Dookie in the Sandbox?

[Doug McCrae]

The save the world plot is lazy writing imo, because it doesn't have to be motivationally tailored to individual characters. 99.9% of people want to save the world, the DM can write his plot without knowing anything about the PCs.

I guess I got sick of it back when I was playing in the campaigns of a guy called Al. He would allow pretty much total freedom regarding what sort of character the players create but as a result there was nothing tying us together us a group. Every campaign he'd be forced to rely on a 'lowest common denominator' save-the-world plot to get us to adventure together. It never made much sense either, there would always be plenty of NPCs much more powerful than us (as there are in most campaign worlds). Why weren't they saving the damn place?

 

[MichaelK]

I generally run games that are sandbox, but have events occurring.

For example the kingdom is undergoing civil war.

The players could choose to side with the younger brother favoured by the church and nobility, or the older brother with rumours of illigitimacy preventing strong alliances who has offered land to any who fight for him.

Or they could decide that they're more interested in fighting that blue dragon that rumour suggests is raising hell in the next country over. Or they want to become businessmen and open a florist store.

Whatever they want to do, that's fine, but the world keeps on ticking. That civil war will eventually resolve itself one way or another, if the players get involved they can help decide which way things turn out.

This may even include events that threaten the entire world. The players don't necessarily have to get involved even in these. The world has a lot of heroes and power players who try to solve these things, so you could just sit back and hope they save the day... but do you really want to take that risk? (and miss out on the glory and rewards that such a quest would offer). What if they fail? Or for that matter what if they succeed and hold it over your your heads?

They can be as proactive or reactive as they want to be. I'll just throw out plot-hooks and see what they're interested in.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I think save-the-world plots can work well, but in my eyes work best when you don't come right out and say it right away. I find it better if there are weaving conspiracy theories, back-stabbing, politics, etc. that tie the PCs together and to the plot and that carries the momentum forward into the big reveal which is whatever save-the-world issue is going on. In many regards it just becomes the background element that is pushing these events forward and the real plotline is digging through the lies and deceit to find the truth. The save-the-world sort of becomes a Hitchcock MacGuffin in that the plot circles around it, but... it isn't the singular focus or what the players are focused on, it could be anything it just happens to be save-the-world.

 

[LostSoul]

"Saving the world" gets you what you want. It also lets you conquer your weaknesses and fears. On one level, it's allegory, which makes sense in a fantasy setting: you represent one of the millions of reasons to continue to live in a world where death wants to end it all.

I have no problem with the PCs "saving the world", but I don't want to make it necessary.

 

[Desdichado]

In my current campaign, if the world needs saving, it's because of the PC's own careless choices early on. They've actually taken a fairly static world and created a situation in which it's no longer static. They're the ones who willingly took service with a demon-queen and did things for her (and for themselves) without asking any questions about what the possible consequences would be.

Granted, maybe anyone could have done this, and the world would be in the same place either way, but it was the PC's that did it.

Did I mention earlier that I'm a bit of a bastard that way?

In any case, I really don't think any of my players would tell you they feel railroaded. The campaign hasn't really been about anything that I thought it might be when they started. They've had extraordinary freedom to pursue the goals that they think are interesting, and I've been quite the enabler in that regard. It is possible to have a "narrative sandbox" where the PCs decide what they're doing, but it's not "explore the next hex to the east" or whatever.

For the point noted above, that PCs don't have anything in common, or any reason to adventure together, I've often seen that problem as well, and we've had to handwave it away a bit with a "this is the adventure; if we don't engage it, we don't have a game" metagame consideration. There is, however, a very nice little subsystem that I borrowed from Spirit of the Century that can address this problem. I used it in my current campaign, and I think it worked brilliantly.

It works more or less as such. You write down each character's name twice on chits, and put all the chits in a cup. Each player draws two chits, making sure he doesn't have his own. For each other character that he draws, he writes a quick small paragraph---no more than 3-5 sentences or so---summary of an adventure that his character and that character participated in at some point in the past. Kinda like the blurb on the back cover of a paperback novel. Because each character is tied specifically to at least two other characters, by the time you've done this, you have a nice web of past history between all your characters, that makes it logical that they would get together.

You still need some kind of opening hook, the "narrow" opening, but it happens much more smoothly using that method, in my experience. There's no more of the throwing your hands in the air because you have to ignore the character and his motivations as you envisioned them just because otherwise there wouldn't be any game; you've got some reasons before you even start for why you'd adventure together.

 

[kitsune9]

Question 1: What types of games are you playing right now?

Site-based freeform: Simulationist, site based adventures. PCs are free to explore in a generally static sandbox. Sessions can often take place in large, open areas (wilderness).

Event-based metaplots: Narrativist, story driven games. NPCs proactively intrude on the lives of PCs, often resulting in frequent setting changes depending on player action. Sessions can often take place in areas with NPCs (cities).

Modular setups: Gamist, tourney style beer & pretzels challenges. RPGA or 'out of the book'. Sessions can often take place in small enclosed areas (dungeons).

Games usually offer a combo of all of these, often with one or two more dominant than the rest.

I'm playing in two games right now. The first is primarily simulationist. We are all elves exploring the world of Everquest. The second is primarily gamist. We are red shirt fodder trying to defeat the Temple of Elemental Evil.

Question 2: If you are playing (or have played) in a site-based, freeform game, what are some issues you've encountered and/or tips for other players/DMs?

As a player, one issue I'm seeing is that encounters seem very random. We're third level, so that should mean we can go back to areas that were challenging at first level and do really well. This is a 3.5 game and my character is an enchanter with spells like sleep and daze. These are very effective spells against lower hit die creatures but not so much vs higher. However, we frequently stumble upon groups of enemies that are beyond our ability because their appearance 'makes sense' in the context of the world. I think it's just an issue of getting to know the world better and avoiding places that are too dangerous.

I'm running a mix event and mod. I don't do sandbox, but I have read blogs on the matter and find sandbox style really interesting and will probably plan something like that on my next campaign.

 

[Krensky]

At the moment, I'm running a military game, so things are relatively linear. Go here, achieve these goals, come back and tell us what happened. The PCs have a bit of leeway, Command doesn't tell them how to achieve their goals and they currently are on the equivalent of a long range recon and raiding patrol so things are a little more sandbox like, but I find it relatively easy to control their movements by controlling their intelligence.

That said, the narrow-wide-narrow model combined with proactive NPCs (the villain's plots proceed independently of the PC's actions if they don't interfere) and a properly structured end game is my normal mode of GMing. A campaign has an end for us. The next one may pick up right away with the same characters in the same place, but there is an arc with a beginning, middle, and end. The middle has lots of side plots, personal plots, character development, research, etc. It still has a 'main' plot line however. How that plotline unfolds depends on the character's natures and actions, however.

 

[Remathilis]

I guess I count as one of the dramatists in the world; a game without a "goal" beyond "leveling up" doesn't appeal to me. I want to save the princess, slay the dragon, defeat the evil empire, or toss the ring of invisibility into the volcano. KM summed it up nicely above (damn spread the wealth XP rule!) that it gives heroes growth opportunity either to become HEROES (an not merely adventurers) or die valiantly trying.

I think Hobos Narrow-Wide-Narrow is another key element; I usually have a slow-running meta-plot (or three) going but none kick off until the PCs take interest. Start them out focused; open the world to them, and then focus in again when the PCs have chosen their goal. My group 99% of the time chooses a "save the world" scenario; but its not mandated.

I think the only one which would "bore" me is the "for gold and glory" motif of being adventurers doing nothing more than going to mysterious places, fighting the locals and pillaging their treasure. In the short term, it works, but I'd grow weary of disconnected "dungeons" one after another...

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I think the only one which would "bore" me is the "for gold and glory" motif of being adventurers doing nothing more than going to mysterious places, fighting the locals and pillaging their treasure. In the short term, it works, but I'd grow weary of disconnected "dungeons" one after another...

Yeah same. I actually realized a little while ago, that in every campaign I have run, I have never used a traditonal dungeon.

 

[Desdichado]

Well, I just have to say that "my" narrow-wide-narrow I first heard from Rel, who heard it from PirateCat. I didn't make it up.

I think I somewhat naturally stumbled onto pretty much that same scheme without putting it into words, but I can't take credit for... well, for putting it into words.

The good news is, if I had any doubts about the strategy (which I didn't) I would have been seriously mollified to know that Rel and PirateCat both preach it.

Also: yeah, I never use dungeons. In fact, I practically break out in hives at the thought of them. I really, really despise the paradigm of exploring dungeons for gp and XP. I got so freakin' bored with that idea as a teenager that I still haven't recovered enough to risk facing that tired, tired concept again.