Plots in a Sandbox

[Janx]

It's not that "going deeper is dumb."

It's that "going deeper is riskier, with potentially greater rewards."

fair enough, I was only building a silly catch-phrase to make a point.

Going down 1 level lower is riskier, but still within the realm of possible success.

But a 1st level jumping straight down to the 20th is likely suicide. It's the extreme that I'm really talking about. If a PC found a chute to the 20th level of the dungeon, it's pretty unlikely they'll be coming back. I suppose there's somebody willing to do it anyway. But I bet that player also isn't vested in their PC as much.

Anyway, it's my fault for derailing into a choices discussion.

The real point should be, to make sure there are "rational" choices for your PCs to make. Not ones where the decision is inherently obvious because to choose otherwise would be fatal.

I think in a sandbox (or any game style), to make those choices available, you've got to expose information and opportunities (which might be somebody else's weakness) to the players. So they can decide what direction to take and what to pursue.

That might be in the form of "nearby" dungeons. It might be other NPCs with goals that they need help with. It might be "crooked" NPCs that the PCs have no qualms taking down so they can take his role in society.

 

[Janx]

It doesn't feel that way, not when you make the choice in-game to hold off the BBEG so your companions can escape, rather than run yourself. It doesn't feel that much different from making the choice IRL to go downstairs and confront the home invader, rather than cower in the bathroom. In my experience.

In a game where the players are vested in the success of their PCs, you get this effect.

In a game where the PCs keep dying and they just roll up a "Knuckles XII" then I don't think the players feel the same way.

Not that a player doesn't ever "not care" about their PC. But there's varying degrees to how much the player identifies with the PC and whether or not losing that PC is a real loss, or just a setback in a game.

 

[the Jester]

How many of you actually use multi-level dungeons in your sandbox game?

I have several megadungeons in my campaign. Part of the beauty of a megadungeon is that the pcs go in and come out, sometimes leave it behind for a level or six, sometimes spend their whole careers in it. It is generally up to them (unless they get trapped in a deep level- which is also quite possible!) when they go in and how long they stay.

Often, an adventure in a megadungeon has a specific goal: "We know that the Book of Golden Light is held by a minotaur on the fifth level, and that's what we're after!" Very rarely is the goal to clear the dungeon for its own sake.

 

[Janx]

Often, an adventure in a megadungeon has a specific goal: "We know that the Book of Golden Light is held by a minotaur on the fifth level, and that's what we're after!" Very rarely is the goal to clear the dungeon for its own sake.

That's actually good to know. Not that my approval matters to your campaign.

For my own group, we don't tend to be motivated to kill monsters and take their stuff. We tend to solve "campaign world problems" either as heroes or as people clearing obstacles to our own goals (like taking over a town, kingdom, empire). Killing monsters and taking their stuff is just a side effect of solving the problem.

Thus, I don't see a lot of "let's find a dungeon and kill everybody". I do see "we got a problem and if we don't get down to level 5 and find that thingy, we're hosed!"

 

[the Jester]

Another key element to sandbox play is dropping plot hooks that the pcs will never follow up on. Some of these are too hard ("We can't do anything about that ancient dragon that won't let anyone cross the desert, we're only 1st level!"), some too easy ("Kobolds are threatening the little village of Crumb? Who cares? We're 20th level, let someone else do it- we won't get any loot or real xp out of it"), some just not interesting ("Who cares if someone is stealing from the Tailors' Guild?"), some not pressing ("Oh, the sun has a wobble in its orbit? It won't cause any harm for 20,000 years? Why bother?"), and some are outweighed by the party's other concerns ("Yeah, I would love to help the thieves' guild solve its succession war, but we have a caravan to guard for the next 4 months first").

Some of these, the party may return to; others, they won't, and said threads will tend to advance along logical lines until the start of the next group, be it via tpk or simply the group moving on to the next set of 1st level pcs. But they all enrich the milieu and help give the sense that the world is full of danger and excitement. Again, meaningful choices.

 

[Woas]

Lost Soul, do the players have any say in who the NPCs are? Are you planning a more 'traditional' game I.e., D&D where the characters have no built in motivation? I know you have experience with games like BW and maybe DitV so that is why I ask.

 

[howandwhy99]

In a sandbox campaign, do you think it's bad to tailor plots to the characters, and in some respect, the players themselves?

The OP was talking about NPC plots. Can these relate to the PCs? I think so, but most tailoring in my game comes in the form of background submission and module/campaign suggestions. These synchronize both player and character desires and are far larger in scope than might first appear as plenty of people want a magic item or monster or something else to be included in the game world. So I tell them, "write up what your character knows about this, we'll hash out the specifics to fit the game together, and then that will be what you know too." I find if I don't do this, players will read the module or some game rule and expect to use it or win it accordingly.

One idea I've been toying with is instead of having each player create backgrounds for their characters at the start of the campaign (my group is very beer & pretzels, kick in the door), I'll simply ask them what their character's motivation is for adventuring.

I'm a little different than most posters here. The players play however they wish, but the understanding is they will get points for roleplaying well, meaning for performing their class successfully and gaining XP for it. This sets the scope of play. Otherwise I find players going all over into things the game was never meant to support. It's mainly swords and sorcery.

SNIP
Thoughts?

Running an evil or chaotic-aligned group of PCs tends to end with the PC party getting into conflict with itself IME. This may be what you want, but I'd be up front with the players about what might happen. What this means is the primary megadungeon of the campaign will be the lawful one, the city, and towns and forts, etc. are a good place to start. Look at T1 for an example of a lawful dungeon called Hommlet with monsters and treasure written into the module. Allow for the possibility of alliances with evil NPCs, monsters basically, and run your game as usual.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yeah I was actually talking about my particular group.

Fair enough.

No but it does start with the assumption that they are characters in a fantasy world.

My own games don't start with the assumption that the PCs are heroes either, just that they're not villains.

Ok.

Acts of heroism are completely illusory when the life you're risking is just an abstract collection of ideas and numbers. So don't start preaching to me.

Not preaching anything. Simple concept: any activity/behavoir that is the assumed norm is just that-normal.

As opposed to appearing in a story where your proxy has all the courage, determination and self-discipline he/she needs to achieve greatness?

The only difference I'm seeing in these two wish fulfillment fantasies is that one assumes a higher degree of luck than the other.

There is always luck when dice are rolled.

Character death on the first adventure is the most meaningless of all, since the character is rapidly replaced by one of equal worth.

Character death can be meaningful at any level especially when illusory acts of heroism are performed.

 

[Janx]

Another key element to sandbox play is dropping plot hooks that the pcs will never follow up on. Some of these are too hard ("We can't do anything about that ancient dragon that won't let anyone cross the desert, we're only 1st level!"), some too easy ("Kobolds are threatening the little village of Crumb? Who cares? We're 20th level, let someone else do it- we won't get any loot or real xp out of it"), some just not interesting ("Who cares if someone is stealing from the Tailors' Guild?"), some not pressing ("Oh, the sun has a wobble in its orbit? It won't cause any harm for 20,000 years? Why bother?"), and some are outweighed by the party's other concerns ("Yeah, I would love to help the thieves' guild solve its succession war, but we have a caravan to guard for the next 4 months first").

Some of these, the party may return to; others, they won't, and said threads will tend to advance along logical lines until the start of the next group, be it via tpk or simply the group moving on to the next set of 1st level pcs. But they all enrich the milieu and help give the sense that the world is full of danger and excitement. Again, meaningful choices.

I think a key difference in my style and what you're proposing is that I wouldn't bother making stuff the PCs probably won't touch.

You're right, it will add some flavor (kind of like getting the daily newspaper, there's tons of stuff happening in the world that you COULD get involved with).

However, the trade off is, it takes time to write all that stuf up (assuming you do), because they are valid choices for the PCs to make, and therefore possible choices. What happens if the 20th levels do choose to fight off kobolds? What does fixing the sun's orbit entail? And so on.

Mostly, I'm a lazy DM who only wants to build what I'm going to actually need. Since I can't perfectly predict my players, I have to allow for some flexibility and alternatives. But in the extreme, I don't want to make 20 extra plots and dungeons I don't need. I'd rather make it when I need it.

Is there more or less verisimulitude in my game, versus a sandbox? I think either method can be done well enough for the right group of players.

 

[howandwhy99]

How many of you actually use multi-level dungeons in your sandbox game?
SNIP

The entire multiverse is a dungeon in my campaign. This isn't FFE Dungeonworld(TM), but an understanding of how the world is designed.

Politics is always part of the dungeon.

And I use random encounters to populate vast open areas where creature territories overlap and within a single group's territory. These are dungeon level appropriate.