Plots in a Sandbox

[Timeboxer]

So as a DM, take some short cuts. Only run what you need to keep the PCs interested and busy. The rest doesn't exist until a PC looks at it.

Like you, I usually use Just-In-Time Plot Creation, with one caveat: In my experience, it's not necessarily important to even come up with your NPCs' goals ahead of time if your party is invested enough. Generally if you throw any sort of apparently random occurrence at your party, they're perfectly willing to spin up any number of possible theories as to why it occurred, at which point you can retroactively decide that what they have come up with is true, false, or true-with-a-twist. (Detail helps to make PCs curious, because they usually assume anything you say must be important; this in turn may drive skill checks to get more information to construct a working theory.)

Mixing that up with some preplanned ideas is usually a good path to approaching a sandbox-like feel, which is what you really want anyway, isn't it?

 

[LostSoul]

I think there is some kind of tension here...

If the opposition is too great the PCs will fail no matter what they choose.

If the opposition is too easy the PCs will succeed no matter what they choose.

In the middle ground the PC's choices will determine their level of success.

How do you go about setting up the situation where the PCs will face the appropriate level of difficulty? You'd have to do this in the face of increasing PC power as well as potential setbacks (which could lead to a vicious circle).

 

[Janx]

I think there is some kind of tension here...

If the opposition is too great the PCs will fail no matter what they choose.

If the opposition is too easy the PCs will succeed no matter what they choose.

In the middle ground the PC's choices will determine their level of success.

How do you go about setting up the situation where the PCs will face the appropriate level of difficulty? You'd have to do this in the face of increasing PC power as well as potential setbacks (which could lead to a vicious circle).

By not making more than I atively need, I don't have to set CR levels of bad guys until the party is soon to interact with them. Thus, I don't end up with "stale" bad guys who the party has out leveled.

I also don't bring in big long term threats against the party. At 1st level, the party learns about 1st level problems the village is having. By fifth level, they're well known in the area and are asked to help with 5th level problems.

By 10th level, they learn about the bad guy in the east who is starting to raise an army against their region. Who happens to be "high enough" when the party finally confronts him.

I don't start with a 20th level bad guy who threatens the realm at the start of the campaign that the PCs learn about in the first adventure.

I may create a number of countries ruled by 'bad guys", but by making them referenced as "over there" and not a threat right now, the PCs feel free to pursue local concerns.

players tend to respond to immediate threats and opportunities. Make something immediate, and the PC will go for it. In turn, make it the right difficulty for what you need to happen next.

 

[Coldwyn]

@Janx:

But that doesn´t really discribe a sandbox, right?

 

[bardolph]

...and by "Plots" I mean goals that the NPCs have.

I have some questions about this.

1. Is it bad to have too many plots?

Not really. Just realize that your PCs may or may not appreciate NPC motivations.

2. How many plots should you have going on?

As many as you the DM can handle. If you're willing to assign a different plot to every NPC, go for it. As above, realize that the campaign's real stars, the PCs, may or may not care what drives each NPC. However, assigning them individual motivations will give them depth and believability, which is what you want as a DM.

3. Does the scale/scope of those plots make a difference?

It depends. If every single NPC harbors some world-shattering secret, it will get tiresome after a while.

A good question to ask is, what will happen if the PCs completely ignore this particular NPC? If you end up overwhelming yourself with the consequences of PC inaction, then you have too many plots.

4. Should those plots sit in stasis until the PCs come along?

Yes, and no. Yes, you should activate a plot whenever it's convenient to do so. No, you should not let your players know you're doing this. As long as you can maintain the illusion that the world is a constantly evolving place, you've done your job.

---

In my personal experience, most of my campaigns have ONE overarching plot, and ONE sub-plot at any given time. I do this because I like getting the group focused on the task at hand.

HOWEVER, my group's PCs are usually not well-behaved, and like to generate their own plots independently from what I throw at them. I consider this a good thing, so I will usually try to oblige them by fleshing out whatever content they need to pursue their own goals.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[LostSoul]

In turn, make it the right difficulty for what you need to happen next.

There isn't anything that I need or want to happen next.

All I really want is for the players to make meaningful decisions. Their choices drive play. That means that there have to be consequences from the decisions that they make.

Let's say that they ignore the necromancer who wants to plumb the depths of the ancient crypt, and the guy who wants to keep it hidden. Instead they muscle out the merchant who's building a logging camp and run it for themselves.

There are natural consequences of that action: the merchant might have friends who are willing to fight for him to reclaim the logging camp, anyone who's interested in keeping the status quo will see their violent actions as a threat, elves might get pissed off, a dryad might attack the loggers, the PCs get a steady influx of cash, they have guys who support the PCs (since they are providing them with jobs), they have guys whom they need to support (oh no, there's no more booze, the loggers are getting restless), they make ties with other places that need lumber, caravans have to deal with them, etc.

But what about the necromancer and the hidden crypt? What happens there? This seems to be trickier.

And what if you've got a number of "necromancers" wandering the land, with their own little plots, mucking stuff up? How many of these guys is too many? How many is too few? How does the scale of their plots (from "I want to take over my neighbour's farm" to "Let the world burn") feed into that?

You need these other guys or else the first choice (to take over the logging camp) wasn't a choice, it was the only thing for the PCs to do.

 

[bardolph]

There isn't anything that I need or want to happen next.

All I really want is for the players to make meaningful decisions. Their choices drive play. That means that there have to be consequences from the decisions that they make.

Let's say that they ignore the necromancer who wants to plumb the depths of the ancient crypt, and the guy who wants to keep it hidden. Instead they muscle out the merchant who's building a logging camp and run it for themselves.

There are natural consequences of that action: the merchant might have friends who are willing to fight for him to reclaim the logging camp, anyone who's interested in keeping the status quo will see their violent actions as a threat, elves might get pissed off, a dryad might attack the loggers, the PCs get a steady influx of cash, they have guys who support the PCs (since they are providing them with jobs), they have guys whom they need to support (oh no, there's no more booze, the loggers are getting restless), they make ties with other places that need lumber, caravans have to deal with them, etc.

But what about the necromancer and the hidden crypt? What happens there? This seems to be trickier.

And what if you've got a number of "necromancers" wandering the land, with their own little plots, mucking stuff up? How many of these guys is too many? How many is too few? How does the scale of their plots (from "I want to take over my neighbour's farm" to "Let the world burn") feed into that?

You need these other guys or else the first choice (to take over the logging camp) wasn't a choice, it was the only thing for the PCs to do.

See my post above.

It's not important to create a complete simulation. Maybe it matters that the PCs ignored the necromancer, maybe it doesn't.

If your PCs are enterprising enough to open up their own lumber camp, why shouldn't that lumber camp be the center of your campaign? After all, you already know that the PCs are invested in this plot-line, since they came up with it themselves!

Now, the ignored-necromancer-side-plot is certainly a hook that you can spring on your PCs when the time is right. However, it's not important to keep track of every unknown/unimportant/ignored NPC plot.

What's important is that you keep your PCs engaged, and if you give them a sense that previous decisions affect future plot developments, so much the better.

EDIT: one trap you want to avoid falling into is punishing players for wanting to drive their own plotline. If you go too far to force the PCs into failure in their lumber camp enterprise, you run the risk of discouraging them from being enterprising in the first place. (I'm speaking from personal experience here -- there's nothing more tragic -- or funny -- than depressed PCs!).

 

[Snoweel]

And what if you've got a number of "necromancers" wandering the land, with their own little plots, mucking stuff up? How many of these guys is too many? How many is too few? How does the scale of their plots (from "I want to take over my neighbour's farm" to "Let the world burn") feed into that?

You need these other guys or else the first choice (to take over the logging camp) wasn't a choice, it was the only thing for the PCs to do.

It depends on how much the PCs care.

If they're not bothered by every little rumour of Evil-over-the-next-hill then you can throw more rumours at them in the knowledge that what doesn't stick just becomes background events.

But if they feel they have to sally forth and right every wrong then keep loose threads to a minimum - no more than three or even two.

A useful method is to allow them to kill two birds with one stone. Closure is an important part of any quest.

 

[Nagol]

There isn't anything that I need or want to happen next.

All I really want is for the players to make meaningful decisions. Their choices drive play. That means that there have to be consequences from the decisions that they make.

Let's say that they ignore the necromancer who wants to plumb the depths of the ancient crypt, and the guy who wants to keep it hidden. Instead they muscle out the merchant who's building a logging camp and run it for themselves.

There are natural consequences of that action: the merchant might have friends who are willing to fight for him to reclaim the logging camp, anyone who's interested in keeping the status quo will see their violent actions as a threat, elves might get pissed off, a dryad might attack the loggers, the PCs get a steady influx of cash, they have guys who support the PCs (since they are providing them with jobs), they have guys whom they need to support (oh no, there's no more booze, the loggers are getting restless), they make ties with other places that need lumber, caravans have to deal with them, etc.

But what about the necromancer and the hidden crypt? What happens there? This seems to be trickier.

And what if you've got a number of "necromancers" wandering the land, with their own little plots, mucking stuff up? How many of these guys is too many? How many is too few? How does the scale of their plots (from "I want to take over my neighbour's farm" to "Let the world burn") feed into that?

You need these other guys or else the first choice (to take over the logging camp) wasn't a choice, it was the only thing for the PCs to do.

What I do is keep a log of each session -- what activities were completed, expected consequences and timeline until they're felt, what activities were filed or ignored. These get put in a "loose ends" section. Whenever I'm looking for new activity fodder, I look through the loose ends to see if there is one or more that can be pulled into a new situation to offer to the players as a hook. This way the world has a feel of consequence and evolution without requiring a full simulation and constant supervision.

For the necromancer example , I note that the group ignored the necromancer. He goes into my loose ends section. A few game sessions later, I want a few new threads to dangle in front of the players and notice that the necromancer was still looking for the tomb. A few months of game time has passed -- is there an appropriate consequence that forms an adventure from him finding the tomb? Did he release something? Did he find a danger and need patsies to clear out a deadly section for him? Did he find enough power to want something else -- like a town full of humans for sacrifice/zombification?

 

[Ariosto]

How do you go about setting up the situation where the PCs will face the appropriate level of difficulty?

In old D&D: Let the players choose whatever they consider 'appropriate'. An environment set up like the dungeon -- with greater challenges and rewards on deeper levels -- makes that especially easy.

Otherwise, use real life as a model; then, players can as well. What warning signs alert us to things out of our league? Adjust as necessary for a good game; some "sudden death" situations might be mis-applied "realism".

In new D&D: There seems to be an assumption that the DM is responsible for making each encounter 'level-appropriate'. That might not be compatible with "sandbox", but I leave it to you to define your terms. In any case, the 4e DMG is chock full of advice and tools to help you make such encounters.