Shaman seems to run what I'm calling a Social Sandbox.
That's an interesting description,
Janx, but I wonder if maybe we get too far into labels. What the 3e
DMG called a
status quo setting (and I'm sorry I no longer have a copy or I'd pull out the page reference for you) and what is often referred to as a 'sandbox' used to just be simply 'the setting.'
He's got like a zillion NPCs on some magic encounter table he made. And he alludes to doing some reaction rolls to see what they do. I haven't see Reaction Rolls made since 2e. Do people still use those? What kind of tables does Shaman have?
Well, it's
not quite a zillion, but I am still working on it, so maybe in the future. How many zeros in a zillion, anyway?
I've described how I run my game
here and especially
here, with an actual play example
here, but to summarize, I generate random encounters using the tables provided in
Flashing Blades; about a third of these encounters are crossed with a second encounter (roll of five or six on 1D6), then the whole thing may be skinned to represent some sort of
in media res event.
A number of these encounters utilize named npcs, as in the actual play example; named npcs may appear in more than one encounter, so there is an opportunity for conincidences to arise randomly in play.
There's no magic to it, of course; in fact, it's not even original, as it pretty much follows the approach to random encounters in the adventures
Mad Mesa and
Burned Bush Wells for
Boot Hill.
As far as reactions go,
FB does not include a random reaction table, so I use the one from little black book
Traveller, which I know from memory; if an adventurer is using a skill such as Etiquette or Captaincy, then I may require a resistance roll by the npc. I mayl throw in a mod to reflect what I know of the situation represented by the encounter as well. The combination of the reaction roll or skill check results and the developing situation are my guide to how the npcs respond to the adventurers.
It sounds like a lot of randomness, but that's the way I like it; it's also why I use the Mythic system in setting up and resolving encoutners as well. Stochasticity keeps me from falling into predictable patterns and makes the game more challenging, and entertaining, to run.
If nothing else, I advocate the methods I use, to redirect GM arbitrariness by constraining most encounters.
Could you provide an example of what you mean by this,
Janx?
As for Dungeons not being the stereotypical sandbox, there've been plenty of threads where they have been cited as the foundation of sandbox play by die-hard advocates. I wasn't trying to bash them, but show some respect, that at least in a dungeon, there is a control for encounter level built into the standard model.
Fair 'nuf.
With
D&D as the granddaddy of 'em all, ultimately everything goes back to the dungeon, after a fashion, but here's something to else to remember: what we're labelling 'sandbox' settings were also found in
Metamorphosis Alpha (the starship
Warden),
Boot Hill (El Dorado County), and
Traveller (which provided rules for creating planets and subsectors of star systems - the actual Spinward Marches setting wouldn't appear in print until 1979, iirc), all by 1977, when the blue box was the most current version of the game and the only
AD&D book was the
Monster Manual.
I've heard other gamers make the claim you allude to,
Janx, of dungeons as the model for sandboxes, but I think that misses something important: the earliest campaigns also featured wilderness components as well as dungeons, very shortly after their inception. Take a look at Dave Arneson's
The First Fantasy Campaign, and you'll see what I believe is the real foundation of the 'sandbox' in the lands extending beyond Blackmoor Castle, or on the celebrated
Outdoor Survival gameboards that Gary Gygax mentions in
The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures. In fact, as we see in volume 3 of the
OD&D rules, wilderness encounters were already nothing like the dungeon with its levels providing a rough correspondence to the nature of the challenges therein.
Just something to ponder about where all those sandboxers' 'crazy ideas' come from.
Now and then I've made a higher level version of a monster. On this forum I do see a lot complaining about the process. I looked at the problem as this. I bought a MM. If I keep modiying orcs, the players will never get to fight stuff from the rest of the book. Not to say there's not been a time and place for leveled monsters. Just that there's a variety of critters that as a player, I want to kill.
Put another way, my GM friend has a habit of running through the same critter for a long time. I've done the flightless green dragons theme. The vampires amok theme. The Orcs March South Theme. The Rust Monsters theme. The Beholders Gone Wild Theme. Frankly, me and my friends would rather see encounter variety than more orcs, level 13. But that example is a bit extreme where if 1 was good, 5,000 must be better.
Ugh, that sounds incredibly frustrating.
I'm like you,
Janx - give me variety!
Wormy was a great inspiration to me when I was learning to referee, because I liked the idea of strange monsters teaming up together; I tended to come up with all sorts of strange allies, like a mimic and a lurker above who were followed around by a gelatinous cube and a purple worm who listened for the sounds of leucrotta calls.
That said, when I wanted a hobgoblin warlord, a
capo di tutti capi, a leader of several tribes, I'd take a chief and add a couple of hit dice to him, bump his armor class up a bit, and give him a magic weapon.
I don't think anyone's advocating an all-orc-all-the-time approach. At least I hope they're not.
I must've skipped that chapter in the 3e DMG, never saw the term (or I forgot it).
Again, sorry I can't pull up the page reference for you.
Since I don't tend to make up stats for stuff I don't think I'm going to need, I don't have a whole lot of NPCs sitting around waiting to be encountered. I do have ideas on what kinds of people are around, and I generally would be too lazy to go back and level up NPCs except in rare occasions.
When i make up game content, I'm looking at what I'll need for what the PCs will be attempting next. I'll roll up some random encounters for some opposition ideas, based on environment or level. Thats where I mostly stick to "level appropriate".
Difference of opinion, horse races, and all that.
And like Shaman agreed, an Ogre (CR3) may very well be on the menu for the 1st level party as the big challenge.
Definitely.
For me, every time I've brought in a high level NPC, it felt like a railroad scenario. As in, meet the high level NPC villain at the dinner party where you'd best be nice to or he'll kill you in the coat closet with a canape knife.
Or a spoon, 'cause it hurts more.
I personally haven't found this to be a problem; the adventurers are not always the biggest fish in the sea, and an encounter with a dangerous foe which doesn't go "boom" can be an interesting roleplaying and setting exploration opportunity.
Frex, in my game, the adventurers' actions mentioned in my actual play example may result in a summons from Cardinal Richelieu; it's a logical extension of the events of the game resulting from some behind the scenes machinations out of the adventurers' view, and it's also genre-appropriate. The adventurers could in fact refuse such a summons from the Cardinal, but unless they have some poweful allies to protect them, they should expect some sort of serious consequences to follow.
This isn't railroading the adventurers, however. Railroading the adventurers would be making it impossible to refuse the summons. Cardinal Richelieu is influential and powerful enough that he could attempt to imprison or execute the adventurers at any time, and if the adventurers were perceived as 'enemies of France,' that would be a reasonable action for him to take. That's a constraint of the setting (and a genre conceit), however, not an attempt to force the adventurers into a specific course of action.
So, I don't advise throwing them in willy-nilly, if at all. . . . Thats not a rule for all GMs to follow, but its not a bad thing for a new GM to consider avoiding until they've got a handle on things.
It's not bad advice at all, but with some experience it loses its utility.
