The Good Sandbox Thread [+]

[Bedrockgames]

Are these Survival checks that you're making (a) at a regular interval that is a fundamental part of the core procedures of the wildneress crawl (like Wandering Monsters in Moldvay or The Grind in Torchbearer) and attendant decision-space for the players? If not, are these (b) irregular intervals discernible by players so that their decision-points regarding map interaction (outfitting, navigation, exploration, camping, etc) can account for them?

It depends on the game I am running but for my Ogre Gate Campaigns I would say they are regular but flexible. They are regular intervals, part of the Survival Skill, but I also view them as tools, so there are times when I might approach them differently. Generally I find players can anticipate what they need to plan for a journey. Discussions about what method of travel (canal, river, sea, land, this route, or through this forest), what preparations to make and what route to plan out are usually a pretty big part of play and something the players have enough consistency with the plan for. I am pasting most of the encounter section from the rulebook below. Just keep in mind I wrote this stuff from like 2014-2016 I think, so some of it I still use as written, some of it I have evolved into more streamlined forms at my own table (and in later books I put out, this is reflected in sections on encounters in tables). Also I skipped over a bunch of encounter table pages here to focus on the text. The Grudge Encounters are especially important in my opinion to the feel of play.

Beyond that, (c) are the players able to "build-out" the conceptual encounter table via reconnaissance, divinations, doing research in local towns, consorting with local populations, etc so they can fold that into their decision-space?

I am not sure I 100% follow. But they can certainly try to find out what is known to exist in a given region. And they can always take precautions. And they can use magic if they want to (though it isn't D&D magic, it is more like Ritual magic). There is a Divination skill but its effects are much more limited than that kind of activity might be in games with greater emphasis on magic. Magic exists, but the prime focus of the game is on martial arts abilities. The ritual system is for things like paper talismans. And divination is for things like astrology, feng shui, etc.

I also have a concept called the Inverted Encounter roll for when players actively seek out something on one of the encounter tables: HERE.

 

[Manbearcat]

It depends on the game I am running but for my Ogre Gate Campaigns I would say they are regular but flexible. They are regular intervals, part of the Survival Skill, but I also view them as tools, so there are times when I might approach them differently. Generally I find players can anticipate what they need to plan for a journey. Discussions about what method of travel (canal, river, sea, land, this route, or through this forest), what preparations to make and what route to plan out are usually a pretty big part of play and something the players have enough consistency with the plan for. I am pasting most of the encounter section from the rulebook below. Just keep in mind I wrote this stuff from like 2014-2016 I think, so some of it I still use as written, some of it I have evolved into more streamlined forms at my own table (and in later books I put out, this is reflected in sections on encounters in tables). Also I skipped over a bunch of encounter table pages here to focus on the text. The Grudge Encounters are especially important in my opinion to the feel of play.

View attachment 403488

View attachment 403484

View attachment 403483
View attachment 403485

View attachment 403486

View attachment 403487

View attachment 403489

View attachment 403490

View attachment 403491

View attachment 403492



I am not sure I 100% follow. But they can certainly try to find out what is known to exist in a given region. And they can always take precautions. And they can use magic if they want to (though it isn't D&D magic, it is more like Ritual magic). There is a Divination skill but its effects are much more limited than that kind of activity might be in games with greater emphasis on magic. Magic exists, but the prime focus of the game is on martial arts abilities. The ritual system is for things like paper talismans. And divination is for things like astrology, feng shui, etc.

I also have a concept called the Inverted Encounter roll for when players actively seek out something on one of the encounter tables: HERE.

I appreciate the response and the abundance of information here, but I didn't quite get the answer that I'm looking for. Let me put this another way, but keep in mind that I'm indexing the random encounter machinery of your sandbox.

American Football. You have 4 x downs to get the necessary 10 yards for a 1st down or to cross the goal-line and score a touchdown.

This is a (perhaps the) core mechanic of the game. Because players and the coaches are aware of this and because this core mechanic is stable, they develop tactics and strategies to either (a) call and execute plays which will advance the ball down the field to score a touchdown (or prevent that if you're on defense) or (b) punt the ball to the opposing team on 4th down or (c) attempt a field goal.

Now imagine that the referees (or some outside mediator) change the number of downs on a given drive at their discretion.

That would be a pretty big deal right?

Now imagine that the players and coaches are aware of how/why/when this alteration of the normal, stable number of downs changes.

The alteration of play would still be substantial, but now imagine that the players and coaches have little or no idea how/why/when this alteration of the normal, stable number of downs changes. That alteration of play would be enormous. We're probably not playing American Football anymore. It is something kindred, but it is enough of a shift that it is something else.

Now imagine that the players and coaches have no idea how many downs they're working with on a given drive. This alteration of play would be so profound, that the pressures upon the paradigmatic form of play would be so much that it would basically select for an entirely different form of play. We're no longer in American Football. It might even turn out that tactical and strategic planning and execution around playcalling, advancing the ball, punting the ball, kicking field goals becomes dysfunctional. We may have to go back to the drawing board and revise the rules because "the game just doesn't produce a functional playing field." At least with respect to our desires, and perhaps not at all.

---

It seems to me that, because your random encounter implementation is neither table-facing nor stable, that it isn't a core mechanic in service to challenge-based priorities. Decisions around exploration turn action economy and examining and executing prospective lines of plays (whether in town or in the wilderness/dungeon) when indexing that random encounter implementation as a player appears to be substantially or wholly veiled.

Circling back, what I'm asking is the following:

In BRG's paradigmatic sandbox design and execution, is the random encounter implementation about the kind of tactics and strategies employed and executed in American Football? (i) Is it in the interest of challenge-based priorities? Or (ii) is it in the interest of creating the immersive feel for the GM (and through that, the players) that the world has its own volition...that it is doing stuff "on its own."​

If you feel it is, in fact (i), can you maybe talk about that some more. What that looks like in your sandbox design and execution. Because presently, it is difficult for me to wrap my head around it. However, I can trivially imagine it being in service to (ii).

 

[Clint_L]

I can't imagine (i) even being considered a "sandbox" game in the way that I think about it. The football analogy suggests to me that it is not a sandbox game, it is an entirely prescribed narrative - basically, a tightly scripted adventure path. There is one way to win, and the only questions to be answered are the specific tactics the players will choose.

For me, "sandbox game" means that the narrative is determined by player choices, and random events are a good way of instigating player choices, many of which will be inconsequential, but a few of which will turn out to have long-term ramifications. That's how I use them, anyway.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I appreciate the response and the abundance of information here, but I didn't quite get the answer that I'm looking for. Let me put this another way, but keep in mind that I'm indexing the random encounter machinery of your sandbox.

American Football. You have 4 x downs to get the necessary 10 yards for a 1st down or to cross the goal-line and score a touchdown.

This is a (perhaps the) core mechanic of the game. Because players and the coaches are aware of this and because this core mechanic is stable, they develop tactics and strategies to either (a) call and execute plays which will advance the ball down the field to score a touchdown (or prevent that if you're on defense) or (b) punt the ball to the opposing team on 4th down or (c) attempt a field goal.

Now imagine that the referees (or some outside mediator) change the number of downs on a given drive at their discretion.

That would be a pretty big deal right?

Now imagine that the players and coaches are aware of how/why/when this alteration of the normal, stable number of downs changes.

The alteration of play would still be substantial, but now imagine that the players and coaches have little or no idea how/why/when this alteration of the normal, stable number of downs changes. That alteration of play would be enormous. We're probably not playing American Football anymore. It is something kindred, but it is enough of a shift that it is something else.

Now imagine that the players and coaches have no idea how many downs they're working with on a given drive. This alteration of play would be so profound, that the pressures upon the paradigmatic form of play would be so much that it would basically select for an entirely different form of play. We're no longer in American Football. It might even turn out that tactical and strategic planning and execution around playcalling, advancing the ball, punting the ball, kicking field goals becomes dysfunctional. We may have to go back to the drawing board and revise the rules because "the game just doesn't produce a functional playing field." At least with respect to our desires, and perhaps not at all.

---

It seems to me that, because your random encounter implementation is neither table-facing nor stable, that it isn't a core mechanic in service to challenge-based priorities. Decisions around exploration turn action economy and examining and executing prospective lines of plays (whether in town or in the wilderness/dungeon) when indexing that random encounter implementation as a player appears to be substantially or wholly veiled.

Circling back, what I'm asking is the following:

In BRG's paradigmatic sandbox design and execution, is the random encounter implementation about the kind of tactics and strategies employed and executed in American Football? (i) Is it in the interest of challenge-based priorities? Or (ii) is it in the interest of creating the immersive feel for the GM (and through that, the players) that the world has its own volition...that it is doing stuff "on its own."​

If you feel it is, in fact (i), can you maybe talk about that some more. What that looks like in your sandbox design and execution. Because presently, it is difficult for me to wrap my head around it. However, I can trivially imagine it being in service to (ii).

I am not sure I get what you are saying. I think we have a very different outlook on goals, so I am not sure how to answer. But the only thing that really shifts is the time increments (and the TNs). And those are based on things the players would know about based on what is happening (i.e. they are going into a dangerous forest, so the GM shifts from rolling daily to multiple times a day to reflect the increased danger level). The idea isn't to increase the GM's immersion, but the players, and to have the random encounter tools reflect as best as possible what is going on in the setting (and to simplify: grudge encounters are a simplification of having to manage a bunch of conflicts the players have acquired for example). It is all pretty typical living world sandbox stuff.

I don't think this approach is really choosing between (i) or (ii). Both sound important to me. I want the players to be engaging challenges, but I also want the setting to come to life and for the world around them to be in a dynamic state. I would say (i) here is less about them gaming a system and more about me having a system to reflect the world (but it is still challenged based and rolls and stuff still matter: if I ask for an encounter roll for each hex, I am not going to fudge). But again I think our paradigm is so fundamentally different that that answer still doesn't feel to me like it really gets at what I am trying to do

Just keep in mind this is a + thread so that we can focus on celebrating all different styles of sandbox (whether it is a D&D sandbox, traveller, an Ironsworn sandbox, a HARN world sandbox, etc). I am happy to clarify what I do, I just don't want this to slip into a style/design debate

 

[Bedrockgames]

For me, "sandbox game" means that the narrative is determined by player choices, and random events are a good way of instigating player choices, many of which will be inconsequential, but a few of which will turn out to have long-term ramifications. That's how I use them, anyway.

I agree on the random thing. I sometimes use things called "Shake up tables". These are usually tables of events related to things in some amount of proximity to the party (i.e. evolving conflicts between local groups, NPCs shifting sides, etc). And it is also why I brought up my inverted survival rolls (those allow players to engage that randomness in the other direction, actively looking for encounters: which works pretty good in practice for me).

 

[Reynard]

If the question is "how much information do the players/PCs have for making their decision about travel" then the answer should be, IMO, :however much information they are willing to dedicate time and resources necessary to discovering, within the bounds of what is reasonable in the fiction."

If the players know they need to travel north along the Lost Road until they hit the Winding Silver River and then turn west when they can see Deathspire Peak at dawn, all in order to locate the Tomb of Wealth and Glory, it is incumbent on them to do their best to discover facts and rumors about each of those zones/regions/etc. They set out when they feel they are satisfied.

One tool I have used before is to roll a few times on the random encounter chart for the region and then adapt the results to information they might gather from sages, travelers, libraries or other places they might look (including stuff like legend lore). As with all things, you need to be ready to improv and present that information in a fiction appropriate manner. The retired trapper is going tio describe having encountered ogres on the Lost Road differently than a 300 year old Imperial Scout Report.

 

[pemerton]

If the question is "how much information do the players/PCs have for making their decision about travel" then the answer should be, IMO, :however much information they are willing to dedicate time and resources necessary to discovering, within the bounds of what is reasonable in the fiction."

If the players know they need to travel north along the Lost Road until they hit the Winding Silver River and then turn west when they can see Deathspire Peak at dawn, all in order to locate the Tomb of Wealth and Glory, it is incumbent on them to do their best to discover facts and rumors about each of those zones/regions/etc. They set out when they feel they are satisfied.

For me, "sandbox" RPGing is about players taking the lead. Blind choices aren't very consistent with that. And extensive GM gating of information tends to push towards blind choices - or else not very sandbox-y play, as the players try to acquire the information that will make their choices non-blind.

@payn upthread posted about the Traveller scenario/campaign Pirates of Drinax. This blog by one of the authors of that campaign talks about how Traveller addresses this issue:

The Traveller hex-map lets the characters plan their routes and make meaningful choices; the available of Universal World Profiles and Library Data lets them do their own research, and the nature of jump travel in Traveller (hit go and you drop out of the universe for a week) means that there can’t be interruptions or random obstacles en route. If the players decide they’re going to jump from Exe to Cordan, then they can do that with a high degree of confidence that it’ll happen. It allows more long-term planning and more self-directed action from the players.​

 

[Reynard]

For me, "sandbox" RPGing is about players taking the lead. Blind choices aren't very consistent with that. And extensive GM gating of information tends to push towards blind choices - or else not very sandbox-y play, as the players try to acquire the information that will make their choices non-blind.

@payn upthread posted about the Traveller scenario/campaign Pirates of Drinax. This blog by one of the authors of that campaign talks about how Traveller addresses this issue:

The Traveller hex-map lets the characters plan their routes and make meaningful choices; the available of Universal World Profiles and Library Data lets them do their own research, and the nature of jump travel in Traveller (hit go and you drop out of the universe for a week) means that there can’t be interruptions or random obstacles en route. If the players decide they’re going to jump from Exe to Cordan, then they can do that with a high degree of confidence that it’ll happen. It allows more long-term planning and more self-directed action from the players.​

I'm not sure how your post relates to what I said. PCs should do research, and make informed choices. Nothing I said advocated for blind choices.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not sure how your post relates to what I said. PCs should do research, and make informed choices. Nothing I said advocated for blind choices.

But research, in this context, is about learning more from the GM. And, as I posted, "extensive GM gating of information tends to push towards blind choices - or else not very sandbox-y play, as the players try to acquire the information that will make their choices non-blind."

 

[Reynard]

But research, in this context, is about learning more from the GM. And, as I posted, "extensive GM gating of information tends to push towards blind choices - or else not very sandbox-y play, as the players try to acquire the information that will make their choices non-blind."

Yes, you stated that, but you did not back it up. Not only that, but it assumes a degree of adversarial GM positioning that I am not sure is particularly common or likely.