D&D General Sandbox Campaigns should have a Default Action.

[Maxperson]

putting a high CR monster into a low level gameis so much fun (until someone LEROY JENKINS it early... then it could be amazing or TPK worthy.

Yep. Back in the early days of 3e a rolled a random encounter for the area being traveled through and a red dragon came up. Knowing the party was only 3rd level, I had a bit of fun and made it ancient and sat it on a hill just sunning itself with its eyes shut. It had no interest in the group and just wanted to enjoy the heat. Then one of the players decided it would be fun to see if he could sneak up and touch it without it noticing...

...next campaign!

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think absolute infinite choice is necessary for a sandbox. Everyone knows there is limited time and resources. The discussion about Chult should happen in session 0 or even earlier -- the "what game are we going to play" discussion. Not that it isn't possible for a campaign to take a hard left turn, but if it does everyone needs to be okay with the GM taking a few weeks off to prep/research/brainstorm the new situation.

I run my games in a manner that puts the entire world at their fingertips.................assuming they know about it. As was mentioned in another post, the group may not even know about Chult. However, if they do and they decide to zig when I thought they would zag, they understand that I might need to end the evening and come back prepared the next week.

Usually I don't have to do that. I've been running the Realms since 1e, so I can generally keep things going at least until the end of the session with a bit of improvisation. Occasionally I'm just thrown for a loop.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yep. Back in the early days of 3e a rolled a random encounter for the area being traveled through and a red dragon came up. Knowing the party was only 3rd level, I had a bit of fun and made it ancient and sat it on a hill just sunning itself with its eyes shut. It had no interest in the group and just wanted to enjoy the heat. Then one of the players decided it would be fun to see if he could sneak up and touch it without it noticing...

...next campaign!

I think the issue of challenge levels for parties and lethality of encounters is sort of the sandboxes problem of evil. It is the one big question that can really undermine the validity of a sandbox. It seems to get at the heart of some core concerns, so It think it is definitely worth discussion and thought. My feeling on this is I don't want the world to have a sense that it is oriented towards the PCs power levels, but I also need to have a sense of fairness in how I manage these things. If a GM wants they could have 30 dragons swoop from the sky and incinerate the players. So if the GM really hits the gas, the party can be killed. But I also want the possibility of facing overpowering foes, being killed or experiencing a total party kill. For me being balanced about it, using things like encounter tables, giving thought to why a particular result is there and really trying to be fair about it, and giving the players a fair chance. One important thing to keep in mind is a lot of threats, unless their goal is to eat the characters (which it could be) don't necessarily want the characters dead. Some might just want them out of the way, might want to take their things, or might want to coerce them into leaving an area. But character death is very much on the table in my games. Usually when something more powerful shows up, I consider that a moment for me to be very conscious about how I am GMing, and make sure I am giving players the full array of options they ought to have in that scenario (i.e. if it was a big lumbering dinosaur of a monster, did I give them a fair indication of its approach or allow them to make some kind of survival or detect roll?)

 

[Maxperson]

I think the issue of challenge levels for parties and lethality of encounters is sort of the sandboxes problem of evil. It is the one big question that can really undermine the validity of a sandbox. It seems to get at the heart of some core concerns, so It think it is definitely worth discussion and thought. My feeling on this is I don't want the world to have a sense that it is oriented towards the PCs power levels, but I also need to have a sense of fairness in how I manage these things. If a GM wants they could have 30 dragons swoop from the sky and incinerate the players. So if the GM really hits the gas, the party can be killed. But I also want the possibility of facing overpowering foes, being killed or experiencing a total party kill. For me being balanced about it, using things like encounter tables, giving thought to why a particular result is there and really trying to be fair about it, and giving the players a fair chance. One important thing to keep in mind is a lot of threats, unless their goal is to eat the characters (which it could be) don't necessarily want the characters dead. Some might just want them out of the way, might want to take their things, or might want to coerce them into leaving an area. But character death is very much on the table in my games. Usually when something more powerful shows up, I consider that a moment for me to be very conscious about how I am GMing, and make sure I am giving players the full array of options they ought to have in that scenario (i.e. if it was a big lumbering dinosaur of a monster, did I give them a fair indication of its approach or allow them to make some kind of survival or detect roll?)

I completely agree. As I said, it was an ancient red dragon and the party was 3rd level. It was obvious on its face to all of them that it wasn't even remotely in their league of things that they can handle. And I knew it was aware of, because dragon senses, but didn't care about the group. It was just enjoying the sun. This wasn't an encounter designed to incinerate the group. It wasn't until one literally decided to poke the proverbial bear that it bit them.....................hard.

I don't often put in encounters that will annihilate the party if handled the wrong way, but when I do I make sure that they know that it's way beyond them and have it set up in such a way that they should be able to navigate the encounter without combat. Time to run away from that dinosaur above. The creature is more interested in finding out something or has a task it wants the group for. Something other than combat is in mind.

 

[FallenRX]

Excuse me but i believe that the main unanswered point is not the sandbox campaign itself rather than the experience* of both DM and players... If the DM presents this question, it is clear he is missing smtg in terms of game mastery and the same works for players: they likely need to run a more structured experience like an adventure module the DM will offer them with a couple of hooks, that's all.
Let me add a last note: that could be a situation the DM will never get away... There is also the possibility that the group ofplayers wants to be railroaded, always!

* Edit: the term experience here is not the one related to the longevity of play or the accumulated know how... It is the word related to the taste that both dm and players are looking for from the game!

No party wants to be railroaded, but a lot of parties want options and directions. If your ever in a situations where "The party wants to be railroaded" I promise you it is 100% of the time on the DM

 

[Reynard]

No party wants to be railroaded, but a lot of parties want options and directions. If your ever in a situations where "The party wants to be railroaded" I promise you it is 100% of the time on the DM

Some do. I have GMed some. Often it is when they wan tto experience a story. It is a totally valid way to play RPGs. It's the tabletop equivalent of the Uncharted games.

 

[FallenRX]

yes, you started it that way... so we talked about our backstories... I will pull some random examples

I am a Ranger that grew up a farmer (hence my survival skills, and I am touch cause farm boy) who's family was killed and his farm burned down. I grew up with a town bully I hated and a girl (now woman) that both me and said bully liked. She WANTED to be a hero someone from the stories.
Ken is playing a Fighter he was the bully in my home town but got drafted into the military of a local lord and fight in a war... he is back now and feels bad for how he treated me and 'wants to make it up to me' he has a bit of ptsd and doesn't know what he wants to do but he is with us
Kari was the girl that we both had crushes on... but she only wanted to be an 'adventurer' and as such she went to a local wizard and learned magic and how to fight like the characters in her stories... she is a bard, and she is just traveling with her two best friends looking to see what is out there.
(all three of us are human)
We are joined by
Kurt who is a warforged Druid/Wizard... he has ever plan on going necromancer and RPing being a blighter of sorts. He hates civilization and wants it torn down... but he hasn't figured out how to replace it yet. He was made to be a killer by the master of the wizard that taught Kari and rebealed when he got a soul...somehow
and
Matt who is a teifling hexblade. His background reads like a who's who and whats what of cliches...


so we have 1 player that really has no goals (matt) we have one looking for something amazing to happen (kari) we have 2 that there conflict drama and plot are all interpersonal and self discovery (me and ken) and we have 1 who will have something to build to but has not starting point (kurt)

so how long do we sit in this bar and talk before something happens?

The issue here is they know what they want to do, but not how, this is how bad sandbox campaigns kinda begin, with no means to actually interact or make something happen in this world, their motivations themselves are moots. That what the default action are for, the primary method to give them ways to actually do those motivations, and get what they want to do done, while also presenting other options, actual control over the scenarios in questions, and what/how they wanna do it. and a default way of learning about where to go do actually pursue these goals.

 

[FallenRX]

Some do. I have GMed some. Often it is when they wan tto experience a story. It is a totally valid way to play RPGs. It's the tabletop equivalent of the Uncharted games.

You are thinking that linear adventures are railroads, this is not true, people want linear story driven adventures, but no one actually wants a rail road truly, this is a false equvaliance, and a total misunderstanding.

 

[Reynard]

You are thinking that linear adventures are railroads, this is not true, people want linear story driven adventures, but no one actually wants a rail road truly, this is a false equvaliance, and a total misunderstanding.

I am looking forward to the explanation as to how these things are completely unalike, as opposed to a mild variation in tone and/or consent.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The issue here is they know what they want to do, but not how, this is how bad sandbox campaigns kinda begin, with no means to actually interact or make something happen in this world, their motivations themselves are moots.

that is exactly the issue, and why the DM needs to nudge them with an event or two... give them some options then as it goes on they will (hopefully) fill out

That what the default action are for, the primary method to give them ways to actually do those motivations, and get what they want to do done, while also presenting other options, actual control over the scenarios in questions, and what/how they wanna do it. and a default way of learning about where to go do actually pursue these goals.

except in this case what would you have a 'default action' be... I would argue where it COULD be useful if you come into a new town, starting in the bar there isn't much of an action until something happens.