Seven Sandbox Essentials
Posted 12th September 2008 at 05:03 AM by Reynard
The "sandbox" setting, in which players are not only allowed but encouraged to make their own fun by exploring and interacting with the setting, is, in my opinion, a fundamental requirement for satisfying, rewarding D&D play. Adventures and setting that force players along certain paths -- or worse, away from certain paths -- cannot hold a candle to sandbox play. No DM's or designers story has a hope against the story that the plyers themselves create through their actions and the coinsequences of those actions (with a healthy dose of DM input and dice-based uncertainty,to boot).
Here are seven essential elements for a good "sandbox" setting.
1. Big, but not Too Big: A sandbox setting should cover a relatively large geographic area, with room for varied terrain and environments, as well as multiple politicl entities. However, one of the things that makes a sandbox game so enjoyable is the players' ability to engage it as a whole, to see all four corners and to uncover its nuances and secrets. Too big a sandbox makes each part indistinct -- the DM likely doesn't have time to flesh out every aspect of a whole world; nor do players likely have time, or even interest, to visit it all. By limiting the scope of the setting and containing it geographically, the Dm has the opportunity to delve into the whole setting and so do the players. Something on the order of the British Isles works well, size and scope wise.
2. Lots to Do, Lots to See: As stated above, a sandbox needs to be diverse in regards to where the players can go and what they can do when they get there. It isn't enough to litter the place with 100 dungeons. Rather, there should be a handful of dungeons, a handful of towns, a handful of active fotresses, a handful of mytic locations, etc... This applies to political, religous and mercantile groups, as well. A monolithic nation that covers the whole setting won't do. At the very least, there should by various states or provinces with different cultures and conflicting interests. Even better, numerous small nations or city states work well. In addition, even if the DM chooses to have a dominant religous entity, schisms and sects within the church, with their own temples and own interpretations of scripture are necessary. Players should want to explore the setting to see what is around the next bend or over the next hill.
3. A Life of its Own: The setting should "live" like a real place. The diverse locations and groups discused above should interact and those interactions should be both internally consistent and produce movement within the setting. Groups that are opposed might be moving ever toward open conflict. The heir to a city state might try and hasten along his inheritence. A lowly peddlar might slowly climb to the top of the mercantile heap. A dark cult might be waiting for a soon approaching celestial event to unleash their dark master on the setting. It isn't that the setting ignores the players and their characters' actions. Rather, there's something of a timeline or assumed evolution to the setting that the players can interact with and disrupt. Knowing what would happen in a given situation without the involvment of the players allows the DM to better interpret what happens when they do get involved, as well as allowing the DM a plan if the PCs dont bother with a particular setting element or subplot.
4. No Scaling: The sandbox should not scale to the level of the PCs. If there's a "12th level" monster in the Darkenwood when the game begins, that monster remains there -- barring its involvement in the above -- whether the players choose to go to the darkenwood at 2nd level or 20th (or both). A scaling setting breaks versimilitude and suggests to the players that whatever growth they have is irrelevent. instead, the setting should include a wide array of "levels" of adventure locales, NPCs and monsters, disrubted throughout the setting in a plausible and internally consisten manner. This is not to say that the setting can't include "zones' that are geared toward certain levels of play, but too much of this inhibits the open nature of the sandbox. Mix it up instead. But make sure that there aren't too many "invisible" major threats. Powerful creatures and chaarcters produce legends and runors and even innaccurate information will give players a glimpse into what lies ahead, allowing them the opportunity to make a meaningful choice as to where to go and what to do.
5. Wandering Monster Tables and Random Encounters: One of the key conceits of the sandbox is that players are free to go where they will, do what they wish and engage the setting through their characters without being pulled or prodded into the DM's "story". This requires a lot of work on the part of the DM, creating many adventure sites, placed encounters, NPCs and organizations before play even begins. But even with all the work done, there's still a good chance the players will go somehwere the DM hasn't thought too much about or had a chance to flesh out. This is where the value of random encounter charts comes in. With such tables, built specifically for the setting and informed by the detail the DM has done, can provide fun for everyone even during those sessions where the players simply strike out down the road. These random encounters shouldn't simply be a collection of mansters listed by terrain type. Instead, the charts should include elements of the setting, little glimpses into the setting. What tribe are those orcs from? Who are the bandits? Where is the merchant caravan heading. By making specific encounter charts for the setting, the DM ensures that more of the work he has put into the setting sees use. By exposure, players are given hooks to choose for themselves to investigate and engage aspects of the setting.
6. New Blood: Characters die. They retire. Players get bored or want a break from the usual. Inevitably, a player is going to need a new character, or a new player will join the group. It may seem obvious, but it is often overlooked: the setting must allow for the introduction of new heroes (i.e. PCs) without breaking plausibility. As such settings that are mostly wilderness or wastelands with few settlements don't work as well as those that provide a diverse selection of races and classes within the population. As a related aspect, this means the setting must be adventurer friendly and reasonably wide ranging in regards to which races and classes are available. While it is okay for the DM to establish some limitations to better suit the genre or setting he has in mind, too many restrictions hampers the introduction of new characters and should be avoided.
7. Meaningful Choices and Meaningful Consequences: Most important of all, the actions of the players should have direct, noticible impact on the setting, at least insofar as the PCs degree of influence. Information should be plentiful enough to allow the players to choose which actions they will take, and those actions must have consequences. Who the players ally with, and with whom they make enemies; what meta-setting secrets they uncover, and which they bury; those monsters they kill and those that they merely enrage: these all should change the setting to some degree or another. If the players feel their adventures and explorations within the sandbox have a real impact, they will be both more inclined to engage the setting, and more thoughtful of the consequences of their actions.
Here are seven essential elements for a good "sandbox" setting.
1. Big, but not Too Big: A sandbox setting should cover a relatively large geographic area, with room for varied terrain and environments, as well as multiple politicl entities. However, one of the things that makes a sandbox game so enjoyable is the players' ability to engage it as a whole, to see all four corners and to uncover its nuances and secrets. Too big a sandbox makes each part indistinct -- the DM likely doesn't have time to flesh out every aspect of a whole world; nor do players likely have time, or even interest, to visit it all. By limiting the scope of the setting and containing it geographically, the Dm has the opportunity to delve into the whole setting and so do the players. Something on the order of the British Isles works well, size and scope wise.
2. Lots to Do, Lots to See: As stated above, a sandbox needs to be diverse in regards to where the players can go and what they can do when they get there. It isn't enough to litter the place with 100 dungeons. Rather, there should be a handful of dungeons, a handful of towns, a handful of active fotresses, a handful of mytic locations, etc... This applies to political, religous and mercantile groups, as well. A monolithic nation that covers the whole setting won't do. At the very least, there should by various states or provinces with different cultures and conflicting interests. Even better, numerous small nations or city states work well. In addition, even if the DM chooses to have a dominant religous entity, schisms and sects within the church, with their own temples and own interpretations of scripture are necessary. Players should want to explore the setting to see what is around the next bend or over the next hill.
3. A Life of its Own: The setting should "live" like a real place. The diverse locations and groups discused above should interact and those interactions should be both internally consistent and produce movement within the setting. Groups that are opposed might be moving ever toward open conflict. The heir to a city state might try and hasten along his inheritence. A lowly peddlar might slowly climb to the top of the mercantile heap. A dark cult might be waiting for a soon approaching celestial event to unleash their dark master on the setting. It isn't that the setting ignores the players and their characters' actions. Rather, there's something of a timeline or assumed evolution to the setting that the players can interact with and disrupt. Knowing what would happen in a given situation without the involvment of the players allows the DM to better interpret what happens when they do get involved, as well as allowing the DM a plan if the PCs dont bother with a particular setting element or subplot.
4. No Scaling: The sandbox should not scale to the level of the PCs. If there's a "12th level" monster in the Darkenwood when the game begins, that monster remains there -- barring its involvement in the above -- whether the players choose to go to the darkenwood at 2nd level or 20th (or both). A scaling setting breaks versimilitude and suggests to the players that whatever growth they have is irrelevent. instead, the setting should include a wide array of "levels" of adventure locales, NPCs and monsters, disrubted throughout the setting in a plausible and internally consisten manner. This is not to say that the setting can't include "zones' that are geared toward certain levels of play, but too much of this inhibits the open nature of the sandbox. Mix it up instead. But make sure that there aren't too many "invisible" major threats. Powerful creatures and chaarcters produce legends and runors and even innaccurate information will give players a glimpse into what lies ahead, allowing them the opportunity to make a meaningful choice as to where to go and what to do.
5. Wandering Monster Tables and Random Encounters: One of the key conceits of the sandbox is that players are free to go where they will, do what they wish and engage the setting through their characters without being pulled or prodded into the DM's "story". This requires a lot of work on the part of the DM, creating many adventure sites, placed encounters, NPCs and organizations before play even begins. But even with all the work done, there's still a good chance the players will go somehwere the DM hasn't thought too much about or had a chance to flesh out. This is where the value of random encounter charts comes in. With such tables, built specifically for the setting and informed by the detail the DM has done, can provide fun for everyone even during those sessions where the players simply strike out down the road. These random encounters shouldn't simply be a collection of mansters listed by terrain type. Instead, the charts should include elements of the setting, little glimpses into the setting. What tribe are those orcs from? Who are the bandits? Where is the merchant caravan heading. By making specific encounter charts for the setting, the DM ensures that more of the work he has put into the setting sees use. By exposure, players are given hooks to choose for themselves to investigate and engage aspects of the setting.
6. New Blood: Characters die. They retire. Players get bored or want a break from the usual. Inevitably, a player is going to need a new character, or a new player will join the group. It may seem obvious, but it is often overlooked: the setting must allow for the introduction of new heroes (i.e. PCs) without breaking plausibility. As such settings that are mostly wilderness or wastelands with few settlements don't work as well as those that provide a diverse selection of races and classes within the population. As a related aspect, this means the setting must be adventurer friendly and reasonably wide ranging in regards to which races and classes are available. While it is okay for the DM to establish some limitations to better suit the genre or setting he has in mind, too many restrictions hampers the introduction of new characters and should be avoided.
7. Meaningful Choices and Meaningful Consequences: Most important of all, the actions of the players should have direct, noticible impact on the setting, at least insofar as the PCs degree of influence. Information should be plentiful enough to allow the players to choose which actions they will take, and those actions must have consequences. Who the players ally with, and with whom they make enemies; what meta-setting secrets they uncover, and which they bury; those monsters they kill and those that they merely enrage: these all should change the setting to some degree or another. If the players feel their adventures and explorations within the sandbox have a real impact, they will be both more inclined to engage the setting, and more thoughtful of the consequences of their actions.
Total Comments 23
Comments
-
Very good post. I prefer sandbox style settings, and I add detail by moving the different campaigns around to different regions, and keeping all the details (and changes resulting from the PCs' actions). So, while each campaign is centered on a region, trips to other regions are possible, with those regions already detailed by past or current campaigns.Posted 12th September 2008 at 12:30 PM by Fenes
- I miss the concept of the multi-campaign setting, with an orgnic history developed by actual play by different groups over years. It's of course hard to do based on time and real tife, but I think it's also gone "out of vogue" due to the Adventure Path mentality -- the idea that a "campaign" is a mega-module running from 1st to 2oth level that is a singulatr epic tale, leaving little left for the next set of PCs to do. Of course, the Adventure Path mentality promotes other problems, but that's a different subject.Posted 12th September 2008 at 02:17 PM by Reynard
-
I've never been a fan of sandbox style games, but that is probably because all of my sandbox experiences start off with something along the lines of "you are all in a city, what do you do?" I think one important thing that you didn't mention is that there needs to be a certain amount of baseline knowledge shared with the players before starting, to enable them create backstories with hooks into the setting, and to give them some points of interest to get them started.Posted 12th September 2008 at 04:28 PM by chriton227 - Sandbox sounds like the harshest method of design for a DM to pull off. The amount of information creation you seem to be advising seems more suited to a certain type of person who not only has to time to create it all but an interest in doing it.Posted 12th September 2008 at 05:19 PM by SilvercatMoonpaw2
- Certainly, sandbox style gaming appeals to a crtain sort of DM, one who'd rather do the work away from the table to free up the table time for fast and loose gaming action. Plus, it works well for the world builder -- the Dm has ample opportunity to craft the world. I tend to think it also works out for the players: all that extra work the DM puts in gives them a degree of freedom of action not found in "bite the hook, follow the rails" type of adventure design.Posted 12th September 2008 at 11:47 PM by Reynard
- The trick is, in my opinion, to create a lot of the content's details as it is being used/discovered. So, the DM may just have written "Small town ruled by an aging noble" in advance. When the party decides to visit, he fleshes it out as needed with plots and NPCs, going as deep as the party care to go. That can range from the corrupt guard at the gate to the aging ruler having made a pact with a devil to become young again in exchange of the soul of an orphan he has recently adopted.Posted 13th September 2008 at 05:11 PM by Fenes
- Absolutely, Fenes. The prep work the DM does with the sandbox should be geared toward possibilities, not absolutes. I think of it in a way similar to running a mystery adventure: usually, if I run a mystery, I try and come up with a few different "murderers", each equally plausible and supported by the evidence, and use the direction the players go in and their deductions to inform which one is actually responsible (sometimes the one they think, sometimes not). Sandboxing is similar -- a few sentences for anygiven site or situation gives the DM enough information to convey the setting and possibilities to the players, but not so much that he gets locked into his own creativity.
Also, random encounter charts (not just creatures and NPCs, but sites and events too) help.Posted 13th September 2008 at 05:45 PM by Reynard - Wonderful job writing that. For me, sandbox gaming is the only style which is actually worthwhile. I couldn't care less about some "story" pre-planned for me to play through... total waste of my time. Hopefully the increased awareness of this original style of play lately will get some who never tried it to take a look.Posted 14th September 2008 at 02:46 AM by Jack Colby
- Unfortuneately, "adventure path" style gaming is in vogue. With any luck, it will fall out of vogue and people will realize again that the one great joy of RPGs in general and D&D in particular is that you can do anything.Posted 14th September 2008 at 07:14 AM by Reynard
- I fear it's also a problem for the new setting books - not enough detail to make sandboxing them feasible unless you're already an experienced DM that can improvise lots and make up the rest.Posted 16th September 2008 at 10:27 AM by Fenes
-
Excellent stuff here, Reynard.Posted 17th September 2008 at 03:21 AM by Raven Crowking - Fenes: On the upside, though, a setting book that is broad but shallow gives everyone at the table a similar frame of reference while leaving the DM free to develope any particular area(s) for sandbox play. This reduces the DM's workload on the macro-scale stuff (history, religion, politics and all that can be very time consuming -- often times worthwhile, but not necessarily "at the table") and frees him or her up to work on the micro-scale stuff (local politics, encounter tables, etc...)Posted 17th September 2008 at 04:17 AM by Reynard
- This is a great post, with lots of interesting thoughts. One quibble, though-- while I agree with half of point one ("Make it big..."), I disagree with the second half ("... but not too big.") I've played in a sandboxy world where there was more than we could ever get to-- entire countries that my PCs have only dealt with as minor trading partners or heard of by reputation. It worked just fine. In fact, it contributes to the sense of versimilitude, because there's always stuff beyond the next horizon. So I would say, "Make it big, but not bigger than you can handle." There's no need to kill yourself filling in the realm three kingdoms and an anarchic region away. But there's nothing wrong with, especially over time or when the design bug bites, filling in another area and beginning to have its characters and issues affect the world. The PCs may not ever make it there, but if they do, then you're ready. I totally agree with your comment as a description of what you need before you kick the campaign off, though, and really view this as a quibble.Posted 17th September 2008 at 06:55 AM by Cerebral Paladin
- Lack of scaling also promises death for the PCs if they wander into the wrong area. Are you sure you've thought this through?Quote:A scaling setting breaks versimilitude and suggests to the players that whatever growth they have is irrelevent.Posted 19th September 2008 at 01:02 PM by rounser
- Lack of scaling only kills PCs if there is no advance warning. If there's an elder red wyrm claiming a mountain for himself, then that should be known far and away, and anyone venturing there will probably encounter people who advice him to turn back.
I'd rather have that - maybe with some DM hints in case I'd miss some "Suicide Ahead" sign - instead of the MMOG feeling of "same monster/strength, different color of fur" that often makes levelling up feel pointless.Posted 19th September 2008 at 02:03 PM by Fenes - Through and through again. First of all, there's always signs, hints and/or rumors that something terrible lives in the area -- this is part of versimilitude too. In addition,, although many players don't seem to think so, "running away" "avoiding" and "parley" are always options. They don't have to run screaming into battle with every monster that pops up on the radar.Quote:Originally Posted by rounserLack of scaling also promises death for the PCs if they wander into the wrong area. Are you sure you've thought this through?Posted 19th September 2008 at 04:16 PM by Reynard
- And what constitutes a hint? Skulls of former victims for instance? Tells you nothing. You could be fifteenth level and a lot tougher than the dead commoners you're looking at. Likewise, a rumour that "everyone who goes there dies" may not apply to the 8th level badasses that the PCs have become.Quote:First of all, there's always signs, hints and/or rumors that something terrible lives in the area -- this is part of versimilitude too.
Another problem with this approach is that if everything is advertised, there can be no surprises, no true exploration where you really don't know what's around the next corner, which is one of the major draws of a sandbox. It also implies:
That the PCs know a challenge appropriate to their level. OR
Someone else knows what a challenge appropriate to their level is, which pretty much requires a DMPC (i.e. bad).
Unless it's hidden away in 4E somewhere (haven't looked too closely, don't like the game), both are something that D&D has no mechanic for on the player side of the equation - it ASSUMES that judging a good challenge for the PCs is the DM's responsibility, so you'll be having to do an awful lot of nudge nudge, wink wink all campaign long - try that for verisimilitude breaking. As far as running away goes, unless you fudge it, a lot of monsters can be as fast as or faster than the PCs...and if they can be negotiated with out of a fight at 2nd level, then they can at 20th, too.
I don't think the advice here is practical on this issue. The biggest conceit that makes the game go is that PCs face challenges commensurate to their level. You can't just bin that for sake of verisimilitude, nor handwave it that you'll always give them enough hints. Remember, D&D doesn't have a "consider" command which lets you know you're out of your league when looking at the hill giant, or whether you could down a dozen of them without breaking into a sweat. I'd suggest that it needs one to do sandbox play well. You may need a house rule.Posted 20th September 2008 at 03:53 AM by rounser
Updated 20th September 2008 at 04:22 AM by rounser - rounser: you are ignoring the players in the equation, that their knowledge of the game, as filtered through the particular campaign, is going to guide them to make decisions. Assuming that the DM isn't filling the setting with "gotchas" ("Ha! That orc was really 18th level! Gotcha!") they are going to be able to make rough estimates as to threat level based on what they know and can infer. And if they are smart, they'll ask questions before embarking into the Fetid Swamp of Death.
As to fleeing: there are more ways to run from an encounter than simply having a race with the bad guys.Posted 20th September 2008 at 05:16 PM by Reynard - So your answer is compulsory metagaming? Sandboxing cannot be done with newbies to the game, and experienced players need to be able to calculate EL in their heads, and have all the CRs of the monster manuals memorised? To each their own.Quote:rounser: you are ignoring the players in the equation, that their knowledge of the game, as filtered through the particular campaign, is going to guide them to make decisions.Posted 20th September 2008 at 10:40 PM by rounser
Updated 20th September 2008 at 10:43 PM by rounser - By taking everything to the extreme, worst-case-scenario you make it difficult to have a reasonable discussion.Quote:So your answer is compulsory metagaming? Sandboxing cannot be done with newbies to the game, and experienced players need to be able to calculate EL in their heads, and have all the CRs of the monster manuals memorised? To each their own.
"Compulsory metagaming" is a straw man because we all metagame the entire time we play anyway. Whenever we look at our character sheet or the battlemat, were metagaming. Whenever we make a decision based on our knowledge of the rules or the particular subgenre of D&D is metagaming. it doesn't have to be a disconnect from play or obviate immersion -- in fact, it rarely does because its all a part of play.
As to new players: anyone, no matter how limited their experience with role-playing, can discern "The locals say that no one who ever goes into the Badlands ever returns" means it is dangerous. Anyone can realize after an early, difficult encounter that maybe they aren't ready to tackle the challenges of the scenario, area or whatever.Posted 20th September 2008 at 11:11 PM by Reynard
Total Trackbacks 0
And yet another word from our sponsors
