Sandbox Setting?

The sandbox setting can be interesting for a while, but eventually the PC's will get tired of nothing but desert terrain and seek greener pastures.:p

And that problem is easily fixed by the simple introduction of a new quest or arrival of a new villainous threat.

Heck even something as simple as a flyby dragon attack could lead the PCs into helping protect and ferry now homeless refugees to a redoubt city or new campaign area.

That's the beauty of the sand box style. Players are only limited on by their own characters' morality and mortality -- as to which types of paths they'll go down.

C.I.D.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Maybe I've been living under a rock for awhile but can someone please explain what a sandbox setting is, particularly a fantasy sandbox setting?
I had to answer this same question on another forum. I'm going to copy & paste some paragraphs from a few different posts. Here we go:

I run a sandbox game. I didn't realize how rare it was until one of the new players said, "I've never played a game before with real options."

My sandbox game is not completely directionless. This is one of the big difficulties with such a game. If you give 'em a world and say, "Do whatever you want," with no plot lines at all, you'll find they sorta aimlessly wander, kill a few random encounters, and get bored. They won't make plots or imagine them for you.

So how I do my open-ended game is that I buy a lot of mini-modules, such as the Dungeon Crawl Classics hardcovers, "The Adventure Begins" and "The Adventure Continues" (each contains about 20 mini adventures that can be completed in one or two game sessions). Then, I scatter those modules onto a map of the region. Finally, I place a rival adventuring party somewhere in the region.

When the campaign begins, I start a game-world calendar and allow both the real PCs and the rival adventuring group to wander the world, making an impact. It's possible for the PCs to spend a night in town, shopping, getting rumors, and doing little else. It's also possible for them to stumble onto a designated module. Or, stumble onto a module too late and the opportunity no longer exists.

I repopulate the region with new modules every few levels, to keep things roughly level-appropriate.

When they begin interacting with a module, I run it as anyone normally would. So if the module has read-aloud text or is a dungeon with only one way forward, then that's what the players get. In those cases, they might feel the module is railroading them and the gameplay is not "sandbox."

However, it is always their option to pursue an adventure path, and they have in fact completely undermined/bypassed entire module plot lines because... I let them. It's also possible for them to develop long-term enemies -- they showed up to rescue a princess, but got into an argument with the town mayor. They were promptly escorted outside of the town gates. At that point, they were completely off the module path, which had assumed they would simply chat up the mayor and get the quest. I quickly dreamed up a plot line involving that mayor getting on the bad side of one of the party's allies, and they'll get to take him out later if the timing is right. But if the timing doesn't work, then it doesn't work. No forcing.

So this is the idea. If you are not dropping your players straight into a pre-built module, then you have to make a living world with something interesting in it. If you're super creative, you can simply ad-lib any awesome story as you play. But if you're like me, you'll need at least a foundation. I put points of action all over the map, give each town a handful of rumors to dole out, and then set the PCs loose. They might bite a plot line, they might not. They might get a line on five or six interesting rumors before finally acting on one. It's fine, so long as your world is worth exploring.

One of the most helpful tricks I've learned about a sandbox game is that you need only 1 of anything, usually. For example, say your players finish a quest and end the game by saying, "We have 3 cities within a day's ride, when get back together, let's pick one and ride to it."

For a newbie sandbox DM, that's a bit daunting. You find yourself thinking, "Oh crap, I have no idea which city they will pick. I do not want to force them to one. I have to stat them all!"

But nope, not really. The players can only get to 1 city during a game session, so get one city done and call it complete. Then whichever city they pick, it's the one you built.

Same with NPCs & villains. Did they kill your main villain in the first of many planned encounters? Are you miserable because now you have to kill that story arc and invent a new bad guy? Why? Unless you specifically said to the players, "This is the main enemy who will be a long-term recurring act," there is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Instead, just write off the first encounter as if it were the BBEG's right-hand man. Re-stat your BBEG to be tougher, and continue on.

Once I learned how to "prepare smart" instead of "prepare everything," it made running a sandbox game 100% easier.
 


The Joke Postman ... was that Kevin Costner?

I found the sites in The Adventure Begins not to my taste in execution (although some of the kernel ideas were pretty nifty) -- but if they work for you, then it could be a very handy package. Twenty little "dungeon modules" scattered around the map can be a quick way to add ready options!
 
Last edited:

All of this has been great information, guys! Thanks to everyone who has responded.

I have noticed based on the advice given here that there are quite a few different ways to go about "sandboxing" but the main constant seems to be the fact that the players are essentially driving the direction their adventures take.

The How to Make a Fantasy Sandbox blog post was fun to read as well. Thanks to estar for posting that.

I get the sense that a sandbox setting should be on the frontier of civilization. Is there any reason why a sandbox setting couldn't exist in more civilized lands?
 

I get the sense that a sandbox setting should be on the frontier of civilization. Is there any reason why a sandbox setting couldn't exist in more civilized lands?

Urban sand-box adventures work (for some groups) as well. The main thing to do is to make a lot of different locations in the city preordained. Make equal or higher level NPCs which have motivations for various things around the city, but don't make them overshadow your players' decisions (at least in the opening part of the adventure).

And the most important thing of all: don't have preconceived notions. Let the players do what they want too and challenge them where appropriate. Sandbox-style doesn't mean going easy on them; it actually might make you go harder.

C.I.D.
 

Judges Guild's City State of the Invincible Overlord is a classic urban setting, and of course the Free City of Greyhawk is another of fame. For a traditional D&D game, though, the surrounding region should be pretty rough and tumble. Adventurers tend to get into a lot of fighting (with whom?) and looting (of what?), which might not coexist very reasonably with a long arm of the law. Then there's the ambition of establishing a barony upon attaining "name" level.

If those assumptions are not part of your game, then neither need be a frontier or dark age setting. The general principles of a "sandbox" are applicable to many different kinds of games!
 

But nope, not really. The players can only get to 1 city during a game session, so get one city done and call it complete. Then whichever city they pick, it's the one you built.

This is one way to run it, but not everyone will like it. I personally would not be happy if I found out the DM was running things this way.
 

This is one way to run it, but not everyone will like it. I personally would not be happy if I found out the DM was running things this way.

Why would you be unhappy if you found out the DM was running a game like aboyd described? It seems to me that if the group decides to go to city B from a choice of A, B and C, and the DM plugs in the one city he has detailed as city B that it would be transparent to the players. Not saying you're wrong to be unhappy, just curious as to why you feel that way.
 

Remove ads

Top