What makes a Sandbox?

[Chainsaw]

Next you'll be telling the Americans it's "couldn't care less"...

Haha, so true. Sometimes I wish I'd never grown sensitive to these things, especially because I'm not perfect either. It's almost impossible not to make some mistakes (even when you're aware of the common ones), particularly if you write often.

 

[Snoweel]

Haha, so true. Sometimes I wish I'd never grown sensitive to these things, especially because I'm not perfect either. It's almost impossible not to make some mistakes (even when you're aware of the common ones), particularly if you write often.

You'd be surprised how poorly I speak, given I write fairly well (in my opinion anyway).

I haven't been well-spoken since I started high school. After school it was over a decade of construction, then infantry. Now I'm doing something a bit more cerebral, including verbal briefing, and I'm having to re-learn how not to sound like I was raised in the gutter.

 

[Chainsaw]

You'd be surprised how poorly I speak, given I write fairly well (in my opinion anyway).

I haven't been well-spoken since I started high school. After school it was over a decade of construction, then infantry. Now I'm doing something a bit more cerebral, including verbal briefing, and I'm having to re-learn how not to sound like I was raised in the gutter.

I hear you - I grew up in a trailer in north Florida, which is basically an extension of southern Georgia (nothing like Miami or the beaches). Trust me, I didn't pick up any FANCY TALKIN' there.

 

[Scribble]

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?

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

So in order to not be sandbox doesn't the game need to be entirely random???

Why bother playing with a DM? Why not have the players just decide everything whenever they want?

This whole thing sounds like a bunch of players who have had bad experiences with DM's railroading them and so think everything they want to do they should be able to do.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So in order to not be sandbox doesn't the game need to be entirely random???

Why bother playing with a DM? Why not have the players just decide everything whenever they want?

This whole thing sounds like a bunch of players who have had bad experiences with DM's railroading them and so think everything they want to do they should be able to do.

Players should be able to attempt to do anything they want to do. Success is another matter. Thats why you need a referee.

 

[pawsplay]

I love the idea of trying to run a classic sandbox campaign, but I don't see how to do it without either:


1. Doing utterly insane amounts of prep work before the campaign and between sessions.

Start small.

or

2. Being some kind of super-genius at improvisation.

Start humble.

Start small, start humble. You can take any above-average module with a setting and some NPCs and use that as your starting point... then you play with it, and see what happens.

The only difference between a sandbox game and a more programmatic game is that every time you see a major fork in the road, you should consider the possibility the PCs may take the road less traveled. The four hour game day is your friend; while PCs can unravel a plot thread in minutes, it often takes them hours to actually do something on their own. Assuming you game once a week, you've got a week to figure out what needs to be worked out in advance. In a lot of ways, it can be a less work than a big story arc, programmatic game because you don't have to examine the different possibilities and keep them on track, you only have to look at the possibilities and figure out what the next session is going to look like.

 

[pawsplay]

So in order to not be sandbox doesn't the game need to be entirely random???

Why bother playing with a DM? Why not have the players just decide everything whenever they want?

That's a mis-reading. Sandbox gamess are not about randomness, they are about choice. In many respects, programmatic games have as much or more potential to progress in an arbitrary fashion.

This whole thing sounds like a bunch of players who have had bad experiences with DM's railroading them and so think everything they want to do they should be able to do.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, of course. Speaking for myself, I've been gaming about 25 years, the sandbox game is essentially the game of my youth since that is how most non-tournament games used to be played, and I GM about 90% of the time. At least in my case, your speculations are off-base.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Start small, start humble. You can take any above-average module with a setting and some NPCs and use that as your starting point... then you play with it, and see what happens.

The only difference between a sandbox game and a more programmatic game is that every time you see a major fork in the road, you should consider the possibility the PCs may take the road less traveled. The four hour game day is your friend; while PCs can unravel a plot thread in minutes, it often takes them hours to actually do something on their own. Assuming you game once a week, you've got a week to figure out what needs to be worked out in advance. In a lot of ways, it can be a less work than a big story arc, programmatic game because you don't have to examine the different possibilities and keep them on track, you only have to look at the possibilities and figure out what the next session is going to look like.

Good general advice.

I think one issue that some might have wrapping thier mind around the dynamics of sandbox play is that when players are given complete freedom to make thier own choices and those choices have a major impact on the play experience that not all of them will always be a positive thing for the PC's. The freedom to make meaningful decisions comes with the possibility of making big mistakes.

For example, in a free sandbox environment the players can go wherever and do whatever they please. Thier decisions will determine if they have an exciting action packed adventure, or spend the game time dithering over plans, goals and other things. With regard to PC action the DM does not control the pacing of the action, the players do.

Somewhat connected to this, the DM does not owe the PC's a certain guarantee of action, treasure or experience. A linear campaign assumes the PC's will mostly follow the trail provided and in return for following that trail they get action, experience and loot. A sandbox campaign provides all of that but the players can ignore or walk away from these things at will.

So when players just walk away from an adventuring area to " go walkabout" they will encounter whatever is reasonable for the areas they wander through. This can easily and often does result in the party gaining less experience and treasure than they would have gotten had they investigated the opportunities that were available.

 

[Ulrick]

4th Edition. Hands down.

While I remember some controversy when 2e came out, complaints with 3e becoming 3.5e, 4e continues to cause deep divisions among the gaming community. I see it online and among gamers in real life.

I've read on here and elsewhere that the average D&D player is 30 and, for the most part, has enough books to game a lifetime. And, IRCC, Ryan Dancey said once that the biggest competitor to D&D is a previous edition.

Well, WotC had to lower the average if it was going to stay in the D&D business. WotC had to cater to the millenials and younger.

I sure don't like 4e. But 4e is not for me, the "average" D&D player.