PDA

View Full Version : A Proper Sandbox Game



Thorosofmyr
2008-07-30, 10:26 PM
Of all the campaigns I've ran by myself, I'd had the most fun with small "Teenagers From Outer Space" one-shots, set in the Clone High universe. I'd like to run a proper sandbox game, possibly with more than one session.

This is partially because I don't have much of a head for long and involved stories. I'd much rather hang back and let my players interact with a world, me playing NPCs and resolving conflicts. My only worries are that my characters will get into time consuming meaningless arguments or simply get bored and not know what to do. I'm hoping that with the right selection of players, it won't be as much of a problem.

I'm looking for input on making a proper sandbox experience. What system works well for sandbox games? What were some of your favorite experiences with these types of games? How do I provide interesting events without railroading? How much effort should I place into making the world they live in?

Any and all input would be appreciated. Except for insults to my intelligence. They fuel my drive to consume souls.:smallsmile:

Raum
2008-07-30, 10:54 PM
A true sandbox game is difficult, not only does the GM need to be capable of reacting to anything the players also have to be proactive. Difficult as the first is, the second is rarer. Finding a group willing to take the initiative all of the time will be your hardest step. Are you looking for a pure sandbox or for methods of cutting back on preparation and / or potential railroading?

For reference, I divide campaign building into four general types: Scripted - This is essentially a railroad. Done well, the tracks are hidden and the players buy in to the same story goals. This covers most printed adventures.
Flow Chart - This is a script with decision points, "if / then" statements which change the potential result based on player choices. Similar to the old 'choose your own adventure' books.
Goal Driven - Antagonists and PCs have set goals, but how they interact depends on player actions. If they choose not to interfere with the antagonist, he may succeed - potentially causing changes to the world. You also need to know the PCs' goals - and ensure they're compatible! The easiest way is to either decide on goals as a group during character creation or to require characters be built around a set goal or concept.
Sandbox - This is just a world to play in...players go where they will and the 'campaign' adjusts itself to their desires. This is probably the hardest to do and only really effective when the players are decisive. If the players can't come to reasonably quick decisions, it simply bogs down.I generally use a mix of the last three, primarily leaning on Goal Driven adventures. For whatever reason I'm incapable of completing purchased adventures as written. :smalleek:

By setting goals for the antagonists I can easily decide how they react to the unexpected PC actions. And, if they succeed, I know what the results are in the world.

I'm not saying don't run Sandbox adventures though, just make sure you and your players are ready for them. Otherwise you'll both be staring at each other silently thinking "What next?"

Thorosofmyr
2008-07-30, 11:07 PM
Hmm. Your categories bring up more concerns I have, specifically that of an antagonist. One concept I was thinking of was not really having a direct antagonist initially, rather a series of occurrences in different areas of the game.

Depending on how the PCs dealt with each incidence they could gain direct antagonists, friends, what have you.

Perhaps a more goal driven campaign would be more playable, especially if there was a heavy emphasis. Making money as a direct goal is likely too easy, depending on the game system. Maybe making direct goals for the antagonist and simply waiting for the reaction from the player characters would be a decent idea. Hm....

IM@work
2008-07-30, 11:36 PM
My group is hopefully starting a sandbox game come this August. A resource we have found very helpful is this: http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/78/grand-experiments-west-marches/
Has tips on creation of encounter tables and the like as well as general ways of running the game. This may not be what you are looking for especially but it has greatly helped us out. Sorry, I have much more links but don't have access to them right now as I am at work.

Thorosofmyr
2008-07-31, 12:03 AM
Sorry, I have much more links but don't have access to them right now as I am at work.

Oh really?

ya, I'm sure you get that all the time. Couldn't help myself.

Raum
2008-07-31, 06:53 AM
Hmm. Your categories bring up more concerns I have, specifically that of an antagonist. One concept I was thinking of was not really having a direct antagonist initially, rather a series of occurrences in different areas of the game. Don't use a single antagonist. And don't directly oppose the PCs with them, at least at first. I'll generally set up three to six NPCs each with a goal, some resources, and at least one weakness. Goals may be anything from the classic 'kidnap and marry the princess before killing the king and ruling the kingdom' to a more subtle merchant's 'become the richest man in the kingdom no matter who or what I have to climb over on the way to being rich'. The first is obvious while the second is simply amoral. Neither goal mentions the PCs at all, it's up to them to interfere in a method which draws the antagonists' attention to them. Of course an antagonist may add a goal of 'kill the PCs' once they've irritated him enough...


Depending on how the PCs dealt with each incidence they could gain direct antagonists, friends, what have you. Agreed, potentially allied NPCs will have similar goals...it may add interest when an ally's goal diverges from the PCs' goals...


Perhaps a more goal driven campaign would be more playable, especially if there was a heavy emphasis. Making money as a direct goal is likely too easy, depending on the game system. Maybe making direct goals for the antagonist and simply waiting for the reaction from the player characters would be a decent idea. Hm....Yep. Encourage the PCs to have goals also. Preferably compatible goals, though some amount of conflict over minor goals can be good as long as they have a larger goal or reason to stay together and work through the conflicts without resorting to intra-party violence.

Thorosofmyr
2008-07-31, 01:48 PM
Three to six possible antagonists hmm? Very possible. I should also pay attention to how their goals interact with each other. Mayhaps a mcguffin or two wouldn't hurt either, with the addendum of them being less obvious and world destruction calibur.

I'm also at odds with what setting/system to use for this game. What system/setting has worked best for you all?

valadil
2008-07-31, 02:10 PM
How well a sandbox game works depends a lot on the PCs. You need motivated ones who play characters who will go interact with the world.

My games are somewhere between sandbox and goal driven according to Raum's list. I like to think of them as sandboxes with roller coasters. There are scripted plots to ride on, but the players can go for them or ignore them as much as they like. You want your sandbox to be alive with other NPCs who shape the world just as much as the PCs. A sandbox game where the PCs have the only bucket and shovel would be boring.

Ethdred
2008-08-01, 06:50 AM
I'd have thought it would be easier to run the game in your own world. That way, if the party decide they fancy doing something specific, like going off and killing fire giants, you could put in a place nearby that's full of fire giants, rather than have to try to shoe-horn it in somewhere.

Also, don't assume that all 'antagonists' need to be single people. It's quite fun to have groups and societies that players can interact with (whether they realise it or not) and have their relationships with each other develop over time, partly as a result of the players' actions. Also, having groups mean you can always have an excuse for pulling out an enemy of the right CR. ("Yes, you did kill the boss of their operations when you were 3rd level. But he just ran that city. Now you're facing the boss of the whole country.")

valadil
2008-08-01, 08:41 AM
I'd have thought it would be easier to run the game in your own world.

I strongly disagree with that. Your players will be more ambitious in a world they know. To use a home brewed world you have to create a world, publish it to your players, and somehow get them to read it. Whenever I have made a world it got lost somewhere between me and the players, so they ended up on this amorphous globe with no idea of what's going on. If you set your game in Westeros right after so-and-so's death, the players who have read GRRM will know the world they're placed in. They'll have some clue about the geography as well as politics. And they'll be excited to meet celebrities of the world.

Keep in mind, I'm not knocking anyone's ability to come up with a world. I'm knocking their ability to put images of that world into the players' heads.

Also keep in mind that I'm just talking one campaign at a time. A series of campaigns set in the same world would start off with players not knowing what's going on, but retaining some knowledge from game to game. That could be a cool homebrew for a sandbox.

IM@work
2008-08-01, 10:03 AM
I know this might not be your style, but try one of the horror genres, and have the world be the "real world" and the players be themselves. It's a huge stretch but we did it once for almost half a year in an almost-sandbox fashion. It's also really easy to make things up on the go since you usually know your own neighborhood/city and can google anything a little farther away. I'm not sure if a change in genre is what you were looking for, but it's just my humble suggestion.

Raum
2008-08-01, 04:59 PM
I'm also at odds with what setting/system to use for this game. What system/setting has worked best for you all?I tend to prefer settings detailed enough to look up the basics but not so detailed you can't build a new city or add a new NPC where ever it makes sense to you. Alternate earths of almost any time frame are good for that...you can grab maps with or without cities, even use Google maps for modern campaigns, you can research specific areas or cultures, and since it's an 'alternate earth' you can limit the real details and add new as you feel necessary. A few published settings can do the same.

As for system, it really depends what you and your players like. I enjoy playing D&D but I won't GM it, don't have enough time. For GMing I like Savage Worlds. I'm also looking at True20 and Cinematic Unisystem. But choose a system you and your players enjoy - whatever that system may be.


And they'll be excited to meet celebrities of the world.Eh, as a player I find meeting 'celebrities' annoying. I want to play the hero, not the sidekick admiring heroes written in to the world by an author...no matter how good an author. This is my single biggest irritation with settings like Faerun.

It's just personal preference but make sure you know what your players are interested in.