Why 'Sandbox' is a meaningless phrase

[PhoenixPhyre]

"Encounter of indeterminate location in respect to space/time" would be a more accurate description- as an element of "modular adventure/campaign design" wherein prepared events/encounters might be plugged into a session whenever/wherever the GM deems appropriate.

That falls to distinguish between those generic elements that could be reused without needing to be unique and those unique events that are forced as part of the plot, even if the party takes reasonable actions to avoid them.

If the whole area is ogre infested, running into an ogre in any direction isn't weird. If the ogres only live to the South, and you go north to avoid the ogres, an ogre encounter better have a darn good reason behind it. And if you teleport to another place and still run into that same ogre, the ogre is probably of the inevitable subtype.

[Thrudd]

That falls to distinguish between those generic elements that could be reused without needing to be unique and those unique events that are forced as part of the plot, even if the party takes reasonable actions to avoid them.

If the whole area is ogre infested, running into an ogre in any direction isn't weird. If the ogres only live to the South, and you go north to avoid the ogres, an ogre encounter better have a darn good reason behind it. And if you teleport to another place and still run into that same ogre, the ogre is probably of the inevitable subtype.

edit - I think I edited before I saw your post, adding the "inevitable encounter" as a separate category.

Does the definition need to make that distinction? The indeterminate encounter implies that there are significant generic elements, specifically time and location. So whatever it is, it is intended to be usable universally or at least in a wide array of locales and without requiring a specific timing, implying limited uniqueness.

The inevitable plot event is probably going to be more specific on at least one axis (space or time). Maybe the Ogre has to happen in Ogre country, but it can wait until whenever the characters go to Ogre country. Or it is non-locale specific encounter that will happen a certain amount of time following another event. The smart GM would avoid specifying both timing and location for any planned encounter, unless the format of the game gives them complete control over both those factors.

I would want to split "quantum ogre" into these two separate terms - the indeterminate encounter is a universal tool that purposefully carries no connotation of railroading. It is a way to help you use your prepped material. It is maybe a step up from the wandering monster table in terms of how much is prepped. The inevitable encounter is a staple of the plot-driven game that needs to be carefully applied lest it lead to railroading.

Only the GM can really make the distinction between the two - the difference is the intent behind the encounter and the way it is applied. Did it appear because of or as a consequence of decisions made by the characters (even decisions they were unaware had consequences, like walking north instead of south?): that's an indeterminate encounter. The GM decided that the players had entered an area of time or space in the game where this material makes sense to appear. Did it appear because there is a plot that requires a certain series of events to happen? That's the inevitable encounter. The GM decided this is going to happen now, no matter what, because I'm telling a story.

[Darth Ultron]

Amazing how an entire forum of people can patiently explain over and over that Sandboxes aren't blank and improvisation involves context and a starting position....

It's amazing how people say that. And then I say that is exactly like a normal game that is not a sandbox...or sandbox is a meaningless phrase as it's part of any game. But then the sandbox folks will go all on that their sandbox is special and different somehow, but they can't describe it. And they fall back into the trap of saying a sandbox game is a normal game in every way, except they call it a sandbox game just to say their game is cool.

Even if that was the case, what is your follow-up? "It's easier to do certain jerk moves when improvising, therefore you should never improvise"?

Not ''never'', more like ''try to avoid it''.

I mean, that's essentially the same logic as "It's easier to hurt someone if you are strong, therefore you should never go to the gym", or "It's easier to lie to someone if you can speak, therefore we should all be mute".

Well, that is a bit too basic. It's more like a spouse should not disappear for 12 hours and then just show up and act like nothing happened or if your an angry, violent person you should avoid carrying around a weapon.

Easier? Yes. More common? Eh, I'm not seeing it. Perhaps I'm just accustomed to a different sort of bad GM than you are. Care to explain your reasoning (or even relate your experiences)?

Improv is a lot like everything else: there is a quick and dirty way to do it, and a more longer thought out way. The quick way will always go for the ''low hanging fruit''.

And it's hard to avoid the improv temptation...even if you realize it's happening. And most people don't. The vast majority of encounters should be impartial and neutral, unless there are in game reasons(for example if the PCs are ice based, then a foe might very well hire some fire based foes to attack). And this is where the improv temptation comes in: when the ice based PCs open a door, and the DM only has seconds to react and think of something, there is a pretty good chance their mind will go to 'fire'. And chances are they won't even see it, or realize they are doing it.

What a curious PoV you have. Why assume that the players are intentionally trying to invalidate content? Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by ignorance, and all that. It seems perfectly reasonable for this to happen when the players are "just playing their characters", and not metagaming. Or even for the players to have no concept of the metagame in the first place.

Sadly, a lot of players see TRPGs as a ''Vs the DM'' type of game. They see the whole point of the game to oppose the DM. Their goal is to have fun, by ruining the game for the DM. They don't want to go as far as ''not play'', as they want to drag out the ruining of the game for hours(as, you know, it's fun for them).

Also, there is (or should be) a gaming maxim about never creating content without being prepared for your players to do absolutely anything with it (usually kill, but, relevant to this case, also ignore).

I know this is a Top Ten problem for a lot of DMs, but it has never been one for me. Other then making encounters the players want to have, you can always use something some other time.

I'm with you on most of this, but I'm very confused by and interested in what you mean by that last sentence. Why do you believe that how well written a module is strongly correlates to the party encountering all encounters in a site-based adventure? And what does the phrase "story plot" mean in the context of that sentence?

It's not the only requirement for a well written module, but, yes, a well written one does use all of it's encounters. A lot of this is focus: if your moving along the adventure, of course, you will 'hit' the major encounters. That is the whole point of the adventure. It's a lot like the three clue idea; if the adventure has three reasons for an encounter, there is a good chance that at least one will be triggered.

Some, less then good modules, add an encounter or two..often a powerful monster one...as an 'extra'. It's not part of the plot story: it is just there. I guess the vague idea is that if the DM and players want a 'tough' combat encounter they can use it. The same is true of the typical 'wilderness trap', the ones that start with something like ''when the characters as in the Black Swamp somewhere toss this encounter at them".

[1337 b4k4]

It's amazing how people say that. And then I say that is exactly like a normal game that is not a sandbox...or sandbox is a meaningless phrase as it's part of any game. But then the sandbox folks will go all on that their sandbox is special and different somehow, but they can't describe it. And they fall back into the trap of saying a sandbox game is a normal game in every way, except they call it a sandbox game just to say their game is cool.

Frankly this is because you are deliberately imprecise, obfuscating, inflammatory and obtuse with your language and arguments. Multiple times you have been told that of course a sandbox is a normal game, just like a linear game is a normal game, because no one here aside from you sees them as abnormal. They do see a distinction between a linear and a sandbox game and those distinctions are repeatedly demonstrated for you. You then alternate between insulting any GM behavior that isn't centered around creating an ideal linear game, or return to pretending that "normal" and "linear" are the same word, and go back to insisting that a sandbox game is the same as a linear game, because you're using the word "normal" in place of linear.

Your own arguments are fundamentally self defeating as despite claiming that "sandbox" is meaningless and that sandbox games are exactly the same as linear games, you have a series of GM and player behaviors you associate with describing a sandbox game that you express with varying levels of derision. So in your own attempt to distinguish between your own normal games and what you view as "bad" games, you give meaning to the collection of behaviors you associate with "sandbox" and thereby give meaning to the term, your own personal opinions on the quality of the resulting game not withstanding.

Speaking as someone who very much tries to always give the benefit of the doubt where cross talk on a forum is concerned, and someone who often agrees at least in part with some of the more controversial of your opinions, it is becoming increasingly clear that you are not actually interested in having a proper discussion on this. Frankly you haven't been interested in many many pages and at this point are arguing in bad faith if not outright simply trolling for your own amusement. This is truly unfortunate because despite failure to understand your opponents a number of interesting side conversations and points have developed in this thread that would have been more interesting to flesh out instead of dancing in circles with you.

If you truly still do not understand the distinction between a sandbox and a linear game, then articulate specific, precise and fixed concerns that you have. Explain what you do understand and explain where the disconnect happens for you. Otherwise, why bother pretending your interested?

[JNAProductions]

It's amazing how people say that. And then I say that is exactly like a normal game that is not a sandbox...or sandbox is a meaningless phrase as it's part of any game. But then the sandbox folks will go all on that their sandbox is special and different somehow, but they can't describe it. And they fall back into the trap of saying a sandbox game is a normal game in every way, except they call it a sandbox game just to say their game is cool.

Except you've been given several definition of Sandbox, and while the EXACT details varied, they all shared common themes, making it clear what the meaning is. While I'd agree that you should say MORE than just "My game is a sandbox," that alone is pretty descriptive.

Not ''never'', more like ''try to avoid it''.

And I'd agree, actually-avoid improvising. With one caveat-if you're a BAD DM. A good DM can improvise masterfully, rolling with the punches and making a memorable, responsive, and AMAZING game.

Well, that is a bit too basic. It's more like a spouse should not disappear for 12 hours and then just show up and act like nothing happened or if your an angry, violent person you should avoid carrying around a weapon.

No, actually he gave a good example. Hell, let's take drugs-overdosing is bad. Should we never take medicine? It's fine to say "These are some common pitfalls of improvising," but the thing is, if you're a GOOD DM, the benefits far outweigh the badness.

Improv is a lot like everything else: there is a quick and dirty way to do it, and a more longer thought out way. The quick way will always go for the ''low hanging fruit''.

And planning is different... How?

And it's hard to avoid the improv temptation...even if you realize it's happening. And most people don't. The vast majority of encounters should be impartial and neutral, unless there are in game reasons(for example if the PCs are ice based, then a foe might very well hire some fire based foes to attack). And this is where the improv temptation comes in: when the ice based PCs open a door, and the DM only has seconds to react and think of something, there is a pretty good chance their mind will go to 'fire'. And chances are they won't even see it, or realize they are doing it.

Why do you assume that? Do you just assume every DM is an idiot? (Actually, considering how you acted in this thread, probably.) Because, for instance, let's say the PCs are ice-based and are raiding a hobgoblin encampment. My first thought would not be "Fire mages!" my first thought would be "Phalanxes with supporting archers."

I mean, it's fine to admit you're an adversarial DM who wants to counteract players. Just don't pretend everyone else is too.

Sadly, a lot of players see TRPGs as a ''Vs the DM'' type of game. They see the whole point of the game to oppose the DM. Their goal is to have fun, by ruining the game for the DM. They don't want to go as far as ''not play'', as they want to drag out the ruining of the game for hours(as, you know, it's fun for them).

I'm sorry your experience was with such poor players. I've never (well, maybe once? I'm not sure) had a player like that. All my players were there to have fun WITH everyone else, not AGAINST anyone else. And same when I'm playing-my goal is not to screw over the DM, my goal is to play a fun character who wants to achieve goals, and follow their path to the end.

Spoiler: The One Time I Might've Had A Jerk Player

Show

Was running a classic "Princess kidnapped by dragon" campaign. Because cliche!

The player decided that fighting a dragon was not something his player wanted to do. So, he left within the first page of a PbP game, and was shortly replaced.

I know this is a Top Ten problem for a lot of DMs, but it has never been one for me. Other then making encounters the players want to have, you can always use something some other time.

Because you're so smart that you can predict literally everything players can do, yeah, we got it. Say, do you have campaign notes to share? After all, they must be suitably impressive from such a master DM as yourselves. /s

It's not the only requirement for a well written module, but, yes, a well written one does use all of it's encounters. A lot of this is focus: if your moving along the adventure, of course, you will 'hit' the major encounters. That is the whole point of the adventure. It's a lot like the three clue idea; if the adventure has three reasons for an encounter, there is a good chance that at least one will be triggered.

Some, less then good modules, add an encounter or two..often a powerful monster one...as an 'extra'. It's not part of the plot story: it is just there. I guess the vague idea is that if the DM and players want a 'tough' combat encounter they can use it. The same is true of the typical 'wilderness trap', the ones that start with something like ''when the characters as in the Black Swamp somewhere toss this encounter at them".

Eh... Depends how linear it is. A good linear module would use every encounter, I'd agree to that. (But would do so in a logical, consistent, and fun manner. A BAD linear module still uses all encounters, just not in a way that makes sense and/or is fun.) A more sandboxy module does not have you use every encounter. Admittedly, the VAST majority of modules (to my knowledge, at least-correct me if I'm wrong!) are more linear than sandbox.

[ImNotTrevor]

It's amazing how people say that. And then I say that is exactly like a normal game that is not a sandbox...or sandbox is a meaningless phrase as it's part of any game. But then the sandbox folks will go all on that their sandbox is special and different somehow, but they can't describe it. And they fall back into the trap of saying a sandbox game is a normal game in every way, except they call it a sandbox game just to say their game is cool.

I'm not certain you've displayed the reading comprehension ability to make a good case for what others have said. If you want my stance on that to change, you'll need to up your reading game. Since you've decided against that up until now, your interpretations of rhe words of others are about as worthwhile to me as a first-grader's thoughts about Geopolitics.

Again and again, the explanations are given. Again and again you misread. Again and again you miss key information in pursuit of edges and insist any example that disproves your assertion is either a lie or "bad" by no measurement beyond your personal dislike, which frankly I couldn't care less about.

Essentially, you've spent a great deal of time undermining your credibility and then stamping your feet and insisting we give heed to you. That might work where you come from and make people cowtow to your rantings, but where I come from that gets you laughed at.

Hence why your posts make me chuckle.

[Darth Ultron]

If you truly still do not understand the distinction between a sandbox and a linear game, then articulate specific, precise and fixed concerns that you have. Explain what you do understand and explain where the disconnect happens for you. Otherwise, why bother pretending your interested?

Well, my basic problem is ''what is a sandbox''? It has become such a buzz word that just about every player says they want it in a game. It's right up there with ''player agency'' and other such nonsense. Players say they ''want it'', but don't know what ''it'' is: they just want the DM to (pointlessly) say they agree with the player.

And when asked ''what is a sandbox'', each person gives a vague answer. And just about all the answers are what you get in a typical normal game. So it seems to make saying ''sandbox'' meaningless.

So I was hopping to get an answer to what a sandbox is, and have the answers be unique. But, as sandbox is a meaningless phrase, I guess it stands that everything about it is meaningless too.

[Scripten]

Well, my basic problem is ''what is a sandbox''? It has become such a buzz word that just about every player says they want it in a game. It's right up there with ''player agency'' and other such nonsense. Players say they ''want it'', but don't know what ''it'' is: they just want the DM to (pointlessly) say they agree with the player.

Of course! Everyone else is delusional and has no idea of what they are talking about. Even when they explain it to you over and over, it's definitely not a problem with you and your lack of reading comprehension, but rather a problem with everyone else.

And when asked ''what is a sandbox'', each person gives a vague answer. And just about all the answers are what you get in a typical normal game. So it seems to make saying ''sandbox'' meaningless.

Only if you consider a variety of answers ranging from dictionary-level definitions to encyclopedic essays detailing every conceivable piece of what makes a sandbox game different from a linear game.

And the only one continually injecting the word "normal" into this conversation is you.

So I was hopping to get an answer to what a sandbox is, and have the answers be unique. But, as sandbox is a meaningless phrase, I guess it stands that everything about it is meaningless too.

"As long as I start from the premise that "sandbox" is meaningless, I needn't actually engage with any arguments to the contrary. In fact, I can use this logic to summarily dismiss any attempt to paint game types other than what I run as legitimate."

You didn't come here to get an "answer". You came here to antagonize and berate people who play differently from you because you know, deep down, that you run ****-tier games and drive away almost every single player that comes by with the distinct mix of anti-social DMing techniques, lack of ability to entertain opinions beyond your own, and completely unwarranted self-aggrandizement that you bring to the table.

And note, this has nothing to do with the linearity of your games: It has everything to do with the way you brag about abusing people coming into the hobby and driving them out. It has to do with the way you insult people on these boards over their DMing styles while accepting not even the faintest of criticism about your own. It has to do with the fact that every time anyone has even comes close to having you present something of substance from your own notes or campaigns, you either chicken out and don't ante up or deflect until the conversation has moved onto the next heaping of toxic gaming tactic (or, more likely, the same tactics but packaged up with a misleading new name you conjured up) that you want to peddle.

Nobody is going to change how they talk about Sandboxes because you refuse to listen to their descriptions. Same goes for Railroading, or any other term we use. They exist so that DMs and players can be on the same page regarding what they want out of their RPG experiences. If all you are here for is to obfuscate that because you don't like giving players (and DMs) tools for communication, lest they identify what you're doing and recognize that it's a deviation from healthy gaming practices, then I doubt you'll ever be satisfied.

...

DU won't read this post or meaningfully comment on it, I know, but seriously... we're 23 pages into this thread, after how many others that he's either derailed or posted himself? At some point this community should be long past having had enough. It's getting to the point where I try to avoid reading any topics discussing RPG concepts unless I can guarantee that they haven't been derailed within the first few posts by another attempt to redefine and normalize toxic gaming standards.

[Max_Killjoy]

You didn't come here to get an "answer". You came here to antagonize and berate people who play differently from you because you know, deep down, that you run ****-tier games and drive away almost every single player that comes by with the distinct mix of anti-social DMing techniques, lack of ability to entertain opinions beyond your own, and completely unwarranted self-aggrandizement that you bring to the table.

And note, this has nothing to do with the linearity of your games: It has everything to do with the way you brag about abusing people coming into the hobby and driving them out. It has to do with the way you insult people on these boards over their DMing styles while accepting not even the faintest of criticism about your own. It has to do with the fact that every time anyone has even comes close to having you present something of substance from your own notes or campaigns, you either chicken out and don't ante up or deflect until the conversation has moved onto the next heaping of toxic gaming tactic (or, more likely, the same tactics but packaged up with a misleading new name you conjured up) that you want to peddle.

Nobody is going to change how they talk about Sandboxes because you refuse to listen to their descriptions. Same goes for Railroading, or any other term we use. They exist so that DMs and players can be on the same page regarding what they want out of their RPG experiences. If all you are here for is to obfuscate that because you don't like giving players (and DMs) tools for communication, lest they identify what you're doing and recognize that it's a deviation from healthy gaming practices, then I doubt you'll ever be satisfied.

...

DU won't read this post or meaningfully comment on it, I know, but seriously... we're 23 pages into this thread, after how many others that he's either derailed or posted himself? At some point this community should be long past having had enough. It's getting to the point where I try to avoid reading any topics discussing RPG concepts unless I can guarantee that they haven't been derailed within the first few posts by another attempt to redefine and normalize toxic gaming standards.

I wish more people would realize that and stop bothering. If no one responded to the toxic sludge, it would eventually fade away.

[Segev]

You came here to antagonize and berate people who play differently from you because you know, deep down, that you run ****-tier games

Wow! How many stars is that rating out of? 'cause if it's out of the usual 5, a ****-tier game must be pretty darned good!


Sorry, could NOT resist the visual pun.

[Scripten]

Wow! How many stars is that rating out of? 'cause if it's out of the usual 5, a ****-tier game must be pretty darned good!


Sorry, could NOT resist the visual pun.

It's **** out of #&$@#!, so unfortunately, the more you get, the worse it is.

For everyone.

I wish more people would realize that and stop bothering. If no one responded to the toxic sludge, it would eventually fade away.

To some extent, it's not replying, yes, but it's also that we've had multiple threads die to the endless cycle of bilge. That's one of the big problems with bad actors in communities. They don't just say their part and leave; you also have people replying to them, either out of frustration or because they are new, and suddenly the subject has changed and we're having to endlessly explain simple concepts again. Not the end of the world, but boy does it grind my gears.

[Quertus]

Improv is a lot like everything else: there is a quick and dirty way to do it, and a more longer thought out way. The quick way will always go for the ''low hanging fruit''.

And it's hard to avoid the improv temptation...even if you realize it's happening. And most people don't. The vast majority of encounters should be impartial and neutral, unless there are in game reasons(for example if the PCs are ice based, then a foe might very well hire some fire based foes to attack). And this is where the improv temptation comes in: when the ice based PCs open a door, and the DM only has seconds to react and think of something, there is a pretty good chance their mind will go to 'fire'. And chances are they won't even see it, or realize they are doing it.

You're certainly not completely wrong here. What is on the GM's mind will affect what they create in the moment. If the players are very into their outfits and color schemes, and constantly asking the color of the monsters and making things from their fur / scales / skin, it'll change how the GM views their monsters. Introducing arctic fire rabbits, and hearing, "you'll make a nice set of ear muffs" will alter the GM's mindset. Similarly, a fire-themed party may well encounter ice monsters (which should be a cakewalk, actually), or other fire creatures (a bit harder), or other randomly earth / air / water / metal / electricity / acid / sonic / dehydration themed foes, more often than if the GM had created the module before seeing the party.

And this is why I prefer the "module" style of play to the more improv style. And, doubtless, why some people have the opposite preference.

It's not the only requirement for a well written module, but, yes, a well written one does use all of it's encounters. A lot of this is focus: if your moving along the adventure, of course, you will 'hit' the major encounters. That is the whole point of the adventure. It's a lot like the three clue idea; if the adventure has three reasons for an encounter, there is a good chance that at least one will be triggered.

Some, less then good modules, add an encounter or two..often a powerful monster one...as an 'extra'. It's not part of the plot story: it is just there. I guess the vague idea is that if the DM and players want a 'tough' combat encounter they can use it. The same is true of the typical 'wilderness trap', the ones that start with something like ''when the characters as in the Black Swamp somewhere toss this encounter at them".

So, let's say I've designed an evil baron as part of my sandbox. He has guards, servants, and maybe even pets. I've built all the NPCs, all the rooms of his manor house. The PCs might well sneak in, assassinate the baron, and search every room for treasure, secrets, etc. Or the paladin may scream his offenses at his front door, and then the party fights their way through the guards in the most direct path to the baron. Or they may talk to the servants, and get snuck in in barrels, or bring incriminating evidence to some higher authority or something. But if the party chooses to control shadows and sends them through the baron's bedroom wall to assassinate him... that is also a successful conclusion to the scenario, so.... how does that make the module less "good" that the amount of content played through is dynamic?

Well, my basic problem is ''what is a sandbox''? It has become such a buzz word that just about every player says they want it in a game. It's right up there with ''player agency'' and other such nonsense. Players say they ''want it'', but don't know what ''it'' is: they just want the DM to (pointlessly) say they agree with the player.

And when asked ''what is a sandbox'', each person gives a vague answer. And just about all the answers are what you get in a typical normal game. So it seems to make saying ''sandbox'' meaningless.

So I was hopping to get an answer to what a sandbox is, and have the answers be unique. But, as sandbox is a meaningless phrase, I guess it stands that everything about it is meaningless too.

Yes, most people are somewhere between "bad" and "terrible" at communicating. However, just as "hot" and "cold" both describe "normal" food, yet have meaning by specifying details about certain attributes of that food, so, too, can "sandbox" be opposed to "linear", and serve at least as a conversation starter regarding campaign direction.

Now, historically, some people don't understand what "hot" means, and feel the need to sue McDonald's when they poured hot coffee in their lap. Similarly, just relying on the power of the word "sandbox" to convey the entirely of one's desires is... foolish at best.

Wow! How many stars is that rating out of? 'cause if it's out of the usual 5, a ****-tier game must be pretty darned good!


Sorry, could NOT resist the visual pun.

It's **** out of #&$@#!, so unfortunately, the more you get, the worse it is.

For everyone.

Thank you guys for the laugh!

[Darth Ultron]

[COLOR="#0000FF"]DU won't read this post or meaningfully comment on it, I know, but seriously... we're 23 pages into this thread, after how many others that he's either derailed or posted himself? At some point this community should be long past having had enough. It's getting to the point where I try to avoid reading any topics discussing RPG concepts unless I can guarantee that they haven't been derailed within the first few posts by another attempt to redefine and normalize toxic gaming standards.

I did read it.

And this is why I prefer the "module" style of play to the more improv style. And, doubtless, why some people have the opposite preference.

Me too.

So, let's say I've designed an evil baron as part of my sandbox. He has guards, servants, and maybe even pets. I've built all the NPCs, all the rooms of his manor house. The PCs might well sneak in, assassinate the baron, and search every room for treasure, secrets, etc. Or the paladin may scream his offenses at his front door, and then the party fights their way through the guards in the most direct path to the baron. Or they may talk to the servants, and get snuck in in barrels, or bring incriminating evidence to some higher authority or something. But if the party chooses to control shadows and sends them through the baron's bedroom wall to assassinate him... that is also a successful conclusion to the scenario, so.... how does that make the module less "good" that the amount of content played through is dynamic?

Again, you give the example of a so called sandbox as just being any typical TRPG? Is there some style, other then the Jerk Tyrant DM, where the players can't make any choices?

See, this is where I see the problem: The whole point of a Traditional TRPG (the type with a GM and players like D&D) is that the players can ''do anything''. Like I said in post one; unlike a video game where if they did not program in the Red Tower as a location, your character can never, ever, ever go there. But in a TRPG you can. The same way in the average video you can't put out the fire that lights the bad guys cave and fight in the dark(as that is not programed into the game play)....but this is a great tactic for a TRPG.

So are there like a dozen (?) game styles that I don't know about where the players have no choices?

The most basic TRPG Adventure presents a problem that the players need to find a solution to anyway they can. So where is the so called sandbox?

[Lorsa]

Again, you give the example of a so called sandbox as just being any typical TRPG? Is there some style, other then the Jerk Tyrant DM, where the players can't make any choices?

Where they can't make any choices? Not really, no.

There's the Story Linear Game DM, which asks the players if they want to play through his awesome story, and after that gives the players limited choices. But not being able to make any choices? Not really.

See, this is where I see the problem: The whole point of a Traditional TRPG (the type with a GM and players like D&D) is that the players can ''do anything''.

Funny, I think we agree on something.

Like I said in post one; unlike a video game where if they did not program in the Red Tower as a location, your character can never, ever, ever go there. But in a TRPG you can. The same way in the average video you can't put out the fire that lights the bad guys cave and fight in the dark(as that is not programed into the game play)....but this is a great tactic for a TRPG.

And a linear type of TRPG play would work more like the video game. If the DM hadn't "programmed" (or made or prepared or planned for) the Red Tower as a location, the characters can never ever go there. Moving outside the confines of the linear, DM-created path, would not be allowed.

So are there like a dozen (?) game styles that I don't know about where the players have no choices?

Not a dozen, no. More like two or three (one being functional, one pretending to be functional and one being horrible (in order: Participationism, Illusionism, Jerk DM Blatant Railroading)).

The most basic TRPG Adventure presents a problem that the players need to find a solution to anyway they can. So where is the so called sandbox?

If we are to be really technical, what you describe is an open-ended adventure, or what kyoryu would describe as "plan a situation, not the solution". This is, according to my personal opinion, the best style of playing.

For it to be a 'true' sandbox in the classical sense, I think the TRPG Adventure needs to present a world in which the players themselves get to choose a problem they want to solve and then let them find a solution anyway they can. One way to do this is by exploration. The players roam around the world and run into dungeons that they explore. Another way is through rumors. The players learn about what is going on in the world at the local tavern or whatever and then choose something to go investigate.

Not all TRPG Adventures present a problem that the players need to find a solution to anyway they can. For example, Hoard of the Dragon Queen presents at first only a vague idea of the problem, and definitely has a plan for the exact solution the players will use. Basically, it has decided on BOTH problem AND solution.

Basically it seems like you should say "I like to run open-ended adventures with heavy focus on the 'adventure' part and prefer when my players stick to trying to solve the problem rather than simply engaging with or exploring the world for its own sake".

If someone has played in your games and request a sandbox, what they might be asking for (I don't know), is more of the latter part. That is, maybe they simply want to explore the world a bit, without the heavy burden of an adventure hanging over them. This may not be fun for you, but you should recognize that it might be fun for others and NOT say it is "meaningless" or "random". Another thing they may be asking for (depending on how your adventures are introduced in the game), is more ability to choose between different adventures.

[Scripten]

Is there some style, other then the Jerk Tyrant DM, where the players can't make any choices?

So is this the case or is "player agency" nonexistent? It's either one or the other.

The most basic TRPG Adventure presents a problem that the players need to find a solution to anyway they can. So where is the so called sandbox?

The most linear of adventures are laid out in "scenes" that the players follow, one after another. They are set up so that the players choices are as minimal as possible, because if the players kill the Evil Wizard before the scene in which he summons the Demon Lord as the players burst through the door, they don't get to have that scene and the majority of the remaining adventure is moot, since it relies on the Demon Lord marking a player character with his Dark Sigil or something.

A sandbox game using the same elements would place the Evil Wizard in his tower and have him plan to summon the Demon Lord once he has the capability, but there would be no assumption baked into the adventure about whether the players would arrive before, during, or after the summoning. If they found out about the summoning and got there in time, then maybe the results would be similar to the linear adventure. However, if they get there beforehand, they can stop the Evil Wizard and move onto a different goal. If the game is already a sandbox, then the world will be reacting to what has happened.

Or, alternatively, maybe the players want to ally themselves with the Evil Wizard and help him take over the world. That's part of the difference between a linear adventure and a sandbox: in a sandbox, there is no expectation of result. Perhaps a good DM in a linear adventure would be able to extrapolate what happens when the PCs pledge their services to the Evil Wizard. But at that point, the adventure is off the rails and has shifted toward a more sandbox style of play.

The crux of this is that sometimes players want to play something that is linear. Sometimes DMs want to run linear adventures. That is totally and completely fine and good. But sometimes players want to play in a sandbox and the DM wants to run a linear adventure. If you remove the terms and offer no way to simply explain the difference, then you have no way to avoid a mismatch of expectation and a slew of future problems. Either you end up with a DM that hasn't prepped enough material for a sandbox and has to rely on their powers of improvisation (which might be good or bad, depends on the DM) or you end up with a case where the DM attempts to bully, trick, or otherwise push the players into following the script, leading to Railroading.

[Cluedrew]

[Darth Ultron] didn't come here to get an "answer".

Nope, and if you want to stay sane in a thread where he is posting you should be trying to provide that answer. I mean I throw out an answer, just in case (for reasons described as the oddly heartfelt post). But really it is about examining a lot of these ideas in great detail. Even though Darth Ultron doesn't contribute much to that conversation, he does trigger it by stating and trying to defend unreasonable counterpoints. Now honestly I would prefer less vitriol and less clearly defined sides (~Its what the dice said my character would do managed this, one of my favourite threads because of that). But I can't seem to start a 20 page thread on classes, point-buy and other types of character creation and advancement.

The first thread I created on Giant in the Playground was about that, it went on for 3 pages. Now if people want to join me in that I would happily try again.

[Wavyhill]

Just one (personal) way I think about this whole area (YMMV of course)...

If the DM buys/writes/steals a module/AP/adventure which basically has a single objective (e.g. stop the giants) & everyone agrees to play this - then you have a game where the DM only needs to prep so much (about the giants) & the players are beholden (as they have agreed) to attempt to 'stop the giants'. Effectively the players have given-up their right to go somewhere or do something else (if they want to - they are effectively asking for a different game). This is not a sandbox. (N.B. Whether 'stopping the giants' is very linear or not is another question - one of adventure design)

If the DM grabs a module that basically has multiple (but defined) objectives (e.g. stop the giants, investigate the hermit, follow the rumour about traitors) & everyone agrees to play this - then you have a game where the DM only needs to prep so much & the players are beholden (as they have agreed) to attempt to do one of these things. Effectively the players have given-up their right to go somewhere or do something else. This is not a sandbox. (N.B. Whether the doing any of these things is very linear or not is another question - one of adventure design)

Now - there is another option. The DM grabs some combination of setting and/or modules which may (or may not) include one or more specified objectives (or hooks if you prefer). The DM may or may not prepare materials beyond these objectives. But in this case - everyone agrees that the players/PCs do not only have to follow the objectives presented. In this case the PCs/players are free to choose to try & do whatever they want. So, they are free to decide to ignore anything about giants/hermits/traitors & travel to somewhere totally different (perhaps not even on the map the DM provided) & become pirates if they so desire. The DM, as part of the group, has agreed to this set-up - so can't complain when the party do this. Now, of course, this requires either that the DM can improvise the pirate stuff, or that they have prepped for all sorts of things or even that the decision to 'go pirate' happens at the end of a session to allow prep time. (N.B. This doesn't mean that the DM has to ensure their success - if they choose something that is beyond their abilities - then they may well fail)

To my mind this third option is a sandbox. The defining feature being that the players/PCs are able to choose to try to do anything they like & the DM accepts that fact (whether this is then linear or not is still another question). Now, of course - for some groups, this may not be an attractive play style - but that doesn't mean it isn't one.

[jayem]

Actually we did have an example of a game fragment in a previous thread. It was indeed more or less predictable as there were narratively explained literal walls everywhere. It wasn't a particularly helpful example unless we assume the entire world was made up of caves like that. And while it justified why lots of other ways would fail, the intended bash straight in plan didn't seem much more promising.

I think there is a strong case though that the link between improvisation and sandboxing has been over done [though reflective of a truth]. It can occur in linear games and sandboxy games, the difference is in a linear game you are 'improvising to a target' or 'improvising to hinder' while in a sandbox you are 'improvising from a situation'. Similarly with regard to planning.
So to use the standard door example, if the players want to go though the unplanned door the linear DM has to improvise or have planned ever more wacky explanations as to why it can't be passed the more determined the players are to get through it. The sandbox DM has to improvise or have planned what's behind the door.*

*For some situations you could get the best of both by having a smallish sandboxes behind the doors, or by making the doors difficult but not impossible (or both).

[Milo v3]

Again, you give the example of a so called sandbox as just being any typical TRPG? Is there some style, other then the Jerk Tyrant DM, where the players can't make any choices?

See, this is where I see the problem: The whole point of a Traditional TRPG (the type with a GM and players like D&D) is that the players can ''do anything''. Like I said in post one; unlike a video game where if they did not program in the Red Tower as a location, your character can never, ever, ever go there. But in a TRPG you can. The same way in the average video you can't put out the fire that lights the bad guys cave and fight in the dark(as that is not programed into the game play)....but this is a great tactic for a TRPG.

So are there like a dozen (?) game styles that I don't know about where the players have no choices?

The most basic TRPG Adventure presents a problem that the players need to find a solution to anyway they can. So where is the so called sandbox?

No one's saying Sandbox games are the Only ones with choices except you, Sandbox is just the style which is Defined by choices. Linear games can still have choices. I'm running a linear game now, the players have many choices, but the plot is about "The King is killed and an evil despot comes in to replace him that the players will need to fix", they can do side-missions, they can tackle objectives in ways I never thought of, but we all agreed "Okay you guys are interested in a certain plot for this campaign, so lets do that rather than our usual sandbox".

[Xuc Xac]

Is there some style, other then the Jerk Tyrant DM, where the players can't make any choices?

You mean like when they play an adventure and they have no choice but to do all the pre-planned encounters even if they try to do something different? Who would do such a railroady thing?

It's not the only requirement for a well written module, but, yes, a well written one does use all of it's encounters. A lot of this is focus: if your moving along the adventure, of course, you will 'hit' the major encounters.

Oh, right. Choo-choo! All aboard!

[Darth Ultron]

Where they can't make any choices? Not really, no.

There's the Story Linear Game DM, which asks the players if they want to play through his awesome story, and after that gives the players limited choices. But not being able to make any choices? Not really.

Right there are players, and a good number of them, that want to follow the DMs lead. It's common with Casual Players.

But everyone is not talking about such a game.

And a linear type of TRPG play would work more like the video game. If the DM hadn't "programmed" (or made or prepared or planned for) the Red Tower as a location, the characters can never ever go there. Moving outside the confines of the linear, DM-created path, would not be allowed.

Yes, the DM might want the characters to stay on a path, but this has little to do with the DM's prep. Even if the characters went to the Red Tower, the DM can just improv it or just grab a copy of The White Tower and use it as the Red Tower.

So it's not impossible.

Not a dozen, no. More like two or three (one being functional, one pretending to be functional and one being horrible (in order: Participationism, Illusionism, Jerk DM Blatant Railroading)).

Well, I know we will disagree on all the above terms. Even more so as I think all three are always part of any TRPG(minus the ''jerk'' and ''blatant'' parts).

If we are to be really technical, what you describe is an open-ended adventure, or what kyoryu would describe as "plan a situation, not the solution". This is, according to my personal opinion, the best style of playing.

I'm not sure about all the terms, but it's a good way to play the game.

For it to be a 'true' sandbox in the classical sense, I think the TRPG Adventure needs to present a world in which the players themselves get to choose a problem they want to solve and then let them find a solution anyway they can. One way to do this is by exploration. The players roam around the world and run into dungeons that they explore. Another way is through rumors. The players learn about what is going on in the world at the local tavern or whatever and then choose something to go investigate.

This is as I have said, the introduction pre game. Where they characters just wander, and then pick something to do.

And this is a great example of an Illusion, and to make my own term, lets say Phantom Choice. The players don't like the idea of ''just'' sitting down and starting an adventure in like ten seconds: the game starts, the DM says dwarf Blarg wants to hire you for a job, the characters say yes and the adventure is a go. They feel forced to do the one adventure the DM has made. This is badwrongfun to a lot of players. So the ''sandbox'' alternative is to have the characters randomly wander and explore; and this can make the players happy for hours (?) And sure, this is the whole game for some...just aimless, pointless meaningless wander and explore. But most players want to ''do something'' with a bit more detail and meaning. So the DM drops lots of Phantom Plot Hooks to adventures....and eventually the players pick one. I guess the players are happy as they (think) they have picked the adventure.

Though they are still picking from the DM's list. So it's not like the players altered the game reality with their choice. A DM can easily have a bag of adventures, all ones the DM likes of course; so if the players pick adventure six, it does not matter much.

And, even if the players do utterly ignore the DM and the setting and just come up with their own adventure idea. The DM is still the one that makes the adventure. So, no matter what the player choose, they are still getting an adventure made and run and controlled by the DM. So you will always get the DMs personal style and quarks no matter what. After all the DM is still the same person, no matter the adventure. So the players can switch from ''orc'' to ''drow'' but that won't change the adventure too much. The DM could even take an 'orc adventure' and just say ''drow'' instead of orc each time it comes up.

The basic gameplay will mostly be the same. If the DM does not like to use poisons, then they just won't show up in the game. Even if the players pick the adventure of ''fight the plane of infinite poison'', the DM will still down play the poison. Sure the DM can give the players whatever they specifically ask for, but the rest is on them.

A sandbox game using the same elements would place the Evil Wizard in his tower and have him plan to summon the Demon Lord once he has the capability, but there would be no assumption baked into the adventure about whether the players would arrive before, during, or after the summoning.

You know what? I think you did just give me the answer. And it makes perfect sense!

Now honestly I would prefer less vitriol and less clearly defined sides (~Its what the dice said my character would do managed this, one of my favourite threads because of that). But I can't seem to start a 20 page thread on classes, point-buy and other types of character creation and advancement.

I'd be happy to post in one of your threads to bulk it up.

[Quertus]

Again, you give the example of a so called sandbox as just being any typical TRPG? Is there some style, other then the Jerk Tyrant DM, where the players can't make any choices?

See, this is where I see the problem: The whole point of a Traditional TRPG (the type with a GM and players like D&D) is that the players can ''do anything''. Like I said in post one; unlike a video game where if they did not program in the Red Tower as a location, your character can never, ever, ever go there. But in a TRPG you can. The same way in the average video you can't put out the fire that lights the bad guys cave and fight in the dark(as that is not programed into the game play)....but this is a great tactic for a TRPG.

So are there like a dozen (?) game styles that I don't know about where the players have no choices?

The most basic TRPG Adventure presents a problem that the players need to find a solution to anyway they can. So where is the so called sandbox?

Personally, if I haven't made the Red Tower, I'd really rather the PCs not go there. My players keep telling me that I'm really good at improv, mind, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't really enjoy flying that much by the seat of my pants.

Also, imaging a group that has never roleplayed before. One player, let's call him Linus, ends up as GM, running, say, the module out of the back of the book. Let's say that Linus does fine until the players try to do something that the module doesn't cover. What could Linus do?

Linus could do many things at that point. He could just breeze over it with a quick, "ok, you try that, and it fails. What do you try next?". Or he could make up the missing content in such a way as to force the original outcome. Or he could make up the missing content, and run the players through it, ad-libbing content/plot changes as necessary. Or he could just say, "the module doesn't cover that (could you try something else please?).". Or he could have numerous other possible responses, likely each with its own name of Play style.

Clearly, not all of these styles actually let the players "do anything". In Fact, most of them don't. This ability to attempt anything, and have it behave reasonably, with reasonable chances of success/failure/consequences is one of several properties of a sandbox. But are any of these properties unique to being a sandbox? Being hot or containing sugar aren't unique to coffee, but they are properties of my coffee.

The best answer, IMO, for what makes a sandbox unique is that neither the goal nor the methods are set at the beginning of the game.

And a linear type of TRPG play would work more like the video game. If the DM hadn't "programmed" (or made or prepared or planned for) the Red Tower as a location, the characters can never ever go there. Moving outside the confines of the linear, DM-created path, would not be allowed.

Yup, this.

Not a dozen, no. More like two or three (one being functional, one pretending to be functional and one being horrible (in order: Participationism, Illusionism, Jerk DM Blatant Railroading)).

Out of curiosity, how would you categorize the responses from my Linus example above? Assuming multiple fit in the same category, are there words to use to differentiate sub categories?

If we are to be really technical, what you describe is an open-ended adventure, or what kyoryu would describe as "plan a situation, not the solution". This is, according to my personal opinion, the best style of playing.

For it to be a 'true' sandbox in the classical sense, I think the TRPG Adventure needs to present a world in which the players themselves get to choose a problem they want to solve and then let them find a solution anyway they can. One way to do this is by exploration. The players roam around the world and run into dungeons that they explore. Another way is through rumors. The players learn about what is going on in the world at the local tavern or whatever and then choose something to go investigate.

Not all TRPG Adventures present a problem that the players need to find a solution to anyway they can.

Hmmm... I wouldn't describe my sandboxes as running by exploring dungeons or hearing rumors in a tavern. But I don't know how I'd describe them. I'll have to think on that.

Nope, and if you want to stay sane in a thread where he is posting you should be trying to provide that answer. I mean I throw out an answer, just in case (for reasons described as the oddly heartfelt post). But really it is about examining a lot of these ideas in great detail. Even though Darth Ultron doesn't contribute much to that conversation, he does trigger it by stating and trying to defend unreasonable counterpoints. Now honestly I would prefer less vitriol and less clearly defined sides (~Its what the dice said my character would do managed this, one of my favourite threads because of that). But I can't seem to start a 20 page thread on classes, point-buy and other types of character creation and advancement.

The first thread I created on Giant in the Playground was about that, it went on for 3 pages. Now if people want to join me in that I would happily try again.

I agree that the TO ceiling for a DU thread is higher than most, because he makes people want to explain things in detail, to evaluate and voice hidden assumptions, etc. We just need to capture that secret sauce, and bundle it in a packaging that meets EPA , PETA, and Genova Convention standards.

So, you say that there was one such good thread once. Seems like the wise thing to do would be to attempt to determine what it's secret sauce was, and attempt to copy that.

So, what's your evaluation on what made that thread prosper?

Just one (personal) way I think about this whole area (YMMV of course)...

To my mind this third option is a sandbox. The defining feature being that the players/PCs are able to choose to try to do anything they like & the DM accepts that fact

Interesting. I define sandbox play as, "you can play with these toys however you want (so long as it matches the agreed-upon theme, if any)", whereas you seem to include the option to play with none of those toys as a requirement for a game to be a sandbox.

(whether this is then linear or not is still another question).

So... hold on... are you saying that one could play in a railroad sandbox?

[Florian]

@Quertus:

Your Linux example points to something interesting, namely that on the player side, the immediate expectation to a TTRPG should be that a player will have full agency and full freedom. The bulk of RPG systems I know tend to be a bit more specific at that, namely that they have the freedom to interact with what the gm/module gives hem to interact with, there's nothing really beyond that.

(And yes, you can have a railroad sandbox, look up Kingmaker)

[Lorsa]

I only have time for a short reply, so I'll reply to Quertus first.

Out of curiosity, how would you categorize the responses from my Linus example above? Assuming multiple fit in the same category, are there words to use to differentiate sub categories?

Also, imaging a group that has never roleplayed before. One player, let's call him Linus, ends up as GM, running, say, the module out of the back of the book. Let's say that Linus does fine until the players try to do something that the module doesn't cover. What could Linus do?

Linus could do many things at that point. He could just breeze over it with a quick, "ok, you try that, and it fails. What do you try next?". Or he could make up the missing content in such a way as to force the original outcome. Or he could make up the missing content, and run the players through it, ad-libbing content/plot changes as necessary. Or he could just say, "the module doesn't cover that (could you try something else please?).". Or he could have numerous other possible responses, likely each with its own name of Play style.

Clearly, not all of these styles actually let the players "do anything". In Fact, most of them don't. This ability to attempt anything, and have it behave reasonably, with reasonable chances of success/failure/consequences is one of several properties of a sandbox. But are any of these properties unique to being a sandbox? Being hot or containing sugar aren't unique to coffee, but they are properties of my coffee.

The best answer, IMO, for what makes a sandbox unique is that neither the goal nor the methods are set at the beginning of the game.

I would say the first Railroading, the second either Illusionism or Railroading, depending on the success, the third would make it an open-ended adventure or perhaps a sandbox whereas the fourth is Participationism.

Hmmm... I wouldn't describe my sandboxes as running by exploring dungeons or hearing rumors in a tavern. But I don't know how I'd describe them. I'll have to think on that.

I didn't intend for my examples to be the ONLY ways to run a sandbox. Merely that they were two ways I could come up with at the time in order to provide, well, examples.

[jayem]

Personally, if I haven't made the Red Tower, I'd really rather the PCs not go there. My players keep telling me that I'm really good at improv, mind, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't really enjoy flying that much by the seat of my pants.

Also, imaging a group that has never roleplayed before. One player, let's call him Linus, ends up as GM, running, say, the module out of the back of the book. Let's say that Linus does fine until the players try to do something that the module doesn't cover. What could Linus do?

Linus could do many things at that point. He could just breeze over it with a quick, "ok, you try that, and it fails. What do you try next?". Or he could make up the missing content in such a way as to force the original outcome. Or he could make up the missing content, and run the players through it, ad-libbing content/plot changes as necessary. Or he could just say, "the module doesn't cover that (could you try something else please?).". Or he could have numerous other possible responses, likely each with its own name of Play style.

For me:
"(forcing)...it fails" and "module doesn't cover it" are all forcing a more linear game.
While "making up the missing content" is letting the game go (more) sandboxy. I'll add "using more difficult content" to have a non improvisational option as well.
I had put "forcing the outcome" in the more linear game. But on reflection, starting off from a linear game it's actually letting the game go locally slightly more sandboxy. While retaining the high linearity in the long game.

"module doesn't cover it" is blatant-railroading. However given the situation the players probably ought to cut the GM some slack and participate in it, but there is risk of the jerk-dm.
"it fails" and "forcing the outcome" other two have the potential to be illusionist or participatory. In this case the players know the GM is new. and they are doing a module. The modules are presumably designed to be mostly linear.

[AvatarVecna]

As far as video games go, there's more than a few with elements of sandbox, but if you're looking for games that comment on the inherent linear nature of the medium, check out Until Dawn and The Stanley Parable. The former is a linear story masquerading as a choice-driven game (when behind the scenes, you have a lot fewer meaningful choices than you realize), and the latter is a game that beats you over the head with how linear it is and how limited your choices are, all while making it clearer the longer you go that just because your choices have been mapped out for you doesn't mean you aren't choosing them (the real lesson of the game is what you get to hear during the only ending that features actual credits).

I mean, reading through this thread has gotten me thinking about those games again, and how linear and non-linear games can be more complex than the OP is presenting them as. >.> You don't really need to play them, I guess, but you might find it interesting enough to read up on them or watch a Let's Play.

[Max_Killjoy]

I agree that the TO ceiling for a DU thread is higher than most, because he makes people want to explain things in detail, to evaluate and voice hidden assumptions, etc.

That's not my reaction.

[Cluedrew]

[...] We just need to capture that secret sauce, and bundle it in a packaging that meets EPA , PETA, and Genova Convention standards.

So, you say that there was one such good thread once. Seems like the wise thing to do would be to attempt to determine what it's secret sauce was, and attempt to copy that.

The thing is... I'm not sure what it was. So let me get started with some of my rough ideas.

I think the subject had different people with different opinions on the matter, so they pushed at each other to subject dive. No one tried to push a "one true way", although we had a few "my true way" arguments people usually made the distinction. I think the subject* itself might have helped by being something people could accept different views on. So that is all I can think of for the conditions. I know we had huge posts, we developed terms that were actually useful for discussing the topic at the level of detail we were going into, but those were all effects of how will it worked, not the reason it worked. It may have been self sustaining after a while, as the main topic built up people all knew the other posters and issues got laid aside or simply buried in the rush of on-topic posts.

* It was on personality mechanics, so rules that affect character behaviour.

To Max_Killjoy: I thought that was obvious. Still I know a few other people who go for the deep dive, including myself.

[Darth Ultron]

Clearly, not all of these styles actually let the players "do anything".

Anything always has an asterisk. ''Doing Anything'' is always more theoretical.

The best answer, IMO, for what makes a sandbox unique is that neither the goal nor the methods are set at the beginning of the game.

Except this does not make sense.

Normal game-In the first couple second of gameplay the players decide on a goal and decide on a method to do that.

So-called Sandbox game-the players take huge amounts of time to just wander and explore, but then eventually decide on a goal and way to do it.

So this comes back to the ''sandbox'' is just a long, mostly pointless pre game game. And in the end you have the same game.


The ''Module'' thing just goes back to the DM hate, as everyone is saying that such a DM ''automatically is a jerk that railroads" and ''it's wrong for a DM to prepare anything''.

Like it's wrong for a DM to have an adventure where the characters would slay a dragon and use a dragon slaying lance to do it.

But it's right for the DM to just say ''there is a dragon''...and then leave. To the players have their characters do utterly random things. Then the DM comes back and picks at random something the characters are doing, and say it effected the dragon in whatever way the players wanted it done.

[ImNotTrevor]

Normal game-In the first couple second of gameplay the players decide on a goal and decide on a method to do that.

I see your definition of a Normal Game has shifted again.

So-called Sandbox game-the players take huge amounts of time to just wander and explore, but then eventually decide on a goal and way to do it.

What's wrong with exploring a setting? What if that's the goal in and of itself? I had a game where the world was essentially a giant labyrinth. (Thanks to some wizard wars that went very badly)
The players had the goal of mapping the labyrinth, which obviously requires exploring it, and dealing with obstacles/threats as they are encountered. (Or in some cases, leaving signs to not go that way of it is both dangerous AND a dead-end. Which was a valid solution to some problems.) But there's no one big goal aside from Exploring the Labyrinth.

Man, it's weird how many examples exist that contradict your statement AND are successful games that people have fun with. Weird.

So this comes back to the ''sandbox'' is just a long, mostly pointless pre game game. And in the end you have the same game.

But the above example would never be the same game across multiple groups. Random encounters would be wildly different, objects would be encountered out of order, and etc.
In fact, the group I ran with missed out on about half the map in the 18 months we played for. So another group that exits out the East gate pf their town rather than the West gate would potentially have a game that shared NO CONTENT with the original game, despite being the same map.

That's how Sandboxes work. One Map, but no two campaigns played in it will end up the same.

The ''Module'' thing just goes back to the DM hate, as everyone is saying that such a DM ''automatically is a jerk that railroads" and ''it's wrong for a DM to prepare anything''.

Maybe I should leave a recording of people saying "nobody has said that, you walnut" on endless loop somewhere around here.

Maybe then you'd stop saying things like this.

Well... no you wouldn't. But we could write "see recording" which is less work than "nobody has said that."

Like it's wrong for a DM to have an adventure where the characters would slay a dragon and use a dragon slaying lance to do it.

There is nothing inherently wrong with that adventure, as written in this sentence.

But it's right for the DM to just say ''there is a dragon''...and then leave.

No.

To the players have their characters do utterly random things.

Ah yes. People who are not guided by the nose will never engage their brains and make logical decisions, only purely randomized flailing, apparently.

Or, alternatively, your position is nonsense.

Then the DM comes back and picks at random something the characters are doing, and say it effected the dragon in whatever way the players wanted it done.

All in all, your reading comprehension skills are showing to be very low.

I was going to suggest sticking to topocs like "the difference between cats and dogs" but you'd probably find a way to insist that there is no such distinction between cats, dogs, and Normal Pets. Whatever a Normal Pet is.