Sandbox Setting?

[Ariosto]

Doug, where do you find the tradition in which a "static location-based D&D sandbox" is "traditional"?

Weem, that's between you and your players; ask them! It may simplify the situation all around if the answer is not, "Oh, next time, we'll get on a ship for the Unmapped Continent, I guess ..." but "We are sailing across the sea."

 

[Mallus]

The players have lots of freedom, but there are also plots and the environment is non-static.

That about covers it. In my long-running World of CITY campaign, the whole thing is just the PC's following their various goals. There are no 'adventures' per se, the player's tell we what they're going to do and I --hopefully-- prepare enough to cover it. The outside world frequently intrudes on their carelessly laid plans --like the time it rained ghost-ninja on what supposed to be a nice dinner with wealthy patrons-- but, as adventures, so it goes.

You could still call this a sandbox, but it's of a somewhat different kind, it's not a traditional static location-based D&D sandbox.

When I feel like putting a pretentious name on it, I call it the 'narrative sandbox' approach. Ideally, it's like the PC's are the main characters of a novel who have wrested control of the plot from the author, who tries to keep up with them as best he or she can, occasionally striking back with plot twists of his own.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm curious...

What if, while running a "sandbox" game, you simply asked (at the end of each session) "Give me a run-down on your actions for the next game... where do you intend on going from here?" etc.

Does this detract from the sandbox element, or is it a good way for a DM to know what to plan for the next game?

I think that's a great idea. You get the benefits of player freedom without the drawback of the GM doing lots of unnecessary work.

The only problem is you need sessions to end at the same time adventures do. Also one could argue it's not a perfect sandbox because the players can't go wherever they want in the middle of a session, only at the end. It's still a winning compromise though.

 

[weem]

I think that's a great idea. You get the benefits of player freedom without the drawback of the GM doing lots of unnecessary work.

The only problem is you need sessions to end at the same time adventures do. Also one could argue it's not a perfect sandbox because the players can't go wherever they want in the middle of a session, only at the end. It's still a winning compromise though.

Yea, and I don't need a perfect sandbox for mine, I'm looking to use elements of one so this was the approach I was considering. I understand the discussion is about such campaigns though so I see your point, but like you said it is a good compromise (at least it seemed so to me).

 

[kitsune9]

I'm curious...

What if, while running a "sandbox" game, you simply asked (at the end of each session) "Give me a run-down on your actions for the next game... where do you intend on going from here?" etc.

Does this detract from the sandbox element, or is it a good way for a DM to know what to plan for the next game?

Actually, I think that's what the DM in the West Marches campaign alludes to. He gets his players to determine where they go so he'll work on that area for the next game session.

I couldn't do it with one of my players. If he knows that I run this kind of game, he'll go "off-map", so I have to be prepared x2 to handle him. I'm actually looking forward to a sandbox style campaign.

 

[weem]

kitsune9 said...

Actually, I think that's what the DM in the West Marches campaign alludes to. He gets his players to determine where they go so he'll work on that area for the next game session.

I couldn't do it with one of my players. If he knows that I run this kind of game, he'll go "off-map", so I have to be prepared x2 to handle him. I'm actually looking forward to a sandbox style campaign.

Nice, haha. I had a player like that as well. Well, technically I still "have" him in the current campaign, but he will not be playing in the next campaign I am starting.

As a player I am fine with the knowledge that telling a DM where we are going next will let him/her know what to work on. Of course, I DM a lot so I have that understanding of what's involved when planning games, hehe.

 

[kitsune9]

kitsune9 said...


Nice, haha. I had a player like that as well. Well, technically I still "have" him in the current campaign, but he will not be playing in the next campaign I am starting.

As a player I am fine with the knowledge that telling a DM where we are going next will let him/her know what to work on. Of course, I DM a lot so I have that understanding of what's involved when planning games, hehe.

Oh yeah, when I was playing in a FR game, the DM would run the dungeon crawl classics, but wouldn't read the entire module through (why, I have no idea--it's not like they are huge), so this player would always try to find areas that the DM didn't prepare for. It was funny a lot.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Part of that same post:

I see no problem with letting the PC's enjoy thier victory over the the Big Bad of that area. I wouldn't want to rob them of thier accomplishment just because I misjudged the might of the villain or the PC's did something completely badass and unexpected. I love that stuff! That is proof positive that your players are really into the game, no way I would punish that.

Nature does abhor a vaccuum though. After defeating the local evil and moving on, other heavy hitters in the neighborhood may celebrate the PC's victory more than they do.

 

[LostSoul]

Nature does abhor a vaccuum though. After defeating the local evil and moving on, other heavy hitters in the neighborhood may celebrate the PC's victory more than they do.

In my game, Torog, God of Jailers, Dungeons, etc. has a strong influence in the world. Any place that's been built and then abandoned falls to him. Strange things happen: a pool turns into an ooze, doors become stuck for PCs (but not monsters!), fungus becomes malevolent, monsters are drawn to the area, etc.

 

[ExploderWizard]

In my game, Torog, God of Jailers, Dungeons, etc. has a strong influence in the world. Any place that's been built and then abandoned falls to him. Strange things happen: a pool turns into an ooze, doors become stuck for PCs (but not monsters!), fungus becomes malevolent, monsters are drawn to the area, etc.

I like it. Thats a really great mythos based reason for weird stuff to spring up in dungeons.