D&D 5E What separates a sandbox adventure from an AP?

[Halivar]

I mean in the implementation, not the high-level design goals. What would you expect from a sandbox that is not delivered by an AP, and how would you expect a published sandbox adventure to be laid out? Are there any examples of published sandboxes? (I can't think of any, but I am also not well-versed in ye olde modules of yore).

Here are some things I'm having trouble with in sandbox design:

The introduction: How railroady is too railroady? Is it ok to open with a framing story like "You guys are on your way to meet King Soandso who as a secret task for you. You were intrigued so here you are," or is that too contrived? I guess I'm asking, what is the best way to get the players moving in a direction, any direction? In previous sandboxes players have complained that they simply didn't know what to do next.

Player vs monster level: This is much less of a problem in 5E than in 4E, but how do you plan appropriately balanced encounters in a sandbox when you don't know when or how players will tackle them? Or is this a feature of the sandbox, that players will run into things that can TPK them? Or that they'll run into encounters they can steamroll? I don't like the Oblivion/Skyrim "monsters are always your level" play that 4E pretty much required (or you were forced to run linear adventures, which is what I want to step away from), but I don't have an answer for the level disparity problem (if, indeed, it even is a problem).

The conclusion: When is a sandbox adventure over? My players are a big fan of free agency, but they are equally big fans of story, including the climax, the denouement, and the eventual end. But in a sandbox it seems like the ending is a lot more ambiguous, and more so the number of open threads you have going on. One thought I had was having all extant story threads funnel into one overarching epic, with all the foes they have fought along the way being pawns of one BBEG, but perhaps that's been done to death? Contrived? I don't know.

Player paralysis: With no big sign saying "go here, do this" my players are apt to scratch their heads and say, "I dunnow." And I by no means blame my players. I don't really think I'm that great of a DM, so I am either laying too subtle clues or I'm over-complicating my stories. I think it was Angry DM who once said to me on Twitter that even having a story (and I might be grossly oversimplifying or wildly misinterpreting what he meant) meant I was tacitly railroading my players. If that's the case, is player paralysis a function of their expectation that I have a trail for them to always follow? How do you instigate player action that more organically generates adventure?

Setting material: In no event has a player ever read any material I have ever written for an adventure. So is it a waste of my time? Is it still any good for internal consistency? Is internal consistency even necessary for player immersion? When you read a published campaign setting or sandbox adventure, do you as a DM actually read things like calendars, historical timelines, and exhaustive breakdowns of churches and factions? Do such things enhance sandboxes and where is the line that you've written too much?

I think I had more, but maybe this post has gone on too long already.

 

[KarinsDad]

Like in MMORPGs, total sandbox is really difficult. A combination of sandbox and progressive events tends to handle most of your questions. In other words, create the sandbox, but put expected (and to a certain extent, level dependent) game elements and events in that allow the players to have a partial grasp of what they should be doing next. I've never been a fan of total sandbox because it requires that the DM change the campaign in some cases or have a lot of TPKS and/or super super easy fights or just plain wasted time. Once you allow the game to be partial sandbox and partial AP driven, and let the players decide at any given point in time to follow the AP, or just go explore, it solves a lot of these issues. Or, at least IME.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sandbox vs AP:

In a sandbox, you're more of creating a game world with a scale that you want; local, regional, etc. There will be descriptions of major inhabitants and their interactions with each other, and probably a list of various plot hooks and such that aren't necessarily related to each other. Players are free to interact with whoever they want, however they want, and form alliances and follow whatever plot hooks they want. Additionally, and maybe this is more of an old school way of thinking, but the areas aren't divided into level appropriate for whatever level the PCs are. I.e., there's nothing stopping the level 3 PCs from venturing into the mountains and encountering giants if that's what they really want to do. In my experience, APs are very much "you complete this section and get to this level before you can go to this other area". Players end up in level appropriate areas by researching the areas they are going to before going there, and deciding which areas to avoid and which to explore. This should be controlled by the players, not by the DM changing things up trying to enforce balance. I.e., living game world that runs just fine outside of the PC decisions. The dragon in the hills didn't suddenly disappear because a lower level party decided to go there.

 

[Reynard]

If you populate the sandbox with interesting people, places and things then the players will have lots of opportunities to find something to do. If you start with a simple premise -- "You have arrived in the frontier town of Threshold, penniless but hungry for adventure!" -- and provide a couple dangling hooks -- "The logging camp has been being harassed by goblins." "No one has seen Old Jonas the prospector in over a week!" -- they should be able to grab one and go. Now, following up on Old Jonas might not involve an adventure with the prospector at all. maybe along the way they stumble across a bandit camp and decide to arrest them for the price on their heads, or even join them! Or maybe they find the body of a local adventurer with a treasure map in his pocket. Or maybe they get eaten by an owlbear. The key is to get them out the door on looking for adventure.

EDIT On the question of "when is it over" the thing is there are lots of stories embedded in the sandbox, so the players will enjoy regular climaxes and resolutions, some of which will lead to new adventures and some of which will close the book on elements in the sandbox. You might have an element in your sandbox that is powerful or influential enough that it becomes a sort of default "main story" -- dragons, bottomless dungeons and battles for succession are good ones -- that if resolved sort of "cap" the sandbox and it may be time to move on, but that is, in my experience, rare. Players invested in the sanbox will, by that point, have lots left to do.

 

[Tormyr]

While an AP can turn into a bit of a railroad, the real thing an AP gives is the framework of a plot and a set of pre-packaged encounters. It is possible to run an AP in a sandbox setting where the plot of the AP continues, and the players can decide whether to interact with it or not. Christopher Perkins has a good blog in the archive section of WotC's site. http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Archive.aspx?category=all&subcategory=dmexperience In it, one thing he talks about is having three major plot lines going on, and the players can choose which plot lines to interact with.

I am by no means a seasoned DM. I started playing D&D during the September 2013 release of the play test. By January 1st, I had decided I loved the story telling/world crafting aspect and became the group's DM. We finished up Legacy of the Crystal Shard, played Mines of Madness, and started a conversion of the Age of Worms AP in April of last year. I explained to my group that this was my first campaign and that I would appreciate them going with the flow of the AP more or less. After a year of being the DM, I am starting to see more opportunities where things could have gone differently to the AP while keeping the same general framework plot.

That being said, here are some thoughts on what you bring up.

The Introduction: The introduction should be some sort of adventure that introduces at least one of the major plots going on in your world. Even if you have a true sandbox where the players can do whatever they want and go wherever they please, the rest of the setting needs guidelines of how things move forward outside of the PCs' influence. The introductory adventure hooks should either introduce their little corner of the world or give foreshadowing of the future plots, ideally both.

Encounter Building I think you mostly answered your own question. If you are not running canned adventures, you are much more free to send in whatever. The players will need to be more alert and cautious because their characters will not know about the difficulty of many of the dangers in the world.

The Conclusion The adventure is over when the players and DM decide it is over. This can be with the destruction of a god, the unification of the lands, real life, boredom, etc. When the campaign is successful, it will have a bit of a life of its own, and you will get an idea of what the end will actually look like. Deciding the end of the campaign at the beginning of a sandbox probably will not work.

Player Paralysis Integrate the PC backgrounds into the main plots going on so that there is motivation to interact with the main plot threads. Provide several hooks into local dealings as well. The players need options to work with. If there are several plots they have the option to interact with (and you have not fully fleshed them out) then the choice goes back to the players, and their choices can influence and modify the plot threads.

Setting Material There should be something for the player to read in terms of general background and needed information for the campaign, but it should be fairly short. Only make setting information that you truly need to get the plots off the ground. Much can be generated on the fly (keep notes of what you make) when the players interact with it.

If I had to make a new sandbox today for a campaign starting tomorrow, I would make a key conceit for my world (what makes it unique, like Eberron's technology powered by magic), three plot lines of what is going on, a couple adventure hooks, and some background ideas for PCs. The first session would be a session 0 with character creation, backgrounds, a brief introduction to the setting, and maybe a touch of roleplaying to figure out where they want to go first.

If I had more time, I would consult any number of the good world building resources out there.

When it comes down to the sandbox setting, just do it and roll with it (and roll to generate the world as you go ) I am sure plenty of the seasoned DMs here have better advice, but that is my 2cp.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

To me, sandboxes work better when published as campaign books than adventures. A list of places, hooks, denizens, maps, etc for the DM to flesh out based on what interests the players and where they go next. Paizio's regional sourcebooks are essentially sandbox adventures. Any more effort on the publisher to flesh them out kind of misses the point as 1) its a lot of work some something inherently less likely to be used than an encounter in an adventure path and 2) DM's who want sandboxes tend to be more DIY's that are just going to re-write it to fit their specific game/party.

 

[iserith]

What separates a sandbox adventure from an AP?

The adventure path comes with a plot and an expectation that the players will follow it.

The sandbox adventure may be location-focused with a metaplot with no expectation that the players will engage with those metaplots or even explore the locations therein.

 

[SirAntoine]

A sandbox creates the edges of where the PC's can go, loosely, and lets the PC's go wherever they want in whatever order they end up choosing along the way. It's kind of the opposite of a railroad, though any goal the PC's find can be compelling enough so it will effectively be a railroad at least for a brief time. Heroic characters in particular will not pass up an opportunity to rescue someone, for example. Depending when the players encounter the potential "hook", they will feel like they are playing a scripted adventure.

 

[Bluenose]

Sandbox: Place.

AP: Plot.

At the most basic level that's how I'd describe the starting point for design, which is what the players interact with.

In a sandbox, you start off by thinking about what sort of place the players will be in, and build on the principle that the players are going to look around it and find things to do for themselves. The largest problem in this is with players who want to be given plot hooks combined with a failure to provide enough on the part of the designer. Another problem is that in an enjoyable sandbox there's a lot going on even without player involvement, and that does put a much greater load on the GM.

In an AP, you start of be thinking about what sort of story the players are going to be in, and try to ensure there is sufficient to keep the players interested in following along. What I've found most difficult about this is dealing with character death, as you can easily reach a situation where you've got a totally different group of characters at the end than you had at the beginning and their motivation for continuing can be somewhat suspect (especially after a tPK). The most common other problem is players who resent following the GMs plot, and who show this by being as disruptive to it as they think they can get away with - and then a little more.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Once you get them going (you'll probably need an in-your-face plot hook or three) a good way to keep them going is to find more plot hooks as they go along. Maps, prisoners with some info on a potential adventure, etc. Also, don't neglect NPCs. The occasional Patron is to be expected, but don't forget sages and the like.

However, it sounds like your players may need to be hit over the head a bit with the idea that NPCs are people they ought to go talk to on their own occasionally.