Adventures Sandbox-style: What's your opinion?

[Ginnel]

I'm not sure I've experienced a sandbox style game, a DM who does it well enough can make any story seem like a sandbox.

To sandbox or not it depends on your players and their characters they need a drive to go out and do stuff, events can't sweep them along unless its other members of the group of course.

Myself I like a little story driven and a little sandbox a bit of each would be my ideal, with large amounts of improvisation from the DM which takes into account players actions and backgrounds.

as a side note:
DM'ing as a whole is a skill I've probably only seen 4 people who've nailed it over around 15 different DM's and I'm definetly not one of those, it is possible to DM a good game without nailing it, kudos to Pete (Tribe 8) Alex (Planescape, Marvel) Tree (low powered superhero and starwars) and Gareth (Vampire, Marvel) the aforementioned 4.

[TerraDave]

Sandbox? You see this a lot, and its not always clear what it even means...but I will throw out some random reactions, not so much directed at the OP (or blog), but just in general:

How Big? From how it is sometimes described, The Village of Hommlet or Keep on the Borderlands would be perfect sandboxes. In other descriptions, they would be terrible, 'cause the pcs might not even go to them in the first place. Where do you set the boundries? Where is the edge of the "box".

How much prep? Some sandy DMs seem to really emphasize prep and using lots of materials they made or purchased. Others seem to focus on making things up and improvising. While some of both are always needed, there is a tension...which is it?

There is more then one player For the first two points, I can kinda see how to deal with them under various circumstances. But this last one is a potential killer. When players really take the initiative or go outside the box, it often pulls them away from the group, putting the dm and other players in the position of shutting down what they wanted to do, or suddenly improvising something they are not interested in. Normally, the DMs real job is to come up with stuff that has broad enough appeal to satisfy everone in the party. How does that work for the sandy DM?

Big Finish: My own experience from playing and DMing is that it can be quite appealing to take part in some bigger mystery or event, and see that revealed through play. Of course, the pcs should drive it, and have lots of tactical choice and room for failure. But in the end, you figure out that the townspeople really are all cultists of Yog-Soggoth and stop the ritual (or die trying) or you don't. You don't go to Arkham and foil the local loan shark or shutdown a meth-dealer instead just because you can. Unless of course they bring you back to good old Yog.

[Reynard]

Originally Posted by TerraDave

How Big? From how it is sometimes described, The Village of Hommlet or Keep on the Borderlands would be perfect sandboxes. In other descriptions, they would be terrible, 'cause the pcs might not even go to them in the first place. Where do you set the boundries? Where is the edge of the "box".

I'd say they'd be perfect for sandboxes. A DM could get a lot of mileage out of either, and since he didn't spend months making them, if the PCs never go there, well, the next set of PCs might.

How much prep? Some sandy DMs seem to really emphasize prep and using lots of materials they made or purchased. Others seem to focus on making things up and improvising. While some of both are always needed, there is a tension...which is it?

Personal preference and ability, I think. Like you say, some love prep, some love flying by the seat of their pants, some fall in the middle.

There is more then one player For the first two points, I can kinda see how to deal with them under various circumstances. But this last one is a potential killer. When players really take the initiative or go outside the box, it often pulls them away from the group, putting the dm and other players in the position of shutting down what they wanted to do, or suddenly improvising something they are not interested in. Normally, the DMs real job is to come up with stuff that has broad enough appeal to satisfy everone in the party. How does that work for the sandy DM?

If the players refuse to operate as a group, it isn't incumbent upon the DM to make them. Everyone is responsible for everyone's fun. If they don't want to have fun as a group, they're not likely to be able to have fun as individuals, either.

Big Finish: My own experience from playing and DMing is that it can be quite appealing to take part in some bigger mystery or event, and see that revealed through play. Of course, the pcs should drive it, and have lots of tactical choice and room for failure. But in the end, you figure out that the townspeople really are all cultists of Yog-Soggoth and stop the ritual (or die trying) or you don't. You don't go to Arkham and foil the local loan shark or shutdown a meth-dealer instead just because you can. Unless of course they bring you back to good old Yog.

The sandbox doesn't mean there aren't big stories to be told or that big events aren't on the horizon. I'm not sure what even inspired this thought.

[TerraDave]

Reynard, thanks for the answers...as for the last, there seems to an emphasis by the sandboxers on smaller, personal goals (or things just made up on the fly), versus bigger, singular events.

[Reynard]

Originally Posted by TerraDave

Reynard, thanks for the answers...as for the last, there seems to an emphasis by the sandboxers on smaller, personal goals (or things just made up on the fly), versus bigger, singular events.

For me anyway, it's often a matter of tossing a few seeds out there and see which ones grow. Last time I ran a successful sandbox, it turned into the PCs bringing the true gods back to the world and stopping an invasion from the Far Realms.

[jdrakeh]

Originally Posted by Crothian

Sandbox does not mean you need to write your own adventures.

This. The world is the sandbox. You can (and many do) use pre-written adventures in 'sandbox' play, the trick is getting enough information together on the setting to create the sandbox itself.

[Irda Ranger]

Originally Posted by tenkar

Sandbox ... requires impecable record keeping, which I tend to lag at

You will need to keep pretty accurate notes, because even the encounters or plot points you may have pre-planned will require fleshing out in the midst of the moment... players will remember that one tidbit that you threw out and forgot to write down.

Solution: TiddlyWiki - a reusable non-linear personal web notebook

Awesome. If you keep a laptop at the table (or would be willing to), spending 10 minutes after a gaming session entering the NPCs and plothooks you generated during the session into this wiki means never having to forget again. Great search features. Make sure to make uses of the tags.

If you use multiple computers, keep the wiki file in your DropBox folder.

Dropbox - Home - Secure backup, sync and sharing made easy.

[El Mahdi]

I'd be willing to try this as a DM, and I hope I'd have the chops to pull it off (I think I do, anyways). But other than the group I first started in (which I didn't really DM except as special one-offs), and maybe a group I played with in Korea, I haven't had players that I feel would have been able to do this, or enjoy it. Especially the group I have right now, they are pretty much newbies. But as time goes on, I may try to slowly introduce some sandbox aspects and get my players to decide where and what they want to do. It could kind of corelate to the feeling of their characters gaining in experience as the players themselves do also.

[Sandwich]

I think I really like this idea for a style of running my game. The last campaign I tried to do involved me fleshing out every inch of every area and every character in a town. It really sucked when the area I'd spent weeks fleshing out in my notebook ended up getting ignored by my players. They decided they didn't like the villagers, and opted instead to go live with some druids I'd thought of only in passing.

I think the sandbox works better for me because, really, I found fleshing out tons of detail beforehand to be rather tedious. Especially in terms of designing dungeons and encounters. Is the "sandbox" style good for getting around that? Or will I always have to put up with the tedium?

I'm thinking I'm just going to draw up some general maps and think up several overarching ongoings in the area (i.e. war is brewing between two kingdoms, a plague has hit a group of villages, a king has gone missing) with general backgrounds and explanations for these events, and then just let my players respond to and get involved with whatever sounds good. Is that doing it right? Or should I just have a minor event or two and just see where it goes?

I've been making little NPC cards on notecards. I figured this way I could access them easily and have everything right in front of me? Is that a good idea? Are there other helpful little things I could do?

One last thing, how do you make your own random encounter tables? Should I just list monsters they're likely to run into based on their general level and what's in the area? Like, should I make random encounter groups or should I just have tables of random monsters?

I'll admit, I've been DMing for a while, but to an extent some of it is still a little new to me. Well, not new, but I feel like I still need a lot of good advice. Sandbox is always something I've wanted to do, but it seemed like more work. Now, though, I think it may actually be less.

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Originally Posted by SilvercatMoonpaw2

Based upon this ENWorld blog entry I'm left wondering some things about sandbox-style gaming that I'd like to ask those DMs who have used it:
1) I've been told adventure writing is an art, but if you are simply following the direction of PCs does it require even more skill to pull off?
2) Does it dramatically increase the preparation time needed? (You may take this question however you feel.)
3) Would you recommend it to new DMs? And why or why not?

As a player, I'm not in favor of sandbox gaming. The big problem I've had with it are multiple players.

Unless they cooperate and do things together like a party, you end up with splitting the session into four (or more, depending on number) mini-sessions, in which you get to do something for a sliver of time.

The DM needs to enforce (yes, I'm going to use that word) making the PCs actually work together, and give his own reasons why they should, instead of only relying on the players to do so.

[Irda Ranger]

Originally Posted by Sandwich

I think the sandbox works better for me because, really, I found fleshing out tons of detail beforehand to be rather tedious. Especially in terms of designing dungeons and encounters. Is the "sandbox" style good for getting around that? Or will I always have to put up with the tedium?

A different kind of tedium, I guess. But once you've made (or "borrowed") a thieve's guild generator you'll never need another one, so it's a once-off kind of tedium.

Originally Posted by Sandwich

I'm thinking I'm just going to draw up some general maps and think up several overarching ongoings in the area (i.e. war is brewing between two kingdoms, a plague has hit a group of villages, a king has gone missing) with general backgrounds and explanations for these events, and then just let my players respond to and get involved with whatever sounds good. Is that doing it right? Or should I just have a minor event or two and just see where it goes?

Sounds fine. I would tell the PCs what your "overarching ongoings in the area" are, and have them decide what sounds interesting, before they make PCs though. Nothing sucks quite like bringing a low-Chr Ranger to a campaign where all the other PCs say "Oh hey, let's do that urban & political intrigue hook."

Originally Posted by Sandwich

I've been making little NPC cards on notecards. I figured this way I could access them easily and have everything right in front of me? Is that a good idea? Are there other helpful little things I could do?

Lists of culturally appropriate names and personality quirks are better. There's really no way to know ahead of time if the PCs are going to say "Let's find an alchemist." Or, just keep your notecards with blanks for "profession" and "location" to be filled in as needed during play.

Originally Posted by Sandwich

One last thing, how do you make your own random encounter tables? Should I just list monsters they're likely to run into based on their general level and what's in the area? Like, should I make random encounter groups or should I just have tables of random monsters?

Hold up. You're assuming encounters should be "based on their general level", but there are two schools of thought on whether you should do that. I'll call them the "Adventurer Beware" ("AB" for short) and "Oblivion" ("Ob" for short) schools.

Under the AB school you make your setting and encounters are whatever is appropriate for the world your PCs live in. If Fire Giants live there, then Fire Giants live there; even if the PCs are first level. It's understood that PCs (even if 1st level) will do recon, use their heads and know to stay out of the deep end of the pool until they can swim there. This should be fine as long as everyone at your table is well informed of this design element and above the age of 12.

In the Ob school of sandbox design, everything is scaled to the level of the PCs. I find this boring and predictable, but YMMV.

What I generally do is have lists of random individual monsters appropriate for the areas (e.g., Ogre foragers). I then fill in the gaps in the monster lineup to make a good encounter. My process might be "Okay, I rolled some (Brute) Ogre foragers. Let's throw in a (Skirmisher) Worg hunting-hound and one (Artillery) Orog Huntsman/Leader to round this out." I find that's the best way to get a good mix of "random" and "sensical", since a purely random encounter might combine Ogre foragers, a Dire Flumph and a mindflayer. Too many encounters like that and things just get silly.

[Angrydad]

Originally Posted by Irda Ranger

A different kind of tedium, I guess. But once you've made (or "borrowed") a thieve's guild generator you'll never need another one, so it's a once-off kind of tedium.


Sounds fine. I would tell the PCs what your "overarching ongoings in the area" are, and have them decide what sounds interesting, before they make PCs though. Nothing sucks quite like bringing a low-Chr Ranger to a campaign where all the other PCs say "Oh hey, let's do that urban & political intrigue hook."


Lists of culturally appropriate names and personality quirks are better. There's really no way to know ahead of time if the PCs are going to say "Let's find an alchemist." Or, just keep your notecards with blanks for "profession" and "location" to be filled in as needed during play.



Hold up. You're assuming encounters should be "based on their general level", but there are two schools of thought on whether you should do that. I'll call them the "Adventurer Beware" ("AB" for short) and "Oblivion" ("Ob" for short) schools.

Under the AB school you make your setting and encounters are whatever is appropriate for the world your PCs live in. If Fire Giants live there, then Fire Giants live there; even if the PCs are first level. It's understood that PCs (even if 1st level) will do recon, use their heads and know to stay out of the deep end of the pool until they can swim there. This should be fine as long as everyone at your table is well informed of this design element and above the age of 12.

In the Ob school of sandbox design, everything is scaled to the level of the PCs. I find this boring and predictable, but YMMV.

What I generally do is have lists of random individual monsters appropriate for the areas (e.g., Ogre foragers). I then fill in the gaps in the monster lineup to make a good encounter. My process might be "Okay, I rolled some (Brute) Ogre foragers. Let's throw in a (Skirmisher) Worg hunting-hound and one (Artillery) Orog Huntsman/Leader to round this out." I find that's the best way to get a good mix of "random" and "sensical", since a purely random encounter might combine Ogre foragers, a Dire Flumph and a mindflayer. Too many encounters like that and things just get silly.

I personally prefer to design my worlds in the Adventurer Beware school of thought. While I love Oblivion, the fact that everywhere you go is theoretically scaled to your level kind of takes away from the suspense of the whole adventure. It may be a tough encounter for my level, but it's still something I can handle with a little thought. If my players are dumb enought to charge into an area infested with giants when they're only 4th level or so, they deserve to get smooshed into paste and made into bread. Random encounters follow this school in my games as well. Some random monsters are too tough for the party to handle and should be "the better part of valor"-ed.

[Obryn]

Originally Posted by Irda Ranger

Hold up. You're assuming encounters should be "based on their general level", but there are two schools of thought on whether you should do that. I'll call them the "Adventurer Beware" ("AB" for short) and "Oblivion" ("Ob" for short) schools.

You know, I have a general preference for non-scaled encounters when I'm doing Sandbox, and that's exactly how I ran it.

Where I ran into problems wasn't encounters above the PCs' level; I always think running is a good option.

The problem was encounters way below the PCs' level. These were plain old boring, and the rewards weren't satisfying, either. When combat is as involved as 3e/4e generally are, this amounted to time my players and I felt was kind of wasted.

I placed low-level modules all around the area for the adventurers' to locate and/or hear about through rumors, along with high-level modules. All the while though I was thinking, "How fun will it be going through a 1st-level module for a few hundred odd GP and a +1 item or two?"

-O

[Irda Ranger]

Originally Posted by Obryn

I placed low-level modules all around the area for the adventurers' to locate and/or hear about through rumors, along with high-level modules. All the while though I was thinking, "How fun will it be going through a 1st-level module for a few hundred odd GP and a +1 item or two?"

You mean if the PCs are higher than 8th level or so? The first one's pretty fun (like playing Doom in God Mode), but after that, not so much. That's why God invented "Help Wanted" signs. Place a post on the central message post in town square to the effect of "Local cave-clearing missions for the adventurous and brave. Treasure and glory await. Local Heroes with better things to do will provide their best dungeon-clearing tips, some healing potions, 10 days rations and one donkey with supplies for the brave at heart. Will take only 10% commission on treasure recovered."

Then the PCs can learn the pleasure of delegation, not to mention have a little fun drafting ads that they used to respond to when they were 1st level. :-)

[Reynard]

Originally Posted by Sandwich

One last thing, how do you make your own random encounter tables? Should I just list monsters they're likely to run into based on their general level and what's in the area? Like, should I make random encounter groups or should I just have tables of random monsters?

My next blog entry tackles this subject.

[Shades of Green]

Originally Posted by Obryn

Where I ran into problems wasn't encounters above the PCs' level; I always think running is a good option.

The problem was encounters way below the PCs' level. These were plain old boring, and the rewards weren't satisfying, either. When combat is as involved as 3e/4e generally are, this amounted to time my players and I felt was kind of wasted.

Higher level PCs should probably have good ways of gathering intelligence - scrying, high-ranked contacts, bardic knowledge, lots of ranks in gather information or knowledge (local history) and so on - and thus should have access enough information to know what they're getting into. Once they know the approximate difficulty level and possible rewards of each adventure option, let them choose - if they want a cakewalk with tiny rewards (in comparison to their level), so be it.

[Derro]

Originally Posted by Obryn

The problem was encounters way below the PCs' level. These were plain old boring, and the rewards weren't satisfying, either. When combat is as involved as 3e/4e generally are, this amounted to time my players and I felt was kind of wasted.

I placed low-level modules all around the area for the adventurers' to locate and/or hear about through rumors, along with high-level modules. All the while though I was thinking, "How fun will it be going through a 1st-level module for a few hundred odd GP and a +1 item or two?"

It's always easier to scale an encounter up than down.

I think in sandbox you have to decide how much of a vacuum there is regarding the encounters the party has and what is out there. If you are playing a game where a lot gets done every session then the occasional throwaway encounter isn't necessarily bad. Even if the XP is minimal and the treasure negligible you could still use the encounter to introduce a narrative element. Clues to other ongoing stories or hooks to other adventure sites are always welcome.

On the other hand if you want to scale the encounter up... well just scale it up. If you have the time twist it someway. Maybe the first party to try and clear the encounter had an evil cleric leading it. Now he's holed-up with a whack of bolstered undead (the previous encounters) and a henchman. Evil clerics are a dime a dozen.

If it's a random encounter it's acceptable to hand-wave. As long as PCs are allowed to run away so are monsters.


From Irda Ranger

Then the PCs can learn the pleasure of delegation, not to mention have a little fun drafting ads that they used to respond to when they were 1st level. :-)

And thus the Adventurer's Guild is born. This would be so awesome if you had, like, 30 players and didn't have to go to work ever again.

[S'mon]

Originally Posted by Obryn

The problem was encounters way below the PCs' level. These were plain old boring, and the rewards weren't satisfying, either. When combat is as involved as 3e/4e generally are, this amounted to time my players and I felt was kind of wasted.

I placed low-level modules all around the area for the adventurers' to locate and/or hear about through rumors, along with high-level modules. All the while though I was thinking, "How fun will it be going through a 1st-level module for a few hundred odd GP and a +1 item or two?"

-O

1. Encounter way under EL - if the 9th level party meet goblins while travelling, I say "After three days and a skirmish with goblins, you reach..."
3e is good that way as it has a clear "no XP for 8 CR under Party Level" rule which lets the GM know when he can ignore encounters. If the party are 6th level you can ignore an encounter with 6 goblins too, if you wish. If your PCs are 12th level and facing thousands of orcs; run the battle, but when the orcs retreat don't run through every moment of orc-massacring in the pursuit, say "You kill a few dozen" - more if the PCs have a way to do so - and move on.

2. Low level module, high level PCs - give enough info let the players of the 9th level PCs decide whether they want to help Baron Nobody clear the Minor Hobgoblins out of his old fort - actually happened IMC. The PCs' response IMC: "Sounds like a job for low-level adventurers!"
Sometimes, players are sick of their high-level PCs getting stomped by uber-BBEGs, and just want to kick some goblin butt. Let them make the choice, and have fun showing how cool they are as they mow down the foe. Even give a little bit of XP if they've done something useful in protecting the realm etc. But there should always be other, higher-threat tasks available that they can take on if they prefer a real challenge.

[Fenes]

Originally Posted by tenkar

Sandbox to me has always meant lots of improvising, which I'm relatively good at. It also requires impecable record keeping, which I tend to lag at

You will need to keep pretty accurate notes, because even the encounters or plot points you may have pre-planned will require fleshing out in the midst of the moment... players will remember that one tidbit that you threw out and forgot to write down.

I agree with this. Fortunately, I write logs of all my games during play, then type the log up and file the info (location, NPCs, plots) in the appropriate documents.

Generally, I don't play sandbox style as leaving the Players to their own plans, I just usually offer lots of plots and hooks, and then let the players decide which of those they react to or get involved in, in case they don't have plans of their own.
I usually do have some general plot arc running though, like the current "recover the relics stolen from the temple", but the PCs are free to choose how to go after those, I simply present the locations, rumors and defenses if needed.

[Shades of Green]

I think that the old "name level" concept would be very useful for dealing with these under-level adventures: the higher-level PCs would send in their retainers to deal with such matters, while focusing themselves on greater threats. This has the added fun of outfitting retainers, managing stronghold and retainer resources, and dealing with politics.

So Sir Whacksalot (who is level 10) won't be going after the scattered goblins of Smallwood who are bothering the good citizens of Boringdale - his loyal knights would; his baronial highness himself would be on a quest to slay Slaughtermaw the Hungry, the local red dragon.