D&D 5E How do players know they are in the "wrong" location in a sandbox campaign?

[Redthistle]

I really like [MENTION=3586]MerricB[/MENTION]'s idea of the side-quests (see comment #8 in this thread). It keeps the game moving forward without letting it drop into a TPK, and may also be utilized to provide foreshadowing for when the party is ready for the more dangerous scenarios.

Here's a notion that can be used on a limited basis, but that you wouldn't want to overuse: Passive Insight check, aka the "hunch."

Pass information to the player(s) with high enough Insight, saying something to the effect that the hairs on the back of their necks are rising; their guts feel like they're turning to ice water; there's a mounting sense that there is something here that is just not right; or the like.

By experiencing this hint every once in awhile it will hopefully provide your players with the knowledge (it might be for replacement PCs, mind you) that although there might be something very interesting behind that door, now might not be the best time to go knocking on it.

It depends, of course, on how far into the location they've proceeded and what subliminal clues they may have been able to pick up on. If there haven't been any relevant clues, the Perception skill, active or passive, is not going to of use.

Situations like this are akin to the horror movie trope where the audience (at the game table, the DM is an audience of one) knows a character shouldn't open that door, but the character doesn't have enough information yet to know that.

The difference between a movie and a table top RPG is the interactivity of the game table. A movie audience cannot warn the character in the movie.

A DM can warn the players in the group, but it's a balancing act to do so in a way that doesn't reveal too much information that would undo future surprises.

This is where, it seems to me, that Insight can be useful. Insight is informed by the subconscious, and in a game that includes magic and psionics, this is where otherwise non-evident clues can be provided to the PCs: give them a hunch.

 

[MarkB]

Yeah, coming upon something like a scene of carnage can be a good indicator, but one problem is that a group of 1st-level conscripts doesn't look all that different from a group of 10th-level mercenaries after they've been torn to pieces, so "something in this area killed some guys" doesn't always narrow down the threat level.

It works better if the scene involves a monster rather than people, especially if it's one they've fought before. I.e. "Wow, whatever it was, it took down two wyverns, apparently without breaking a sweat. Remember how much trouble we had with that wyvern at the abandoned keep? I'm not sure we can take on whatever did this."

 

[Redthistle]

[MENTION=53980]Fanaelialae[/MENTION] - (no XP Award option showing; re comment #10 on this thread). Very good suggestions.

 

[Inchoroi]

Yeah, that's why a wide level range and a sandbox don't really work.

Oh, they work fine! It's just not for everyone and every player and DM. I've known some that prefer the exact opposite. The thing about sandbox is that its intended, I feel, to make Player Agency the most important thing--Player Agency includes, however, those players accepting the consequences of that Agency. Id est, dying horribly. My upcoming campaign features an ancient dragon in a gem mine barely a day's travel north of the starting city. Any time my players might make a stupid decision, they get a single, "Are you sure?" and if they continue, the dice fall as they may.

As @Lanefan mentions, part of being in a sandbox is the ability to make poor choices. But one of the chief things that makes for a good sandbox is the ability to make informed choices and avoid the dangerous areas.


Yes, occasionally characters learn this by going into an area and getting whomped by whatever lives there and fleeing... The trick is that they need to be able to flee. "Turn left and get killed by a Red Dragon, no save" doesn't make for good adventuring.


Princes of the Apocalypse has a problem in that the characters can be following the story and end up in very dangerous areas, which make perfect sense for them to be in as they follow the clues. This is a problem. The solution is, as the DM, to throw the option of numerous side-quests at them. (There are several in the PotA book, but you'll probably want to invent more).


Yes, they're able to go to the Wind Temple, but if there's immediate trouble in other locations, then they can be distracted away from the area which they can't handle yet.


So: provide side-quests for the players to go on, and make them want to go on them. That way, the characters can gain enough levels to properly deal with the dangerous areas.


Cheers!

The brilliant MerricB has the right of it!

Perhaps plumbing the depths of the DMsGuild for ideas might be worthwhile, or the Adventurer's League adventures on offer.

 

[SkidAce]

I think we differ on our definition of "choice". For me a choice between different options without having any information about the consequences is not a choice at all. It is an illusion of choice. The adventure doesn't tell the players anything about the relative difficulty of the 4 starting dungeons, so how are they supposed to make a meaningful choice?

How would they choose if they existed in the campaign world?

You create ways for them to gain information in character. Then they choose based on that.

 

[BoldItalic]

...
So I was wondering how the DMs who ran PotA as a sandbox managed to let their players know if they had for some reason gone into a not level-appropriate region without just killing them all.
...

Have you considered just telling the players? "Look, guys, this next dungeon is written for character levels 6-10. Do you want me to scale down the encounters a bit, or do you want to try playing it anyway?"

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yeah, coming upon something like a scene of carnage can be a good indicator, but one problem is that a group of 1st-level conscripts doesn't look all that different from a group of 10th-level mercenaries after they've been torn to pieces, so "something in this area killed some guys" doesn't always narrow down the threat level.

It works better if the scene involves a monster rather than people, especially if it's one they've fought before. I.e. "Wow, whatever it was, it took down two wyverns, apparently without breaking a sweat. Remember how much trouble we had with that wyvern at the abandoned keep? I'm not sure we can take on whatever did this."

This is a good option for the toolbox, but keep in mind that it doesn't necessarily have to be monster vs monster.

In the case of a bulette attack, you might describe to the PCs that they come across an area where the earth appears to have been churned. On the ground is the lower half of what appears to be a deer haunch. If the players examine it more closely they find that it looks like there are two collapsed tunnels roughly 10 feet in diameter. The bone of the deer leg appears to have been cleanly sheared through in way that the PCs probably have never seen before (no sword you've ever seen could have made such a clean cut - whatever did this, the force must have been extreme). There are also large clawed prints in the ground near that haunch the are 3 feet in diameter and 6 inches deep. You might even space the holes apart (and describe them as such) so that it hints at the bulette's ability to leap extreme distances. If the PCs decide to continue on into walking tank territory, that's on them.

If you are going to use humanoids, I would go with quantity over quality in most cases. While it might be difficult to distinguish 0th level characters from 4th level characters post mortem, if you come across a camp of four dozen bandits that look to have been slaughtered by one creature, chances are that creature is an extreme threat (particularly due to the fact that, thanks to bounded accuracy, four dozen weak bandits are a legitimate threat to most monsters). If you want to use a small, high level group, then they ought to be named characters that the PCs can recognize. If the PCs find the broken bodies of the Black Lantern adventuring company (a group they know is more accomplished than themselves) they'll know there's danger afoot.

 

[Satyrn]

I think we differ on our definition of "choice". For me a choice between different options without having any information about the consequences is not a choice at all. It is an illusion of choice. The adventure doesn't tell the players anything about the relative difficulty of the 4 starting dungeons, so how are they supposed to make a meaningful choice?

It's your job to fill in the blanks the adventure leaves. The blanks are there because every table runs differently, and too much info just becomes wasted work.

So if you want your players to have this info, the adventure is intentionally leaving that up to you, expecting you'll find a way to relay that info to them. You could leave clues in game, you could railroad them to the "right" one, you could simply tell them the difficulty outright.

They're all possibilities. And they're all fine if they're what your table wants.

The tricky part is finding the best way for your table.

 

[iserith]

The "getting kicked the cr@p out of them" part is the one I want to avoid. For me it is a question of player agency: If the players *choose* hard, then hard is okay. If the players chose between "left or right?" with no additional information, it isn't okay if left is much harder than right. I'm not a sadist DM.

I think you answered your own question already: Just make sure they are aware of the risks and let them choose what they want. It's fair as long as they know what kind of danger they are getting themselves into.

 

[CydKnight]

I think we differ on our definition of "choice". For me a choice between different options without having any information about the consequences is not a choice at all. It is an illusion of choice. The adventure doesn't tell the players anything about the relative difficulty of the 4 starting dungeons, so how are they supposed to make a meaningful choice?

You've got to role play it in somehow with the information you have as a DM. Have an NPC give them some direction on what path to take next. If they don't take that direction then it's on them. If they don't retreat after immediately realizing and being given hints that they are overmatched at their current location, then that's on them too. If the campaign isn't clear on how to do this, you will simply have to come up with something on your own that steers them to that path of least resistance. It doesn't have to be elaborate and time consuming. Just use one of the major NPCs friendly to the party to role play the ideal order. Alternatively you could simply only reveal one course of action at a time through the campaign's progression.