Information in a sandbox

[Mark]

Here's another question: If you want to make exploration of the game world a priority in sandbox play, how much information is too much and how much is too little?

As far as I can tell, you want to make the players aware of the risks so that they can make their choices, but you don't want to reveal so much that they aren't surprised or aren't forced to make logical deductions about the game world.

Let's say that, in a large mist-shrouded lake, there's a local legend: no one who goes into the mist ever comes back. Their boats return, washed up on shore, with no sign of their crew.

The DM knows that it's because harpies on an island in the middle of the lake fly out and take the people back to their aerie to eat them.

You want to make the players aware of the level of risk but you don't want to give away any secrets that would be interesting to discover through play.

At the moment our legend doesn't work: the level of risk is unknown. We'd want to put something in there about the level of risk in a natural way. (The easiest way would be to say, "This area is level x", but eh.)


Another question, related to mechanics: Would it be a good idea to tie some information to skill checks?

You'd want to make the result of the skill check secret, I guess.

Would something like this work:
DC 20. Success: The PCs learn of a fisherman who did return but he went mad, babbling about "the bewitching song". PCs who talk to him may be able to extract more concrete information. Failure: The PCs hear about an alchemist who ventured to the edge of the mist and has been studying it; his theory is that the mist is a poison that drains the body of liquid, causing the fishermen to dive into the lake to slake their thirst, and eventually they drown.

I have a feeling I want to make each roll carry some kind of risk.

It is absolutely essentially, particularly if you and/or your players have been playing in non-sandbox formats, to spell it out, out-of-game, to the players in advance how your sandbox (note that I do not say "a" sandbox) will function. Everyone will assume different levels of shorthand and have varying concepts going in, so take a lesson from these threads of yours and know that everyone will bring their own meta-nomenclature and personalized vernacular to the table. You have to be sure that they understand and accept your understanding of it all or, at least, understand how to mentally convert your own to their own.


That said, I prefer to keep many die rolls secret and feel that this is particularly important to my sense of sandboxing. If a die roll is meant to resolve a binary circumstance and the players are meant to know the result immediately, then they roll openly. If a die roll is meant to dictate the degrees of a result and the characters are meant to weigh the outcome against facts in evidence without knowing the definite truth, the die roll remains secret and I, as DM, describe the result. So, as to skill checks, they happen all of the time and the players rarely know just how often. I am not one to simply allow players to outright call for a skill check but no matter what they are doing, I am often rolling skill checks or their equivalent with or without the knowledge of the players. It's good to keep a list of all pertinent PC knowledge and ability check mods handy on the DM side of the screen for quick reference.

 

[Wik]

Keep things hidden. You don't need to give the PCs information, at all. If they want to go explore, let them - PCs have plenty of resources available to them that will say whether or not this is a bad idea. If the area is REALLY out of their league (ie, 21st level monsters against 1st level PCs), there's a problem - but then, why are the monsters so close to the PCs to begin with?

If, however, the area is dangerous, let it be dangerous. In most situations, if the PCs wander into your island and encounter the harpies, they'll take damage, but they should be able to escape. Maybe a PC will fall, maybe not. Odds are, your PCs will blow all their dailies after they decide to retreat. If they don't retreat, well, they'll know better next time they make PCs. That's part of the FUN of sandboxing.

To have them learn info in a tavern, or hear stuff through local gossip, can be okay... but if there is really enough information for your players to put two and two together, they'll start to wonder why the villagers haven't already. Really, by doing so too much, you start to give the game the feeling of a normal RPG campaign, as opposed to a sandbox - which will hurt the PCs. After all, they were given information about what's in the area... that means they should go there!

Plus, giving away info means the PCs lose the sense of discovery when they do get to the mists. Not to mention that there's no buildup for things. Imagine if the PCs have no idea what's on the island, and make their way in. They get to the island, and are terrified of what lurks in the mist. They find a deer on the beach, that's been torn open... but it seems to have died from a fall... AS the PCs explore, they start getting clues... and then the harpies attack. This is much more fun than "Okay, guys, we're pretty sure there are harpies on this island, so everyone put this wax in your ears so we can resist their song".

 

[ExploderWizard]

Before getting into the nuts and bolts of information distribution methods, have a talk with your players to find out what is fun for them in a game. Some players do not care what is happening or why they just want to go and resolve/fix the problem of the week.

Exploration/discovery is not a mode of play all players enjoy. There are players that would rather roll a die to see if they know anything rather than have to formulate a question. A game of exploration is anti-fun for these types of players.

If your players love discovery and exploring the unknown then they won't need a skill system or even want one getting in thier way.

Lostsoul do you have firsthand feedback from your players regarding what things are most fun for them? What would be right or wrong as far as information distribution will depend heavily on this.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You could elaborate on the virtues of actually playing through the information gathering: "Maybe one of these fishermen knows something more." That's a fair argument and the reason I brought it up in the first place. What are the virtues of doing it like that? What do you gain, what do you lose?

I would like to point out that one of the base ideas of the sandbox is that players get options. Playing out the quest for information increases those options, as the players learn things that they weren't expecting to learn.

PC1: "What do you know about Misty Lake?"

Fisherman: "What are you messing around there for? Only a fool'd go to Misty Lake."

PC2: "Why? What's there?"

Fisherman: "Not you, if you know what's good for ya!"

PC1: "We're adventurers. We seek to rid this area of troubles."

Fisherman: "Well then, you'd do more good hereabous ridding the alderman of his drink! (laughs, scratches chin thoughtfully) 'Course, there are them nets getting cut down by Rocky Point. Could do with some looking into...."

PC3: "About Misty Lake...."

Fisherman: "Bah. Stay away from there is my advice. The Gentry live out on the lake, 'tis said. My lad says he heard them singing once, through the fog, and the sound of their voices cut through to his very soul. Besides, there's some nasty creatures living near there. Goblins and such....."

etc.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

IMG, four levels of enemy filled dungeon exist to be encountered or surreptitiously bypassed by PCs to reach the harpies' position.

How many of the 1st-4th level encounters do you have in mind, for the harpy setup?

 

[The Shaman]

Exploration/discovery is not a mode of play all players enjoy. There are players that would rather roll a die to see if they know anything rather than have to formulate a question. A game of exploration is anti-fun for these types of players.

If your players love discovery and exploring the unknown then they won't need a skill system or even want one getting in thier way.

On the other hand, if what the referee wants to run is an exploration/discovery-heavy game and all the players want is to be led around by their protrusions or roll dice for answers, then the referee may not enjoy running the game.

I agree that presenting a game the players will enjoy is important, but if I'm not getting what I want from the game as well then I'm not going to keep running it. And no, "The players are having fun," is not all I expect from a game when I'm behind the screen.

Your mileage may do whatever it is your mileage does in these circumstances.

 

[ExploderWizard]

On the other hand, if what the referee wants to run is an exploration/discovery-heavy game and all the players want is to be led around by their protrusions or roll dice for answers, then the referee may not enjoy running the game.

I agree that presenting a game the players will enjoy is important, but if I'm not getting what I want from the game as well then I'm not going to keep running it. And no, "The players are having fun," is not all I expect from a game when I'm behind the screen.

Your mileage may do whatever it is your mileage does in these circumstances.

Quite true. DM/Player incompatibility is truly the root of most (if not all) gamestyle woes.

I have also found that if the DM is not having fun it will only be a matter of time before the rest of the group doesn't either.

 

[Tav_Behemoth]

In a sandbox where the challenges that the PCs face as they travel are not adjusted to their level (either because they're determined by what's on the map or what the dice generate from a random table), I like to use information as a way to scale the encounter to be appropriate for the PCs & posted some ideas about this at the OD&D boards.

As howandwhy says, information is a valuable tool for both characters and their enemies. Taking this into account can create a realistic mechanism for focusing play on only well-matched fights. Creatures that are too weak for the PCs will seek to scout them out; when they gauge that the party is too tough for them they might either avoid combat altogether or come back with enough allies to give them a hope of victory.

Monsters that are too strong for the PCs will also be a source of fear among the similar-level creatures that the PCs mostly interact with. Enemies might seek to lure the PCs towards the lair of the giant; picking up on this tactic will tell the players "what's in there is dangerous". Likewise, friendly or neutral creatures may warn weaker PCs that there's a hill giant in the area, whereas if they thought the PCs could take out that giant they'd try to inspire them to do so.

To answer your original question a little more directly, I think there should be just enough information presented at the start for the players to decide whether they're interested enough in a location to want to work on learning more about it. Giving away too much at the start is a problem both because the quest to gain info is a fundamental activity of sandbox play, and because if they're not interested all that info will just overload them.

One of the (enjoyable) challenges for me in running a sandbox is that I can't cater to what the players want. Even if I know that the players who are at a particular session like social encounters, if they choose to go down a certain corridor they're going to enter a combat meatgrinder. As a result, for me the essential information to present about a location should be as much hints about "what kind of play are we likely to have if we go there?" as "how deadly is it?"

Keeping this in mind will help you make sure that there are hooks for different kinds of play - "this crossroads hosts the annual festival of the gypsies, where a lying contest is held" as well as "this is a mysterious island from which no one ever returns". And it'll inspire you to make sure that the signposts you provide are accurate, so that players won't be disappointed when they go somewhere hoping for social roleplaying and get combat instead.

Some inaccuracy is inevitable - the PCs may draw swords at the gypsy festival and turn it into a big brawl - but you can use the back-and-forth during the information-gathering phase to make sure that the players have a fair chance to learn what kinds of play the festival is likely to entail. If they still get it wrong and are mocked by the gypsies for arriving in full plate, well, that then becomes part of the fun and may perhaps teach the players to investigate more carefully before setting out.

 

[The Shaman]

If, however, the area is dangerous, let it be dangerous. In most situations, if the PCs wander into your island and encounter the harpies, they'll take damage, but they should be able to escape. Maybe a PC will fall, maybe not. Odds are, your PCs will blow all their dailies after they decide to retreat. If they don't retreat, well, they'll know better next time they make PCs. That's part of the FUN of sandboxing.

To have them learn info in a tavern, or hear stuff through local gossip, can be okay... but if there is really enough information for your players to put two and two together, they'll start to wonder why the villagers haven't already. Really, by doing so too much, you start to give the game the feeling of a normal RPG campaign, as opposed to a sandbox - which will hurt the PCs. After all, they were given information about what's in the area... that means they should go there!

Plus, giving away info means the PCs lose the sense of discovery when they do get to the mists. Not to mention that there's no buildup for things. Imagine if the PCs have no idea what's on the island, and make their way in. They get to the island, and are terrified of what lurks in the mist. They find a deer on the beach, that's been torn open... but it seems to have died from a fall... AS the PCs explore, they start getting clues... and then the harpies attack. This is much more fun than "Okay, guys, we're pretty sure there are harpies on this island, so everyone put this wax in your ears so we can resist their song".

Excellent post, Wik.

Some hazards can be identified from clues. Maybe the adventurers are the first to piece together scattered bits of information from different sources, and thereby infer something of the nature of the risks. Or maybe the hazard is simply well-known to the locals.

But genuine terra incognita should be exactly that, and it's up to the players to plan ahead as best they can for a range of conditons and hazards. It's on them to find ways to scout effectively and to make use of all the resources at their disposal, which in most fantasy games at least may include many different manner of scrying and auguries.

 

[howandwhy99]

How many of the 1st-4th level encounters do you have in mind, for the harpy setup?

That was a hypothetical. It's not my campaign and it's a bit off topic. From my perspective, the number you're asking for is a distributive rule set up by the ref ahead of time. Essentially, it's the dungeon level matrix.

I start with the most powerful NPCs in any particular dungeon and increase each layer exponentially as I go downwards, a demographics chart. At start, the "lowest" dungeon level has the most powerful NPCs. Neutral and Lawful forces might also populate areas, so I'd include these in the matrix. Neutral forces don't count for or against a level's difficulty while Lawful factions do count against.

The important thing IMO is parity between Lawful and Chaotic forces in the overall campaign world. This is what keeps each group in check and the dungeons structured as they are. In the world Neutral forces tend to number vastly more than other two, but they form a counterbalance to themselves as well as to the other two.

AD&D suggests harpies are rare and found in plains, hills, and mountains in "Fairie and Sylvan Settings". I wouldn't use their tables or dungeon matrix (on DMG 174), but they give a fair idea of how to randomly set things up, pick within a matrix, and alter or build around commercial products to fit. Almost all of that stuff is going to vary between campaigns anyways. So much of it was just Gygax's home rules. Anyways, to keep the rules hidden behind the screen using a published version is contradictory to me.