What is sandbox campaign?

[Salbazier]

What it says on the tin.

How does it works?

[jindra34]

What it says on the tin.

How does it works?

Its a campaign with no laid out plot or plan. Essentially dropping the players in place A and asking what they want to do and going with it. Requires a lot of work on the DM's part (you have to essentially build a working world) but it does give the players more freedom. And as there is no real plan railroading is non-existant.

[CockroachTeaParty]

<_<
>_>

A bad idea.

*hides*

[Escheton]

Only viable if you have a creative dm that can apply all the info from every rulebook he read on the fly. And players that can actually roleplay their char a bit.
For plotwriting dm's that use combat and loot to get the players to play out his book it is disastrous. Same if you have powergamers that build for combat only.

[Marriclay]

I'm currently running one right now. to expand on what Jindra said, It's essentially being more creative about railroading you players. Sure, they have the option of going anywhere they like and doing anything they want, but you still decide what happens beyond that limit. your best bet is to have a few preparred encounters for when they go off the main road you have set for them. you do not force them to stay on it, but give the players enough goals involving it that they and their characters will want to follow it.

remember, when they do leave the main plot for whatever reason (and they will) all you have to remember is that you still control where everything happens. maybe you intended to have them go by a monastery in the mountains, but they opted to go around the range rather than through it? Put it in the swamp they have to go through instead. Regardless of what they do, you are still in control of everything. milk that, and you can keep them on your set campaign while they roam around the countryside seemingly at random.

If they ask you to lay off and just let them do a few silly adventures, always have a couple of those as backup. Of course, you should do that for any campaign, not just sandbox ones, so that's a given

It isn't so much that it requires more work as it requires more creativity

[jindra34]

Marriclay: If there is a main road or plot its not a true sandbox campaign unless the players chose to make it the plot, at which point you really shouldn't have any trouble keeping them on it.

[Eldan]

What you describe, Marriclay, is essentially not a Sandbox campaign, but a regular one with several possible paths.

A Sandbox campaign has no main road. Rather, you have more or less large world, in which various interesting things are going on, and let the players choose where to go. If your players decide to take a ship to the southern isles, let them do something typical for that region, which shows off it's culture. If they decide to try and carve out their own kingdom in the Frozen Marches, let them go right ahead with that. If they want to investigate the legendary tomb of Laguarius, okay.

[Escheton]

I'm currently running one right now. to expand on what Jindra said, It's essentially being more creative about railroading you players. Sure, they have the option of going anywhere they like and doing anything they want, but you still decide what happens beyond that limit. your best bet is to have a few preparred encounters for when they go off the main road you have set for them. you do not force them to stay on it, but give the players enough goals involving it that they and their characters will want to follow it.

remember, when they do leave the main plot for whatever reason (and they will) all you have to remember is that you still control where everything happens. maybe you intended to have them go by a monastery in the mountains, but they opted to go around the range rather than through it? Put it in the swamp they have to go through instead. Regardless of what they do, you are still in control of everything. milk that, and you can keep them on your set campaign while they roam around the countryside seemingly at random.

If they ask you to lay off and just let them do a few silly adventures, always have a couple of those as backup. Of course, you should do that for any campaign, not just sandbox ones, so that's a given

It isn't so much that it requires more work as it requires more creativity

that isn't sandbox, thats an optical illusion. You are railroading them all the way, just giving them the false choice of terrain.
The entire point of sandbox is that you are not in control. But simply apply rule and encounter to what the players come up with/are likely to run into.

edit: tripple sage'd

[Salbazier]

Thanks for the explantion, guys

That seemed like something very fun to play but pain in the ass to DM.

[ShadowsGrnEyes]

Thanks for the explantion, guys

That seemed like something very fun to play but pain in the ass to DM.

That is exactly what it is. unfortunately not all players can handle it. if the players feel they need direction in order to know what they are "supposed to do" you end up with alot of hanging around taverns and bickering. . . which can be fun too. . .

the real joy is if you have creative roleplayers and people willing to trade off taking backseat. when one or two of the players can go in depth into their backstorys and bring out their own story with the group that you help sculpt it can be a difficult but enjoyable experience for a DM

[Saph]

I've run them in the past, and I'll be running another one this summer. They're one of the more difficult campaigns to run as a GM, but they're a huge amount of fun if done right. As a player, I enjoy sandbox-style games a lot more than railroaded ones, just because you have a lot more choice.

[Octopus Jack]

I'm going to be running one this summer, my first one, I find building worlds and background exceptionally fun sometimes more so than having the players waltz through the world ignoring everything.

I'm being quite optimistic and doing a seafaring campaign with lots of islands to explore a thriving slave trade to wrestle with or help if they want, lots and lots of things to do and NPCs to stat...

[jindra34]

I've done one once and it end up with a 4" binder full of sheets of paper about various nations, cities, cultures and such. And yes it is a pain to setup but in a good group its well worth it. In a bad group for it, it becomes a waste. In some sense its a great display of both DM and player skill.

[Greenish]

The easiest way to limit the workload on the DM is to limit the size of the world, which is easiest done by asking the players to stick to the city/island/kingdom/continent/planet/plane.

[Zeta Kai]

<_<
>_>

A bad idea.

*hides*

It's mostly a bad idea because few DMs have the wherewithal to fill their words with sufficient detail. You really do need a deep, rich campaign setting filled to the brim with detail surrounding the players to do a SBG the right way. As soon as you start to run out of details, or the players turn over a rock & you don't know what's underneath, the world starts to unravel. I'd say the best way to pull one off is for the DM to memorize the Waterdeep book (or Sharn: City of Towers), put the PCs in the middle, & not let them leave the city.

[Yora]

I've run them in the past, and I'll be running another one this summer. They're one of the more difficult campaigns to run as a GM, but they're a huge amount of fun if done right. As a player, I enjoy sandbox-style games a lot more than railroaded ones, just because you have a lot more choice.

I wouldn't say sandbox games don't railroad. The players decide what adventures they want to go on, but once they have decided for a goal, it's again up to the gm to make up a plot. The gm usually will make up only one or two adventures at a time, and start thinking on further adventures once the current ones have come to a conclusion, instead of knowing from the beginning what the final battle will look like. But he still has to chose what NPCs the PCs have to deal with and what their plans are.
There are much more intersections, but I think its still railroading.

[jindra34]

It's mostly a bad idea because few DMs have the wherewithal to fill their words with sufficient detail. You really do need a deep, rich campaign setting filled to the brim with detail surrounding the players to do a SBG the right way. As soon as you start to run out of details, or the players turn over a rock & you don't know what's underneath, the world starts to unravel. I'd say the best way to pull one off is for the DM to memorize the Waterdeep book (or Sharn: City of Towers), put the PCs in the middle, & not let them leave the city.

Or be ungodly good at improvisation. So they walk into a house (unlocked door) and they see a family eating dinner around a table, or a dude carving a chair, or some other reasonable thing. Sandbox is not something to try unless your absolutely confident of your ability to keep up with the players potentially doing anything.

[Saph]

"Railroading" typically means something a bit more extreme than "the players decide adventures and the GM makes a plot". In one of the games I'm playing in at the moment, we've got a serious railroad GM, and you REALLY notice the difference.

[Yora]

But in that case railroading and sandboxing are not just two opposed concepts but more like hypothetical extremes of a spectrum. You don't have to chose between them, only how much of each you want to have in your campaign.

[jindra34]

But in that case railroading and sandboxing are not just two opposed concepts but more like hypothetical extremes of a spectrum. You don't have to chose between them, only how much of each you want to have in your campaign.

Railroading is when a DM/Gm essentially shoves plot down players' throats.

Sandbox is the DM/GM allowing players to drive the plot where they want.

They are in essentially opposed facets of a game. Now nothing says that a sandbox campaign will stay that way the whole way through (I think maybe 50% do) but its hard to railroad when your sitting in the back seat.

[Raum]

Thanks for the explantion, guys

That seemed like something very fun to play but pain in the ass to DM.

There's a fair amount of misinformation in some of the posts. There are two extremes of games - in one the players are proactive while the GM is reactive (sandbox) and vice versa in the other (railroad). Luckily most games are a hybrid fitting somewhere in between.

[Lord Vukodlak]

that isn't sandbox, thats an optical illusion. You are railroading them all the way, just giving them the false choice of terrain.
The entire point of sandbox is that you are not in control. But simply apply rule and encounter to what the players come up with/are likely to run into.

edit: tripple sage'd

You talk as if all non-sandbox games are bad.
Railroading IS NOT what he described. Railroading is when either the decisions of the PC's don't matter or are predetermined by the DM.What he described isn't sandbox but it isn't railroading either. Having a destination does not a railroad make. Your attacked during the night and captured no matter what you do is railroading. Your attacking during the night and the enemy tries to capture you is not railroading.

[awa]

My understanding is also that if the party does not realizes they have no choice then it's not railroading

[Raum]

My understanding is also that if the party does not realizes they have no choice then it's not railroading

Have to disagree. Partially because players often realize far more than some give them credit for but mostly because it's nonsense. If that logic were true, we'd still be watching black and white silent films. After all, everyone would have been satisfied with that medium 'because they didn't realize there was a choice'. Luckily, some people are never satisfied in real life. They push the envelope - find more choices whether they knew they were available or not.

That seemed like something very fun to play but pain in the ass to DM.

To expand some on this - I prefer to GM a sandbox leaning hybrid game. It's more fun precisely because I don't know what all the choices are, what the players will do, or what is going to happen next. It's very rewarding when it clicks.

It's not really 'harder' to GM either, it's just different. Making that change can be hard, particularly if you're used to doing it another way. Perhaps some will find it odd, but I find running a scripted campaign harder. It's all in the habits you create. Whatever is habitual will be easier.

[AslanCross]

You talk as if all non-sandbox games are bad.
Railroading IS NOT what he described. Railroading is when either the decisions of the PC's don't matter or are predetermined by the DM.What he described isn't sandbox but it isn't railroading either. Having a destination does not a railroad make. Your attacked during the night and captured no matter what you do is railroading. Your attacking during the night and the enemy tries to capture you is not railroading.

I subscribe to this view.

Presence of any plot whatsoever =/= railroading.

It is entirely possible to have an overall plot without railroading the players. It is, however, definitely not a sandbox. It's simply an adventure with a plot.

[awa]

Your analogy about movies has no bearing on this discussion. If you know that their are two choices such as say doors, and behind one is one thing and the other is something else say treasure and a monster and you have no way of knowing which is which but the dm has already decided which every door you open is the one with the monster that's railroading and the party has no proof that they had no real choice. Now this situation was very simplistic and if you did this to often they would probably figure it out figure it out.

[Aron Times]

Sandbox games are much more manageable in PbP, where the DM has the time and flexibility to react to what the players do. It is very difficult to do right in live games, because the players have no real reason to stay with each other. This leads to splitting the nonexistent party, which decreases the screen time each character gets because the DM has to focus on each group or individual one-by-one.

[Saintheart]

^^^

Seconded. Only point to add is -- if I may speak the dreaded words -- sandbox is also perfectly workable if you're playing freeform rather than a rules-based environment.

[Matthew]

A "sandbox" campaign is actually not particularly hard to handle, it just requires some practice and knowledge of the techniques to make it work. Sketch out a world, throw out a few rumours, and at the end of each session ask the players what they want to do next, which you then plan for before the next session. Like anything, the more experience you have, the easier it tends to be.

[Escheton]

Inevitable plot is railroading. The monastary as example.
There is a monastary in the mountains, if the players chose to go by the mountains plotpoint x begins. Not considering a divergent plot when the players don't want to go past the mountains is bad. The monastary would be out of place for one and the feel you where going for is ruined prolly. Yet because you wrote something you force your playmates to experience it.
Thats bad(well...egotistical) dm'ing.

My understanding is also that if the party does not realizes they have no choice then it's not railroading

the players have either a low sense motive or a dm that bluff his way through plot. Any time a predetermined encounter of any kind happens I consider it a railroad. It's an unavoidable thing that no playerchoice can change except for play through it. The complete opposite of freeform or sandbox.
I know I am going all paladin of freedom here but forcing plot is bad, very bad under the premiss of free play.