also, to number 3, what if there's a situation the PCs didn't willingly enter?  Someone poisons them and promises an antidote in return for them stealing a statue, for example.  Is this too railroaded for sandbox?  Such a thing could occur just from them being in the wrong place at the wrong time (of course, that place and time might be decided upon by a DM on the fly or planned beforehand for that hex if it's after dark when they get there)

All the "sandbox" campaigns I've played ended in a TPK.

The GM was very ready to tell us what we'd done wrong, but when asked, couldn't tell us the right path we ought to have taken. It's like someone in a shop, "I'll know it when I see it." No, you won't. You'll never find "it".

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;302474All the "sandbox" campaigns I've played ended in a TPK.

Every rpg campaign I've ever played in ended with a TPK - sandbox or not.

Etters, welcome to the site!

The game you describe may have been run like a sandbox, but to truly make such a form of gaming shine, the GM has to invest time to make the world live.  So, no goblins appearing out of thin air, there should definitely be rumors and things happening around the PCs that you could latch onto, roleplaying should be important, etc.  All the good stuff you like about RPGs should be there, minus any preconceived plot.

To answer your question 1, it might have been a sandbox, but it wasn't a well made (or run) one.  To question 2, motivations and relationships should come up organically from play...the players have to do a little work, too, and work to find what their characters' aims are.

Sandbox <> nonsense.

Not having seen your game first-hand, it looks to be case of bad prep on the GM's part (we've all been guilty of that!).

With regard to question 3, don't worry about definitions too much.  Sandbox/linear/whatever.  Call it bathtub play.  Things happen during a campaign; yes, you can have a king tell the PCs to do something in a sandbox game.

For question 4, I don't see how the presence or absence of alignment would affect anything.  Alignment will affect you the same as in any other game...I rarely use alignment, but I can't see it being that big of an issue.

There's no reason why a sandbox can't have scheming NPCs, ongoing feuds, perils to the countryside, and political machinations. And there's no reason why the PCs can't immerse themselves in these plotlines and shape the destiny of the setting with their actions.

It sounds like your DM was running an ultra-orthodox, old-school sandbox, as proclaimed by the dour wonks on a forum like Grognardia. Either that, or he simply lacks imagination.

Quote from: mhensley;302482Every rpg campaign I've ever played in ended with a TPK - sandbox or not.

My condolences.

The only TPK I've inflicted on any of my groups since I left my teens was... well, they didn't die, they were imprisoned. It went like this: They were captured and imprisoned by a fascist republic group in a postapocalyptic Australia.

Racist Skinhead Violent Loon: "We're breaking out tonight, want to come?"
PCs: "Alright."
RSVL: "Who you gonna bring?"
PCs: "PC1, PC2, PC3, PC4, and this NPC we like."
RSVL: "Him? He's a fuckin' gook! No slopes!"
PCs: "Okay, we won't go."

GM: "Um, they're planning to break out at 3am, they told you. And will begin by knocking out the lights."
Players: "So?"
GM: "Well... it'll be dark... hard to tell race in the night."
Players: "Yeah but what if they did see him?"
GM: "In the chaos of the escape, all the shooting and fighting and shouting, they might not worry about it."
Players: "We can't be involved with such men!"
GM: "Aren't you the same guys who shot and killed a dozen men to avoid having a PC flogged?"
Players: "That was different."
GM: "And looted their bodies afterwards?"
Players: "Anyway, we won't go!"

At 3am, the skinheads overwhelmed some guards, took out the lights, stole a vehicle and rode it through the camp gates. The remaining guards chased after the violent escapees, the gates stood open...

Players: "We stay!"

Sometimes the players are determined to have their characters die. And then they blame the GM. But usually it really is the GM's fault

The great thing about a sandbox campaign is there is no "wrong" way to go. The terrible thing about a sandbox campaign is there is no "right" way to go. Which means that some GMs, unhappy with the way the PCs are going, will get pissed off and kill them off.

Welcome to theRPGsite, Etters! As for your post, I would say that what you described was a "failed sandbox" that was probably the result of a combination of bad GMing and possibly a bad choice of setting.

If the GM was good, he'd create a number of threats in the sandbox area, some minor, some intermediate, some major: He would then NOT play out the sandbox like a computer game, with monsters just sitting around waiting for the PCs to show up. He would have them doing things in "real time" of the setting. So you don't go after the Ice Wizard? That's fine, that's your choice, but in two weeks time the Ice Wizard's orc allies raid a village. Three months later he steals an artifacts, and in a couple of years, he's the setting's Sauron.

Its not railroading in a Sandbox game for the PCs to go to a town, enter a tavern or whatever, and have someone come up to them and offer them an opportunity for adventure. Its only railroading if they are FORCED to take that opportunity. If they decide they'd rather not take the risk, or they'd rather sail off to the southern jungle, that's their choice.
The GM's job is thus to constantly be finding ways to show them which way the opportunities lie, and to have these opportunities seem like part of a living world.

You can't have a good sandbox without emulation.

RPGPundit