Why 'Sandbox' is a meaningless phrase

[Mordaedil]

Man, that's a relief. I apologize to anybody else who long ago grew weary of this for my part in prolonging these threads.

It's been somewhat entertaining, in a nail-biting kind of way. But what it is important now is to just move on.

[flond]

I just don't see the differences, so guess this might just fall under the whole illusion umbrella. Like any game play can start wide open where the characters can do lots of small stuff...but then once the game get to more adventure worthy things it will get focused and closed.

And I'm not sure how things ''feel'' different:

1.DM plans ahead and has a troll at the Black Bridge that comes out and attacks the characters.
2.DM has nothing, but then randomly has a troll at the Black Bridge that comes out and attacks the characters.

And the second one ''feels'' different?

Firstly? Why would things get more focused and closed? The more powerful you get, the more of a mover and shaker you become, the more you're able to take on bigger things, and forge entire empires. Unless you've got a DM who's pushing for a Dragonlance style "final confrontation", you should be able to extend and pursue your aims just as much later on in the sandbox.

2. The difference here once again, is the difference between "choose on the map where you want to go and deal with what's there." vs "I've got an awesome fight scene planned at the bridge, so I narrate the characters ending up there"/ they follow the one plot thread I've got.

[Mordaedil]

Come on already.

[Darth Ultron]

Raise thread!

Firstly? Why would things get more focused and closed? The more powerful you get, the more of a mover and shaker you become, the more you're able to take on bigger things, and forge entire empires. Unless you've got a DM who's pushing for a Dragonlance style "final confrontation", you should be able to extend and pursue your aims just as much later on in the sandbox.

Well, you are talking about scope, not focus.

Yes, the PC's can do ''anything''.....but in reality they have to pick just One thing to do; as in reality you can only do one major thing at a time. Like say the PCs want to ''forge a mighty empire''. Ok, so they can say that for a couple hours and just be like ''wow, it is a great idea''. BUT...eventually, they have to do something.....something small and focused and closed: An Adventure. So the players need to pick a Step One to ''forge a mighty empire''. So they pick: Clear and claim some land...a good first step. So they pick a spot on the map, and travel there. This would start the Western Land Grab adventure: the characters would attempt to take over and control and rule a set area of land. This is a set, small, focused and closed adventure goal.

2. The difference here once again, is the difference between "choose on the map where you want to go and deal with what's there." vs "I've got an awesome fight scene planned at the bridge, so I narrate the characters ending up there"/ they follow the one plot thread I've got.

The first is a normal game, the second is a jerk DM game....it's very simple.

The good DM makes a good encounter no matter where the characters are or what they are doing....so it really does not even matter where the characters are or what they are doing.

A lot of average or bad DM's fall into classic trap of making a dull, boring world. This is typical when a DM makes a ''Bridge of Doom'' in the "Darklands" that leads to the "Forest of Doom"...and the whole rest of the world is just the dull, boring farmers. So this DM gets all upset when the players don't go to the Place of Doom.

The Good DM has an adventure filled world everywhere...there are dozens of ''bridges of interesting events'' to be encountered in every direction.

[Max_Killjoy]

Come on already.

Thread was almost off the front page...

[Segev]

Eh, we're practically back to page one of the thread, anyway, with Darth Ultron deliberately misrepresenting what people say and throwing "randomly" around like an insult to claim that anything that isn't a hard railroad is a total random mess. *shrug*

[Corneel]

Soon we'll reach closure. Even sooner if we keep posting.

[Boci]

The Good DM has an adventure filled world everywhere...there are dozens of ''bridges of interesting events'' to be encountered in every direction.

That's a sandbox. You are describing a sandbox. If there are dozens of "bridges of interesting events" that players can freely choose, that's a sandbox. If there is one bridge of interesting events, that a non-sandbox. For examples, modules, will typically not have a dozen "bridges of interesting stuff". There are not a dozens castles in "Expedition to Castle Ravenloft" that the players pick from. There is one. Doesn't make it a bad game, just means its not sandbox.

[RazorChain]

Soon we'll reach closure. Even sooner if we keep posting.

Heck....I'll chip in +1. One closer to closure

[PhoenixPhyre]

Heck....I'll chip in +1. One closer to closure

Are purple monkeys in baby carriages a sandbox trait or a linear game trait? I think that they're elephants.

[RazorChain]

Are purple monkeys in baby carriages a sandbox trait or a linear game trait? I think that they're elephants.

It depends if they are placed in the party's path by an Ogre or not.

On the Elephants, I think you should start a new thread about it because it seems an Elephant is an meaningless phrase in this instance

[Darth Ultron]

That's a sandbox. You are describing a sandbox. If there are dozens of "bridges of interesting events" that players can freely choose, that's a sandbox. If there is one bridge of interesting events, that a non-sandbox. For examples, modules, will typically not have a dozen "bridges of interesting stuff". There are not a dozens castles in "Expedition to Castle Ravenloft" that the players pick from. There is one. Doesn't make it a bad game, just means its not sandbox.

So your talking the side that each encounter is a mini adventure.

But, yet again, you descend to the Apples and Oranges. You are comparing a single adventure, to a campaign. It's like your comparing one chapter of a book to the whole story of the book.

Again, the whole point of an adventure is focus: The characters do one thing.

So like:

*Wide Open Gaming- Most games start here with just a couple characters and a setting. There is no plot, story, structure or anything: just some characters and random things and stuff. The player are free to have their characters randomly wander around and randomly explore the setting. The Players can talk to NPCs, listen to the DM describe things in the setting and do small mundane things like ''drink at a tavern'' or ''get their toe nails painted red". They can even have some small bits of random action or random combat, anything that only takes a couple of rounds and has no lasting meaning or impact on anything.

For some, the Wide Open Gaming is the end all of gaming, and they will stop right here and spend the rest of the game randomly doing the random wander and explore. Most players want more from the game though: More Action/Adventure. they want a plot, and story, and substance and an Adventure. And this leads to:

*Adventure Gaming-The players pick an Adventure and the DM makes that Adventure and runs the characters through it.

[Cluedrew]

It is in apparent disagreement with Cluedrew over the meaning of railroad. Which means one of them must be out of our alleged collective of agreement.

Hey I got referenced, cool. And for the record I'm not in complete agreement with myself. I am currently debating if I should update my definition of railroading.

Previously I used "A player (usually the GM) forcing the adventure along a predetermined path." I am now considering framing it in terms of "forced linearity". Mostly comes from Grod's thread and it would nicely frame why I don't think linear and railroad are interchangeable. Problem is it is now dependant on another non-common definition (that of linear) to define it. So maybe I should say I was debating, I don't think I will anymore.

[Boci]

*Wide Open Gaming- Most games start here with just a couple characters and a setting. There is no plot, story, structure or anything: just some characters and random things and stuff. The player are free to have their characters randomly wander around and randomly explore the setting. The Players can talk to NPCs, listen to the DM describe things in the setting and do small mundane things like ''drink at a tavern'' or ''get their toe nails painted red". They can even have some small bits of random action or random combat, anything that only takes a couple of rounds and has no lasting meaning or impact on anything.

For some, the Wide Open Gaming is the end all of gaming, and they will stop right here and spend the rest of the game randomly doing the random wander and explore. Most players want more from the game though: More Action/Adventure. they want a plot, and story, and substance and an Adventure. And this leads to:

*Adventure Gaming-The players pick an Adventure and the DM makes that Adventure and runs the characters through it.

So I'm guessing you're just hoping we've forgotten this comment:

The Good DM has an adventure filled world everywhere...there are dozens of ''bridges of interesting events'' to be encountered in every direction.

Because that seems to clash with your binary and highly biased simplification above.

It ultimatly doesn't matter though. Even in the above post, with the twisted examples, you've still dissproven your thread. Sandbox is not a meaningless term. Even if you genuinly feel its not a good way to structure a game and dub it "Wide Open Gaming", it still has meaning. I don't like 4th wall breaking settings in RPs, doesn't mean "4th wall breaking settings"/"Stick-verse" is a meaningless term.

[Darth Ultron]

Because that seems to clash with your binary and highly biased simplification above.

I don't see a clash? No matter what the Players do they will go on an Adventure. It is really the whole point of the game.

[Boci]

I don't see a clash? No matter what the Players do they will go on an Adventure. It is really the whole point of the game.

Its a clash because you go from calling the same scanrio "there are dozens of ''bridges of interesting events''" to "They can even have some small bits of random action or random combat, anything that only takes a couple of rounds and has no lasting meaning or impact on anything." once I told you that you were describing a sandbox.

[Darth Ultron]

Its a clash because you go from calling the same scanrio "there are dozens of ''bridges of interesting events''" to "They can even have some small bits of random action or random combat, anything that only takes a couple of rounds and has no lasting meaning or impact on anything." once I told you that you were describing a sandbox.

I'm saying that once the characters leave town and go on an adventure, the bridge will be encounter one of that adventure.

You saying more the bridge encounter IS the whole adventure...or a mini adventure.

[Emperor Demonking]

That's a sandbox. You are describing a sandbox. If there are dozens of "bridges of interesting events" that players can freely choose, that's a sandbox. If there is one bridge of interesting events, that a non-sandbox. For examples, modules, will typically not have a dozen "bridges of interesting stuff". There are not a dozens castles in "Expedition to Castle Ravenloft" that the players pick from. There is one. Doesn't make it a bad game, just means its not sandbox.

But there are multiple rooms, aren't there?

If there was a setting and that setting was one large castle then a sandbox game wiould be just picking the rooms to go to. Wouldn't it?

I can't see how the nature of the game changes merely when the DM sets the game in a castle rather than castle-world.

[jayem]

I'm saying that once the characters leave town and go on an adventure, the bridge will be encounter one of that adventure.

You saying more the bridge encounter IS the whole adventure...or a mini adventure.

It's kind of the opposite. Something started before the town and includes the choice to go in the direction and the encounters following their decisions at the bridge. And whatever that something is, that's the important thing in that type of game.

I think it is though kind of true that you can't really define mid-sized purely self contained "adventures" in a connected non-linear segment. That is in a linear segment once the character leave town the bridge will be encounter one, X will be encounter two etc... In a non-linear segment X only may be encounter two*
(a road with steep sides would be a naturally occurring absolute example, a clear road with determined players would actually make for an interesting discussion, my trip to the shops would be a non-example)

*Consider the flight from the shire. They left the shire on the adventure to Crickenhollow. Nice clear road. Encounter 1 they met the Nazgul on the road. Encounter 2 was not the Nazgul on the bridge but Farmer Maggot in the mushroom fields, because they left the road as a result of Encounter 1.

[Boci]

But there are multiple rooms, aren't there?

If there was a setting and that setting was one large castle then a sandbox game wiould be just picking the rooms to go to. Wouldn't it?

I can't see how the nature of the game changes merely when the DM sets the game in a castle rather than castle-world.

If the entire setting is one castle, its not a sandbox setting (unless the castle is the size of the New York metropolitant area). A sandbox is about choice. The ability of players to choose, and not just which castle they go to, but also to leave halfway if we want, and the DM building his world in a way that that can happen. When I sit down to play raid the castle game, be it the module "Expedition to Castle Ravenloft" or the DM's own "Fort Caltessa", there is an understanding that we as players will not leave halfway through because we heard someone in the tavern talk about a lost sword buried on a tropical island. In a sandbox game, that would be acceptable (though ofcourse depending on how much we had done in the castle before leaving, the ruler might not want to leave it at that, but the players are still free to leave).

[Emperor Demonking]

If the entire setting is one castle, its not a sandbox setting (unless the castle is the size of the New York metropolitant area).

There are over eight million people in New York City. How many plot hooks/NPCs etc. do you think are in the typical sandbox game?

Or are you simply talking about imaginary geographic space, as I don't think that's relevant.

A sandbox is about choice. The ability of players to choose, and not just which castle they go to, but also to leave halfway if we want, and the DM building his world in a way that that can happen. When I sit down to play raid the castle game, be it the module "Expedition to Castle Ravenloft" or the DM's own "Fort Caltessa", there is an understanding that we as players will not leave halfway through because we heard someone in the tavern talk about a lost sword buried on a tropical island. In a sandbox game, that would be acceptable (though ofcourse depending on how much we had done in the castle before leaving, the ruler might not want to leave it at that, but the players are still free to leave).

But when one runs one's Greyhawk sandbox game, the player's do not have the choice to go to the Forgetten Realms so it can't be that on one side there are no limits and the other way there are.

Imagine a game where the players are free to go where they want. They choose to enter a cave. There is a cave-in - no they cause a cave-in to stop the dragon that they chose to antagonise. At that point they no longer have the choice to simply waltz out. The game has not become a linear one though, surely?

Of course, the players are free to try to escape that way. But even in the worst parody of the linear DM, the players are free to try to avoid the Ogre. They'll just fail.

You talk of an 'understanding' but imagine if you are running a game. It is a sandbox. Your good PCs have agreed to find the rare herb to save poor Suzy from her rare infection. After the players find the herb, they decide to ditch that quest to go looking for the lost sword. Is that not off-putting and hold-on-a-sec as it would be if the rare herb was act one of a linear adventure?

[Pleh]

Imagine a game where the players are free to go where they want. They choose to enter a cave. There is a cave-in - no they cause a cave-in to stop the dragon that they chose to antagonise. At that point they no longer have the choice to simply waltz out. The game has not become a linear one though, surely?

You're correct that games tend to be fluid and can rapidly shift in tone, but your example is actually great at undermining your point.

The characters cause a cave in to trap a dragon. You say they cannot simply waltz out? How do you define simple? If they can teleport and/or burrow, getting out of the cave is pretty easy.

The real question is: when the cave in happens, are the walls fortified with plot walls, or would the players be free to tunnel out with tools if they took the time to dig?

That's more where the line between linear and sandbox lies.

[Boci]

There are over eight million people in New York City. How many plot hooks/NPCs etc. do you think are in the typical sandbox game?

Or are you simply talking about imaginary geographic space, as I don't think that's relevant.

It is relevant. Sandbox games need size to operate, like how high magic needs, magic to work.

Imagine a game where the players are free to go where they want. They choose to enter a cave. There is a cave-in - no they cause a cave-in to stop the dragon that they chose to antagonise. At that point they no longer have the choice to simply waltz out. The game has not become a linear one though, surely?

Yes, obviously. Physical/magical barriers are a thing in both linear and sandbox games. The point I was making is that there isn't a barrier physical or magic stopping players from leaving Ravenloft (okay, I think the mists have a DC 16 fear effect maybe, hardly impenetrable). But players won't, because there's an understanding that you don't do that when the DM runs Expecition to Castleravenloft.

You talk of an 'understanding' but imagine if you are running a game. It is a sandbox. Your good PCs have agreed to find the rare herb to save poor Suzy from her rare infection. After the players find the herb, they decide to ditch that quest to go looking for the lost sword. Is that not off-putting and hold-on-a-sec as it would be if the rare herb was act one of a linear adventure?

No, its not. It would be a little jarring obviously (depending on the exact details and party makeup), but ultimatly in a sandbox, there's a whole world full of sick people. What if the players stop looking for the herb to save child to go and save a whole village from orcs?

Not to mention you've chosen a very sudden turn adventurewise. Returning to Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, spoilers for the adventure module:

Spoiler: Expedition to Castle Ravenloft spoilers

Show

There are 3 phases to the adventure,
1. They arrieve at the town and deal with the undead
2. They explore the wilderness
3. They enter the castle

The end of phase 1 or 2 offers far more organic and less off-putting break off points for the PCs to leave and do something else. At the end of phase 1 for example the PCs have saved a village from undead and found out the letter was not from the person whose signature they feated. Maybe they want to stay and figure out why they were tricked, maybe they want to leave. In a sandbox they are free to choose here.

[jayem]

If the entire setting is one castle, its not a sandbox setting (unless the castle is the size of the New York metropolitant area). A sandbox is about choice. The ability of players to choose, and not just which castle they go to, but also to leave halfway if we want, and the DM building his world in a way that that can happen. When I sit down to play raid the castle game, be it the module "Expedition to Castle Ravenloft" or the DM's own "Fort Caltessa", there is an understanding that we as players will not leave halfway through because we heard someone in the tavern talk about a lost sword buried on a tropical island. In a sandbox game, that would be acceptable (though ofcourse depending on how much we had done in the castle before leaving, the ruler might not want to leave it at that, but the players are still free to leave).

I would venture that in the context of the castle, the castle itself can be more or less sandboxy, to some extent independently of the wider setting. And indeed there would be cases for it to vary naturally according to setting, a castle is after all designed to limit your options, a prison even more so. However in the castle example even locally it can only be "A sandbox-except where actions might lead to you leaving the castle"

That said there would be a degree of "as above so below", because else there is a potential for a clash.

And in addition you could possibly shrink the PC's (e.g. the 'thrilling' roleplay of the domestic staff and the challenges they face) and keep the castle castle sized for a looong time. I'm not sure why you'd want to... but in such a case you could do that from pretty near sandbox (stuck in castle) to pretty near linear (with one location, consequences will come back).

[Emperor Demonking]

You're correct that games tend to be fluid and can rapidly shift in tone, but your example is actually great at undermining your point.

You say 'tone', are you referring to linear or sandbox there? As I'd don't consider that a matter of tone.

The characters cause a cave in to trap a dragon. You say they cannot simply waltz out? How do you define simple? If they can teleport and/or burrow, getting out of the cave is pretty easy.

The real question is: when the cave in happens, are the walls fortified with plot walls, or would the players be free to tunnel out with tools if they took the time to dig?

That's more where the line between linear and sandbox lies.

Yes, I was assuming the characters lacked burrowing or teleportation abilities.

Imagine a game, it's level one. It starts with the characters having failen to one edge of the 'World's scar' an incredible deep valley with roaming goblins. At this point there is nothing really ultimately for them to do but find somewhere where there's a way (although, sure, they'll look for treasure and deal with the goblins also). The goblins and the valley-face are not plot walls. But you'd agree that it'd be a miss old campaign if it billed itself as a Sandbox?

[Boci]

You say 'tone', are you referring to linear or sandbox there? As I'd don't consider that a matter of tone.


Yes, I was assuming the characters lacked burrowing or teleportation abilities.

Imagine a game, it's level one. It starts with the characters having failen to one edge of the 'World's scar' an incredible deep valley with roaming goblins. At this point there is nothing really ultimately for them to do but find somewhere where there's a way (although, sure, they'll look for treasure and deal with the goblins also). The goblins and the valley-face are not plot walls. But you'd agree that it'd be a miss old campaign if it billed itself as a Sandbox?

Depends how many ways out there are, but if there's only one, then yes, that isn't a sandbox, because as I noted above, sandboxes require space, not one location.

[Emperor Demonking]

It is relevant. Sandbox games need size to operate, like how high magic needs, magic to work.

So if one was to create a game where the hook was is than an evil wizard took a castle and froze it away in time where the players were free to do as they pleased in that castle (try to find a way out, catch the food thief, become competitors in the Distrzction Games, explorer the underground caves etc.) such a game would not be a sandbox? Would it be linear?

Yes, obviously. Physical/magical barriers are a thing in both linear and sandbox games. The point I was making is that there isn't a barrier physical or magic stopping players from leaving Ravenloft (okay, I think the mists have a DC 16 fear effect maybe, hardly impenetrable). But players won't, because there's an understanding that you don't do that when the DM runs Expecition to Castleravenloft.



No, its not. It would be a little jarring obviously (depending on the exact details and party makeup), but ultimatly in a sandbox, there's a whole world full of sick people. What if the players stop looking for the herb to save child to go and save a whole village from orcs?

If the DM puts a village being destroyed by orcs in front of the players, then I would expect the players to deal with it. Would you not find it jarring and off-putting if your good party just ignored the village attack in favour of finding the herb straight away?

(You may say: Ah, but what if the herb is time sensitive? Then I say that we're not dealing with a Sandbox/Linear distinction there. The worse parody of a Linear DM with his quantum sick girl and quantum Orc attack can put such a dilemma in front of the players.)

Not to mention you've chosen a very sudden turn adventurewise. Returning to Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, spoilers for the adventure module:

Spoiler: Expedition to Castle Ravenloft spoilers

Show

There are 3 phases to the adventure,
1. They arrieve at the town and deal with the undead
2. They explore the wilderness
3. They enter the castle

The end of phase 1 or 2 offers far more organic and less off-putting break off points for the PCs to leave and do something else. At the end of phase 1 for example the PCs have saved a village from undead and found out the letter was not from the person whose signature they feated. Maybe they want to stay and figure out why they were tricked, maybe they want to leave. In a sandbox they are free to choose here.

Imagine the players have never heard of the module. Upon defeating the undead and find out the truth about the letter, they decide that they want to learn more by going back to where the letter was delivered to them. What do you think the DM does in that situation?

[Boci]

So if one was to create a game where the hook was is than an evil wizard took a castle and froze it away in time where the players were free to do as they pleased in that castle (try to find a way out, catch the food thief, become competitors in the Distrzction Games, explorer the underground caves etc.) such a game would not be a sandbox? Would it be linear?

That set up could go either way, depending on the scope of the castle.

If the DM puts a village being destroyed by orcs in front of the players, then I would expect the players to deal with it. Would you not find it jarring and off-putting if your good party just ignored the village attack in favour of finding the herb straight away?

No. The players are not the police, at least not the only ones. If they want to save a sick child, that's fine. They have no obligation to save a village from goblins. If they want to save the village and delay finding the herb, whether the herb is time sensative or not, that's fine. Maybe they're evil PCs and make an alliance with the goblins instead, leading them to raid a town.

A sandbox game is about choice.

Imagine the players have never heard of the module. Upon defeating the undead and find out the truth about the letter, they decide that they want to learn more by going back to where the letter was delivered to them. What do you think the DM does in that situation?

In a sandbox game: "sure, you head back to the town where the letter was delivered, no random encounters on the way back. How will you find the messenger, you remember they looked like a..."

In Expedition to Castle Ravenloft? Have an NPC beg them not to go, have an enemy steal something, and if all else fails ask them OOC to stay because leaving Barovia is beyond the scope of the module.

[Emperor Demonking]

That set up could go either way, depending on the scope of the castle.



No. The players are not the police, at least not the only ones. If they want to save a sick child, that's fine. They have no obligation to save a village from goblins. If they want to save the village and delay finding the herb, whether the herb is time sensative or not, that's fine. Maybe they're evil PCs and make an alliance with the goblins instead, leading them to raid a town.

A sandbox game is about choice.

They're not evil PCs, they're good PCS. That was in the hypothetical. (I assume a sandbox campaign can be run with an all good party.)

If you wre running a Sandbox game is there anything that the party could ignore/break way from that would lead to you going to the party's paladin: "Do that and you'll fall?"

In a sandbox game: "sure, you head back to the town where the letter was delivered, no random encounters on the way back. How will you find the messenger, you remember they looked like a..."

In Expedition to Castle Ravenloft? Have an NPC beg them not to go, have an enemy steal something, and if all else fails ask them OOC to stay because leaving Barovia is beyond the scope of the module.

I'm not familiar with the module (I know its a classic) would it not be reasonable for an NPC to beg them to stay even in a sandbox? Or do you design the NPCS so that they're not the begging type?

But the big thing is obviously the 'if all else fails ask them OOC to stay', would you say that's the all-else-fails of all/almost all linear DMs?

[Boci]

They're not evil PCs, they're good PCS. That was in the hypothetical. (I assume a sandbox campaign can be run with an all good party.)

If you wre running a Sandbox game is there anything that the party could ignore/break way from that would lead to you going to the party's paladin: "Do that and you'll fall?"

Yes.

I'm not familiar with the module (I know its a classic) would it not be reasonable for an NPC to beg them to stay even in a sandbox? Or do you design the NPCS so that they're not the begging type?

Of course NPCs beg, but in a sandbox that's just roleplaying. In a linear adventure/module its also serves as *hint hint, beyond the planned scope of the game*.

But the big thing is obviously the 'if all else fails ask them OOC to stay', would you say that's the all-else-fails of all/almost all linear DMs?

Unless a DM wants to adapt the planed linear game into a sandbox game, if all else fails, yes they will need to ask the players OOC character to stay.

May I ask what's with the 101 questions?