The Shaman
First Post
Except these are terms that have been used for years in many cases, so insisting that "green" means "popcorn" suggests that one doesn't know the first thing about green.
Plots in a Sandbox
- Thread starter LostSoul
- Start date
There's a lot of good questions and stuff in this post. As we know, I don't run a sandbox, so adjust accordingly...
I don't run Adventure Paths, I write each adventure as a session, after finishing the last. So I'm always adapting to what happened last time, and extending the world. My group does tend to have the meta-game rule of "follow the plothook because the DM is lazy" but there is also an expectation of it must make sense for the party to do so.
My style depends on it. On the first session, the plot hooks might be a bit weak, as we're all feeling the group out. But after that, I try to make sure NPC goals (hooks) intersect with the PCs. This is how I help ensure the PC will go for it, because I've done my homework and the hook is related to the PC, not just some problem the PC doesn't care about. I don't see why a sandbox couldn't use this trick.
As I said in another thread, "Good" PCs are predictable. Generally, if you present the PC with a princess in peril, they will go save her. Sure, there's a lot of variance on what the rescue will entail, but it's far more predictable than a non-good party.
Evil PCs (as an example) tend to do whatever. They're set of viable options in dealing with the Princess is wide open. They might save her, to build up a reputation as heroes. They might ransom her. They might do worse. The might even attempt the mission, see no profit in it, and abort the mission.
A sandbox style is probably a better model for an "non-good" party. Basically, expose a ton of opportunities for profit or whatever, and let them roll.
Somebody wrote a good blog entry on here about running a "evil" character. His point was to make opportunities for the PC to be evil without getting caught/having consequences. This in turn let the PC blend in as a 'normal' citizen in all the other encounters.
The real key is to make encounters/problems/hooks/opportunities that tie to what the player and PC wants to be doing in the game. If they're playing "good" heroes, give them heroic problems. If they're power-hungry, give them opportunities to gain power.
I don't run Adventure Paths, I write each adventure as a session, after finishing the last. So I'm always adapting to what happened last time, and extending the world. My group does tend to have the meta-game rule of "follow the plothook because the DM is lazy" but there is also an expectation of it must make sense for the party to do so.
My style depends on it. On the first session, the plot hooks might be a bit weak, as we're all feeling the group out. But after that, I try to make sure NPC goals (hooks) intersect with the PCs. This is how I help ensure the PC will go for it, because I've done my homework and the hook is related to the PC, not just some problem the PC doesn't care about. I don't see why a sandbox couldn't use this trick.
As I said in another thread, "Good" PCs are predictable. Generally, if you present the PC with a princess in peril, they will go save her. Sure, there's a lot of variance on what the rescue will entail, but it's far more predictable than a non-good party.
Evil PCs (as an example) tend to do whatever. They're set of viable options in dealing with the Princess is wide open. They might save her, to build up a reputation as heroes. They might ransom her. They might do worse. The might even attempt the mission, see no profit in it, and abort the mission.
A sandbox style is probably a better model for an "non-good" party. Basically, expose a ton of opportunities for profit or whatever, and let them roll.
Somebody wrote a good blog entry on here about running a "evil" character. His point was to make opportunities for the PC to be evil without getting caught/having consequences. This in turn let the PC blend in as a 'normal' citizen in all the other encounters.
The real key is to make encounters/problems/hooks/opportunities that tie to what the player and PC wants to be doing in the game. If they're playing "good" heroes, give them heroic problems. If they're power-hungry, give them opportunities to gain power.
ExploderWizard
Hero
Locked up in the dungeon. Heh.
I don't have a megadungeon going on right now. I am applying the dungeon level difficulty model to non-geographical campaign elements.
For random encounters I make tables up from what would likely be in the area. Some are close to the PC's level, some lower, and others much higher. I don't worry about the power level. By thier very nature random encounters are not part of the PC's goals/plans. Add to that the fact that encounter does not equal combat (at least not 100%) and we have no problems.
Thornir Alekeg
Albatross!
I wanted to emphasize the bolded portion. I played in a sandbox campaign with a DM who spent a considerable amount of time plotting out everything that was happening in the world; politics in nations we would never visit, guild wars we would never be involved in etc. As players we heard all kinds of hooks to the point where we honestly could not make a decision as to what to do. Eventually we made the mistake of following a hook we had heard over and over, mistakenly applying metagame thinking that the reason we heard so much about it was the DM was well prepared and wanted us to follow the hook. Turns out it was an adventure that we were about 8 levels below where we needed to be to have a chance at survival, but we had no information indicating this might be the case. After the TPK, there were so many bad feelings towards the DM, someone else had to take over.
The Shaman
First Post
I did when I ran 3e D&D years ago, but if I decide to run a 1e AD&D game in the future, it will be a campaign-megadungeon which is the primary focus of play.
So ultimately, that DM ran a game that wasn't fun.
The DM could have made "whatever hook they choose" be leveled for the party. That doesn't mean a push-over. I expect the BBEG in any adventure to be a tough fight. If the party doesn't think they're in danger of a TPK, it ain't hard enough. However, I get no joy in a TPK, and neither does the party, so running content that they can't truly beat is a waste of time for both parties.
The DM could also have laid more clues as to the strength level. That's harder to do with NPCs or leveled monsters, but still.
The party could own some of this, as TA mentioned. They assumed. Wrongly.
LostSoul
Adventurer
More "traditional", though I could see working in something like Circles (from BW) since it has a risk/reward element baked into it. Circles are more like "reaction rolls" than anything else, really.
As far as making up NPCs on the fly during the game, that isn't something the players can do. My reason is that, even though I can mechanically include a risk/reward element into the roll, I want exploration of the game world and gathering information to be important.
I want exploration to sit in the "fruitful void" outside of mechanics so that it becomes an element of player ingenuity throughout the campaign instead of just during character building (where someone could max out a knowledge-type skill). That's the hope, at least!
Sadrik
First Post
I personally think that sandboxing works best when you have smaller sites / areas of interest / dungeons that collectively become the greater. So where as I don't like long and deep dungeons mostly because they take so long in game. I would rather get the point of that dungeon across and that can be done in a few rooms as opposed to tedium infitium (mapping and the whole nine yards).
I also think that the world is a more integral part of the campaign and what happens around off stage can be as important as in the flow of the game. Foreshadowing future events and letting the players add their own thoughts to the process is a key difference in this style of play too. As you offer clues, threads, tangents and arcs players contemplate their relevance and in some case they come up with excellent ideas and those ideas get fed into the story, of course hopefully without them knowing you did that.
I like to think of the DM as the engine and the players are mechanics who tune up the engine and make it better.
You could also consider it agile development/cowboy coding/extreme programming vs. the more standard structured development. You have a very consistent outcome with the structured approach but it takes longer has more documentation and it can be stale, not true with the other development methodologies.
Thornir Alekeg
Albatross!
Yes, if the DM had laid some clues about the level of risk. it would have been better. We as players also did make assumptions and you know what they say when you assume.
In later discussions, after some of the bitterness had worn off, we figured out what really went wrong:
The players did not really undertsand the way the PCs were part of a larger world that was not centered around us, as more "traditional" D&D games are.
The DM was so excited about the high level adventure hook he had come up with that he kept referring to it, hoping to keep it in our minds, building anticipation for it, forgetting we didn't know what was awaiting us the way he did. Then of course he failed to somehow alert us to the danger we were setting ourselves up for. He assumed that we would either realize how bad it was and run away, or if we all died, we would create new PCs that would go back there when we were ready for it. In the end we were all dead at the very first encounter and nobody ever got to see all that woerk he was so excited about.
Woas
First Post
Cool. I was just asking first to see if my advice would be warranted or totally left field an unhelpful. I'm thinking it's gonna be more the latter but I dunno I'll pitch it to you anyway.
Basically, why not let the players pick what goals the NPCs have, by letting them pick the plots based off character beliefs? Then the answers to the questions you originally asked all sort of fall in line.
What I mean is, instead of dry-planning a necromancer, lumber-baron and crotchety-town-elder NPC plot circle that was mentioned earlier a character's belief was "Stop Baron von Holzfaller from desecrating the ancestral burial grounds!" then as GM you could use that as motivation and start to explore the "sandbox" with it. You (and the player(s)) know the character (and player) wants to stop the lumber-baron... do they seek out an employ the help of a mysterious necromancer to invoke guardian spirits? Try to play politics with the zany old town elder to block trade rights?
Because now instead of you having to think of every possible action the players/character make and plotting potential threats and outcomes, the players do.
So like I said, probably out there as far as advice to what you originally asked but figured I'd try.
Basically, why not let the players pick what goals the NPCs have, by letting them pick the plots based off character beliefs? Then the answers to the questions you originally asked all sort of fall in line.
What I mean is, instead of dry-planning a necromancer, lumber-baron and crotchety-town-elder NPC plot circle that was mentioned earlier a character's belief was "Stop Baron von Holzfaller from desecrating the ancestral burial grounds!" then as GM you could use that as motivation and start to explore the "sandbox" with it. You (and the player(s)) know the character (and player) wants to stop the lumber-baron... do they seek out an employ the help of a mysterious necromancer to invoke guardian spirits? Try to play politics with the zany old town elder to block trade rights?
Because now instead of you having to think of every possible action the players/character make and plotting potential threats and outcomes, the players do.
So like I said, probably out there as far as advice to what you originally asked but figured I'd try.
