D&D General Sandbox Campaigns should have a Default Action.

[Scott Christian]

I like the Matt Colville video on sandboxing. He likes to have a few low-level modules as starters and they lead to a few more printed adventures. Offering the players a few choices and see where they go. This makes the other choices not taken still run in the background and they get harder, i.e. for higher level PCs to solve. So the PCs blew off the threat of orcs massing in the mountain pass to deal with the necromancer- well now the ogres arrived to aid the orcs and they are attacking the outer towns. Still do not want to deal with them, well in a few more levels a dragon will join them and they attack the home base.

Like all sandboxes, it is an illusion. They are no different than linear adventures. The only difference is someone wanted to make a name for their supposed playstyle.
No offense to anyone. I mean that sincerely. But we are all kidding ourselves. This above example is a perfect example:

DM: Want to deal with orc raiders?
Players: No.
DM: Well I will make you deal with them by having them wreak havoc on your campaign.
Players: Not interested.
DM: Oh yea! What about now. Now you have to deal with them or lose your homebase!

Or...

DM: The Captain of the Guards has asked you to scout an orc threat which is camping right next to one of the outer villages under his protection.
Players: We tell the captain we can't as there are some ruins we wanted to explore.
DM: It turns out those ruins are right next to the orc encampment. Perhaps kill two birds with one stone?
Players: No. That might be too dangerous.
DM: OK. (Players show up and the orcs are also investigating the ruins.)

Many would consider one sandboxing and the other railroading. But in reality, they are the same - playing.

And I get it. If you are going to do an entire campaign impromptu, use theater of the mind, or take breaks so you can draw up maps on the fly, have to look at player notes to see what you said one month ago, always let your players just go wherever they want without any nudging, and just use random tables - then maybe you are doing something different. But, in my experience, I have never seen it - even with the most adamant "sandbox" DMs.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There is a 3rd level version in Call of the Netherdeep. It also crops up in Wild Beyond the Witchlight, amongst others. For an older example, see Neverwinter Nights 2. Which immediately follows it up with a man (dwarf) coming through the door with a gun (axe). Roll20 has a free introductory adventure of this type.

of those I only know witchlight... and I thought it unique. thank you for letting me know this

It's a very short rail, more a kind of runway.

yea... runway is a great term I may take that... it would also help with 'failure to launches' that turn int "crash and burn" campaigns

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Like all sandboxes, it is an illusion. They are no different than linear adventures. The only difference is someone wanted to make a name for their supposed playstyle.
No offense to anyone. I mean that sincerely. But we are all kidding ourselves.

I take offence a little (only reason it is only a little is the example you are siteing and use below are not my style)

This above example is a perfect example:

DM: Want to deal with orc raiders?
Players: No.
DM: Well I will make you deal with them by having them wreak havoc on your campaign.
Players: Not interested.
DM: Oh yea! What about now. Now you have to deal with them or lose your homebase!

this DOES seem rails to me... if the PCs are not interested once I may escalate a little to see if they bite a second time (but I would let them do at least 2-3 things inbetween) but if they choose not to take the 2nd one I will assume they are not interested and have that plot hook eaten by either other adventures or a different plot.

back in 4e I had a NPC group of Dragon hunters and an NPC group of all arcane classes in the same campaign world and the PCs would hear of there exploits mixed in with there own from time to time... but in an early 5e campaign I had adventurers be rare so I had to have a new villian appear... (Wow, you ignored the orcs twice but a necromancer didn't where there were orcs are now ghouls and wights...) I ALWAYS follow the player lead, even if that means needing to adjust on the fly.

Sometimes (in less direct threat examples) this will mean a plot just sit unexplored... no one EVER went into that cave, or those strange lights went away but no one knows what they are...

Or...

DM: The Captain of the Guards has asked you to scout an orc threat which is camping right next to one of the outer villages under his protection.
Players: We tell the captain we can't as there are some ruins we wanted to explore.
DM: It turns out those ruins are right next to the orc encampment. Perhaps kill two birds with one stone?
Players: No. That might be too dangerous.
DM: OK. (Players show up and the orcs are also investigating the ruins.)

ugh where that COULD be fun once or twice (hey they forshadowed the orcs right) I would be pissed at a DM claiming a sandbox that pulled that in any regular rate.

Many would consider one sandboxing and the other railroading. But in reality, they are the same - playing.

okay, but try this one out...

hook 1) the captain of the guard asks you to scout the orcs in the south east
hook 2) rummor has it the earthquake last week unearthed some ruins to the south
hook 3) there is a caravan leaving to go east in 9 days and they are looking for guards
hook 4) the town cleric is acting weird
hook 5) a local thieves guild member has fallen in love with the daughter of the captain of the town guard and he has told her she is not allowed to see him (she thought him cute UNTIL her dad said no way and that made it way hotter)

PCs talk all this over and decide that the town to the north has a cool name, so they ask the DM what they know about it... the DM tells them it is a Magocracy with a counsel of wizards as the ruler and it is actually part of a tri city alliance with 2 cities farther north. One PC asks "is it only arcane magic that rules there?" the DM says "There are clerics but they are not part of the government" a diffrent PC says "Lets go see if we can get work there and they can pay us in new spells" and they head north.

when they get to the mageocracy they find that anyone without magic is treated as a 3rd class citazen, but most of the merchents and nobles know at least a cantrip or two... but the DM still has time to drop some hints to hooks

hook B1) the local blacksmith isn't really a caster but uses slight of hand tricks to keep up appearances... he is part of a resistance that wants equality
hook B2) 2 local children have gone missing... the town guard doesn't care since they are from non magical families
hook B3-B5) there is a hireing board with 3 diffrent jobs listed on it... all are going to a place to get something for a wizard family

The PCs can choose to go back to town A, do a hook from town B, or leave and go somewhere else. each town has 2-3 hooks like this in broad notes and the DM fleshes out based on what PCs do and show intrest in. there are 9 other cities (C-K) listed on the map but they also know that there are at least 2 cities north of the map part of an alliance with this mageocracy.

And I get it. If you are going to do an entire campaign impromptu, use theater of the mind, or take breaks so you can draw up maps on the fly, have to look at player notes to see what you said one month ago, always let your players just go wherever they want without any nudging, and just use random tables - then maybe you are doing something different. But, in my experience, I have never seen it - even with the most adamant "sandbox" DMs.

I'm sorry you never saw it... I have gotten WAY more sandboxey since 4e started, and I was heading this way by the end of 3.5. I don't ALWAYS do it though, and sometimes I do it to different degrees.

 

[Reynard]

but in no way does the name sandbox REQUIRE all plots to be PC generated.

Good thing I did not say that, then. You were the one who literally used the word "require" in describing the GM's responsibilities requiring adventures. What you ignored was me saying that was NOT a requirement of the GM. As to the argument about "sandbox" versus "theme park" I will happily concede that since there is no International Committee On The Use of Terminology in Roleplaying Games, you can claim victory. Congratulations.

But the fact is that if you start a sandbox campaign and the PCs literally don't do anything in the opening scene, they have failed to create individual characters or a party suitable for sandbox play. If a hook doesn't come flying at them (and, again, it shouldn't have to) then they should immediately start working on their personal and/or collective goals.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Like all sandboxes, it is an illusion. They are no different than linear adventures. The only difference is someone wanted to make a name for their supposed playstyle.
No offense to anyone. I mean that sincerely. But we are all kidding ourselves. This above example is a perfect example:

DM: Want to deal with orc raiders?
Players: No.
DM: Well I will make you deal with them by having them wreak havoc on your campaign.
Players: Not interested.
DM: Oh yea! What about now. Now you have to deal with them or lose your homebase!

Or...

DM: The Captain of the Guards has asked you to scout an orc threat which is camping right next to one of the outer villages under his protection.
Players: We tell the captain we can't as there are some ruins we wanted to explore.
DM: It turns out those ruins are right next to the orc encampment. Perhaps kill two birds with one stone?
Players: No. That might be too dangerous.
DM: OK. (Players show up and the orcs are also investigating the ruins.)

Many would consider one sandboxing and the other railroading. But in reality, they are the same - playing.

And I get it. If you are going to do an entire campaign impromptu, use theater of the mind, or take breaks so you can draw up maps on the fly, have to look at player notes to see what you said one month ago, always let your players just go wherever they want without any nudging, and just use random tables - then maybe you are doing something different. But, in my experience, I have never seen it - even with the most adamant "sandbox" DMs.

Those are both railroads

This isn't how a sandbox is played at all. I can assure you plenty of people play sandbox campaigns where the GM doesn't plop the Orc encampment next to the ruins because he had that planned. The whole point of a sandbox is not just to let the players pick from different things that are on the map, but to forge their own path and to honor that. Now if you are relying heavily on tile maps that all need to be purchased or printed in advance, this might not be a great style (though I do know plenty of people who use that stuff and still manage to make sandboxes work).

All I find you need to do is flesh out either a region or a setting map enough, have enough organizations, conflict, locations, etc to keep things interesting. But the magic really happens when the players set foot in the world and start setting courses for themselves. This can provoke reactions from organizations and NPCs, but the point isn't to force players to go where the GM had always planned. The point is to create an organic reaction and to honor player agency.

A real sandbox is a combination of prep before hand, prep between sessions, and impromptu GMing.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Good thing I did not say that, then. You were the one who literally used the word "require" in describing the GM's responsibilities requiring adventures.

yes by defualt in D&D (every edition) the DM provides the adventure is the defualt and the Players providing there own is optional additional. Now you CAN play otherwise, but in no way is that required or the normal to discuss. if you WANT to discuss a player only plot campaign I would love to hear it (most likely in it's own thread) but trying to say sandboxes are not sandboxes is BS.

What you ignored was me saying that was NOT a requirement of the GM.

I did not ignore it I said very plainly that the default assumption of D*D is that it IS A REQUIREMENT... it is part of the DM role. You can choose to alter it. I just don't think that talking like altering that is any different then having a 'crit hit auto kills target, and nat 1 you always fail and break/drop something' is doing any good in this thread. When you change something major (like the DM introducing the plots and not the PCs are the ONLY source of plot) you have gone outside the bounds of most experences.

As to the argument about "sandbox" versus "theme park" I will happily concede that since there is no International Committee On The Use of Terminology in Roleplaying Games, you can claim victory. Congratulations.

thank you... Now try to be less condescending.

But the fact is that if you start a sandbox campaign and the PCs literally don't do anything in the opening scene, they have failed to create individual characters or a party suitable for sandbox play. If a hook doesn't come flying at them (and, again, it shouldn't have to) then they should immediately start working on their personal and/or collective goals.

really... so if you start a game (you being YOU REYNARD) as a DM and me and my 4 best friends sit down to play, and you what, start us in a bar and nothing happens? no strange or intresting NPCs, no events, no hooks... how long does this sleepy little town have NOTHING happen before you have something happen? does going 1 night of us BSing and getting to know each other enough, or would you stretch it... cause given infinte time we would msot like talk about our back stories, ask a few things if our characters would know... then get REAL board.

 

[Reynard]

really... so if you start a game (you being YOU REYNARD) as a DM and me and my 4 best friends sit down to play, and you what, start us in a bar and nothing happens? no strange or intresting NPCs, no events, no hooks... how long does this sleepy little town have NOTHING happen before you have something happen? does going 1 night of us BSing and getting to know each other enough, or would you stretch it... cause given infinte time we would msot like talk about our back stories, ask a few things if our characters would know... then get REAL board.

Did we start with a discussion that this was a sandbox campaign, in which player characters were going to drive the narrative based on their personal and collective motivations?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Those are both railroads

This isn't how a sandbox is played at all. I can assure you plenty of people play sandbox campaigns where the GM doesn't plop the Orc encampment next to the ruins because he had that planned.

thank you it seems so strange to see railroady examples of sandboxes to then be told there are no true sandboxes...

it would be like someone said the color red didn't exist, and his proof was 8 shades of green crayon, 2 shades of yellow and a blue one... I mean those 3 colors being a thing in no way disproves red.

All I find you need to do is flesh out either a region or a setting map enough, have enough organizations, conflict, locations, etc to keep things interesting.

this... make the sandbox (world, multiverse, or maybe just a town) and make it interesting with things they can choose to do or not do... and let them explore it

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Did we start with a discussion that this was a sandbox campaign, in which player characters were going to drive the narrative based on their personal and collective motivations?

yes, you started it that way... so we talked about our backstories... I will pull some random examples

I am a Ranger that grew up a farmer (hence my survival skills, and I am touch cause farm boy) who's family was killed and his farm burned down. I grew up with a town bully I hated and a girl (now woman) that both me and said bully liked. She WANTED to be a hero someone from the stories.
Ken is playing a Fighter he was the bully in my home town but got drafted into the military of a local lord and fight in a war... he is back now and feels bad for how he treated me and 'wants to make it up to me' he has a bit of ptsd and doesn't know what he wants to do but he is with us
Kari was the girl that we both had crushes on... but she only wanted to be an 'adventurer' and as such she went to a local wizard and learned magic and how to fight like the characters in her stories... she is a bard, and she is just traveling with her two best friends looking to see what is out there.
(all three of us are human)
We are joined by
Kurt who is a warforged Druid/Wizard... he has ever plan on going necromancer and RPing being a blighter of sorts. He hates civilization and wants it torn down... but he hasn't figured out how to replace it yet. He was made to be a killer by the master of the wizard that taught Kari and rebealed when he got a soul...somehow
and
Matt who is a teifling hexblade. His background reads like a who's who and whats what of cliches...


so we have 1 player that really has no goals (matt) we have one looking for something amazing to happen (kari) we have 2 that there conflict drama and plot are all interpersonal and self discovery (me and ken) and we have 1 who will have something to build to but has not starting point (kurt)

so how long do we sit in this bar and talk before something happens?

 

[Reynard]

yes, you started it that way... so we talked about our backstories... I will pull some random examples

I am a Ranger that grew up a farmer (hence my survival skills, and I am touch cause farm boy) who's family was killed and his farm burned down. I grew up with a town bully I hated and a girl (now woman) that both me and said bully liked. She WANTED to be a hero someone from the stories.
Ken is playing a Fighter he was the bully in my home town but got drafted into the military of a local lord and fight in a war... he is back now and feels bad for how he treated me and 'wants to make it up to me' he has a bit of ptsd and doesn't know what he wants to do but he is with us
Kari was the girl that we both had crushes on... but she only wanted to be an 'adventurer' and as such she went to a local wizard and learned magic and how to fight like the characters in her stories... she is a bard, and she is just traveling with her two best friends looking to see what is out there.
(all three of us are human)
We are joined by
Kurt who is a warforged Druid/Wizard... he has ever plan on going necromancer and RPing being a blighter of sorts. He hates civilization and wants it torn down... but he hasn't figured out how to replace it yet. He was made to be a killer by the master of the wizard that taught Kari and rebealed when he got a soul...somehow
and
Matt who is a teifling hexblade. His background reads like a who's who and whats what of cliches...


so we have 1 player that really has no goals (matt) we have one looking for something amazing to happen (kari) we have 2 that there conflict drama and plot are all interpersonal and self discovery (me and ken) and we have 1 who will have something to build to but has not starting point (kurt)

so how long do we sit in this bar and talk before something happens?

I don't know. How long do you sit there? My guess, is that those PCs have been sitting in that bar talking about going on adventures for a while. Years even. The session starts the day they decide to stop talking and go do something. That is why PCs need motivations.