Role-playing Rants: Why I dislike the "sandbox approach"
A few days ago I've posted a rather controversial tweet about sandbox games, and why I think they're infinitely less appealing than those "on the rails".
I also made a terrible mistake of forgetting about how much people get offended these days. My meme-based tweet twisted a lot of panties, fortunately most of the people interacting with it were reasonable and understood its tongue-in-cheek nature. To those people I say: thank you. Now back to topic.
I dislike sandbox games a lot. They're boring, sluggish and only offer the guise of freedom. Shit, I almost forgot - this is of course only mine opinion, even if I present it as a revealed truth.
 |
| Introducing the meme that started it all! |
Anyway, sandbox games - they're boring. Every single sandbox that I was playing or running was suffering from that problem. Even the ones that I watched on YouTube were horribly boring. The main problem here is that sandbox only works if the players have a clear goal for both their individual characters as well as the whole party. Most of the time they don't. Oh sure, there will be some sort of idea, like organising a mercenary company, creating your very own criminal organisation or simply get rich. That said, it almost never moves beyond that. In every sandbox game that I saw, the PCs were moving like children in the dark - clueless. "Yeah, we should go here and here, talk to this guy. Oh shit, he doesn't know anything. Errr... Ok, I know - let's grab a beer. We'll think about something. Oh, hey - let's go the library! Libraries have a lot of info in them, right?". And so on, and so on...
The sandbox, by its very nature, is a much slower type of game than your usual structured adventure. It rests almost solely on the PCs initiative and willingness to do something else than just sit with their thumb up their assess. Unfortunately the core nature of sandbox usually encourages this kind of gameplay, which, frankly, fucking sucks. I don't mind the players' taking things slow, from time to time, but if they're playing like that all the time, it just gets boring. And boring kills roleplaying, no matter the game, no matter the genre. Boring is the one sin which is always unforgivable during any session. Boring kills games and can bring even the most promising campaign to early grave.
A good example of bad sandbox is the third part of the classic "The Enemy Within" campaign - "Death on the Reik". It's also worth mentioning here that in the Polish version, it's scenario number 3. From my knowledge, in the original "TEW" it's the second part of the story, although I can be mistaken. Anyway, "DotR" is a very interesting scenario, probably the longest of all "The Enemy Within" adventures. It focuses on the PCs going after a heretical wench named Etelka Herzen. This chase will take them through most of Reikland and a solid portion of Talabecland, and will eventually culminate in a climactic infiltration/storming of the dreaded Schloss Wittgenstein!
That is, if the players don't decide to swim around Reikland, selling wool.
Yeah, early on the PCs are given a small boat filled with lots of high quality wool. The scenario heavily encourages them to travel around the Empire and engage in numerous mercantile deals. Oh, that evil Herzen lady? Nah, it's cool - I'm sure that one of the most dangerous heretics in the Old World will just wait patiently for them to earn a bit of coin. Nothing to it, no biggie.
I like "Death on the Reik" a lot, but its sandbox aspect is fucking horrible. I'm sorry but there's no better way to describe this. The entire campaign is about stopping the machinations of a powerful chaos cult. The fact that at least a quarter of the second most important part of "TEW" is centred around sandboxing, kills any sort of tension that this scenario offers to the players. Naturally, like a lot of people I know/have read about, I did the only reasonable thing - made sure that the players won't enjoy their stupid boat for too long. There was this fantastic article about this whole wool buisness which I've read a couple of years ago, and which I can't find right now, but the gist of it was clear: burn the bloody thing and enjoy the much more interesting, tightly written and engaging plot about chasing down a heretical sorceress.
Damn, now I wish that I had saved that link, all those years ago...
 |
| Then perhaps you should visit it, you dumb twit! |
Anyway, "Death on the Reik" is just one example of a sandbox done wrong, but there are many, many more. A Vampire: The Masquerade game in which the entire city was at risk of being erased from existence, and our characters were either drinking blood, playing music in clubs and creating rat familiars. Hell, even "Shadows in Bogenhafen" can turn into a beer-drinking picnic if done wrong, and if the GM won't step in at the right time.
By the way, the above examples are some of the reasons why I prefer the much more orderly and tightly-written "The Thousand Thrones", rather than the classic "The Enemy Within". Just sayin'.
Now look, obviously my view may be warped. As I've mentioned before, the fact that I've had so many bad sandbox experiences, that I simply don't believe that this kind of games can be done right. I've been regularly role-playing for almost 12 years now, and every time a well structured, plot-oriented and cohesive scenario or a campaign, worked best, and not just in one group. For me and my friends, RPGs are like interactive movies or tv shows - they're much better if the script makes sense and keeps the tension from start to finish. If suddenly entire episodes and plots become long-winded and sluggish, then the whole experience just starts lacking any sort of tension and cohesion. It becomes boring, and boring kills this hobby.
Now it's worth mentioning that I don't condone running RPGs in a strictly linear manner, with not side plots, keeping players on short leash and telling them that "no, you can't turn left on this road because I say so". There's a huge difference between running a cohesive, tightly structured and engaging scenario, and "choo-chooing" the game from beginning to end, with no options for the PCs to take a (short) detour or a trek down one of the side roads. It takes skill and cunning to make a linear campaign engaging, but from my experience it is a much easier, and often more rewarding a task, than creating a sensible and working sandbox game.
 |
| This is probably one of the best RPG truths ever written... |
I've seriously lost count of the amount of times when my players thanked me for running a linear story for them, that got them engaged in the plot, feeling like they're in a cool movie. Every time we were playing a sandbox, it was... just ok. At best, mind you. I don't like going for "just ok" in my games. I prefer to go for the absolute best, most memorable experience possible, and I know that I'll never achieve this with the so-called "open world games". But hey, if these kind of sessions work for you, it's great. Just don't tell me that non-sandbox games are bad, and I'm a bad Gamemaster for liking and running them. You'd be dead wrong here, I'm afraid. To each their own.
Oh and I wanted to thank Andreas for the idea to change the title to its current version. Thanks, man!
Until next time... Hopefully James Purefoy won't murder me for constantly delaying the "Ironclad" review!
 |
| I'll never get tired of posting this GIF... |
Xathrodox86
I think i prefer what i'm taking to be the 'many railroads' approach to scenario and campaign design over sandbox design. I like there to many choices, at least in so far as one might expect their to be in 'real life', but i think each of those choices needs some thought put into them or they end up being all the same choice going by different names. Taking Death on the Reik as an example, i think the problem with the boat of wool is that there are no real consequences to the choices that the players make regarding it. For a start, i would think that selling wool isn't simply a matter of having a bunch of wool, going somewhere, and selling it. I would think selling wool might also involve keeping the wool in good condition until it is sold, finding the right place to sell it in, using the right lingo to assure the buyer that this is all legitimate, not getting ripped off because no-one selling the wool knows how much wool is worth, and so on. In addition, i'd think that the most nearby places and people to sell the wool at, and to, would be familiar with the boat and might be suspicious of its sudden change of crew. Then, as you mention, there are the machinations of at least two cults that not only will not wait for the PCs to get around to paying them some attention but in one cult's case will, and in the other cult's case might, actively pursue the PCs and take advantage of their lack of interest.
ReplyDeleteThank you for this reply! You've summed my feelings towards railroading and the whole wool buisness perfectly! Yeah, it can work as a whole new plot arc, but for me it always felt off and disjointed. Your points are perfect on these topics and I thank you for them so much! If I'll ever run TEW again, I'll use your ideas. :)
DeleteI appreciate the article and blog Xathrodox86.
DeleteAnother thought, to expand on what i wrote above: I suspect that the best way to make good railroads, as well as their being consequences for not taking a railroad, is for there to be a way to make the PCs aware of the consequences of not taking the railroad. This might not need to be in terms of specifics, and the consequences might not need to be consequences that directly effect the players, but i think the PCs need to be aware that they have now made their task, if not their lives, more difficult (if that is indeed the case, of course). Shadows Over Bogenhafen has an extreme case of this, but it comes too late to do anything about in terms of the scenario, and isn't addressed much in terms of consequences for the rest of the campaign. I don't see that the PCs should be expected to care if their choices (and skills, and contacts, and so on) don't actually matter.
Thank you for the kind words!
DeleteAs for the idea with consequences: it's great. I agree that Bogenhafen does that too quickly, and there's really no choice. If DotR would have its timetable altered by the PCs mercantile exploits, it would be so much better. Alas the clock starts ticking only after they visit Blitzen..,
Comment by Andreas (fix your browser man :D ):
ReplyDelete"There's a couple things which need to be said here. Firstly, "Railroad" and "Sandbox" are the extreme ends of a spectrum, even though people tend to use those terms as if they were two categories covering that spectrum. If you only compare those extreme ends, almost noone will enjoy a railroad one, while some people will be fine with the extreme sandbox, depending on their outlook on roleplaying. That's the next thing: "Sandbox" tends to be championed by players following an approach to #RPG that is fundamentally different from yours or mine. You mention which aspects get lost or suffer with a sandbox approach, but those players honestly don't care about them. They don't want to be in a movie or any other kind of story; they're in a power fantasy where their alter egos can do what they want. If they can enjoy this feeling, they don't consider a lack of challenging events boring. Overcoming those is not their GOAL when #RPG; they're just TRIALS on their way needing to be overcome to prove their right to be superior. Therefore, they want a highly simulationist environment (usually powered by a boatload of random tables), not a narrative in which they're supposed to take part and they do not measure their success by accomplishing external goals, only by how far they can come on their way towards becoming exactly the powerful version of themselves that they want to portray. The sandbox is a testing ground for their abilty to overcome adversity on that way.
Of course, that is largely the mindset described so candidly by "sociopathic murder-hobo"; but that IS the basic approach to #RPG by many.
A third thing: Some of the issues you mention with more open storylines can be overcome or at least alleviated IF the playgroup is more story-oriented instead. The players will be doing one part here, using their freedom of movement to still advance the larger plot they're aware of in some way. As alyways, however, the larger responsibility lies with the GM, who should not blindly follow random event tables, but manipulate the outcomes of those in subtle ways to keep the PCs involved with the plot. While this goes completely against the credo of sandbox proponents, they very existence of that larger plot in the first place already does. It is completely fine, however, to mix up more linear and more open plot structures in a story-oriented chronicle, as long as everyone is on the same page about that approach, and adjust things when necessary to keep the group in the plot. If you think about it, there are also a million ways to bring the plot to the PCs if they have stopped following it for too long."
As others have said, a sandbox shouldn't be just left to the PCs to decide what to do, because you're right, that would be boring, as you've experienced.
ReplyDeleteThe idea is that you have plots everywhere (each location and NPC should have a hook), even one or two "metaplots" ticking away in the background which can lead to a traditional feeling adventure if you want. But the idea is that the players are free to interact with whomever they want and to engage with whichever element of the sandbox they choose.
The beauty of this is really in the low amount of prep needed by the GM one the campaign starts, since it is nearly all front-loaded, and the rest becomes reactionary based on how the players interact with the sandbox.
Our 4e Carrion Company Actual Play on Mud & Blood is a good example (IMHO) of a very well done sandbox campaign.
True enough. I've written a CWoD campaign two years ago, which was mostly a sandbox. It took very little time to actually do so, and the whole writing experience was cool enough... I guess. The multiple plot hooks are necessary, and its always a good idea to have additional few as backup. Who knows, maybe I should write 2-3 more to change my mind, eh? ;) Oh, and I need to return to listening to your work. It's great!
DeleteI hate to say it but you may have missed the point of sandbox gaming, or perhaps have not seen a well-run example.
ReplyDeleteMy overwhelming impression after reading Death on the Reik was - "Holy shit, what a fucking RAILROAD! How could I ever run this?" The players are expected to make certain decisions at certain times, visit locations in a certain order, leading them to the final confrontation in Castle Wittgenstein. This is spelled out in the book. There is a timeline included for goodness sake!
That's not a sandbox, wool or no wool. The fact is, we know more about how gaming works nowadays than most folks did back then. We can make things better than they were. If I were to run DotR, I'd have a lot of work ahead of me to make the scenario resilient enough that the players could tackle it however they wanted.
You wrote "In every sandbox game that I saw, the PCs were moving like children in the dark - clueless."
If your players are sitting around in your sandbox game bored as hell, it may be that you haven't offered them anything that attracts their interest. This is the very first pitfall that a sandbox GM must overcome. What is there to do in the world? A nearby dungeon to explore? What are the skaven up to? Rumours of war in some far-off land? Furthermore, what NPCs, monsters, factions & other groups are nearby? Do they have their own agendas, independent of what the players do?
Making these game-world decisions and then communicating this information to the players, or at least making it available for learning, is the GM's first responsibility. If the players know that interesting things are happening and still don't want to do anything - well, either they should find another game to play, or perhaps they are the victims of past railroads, waiting to be told what to do: https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/44282/roleplaying-games/abused-gamer-syndrome (the Alexandrian has many mind-expanding articles on how a sandbox should work).
The sandbox games I have played in (and run) have been anything but slow & boring. You usually need just a handful of hooks to get the action started. After that, the players learn things about the world, develop interests & connections & goals, and begin a cycle of action & reaction that can drive the game endlessly from then on.
You are right, at least in some cases. Sandbox, by definition, requires a lot from the players. They have to show some initiative. My players prefer tighter stories, and I as a GM also like these kind of games more. I did gave them a lot of opportunities and options - in the end they still went with the main plot and stuck to it. That's the nature of our group, I guess. Each to their own, eh? ;)
DeleteComment by Andreas (you know the drill by now)
ReplyDelete"The reason I tried to comment was HDA's reply, who again fell into a number of traps I will (hopefully) soon address more elaborately in a blog post. (Note that I assume that his (her?) stance includes the points made in the article he links to.) A (somewhat) short summary: 1. HDA categorizes all #RPG into either railroading or sandbox, instead of realizing they're the ends of a spectrum. 2. He presupposes categorically that a railroad is always bad, and a sandbox always good. 3. If, however, sandbox-style #RPG turns out to be NOT good, it's ALWAYS the GM's fault, who just doesn't do it right; never that of the players, who seem to have no responsibility whatsoever for the success of the shared activity of #RPG (a typical OSR POV, BTW). 4. Ironically, what he expects the GM to do better is partly leading away from a true sandbox approach (bringing plots to the PCs instead of requiring them to come up with their own); partly some generally good advice how to bring a game world to life; and partly expecting the GM to put in extra preparation work to compensate for totally uncooperative players.
Note, though, that HDA's criticism of the way many old scenarios (but also actually still many newer scenarios, especially for D&D-style #RPGs) are set up is definitely valid! (And I also know that you especially, Xath, tend to turn a blind eye towards such issues.) However, while his solution to sandboxes - or rather, what he subsumes under that term - gone bad is "you need to do it better", he assumes that plot-driven #RPG goes bad by definition, not by execution. He remarks that we now know more about how good #RPG works than a few decades ago, and that is true; but it is true for the whole spectrum between the extreme ends of railroad and sandbox. HDA's conclusion that this knowledge culminates in the simple formula "plot bad, sandbox good" is just an expression of his personal preferences. I am, however, more worried about the implied mantra "players have no resonsibility for anything": If the GM expects any amount of cooperation, she is already guilty of "railroading"; and if she gives her players actual free reign, she is still responsible if they don't enjoy themselves! Finding out what a playgroup - which emphatically includes the GM! - likes, however, needs to be a cooperative endeavour; not just judgment being passed on the GM by her players.
From my personal experience, plot-based #RPG is far superior when it comes to isolated scenarios. (The only actual alternative here is a gamistic, hex-crawling style with lots of random tables, which I dislike.)
ReplyDeleteA sandbox only becomes viable once total playing time reaches 16-20 hours (maybe a few hours less if the playgroup is very focussed and experienced), and even then it usually still needs some pretty heavy-handed rules support to make sure that more than isolated player actions happen (look for rules geared towards creating coherent playgroups with different PC types, and artificial restraints of a game's setting), because a TRUE sandbox without such limitations isn't fun for most people either - they just curiously prefer it if those limitations come from the game rules instead of their cooperation with their GM.
Once you cross over into the territory of longer chronicles, though, sandbox aspects really start to shine - but they're STILL best when they're largely fake sandbox elements, with the GM actually working hard to bring plot elements to the players in more subtle ways; and such chronicles still tend to be most enjoyable when they provide a mix of player-driven plots, a number of more open plots, and a few more linear plots. Preferences vary, of course - as I said in my former comment, some people value freedom of action much higher than becoming part of an interesting story. Others are much more willing - and find it more enjoyable! - to have their PCs act in a way that keeps them in such a story. The important things to realize are that:
a) there is a spectrum of valid approaches to #RPG, and
b) there is a TRADEOFF. Player-driven action, as much as the term is being hyped now, is not at all strictly superior to plot-based #RPG; it just focusses on different things. I just realize that I have already written a lot more than I intended to. I suppose I have been triggered by the term "abused gamer syndrome" which HDA exposed me to when he linked to that article which he obviously considers authoritative.
My issue with this is that in my 30 years experience in #RPG, I have met a few examples of abusive PLAYERS, but only very few instances of GMs whose behaviour was even borderline abusive (and yes, I use this term only in a #RPG context here - I am certainly not talking about Zak S level RL abusive behaviour!) Obviously, this observation is related to the fact that I generally have a lot more control with which GMs I play, than about with which players I play (excluding cases where I am GMing myself in private sessions, of course), so my impressions might be a bit skewed. Still, having seen a lot of discussion on the topic of players being "abused" by their GMs on the internet, I wonder how much the #RPG culture expressed by those points of view differs from that of my personal experiences. It stands to reason that one major distinguishing factor is the prevalence of D&D style #RPG in other countries, which is not only not as much a thing here in Germany, but also an approach to #RPG I have been consciously avoiding for almost 30 years.
But even if that is part of the explanation, it is still unclear to me if that playstyle really produces a high number of "abusive" GMs; or maybe a high number of abusive players shifting their guilt towards their GMs; or a mixture of both.
ReplyDelete(Another idea is that US - and maybe to a lesser extent, also UK - gamer culture is simply different because societal dynamics in those countries are different (which they definitely are!), and that many issues of the #RPG community I hear about are actually repercussions of such larger society issues. I cannot judge that, either.)
One thing is crystal clear to me, though: As important as the position of the GM is - imposing ALL responsibility for enjoyable #RPG sessions on her shoulders, instead of actively cooperating with her and taking her own preferences into account, is NOT a sign of a more evolved or more enlightened play style! It is simply antisocial behaviour that often hides behind the misuse of terminology like "railroading" and "sandbox", or behind euphemistic use of terms like "player-driven action".
I have seen a lot of claims by players about "abuse" from GMs who expect some amount of cooperation from their players, reminding me strongly of the outcries of certain people that requiring them to wear face masks during a pandemy is an intolerable infringement on their basic rights.
And yes, that triggers me, too.
(This is the end. For now.)"