So what is a sandbox game anyway?

[Scripten]

-snip-

Just don't reply to what he says and he'll no longer have anything to feed the trolling.

[Florian]

@ImNotTrevor:

Agreed. SWN offers a great and easy to use tool that you can basically use with any system. I really like it, along with MG Trav 15: Powers and Principalities.

@Max:

I'm saying that it´s futile to try to simulate that depth in detail on a grand scale, because you've massive diminishing returns on your investment there (again, unless you manage to automate the whole process).

Let´s say you play a game of V:tM set in Berlin, ok? It makes sense to simulate what the Camarilla and Sabat are doing as a whole, it´s also feasible to do it for the individual vampires, but it makes no sense to try it on every citizen (unless they could be considered to be included in the "movers and shakers" list), because they just don't matter for an TTRPG.

[EGplay]

Well, no, as always, I am trying to separate the so called and different sandbox game from the common, typical game and the jerk railroad game. I'm not demonizing, I'm keeping things separate.

Oh, that's easy:
In your 'typical' game, the motive forces that drive the game (by requiring responses) lie mostly with the challenges/bbeg's, controlled by the DM.
This dynamic can be reversed, so that they lie with the characters, controlled by the players.

If the DM wants this reversal of his/her own volition, you get our sandbox game.

If the DM really doesn't but it happens anyway, you get your 'jerk player railroad' game.

Some DM's (and players) like the change in challenge this can bring.
This you will just have to accept.

[Segev]

Which is obviously why we should continue to engage him and allow him to derail every single thread he comes into contact with.

Indeed.

Segev, I have a ton of respect for you as a poster, so I say this with zero disrespect... but please, please, please, for the love of all that is good, stop feeding that troll.

Points taken.

I really wish I could nail down his argumentative style and turn it around on him, but I can't maintain it for more than a sentence or two. There is a surrealist beauty to his almost-logic, from an aesthetic standpoint. You can see, nearly, how he can justify in his own mind what he's saying, and it takes genuine effort to prize apart the misconceptions and misrepresentations from what you actually said in what he is arguing against.

But yeah, he's just repeating himself at this point, which has me repeating myself. I'll stop responding. ...hopefully I can keep up that promise this time. >_<

[Darth Ultron]

Oh, that's easy:
In your 'typical' game, the motive forces that drive the game (by requiring responses) lie mostly with the challenges/bbeg's, controlled by the DM.
This dynamic can be reversed, so that they lie with the characters, controlled by the players.

Except what you are describing here makes no sense. OK, so the game does not have a normal DM, and the players do and control everything. Like a no DM Storytelling game. Except your still playing a game with game rules made for a normal DM and players? So...guess the players make the adventure...and then sort of pretend to run though it? And control all the foes...and sort of have the foes atack and such the characters, and then the players ''judge'' everything in their favor. And, well, really, you don't even have a game...it's just the people once known as players doing wish fulfillment.

But yeah, he's just repeating himself at this point, which has me repeating myself. I'll stop responding. ...hopefully I can keep up that promise this time. >_<

But we are making progress...and are so close...just a couple more details to work out.

[WindStruck]

My opinion on the difference between a sandbox and a more traditional game.

The sandbox successfully gives you the illusion that you can go anywhere and do anything, and your actions will have meaningful consequences.

When you have a linear story, it can be hard or even impossible to do anything but what is expected. For instance, the world might end if you don't stop the big bad... Or for more aggressive railroading DMs, a series of more forced and contrived situations that move the character in the "right" direction.

A successful sandbox will ultimately depend on how the players perceive it. Even if the DM is using 90% prewritten modules, with good improvisation skills and a bit of planning, a player who is unaware of those modules might think it was all original content, and as long as it doesn't feel like they are expected to be doing something specific, it should pass.

[Segev]

My opinion on the difference between a sandbox and a more traditional game.

The sandbox successfully gives you the illusion that you can go anywhere and do anything, and your actions will have meaningful consequences.

When you have a linear story, it can be hard or even impossible to do anything but what is expected. For instance, the world might end if you don't stop the big bad... Or for more aggressive railroading DMs, a series of more forced and contrived situations that move the character in the "right" direction.

A successful sandbox will ultimately depend on how the players perceive it. Even if the DM is using 90% prewritten modules, with good improvisation skills and a bit of planning, a player who is unaware of those modules might think it was all original content, and as long as it doesn't feel like they are expected to be doing something specific, it should pass.

Sandboxes aren't about the content being "original." They're about that "illusion" you mention in the second paragraph not being illusory.

The GM can use modules to build his world, but if he's running a sandbox, he can't rely on plot-heavy modules working the way the modules lay out the plot.

[WindStruck]

Sandboxes aren't about the content being "original." They're about that "illusion" you mention in the second paragraph not being illusory.

The GM can use modules to build his world, but if he's running a sandbox, he can't rely on plot-heavy modules working the way the modules lay out the plot.

The problem is, if you are exploring a brand new world, and then the DM decides to throw in a module that you just happened to have done before, not only do you know what is going to happen and be at quite the risk for metagaming, but that whole experience is jarring. Regardless of any illusion of freedom you might feel, that experience will kick you out of it.

Speaking of modules, you could of course, let players do any random thing they wished, with consequences even. But again, if they were to fly off the rails and the DM has to make something up, some people wouldn't be that great at improvisation and keeping track of everything, and the transition would be noticeable and full of plot holes.

The difference in this case is simply the mindframe of the DM. Comedians who frequently improv will still be very hillarious, script or no script, in any sort of random situations. But now imagine you're a comedian that writes your routine and practices it, and suddenly halfway through, you can't use the latter half and have to make the rest up. I just think it's a lot harder going from a script to non-script, rather than always considering the possibility that things could deviate at any moment.

[Koo Rehtorb]

The difference in this case is simply the mindframe of the DM. Comedians who frequently improv will still be very hillarious, script or no script, in any sort of random situations. But now imagine you're a comedian that writes your routine and practices it, and suddenly halfway through, you can't use the latter half and have to make the rest up. I just think it's a lot harder going from a script to non-script, rather than always considering the possibility that things could deviate at any moment.

Is your point just that sandbox gaming is harder? Because that's not a very insightful point.

[WindStruck]

Is your point just that sandbox gaming is harder? Because that's not a very insightful point.

Feel free to prove otherwise.

[Boci]

Feel free to prove otherwise.

They didn't say it was wrong, they said it was obvious. Ofcourse sandboxes are harder than preplanned adventures.

[WindStruck]

My point was that this illusion of meaningful choice is something very fragile, so using a module might disrupt that feeling. So might being caught off guard and having to come up with something quickly... which could make the events happening seem contrived and unbelievable, or not thought out.

If a player even suspects there is maybe something they were "meant" to do, then the game can seem like less of a sand box.

It's my two cents and it probably doesn't matter, but it's pretty rude to quote a portion of what someone wrote, take it out of context, and then call it not insightful.

[Boci]

My point was that this illusion of meaningful choice is something very fragile, so using a module might disrupt that feeling. So might being caught off guard and having to come up with something quickly... which could make the events happening seem contrived and unbelievable, or not thought out.

If a player even suspects there is maybe something they were "meant" to do, then the game can seem like less of a sand box.

It's my two cents and it probably doesn't matter, but it's pretty rude to quote a portion of what someone wrote, take it out of context, and then call it not insightful.

Yes, so probably idea is to either run a real sandbox, or run a module/pre-planned adventure and be open to the players about this fact. Running an illusionary sandbox just sounds like bad DMing.

[Koo Rehtorb]

If a player even suspects there is maybe something they were "meant" to do, then the game can seem like less of a sand box.

It doesn't "seem" like less of a sandbox. It is less of a sandbox. What you're saying is that sandboxes are too hard so you should pretend to do one instead.

Yes, sandboxes are hard. Either do them right or don't do them at all.

[Nifft]

Running a sandbox is more work.

However, that hard work doesn't need to fall on the DM alone. It's possible to get the players to do a lot of the work, with the DM acting as more of an editor / coordinator and less of a one-person content production team.

[Segev]

Indeed. The point people are arguing right now isn't that sandboxes aren't a lot of work/difficult to run, but rather that the choices sandboxes empower the players/PCs to make are illusory.

The key to a sandbox is that those choices aren't illusory. They really exist, and really matter.

[Nifft]

Indeed. The point people are arguing right now isn't that sandboxes aren't a lot of work/difficult to run, but rather that the choices sandboxes empower the players/PCs to make are illusory.

The key to a sandbox is that those choices aren't illusory. They really exist, and really matter.

Yes.

Getting the players to do some (or most) of the work is a great way to structurally ensure that this illusion of choice isn't just an illusion, and as a side effect it can help to augment & improve their buy-in to the world in general.

[Max_Killjoy]

Indeed. The point people are arguing right now isn't that sandboxes aren't a lot of work/difficult to run, but rather that the choices sandboxes empower the players/PCs to make are illusory.

The key to a sandbox is that those choices aren't illusory. They really exist, and really matter.

Exactly.

Which has been explained to a series of "but isn't it fake?" posters in excruciating detail for weeks on end across multiple threads at this point.

[Darth Ultron]

The sandbox successfully gives you the illusion that you can go anywhere and do anything, and your actions will have meaningful consequences.

Yes, this is it. I even go one step more and say it's Reality Gaming: Everyone, while full well knowing that is just a game and it's all an illusion...they pretend it is 'real'.

[Nifft]

Yes, this is it. I even go one step more and say it's Reality Gaming: Everyone, while full well knowing that is just a game and it's all an illusion...they pretend it is 'real'.

We call that a role-playing game.

Sandbox games are indeed role-playing games.

But not all role-playing games are sandbox games, of course.

[Psikerlord]

Running a sandbox is more work.

However, that hard work doesn't need to fall on the DM alone. It's possible to get the players to do a lot of the work, with the DM acting as more of an editor / coordinator and less of a one-person content production team.

I'm not convinced sandboxes are more work. It is a different kind of prep - you are prepping to improvise - lots of random tables, lists of names/brief npcs, some sketch maps, a handful of half constructed adventure skeletons at your beck and call, good grasp of the immediate area the PCs are in. Then you wing it from there, maybe the PCs follow a hook into a published module, maybe they go off on a completely wacky side trek which the GM adlibs (wiht teh assistance of his improv tools and tables). But this isnt necessarily more work than reading, for example, a 250 page adventure path cover to cover, just to ensure you know how it all hangs together before you run it. And even then you'll still need your name lists and most of the other tools etc anyway.

The main difference is the sandbox doesnt need a bunch of material beyond the next session. You just need to be prepared for what's about to happen in this session, and that's all. If you have a pre-made sandbox in particular, and just tweak it, it will be less work than an AP.

But I certainly agree players can do part of the work by coming up with side treks they want to pursue, etc, and the GM just runs with it.

[Quertus]

My comment wasn't directed you, it was directed at the bizarro false dichotomy that a certain troll keeps asserting.

However... you seem to be asserting that in order to avoid determinism, one needs to use something like "random" tables. I prefer to just do what reality does, and have the course of events play out as they occur. People have plans, people try to make certain events occur... "the world" does not. There is no "this is what will happen in a week if the PCs don't intervene", the PCs aren't special, all those other "people"/characters involved, and they're all competing and intervening and pushing to make what they want to happen, happen.

Nothing happens until it happens.

You've put forth sentiment against precalculation before.

I've run the same module with multiple groups. I know what will happen if the PCs do the same thing as one of the last groups. How does that differ from knowing what will happen if the PCs weren't there?

The sandbox successfully gives you the illusion that you can go anywhere and do anything, and your actions will have meaningful consequences.

Regardless of any illusion of freedom you might feel, that experience will kick you out of it.

My point was that this illusion of meaningful choice is something very fragile

What is it with you and illusions? Yes, illusions are fragile - so don't use illusions. Let the players make actual meaningful choices, with actual consequences. Why is that so hard to acknowledge?

Yes, so probably idea is to either run a real sandbox, or run a module/pre-planned adventure and be open to the players about this fact. Running an illusionary sandbox just sounds like bad DMing.

Agreed.

However, I believe that the idea was to include certain content from modules in a sandbox. So, there's this Tomb of Horrors. Oh, so you're gonna kill everyone who lives on top, add their bodies to your undead army, spread rumors about the tomb, and either waylay adventurers who come to raid the tomb, or search their bodies after the tomb kills them? Cool. Oh, when the Dragon kidnaps the princess, you'll give the Dragon the Tomb's riches, along with spices to make the princess tastier, as part of your bid to befriend the Dragon? Cool.

It doesn't "seem" like less of a sandbox. It is less of a sandbox. What you're saying is that sandboxes are too hard so you should pretend to do one instead.

Yes, sandboxes are hard. Either do them right or don't do them at all.

I'm on the "more work" side here, but it's, IMO, better if its a labor of love than "work".

The key to a sandbox is that those choices aren't illusory. They really exist, and really matter.

Do we need more of a definition of a sandbox than this?

[Darth Ultron]

What is it with you and illusions? Yes, illusions are fragile - so don't use illusions. Let the players make actual meaningful choices, with actual consequences. Why is that so hard to acknowledge?

The game itself is Fiction: it is not real. You can even say the gameplay is an illusion.

So when your playing a fictional, not real character in a fictional, not real game, doing fictional, not real things in a fictional, not real world.....you can't make actual, real, meaningful choices, with actual real consequences. Because it is all not real.

Like some fictional not real orc guards (that are really DM NPCs) are guarding a door. The player has their character attack the orc guards. Then the player just sits back all amazed at the actual meaningful choice, with actual consequence, as the orc guards ''fought back for real''. The player just gets lost in the thought that the fictional, not real orcs ''fought back for real''....when in reality it was, of course, just the DM saying what happened and what the fictional not real DM npcs do. Though, true, some DMs also think the orc guards are real too, and even as they as the DM have the orc guards do something they think they are ''not doing anything'' and...somehow...the orc guards are doing something ''for real''.

[WindStruck]

The reason I say there is an illusion of meaningful choice is because as someone rightly pointed out, it is the DM that decides the outcome of every action.

And to those who claim running a sandbox is less work.. I submit that when a player is trying to get past a door that is locked, it is far easier to simply say, 'the door is unpickable' or 'the door is indestructible' or 'there's no other possible way around' than actually simulating some of their crazy decisions.

[Nifft]

Do we need more of a definition of a sandbox than this?

Non-sandbox games can also have meaningful choices, so no -- what you quoted is not sufficient as a definition.

It's one of the central features of a sandbox game, but not a feature exclusive to sandbox games.

[Xuc Xac]

The game itself is Fiction: it is not real. You can even say the gameplay is an illusion.

So when your playing a fictional, not real character in a fictional, not real game, doing fictional, not real things in a fictional, not real world.....you can't make actual, real, meaningful choices, with actual real consequences. Because it is all not real.

I suppose if you make a bad move in chess and your king is checkmated, you claim "I didn't really lose! It's just a game! It's not even a real king!"

[Darth Ultron]

. I submit that when a player is trying to get past a door that is locked, it is far easier to simply say, 'the door is unpickable' or 'the door is indestructible' or 'there's no other possible way around' than actually simulating some of their crazy decisions.

This is more of just DM style.

A lot of classic DMs do the Narration Style: This is the DM telling the Players things Outside the Gameplay. It's a lot like the author of a novel telling a reader that something ''is'' or ''is not'' something. It gives the feeling that the DM and players are detached and just ''watching'' the gameplay. This DM would say something like ''the door is locked and no craft of man or magic can open it!" or more simply ''the door is indestructible".

A lot of other DMs do Immersion Style: The players only know the information their characters do, mostly based on the DMs descriptions of things. It gives the feeling of a living, breathing world. This DM will just describe the door physically, but won't add anything else about it.

I suppose if you make a bad move in chess and your king is checkmated, you claim "I didn't really lose! It's just a game! It's not even a real king!"

Well...yes? Chess IS just a game.

Why....when you play Chess to you ''fear for your kingdom"? Do you hold a funeral for your 'checked' king?

[OldTrees1]

The reason I say there is an illusion of meaningful choice is because as someone rightly pointed out, it is the DM that decides the outcome of every action.

You are right that by default, the specific imbalance in power between the players and the DM results in the DM having complete control over whether they will include player agency or choose to not include player agency. The DM decides the outcome of every action and have the literal power to choose to use that power in any way the wish.

However, the DM can choose to make real meaningful choices rather than just illusions by choosing how they will and will not use the power they have. This act by the DM is what creates player agency and creates meaningful choices. These are no longer illusions but rather are just as real as the language you speak with.

This is why you are being chastised for calling it illusions. Calling it illusions either fails to communicate your understanding or betrays your failure to understand that the DM chose for them to not be illusions and in so doing made them real rather than illusionary.

It is sort of like if I promised you your choice of a penny or a dollar. You getting that penny or dollar is an illusion because I could decide to not give you the one you choose or even not give you either of them. But what if I, the person in control of the situation, decided not to have it be illusionary? What if I decided that I would give you the penny or dollar you chose no matter what? In that case you are absolutely getting the penny or dollar you chose because I already decide to honor your decision. By doing so I, the one in control of the situation, chose to let you really be in control of the situation by merit of the choice I had made to honor your, previously powerless but now meaningful, choice.

And to those who claim running a sandbox is less work.. I submit that when a player is trying to get past a door that is locked, it is far easier to simply say, 'the door is unpickable' or 'the door is indestructible' or 'there's no other possible way around' than actually simulating some of their crazy decisions.

While a boring answer, the actual answer to whether a sandbox is more/less work is: "It depends".

If there is a locked door (the door is a metaphor) that the players want to get past and you did not plan for them getting past that door. The ease of running the content beyond the door vs the ease of getting the players to stop trying is not a universal A is harder than B.

If the players are constantly finding doors that you did not plan on, then running with one of those diversions would be less work than hours of you coming up with excuses for why the players can't get through any of the doors.

On the other hand if the players are rarely finding such doors, then coming up with an excuse takes much less work than generating all the content that would be on the other side of the door.

So I will say that I consider running a sandbox to be more difficult than running a linear game, but at the same time I find running a sandbox to be easier than running a linear game.

[Xuc Xac]

Well...yes? Chess IS just a game.

Why....when you play Chess to you ''fear for your kingdom"? Do you hold a funeral for your 'checked' king?

When I play chess, I try to win by making moves that are allowed by the rules. If I lose, I don't claim that I didn't lose because the king's not really a king with actual authority over anyone.

[dascarletm]

The characters are fictional and the setting is fictional, but the game is as real as any other game that exists. There is gameplay, because that was designed (unless this is just a completely free form role-play, but I assume we are all playing some sort of published RPG.