Building Bhakashal – Sandbox Style Open World Gaming

I’ve been running sandbox style open world games for about 15 years now, and I’ve noticed that there are a lot of misunderstandings about how this style of game works. I thought I would say a few words about them here.

Sandbox style open world games have two primary features:

1 – Agency: The players can do whatever they want

2 – Consequentialism: The referee’s adjudicates the game world’s reactions to the PCs actions

The hardest part of running games like this is that the referee doesn’t control what happens, the players do. They direct the action, not the referee. It took me a while to unlearn the habits that made it difficult to allow player freedom of this kind.

What are some of the misunderstandings around sandbox style play?

Here are my top 10.

1.        It’s completely random, every session requires the referee to improvise something new

Every time the players interact with the game world they create reactions, they gain allies and enemies, and their actions have ripple effects that impact future games. So, when you sit down at the table it isn’t a “blank slate”, instead the previous actions of the party will have created opportunities and challenges for them in the current session.

2.       It’s “zero prep”

Though sandbox style gaming is less prep, no gaming style is “zero prep”. The referee has to keep track of what happens in every session so they will know what the context is for later sessions. In addition, the referee will still have to prepare encounters and environments for the players. If the players decide to go to the Temple of Sogog the Dark then the referee will have to prep the Temple of Sogog the Dark. It is also extremely helpful to have a setting of some sort to draw upon, whether you run a sandbox style game or not, and you will have to familiarize yourself with that setting.

3.     You will be caught flat-footed and unable to run sessions because your players pivot in an unexpected direction

One important rule of sandbox style gaming is this: you only have to make it to the end of the session. If the players make an unexpected decision, like going to the Temple of Sogog the Dark, then you have a few options:

a.        They have to get to the Temple of Sogog the Dark, that takes time, and will often get you to the end of the session

b.       The referee has any number of “consequences” from earlier play to draw upon, say a disgruntled former enemy that escaped death at the hands of the PCs can show up before they get to the Temple

c.        The referee can start to describe the Temple when the PCs arrive there, revealing only what is needed for immediate play. When the session is over they can create the Temple for exploration in the next session. The ref will have to record the decisions that they make so they can incorporate them into the actual Temple when they create it. I’ve done this so many times I’ve lost count. PCs tend to move slowly when exploring new areas, aware of the dangers that unwary adventurers can face. Just jot notes on what you tell the players so you can keep things consistent.

d.       As an option of last resort, you are welcome to say to the players, “I wasn’t expecting you to do X, I don’t have anything prepped for that and I don’t think I can improv this right now, let’s break and we can pick up next session.” There’s no shame in calling a session early as you aren’t in the head space to improvise. I will add that in 15 years of active sandbox play I’ve never had to do this. But it is an option.

4.     You can’t use modules or preprepared materials

Sandbox style gaming calls upon the referee to pivot and follow whatever the players choose to do, but that doesn’t rule out using modules or any other pre-prepared materials. Sandbox style gaming just means that the players can choose to leave the module/adventure at any time they like. I regularly sprinkle pre prepared modules into our campaigns, and they work well.

5.     Because there isn’t an overarching, planned out plot, and the referee isn’t telling the players what to do, the players will get bored

This couldn’t be further from the truth. Yes, having an overall planned out plot allows the referee to drive the game forward, and it can certainly be a hook to draw in players, you don’t need this to interest players in the game. Players are invested in sandbox style games because they maximize agency and consequentialism. Player actions and the consequences of those actions drive the game, so they have an immediate and visceral stake in what happens at the table.

6.     Because the game is not planned out by the referee, the players will get stuck

I was initially worried about this, since I didn’t have a plan, maybe the players wouldn’t know what to do. However, the game world doesn’t just sit there, inviolate, while the players stand around doing nothing. Just existing in the game world is dangerous, this isn’t Papers and Paycheques after all. Monsters lurk all around, nefarious factions work in the background, old enemies resurface. Even if the players had no idea what to do something in the environment would prompt them to action sooner or later. I haven’t found this to be an issue; players always manage to come up with something to do!

7.     Improvisation is hard, so the referee might not be able to come up with a response to player actions

Improvisation is a skill, so this is a real concern, but there are some straightforward solutions. First, if the referee can’t decide between options, they can simply roll dice to choose between them. Second, if the referee can’t come up with an option, they can listen to the table talk amongst players and riff off of that. I’ve “stolen” the explanations that players have floated at the table more times than I would care to admit, inspiration can come from anywhere! This concern transcends sandbox style play, every style of play will have to respond to player actions, so it isn’t really a concern specific to the playstyle.

8.     Improvised sandbox games won’t have the depth or atmosphere that pre-planned adventures have

I used to worry about this one a lot, if I’m riffing off player actions at the table, as opposed to keeping the players on track to go through a well-prepared adventure, won’t they miss out on something? What I’ve discovered is that players often miss the “cool” aspects of your adventure and end up engaging with the things you find the least interesting or important. The sheer number of encounters that end up “on the cutting room floor” due to player decisions is wild.

Not only that, but you can still (as mentioned above) use published modules and adventures with all the detail and atmosphere you like in a sandbox style game.

9.     Players will waste too much time deciding what to do if they aren’t actively directed

This particular concern is group specific. There will be groups who like to debate options and are indecisive, as well as groups who are decisive and focused. But in either case, if the players can’t make up their minds the consequentialism of sandbox style gaming and the dangers inherent in the setting will get things going soon enough.

10 . Because the referee hasn’t created an engaging overall plot, “BBEG” and deep planned out connections to the various player backstories, the game will be less engaging

One of the greatest tragedies of modern TTRPG gaming is the idea that the campaign has to be connected up to the tragic backstories of each player in order to have them invested in the game.

In my experience, a sandbox style game that stresses agency and consequentialism the players are deeply engaged, as they are dealing with the consequences of THEIR ACTIONS. Yes, a big plot element (“THE END OF THE WORLD”) can create engagement, but allowing players to drive the action creates it’s own powerful form of engagement. It also creates immersion, as it mimics the real world, where actions have consequences.

I’m sure there are more, but these represent the most common complaints I’ve seen about sandbox style gaming. I'll make another post about the advantages and disadvantages of the playstyle.