D&D General No Fixed Location -- dynamically rearranging items, monsters, and other game elements in the interests of storytelling

[Prakriti]

I agree. I will add that, anecdotally, I've been running small sandboxes as one-shots for pickup groups on a D&D Discord server as have some of the DMs in our secret cabal. We're experimenting with hexcrawls and the like. What we've seen is that players are highly engaged by these scenarios, often opting to play the same scenarios over and over. There is hunger out there for these types of games that is not being met by Wizards and their APs. Some of these players, as you note, have only ever had plot-based games presented to them and the freedom offered by even a small sandbox in a 4-hour session is highly desirable.

I had a similar experience this week. I'd been dissatisfied with story-based games for a while now, but couldn't really say why. Then, as I was looking up live-plays in preparation for my Ghosts of Saltmarsh campaign, I stumbled across a hexcrawl game on Twitch. Even though the DM was obviously sub-par, I was instantly drawn in. So were the players. It was like a light-bulb went off in my head, and I knew: I need to run a sandbox. So this week, I've been slowly building up a world around my Saltmarsh for players to explore. Uncharted islands, random encounter tables, different terrains, all that good stuff. It has definitely changed my perspective on the game.

 

[Fenris-77]

@iserith - I'm not here to start a grammar war. I was using plot in the general sense, not in the more narrow way you are. which is also perfectly legitimate. I also think it's important to recognize that campaign types exists as a spectrum between the two poles you mention, not just in those two opposite(-ish) states.

 

[iserith]

@iserith - I'm not here to start a grammar war.

Good, then let's not purposefully muddle things when it looks like we're making progress.

 

[Fenris-77]

I wasn't muddling things. Unless common usage is muddling... I certainly wasn't 'purposely muddling'.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Haven’t we all been in a game (or run one) where we think we’ve done everything we need to, we’ve searched everywhere, fought everyone....yet something’s missing, the adventure is incomplete in some way. We look at the DM and he just shrugs.

Sure, we could shrug, too, and head back to town and pursue some other goal.

Sometimes this kind of deadend happens. I’ve been in the DM chair before where this happens and I’m wondering “how do they not realize where to go/what to do next?” And the truth is that what’s obvious to the DM and what’s obvious to the players are different things.

Maybe the DM didn’t accurately portray the information that would help the players figure out their next steps? Maybe the “clues” just aren’t as meaningful as they would seem to be? Maybe it’s a combination of those and maybe meta concerns....it’s late and people are getting foggy?

It could be anything. To assume that it’s always the failing of the PCs is naive. And if we can accept that, then I can’t understand how any DM wouldn’t consider making an adjustment to help restore the original intent.

And I think that’s what’s key here. Set aside talk of railroads and sandboxes....there’s a goal in any situation. Find the treasure, clear the caves of monsters, slay the dragon, rescue the townsfolk....whatever it may be, there’s a goal.

The DM can fail to accurately portray that goal or the steps needed to reach that goal.

For me, a DM who’s willing to let everyone at the table shrug and then move on....I mean, does that sound like an engaging experience? One where everyone shrugs?

Adjustments like this are, to me at least, a sign of a thoughtful DM, who is considering not just how things are written prior to play, but how things have gone in play.

Holding what’s written up as somehow more meaningful than what emerges through play is really odd to me. Like a bewildered general who’s lost the battle due to changing conditions, who simply points at the battle plan he had prior to the engagement.

 

[iserith]

Haven’t we all been in a game (or run one) where we think we’ve done everything we need to, we’ve searched everywhere, fought everyone....yet something’s missing, the adventure is incomplete in some way. We look at the DM and he just shrugs.

Sure, we could shrug, too, and head back to town and pursue some other goal.

Sometimes this kind of deadend happens. I’ve been in the DM chair before where this happens and I’m wondering “how do they not realize where to go/what to do next?” And the truth is that what’s obvious to the DM and what’s obvious to the players are different things.

Maybe the DM didn’t accurately portray the information that would help the players figure out their next steps? Maybe the “clues” just aren’t as meaningful as they would seem to be? Maybe it’s a combination of those and maybe meta concerns....it’s late and people are getting foggy?

Yep, classic problem with a plot-based game.

It could be anything. To assume that it’s always the failing of the PCs is naive. And if we can accept that, then I can’t understand how any DM wouldn’t consider making an adjustment to help restore the original intent.

In a plot-based game, that might be a good tool to use.

And I think that’s what’s key here. Set aside talk of railroads and sandboxes....there’s a goal in any situation. Find the treasure, clear the caves of monsters, slay the dragon, rescue the townsfolk....whatever it may be, there’s a goal.

The DM can fail to accurately portray that goal or the steps needed to reach that goal.

For me, a DM who’s willing to let everyone at the table shrug and then move on....I mean, does that sound like an engaging experience? One where everyone shrugs?

Inherent in your questions, I believe, is a presupposition that the characters' goal needs to be achieved. It doesn't. As the PHB or Basic Rules points out, the characters can totally fail and the players can still "win" provided everyone had fun and created an exciting, memorable story by playing. Success is not a precondition to fun, though undoubtedly it helps. Further, in a sandbox game, there is rarely one goal. If you fail to find the treasure, clear the cave of monsters, slay the dragon, rescue the townsfolk... you can just go do something else that is also engaging.

 

[Prakriti]

Holding what’s written up as somehow more meaningful than what emerges through play is really odd to me. Like a bewildered general who’s lost the battle due to changing conditions, who simply points at the battle plan he had prior to the engagement.

Good analogy. And sometimes I've been that stubborn general who stuck to the plan even when the players were bored. The last time this happened was during my Storm King's Thunder campaign a few years ago. The players had just reached a door leading into a dungeon when we called the session for the night. The players thought they were going to venture into the dungeon at the start of the next session, but the book had other ideas. The door they were standing outside was shut, and they had no way to open it.

I knew my players weren't going to like this. But as an experiment, I decided to run the adventure as written anyway. I thought maybe, just maybe, my instincts were wrong, and I was actually doing my players a disservice by helping them out in some way. Well, that wasn't the case. I thought my players would be frustrated and bored, and they were. They spent the first twenty or thirty minutes of the game tossing around ideas that I knew wouldn't work. It wasn't fun for anyone. And that's when I decided to never doubt my instincts again and to always adjust an adventure on the fly if it needed it. Because being bored and frustrated is not fun.

 

[Arilyn]

Good analogy. And sometimes I've been that stubborn general who stuck to the plan even when the players were bored. The last time this happened was during my Storm King's Thunder campaign a few years ago. The players had just reached a door leading into a dungeon when we called the session for the night. The players thought they were going to venture into the dungeon at the start of the next session, but the book had other ideas. The door they were standing outside was shut, and they had no way to open it.

I knew my players weren't going to like this. But as an experiment, I decided to run the adventure as written anyway. I thought maybe, just maybe, my instincts were wrong, and I was actually doing my players a disservice by helping them out in some way. Well, that wasn't the case. I thought my players would be frustrated and bored, and they were. They spent the first twenty or thirty minutes of the game tossing around ideas that I knew wouldn't work. It wasn't fun for anyone. And that's when I decided to never doubt my instincts again and to always adjust an adventure on the fly if it needed it. Because being bored and frustrated is not fun.

Yes, I believe reading your players is the most important skill a GM can have. When the players' are frustrated, but then triumph, that's great, but when the frustration starts to turn to boredom and disinterest, then some tweaking is probably called for.

Even in a sandbox, if the players seem excited about exploring the Tomb of the Lost Sage, but get stuck outside because they can't find the secret entrance? Sure, they can head off to the bandits' camp instead, and if players seem fine with this, no problem, but if they're sighing, getting into fiece "player" fights over whether to give up on tomb, then probably not a good idea to let things stand.

You made a good point about following your GM instincts. And this really isn't tied to any particular type of game. As Hawkeyefan mentioned it might also depend on lateness of hour or mood of players on that particular day.

 

[iserith]

Good analogy. And sometimes I've been that stubborn general who stuck to the plan even when the players were bored. The last time this happened was during my Storm King's Thunder campaign a few years ago. The players had just reached a door leading into a dungeon when we called the session for the night. The players thought they were going to venture into the dungeon at the start of the next session, but the book had other ideas. The door they were standing outside was shut, and they had no way to open it.

I knew my players weren't going to like this. But as an experiment, I decided to run the adventure as written anyway. I thought maybe, just maybe, my instincts were wrong, and I was actually doing my players a disservice by helping them out in some way. Well, that wasn't the case. I thought my players would be frustrated and bored, and they were. They spent the first twenty or thirty minutes of the game tossing around ideas that I knew wouldn't work. It wasn't fun for anyone. And that's when I decided to never doubt my instincts again and to always adjust an adventure on the fly if it needed it. Because being bored and frustrated is not fun.

I haven't read this adventure, but could you have just said "This door is impenetrable and you lack what is needed to open it..." then redirect back to the plotline?

 

[Xetheral]

I think it's important not to muddle terms here for the sake of communication. Those are better called "situations" or the like in my view rather than "plots" which have a predetermined direction as in a published storyline. There are location-based games (sandbox) and there are event-based games (plots).

I think it's worth pointing out that not all sandboxes are location-based. One can fill a sandbox with location-agnostic "plots" (each consisting of a series of scripted/improvised/player-initiated events) as easily as one can fill it with locations with attached "situations".

From my standpoint the salient feature of a sandbox is that the choice of what setting elements to engage with belongs to the players. Those setting elements can be location-based or event-based or some mix of the two.