D&D 5E What separates a sandbox adventure from an AP?

[77IM]

For years I have relied on an adventure-design framework I call clear goals, fluid obstacles.

1. "Clear goals" means the whole party shares one (or several) very specific and clear goals so they know what they are supposed to be achieving. E.g., kill this dude, rescue that dude, solve this mystery, retrieve this MacGuffin, etc. This is very important to keeping the party on track, preventing them from wandering off or splitting the party or not knowing what they are supposed to be doing (that sort of waffling sometimes comes up in a sandbox game and can really kill momentum).

2. You can have a patron assign the goal, or for a longer-term goal you could ask the players to come up with reasons why it's important to them. For example, if you want a sandbox campaign that is about killing the local evil wizard, ask each player to explain why their PC hates that wizard and wants him dead.

3. "Fluid obstacles" means you think up a bunch of stuff that is in the way, preventing the players from completing their goals -- but you don't tell the players what those obstacles are. Well, maybe you tell them the initial and obvious obstacles (e.g. "The local evil wizard is a powerful wizard who lives in a tower and probably won't want you to kill him.") but for the most part you let the players discover what it is they need to do.

4. The obstacles are fluid because you can add them at more or less any time. This gives you good control over pacing. If the players are racing towards the goal in a way that is boring, add a couple of obstacles (encounters, puzzles, complications). If the adventure is dragging on... well, maybe skip the last obstacle or two. I think it's handy to come up with these obstacles ahead of time, and make sure all the obstacles are plausible and make sense. That way the players won't feel like you are just messing with them.

Anyway, my point is, if you want to run a sandbox game with a "story" this is one good way to do it. As long as the PCs advance towards their goal and eventually face a climactic encounter, it should work out OK.

 

[SirAntoine]

You never eliminate railroading, EVER. You can only minimize it, keep whittling it down with experience. The key is to make sure your PC's have choices and options every step of the way. Be that during a combat encounter or roleplaying encounter, and if they make there own choice instead of using one of yours, even better.

Whether its a pre-written module or a "Sandbox" style campaign. There are still rails. To get from page 1 to the end of the book, gotta stay on the rails somehow to get to the end. If its a "Sandbox", well there is only so much sand, and the box is only so big.
None of this is a bad thing, it simply is what it is. You'll never eliminate railroading ever. But as a DM there are things you can do and techniques to use to ensure your PC's have as many options and choices as possible, and let the PC's feel that their actions help steer the world they are in in some fashion. IMO

Well said.

 

[Mark CMG]

"Railroad" and "sandbox" are not two ends of the same continuum. "Story" and "sandbox" are. "Railroad" is a mechanism of play, a kind of writing and/or DMing that precludes deviation from the track. While you can't have a sandbox that is a railroad, not all games that aren't sandboxes are railroads. Again, it is a metaphor that has actual meaning. If you strip it of that meaning, it becomes (wait for it) meaningless.

I've always felt that Railroad and Sandbox were part of a continuum. Story can come out of either but more of it is pre-written in a Railroad. A Sandbox is more about the GM including setting elements (things, places, and people [inclusive of their motivations and plans]) and allowing the characters introduced by the players to develop a story through their choices and actions. A Railroad has one (or possibly a few) potential stories in which the player characters play a part but have fewer meaningful choices, sometimes none in extreme cases.

In a Railroad, there is a better chance for a coherent, engaging story to come about as a result of gameplay due to so much of it being pre-written. Sometimes the story yielded by Sandbox play can be little more than the player characters going here and there, killing some things, and taking some stuff. Players have different expectations when they sit down to a table. Some players prefer being somewhere in particular along the continuum and many have a range in which they enjoy playing, sometimes way out to both extremes of the Sandbox / Railroad continuum. That's been my experience, anyway.

 

[Reynard]

I've always felt that Railroad and Sandbox were part of a continuum. Story can come out of either but more of it is pre-written in a Railroad. A Sandbox is more about the GM including setting elements (things, places, and people [inclusive of their motivations and plans]) and allowing the characters introduced by the players to develop a story through their choices and actions. A Railroad has one (or possibly a few) potential stories in which the player characters play a part but have fewer meaningful choices, sometimes none in extreme cases.

In a Railroad, there is a better chance for a coherent, engaging story to come about as a result of gameplay due to so much of it being pre-written. Sometimes the story yielded by Sandbox play can be little more than the player characters going here and there, killing some things, and taking some stuff. Players have different expectations when they sit down to a table. Some players prefer being somewhere in particular along the continuum and many have a range in which they enjoy playing, sometimes way out to both extremes of the Sandbox / Railroad continuum. That's been my experience, anyway.

Like I said, thecontinuum IMO is "plotted" versus "sandbox" with "railroad" being a potential aspect of "plotted" but not necessarily.

 

[SirAntoine]

"Railroad" and "sandbox" are not two ends of the same continuum. "Story" and "sandbox" are. "Railroad" is a mechanism of play, a kind of writing and/or DMing that precludes deviation from the track. While you can't have a sandbox that is a railroad, not all games that aren't sandboxes are railroads. Again, it is a metaphor that has actual meaning. If you strip it of that meaning, it becomes (wait for it) meaningless.

The destination itself can be changed or replaced with another in a sandbox. Railroading occurs wherever and whenever it does. You can't just take it all out.

 

[Mark CMG]

Like I said, thecontinuum IMO is "plotted" versus "sandbox" with "railroad" being a potential aspect of "plotted" but not necessarily.

Yup. My opinion differs and I outlined it so you would know what I thought. Our difference lies in terminology, it seems, as "plotted" equates to Railroad, IMO. Story, from my experience, can come from either but is less pre-written the further toward the Sandbox side of the continuum.

 

[SirAntoine]

For years I have relied on an adventure-design framework I call clear goals, fluid obstacles.

1. "Clear goals" means the whole party shares one (or several) very specific and clear goals so they know what they are supposed to be achieving. E.g., kill this dude, rescue that dude, solve this mystery, retrieve this MacGuffin, etc. This is very important to keeping the party on track, preventing them from wandering off or splitting the party or not knowing what they are supposed to be doing (that sort of waffling sometimes comes up in a sandbox game and can really kill momentum).

2. You can have a patron assign the goal, or for a longer-term goal you could ask the players to come up with reasons why it's important to them. For example, if you want a sandbox campaign that is about killing the local evil wizard, ask each player to explain why their PC hates that wizard and wants him dead.

3. "Fluid obstacles" means you think up a bunch of stuff that is in the way, preventing the players from completing their goals -- but you don't tell the players what those obstacles are. Well, maybe you tell them the initial and obvious obstacles (e.g. "The local evil wizard is a powerful wizard who lives in a tower and probably won't want you to kill him.") but for the most part you let the players discover what it is they need to do.

4. The obstacles are fluid because you can add them at more or less any time. This gives you good control over pacing. If the players are racing towards the goal in a way that is boring, add a couple of obstacles (encounters, puzzles, complications). If the adventure is dragging on... well, maybe skip the last obstacle or two. I think it's handy to come up with these obstacles ahead of time, and make sure all the obstacles are plausible and make sense. That way the players won't feel like you are just messing with them.

Anyway, my point is, if you want to run a sandbox game with a "story" this is one good way to do it. As long as the PCs advance towards their goal and eventually face a climactic encounter, it should work out OK.

The common denominator is time. How much do the obstacles take away from what the players want to do?

 

[Psikerlord#]

With 5e I am inspired to try and run a sandbox again. In 4e it wasnt possible, and I think having played 4e for years, it's hard to shake off. I think a big part of sandbox is being willing to improvise, esp when the party ignores all your hooks and creates a side trek all of their own. These are often among the most fun games Ive played in, or DM'd.

Tips wise - I think it is easier to sandbox these days. Especially if you have access to your laptop. Many random generators can help you improvise - donjon has fleshed out random generators for NPCs, random encounters, treasure, trinkets and of course - dungeons. Another site, Wizardawn, has random towns - I kid you not - with named NPCs and shops, and a town map and everything.

With these kinds of random generators at your disposal, improvising at a moment's notice is a lot easier, or so I find. So my tip is - take your laptop with you and make use of these newfangled digital tools!

 

[S'mon]

My thoughts:

The introduction: How railroady is too railroady?

a. Starter dungeon - In classic Moldvay/Mentzer D&D the expectation was that the PCs would start at the
entrance to the starter dungeon, but with a motivation for exploring it. But once they got
back to town the sandbox would open up.
b. Rumours. Those rumour tables in Judges Guild stuff and old TSR modules were there
for a reason. Sandbox PCs should never be lacking in rumours of things to investigate.
This also explains why old school PCs hang out at inns - that's where the rumours are. Be sure to always have at least 2-3 rumours ready for the PCs to investigate, if they choose. Most rumours
should relate to interesting adventure sites. Some can be time-critical 'missions' but those
are un-sandboxy; the PCs will always feel they need to rescue that princess before she gets
sacrificed to Orcus.
c. Overarching mission - sandbox PCs don't have to be footloose wanderers; you can have the PCs start as members of an organisation such as the Texas Rangers or Starfleet, exploring/patrolling/peacekeeping. Arthurian questing knights are ok. But they need a lot of freedom of action in where to go and what to do.

Player vs monster level: This is much less of a problem in 5E than in 4E, but how do you plan appropriately balanced encounters in a sandbox when you don't know when or how players will tackle them?

"Environment" Design - you create a range of environments suited to a range of PC levels.
Traditionally this is a megadungeon with stacked threat levels, the deeper you go the
bigger the challenge and reward. This lets players choose their preferred threat level.
It can also be done in wilderness sandboxing, with different terrains & areas having
different threat levels. It should be widely known that the Mountains of Doom are more
dangerous than the Foothills of Mild Adversity. Again this lets the players choose their own threat level. The Ars Ludi West Marches posts discuss this well. Typically more dangerous areas are further away from starter town, but you can have the Barrow Mounds right on the edge of the Shire, too.

The conclusion: When is a sandbox adventure over? My players are a big fan of free agency, but they are equally big fans of story, including the climax, the denouement, and the eventual
end.

a. Traditionally the sandbox dungeon has the dragon or mad wizard or lich in a chamber at
the very bottom, defeat the ultimate foe to 'win' the dungeon. Full sandbox campaigns do
not have endings, they are more like episodic TV serials or picaresques than movies.
But many stories should emerge in the course of play, and these will have beginnings and
endings.
b. Have lots of dynamic NPCs in your sandbox with their own motivations. Have them plot
and act independently of the PCs. Some of them will be antagonists. From this antagonism
great stories will naturally emerge - bottom-up, not top-down. The 2e Villains book is
very good for creating interesting antagonists - http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/16900/DMGR6-The-Complete-Book-of-Villains-2e?it=1

Player paralysis: With no big sign saying "go here, do this" my players are apt to scratch their heads and say, "I dunnow."

Rumours again - but not too many! Unless the players are actively seeking more rumours,
three is plenty. That gives choices without overwhelming them. However if they
absolutely refuse to decide what to do then you may need to have the old man offer
them gold to do X. This should work unless they're actively Turtling, in which case sandbox
won't work.

Setting material: In no event has a player ever read any material I have ever written for an adventure. So is it a waste of my time?

You want enough material prepared in advance for the first 2-3 sessions of play.
You typically want a wilderness map, a starter town, some NPCs, and several adventure
locales on that map - detailed starter locales and probably some undetailed higher level ones
to explore later. A good approach is to put several short published site-based adventures on a
wilderness map of your own creation, with the 1st level ones nearest to the starter town, higher
level further out. This starter map can be 2-6 miles per hex, at higher level you can switch to a larger scale or add adjacent area maps with more challenging stuff.
For a megadungeon you might sketch the general structure, and a map of 25-30
rooms on the first 1 or 2 levels for your first session. I realise now that megadungeons should NOT be fully detailed ahead of play!
You need enough prepped that players can make choices in play - unless you do West Marches
where the players have to make their choices what to do ahead of the session & the GM preps in
response to that.
But don't create everything up front, create in response to player activity & interest.
You need eg some gods for Clerics, so eg choose a pantheon or three, but you don't need
a detailed calendar or historical timeline unless you want it. In fact too much detail can
stifle creativity in play; lightly-sketched histories tend to work best.

 

[Zak S]

I broke it down to every single thing from railroad to sandbox and everything between once.


http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2010/05/chokers-and-chandlers.html

TL;DR: a railroad is just an overuse of tools that appear once there is any kind of structure, but there are clear lines to cross.

It sounds like what your players in the OP might want is a sandbox with a calendar of timed events in the background that'll happen (accelerating toward chaos) if the players don't do something.