D&D 5E 9 words to help run a sandbox

[Guest 6801328]

Sometimes when I hear (or read) people wax eloquent about how they run a "sandbox" and not a dirty stinkin' "railroad" I sorta wish I could sit at their table just to demonstrate that it's still, to some extent, a railroad.

 

[cmad1977]

Sometimes when I hear (or read) people wax eloquent about how they run a "sandbox" and not a dirty stinkin' "railroad" I sorta wish I could sit at their table just to demonstrate that it's still, to some extent, a railroad.

Most adventure are a sandy railroad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Krachek]

People
Places
Motives
Knowledge
Means
Consequences
Foreshadowing
Recurrence
Consistency

Sandboxes come to life when colourful personalities inhabiting intriguing places pursue their motives according to their knowledge and means, engaging the players in their struggles. Foreshadowing helps players understand what may happen (or is happening elsewhere) and recurrence warmly (or icily) rewards players for the RP bonds they establish (with people and places), and reifies the world they live in. Consequences is about what happens next: they make the world feel more alive through adding repercussions. Consistency is key to preserving suspension of disbelief - nothing jolts faster than inconsistency - and consistency rewards players who base their actions on what they know about the world.

[Edited to add Consequences]
[Edited to add Consistency]
[Edited to add Knowledge]

Add Event. Motive produce Event with Consequence.

 

[Greg Benage]

"What do you plan to do next session, guys?"

If the players agree to answer this question and more or less stick to it, the DM can let them do anything they want and still be prepared with content that is actually relevant to the game.

 

[steeldragons]

"Run if you have to."

"Never split the party."

There, 9 words.

 

[jasper]

Shoot
The
Problem
Player
In
The
Head.
Bury
Body.

Do periods count?
Okay joking aside. Sandbox games require more input from everyone. Dms have know what going on in town, and across the country. Players have put in more effort to learn the world and give honest feedback. Best feedback I got was to drop a villain showing up regularly.

 

[clearstream]

"Run if you have to."

"Never split the party."

There, 9 words.

From the perspective of the DM

"It all looks perfectly safe..."

"Go ahead, split up..."

 

[Onussen]

...Furthermore, what is the true value of sandbox? So that the players believe their choices matter? In that case the illusion of a sandbox is as good as a real sandbox. E.g., no matter which road the players take, they encounter the same important traveling tinker NPC. As long as the players never catch on, this works perfectly fine.

Ah the Quantum Tinker. I believe this is an entry under the "DM As Railroad Conductor" heading in the DMG. I could be mistaken.

More interesting. Player's chose one road and will encounter a certain Q. Tinker. Player's chose another road and don't encounter it. Sometime later, at the Inn, they hear about the fate of some tinker travelling on the road they did not take. The Tinker's fate, it wasn't pretty, or maybe it was-- since Mr. Q.T. found some wondrous item on the road. The PCs' decision had consequences, which can then be used to further the action of the campaign. In a sandbox, different decisions-- by the players and the DM-- produce different consequences. Player choice matters. So what if the PCs never meet the tinker. There should be no indispensable NPCs, and no must encounter NPCs.

Oh, and running a sandbox is not just for the players' benefit. The DM is an active participant--but not an adversarial one-- instead of a bookkeeper and reader of boxed text. A sandbox benefits the DM too.

 

[clearstream]

Oh, and running a sandbox is not just for the players' benefit. The DM is an active participant--but not an adversarial one-- instead of a bookkeeper and reader of boxed text. A sandbox benefits the DM too.

I like this point: part of the reason I run a living world is that as a DM I get a lot of personal satisfaction from it. DM is there at the table with everyone else: their satisfaction also counts.

You addressed [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]'s objections eloquently. I can see that if I made [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]'s assumptions then I might not see the enjoyment and value in a sandbox / living world approach. You showed how some of those assumptions can be set aside, and I can testify that as a DM what you describe is my SOP. In OOTA, due to unfortunate circumstances the party landed their ally in Blingdenstone in prison. That ally's sister had been captured and I had things set up for the party to help her. They now haven't, and I've had to roll events onward taking that into account. It's a long tale of woe that at this point my PCs are oblivious to. Depending on how things unfold, they might never learn of it. If I didn't derive satisfaction from the act of imagination itself, that might bother me.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I like this point: part of the reason I run a living world is that as a DM I get a lot of personal satisfaction from it. DM is there at the table with everyone else: their satisfaction also counts.

Err....yeah. Who would disagree with that?

You addressed @Elfcrusher's objections eloquently.

Wait...objections? To what? I'm pretty sure I have the same values you guys have, and play the same way you guys do. I just don't stick my nose in the air and call it "sandboxing". Where I come from it's called "gaming".

I can see that if I made @Elfcrusher's assumptions then I might not see the enjoyment and value in a sandbox / living world approach. You showed how some of those assumptions can be set aside, and I can testify that as a DM what you describe is my SOP. In OOTA, due to unfortunate circumstances the party landed their ally in Blingdenstone in prison. That ally's sister had been captured and I had things set up for the party to help her. They now haven't, and I've had to roll events onward taking that into account. It's a long tale of woe that at this point my PCs are oblivious to. Depending on how things unfold, they might never learn of it. If I didn't derive satisfaction from the act of imagination itself, that might bother me.

Ah, I see. I just don't "derive satisfaction from the act of imagination". Subtle.

You guys are so full of yourselves. Everybody that I know has been playing D&D for the past 35 years the way you are describing; we just never got all sanctimonious about the trade-off between set pieces and improvisation.