Sandbox play, done right, is much more interesting than 'story-based' campaigns. But there's one ingredient people tend to miss, which may explain why many people have a bad experience.
#dnd       #ttrpg   #osr   

I've seen actual active players slowly begin to expect that their characters were following a plotline, and to generally not engage in sandboxxy things.  It took me awhile to realize that a change had happened to the zeitgeist about gaming expectations, and I wonder if critical roll and similar podcasts are actually driving the change or reflecting it.

The mere fact that we have to use terms like "sandbox" now, whereas before it was just a roleplaying game, is a big sign that things have definitely changed.

Quote from: Venka on February 20, 2023, 12:00:33 AM
I've seen actual active players slowly begin to expect that their characters were following a plotline, and to generally not engage in sandboxxy things.  It took me awhile to realize that a change had happened to the zeitgeist about gaming expectations, and I wonder if critical roll and similar podcasts are actually driving the change or reflecting it.

The mere fact that we have to use terms like "sandbox" now, whereas before it was just a roleplaying game, is a big sign that things have definitely changed.

I'll second this. But also I have to point out this predates Critical Roll by a lot.

One particular moment from the summer of 1990 was forever etched in my mind. I was running a game for my best friend in middle school at the time, and he had a sarcastic and antagonistic personality at the time anyway, but he made a comment to the effect of, "I guess we'll do X since that's clearly what the DM wants us to do."

Some people say the truth hurts. Eh. I find something even more fundamental in human nature is, we can hardly resist correcting someone who is wrong. And especially when we're the one the person's wrong about. And that's why it burned. Even at that young age, before I was even aware of ideologies being hashed out within RPGs, I'd already made it a point that the game was about players' choices. But he said it like it was a standard expectation. Apparently the DMs he was used to were on the railroady side.


With this guy, at least he made a decisive choice to do something. Even if he felt like he was being pushed into it. The bigger problem is gamers who just don't know what to do when their hands aren't being held. And I don't even necessarily think that has to do with their previous experience being with more hand-holdy games. Normies have a term, "Analysis Paralysis." It's not all that uncommon a thing. I think it's something a sandbox DM has to be prepared to deal with.

I think it is a problem, as you point out, that we need, or even have a term like "sandbox" rather than just calling it a roleplaying game. Because just having the term brings with it some implication that you're distinguishing what you're doing as something separate from vanilla RPGs. And I think leaning too hard into the sandbox philosophy can create problems.

What good, what meaning is there in having near infinite choices if you have no reason to believe any one of those choices is any better than the other? I think it's a problem to present things too neutrally. I think there needs to be some break in symmetry in presentation so that a player finds clear value in one choice over another. And that might be thought of as leading the player by the nose if you're leaning too hard sandbox. But it's not. The choice is still the players. And the perceived value is according to the player's values.

It may be at the start of session 1, when the player is coming in cold, doesn't know his character or the world well enough, that the GM is going to have to appeal to near universal values such that it will be really hard to see it as anything other than leading the player by the nose. But as the game goes on, as the player goes through some experiences with the character, as the character's personality and history develops through play, and as the player learns more about the game world, then the player is going to start developing a less generic framework of values. And then you can start presenting options more neutrally, because the player will have the tools to find different values among those options for themselves.

Quote from: Lunamancer on February 20, 2023, 12:43:59 AM
What good, what meaning is there in having near infinite choices if you have no reason to believe any one of those choices is any better than the other?

The GM should typically 'present' 2-3 obvious choices, eg via rumours, but be ready for the PCs to go do something else. Or sometimes I ask "What do you want to do?" - if players don't know, I'll say "Well you've heard about X, and Y". I'll generally post a couple new rumours each month - I do use game time = real time.

Alternatively, give them a local map with a ton of stuff on it, IME with a map they have little trouble choosing to go loot barrow mound #27.

Quote from: Venka on February 20, 2023, 12:00:33 AM
I've seen actual active players slowly begin to expect that their characters were following a plotline, and to generally not engage in sandboxxy things.  It took me awhile to realize that a change had happened to the zeitgeist about gaming expectations, and I wonder if critical roll and similar podcasts are actually driving the change or reflecting it.

The mere fact that we have to use terms like "sandbox" now, whereas before it was just a roleplaying game, is a big sign that things have definitely changed.

I wonder if in a few years this will change, as the kids who's favorite computer game was minecraft start playing D&D?

Quote from: RPGPundit on February 20, 2023, 07:56:20 AM

Quote from: Venka on February 20, 2023, 12:00:33 AM
I've seen actual active players slowly begin to expect that their characters were following a plotline, and to generally not engage in sandboxxy things.  It took me awhile to realize that a change had happened to the zeitgeist about gaming expectations, and I wonder if critical roll and similar podcasts are actually driving the change or reflecting it.

The mere fact that we have to use terms like "sandbox" now, whereas before it was just a roleplaying game, is a big sign that things have definitely changed.

I wonder if in a few years this will change, as the kids who's favorite computer game was minecraft start playing D&D?

The Minecraft kids will have have their own issues though; like why they can't carry a literal million tons of items in their packs and why it takes more than a round to clear a cubic meter of solid stone.

I'm not sure that's an improvement.

Yeah, I've definitely noticed the trend in players expecting rails. I don't actually think Critical Role is too much to blame, though; this is typically how beginner players try to approach the game and it takes years for players to learn otherwise (if they are ever inclined to do otherwise, that is; not all players actually outgrow the rails.)

I generally agree that the world having events going on outside the players makes it feel real and lived-in, but I typically go one notch beyond that; I design my campaigns with the antagonist intent on doing something to the world (usually destroying it because that guarantees players can't get too far off the main story) and design the quest line based on the hypothetical of what would happen if the PCs didn't exist? From there, the question is whether or not the PCs change where things would go. PCs by their nature change the world they inhabit, but you can load the quest-line in their favor by making the antagonist design a Rube Goldberg machine which the PCs only have to walk into and push random buttons to break.

There have always been rails. The group I started TTRPGs with simply went along with whatever the DM had planned, and it was always a monster bashing quest—kill everyone and take their stuff! I as actually the guy who introduced "RP" in the group when I asked one day if we could actually talk with the bad guys, then later on emphasized RP and more sandboxy play when I became DM (I tend to run more preplanned stuff these days, though).

Granted, they were influenced by JRPGs, but those were extremely new at the time, so it's not like there was this longstanding tradition of railroady video games yet (that was starting to develop at the time, though). Plus they played Basic D&D, which I'm assured is the greatest TTRPG of all time and the cure for all these ills, yet in my actual experience it didn't stop this from happening.

The guy who introduced me to TTRPGs actually goes as far as play our characters for us whenever he has something planned that requires them to take a certain course of action, cuz he takes his cues from JRPGs, where everything is a story-based railroad, with XP/treasure farming in between. And he seems to think that "the GM is always right" means that even our character's actions are controlled by him if necessary to fulfill his railroads. He even asked me one time what did I do when I play video game "RPGs" when I criticized him for it, like video game RPGs were the basis for actual TTRPGs, rather than the other way around.

One factor to consider, though, is that players tend to find it difficult to come up with stuff to do on their own if there aren't any cues in the world for what sort of stuff there is to do available. Even in real life it can be difficult to figure out what to do with your time when left to your own devices if you don't have an established routine and a set of contacts and interests to fallback on when you have nothing to do. Imagine dealing with that in a world where you have no bleeding clue WTF is going on unless the GM actually tells you what your character knows and what's transpiring all around you. That's why sandbox play tends to peter out if the GM has nothing to hook players with or throw a bone at them when a lull comes up during play.

As much as I dislike railroads, I'd be fine with Scotch roads, but in those sorts of games the players should understand why it is they want to go back to Scotland, what exactly it is that is waiting for them there. You can add different trails and paths that are variously overgrown or tamed, and there's cues like "something glints down that way," or "you hear the crunch of gravel behind you." They'll also have to stop and rest (or hide), and the NPCs they meet on the way might impart directions to the nearest tavern where the undefeated champ of arm wrestling calls his watering hole.

So don't call it "sandboxing" but call it highlandering, is the moral of that story.

Good video. I really like "future timeline" technique in a post. I only remembered seeing that in Pendragon, but apparently it is in Pundit's books too, which is great.

I think it was chirine ka bal (is that his name?) that mentioned in one of these threads that one of the most important things in old school days was the METAPLOT. I was dubious at the time, but now I see how a metaplot that does NOT directly involve the PCs is important to give the impression of a "living" setting. One of my best campaigns occurred in westeros, during Robert's peace - it was great to know what was happening to the NPCs next, without having to "force" things to fit the PCs narrative.

And it is always great to know in advance what happens if the PCs do nothing or go other way.

Anyway, here is my post about this:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/05/railroading-in-space-and-time-and.html

In short: the best way to avoid "railroading" might be building an explicit "railroad" of events and letting your PCs free to derail it, IF they are willing and able.

Yeah definitely sandbox is not some modern jargon but term used from decades.
Old and valid difference in style.

Call of Cthulhu, WoD, Warhammer - many classics were generally speaking not sandboxes in how they presented modes of playing, and how they wrote their modules.
So quite obviously people noticed distinction between it and D&D like sandboxing - long time ago.

(Now of course writing modules I think naturally have tendency to limit sand - so I guess there are plenty modules for D&D that also give you feeling of rails.)

Re timelines, I tend to be wary of these for sandboxing. I'd much rather roll randomly for events. I find this is much better at keeping things fresh.

Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 20, 2023, 10:28:12 AM
As much as I dislike railroads, I'd be fine with Scotch roads, but in those sorts of games the players should understand why it is they want to go back to Scotland, what exactly it is that is waiting for them there. You can add different trails and paths that are variously overgrown or tamed, and there's cues like "something glints down that way," or "you hear the crunch of gravel behind you." They'll also have to stop and rest (or hide), and the NPCs they meet on the way might impart directions to the nearest tavern where the undefeated champ of arm wrestling calls his watering hole.

So don't call it "sandboxing" but call it highlandering, is the moral of that story.

"Scotch Roads"? Well, I guess that's still better than what will from now on be the term for Venger's style of DMing: "Dutch Ovens".

Quote from: S'mon on February 21, 2023, 05:25:09 AM
Re timelines, I tend to be wary of these for sandboxing. I'd much rather roll randomly for events. I find this is much better at keeping things fresh.

These aren't really mutually exclusive concepts though. You can still randomly generate an event, then have it become part of the "timeline" (i.e., it will play out to it's natural end unless the characters intervene/interfere in some way).

Quote from: RPGPundit on February 21, 2023, 07:35:49 AM

"Scotch Roads"? Well, I guess that's still better than what will from now on be the term for Venger's style of DMing: "Dutch Ovens".

I thought it was the Dutch Rudder...?