Troll Lord Games

So . . reading Penny's great thread about building a universe there is some discussion about sandboxes. I've seen the term used and read descriptions about what it is and what is it not - and . . . I guess I'm still not sure what the term means.

Back when I started gaming there was no such descriptor or usage in gaming.

Is it a campaign world where anything goes?

For example, if I say that Greyhawk or Aihrde is my world of choice for my game but I decide that I would like the region of Icewind Dale in it ~ is that sandboxy?

Or is it that in my world, orcs can fly and use crossbows?

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

Rhu.

As far as I know, there is no single, defining, definition. For me, a "sandbox" is defined by the Judges Guild product line. A whole bunch of locations, ideas, adventures, etc... that may or may not fit together, with a Hex map system to easily enable you to geographically connect everything together, that you want to connect together. Or leave disconnected, with as much, or as little, detail as you wish. To me, thats a "sandbox" setting in a broad, generalized, non specific nutshell, just like a sandbox game should be.

I think perhaps the best, most generalized "definition" of "Sandbox" gaming is, creating a setting as you run it, connecting things as you see fit as you run it, however and whichever ways you wish to do it. Fill in specifics to suit your personal tastes, preferences, fetishes, whatever.

Thanks, Tree.

I know that we both have our campaign worlds using or hosting many of the major D&D published ones:

Greyhawk
DragonLance
Forgotten Realms
Aihrde
Ravenloft
Known World
Wilderlands
Haunted Highlands
et. al.

So, if this is sandboxy then it's excellent for CKs.

Sandbox....box filled with sand.

First heard it in reference to Micro Armor games dealing with numerous scenarios that shared a tenuous link to each other. In reference to TTRPGs several years later wherein the DM had a baseline world developed that was suitable for dropping any adventure into as well as adapting over from other game systems to form a coherent campaign. Also referred to as an undefined campaign without a specific setting.

Go0gleplex wrote:Sandbox....box filled with sand.

....

That local cats like to leave hidden presents in ...

Sorry about the 'potty humor' pun intended ...

To me I take it to imply a game that is less structured (ie no aver arching adventure arch) where the players are a bit freer to explore than follow a set series . Instead of the game following an A - B - C - D etc flow, with rail roading needed at times, it is more of an A - D - F - C pattern as reaction to player actions.

However, to me it seems to be a misnomer. A good DM can and should be able to tie what may seem to be random threads of the sand box into an over arching 'direction'. Yes the players may not go from A to B but they eventually end up at D which was the goal of the DM any way. A properly timed dream, a 'random' rumor a magic item that pulls the player one way etc etc etc are tools the DM can use to keep the game flowing as needed and have it remain sandboxy.

Some discussion here:
http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/ ... ndbox-play

When I use it, I tend to mean an open environment in which the characters may go anywhere to find their own adventure. For convenience, this can be keyed hexes with short descriptions the CK must fill in on the fly, supplemented with random tables for encounters and flavor by location, terrain, etc. There may be some setting, background events, factions, etc. but the players bumbling through the environment is the cause for most conflict and interest in the game.

When I run a sandbox, it usually has some home-made set pieces or tie-ins to get to published adventures, so that the players can have some structure when they want it. Also, the world becomes more rigid with use: a place stops being random once it's been explored (or by the next session they revisit it) and I'll fill in the blanks with encounters between games, focusing on places they are likely to go next.

Contrast with a game in which you show up at the dungeon door, and if you walk away, the module is over, and you may as well go home (which is how some Basic D&D games possibly went until the Expert Set gave you rules for getting to and from).

Some published adventures are 'sandboxy' in that you have a lot of people and places to visit in no particular order, and there are many possible outcomes; the players skipping parts or redefining their goals doesn't wreck the game.

Note that if you handle the players going to the wrong place by just making the place you wanted them to go THAT place, it's not the same thing; in that case the players really didn't have any self determination, though it's partially philosophical as they didn't know that.

I think it's pointless to strive for any kind of purity in sandbox gaming. I think a lot of games are sandboxy to a degree. I think games that are are usually better for it, though sometimes a modules that is clear; go here, then here, then here or here, then fight the boss, while a little railroady also has the benefit of being self-contained, stays on track, and finishes in a reasonable amount of time so something new can be played.

The Wilderlands setting is a good example of a published sandbox. It has a lot of mechanisms for providing adventure no matter how "off route" the characters go. Fixed adventures that take place in the Wilderlands also are available, which are little pockets of more structured adventure. Though if a character leaves the adventure area for that module, the world probably doesn't fall apart, though the Judge may be angry that he or she had to spend money on the adventure.

I think probably most sandboxes are home grown. You make a city, describe a few areas around it, maybe place a few dungeons, and then ask the players where they go next. If they go into an unplanned area, do the best you can with whatever tools you have: random encounter, make something up, whatever. Then write down what happened and mark it on the map. Before next session figure out how mobile they are and plot a few more areas. If they go to them, cool, if not repeat what you did last time.

Sandboxes are often "hex crawls" because many published examples of sandboxes are hex crawls. But they don't have to be.

Sandbox games are really good for players who have background and concepts they want to explore because those things become the game, instead of just descriptive moments between completely unrelated adventures.

Rhuvein wrote:Thanks, Tree.

I know that we both have our campaign worlds using or hosting many of the major D&D published ones:

Greyhawk
DragonLance
Forgotten Realms
Aihrde
Ravenloft
Known World
Wilderlands
Haunted Highlands
et. al.

So, if this is sandboxy then it's excellent for CKs.

I am not sure a setting is in itself sandboxy or not sandboxy. At the module level it's clearer. If a module or series of modules has a win condition, like, Frodo must take the ring to Mount Doom (especially if that's the only way it can be resolved), it's likely not a sandbox. The players can't decide to become pirates, spend 10 years sailing around getting rich, decide to become professional giant-slayers, and then pick up the ring quest or not and have the game still be meaningful.

However, the ring quest could be a background thing in a sandbox game. If the players take part, great, if not, whatever happens as a result will eventually happen without them and it will be another background event that may or may not affect them.

That said, some published adventures are semi-sandboxy in that within the conventions of the module, you can accomplish things in a a different order, leave some things uncompleted, solve things however you see fit, but at the end still have some kind of win condition. In these cases the CK probably hopes the module they bought gets played at least to one of the defined end conditions, but there may be a broad environment, side quests, and strong interaction with the setting (e.g. leaving Hommlet, Nulb, and Verbobonc for a while to do a few things in the rest of Greyhawk during the adventure).

If in a setting, you say "Today you are in Karameikos, and you need to travel to Alphatia, then visit the elves in Alfheim to get the sacred macguffin, then back to Karameikos", then locations in Mystara are being used in a way that is not very sandbox-like (though in a sandbox the characters might come across a task that would require just those steps). If on the other hand, players were free to go anywhere in Mystara, barring anyone in-game trying to stop them, then the setting would be used in a sandbox style. So the setting can be used either way. Some setting _books_ however may give you more or fewer tools to accomplish sandbox play though. Haunted Highlands and the Wilderlands have strong sets of tools to help with sandbox play, or at least for helping a CK spontaneously find things for the players to do.

Anyway, it's just a description for a kind of play, one of the many tools most CKs employee without thinking too hard about it. And if they don't, they aren't doing anything wrong.

Hmmmm...

Maybe a better general definition would be...

A setting that is defined as the Game Master and their players "discover" it. IE a setting where very little is pre determined.

For example, you start out with a "starting area", that may have a village, or a town, or even a city and maybe some areas around that location determined, mapped, etc... Then as the players have the PC's act and interact, move around, etc... the game master fills in what is needed to move the adventure, actions, etc... of the PC's forward, building the setting based upon what the players want to do and actually do.

(1) When I first learned to play the miniatures game Chainmail in the early 1970's, we played on an actual sand table. It was a box full of sand where you could scoop things up to make hills, draw a line with your finger to indicate a road, and so on. When you were done you smoothed over the sand and could start over next time.

(2) To me, a "sandbox" RPG campaign is sort of like that, and the JG Wilderlands campaign is an excellent example. I often start off with a map of terrain, name a few places, sprinkle in a few rumors, and then let the players decide what to do and what threads to follow. I contrast this to a module which starts off with a pre-determined objective and a sequence of encounters designed to get one to that objective.

I am kind of surprised that this term creates any controversy. As finarvyn notes, the name itself is descriptive.

When I hear 'sandbox' I think of children playing in the sand with whatever toys or materials happen to be at hand. Depending on their development they will play cooperatively or simply side by side. They create little worlds and negotiate the action. This kind of play can be contrasted with adult directed play like sports or P.E. activities where the children are told/instructed not only the rules but also how to use the official equiipment.

So a game can be more or less like a sandbox. I am thinking the idea exists on a continuum rather than like a switch.

As others have mentioned, to me a sandbox-style game is where the campaign begins with no pre-defined metaplot, but organically develops through play and the PCs actions. There might be a few published adventures thrown in here or there, but it does not follow an adventure path that is charted out to take characters from 1st to 20th level. It often begins with very sketchy information about the surrounding world, with details added at the needs of the game.

Thanks for all the great replies!

Very interesting reading.

Penny-Whistle wrote:I am kind of surprised that this term creates any controversy.

Heh, you should have seen how bent out of shape people got on forums like WOTC, ENWorld and rpg.net over this.

Naw, its better that you missed out on all of that.

Treebore wrote:

Penny-Whistle wrote:I am kind of surprised that this term creates any controversy.

Heh, you should have seen how bent out of shape people got on forums like WOTC, ENWorld and rpg.net over this.

Naw, its better that you missed out on all of that.

If you can sum it up I'm all ears but I kind of suspect one of those absurd discussions where people are splitting hairs and/or thumping chests rather than building something substantive. Is it like, my idea of a sandbox is better than yours? hahaha The only people who care about stuff like are the adrenaline junkies aka the very big kids who never learned how to play with others.

Penny-Whistle wrote:

Treebore wrote:

Penny-Whistle wrote:I am kind of surprised that this term creates any controversy.

Heh, you should have seen how bent out of shape people got on forums like WOTC, ENWorld and rpg.net over this.

Naw, its better that you missed out on all of that.

If you can sum it up I'm all ears but I kind of suspect one of those absurd discussions where people are splitting hairs and/or thumping chests rather than building something substantive. Is it like, my idea of a sandbox is better than yours? hahaha The only people who care about stuff like are the adrenaline junkies aka the very big kids who never learned how to play with others.

You summed it up better than I would have.