PDA

View Full Version : Share your concepts for running Sandbox games



Accersitus
2010-10-30, 01:28 PM
I'll go first.
We recently had a game based around the characters running
a carriage transport service "The shades of grey". Doing anything
from smuggling to discreetly transporting important dignitaries and ambassadors.
The 3 characters (who introduced themselves as Mr Black, Mr White,
and Mr Grey, an Alchemist/Engineer, a marksman, and the charismatic swordsman/Expert rider), ended up being wanted by the government in two of
the largest countries in the homebrew setting, and wanted by a criminal
organisation in one of the countries.
We had loads of fun with thrilling chases with the heavily modified carriage.

Anyone else who wants to share their sandbox campaign?

ghost_warlock
2010-10-30, 01:33 PM
Athas = Mars. That tiny, blue dot in the sky is prehistoric Earth. Hm...

Quietus
2010-10-30, 01:41 PM
Something I've been considering doing in the PbP forum if one (or more) of the other games I'm involved with dies is dropping a "taste" of my campaign world, detailing between 3-6 possible starting locations, and asking for backstories for characters, sans stats. I'd let a few base rules be known - no psionics for flavor, no ToB 'cause I don't have it, no other settings - but beyond that, the players could submit characters that would be in the locales I detailed, and I'd accept players from that list.

The locales would include the central plains (barbarian tribes and dinosaurs), Vaeles (major human city, most generic of the area, and birthplace of the homebrew race of "dragon blooded"), Port Cigomenta, (very anti-arcane magic city under the thumb of one of the major religions), Resta (Seen by the few outsiders who know of it to be a small city, but really applies to the sprawling collection of families/communities that goes from one end of a forest to the other), and Fograd (Dwarven community that recently experienced a massive earthquake/cave in that killed 90% of their population). I'd then select the most interesting backstories to be invited to the game, and write a game revolving around plot points in that locale, tailored to their backstories. No idea how well it'd turn out in practice, but in theory it sounds like a fun idea.

jebob
2010-10-30, 01:48 PM
This guy (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/78/grand-experiments-west-marches/) did an exploration game with a large group of players, allowing a mmorpg-style atmosphere to develop.

Urpriest
2010-10-30, 02:08 PM
It's been awhile...I remember a pretty fun one back in high school. It was an evil campaign, and the DM wasn't really sure what we were supposed to be doing. So the Nazathrune Rakshasa built a supersonic hang-glider and just flew it around all day, the lich hid out in a perfectly defended underwater fortress, and I the death knight forged an undead army to take back my father's kingdom Arthas-style. Much fun was had, and the game ended with us planning to make a spaceship using the Stronghold Builder's Guide and conquer the moon.

dsmiles
2010-10-30, 06:12 PM
I guess my sandbox is a little smaller than everybody else's. I just throw out a bunch of plot hooks for different adventures I have sketched out, and see which one they bite on.

Urpriest
2010-10-30, 06:20 PM
I guess my sandbox is a little smaller than everybody else's. I just throw out a bunch of plot hooks for different adventures I have sketched out, and see which one they bite on.

That kind of thing often runs better, frankly, and if you don't tell them it's a sandbox sometimes they never figure it out. I had one campaign with a whole lot of entirely different paths the characters could take, but they still felt like they were telling a set story. They were a bit surprised when I mentioned to them afterwards that instead of fighting ancient gods in the jungle they could have gone up north and joined the Ogre Mafia.

dsmiles
2010-10-30, 06:42 PM
That kind of thing often runs better, frankly, and if you don't tell them it's a sandbox sometimes they never figure it out. I had one campaign with a whole lot of entirely different paths the characters could take, but they still felt like they were telling a set story. They were a bit surprised when I mentioned to them afterwards that instead of fighting ancient gods in the jungle they could have gone up north and joined the Ogre Mafia.

Perhaps I should rephrase that. By "throwing out" I mean "insinuate into whatever they're doing."

Example:
Character A is shopping for weapons or armor. The weaponsmith or armorer happens to mention that a caravan with a good supply of <insert exotic metal here> has gone missing, and is willing to pay for help.
Character B is at the Mage's Guild or Library doing research. He/she happens across an ancient scroll/map/whatever that details the fall of (or is a map of) an ancient civilization.
Character C is at the local thieves' guild, and is informed that his/her services are required to retrieve an ancient artifact/velvet Elvis/whatever from a tightly secured location.
Character D is at the Temple of <insert deity here> and is implored by the priests to bring their aging high priest through <insert unexplored/dangerous territory here> so that he might commune with said deity at <insert sacred place here> to find out who his successor is to be.

When all the characters meet back up at the end of the "R&R" day, they each have a plot hook to share with the other party members. They eventually pick one, and off they go on another adventure. Some of the adventures will even intersect with the other ones.

Example:
The missing caravan was kidnapped by goblins/kobolds/orcs/whatever and is located at the ruins of the aforementioned ancient civilization. The ground level of which is being used by said humanoids as a base of operations. Below ground, however...

That's what I meant by throwing out plot hooks. I never expressly tell the players to "go play in the sandbox," as it were, I just give lots of options. Options for which I have written adventure outlines.

Quietus
2010-10-30, 07:29 PM
That's what I meant by throwing out plot hooks. I never expressly tell the players to "go play in the sandbox," as it were, I just give lots of options. Options for which I have written adventure outlines.

That never works. It's the brain-block that happens in people any time you toss out a "do anything" statement. Most people, when given almost infinite options, will freeze up instead or go blank instead of picking something. The trick with a sandbox game isn't to present a static setting and then ask your players what they want to do.. this might work, in a group used to sandbox adventures, but more often than not you end up looking at the "buh.." face all around the table. Instead, you need to have *something* happening that first game, even if it's a one-off minor thing that has little to do with anything. From there, players will either give you a direction they want to go, or you can read from their in-game actions what interests them, and what to drop in front of them.

The key, I find, is to simply have the world *living around them*. The PC's enter the marketplace - there's hustle and bustle, and shouting voices, sure. But throw in a few interesting things - the man over there with the golden outfit and massive purple hair, who's got some overly large woman leaned back in a makeshift chair, apparently drawing things all over her face. Some street rat being chased by the guards over a loaf of bread. The gnome telling an animated story to a group of lookers-on, a hatful of coin sitting waiting for a few grateful coins, and being watched over by a surly half-orc trying to be less imposing so as not to interrupt the gnome's story. Players will either hook onto something and interact with it, or they'll pass by all of this, and head for something else that they, as a player, are more interested in. Hopefully. Sometimes you get people who'll just wander from one place to another and never hook on anything until you make the young woman with the strange necklace, who happens to be a princess but no one knows this yet, run facefirst into them.

dsmiles
2010-10-30, 07:40 PM
Fortunately for me, my group has been together since 2004. We know what makes each other sit up and take notice, as far as plot hooks go. :smallsmile:

I can appreciate that this wouldn't work with a bunch of strangers, or even a group of people who never see each other outside the gaming environment. My group is like family, we get together on holidays, I was at their son's baptism, they'll be at my wedding (if my wife and I can ever afford to have one, that is). It makes it easier to know which hooks to throw out.

I'm not refuting your point, I'm just pointing out that the two different types of groups (new/stranger and friend/family) will react differently to this tactic.

AshDesert
2010-10-30, 08:10 PM
I once ran an evil campaign where I gave the characters an airship , a detailed map and political summary of the campaign world, started them at 5th level and told them that their character's backstories should include how they came together to try and take over the world. The first session was the only one where I specifically made any adventure, which was stealing the airship. After that I let them do what they wanted, and just made the world react around them. In the end they ended up taking over the world, getting bored, and branching out into the Outer Planes and becoming Evil Gods themselves.

true_shinken
2010-10-30, 08:20 PM
Seeing as so many sandbox games amount to 'we are evil guys, so we'll take over the world while kicking pupies' (really, there were like 5 examples in this thread alone), there is no wonder I dislike them.
Maybe this is why so many people around here just assume adventurers are violent racist murderers - it looks like this kind of game is actually the prevalent one.
Am I the only here who actually likes to play a true hero? To help people, to defeat villains, to save the day and live to tell the tale? :smallconfused:

Aidan305
2010-10-30, 08:24 PM
I've currently got my players running round a sandbox consisting of a magocracy and the contents therein as a team of all casters. Personally I find it the best method for running a game since it means that the PCs have more say in what's going on and what adventures will happen and you don't get the sense of simply going straight from one scenario to the next.

Urpriest
2010-10-30, 08:28 PM
Seeing as so many sandbox games amount to 'we are evil guys, so we'll take over the world while kicking pupies' (really, there were like 5 examples in this thread alone), there is no wonder I dislike them.
Maybe this is why so many people around here just assume adventurers are violent racist murderers - it looks like this kind of game is actually the prevalent one.
Am I the only here who actually likes to play a true hero? To help people, to defeat villains, to save the day and live to tell the tale? :smallconfused:

Playing the hero is fun, but it's hard to find villains in a sandbox. Sometimes you have to make your own.

I think it would actually be really fun to have a mixed alignment sandbox game with powerful heroes and villains battling over the fate of the world. Have something in place to stop them from killing eachother off too quickly (perhaps Xorvintaal?) and it could be quite interesting. It's just hard to have players working against eachother as part of the standard dynamic.

I also think it's harder to run a heroic sandbox campaign because a hero is necessarily beholden to things. A hero must save those in danger, right wrongs, etc., and that means that it is the wrongs, people in danger, etc. that determine the hero's activities. So it doesn't feel as much like a sandbox. Like the campaign I mentioned earlier: it started out with many choices, but the players still gravitated towards saving the world. Even, oddly enough, the evil ones. Possibly because the good ones included a half-ogre paladin.

true_shinken
2010-10-30, 08:38 PM
Playing the hero is fun, but it's hard to find villains in a sandbox. Sometimes you have to make your own.

Yeah, that was my point. I'm not a big fan of sandbox games for that same reason.
Actually, I once played in a 4e supposedly sandbox game that ended up in the party members fighting to the death. We had a warlock with a heart of gold (my character) and a paladin (a traditional one)... and a bunch of violent homicidal grav robbers. They eventually killed innocents for the heck of it and while for a long while both my character and the paladin just tried to ignore their deeds, the innocent-killing was too much to ignore. So we basically fought them... and 4e is a really bad system for PvP. Bad luck with initiative (and a lack of Dex focus in our classes) meant we were killed before we got a turn. It sucked hard.

In my game, I give the players plenty of choices. Once they just sat on a floating city having fun while the group artificer crafted items, the other time they abandoned a quest (and basically skipped in what could be a whole story arc) because it seemed too deadly and so on so forth.
Frankly, I find it hard to interpret 'this is a sandbox' differently than 'I can't think up a good plot, so do random crazy things'.

For my upcoming campaign, I'll stat out a single city and it's surroundings in a great deal of detail, set a few events happening around it (an incoming monster army, basically) and see what they do with the world around them. I wouldn't call this a sandbox.

AshDesert
2010-10-30, 08:54 PM
Seeing as so many sandbox games amount to 'we are evil guys, so we'll take over the world while kicking pupies' (really, there were like 5 examples in this thread alone), there is no wonder I dislike them.
Maybe this is why so many people around here just assume adventurers are violent racist murderers - it looks like this kind of game is actually the prevalent one.
Am I the only here who actually likes to play a true hero? To help people, to defeat villains, to save the day and live to tell the tale? :smallconfused:

Playing the hero is definitely fun, and the majority of games I play in and DM are story-driven games where they PCs are the heros. But sometimes you just wanna change things up, be the evil villains who are trying to take over the world rather than stopping them. Sandboxes are slightly more accommodating to that style of play, so there are probably more villainous sandboxes than heroic ones.

Quietus
2010-10-30, 10:08 PM
For my upcoming campaign, I'll stat out a single city and it's surroundings in a great deal of detail, set a few events happening around it (an incoming monster army, basically) and see what they do with the world around them. I wouldn't call this a sandbox.

This is where we differ. A sandbox isn't a word without a plot, in which the PCs decide what monkey crap to fling around today. It's a world where many different things are happening - the monster army is incoming, while the higher-ups in the city are having a hard time cutting all the red tape to get the resources to stop it. They can't pull town guards from patrol because of a recent increase in illegal activity.. and it's into this situation that the PCs are thrust. You find a couple ways to introduce the "There's a problem here" moment - a monster scouting party that decided to try and bring back a few heads, a thieves guild attack in the night on the place they're staying, a few job postings looking to hire new guards with a tasty signing bonus if they stay for X amount of time. The players define, on their own time, what they want to deal with, and how. If they want to leave the city, they can, but you lay out a timeline, and over time, the city gets wrecked because it couldn't stand against the army without assistance. Meanwhile, the PCs were off fishing, and can do something related to that.

tl;dr - a sandbox isn't a world where PCs are expected to be murderous rampaging hobos. It's a world where the PCs can do anything they want, but their actions do have consequences, and those consequences more or less make and drive the story.

true_shinken
2010-10-30, 10:10 PM
tl;dr - a sandbox isn't a world where PCs are expected to be murderous rampaging hobos. It's a world where the PCs can do anything they want, but their actions do have consequences, and those consequences more or less make and drive the story.
I actually call that 'decently DMed world'.
I guess sandbox will always have a rather negative feel for me.

Valameer
2010-10-30, 10:16 PM
This guy (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/78/grand-experiments-west-marches/) did an exploration game with a large group of players, allowing a mmorpg-style atmosphere to develop.

This is awesome. Thanks for the link. I totally have to try running one of these.

kyoryu
2010-10-30, 10:38 PM
This is where we differ. A sandbox isn't a word without a plot, in which the PCs decide what monkey crap to fling around today. It's a world where many different things are happening - the monster army is incoming, while the higher-ups in the city are having a hard time cutting all the red tape to get the resources to stop it. They can't pull town guards from patrol because of a recent increase in illegal activity.. and it's into this situation that the PCs are thrust. You find a couple ways to introduce the "There's a problem here" moment - a monster scouting party that decided to try and bring back a few heads, a thieves guild attack in the night on the place they're staying, a few job postings looking to hire new guards with a tasty signing bonus if they stay for X amount of time. The players define, on their own time, what they want to deal with, and how. If they want to leave the city, they can, but you lay out a timeline, and over time, the city gets wrecked because it couldn't stand against the army without assistance. Meanwhile, the PCs were off fishing, and can do something related to that.


I was actually about to write this exact post. I couldn't agree more.

Sandbox doesn't mean that things don't happen. It means there's no one thing the PCs are supposed to do, but rather a scenario that they're in that will involve, and the world will react to what they do (or don't do).

banthesun
2010-10-31, 12:46 AM
My sandbox was set in a single large city (and occasionally the surrounding countryside). The players all worked individually trying to achieve their own goals, which ranged from saving the society from itself to razing the city to the ground just to see what would happen. The initial idea was that they would all join one of the assassin societies vying for control over the city and rise through the ranks as the main plot slowly revealed itself.

What I got was a policewoman, a vigilante, and a serial killer caught in a risky game to take out the others while constantly having to forge fragile alliances against the real dangers as they closed in (this was a great way to stop them murdering the hell out of each other). In the end they'd wasted so much effort fighting amongst themselves that they could only watch the city collapse as the vampire army moved in (though they still had some chances at incredible epicness within the dying city to at least force a draw).

Thankfully, this all fitted in with the theme of the story, where the Big Bad was only trying to convert the entire city into his undead thralls to build an army strong enough to stop a demonic invasion (which had been mentioned several times in the campaign already), and that by resisting, the PCs may well have doomed the entire continent.

Unfortunately, it kinda fell apart during the ending, so they only got to learn about the effects their adventures had caused as a post script, but they still reported it as being plenty of fun (for vastly different reasons though).

Raum
2010-10-31, 10:21 AM
Seeing as so many sandbox games amount to 'we are evil guys, so we'll take over the world while kicking pupies' (really, there were like 5 examples in this thread alone), there is no wonder I dislike them.Sandbox play != evil campaign. In my experience the campaign's morality and it's openness are completely separate issues. What sandbox play does take is player initiative. So just make sure the world is 'less than perfect' so there's something for heroes to do. Only perfectly tranquil worlds force you into a villain's role (because there's nothing for an adventurer to do in a tranquil world).
Playing the hero is fun, but it's hard to find villains in a sandbox. Sometimes you have to make your own.See comments on perfect worlds above. :smallwink:


I think it would actually be really fun to have a mixed alignment sandbox game with powerful heroes and villains battling over the fate of the world. Have something in place to stop them from killing eachother off too quickly (perhaps Xorvintaal?) and it could be quite interesting. It's just hard to have players working against eachother as part of the standard dynamic.I'm beginning to wonder if we have the same definition of 'sandbox'. I don't think I've ever run a game where players were consciously working against each other. Cause problems by inattention / misunderstanding / mistakes yes. But I'm not interested in running a PvP arena...and wouldn't call one a sandbox no matter how much of the setting the 'arena' encompassed.


I also think it's harder to run a heroic sandbox campaign because a hero is necessarily beholden to things. A hero must save those in danger, right wrongs, etc., and that means that it is the wrongs, people in danger, etc. that determine the hero's activities. So it doesn't feel as much like a sandbox. Like the campaign I mentioned earlier: it started out with many choices, but the players still gravitated towards saving the world. Even, oddly enough, the evil ones. Possibly because the good ones included a half-ogre paladin.Sandbox play relies on two things - players taking initiative and characters who are engaged in the world. In my experience, initiative follows engagement. In other words, once they care about something they'll act. If you want a heroic game, give them something to care about other than world domination. :smallcool:

Urpriest
2010-10-31, 10:42 AM
I'm beginning to wonder if we have the same definition of 'sandbox'. I don't think I've ever run a game where players were consciously working against each other. Cause problems by inattention / misunderstanding / mistakes yes. But I'm not interested in running a PvP arena...and wouldn't call one a sandbox no matter how much of the setting the 'arena' encompassed.

Sandbox play relies on two things - players taking initiative and characters who are engaged in the world. In my experience, initiative follows engagement. In other words, once they care about something they'll act. If you want a heroic game, give them something to care about other than world domination. :smallcool:

Pure PvP would, I agree, be dumb. I'm thinking more of players working at cross-purposes to alter a large, dynamic world. It's not usually how sandbox games are run, most involve players working together in some capacity...but the possibility is interesting.

And sure, in general characters need to care about something. The problem is, if you threaten what they care about then you've just decided what the adventure is, in their minds. It's tricky to give them things that inspire action without compelling it, basically.

dsmiles
2010-10-31, 10:47 AM
Pure PvP would, I agree, be dumb. I'm thinking more of players working at cross-purposes to alter a large, dynamic world. It's not usually how sandbox games are run, most involve players working together in some capacity...but the possibility is interesting.

And sure, in general characters need to care about something. The problem is, if you threaten what they care about then you've just decided what the adventure is, in their minds. It's tricky to give them things that inspire action without compelling it, basically.

I use the cross-purposes plot hook frequently. Each player has two characters, a hero, and a villain. We alternate which character is used every game session, and eventually, the plot kicks in and one party has to track down and destroy/bring to justice the other party. Fun times! :smallbiggrin:

Greenish
2010-10-31, 10:49 AM
In my game, I give the players plenty of choices. Once they just sat on a floating city having fun while the group artificer crafted items, the other time they abandoned a quest (and basically skipped in what could be a whole story arc) because it seemed too deadly and so on so forth.
Frankly, I find it hard to interpret 'this is a sandbox' differently than 'I can't think up a good plot, so do random crazy things'.

For my upcoming campaign, I'll stat out a single city and it's surroundings in a great deal of detail, set a few events happening around it (an incoming monster army, basically) and see what they do with the world around them. I wouldn't call this a sandbox.That's the very definition of sandbox you have in there. :smallamused:

Sandbox play relies on two things - players taking initiative and characters who are engaged in the world. In my experience, initiative follows engagement. In other words, once they care about something they'll act. If you want a heroic game, give them something to care about other than world domination. :smallcool:True enough, but as mentioned in this thread, usually villains act while heroes react (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainsActHeroesReact).

Urpriest
2010-10-31, 10:49 AM
I use the cross-purposes plot hook frequently. Each player has two characters, a hero, and a villain. We alternate which character is used every game session, and eventually, the plot kicks in and one party has to track down and destroy/bring to justice the other party. Fun times! :smallbiggrin:

I tried to do something vaguely similar awhile back, though the campaign didn't last long enough for it to go through. I was running a monster campaign for some 3.5 veterans, and running a mostly cliche 4e game to teach some new people. They were set in the same world, and the intent was that each group would eventually run into an analog of the other one.

Raum
2010-10-31, 10:50 AM
And sure, in general characters need to care about something. The problem is, if you threaten what they care about then you've just decided what the adventure is, in their minds. It's tricky to give them things that inspire action without compelling it, basically.I look at it from the opposite point of view. When a player tells you his character really cares about widgets, he's saying "please put widgets in the game".

I almost always try to incorporate characters' backgrounds into sandbox games. And, conversely, I ask players to account for scripted themes in their backgrounds on the rare times I run a canned campaign.

True enough, but as mentioned in this thread, usually villains act while heroes react (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainsActHeroesReact).TV Tropes are more about cliches than truth but, even if you accept is as true, it's fairly trivial to set it up so reacting strategically puts them in the position of being proactive tactically. Or vice-versa. A good mix will keep the players on their toes. :smallbiggrin:

Amphetryon
2010-10-31, 11:05 AM
I guess my sandbox is a little smaller than everybody else's. I just throw out a bunch of plot hooks for different adventures I have sketched out, and see which one they bite on.

As I've indicated before, I have had players who wanted a sandbox game actively rebel when they saw that I had plot hooks actually sketched out and written down. As far as that group was concerned, if you're pre-planning stages of the campaign, you're removing choice and, in so doing, removing the game from sandbox territory.

It becomes increasingly difficult, in that environment, to give the players the sandbox experience they claim to want when their consistent reaction is "Look, it's a plot! RUN!"

Greenish
2010-10-31, 11:17 AM
TV Tropes are more about cliches than truth but, even if you accept is as true, it's fairly trivial to set it up so reacting strategically puts them in the position of being proactive tactically. Or vice-versa. A good mix will keep the players on their toes. :smallbiggrin:Yes, but they'll be reacting in the first place. Heroes usually want to prevent or protect something, so you'll have to threaten it to get them to react, and once you do they don't have much options.

An Evil motivation could be to rule over the village/city/kingdom/world (because ambition is evil!). There's many ways to try to achieve that, and no obligation to jump at everything that hints to that direction.

A Good motivation could be protect the innocent. Well, if nothing threatens the innocent, not much for one to do, and if something does threaten them, well, there's one thing to be done.


Of course, fleshed out characters have other motivations, but still.

Raum
2010-10-31, 11:53 AM
As I've indicated before, I have had players who wanted a sandbox game actively rebel when they saw that I had plot hooks actually sketched out and written down. As far as that group was concerned, if you're pre-planning stages of the campaign, you're removing choice and, in so doing, removing the game from sandbox territory.

It becomes increasingly difficult, in that environment, to give the players the sandbox experience they claim to want when their consistent reaction is "Look, it's a plot! RUN!"I try to keep such plans relatively nebulous unless they're likely to affect the next game. In other words, I'll give NPCs goals or desires to accomplish instead of actually planning an event. If Bob wants to summon Yar-Soggoth, Fred wants to be mayor at any cost, and Sally is planning on assassinating the sheriff you have an interesting town. Just add PCs and stir. But if you have Happyville where nothing is going on...yeah I'd probably turn villain also. :smallwink:


Yes, but they'll be reacting in the first place. Heroes usually want to prevent or protect something, so you'll have to threaten it to get them to react, and once you do they don't have much options.Yes, this goes back to my initial comments on 'perfect worlds'. In a perfect world you don't need heroes so, if that's what you're looking for, make sure the world is less than perfect. :smallbiggrin:

Greenish
2010-10-31, 11:55 AM
Yes, this goes back to my initial comments on 'perfect worlds'. In a perfect world you don't need heroes so, if that's what you're looking for, make sure the world is less than perfect. :smallbiggrin:Yes, and then we go back to the dilemma where the PCs don't have options like they should have in a sandbox: they have to protect something, or stop something from happening.

kyoryu
2010-10-31, 01:14 PM
As I've indicated before, I have had players who wanted a sandbox game actively rebel when they saw that I had plot hooks actually sketched out and written down. As far as that group was concerned, if you're pre-planning stages of the campaign, you're removing choice and, in so doing, removing the game from sandbox territory.

It becomes increasingly difficult, in that environment, to give the players the sandbox experience they claim to want when their consistent reaction is "Look, it's a plot! RUN!"

As always, it depends. Even in a sandbox world, things should happen. The difference with a sandbox world is that the players aren't forced into a specific plotline, with a specific, scripted adventure.

I'd personally find players that just expect everything go exactly their way, and they can do whatever they want, and nobody will mind or react to be really annoying. That's not sandbox, it's Monty Haul.

hiryuu
2010-10-31, 01:20 PM
Actually, I just started one of these.

This my map draft (http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv115/gaias_hiccup/Tsahokeeah.jpg) of the town.

And this is the write-up (https://sites.google.com/site/aescaworld/tsahokeeah) I gave them.

There are active plots going on in various places, and what the PCs do will affect them, or even if they choose to get involved in them. One player made a teenager wielding a sword that can open or lock any lock or gate and seal doorways that lead to anywhere in the deep realms, another made an engineer, and the third made an athlete, so the plots they uncover will deal with those sorts of themes. Well, they all made teenagers, so they're going to high school. I even threw together a classroom and students and various things going on with each student.

One session so far, and it's been pretty fun. They explored the toy factory, repaired a golem they found there, fought a spirit that traps people in rooms and waits for them to starve (it feeds on their panic), found a giant PVC prop key that can damage certain spirits by its proximity, a toy train that prevents combustion anywhere within ten feet of it, found an entrance to the underworld in the north tunnel (and its gatekeeper, one of their classmates who likes to build monster movie dioramas as a hobby), and the athlete is about to try out for a sports team (Storming, sort of a nonlethal team-based gladiator combat).

Valameer
2010-10-31, 01:35 PM
This is the distinction to me:

Traditional game: PCs react to what the DM has in front of them. They could go anywhere, have multiple plots, be free to take various options to complete their goal, or whatever. But if they are reacting to something you put in front of them - if they have to meet any requirements to advance the plot, that's not a sandbox.

"The PCs are in a fleshed out world. They can do whatever they want, and they each have their own agendas. They do their own thing for a year, but eventually they'll find out a dark god is coming back from the dead, and only they can stop him." Not a sandbox. And yes, I've seen this on this board.

Sandbox game: PCs act, and make the action happen. DM merely reacts to whatever the PCs do. There can be guidelines (don't leave the city), but in essence it's a game where absolutely nothing happens if the characters don't act. No timelines, no prophecies, no geneologies, no mysterious letters, no missions, no 'plot'. Nothing to follow. DM can provide treasure maps or NPCs tell players about this or that dungeon. But the world doesn't care if the players don't bite on any hooks. The DM is more of a referee than a storyteller.

"There have been multiple bounties posted for Richy the Kid, a notable bandit leader. Your uncle sent you an old treasure map hoping you could make heads or tails of it. Town folk talk about how some settlers disappeared up in the Holy Lakes region last winter. And you've always wanted to check out those Howling Caves down in the White Woods."

Now if any of these hooks leads into an overarching storyline, conspiracy, quest, or whatever... if you ever find yourself making the NPCs drive the story forward in a way that isn't reactionary, then you've moved out of a sandbox and into a traditional game again.

That said, I think 'sandbox' is a slightly glorified term, because people compare it to 'railroad' which has bad connotations. A real sanbox game might not be any fun for your crew. Traditional games with their quests are closer to novels. Sandbox games are more like MMOs.

kyoryu
2010-10-31, 01:39 PM
Yes, but they'll be reacting in the first place. Heroes usually want to prevent or protect something, so you'll have to threaten it to get them to react, and once you do they don't have much options.

Good only needs to be reactive if you assume that the status quo of the world, in general, is "good." If the world is basically run by evil, then Good has a very proactive role to play.

Imagine a sandbox game based on Inglourious Basterds. Playiing in a "reactive" fashion would lead to quick character deaths if not TPK.




"The PCs are in a fleshed out world. They can do whatever they want, and they each have their own agendas. They do their own thing for a year, but eventually they'll find out a dark god is coming back from the dead, and only they can stop him." Not a sandbox. And yes, I've seen this on this board.

Agreed. "Dark God is coming, and only the PCs can stop him" is such a cliche railroad plot it's disturbing. Mostly because it usually implies the end of the world if not stopped.

OTOH, an evil cult may rise to prominence without the PCs ever getting involved - but that, in and of itself, will not cause the end of the world, even though it may *change* the world in any number of ways.




Now if any of these hooks leads into an overarching storyline, conspiracy, quest, or whatever... if you ever find yourself making the NPCs drive the story forward in a way that isn't reactionary, then you've moved out of a sandbox and into a traditional game again.

Not entirely agreed. The world can evolve, and does not need to be static except for the changes the PCs make. War can break out, kingdoms can change hands, wizards can do evil, without the players' involvement. It only gets "traditional" if the action of the PCs is required. Civil war breaks out in the Kingdom of Evilvania? If the PCs don't get involved, maybe the rebellion gets crushed. If they do get involved, maybe they the rebellion succeeds, and they get some very powerful allies. Either way, the world keeps going on.

I'd call that sandbox, and yet it allows for the world to change without the influence of the PCs.

I guess it depends on how you define sandbox - you seem to believe the definition of sandbox is "the only agents of change are the PCs." I tend towards the view of "the PCs are in a world that may or may not change without them, however they are not compelled down a particular path."


That said, I think 'sandbox' is a slightly glorified term, because people compare it to 'railroad' which has bad connotations. A real sanbox game might not be any fun for your crew. Traditional games with their quests are closer to novels. Sandbox games are more like MMOs.

It's kind of amusing, because what you're calling a "traditional" game really isn't - the really old school games were closer to sandboxes. The first real "railroad" campaign that I can think of was DragonLance, which would have been, what, mid 80s?

Amphetryon
2010-10-31, 01:50 PM
Good only needs to be reactive if you assume that the status quo of the world, in general, is "good." If the world is basically run by evil, then Good has a very proactive role to play.If the world is basically run by evil, then Good is reacting to that situation, as I see it.

hiryuu
2010-10-31, 01:55 PM
"The PCs are in a fleshed out world. They can do whatever they want, and they each have their own agendas. They do their own thing for a year, but eventually they'll find out a dark god is coming back from the dead, and only they can stop him." Not a sandbox.

There we go, fixed.

Why? Simply because saying "A dark god is coming back" doesn't make it a plot. It's only a plot if the players choose to react. Otherwise reality isn't a sandbox. "Terrorists are going to blow up the Megadome downtown" doesn't mean anything if the PCs aren't in a position to worry about or deal with it. Just about anyone would try to warn people, though. That doesn't make it "not a sandbox." Things happen whether you're there or not. You've got one hell of a sense of entitlement if you think that playing in a sandbox game means reacting only to your PCs. There are plots happening, just like in real life. The difference in a sandbox game should, just like in real life, be that they don't usually fall into your lap.

kyoryu
2010-10-31, 01:56 PM
If the world is basically run by evil, then Good is reacting to that situation, as I see it.

In some scenarios, possibly.

However, starting and leading a rebellion to depose an evil ruler, planning where to strike and how - these all strike me as very, very proactive activities.

For an example of reactive good in an evil world, see The Empire Strikes Back.



There we go, fixed.

Why? Simply because saying "A dark god is coming back" doesn't make it a plot. It's only a plot if the players choose to react. Otherwise reality isn't a sandbox. "Terrorists are going to blow up the Megadome downtown" doesn't mean anything if the PCs aren't in a position to worry about or deal with it. Just about anyone would try to warn people, though. That doesn't make it "not a sandbox." Things happen whether you're there or not. You've got one hell of a sense of entitlement if you think that playing in a sandbox game means reacting only to your PCs. There are plots happening, just like in real life. The difference in a sandbox game should, just like in real life, be that they don't usually fall into your lap.

EXACTLY. Railroad plots are about, special, snowflakey, unique characters. Sandboxes really shouldn't be.

A world that only exists for the characters to do whatever they want, and doesn't do anything without their intervention is even *more* snowflakey than the railroad games. It's not surprising that so many games like that turn into the evil stereotype.

When I hear about games where the players decided to take over the world and get bored, I have to ask, "Really? Nobody tried to stop them, or was able to? There were no effective rebellions? They took over the entire world, with probably millions of individuals and horrific monsters, in a matter of a couple of years? REALLY?"

Amphetryon
2010-10-31, 01:57 PM
There we go, fixed.

Why? Simply because saying "A dark god is coming back" doesn't make it a plot. It's only a plot if the players choose to react. Otherwise reality isn't a sandbox. "Terrorists are going to blow up the Megadome downtown" doesn't mean anything if the PCs aren't in a position to worry about or deal with it. Just about anyone would try to warn people, though. That doesn't make it "not a sandbox." Things happen whether you're there or not. You've got one hell of a sense of entitlement if you think that playing in a sandbox game means reacting only to your PCs. There are plots happening, just like in real life. The difference in a sandbox game should, just like in real life, be that they don't usually fall into your lap.

Willfully ignoring a plot hook is still a reaction to it.

Valameer
2010-10-31, 01:58 PM
It's kind of amusing, because what you're calling a "traditional" game really isn't - the really old school games were closer to sandboxes. The first real "railroad" campaign that I can think of was DragonLance, which would have been, what, mid 80s?

I am aware. I suppose 'traditional' was a poor word choice, perhaps 'common' game would have been more fitting. Or 'narrative.'

I know this narrative style kcked up around AD&D 2e, and you see the transitions in the adventure modules around there. It's the way most people play today, though, even if they believe they are sandboxing.

I almost listed some examples of each too. Keep on the Borderlands, Tomb of Horrors, etc, are all sandboxy. The 'Giants' set might be the beginnings of a narrative play.

Some recent(ish) examples of sandbox play include Ptolus. It's somewhere between a setting and a module. You could play it in a narrative or sandbox way, easily.

I went all rambly, but I guess my tl;dr would be: PCs reacting - narrative. DM reacting - sandbox. A lot of games can shift back and forth, easily.

hiryuu
2010-10-31, 02:04 PM
Willfully ignoring a plot hook is still a reaction to it.

That's what I'm getting at. I was responding to this:


Traditional game: PCs react to what the DM has in front of them.

And the idea that somehow makes a game "not a sandbox."

PCs can react to things the GM does and have it still be a sandbox game, because living in real life is a series of reactions back and forth between you and circumstance. You get into a car wreck, for example. It was beyond your control, and you have to react to it. Does this mean reality has stopped being a sandbox? Of course not. So it should be in a game.

Valameer
2010-10-31, 02:19 PM
PCs can react to things the GM does and have it still be a sandbox game, because living in real life is a series of reactions back and forth between you and circumstance.

The DM sets out the setting, and asks "what do you do?" You could look for maps, you could listen to rumors, you could start a business. Sandbox.

Please don't read that as "nothing ever happens for the PCs to react to." Because I feel like that's just willfully blowing it out of context. Random encounters still happen, and of course players react. Maybe a merchant is robbed in front of the PCs at the market, players react. Weather happens, there are festive days, a war might break out.

But the DM was reacting to the players going to the market, or wandering somewhere that monsters might attack. Perhaps those two events were rolled on a random table. They don't necessarily mean anything. They definitely weren't in the script. The merchant doesn't hand out a quest to the PCs after - they aren't lead into a story about the criminal underworld. There is no story, not one the DM is telling, anyway. The DM is just refereeing the setting.

If the players want to tell a story, that's great. In real life, our life isn't happening in a way to keep it ever-interesting, or make a story. If the PCs go somewhere really boring, they might just end up bored all day. You don't have to throw in a robbery scene just to give them something to do - in fact, you shouldn't, unless you're reasonably certain that robbery would have taken place either way.

As soon as all these events start linking up in a meaningful way, and the players find themselves involved in a story - that's fine. It's great! But it's more narrative now than sandbox.

Raum
2010-10-31, 02:51 PM
PCs can react to things the GM does and have it still be a sandbox game...Exactly.

-----
Game types and styles are a spectrum, not black and white. Scripted games where everyone has a part to play are one extreme. Incoherently random games where no action is related to any other action and everyone does their own thing is another extreme. In my experience, most people play somewhere in the middle...between scripted flow chart trees of branching plots to 'build a story' sequences of consequence following action following consequence...ad infinitum. Or at least to a logical conclusion.

To me, consequences are a significant part of what I consider 'sandbox' play. Newton's Third Law applied to gaming. :) The best games I've participated in, as player or GM, have involved a lot of give and take between players and GM. The resulting synergy created a much better story!

Greenish
2010-10-31, 02:56 PM
Imagine a sandbox game based on Inglourious Basterds. Playing in a "reactive" fashion would lead to quick character deaths if not TPK.Yeah, it's so easy when you're evil. :smallwink:

Frenchy147
2010-10-31, 03:15 PM
In the campaign i'm playing right now, we were betrayed by the king, and now we're going around the homebrew world raising an army to overthrow him. The DM's alternate, and one of them basiacly wheels us along. He makes it so we can only do specific things, which gets pretty annoying when you're in a sandbox enviornment and you can only do specific things.:smallyuk:

cZak
2010-10-31, 04:20 PM
In my experience of 'sandbox' games where the players are predominantly the story drivers, storylines tended to develop into nigh sociopathic and/ or (evil) manipulations; random thievery, fight/ assault, manipulation/ blackmail, et al.

A 'centric' plot by the DM (ala RHoD) does not limit PC activity. PC's I've played & DM'd in these scenarios have had ample opportunity to develop beyond the plot line.

Personally, I think its rather inconsiderate to expect the DM to not have some development for future actions/ encounters/ scenarios. PC's able to 90 or 180 degree puts the DM on the spot to come up with entertaining/ logical situations which result in nothing more than flipping open the MM to a random page. Of course I'm a very detail oriented person so that kind of id's my play/ DM style, and I fully appreciate some others may not.

kyoryu
2010-10-31, 08:10 PM
Yeah, it's so easy when you're evil. :smallwink:

:P

You wouldn't have to actually go evil for the scenario to work. A team behind the lines in Nazi Germany? That could be a really fun game.


In my experience of 'sandbox' games where the players are predominantly the story drivers, storylines tended to develop into nigh sociopathic and/ or (evil) manipulations; random thievery, fight/ assault, manipulation/ blackmail, et al.


I think that if a group of players tends to do such things given a blank canvas, that it says more about the players than anything else.

A sandbox game does *not* have to devolve into a sociopathic game.

Amphetryon
2010-10-31, 08:59 PM
PCs can react to things the GM does and have it still be a sandbox game, because living in real life is a series of reactions back and forth between you and circumstance. You get into a car wreck, for example. It was beyond your control, and you have to react to it. Does this mean reality has stopped being a sandbox? Of course not. So it should be in a game.
What I've been getting at is, for the players I had who said they wanted a sandbox game, if they were forced to react to the DM's story, they didn't feel they were in a sandbox anymore, and started talking about getting aboard the DM-Express.

So, pretty clearly, we're working off different definitions of 'sandbox.'

hiryuu
2010-11-01, 12:02 AM
What I've been getting at is, for the players I had who said they wanted a sandbox game, if they were forced to react to the DM's story, they didn't feel they were in a sandbox anymore, and started talking about getting aboard the DM-Express.

So, pretty clearly, we're working off different definitions of 'sandbox.'

Then they should get over themselves. Seriously.

They're not being forced to do anything. They could sit around with their thumbs up their butt, to be honest. However, if they find out through proactive investigation or through simply being in the right place at the right time that something bad is going to happen, and they sit on their thumbs about it, when that bad thing gets sprung on a city or a world, they don't have a right to complain. Otherwise, they've got an inflated sense of entitlement about what a sandbox game means.

In a sandbox game, people who aren't the PCs are still going to get robbed. Towns are still going to be attacked. Ancient gods are still going to try to awaken. That's going to happen because it's a wacky fantasy world. Right now, on Earth, people are living, fighting, dying, starving, loving, enacting plots, killing each other, planning hostile takeovers, and building, and no one complains they're on the GM express. Just because you're not there isn't going to stop them. Just because you're not there isn't going to stop a rebellion or help a tyrant rise to power or stop an ancient god or find some hidden relic or uncover what the donkegin is. If you don't do anything, the world will still go on, in all its beatific and visceral glory. It's ridiculous and selfish to think otherwise.

Or it might, depending on what you do. Who knows?

For example, if you'd looked over my first post, you'd note that what I did was set up a town, some of the town's mythology, and set them loose to make characters. They all made high schoolers, so I added a high school and a class. Then, I, myself, made about 200 or so NPCs, their personalities, how they interact with each other, and what they're doing on certain days. If the PCs are in an area where they could run into those NPCs, they might overhear certain conversations or they might get clues to certain goings-on. There are things that will happen and not happen without their intervention, so if they just go to school and keep their heads down, the world will go on. If they get involved, that will change the way events happen. For example, one of the PCs' actions has already changed a few NPC interactions (his father won't be at work to hear the news that his mother-in-law's been hired as an in-house shaman by the company where he works for another two days because he's helping a golem get back up on its feet, and because said PC interacted with someone on the tail end of a cold, his sister is going to get sick in two days, which will prevent her from going to school and preventing his mom from encountering a government worker at the market; all because he went to an abandoned toy factory). They might never find out about the stories of the other students in their class because they seem to have picked about six favorites and are ignoring the others.

kyoryu
2010-11-01, 12:03 AM
What I've been getting at is, for the players I had who said they wanted a sandbox game, if they were forced to react to the DM's story, they didn't feel they were in a sandbox anymore, and started talking about getting aboard the DM-Express.

So, pretty clearly, we're working off different definitions of 'sandbox.'

There can be non-player-initiated events in the game world without it being a "DM story" or railroad.

A war breaking out in a neighboring kingdom doesn't require the PCs to get involved. And even if they do, it doesn't require the PCs to get involved on a specific side, or even get involved in a specific way. It's just a more dynamic background to give the PCs more to interact with.

Of course, if a DM is incapable of having events in the world without it being a railroad plot, that could be a problem. However, I assure you, it *is* possible.

Otodetu
2010-11-01, 11:49 AM
The sandbox game; my personal favourite and the reason I am stuck with 3.5 forever.

Nothing can quite compare to the pleasure of creating a world filled with connections and flavour and then let the hounds lose on it. The experience of seeing your world shape itself as events unfold, that it is something you cannot experience in any other game, it is a story in itself.

And what better foundation to create a story within?


All you need is a firm grasp of the rules, some friends, and lots of fantasy.


My current sandbox world is the second session I started as a dm, i wanted a noble game where the players where part of the Neftatus family and lived in grimdark tippyverse light.

They where supposed to fight other lords on a large scale and it included economical charts and mass combat rules.

It ended up with lots of level 8 homeless guys trashing the national church-hood of Nerull, with the single living heir of the Neftatus family taking up "secret" identity and leading a holy crusade to bring the ruby flame of wee jas to power as there was a lack of divine services with the servants of the reaper gone.

The current game is 5 real-life years later, and 2 years in-game later and just contains adventurers going about their thing, seeing if there is some way to topple the rule of the wizards and clerics in the grim-dark world they live in, none of the are good.

Yora
2010-11-01, 01:59 PM
As the current plot arc of our campaign is nearing its end and we have a new player introducing a 4th character to our group next week, I'm currently strongly considering doing a pseudo- or semi-sandbox game for the next months.

The premise is an Iron Age, points of light world with few major political or military powers. While there are many important trade routes by which people share goods and knowledge, it's all very decentralized with lots of minor lords ruling over their own domains. There are several lose alliances, but no empires or major kingdoms.
The plot hook is, that a terrible powerful and ancient creature is about to awaken and it's rise from deep below the surface will greatly affect the unfortunate areas. The creature doesn't have an actual agenda, it just entered another part of its life cycle and will leave this world once it has reached sufficient maturity. This will hapen and there's nothing the players or any other group of NPCs can do to prevent its awakening.
However, there are many groups who want to influence the time, location, and other circumstances of the Awakening. Some to minimize damage and harm to the people inhabitating the region, others to use the side effects for their personal gains. It's a terrible danger that could cause massive devestation, but it's also a great opportunity to shape the final outcome to something that benefits some groups more than others. The PCs will be involved with one of these groups, its exact nature will be determined after they made more elaborate backgrounds and motivations for their characters. (Currently they are just some adventure guys with nothing better to do.)

My idea is, that there are a lot of very different groups involved, each with very different goals. Some want to minimize damage as much as possible, but of course they don't agree which areas are more worthy to be saved than others. Some want to use the Awakening to destroy their enemies, or make use of the magical disturbances that are sure to accompany the event.
Some groups will be of lighter or darker shades of grey, but they all have their dirty laundry and are willing to make certain sacrifices to have things proceed in their favor. And of course, there will be lots of deception and betrayal, and I hope things will get really ugly as the Awakening comes closer. It may even take some time before the players actually know what's going on.
My main goal is to introduce villains the PCs would rather not fight or harm, but also get them to make descisions they will not be particularly proud of.

cZak
2010-11-01, 02:24 PM
Then they should get over themselves. Seriously.

Wholeheartedly agree



...I made about 200 or so NPCs, their personalities, how they interact with each other, and what they're doing on certain days...

I admire your dedication and attention to detail, but...

How would you feel if, after doing all that work, your players decide to 180 and move to another town, country, planet, etc... Personally?:smallmad:

On the other hand, you develop 2 or 3 (rough) non-associated plot lines for the PC's to nibble on. You don't spend XXX hours/ days trying to cover every possible situation, or have to improvise at a moments notice from some PC's sudden change of course.
By some of the above posts, this would result in a mutiny by players and collapse of a game.

I view the game as a cooperative effort. DM's generally have ideas for games that they'd like to try out on others.
Players are looking for an entertaining period of interaction with the DM & each other.

You're all looking to get the same thing (overall) out of the situation; entertainment.

Frenchy147
2010-11-01, 02:34 PM
In my experience of 'sandbox' games where the players are predominantly the story drivers, storylines tended to develop into nigh sociopathic and/ or (evil) manipulations; random thievery, fight/ assault, manipulation/ blackmail, et al.

First of all this usually does happen. And thats not necessarily a bad thing. It can be fun. While this may happen most of the time, it doesn't have to be that way. If the DM throws in random criminals doing all of the things listed above, the players will stop them.
Also, if the DM just drops a few random hooks every so often, the PC's may decide to bite and follow that plot for a while. I mean, if all they do is commit or prevent crimes, it's got to get boring eventually. they'll want something meaningful to do.

hiryuu
2010-11-01, 06:34 PM
I admire your dedication and attention to detail, but...

How would you feel if, after doing all that work, your players decide to 180 and move to another town, country, planet, etc... Personally?:smallmad:

I plan for that, too. I have maps and some NPC notes for the eight nearest towns, one abandoned city, the unclaimed zone between them and the nearest country, the nearest country, about ten spiritual realms, the Underworld (which, in fact, they did decide to run off an visit, so I'm glad I prepped it), and a few of the outlying islands in a wacky far off country and some totally non-sequitr events in case they decide to do something crazy like that. I'm not worried about them getting off planet because they're as trapped on the planet as we're trapped on Earth, but if they, say, decided to steal a car and have a crazy drug-fueled trip through the jungle fighting hallucinated lizards while being chased by monsters spawned by rock and roll, I'm ready.

I have to be ready.

Even barring all that, I have about three filing cabinets of world information aside from what I planned for just this game, up to and including weather reports, if I have to go for it.


On the other hand, you develop 2 or 3 (rough) non-associated plot lines for the PC's to nibble on. You don't spend XXX hours/ days trying to cover every possible situation,2 or have to improvise at a moments notice from some PC's sudden change of course.
By some of the above posts, this would result in a mutiny by players and collapse of a game.

I view the game as a cooperative effort. DM's generally have ideas for games that they'd like to try out on others.
Players are looking for an entertaining period of interaction with the DM & each other.

You're all looking to get the same thing (overall) out of the situation; entertainment.

Strongly agree.

kyoryu
2010-11-01, 10:26 PM
Here's a quick question:

In a game, players decide they want to do Bad Things in a town. Slaughter the mayor, steal everything, whatever other depravations they feel like.

In response, the local <insert title here> decides to send out a force to defeat the PCs. This force is very strong, and can wipe the PCs out if they find them. This is not entirely unreasonable, as the PCs used their abilities when doing Bad Things to the town, so the <title> would have at least an idea of what he was sending his soldiers into.

As a result, the PCs either have to go on the run, or likely get wiped out.

In your opinion, is this a sandbox game?

Yora
2010-11-02, 05:33 AM
Depends really on the rest of the game. You could do this in a sandbox game, but also in a regular campaign.

kyoryu
2010-11-02, 11:06 AM
Depends really on the rest of the game. You could do this in a sandbox game, but also in a regular campaign.

Yeah... what I'm mostly trying to do is get a feel for if people think that "sandbox" has to mean "without consequences" as well as "without plot."

RagnaroksChosen
2010-11-02, 11:48 AM
I am a huge fan of Sandboxing, only because i don't like to do alot of prep work before game.

I look at sandboxing as largly a GM thing. As a gm i have to look at a situation or a city or an area and be like "what would be going on right now?" And then have things happen in the world around the pcs.

Some examples:
Running a Forgotten realms Sandbox(wicked easy if you ask me) Where the Pc's where in waterdeep. They where heading back to an inn from a tavern they had met up with some contacts with, When a halfling or a child (non pased there spot checks) whips through the group of them with something in hand, followed closely by city gaurds. One of my players reacted. He realy only wanted to see what was going on, followed the gaurds and watched them apprehend the halfling. Then ran back and cought up with the group. Oddly enough later on in the story that character got jailed and he asked me about if the halfling was in a cell neer him (I had almost forgotten about the halfing incedent) and we went from there.


My favorite example was, a player wanted to play an indian jones type character who was a treasure hunter. I had let them pick on my map of my homebrew world were they wanted to start, They picked one of the more politicaly insecure areas... Needless to say after they had come back from a tomb job they found out about, the government had changed completely, and they where forced out of the country.(In this case the rebelion was a good cause and the pcs where grey so they didn't want to get involved which happend to make them not as well recived under the new good government) I honestly had rolled a d6 before the session to determine who had one that fight.


Alot of mentioned this already but I agree, I run sandboxes because it does remind me of early gaming early 2nd ed and 1st ed, alot of gms that i knew ran more sandboxes then naratives.

Silus
2010-11-02, 12:16 PM
DM I run with does a weird (and annoying) Sandbox Railroad.

He's like "Hey, here's the general plot, but do what you please". So we do, and he keeps trying to steer us towards the plot in question, or towards world-shaping/shaking situations. It's like "Dude, we don't want to ascend to deity status (again), we want to empire build or something".

Yora
2010-11-02, 12:17 PM
Isn't that just regular railroading?

Silus
2010-11-02, 12:19 PM
I suppose. *Shrugs*

We try to rebel as players, but again with the railroading. The DM says it's an open world, but yeah....They're pretty darn inflexible.

kyoryu
2010-11-02, 01:38 PM
I suppose. *Shrugs*

We try to rebel as players, but again with the railroading. The DM says it's an open world, but yeah....They're pretty darn inflexible.

That's reasonable. Even the most sandboxy game has certain limitations to it - you probably won't find laser guns in a fantasy sandbox, even if you really want them.

And train tracks are, what, two feet, three feet wide? That's plenty of room to wander in, right?

/sarcasm

Quietus
2010-11-02, 02:14 PM
I think the discrepancy really comes from the fact that there are people who feel sandbox games should have NO plot that the GM created.. at which point I ask, what is the GM supposed to do then? The world has to react in a reasonable way, but if it's suggested that the GM has the world do anything that ISN'T inspired directly by the PCs' actions, then it's railroading. It's as though those who follow that line of thought want to reverse the table, have four DMs working in tandem against the one player, who reacts to the situations a small number of people in the game world cause with all the resources at his disposal (the rest of the world).

What I prefer to do is set the players in the sandbox and let them do whatever they want; Throw in a few interesting situations that are easily enough handled (essentially, doing a session or two to get the feel of the characters), then segue that into a plot that plays DIRECTLY to something the players are doing. This guy has a brother that was stolen away? Awesome, there's a plot there to get him back. Either that can be the whole adventure, or part of a whole adventure, but weaving in little bits of backstory, and fleshing out what the players have offered me in the form of hooks and motivations.. that's where the real story comes out.

hiryuu
2010-11-02, 02:53 PM
I think the discrepancy really comes from the fact that there are people who feel sandbox games should have NO plot that the GM created.. at which point I ask, what is the GM supposed to do then? The world has to react in a reasonable way, but if it's suggested that the GM has the world do anything that ISN'T inspired directly by the PCs' actions, then it's railroading. It's as though those who follow that line of thought want to reverse the table, have four DMs working in tandem against the one player, who reacts to the situations a small number of people in the game world cause with all the resources at his disposal (the rest of the world).

What I prefer to do is set the players in the sandbox and let them do whatever they want; Throw in a few interesting situations that are easily enough handled (essentially, doing a session or two to get the feel of the characters), then segue that into a plot that plays DIRECTLY to something the players are doing. This guy has a brother that was stolen away? Awesome, there's a plot there to get him back. Either that can be the whole adventure, or part of a whole adventure, but weaving in little bits of backstory, and fleshing out what the players have offered me in the form of hooks and motivations.. that's where the real story comes out.

This one speaks wisdom of the ages.

Raum
2010-11-02, 06:33 PM
Yeah... what I'm mostly trying to do is get a feel for if people think that "sandbox" has to mean "without consequences" as well as "without plot."In my opinion, "sandbox" games are only possible with consequences*. If there are no consequences player choice hasn't affected the setting. Which means player choice was rendered meaningless.

*Consequences aren't necessarily negative.

kyoryu
2010-11-02, 07:15 PM
In my opinion, "sandbox" games are only possible with consequences*. If there are no consequences player choice hasn't affected the setting. Which means player choice was rendered meaningless.

*Consequences aren't necessarily negative.

But what if the consequences of their actions prevent them from doing what it is that they want to do?

If they start trying to take over a kingdom, what if the rulers decide to employ divination magic to find them, send out bounty hunters far stronger than the party, and have them killed?

This may be a reasonable response to their actions, and yet it does not allow the PCs to do anything they want. Still a sandbox?

Raum
2010-11-02, 07:41 PM
But what if the consequences of their actions prevent them from doing what it is that they want to do?When the world changes, you may have to change your actions to deal with the current situation. We play in a 'living world' not a static backdrop.

I'm really not certain why you're trying to set up mini situations which you don't think can be 'sandboxed' so I'll simply leave you with a couple of comments: Character action without results isn't functionally different from predetermined results. Both render player choice meaningless.
Settings are more than screen printed stage backdrops. They're meant to be interacted with - used, abused, changed, even destroyed on occasion. Interaction implies (even requires) two way feedback. (Think Firefly as an example - the ship is as much a part of the story as the crew.)It may well be that our definitions of 'sandbox' are very different. My definition boils down to 'player choice matters'.

true_shinken
2010-11-02, 07:46 PM
But what if the consequences of their actions prevent them from doing what it is that they want to do?

If they start trying to take over a kingdom, what if the rulers decide to employ divination magic to find them, send out bounty hunters far stronger than the party, and have them killed?

This may be a reasonable response to their actions, and yet it does not allow the PCs to do anything they want. Still a sandbox?

Just because it is hard to do something, it does not mean it's not a sandbox.

kyoryu
2010-11-02, 07:51 PM
When the world changes, you may have to change your actions to deal with the current situation. We play in a 'living world' not a static backdrop.

I'm really not certain why you're trying to set up mini situations which you don't think can be 'sandboxed' so I'll simply leave you with a couple of comments:[list] Character action without results isn't functionally different from predetermined results. Both render player choice meaningless.

Oh, I totally agree with you. I'm actually thinking about a couple of people that have said that all of their sandbox games end with the PCs running the world, etc. etc. I wonder how that could happen if ANYTHING else in the world is responding to the PC actions at all. I *suspect* that what some people mean by sandbox is "play without consequences," and am trying to see if that's resonating with anyone.

I'd never, ever want to play in a game like that, personally. It's just a little too... antisocial for me, I guess.

true_shinken
2010-11-02, 08:15 PM
Oh, I totally agree with you. I'm actually thinking about a couple of people that have said that all of their sandbox games end with the PCs running the world, etc. etc. I wonder how that could happen if ANYTHING else in the world is responding to the PC actions at all. I *suspect* that what some people mean by sandbox is "play without consequences," and am trying to see if that's resonating with anyone.

I'd never, ever want to play in a game like that, personally. It's just a little too... antisocial for me, I guess.

I couldn't agree more with you. That last person commenting 'if I can't take over a kingdom it's not a sandbox' made me notice this as well.

fizzybobnewt
2010-11-02, 08:32 PM
Seeing as so many sandbox games amount to 'we are evil guys, so we'll take over the world while kicking pupies' (really, there were like 5 examples in this thread alone), there is no wonder I dislike them.
Maybe this is why so many people around here just assume adventurers are violent racist murderers - it looks like this kind of game is actually the prevalent one.
Am I the only here who actually likes to play a true hero? To help people, to defeat villains, to save the day and live to tell the tale? :smallconfused:

probably. I've learned not to make the plots of my RPGs serious in any way, 'cuz my players will just start injecting peanut butter lethally into the brains of anyone who gets sort of near to being in their way (not that I don't approve of this tactic).

fizzybobnewt
2010-11-03, 09:21 AM
But what if the consequences of their actions prevent them from doing what it is that they want to do?

If they start trying to take over a kingdom, what if the rulers decide to employ divination magic to find them, send out bounty hunters far stronger than the party, and have them killed?

This may be a reasonable response to their actions, and yet it does not allow the PCs to do anything they want. Still a sandbox?

"sandbox" doesn't mean "The players succeed in anything they bloody want to do relatively easily"

Edit: ninja'd, as much as you can be on a thread like this.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-11-03, 09:27 AM
Oh, I totally agree with you. I'm actually thinking about a couple of people that have said that all of their sandbox games end with the PCs running the world, etc. etc. I wonder how that could happen if ANYTHING else in the world is responding to the PC actions at all. I *suspect* that what some people mean by sandbox is "play without consequences," and am trying to see if that's resonating with anyone.

I'd never, ever want to play in a game like that, personally. It's just a little too... antisocial for me, I guess.

aaa yes. Last time i played in a sandbox style game, we ended up rooting out a what we thought was evil baron from his land. Bascialy after taking out a town. The session right after we did that, some how we found our selves fleeing from a detachment of the kings army. It was epic. (king was a good guy to, we knew why he had done it.We did just kill one of his barons). Actualy I remember it being very epic cuz we where trying to "dodge" the detachment as well as a theives guild that was associated with the baron.

Quietus
2010-11-03, 11:29 AM
Oh, I totally agree with you. I'm actually thinking about a couple of people that have said that all of their sandbox games end with the PCs running the world, etc. etc. I wonder how that could happen if ANYTHING else in the world is responding to the PC actions at all. I *suspect* that what some people mean by sandbox is "play without consequences," and am trying to see if that's resonating with anyone.

I'd never, ever want to play in a game like that, personally. It's just a little too... antisocial for me, I guess.

I don't think you'll find a lot of people who would admit to that, though depending on how you read things, you might find people who insinuate that. As far as the "What if I'm trying to take over a kingdom, and the king has his people scry on me?" - well, that means you did something to draw attention to yourself. If you're careful in your planning of the takeover and keep a low enough cover, the king won't find out about your coup until it's too late. If you go around going "I'M GOING TO TAKE THIS PLACE OVER EVEN IF IT MEANS I HAVE TO KILL EVERY LAST GUARD YOU'VE GOT", then yeah, the King will take notice, and rather than sitting in his throne room waiting for you to show up for a big showdown with his evil vizier, he'll have said vizier scry on you, then send whatever force is appropriate for that kingdom.

Now, I might have been running background stuff - say, there's a dragon that's working behind the scenes with the vizier, and making his own play for the throne. You might come across something of his plan while enacting your own. Alternatively, you might knock off some of the dragon's men while doing your thing. You then get a three-way play for the throne between your party (who took this route of your own volition), the dragon (trying to topple the king with the vizier's help), and the king (trying to keep his kingdom). Does the fact that I had a dragon already going for the same thing as the party make this less of a sandbox? Or is it an interesting complication that can provide a bit of trouble for the players, while they are going about the plan they already chose themselves? After all, the Dragon's already got a plan here, and I'll have a rough timeline of things he's got planned, and what will happen if none of them are interrupted. I just adjust that based on what happens if the players do interupt it.. and if they don't? Well, they hear about that kingdom they started off in and how it's now ruled over by a big freakin' dragon.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-11-03, 11:33 AM
Now, I might have been running background stuff - say, there's a dragon that's working behind the scenes with the vizier, and making his own play for the throne. You might come across something of his plan while enacting your own. Alternatively, you might knock off some of the dragon's men while doing your thing. You then get a three-way play for the throne between your party (who took this route of your own volition), the dragon (trying to topple the king with the vizier's help), and the king (trying to keep his kingdom). Does the fact that I had a dragon already going for the same thing as the party make this less of a sandbox? Or is it an interesting complication that can provide a bit of trouble for the players, while they are going about the plan they already chose themselves? After all, the Dragon's already got a plan here, and I'll have a rough timeline of things he's got planned, and what will happen if none of them are interrupted. I just adjust that based on what happens if the players do interupt it.. and if they don't? Well, they hear about that kingdom they started off in and how it's now ruled over by a big freakin' dragon.

I belive the question becomes , if the pc's suddently get drawn away from the city, does the dragon take it over?

dsmiles
2010-11-03, 11:38 AM
I belive the question becomes , if the pc's suddently get drawn away from the city, does the dragon take it over?

I imagine it would, if they were gone long enough for its plans to come to fruition.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-11-03, 11:43 AM
I imagine it would, if they were gone long enough for its plans to come to fruition.

I agree, I belive alot of what a sandbox is, is the intent of the gm and how his world moves forward with or without the pc's.

dsmiles
2010-11-03, 11:46 AM
I agree, I belive alot of what a sandbox is, is the intent of the gm and how his world moves forward with or without the pc's.

In a sandbox game, the world moves forward, and actions have consequences. I can't imagine a (sandbox) world where the PCs actions are the sole reason the world moves forward, or one where the PCs actions have no consequences. Even in a story-driven world, life goes on around them, and maybe there are time-sensitive quests (I like the feeling of urgency that these portray).

Time waits on no PC (unless they cast Time Stop). :smalltongue:

BRC
2010-11-03, 11:51 AM
As I see it, the main issue with running Sandbox games is when simple practicality and consequences becomes akin to railroading. The main appeal of Sandbox games is to let the PC's do what they want, however, what happens when the Players want to do something their characters would have no chance of pulling off (Hey, lets overthrow that sorcerer-king with our 2nd level characters). Does the DM twist the story through loops and turns to let them pull it off, do they let the PC's try, only to be quickly wiped out by the Sorceror-king's guards, do they put up a wall, saying "No, you can't do that yet".

And then there is consequences. With one adventure, the PC's want to steal something from the thieves guild, so they do. But they don't want the rest of the campaign to be dealing with the guild coming after them, they want to go kill dragons now. In the interests of Sandboxing, the Player's wishes should dictate the events (they want to go kill the dragon, so their characters go kill the dragon, and the adventure is based around the killing of said dragon), but in the interest of good Storytelling, their actions should have consequences (The Thieves Guild is going to come after them.)

Now, neither of these are crippling problems that invalidate sandbox gameplay. Not everybody sees Sandbox as an entitlement to do whatever they want, but they are definite risks.


I've only really been part of one sandbox game, it was a zombie apocalypse type thing. The DM had a map of the city we were in, at the end of each adventure he would show us the map and say "Alright, what are you guys going to do next", we would say "We're going to head to the university to get magic scrolls" or whatever, and he would use that to plan the next adventure.

Ravens_cry
2010-11-03, 11:59 AM
If I do a sandbox game ,I want to do a pirate privateer campaign. Raiding coastal towns, plundering vassals laden for port, digging up treasure on deserted islands inhabited by dead gods, yo ho ho, it would be a barrel of fun. At least I hope so.

dsmiles
2010-11-03, 12:02 PM
If I do a sandbox game ,I want to do a pirate privateer campaign. Raiding coastal towns, plundering vassals laden for port, digging up treasure on deserted islands inhabited by dead gods, yo ho ho, it would be a barrel of fun. At least I hope so.

Until you start getting chased by the Pirate Police (from another nation, at least. IIRC, Privateers are just pirates licensed by one nation to raid another).

Ravens_cry
2010-11-03, 12:05 PM
Until you start getting chased by the Pirate Police (from another nation, at least. IIRC, Privateers are just pirates licensed by one nation to raid another).
Well, yeah, that's also part of the fun.

kyoryu
2010-11-03, 02:07 PM
As I see it, the main issue with running Sandbox games is when simple practicality and consequences becomes akin to railroading. The main appeal of Sandbox games is to let the PC's do what they want, however, what happens when the Players want to do something their characters would have no chance of pulling off (Hey, lets overthrow that sorcerer-king with our 2nd level characters). Does the DM twist the story through loops and turns to let them pull it off, do they let the PC's try, only to be quickly wiped out by the Sorceror-king's guards, do they put up a wall, saying "No, you can't do that yet".

You give the players every indication that they will be wiped out. Talk up the ferocity of the Sorceror-King's guards, and their reputation for arcane and military might. If necessary, arrange for an example of them wiping the floor with someone roughly the level of the PCs.

Also, offer an alternative. If the Sorceror King is a Bad Dude, chances are there's at least some level of resistance. Let the PCs find this resistance and join it, and start their plan to take out the Sorceror King with lower-level harassment type actions until they're awesome enough to challenge him in one-on-one combat or whatever.

But if they actually try to take out the Sorceror King and his guards at 2nd level, after all the warnings and options given to them? Thin red paste.


And then there is consequences. With one adventure, the PC's want to steal something from the thieves guild, so they do. But they don't want the rest of the campaign to be dealing with the guild coming after them, they want to go kill dragons now. In the interests of Sandboxing, the Player's wishes should dictate the events (they want to go kill the dragon, so their characters go kill the dragon, and the adventure is based around the killing of said dragon), but in the interest of good Storytelling, their actions should have consequences (The Thieves Guild is going to come after them.)

Yup, they've ticked off the Thieves' Guild. This will haunt them. Maybe when they get back from killing the dragon and come back with all of their treasure. Maybe next time they go to that town - and so they just avoid going back to that town. Maybe an assassin will be sent to kill them at some point. Something like that doesn't have to dominate the campaign, but it can be a great tool for recurring villains or conflict.


Now, neither of these are crippling problems that invalidate sandbox gameplay. Not everybody sees Sandbox as an entitlement to do whatever they want, but they are definite risks.

Right, and it's that entitlement that I was really asking about. There's a fine line between "you can do what you want" and "you can do what you want without consequences." The first is interesting, the second, not so much. Back to the Sorceror King example, what's more interesting? Having the SK and his retinue nerfed so much that a 2nd level party can kill them, and them doing so? Or having the destruction of the SK being a major campaign goal, achieved only after many levels and much effort, and a lot of minor victories and actions?

BRC
2010-11-03, 02:37 PM
Right, and it's that entitlement that I was really asking about. There's a fine line between "you can do what you want" and "you can do what you want without consequences." The first is interesting, the second, not so much. Back to the Sorceror King example, what's more interesting? Having the SK and his retinue nerfed so much that a 2nd level party can kill them, and them doing so? Or having the destruction of the SK being a major campaign goal, achieved only after many levels and much effort, and a lot of minor victories and actions?
Well yeah, obviously the best thing to do is to treat the goals realistically. "Overthrowing the Sorceror King" dosn't start with storming his palace, it starts with beating up some of his troops and freeing some prisoners. The Thieves Guild won't stop sending assassins and mercenaries after the PC's because the players decided they'd rather not deal with that. But then the Sandbox elements of the campaign gradually shrink, as the consequences of the PC's actions gradually build up, and a plot begins to form.
Now, as I see it, this is sort of the ideal way for a Sandbox campaign to go, start with a world, put the PC's in it, and let them forge an epic story.

However, some people might think that a Sandbox campaign should be dictated entirely by the whims of the players, and when those two philosophies clash, problems can occur.

Greenish
2010-11-03, 03:11 PM
As I see it, the main issue with running Sandbox games is when simple practicality and consequences becomes akin to railroading. The main appeal of Sandbox games is to let the PC's do what they want, however, what happens when the Players want to do something their characters would have no chance of pulling off (Hey, lets overthrow that sorcerer-king with our 2nd level characters). Does the DM twist the story through loops and turns to let them pull it off, do they let the PC's try, only to be quickly wiped out by the Sorceror-king's guards, do they put up a wall, saying "No, you can't do that yet".To quote I don't remember who, "Saying that there's a wall somewhere is not railroading. Saying that there's a wall everywhere but there is."

If they want to kill the Sorcerer King, they can take a shot at it. Direct attack would get them killed, though.

In the interests of Sandboxing, the Player's wishes should dictate the events (they want to go kill the dragon, so their characters go kill the dragon, and the adventure is based around the killing of said dragon), but in the interest of good Storytelling, their actions should have consequences (The Thieves Guild is going to come after them.)Sandboxing doesn't mean that the PCs' actions have no consequences, or that all of their wishes come true. If they want to get rid of the Thieves Guild, they have to do something to it (flee, hide, wipe them out, bribe them).

Quietus
2010-11-03, 04:57 PM
I belive the question becomes , if the pc's suddently get drawn away from the city, does the dragon take it over?

Of course. This is the world being an active place. The dragon takes the city over if they decide to go chasing something else - maybe when they get back to the city, they can forge an alliance with the dragon, agreeing to do X for Y benefit within the city. Alternatively, maybe they can take advantage of the short-term chaos that exists in the period of time immediately after a hostile takeover, and try to disrupt things enough to unsettle the Dragon from its newly-won seat. Maybe they come into the town, buy a few potions and drop off some loot, and leave. It's all up to them - but the world *does* move forward, and the PCs *can* try and direct that if they want.


Time waits on no PC (unless they cast Time Stop). :smalltongue:

Isn't that more a case of the PC refusing to wait on time?


As I see it, the main issue with running Sandbox games is when simple practicality and consequences becomes akin to railroading. The main appeal of Sandbox games is to let the PC's do what they want, however, what happens when the Players want to do something their characters would have no chance of pulling off (Hey, lets overthrow that sorcerer-king with our 2nd level characters). Does the DM twist the story through loops and turns to let them pull it off, do they let the PC's try, only to be quickly wiped out by the Sorceror-king's guards, do they put up a wall, saying "No, you can't do that yet".

You don't tell your players "No, you can't do that yet." You instead go "Let me get this straight. Your characters, who haven't even mastered the intricacies of the Knock spell yet, want to go after the Sorcerer King, who is rumored to have dethroned the LAST ruler by having walked into the castle, singlehandedly murdered every last guard he ran into on his way to the throne room, and defeated the king's personal guard in a blaze of power and fury?"

If the answer to this is "yes", then I follow that with "Okay, but your characters would understand that if there's any truth to that, they're likely to get killed unless they get stronger.", and let them pick their actions. Maybe they come up with an amazing plan to take down the SK. Maybe I drop a hint about that rebellion. Maybe they decide to work for the SK to gain power and backstab him later.


And then there is consequences. With one adventure, the PC's want to steal something from the thieves guild, so they do. But they don't want the rest of the campaign to be dealing with the guild coming after them, they want to go kill dragons now. In the interests of Sandboxing, the Player's wishes should dictate the events (they want to go kill the dragon, so their characters go kill the dragon, and the adventure is based around the killing of said dragon), but in the interest of good Storytelling, their actions should have consequences (The Thieves Guild is going to come after them.)

In this case, I'd make it slightly more difficult for them to operate in that city. Harder to sell loot, the occasional targeted pickpocketing, that sort of thing. If they piss off the thieves guild badly enough, they wake up one day with some kind of message pinned to their gear/tied around a dagger embedded in their bed/something similarly sinister. Maybe set up a meeting with the guild, where they negotiate a deal to negate the "debt" .. again, it all circulates around their choice of how to deal with the situation.

dsmiles
2010-11-03, 04:59 PM
In this case, I'd make it slightly more difficult for them to operate in that city. Harder to sell loot, the occasional targeted pickpocketing, that sort of thing. If they piss off the thieves guild badly enough, they wake up one day with some kind of message pinned to their gear/tied around a dagger embedded in their bed/something similarly sinister. Maybe set up a meeting with the guild, where they negotiate a deal to negate the "debt" .. again, it all circulates around their choice of how to deal with the situation.

...wake up with the head of their favorite racing horse in their bed...

Kaldrin
2010-11-03, 06:14 PM
I really like world building so sandbox is a game style I enjoy running quite a bit.

About ten years ago I introduced a group of players to a world, set their feet on a short introductory quest that lasted a few sessions and then I asked them what they wanted to do.

They immediately struck off into the wilderness to explore and become famous for mapping the world. Since I already knew what was out there, I had fun letting them do so.

The whole thing about a sandbox game is there's the local activities to the PCs which is central to their experiences, but the world just doesn't stop moving on because they ignored it. I often have large meta-plots that go world wide and the players can take part in them if they want, but they often don't. I drop hints, role-play out merchants or other people telling rumours, or outright have official people tell them what's going on ("Yes, we're recruiting militia to repel the orcs...").

I've had groups focus on the minutiae of running a small country inn and never want to do more than that. I've also had groups that wanted to become traveling merchants or even try to take over the kingdom. Whatever the meta-plot is I try very hard to fit my players' actions into the whole thing and provide them with believable results for the activities they want to participate in. But also fun. If it wasn't fun who would do it?

Earthwalker
2010-11-04, 03:47 PM
Just wanted to add this in terms of a sandbox game with good characters as opposed to evil ones. If you are playing good wouldn't a general theme of trying to build something work, just as well as having to other throw a evil organization.

I would love to play in a sandbox game. My current character is thief, wizard and wants to build a library. Bringing knowledge to the masses. This is no end of plots to expose, hunting rare books and borrowing them to copy them. Getting space to house the library. Dealing with protection rackets, lots of things to overcome.

Of course what is important is for good, evil or neutral players to have goals. Something not to forget from players.