Sandboxing - story before, story now, story after
David Berg:
I feel that the groups with whom I've used the term "sandbox" have meant the same thing by it (which may be my fault):
Player choice about which large-scale endeavors the character will undertake out of multiple viable options.
My fellow players who have expressed enthusiasm for "sandbox" have mostly been enthusiastic about (a) choosing the situations of play, and (b) doing so in character (or at least guided by their characters). "Here's what my character's like and what he wants, and he's going to assess his environment and decide what's the best way to pursue that. But, uh, I don't want to spend forever on this, so, GM, give me some coherent options, would ya?" In my experience, this attitude extends throughout play -- the same players who want to pick their dungeon also want to pick whether to complete their chosen dungeon now or after leaving to fetch more supplies.
I believe this narrows down the field somewhat in terms of Story When and dictates a few details of what constitutes an appropriate setting. Sandbox Story Before is an extremely tough challenge for the GM. Story Now usually seems to come from a different player mindset than what I've described; not that it can't be sandboxy, but, well, I haven't seen it. Story After, on the other hand, is an easy and natural fit in the sandbox. As for setting, the ideal is a quest-generator keyed into the characters' desires.
So, there's my data point.
James, I intend to read everything you've written here and respond at some point! I dig the topic. Just kinda busy right now.
David Berg:
...and, I can't resist chiming in on the planning meetings. I've found the line between feature and bug to be paper thin. I love an energetic review of past achievements, present options, future goals, and a collaborative creation of an exciting way forward. I hate aimless speculation and accounting.
Two systems I was about to test in Delve before my move disbanded our game:
1) First person to get tired debating what to do plops a token on the table and gives a proposal for what to do right now. Anyone else who wants to propose anything else (including continuing the discussion) must match the ante. This goes around the table in rounds until everyone gives but one, and that one person gets there way. Tokens would have been accrued by some related performance -- e.g. coming up with good ideas of stuff for the group to do. This method applies most to strategy/tactics sessions with minimal but non-zero time pressure.
2) Keep a to-do list 6 adventures long. At a meeting, each player rates each adventure in order of enthusiasm and urgency from 1 (min) to 6 (max). From these, 3 adventures are considered: highest Enthusiasm, highest Urgency and highest Total. Each of these 3 is then rated as "actionable right away" or "needs more information". A simple vote is taken on whether to (a) pursue more info (usually in a fast-forward or with some divination power) before deciding or (b) cross off the "need more info" options. Vote on the remaining options. This method applies most to late-campaign situations where there are dozens of possibilities for the party.
I'd link the actual worksheets I made for these, but I can't find them right now...
James_Nostack:
Quote from: Abkajud on October 29, 2011, 07:46:20 PM
Wasn't "sandbox" a direct response to the old way of having the players on a rail straight for the dungeon?
The way the question is worded, I can't tell the context you're talking about. Certainly in 2011 this style of play is a rejection of the last 25 years or so of mainstream adventure/scenario design. Whether this style of play circa 1975-1985 was a rejection to similar railroading, I don't know--I wasn't gaming back then--but I would tend to doubt it.
If people want to discuss the early history of D&D with respect to this type of play, preferably from actual experience, I'm cool with that. But it's not my primary focus. If it turns out that nobody played this way in 1974 ("sandbox," as a term, appears to come from relatively recent video games, so maybe the idea behind it is brand new), it wouldn't change the fact that in 2011 these procedures work reasonably well.
B2: Keep on the Borderlands in Actual Play
Because Ron singles this one out, I thought I'd talk about it a bit. Players in our gang like to compose session summaries. They're listed here, mostly in the Ruined Vale section. More concise summaries are here, around Sessions 8-14 + 21. In a single sentence: we found the inhabitants of the Keep insufficiently deferential, befriended an evil wizard, and suffered mightily in the Caves of Chaos before giving up.
I participated in most of these sessions. As experienced, Keep on the Borderlands is a pretty good model for sandbox play. You've got:
a base of operations, the Keep, swarming with NPCs. (Curiously, the authors give them hit points but not names. Stop giving us bad ideas, Gary!) By default the Keep is a safe, friendly place, but we briefly discussed whether it made more sense to sack the place rather than risk our lives in the dungeons. (Answer: no. The problem with Lawful people is that they are extremely organized.) Surrounding the Keep is a wilderness, about as far as people can explore in a few days. In that wilderness are several different zones, some of which are linked to rumors provided to the players. Eric used one of these rumors to introduce B1: In Search of the Unknown to one portion of the map, which apparently is pretty commonly done.The main action can be found in the nearby Caves of Chaos, occupied by a zillion tribes of monsters. As we experienced the module, some of these tribes are better organized than others, and the evil Wizard who's apparently running the show is very reactive, taking precautions as needed.
It was reasonably entertaining, but hard as hell, the rewards were pitiful, and (for me) the evolution of the situation wasn't always grabby enough--I know the situation wasn't static behind the scenes, but it sometimes felt static on-stage, so to speak.
B2: Keep on the Borderlands as Teaching Text
Ron's essay is mildly critical of deriving ideas about sandbox style play from "imaginative notions about what it's like, or must have been like, to play Keep on the Borderlands." I'm not sure how many people are doing this--it is perhaps the most widely played module in the history of the hobby, not only on original publication but especially within the revivalist community. But even if people are simply theorizing, I don't see it as inappropriate. B2: Keep on the Borderlands is extraordinarily precise about exactly how it is to be used. In the early days of the hobby, designers' intent has rarely been communicated more clearly.
Throughout its early history, Dungeons & Dragons was pretty much horrible at telling people how to actually, y'know, play the game. 0e was a disorganized mess and successful play seems to have been passed along by word-of-mouth. In 1979 AD&D came along and really wasn't much better. There's an extended example of play on pages 97-100 of the DMG, but not very much about what campaigns are actually like in play. (Lots of information on the world-building aspect of campaigns, though.) There are some snippets in the 1e DMG suggesting a sandbox style of play, particularly on pages 86-87, but it's far from explicit. The 1978 Holmes Basic rules don't really address the topic, and neither does the 1981 Moldvay Basic rules, though it does have some good procedures for designing a dungeon.
So B2: Keep on the Borderlands is pretty much the first, sustained effort at a teaching text to campaign play. (B1: In Search of the Unknown performs a similar function for stocking a dungeon.) B2 was shipped with, I believe, all printings of the Moldvay rules, and though Gygax's name is listed on the cover, it looks like practically everyone at TSR at the time was involved in "revising" or "editing" it.
And what does it have to say for itself?
Quote
Using the KEEP as “home base”, your players should be able to have quite a number of adventures (playing sessions) before they have exhausted all the possibilities of the Caves of Chaos map. . . . In fact, before they have finished all the adventure areas of this module, it is likely that you will have begun to add your own separate maps to the setting. The KEEP is only a small section of the world. You must build the towns and terrain which surround it. You must shape the societies, create the kingdoms, and populate the countryside with men and monsters.
The KEEP is a microcosm, a world in miniature. Within its walls your players will find what is basically a small village with a social order, and will meet opponents of a sort. Outside lies the way to the Caves of Chaos where monsters abound. As you build the campaign setting, you can use this module as a guide. Humankind and its allies have established strongholds - whether fortresses or organized countries - where the players’ characters will base themselves, interact with the society, and occasionally encounter foes of one sort or another. Surrounding these strongholds are lands which may be hostile to the bold adventurers. Perhaps there are areas of wilderness filled with dangerous creatures, or maybe the neighboring area is a land where chaos and evil rule
Quote
After the group establishes itself and obtains equipment, they will either follow clues gained in conversation with residents of the KEEP or set out exploring on their own (or both). Naturally, they will be trying to find the Caves of Chaos, but this will take some travelling, and in the meantime they might well run into more than they can handle. Thus there are two maps - an AREA MAP for use when the party searches for the caves, and the CAVES OF CHAOS MAP which is a dungeon level map.
Quote
TRIBAL ALLIANCES AND WARFARE: You might allow player characters to somehow become aware that there is a constant fighting going on between the goblins and hobgoblins on one side and the orcs, sometimes with gnoll allies, on the other - with the kobolds hoping to be forgotten by all, and the bugbears picking off any stragglers who happen by. With this knowledge, they might be able to set tribes to fighting one another, and then the adventurers can take advantage of the weakened state of the feuding humanoids. Be careful to handle this whole thing properly; it is a device you may use to aid players who are few in number but with a high level of playing skill. It will make it too easy if there are many players, or if players do not actually use wits instead of force when the opportunity presents
itself.
MONSTERS LEARNING FROM EXPERIENCE: Allow intelligent monsters (even those with only low intelligence) to learn from experience. If player characters use flaming oil against them, allow the monsters to use oil as soon as they can find some. If adventurers are always sneaking up on them, have the monsters set warning devices to alert them of intruders. If characters run from overwhelming numbers, have the monsters set up a ruse by causing a few to shout and make noise as if there were many coming, thus hopefully frightening off the intruders. This method of handling monsters is basic to becoming a good DM. Apply the principle wherever and whenever you have reason.
EMPTIED AREAS: When monsters are cleared out of an area, the place will be deserted for 1-4 weeks. If no further intrusion is made into the area, however, the surviving former inhabitants will return or else some other monster will move in. For instance, a thoul might move into the minotaur’s cave complex.
There are also specific notes about how the Caves of Chaos will change in response to player depredations. For example:
Quote
(DM Note: Orc losses cannot be replaced, but after an initial attack by adventurers, the males at location 10. will move four of their number into area 9., arm these orcs with crossbows, and lay an ambush for intruders. If the leader is slain, all surviving orcs from this locale will seek refuge with the tribe at C. (see below), taking everything of value (and even of no value) with them, and B. will thereafter be deserted.)
All of which indicate to me that B2: Keep on the Borderlands is trying very hard to teach its users a particular style of play in which the PC's, operating from a safe but not boring base town, plan raids on a menu of nearby dungeons (i.e., largely unconstrained choose from a menu of small-scale "Situations"), and then the environment updates itself in response to players' deeds.
Now, when I was setting up the Black Peaks game in early 2008, I hadn't read or played Keep on the Borderlands, but I pretty much did the same thing independently. (Well, maybe Robbins's West Marches was built off this module, I don't know.) So I think inspirations for sandbox-style play go back to the early 1980's if not earlier, and if people want to use this module as an inspiration or teaching text, I don't think that's too far off from original intent.
(Historical things worth chasing down for comparative purposes but outside the scope of this essay: Douglas Niles's section on campaign design in the otherwise worthless Dungeoneer's Survival Guide; this section was edited and reprinted in Paul Jaquays's 2e-era Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide. The rules for wilderness design in the 1981 Expert Set by Cook & Marsh. And 2e's failure to explain itself, which seems like one of the worst unforced errors in the history of gaming.)
Value Added: Melan's Diagrams
Check something out here: Here's Melan's famous post about non-linear dungeon design. Here's his map of the Caves of Chaos (but you should read the rest of his post, because it's really solid!)
See that flat base line? IMO that's the essence of the sandbox. And so long as that base line is there, it's okay to have linear things branching off (like the "D. Goblins" cave). That cave permits for very little player choice, but it's tolerable since it's embedded in a very open macro-structure. (You can also embed a sandbox-within-a-sandbox, which is what Keep on the Borderlands was within the larger structure of Eric's Glantri game.)
Unrelatedly, our experience with the Keep on the Borderlands suggests that sometimes, all of the choices on the menu are unappetizing. "Ugh, not an endless menu of poverty-stricken humanoids and bickering with the very uptight denizens of the Keep. Let's get out of here." So it's sometimes helpful to include an escape hatch, where you can jump one layer out and find some other sandbox to muck around in. In the Glantri game, the players eventually ended up exploring Eric's mega-dungeon, which I know very little about.
James, Will You Ever Shut Up?
Soon! I promise! I think I've said everything I need to say about sandboxing as a functional style of play. Hopefully there's enough here, either in the posts themselves or in linked examples, to provide a definition--the fact that C. Edwards, Dave Berg, and I all seem to be on the same page (and arguably on the same page with Gygax et al.--is very encouraging.
Having come this far, I want to talk about some failed sandboxes, pseudo-sandboxes, and Story When. But I've got a lot of work to do later this week, and then I'm going to be traveling, so I won't be able to respond very frequently between now and November 14, 2011.
contracycle:
Quote from: James_Nostack on October 31, 2011, 09:09:57 AM
If people want to discuss the early history of D&D with respect to this type of play, preferably from actual experience, I'm cool with that. But it's not my primary focus. If it turns out that nobody played this way in 1974 ("sandbox," as a term, appears to come from relatively recent video games, so maybe the idea behind it is brand new), it wouldn't change the fact that in 2011 these procedures work reasonably well.
I don't know that it was a "reaction". I would have thought this was pretty explicit in the text of the Expert set, from 1983:
"As a Dungeon Master, your D&D wilderness adventures will be far more challenging than a simple dungeon or two. For example, you should have a general idea of what is in each area of the wilderness, for the party may go anywhere! Although a few hints may help to guide the characters toward a desired area, you must be ready to make up minor details as needed, often during play."
That's from the Introduction. Later text goes on to discuss the establishing of a (capitalised) Home Base for the players, mentions that the DM should prepare lairs for when PC's randomly bump into them, and populate wandering monster tables according to habitation zones.
It seems to me that this style of play, which we now call sandbox, was expressly a sort of "graduation" out of the dungeon. Dungeons per se were training wheels for characters of level 1-3, and after that you got to go out into the big bad world.
The Companion set then introduced the tem "campaign", and discussed how to handle characters of significantly different levels. It also contains "dominion" rules for the players to set up as territorial powers. So by this point pretty much all the elements of "sandbox" play are explicitly present, and if we want an original term from before "sandbox" was adopted, that term would be "campaign".
So, in terms of the argument about where "sandbox" play comes from, I do not see it at all as a reaction to Story-based play of any kind. The OSR has a pretty strong case when it argues, more or less, that this was the way D&D was "meant" to be played. If anything, the opposite is true - story-oriented play was a reaction to the sandbox.
All this stuff did actually appear textually and people did play that way. I certainly did, at any rate.
Abkajud:
Hey James!
I'm almost certain that I got the term from video games and from RPGers who play video games (and thus, probably got the term from video games). Good point!
Admittedly, I wasn't clear on the time frame I was referring to, but I suppose talking in terms of time here is less important than talking in terms of, uh, traditions of play-styles, maybe?
That is to say, there has been (and still is) a great deal of play out there that consists of running the players through an adventure.
In terms of video games, sandbox play doesn't necessarily escape the railroading effect; it simply spreads it around - - in Grand Theft Auto 3, you can run around and fight and steal and get into all sorts of mischief, but once that gets old you have half a dozen or so different NPC camps you can meet up with, who will give you missions to complete.
Important: none of the missions are time-sensitive *except when you're in the middle of one*.
That is, if the Italian mafia has a mission that involves boosting cars from a particular convoy on a particular evening, you can run around and do "free play" as much as you like, and that car-jacking mission will still be there, waiting for you to take it.
Once you are on the mission, boosting said cars, you'll probably have some sort of time constraint that remains in effect until the mission is over, and then it's back to free play until you feel like taking on another mission. It's like you're still being railroaded, but not all the time, and you can choose which train route to take, to some extent. There are limits to the medium, of course.
In terms of video games, sandbox play is (for players, anyway) a reaction to rigid, linear plots found in the likes of, say, Final Fantasy 3. And yet, fascinatingly, diehard Final Fantasy geeks will gush over what they find to be amazing, tear-jerking stories they get to experience by playing those games.
This, of course, creates all kinds of terminological confusions over in our little end of the nerd-pond, as people hear "story" and think "linear, semi-rigid plot".
Going back and reading the rest of your response, I think we're on the same page. As for the problem of universally unpalatable options, I think it's possible that part of the term "sandbox" can mean/means that it is nonetheless a GM-determined structure, literally a big, open box around the PCs with stuff inside for them to do.
I read that and think about the linear plots I've been run through by GMs, and for me, the point of a sandbox is to create an adventure that's a lot harder to "break". I'm sure a lot of us have been there - - we prep something, we sit down with some players, and then at some point during play, we all can sense the ... limits of pre-planned adventure.
It's squatting right there in the middle of our social contract. And I think it's sitting there, looking at us, because of what Contra just said:
"It seems to me that this style of play, which we now call sandbox, was expressly a sort of "graduation" out of the dungeon. Dungeons per se were training wheels for characters of level 1-3, and after that you got to go out into the big bad world."
When people are comfortable enough with the medium to do more than be led by the hand through the dungeon, but logistics, timing, getting everyone together, etc., means we have a tough time organizing a legit campaign that we're going to care about from month to month, and veteran players end(ed) up doing a lot of one-offs or single adventures that were easier to maintain interest in.
At least, that's been my experience. Heck, I'm lucky if I can get my local group to commit to picking up the same game two weeks in a row, let alone the same characters and plotline.
And now a quick derail: "If anything, the opposite is true - story-oriented play was a reaction to the sandbox." In turn, Story Now/Narrativism is/was a reaction to the "GM storytime" style, and that, imo, is why Story Now and OSR seem to be looking longingly at each other from across the dance floor. More precisely, Gamism and Story Now can pass each other in the hallway, pause, nod, and keep walking with a slight smile on their faces. But that's another subject.
-- Zac
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page