Pathfinder 1E Sandboxes? Forked from Paizo reinvents hexcrawling

[Sammael]

What I've never understood is why so many D&D games don't begin with the same premise. From the adventurers' perspective, you've got armor, weapons, maybe a spell book, and some gear, and a handful of coins in your purse if you're lucky. On the most basic level, what happens when those coins run out?

Because, from my experience, the vast majority of D&D players can't deal with that. When placed in a sandbox, those players are simply overwhelmed with the idea that they can go anywhere, do anything... so they basically waste session upon session on pointless bickering regarding their party's direction and goals. If they even manage to form a party in the first place (since forcing the characters to start as a party sort of defeats the point of the sandbox).

I've only met three or four players over my 12 years in the hobby that could handle sandboxing well, and I've met a grand total of one game master (who runs Warhammer Fantasy as his game of choice... it's an easy setting to sandbox).

 

[Ariosto]

From Mongoose's Lankhmar supplement for RuneQuest:

Fritz Leiber was among a small number of fantasy
writers that truly coined the notion of adventuring in the
way we, as players of roleplaying games, understand it
today. Adventuring in its purest form is living by the wit
and the blade, opting out of normal society and getting
by as part-vagabond, part-scoundrel and part-mercenary.
For those with a band of moral fi bre within them, they
can add ‘part-hero’ to that list. Adventurers rarely have
an overall life goal beyond surviving another day and
making enough money to eat, though they generally
have lofty ambitions that involve vast riches, fame and
no shortage of glory. Put bluntly, adventuring is a career
dedicated to enjoying life and making the most out of a
man’s span of years in the world – answering to none,
relying on instincts and true friends and always keeping
an eye out for the next great opportunity to see something
new or make some easy money.

 

[Melan]

Hobo: thank you for your response! Unfortunately, I have no time to answer at length right now, but I'd just like to let you know that your post has been read and appreciated.

 

[Bluenose]

What you call a "thought experiment" and consider "impossible" is how I run games.

Not exactly. I mean, I run my games in such a way that the results approximate to what you do, but that isn't what I'm suggesting as the thought experiment. What I'm suggesting is that while there are certain things going on, any action the PCs take might have consequences that change them dramatically. To take your example, if the PCs eliminate a bandit gang and go on their merry way, that bandit gang won't capture the Imperial ambassador for ransom, and he'll get to Modena on time to offer an Imperial princess' hand in marriage, which means the next Duke won't be married to a French princess and won't offer the French local support in Italy against the Spanish, so instead the French will start interfering in the Rhineland. And since the PCs ended up causing trouble in the Balkans and provoked an Ottoman invasion of Hungary, this means the French have a chance to do this with less likelihood they'll be at war with the Emperor. I'm suggesting that no DM is going to keep track of the consequences of everything the PCs do in that sort of detail.

 

[Desdichado]

Hobo: thank you for your response! Unfortunately, I have no time to answer at length right now, but I'd just like to let you know that your post has been read and appreciated.

Well, you're welcome! I look forward to reading your response when you can get to it.

 

[Desdichado]

What I've never understood is why so many D&D games don't begin with the same premise. From the adventurers' perspective, you've got armor, weapons, maybe a spell book, and some gear, and a handful of coins in your purse if you're lucky. On the most basic level, what happens when those coins run out?

Probably because that, as I mentioned earlier, is akin to requiring your characters to be entrepreneurs. In the real world, relatively few people have the personality to be entrepreneurs. Why would these same people want to do so in game, suddenly?

But more importantly, why'd you take up the profession of arms, or the priesthood, or the arcane arts, in the first place? To serve as a guard on the town gate, collecting tolls? Cast cure light wounds on some farmer who falls off a ladder while thatching his hovel? Serve as court wizard, casting comprehend languages for some petty lordling? Or to make something more of yourself? If the latter, why are you standing there looking at your effing shoes?

Probably because to a significant number of players that doesn't sound very interesting. They'd rather have an adventure semi-spoonfed to them that's exciting than go look for a 9-5 in-game.

In the games I run it's my role to fill the world with all sorts of resources with interesting applications. It's up to the players to locate and apply those resources available in the game-world to fulfilling the goals of their characters.

This gets back to my main point; when pro-sandbox folks start to talk about how they actually run their games, the difference between sandbox and non-sandbox starts to become razor thin. How is this different from how I run a game, where I throw out all kinds of potential hooks for players to do with as they will? Other than that I "railroad" a bit for the first session or two until the players have found their own feet, and when I'm ready to stop, I start "forcing" things to come to a head and close out satisfyingly, what you describe as your sandbox sounds nearly exactly the same as how I describe my non-sandbox.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't see why players could not agree in advance to play until some condition is met.

I granted the same, upthread, as an "end of world" scenario. I would agree that players may choose to stop playing (obviously), but that this is not a "goal" of the sandbox. Certainly not in the way that an end condition is a goal of an Adventure Path.

"Gygaxian sandbox" may be a handy term, as he is the most famous game master of that sort.

But, as you point out, hardly alone!

What you call a "thought experiment" and consider "impossible" is how I run games.

What I've never understood is why so many D&D games don't begin with the same premise. From the adventurers' perspective, you've got armor, weapons, maybe a spell book, and some gear, and a handful of coins in your purse if you're lucky. On the most basic level, what happens when those coins run out?

But more importantly, why'd you take up the profession of arms, or the priesthood, or the arcane arts, in the first place? To serve as a guard on the town gate, collecting tolls? Cast cure light wounds on some farmer who falls off a ladder while thatching his hovel? Serve as court wizard, casting comprehend languages for some petty lordling? Or to make something more of yourself? If the latter, why are you standing there looking at your effing shoes?

You're not alone.

Because, from my experience, the vast majority of D&D players can't deal with that.

My experience is the opposite.

I certainly grant that, right now, players who are introduced to the hobby through WotC-D&D seem to have a much harder time grasping the concept than those introduced through TSR-D&D, but I suspect that this is largely a matter of presentation.

IMHO, it is a good idea to start a sandbox with a firm goal of some sort (i.e., a treasure map, or something similar), and throw out at least three hooks (links to other possible adventures) in each session while the PCs pursue that initial goal. Some of these hooks may point to the same location. Some might be banal. Some might be beyond the PCs at this point.

The main idea is to get them doing something, and then to provide them with some ideas of what else they could be doing.

What I'm suggesting is that while there are certain things going on, any action the PCs take might have consequences that change them dramatically. To take your example, if the PCs eliminate a bandit gang and go on their merry way, that bandit gang won't capture the Imperial ambassador for ransom, and he'll get to Modena on time to offer an Imperial princess' hand in marriage, which means the next Duke won't be married to a French princess and won't offer the French local support in Italy against the Spanish, so instead the French will start interfering in the Rhineland. And since the PCs ended up causing trouble in the Balkans and provoked an Ottoman invasion of Hungary, this means the French have a chance to do this with less likelihood they'll be at war with the Emperor. I'm suggesting that no DM is going to keep track of the consequences of everything the PCs do in that sort of detail.

That seems a fairly simple example to keep track of!

All the GM has to do is think, "What happened this session? Who was involved? How does that affect future events?"


RC

 

[Sammael]

All the GM has to do is think, "What happened this session? Who was involved? How does that affect future events?"

See, but most decent GMs already do this, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with sandboxing. The game can be both character-driven and story-driven at the same time, with intertwined plots - that way, players get to do their stuff, and the world doesn't feel static, because there are ongoing plots that don't hang suspended in mid-air until the PCs encounter them.

 

[Raven Crowking]

See, but most decent GMs already do this, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with sandboxing.

Then why would it be a specific problem with sandboxing?

(Please note that, AFAICT, no one suggested this was not a characteristic of other games. AFAICT, the only claim made was that it was too complex for any GM to do! Which I disputed.)

 

[Umbran]

Probably because that, as I mentioned earlier, is akin to requiring your characters to be entrepreneurs. In the real world, relatively few people have the personality to be entrepreneurs. Why would these same people want to do so in game, suddenly?

I suspect there's another issue at hand as well. The GM generally has huge amounts of information about the world at his command, in the back of their head. The players don't. They have only what they've been told, and often don't feel secure in making assumptions beyond that.

Lacking information with which to narrow down the possibilities, players will often succumb to option paralysis.