PDA

View Full Version : Would you find this setup fun?



Traab
2021-11-04, 01:57 PM
You get a campaign thats basically a sandbox, go do whatever you want. But the DM makes sure you are aware in game that there are several threats and explains ooc that all these threats will continue to progress depending on what you choose to do. As an example, there are bandits in the forest attacking travelers. You can go wipe them out now. But if you choose to go elsewhere first following one of the other plot hooks, the bandits numbers will grow. The traps setup to protect their camps will get worse, they will eventually recruit mercenaries with varying class levels, etc. Eventually they will be bold enough and powerful enough to raid the town you are headquartered in.

So basically the point is, you pick and choose what dangers you want to face, knowing that whatever you arent facing off against is going to be there, and more dangerous, as time passes. So choose your own adventure, missing kids being taken to the sewers? The bandits getting bold? Rumors of an undead army growing? Want to open a tavern and have the barbarian be the bouncer, the bard be the entertainment and the rogue rob every guest blind? Your choice, just be prepared for problems to develop with whatever threat you pushed to the side. The missing kids were used in a ritual to open a portal thats pooping out swarms of demons, the bandits are attacking the town, the undead army has absorbed the population of 5 towns into its forces and is heading your way. The town guard got reports of customers being robbed whenever they stay at this inn and are here to shut you down.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-11-04, 02:14 PM
If the idea is "no matter what you do, the things you can't do snowball and wreck everything later" (ie you have a set of "world-ending" threats, but you can only do one), then no.

But if it's a slow burn on all of them, then that's my kinda preference.

The Glyphstone
2021-11-04, 02:23 PM
That's my thoughts too. As written and presented it comes across as a sort of GM vs. Player hostility, where the GM is giving all these plot options and the players are always choosing 'none of the above', thus allowing to punish them. Sure, if they decide to open a tavern the demon ritual will complete and the bandits will raid and the undead army will grow. But if they do follow one of the plots like wiping out the bandits, they still get punished because the undead army and demon ritual grow.

Having the world grow and progress offscreen is one thing, and helps immersion, but a game of constant whack-a-mole that rubs 'you didn't handle this problem and now it's worse' in my face when there are more problems than it's possible to solve simultaneously would definitely rub me the wrong way.

JNAProductions
2021-11-04, 02:33 PM
That's my thoughts too. As written and presented it comes across as a sort of GM vs. Player hostility, where the GM is giving all these plot options and the players are always choosing 'none of the above', thus allowing to punish them. Sure, if they decide to open a tavern the demon ritual will complete and the bandits will raid and the undead army will grow. But if they do follow one of the plots like wiping out the bandits, they still get punished because the undead army and demon ritual grow.

Having the world grow and progress offscreen is one thing, and helps immersion, but a game of constant whack-a-mole that rubs 'you didn't handle this problem and now it's worse' in my face when there are more problems than it's possible to solve simultaneously would definitely rub me the wrong way.

Yeah. Echoing this.

The general idea (the world has other stuff happening than what's on-screen) is good, even in non-sandboxy games. But the specific implementation you spoke of might not be the best for it.

So, to answer the question... It really depends how good the DM is and how exactly everything is implemented.

MoiMagnus
2021-11-04, 02:44 PM
Possibly not, though it would heavily depends on the actual execution.

Here would be my fears:
(1) Every choice is a bad choice. I don't like being implicitly told "you should have made the other choice" when the other choice would have been arguably worst, and the situation you're building seems to be a succession of those. Though again, it heavily depends on how much of a "no win situation" you're intending to build.
(2) The way you're presenting it, the PCs would end up having to solve a lot of mundane problems in order to prevent those from becoming actual big issues. The optimal way to play (dealing with threats early) doesn't sound very exiting. It seems that the player might end up in a "I'd like to go make this quest to find this cool item because it's fun, but on the other hand we have those boring threats to deal with and I guess it's more optimal to deal with them while they're still boring".
(3) You're kind of implying that anything the PC doesn't care about is necessarily going to become hostile to them if they "win". If true, you're kind of restricting yourself on what kind of "threat" the PCs will be dealing with, and you might want to also add some "arguably threats" like "A faction is trying to gain some powers and will succeed if not stopped. Is it good? Is it bad? It depends if you agree with their ideologies, and/or care about those who will be wronged because of it. You might even want to help them rather than eliminate them."

I know this post was very negative (much more than I intended, sorry for that), but since you only talked about the "bad things" that happened to the players without giving hints about what unique opportunities lies in the "total freedom" of a sandbox, it's very difficult to be exited about it.

LibraryOgre
2021-11-04, 02:47 PM
I do something similar to everyone's suggestions when I have the time for a big campaign.

Basically, there are a number of things going on. Focusing on any one allows the others to progress, but it doesn't mean world-ending, just that plans move forward.

For example, in one game, I had the elves retaking Cormanthor, drow capturing Lythari to turn into werewolves, the Zhents and Hillsafar were sparring and trying to expand, and the hobgoblins were setting up a Dale and trying to get into the Dale's Council. All of these continued no matter what the players did; none of them were world-ending, but not addressing one meant that the others continued. Ignore the hobgoblins and they get more entrenched in their Dale and set up trading relations with Sembia. Ignore the Zhents and Hillsafar and they're going to cause destruction. Ignore the drow and they're going to get more werewolves and get more powerful.

Time became a currency, and player goals and character loyalties were not united. It was fun.

Traab
2021-11-04, 02:50 PM
Sorry, didnt mean to imply they become world ending threats, narratively the threats grow worse as time goes on with noone wiping them out, gameplay wise, they are leveling up with you. So your team of level 3s go clear out the bandits that are balanced for a party of level 3 players. You come back and now the sewer threat is balanced around say, a level 5 party. The reverse applies if you chose to go save the kids first. The dm adjusts the story of each threat depending on order of operation. The sewer story is at first some basic cultists rats and whatnot for a low level party. If you go later its imps all over the place, the portal is only now opening, so the bigger stuff cant come through. Wait even longer and oh no, barbed devils! Adjust as challenge rating demands to make it work out, you get the general idea though.

LibraryOgre
2021-11-04, 03:35 PM
The only thing I might do differently than that is leave at least a couple of the places relatively unpowered. Like, the bandits may have some more defenses, but instead of making them all level, they're all now level 2.

Occasionally, it's fun to give the players a cakewalk.

Pauly
2021-11-04, 03:46 PM
The other thing I would add is rivals.

If the players don’t clear out the bandits another adventuring party takes the challenge. In the meantime travelers mention seeing giant tracks in the mountain passes

HumanFighter
2021-11-04, 03:52 PM
I think what you have here is a wonderful idea, Traab. While great from a top-down perspective, you must be careful not to mess up the nitty gritty details.
Yes, threats grow more powerful the longer the players ignore them. But, (hopefully) the players will also be more powerful by that time, allowing them to deal with the problems appropriately.
Following along with your examples, it might be a good idea to include some means in the campaign world to make dealing with such threats easier, such as magical items/artifacts and allied armies or something like that. Of the 3 threats that have been discussed, I would say the undead army is probably the most threatening, so if I were GM I would create some sort of powerful weapon against the undead, but it is hidden in the mountains in an ancient, forgotten temple and not so easy to get to, but totally worth it as it would make it easier to slaughter zombies/skeletons in droves, like an AOE holy power effect.
But this undead army brings up some questions. Does this army have a leader, like a necromancer or lich or something, perhaps an undead general who wants revenge on the king and his descendents for abandoning him in the battle of Generic Mountain Pass against goblins/orcs/rebels or something like that. Or maybe the army is led by a mortal necromancer who is in love with the princess, and is trying to impress her with his army or force her to marry him? Or perhaps a Lich who has long since lost all his humanity and is starting this invasion just to see how people and society would react to it, out of scholarly curiosity?

The demon portal thing though is so played-out, you know what I mean?
As for the bandits, I would just poison their water/food supply or spread a disease through their camp, if I was playing an Evil character that is :smallbiggrin:
Oooh, perhaps when all the bandits die this way, they can be added to the undead army! Unless of course the PCs burn all the bodies (which they should always do if there is undead about)

icefractal
2021-11-04, 03:55 PM
While I'm on board with threats increasing over time, I wouldn't scale them all at the same rate as the PCs - that seems like the level auto-scaling from Oblivion, which most people disliked (myself among them).

It's better for it to depend on the threat in question. Maybe the bandits will quickly grow in number if left unchecked, but once they get, say, 3x the size, they've hit the limit of the area's traffic and pretty much remain static. The cultists don't change much until six months have gone by, at which point they're able to open a portal and rapidly become a major threat with powerful demons involved. The zombie army keeps steadily growing until stopped, but the PCs aren't the only ones fighting against it either.

Would this potentially produce unbalanced encounters? Yes. IMO, having at least a few unbalanced situations (both in the PCs' favor and against) is good for the sandbox feel, maybe even necessary.

Also, not every threat should require solving, else there's not really any choice involved.

Composer99
2021-11-04, 04:35 PM
This reminds me of the "front" mechanic from Dungeon World.

I think this set-up is fine, more or less, but I do think there are a few things you'll want to do in order to make it more fun. Some of these suggestions might be repeats or paraphrases of other suggestions upthread.

In no particular order:

First, make sure rewards scale with the danger of a threat. If the PCs wait to deal with something, they get more out of it when they do deal with it.

Second, have other forces in the game world that eventually deal with some threats independently of the PCs actions. Like if a bandit group gets too big, regional powers might send in an army to stamp them out. Alternately, those forces or factions might stymie or hold back growing threats without resolving them. Rival adventuring parties, as someone else has mentioned upthread, is also a good choice.

Third, don't have threats be world-ending. Part of the appeal of a sandbox is the idea that the PCs set their own agenda. If they have to constantly be putting it aside to deal with stuff, that's kind of undermining the point of a sandbox game.

Fourth, find ways to have resolving threats tie into the PCs' own goals. Maybe the cult has tomes of magical lore that the PC wizard will want for some special project of theirs, or maybe the bandits happen to have taken a master brewer prisoner who can give the PCs recipes for quality brews that will make their tavern a hit, that sort of thing. The PCs don't have to know in advance going in that this will happen, and not every threat has to have this kind of thing, but it's a nice way to make it worthwhile to deal with stuff.

Fifth, don't have all threats scale at the same rate. Some threats should cap out at a lower level. The bandits, for instance, should probably be a pushover at some point of PC growth. (Obviously, this depends on the game system you're playing.) (For more on this, look at icefractal's advice.)

Finally, get a feel for what kind of game the players want to play. If they really want to just play "tavern owner, the RPG"... then maybe a game where they're assumed to be adventurers is the wrong game? Perhaps a system that lets you emulate town politics, complications that arise in running a business in a fantastic world, barroom brawls, might be a better fit. (And then the threats can be more appropriate to the kind of game the players want to play, like rival businesses, temperance movements, or what-have-you.)

Yora
2021-11-04, 04:47 PM
This is how adventurer campaigns should be played.

OldTrees1
2021-11-04, 06:15 PM
Yes I would find that fun. An ideal implementation of this idea has the threats (or parties) progress on their own timeline rather than a party centric timeline. This allows those actors to collide with each other and for the party decisions against early threats impact their advantage/disadvantage against later threats. This gives the impression that the party is just one of many groups in a living world.

This also rewards parties that try and succeed at diplomatic solutions.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-11-04, 07:20 PM
Yes I would find that fun. An ideal implementation of this idea has the threats (or parties) progress on their own timeline rather than a party centric timeline. This allows those actors to collide with each other and for the party decisions against early threats impact their advantage/disadvantage against later threats. This gives the impression that the party is just one of many groups in a living world.

This also rewards parties that try and succeed at diplomatic solutions.

I agree (with the "don't make them all world-ending threats" caveat). Some threats should level up. Some threats shouldn't. Some are slow-burning threats that ramp up over decades (so an individual campaign length isn't a major change); some are intrinsically limited (the greedy merchant who is swindling the townsfolk isn't going to grow into one who's swindling the nations, at least not all the time). Some threats may be dealt with by other forces--the party isn't the only one with agency, after all. Now how those other forces deal with things may be different than how the party would do it (for better, worse, or sideways), but the threats may go away at some time. And if the party gets a reputation for how they deal (good or bad or sideways) with threats, other threats may react, as may other non-threat forces. When the mighty dragonslayers come back into town to face the lowly bandits, the bandits may cut and run, because they know they're no match for the dragonslayers. Or if the party gets a reputation for scorched-earth tactics and collateral damage, the town may not want them to handle the sewer issue.

The world lives, even when the party isn't there.

Mordar
2021-11-04, 07:21 PM
Do you envision this as a way to make the whole world scale (more or less) with the PCs, or to emulate that things change in the world with or without the PCs action?

I'm more in favor of the latter...maybe someone else comes along and manages the bandits, maybe the children not rescued from the sewers survive and are later discovered to be replicants/possessed/space aliens...than the former (everything just comes up with a reason to be higher CR). That being said, some key rivals/story elements could totally scale ala Haley's nemesis and that's perfectly acceptable to me.

- M

Quertus
2021-11-04, 08:53 PM
So long as it's actually "if you ignore the bandits and the Necromancer long enough, the Necromancer kills all the bandits, and adds them to his undead army", and "I'm actually the Necromancer", then it's fine. :smallcool:

Telok
2021-11-05, 01:29 AM
The only question I'd have is if its a real sandbox or a pretend one.

Lure the bandits & necro army onto the plains in late summer then start a prairie fire while they skirmish. Polymorph a t-rex into a kid and let them get snagged for sacrifice, with the spell timed to wear off during the ritual. Wipe the town off the map because everyone accidentally rolled ecoterror druids and fey warlocks. Thats a good sandbox game.

Or is it two "random" travel encounters then a dungeon with 6 level appropriate fights then the boss, and your only choice is what order you do them in because you're milestoning to make them happen exactly at levels 3, 6, and 9? Fake sandbox woth false advertising. Bad.

Mercureality
2021-11-05, 02:10 AM
You get a campaign thats basically a sandbox, go do whatever you want. But the DM makes sure you are aware in game that there are several threats and explains ooc that all these threats will continue to progress depending on what you choose to do. As an example, there are bandits in the forest attacking travelers. You can go wipe them out now. But if you choose to go elsewhere first following one of the other plot hooks, the bandits numbers will grow. The traps setup to protect their camps will get worse, they will eventually recruit mercenaries with varying class levels, etc. Eventually they will be bold enough and powerful enough to raid the town you are headquartered in.

So basically the point is, you pick and choose what dangers you want to face, knowing that whatever you arent facing off against is going to be there, and more dangerous, as time passes. So choose your own adventure, missing kids being taken to the sewers? The bandits getting bold? Rumors of an undead army growing? Want to open a tavern and have the barbarian be the bouncer, the bard be the entertainment and the rogue rob every guest blind? Your choice, just be prepared for problems to develop with whatever threat you pushed to the side. The missing kids were used in a ritual to open a portal thats pooping out swarms of demons, the bandits are attacking the town, the undead army has absorbed the population of 5 towns into its forces and is heading your way. The town guard got reports of customers being robbed whenever they stay at this inn and are here to shut you down.

I've played several sandboxes like this and they ranged from awesome to one of my favorite D&D games of all time. I guess it just takes a deft GM. Mostly it just made the world feel more alive and complex, in a good way.

Yora
2021-11-05, 05:18 AM
An important thing many people have discovered about such campaigns is that there needs to be some default activity that always makes sense for the PCs, which they can always pick up again when there's currently nothing they can do about the things they are interested in and the things that are happening nearby don't interest them. Which is why making the PCs treasure hunters as their main job often works so well. You can always go explore a dungeon and see what comes off that.

Xervous
2021-11-05, 12:13 PM
Oh look it’s the campaign I’m currently running. Biggest point is that threats don’t grow to world ending size, just that they may impact something for the long term.

The players ran off to the fantastical frontier rather than do anything about the wereshark armada. This allowed Parnell Shipping and Salvage to bribe up a fleet of mercenaries to save Joro’s Landing (after the fleet had munched up plenty of rival companies’ ships), and it led to the man known as Jungle pulling out some serious mojo to protect his mercantile investments... and ended up being viewed as the hero who saved the city.

Living worlds are a bunch of moving parts, pieces that bounce off each other to new trajectories. As the GM you pick how all your pieces begin moving, which ones collide, and where they go after that. Introducing the players adds agents of chaos, they divert pieces from your pattern and you revise the pattern. A setup where things only appear to be moving when the players draw near is more like an animatronic theme park.

False God
2021-11-05, 02:42 PM
Sorta. I don't like the idea that the situation will only get worse.

I run a similar setup. I usually provide my players some "training wheels" quests and direction when they first hit the table and after that let them choose where they'd like to go based on what they've learned and are interested in. The main difference being that other people are out there that may deal with these problems. They might resolve them, they might make them worse, they might have no impact on them at all.

I generally like the idea that the world is moving with or without my participation and getting to control the direction (more or less) that I move in.

KorvinStarmast
2021-11-05, 02:55 PM
But if it's a slow burn on all of them, then that's my kinda preference. That's my Saltmarsh campaign in a nutshell.
For the OP: what you describe is a little bit like an RTS. If you focus on the zerg home base, and don't at least scout out the Protoss base, you may get flanked/schwacked by the Protoss if they have enough time to built up raid power for your base.

But if they do follow one of the plots like wiping out the bandits, they still get punished because the undead army and demon ritual grow. That's hardly punishment. That's the world being the world. The issue is rate of change.

The world lives, even when the party isn't there. Bingo.

Jay R
2021-11-05, 03:04 PM
This is not that different from saying, "Wherever you go, and whatever you do, you will face challenging encounters for a party of your level."

Aside from the previews of the next several story arcs, I don't see that as a new setup; it's pretty much the default assumption.

Yora
2021-11-05, 04:05 PM
Unfortunately for D&D, the default assumption is "The GM tells you a story, except when you have to guess what's supposed to happen next before it continues, and you ocasionally roll dice for fights, which you will all win regardless of how you roll."

Telok
2021-11-05, 07:27 PM
Unfortunately for D&D, the default assumption is "The GM tells you a story, except when you have to guess what's supposed to happen next before it continues, and you ocasionally roll dice for fights, which you will all win regardless of how you roll."

Take over the bandits. Be the necromancer. Pact with the demons. Burn the town. BBEGs get to indulge all their fantasies, not just the socially acceptable ones. Sandbox or ***** tears, DM... sandbox or ***** tears.

Stonehead
2021-11-06, 12:54 AM
In theory yeah, but in practice I've played in a few games with basically that same premise, and they weren't fantastic. The issue was that there was no visibility at all on what these ticking clocks were, how to stop them, or what the consequences of failure were. The campaign ended basically because we didn't search a specific dungeon in time, despite not knowing there was anything apart from treasure in there in the first place.

I assume you're asking this because you're planning such a campaign. I'm sure it could be fun. My advice is just that "The players can do whatever they want" is not a good excuse for not adding interesting hooks to the story. Nothing's worse than a game whose opening narration is "You all meet in a bar, what do you do?".

Xervous
2021-11-08, 09:35 AM
In theory yeah, but in practice I've played in a few games with basically that same premise, and they weren't fantastic. The issue was that there was no visibility at all on what these ticking clocks were, how to stop them, or what the consequences of failure were. The campaign ended basically because we didn't search a specific dungeon in time, despite not knowing there was anything apart from treasure in there in the first place.

I assume you're asking this because you're planning such a campaign. I'm sure it could be fun. My advice is just that "The players can do whatever they want" is not a good excuse for not adding interesting hooks to the story. Nothing's worse than a game whose opening narration is "You all meet in a bar, what do you do?".

In my current campaign my players have two visible ticking clocks and are vaguely aware of progress on other clocks.

Big clock 1: the timing and locations for the coming eclipses. The players chose to engage with the first of three eclipses, managing to capture the BBEG of that arc at significant cost. Though they let the mcguffin slip away. They are ignoring the second eclipse because they rightly feel the NPCs in the region are prepared to handle it. The third one is a ways off so they aren’t thinking about it.

Then there’s the bard’s grafted arm which is set to expire in 46 days (as of this post) if they do not deliver special payment to the corpsecrafter. I’ve warned them a few times that there’s significant travel involved but they seem intent on squeezing in side errands. Ah well, the bard lost his arm once for failing what the muscle wizard’s player immediately termed a Hubris Test. Guess that makes the second time not so bad.

The party is aware of yet Gexians ramping up activity in the Reach but even with their empowered ship they’ve been hesitant to attack. They’ve gotten bits and pieces about a base being constructed but have not put much effort into investigating.

A few more clocks are ticking unseen, but nothing is a world ending threat. The players may be gravely disappointed about the changes that result to sections of the world, but it’s not like any of them lead to a game over screen.

kyoryu
2021-11-08, 11:07 AM
This is pretty literally how Dungeon World and Apocalypse World set things up. DW, especially.

It works well. Maybe not for all players (it's obviously not going to work with a more planned/plotted story), but for a "scenario sandbox" it's pretty great.

KorvinStarmast
2021-11-08, 12:14 PM
Unfortunately for D&D, the default assumption is "The GM tells you a story, except when you have to guess what's supposed to happen next before it continues, and you ocasionally roll dice for fights, which you will all win regardless of how you roll." Not in any D&D I have played. Your post works well for 'beginner level video game' though.

Mordar
2021-11-08, 01:30 PM
Not in any D&D I have played. Your post works well for 'beginner level video game' though.

In Yora's defense, I kind of feel the same way about the games I hear about these days. Darn kids! Back in my day you had three characters ready at a moment's notice because death was always waiting around the corner!

- M

kyoryu
2021-11-08, 01:34 PM
Not in any D&D I have played. Your post works well for 'beginner level video game' though.

It's pretty common. A lot of adventure paths follow that pattern.

Xervous
2021-11-08, 02:14 PM
In Yora's defense, I kind of feel the same way about the games I hear about these days. Darn kids! Back in my day you had three characters ready at a moment's notice because death was always waiting around the corner!

- M

Fighters named toon2, toon3, and toon5? What do I need to do to find a good Foundry game like that?

... to play in

... without building the system in foundry myself

icefractal
2021-11-08, 03:19 PM
TBF, in many campaign premises, having a high mortality rate doesn't mean it isn't "you'll always win in the end". You always can win Dark Souls or Super Meat Boy eventually, after all - they don't have non-winning endings.

kyoryu
2021-11-08, 03:47 PM
TBF, in many campaign premises, having a high mortality rate doesn't mean it isn't "you'll always win in the end". You always can win Dark Souls or Super Meat Boy eventually, after all - they don't have non-winning endings.

And low mortality rate doesn't mean you will win. Maybe you survive, but the bad guys enact their plans and the world turns to garbage.

HidesHisEyes
2021-11-10, 01:07 PM
You get a campaign thats basically a sandbox, go do whatever you want. But the DM makes sure you are aware in game that there are several threats and explains ooc that all these threats will continue to progress depending on what you choose to do. As an example, there are bandits in the forest attacking travelers. You can go wipe them out now. But if you choose to go elsewhere first following one of the other plot hooks, the bandits numbers will grow. The traps setup to protect their camps will get worse, they will eventually recruit mercenaries with varying class levels, etc. Eventually they will be bold enough and powerful enough to raid the town you are headquartered in.

So basically the point is, you pick and choose what dangers you want to face, knowing that whatever you arent facing off against is going to be there, and more dangerous, as time passes. So choose your own adventure, missing kids being taken to the sewers? The bandits getting bold? Rumors of an undead army growing? Want to open a tavern and have the barbarian be the bouncer, the bard be the entertainment and the rogue rob every guest blind? Your choice, just be prepared for problems to develop with whatever threat you pushed to the side. The missing kids were used in a ritual to open a portal thats pooping out swarms of demons, the bandits are attacking the town, the undead army has absorbed the population of 5 towns into its forces and is heading your way. The town guard got reports of customers being robbed whenever they stay at this inn and are here to shut you down.

Yes and no, for me. It is a great idea to have slowly escalating threats boiling away in the background, and remind the players of them now and then so they always have something to engage with. But the way you’ve described it sounds like you’re thinking of the threats as very definite and fixed, and in my experience that can lead to disappointment. I have found that no matter how enthusiastic I am about my ideas, the players will never match my enthusiasm about all of them. They might not be interested in any of them, and in that case I take my lead from the players (and I still get to throw in ideas of my own, just reactively instead of proactively). Or they might engage with something at first but then it falls by the wayside, and rather than think “well it’s going to escalate and bite them in the ass later” - which feels kind of punitive and adds extra prep work for me - I just allow it to fall by the wayside.

In other words, I like to be very intuitive and flexible, and not carve things in stone at any point. But yeah, anything the PCs are focused on I will absolutely keep track of behind the scenes.

If you’re after some inspiration for how to handle what you’re describing, check out “fronts” from Dungeon World. I think the explanation of the fronts system is on the SRD website.

Catullus64
2021-11-10, 02:12 PM
I like the idea, it would depend a lot on the tone and details with which the DM is able to execute it. By default, D&D assumes narratives of growth and strengthening; you gain levels, spells, followers, gear, which allows you to tackle tougher challenges. The dangers of the world are generally polite enough to stay manageably behind your own power curve. What you're proposing seems to lean towards a different narrative: one in which the world is full of perils that continue to grow and encroach on the civilized world, and you have to do your best to keep up with and combat it, or else it will overwhelm you. The gathering power of evil won't wait until you're strong enough to deal with it; in fact, it grows stronger at a rate you can scarcely hope to match. In certain such stories, the victory of chaos and darkness over civilization and light is ultimately assured, and the emotional core is the persistence of the heroes in a doomed struggle.

JRR Tolkien's essay on Beowulf, The Monsters and the Critics, frames the poem as exactly this kind of story; a tale of heroic struggle against monstrous forces, honorable even though (and because) it is inevitably doomed. Seek out that essay and read it for a solid thematic underpinning to this kind of story.

Of course the players need to be aware of and invested in telling this kind of story, and the overwhelming nature of the odds needs to be borne out with robust mechanical and narrative challenge. They need to be given a clear sense of investment in what they're fighting for, and ideally will have strong relationships with the NPCs who populate their home base, as well as a sense of their character's fellowship with one another.

Duff
2021-11-10, 08:18 PM
I mostly agree with the below but:
With the right combination of players, GM and system, I'd also be on board with "All threats are potentially world ending and what you get to choose is what the end times look like"

It's OK to have wrong choices - that makes the decisions meaningful. But give information to allow real decisions. So, maybe the bandits cap out at 3rd level, but by that stage they're completely going to be stopping traffic to the town . Make sure the players hear that when they get back from beating up the cultists that the flow of trade has slowed. Then, if they next decide to hunt the Wumpus, when they get back there's no beer in the inn and the militia have come back after loosing the fight. Then when they get back from exploring the ruined castle, there's bustling trade and the kings knights swaggering around having beaten up the bandits. The knights should be a moderate complicating for the party. Not a punishment for ignoring the bandits, but, again, a decision is meaningless if you have nothing at stake.
There's a balance for all this that will be right for your table



This reminds me of the "front" mechanic from Dungeon World.

I think this set-up is fine, more or less, but I do think there are a few things you'll want to do in order to make it more fun. Some of these suggestions might be repeats or paraphrases of other suggestions upthread.

In no particular order:

First, make sure rewards scale with the danger of a threat. If the PCs wait to deal with something, they get more out of it when they do deal with it.

Second, have other forces in the game world that eventually deal with some threats independently of the PCs actions. Like if a bandit group gets too big, regional powers might send in an army to stamp them out. Alternately, those forces or factions might stymie or hold back growing threats without resolving them. Rival adventuring parties, as someone else has mentioned upthread, is also a good choice.

Third, don't have threats be world-ending. Part of the appeal of a sandbox is the idea that the PCs set their own agenda. If they have to constantly be putting it aside to deal with stuff, that's kind of undermining the point of a sandbox game.

Fourth, find ways to have resolving threats tie into the PCs' own goals. Maybe the cult has tomes of magical lore that the PC wizard will want for some special project of theirs, or maybe the bandits happen to have taken a master brewer prisoner who can give the PCs recipes for quality brews that will make their tavern a hit, that sort of thing. The PCs don't have to know in advance going in that this will happen, and not every threat has to have this kind of thing, but it's a nice way to make it worthwhile to deal with stuff.

Fifth, don't have all threats scale at the same rate. Some threats should cap out at a lower level. The bandits, for instance, should probably be a pushover at some point of PC growth. (Obviously, this depends on the game system you're playing.) (For more on this, look at icefractal's advice.)

Finally, get a feel for what kind of game the players want to play. If they really want to just play "tavern owner, the RPG"... then maybe a game where they're assumed to be adventurers is the wrong game? Perhaps a system that lets you emulate town politics, complications that arise in running a business in a fantastic world, barroom brawls, might be a better fit. (And then the threats can be more appropriate to the kind of game the players want to play, like rival businesses, temperance movements, or what-have-you.)

Quertus
2021-11-11, 06:54 AM
I mostly agree with the below but:
With the right combination of players, GM and system, I'd also be on board with "All threats are potentially world ending and what you get to choose is what the end times look like"

It's OK to have wrong choices - that makes the decisions meaningful. But give information to allow real decisions. So, maybe the bandits cap out at 3rd level, but by that stage they're completely going to be stopping traffic to the town . Make sure the players hear that when they get back from beating up the cultists that the flow of trade has slowed. Then, if they next decide to hunt the Wumpus, when they get back there's no beer in the inn and the militia have come back after loosing the fight. Then when they get back from exploring the ruined castle, there's bustling trade and the kings knights swaggering around having beaten up the bandits. The knights should be a moderate complicating for the party. Not a punishment for ignoring the bandits, but, again, a decision is meaningless if you have nothing at stake.
There's a balance for all this that will be right for your table

Well put.

Yes, there is a balance (or, rather, a range of balances) that will right for the table.

"No right answer" and "no wrong answers", living at the extremes, are thereby the seemingly least useful tools in a GM's toolkit.

However, a decision doesn't have to be wrong, doesn't have to involve complications, to be meaningful. If the players simply know that "kill all the bandits" or "enslave the dwarves" or "addict the zombies" doesn't sound fun for them, them choosing not to go on that mission already had consequences, and those consequences were that the game was more fun. The stakes were "the fun of the game", and the players chose correctly.

Actions should have logical consequences, and the knights defeating the bandits is, indeed, logical consequences of that chain of events. How much of a complication vs how much of a boon the knights choose to be isn't.

Just as there is a balance range of threat that is appropriate for the table, there is a range of response here that is appropriate to the table and the scenario.

Figuring out what that range is, what response is appropriate to this particular scenario, is more art than science. But that's why the GM gets paid the big bucks, right? :smallwink:

Also, your sig? "I love playing in a party with a couple of power-gamers, it frees me up to be Elan!"? Definitely agree! :smallbiggrin:

Psyren
2021-11-11, 01:47 PM
That's hardly punishment. That's the world being the world. The issue is rate of change.

Rate of change yes, but there's also ceiling. I don't expect every single bandit camp I fail to clear out to become a demon army later, even if "later" = "months", that's basically the worst kind of Oblivion video-game logic.

It's okay for some of those threats to cap out at something the PCs can steamroll later, or just have them taken care of offscreen by the local lord's soldiers or something. You can even involve the PCs with those threats in other ways - perhaps the actual bandits are below their pay grade now, but the corrupt lord needs to be "persuaded" to send his troops in in the first place, or replaced by someone who will. Or perhaps sending the troops to deal with a bunch of low-level bandit camps spread across the countryside means the garrison is undermanned when a dragon shows up, and now the PCs are being asked to pitch in.

In short, you can have the world scale with the PCs without having every single ignored threat scale with them.

Pex
2021-11-13, 01:49 AM
Having played in a sandbox campaign, I've found my taste is not liking sandbox games. I'm ok with a campaign set up where we are given different plot hooks and the party chooses which one will be the campaign, but I need a clear cut story. These are the bad guys; deal with them. It could be one long campaign and finally defeating the Ultimate BBEG behind it all or a series of consecutive bad guys deal with them in turn that may or may not have any relation to each other. Either way I need a campaign plot hook and deal with it. The linear campaign. The "trolley tracks" I referred to many moons ago. Whatever the DM's plot, I'll follow. I'm buying in. The player agency freedom is being able to deal with it in however way the party chooses to deal with it.

I won't say no to a sandbox campaign provided all the normal things of liking the DM, liking the players, getting to play a character I'll enjoy playing. It is still important the gameworld acknowledges our accomplishments.