D&D General Sandbox and/or/vs Linear campaigns

[Reynard]

If you prep something and the PCs do not go there, and then several levels later they choose to go there, should it be the same dungeon? Or, should it now be swapped out with bigger monsters to be challenging to the higher level PCs?

There is a couple ideas I would have if this happens. I might make a set of NPCs that already went there and cleared it out. I might have it remain the same and the PCs have not problem and just overpower the monsters. I might replace the monsters with something since the game evolves along with the PCs. Maybe the goblins, or whatever, were taken over by trolls who now live there.

In a perfect world where the GM had infinite time, they could keep track of all the moving parts as they are happening. Let's say that dungeon held McGuffin #3, which the PCs were told about but chose to ignore in favor of Personal Goal #7. The GM knows that Duke Dingleheart wants McGuffin #3, so since the PCs don't offer to get it, he sends Rival Adventuring party Q after it. The GM makes a couple rolls and establishes that the NPC party succeeds after 3 weeks, losing 2 members. If the PCs don't change course or do something else to influence these events, this is the new status quo. This may hve downstream effects, including Mistress Magika now coveting McGuffin #3 and trying to hire the PCs to steal it, or whatever.

The point is, it does not have to be static if the GM wants time to move forward. This has the benefit of telling the players that their characters exist in a "living world" and the choices they make, including not choosing, will have impacts and consequences.

But, again, that is a perfect world. I might think up some of that stuff when the PCs finally wander into the dungeon hex. Or I might just let them encounter it as is. I don't think I would swap out a more level appropriate dungeon that still fits the evidence, rumors, etc... that led the PCs there. Probably. At the same time, if we are itching to play and this is all I have ready and it doesn't break anything, I might do it anyway. That isn't the right answer and it isn't really how a sandbox should be run, but from a practical "let's spend our gaming time on something actually engaging and fun" perspective, it would probably be okay.

"Shoulds" and "theory" can get bent sometimes when fun is on the line.

 

[overgeeked]

If you prep something and the PCs do not go there, and then several levels later they choose to go there, should it be the same dungeon? Or, should it now be swapped out with bigger monsters to be challenging to the higher level PCs?

There is a couple ideas I would have if this happens. I might make a set of NPCs that already went there and cleared it out. I might have it remain the same and the PCs have not problem and just overpower the monsters. I might replace the monsters with something since the game evolves along with the PCs. Maybe the goblins, or whatever, were taken over by trolls who now live there.

Depends entirely on what you're going for as a referee.

Do you want to maintain the strict integrity of your prep, shoot for verisimilitude, or let the PCs have an easy win? Keep the dungeon the same.

Do you want to challenge the PCs regardless of what you originally prepped for that location? Change it.

You can change it in a lot of different ways. As you mentioned, simply keeping the same map but swapping the monsters is certainly one way to go. Dropping in a completely different dungeon is another.

But yeah, having the original inhabitants taken out and something else moving in is quite common in sandboxes. If the PCs had cleared the dungeon early on, something else would have moved in. So someone else clearing the place is a readily available option.

One of my favorite tricks in that regard is necromancers or powerful undead that can make more undead. The PCs will generally be rewarded for and brag about clearing a dungeon so word gets out that there's a lot of fresh-ish corpses available, so in come the people looking for fresh-ish corpses and an empty dungeon they can take over. If nothing else it's a great opportunity for callbacks to the PCs earlier endeavors and adding some variety to monsters. Goblin zombies, troll wights, etc. Depending on what was there that they took out.

 

[mamba]

It starts the slope. Details drain away the sand.

If the detail is player provided, the sandbox illusion will cover its negative effects....but a DM detail is the slippery slope to a Linear game.

The players are looking for a magic sword and in a Sandbox game it can be anywhere. The DM-player has not put the sword anywhere to find. So the players are free to do whatever random things they want to do to find the sword. And in the sandbox, whatever they do is on the path to find the sword. The DM-player simply creates the path to the sword right in front of the characters, as per the players wishes.

Once the DM says "the sword is in the Dark Tower", this drains away some sand. Now the characters HAVE to go to the dark tower...they are Forced into a Linear Action. And they loose more freedom with every detail.

I don't know, the sword has to be somewhere. The DM saying it is in the Dark Tower is no different from the players saying it is in the Sprite Cave, in either case you now have a fixed location. I am also not sure what the alternative to a fixed location is, the players do random stuff until somehow they come across a magic sword? Not sure how that is any better

 

[Scott Christian]

Inspired by the latest turn that the [rant] thread has taken...

Let's talk about linear and/or/vs sandbox campaign styles!

So, first, let's back up and define "campaign" for our discussion purposes:

Campaign:
1. The DM decides on a campaign setting, be it published or homebrewed or a bit of each, and pitches it to some players
2. The DM outlines the campaign guidelines, including table etiquette, where and when they'll meet, ruleset/books available, house rules, etc.
3. The DM describes how character creation will be accomplished including any limitations and latitudes
4. LG!
Note: Yes, of course, the DM might do all the heavy lifting and just present this to be accepted/rejected, or it could be a true group collaboration, or it could be the DM doing most of the work but with some input from players, or...

Heck, let's back up further and define "D&D" at its very simplistic basic core regardless of edition for our discussion purposes:

D&D:
1. The DM describes a scene
2. The players decide how they want their characters to act, think, or speak in relation to said scene
3. The DM narrates the outcome of the characters' activity, using dice when appropriate
4. Back to 1, with the scene having changed as a result of the characters' activity


Now, what is a sandbox and what is a linear adventure?
Based on personal experience and much that I've gleaned here from the good people of ENWorld*, I'm beginning to think there is probably a spectrum here not just a binary "either/or". The amount of prep work and the amount of improv can vary wildly and is not necessarily correlated with the type of campaign style

I'm going to take a leap and assign some descriptors to the campaign styles here but... I'm not wedded to any of them so suggest away with edits, additions, deletions, fusions...

Basic Linear adventure:
A --> B --> C

• DM has prepared several locations/situations
• The players pick up on the hooks laid down by the DM and progress through them in a prescribed order
• Sometimes pejoratively referred to as a "railroad", sometimes realistically described as a "railroad"

Moderate Linear adventure:
A --> B --> D
or
A --> C --> D
- Same as basic only there is more than one way to get from start to finish

Advanced Linear adventure:
A, B, C, D (or more) are on the table

• Players go about it in any order they want
• Ultimately, A is the start and D is the end, B or C (and more) may or may not be optional to complete D

Basic Sandbox adventure:
Hmm... maybe possibly indistinguishable from the Advanced Linear Adventure?

Moderate Sandbox adventure:
A, B, C, D (and more... perhaps many more) are on the table

• The DM has prepared A, B, C, D but otherwise just has a map with a bunch of places to explore
• The players choose whichever location/situation they want their PCs to explore
• If it is one the DM has prepared, nice!
• If it is one the DM has not prepared, improv or random encounter table!

Advanced Sandbox adventure:
A, B, C, D (and more... many more) are on the table

• The DM has prepared it all. This person does not require sleep and/or is independently wealthy and/or is retired.
• The players choose whichever location/situation they want their PCs to explore
• LG!

Ultimate Sandbox adventure:
There's a map with all the things

• The players choose whichever location/situation they want their PCs to explore
• IMPROV!

*I currently do not have time to do much with D&D aside from my own campaigns and some (occasionally too much) ENWorld reading so... if someone has some great video or blog suggestions on the topic, I'd be willing to check it out.

As a GM, I am in what you call the "advanced sandbox adventure." I generally frame an area, for example, a place called Plumefall Keep. An example of the process is:

• I build a map
• I work out its history (why it is there, who was/is there, why it is important, etc.), then I start filling it with important NPCs.
• Next, I start working on an overall problem. This helps me develop a primary antagonist. I keep very much in mind that they may not be the center role of the sandbox. In fact, the players might not even become aware of them.
• Then I start to develop smaller conflicts. Plot hooks that the adventurers can follow.
• That, in turn, leads me to develop more NPCs, as they might be caught up in the conflict. It also leads me to develop scenes that the players encounter. (I look at this as the stakes part of the adventure. Be it treasure, helping a beloved NPC, fighting for the greater good, earning a title, collecting payment, etc. it boils down to what motivates the group and/or individual player.)
• Next, I always try to work in some roleplaying scenes. These are generally to help the players feel attached to the setting. That makes for building more NPCs.
• At the same time, I try to come up with ways to make the players feel a sense of wonder. This might be an attachment to the land through something magical or just incredible, or it might be an attachment to the exploration piece, ie. getting all the pieces of the map to find the clue about where the treasure/tomb/dungeon is.

Here is an example of the Plumefall Keep map. Inside there are 12 adventures (6 related to (indirectly or directly) the primary antagonist) and a bunch of rp and exploration areas.

 

[Scott Christian]

I know that was a long post, but I should also note that I have run many "railroad" adventures, although I always have different tracks the adventure could take. For example, they recovered the great gem called the King's Heart." This epic and long-lost religious symbol could lead them to being thieves (thus changing the adventure to one of them escaping the kingdom) or have them return as heroes only to deal with other religious sects that are jealous of the gem's appearance.

 

[el-remmen]

If you prep something and the PCs do not go there, and then several levels later they choose to go there, should it be the same dungeon? Or, should it now be swapped out with bigger monsters to be challenging to the higher level PCs?

There is a couple ideas I would have if this happens. I might make a set of NPCs that already went there and cleared it out. I might have it remain the same and the PCs have not problem and just overpower the monsters. I might replace the monsters with something since the game evolves along with the PCs. Maybe the goblins, or whatever, were taken over by trolls who now live there.

Yep. This is basically how I do it. It could be the same, it could be harder (other monsters moved in, or they've had more of a chance to fortify and set traps, etc), it could be they hear of another party who got wealth and fame from having done it and now it is an empty place. The kind of environment and my behind the scenes developing the area based on what I have established about it determines what they encounter.

 

[Laurefindel]

Linear
DM: step in for a rollercoaster ride

Sandbox
DM: entrance to the theme park right this way

Now that I’ve got a few minutes, I’ll elaborate on this rather simplistic (if not completely inaccurate) analogy:

First, let me start with “linear” and “sandbox” are two idealistic concepts; no games are 100% linear or 100% sandbox. I’d even say that most game are somewhere in a 40-60% proportion (going either ways).

In a linear adventure, a chapter of the story needs to be concluded before going on to the next, and Chapter A necessarily lead to Chapter B, itself leading only to Chapter C etc. In a linear game, the outcome of a chapter can differ based on the PCs actions, their victories and defeats, but these outcomes do not change the order of chapters or their planned content. At best, a highly linear game takes the PCs for a wild rollercoaster ride and players are too entertained to realize (or care) that their output has little impact on the direction of the game. At worst, a highly linear game can make players feel like their decisions have no consequences and their agency is denied/ignored.

In a sandbox game, the story can branch in any direction and circle back on itself (or not), based on the decisions of the players and the actions of the PCs. Focus (on the DM side) is put on the setting rather than the content of chapters to come. Oftentimes, the “chapters” of a sandbox game can only be organized as such in retrospect, looking back at what happened and analyzing how the story evolved. At best, a highly sandbox game offers several attracting hooks for fluid plots revolving around a common theme (the campaign setting) and evolving thanks to the agency of PCs. At worst, the game lacks too much structure, direction and purpose to be enticing, and the players feel like they’re just aimlessly wandering in a world that doesn’t care.

 

[Endie]

Ultimate Sandbox adventure:
There's a map with all the things

• The players choose whichever location/situation they want their PCs to explore
• IMPROV!

It doesn’t have to be improv, of course. On discord after each session, I ask the players what they want to do in the next session, and I prep that (or, more often, those). Obviously, improv comes into every session, but it’s not the defining feature.

Also I see that sealion bloke came across from the rant thread with his “I’m just asking questions I simply don’t see what the difference is…” schtick.

 

[bloodtide]

I don't know, the sword has to be somewhere. The DM saying it is in the Dark Tower is no different from the players saying it is in the Sprite Cave, in either case you now have a fixed location. I am also not sure what the alternative to a fixed location is, the players do random stuff until somehow they come across a magic sword? Not sure how that is any better

It is better if you want a more pure sandbox game where nobody says any details.

This style of play seems odd to me. Would the DM just answer back the players with questions themselves. The player asks where the sword is and the DM says you tell me? Do we know what is guarding the sword- You tell me? What kind of sword- you tell me? The DM is not creating anything and just letting the players tell the story?

The player-dm does not get to ask the players of characters questions: they just keep quiet and do as they are told. The sword is where the players want it to be or where the game rules or fiction or chance want it to be.

The bolded is unrelated to what comes after it. The DM can have created the world long ahead of time; as long as the players can bash around in it however they want it's still full sandbox.

True somewhat. Though my point is very few player-dm's that run sandboxes make up very much of a world. A couple lines, maybe. But often not too much.

No, that's the DM introducing a setting element and the players choosing how they react to that element. That's how this works.

And their reaction is Linear or sandboxy.

There are no Quantum Ogres in a Sandbox.

Well, Quantum Sandbox might be a better term or even Qunatiumania.

 

[Thomas Shey]

In a perfect world where the GM had infinite time, they could keep track of all the moving parts as they are happening. Let's say that dungeon held McGuffin #3, which the PCs were told about but chose to ignore in favor of Personal Goal #7. The GM knows that Duke Dingleheart wants McGuffin #3, so since the PCs don't offer to get it, he sends Rival Adventuring party Q after it. The GM makes a couple rolls and establishes that the NPC party succeeds after 3 weeks, losing 2 members. If the PCs don't change course or do something else to influence these events, this is the new status quo. This may hve downstream effects, including Mistress Magika now coveting McGuffin #3 and trying to hire the PCs to steal it, or whatever.

The point is, it does not have to be static if the GM wants time to move forward. This has the benefit of telling the players that their characters exist in a "living world" and the choices they make, including not choosing, will have impacts and consequences.

But, again, that is a perfect world. I might think up some of that stuff when the PCs finally wander into the dungeon hex. Or I might just let them encounter it as is. I don't think I would swap out a more level appropriate dungeon that still fits the evidence, rumors, etc... that led the PCs there. Probably. At the same time, if we are itching to play and this is all I have ready and it doesn't break anything, I might do it anyway. That isn't the right answer and it isn't really how a sandbox should be run, but from a practical "let's spend our gaming time on something actually engaging and fun" perspective, it would probably be okay.

"Shoulds" and "theory" can get bent sometimes when fun is on the line.

There's also the simple fact that "sandbox" and "linear adventure" are not binaries, even if some people think so. You can have a lot of sandbox elements in a basically linear adventure game, or a random linear side plot in a game that otherwise behaves like a sandbox. There can be any number of reasons to do that from someone who doesn't figure being only one or the other is a moral imperative.