D&D General Ad Hoc, Rail Road, Sandbox?

[Zardnaar]

Generally i woukd regard may DM style as beer and pretzels ad hoc sandbox.

By that it's more casual and I do a light sandbox. Players have a lot of agency. It's not unlimited though.

DM has to have fun as well. I always consult the players on the sand box they want to play in however. Currently it's Baldurs Gate.

They don't have complete freedom though. Hypothetically (it's never been an issue) if they choose Baldurs Gate (or whatever) sandbox and then decided they wanted to go to chult I'll probably end the campaign in short order. Mostly because I tend to it about 10-20hours into developing a new campaign. Waste my tine like that it's pointless to continue.

Campaigns generally go about a year a short one is 6 months or so. Eventually DM (me) gets bored or I can't be bothered dealing with high level abilities (my cap is usually 10-12).

Short campaigns usually the sandbox isn't working out as intended or group dynamics off. For example players picked Norse once but I couldn't really make it work to my satisfaction and player vibes I wrapped it up at level 7.

I design mostly from session to session/level. I'll write up notes and design next session based on players actions. They have a lot of agency within the sandbox. It's a lot less railroaded than any published WotC adventure.

Usually good world building I'm good at that. I rarely have a defined BBEG though like Strahd. Designing session to session it's more of a villain of the week (level). Current campaign for example I've been building up the dead 3 since level 4. Level 9 they'll face an avatar of Myrkul.

Ad Hoc is used to fill in the gaps or if they do something unexpected. An entire session my be ad hoc sometimes. Random npc name generators behind the screen can be useful. Take notes type it up later. 100% ad Hoc not a fan and in my experience those games tend to collapse anyway.

That's how I do it anyway. What are your thoughts? How do you do it or what do you want?

 

[Reynard]

Just a note: ad hoc is a different axis than sandbox vs railroad. The GM can still railroad the PCs and otherwise deny them agency in an ad hoc manner.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

I don't DM often--ever really. But as a player I love a good railroad. That might sound strange but when I play D&D I am there to take part in a story, make some choices, and see where the adventure takes me. Like the old Pick-A-Path to adventure books.

I have a hard job and a mentally exhausting one--so game time is for fun and relaxation (and sometimes beers!). I like it simple and fast-paced with a nice dose of humor thrown in.

I don't have complex backgrounds for my PCs and I don't have "story arcs" or any such thing I care about. Some other player wants their PC to avenge a loved one and have the DM make that part of the adventure? Ok I guess, but I won't do that. If the DM suggests something based on my PC? Fine, whatever, let's just have fun.

Now, as a player what I don't care for is when a game gets bogged down. Players taking too long on their turns, not paying attention so they don't know what to do on their turn, not knowing the stuff their PCs can do and wasting time looking stuff up. I can work pretty easily with most DMs, it is players like this that really will kill a game for me.

Other things like roll in the open or secret, fudging rolls or not, whatever. Man, if you need to fudge a roll to have fun, knock yourself out. If it gets too obvious or silly, it might bug me, but otherwise we're all there to enjoy ourselves so as long as your fun doesn't ruin mine, knock yourself out.

I guess that's it. Ad hoc DMing is fine unless it gets ridiculous. Sandbox is meh for me, I'll throw a dart at the map and say "let's go there."

 

[bedir than]

For me beer & pretzels is about table attitude more than campaign style.
It can be done with a strict linear railroad or a big open sandbox. It's about being casual, joking, light in stress.

 

[Theory of Games]

Generally i woukd regard may DM style as beer and pretzels ad hoc sandbox.

By that it's more casual and I do a light sandbox. Players have a lot of agency. It's not unlimited though.

DM has to have fun as well. I always consult the players on the sand box they want to play in however. Currently it's Baldurs Gate.

Wow really? I would never ask players what setting they want. Setting IMO belongs to the GM.

They don't have complete freedom though. Hypothetically (it's never been an issue) if they choose Baldurs Gate (or whatever) sandbox and then decided they wanted to go to chult I'll probably end the campaign in short order. Mostly because I tend to it about 10-20hours into developing a new campaign. Waste my tine like that it's pointless to continue.

Seems like your players drag you from one sandbox to the next on a whim. I could never do that.

Campaigns generally go about a year a short one is 6 months or so. Eventually DM (me) gets bored or I can't be bothered dealing with high level abilities (my cap is usually 10-12).

That's pretty long for casual play. I tend to mirror the players: if they're excited about a campaign, it fuels my creativity. When they get bored, I start suggesting something else. My average campaign is about 6-12 months or so. That's start to finish.

Short campaigns usually the sandbox isn't working out as intended or group dynamics off. For example players picked Norse once but I couldn't really make it work to my satisfaction and player vibes I wrapped it up at level 7.

Same. Group dynamic is everything IME. Then there's games I tried to run that fell apart because I learned to hate the system (4e, Marvel Heroic, Shadowrun).

I design mostly from session to session/level. I'll write up notes and design next session based on players actions. They have a lot of agency within the sandbox. It's a lot less railroaded than any published WotC adventure.

When I start a campaign I usually have the whole thing done except for some scene details I left "open" so I could adjust them later depending on my mood or new ideas. I can't start a campaign without knowing how the ending might look. I need to know the end, even if the players go in the opposite direction and that ending never happens - I want to know how it could end. It gives me something to pursue.

In-between sessions/scenes I'll note how the PCs have changed the setting with their actions. Players love that - "making a difference". It's like candy for them. So I give them 99% agency: they can do whatever they want, BUT the campaign is about "X" so they can do whatever, but they also have to stay focused on "X". Ultimately. NPC attitude change towards the PCs, right? Instead of a railroad, it's an escalation of consequences.

Usually good world building I'm good at that. I rarely have a defined BBEG though like Strahd. Designing session to session it's more of a villain of the week (level). Current campaign for example I've been building up the dead 3 since level 4. Level 9 they'll face an avatar of Myrkul.

I hate world-building. I did it when I was a new DM and the players could care less. IME all most players care about is their character and I can't fault them for it. But I'm not wasting my time building a setting then. I use published settings. It's easier prep-wise. I just give the players all the setting info and some rumors right up front and let 'em run with it.

There's always a BBEG. I can't imagine a campaign without one. The BBEG is my GMPC: they drive the action. They are always doing something behind the scenes. Usually, they are plotting the demise of the PCs. And I usually don't wait until the "climactic final scene" to have that BBEG fight. I like that fight in the middle of the campaign - right when the PCs least expect it. If things go bad for the BBEG, they can escape and come back later stronger than ever.

Ad Hoc is used to fill in the gaps or if they do something unexpected. An entire session my be ad hoc sometimes. Random npc name generators behind the screen can be useful. Take notes type it up later. 100% ad Hoc not a fan and in my experience those games tend to collapse anyway.

I don't worry about the players surprising me anymore. I give them enough agency so that I expect the unexpected. I tell them that if they can save the day in two sessions, great - now we can move on to the next campaign. I mean playing ttrpgs is a group conversation where anything can happen. So I just let it happen. Main thing is to have fun, right?

That's how I do it anyway. What are your thoughts? How do you do it or what do you want?

I like your way. It's easy and looks like fun for everybody involved

 

[Zardnaar]

Wow really? I would never ask players what setting they want. Setting IMO belongs to the GM.

Seems like your players drag you from one sandbox to the next on a whim. I could never do that.

That's pretty long for casual play. I tend to mirror the players: if they're excited about a campaign, it fuels my creativity. When they get bored, I start suggesting something else. My average campaign is about 6-12 months or so. That's start to finish.

Same. Group dynamic is everything IME. Then there's games I tried to run that fell apart because I learned to hate the system (4e, Marvel Heroic, Shadowrun).

When I start a campaign I usually have the whole thing done except for some scene details I left "open" so I could adjust them later depending on my mood or new ideas. I can't start a campaign without knowing how the ending might look. I need to know the end, even if the players go in the opposite direction and that ending never happens - I want to know how it could end. It gives me something to pursue.

In-between sessions/scenes I'll note how the PCs have changed the setting with their actions. Players love that - "making a difference". It's like candy for them. So I give them 99% agency: they can do whatever they want, BUT the campaign is about "X" so they can do whatever, but they also have to stay focused on "X". Ultimately. NPC attitude change towards the PCs, right? Instead of a railroad, it's an escalation of consequences.

I hate world-building. I did it when I was a new DM and the players could care less. IME all most players care about is their character and I can't fault them for it. But I'm not wasting my time building a setting then. I use published settings. It's easier prep-wise. I just give the players all the setting info and some rumors right up front and let 'em run with it.

There's always a BBEG. I can't imagine a campaign without one. The BBEG is my GMPC: they drive the action. They are always doing something behind the scenes. Usually, they are plotting the demise of the PCs. And I usually don't wait until the "climactic final scene" to have that BBEG fight. I like that fight in the middle of the campaign - right when the PCs least expect it. If things go bad for the BBEG, they can escape and come back later stronger than ever.

I don't worry about the players surprising me anymore. I give them enough agency so that I expect the unexpected. I tell them that if they can save the day in two sessions, great - now we can move on to the next campaign. I mean playing ttrpgs is a group conversation where anything can happen. So I just let it happen. Main thing is to have fun, right?

I like your way. It's easy and looks like fun for everybody involved

Players get a curated list of around 5 options if I'm not pitching something specific.

 

[Yaarel]

Generally i woukd regard may DM style as beer and pretzels ad hoc sandbox.

By that it's more casual and I do a light sandbox. Players have a lot of agency. It's not unlimited though.

DM has to have fun as well. I always consult the players on the sand box they want to play in however. Currently it's Baldurs Gate.

They don't have complete freedom though. Hypothetically (it's never been an issue) if they choose Baldurs Gate (or whatever) sandbox and then decided they wanted to go to chult I'll probably end the campaign in short order. Mostly because I tend to it about 10-20hours into developing a new campaign. Waste my tine like that it's pointless to continue.

Campaigns generally go about a year a short one is 6 months or so. Eventually DM (me) gets bored or I can't be bothered dealing with high level abilities (my cap is usually 10-12).

Short campaigns usually the sandbox isn't working out as intended or group dynamics off. For example players picked Norse once but I couldn't really make it work to my satisfaction and player vibes I wrapped it up at level 7.

I design mostly from session to session/level. I'll write up notes and design next session based on players actions. They have a lot of agency within the sandbox. It's a lot less railroaded than any published WotC adventure.

Usually good world building I'm good at that. I rarely have a defined BBEG though like Strahd. Designing session to session it's more of a villain of the week (level). Current campaign for example I've been building up the dead 3 since level 4. Level 9 they'll face an avatar of Myrkul.

Ad Hoc is used to fill in the gaps or if they do something unexpected. An entire session my be ad hoc sometimes. Random npc name generators behind the screen can be useful. Take notes type it up later. 100% ad Hoc not a fan and in my experience those games tend to collapse anyway.

That's how I do it anyway. What are your thoughts? How do you do it or what do you want?

Maybe the ideal is to have a sandbox with 'rides'.

The rides are like amusement park rides, with dedicated themes. It is possible to get off a ride and back to the sandbox. But if the players are enjoying the ride, it helps when the DM makes it clear what they "should" do next as part of the ride. Whether the players do or dont is up to them.

For fantasy cities, it is especially important to have at least a few rides.

(A YouTube video from PointyHat convinced me about the idea of a city needing to be like an amusement park with rides. By extension any sandbox does well to offer rides.)

 

[Zardnaar]

Maybe the ideal is to have a sandbox with 'rides'.

The rides are like amusement park rides, with dedicated themes. It is possible to get off a ride and back to the sandbox. But if the players are enjoying the ride, it helps when the DM makes it clear what they "should" do next as part of the ride. Whether the players do or dont is up to them.

For fantasy cities, it is especially important to have at least a few rides.

(A YouTube video from PointyHat convinced me about the idea of a city needing to be like an amusement park with rides. By extension any sandbox does well to offer rides.)

Yeah that's kinda how I do it.

I ran the witch light carnival redone as carnival of souls.

 

[jgsugden]

The first time I play with a new group I give them a choice: Pregen or my Homebrew. If they select a Pregen, they're free to break from it and do something else, but I plan for them to follow the general railroaded course laid out and they generally do.

If they select Homebrew I run my 'starter' campaign. It starts with a railroad that runs about to 5th level and then explodes into an open sandbox. However, the sandbox lays out clues that eventually come together to reveal there is something that has to be addressed at the end. While the PCs could elect not to do so, it is one of those really important things and they're in the best position to address it... so, in effect it becomes a closing railroad.

Once I have played with a group once I give them a few options: Published Campaign or a Homebrew: Megadungeon (LiKe DotMM) , War Story (like Red Hand of Doom), Political Intrigue (Like Pathfinder Kingmaker), or totally open Sandbox. I have my homebrew campaigns meant to run levels 1 to 20 in the first three options, but with the sandbox I'll mix modules I like with homebrew and just drop hooks until they grab one. While I build PC centered stories around their characters, I tend to not do as much building of a central agnostic storyline in these sandboxes unless something they do inspires me. I am also in the middle of redesigning a failed campaign design inspired by Dr. Who.