Plots in a Sandbox

[Janx]

Let's put aside the point that I wouldn't make a high level hook be immediately available, or the hook would be 'levelless" and resolve it when I run it.

What kinda weirds me out is how/why a DM would put something so lethal in his game, without some sort of gatekeeper/qualification?

From a realism standpoint, yes, there's lots of real things you can do to get yourself killed. Let's eliminate the really stupid choices, and assume a PC/real person is trying to solve a problem/hook.

In real life, there's a lot of clues and barriers that "we're not qualified" to keep us from doing stuff. Most of us know not to apply for CEO positions. The army and police won't just "let us help them" Most of us know we can't just pop into another country and take out their leader.

In D&D, pretty much all of that is possible. yet in that same vein, there's this expectation that "some stuff isn't". That's almost contradictory.

I'm against literally labeling stuff "high level" and having artificial requirements like "you can't undertake this quest until 8th level". That just feels gamey. However, it would seem that there's some value in laying down clues within the setting of what's there for flavor, and what's achievable.

Now on the flip side of this, I'm not so sure low level people actively try to participate in high level things. Sure they may be aware that the CEO position is open. They are aware that forces are gathering on the border, and may even enlist. But most people instinctively know what's in their grasp, and what's outside for the higher ups to deal with. And obviously, there are those who try to get close to greatness. If anybody does want to do the big things, they go through the steps to get there.

If a President of the US were a high level PC, none of them left their parents house at 18 and just filled in a candidacy form to start the quest. They made connections, took on intermediary quests to get the positions and connections they needed to move up.

But overall, the drug dealer is looking to expand his reach, and maybe cross over to some legitimate businesses using his money and influence. He's not just going to hop into global politics or putting down gang violence in Laredo, TX. It's not on his radar of "the next step" of things to work on for his goals, though it might give him some ideas.

In short, darn near everybody knows their place and if they have a desire to be high level, they work on quests appropriate to their level. Mostly.

 

[LostSoul]

I guess what I'm asking is this:

Is it "bad form" in a sandbox to set things up so that there is a point where there are too many things going on in the game world for the PCs to deal with all of them, forcing the PCs to pick and choose to deal with one of them, resulting in "bad things" happening somewhere else no matter what?

(Now that I write it out like that, I think the answer is clear: obviously not. You just don't want to make the bad things "OMG im pwning ur wrldz".)

This has been a helpful thread! Thanks to everyone who responded.

 

[Janx]

It's probably worth qualifying some things from my last post.

There may not be any "plot hooks" that are way past the PCs's level (like fatally higher) as in things I'm trying to dangle in front of the PCs to get them to bite and re-act to (a hook is something I start, therefore the PCs are reacting)

That's a seperate matter from the PCs initiating an action to do something out of their league...

Other than giving some clues that their target is big and powerful, it's their bloody funeral.

 

[Janx]

I guess what I'm asking is this:

Is it "bad form" in a sandbox to set things up so that there is a point where there are too many things going on in the game world for the PCs to deal with all of them, forcing the PCs to pick and choose to deal with one of them, resulting in "bad things" happening somewhere else no matter what?

(Now that I write it out like that, I think the answer is clear: obviously not. You just don't want to make the bad things "OMG im pwning ur wrldz".)

This has been a helpful thread! Thanks to everyone who responded.

Well, like I said upthread, threats and opportunities. In fact, thinking in those terms is probably better than "plots" which some people have resented in other threads about plots which led to arguments about sandboxes.

If the party is dithering, an immediate threat is useful. Somebody moving in on the PCs territory, etc. A threat is good to get the game moving (initial state) and to shake things up when the PCs are getting too comfy.

If you want to "foreshadow" a bigger problem, a looming threat. It's not here yet, so the PCs don't have a target. But they can prepare.

Then make a ton of opportunities, initially, of all types, because you don't know what will pique their interest. Business ventures, crime opportunities, political openings, etc. Plus maps to dungeons and offers for jobs.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Is it "bad form" in a sandbox to set things up so that there is a point where there are too many things going on in the game world for the PCs to deal with all of them, forcing the PCs to pick and choose to deal with one of them, resulting in "bad things" happening somewhere else no matter what?

You've aready answered yourself, but let me include a "Not IMHO" here as well. In fact, doing so is, IMHO, integral to making PC choices meaningful.


RC

 

[rogueattorney]

There's no reason why you can't have "big threats" fairly early on in the campaign for the pcs. The key is to give them enough information to intelligent choices with regard to that threat. Foremost of the information imparted to the players is that there is no safety net.

In one campaign I had a town near the pc's village that was secretly ruled by a vampire. In the little campaign sheet I handed out to the players at the beginning of the campaign I let it be commonly known that "bad stuff" happened at the nearby town, but not much more than that.

While still fairly low in level - maybe 2nd or 3rd - certainly not high enough to take out a vampire in his own lair - the characters' local village was being threatened by a marauding group of goblins. The players decided that the goblins were a threat to the whole region and decided to warn the neighboring towns and ask for assistance in putting the goblins down.

They recruited some local npcs to go to a nearby "safe" village, and due to the rumors of danger, decided to go to the vampire town themselves. I hadn't really expected them to do that, but saw the imminent logic in it.

I had a local npc plead with them to leave such that they would arrive at the vampire town in the daytime. The pcs took that advice. They were met by a suspicious-acting burgomaster who told them the Baron was "out and might be back later tonight." The locals wouldn't let them just leave a message for Baron, and also wouldn't allow them to approach the baronial manor. Although the pcs did get close enough to notice some of the baronial guard acting strangely. (They were well-disguised zombies.)

The pcs were invited to dinner where one of the servants slipped a "Get Out!" note to one of the pcs. The pcs then told the villagers that they were tired from their journey and wished to retire for the night. The burgomaster then escorted them to a "guest house" and locked them in. The pcs immediately broke out a back window and ran out of town as quickly and stealthily as possible. If they had investigated the "guest house" at all, they would have found a crawl space filled with old bones, but my suspicious minded players didn't need any more hints.

When the sun went down, they had to fight some skeleton minions of the vampire on the way out, and were followed the rest of the night by some giant bats until they made it to a friendly chapel, but were otherwise "safe" for the time being. If they had decided to stick around, eventually Baron Fangs-a-lot would have made an appearance, probably ending those pcs' careers.

The important thing is that the players had enough information to begin with that the vampire town was sketchy at best and went into it with their guard up. I then let them know that they weren't going to be able to fulfill their current goal (get help against the goblins) there. They thus made the smart choice of cutting bait as soon as possible instead of facing an unknown adversary. It was a side trek from what they were currently dealing with that netted them nothing in the short term, but gave them a better awareness of the campaign area (and was a whole heck of a lot of fun to play out).

It's also key that the decision to go to vampire town was the players' idea and not mine. Thus they had no expectations that I had sent them on a mission which I expected them to accomplish and no expectation that whatever was in that town was something they could handle. Once they were out of town, one of the players said, "See you in about 5 levels." He had pretty well gauged the threat level.

It can't be stressed enough that an absolute key to good "sand-boxing" is giving the players enough information to make smart decisions. If it becomes obvious to you as DM that the players are operating in an information vacuum and are unable to intelligently balance the risk and rewards of their choice, you need to give them more.

It certainly helps to make sure they understand the lay of the land in your campaign from the start. In "old school" D&D, that traditionally meant that things got more dangerous the deeper you go into the dungeon and the farther you venture into the wilderness. That's personally the way I like to do it, with a fairly mundane world nearby, with things getting weirder and more dangerous the farther out or down one goes from "home base." But there's certainly no reason a campaign has to be set up that way.

 

[Umbran]

You've aready answered yourself, but let me include a "Not IMHO" here as well. In fact, doing so is, IMHO, integral to making PC choices meaningful.

There's degrees, as he noted. There's also the matter of fault.

If the players are in an ugly position due to their own previous past choices (they could have chosen to stop things, but didn't) or if it is imposed by the DM (no matter what you did or do, things are going to heck in a handbasket) can change how the players view things. Most specifically, if you have players who are in the game to Try To Succeed, putting them in a position that success (for whatever the definition of that is for them) is strictly impossible won't be much fun for them.

Hint: discuss with your players what they want before you load on plots, rather than trust the judgment of people on the internet who have never met them.

I will disagree that loading such that they cannot ever stop everything is integral to making choices meaningful. The existence of other plots can alter or enhance the meaning of a choice, but is not required. If the group chooses to stop Evil Plot #17, that choice is meaningful in and of itself, whether plots #1-16 exist or not.

 

[Janx]

rogueattourney brings up a good point.

If the PCs are "going the wrong way" and are earnestly trying to solve the problem, that's a warning flag that the players don't have enough information.

I'm not talking about players doing stupid stuff to be stupid.

As in RA's story, the players went to vampiresburg. Not a good idea. A bad GM just lets it happen. A good GM starts giving clues that they're in danger of a severe kind.

Its about protecting your investment. Which is the players enjoyment of your game. A TPK because the party didn't have enough info is the DM's fault.

 

[Snoweel]

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.

Wow, another false analogy. You're on fire.

 

[Ariosto]

I think it is an illusion that the players have choice as to whether they face stronger threats.

From decades of first-hand experience, I know that it is no illusion!

With useful intel, a party that knows it is 1st level and that monsters get tougher as they go deeper, they will not choose to go too deep.

If all the characters are indeed 1st level, and 2nd-level monsters are about twice as tough, then it is indeed wise -- because of the vulnerability of 1st-level characters in old D&D -- to stick to the 1st-level dungeons. With a party of mixed levels, it is not so simple. As the average level increases, so does the viable range of risk-reward levels.

To the point as well is that the first skill in play is setting objectives. Wandering aimlessly yields poor returns on any level. Even with the big stretch of 1st-level PCs on the 2nd-3rd dungeon level, a sound plan can be very profitable. It can also be disastrous if it goes south -- the kind of balance that makes the game. "Intel" from research and reconnaissance is valuable; knowledge is power.

In fact, odds are good, they'll clear out level 1 ...

That is simply not possible in the D&D dungeon as originally presented. Even degrading it tremendously, it should still be relatively unprofitable for any one party to clear out. Once you reach the 2nd level of experience, you get at most 1/2 the experience-point value for accomplishments on the 1st dungeon level. If there's not at least enough for two parties to "level up", then it's a pretty pathetic dungeon by the original standard.

Thus, while the players have a "choice" it is not a meaningful Choice.

Even if that follows from your premises (which is itself unclear to me), your premises are at odds with the original instructions for setting up a D&D dungeon. It seems to me that one might give common sense the benefit of the doubt, and -- in the absence of actual knowledge of the subject -- assume that the game was designed to present meaningful choices. Certainly one might reasonably assume that present company includes people able in fact to refer to the actual books.

[edit] Even on the same dungeon level, encounters cover a range of difficulties. In the 1e DMG, for example, the 1st level random encounters are 80% I, 15% II and 5% III. By the 8th level, they span the full range from I (kobolds, etc.) through X (arch-devils, demon princes, etc.).

In general, richer treasures are more strongly guarded. Identifying a lair with an unusually high reward to risk is more profitable than blundering into tough wandering monsters with little or no treasure. That it is non-trivial to choose optimal paths through the event-space of the dungeons, but is feasible to discover better and worse choices -- both absolutely, and in terms of preferred trade-offs -- is central to the game design.