Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 3895273" data-attributes="member: 2205">I like this sandbox discussion.  We tried to have one at the Circvs recently that unfortunately collapsed under it's own weight after a while.If we accept the term "sandbox" as a discrete point on the spectrum of DMing styles, then at most, my style would be considered "half-sandbox" or perhaps "hybrid sandbox."  Maybe to use JohnSnow's terminology, I simply give the "illusion of a sandbox" without actually doing so.To put the analogy to more use than it probably warrants, think of this: when I take my kids to the beach (or any other sandbox) we pack up a basket of sand toys.  Little castle molds that you can fill with sand and dump upside down to get a ready-made castle.  A few buckets and scoops.  Stuff like that.  The sand is unlimited, but the suite of tools is not.  Where my DMing differs from "true" sandbox is:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I do have stuff prepared.  Although the players choose what to do, on occasion they're faced with many of the same challenges no matter what they choose.  Even if they try to just up and leave, then find that other factors within the sandbox make that difficult and kind of channel them towards material that I've prepared even so.  However, giving the PC's choice, and altering (or at least presenting) the game to them as different based on their choices is very important to me.  The PC's are not loose cannons running around completely free of any ties to the setting; they are firmly rooted in the setting.  They can't turn on a dime in terms of campaign direction and imagine that the setting will suddenly shift with them. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">NPCs and their motivations and plans are a big part of what drives the game.  If I have a BBEG, he's got plans, and he's putting them into motion.  The setting is not static.  If the PC's fail (or simply don't even try) to confront the BBEG, the setting gets worse for the PC's due to their lack of action.  In fact, I like to have too much going on for them to deal with.  They have to make choices and prioritize what they want to tackle, and they have to deal with the consequences of what they don't. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">In my experience, few players can start off a new campaign, especially in a homebrew world, and immediately "sandbox" effectively.  They need to flesh out their characters through some sessions of play, put down some roots and create some ties to the setting before they are effective at this playstyle.  I guess if they create really detailed backstories they can begin right away, but in my experience few of them have enough backstory to immediately begin jumping into adventure based on their backstory.  So I always start off a new campaign with a bit of "here's the adventure I'm presenting you with; run through it and then you'll find all kinds of hooks and other things within it; you can make up your own mind on what to pursue afterwards, and take a more proactive role." </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I don't DM completely "off the cuff".  I like to solicit as much feedback as possible as to what the PC's plans are so I can stay a little bit ahead of them with something prepared instead of something just generated on the fly.  I find that that gives me the advantages of "sandbox" without the most glaring disadvantage: if you don't have time to prepare anything except in the heat of the moment, chances are what you end up with will be pretty cliched and mediocre.  If the PC's can give me enough feedback that I can pretty accurately predict what they want to do next session, I can make some loose preparations and give them something to remember, while still being reactive, letting them maintain control, etc.</li> </ul></blockquote>

Verification