Campaign structure: combining the sandbox and adventure path

[Libramarian]

I may post some more thoughts on the broader concept later, but to start:

Anybody explicitly balance only certain plot-relevant encounters to party level? I.e. most encounters are in a status quo sandbox, not adjusted to party level, but main storyline encounters (or adventuring days/small dungeons) are re-balanced to provide a dramatically-tough-but-doable challenge for the party whenever they progress to them (or when the DM decides to introduce them as "bangs"). This would seem to be one step towards reconciling the most appealing aspects of both styles in one campaign. The sandboxing would replace the "filler" that all APs have, and the condensed storyline would give the sandbox a narrative rhythm.

For verisimilitude you could say that the BBEG is spying on the PCs and beefing up their defenses appropriately, or something like that.

It would be sort of like the inverse of milestone leveling -- instead of leveling the party as it feels appropriate for the story (which totally neuters sandboxing, at least as I understand it), you 'level' the story as it feels appropriate for the party. Anybody recognize that as their go-to campaign structure?

 

[pogre]

If you have a plot or story in mind - couldn't you largely predict what level the party is going to be when they get to each element (bang)? It is entirely possible I am completely misunderstanding this concept, if so - my apologies.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I may post some more thoughts on the broader concept later, but to start:

Anybody explicitly balance only certain plot-relevant encounters to party level? I.e. most encounters are in a status quo sandbox, not adjusted to party level, but main storyline encounters (or adventuring days/small dungeons) are re-balanced to provide a dramatically-tough-but-doable challenge for the party whenever they progress to them (or when the DM decides to introduce them as "bangs"). This would seem to be one step towards reconciling the most appealing aspects of both styles in one campaign. The sandboxing would replace the "filler" that all APs have, and the condensed storyline would give the sandbox a narrative rhythm.

For verisimilitude you could say that the BBEG is spying on the PCs and beefing up their defenses appropriately, or something like that.

It would be sort of like the inverse of milestone leveling -- instead of leveling the party as it feels appropriate for the story (which totally neuters sandboxing, at least as I understand it), you 'level' the story as it feels appropriate for the party. Anybody recognize that as their go-to campaign structure?

I've never done it that way, but it's an interesting proposition. The world is the sandbox (meaning you can jump the rails at any time, go side-questing to your hearts desire, and potentially get in over your head if you're not careful) but the "main quest line" is the level-appropriate AP (which scales even if the players run off to go side-questing for several levels). With the right group I could see it working, but for others I think it might become either pure sandbox (because the players don't want to engage with the main quest line) or pure AP (for players who aren't interested in wandering from the main quest). It would probably work best with a group that enjoys both modes of play.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I may post some more thoughts on the broader concept later, but to start:

Anybody explicitly balance only certain plot-relevant encounters to party level? I.e. most encounters are in a status quo sandbox, not adjusted to party level, but main storyline encounters (or adventuring days/small dungeons) are re-balanced to provide a dramatically-tough-but-doable challenge for the party whenever they progress to them (or when the DM decides to introduce them as "bangs"). This would seem to be one step towards reconciling the most appealing aspects of both styles in one campaign. The sandboxing would replace the "filler" that all APs have, and the condensed storyline would give the sandbox a narrative rhythm.

I don't balance my adventures "for the party", but I've started offering them adventures balanced for a certain level of abstract party. E.g. "this adventure is rated four stars for treasure, two for XP, and is designed for a 12th level PC to have at leasat a 50% chance of surviving it, if he were playing solo." When players select an adventure, we skip straight to the hook for that adventure.

Or they can choose to explore the sandbox.

 

[S'mon]

This is the Elder Scrolls approach - main quest set within a sandbox.

Yes, works fine.

 

[Fanaelialae]

This is the Elder Scrolls approach - main quest set within a sandbox.

Yes, works fine.

That was my initial thought too but, technically speaking, in Elder Scrolls the sandbox largely scales to your level (as does the main quest). So this is a bit different.

 

[aco175]

I tend to have a few minor things going on that the PCs can choose from and explore more. There is also a few items from old adventures that they have not fully finished that they can go back to. My biggest problem with homebrewing the campaign is the lack of time to plan and write that far ahead of the group. I would like to have more plot ideas that involve a more sandboxy style but need to concentrate on a challenge for now.

Balancing verisimilitude to player fun takes time and fun wins in my world. The players understand and do not mind. They know that there is bandits lurking and goblins are still a threat. They choose the demon locked in the tower both because it is more a threat and that is their level of power and I make that quest sound more important and dire.

 

[The_Gunslinger658]

I am kind of trying to understand your post, but I'll assume your running a canned adventure. Personally I tried running a canned adventure once called Hoard of the Dragon Queen, that was first and last time I tried running a canned adventure, it just required way too much work and that time I spent trying to rejigger HotDQ could have been spent creating my own adventure. Though I am tempted to run Out of the Abyss just because it does look very unique in both play and style.

I would say level the party with actual XP and XP for good RP. The experience level is small between levels, so getting from level 1 to level 5 is fairly quick depending on the number of encounters you throw at the party or good RP opportunities the party encounters.

Bottom line, it all comes down to you the DM.

Scott

I may post some more thoughts on the broader concept later, but to start:

Anybody explicitly balance only certain plot-relevant encounters to party level? I.e. most encounters are in a status quo sandbox, not adjusted to party level, but main storyline encounters (or adventuring days/small dungeons) are re-balanced to provide a dramatically-tough-but-doable challenge for the party whenever they progress to them (or when the DM decides to introduce them as "bangs"). This would seem to be one step towards reconciling the most appealing aspects of both styles in one campaign. The sandboxing would replace the "filler" that all APs have, and the condensed storyline would give the sandbox a narrative rhythm.

For verisimilitude you could say that the BBEG is spying on the PCs and beefing up their defenses appropriately, or something like that.

It would be sort of like the inverse of milestone leveling -- instead of leveling the party as it feels appropriate for the story (which totally neuters sandboxing, at least as I understand it), you 'level' the story as it feels appropriate for the party. Anybody recognize that as their go-to campaign structure?

 

[77IM]

Savage Worlds' "Plot Point" campaigns work this way. It works extremely well.

 

[Libramarian]

If you have a plot or story in mind - couldn't you largely predict what level the party is going to be when they get to each element (bang)? It is entirely possible I am completely misunderstanding this concept, if so - my apologies.

I'm thinking about how to combine the sandbox and adventure path in a way that combines the best aspects of each (or at least the aspects I want of each).

When I say sandbox, I have in mind an overland hexcrawl seeded with site-based adventures, region-based random encounters and civilized areas with incipient conflicts for the PCs to get in the middle of and resolve (I'm not big on "side quests" but these could be presented like that if desired). Oh and importantly, where the difficulty of the content is set at the beginning of the game, or extrapolated after campaign start in a simulationist way, not adjusted to party level.

I basically know how to run this kind of game, and it's great, but I'm wondering to what extent and how an epic "main quest" can be threaded into this.

There are various issues to be hashed out, but to start with, how does the DM ensure that the encounters/adventuring days associated with the main quest are of an appropriate difficulty for the PCs, without undercutting the sandbox dynamic where the players master the gameworld at their own pace? Well you could rebalance the main quest content (and only this) to party level as its introduced to the game.

That might seem obvious but I don't think I've ever actually seen or heard of a tabletop campaign or videogame that does this. It's a stretch for me personally because I'm so used to DMing in sandbox mode where I'm very principled about not balancing content in this way.

As for why to tie things together with a main quest...for the common sense reason, but also because there's some research in psychology that shows when people evaluate how much they liked an experience, they don't do a perfectly rational utility calculation, they mostly just think about the peak and the ending of the experience. It's wise to take psychology research with a grain of salt because common sense concepts are often operationalized in very peculiar ways and the field has a poor track record for reproducibility, but this seems pretty plausible and the peak and ending here obviously map onto the climax and ending of a story.

Most of my sandbox campaigns don't really have a recognizable climax and just kind of peter out when we get bored with them or they become too complex. They play more like a neverending strategy game like SimCity or Total War than an RPG with a strong storyline. I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with that and I generally prefer games like that, but maybe it's not so difficult to introduce just enough story into a sandbox that you have a recognizable narrative arc.

Another issue: to what degree should the main storyline be adjusted dynamically not only to the level of the PCs, but also to reflect what decisions they make in the sandbox? Pretty abstract question, but I'm curious if anyone has an opinion on that other than "as it needs to to make sense".

I don't balance my adventures "for the party", but I've started offering them adventures balanced for a certain level of abstract party. E.g. "this adventure is rated four stars for treasure, two for XP, and is designed for a 12th level PC to have at leasat a 50% chance of surviving it, if he were playing solo." When players select an adventure, we skip straight to the hook for that adventure.

Or they can choose to explore the sandbox.

That seems pretty gamey.

This is the Elder Scrolls approach - main quest set within a sandbox.

Yes, works fine.

Basically yes, but it hasn't really worked for me in any Elder Scrolls game I've played. In Morrowind the main quest didn't grab me so I just ignored it and sandboxed until my character had an amulet of regeneration that made them basically invincible. Oblivion I didn't play for long because I found neither the main quest nor the sandbox too interesting (because all content and treasure is scaled to PC level). In Skyrim the main quest is very interesting so I just followed it without much sandboxing, because the sidequests are very lame by comparison and there was a sense that the main quest would send me to all the interesting parts of the world at some point anyway. So the balance seems difficult to get right.