PDA

View Full Version : Ending a Sandbox?



mikeejimbo
2015-09-23, 11:41 AM
My group has rarely tried sandbox games, and as of right now I'm attempting to run something slightly more sandboxy than than normal. I'm making adventures more 'episodic' in nature - mostly this was due to a shifting group of who can actually make it each week so I wanted something that could easily explain a different group each week.

One player brought up a good point though - without an overarching plot, how do you know when it ends? (Granted there are 'plots' in the sense that there are things going on they can stick their noses into, but none of them are central unless the players want it to be. This is actually another issue I'm having, the relative lack of player initiative.)

DigoDragon
2015-09-23, 11:52 AM
I've been in one sandbox and it really didn't end until one player got bored and attempted to murder another player. This ended in a "What the Hell?" argument where we came to the conclusion that we should play something else. That said, I think the lesson for us was that if we are getting bored of a sandbox game, we should tell the GM so they can wrap it up with a story arc for us to accomplish.

So... talk to your players to see when they feel a sandbox should end. Perhaps at a specific level/xp accumulation?

Geddy2112
2015-09-23, 12:07 PM
lack of player initiative

player got bored

These are signs that the campaign is in falling action. Even a sandbox has a general overarching story and series of events. Skyrim, Grand Theft Auto, etc all have a story even though you can basically do whatever you want. When do you stop playing these games? When you have effectively run out of interesting things to do.

I was in a great kingmaker sandbox, well it was great. We went from Joe Blow NPC's to great heroes that brought balance to the world, all becoming influential leaders at the heads of our respective field. The cleric retired from adventuring to become a high priest, the druid went back to studying nature at a college, the rogue became a pirate captain and wandered the high seas, and the barbarian opened a successful food truck business across the kingdoms.

Then the DM did not end the game-we became bored and destructive. Once players have built the greatest sandcastle(or torn down the existing ones) its time to go back to page 1 and start another one. End the campaign on a high note, and maybe leaving the players wanting just a hair more. Once the players stop caring, or run out of cares to give, end the campaign before it becomes a chore.


talk to your players to see when they feel a sandbox should end
This too. Most players build a character that has a major goal(or figure one out in the first few levels) and once they reach that goal, they are done with that character. Find out what everybody's goal is, have them go about achieving it, then pack it up and start something fresh.

Comet
2015-09-23, 12:25 PM
One way to do it is to never end the campaign.

That's the way we have played, anyway. I haven't thought about where I want things to end, we just keep going and going and when we feel like doing something else we switch games for a while and then come back when we feel like it. Some day we might not come back and that's okay. Episodic campaigns are satisfying precisely because every single episode has the potential for a satisfying arc and climax, so you don't have to worry too much about things beyond that handful of sessions.

As said, the important thing is to listen to your players. And also keep suggesting new campaigns and ideas yourself between adventures. Don't force the issue if the players are still having fun, but make sure they know you're not a one trick pony. If the players have ideas and want to run a campaign themselves every now and then, even better.

Thrudd
2015-09-23, 01:26 PM
It ends when you want it to end. It doesn't have to end. It can end when the players get bored of their characters, or there's a TPK, or everyone is really high level and there's not much to challenge them. The players can retire their characters and start new ones as an extension of the same campaign.
The game isn't a story with a plot that has a beginning and end, it is a world to be explored and interacted with.

Temperjoke
2015-09-23, 01:27 PM
Well, look at it from a TV series. Usually when they're coming up on the series finale, they have multi-part episodes with a big plot against a key villain. Now, in your situation, it sounds like you didn't have an BBEG you had a bunch of smaller villains.

Honestly, what you might want to do is make the world less of a sandbox to finish things. What if there was a bigger fish, beneath all these fish that your players have defeated? Oh, and he knows each and every one of them, and all their weaknesses, due to having observed the defeat of his captains. They are the only thing that has been able to defeat each of his generals, so now they, and anyone they've met or demonstrated concern for, are now targets.

Just one idea at least.

mikeejimbo
2015-09-23, 01:36 PM
Thanks for all the feedback, it's helpful. :) I definitely have some overarching plots going on. The lack of initiative is probably something that can be overcome. I don't think it's because he's bored yet (the campaign is actually only in its third session), but I might need to find some ways to interest and motivate him in the hooks. The only concern I had for his interest was that he said it wouldn't be episodic forever, almosthe matter-of-factly, so I am concerned that they'll miss the overarching stuff by choosing to ignore it.

mephnick
2015-09-23, 02:56 PM
I am concerned that they'll miss the overarching stuff by choosing to ignore it.

Don't let them ignore it. Hit them in the face with the subtlety of a concrete block made of plot.

Being vague about the arc you really want the table to go through might seem like you're giving the players freedom, but you're not. If Dark Knight Deathjerk is the biggest threat to the region, the players need to clearly know that "this is the thing you should be stopping.", otherwise you're not giving the characters the information they need to act accordingly.

Now if you make it obvious and they actually choose to ignore the main threat, then you have some tough decisions to make. You may just have to destroy that region/world because that's what would happen.

Side-quests and episodic arcs are fine, but eventually even "sandboxes" need focus and structure, or else they aren't really anything.

Jay R
2015-09-23, 03:12 PM
I realize that it's not the 1970s any more, but in my experience, a sandbox D&D campaign officially ends when the DM gets a girlfriend.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-09-23, 03:49 PM
I think the lesson for us was that if we are getting bored of a sandbox game, we should tell the GM so they can wrap it up with a story arc for us to accomplish.

Basically this. If you feel like it should end somewhere soonish the DM can start tying all loose plotpoints together, probably resulting in a massively convoluted 3-session storyline where most of the major enemies and NPC's make an appearance, all plotlines get some sort of ending and the most memorable villain gets defeated.

It's as much of a storywise ending as you can hope for in a real sandbox game.

JAL_1138
2015-09-23, 04:14 PM
They tend to end with character retirement in my experience. Or TPKs. Or the characters leaving the sandbox for something else--"OK, we've done everything there is to do here; let's head for the part of the map that says Here Be Dragons."

Bust out some Gygax modules and drop them in your campaign worlds, see if they bite.

Or there's always The Apocalypse Stone from 2e, if you want to blow up the world. Spoony covered it in a Counter Monkey if you want a (not so) quick rundown of it.

goto124
2015-09-24, 01:03 AM
It ends when the world gets blown up.

Mastikator
2015-09-24, 02:13 AM
Sandbox games end when you stop playing. Why should it end before that? Why would you ever stop, even when all the PCs goals are achieved continue. When they retire, you continue. When they start families, you continue. When they die of old age and the players take over their PCs children, you continue.

Red Fel
2015-09-24, 05:36 AM
First off, sandbox should never mean, "There is no plot." It shouldn't mean that the world is devoid of any action save that which the PCs inject into it. That's not a sandbox, it's a barren wasteland. I dislike when people use sandbox as shorthand for, "I'm going to hand an empty game world to the PCs and let them break it to their sadistic hearts' content." That's not a sandbox, it's a colorful ball you hand to an infant, knowing that even he won't be able to destroy it. And then he does anyway.

Have you ever seen a sandbox? I don't just mean a real-life sandbox. I mean an iconic sandbox. The Platonic Ideal of Sandbox. Close your eyes and picture it in your mind. You see the wooden frame around it, the sand inside it. What else? Is there a sand castle? A bucket and shovel? Perhaps a small ball or discarded action figure?

That's my point. Sandboxes aren't just empty save sand. They have things in them. And a sandbox game can have those too.

Yes. A sandbox game is about the players having the freedom to do with their PCs as they choose. But there should be stuff going on in the background, and part of what contributes to the length and quality of the game is how the PCs interact with ongoing events. So one option to end the game is when the PCs, in doing whatever it is they choose to do, have addressed some or all of the major events. Yeah, it was a happy funtime road trip adventure with swords, but somewhere along the way they slew a dragon and rescued a princess and toppled a tyrant and replaced him with an even worse tyrant and rescued a sacred artifact and desecrated it. Good job, great game, epilogue time!

So that's the "when" a sandbox should end. Here's the "how."


That said, I think the lesson for us was that if we are getting bored of a sandbox game, we should tell the GM so they can wrap it up with a story arc for us to accomplish.


Basically this. If you feel like it should end somewhere soonish the DM can start tying all loose plotpoints together, probably resulting in a massively convoluted 3-session storyline where most of the major enemies and NPC's make an appearance, all plotlines get some sort of ending and the most memorable villain gets defeated.

What they said. I love a good ending that wraps up plot threads, and the great thing about a sandbox is just how many the PCs leave hanging. So tie them together. That dragon had a brother who wants revenge, that princess had a brother who wanted her dead so he could usurp the throne, the people who you rescued from a tyrant want their old tyrant back, the deity that made the sacred artifact you ruined is out for a smiting, and the innkeeper from the first session who wants you to pay for burning down his inn has gathered them all in one place for a glorious crapstorm of fury and exposition. Spread it over two or three sessions, let everyone go nuts, and then epilogue that sucker into a gentle landing.

The Greeks had a word, catharsis, for the emotional purgation and renewal that came about as the result of enjoying a quality bit of drama. That's what you want. When everything reaches closure, when all of the enemies are dead and the kingdoms in ruins and the heavens dragged into the dirt, and the PCs look around and say either "What have we wrought?" or "Job well done, let's go home," that's when you hit that emotional sweet spot.

Garimeth
2015-09-24, 08:48 AM
First off, sandbox should never mean, "There is no plot." It shouldn't mean that the world is devoid of any action save that which the PCs inject into it. That's not a sandbox, it's a barren wasteland. I dislike when people use sandbox as shorthand for, "I'm going to hand an empty game world to the PCs and let them break it to their sadistic hearts' content." That's not a sandbox, it's a colorful ball you hand to an infant, knowing that even he won't be able to destroy it. And then he does anyway.

Have you ever seen a sandbox? I don't just mean a real-life sandbox. I mean an iconic sandbox. The Platonic Ideal of Sandbox. Close your eyes and picture it in your mind. You see the wooden frame around it, the sand inside it. What else? Is there a sand castle? A bucket and shovel? Perhaps a small ball or discarded action figure?

That's my point. Sandboxes aren't just empty save sand. They have things in them. And a sandbox game can have those too.

Yes. A sandbox game is about the players having the freedom to do with their PCs as they choose. But there should be stuff going on in the background, and part of what contributes to the length and quality of the game is how the PCs interact with ongoing events. So one option to end the game is when the PCs, in doing whatever it is they choose to do, have addressed some or all of the major events. Yeah, it was a happy funtime road trip adventure with swords, but somewhere along the way they slew a dragon and rescued a princess and toppled a tyrant and replaced him with an even worse tyrant and rescued a sacred artifact and desecrated it. Good job, great game, epilogue time!

So that's the "when" a sandbox should end. Here's the "how."





What they said. I love a good ending that wraps up plot threads, and the great thing about a sandbox is just how many the PCs leave hanging. So tie them together. That dragon had a brother who wants revenge, that princess had a brother who wanted her dead so he could usurp the throne, the people who you rescued from a tyrant want their old tyrant back, the deity that made the sacred artifact you ruined is out for a smiting, and the innkeeper from the first session who wants you to pay for burning down his inn has gathered them all in one place for a glorious crapstorm of fury and exposition. Spread it over two or three sessions, let everyone go nuts, and then epilogue that sucker into a gentle landing.

The Greeks had a word, catharsis, for the emotional purgation and renewal that came about as the result of enjoying a quality bit of drama. That's what you want. When everything reaches closure, when all of the enemies are dead and the kingdoms in ruins and the heavens dragged into the dirt, and the PCs look around and say either "What have we wrought?" or "Job well done, let's go home," that's when you hit that emotional sweet spot.

As usual Red Fel nailed it.

CombatBunny
2015-09-24, 09:36 AM
Each of your sessions should have (or at least strive to) a climax and conclusion, so that you can end your story whenever you want, which is mostly when everyone has got bored of the game.

Think of almost any series you have watched. I don’t watch too much T.V. but let me use as an example Breaking Bad.

When it ends? When Walter either cures himself from cancer or manages to save his family or he gets caught or he has defeated the last drug dealer in his territory, etc.

When that happens? When the audience rating falls (players get bored). When do you insert the ending? On the next episode after the rating falls.

See? Most American series writers don’t get frustrated wondering when the story should end; they just keep bringing interesting things to the audience until it gets bored. If Breaking Bad had been a failure, then the show would have ended in the first season and Gustav Fringe would just have never existed, easy as that.

For a sandbox game, suppose they get interested in hunting down a goblin in the woods. If the players don’t get interested in that thread any further, then that story arc ends, they saved the woods from danger. If they did get interested in that plot, then it just keeps growing, then that goblin was just part of a group of 5 goblins and if the players keep digging, then that group was part of a cult and you keep raising the stakes until you get to your climax.

If the characters loose interest in that story or in the last game, then that last challenge they faced was the climax, maybe you can give them one final session to inject that dramatic feeling, but that’s it.

That’s why you shouldn’t reveal a big scale epic plot right from the beginning; give the players just enough information to have them clear their next goal or goals.

In the case of a sandbox game, your plots are like a buffet where the players take what they want. A better example would be a garden with seeds of all kinds; the players wonder around and begin to nurture the seeds they find more interesting. Sometimes they will make some grow and then abandon them and go for some others that catch their attention, that’s okay because that way your big plot (if ever happens) will emerge organically and according to the liking of the players.

mikeejimbo
2015-09-24, 11:40 AM
I realize that it's not the 1970s any more, but in my experience, a sandbox D&D campaign officially ends when the DM gets a girlfriend.

Hahaha oh man the player in question has actually expressed fear of that happeng to me.

sovin_ndore
2015-09-24, 12:00 PM
The Greeks had a word, catharsis, for the emotional purgation and renewal that came about as the result of enjoying a quality bit of drama. That's what you want. When everything reaches closure, when all of the enemies are dead and the kingdoms in ruins and the heavens dragged into the dirt, and the PCs look around and say either "What have we wrought?" or "Job well done, let's go home," that's when you hit that emotional sweet spot.

Not to countermand what has been said here, which I think has been highly productive, but I feel inclined to point out that the concept of neatly tied off, feel-good conclusion (catharsis) for storytelling is actually very closely tied to a greek storytelling methodology (heroes journey or three act structure); which of course means it is closely tied into much of Western culture but is by no means the only way to bring a story to an end.

Traditional Eastern storytelling would follow a Kishotenketsu structure and ends with a conclusion (ketsu). This conclusion usually provides implications or lessons, but does not necessarily 'tie up the loose ends'. I am sure you can read more about this online, but the bottom line is that sometimes leaving questions unspoken can also be a wonderful way to end a story.

goto124
2015-09-24, 11:17 PM
the bottom line is that sometimes leaving questions unspoken can also be a wonderful way to end a story.

*insert something about personal preference* Sorry, it's been one of my pet peeves. When done badly, it can come off as a cheap cop-out.

I suppose it could work if there's no reason for the PCs to know. 'Did this NPC survive?' 'Well you and everyone else never saw her again. You could waste [material components] for a scry spell, if you like.' 'Nah, she's not that important.'

Knaight
2015-09-25, 01:10 AM
Generally even in a sandbox goals will emerge, things will orient around the tasks involving them, and the resolution of said goals frequently also works for the resolution of the campaign.

Water Bob
2015-09-27, 09:20 AM
It ends when the world gets blown up.

I was thinking something along these lines. You don't have to necessarily blow up the entire world, but I think it would be interesting to end a sandbox where the area played (the sandbox) is changed forever. Then, historians look back on that age when things were different. And, players remember living through that age.

Maybe we are talking about a cataclysmic event for the area....something like the seas rising up, or the sandbox peninsula breaking off and falling into the ocean.

Or, maybe we're talking about something a bit more mundane, say, with an invading force occupying the area, making it a colony of another kingdom.

Maybe a plague devastates the area.

Maybe the area of the sandbox burns, and it becomes a great desert.

Maybe it's become a place where cracks in the earth lead to the depths of hell. Creatures now crawl out of the cracks, and what was once somewhat civilized is not a vast, barren wasteland full of humanoids and demons.

The idea is to change the place from what it was while the sandbox was played to something else--where maybe a new sandbox can be played, but a different one.

goto124
2015-09-27, 09:40 AM
Why not something positive, such as the country starting to rise again after the tyrant has been taken down?

Then in the new campaign, figure out how to run a country :smallamused:

Ajmes
2015-09-29, 12:33 AM
I would probably do something like, once they hit epic levels, I'd work in a way to give the players a path to greater power/godhood, but design it to be brutally difficult at that point(because what else is really left at that point?). So any PCs who survived and completed what they needed to do would ascend and become part of that world's pantheon, and essentially retire their character, and anyone else would be dead. Then you can start a new game in that world with everyone making different characters, and you could have it all just keep enriching the world if you want, or at the very least, it would make for fun stories to look back on during new campaigns.

LibraryOgre
2015-09-29, 11:43 AM
If you're going to end (instead of everything just falling apart), end on a high note. Either have some final quest to do, that ties up a few loose threads, or at least have some idea of what happens afterwards.