D&D 4E 4e Design and JRR Tolkien

[Desdichado]

There's no way that any DM anywhere can ever present a truly complete world...doing so falls outside of the scope of human endevour. The sandbox style aims, primarily, to give the PCs choices; to let the players drive the game (instead of being driven by it).

IMHO, of course.

Yes, but not everyone uses the term that way. That's a broader interpretation of the term than the last conversation we had on the subject, for instance.

Bullocks. Or, at least, "bullocks" in my personal case.

Moo!

Sorry, I'm not normally a spelling/grammer nazi, but that struck me as funny. I think the word you're looking for here is 'bollocks.'

It is the mind-numbing bog-work of statting in 3.x that "burns out" DMs, IME and IMHO, not the creative aspects. Creativity is fun....a hobby unto itself!

Well, that's hardly an absolute. Some people enjoy statting. Some people don't need to do it in the first place (me, for instance) to run a game.

I enjoy setting construction, but I can still get burned out on it, or lose interest in a project before I get to the point where I run that setting.

EDIT: That bit by Ray Winninger is a dangerous bit of advice if you want to run a sandbox game. The only way that the DM absolutely knows what he has to prepare is to delimit the choices available to the players. Of course, all games delimit choices to greater or lesser degrees, but if your goal is to create a sandbox, you don't want to delimit player choices more than is necessary. There is no sense in detailing the City of Brass if the PCs will never go there; there is a great deal of sense in at least outlining if the PCs have that option. This is one area where you & I differ, I suppose. I find that whatever work you put into a sandbox automatically "pays for itself" as it generates player interest, makes the world seem more real, and gives more options.

See; again, some clarity on what exactly we mean by sandbox would be good. I think I approximate a lot of the "sandbox" ideal in many ways, and certainly I have an almost allergic aversion to railroading players, but I still limit my setting detail to relatively "high level" and regional stuff. Running a sandbox requires that you either 1) have a highly detailed setting that you can draw on to accomodate PC choice, or 2) are good at playing off the cuff and coming up with details on an as-needed basis, but not necessarily both.

I tend to do more of the latter than the former. Although I enjoy setting development as much as the next DM, I can only do so much of it before my attention span starts looking in other directions.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes, but not everyone uses the term that way. That's a broader interpretation of the term than the last conversation we had on the subject, for instance.

Perhaps. In some cases, for the purposes of exploring ideas, it is useful to use a narrower subset definition. Or I could have been a jerk. 50/50 odds either way? But the general idea of a sandbox is that the players choose where the characters go, implying that there has to be more than one option available.

Sorry, I'm not normally a spelling/grammer nazi, but that struck me as funny. I think the word you're looking for here is 'bollocks.'

D'oh!

Running a sandbox requires that you either 1) have a highly detailed setting that you can draw on to accomodate PC choice, or 2) are good at playing off the cuff and coming up with details on an as-needed basis, but not necessarily both.

Granted. But, again, a "highly detailed" setting can be created by plopping Dungeon adventures on a map and connecting them. Not the best sandbox, maybe, but a sandbox nonetheless.

RC

 

[Desdichado]

Granted. But, again, a "highly detailed" setting can be created by plopping Dungeon adventures on a map and connecting them. Not the best sandbox, maybe, but a sandbox nonetheless.

Just to play devil's advocate; what do you do, then, when the PC's decide they want to buy some wagons and camels and start a caravan company, wandering from city to city buying stuff where it's cheap and selling it where it's expensive ala Traveller?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Just to play devil's advocate; what do you do, then, when the PC's decide they want to buy some wagons and camels and start a caravan company, wandering from city to city buying stuff where it's cheap and selling it where it's expensive ala Traveller?

Ummm......let them?!?

Was that supposed to be difficult?

 

[MerricB]

Just to give you an idea of an event-triggered adventure that "burns" an idea (at least for that group):

A comet falls to earth, and the king offers a reward to the adventurers who will return the fallen comet to him.

If the PCs decide to do something else, the comet adventure can't be used again. (How many comets fall to Oerth, anyway?)

####

This is a different case to a limited environment, like the Keep of the Borderlands adventure. In that case, there are limits to where the PCs can go (the borders of the map!), but if they stay within those limits, there are lots of things they can do, and we're certainly not talking about a linear adventure here.

For these "mini-campaign" settings, the classics are Keep on the Borderlands, Village of Hommlet, and Secret of Bone Hill.

###

For "channelled adventure" but still with a lot of freedom as to how it progresses, consider Dragons of Despair; Pharoah; and the Giant/Drow series.

In those cases, there is a direction the PCs eventually need to go in. In DL1, the PCs eventually need to reach Xak Tsaroth. In Pharoah, they need to enter the pyramid. In Giant/Drow, they need to kill giants and find the way to the next adventure. There are bottlenecks that they need to get through; however, before that happens, they can do quite a lot of interesting things. (D3 becomes the most free, especially because it doesn't have a conclusion, unlike the Hickman adventures).

###

For "linear" adventures, you're looking at things like White Plume Mountain, Slave Pits of the Undercity, and other tournament-style adventures. Dragons of Fire also comes to mind - it's so much more linear than about every other Dragonlance module!

Either with a linear dungeon or a linear storyline, there's not much opportunity for the PCs to deviate from the plot.

Cheers!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Just to give you an idea of an event-triggered adventure that "burns" an idea (at least for that group):

A comet falls to earth, and the king offers a reward to the adventurers who will return the fallen comet to him.

If the PCs decide to do something else, the comet adventure can't be used again. (How many comets fall to Oerth, anyway?)

If the PCs not following that lead somehow means that the situation resloves itself, that the comet is never heard of again and has no other effects, and that the places, people, and situations you came up with in your idea cease to exist, then I will agree with you. Otherwise, IMHO, the idea has "progressed", not "burned".

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is a different case to a limited environment, like the Keep of the Borderlands adventure. In that case, there are limits to where the PCs can go (the borders of the map!), but if they stay within those limits, there are lots of things they can do, and we're certainly not talking about a linear adventure here.

For these "mini-campaign" settings, the classics are Keep on the Borderlands, Village of Hommlet, and Secret of Bone Hill.

Agreed, with the exception that going off the map isn't impossible, it just means stepping outside of what is detailed in that adventure. Sandbox DMs are encouraged to have some "wandering lairs" that they can use when the PCs wander off the map. Once the PCs have seen a location -- whether they visit it or not -- that location is set, however.

For "channelled adventure" but still with a lot of freedom as to how it progresses, consider Dragons of Despair; Pharoah; and the Giant/Drow series.

In those cases, there is a direction the PCs eventually need to go in.

And that, btw, is the difference between a sandbox and a railroad. If the PCs "need" to reach Xak Tsaroth, or enter the pyramid, or kill giants and find the way to the next adventure, then you have started punching tickets on the choo choo express. In the Giants series, though, each of the giant lairs can be run as a seperate adventure, easily enough. They don't have to be followed like a chain to be used. Indeed, in any sandbox, if the PCs prefer, they can walk away from any situation (or try to) and deal with the consequences.

For "linear" adventures, you're looking at things like White Plume Mountain, Slave Pits of the Undercity, and other tournament-style adventures. Dragons of Fire also comes to mind - it's so much more linear than about every other Dragonlance module!

Either with a linear dungeon or a linear storyline, there's not much opportunity for the PCs to deviate from the plot.

Which makes sense for a tournament.

And which, unfortunately, a lot of 3e adventures (and certainly the adventure creation guidelines in the DMG) seem to promote.


RC

 

[MerricB]

And which, unfortunately, a lot of 3e adventures (and certainly the adventure creation guidelines in the DMG) seem to promote.

Let's not just go after 3e adventures. Most of the adventures in the history of D&D have been narrative/non-sandbox adventures.

Indeed, if you look at the original 3e "adventure path" adventures, you get quite a few sandbox adventures - Sunless Citadel, Forge of Fury, Heart of Nightfang Spire and Deep Horizon all fall into that box.

The thing is: if you want to describe more than one environ in an adventure, you pretty much need to write a (mostly) linear adventure. GDQ is a linear adventure, despite its component parts being sandboxes. If you buy the series, then if your PCs go "screw this!" after G1, then you've wasted a lot of money.

U1-3? Linear.

Gary Gygax is pretty good at writing sandbox environments, of course.

B2: Sandbox
T1: Sandbox
T1-4: Sandbox (mostly)
G1-3,D1-3: Linear (individual installments sandboxes, overall structure linear)
EX1, EX2: Sandbox (with linear elements)
S1: Sandbox. (Sort of)
S3: Sandbox
S4: Sandbox
WG4: Sandbox
WG6: Hmm. Mostly Sandbox

Cheers!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Let's not just go after 3e adventures. Most of the adventures in the history of D&D have been narrative/non-sandbox adventures.

Too true. Any environment where you are told what you have to achieve, even if you are given three options to choose from, is not a sandbox. IMHO.

RC

 

[MerricB]

Too true. Any environment where you are told what you have to achieve, even if you are given three options to choose from, is not a sandbox. IMHO.

Does that mean G1 is not a sandbox?

At the beginning of the adventure, you're told what you need to do: stop the giants, and find who is behind the attacks.

To get to G2, you pretty much need to find the treasure hoard.

Cheers!