i think that this paragraph should be the goal of every internet discussion. so, i’d say that we were certainly successful, and that this has been a very productive discussion. thank you for the very civilized debate.

I also think Kurt’s Mini definition fits pretty well. I may feel a need to come up with lots of ideas what makes such a game more likely to succeed or not, but his quick definition is good.

@Patrick, you do make a lot of statements in the OP that are are at least challenging. You mention you do not label the guy running the dungeon module as an inferior GM just because he is NOT running a Sandbox game. A GM running a module should not be judged less than another GM running the Sandbox game.

However, Can both guys run a ‘canned’ adventure? Sure. Can both guys create and run the Sandbox? Maybe not. You can’t label one as better watching one game, but is there more to being a GM in creating a full setting and running it well VS running someone else’s module? I believe so.

This actually does tie in to a point you made about the automatic assumption about a Sandbox being more fun. It’s actually the opposite.

A real Sandbox game is harder to run than something more linear. Harder. Harder to keep track of, harder to create, harder to keep moving.
So all things being equal, by my reckoning, since it is harder to run a good Sandbox game, they are more of a challenge to run, and there are probably MORE bad sandbox games out there than other varieties.

I have been in some very crappy sandbox games. The statement “Sandbox games are better.” just is not true. I never in the article blamed the technique for the games being crappy, I said that GMs must not expect the sandbox technique to make the game fun.

If my tone is derogatory to others I did not intend it to be, but I cannot control how my tone is perceived either. I am not going to say that I was wrong if I don’t honestly believe that to be the case.

I did not want others to think that I had changed my mind, because I haven’t. That is why I made the comment that I did in response to yours. I still believe in what I wrote. I wanted that to be perfectly clear.

I also will not say that others should not be offended by what I wrote. That is always a personal matter.

There is a saying in Russia a friend from Moscow once shared with me that translates to “If you want to be the good guy, be prepared to be the bad guy.” When I share my opinion I know that it will cause mixed reactions, and that is the consequence of sharing them. Better to deal with that consequence then not to be heard at all.

I think that the comments that you and others have made, whether for or against the article, all have merit. We’ve given others lot to consider. They will judge it and reach their own conclusions. That is all that I want any of my articles to accomplish. No one has to agree with me, some comments may even change my mind, but if I still believe in what I wrote my job is to defend it as best I can.

I just don’t see what else can be said on this topic.

but now things have gone “meta”, which can only mean that this conversation has little left to sustain it.

I wasn’t going to comment anymore, but this I want to clarify: I stand by the original statements. I do not feel that they were derogatory. If they offended people that is unfortunate, but I still stand by the article as written.

i thought that i was pretty clear in several comments above, but i’ll try another explanation. a “sandbox” game is one in which gm plots are secondary to player/character actions, and in which the characters are the primary focus. this is in opposition to a “story-driven” or “plot-driven” game, in which the gm plots take precedence (and in an extreme case is nothing more than the domain of a frustrated novelist). obviously, this is a continuum, but generally any game in which the plots are secondary to character desires (and development, etc) is on the sandbox end.

on another topic you raise, if you think that this is anything close to “heated”, you haven’t been on the internet very long.

@Patrick Benson – as i’ve noted, we agree on that. we don’t agree on the premise with which you titled this piece, nor on several points in it.

certainly, like all things, it’s a matter of taste. however, it is possible to discuss taste. we are allowed to say why we like one thing over another. we just can’t argue when someone rejects those reasons for themselves. for instance, i could (and did) say that i prefer sandboxes for various philosophical reasons regarding the human condition, and that, to me, they are therefore better than an equivalent plot-driven game. i also noted that, for this reason, i tend to seek out sandbox games over plot-driven ones. you, on the other hand, have indicated that you prefer plot-driven games because the sandbox games in which you’ve played have been “boring as plain oatmeal”. fair enough, though i think that’s likely a gm/player group problem rather than a problem with sandbox games.

for myself, if what i wanted was plots, then i’d read a book or watch a movie. for the social interaction, i’d organize movie- or sports-watching parties or play some kind of sport (i do all of those, actually, but that’s beside the point). roleplaying has its own strengths and weaknesses, and shouldn’t be bound arbitrarily by the limitations of other media, in my opinion. other people want a more close translation from book or screen to game table, and that’s their right. give me the games that couldn’t exist in a story collection.

@ben robbins – i don’t know about that. this discussion seems to me to have been fairly productive. among other things, the comments have caused Patrick Benson to clarify his message and back away from those original derogatory statements.

“Just because you run a sandbox game does not automatically mean that it will be fun.”

Now for some of you that might be a “Well, duh!” statement. That’s fine. For some people it isn’t, and I try to write articles that address beginning GMs as well as those who use more advanced techniques.

Saying a sandbox game is better is like saying vanilla ice cream is the best flavor. You can’t prove it (and yes the same is true for saying any type of game is better). It all comes down to how people feel about the game during and after playing it.

The point of this article is that if you are a GM running a sandbox game are you offering opposition to the PCs in the gameworld? If not, chances are your sandbox game is less fun than a linear plotted dungeon crawl (and yes dungeon crawls may be sandboxes, and I never said that they couldn’t be nor implied otherwise).

A sandbox game, like any other style of game, is not a silver bullet to having fun. It is a technique, and you need to develop that technique. The point of the article was not to fool yourself into thinking that just giving the players the freedom to go anywhere in the gameworld and interact with anything in the gameworld equals fun. Can you improvise a good encounter? Does your RPG system make on the fly combat easy? Do you know how to introduce a memorable NPC, or can you introduce a simple plot that can work itself out after the PCs abandon it?

But I’ve said all that I want to say on this matter. I hope that the article and all of its comments provoke some interesting ideas amongst our readers, and I’m happy to see that it got so many responses.

OK. Where I wrote “antagonist”, read “opposition”.

And Luthor goes after Superman either because of Superman’s rep or because Superman has gotten in his way before. If Superman never fought crime and just woos Lois, he’s not even going to be on Luthor’s radar. Although, that analogy seems really out-of-place since a Superman game isn’t really going to be a sandbox.

Even if you’re randomly rolling all encounters, the PCs are going to eventually run up against a potential Luthor. If the ref never follows through on such potential or prevents them from even showing up, that doesn’t make it a sandbox. That makes it a poor sandbox. ^_^

I don’t know that clear definitions are important, but I am beginning to think the discussion has been kind of pointless. I’m finding that the games I run fall on a continuum between sandbox and rails. There’s fun to be had at every point along the spectrum, and there is FAIL to be had at every point too. I’m not interested in clearly defining sandbox. I’m interested in figuring out what changes in approach should be considered as we move from one area on that continuum to another.

I wrote the entire comment, put the cursor after the “Y’all are hilarious.” line and clicked the “Reply” link on your post, which pops your name at the top of my comment, and not where the cursor was. I then hit “Submit” without proofing it. I should know how this comment thingy works, but I apparently confused it with another one.

My intention was to say that the entire discussion is funny because it is way off track from the original post, and that it’s very typical of gamers in general to get into heated discussions without actually defining their terms. Almost every time I’ve seen a heated debate like this, it could have been avoided had the participants clearly defined their terms.

For instance, despite 38 comments and the original article, “Sandbox” still does not have a clear definition.

“Two examples of non-linear dungeons mean that ‘dungeon crawl’ can’t mean ‘linear adventure’?”

no, two classic examples of sandbox dungeon crawls are an indication that the opposition of “dungeon crawl” and “sandbox” is an oxymoron.

“But if Lex clobbers him, how is that any different from the railroad of “you’re supposed to beat up Lex and his atomic armored muggers”?”

in a sandbox world, Lex’s actions in relation to Superman are seen as consequences of Superman’s actions. since Supes is pursuing Lana, and that (for instance) interferes with Lex’s plans for her, then something happens. if Superman wanted to deal with no consequences, then he wouldn’t do anything, but that isn’t very heroic or interesting, is it, and why is Superman’s player playing at all? and, anyway, there are consequences to doing nothing, as well. alternately, Lex has no interest in Lana and pursues his own goals off-camera, as it were, without interference from Superman, becoming President and bungling the handling of Hurricane Kallisto in Mississippi or whatever background events the gm has in mind. meanwhile, all of the people playing learn something interesting about the person playing Superman and his vision for that character.

Define your terms, please. Sandbox games mean that the players can do what they want without impetus from the GM. In other words, Superman ignores Lex Luthor so he can put the moves on Lana Lang because the player is more interested in the social aspect of the game, or maybe he’s just a perv. But if Lex clobbers him, how is that any different from the railroad of “you’re supposed to beat up Lex and his atomic armored muggers”?

that’s an issue of balance, not of sandbox vs. plot. whatever his exact characteristics, Lex Luthor is a story hook. so is the mugger. the only difference is that one is appropriate to Superman and the other isn’t. in a sandbox world, both the mugger and Lex exist, but Supes is going to spend his real efforts countering Lex because nobody else can do it.

similarly, in a fantasy game, the Keystone Bandits might challenge a beginning group, but as the characters grow in power the players are going to want to deal with Duke Evald the Malicious instead of spending their time on an issue that could be handled by local beginning adventurer talent (even if those adventurers are hypothetical – meaning that the gm should generally leave such “low-level” encounters aside as already dealt with by random npc adventurers). conversely, at the start of their careers, they aren’t going to be a credible threat to the Duke.

what definition of “sandbox play” are people using which would exclude such classic dungeon crawls?