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

[Mark CMG]

What separates a sandbox adventure from an AP?

It boils down to options and endings. In an AP there are limited options that steer toward limited endings (perhaps just one at each "milestone" between adventures that make up the path). In a sandbox, there are theoretically unlimited options and is no set ending.

 

[Greg Benage]

I think the real functional distinction is between location-based and plot-based. I think you can structure an exploration-focused sandbox campaign like an adventure path. Create an outpost on the edge of an unexplored wilderness. Fill the wilderness with major geographic features, terrains and landmarks. Populate those locations with adventure locations that generally get more difficult the farther out the PCs explore.* Give the PCs specific "expedition goals," as opposed to "story" or "plot goals."

* Explore the Blackflower Hills.
* Map the interior of Aldlight Wood.
* Follow that river and find its source.
* Scale that mountain peak and a) see what's up there, and b) find out what other features of the wilderness we can see from there.

That's more how real exploration occurred, anyway, as opposed to the old-school "Let's go clear Hex 4281."

As the last bullet point suggests, create connections between the different expeditions: a map discovered on a Tier 1 location leads to a ruined keep in a Tier 2 location.

The players must buy into the exploration theme, but once that's done, the structure of the connected expeditions keeps them on the right "path" for the campaign. And they always have multiple expeditions to choose from, at different levels of difficulty.

* You can have tiered expeditions, but throw in level-inappropriate hot spots and lairs and such within each expedition. Environmental clues and recon (in force or otherwise) should let the PCs no they can't handle a particular hot spot yet. It's cool to come back to these after they've gained experience.

 

[dd.stevenson]

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.

The premise is the one part of the game that you (collectively as a table) have complete control over without any implications about railroading or sandboxing. IOW: your hook may be contrived, heavy handed or uninteresting, but it won't dictate whether the campaign is a sandbox or not.

Personally, I prefer to start with a published adventure, with everybody at the table agreeing that if they like where they're at at the end, I'll swing it into a sandbox game. Otherwise, I'd advise you to start with very clear character motivations, especially for players who aren't used to this style of play.

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).

Up to you. The common approach, I think, is to treat too-high level encounters as exploration/role playing problems, with combat as the penalty if these encounters are not handled well. This is especially true if your players aren't really interested in a game where "unfair" death is a possibility.

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.

I normally place several high level potential BBEGs in the sandbox--but really, when the game is over is (as always) a question to be answered on the social (player) level. The most important thing to know about a sandbox is this: plot doesn't exist as part of the game, except in retrospect. If you can describe the plot of the game before you sit down to play, then it isn't a sandbox it's a railroad.

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?

Are you talking about decision paralysis or inadequate number of hooks available for the players to follow?

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?

Use whatever feels good, and don't feel pressured to use more than you want to bother with. "Hey guys, I know that forgotten realms has its own calendar and week cycle, but I can't be arsed just now." Mostly, don't bother too much with world building unless it's something you enjoy on its own merits, and certainly don't expect players to care one way or the other. EXCEPTION: whenever you show players a map, they will sure as anything ask "what's over here?" Preparing an evocative set of answers to these questions is a high value form of world-building prep. Having published material available to steal from in this case is a huge plus. For example:

WATERDEEP is a city of tall, red-roofed town houses and white palaces spread at the feet of a lone, high mountain that shelters it from the full wrath of sea storms.
SEA WARD-->Stately, haughty noble villas and craggy, mysterious turrets of wizard towers-->talking tavern signs with eyes that wink at passersby; three gilded towers braided together; polite, lightly armed city watch patrols; chant of temple prayers
NORTH WARD-->Two story cottages and walled villas with expensive blue slate roofs and tree-lined streets--> wrought iron fences, rooftop spires, gabled roofs, and ornate carving work on statuary and wallwork alike; noticeably quiet streets; city guard patrols in lightly armed in ones and twos
CASTLE WARD-->Castle Waterdeep, Peaktop Eyire, and the Mountain Tower looking down on the administrative buildings spread about Mount Waterdeep's knees-->flights of griffon steeds wheeling around the mountain peak; barracks and military warehouses; lofty spires of Piergeiron's Palace; well-kept wattle-and-daub row houses of three to four stories with stone foundations

For factions, I use Stars Without Number's faction system--but ask twenty different DMs about this and you'll get twenty different answers.

 

[Gilladian]

The thing with sandbox adventures is to tie the characters to the place. Don't start with "you ride into the strange town down the road..." and expect the PCs to dig in and care about your hooks. If you instead try starting with "you are the apprentice to the village blacksmith, but you know that you want to do more than swing a hammer all your life. You've been hearing tales at the Inn...". Do that with each player, building their roles as they build their characters, and getting their buy-in.

When I create a new campaign area, I always try to have 3 level-appropriate adventure hooks ready, and 3 more that are probably too dangerous, but are interesting and will pull them in as soon as they feel strong enough, and then at least 1, if not 3 more, that are plainly "high danger" but more distant - the ancient wizard's unenterable tower on the mountain peak 3 days travel away, the rumor of cloud-giants above the northern wastes, and a sea-monster that dwells in warmer southern waters a few weeks' sail away. Things they can establish as goals for their higher level PCs in the distant future.

Now, they don't HAVE to bite at one of the level-appropriate adventures; they can go after the riskier propositions if they want, but I do make sure they have some warning about the toughness/threat level. It is their choice at that point! And IF they don't bite on anything, I have a series of simple actions that will happen, which will tickle them to respond. A pickpocket in the marketplace can lead them to the beggar's guild, or a request to fetch the midwife from a frantic villager in the middle of the night can lead to the discovery of spiders in the nearby forest, etc... A sandbox world needs to have things HAPPEN when the PCs don't act. Another adventuring group is a good NPC motivator; seeing them ride out of town to raid the ruins on the hill, or coming back with battered armor and gold to spend will motivate your group!

 

[TarionzCousin]

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.

If your players aren't the type to go out and be proactive like this, I recommend avoiding the sandbox style of play.

If they often say "I don't know" when asked what they want to do, they need fewer concrete options, like two or three definite avenues of adventure. Read Chris Perkins' column--or just buy an AP and get going.

We all become better gamers with more practice.

 

[Quickleaf]

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).

There are lots of published sandbox modules from older editions; Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh springs to mind as a location-based sandbox. From 3e era there was Red Hand of Doom, which I would describe as an event-based sandbox.

Features of layout and implementation that I would want in a published sandbox include:

• A way of organizing the adventure/book into logical parts/chapters. For example, Red Hand of Doom divided its chapters according to stages of the orc invasion.
• A detailed home base with named NPCs and businesses.
• A list of the various quests, with notation about where/from whom PCs can get the quest, and it's rough threat level.
• A great map or three with a location key that clearly denotes the threat level of an area.
• Fascinating and dynamic encounter tables that are more than "6 kobolds armed with spears."
• Rumors which natural in-game language to cue players into just how out of their league they're getting.
• In the case of complex mysteries, intrigues, or factional allegiances, use info graphics to create clear concise flow charts.
• An alphabetical index.

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.

Having a strong framing scene, a hook to get players invested and *wanting* to explore is SO important. When I write adventures for my home games, I record an individual hook for each PC as well as a group hook. I find individualized hooks do wonders to get players thinking in character and being asking a more active role.

Your example, while a bit thin, could work as a group hook. However, the problem I have with your example is that starting with the meeting rather than "en route" would help players to focus and make it clear what's expected of them right from the get go. And just because the king gives them a secret mission in the opening scene doesn't mean that they're on a railroad.

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).

It's a feature that encourages creative thinking and keeps things fresh. Especially in 5e you don't need to worry about this too much, just try not to throw an army of monsters at them.

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.

IME a sandbox has a shape similar to a spindle top. There's a short narrow top where the adventure begins (the King's secret mission), a large wide middle section (with lots of quests and places to explore), and as the players get familiar with the world, make decisions, and begin to zero in on certain bad guys, the campaign naturally narrows down to a particular story with its own climax and denouement.

Personally, I find Dungeon World's "fronts" to be a helpful aid in planning various plot threads and providing them with depth. I also connect these plot threads to each other, usually with a mind map, similar to your idea of all the villains being lieutenants of the BBEG (just a bit more evolved).

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?

A DM whose clues are too subtle and whose plot is too complex with simplistic monster-bashing players? No, no, I have no idea what you're talking about

I think Angry DM's advice to you was bunk, even if I respect Angry DM himself and enjoy his blog. Saying something is "railroading" is about as helpful to a surgeon's assistant describing an organ as "red." Yeah, ok, and...

As a specific piece of advice regarding clues, I recommend you implement the "3 clue rule" which states that when your players choose to delve into a mystery which has various clues for them to piece together, you should come up with 3 vectors they can gain each clue from. This is because players tend to miss the clue the first time, misinterpret the second time, and finally get it on the third time. As a DM things which seem obvious to you are not obvious at all to your players, so having a "3 clue rule" system ensures that they have various ways to gain information.

Also, don't be afraid to use hard scene framing. That's a conversation of its own, but IMO scene framing and sandbox gaming are not polar opposites and can actually compliment each other nicely.

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?

This varies wildly from DM to DM, and from product to product. Personally, I'm a utilitarian DM; if I know or foresee us using setting information in an adventure then I'll record it, if not I usually toss it or make a brief note in my campaign journal. However, some DMs enjoy writing setting information just for love of the creative act; nothing wrong with that at all!

 

[SirAntoine]

I am in the process of finishing a sandbox adventure path right now, so the two terms aren't contradictory. Each adventure is broken down into a scenario, with one or more missions. The players are free to do whatever they want to win, in whatever order. Each adventure has areas that "may be of use", so the players don't know where they're "supposed" to go first. In each adventure, they have a time limit, after which they can't win any longer. The adventure path continues with new scenarios and missions, and these take into account everything the players did so far. In each adventure, I have little idea where the players will go first or what means they'll employ to overcome the scenario.

 

[SkidAce]

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...

...I am sure plenty of the seasoned DMs here have better advice, but that is my 2cp.

Based on the date you started playing...you are giving excellent advice...kudos!

 

[Ed_Laprade]

One other thing I just thought of, that I learned the hard way. If you hand out rumors about adventure locations, make sure that there's actually an adventure there! I saw a bit of advice once saying that rumors could lead to places that didn't actually have an adventure, and thought that made perfect real world sense. Well, maybe it does, but the players are there to put their characters through adventures, not wander around doing nothing all day!

 

[Lanefan]

A couple of published modules that can easily become sandboxes:

B-10 Night's Dark Terror. Here you have a mini-setting containing a bunch of little adventures and one or two bigger ones. Sure the adventure-as-written expects them to be tied together into a story, but if instead you treat each little encounter (each Goblin lair, for example) as its own small isolated adventure and just let the party bash around for a while you've got an instant sandbox. As they go along you can then overlay whatever story you like, add other adventures in that aren't part of the published module, and expand the world beyond the maps provided. (they give you about a 200 x 300 mile area, I think, which is more than enough to get started with)

B-2 Keep on the Borderlands. On a much smaller scale than B-10 ye olde Keep gives you a town, a few encounters nearby, one big adventure, and enough unanswered questions for you to build all kinds of things on to it. Example: there's about 7 different humanoid creature types all living in the caves of chaos, most of whom would never live in such close proximity to each other. Why are they there? Where did each group come from? Start somehow getting your players to ask these questions and then you and they together can discover your world in the process of getting some answers.

And if you can find one without bankrupting yourself, City State of the Invincible Overlord (or World Emperor, the later version) from Judges' Guild is a wonderful sandbox just looking for people to play in it.

Lan-"hey, a sandbox with an hourglass motif: the world ends when the sandbox runs out of sand"-efan