D&D General Sandbox Campaigns should have a Default Action.

[Reynard]

These details you fill in, do they follow the story the players suggested? (I get they might contain irony or some plot twists. That is not what I am asking.) Or do they discount any input the player had as they started?
I ask because once you "fill in the details" you are creating the story. It is not a sandbox. You can say, "But the players can choose to have their PCs turn around and leave." But the same is true for a "railroad" or "linear" or "hexcrawl."
If you say none of it is pregenerated, how is that sandbox? How does that represent sandboxes definition in any way shape or form? It doesn't. It is impromptu. You are making stuff up on the fly rather than having it prewritten (rehearsed).

A couple things are clear: 1) there are a lot of different definitions of "sandbox" in this thread, and 2) you are certain that yours is the only correct one.

The idea that the only real sandbox is one in which EVERYTHING is predefined is too silly to bother arguing with.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But it is sandbox to some. And to you, it is not.

I wouldn't say so because it doesn't a basic criteria of a sandbox which is the ability for players to have real choices. If the adventure you had in mind is going to come to them regardless, that is classic railroading. Railroading isn't about adventure structure so much as using forceful GM techniques to keep players on the path you want, to go on the adventures you want. Sandbox play is not compatible with railroading.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But your description is still linear. So what if you give the PCs a bunch of quests to start off with? They can go north, east, south, west, etc. Once they start a storyline, if the DM has done any prep, such as prep where the bad guys might be, weigh consequences, think about if there is treasure in the room, etc. Then they are suddenly playing linearly. The story is linear. It is not open. Just because the direction travelled was open or the rumor table was open means little. Once there is a story arc, it becomes linear.

I don't give them a bunch of quests to start off with if I am running a sandbox. I drop them into setting and let them explore. There are no predetermined quests. There are people, places and things all with their own goals and motivations and the players are free to interact with those however they wish and set whatever goals they want. If they decide to go to Mai Cun and start an apothecary empire, I won't try to stop them. And what happens if they do go there isn't going to be linear at all.

Also defining an adventure as linear retroactively makes zero sense. Saying stuff happened, and now you have a story arc you can describe, so therefore it was a linear adventure doesn't seem like a valid argument to me.

 

[Maxperson]

Why session zero so important. I like sandboxes, don't ever recall one not having a First Quest ready to roll.

I have been in some like that, but with very proactive players who had goals for their PCs and ideas on how to go about achieving them. It's not something that should be done without knowing your players well and talking to them before hand to get buy in.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Unless you are suggesting no prep. Just all made up on the fly. In that case it should be called impromptu, not sandbox.

I don't know. In my opinion, there are probably only two real playstyles, despite all the jargon thrown around - rehearsed and improve.

It is a combination of prepped NPCs, locations, groups, settlements, conflicts, maybe a vague possible future timeline of events in the setting (events like we would have in our own world), improv, extrapolation on existing material, chemistry between what the players choose to do and how the NPCs, monsters and other forces react to that. This isn't an either or situation. Sandboxes involve a lot of different elements to bring them to life.

There is a huge excluded middle in your argument. How rehearsed can it be if I have no idea what is going to happen, yet how can it be only described as improv if I also have prepared materials?

 

[Maxperson]

There's a name for creating an imaginary example designed specifically to prove your point and claim a victory, but I am blanking on it right now.

Why in the world would you yourself assume there were no rumors, interesting NPCs or other angaging aspects and then turn around and claim I created that scenario. YOU created the example of a bunch of characters sitting in the bar waiting for the hook to be thrown at them and then called it proof that player driven games don't work. I am at a loss for what exactly you are trying to accomplish with such rhetorical tactics.

But, let me be clear: if the players in this situation asked, "Are there any rumors of adventures we could go on?" I would provide them some. i might pull from a prepared list. I might roll them randomly. I might come up with them on the spot. But the fact that they created characters with backgrounds and motivations means it should never have been necessary in the first place.

GM: Where are we starting?
Players: We want to find out if Bill's soul really is owned by the evil wizard.
GM: how?
Players: I guess we could talk to a priest or something.
And so on.

This. But as I said, it takes a certain kind of very proactive player to pull this off.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I have to say, I really don't understand posters who are so committed to challenging the idea that a sandbox even exists. Plenty of people have been using this approach and having a great time. Anyone who has done so can tell you it is distinct from a typical linear adventure. Maybe it is insufficiently open for some people, I don't know (I find sandboxes to be endlessly open myself). But this isn't a zero sum game. Sandboxes can exist, be liked by people, and whatever style of adventure you like can co-exist with that. These adventure styles aren't a threat to one another

 

[Maxperson]

NO. There is no pixel. I am not asking you to hunt anything. There isn't a hidden adventure. YOU tell ME what you are doing. That's all.

Revenge will be mine on my tribe for kicking me out. I will return a conqueror, but first I need to secure money to be able to afford all the mercenaries I will be hiring. "Innkeeper! Where is the local adventurer's guild or whatever passes for a place that hires adventurers to get things done?"

 

[Bedrockgames]

If you insist that the DM makes it all up on the fly. Great. But, I definitely don't think that definition should be sandbox, more like impromptu playing.

I think for it to be a true sandbox, you need both prepped material and impromptu, otherwise you are missing that essential element of players being able to do what they want in the sandbox. If they are only limited to what you've prepared, they don't really have freedom. It is more like a preprogrammed video game in that case. The advantage a human GM has is they can hear what the players are trying to do, beyond the details that have already been prepped and react and respond accordingly. That interaction is crucial to a sandbox IMO

 

[Reynard]

Revenge will be mine on my tribe for kicking me out. I will return a conqueror, but first I need to secure money to be able to afford all the mercenaries I will be hiring. "Innkeeper! Where is the local adventurer's guild or whatever passes for a place that hires adventurers to get things done?"

There is no such guild, but the North Road is plagued by bandits said to be deserters and mercenaries without work.