Thursday, April 2, 2009

The Sandbox Revisited

While the notion of “sandbox” style play has become widely accepted as one of the most salient aspects of old school gaming, I must confess I’m not entirely comfortable with the way the term is often used. Before I go further, however, I want to make it clear that, generally speaking, I agree with the larger set of ideas that the term “sandbox” typically designates. That said, I believe that there are several conceptual problems inherent in the idea of sandbox play as it is conventionally understood.

Let us begin with a definition. As I understand it, “sandbox” play refers to a style of gaming in which events are not pre-scripted or pre-determined. Players are free, and even encouraged, to interact with the game world as if it were a real world, to be able go where they wish and do what they want in any given situation. As such, a sandbox campaign is often contrasted with the so-called “story-driven” campaign, a campaign in which characters are expected to follow a predetermined sequence of events leading up to some final, predetermined ending or climax. It is in this contradistinction to “story” that my problem with the idea of sandbox play lies.

The problem is that “story” is seldom clearly defined in this schema. I think too often many DMs feel that, in order to run an old school (sandbox) style game, they must completely eschew anything that even remotely smacks of a narrative arc or sequential telos in their campaigns. Any element that suggests that the DM may have anticipated or even planned where the action might go is to be rejected or, at least, regarded with real skepticism. All too often, this leads to a situation in which the players just kind of wander around in the game world, looking for things to do, while the DM hesitates to give them something to do, because “giving” implies a purpose, and purpose implies that some future outcome is anticipated, and in this we have the beginnings of a story. In sandbox play, the story must emerge retrospectively; it can’t be planned in advance. But in my experience (I started gaming in 1978) D and D adventures even those from, back in the day, were often very mission-oriented. They assumed that the PCs would be likely to follow some sort of anticipated pathway as part of the adventure. After all, does not a mission imply a potential story?

Consider for example the case of Gary Gygax’s classic D series of modules for TSR. These are often held up as quintessential example of old school, golden age style game play and adventuring (a claim that is in my opinion entirely accurate by the way). But these modules, D1-3, most definitely do have an implied story arc to them. The modules presume that the PCs, having defeated the Giants on the surface, are planning to on track down the ultimate source of the threat, the drow, in order to learn about them and perhaps visit them with some measure of retribution. My point is that a strong sense of narrative is suggested at the very outset of the adventure. Gygax, in other words, did not just give us an environment filled with lots of cool stuff and say “OK just let the PCs wander around in this underworld and make their own adventure.” No, the whole thing begins with a very a very clearly delineated sense of purpose and direction, a mission. My guess is that most people who played this module pretty much followed this implied narrative trajectory, at least the first time through.

But here’s the rub. What makes these modules old school is not the presence or absence of story elements in and of themselves, but the fact that the PCs don’t have to follow the story if they don’t want to. The module allows for the possibility that the PCs might just decide to wander around and explore, or that they might interact with the story in any way they see fit. Heck, they might even decide to try and cut a deal with the drow. But this is not to say that the modules don’t have strong story elements built into them. The conceptual problem with most definitions of sandbox play is that, we typically have to completely reject the idea of story in order to define what we mean by “sandbox.” I don’t think there is anything wrong having strong story elements in a game as long as the story is not pre-scripted and the players are not forced to do anything they don’t want to do. The idea of sandbox play too often is taken to mean that the players must drive all of the action and that the DM should react entirely to them, having as little influence on the sequence of events that comprise the game as possible. I don’t think this approach necessarily leads to better gaming, nor do I think, as I hope my earlier example illustrates, it reflects the style of play characteristic of D and D’s golden age. Moreover, this conception of sandbox gaming is apt to impose a prescriptive limitation on the DM’s imagination.

It makes more sense to me to define the problem, not in terms of the type of world that the characters inhabit (ie. sandbox), but from the characters’ perspective itself. Several years ago, the writer of the Burning Void (now Errant Dreams) Blog offered up an excellent series of essays on the concept of “free will” in role playing games as opposed to the idea of “railroading.” I believe that, even though she is not speaking specifically of old school gaming, her essays offer a more fruitful and useful way of conceiving this style of play than that suggested by the “sandbox.” According to her, what really matters is whether or not the players are free to choose their own responses to what the DM gives them. In this schema, the DM doesn’t have to worry about whether he or she is including too much narrative, actual or implied, in the game. The question becomes are the characters free to do as they see fit and is the DM prepared to go in different directions (OK, that’s two questions). By the same token, DMs who don’t want to include any implied story elements in the game are free to not do so.

Reconceived in this way, the idea of the sandbox feels less prescriptive. It’s less about “though shall not have story” and more about “hey, do whatever you want, just make sure your players can too.”


post festum said...

Ironbeard: Great post on a very thought-provoking subject. Thanks for starting the discussion.

As you know I tend to agree with your (and Burning Void's) analysis, but I think there is another direction with which the same point can be made.

To talk blithely about "sandbox" as if that meant "no story" or "no narrative" or what have you, is just silly and really just an example of not thinking clearly before you speak or write. As you point out, even the earliest module's follow a telos or even contain multiple potential "purposes" and "plans" that the PCs may or may not follow.

But even more than this, the kind of sloppy thinking that accompanies the conclusion that "campaigns with less story are better" ignores a great deal of the "art" of good DMing.

In my view not only does a good DM tell stories, but even more, I see it as his/her primary responsibility. A good DM is constantly telling stories, as they should. The art form of DMing demands that they have the skill necessary to take the inputs of the players and improvise.

But good improvisation isn't just saying something (anything!) in response to what the players give you, rather, it is being able to take unscripted actions and turn them into something MEANINGFUL and, above all, INTERESTING. Just try to create anything that meets those two criteria without involving narrative elements...Again, a silly debate.

Taking the metaphor seriously (which, again, I don't think anyone really does), then the art or techne of a good DM is really reduced to that of a pretty basic carpenter. The DM's job is to pound a couple of nails into the ends of four planks and to fill it with sand and to make sure the walls of the box are sturdy enough and the sand in sufficient quantity. And then, according to the metaphor, to stand back and let the players "go at it."

But the minute the DM steps into the sandbox his/herself, then all talk of a "sandbox campaign" must go out the window. And for me, at least, I want my DM to get their hands even dirtier than mine.

Again, I say all of this because I don't think anyone actually believes that a "true sandbox" would be actually enjoyable. Again, sloppy thinking (or the lack of it all together) coupled with some buzz words that make you appear to know what you are talking about.

To say that the ideal campaign is a "true sandbox" seems to me to reduce the function and skill of a DM to laying out a world and managing combat and other mechanics. If this were really all that that went into the art form of good DMing, then I can say with some certainty most folks would have long ago starting searching for a CPU that could perform this function with much greater efficiency and accuracy.

Besides, I should have known that when the two central positions in a debate require that you grapple with mixed metaphors in order to participate in the discussion ("sandbox" vs. "railroad"), the argument isn't really being offered up in good faith.

Thanks again!

James Maliszewski said...

Speaking for myself, when I say that sandbox gaming has no "story," what I mean is that it has no "plot." That is, there can be -- and will be, if the game lasts any length of time -- a narrative that evolves through the interaction of the players and referee. However, this narrative isn't made up of discrete "scenes" mapped out in advance according to a grand referee-designed plan. "Story" is thus an emergent property of sandbox play, but it's not an a priori one. There's no way to guarantee that it'll ever evolved beyond "just a bunch of stuff that happens" and it's against attempts to impose such a guarantee on the campaign that a lot of old schoolers are reacting.

Ironbeard said...

Thanks for stopping by James. I’m an avid and regular reader of Grognardia. I think that your conception of “story” and mine are pretty close to being identical. I too react strongly against the idea that an adventure should consist of a predetermined and consecutive sequence of preplanned “scenes.”

I guess the point that I’m trying to make is that not everyone understands the idea of “story” in exactly this way. When used vernacularly, “story” has a pretty straightforward meaning, but when the term is used in a more abstract context, such as in theoretical discussions about gaming, it becomes open to a wide range of possible interpretations, some of which differ greatly from the one you and I adhere to.

For example, not too long ago, I heard a DM (one who self-identified as “old school”) claim that he doesn’t give his players any adventure or plot hooks because he is playing a sandbox style game. When pressed, he claimed that it is up to the players to create the story. Now clearly, this is not what most old schoolers advocate and I don’t want to be misunderstood as characterizing the entire old school community in this way. But my point is that the current dichotomy of sandbox/story may allow this sort of (mis)interpretation in a way that an alternate formulation may not. This is because what counts as a “story” is not really as clear as it might appear at first glance. I’m not arguing that we should stop using the term “sandbox,” but rather that we stop defining “sandbox” as the opposite of “story” and reconceptualize it as a campaign in which the DM allows the characters total free-will. Admittedly, it is a fine distinction that I’m drawing, but one I think worth considering.

Anonymous said...

Как говорилось на Неделю назад вернулась из отпуска,где познакомилас с мужчиной Тельцом(26лет),мне 29 я Овен,так вот там он отдыхал с сестрой,а я с подругой,после дискотеки,мы с ним уединились,и в последствии каждую ночь проводили сообща,что заявить..,секс потрясающий,с первой встречи он начал говорить,что я это то что ему надо,и мне от него никуда не дется(надо заметить,что было в состоянии алкогольного опьянения),но я это всё тушила и не верила не единому слову,не хотела даже номер телефона оставлять,он замкнулся и пылких речей не стало,в последнюю,ночь я и вовсе всё испортила,сказав,что в случае в случае если мы и увидимся,то только для секса,перед его отъездом мы сухо попрощались,я оставила номер его сестре,и они уехали! Объявился он спустя 5дней,переписка жадная,звала в гости на эти выходный,но он ссылаясь на простуду не приехал,на вопрос"нравлюсь ли я тебе",он ответил ДА!,но при всем при этом инициативы нет,а я взяла в толк,что зря его тушила и мне действительно было хорошо,как всё вернуть,и не отдалить его бесповоротно???????

Anonymous said...

Это прям в точку!!! Другими словами и не скажешь! :)

Anonymous said...

Have you ever thought about writing an e-book or guest authoring on other websites? I have a blog based upon on the same subjects you discuss and would really like to have you share some stories/information. I know my viewers would enjoy your work. If you are even remotely interested, feel free to send me an e mail.
[url=]Best Digital Cameras[/url]