underfoot007ct
First Post
I play almost always play Goal-plot adventures, but It seems like lots of people still enjoy sandbox. So I am interested to see the blend & preferences of what everyone enjoys.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
What style of RPG Adventures do you prefer ?
- Thread starter underfoot007ct
- Start date
howandwhy99
Adventurer
I've begun to think a computer sandbox game is largely static and waits for the player to take action. Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress are prototypical computer sandbox games.
(Now people have actually made dynamic worlds out of these going so far as to programming in them)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGkkyKZVzug
The goal for me is to embed enough of the players desires and characters backgrounds into the world so a small introductory adventure will lead to more goals set by the players. However, even if this doesn't work, enough of the world isn't just going to sit still while your PC might. Wandering Monsters happen, but so do starvation, poverty, and plain ol' theft.
I like to pare down as small as possible, but with more complexity of game play with each rule. The game is a kind of 3D variant of Conway's Game of Life. [3D+ actually, lots of dimensions in D&D] While the original CGoL had only 2-3 rules depending on how you parse them, I track quite a few more, but far, far less than most games would make you suspect.
It really isn't about needing a book of 100s or 1000s of options, though having these prepped is nice. It's more about only ever needing to track what the players have and added and what I have and might add, if not beaten to the punch. And only for session to session. Overbuilding wouldn't work for me, if I wanted, but I do see such settings in sandbox games. They can be great, like a huge, professionally designed adventure book, but I want to be able to have room enough for the players/characters setting growth matter too.
(Now people have actually made dynamic worlds out of these going so far as to programming in them)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGkkyKZVzug
The goal for me is to embed enough of the players desires and characters backgrounds into the world so a small introductory adventure will lead to more goals set by the players. However, even if this doesn't work, enough of the world isn't just going to sit still while your PC might. Wandering Monsters happen, but so do starvation, poverty, and plain ol' theft.
I like to pare down as small as possible, but with more complexity of game play with each rule. The game is a kind of 3D variant of Conway's Game of Life. [3D+ actually, lots of dimensions in D&D] While the original CGoL had only 2-3 rules depending on how you parse them, I track quite a few more, but far, far less than most games would make you suspect.
It really isn't about needing a book of 100s or 1000s of options, though having these prepped is nice. It's more about only ever needing to track what the players have and added and what I have and might add, if not beaten to the punch. And only for session to session. Overbuilding wouldn't work for me, if I wanted, but I do see such settings in sandbox games. They can be great, like a huge, professionally designed adventure book, but I want to be able to have room enough for the players/characters setting growth matter too.
Last edited:
Ahnehnois
First Post
This is one of those false dichotomies. Who says you can't give the players and open world and still have a plot? I guess I'd have to say mix, but one hardly precludes the other.
If anything, the question should be something like this.
DM's, do you prefer to:
*Railroad your players into one specific plot, denying them any influence on the course of events
*Sit back and do nothing, offering no meaningful creative input and simply adjudicating die rolls
*Neither of the above
If anything, the question should be something like this.
DM's, do you prefer to:
*Railroad your players into one specific plot, denying them any influence on the course of events
*Sit back and do nothing, offering no meaningful creative input and simply adjudicating die rolls
*Neither of the above
Gilladian
Adventurer
I said a mix of sandbox and plot/goal, but see, I think that's a deceptive choice.
In MY opinion, sandbox games allow the PCs to set the plot/goal, where the sort of plot/goal game you've referred to is a DM-driven/selected goal.
For example: in a sandbox game the introduction might consist of the PCs living in a village. As they sit in the tavern one evening, they are reminded by the bard's stories that there could be treasure hidden in the old ghost-hauntedruins nearby; a local merchant reports that he's once again been robbed by a bandit group on the highroad; and farmer Fred complains about giant rats scavenging in his fields out near the swamp. The PCs are free to investigate any of the three options, or simply choose to do something else. If they ignore one option, in a few weeks it may have changed or progressed (the bandits get more aggressive, someone else raids the ruins, and the rats are found to carry a horrid disease).
In a plot driven game, Fred the Farmer actually comes to the PCs, and makes them an offer of 1 sp per rat tail they hunt. Nobody mentions the ghost-ruins because the PCs aren't high enough level to handle them, and the only thing they hear about bandits are a few rumors (the DM intends to let them find out where the bandit hideout is NEXT time, after they level up).
The only thing wrong with the first scenario is that the PCs might be unsure which adventure they're capable of handling. In this case, having farmer Fred step up and make his offer after the PCs dither a little can help keep the game moving smoothly. But if the PCs don't take his offer, they can still have fun trying other options.
Plot and goals will grow organically from the sandbox; the PCs will also likely feel more ownership of the game that way. However, they do have to make critical decisions, sometimes with scant information, so it can be frightening rather than exhilarating to some people.
In MY opinion, sandbox games allow the PCs to set the plot/goal, where the sort of plot/goal game you've referred to is a DM-driven/selected goal.
For example: in a sandbox game the introduction might consist of the PCs living in a village. As they sit in the tavern one evening, they are reminded by the bard's stories that there could be treasure hidden in the old ghost-hauntedruins nearby; a local merchant reports that he's once again been robbed by a bandit group on the highroad; and farmer Fred complains about giant rats scavenging in his fields out near the swamp. The PCs are free to investigate any of the three options, or simply choose to do something else. If they ignore one option, in a few weeks it may have changed or progressed (the bandits get more aggressive, someone else raids the ruins, and the rats are found to carry a horrid disease).
In a plot driven game, Fred the Farmer actually comes to the PCs, and makes them an offer of 1 sp per rat tail they hunt. Nobody mentions the ghost-ruins because the PCs aren't high enough level to handle them, and the only thing they hear about bandits are a few rumors (the DM intends to let them find out where the bandit hideout is NEXT time, after they level up).
The only thing wrong with the first scenario is that the PCs might be unsure which adventure they're capable of handling. In this case, having farmer Fred step up and make his offer after the PCs dither a little can help keep the game moving smoothly. But if the PCs don't take his offer, they can still have fun trying other options.
Plot and goals will grow organically from the sandbox; the PCs will also likely feel more ownership of the game that way. However, they do have to make critical decisions, sometimes with scant information, so it can be frightening rather than exhilarating to some people.
Bedrockgames
Legend
I like non railroady adventures. I do not want to sit back as the GM hands us his story, and I am not huge into pure sandbox either. i want interesting situations, powergroups and characters with plen of freedom. I like adventures that are driven by the interaction of these things. So quite into urban adventures, particularly investigations and intrigue.
kitsune9
Adventurer
I'm completely ambivalent about any of the styles so long as the GM is prepared.
If we have a sandbox, give me a hook to go exploring and when I do, let me find something that's interesting and opens into other areas - similar to Grand Theft Auto. I can't say that I ever had a GM who did this even at a mediocre level. Everyone I played who tried this was downright abysmal (aka litterbox campaign), but I know this style works if there's preparation behind it.
If we are on the rails, then give me the illusion of freedom so it seems the choices I make are relevant and pushes the adventure along. I've played in lots of well-written and well-run RPGA modules during my 3.5 days.
If we have a sandbox, give me a hook to go exploring and when I do, let me find something that's interesting and opens into other areas - similar to Grand Theft Auto. I can't say that I ever had a GM who did this even at a mediocre level. Everyone I played who tried this was downright abysmal (aka litterbox campaign), but I know this style works if there's preparation behind it.
If we are on the rails, then give me the illusion of freedom so it seems the choices I make are relevant and pushes the adventure along. I've played in lots of well-written and well-run RPGA modules during my 3.5 days.
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
More plot than railroading, both playing and DMing.
Most DMs are amateurs, not experts. This includes myself, of course. Sandboxing is complex and beyond the skill level of a lot of DMs. I wouldn't even try to run it. Too often we have PCs generated completely apart (in terms of non-metagame stuff) and we end up with X PCs competing for DM time, each with their own agendas, who only interact with each other because they live in the same place. The DMs don't know how to avoid or solve this problem.
The first time I went through a campaign like that, I had my PC attempt to form in-game alliances with other PCs, but due to their own disparate natures, it was impossible to join them together in-game. (Making matters worse, both players I allied with moved out of the country, and therefore the game! Was it something I said?) By the end, a typical session would be 5 hours of competing, and then a battle royale, the only fun part since we were acting as a group, with the DM practically forcing us toward the battle as his and our frustration levels all mounted.
Players also need training for this kind of thing. Right now we have a game group member proposing a Legends of Anglerre sandbox game. Character generation is going very slowly, but we already have three character sheets on our wiki. Even though pretty much all the info is metagame, by this point, those players already have character ideas, and they're not likely to change. The window of opportunity for having a cohesive group is passing quickly.
The DM gave us vague ideas of what we could accomplish in three or ten sessions, but otherwise we have to read the background material, and it's a lot. (Not FR-levels, but still, a lot.) I don't even know where in the world we're starting, so will probably end up being a foreigner to the area by accident.
IMO, the DM needs to ensure we all know each other well (part of the game rules actually accomplish that, fortunately) but that we have a common goal discussed before people start internalizing character ideas. We don't have one, so we will likely have 1 per player.
The only quasi-sandbox I've been in that was successful started out being plot-driven, and only later evolved. Even then, only two players were actually "writing" the plot. I wasn't one of them. Contrary to popular belief, not wanting to write the plot doesn't mean the player isn't having fun or that they're not contributing. (Adding more plotlines would certainly have been a big contribution... to chaos.)
Of course, this is biased. That's how I want my group to be, and already told them this. Other groups might think that's not sandboxy enough, or too limiting, etc.
Last edited:
underfoot007ct
First Post
In your example above, is not truly plot/goal, but sandbox with plot hooks. A better example of plot/goal is that Farmer Fred's daughter has been abducted by the bandits. If she is not found then rescues quickly she will never be seen again. Then future plot hook, the bandits are working for an evil cult which need to be located then dealt with.
The haunted ghost ruins up in the hills is just a mini plot hook, for future sandboxing. A mostly sandbox game can & may have mini plots or even a overall sub-plot, but are in no way certain to grow out of the game.
