pre-prepared encounters. They are fine, as long as they are treated like Schroedinger's cat. Here's what I mean. I think it's still a sandbox if the DM has an index card with "Gronk's Orc Horde" statted out on it -- Gronk's Horde is in the status of Schroedinger's Cat. The players keep risking encounters with orc hordes, and might keep avoiding them for a long time. They don't know the risk was Gronk's Horde each and every time. But when contact is made - and the box with the cat is opened - then Gronk's Horde becomes a part of the sandbox and can't teleport about following the players.

Yesh, that's one of the things I was thinking of.

IMO Sandbox gaming is compatible with:

1. A randomly rolled encounter not keyed to location.

2. The occasional set piece encounter that just happens, at GM's decision, not a result of player choice.

These are two ways to give the impression of a living world without actually running the whole thing out behind the scenes.

 

[rogueattorney]

Let me expand on this example. Let's say the PCs want to travel to Castle X. On the way, the road splits into the High road and the Low road. The PCs spend some time gathering info to discern that the High road is shorter, but also known to be more dangerous. The Low road is a significantly longer route but thought to be safer.

The PCs choose a road. Is it fair, in a sandbox, to encounter the party no matter their choice? If so, in what way is there meaningful choice in that game?

Generally speaking, in old school adventure design the more dangerous road would be modeled with a higher frequency of more difficult/numerous wandering monsters and perhaps a lair or two of more difficult monsters/opponents. The less dangerous road would have a lower frequency of less dangerous/numerous wandering monsters and a lair of beneficial/neutral monsters/npcs.

If the pcs took the dangerous road and didn't meet any monsters, they've lucked out.

Also remember the extensive evasion and chase rules in OD&D and 1e. It was assumed the pcs would run away and that there was a chance that the tribes of monsters would give chase.

 

[S'mon]

Let me expand on this example. Let's say the PCs want to travel to Castle X. On the way, the road splits into the High road and the Low road. The PCs spend some time gathering info to discern that the High road is shorter, but also known to be more dangerous. The Low road is a significantly longer route but thought to be safer.

The PCs choose a road. Is it fair, in a sandbox, to encounter the party no matter their choice? If so, in what way is there meaningful choice in that game?

If the roads are known to be different in threat level, they should usually have different encounters, or different encounter probabilities. If both routes are much the same, it's fine IMO for the GM to use the same encounter on either route - the encounter is a Schrodinger that comes into existence once the PCs go whichever route they go.

 

[bert1000]

Let me expand on this example. Let's say the PCs want to travel to Castle X. On the way, the road splits into the High road and the Low road. The PCs spend some time gathering info to discern that the High road is shorter, but also known to be more dangerous. The Low road is a significantly longer route but thought to be safer.

The PCs choose a road. Is it fair, in a sandbox, to encounter the party no matter their choice? If so, in what way is there meaningful choice in that game?

Let me expand on this example. Let's say the PCs want to travel to Castle X. On the way, the road splits into the High road and the Low road. The PCs spend some time gathering info to discern that the High road is shorter, but also known to be more dangerous. The Low road is a significantly longer route but thought to be safer.

The PCs choose a road. Is it fair, in a sandbox, to encounter the party no matter their choice? If so, in what way is there meaningful choice in that game?

I think ideally the DM would know the "reality" of the situation, independant of the PCs. BEFORE the players make their choice, the DM knows if bandits will jump anyone on the low road or high road that day. Or alternatively, will know there is an x% chance of attack.

In sandbox play, the DM is more of a "revealer of reality" vs. a "director of drama".

Now, I find this is hard to always implement in real play. After all, another feature of sandbox play is that PCs can go anywhere so you are bound to have some moments where as a DM you didn't decide before the players make their choice. At that point, I say you just make a decision that is consistent with the world and things work out fine.

 

[Witty Comeback]

Yeah, and when I met this "sandbox" term a few years ago, my impression was that it was supposed to mean what "D&D campaign" used to mean.

No dice, though. When people aren't trying to bash me -- someone who has been playing in and running "old style" D&D since it was the hot new thing -- over the head with their redefinitions of "sandbox", they're doing it to their fellow "new schoolers".

So, when someone starts threads asking what's proper for a "sandbox", he might really be looking for help on how to manipulate and manage players' experiences so that they conform to his adventure-path expectations. In any case, that's one (or a bunch) of the things he's going to get!

This is really odd to me. You agreed in another thread with another poster that you'd like to see some division between "sandbox" and "not sandbox". I intended to bring this up here without derailing the other thread. What makes you think there were other, sinister motives for starting this thread? What on earth gives you any indication on whether I'm a new schooler or old schooler, or whether I frankly give a damn? Or were you referencing someone else (in which case, why would you leap into this discussion - which you asked for no less - carrying baggage from other threads?)?

I give up.

I doubt that, as you posted again, what, 5 minutes later?

I am more that interested to learn from the experience of someone who has played old D&D for as many years as you have. If you have insight into the topic, I genuinely welcome your comments. Please, however, leave the baggage behind - there's no reason for it here.