I'll be contrary: I don't think linear plotlines and sandboxes are necessarily mutually exclusive.

I run a sandbox.  I pay attention to my players' choices, and they have complete freedom to buy into or ignore any plot I put forward.  But I also do linear plots, where Z follows Y follows X.  The distinction is I don't do railroading, where I compel the group to do Y rather than W.  If they decide that what they want to do is help guard the new queen rather than chase down threats, then that's where the plot goes from there.  My timeline is still valid, and events will happen in the sequence events happen (absent, of course, PC intervention), but the players' freedom of action is maintained.

Quote from: flyingmice;827722File me under sandbox, though technically it is Situational Gaming - think sandbox with "bangs" (I called them "situations" long before Mr. Edwards came up with "bangs") and independently acting NPCs with goals, resources, and personalities rather than stat blocks - like the "theme park" idea kind of...

To me that is a sandbox.  There's a world. That world in motion (things happen if the PCs don't somehow interfere with them) and the PCs can do what they want to do in that world.  A sandbox to me is not some static world waiting for the PCs to do something.

Quote from: Ravenswing;827753I'll be contrary: I don't think linear plotlines and sandboxes are necessarily mutually exclusive.

I run a sandbox.  I pay attention to my players' choices, and they have complete freedom to buy into or ignore any plot I put forward.  But I also do linear plots, where Z follows Y follows X.  The distinction is I don't do railroading, where I compel the group to do Y rather than W.  If they decide that what they want to do is help guard the new queen rather than chase down threats, then that's where the plot goes from there.  My timeline is still valid, and events will happen in the sequence events happen (absent, of course, PC intervention), but the players' freedom of action is maintained.

That's just a sandbox. Obviously the game world is up to its own business and will move along regardless whether or not the players interact.

Linear is when you just say "this is what the story is gonna be, let's hit all the plot points from #1 to #5."

I like to play myself in a sandbox fashion, but with a sort of "main plot" present, and with me throwing quite many hooks, bangs, plot grenades, storyline artillery heavy barrages etc. etc. at the players. Of course, this also depends on a campaign - in Cthulhu games I expect there to be a certain linear plot to be discovered (as there can be only so many ways to tackle a mystery, though some can be indeed surprising), but I'd like there to be a certain freedom of decisions of how to tackle said mystery, rather than a forced path to the set pieces.

I'd like to think I achieved a certain degree of sandboxism in my current Cthulhu game - right now it's still mostly "crime of the week", with NPCs approaching the Bookhounds and asking them to find a book every now and then, but the player characters are also pursuing their own agendas.

Recently, the players made a choice, based on an offhand clue (actually, a red herring) pertinent to the current investigation, to search for Lord Nordham's Library, a fabled Holy Grail of Occult Libraries, a missing collection worth millions of pounds. I, of course, accepted that, and now I have an overarching storyline for the rest of the campaign, that my players decided to pursue. At the same time, the world spins and plots - if the players don't go down a certain path, or even consider doing so, perhaps they will not discover a clue to the future adventure, such as, currently, that a certain rival of Crowley is looking for a book to summon and trap Death...

Yes, I stole that plotline from Sandman. But fighting to free Dream/Hypnos should tie nicely with Crowley's "faked" death in 1929...

Quote from: Ravenswing;827753I'll be contrary: I don't think linear plotlines and sandboxes are necessarily mutually exclusive.

I run a sandbox.  I pay attention to my players' choices, and they have complete freedom to buy into or ignore any plot I put forward.  But I also do linear plots, where Z follows Y follows X.  The distinction is I don't do railroading, where I compel the group to do Y rather than W.  If they decide that what they want to do is help guard the new queen rather than chase down threats, then that's where the plot goes from there.  My timeline is still valid, and events will happen in the sequence events happen (absent, of course, PC intervention), but the players' freedom of action is maintained.

Are X, Y, and Z things that the PCs will do (encounters/situations), or are they just what the NPCs have planned?

All sandbox all the time 'cause I have no time to write up some epic storyline anyway and would rather make stuff up as needed.  Seems to work out fine.

Quote from: Ravenswing;827753I'll be contrary: I don't think linear plotlines and sandboxes are necessarily mutually exclusive.

I agree with you. I'm not certain I even understand in what way people see linear plotline and sandbox as mutually exclusive.

When I think of sandbox I usually think of two defining traits. One is the world existing and in motion outside of the PCs. The other is that the game is player centric. By that I mean that the players drive the plot in the sense that there is a world to explore and some hooks to pay attention to or to ignore. And if the players don't have their PCs actively explore something, then nothing happens.

To me that type of sandbox is different than a game that is adventure centric. In an adventure centric setting the expectation is that the PCs will be provided with a mission or an opportunity that will provide the starting point for the evenings play. Typical examples of this would be Call of Cthulhu - where there is often a mystery or situation to investigate, Star Wars where the PCs are part of the Rebellion and would be handed a mission by their superiors, in fact any setting (military, Star Trek, 007 or other spy genre games, and Supers) where the PCs are part of an organized group and where their actions are directed by their superiors or presented as something for the group to solve or fix.

However there is nothing that prevents an adventure centric campaign from having a world that is in motion and exists outside of PC actions.

Most campaigns I've run after my early years DMing D&D (which was all sandbox, all the time) have been adventure centric with existent worlds that are in motion outside of PC actions. Players are free to pursue whatever their characters want to pursue, but they mainly expect (and prefer) to be part of a group and to have opportunities or adventures sent their way. Then they resolve (or fail to resolve) the adventure which they were presented in the way that seems best to them. If they are given a mission by some higher authority, they can ignore their orders and do whatever they want, of course not following orders or failing to achieve the stated aims may result in varying responses by those same superiors.

There's definitely a linear element in the game I'm running now, but the PCs' have a lot of latitude to make big decisions and change the setting. Actually, it would be hard for them not to change the setting. They're coming to realize that they're in an important place, doing what needs to be done -- if they decide "Hey, we're gonna fuck off and let someone else do it" then that'll also change things, maybe not for the better.

You can definitely have a "story", while still having a sandbox.

It's all about whether or not player choices actually matter.  If the game will progress from state A to B to C to D regardless of what the players do, then they have no agency.

If the players can change the state based on their actions, then you can still have a story in terms of a series of events.  But you can't predict the events, because you don't know what the two are.

Some people think that "sandbox" has to mean a static world where nothing happens, and I think that's where some of the confusion comes in.

I thought a sandbox was a world where stuff keeps happening whether or not the PCs pursue it. For instance, they leave Qwertown to go adventuring and come back six months later to discover it's been sacked by goblins; the PCs ignore the to goblin problem to follow the treasure map to Mount Chaos and come back a month later to find things have gotten overrun by goblins; and so on. Stuff just keeps evolving. What's that called then?

Quote from: robiswrong;827811You can definitely have a "story", while still having a sandbox.

It's all about whether or not player choices actually matter.  If the game will progress from state A to B to C to D regardless of what the players do, then they have no agency.

What you've described is what I would call a railroad. That's not the same as a linear story or a linear plot.

A railroad doesn't even have to be linear. You can have a railroad with branches say A--B--C with a decision point branch at C that leads either to D--E--F--X or to G--H--I--X. But no matter what the players choose they are going from A to B to C and they are going to end up at X.

QuoteSome people think that "sandbox" has to mean a static world where nothing happens, and I think that's where some of the confusion comes in.

I don't think anyone here thinks a sandbox is static. So I'm not seeing that as the source of confusion.

Quote from: Bren;827825What you've described is what I would call a railroad. That's not the same as a linear story or a linear plot.

Then what do you define as a linear plot?

Because if you have a series of things, that's kind of the definition of linear, no?  So it seems like you're making some distinction that I'm not understanding.

And I have seen some people think that a sandbox mean "nothing happens except what the PCs do".  Which I think is odd.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;827694How can it be neither.

A sandbox campaign is one in which the PCs have the ability to choose or create the scenarios they engage with.

A linear scenario is one in which the sequence of events is sequential and invariable.

The opposite of a linear scenario is a nonlinear scenario, which is when the sequence of events is not sequential and can be varied. This, you'll notice, is not a sandbox campaign.

People who like sandbox campaigns are likely attracted to them for reasons which will also attract them to nonlinear scenarios, but the relationship is tangential.

Quote from: robiswrong;827827Because if you have a series of things, that's kind of the definition of linear, no?  So it seems like you're making some distinction that I'm not understanding.

Longer discussion of this issue.

The short version: A linear design is one in which A, B, and C are experienced in sequence. This structure, however, doesn't necessarily prevent meaningful choices from being made: How you get from A to B to C. How A, B, and C play out. And so forth.

For example, if A, B, and C are meeting Harry, Suzie, and Jane you might have one group that kills Harry, marries Suzie, and arrests Jane. You might have another group that replaces Harry's brain with a robot, kills Suzie, and lets Jane go free. Or maybe they trust Harry, piss off Suzie, and are betrayed by Harry when he murders Jane.

A railroad happens when choices are negated in order to enforce preconceived outcomes. Virtually all railroads, therefore, are linear. But not all linear adventures are railroads.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;827832A sandbox campaign is one in which the PCs have the ability to choose or create the scenarios they engage with.

A linear scenario is one in which the sequence of events is sequential and invariable.

The opposite of a linear scenario is a nonlinear scenario, which is when the sequence of events is not sequential and can be varied. This, you'll notice, is not a sandbox campaign.

People who like sandbox campaigns are likely attracted to them for reasons which will also attract them to nonlinear scenarios, but the relationship is tangential.

Longer discussion of this issue.

The short version: A linear design is one in which A, B, and C are experienced in sequence. This structure, however, doesn't necessarily prevent meaningful choices from being made: How you get from A to B to C. How A, B, and C play out. And so forth.

For example, if A, B, and C are meeting Harry, Suzie, and Jane you might have one group that kills Harry, marries Suzie, and arrests Jane. You might have another group that replaces Harry's brain with a robot, kills Suzie, and lets Jane go free. Or maybe they trust Harry, piss off Suzie, and are betrayed by Harry when he murders Jane.

A railroad happens when choices are negated in order to enforce preconceived outcomes. Virtually all railroads, therefore, are linear. But not all linear adventures are railroads.

Good post, agree strongly.

I would add that mission-based play is definitely non-sandbox; the PCs are given the 'adventure of the week' and expected to do it. The structure of these missions/adventures does not have to be linear, though. For instance I ran a 'mission of the week' campaign where the PCs were sent to old-school site-based dungeons such as B7: Rahasia and B5: Horror on the Hill. The PCs were typically charged with Ending the Evil Threat as their mission, but these adventures offer a lot of opportunity for non-linear exploration. Some people might consider large sites such as B2 Keep on the Borderlands or B5 Horror on the Hill to be 'mini sandboxes' in themselves. I think "site based adventure" is better, or "module" - they were designed to be 'modules' slotted in to an ongoing sandbox campaign.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;827832A sandbox campaign is one in which the PCs have the ability to choose or create the scenarios they engage with.

A linear scenario is one in which the sequence of events is sequential and invariable.

The opposite of a linear scenario is a nonlinear scenario, which is when the sequence of events is not sequential and can be varied. This, you'll notice, is not a sandbox campaign.

People who like sandbox campaigns are likely attracted to them for reasons which will also attract them to nonlinear scenarios, but the relationship is tangential.

Very good distinction that was perhaps getting lost. Just because the GM determines the starting point in a mission based style of adventure it does not mean he also determines how the players should approach it or the final outcome.

Context also matters. Sandbox lends itself more to campaigns. For one-shots or episodic sort of play non-linear scenarios, situational or mission based adventure can work better.

It is also a genre thing. Sandbox tends to work better for games where exploration or politics are the focus. Games heavy on investigation and thwarting a great evil like horror, superheroes lend themselves to a mission based structure; if Cthulhu is about to eat the world is ignoring the mission really an option?

These aren't absolutes, just a general rule of thumb.