PDA

View Full Version : What is sandbox campaign?



Salbazier
2010-05-31, 11:41 AM
What it says on the tin.

How does it works?

jindra34
2010-05-31, 11:44 AM
What it says on the tin.

How does it works?

Its a campaign with no laid out plot or plan. Essentially dropping the players in place A and asking what they want to do and going with it. Requires a lot of work on the DM's part (you have to essentially build a working world) but it does give the players more freedom. And as there is no real plan railroading is non-existant.

CockroachTeaParty
2010-05-31, 11:44 AM
<_<
>_>

A bad idea.

*hides*

Escheton
2010-05-31, 11:49 AM
Only viable if you have a creative dm that can apply all the info from every rulebook he read on the fly. And players that can actually roleplay their char a bit.
For plotwriting dm's that use combat and loot to get the players to play out his book it is disastrous. Same if you have powergamers that build for combat only.

Marriclay
2010-05-31, 11:50 AM
I'm currently running one right now. to expand on what Jindra said, It's essentially being more creative about railroading you players. Sure, they have the option of going anywhere they like and doing anything they want, but you still decide what happens beyond that limit. your best bet is to have a few preparred encounters for when they go off the main road you have set for them. you do not force them to stay on it, but give the players enough goals involving it that they and their characters will want to follow it.

remember, when they do leave the main plot for whatever reason (and they will) all you have to remember is that you still control where everything happens. maybe you intended to have them go by a monastery in the mountains, but they opted to go around the range rather than through it? Put it in the swamp they have to go through instead. Regardless of what they do, you are still in control of everything. milk that, and you can keep them on your set campaign while they roam around the countryside seemingly at random.

If they ask you to lay off and just let them do a few silly adventures, always have a couple of those as backup. Of course, you should do that for any campaign, not just sandbox ones, so that's a given

It isn't so much that it requires more work as it requires more creativity

jindra34
2010-05-31, 11:56 AM
Marriclay: If there is a main road or plot its not a true sandbox campaign unless the players chose to make it the plot, at which point you really shouldn't have any trouble keeping them on it.

Eldan
2010-05-31, 12:01 PM
What you describe, Marriclay, is essentially not a Sandbox campaign, but a regular one with several possible paths.

A Sandbox campaign has no main road. Rather, you have more or less large world, in which various interesting things are going on, and let the players choose where to go. If your players decide to take a ship to the southern isles, let them do something typical for that region, which shows off it's culture. If they decide to try and carve out their own kingdom in the Frozen Marches, let them go right ahead with that. If they want to investigate the legendary tomb of Laguarius, okay.

Escheton
2010-05-31, 12:13 PM
I'm currently running one right now. to expand on what Jindra said, It's essentially being more creative about railroading you players. Sure, they have the option of going anywhere they like and doing anything they want, but you still decide what happens beyond that limit. your best bet is to have a few preparred encounters for when they go off the main road you have set for them. you do not force them to stay on it, but give the players enough goals involving it that they and their characters will want to follow it.

remember, when they do leave the main plot for whatever reason (and they will) all you have to remember is that you still control where everything happens. maybe you intended to have them go by a monastery in the mountains, but they opted to go around the range rather than through it? Put it in the swamp they have to go through instead. Regardless of what they do, you are still in control of everything. milk that, and you can keep them on your set campaign while they roam around the countryside seemingly at random.

If they ask you to lay off and just let them do a few silly adventures, always have a couple of those as backup. Of course, you should do that for any campaign, not just sandbox ones, so that's a given

It isn't so much that it requires more work as it requires more creativity

that isn't sandbox, thats an optical illusion. You are railroading them all the way, just giving them the false choice of terrain.
The entire point of sandbox is that you are not in control. But simply apply rule and encounter to what the players come up with/are likely to run into.

edit: tripple sage'd

Salbazier
2010-05-31, 01:07 PM
Thanks for the explantion, guys:smallsmile:

That seemed like something very fun to play but pain in the ass to DM.

ShadowsGrnEyes
2010-05-31, 01:17 PM
Thanks for the explantion, guys:smallsmile:

That seemed like something very fun to play but pain in the ass to DM.

That is exactly what it is. unfortunately not all players can handle it. if the players feel they need direction in order to know what they are "supposed to do" you end up with alot of hanging around taverns and bickering. . . which can be fun too. . .

the real joy is if you have creative roleplayers and people willing to trade off taking backseat. when one or two of the players can go in depth into their backstorys and bring out their own story with the group that you help sculpt it can be a difficult but enjoyable experience for a DM

Saph
2010-05-31, 01:22 PM
I've run them in the past, and I'll be running another one this summer. They're one of the more difficult campaigns to run as a GM, but they're a huge amount of fun if done right. As a player, I enjoy sandbox-style games a lot more than railroaded ones, just because you have a lot more choice.

Octopus Jack
2010-05-31, 01:26 PM
I'm going to be running one this summer, my first one, I find building worlds and background exceptionally fun sometimes more so than having the players waltz through the world ignoring everything.

I'm being quite optimistic and doing a seafaring campaign with lots of islands to explore a thriving slave trade to wrestle with or help if they want, lots and lots of things to do and NPCs to stat... :smallbiggrin:

jindra34
2010-05-31, 01:30 PM
I've done one once and it end up with a 4" binder full of sheets of paper about various nations, cities, cultures and such. And yes it is a pain to setup but in a good group its well worth it. In a bad group for it, it becomes a waste. In some sense its a great display of both DM and player skill.

Greenish
2010-05-31, 01:33 PM
The easiest way to limit the workload on the DM is to limit the size of the world, which is easiest done by asking the players to stick to the city/island/kingdom/continent/planet/plane.

Zeta Kai
2010-05-31, 01:36 PM
<_<
>_>

A bad idea.

*hides*

It's mostly a bad idea because few DMs have the wherewithal to fill their words with sufficient detail. You really do need a deep, rich campaign setting filled to the brim with detail surrounding the players to do a SBG the right way. As soon as you start to run out of details, or the players turn over a rock & you don't know what's underneath, the world starts to unravel. I'd say the best way to pull one off is for the DM to memorize the Waterdeep book (or Sharn: City of Towers), put the PCs in the middle, & not let them leave the city.

Yora
2010-05-31, 01:44 PM
I've run them in the past, and I'll be running another one this summer. They're one of the more difficult campaigns to run as a GM, but they're a huge amount of fun if done right. As a player, I enjoy sandbox-style games a lot more than railroaded ones, just because you have a lot more choice.

I wouldn't say sandbox games don't railroad. The players decide what adventures they want to go on, but once they have decided for a goal, it's again up to the gm to make up a plot. The gm usually will make up only one or two adventures at a time, and start thinking on further adventures once the current ones have come to a conclusion, instead of knowing from the beginning what the final battle will look like. But he still has to chose what NPCs the PCs have to deal with and what their plans are.
There are much more intersections, but I think its still railroading. :smallwink:

jindra34
2010-05-31, 01:45 PM
It's mostly a bad idea because few DMs have the wherewithal to fill their words with sufficient detail. You really do need a deep, rich campaign setting filled to the brim with detail surrounding the players to do a SBG the right way. As soon as you start to run out of details, or the players turn over a rock & you don't know what's underneath, the world starts to unravel. I'd say the best way to pull one off is for the DM to memorize the Waterdeep book (or Sharn: City of Towers), put the PCs in the middle, & not let them leave the city.

Or be ungodly good at improvisation. So they walk into a house (unlocked door) and they see a family eating dinner around a table, or a dude carving a chair, or some other reasonable thing. Sandbox is not something to try unless your absolutely confident of your ability to keep up with the players potentially doing anything.

Saph
2010-05-31, 01:46 PM
"Railroading" typically means something a bit more extreme than "the players decide adventures and the GM makes a plot". In one of the games I'm playing in at the moment, we've got a serious railroad GM, and you REALLY notice the difference.

Yora
2010-05-31, 01:49 PM
But in that case railroading and sandboxing are not just two opposed concepts but more like hypothetical extremes of a spectrum. You don't have to chose between them, only how much of each you want to have in your campaign.

jindra34
2010-05-31, 01:52 PM
But in that case railroading and sandboxing are not just two opposed concepts but more like hypothetical extremes of a spectrum. You don't have to chose between them, only how much of each you want to have in your campaign.

Railroading is when a DM/Gm essentially shoves plot down players' throats.

Sandbox is the DM/GM allowing players to drive the plot where they want.

They are in essentially opposed facets of a game. Now nothing says that a sandbox campaign will stay that way the whole way through (I think maybe 50% do) but its hard to railroad when your sitting in the back seat.

Raum
2010-05-31, 02:31 PM
Thanks for the explantion, guys:smallsmile:

That seemed like something very fun to play but pain in the ass to DM.There's a fair amount of misinformation in some of the posts. There are two extremes of games - in one the players are proactive while the GM is reactive (sandbox) and vice versa in the other (railroad). Luckily most games are a hybrid fitting somewhere in between.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-05-31, 02:50 PM
that isn't sandbox, thats an optical illusion. You are railroading them all the way, just giving them the false choice of terrain.
The entire point of sandbox is that you are not in control. But simply apply rule and encounter to what the players come up with/are likely to run into.

edit: tripple sage'd

You talk as if all non-sandbox games are bad.
Railroading IS NOT what he described. Railroading is when either the decisions of the PC's don't matter or are predetermined by the DM.What he described isn't sandbox but it isn't railroading either. Having a destination does not a railroad make. Your attacked during the night and captured no matter what you do is railroading. Your attacking during the night and the enemy tries to capture you is not railroading.

awa
2010-05-31, 03:09 PM
My understanding is also that if the party does not realizes they have no choice then it's not railroading

Raum
2010-05-31, 06:36 PM
My understanding is also that if the party does not realizes they have no choice then it's not railroadingHave to disagree. Partially because players often realize far more than some give them credit for but mostly because it's nonsense. If that logic were true, we'd still be watching black and white silent films. After all, everyone would have been satisfied with that medium 'because they didn't realize there was a choice'. Luckily, some people are never satisfied in real life. They push the envelope - find more choices whether they knew they were available or not.


That seemed like something very fun to play but pain in the ass to DM.To expand some on this - I prefer to GM a sandbox leaning hybrid game. It's more fun precisely because I don't know what all the choices are, what the players will do, or what is going to happen next. It's very rewarding when it clicks.

It's not really 'harder' to GM either, it's just different. Making that change can be hard, particularly if you're used to doing it another way. Perhaps some will find it odd, but I find running a scripted campaign harder. It's all in the habits you create. Whatever is habitual will be easier.

AslanCross
2010-05-31, 06:45 PM
You talk as if all non-sandbox games are bad.
Railroading IS NOT what he described. Railroading is when either the decisions of the PC's don't matter or are predetermined by the DM.What he described isn't sandbox but it isn't railroading either. Having a destination does not a railroad make. Your attacked during the night and captured no matter what you do is railroading. Your attacking during the night and the enemy tries to capture you is not railroading.

I subscribe to this view.

Presence of any plot whatsoever =/= railroading.

It is entirely possible to have an overall plot without railroading the players. It is, however, definitely not a sandbox. It's simply an adventure with a plot.

awa
2010-05-31, 06:46 PM
Your analogy about movies has no bearing on this discussion. If you know that their are two choices such as say doors, and behind one is one thing and the other is something else say treasure and a monster and you have no way of knowing which is which but the dm has already decided which every door you open is the one with the monster that's railroading and the party has no proof that they had no real choice. Now this situation was very simplistic and if you did this to often they would probably figure it out figure it out.

Aron Times
2010-05-31, 08:12 PM
Sandbox games are much more manageable in PbP, where the DM has the time and flexibility to react to what the players do. It is very difficult to do right in live games, because the players have no real reason to stay with each other. This leads to splitting the nonexistent party, which decreases the screen time each character gets because the DM has to focus on each group or individual one-by-one.

Saintheart
2010-05-31, 08:31 PM
^^^

Seconded. Only point to add is -- if I may speak the dreaded words -- sandbox is also perfectly workable if you're playing freeform rather than a rules-based environment.

Matthew
2010-06-01, 07:09 AM
A "sandbox" campaign is actually not particularly hard to handle, it just requires some practice and knowledge of the techniques to make it work. Sketch out a world, throw out a few rumours, and at the end of each session ask the players what they want to do next, which you then plan for before the next session. Like anything, the more experience you have, the easier it tends to be.

Escheton
2010-06-01, 11:25 AM
Inevitable plot is railroading. The monastary as example.
There is a monastary in the mountains, if the players chose to go by the mountains plotpoint x begins. Not considering a divergent plot when the players don't want to go past the mountains is bad. The monastary would be out of place for one and the feel you where going for is ruined prolly. Yet because you wrote something you force your playmates to experience it.
Thats bad(well...egotistical) dm'ing.


My understanding is also that if the party does not realizes they have no choice then it's not railroading

the players have either a low sense motive or a dm that bluff his way through plot. Any time a predetermined encounter of any kind happens I consider it a railroad. It's an unavoidable thing that no playerchoice can change except for play through it. The complete opposite of freeform or sandbox.
I know I am going all paladin of freedom here but forcing plot is bad, very bad under the premiss of free play.

Person_Man
2010-06-01, 11:45 AM
I for one prefer sandbox games, with the caveat that the PCs must tell the DM where they intend to go and (in general) what they intend to do at least one game session before they do it. I've found that doing this often yields a better gaming experience and takes LESS work then creating a full plot (which is usually wrecked by the PCs unpredictable actions by the second game session anyway). It works particularly well if you rotate DMs on a semi-regular basis.

Saph
2010-06-01, 11:46 AM
Sandbox games are much more manageable in PbP, where the DM has the time and flexibility to react to what the players do. It is very difficult to do right in live games, because the players have no real reason to stay with each other. This leads to splitting the nonexistent party, which decreases the screen time each character gets because the DM has to focus on each group or individual one-by-one.

That doesn't really make much sense. There's no particular reason that a party in a sandbox game should be any less cohesive than a party in a railroaded game. The degree to which the party want to stay with each other or split up is mostly due to how the characters are created and played, which in turn is related to how well the players get on with each other and co-operate in real life. It's not dependent on the amount of freedom the party has.

Darcand
2010-06-01, 11:58 AM
Hate to admit it though I may, the best model for a sandbox setting is in the form of MMORPGs, i.e. World of Warcraft. You start off in a level appropriate area and from then on are free to wander as you like doing as much (or as little) adventuring as you choose along the way. Some content is immediately available, while other content requires you to have completed a previous quest, or reach a certain level of reputation.

A few tips on sandboxing.
Start at level 1. High level characters are almost impossible to sandbox; they can travel too easily and the mundane encounters of a sandbox no longer offer a challenge so, unless you want to try and discribe a different layer of the abyss every twenty minutes as they storm through aimlessly, milk the lower levels.
Restrict travel. The slower you force your players to move the easier the world is to control around them and the less inclined they are to up and run halfway across the world.
Random tables, random tables, random tables. You will need random NPC tables, wandering monsters, environmental challenges, and points of interest and these tables need to change frequently.

Greenish
2010-06-01, 01:54 PM
Hate to admit it though I may, the best model for a sandbox setting is in the form of MMORPGs, i.e. World of Warcraft. You start off in a level appropriate area and from then on are free to wander as you like doing as much (or as little) adventuring as you choose along the way. Some content is immediately available, while other content requires you to have completed a previous quest, or reach a certain level of reputation.For an authentic experience, have the PCs start by having to collect ten boar tusks. Remember that not all boars have tusks!

Axolotl
2010-06-01, 02:45 PM
Why is everyone saying sandboxes are hard to run? All you need is a map, a handful of dungeons and a clear vision in your mind of what the setting is like.

Maps, settings and dungeons are in pletiful supply even if you can't make your own for some reason. After that all you need is to be able to improvise and the players will do most of the work for you. It's simple, fun and can work really well. This is the type of play DnD was made for in the very begining.

Doug Lampert
2010-06-01, 02:54 PM
Thanks for the explantion, guys:smallsmile:

That seemed like something very fun to play but pain in the ass to DM.

It's not neccessarily fun to play either. A CR 10 encounter is too easy for level 20 to get XP for is also too hard for level 1 to have any real chance against. But in a true sandbox you encounter that level 10 encounter whenever you do something that would make you encounter it or when you go where it is, NOT neccessarily when you're level 10 and it's appropriate. The players can normally have some control, but if it were EASY to always have level appropriate encounters then everyone would be doing it and you'd be constantly tripping over level 30 NPCs.

Similarly a very large number of players EXPECT there to be a predetermined plot and don't do well with "what do you do next" when there's no obvious plot hook dangling in front of them.

And if what you want is world changing epic adventure, well, that works better when the GM KNOWS that it's a worldchanging epic adventure and can arrange things accordingly.

Sandbox only works when both sides know what's happening, and even then I've always found it works a LOT better if the end of every session where there's not an obvious continuation is to ask the players what they expect to do next so you can prep one thing in real detail and the other hundred or so things your PCs might do only very slightly.

But even then, if GMing expect to prep about 3-5 times as many NPCs and encounters as you ever actually use. If the players CAN'T bypass your prepared stuff then it's really not a sandbox. You need to be prepared to give them 5 rumors of stuff that might be interesting and to run any one of the five and then to abandon them ALL forever as the PCs wander off to the next continent to do something you casually mentioned three weeks earlier or in the background briefing material at the start of the campaign.

Doug Lampert
2010-06-01, 02:56 PM
Why is everyone saying sandboxes are hard to run? All you need is a map, a handful of dungeons and a clear vision in your mind of what the setting is like.

Maps, settings and dungeons are in pletiful supply even if you can't make your own for some reason. After that all you need is to be able to improvise and the players will do most of the work for you. It's simple, fun and can work really well. This is the type of play DnD was made for in the very begining.

And when the PCs aren't interested in any of those dungeons and go somewhere else to play politics? If they just find one of the dungeons anyway it isn't a sandbox game.

Optimystik
2010-06-01, 02:57 PM
For an authentic experience, have the PCs start by having to collect ten boar tusks. Remember that not all boars have tusks!

Or livers. :smallannoyed:

Axolotl
2010-06-01, 03:03 PM
And when the PCs aren't interested in any of those dungeons and go somewhere else to play politics? If they just find one of the dungeons anyway it isn't a sandbox game.You ad-lib, like I said you should have a clear image of the setting in your mind when you play a sandbox which is where you get the adventures from. The only reason I said you need premade dungeons is because they're the only thing I wouldn't be able to ad-lib on the spot. You scatter them around the map and if the players want to delve thme then that' goood. If they don't and they want to play politics then it shouldn't be to hard to create adventures for that.

I'd like to add though that having plenty of large random tables do help for a sandbox.

Raum
2010-06-01, 06:58 PM
Why is everyone saying sandboxes are hard to run?There are at least two posts on the first pages saying it's no more difficult...so everyone hasn't said that. :smallwink:


But even then, if GMing expect to prep about 3-5 times as many NPCs and encounters as you ever actually use.Depends what you mean by 'prep'. I tend to have lots of NPCs described by about three sentences - one each covering goals, resources, and potential campaign impact. You don't need more until the PCs are ready to engage a particular NPC. I tend to create stats one to two sessions ahead of time at most. By then I have a pretty good idea of what direction they're heading. On the rare occasions I've predicted wrongly I can usually create the entire encounter in a ten minute break.

In my experience, sandbox leaning styles of play are less work to GM rather than more. The only time I've had to discard a story arc was when the PC driving it died. Even then, all I lost was a few paragraphs of prep. Scripted games seem much more fragile to me.

-----
Edit: At the post above - I seldom use random encounters. Don't like 'em much. Some 80-90% matter to whatever story arc is being built.

random11
2010-06-01, 07:21 PM
Most people wrote about what a sandbox game requires from the GM, but neglected to mention that the players must also be prepared to that certain type of game.

First, they must have understanding of how the GM's world works, and how they can fit in.
Is being a mercenary a typical job option, or do only people in the army get access to weapons and a license to use them?
Should they ally themselves with a specific faction or religion? What will the consequences of such a choice be?
What areas they can handle? what areas are currently too strong for them? If it's truly a sandbox, the GM must drop the encounters that fit the location, not the character levels.
Listening to long lectures about a fantasy world's politics, economy and religion isn't always what players want, but they MUST know it in a sandbox to know what their choices are.

Second problem I can think of is the type of players that misuses the idea of a sandbox.
Avoiding plot hooks or dungeons just to say "I can", or finding absurd solutions just to test the GM's ability to improvise.
Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.