Quote from: drkrash;897915As for my definition, I mean one in which the players fully drive the pace and direction of events in the game; the GM's role is to provide and administer the setting and to provide interesting things to "look at," as it were, but it's up to the players only to really decide what actually gets "touched."

Works for me. Whenever I GM anything, the players can change the setting. Often I run what I would call a mission-based game. Examples include Call of Cthulhu where there is a specific mystery to investigate; Star Trek where Star Fleet command sends the ship on a mission or the crew is reacting to things they encounter while exploring; and Star Wars where the plucky Rebels are assigned something by their higher command. In a sandbox game the interest of the PCs/players directly and actively drives action and they are never or seldom handed a mission that they can't refuse. My Honor+Intrigue game is a combination of both sandbox and mission based. The players actually seem to prefer getting missions.

QuoteI see sandboxing as more active than reactive and, as my 10-year old son aptly described it, a "fantasy life simulator."

Exactly.

Quote from: J.L. Duncan;897891My definition of a sandbox is one in which the players can change the setting (or) the mechanics of the game.

What is the OP's definition?:or others

A campaign where the player's choices dominates how events unfold. The referee sets the stage by creating the setting at particular moment of time. The campaign starts and players starts doing whatever they think is best in pursuit of their goals. The goal will be anything that is possible within the setting. The referee job in managing the campaign is to develop the most interesting consequences of the players choices.

With that being said many gamers view a sandbox is a campaign focused on the random exploration of a setting. Start out at in a hex with a blank map around you. The reason for this is that the term "Sandbox campaign." arose as part of the marketing of the Wilderlands of High Fantasy boxed set. I was part of that although I did not come up with the term. However I did all I could to popularize the term. It developed as a way of explaining what the $70 Wilderlands boxed set was good for. Sandbox campaign was chosen because in computer gaming certain games were known as a sandboxes because the player could do anything that the game allowed in the setting of the game. Most of us involved in the project ran sandbox campaigns.

However we oversold the exploration part of the idea and been fighting the misconception ever since. Plus we forgotten to explain some important things that many of did to have a successful sandbox campaign. For example we didn't really drop the PCs in the middle of a blank map and told them "go forth and explore." Most of us, as well as me, would setup an initial context for the PCs so they had the needed information on which to make their initial choices.

Players change the mechanics of a game? Sounds more like chaos than sandbox.

The great fucking thing about running a sandbox (or open world, or whatever's the term de joure) is, that as a GM, I get surprised by what is going on almost as much as the players. I also love the simulative aspect. In a true sandbox, a dumb decision can have a huge negative impact on the environment. This makes players care. Which is awesome, because, as soon as they are running their own in-game schedule, they will inevitably start referencing places and NPCs by name, which makes them care even more. It's the ultimate giving-a-shit mill.

Quote from: J.L. Duncan;897891My definition of a sandbox is one in which the players can change the setting (or) the mechanics of the game.

I'm much more of a mind with Estar on this one than with yours.  My definition of "sandbox" has always been that the players -- not my prep notes -- decide how they react to situations.

As a player militantly devoted to sandboxing myself, there's no surer (or swifter) way to turn me off your campaign for keeps than for me to get the impression that my choices don't matter, that the only solution is the one you decided yesterday we have to follow.

Quote from: estar;897958Sandbox campaign was chosen because in computer gaming certain games were known as a sandboxes because the player could do anything that the game allowed in the setting of the game.

Oh, so that's where it came from. I found the RPG term confusing the first time I heard it, because I associated sandbox with the software meaning (essentially, a restricted environment for testing and experimentation with no ability to affect anything real or important) and had never heard of sandbox games; after I understood the RPG meaning from context, I guessed that it derived somehow from "sand table" as in early wargaming and military training.

Quote from: rawma;898013Oh, so that's where it came from. I found the RPG term confusing the first time I heard it, because I associated sandbox with the software meaning (essentially, a restricted environment for testing and experimentation with no ability to affect anything real or important) and had never heard of sandbox games; after I understood the RPG meaning from context, I guessed that it derived somehow from "sand table" as in early wargaming and military training.

The roleplaying term originated from video games which uses the term to designate a game that has a open world setting, which turn loosely adapts the idea of a child's sandbox where you can do anything with the sand and toy within the boundaries of the physical box. It had nothing to do with the old miniature wargame sand tables. Although it is understandable that people get confused as the sand tables were used because they allowed gamers to shape it into a variety of terrain.

Some great resources here. Let me add few as well.

Firstly, very inspiring read about not over-doing sandbox preparation:
 - http://drivethrurpg.com/product/108572/The-Lazy-Dungeon-Master

Kevin Crawford is one author that emphasize sandbox style of play in his games, for fantasy I recommend this:
 - http://drivethrurpg.com/product/89888/Red-Tide-Campaign-Sourcebook-and-Sandbox-Toolkit

"Beyond the Wall and Other Adventures" is designed to be zero prep sandbox game. It's of course no zero prep, but is built on very helpful fast prep scenario tables:
 - http://drivethrurpg.com/product/113405/Beyond-the-Wall-and-Other-Adventures
And also there is sandbox campaign supplement
 - http://drivethrurpg.com/product/145675/Beyond-the-Wall--Further-Afield


All these resources can be used as system neutral with your favorite game.

And for very last I recommend this article that I like to re-read from time to time to get into the right mindset when thinking about sandbox games:
 - http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots

Quote from: estar;898055The roleplaying term originated from video games which uses the term to designate a game that has a open world setting, which turn loosely adapts the idea of a child's sandbox where you can do anything with the sand and toy within the boundaries of the physical box. It had nothing to do with the old miniature wargame sand tables. Although it is understandable that people get confused as the sand tables were used because they allowed gamers to shape it into a variety of terrain.

I got the meaning, but it seems still to carry a mixed message not only for the non-video-game software meaning but also because a child's sandbox is intrinsically safe and constrained (if freer than a lot of other children's activities), with sides and a limited depth and no real surprises¹, compared to building sand castles on a beach by the sea.

1. barring cats in the neighborhood, that is.

I have a new question (which estar's bible doesn't articulate clearly enough for me):

In placing adventure sites - basically, dungeons, but also monster lairs in general - how do I determine "level" or (God forbid) "balance"?

For example, the "starter dungeon" I picked is placed less than a day from the starting town and is your standard 1st level dungeon.  I have a bigger B2-style site placed about a day or two away.

But where would a "megadungeon" go? Within easy reach of the start, since it presumably also has "starter" encounters - and the players just need to figure out their limits? Or should it be further away, to be discovered later, knowing that the first levels might be too easy for the characters by that point?

Similarly, if there are adventures I'd like to use that might be for 4-5th level, or 7-8th level, should they be placed at the start further away so they are not "accidentally" encountered too early? Or is *everything* placed more according to internal world logic alone?

Does my question make sense? Thanks in advance.  Your responses have been super helpful so far.

Where you place it doesn't matter very much. More important is whether the PCs/players can figure out a rough order of magnitude of the risk in going to that place.

In OD&D danger roughly scaled to dungeon level. I will probably get the exact numbers wrong, but the exact numbers don't matter as much as the principle or idea. So lets say you have a megadungeon with 6 levels numbered in descending depth, 1-6.

• Dungeon Level 1 has monsters that are levels 0-3.
• Dungeon Level 2 will have monsters that are levels 1-4.
• Dungeon Level 3 has monsters that are levels 2-5.
• Dungeon Level 4 has monsters that are levels 3-6.
• Dungeon Level 5 has monsters that are levels 4-7.
• Dungeon Level 6 has monsters that are levels 5-8.

For dungeon level N, you could roll 1D10 for monster level: 1-2=Level (N-1); 3-7=Level N; 8-9=Level (N+1); 10=Level (N+2).

Travel distance and difficulty from civilization might be another method of determining danger. Civilization can't exist with too many deadly monsters running about, so the further away from civilization and the more difficult the travel is, the more dangerous the location can be.

If you don't have some strong conceit like dungeon level then you really need a good method of generating fairly accurate rumors or other information that lets the PCs/players know that the Goblin Caves (just outside town) < Dungeon of Death (2 days from town with a difficult descent into a deep pit) < Kandar's Tomb (a week's travel across the desert of burning sands) < something else....

Quote from: drkrash;899337I have a new question (which estar's bible doesn't articulate clearly enough for me):

In placing adventure sites - basically, dungeons, but also monster lairs in general - how do I determine "level" or (God forbid) "balance"?

For example, the "starter dungeon" I picked is placed less than a day from the starting town and is your standard 1st level dungeon.  I have a bigger B2-style site placed about a day or two away.

But where would a "megadungeon" go? Within easy reach of the start, since it presumably also has "starter" encounters - and the players just need to figure out their limits? Or should it be further away, to be discovered later, knowing that the first levels might be too easy for the characters by that point?

Similarly, if there are adventures I'd like to use that might be for 4-5th level, or 7-8th level, should they be placed at the start further away so they are not "accidentally" encountered too early? Or is *everything* placed more according to internal world logic alone?

Does my question make sense? Thanks in advance.  Your responses have been super helpful so far.

I recommend placing the megadungeon close to the starter town, and have it be known to the players right away. The function of the megadungeon is to act as a campaign tentpole - it's somewhere the PCs can always go to, and be sure of adventure. It helps ensure your game never need risk stalling from lack of obvious things to do.

Higher level adventure sites can be placed further from starter town, in more dangerous zones - eg the inland mountains, where starter zone is the coastal hills. If placed close to starter town they should be known as high level/dangerous places that even adventurers avoid, and not immediately threaten town. Eg I placed an evil Archmage's tower 8 miles from my starter town, but the Archmage had no interest in harming the town - until the PCs riled him up...

If you haven't read Ben Robbins' West Marches posts on Ars Ludi, do that.

Quote from: Ravenswing;898001As a player militantly devoted to sandboxing myself, there's no surer (or swifter) way to turn me off your campaign for keeps than for me to get the impression that my choices don't matter, that the only solution is the one you decided yesterday we have to follow.

IME it seems like a lot of Players expect that though. Even when the GM states the game is wide open and runs it that way, Players will try to glean what the GM 'wants us to do' and follow that path. Not seeing a 'hook' as merely a suggestion but more as an assigned mission... as if going in any other direction would see them falling off the edge of the world.
Offer them several hooks at once and they'll still try to figure out which the one is the 'right' path.

Quote from: Simlasa;899483Offer them several hooks at once and they'll still try to figure out which the one is the 'right' path.

Then let them. No violation of pure sandboxing there. A hook is a hook, not an adventure module. Very soon it will diverge into its own thing.

Of course, Simlasa.  There'll always be players who want to be told what to do, rather than make up their own minds, and naturally there are the players who figure they're being helpful and cooperative in seeking to go with what the GM had in mind.  It's certainly not a value judgment -- we all like the style of gaming we like.