Listening to the podcast I've heard various games or scenarios referred to as "a sandbox", or sandbox used as a verb ("I'll take some X and Y and Z and just sandbox it").
I know this is probably a stupid question, but what does "sandbox" mean in this context?
This is the "ask stupid questions" part of the forum after all.
"Sandbox"
-
Dr. Gerard
- Professor
- Posts:1353
- Joined:Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:00 pm
This is a great question, and one that has generated lots of discussion. It's a wiggly term, and gets abused, along with its companion word, "railroading."
I can only give a personal definition, because there's no universal one. I think of a sandbox session or campaign as being driven largely by player choices and goals. A sandbox setting, therefore, is a world where players can follow their curiosity and build or shape elements of the world according to their own vision. In an investigative context, that means there may be many ways to discover or thwart a plot or enemy, with many possible hooks and locations to manage.
In the extreme, a railroad campaign is largely driven by the GM, and player choice is limited. Railroad is often used as a negative term, to refer to situations where player agency is overly restricted or stifled. But campaigns or plots can be linear and still be a lot of fun. So I think it's a mistake to think of sandbox and railroad as opposites.
In a linear plot, its still important to listen to players, incorporate their choices into the game, and remain as flexible as is practically possible.
I see player choice and GM influence as a spectrum, and balance is best. Running a sandbox campaign still needs plot hooks and guidance from the GM. A good way to handle the sandbox style is to give players an overarching goal that will generate plots. A great example of this is the RPPR New World campaign, in which players had to manage and defend a colony. That's more of a job description than a quest, but the players were able to make choices, forge alliances, manage threats, build factions and fortifications as they saw fit -- all of which generated side plots and quests and barriers to overcome.
Ken Hite and Robin Laws have a good episode about this on their podcast. I agree with them on a lot of their points, but strongly disagree with their conclusion that people should stop using these terms. I find them to be very useful starting points for discussion. I just think they're not direct opposites, and it's better to specify what you mean when you use them.
I can only give a personal definition, because there's no universal one. I think of a sandbox session or campaign as being driven largely by player choices and goals. A sandbox setting, therefore, is a world where players can follow their curiosity and build or shape elements of the world according to their own vision. In an investigative context, that means there may be many ways to discover or thwart a plot or enemy, with many possible hooks and locations to manage.
In the extreme, a railroad campaign is largely driven by the GM, and player choice is limited. Railroad is often used as a negative term, to refer to situations where player agency is overly restricted or stifled. But campaigns or plots can be linear and still be a lot of fun. So I think it's a mistake to think of sandbox and railroad as opposites.
In a linear plot, its still important to listen to players, incorporate their choices into the game, and remain as flexible as is practically possible.
I see player choice and GM influence as a spectrum, and balance is best. Running a sandbox campaign still needs plot hooks and guidance from the GM. A good way to handle the sandbox style is to give players an overarching goal that will generate plots. A great example of this is the RPPR New World campaign, in which players had to manage and defend a colony. That's more of a job description than a quest, but the players were able to make choices, forge alliances, manage threats, build factions and fortifications as they saw fit -- all of which generated side plots and quests and barriers to overcome.
Ken Hite and Robin Laws have a good episode about this on their podcast. I agree with them on a lot of their points, but strongly disagree with their conclusion that people should stop using these terms. I find them to be very useful starting points for discussion. I just think they're not direct opposites, and it's better to specify what you mean when you use them.
Keeper of the Cthulhu Dark "Secret Everest Expedition" PbP scenario
Rip Wheeler in the Call of Cthulhu "No Man's Land" scenario
Plays for Keepers
Rip Wheeler in the Call of Cthulhu "No Man's Land" scenario
Plays for Keepers
Thanks for that.
-
Dr. Gerard
- Professor
- Posts:1353
- Joined:Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:00 pm
No problem. I'm sorry our use of the term during the show was confusing, since we didn't mention a definition. The word is fraught with hazards, to say the least. Player expectations of what "sandbox" means vary widely, so if you're running a sandbox game, it's good to let your players know exactly what you mean. Some players are very sensitive to being pushed in a particular direction. When they hear "sandbox" they might think of it as an invitation to test boundaries, violate the flavor of your game or undermine group cohesion. Or you may use the term because you expect the players to be more proactive, to invent their own schemes and allow you to react. There's so much more to discuss after you tell your players "hey, let's run a sandbox game."
We covered it a bit on the show before -- my first episode, actually -- though I'm not sure whether we made anything clearer in the end.
http://www.mu-podcast.com/miskatonic-un ... published/
Here's the Ken and Robin episode I mentioned...
http://www.kenandrobintalkaboutstuff.co ... ctivorous/
We covered it a bit on the show before -- my first episode, actually -- though I'm not sure whether we made anything clearer in the end.
http://www.mu-podcast.com/miskatonic-un ... published/
Here's the Ken and Robin episode I mentioned...
http://www.kenandrobintalkaboutstuff.co ... ctivorous/
Keeper of the Cthulhu Dark "Secret Everest Expedition" PbP scenario
Rip Wheeler in the Call of Cthulhu "No Man's Land" scenario
Plays for Keepers
Rip Wheeler in the Call of Cthulhu "No Man's Land" scenario
Plays for Keepers
-
Keeper Dan
- Daemon Sultan
- Posts:708
- Joined:Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:46 pm
Like Chad said, it's a very subjective term. When I think sandbox, it means that the story is being determined by the actions of the players to a higher than normal degree. You may lay out an investigation of a specific house, but the players did a little research and decided to not go anywhere near the place. Instead, they wend on a cruise to the Bahamas. Okay, you can say that they had a marvelous time and cut your game session down to around 30 minutes, or you could roll with their actions and play out the cruise. Add in some intrigue, a robbery, and maybe a potential romantic interlude for a PC. The sandbox is just a way for the players to have some level of creative control over how things play out. Essentially, it means that the GM gets to improv a lot more. It takes practice, but if you're in a setting you know well, it's not a big deal.
Another way a sandbox can be defined is by collaborative world building. The GM and players sit down and spend a session or three setting up the environment they'll be gaming in as well as their characters. The Dresden Files RPG has this as a core mechanic of the game. Everyone creates the city of play together.
For an example of this, I recommend listening to the actual plays of the Ideology of Madness crew. The did a world building series to create their super hero setting Reignsborough. (http://reignsborough.com/) as well as a Star Trek game that never got off the ground (so to speak).
A word of caution, don't listen to anything from Ideology of Madness with kids around. They curse like a... well, like a Murph.
Another way a sandbox can be defined is by collaborative world building. The GM and players sit down and spend a session or three setting up the environment they'll be gaming in as well as their characters. The Dresden Files RPG has this as a core mechanic of the game. Everyone creates the city of play together.
For an example of this, I recommend listening to the actual plays of the Ideology of Madness crew. The did a world building series to create their super hero setting Reignsborough. (http://reignsborough.com/) as well as a Star Trek game that never got off the ground (so to speak).
A word of caution, don't listen to anything from Ideology of Madness with kids around. They curse like a... well, like a Murph.
Keeper Dan of the Miskatonic University Podcast
I was sorely tempted once to let my PCs know the next game would be a sandbox session... Then turn up with a big trough of sand and some mini figs.
-
Thomas R. Knutsson
- Sponsor
- Posts:173
- Joined:Wed Apr 03, 2013 3:58 pm
- Location:Sweden/Sverige, Europe/Europa
How about taking them with you to the closest playground?Riq wrote:I was sorely tempted once to let my PCs know the next game would be a sandbox session... Then turn up with a big trough of sand and some mini figs.
In the morning, mist comes up from the sea by the cliffs beyond Kingsport. White and feathery it comes from the deep to its brothers the clouds, full of dreams of dank pastures and caves of leviathan.
-"The Strange High House in the Mist" by HPL
-"The Strange High House in the Mist" by HPL
So here's a question related to sandboxes. What is the difference between a sandbox and an open world? I know there are some that have a distinct definition for both, but for some reason I can't see a clear limitation between the two.
-
Dr. Gerard
- Professor
- Posts:1353
- Joined:Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:00 pm
Nice prompt for discussion, Trevlix. I had only heard the term used in reference to video games before, but your question led me down a K-hole of searches and I guess it's used in tabletop RPGs as well.
The difference between the terms in computer gaming is that an open world would allow the protagonist to wander around the virtual environment without any restrictions. There might be a central objective or a list of side quests and achievement badges to collect, but the game can still be played against some traditional challenges like gaining levels, overcoming obstacles and enemies, etc. -- without entirely hacking the game's mechanics. Trying to kill the most NPCs, for example, would be a hack against the obvious purpose of the game. Some people have even been trying to complete certain games without killing anyone or using violence.
Sandbox, on the other hand, refers to whether the player (still talking about computer games) has the ability to shape, modify and build parts of the game world -- like with Minecraft. That can even include access to the game's programming language or content management system, like with Second Life.
But yeah, what does that mean for tabletop? I guess that an open world campaign means that the GM or game designer has created a massive world for the PCs to interact with, and there are adventures and problems to face or avoid in any way they want. But such an environment isn't necessarily a sandbox unless there is room in the game world or the game's mechanics for the players to actually shape the world in some way. A long list of possible quests in a large but clearly defined world does not constitute a sandbox. Allowing players to form and break alliances with NPC groups or even invent new races or organizations within the game world -- that's more of a sandbox. There are lots of game systems out there -- like Burning Wheel -- that rely on player input to actually shape the game world. Such systems more closely match the way the word "sandbox" is used in computer games.
An interesting article in Wired covered this: http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2008/01/assassins-creed/
But I dunno how meaningful this distinction really is in tabletop RPG play. The use of specialized terms can be tricky, because while you might think everyone subscribes to one narrow definition, the reality is that these terms are subjective and moving targets.
Maybe it's useful to think about those two terms as dials when imagining the kinds of choices that your players will have in a given campaign. I guess you could say "open world" refers to the geography of the game world and implies a certain free-roaming choice for players as they decide where to wander. It also implies that the players will have something interesting to do or overcome no matter where they go. A "sandbox" game would mean that the direction of the campaign will be largely defined by the choices of the players, and that may or may not mean they'll have some input in shaping or creating pieces of the game world.
Those are the definitions I'd start with. But really, these are things that have to be worked out as a group, and require discussion. The terms might be useful springboards, but they could become an obstacle if the discussion devolves from "what kind of game are we playing" to "that's not what sandbox means to me."
The difference between the terms in computer gaming is that an open world would allow the protagonist to wander around the virtual environment without any restrictions. There might be a central objective or a list of side quests and achievement badges to collect, but the game can still be played against some traditional challenges like gaining levels, overcoming obstacles and enemies, etc. -- without entirely hacking the game's mechanics. Trying to kill the most NPCs, for example, would be a hack against the obvious purpose of the game. Some people have even been trying to complete certain games without killing anyone or using violence.
Sandbox, on the other hand, refers to whether the player (still talking about computer games) has the ability to shape, modify and build parts of the game world -- like with Minecraft. That can even include access to the game's programming language or content management system, like with Second Life.
But yeah, what does that mean for tabletop? I guess that an open world campaign means that the GM or game designer has created a massive world for the PCs to interact with, and there are adventures and problems to face or avoid in any way they want. But such an environment isn't necessarily a sandbox unless there is room in the game world or the game's mechanics for the players to actually shape the world in some way. A long list of possible quests in a large but clearly defined world does not constitute a sandbox. Allowing players to form and break alliances with NPC groups or even invent new races or organizations within the game world -- that's more of a sandbox. There are lots of game systems out there -- like Burning Wheel -- that rely on player input to actually shape the game world. Such systems more closely match the way the word "sandbox" is used in computer games.
An interesting article in Wired covered this: http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2008/01/assassins-creed/
But I dunno how meaningful this distinction really is in tabletop RPG play. The use of specialized terms can be tricky, because while you might think everyone subscribes to one narrow definition, the reality is that these terms are subjective and moving targets.
Maybe it's useful to think about those two terms as dials when imagining the kinds of choices that your players will have in a given campaign. I guess you could say "open world" refers to the geography of the game world and implies a certain free-roaming choice for players as they decide where to wander. It also implies that the players will have something interesting to do or overcome no matter where they go. A "sandbox" game would mean that the direction of the campaign will be largely defined by the choices of the players, and that may or may not mean they'll have some input in shaping or creating pieces of the game world.
Those are the definitions I'd start with. But really, these are things that have to be worked out as a group, and require discussion. The terms might be useful springboards, but they could become an obstacle if the discussion devolves from "what kind of game are we playing" to "that's not what sandbox means to me."
Keeper of the Cthulhu Dark "Secret Everest Expedition" PbP scenario
Rip Wheeler in the Call of Cthulhu "No Man's Land" scenario
Plays for Keepers
Rip Wheeler in the Call of Cthulhu "No Man's Land" scenario
Plays for Keepers
Interesting, and great definitions. I certainly didn't mean for you to do that much research! (But its much appreciated)
I see now how "open world" applies to tabletop RPGs much better. I now compare it to, say, Forgotten Realms (only because I'm familiar with it). When I used to play 2ED AD&D, we would often just start in a town somewhere in the Realms (usually Waterdeep or Shadowdale), and explore until we find adventure. The realms were open to us, and the DM didn't necessarily have a set adventure for us but rolled with our punches.
Putting it in terms of Call of Cthulhu is becoming harder for me now though, although it may just be my own mental blocks. I can see a game where the PCs are left to wander around Lovecraft Country, but to me the essence of the game is the investigation and an open world (again, to me) becomes difficult when there is an investigation at hand.
I guess the term "sandbox" to me, in terms of Call of Cthulhu, to mean a scenario where the PCs are performing an investigation but its not a "railroad" - there are clues at certain locations or at certain times that point to more clues, locations, or people. There isn't necessarily an order to them and the PCs can easily travel anywhere in their "sandbox" environment, but they don't have an entire world to go through.
I suspect this topic is one of those philosophical RPG topics, like which edition is better, that no one will ever agree on. However, its fun to talk about!
I see now how "open world" applies to tabletop RPGs much better. I now compare it to, say, Forgotten Realms (only because I'm familiar with it). When I used to play 2ED AD&D, we would often just start in a town somewhere in the Realms (usually Waterdeep or Shadowdale), and explore until we find adventure. The realms were open to us, and the DM didn't necessarily have a set adventure for us but rolled with our punches.
Putting it in terms of Call of Cthulhu is becoming harder for me now though, although it may just be my own mental blocks. I can see a game where the PCs are left to wander around Lovecraft Country, but to me the essence of the game is the investigation and an open world (again, to me) becomes difficult when there is an investigation at hand.
I guess the term "sandbox" to me, in terms of Call of Cthulhu, to mean a scenario where the PCs are performing an investigation but its not a "railroad" - there are clues at certain locations or at certain times that point to more clues, locations, or people. There isn't necessarily an order to them and the PCs can easily travel anywhere in their "sandbox" environment, but they don't have an entire world to go through.
I suspect this topic is one of those philosophical RPG topics, like which edition is better, that no one will ever agree on. However, its fun to talk about!