When a sandbox is not a sandbox

MerricB · Apr 29, 2010

Hmm. My latest session of my Serenity campaign went on a completely different angle when the PCs decided not to go on either of the plot hooks I expected them to, but instead went to an Alliance shipyard to be refueled. For some reason, they didn't trust Nishka/Niska to give them the fuel without betraying them somehow.

It was sandboxy in terms of them dictating the plot (rather than me dictating it to them).

However, it lacked that one essential ingredient of a true sandbox: I hadn't defined what they were walking into. So, great invention needed as they wandered through the shipyard getting into all sorts of trouble.

I was just wondering what techniques you use when characters waltz out of the sandbox into un- or ill-defined terrain?

Cheers!

Rechan · Apr 29, 2010

Uh oh. I think this might be a can of worms. Any time the S word is brought up, it always leads to a lengthy argument of what is/is not a sandbox and what is a right sandbox and whatnot. For instance:

It was sandboxy in terms of them dictating the plot (rather than me dictating it to them).

I'd argue that's just a PC-driven game, rather than a DM driven game. It's "Sandboxy" only in that characteristic exists in a sandbox game, but can exist in many other styles too.

To answer the question, what every other GM does when the PCs zig when you have prepped for them to zag. Hold on to your chair, pray, and wing it.

Often I'll declare a 5 minute break while I pace back and forth, trying to drum up something. When I ran a VERY loosey-goosey campaign, I literally did all my session planning the 10-15 minutes on the porch of the player's house before I walked inside. My ace in the hole, when the PCs zigged when I had nothin', was to call a smoke break or bathroom break while I try to pull it out of the fire.

Whisper72 · Apr 29, 2010

Aside from issues around definitions of sand-boxes et.al., the main question is, I believe, how to handle PC's doing stuff the DM has not prepped for in any way.

Well, what I generally do is the following:
- make stuff up! listen to the comments of the players and feed off their fears / worries (i.e. are they worried about betrayal? then lets see if someone here on the scene is in a position to betray them somehow)
- have a bunch of loosely defined generic encounters ready in your 'DM Binder (tm)' which you can whip out
- keep track / a list of old adversaries / background adversaries and drop hints about these in the new area or even have them sight / run into some known bad guy / antagonist
- depending upon the adventure I had prepared, in some cases, if the PC's do not come to the adventure, the adventure comes to them... (some consider this railroading, I personally have no problem with this as long as it is not experienced as such by the PC's and as long as there is escape possible if the PC's REALLY do not want to bite the hook

Just some thoughts...

TheNovaLord · Apr 29, 2010

that sound like a player driven game

if players drive that way then, they need to plot the road, add the input and the GMs job is purely to add in obstacles and occassional flourish

The Shaman · Apr 29, 2010

MerricB said:
I was just wondering what techniques you use when characters waltz out of the sandbox into un- or ill-defined terrain?

In the games I run, the adventurers can't "waltz out of the sandbox," because it's all sandbox. The adventurers can't go 'off the reservation' because it's reservation in every direction.

I think of my prepration time as 'prepping to improvise.' I can't detail an entire game-world, or game-universe for some games, so I'll detail a few obvious locations then focus my preparation on what I need to know to differentiate the cultural and natural landscape the adventurers may discover in their travels. From this I can draw things like npc characterisations on the fly, and from there I'm simply reacting to whatever the adventurers do.

In my experience, successful improvisation comes from knowing the setting well, not in terms of where this city or that river is located, but how the inhabitants of this area differ from the inhabitants of another area, in their outlooks, lifestyles, and subsistence, then bringing that out in response to the actions of the adventurers.

To use the example of MerricB's Alliance base, how does an Alliance base on a core world differ from one on the frontier or the edge of the Black? This gives me some guidance on how base personnel perceive themselves and their jobs, what resources they can bring to bear, and so on, which makes reacting to the adventurers much easier.

The same is true in the game I'm prepping to run: how does the outlook of a noble with a small estate in Languedoc differ from one in Aunis? I don't need to know every valley of the Cévennes or beach of the île de Ré to create a (hopefully interesting and distinctive) characterisation of each.

I also prep random encounters in advance of actual play. For me random encounters are the 'living setting' - I spend time thinking about the origins of the encounter, identifying the motivations and methods of the antagonists, and so on.

For example, a randomly generated 'bandit' encounter becomes rebellious Huguenots in the Midi foraging for supplies for the duc de Rohan, or ragged, half-starved mercenaries returning from the Holy Roman Empire and resorting to brigandage in Picardy, or chauffeurs roaming the pays of Normandy looking for victims to capture and ransom. In this way there are no 'generic' random encounters; each is a reflection of the game-world where the adventurers are standing at the moment.

Fifth Element · Apr 29, 2010

I don't think you can be a very effective DM if you can't improvise. The key to me is always listening to what the players are saying, even if it's just to each other when they assume you're not listening. They'll usually give you clues as to what they expect, and then you can decide if that's what they'll get, or if you think the complete opposite might be better you go for that. Or if you have a flash of brilliance you can subvert what they expect and make it all the more awesome.

Players are great sources of ideas, even when they don't realize they're giving you ideas.

Edit: This applies for planned encounters or events as well. If the players come up with something spontaneously which sounds better than what you had planned, you should consider improvising to change what you had planned to something closer to their idea.

pneumatik · Apr 29, 2010

I read a great piece of advice somewhere recommended you distill every campaign you run into three descriptive points. Then base anything you have to make up on those three points.

Three points can be very restrictive, but it both challenges you to really distill the campaign and makes it easy to improvise off of. Going from what I remember from Firefly / Serenity, I might use the following three points:
- The Government is paternal and controlling at best, and evil and controlling at worst.
- People don't take sides - it's everyone for themselves.
- Fists, firearms, and fast driving win the day more often than anything else.

So when the PCs go to refuel and don't trust the refueler, they're right. If the PCs aren't already wanted by the law, someone at the refueling station wants to bring them in for questioning about something they saw or did, or search their ship, or something else intrusive or offensive to them. They can't really go get free help from any group of people since the there's no "anti-Alliance" group to turn to. The party can get help by earning it, though, from people with their own problems. Ultimately they find someone who will help them get away from the Alliance without being detained if the party first does something dangerous for them.

The Shaman · Apr 29, 2010

Fifth Element said:
*snipped*

Just for the recond, this is not the kind of improvisation I'm suggesting at all.

In fact, this is about as far removed from the way I like to play or run a roleplaying game as it gets.

In my opinion, a sandbox should change in response to what the adventurers do, not what the players believe.

Fifth Element · Apr 29, 2010

The Shaman said:
Just for the recond, this is not the kind of improvisation I'm suggesting at all.

In fact, this is about as far removed from the way I like to play or run a roleplaying game as it gets.

In my opinion, a sandbox should change in response to what the adventurers do, not what the players believe.

Okay, and....?

Are you going to respond to all of my posts now to tell everyone you don't play the same way I do? I think we realize that at this point.

Cadfan · Apr 29, 2010

I ask the players, out of game and out of character, to make sure that every session ends with some agreement on the course of action that will be undertaken in the next week's game. As long as they stick reasonably close to that system, there's never really a moment where the players are totally off the map since I can keep drawing the map in front of them as they travel, week by week.

Oh, and I stand with Fifth Element on the "change in response to player plans" vs "change in response to player beliefs" issue. I don't think it even counts as "changing" the game world if what is changing hasn't yet impacted the game at the table (there's a really, really fascinating philosophical issue lurking in the background here). Everything is just in potentia until it in some way affects the game. So if the players are trying to figure out a mystery, and they come up with a possible solution that's even smarter and cooler than what I came up with then yes, I happily adopt it and pretend that its what I was going to do all along. I try to make sure these conversations happen at the end of a gaming session, so that I can adapt and roll with the punches.