PDA

View Full Version : Sandbox Campaign?



The Oakenshield
2010-11-23, 07:25 PM
I am thinking of running one, and was wondering if anyone had any tips, opinions, advice, etc...


Thanks, Playground.

Kaun
2010-11-23, 07:36 PM
Make sure your players know its a sandbox campaign.

Don't design you hooks with any character in mind.

Start with a small sand box and expand it as the campaign goes on.

Saph
2010-11-23, 07:36 PM
They're a lot of work, but can be great fun. However, you really do need to be fairly good at improvisation, as it simply isn't possible to prepare for everything.

I find that beyond a few vague ideas, it's a bad idea to plan more than one session into the future in a sandbox campaign. Tailor things to what the PCs seem interested in and the direction they choose to go, and adapt as they go along.

erikun
2010-11-23, 07:42 PM
Make sure your players want a sandbox. Some people who claim to want a sandbox game are less interested in wandering anywhere and face which challanges they want, and are more interested in having the freedom to overcome the challanges they face with the method they wish, rather than being forced into a storm-the-dungeon senario.

Beyond that, it's probably best to either start big and then focus on the details as they arise, or start local and expand the location as the players explore. Nobody crafts every detail of the world from the start, and for good reason.

Yahzi
2010-11-23, 08:53 PM
They're a lot of work
What if you had a program that would generate whole worlds for you?

:smallbiggrin:

Amphetryon
2010-11-23, 08:59 PM
It'd be easier if you clarified your definition of 'Sandbox Campaign'. We've had some debate about its particulars. Some players - like mine - argue that any time the DM has notes for the choice they've made, they're out of 'Sandbox' territory. Others will say that any time the group's actions have negative consequences, they are no longer in a 'Sandbox Campaign'.

Sillycomic
2010-11-23, 09:09 PM
You are only in a sandbox campaign if everything the group does has a positive consequence?

Sheesh, even Candyland has the Licorice Lagoon.

Tvtyrant
2010-11-23, 09:44 PM
I create a problem flow sheet that works like the following:


Stephen the Bold: 1. He has a sword in need of repair. He gives the party the sword and a bunch of adamant. If they get it repaired they can keep the extra adamant (they take alignment hits if they run off with it).

2. If by level 2 you didn't get around to helping him he ha his adamant stolen, and you need to track the thieves to their hideout and get it back.

3. If you didn't get around to the thieves by level 3 they now have adamant weapons and are taking over the local area.

4. If by level 4 the bandits haven't been defeated they take over the town and are setting up a corrupt government.

20. If by level 20 you still haven't dealt with the situation they now have an empire and are trying to conquer the world.

Tent Land:

1. Help them relocate in the face of a flood.

2. The flood killed many of them, and they live in a swamp.

7. Get taken over by a Naga that moves into the swamp.

20. Are attempting to poison the worlds water supply so they alone can survive.

WereWolf:

1. A single werewolf is losing his mind in the woods.

3. Go kill the werewolf, he has been eating people.

6. Several werewolves have made a pack in the woods.

15. The werewolf Lord has now began building an army of Wendigos, Lycanthropes and Wights to conquer the world.

20. The Lord of the Moon (same as the first werewolf if he has been allowed to live this long) is attempting to ascend to godhood at the next solar eclipse, and you have to interrupt the ceremony.



I create like 500 or more of these, so the party can never deal with all of them in a level. The progression is along with the party, and anytime they deal with one problem a problem somewhere else will spill over into the region they just saved. Your party can do almost anything they want, but they can never fix all of the problems in the world.

What he/I said.

Kaun
2010-11-24, 02:36 AM
Others will say that any time the group's actions have negative consequences, they are no longer in a 'Sandbox Campaign'.

WUT?

so if you kill a bunch of town folk then get hunted and killed by the lords men its not a sandbox?

Gan The Grey
2010-11-24, 02:50 AM
In short, my idea of a Sandbox Campaign is:

A setting in which the world moves in certain directions regardless of and in reaction to the decisions and actions of the PCs, and all actions have a logical consequence that is not always in-line with the desires of the DM or players.

Something like that.

kyoryu
2010-11-24, 03:00 AM
WUT?

so if you kill a bunch of town folk then get hunted and killed by the lords men its not a sandbox?

You haven't noticed that tendency? It's cropped up in at least a few threads.

Kaun
2010-11-24, 04:37 AM
You haven't noticed that tendency? It's cropped up in at least a few threads.

Nah i must have missed it.

Jeez some people are big balls of douche' wraped poop.

Sillycomic
2010-11-24, 05:22 AM
GM: In a crowded marketplace there are guards everywhere.

Player 1: Cool. I kill a shopkeeper and take all his stuff.

GM: Uhh... the guards see you and come over to arrest you.

Player 1: Wow, really? I thought this was a sandbox campaign.

Kaun
2010-11-24, 05:32 AM
lol if i got that i would be showing the player the door.

Psyx
2010-11-24, 06:24 AM
WUT?

so if you kill a bunch of town folk then get hunted and killed by the lords men its not a sandbox?

Yeah. You railroader.


Sandbox games need players that are all three of:

Pro-active
Inventive
Mature


Miss the first aspect and they sit around doing nothing
Miss the second and they don't know what to do
Miss the third and whatever they do that has consequences will get whined about

Amphetryon
2010-11-24, 06:38 AM
WUT?

so if you kill a bunch of town folk then get hunted and killed by the lords men its not a sandbox?

Didn't say I agree with the sentiment, only that it's been voiced a few times by several gamers and posters I've seen. The last part - getting killed by the lord's men - is the most contentious, because some folks call it bad form to throw the PCs up against overwhelming odds, and will claim that PC deaths and/or TPKs are all a result of DM fiat, hence 'bad DMing'.

Kaervaslol
2010-11-24, 07:00 AM
Didn't say I agree with the sentiment, only that it's been voiced a few times by several gamers and posters I've seen. The last part - getting killed by the lord's men - is the most contentious, because some folks call it bad form to throw the PCs up against overwhelming odds, and will claim that PC deaths and/or TPKs are all a result of DM fiat, hence 'bad DMing'.

Well those players are not apt to play in a sandbox.

In regards of the actual thread, use a system you know and is easy to come up with things on the fly (creating npcs, monsters, towns, etc).

For example, I've would never DM a sandbox campaign with 3.x because of the sheer ammount of detail, but it is pretty doable with the older editions where a monsters has 3 lines of text describing everything he can do.

Sillycomic
2010-11-24, 07:06 AM
I suppose one of the big things in a sandbox campaign is to have a few pre-game conversations that deal specifically with that the players want, what they expect, and what your world will contain.

1. What the players want.

Usually in a sandbox, players enjoy the freedom of doing whatever they want. If there is rumors of people being murdered mysteriously down at the docks, then the players have every right to say, "Who cares" and never go down to the docks and investigate.

A railroad world wouldn't have anything outside of going down to the docks to investigate.

So, ask your players what they want. Do they want to start up a business, want to be detectives running around solving mysterious, do they simply want to find loot and kill monsters? Are they interested in playing political chess with the nobles?

Once you have this figured out, you can at least plan out (and stat out) some general ideas of where the game itself is going. Throw in some plot hooks here and there and you've got a decent sandbox game started.

2. What they expect.

Player expectation is also key to a good sandbox game. Would they be interested in finding clues that take them all over the world? Would they rather stay in one place so they can start businesses, keep ties with the community, that kiind of stuff.

Should bad guys be clever? Awesome? Lots of over the top themes? Should the world be realistic or gritty? Do they expect the vampire to sparkle or silently wait for them all to go to sleep before slipping from the shadows? Rule of cool? Rule of awesome? Is it ok for ninja monkeys to ride dinosaurs with lasers attached to their heads?

3. What your world will contain.

Now with their suggestions of what they want to play, you can come up with the world they will actually get to play in. Tell them the houserules. The houserules aren't simply home brewed rules that alter play (like Dodge Feat is now a permanent +1 dodge bonus or whatever)

The houserules are what is going on in your world. Is there story that happens offscreen? Will the world revolve around the players, or are there more pieces at work here?

Are there times when the players will be in over their heads? Some encounters won't be level appropriate? If they piss off some wizard, they won't get kid gloves or dm fiat when it comes to revenge?

Make it clear to them the basics of what's going on in your world, so they aren't super surprised when the cult leader that they were told was very powerful starts summoning dragons.


Once you have all of that down, I think you can have a pretty decent sandbox campaign. Everyone will have an idea of what's going on, and by tailoring your world to their expectations it makes for the entire game to be fun for everyone.

At least in theory.

Gnaritas
2010-11-24, 07:18 AM
Usually in a sandbox, players enjoy the freedom of doing whatever they want. If there is rumors of people being murdered mysteriously down at the docks, then the players have every right to say, "Who cares" and never go down to the docks and investigate.

A railroad world wouldn't have anything outside of going down to the docks to investigate.


I disagree, my campaign has a main storyline, any sidequest is up to them to take or not, but i do not consider this a Sandbox Campaign.

Mastikator
2010-11-24, 07:29 AM
Design the campaign world in a way that it could go on without the PCs interfering in it.
Make sure to tell the players that a sandbox campaign only works when the characters have their own goals. Because "adventuring" basically just means that the characters are handed quests by NPC and get rewards. In a sandbox campaign, the characters would be their own quest givers.


Some players - like mine - argue that any time the DM has notes for the choice they've made, they're out of 'Sandbox' territory. Others will say that any time the group's actions have negative consequences, they are no longer in a 'Sandbox Campaign'.

Strange definition. Seems arbitrary. Actually sandbox doesn't mean that your actions can't have an influence on the world. If anything that'd be pure exploration campaign.



I disagree, my campaign has a main storyline, any sidequest is up to them to take or not, but i do not consider this a Sandbox Campaign.
It's a non-sandbox because there's a main storyline. Whether they can decline a sidequest is irrelevant after that fact.

Sillycomic
2010-11-24, 07:30 AM
Gnaritas, so you run a sandbox campaign and give the players hints that there are murders going on down in the docks...

and they decide not to investigate it?

So you tell them, "Nope, you need to go investigate this because it's part of my storyline. So go investigate it."


Umm... I don't think you're running a sandbox campaign at that point.

Kaervaslol
2010-11-24, 07:30 AM
Also: sandbox campaigns do work and in fact where the default a long time.

You need to set the right mindset and don't hold back.

Humanaut
2010-11-24, 09:55 AM
There are many blogs out there that have put thought into this. One suggestion is http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/ He details out some worldbuilding.

Also, Beyond the Black Gate: http://beyondtheblackgate.blogspot.com/

Society of Torch, Pole, and Rope: http://poleandrope.blogspot.com/

these are my favorites. They tend toward earlier editions, but the idea carries through IMHO. Take a peek at their old posts, you may find a gem or two!

For me as DM, I run with the idea the world exists, NPCs good and bad have plans, there are adventures around every corner (town or wilderness), drop some rumors and see what they want to do.

Actions have consequences, and some rumors not explored may grow (but an NPC party may twart them, hey, rival NPC parties can be fun as competitors friendly or non-).

My initial map is about 100x150 miles at the edge of civilization, plenty of room to wander if needed, splash a dozen or more adventures... some for every level! If the 1st lvl PC's ignore stories of the ancient dragon on Dragon Mnt... well, they will prolly die, it doesn't morph into a hatchling cuz they're 1st level.

My prep is extensive and sketchy, if that makes sense. At low levels I can wing it easy, find what they like, expand between games as needed.

I also have a "Megadungeon" nearby for them, it is it's own world too, not just orc-and-pie. Wandering the hills and mountains can be risky at low levels... may meet an orc patrol of 6 orcs... maybe a few trolls or hill giants! Squish!

That's all I can think of at the moment.

Good luck, have fun

Gnaritas
2010-11-24, 10:07 AM
Gnaritas, so you run a sandbox campaign and give the players hints that there are murders going on down in the docks...

and they decide not to investigate it?

So you tell them, "Nope, you need to go investigate this because it's part of my storyline. So go investigate it."


Umm... I don't think you're running a sandbox campaign at that point.

1. My point was that i am NOT running a sandbox campaign, because i have a mainstory.
2. I never tell them to do it anyway, i said it is up to them to take the sidequest or not.
3. My post was in response to someone saying that in a non-Sandbox-game, the party has no choice but to go for the people crying in the docks. I say that even in non-sandbox-games the party can still do what they want, the main story however will evolve around what they choose to do. So even if they do not go to investigate the docks, the story will find another way to get them involved....

The difference in my opinion is that in a non-sandbox-game the DM has some kind of story in mind, but the actions and choices of the party are still free (well, they should be) and will have an impact on the story. In a sandbox game, the DM has no story in mind, but he has a world. The actions of the players determine entirely where the story is going.

Example in my current campaign:
The party received rumors of a burglary in the historical museum. They went to investigate and got to know that 2 statues of elves were stolen. They tried to solve it, but did not finish it that day, they felt however that they could not waste time on it since they also had a different storyline going and went out of the city.
This was early in the campaign.
Half-way through the campaign they began to encounter two dark elves that fought them. After several encounters they managed to kill one. There were two notes in his pocket. Since that same day they had searched for ancient books in a dwarven library from a specific period one of them noticed that one of the notes was made from the same material as the books, a material that is no longer used commonly (for whatever reason).
At this point in the campaign they know that the drow have been banned from the surface by some magical means in a time long ago (the ancient period i previously mentioned). They now wonder why the two drow (of which one is still alive) were able to get to the surface anyway.
They have not figured it out yet (but obviously you have at this point), but these two drow were fleshed to stoned in that ancient time, ended up in a human museum, were stolen by the (currently deceased) BBEG and were stone to fleshed to serve a purpose.
(note that this is just a small sidestory in a much bigger story)

Sidequest unfinished, they made choices, it reflects on the course of the campaign. But is not a sandbox, i did not force a choice upon them, but those drow(statues) will have something to do with the story whether they ignore it or not.

Earthwalker
2010-11-24, 10:20 AM
[snip]

The difference in my opinion is that in a non-sandbox-game the DM has some kind of story in mind, but the actions and choices of the party are still free (well, they should be) and will have an impact on the story. In a sandbox game, the DM has no story in mind, but he has a world. The actions of the players determine entirely where the story is going.

I a sandbox game can't the DM have in mind NPCs, that will try to carry out thier plans. Weather the PC interfere with those plans is up to the PCs and they have to deal with what ever the consquences are for not getting involved ?

I only ask as I am getting confused over what is or isn't sandbox.

Does an NPC offering the players a quest instantly make it not sandboxed ?

Gnaritas
2010-11-24, 10:29 AM
I a sandbox game can't the DM have in mind NPCs, that will try to carry out thier plans. Weather the PC interfere with those plans is up to the PCs and they have to deal with what ever the consquences are for not getting involved ?

I only ask as I am getting confused over what is or isn't sandbox.

Does an NPC offering the players a quest instantly make it not sandboxed ?

Depends, if the PCs ignore the offering and then X happens and if they take the quest and then Y happens, you are giving them a choice, but you are also forcing a story upon them (story X or Y). I believe this is not sandboxing.

Sillycomic
2010-11-24, 10:34 AM
Oh, you were talking about your own campaign which isn't a sandbox campaign.

Good point to make, I guess. I suppose I wouldn't have cared so much if you didn't directly quote my own post... in order to make your point about something someone else said?

I guess that's the part where you lost me.

I can see where you would assume that when I said, "There's stuff going on the docks," that was some sort of a side quest invitation.

However it was not a sidequest example. It was the beginning of a main quest example. You ask people to come over to play D&D, roll up characters, have them all meet in a tavern, give introductions...

And then a cranky old man hands them their ale and says, (in a cranky old voice mind you) "So... those murders on the docks..."

To which the players go, "Who cares."

In a sandbox campaign the GM would move on and tell you about other exciting things going on in the city.

In a non sandbox campaign the GM would kindly show you the rails that are underneath your feet and have you go to the docks and investigate things.


Oh well, at least we both eventually got to what you were trying to say in the first place. That's the important part.

Earthwalker
2010-11-24, 10:35 AM
Depends, if the PCs ignore the offering and then X happens and if they take the quest and then Y happens, you are giving them a choice, but you are also forcing a story upon them (story X or Y). I believe this is not sandboxing.

I am still having problems here, if we carry on your example. If they don't take the quest then X happens.
If they do take the quest, they go to the location then resolve the situation how they want. Y or Z or AA or AB. All I know as the DM is who is involved in the quest.

Say a bandit leader and his crew have stolen goods. The quest is to get the goods back. The players can kill the bandits and return the stuff, join the bandits, kill the leader and lead the bandits. The quest was still offered to get them to interact with the bandits and the leader.

Gnaritas
2010-11-24, 10:43 AM
I am still having problems here, if we carry on your example. If they don't take the quest then X happens.
If they do take the quest, they go to the location then resolve the situation how they want. Y or Z or AA or AB. All I know as the DM is who is involved in the quest.

Say a bandit leader and his crew have stolen goods. The quest is to get the goods back. The players can kill the bandits and return the stuff, join the bandits, kill the leader and lead the bandits. The quest was still offered to get them to interact with the bandits and the leader.

But if the quest is offered and completely ignored, will something happen then too? Will the bandits raid the farm of the brother of one of the partymembers getting them involved anyway? If the latter is the case, i say you are not Sandboxing.

If you still feel that way, then i guess in your opinion i am running a sandbox campaign then, i am not forcing a choice upon my players. If they decide to join the drow and destroy humanity instead of preventing the drow to reach the surface (for which there were already 3 mayor ways i thought of) then i let them. But whatever choice they make that drow story will come up, if they ignore the main story too long they will find themselves in the middle of a conflict (or something) directly related to the mainstory.

Sillycomic
2010-11-24, 10:52 AM
The main difference would be in a structured game with a plot there is an expected outcome to happen with the bandits.

You defeat them in some way and get the stolen items back to the merchant (or noble, whatever)

And completing this quest will usually give clues to the next quest that is part of the structured game (one of the stolen items is an artifact that needs to be destroyed... or given to a group of elves or something)

In a sandbox game, anything can happen. You can defeat the bandits, or join them, or decide to take over. Or kill them all and sell the items. Or simply walk away from the situation entirely. The GM will play the outcome of either one as if that's what was supposed to happen.

The only difference is the competency of the GM. A good GM can have a lot of flexibility, even when it comes to structured games, and make sure that you will still find the clues to the next part of his plot no matter what you do (within reason)

A not as flexible GM will simply not let you "overcome" the bandits in whatever way you want, and either remind you of the rails underneath your feet... or send in NPC's way above your level to help guide you down the path you should have been taking in the first place.

Sometimes he will be quite nice about it though, "Guys, I'm a new GM, I don't know what to do if you don't just take out the bandit leader and go searching through the stuff." I recently had a conversation like that with a new GM who decided to run a game. He assumed we would all go quietly when the watch framed us for a murder and tried to arrest us... yeah, he assumed wrong.

Earthwalker
2010-11-24, 10:56 AM
But if the quest is offered and completely ignored, will something happen then too? Will the bandits raid the farm of the brother of one of the partymembers getting them involved anyway? If the latter is the case, i say you are not Sandboxing.

No but the bandit leader will grow in power sell the goods and get better weapons for his men, the world will go on and the more his power grows the worse he will be if the players ever do encounter him.


If you still feel that way, then i guess in your opinion i am running a sandbox campaign then, i am not forcing a choice upon my players. If they decide to join the drow and destroy humanity instead of preventing the drow to reach the surface (for which there were already 3 mayor ways i thought of) then i let them. But whatever choice they make that drow story will come up, if they ignore the main story too long they will find themselves in the middle of a conflict (or something) directly related to the mainstory.

I honestly don't know how I feel about this. I have never considered myself as running a sandbox game and I am trying to understand what is meant by it, becuase when the subject comes up we seem to get alot of expectations that just seem very odd to me. This thread ( and you Gnaritas) has offered some very insightful opinions.

Again using the option posted. Can a DM in a sandbox game tell one of the players that thier brothers farm seems to have been targetted by a group of bandits. Is this forcing the player to act as opposed to letting them choose. Are all the players contacts untouchable ?
Does this just lead to a group of orphan hobos ?

Ravens_cry
2010-11-24, 10:57 AM
WUT?

so if you kill a bunch of town folk then get hunted and killed by the lords men its not a sandbox?
Yeah, that doesn't make much sense to me either. The whole idea, to me, of a Sandbox game is that things the players do have consequentness on a vast scale. Maybe not much at first, but more so as the players advance.

Gnaritas
2010-11-24, 11:16 AM
Yeah, that doesn't make much sense to me either. The whole idea, to me, of a Sandbox game is that things the players do have consequentness on a vast scale. Maybe not much at first, but more so as the players advance.

I know i am not quoted here, but just in case. I am not saying the same thing.
I am saying that if you are trying to ignore a quest given by the DM, you should be able to do so without consequences in a true sandbox game, if not the DM is forcing a story upon you, which is not a bad thing at all, but not sandbox.

Psyx
2010-11-24, 11:40 AM
Again using the option posted. Can a DM in a sandbox game tell one of the players that thier brothers farm seems to have been targetted by a group of bandits. Is this forcing the player to act as opposed to letting them choose. Are all the players contacts untouchable ?


It's still a sandbox game. You don't have to hunt down the bandits. You can decide that you never liked your brother anyway, and that you're going off to the frozen north to kill ice-trolls instead.

Psyx
2010-11-24, 11:44 AM
I
I am saying that if you are trying to ignore a quest given by the DM, you should be able to do so without consequences in a true sandbox game, if not the DM is forcing a story upon you, which is not a bad thing at all, but not sandbox.

I'd completely disagree.

A bill arrives in my sandbox life. I can pay it, or not pay it. If I choose not to accept the quest, my electricity gets cut off. This does not mean that life is railroading me*

The GM is NOT forcing a story on you by issuing consequences to activity or inactivity: He is simply placing you in an organic and dynamic game world. There's nothing to say those consequences even have to do with you: You turn down a quest to kill a dragon and go north to kill ice-trolls. Three weeks later because of your inaction, the town you used to live in is burned to the ground by the dragon. But you might not even ever go back there to notice.

Indeed: Far from what you are saying, a sandbox game MUST evolve and change, either with or without the PCs interference. That's what the world does.




*Any more than our grossly consumerist and rat-race lifestyle railroads any of us...

obliged_salmon
2010-11-24, 11:45 AM
So here's the way I understand the definition:
Railroad = one expected outcome to scheduled conflict (e.g. bandits slain)
Sandbox = anything else (run away, start a band, conquer Seattle with undead army, etc.)

As far as advice for running sandbox games goes, I cannot stress enough the importance of talking with your players, getting them involved in the storytelling process. What kinds of stories do they want for their characters? After you figure that out, encourage them to be active in pursuit of those stories and goals, take risks and make choices.

Psyx
2010-11-24, 11:49 AM
conquer Seattle with undead army, etc.

We use that one a lot, too...

Vladislav
2010-11-24, 11:50 AM
The key to a successful sandbox - fill it with lots of toys.

Even if the players ignore the rumors of the murders in the docks, there should be always something else to do. But a sandbox with only one toy in it is a sad sight indeed.

Sillycomic
2010-11-24, 12:00 PM
Not entirely true. If my sandbox only had one robot ninja monkey toy... I wouldn't be all that sad.

Vladislav
2010-11-24, 12:02 PM
Not entirely true. If my sandbox only had one robot ninja monkey toy... I wouldn't be all that sad.What about your brother, who's scared of ninjas due to an unpleasant childhood experience?

Wouldn't you rather have additional choice of toys, so you can both play together?

Ravens_cry
2010-11-24, 12:04 PM
I know i am not quoted here, but just in case. I am not saying the same thing.
I am saying that if you are trying to ignore a quest given by the DM, you should be able to do so without consequences in a true sandbox game, if not the DM is forcing a story upon you, which is not a bad thing at all, but not sandbox.
Ignore a quest, sure. The freedom to do is so is in fact what a Sandbox is all about. But then the natural consequentness should kick in. A dragon is attacking a town and the players don't help? Cue ruined town and ragged band of refugees from town and shift in local economy and political structure. With the grain from the fields not being harvested, there will be a food shortage in the area. Also, a disease could spread wherever the refugees set up camp due to poor sanitation of the shanty town.
Natural consequentness. You're not forcing the players, but the world should react appropriately.

Vladislav
2010-11-24, 12:10 PM
Ignore a quest, sure. The freedom to do is so is in fact what a Sandbox is all about. But then the natural consequentness should kick in. A dragon is attacking a town and the players don't help? Cue ruined town and ragged band of refugees from town and shift in local economy and political structure.It's doesn't have to be so tragic every time. You can also have a competing band of adventurers defeat the dragon and rub their success in the PCs faces.

Ravens_cry
2010-11-24, 12:15 PM
It's doesn't have to be so tragic every time. You can also have a competing band of adventurers defeat the dragon and rub their success in the PCs faces.
Of course, there should be more then just the players out doing deeds and such. But again, natural consequences. They could go into a bar and be greeted derisively as the "Cowards of Barleytown." If they were in the town and did nothing, a relative or family could want revenge.

Tyndmyr
2010-11-24, 12:18 PM
I find that beyond a few vague ideas, it's a bad idea to plan more than one session into the future in a sandbox campaign. Tailor things to what the PCs seem interested in and the direction they choose to go, and adapt as they go along.

I agree with this, with the caveat that preparation is not the same as planning, and you should prepare stuff to have on standby. I like to have a capture scenario prepped, for instance, as well as a few various encounters or dungeons that are widely appropriate. Sometimes, I'll work up encounters for specific areas as well, and if they don't get used, recycle em for the next campaign.

Preparation allows people who don't improvise well to do much better at sandbox campaigns.

Sillycomic
2010-11-24, 12:19 PM
What about your brother, who's scared of ninjas due to an unpleasant childhood experience?

Wouldn't you rather have additional choice of toys, so you can both play together?


Hmm, railroading me into getting more toys cause my brother had an unpleasent childhood experience? I see what's going on here.

Vladislav
2010-11-24, 12:26 PM
Careful preparation is the basis for every successful improvisation. - Anon.

When I DM in the "let players run amok in the city" style, I have the following persons and locations prepared, just in case:

- A tavern, complete with name, descriptions of owner and serving wenches.
- A thieves' guild - basic structure, guildmaster, lieutenants.
- A ship, with crew and captain.
- A wilderness encounter.
- An urban encounter.
- An abandoned house with a spooky basement.
- Two merchants, one honest, one seedy.
- A street urchin/beggar.
- A typical unit of city guards or militia.
- A local noble.
- A temple and its clergy.
etc.

Granted, not all of this gets used in the same session, but nothing is lost. If players are in town X and never go to the local temple, the temple plans can be reused when they get to town Y.

Tvtyrant
2010-11-24, 01:35 PM
The point of a sandbox game IMO is that the characters make the world; they can decide to kill the merchants that try to hire them, they can build an army of halflings to conquer Isengard, its all up to them. The GM acts as the cosmic balance in the game; he trys to have the world react in a reasonable manner to their actions.

In a railroad plot a GM would punish the players for saying no to dealing with an issue (like having the towns people attack them for not saving them from the bandits) while in a sandbox he would have them simply be ignored (because they are nobodies, you get a name by doing things).

boj0
2010-11-24, 02:11 PM
I try to start sandbox campaigns with asking the players how they met, then giving them a general run-down of the world they live in, letting them in on some local rumors, and then asking what the group would like to do.

Having a good idea how your world works and some shiny toys to get them on the move are usually important. I wrote out a quick history of the world, some countries, what interesting things they could find there, and a few adventure ideas if they decided to go there. First session I handed the players a map of my homebrew world and let them decide where they started and what they were doing. They thought they caught me off guard with saying "In the middle of the ocean on a merchant ship", until the ship drifted into a conflict between a group of Saughin and a Sea Dragon :smallbiggrin: Those dragon eggs made the merchants a hefty profit, and they ended up sponsoring a few expeditions of the players later in the campaign.

kyoryu
2010-11-24, 02:23 PM
Also: sandbox campaigns do work and in fact where the default a long time.

You need to set the right mindset and don't hold back.

Yup. In fact, sandbox games can have a lot of advantages over narrative games - they're much more friendly to players leaving/entering the group, etc. Especially if you don't insist on there being one party, but rather allow players to have more than one character (though not at the same time).


I a sandbox game can't the DM have in mind NPCs, that will try to carry out thier plans. Weather the PC interfere with those plans is up to the PCs and they have to deal with what ever the consquences are for not getting involved ?


Well that's my view. Some people view even having quests as not being sandbox, and some people view negative consequences of their actions as not being sandbox. I find this silly.


Preparation allows people who don't improvise well to do much better at sandbox campaigns.

I like the Eisenhower quote - "Plans are nothing - planning is everything."


The point of a sandbox game IMO is that the characters make the world; they can decide to kill the merchants that try to hire them, they can build an army of halflings to conquer Isengard, its all up to them. The GM acts as the cosmic balance in the game; he trys to have the world react in a reasonable manner to their actions.

In a railroad plot a GM would punish the players for saying no to dealing with an issue (like having the towns people attack them for not saving them from the bandits) while in a sandbox he would have them simply be ignored (because they are nobodies, you get a name by doing things).

Agree entirely. And if you go around killing merchants, expect consequences.


Nah i must have missed it.

Jeez some people are big balls of douche' wraped poop.

A lot of sandbox threads have people in them saying "all my sandbox games end up going evil and the players take over the world by 8th level."

Wha? How does that happen in a world with consequences?

grimbold
2010-11-24, 02:41 PM
because there is no clear path for the campaign make the adventure hooks obvious for the players.
eg. upon meeting a peasant have him mention whatever adventure can be found in this town several times upon talking to him
eg peasant 'o hi there good folk how are you today'
players 'fine how are you'
peasant 'well the crops are good but my lambs keep dissapearing....