robertsconley
Adventurer
Circumstances in settings are always nuanced. As a result, there are always several plausible possibilities. In passive entertainment like novels, films, and shows, the author/director decides the possibilities that will be followed and crafts the result as a coherent narrative. While many authors/directors don't know what stakes they are aiming for, thus the final shape of the narrative is not clear until they have done at least a first pass. However, most do have a clear creative goal in mind and thus pick the possibilities that serve that goal the best.
More instructive is history. One aspect of history is that it is a record of which possibilities people chose given their circumstances at a particular time. These choices are often made when the stakes are unclear and the "right" path given the individual's goals is uncertain.
Running through this is the path not taken, the "What if". What if a copy of Order 192 wasn't used to wrap cigars and then lost. What if the French decided to colonize Tasmania in 1798. What if Galadriel decided to accept the One Ring when it was offered to her. And so on.
Then there is the matter of choice itself. With narratives and history, we have the benefit of hindsight. Looking back, we see how the narrative or history unfolds, how each choice leads to consequences that result in further choices with their consequences. What is often missed is that both in narratives and in life, those involved have to make these choices with limited information, often with limited time not knowing what the stakes are or the range of consequences.
Sandbox Campaigns are about embracing the What If, embracing the possibilities, and embracing the uncertainty. I often commented that the goal of sandbox campaigns is to let players trash the setting as their character. A crucial element of that is the fact that there are always multiple plausible possibilities given the circumstances of the campaign at any one moment. Being free to trash the setting means being free to pick which possibility to explore.
Another part of the appeal of sandbox campaigns is the challenge of making these choices while being uncertain of the stakes or the range of consequences. That's why the role of a referee is crucial in sandbox campaigns. Why is it crucial?
From Peterson's Playing at the World 2e Vol. II.
In the case of Sandbox Campaign, the central role of the human referee allows the players the same broad latitude that they would enjoy if they were really present in the setting, adventuring as their character.
And part of this is the factor of uncertainty.
From Peterson's Playing at the World 2e Vol. II.
The uncertainty that a commander faces on the battlefield is a crucial critical goal of the younger Reiswitz's wargame. Likewise, a similar creative goal of uncertainty is important to sandbox campaigns.
Embracing myriad possibilities and uncertainty is important to Sandbox campaigns. However, these are goals that have to be implemented by human beings, particularly by the individual who is the referee of the campaign. An important challenge is one you noted.
Sandbox campaign works best when the referee is a neutral arbiter, for many of the same reasons the Reiswitz uses.
From Playing at the World 2e, Vol II.
The referee must be impartial, as that is what builds trust among the players that the referee's decisions are fair. I have developed a series of best practices that I use to establish my impartiality. Others have their own methods.
One of them is being open to discussion and questions even during play. I won't discuss things that would be considered spoilers after the campaign is concluded, or in many cases, several sessions later, when specific spoilers are no longer relevant. I'm happy to hash things out and walk players through why I made the decisions I did.
This is not quite like how Reiswitz and other early wargames taught, but their primary audience was military personnel, and training them. My circumstances are different.
I strongly recommend not doing the above and being open to discussion and questions at any point in the campaign. Our circumstances are a group of folks trying to have fun with a hobby during our limited free time.
This is but one of the possible techniques to establish that you are an impartial referee and to gain trust among those playing.
Wrapping this up, discussing the issue of uncertainty and differing views of what was possible was a common topic in early discussions about sandbox campaigns.
From 2007, also a thread I participated in.
Sandbox Style: How to Handle Challenge Levels.
This is a discussion that started out about Challenge Levels in Sandbox campaign but touched on issues relevant to trust, uncertainty, and different ideas about what is plausible. Largely because the expectation of a campaign that relies on Challenge Levels is very different from the expectation of Sandbox Campaigns.
In sandbox play - as opposed to a cop-out/hybrid where the severity of challenges is scaled to the party - the responsibility for managing threats rests on the shoulders of the players, who have to make choices whether to explore a certain hazardous area, range far from civilisation centres or not, etcetera. Collecting information becomes very valuable. Rumors, and listening to them, is very important; augury and more advanced divination spells become better lifesavers than fireball (no exagerration - PCs in my campaigns have been saved more times by the first than the second) and of course, sacrificing to deities or consulting sages for their advice is a prime way loot is spent. This is, in many ways, outside the currently fashionable D&D paradigm. It is often the experienced players with set-in playing procedures, who are less successful in it, and newbies who adapt more quickly (while certain old hands are immediately "at home", and fare very, very well - that's the mythical "player skill" in action).
