D&D 5E Status Quo Campaigns

[Snoring Rock]

My use of status quo means that I do not run around just ahead of the PCs sizing thing and balancing it for them. Dragons stay where they are. Orcs as well. My world evolves and is very much a huge sandbox. Judges Guild invented sandbox. What I mean is that I do not balance encounters. The PCs know that going in.

 

[Celtavian]

My use of status quo means that I do not run around just ahead of the PCs sizing thing and balancing it for them. Dragons stay where they are. Orcs as well. My world evolves and is very much a huge sandbox. Judges Guild invented sandbox. What I mean is that I do not balance encounters. The PCs know that going in.

I thought you were looking for new ideas. This is just a thread of people agreeing that they do things the same.

 

[Snoring Rock]

I thought you were looking for new ideas. This is just a thread of people agreeing that they do things the same.

Ha, it appears that way. I am looking for ideas. Sometimes I place great published adventures in locations that make sense from a world-building point of view, but sometimes the PC's never find that corner of the world. I just wondered how many DM's do that but keep the more fluid type adventures at the ready to throw in anywhere. If so, how do you manage it?

I usually stick published stuff somewhere and leave it there. I create on the fly to fill it all in. Sometimes I look for ideas on that.

 

[neobolts]

My campaigns consist of tons of up front worldbuilding, and then I have a loose outline of the various story arcs that will play out as the players proceed thorough the story. My games are definitely not a sandbox, and play more like a module set in an expansive setting. The outline can get revised based on the players' actions as I go, but unless the players do something radically unusual, the key points should play out intact.

I've tried true sandbox before, but felt it became too episodic and lacked the overarching story I like.

 

[AriochQ]

My campaigns consist of tons of up front worldbuilding, and then I have a loose outline of the various story arcs that will play out as the players proceed thorough the story. My games are definitely not a sandbox, and play more like a module set in an expansive setting. The outline can get revised based on the players' actions as I go, but unless the players do something radically unusual, the key points should play out intact.

I've tried true sandbox before, but felt it became too episodic and lacked the overarching story I like.

Reading what you posted, I end up somewhat confused. I think a true sandbox would be the opposite of episodic.

In my current (sandbox) campaign I have to resist having story arcs run into each other as, although it is convenient, it would be unrealistic plotwise in most cases. Episodic, in my mind, would result in nice clean stand alone adventures with clear staring and ending points. Instead, the campaign resembles an epic fantasy novel (in my deluded mind at least), in that there is a sweeping campaign level plot which the characters tend to crisscross throughout their adventures. There are also many subplots, usually character based, which the group pursues from time to time.

Nothing keeps them from saying "Screw it, I'm goin' home!" at any point, although they generally follow the story arcs in most cases. The sandbox aspect comes into play more often when I need to revise things based on the outcome of the players actions. For example, I expect them to kill an evil vampire and instead they befriend him and use him to reach another goal (just an off-top-of-the-head example, this didn't actually happen).

So I guess sandbox occurs at two levels:
A) The story arc level
and
B) The individual adventure level

DM's can mix and match levels of sandbox to suit their style.

 

[neobolts]

Reading what you posted, I end up somewhat confused. I think a true sandbox would be the opposite of episodic.

In my current (sandbox) campaign I have to resist having story arcs run into each other as, although it is convenient, it would be unrealistic plotwise in most cases. Episodic, in my mind, would result in nice clean stand alone adventures with clear staring and ending points. Instead, the campaign resembles an epic fantasy novel (in my deluded mind at least), in that there is a sweeping campaign level plot which the characters tend to crisscross throughout their adventures. There are also many subplots, usually character based, which the group pursues from time to time.

Nothing keeps them from saying "Screw it, I'm goin' home!" at any point, although they generally follow the story arcs in most cases. The sandbox aspect comes into play more often when I need to revise things based on the outcome of the players actions. For example, I expect them to kill an evil vampire and instead they befriend him and use him to reach another goal (just an off-top-of-the-head example, this didn't actually happen).

So I guess sandbox occurs at two levels:
A) The story arc level
and
B) The individual adventure level

DM's can mix and match levels of sandbox to suit their style.

My sandbox was episodic in the sense that the map was a collection of points of interest with hooks attached. The party went whereever they wanted without any guidance from me. There were no story arcs. It was like wandering in a random direction in Skyrim. Better yet, Scooby-Doo is the perfect example of an episodic sandbox. They wander around and the episodes could be played in any order.

By comparison, modules are set in massive settings but are typically more linear in design. Technically, a group of players' first move in Lost Mine of Phandevler could be to head to Waterdeep and book passage across the ocean, but it's not a sandbox by design. (And these hypothetical players are jackasses lol.)

 

[AriochQ]

My sandbox was episodic in the sense that the map was a collection of points of interest with hooks attached. The party went whereever they wanted without any guidance from me. There were no story arcs. It was like wandering in a random direction in Skyrim. Better yet, Scooby-Doo is the perfect example of an episodic sandbox. They wander around and the episodes could be played in any order.

By comparison, modules are set in massive settings but are typically more linear in design. Technically, a group of players' first move in Lost Mine of Phandevler could be to head to Waterdeep and book passage across the ocean, but it's not a sandbox by design. (And these hypothetical players are jackasses lol.)

lol I think I detect an age difference!

Back in the day (cue flashback special effect) modules were very much standalone. There were sometimes connections allowing you to string one series to another series (A modules, slave pits, leading to G, Giants, leading to D, drow) but those were optional and any module series could be run in isolation.

The concept of 'modules' covering levels 1 through 15 is fairly recent in my mind. Pandevler/Dragon Queen/Etc. are not sandbox based on their linear nature. Old school modules could be used as stand alone adventures in a larger campaign setting, so the setting could still be sandbox even though the module probably is not (characters pretty much follow the pre-written adventure path).

I think a big part of sandbox is doing enough work so that there is an active, and sufficiently detailed, campaign world for the players to interact with. Scooby Do fails in this regard in that there is zero world outside of the episodic adventures. IMHO, Scooby Do is the opposite of sandbox. Having the option between "Kill A then Kill B" or "Kill B then Kill A" does not make it sandbox. That being said, I am sure there are many interpretations of what makes something 'sandbox' (although I think we can all agree that a box containing sand is 'sandbox').

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Nothing keeps them from saying "Screw it, I'm goin' home!" at any point, although they generally follow the story arcs in most cases. The sandbox aspect comes into play more often when I need to revise things based on the outcome of the players actions. For example, I expect them to kill an evil vampire and instead they befriend him and use him to reach another goal (just an off-top-of-the-head example, this didn't actually happen).

It happened to me. They ended forging an alliance with him on behalf of their king to repel an invading hobgoblin army. Every night he would go out, and in the morning there were fewer hobgoblins. Somewhat to my surprise, the players were content to sit there under siege while the vampire did their dirty work. Little did they know he was gradually converting the hobgoblin army into a vampire hobgoblin army, which was partly why the hobgoblins were strategically paralyzed, since the leadership was freaking out about personal safety. I had planned for him to eventually go full on megalomaniac eventually, "oh by the way, this is my kingdom now, and by the way that guy is guilty of crimes against the One True Religion by walking on stone so give me a sec to put him to death and then we can resume having tea." But he died first, to a dragon, so the first thing the PCs knew of the army was when the vampires went free-willed berserk and started killing hobgoblins, humans, and each other, which basically depopulated the capital and destroyed the political stability of the kingdom.

Nice Job Breaking It, Hero.

So the

 

[S'mon]

Ha, it appears that way. I am looking for ideas. Sometimes I place great published adventures in locations that make sense from a world-building point of view, but sometimes the PC's never find that corner of the world. I just wondered how many DM's do that but keep the more fluid type adventures at the ready to throw in anywhere. If so, how do you manage it?

I usually stick published stuff somewhere and leave it there. I create on the fly to fill it all in. Sometimes I look for ideas on that.

In my Wilderlands game I have a bunch of stuff pre-placed, but I also have some site-based adventures kept back. I will tend to place them a session or two before the party is likely to enter that region, so they become part of the sandbox, the PCs are likely to encounter them, but it's not definite. I understand that traditional megdungeon design works the same way - don't create everything up front, create ahead of the players, but avoid Illiusionism by creating before the PCs arrive, not in response to their arrival.

 

[Snoring Rock]

In my Wilderlands game I have a bunch of stuff pre-placed, but I also have some site-based adventures kept back. I will tend to place them a session or two before the party is likely to enter that region, so they become part of the sandbox, the PCs are likely to encounter them, but it's not definite. I understand that traditional megdungeon design works the same way - don't create everything up front, create ahead of the players, but avoid Illiusionism by creating before the PCs arrive, not in response to their arrival.

Are you the same Simon from the Necromancer Games forums? Wilderlands gave it away.