Why 'Sandbox' is a meaningless phrase

[Max_Killjoy]

Just to make sure, you aren't trying to put "improv skill" and "planning skill" as opposite ends of a spectrum, are you? Because, IME, there's people who are good at both, and people who are bad at both.

Indeed, the two approaches are not opposed, and the two skills are not opposed.

The problem lies in what the GM plans and how far they're willing to go to force the campaign to adhere to those plans.

Your blatant selective misrepresentation of my post makes it clear you have no intention (either unwillingness or inability) of honest discussion or debate.

Really, we could just boilerplate that as the standard response to any post made by DU.

[Darth Ultron]

In a sandbox game. There is no "this game revolves around x", you just make a setting and drop the players in.

And this is great for a ''Pre-Game Introduction'', where the players are free to aimlessly wander around and do meaningless things like drink at a bar and go shopping. Though, my point is again, most players do what to ''really play'' the game eventually and do meaningful things.

The political sandbox is a good example. You have to prep the number of organizations, power players, people connected, got to ask yourself the question if the game world has gods and if those also meddle in the political game, then draw up a power diagram, a relationship map and work out how all of that is connected. That by itself will generate a multitude of plots.

By ''plots'', here you mean ''linear plot paths'', right? Each organization and person has a ''goal''(even if it's a vague one) and a ''Linear Path'' they will take to try and do that. Like take young NPC Avon; he wants to be elected to a public office someday, so he does the linear path of--->get education in politics---->work as a volunteer for any political campaign he can--->get hired by a politician as an aid/staffer/helper--->make friends and contacts in politics-->get support and backing-->Run for office himself.

And if that was a PC, it would not be all that different, right? Sure a PC can do different things, but it's not exactly a ''whole new path'', just a variation on the same path. Like a PC might do: dig up dirt on politicians-->blackmail them for support and backing--> run for office. But it's not like that path is ''so'' different.

Because it's only in your world "anything" is interpreted literally. How about "Sandboxes are where the Players can choose More Things than in a Linear Adventure"?

Because that describes a normal TRPG. Just about all TRPGs are both sandboxes and linear.

Your falling into the trap of Sandbox=Cool and Fun and Linear=Automatic Railroad Badwrongfun! Your saying that if the DM does anything the game is a linear railroad. Like if the DM was to say ''you see a goblin walking down the road with a bag of gold'', you'd whine and cry and complain that the DM is ''forcing you along a railroad because you MUST attack the goblin and steal it's gold because your character is greedy."

To someone who has only played PF Adventure Paths, a sandbox is definitely NOT a normal game.

I've never played one myself.

So believe me when I say that running a sandbox game is by no means something I would do if I want to be "lazy" or "casual". If that's my goal I would run a linear type adventure, which, if I want to be REALLY lazy, I can simply improvise on the spot without any significant drop in quality.

Basically, preparing a linear adventure is easier than preparing a sandbox. Improvising a linear adventure is ALSO easier than improvising a sandbox.

I'd note the level of detail of a game is more just the DMs style and has nothing to do with the type of game.

Also note you can have a Casual or Lazy DM in any game. And for the record:

Casual or Lazy DM: This is the DM that just does not care to put too much effort into something that is ''just a game''. They are seeing TRPG's as ''just'' a ''fun thing to do'', exactly like a video game or a board game. And no one ''prepares'' things ahead of time to play a game like Checkers: you just pull the game out and play. The DM that ''has no free time'' (is unwilling to make the time, actually). Very often a Casual or Lazy DM sees themselves as ''just a player'', who just happens to be DM ''this week'', so very often they will just try to coast through it until they can ''really'' be a player again: It's common in groups where everyone 'must' take turns DMing.

Your blatant selective misrepresentation of my post makes it clear you have no intention (either unwillingness or inability) of honest discussion or debate.

I can only quite so much.... I though I covered the Core Part of the post.

As soon as it can be admitted: "Ok, the players can NOT do anything'', it has to be accepted that the players can only do ''some thing's''. And in fact, there are a limited number of ''things'' that can be done. So this takes us down to just ''a couple things''.

[Milo v3]

And this is great for a ''Pre-Game Introduction'', where the players are free to aimlessly wander around and do meaningless things like drink at a bar and go shopping. Though, my point is again, most players do what to ''really play'' the game eventually and do meaningful things.

^ Proof Darth Ultron has never played in a good sandbox game.

[Wasteomana]

Yeah... After all this time every shred of 'benefit of the doubt' is gone. DU is either a troll or one of the most willfully misleading people I've ever met. Which, I guess, is likely a form of troll.

[Scripten]

Yeah... After all this time every shred of 'benefit of the doubt' is gone. DU is either a troll or one of the most willfully misleading people I've ever met. Which, I guess, is likely a form of troll.

Welcome to the Roleplaying subforum on GitP.

Is anyone actually getting anything meaningful out of this discussion? At least in our last "Railroading is the ONLY true way to DM" thread, a few posters managed to squeeze some utility out between DU willfully misrepresenting them and arguing in bad faith. (And let's not kid ourselves. This thread is exactly that same discussion over again.)

[Deophaun]

They react that way because nobody here is arguing the inverse, either. Nobody has said Linear Is Bad, but they have said "Selling Linear as not that is bad" in the same way that if I sold you a Ford F-150 on craigslist and when you showed up I handed you the keys to a Civic, you would be justifiably confused and upset.

The problem with your example is you are looking at two distinguishable products. The complaint I have about how sandbox is used is that it results in an indistinguishable product. See: Shroedinger's Dungeon. It's entirely possible to have no idea you are on a train if you're only concerned with player choice. Player choice is an illusion for as long as it is the player's job to react (this is important: this is the piece that you are missing from your definition of sandbox that makes it meaningful).

Except that Sandbox serves as a term that incorporates all those last three things. You are, at this point, quibbling that you don't happen to like that particular word for it, since you've highlighted all of the smaller pieces that go into the term "Sandbox" as currently used.

The bold portion is wrong. The phrase "necessary but not sufficient" comes to mind. If a sandbox game has only those three, then it can still be indistinguishable from a railroad.

It's basically like if you argued that "cherry" is a useless term when we can describe "red, round, pitted fruit that goes on top of banana splits." Well guess what? All of that is communicated by the word "cherry." So why would Cherry be a useless term, again?

The problem is, you are describing a "cherry" as a red fruit, and then wondering how someone can confuse it with a tomato. Your definition is incomplete.

To Elaborate, it communicates the approach you yourself are taking from behind the screen and communicates a lot of general information rapidly. Namely, if I say "I'm running a Sandbox" that means most of these will be things I'm doing:

All of which doesn't actually matter to the player because it doesn't mean there's a different experience. Made with a Mac versus made with a PC. Who cares?

Does that make sense? Have I lost you anywhere?

You enjoy communicating nothing meaningful. Doesn't make sense, but I follow you.

OR... because the two terms aren't equivalent sorts of terms, despite being shoehorned into the far ends of a mistaken axis. One (railroading) is a blanket verb for a set of bad behaviors that some GMs have been known to engage. The other is really more of an adjective, a quality that most campaigns have across a wide range of degrees.


And people don't react the same way because unlike railroading and the extremely linear sorts of campaigns associated with it, they just don't have a history of terrible experiences and gaming horror stories associated with really sandboxy campaigns.

Ah, so people are arguing that one is better than the other.

[Quertus]

By ''plots'', here you mean ''linear plot paths'', right? Each organization and person has a ''goal''(even if it's a vague one) and a ''Linear Path'' they will take to try and do that. Like take young NPC Avon; he wants to be elected to a public office someday, so he does the linear path of--->get education in politics---->work as a volunteer for any political campaign he can--->get hired by a politician as an aid/staffer/helper--->make friends and contacts in politics-->get support and backing-->Run for office himself.

And if that was a PC, it would not be all that different, right? Sure a PC can do different things, but it's not exactly a ''whole new path'', just a variation on the same path. Like a PC might do: dig up dirt on politicians-->blackmail them for support and backing--> run for office. But it's not like that path is ''so'' different.

I was going to say something about contingency plans <-> branching paths, and "I'll go on spring break and have fun with no preset party plan" <-> sandbox, but I think my answer below is better.

I can only quite so much.... I though I covered the Core Part of the post.

As soon as it can be admitted: "Ok, the players can NOT do anything'', it has to be accepted that the players can only do ''some thing's''. And in fact, there are a limited number of ''things'' that can be done. So this takes us down to just ''a couple things''.

I hand you a real life sandbox, filled with toys carefully chosen to facilitate a particular question / discussion; in this case, mostly bipedal humanoids of various sizes and genders, and ask you to build your family.

You are free to pick whichever doll you want to represent each member of your family. You are free to position them wherever you want in the sandbox. You are free to do what you want with the sand.

IIRC, you have one or more children, including at least one daughter, do you not? She likely owns dolls, and you likely own minis, so, in the likely case that your house has numerous small humanoid figures, if this sandbox that I handed you contained the relevant minis from your house, how would you use them to build a representation of your family?

The freedom in a real sandbox is not the same as "a couple of paths". It is the explicit right to play with whichever subset of the toys you want, to build whatever you want, with the caveat of "so long as it fits the theme" (in this case, "build your family"; in a political sandbox... "Um, do something political").

[Segev]

That the term "sandbox," how you use it, is in any sense a useful term (unless, I guess, you're giving DMs advice about what to do behind the screen, but then there are other, better words and terms for that, like improvisation, choice, open world). It's not.

Except that, aside from asserting that, you didn't back it. Your arguments from that point on seemed to be aimed at proving improv to be ... I'm not even sure if it was superior or inferior to planning. But regardless, if you meant your arguments to support that thesis, you need to try again. Either I completely misunderstood them (possible), or you got lost rambling on another point when you were giving the evidence.

Either way, what you say your thesis is ("Segev's definition of 'sandbox' is not useful") is not supported by the evidence/argumentation you gave. To the point that I get the same sense I get from somebody arguing that water is dry because chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla. But not quite to the same extent I do from Darth Ultron, who will argue that water is dry because everybody always says it's wet and then dresses like clowns and throws pies at each other, which proves they don't know what they're talking about.

Right Everyone is saying ''Sandboxes are where the Players can choose Anything!" and then they cover their ears and say ''lalalala" loudly.

Oh, hey, here he is, demonstrating!

But when you finally get them to stop, they will admit that they don't really mean ''anything''. They agree that the players don't have game reality control and can't just wish things to happen.

Then they agree that the players must follow the game rules.

Only you pretend that people are "admitting" this rather than stipulating it from the get-go.

The flaw in your argument, which you painstakingly avoid even acknowledging that anybody has said, is where you then pretend that these two things mean that there is no difference between linear games with N paths and a sandbox.

Ok, think I got it.

Finally!

Yay!

Sandbox-A game run by a bad, lazy or casual DM, that on purpose does noting to plan any sort of path ahead and mostly just sits there and reacts to the PCs by doing the Quantum Ogre thing right in the players path.

You don't "got it".

Darn.

Darth Ultron? This? Right here? Is a straw man. You ignored what I actually said, and injected insults in place of it.

This is probably because you are a bad, lazy, casual DM who has made up one true path through your game and will berate and browbeat your players if they don't guess the exact script you want them to follow.

That text in red? That is the equivalent of me doing to your saying that a linear game is one with many paths and lots of details for the story the players have chosen to play what you've done to my description of a sandbox.

Sadly, given the history of our conversations with you, I suspect that the red text is actually very close to the truth, even though it's an unfair interpretation of your description of a linear game "with lots of details." I base this suspicion on the fact that you are so determined to declare that all games where the GM isn't "bad, lazy, casual" and/or a "slave to the players" are exactly the same kind of "normal game" with no gradation along the scale, and then turn around and use anybody who tries to engage with you on the definition of "normal game" to say "see? You agree that hardcore railroads are great and that players who don't stay in their seats and read the lines they're given are bad players!"

Not True. There are plenty of Jerk Players that Only play the game vs the DM and just love to hit the DM with a surprise and watch the DM stall and get flustered. But, well jerks will be jerks.

Note, here, how you jump from, "Players can surprise the DM" - which is what I said - to, "Players love to watch the DM stall and get flustered."

This tells me that you view anything players do that you didn't plan for as malice on their part. It is no wonder you consider them bad players for not reading the script you meant for them to divine telepathically from your intentions. Or do you actually tell them, "Your characters must do this, next?"

Either way, your inability to handle deviation from your script is what makes them seem malicious.

Oh, I'm sure there are jerk players out there. But the fact that you equate all players who happen to come up with an idea the DM didn't think of with malicious jerks is very telling about your attitude towards running games.

Again this is just about DM skill. A good DM will never have a stall or bump or skip...the game will all ways run smooth.

An excellent GM will be able to do this, yes. That is, however, independent of the style of game.

Game A-The DM makes up the good rebels that oppose the evil baron. The DM makes a couple rebel NPCs and gives them details and makes a vague ''rebel plan'' of what they tried (and failed) in the past and their plans for the future.

Game B-The DM makes up the good rebels that oppose the evil baron. The DM makes a couple rebel NPCs and gives them details and makes a vague ''rebel plan'' of what they tried (and failed) in the past and their plans for the future.

So is A or B the so called Sandbox? You can say both are just the ''state of the world''. And both have a vague plan for the future. You can even say both have a path, but sure you can do the twisting word play and say one is ''the fictional setting just coming alive and doing things on it's own as the DM does nothing'' and one is ''A DM being a DM''.

Assuming the GM has also planned out the Baron and his faction and what they're doing and planning to do, both of them are a sandbox.

Neither is a linear game, because neither has established plans based on expected PC choices.

This is my original point then: A so-called sandbox IS a normal game.

It is a kind of normal game, yes. Nothing abonormal about it.

The set of "Normal Games" includes as elements "sandbox" and "linear" games.

Though, too, here, your saying ''linear'' is automatically ''worst railroad ever'', but eh...

Nope! People have actually been discussing how good linear games can be run, too, in this very thread.

What's a bad linear game is one where the players are forced along rigidly. This generally requires a lack of buy-in from the players.

And, yes, the difference between a good and bad linear game can very much hinge on whether the players had buy-in on it. This is often related to how well the players enjoy it, but is not dependent on that. Well, other than the fact that a "good game" is one where everybody had fun, and a "bad game" is one where people generally didn't.

[Deophaun]

Except that, aside from asserting that, you didn't back it. Your arguments from that point on seemed to be aimed at proving improv to be ... I'm not even sure if it was superior or inferior to planning.

I throw a single splash of shade at "sandboxes" (losing the term loosely) to balance out the constant stream of denigration of railroad and somehow that's my entire argument?

It was a good thing I did that, too. It just illuminated the disingenuous of that entire side of the argument. It's all "Muh sandbox!" with no thought behind it. That's why even as you get the vapors that someone could possibly have a bad experience with it, you must make it absolutely clear that you don't hold it superior to the bumbling and poorly written alternative.

Either I completely misunderstood them (possible)

Yes. You did.

or you got lost rambling on another point when you were giving the evidence.

You got lost. You were driven so out of sorts that someone could find something wrong with improvisation that it overrode all other thought.

But no, you aren't arguing that sandboxes are superior to railroads. The lady doth protest on that very, very, very much.

Either way, what you say your thesis is ("Segev's definition of 'sandbox' is not useful") is not supported by the evidence/argumentation you gave.

Based on the above quotes, forgive me if I do not trust your ability to discern the strength of my argument. It's painfully obvious the you ignore the entire argument in favor of this outrage that someone suggested "sandboxes" aren't perfect. Because if the argument presented didn't support my contention that what you call a "sandbox" isn't, then you would have actually bothered to address that, and not try this distraction. But this is all that you have. You think you have a better shot at putting a different argument in my mouth and attacking that. What's that called? Tin man? Do you know? Cowardly Lion? Toto? Dorothy? Anyone?

[Segev]

I throw a single splash of shade at "sandboxes" (losing the term loosely) to balance out the constant stream of denigration of railroad and somehow that's my entire argument?

It was a good thing I did that, too. It just illuminated the disingenuous of that entire side of the argument. It's all "Muh sandbox!" with no thought behind it. That's why even as you get the vapors that someone could possibly have a bad experience with it, you must make it absolutely clear that you don't hold it superior to the bumbling and poorly written alternative.

Yes. You did.

You got lost. You were driven so out of sorts that someone could find something wrong with improvisation that it overrode all other thought.

But no, you aren't arguing that sandboxes are superior to railroads. The lady doth protest on that very, very, very much.

Based on the above quotes, forgive me if I do not trust your ability to discern the strength of my argument. It's painfully obvious the you ignore the entire argument in favor of this outrage that someone suggested "sandboxes" aren't perfect. Because if the argument presented didn't support my contention that what you call a "sandbox" isn't, then you would have actually bothered to address that, and not try this distraction. But this is all that you have. You think you have a better shot at putting a different argument in my mouth and attacking that. What's that called? Tin man? Do you know? Cowardly Lion? Toto? Dorothy? Anyone?

Ahem. You're the one getting bent out of shape.

The moment I realized I was seeing you arguing against, as you put it, "muh sandbox," I stopped and asked for clarification, because I knew I'd lost your point somewhere. I'm sorry that you feel insulted by me not understanding your position, but I can't find it in your posts. That may well be my fault. However, I have asked you to re-iterate it, and you're instead resorting to an ad hominem attack, accusing me of being disingenuous and implying I have the maturity of a youtube commenter whose favorite American Idol star was called "ugly."

So, again, please re-iterate your actual point and supporting arguments. I can't see them in your posts. Trying to pick them out from your supposed "one" instance of calling something a "sandbox" confuses me even further.

I apologize if I am not the intellectual giant you are. Please try to make your points concise and clear and do not muddy them with brilliant distractions "thrown in" to prove to yourself that I am unworthy of your genius by being so distracted.

...okay, I'm getting a little snide, here. Sorry. I don't like being accused of intellectual dishonesty, particularly not when I have gone out of my way to acknowledge that I have apparently misunderstood your position and asked you to re-iterate it. Hint: that's not a move done out of a desire to misconstrue you.



So. If your point is not, "Segev's definition of 'sandbox' is not a useful one," please tell me what your point is.

Then, please, reiterate your supporting arguments. Do so as clearly as you can, making sure to show me how they support your point. Please do not attempt to "prove" that I am Darth Ultron by throwing in distracting elements; I have a tendency to assume what you say is meant to be supportive of your point, rather than a distraction to see if I "care too much" about the distraction topic.

I don't think I got "bent out of shape." I got confused, because it looked like you were trying to say "muh sandbox" is "bad" when that wasn't connected to your point.

Personally, I don't think "muh sandbox" is better than a well-designed linear game. Better than a tyrannical railroad, certainly, but I have never claimed that all linear games are railroads. I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. It seems rather disingenuous of you to interpret my confusion as to how your apparent argument regarding improv related to your point about definitions of "sandbox" as me being "really" only interested in "defending muh sandbox."

[Cluedrew]

Painting improvisation in general as bad is therefore quite uncalled for, whereas painting an activity that is the result of disrespect is not.

I would say the critical difference between railroading (ill intended improvisation) and will intended improvisation is the former try to negate the significance of what just happened, while the latter tries to build on it. The success of "try" is of course dependant on the skill of the improviser.

Is anyone actually getting anything meaningful out of this discussion?

There was an interesting definition of sandboxes being about building. Which I don't actually agree with as what "sandbox" usually means in role-playing, but it gave me some ideas. But it got buried or I lost it in point and counter point.

[Mr Beer]

I think we ended up roughly where we started, which is that 'sandbox' is a meaningless phrase...under the particular and unusual definition used by Darth Ultron. But otherwise it's perfectly workable.

[ImNotTrevor]

The problem with your example is you are looking at two distinguishable products. The complaint I have about how sandbox is used is that it results in an indistinguishable product. See: Shroedinger's Dungeon. It's entirely possible to have no idea you are on a train if you're only concerned with player choice. Player choice is an illusion for as long as it is the player's job to react (this is important: this is the piece that you are missing from your definition of sandbox that makes it meaningful).

You continue to assert that they are indistinguishable and yet I've seen many instances of players knowing for sure if they're on rails or not fairly easily even when great strides are made to hide them. It's not particularly difficult, despite your belief to the contrary. In fact, I've caught some of the best DMs I know railroading portions of what was supposed to be open out of habit without realizing it. Which was fine, they were trying.

If they are indistinguishable....
How did I and so many others tell the difference?
Or is there a grand conspiracy?

The bold portion is wrong. The phrase "necessary but not sufficient" comes to mind. If a sandbox game has only those three, then it can still be indistinguishable from a railroad.

This doesn't deal with my point, which tells me you weren't looking at my point and instead looking for a gotcha.

Essentially, you've listed a few parts that when combined can form an engine.
I responded by saying "You just listed some of the parts of an engine. Here are some of the other parts. Why not just use the word Engine to describe that combination of parts?"
To which you said "but just three of those parts would not by itself make an engine! HA!"

Meanwhile I'm politely golfclapping as you thrash this strawman.

The problem is, you are describing a "cherry" as a red fruit, and then wondering how someone can confuse it with a tomato. Your definition is incomplete.

I see you did not read. Try to stick with me on this go around, I'll only say it once more:
"Sandbox" is a shorthand for a large collection of similar parts that function in a very similar way between themselves, and may be present entirely or in part in the DM's particular style of play.

For real-world examples of this:
The DSM-V, which is used to classify and organize mental health diagnoses. You may experience all or only some of the listed symptoms, and at various severities. But the diagnosis covers any combination of those terms so long as there are sufficient of them to count.

All of which doesn't actually matter to the player because it doesn't mean there's a different experience. Made with a Mac versus made with a PC. Who cares?

See above, where actual experience disagrees with you.

Also, where Segev pointed out that being part of that creative process (being a player) means that you are not a passive audience. If your games feature an audience sitting around a table while you tell them things, you're doing storytime, not D&D.

You enjoy communicating nothing meaningful. Doesn't make sense, but I follow you.

It seems weird to me to pat yourself on the back this hard for fighting a strawman.

[Jama7301]

And people don't react the same way because unlike railroading and the extremely linear sorts of campaigns associated with it, they just don't have a history of terrible experiences and gaming horror stories associated with really sandboxy campaigns.

From what I've seen, the worse end of the Sandbox Experience looks like a game where the players suffer from Choice Paralysis, or they don't feel engaged with the world.

Whereas the worse end of the Railroad spectrum appears to be "your choices don't matter".

Sound about right? Maybe someone else has heard of a nightmare story with a sandbox that we can point to as an example.

[Darth Ultron]

The freedom in a real sandbox is not the same as "a couple of paths". It is the explicit right to play with whichever subset of the toys you want, to build whatever you want, with the caveat of "so long as it fits the theme" (in this case, "build your family"; in a political sandbox... "Um, do something political").

So your saying a Sandbox is is the activity where you have a group of all player GM's and each is all poweful and can change and alter the game reality on a whim. The ''and then'' type of game.

Note, here, how you jump from, "Players can surprise the DM" - which is what I said - to, "Players love to watch the DM stall and get flustered."

Sure the players can surprise the DM, at least a Bad or Average DM...or, the Casual DM that wants to be surprised.

This tells me that you view anything players do that you didn't plan for as malice on their part. It is no wonder you consider them bad players for not reading the script you meant for them to divine telepathically from your intentions. Or do you actually tell them, "Your characters must do this, next?"

As I'm a good DM, it's impossible for most players to surprise me.

Oh, I'm sure there are jerk players out there. But the fact that you equate all players who happen to come up with an idea the DM didn't think of with malicious jerks is very telling about your attitude towards running games.

There is nothing wrong with a player coming up with ideas.

Neither is a linear game, because neither has established plans based on expected PC choices.

I guess this just goes back to the same thing the Everyone Collective always says: X is the ''right and cool'' way to have fun; ''Y'' is always Badwrong fun.

I think we ended up roughly where we started, which is that 'sandbox' is a meaningless phrase..

Agreed.

[RFLS]

As I'm a good DM, it's impossible for most players to surprise me.

The sheer arrogance is breathtaking.

[Quertus]

So your saying a Sandbox is is the activity where you have a group of all player GM's and each is all poweful and can change and alter the game reality on a whim. The ''and then'' type of game.

Well, no. If I hand you that sandbox, one would expect that you are still bound by the laws of physics, chemistry, gravity, etc. You can play with those toys in whatever way the natural laws allow you to in creating your family.

If you try to turn lollipops upside down as trees, I suspect (but have not tested) that they would fall over in a sandbox. I certainly would be surprised if you built a 20-ton pyramid out of 15 lbs of sand, let alone had it floating above the toys and discussing D&D rules! There are things that the rules, and the nature of the objects, say cannot be done. Some are obvious; others, you may have to learn through experimentation.

So, in a sandbox, you are allowed to do whatever you want, but are still limited by the rules as to what you can do.

[Mr Beer]

I think we ended up roughly where we started, which is that 'sandbox' is a meaningless phrase...under the particular and unusual definition used by Darth Ultron. But otherwise it's perfectly workable.

Agreed.

Whew, it was a long ride but almost worth it.

[Satinavian]

From what I've seen, the worse end of the Sandbox Experience looks like a game where the players suffer from Choice Paralysis, or they don't feel engaged with the world.

Whereas the worse end of the Railroad spectrum appears to be "your choices don't matter".

Sound about right?

Basically yes. (And yes, i have seen the choice paralysis too)

But Railroading is not the other end of the spectrum. That would be the linear campaign instead. There is nothing wrong per se with linear campaigns and they are as valid as sandboxes.

Railroading instead is a techniqe of using DM fiat to keep a linear campaign on on the intendet path against significant forces. It only can happen when PCs try to do something very different or when the setting or the rules don't really fit to the intended story making it utterly implausible.
Railroading thus only occurs if a linear campaign has already significant issues otherwise, being either a breally bad linear campaign or one without player buy in. It is about refusing to solve the issues and adapting the plot when it clearly doesn't seem to work and to force through the original idea with any contreivances needed, not regarding plausibility or properly resolving player actions.

That is why Railroading has such a bad reputation.

[Wasteomana]

The sheer arrogance is breathtaking.

The concept makes sense from within his own private universe.

He must be a great DM, cause he is. Its a basic rule in his own head that must be true.

Because he is a great DM he cannot be surprised by any reasonable choices the players make. He knows what the options are, because he is a great DM.

Because he knows what all the reasonable options are, any player who deviates from that is unreasonable. That player then becomes a "Jerk player".

The fact that he knows all reasonable choices that can be made by players is part of what makes him a great DM. Thus if other people don't know all reasonable choices that players can make in their games, they are a bad DM.

It is a ridiculous mindset that is so chock-full of arrogance its hard to comprehend, but at least it is consistent.

[Florian]

Maybe someone else has heard of a nightmare story with a sandbox that we can point to as an example.

I think I've already posted some examples earlier in this discussion.

But, yeah, I've been player in two sandbox games that bored me to tears (D&D, Traveller).
Why? Nothing happened, the worlds were static. In both cases, the gm solely worked with random encounter charts and the worlds stayed dull. Tried the usual, formulating plans and goals and went for those, same did the other players, ended up with everyone playing solo and still getting dull results.

[Lorsa]

I would say the critical difference between railroading (ill intended improvisation) and will intended improvisation is the former try to negate the significance of what just happened, while the latter tries to build on it. The success of "try" is of course dependant on the skill of the improviser.

This is true enough.

By ''plots'', here you mean ''linear plot paths'', right? Each organization and person has a ''goal''(even if it's a vague one) and a ''Linear Path'' they will take to try and do that. Like take young NPC Avon; he wants to be elected to a public office someday, so he does the linear path of--->get education in politics---->work as a volunteer for any political campaign he can--->get hired by a politician as an aid/staffer/helper--->make friends and contacts in politics-->get support and backing-->Run for office himself.

And if that was a PC, it would not be all that different, right? Sure a PC can do different things, but it's not exactly a ''whole new path'', just a variation on the same path. Like a PC might do: dig up dirt on politicians-->blackmail them for support and backing--> run for office. But it's not like that path is ''so'' different.

It is certainly different enough that a player intending to do the latter, but are forced by "DM railroading to follow a certain path" to do the former will not get the game they desire. The only real similarity between the paths is the end goal. Don't mix up "path to goal" with "the goal". When people talk about paths, they're talking about how you get there.

A sandbox, typically, has the players being able to choose both goal and path, whereas a firm linear adventure might have them able to choose neither. Then there's the mix between where the players don't really choose the goal but can decide on the path.

Because that describes a normal TRPG. Just about all TRPGs are both sandboxes and linear.

Many have elements from both certainly. But all are not both. Some are more linear, some are more sandboxy. There's a long scale which is part of "normal game".


Y

our falling into the trap of Sandbox=Cool and Fun and Linear=Automatic Railroad Badwrongfun! Your saying that if the DM does anything the game is a linear railroad. Like if the DM was to say ''you see a goblin walking down the road with a bag of gold'', you'd whine and cry and complain that the DM is ''forcing you along a railroad because you MUST attack the goblin and steal it's gold because your character is greedy."

I'm not going to fall into the trap of DU strawman trolling.

I'll just refer to my previous post where I mentioned running a Linear Adventure.

I've never played one myself.

Nor have I, but I've been lead to believe most of them can not be described with the "sandbox" tag. They are still "normal games" though.

I'd note the level of detail of a game is more just the DMs style and has nothing to do with the type of game.

That's wrong. A Linear Adventure will never require as much detail as a true Sandbox Game. It's the difference between building a Western Town set for making a movie and building a Western Town themepark where people can spend days immersing themselves.

I mean, it's basically the difference between making Westworld, the TV show and making, well, Westworld.

Also note you can have a Casual or Lazy DM in any game. And for the record:

Casual or Lazy DM: This is the DM that just does not care to put too much effort into something that is ''just a game''. They are seeing TRPG's as ''just'' a ''fun thing to do'', exactly like a video game or a board game. And no one ''prepares'' things ahead of time to play a game like Checkers: you just pull the game out and play. The DM that ''has no free time'' (is unwilling to make the time, actually). Very often a Casual or Lazy DM sees themselves as ''just a player'', who just happens to be DM ''this week'', so very often they will just try to coast through it until they can ''really'' be a player again: It's common in groups where everyone 'must' take turns DMing.

Funny, that's what I said too. Doesn't contradict my statement that preparing linear adventures is less time consuming than preparing a sandbox.

So your saying a Sandbox is is the activity where you have a group of all player GM's and each is all poweful and can change and alter the game reality on a whim. The ''and then'' type of game.

Nope, he's not saying that.

As I'm a good DM, it's impossible for most players to surprise me.

I disagree with your premise entirely. A good DM is not defined by their inability to be surprised.

I guess this just goes back to the same thing the Everyone Collective always says: X is the ''right and cool'' way to have fun; ''Y'' is always Badwrong fun.

Yep. Everybody knows the X chromosome is superior to the Y chromosome, so X is clearly better than Y.

[Darth Ultron]

So, in a sandbox, you are allowed to do whatever you want, but are still limited by the rules as to what you can do.

Ok, but just sitting in a real sandbox and just making stuff is not a game. So how do you ''translate'' this to being a TRPG term?

The sheer arrogance is breathtaking.

It's not arrogance, it's just intelligence and experience. I will admit that it is rare, but it's not like it's unique.

It is a ridiculous mindset that is so chock-full of arrogance its hard to comprehend, but at least it is consistent.

The hostility show for a simple fact is just funny. Again, being able to know and predict the future when it comes to fiction is not all that hard. For example, I have not see Avengers:Infinity War yet....but I already KNOW the Avengers will Win the War. It's amazing, right? How could I possibly know that? I have not yet see Black Panther, and yet again I know he will defeat whatever bad guy is in the movie(is it Klaw?). Amazing, again, I know.

Now lets take something in the game like a castle. Some (bad) DMs would look at the castle and be like ''wow there is no way in except the main gate'' and then, yes, they would be ''supper surprised'' when the players are like ''we go in the back door''. Now, me, as a good DM, have all ready though of the back door...and the side door...and the windows...and climbing over the wall..and finding the secret escape tunnel...and climbing in the air vent...and crawling in through the sewer..and hiding in a supply wagon...and many many more.

This is true enough.
A sandbox, typically, has the players being able to choose both goal and path, whereas a firm linear adventure might have them able to choose neither. Then there's the mix between where the players don't really choose the goal but can decide on the path.

I guess this is where I lose people: I think in any normal TRPG the players can choose a goal and path. As I said way back on page one, THIS really is the whole point of a TRPG with a GM : the players can choose a goal and path. As I said, unlike the vast majority of video games.

That's wrong. A Linear Adventure will never require as much detail as a true Sandbox Game. It's the difference between building a Western Town set for making a movie and building a Western Town themepark where people can spend days immersing themselves.

Well, this is not exactly true. This, after all, is more of a Style thing or more of how ''far'' someone wants to go.

Sure a lot of movies/themeparks go for the cheep, easy way of fake plywood facades and such....but that is not universally true. Sometimes, for example, the DO build a REAL western town for a movie.

A good DM is not defined by their inability to be surprised.

It's more then just that, of course. But the ability to know and predict player actions IS something a good DM can do.

Mumm...maybe we can start a ''how did your players surprise you'' thread. Then we'd have lots of examples. And I could point out where ''DM Bob'' was ''so shocked and surprised'' when his players had their characters build a bridge to get across a river.....and I can point out, yea, I thought of that one and it would not surprise me.

[Cluedrew]

It's not arrogance, it's just intelligence and experience. I will admit that it is rare, but it's not like it's unique.

The arrogance is insisting you have those things. I don't think anyone is suggesting arrogance makes a good GM, quite the opposite usually.

It's more then just that, of course. But the ability to know and predict player actions IS something a good DM can do.

OK, but no one can do it every time. The best GM I know has been caught by surprise. One time it happened because he didn't know a player that well and underestimated how simplistic their character idea was. Another because they knew the player really well but didn't understand that they (I actually) had decided go out of their comfort zone this campaign.

In case anyone is wondering, I'm procrastinating.

[Scripten]

The hostility show for a simple fact is just funny. Again, being able to know and predict the future when it comes to fiction is not all that hard. For example, I have not see Avengers:Infinity War yet....but I already KNOW the Avengers will Win the War. It's amazing, right? How could I possibly know that? I have not yet see Black Panther, and yet again I know he will defeat whatever bad guy is in the movie(is it Klaw?). Amazing, again, I know.

This is a perfect example of the disconnect in thought processes going on here. That the heroes "win" is not the only important element of a superhero movie. Otherwise, what's the point of watching the film?

Now lets take something in the game like a castle. Some (bad) DMs would look at the castle and be like ''wow there is no way in except the main gate'' and then, yes, they would be ''supper surprised'' when the players are like ''we go in the back door''. Now, me, as a good DM, have all ready though of the back door...and the side door...and the windows...and climbing over the wall..and finding the secret escape tunnel...and climbing in the air vent...and crawling in through the sewer..and hiding in a supply wagon...and many many more.

Yeah, until the players decide that they will go to the nearby rival kingdom that you "just put in as background" and raise an army. Then suddenly it appears you have a sandbox. Oh no!

You're strawmanning again here. Most DMs think of a reasonable amount of options and extrapolate potential results from there. That's nothing new. The scale of "sandboxiness" is determined by how filled in the background is and how much of that background could be brought in as active elements by the player's choices.

I guess this is where I lose people: I think in any normal TRPG the players can choose a goal and path. As I said way back on page one, THIS really is the whole point of a TRPG with a GM : the players can choose a goal and path. As I said, unlike the vast majority of video games.

If the players are choosing their goal and path, then the game has sandbox elements. There are campaigns that are built with a specific goal (and sometimes path) that have fewer sandbox elements. It's a scale. We use the term to refer to where on the scale our individual DMing "Styles" lay. That's useful when we are advertising or even just talking about our games.

Well, this is not exactly true. This, after all, is more of a Style thing or more of how ''far'' someone wants to go.

Sure a lot of movies/themeparks go for the cheep, easy way of fake plywood facades and such....but that is not universally true. Sometimes, for example, the DO build a REAL western town for a movie.

Yes. Sometimes they do. In those times, the RPG equivalent would be considered more "sandbox-y". If it's just a facade, then it is less "sandbox-y". This can be determined by how the world reacts when the players attempt to do things.

You're actually arguing for the meaningfulness of the word "sandbox" here. The amount of "sandboxiness" in a campaign is that "Style" you are talking about. The community has just come up with a word for it.

It's more then just that, of course. But the ability to know and predict player actions IS something a good DM can do.

Mumm...maybe we can start a ''how did your players surprise you'' thread. Then we'd have lots of examples. And I could point out where ''DM Bob'' was ''so shocked and surprised'' when his players had their characters build a bridge to get across a river.....and I can point out, yea, I thought of that one and it would not surprise me.

You know, this post would actually have been more useful if you hadn't spent half of it strawmanning and insulting the rest of us.

[Lorsa]

The hostility show for a simple fact is just funny. Again, being able to know and predict the future when it comes to fiction is not all that hard. For example, I have not see Avengers:Infinity War yet....but I already KNOW the Avengers will Win the War. It's amazing, right? How could I possibly know that? I have not yet see Black Panther, and yet again I know he will defeat whatever bad guy is in the movie(is it Klaw?). Amazing, again, I know.

Now lets take something in the game like a castle. Some (bad) DMs would look at the castle and be like ''wow there is no way in except the main gate'' and then, yes, they would be ''supper surprised'' when the players are like ''we go in the back door''. Now, me, as a good DM, have all ready though of the back door...and the side door...and the windows...and climbing over the wall..and finding the secret escape tunnel...and climbing in the air vent...and crawling in through the sewer..and hiding in a supply wagon...and many many more.

But can you write the movie script in advance and have it be identical to the one made by Marvel Studios?

I mean, I can predict approximately what your replies will be, but I can't tell the exact words and therefore one can say I am "mildly surprised" by your posts.

Surprise, as everything else, is a matter of scale.

For example, if a character has established that his favorite color is red but then paints his house blue you might be surprised as a DM. Not that this choice matters in any way nor may you be horrified with shock, but it can still surprise you.

I guess this is where I lose people: I think in any normal TRPG the players can choose a goal and path. As I said way back on page one, THIS really is the whole point of a TRPG with a GM : the players can choose a goal and path. As I said, unlike the vast majority of video games.

But many TRPGs do not allow players to do this. This is why we come up with terms such as "sandbox" to describe a certain type of game and "linear adventure" to describe another. These are not complete terms, they don't fully describe ALL TRPGs, but they do serve a purpose.

If you think a normal TRPG is one where players can choose a goal and a path, then by effect you are saying that people who play linear adventure modules are not playing "normal games". In fact, this means that DMs who railroad their players are not playing "normal games" either.

Could it be that you've never been a player under a real railroading DM, so that you in fact don't know what the term refers to?

Well, this is not exactly true. This, after all, is more of a Style thing or more of how ''far'' someone wants to go.

If not exactly true, do you agree that it is mostly true?

Sure a lot of movies/themeparks go for the cheep, easy way of fake plywood facades and such....but that is not universally true. Sometimes, for example, the DO build a REAL western town for a movie.

I am talking more of a general thing than fringe cases. The fact is that for a movie, you can get away with a lot of plywood facades, whereas an immersive themepark can not. That movies "sometimes" build real towns, doesn't make it the norm nor a requirement.

It's more then just that, of course. But the ability to know and predict player actions IS something a good DM can do.

Mumm...maybe we can start a ''how did your players surprise you'' thread. Then we'd have lots of examples. And I could point out where ''DM Bob'' was ''so shocked and surprised'' when his players had their characters build a bridge to get across a river.....and I can point out, yea, I thought of that one and it would not surprise me.

Sure. I was surprised once when a player who were a "supernatural FBI agent" in a modern fantasy game decided to recruit a vengeance demon instead of killing her. I had not anticipated that, but I don't think that makes me in any way a bad DM.

[Quertus]

Ok, but just sitting in a real sandbox and just making stuff is not a game. So how do you ''translate'' this to being a TRPG term?

I will concede that most definitions of games require rules. While "just make stuff" may be fun, the laws of nature are insufficient to make playing in sand qualify as a game.

However, RPGs have rules, and playing by those rules is sufficient to qualify as playing a game.

But the translation is still quite literal: here's a bunch of toys, chosen for a specific theme, and you can play with some subset however you'd like, within what the rules / laws of nature allow.

Now, this style of game may be alien to you, and that's fine, but it doesn't make it any less a game. You might not be able to imagine how anyone could possibly have fun playing such a game, or you might only imagine the fail state of "empty room" or "decision paralysis" - just like how, when I first joined this site, I couldn't imagine rails as anything but what you describe as "bad jerk GM".

But, don't worry, the Playground will happily* try to explain it.

* also grumpily, sleepily, and dopily, too, I imagine

[Segev]

So your saying a Sandbox is is the activity where you have a group of all player GM's and each is all poweful and can change and alter the game reality on a whim. The ''and then'' type of game.

Others have addressed how this straw man bears no resemblance to what has been said. I accept your concession that you cannot support your own position against real counter-arguments, and instead must go back to the campaign mode set up specifically to let you win by providing you with easy-mode nonsense arguments to dismantle.

Sure the players can surprise the DM, at least a Bad or Average DM...or, the Casual DM that wants to be surprised.



As I'm a good DM, it's impossible for most players to surprise me.

No, you're a bad DM who thinks players surprising you MUST be malicious actors trying to ruin your carefully-constructed and highly delicate house of cards game.

See? I can argue the way you do, too.

More seriously, you're not a telepath, and you're not a precog. You are not smarter than an entire table full of RPG players put together at all times. You will be surprised. You have stated that you kick players out for surprising you, characterizing their behavior as malicious and based in a desire to watch you squirm and be befuddled. This attribution of malice is what tells us you can't run sandboxes, but need strongly linear games where player choices are constrained only to those which you've predicted.

You are, however, confusing cause and effect. You have not, in fact, anticipated all reasonable player actions. You've instead redefined "reasonable" to "things you've thought of that they might do."

There is nothing wrong with a player coming up with ideas.

Even ideas you haven't thought of?

I guess this just goes back to the same thing the Everyone Collective always says: X is the ''right and cool'' way to have fun; ''Y'' is always Badwrong fun.

How? Look back at what you wrote this in reply to, and please carefully explain how what you quoted me as saying said either way was superior to the other.

I said they were different. I didn't say one was good and the other bad.

Yep. Everybody knows the X chromosome is superior to the Y chromosome, so X is clearly better than Y.

Bah! The X Chromosome takes far more words to say what the Y Chromosome says much more concisely! Clearly, the Y chromosome is the pithier, superior one!

[GreatKaiserNui]

Others have addressed how this straw man bears no resemblance to what has been said. I accept your concession that you cannot support your own position against real counter-arguments, and instead must go back to the campaign mode set up specifically to let you win by providing you with easy-mode nonsense arguments to dismantle.

No, you're a bad DM who thinks players surprising you MUST be malicious actors trying to ruin your carefully-constructed and highly delicate house of cards game.

See? I can argue the way you do, too.

More seriously, you're not a telepath, and you're not a precog. You are not smarter than an entire table full of RPG players put together at all times. You will be surprised. You have stated that you kick players out for surprising you, characterizing their behavior as malicious and based in a desire to watch you squirm and be befuddled. This attribution of malice is what tells us you can't run sandboxes, but need strongly linear games where player choices are constrained only to those which you've predicted.

You are, however, confusing cause and effect. You have not, in fact, anticipated all reasonable player actions. You've instead redefined "reasonable" to "things you've thought of that they might do."

Even ideas you haven't thought of?

How? Look back at what you wrote this in reply to, and please carefully explain how what you quoted me as saying said either way was superior to the other.

I said they were different. I didn't say one was good and the other bad.

Bah! The X Chromosome takes far more words to say what the Y Chromosome says much more concisely! Clearly, the Y chromosome is the pithier, superior one!

Please just read this Darth Ultron rather then ignoring it.
Every time you ignore this you are just strengthening the 'Everyone Collective' otherwise known as everyone that does not submit to your petty rules.

[Florian]

But can you write the movie script in advance and have it be identical to the one made by Marvel Studios?

Do I have to? What I can do is come up with a "campaign web". Let's use the Princess/Infernalist thing we discussed here earlier.

Major Factions: Hellknight Bastion, Wyvernrider Tower, Infernalist Mansion, Imperial Celiax Naval Base, Hidden Stryx Tribe, City Council.
Major NPC: Princess Annette, Infernalists Suzy and Andy, Lictor Hugo and so on (see R-Map).

General assumption: When one of the factions comes under attack, they will sound an alarm, light up the bat signal, fire up fireworks, and so on. (The Stryx tribe doesn't sound an alarm)

Hellknight Bastion: Will send a troop of Armigers led by a Hellknight and Signifer. (takes 1 hour)
Wyvernrider Tower: Has 4 wyverns and riders. Will send out 2 of them. (takes 30 minutes)
Infernalisch Mansion: Has 8 Bearded Devils. Will spy on certain locations using crystal ball. Will order 4 Bearded Devils to teleport to location when intruders come into view. (immediately)
Naval Base: Will send a Battleship to check on the Hellknights (takes 2 hours), will send a squadron of sailors to check on the other locations. (takes 2 hours)
Stryx Tribe: Has a spy team monitoring the Hellknights and Navy Base. Shaman will scry other alarms, but not the city council.
City Council: Will send 2 detectives, a forensics divination specialist and some token policemen. (24 hours after an alarm)

That covers the basics. Now we know that our players are a creative bunch, so we work on the small things, like assassination, blackmail, bribe, dominate and so on.

Suzy and Andy: Suzy has a devil-bound lover and bodyguard. They like to visit the "hops and barley". Andy is quite lonely and can´t stand when Suzy has some "quality time". He generally visits the "blue oyster bar" when they do.
Lictor Hugo: A hard man with a very soft spot for Annette and a grudge with Admiral Peter. Can´t be bribed, has continual mind blank, but will help storming the mansion at the request of the princess, can be talked into inaction when it comes to the navy.
Stryx Spies and Shaman: Hate humans, but hate Hellknights and Imperial Cheliax even more. Have some good intel and can be talked into handling the wyverns. Their greatest fear are the Bearded Devils, which they can´t handle on their own.
... and so on.

That's basically only one DinA4 page with some circles, arrows, notifications and pretty sufficient to set the stage and get the actions started.