Lots of shit going on / Sandboxes

[bryce0lynch]

+kellerins rumble
+dragons secret - expert

We'll see if if it ends up as a sandbox or not. I FEEL like something else is going on. I'm going to have to research it.

 

[bryce0lynch]

Genre specific? Maybe only in as much as "boring fucking adventure" is a agenre?


Adventures benefit from having a lot of things going on in them. This provides a lot of resources and/or situations for the party to take advantage of and, the creation of the those wacky plans that good RPG's are made of. As well as the failure of those wacky plans that even better emergent gameplay develops from. Sometimes I liken to this to a junkyard full of open 55 gallon drums full to the brim with gasoline. All over the place. And then the party shows up, holding their torches, making their ways between the barrels. And then a bunch of pit bulls show up. Fun ensues!

many factions, lots going on.

I need to reread my examples.

 

[squeen]

I think the essence of a sandbox-style campaign is a bunch of competing scenarios pulling the PCs in opposing directions simultaneously. They can't do everything, and time is ticking, so they have to choose. Over time, a back-log of "things we want to do" builds up and this fuels continuous play without the DM having to push a new hook each session---and also puts the PCs in the drivers seat...dispelling The Railroad.

Harder to prep, but that's the price you have to pay to run a sandbox campaign.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Sandbox campaigns are like Boolean operands - "if this, then that", "if not this, then that", "if this and this but not this, then that", etc. Conditional situations that follow as series of cause-and-effect. Dynamic and with many points for interference.

It should be mandatory that all sandboxes include a flowchart.

 

[Malrex]

Dungeons have walls...although some have loops and interesting components, essentially they are all 'linear'...i.e. the characters are limited by how much room the walls allows and which direction they can go. Wilderness doesn't have any walls, but its size and repetitive terrain (lot's of freakin trees, etc.) makes players naturally want to go from Point A to Point B (unless they see something of interest in the distance).

I feel strongly that "lot's of shit going on" is of utmost importance for city adventures. Those are your 'walls' in a city adventure. Throwing out a shitload of adventure hooks, situations, and rumors--it overwhelms players....then they focus on 1-2 and strive to accomplish that. The players create their own 'walls' as they focus on 1 thing which makes the DM's life easier.

It makes the DM life complicated at first with all the prep, but extremely easy to run during the game. I used to be terrified to run city adventures, but that has completely changed while playtesting this method in Vermilion. They can do whatever they want and go wherever they want in a huge sprawling city and I'm prepared. Most of the time you just sit back and watch them argue about what quest/task/adventure they want to do. It works!

Factions can just be one component to 'Lots of shit going on". Timelines are important--there needs to be consequences (even if its just missing the opportunity to do something). Natural disasters and other events can play a role too. Poisons and diseases....running out of food and water....running out of supplies (i.e. torches)....and my favorite, different character agendas.

 

[squeen]

Most of the time you just sit back and watch them argue about what quest/task/adventure they want to do. It works!

True dat!

Sandbox campaigns are like Boolean operands - "if this, then that", "if not this, then that", "if this and this but not this, then that", etc. Conditional situations that follow as series of cause-and-effect. Dynamic and with many points for interference.

It should be mandatory that all sandboxes include a flowchart.

The difference might be that I am talking about a home-brewed campaign, and what you are saying probably applies to a pre-generated sandbox...because for me, it's not like that at all. It's a lot of creation-of-content-on-demand as a reaction to player choice. The pre-written part is the framework---mostly spacial elements and actors, with some motivations and plot threads.

What you say makes me think how difficult it would be to publish.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

The difference might be that I am talking about a home-brewed campaign, and what you are saying probably applies to a pre-generated sandbox

Yes, I was talking about pre-written adventures, because Bryce is compiling thoughts for his book about writing adventures.

What you say makes me think how difficult it would be to publish.

The way I did it for my longest-running home sandbox game, and the way I could see it best published in a practical way, was prepping everything in parcels. I had an overworld map, all the locations (towns and dungeons) mapped, and then threaded the story through the world. The actual plot threads of a sandbox campaign are easy to run with; all a DM has to learn is how to connect them to the different locations in a sensible organic way that doesn't lead the party around by the nose too much.

Yes it's a lot of work to prep all that stuff, and yes the players will probably ignore some of the cooler locales or situations (as players do), but that's the value in buying a pre-written sandbox: you didn't have to do any of that prep work yourself, so the value comes in saved effort rather than new and unique design (though it obviously still has importance, I'm just comparing it to a standard more linear adventure).

 

[The Heretic]

Stupid question: Are hex crawls a form of sandbox or something completely unrelated.

 

[squeen]

Stupid question: Are hex crawls a form of sandbox or something completely unrelated.

Not stupid...I don't really know either. Here's my rough idea...

To my thinking, if you have a small section of a world (with open borders) roughly key-out---with enough places to go that you can plop the players into it and let them decide when and where to go---then it's a sandbox.

In a pre-written sandbox, I'd image all the locales would have to be fully keyed. That limits it's size (I think), e.g. Swordfish Islands, Through Ultan's Door, etc. The unsolved equation is then how to best present the interconnections and make it dynamic.

Most folks, I imagine, have a version of Bryce's DungeonLand---a rough framework of the "outside" that connects a bunch of pre-written site products (e.g. Frog God Games' Lost Lands). Sometimes random tables are heavily leveraged to fill in details. The interconnections are minimal or solely the responsibility of the DM.

In a home-brewed one, (e.g. mine) it is fairly vast...but only roughly key in many places. Details get filled in after the PC's choose to explore in that particular direction (or I have a particular itch to scratch). The sandbox evolves and matures over time.

OK. Now what is a hex crawl? Just a hex-grid placed on the world map?

Alternatively, it's a framework for pacing the frequency of the randomly generated events as the party moves from hex-to-hex. In my opinion, the latter is not a sandbox---it's more like a computer game.

The beauty of a sandbox, to me, is the interconnections that can occur between somewhat isolated places on the map and the fact that NPCs can move between them just like the PCs.

See...told you I didn't know!

 

[DangerousPuhson]

There are thee kinds of sandbox, IMO:

1) Open situations/locales: A megadungeon, for example, is not a crawl through the overland, but if its designed to be open - to have many points of entry/egress, many level connections, players can come and go to most places in any order they want, etc. - then I'd consider it a sandbox. I don't mean to imply that all non-linear dungeons are considered sandboxes, but if the party has the run of the place on their own terms, then it's probably safe to call it a sandbox.

2) Hex crawls: You take a map of an area, you lay a hex over it, then you essentially erase the map. Player's say "what's beyond the forest to the north?", and they go to the hex north of the forest hex to find out. It's more for exploring an entire realm - every river, every canyon, every thicket or glen. It takes way more prep because you need to fill a ton of hexes (usually). I view it like walking around a dungeon checking out rooms, except the rooms are all hex shaped, have no walls or ceiling, and are several miles in size. Instead of "three orcs guarding a chest while playing cards", hexcrawl "rooms" are more like "orc village gearing up to do war against the goblin village SW" or whatever. A dungeon where everything is on a grander scale.

3) Points of light: A scattering of destinations, where what many people consider the "boring" parts of a hex crawl are generally omitted or condensed. If you explore a desert in a hex crawl, you wander aimlessly making a path through the hexes, looking for something. You encounter stuff along the way, and you usually have a goal to find, but you don't have a specific destination to get to most of the time. If you explore a desert in a point of light campaign, it's because you are on your way to something you already know is in/beyond the desert. You don't need to "crawl" around and search for something (hence the "crawl" in "hexcrawl"). You go to the Temple of Sleeping Sand Bears or whatever, and on the way you face desert-themed encounters.

I suppose you could argue that story games are like sandboxes too, but we don't talk about those games around here.

 

[Beoric]

Wilderness doesn't have any walls

I beg to differ - I mean, j'accuse! Real life wilderness is constantly imposing constraints on movement in any given direction - rivers, patches of bog or dense brush or steep ridges or cliffs, all of which can be much smaller in size than a cliff. When you walk in the winderness, you often find yourself guided in one direction or another without being aware if it. I've been musing for a while about what notations to use to represent this in a hexcrawl.

Also, a sandbox is no more and no less than an adventure where the constraints on play are placed by the environment and the nature of reality in the setting, and not by the desire of the DM or adventure writer to have certain events occur. The walls in a dungeon are natural constraints of the environment, and only lose their sandbox nature when they are placed in such a manner as to allow no opportunity for the characters to write their own destiny.

I will go a step further. A linear dungeon, placed in a setting that is otherwise a sandbox, is still a sandbox so long as the PCs are free to withdraw from it. It is valid for the BBEG to have non-Jaquayed a "lair assault" style lair - the most obvious of which is the floor plan for just about any actual medieval keep, which is designed to force attackers to follow a particular path for ease of defence. This is because in a sandbox you are not limited to a frontal assault: you can lay siege, harry supply lines, infiltrate as spies, attempt sapping/mining operations, or just leave and go find something else to do.

 

[Malrex]

I beg to differ - I mean, j'accuse! Real life wilderness is constantly imposing constraints on movement in any given direction - rivers, patches of bog or dense brush or steep ridges or cliffs, all of which can be much smaller in size than a cliff. When you walk in the winderness, you often find yourself guided in one direction or another without being aware if it. I've been musing for a while about what notations to use to represent this in a hexcrawl.

Also, a sandbox is no more and no less than an adventure where the constraints on play are placed by the environment and the nature of reality in the setting, and not by the desire of the DM or adventure writer to have certain events occur. The walls in a dungeon are natural constraints of the environment, and only lose their sandbox nature when they are placed in such a manner as to allow no opportunity for the characters to write their own destiny.

I will go a step further. A linear dungeon, placed in a setting that is otherwise a sandbox, is still a sandbox so long as the PCs are free to withdraw from it. It is valid for the BBEG to have non-Jaquayed a "lair assault" style lair - the most obvious of which is the floor plan for just about any actual medieval keep, which is designed to force attackers to follow a particular path for ease of defence. This is because in a sandbox you are not limited to a frontal assault: you can lay siege, harry supply lines, infiltrate as spies, attempt sapping/mining operations, or just leave and go find something else to do.

Well played. I was too focused on the "walls".
Wilderness--just depends on characters levels, items, spells, powers...fly can bypass a lot of that for example--BUT, I see your point. I think when I wrote the above, I only had big, vast tracts of land in my head instead of the more mini-terrain type adventures (evil grove, island, etc.).

I actually like your way of thinking for the dungeon and the sandbox. The walls are a natural constraint. My point is with that natural constraint, its easier for the DM to run. They can still use Passwall or other magic, but it still feels more ultimate--there is just dense rock. Wilderness can have natural walls too, but if they use fly or something--then what...you are stuck thinking up stuff on the fly. Especially with cities.
But characters able to write their own destiny is the goal for me...
Going to bite my tongue and think more before typing next time...lol.

 

[Beoric]

My point is with that natural constraint, its easier for the DM to run.

It's easier for players, too. The people I play with kind of prefer it if there are fewer options, and if at least one option is fairly obvious. Otherwise they suffer from analysis paralysis.

Both as a DM and as a player I prefer things more open than the people I play with do. When I DM, my players don't want to work that hard. When I play, I drive my DM nuts because I go way outside the expected activities of PCs and the DM has to ad lib a lot. For example, if I need to persuade a noble of something, or get involved in political intrigue, instead of just trying to be diplomatic I will try to find out where the domestic servants like to hang out, and chat them up for scandals and other leverage. If it is a heist I will see if the local government keeps building plans (depending on setting) or try to track down the architect or mason or, again, talk to servants.

But I think most people prefer limited options, which is why dungeons are so popular even among those who rail against the evils of non-OSR plot-based games - as if a bare intersection in a dungeon with nothing to indicate what lies in any direction gives more agency than clues in a plot-based scenario which actually give hints about the available choices.

 

[squeen]

I appeal to Bryce to consider changing the title of this thread (at least parenthetically) to "Sandboxes", due to the nature of the responses.

 

[Malrex]

It's easier for players, too. The people I play with kind of prefer it if there are fewer options, and if at least one option is fairly obvious. Otherwise they suffer from analysis paralysis.

Both as a DM and as a player I prefer things more open than the people I play with do. When I DM, my players don't want to work that hard. When I play, I drive my DM nuts because I go way outside the expected activities of PCs and the DM has to ad lib a lot. For example, if I need to persuade a noble of something, or get involved in political intrigue, instead of just trying to be diplomatic I will try to find out where the domestic servants like to hang out, and chat them up for scandals and other leverage. If it is a heist I will see if the local government keeps building plans (depending on setting) or try to track down the architect or mason or, again, talk to servants.

But I think most people prefer limited options, which is why dungeons are so popular even among those who rail against the evils of non-OSR plot-based games - as if a bare intersection in a dungeon with nothing to indicate what lies in any direction gives more agency than clues in a plot-based scenario which actually give hints about the available choices.

Heh, I think we play the same as players. I like to explore outside the expected activities.
Maybe people prefer limited options, but I don't. Having a crapload going on makes the world feel alive to me. And it can't be static...if the party decides to go do something, another option that had been presented before might of been completed by someone else or may still be up for grabs, but as a player I love seeing that. As a DM, I love presenting all that stuff--mainly for city adventures, as long as I have the area prepped and ready.

I always felt completely restricted as a player in most city adventures...seems like you are always being nudged in a certain direction with certain 'stops' for action sequences. I was always intimidated to run a city adventure as a DM because it takes a lot of work on how I would want to run it (and that's just on my own basis as a player of what I would of liked to see in a city adventure). But taking the time to set it up, it runs great.

As for changing the thread title....It's easy to mix sandboxes with 'lots of shit going on'...but in general, having lots of shit going on in a dungeon or whatever is more interesting that being more realistic. I still like my stuff to lean towards more realistic...but no one is going to have much fun exploring a empty, dusty tomb. But if you have tomb robbers, and undead, and some intelligent undead with some goals, going against a necromancer cult, and also a random group of humanoids who are trying to carve out some new territory, mixed with a little weird and traps and puzzles...then suddenly there is lots of shit going on and more interesting.

 

[squeen]

Wonder why you equate Sandbox with Realism?
Not saying you're wrong to do so...but maybe something subtle in your mental definition that's worth expounding on.

 

[Malrex]

Well, let's break it down.

Let's talk realism.

Is it realistic to have ALL tombs overflowing with undead ALL the time? I get so bored of that. It doesn't make sense to me. Why dont people just burn the dead since every time they have a tomb, crypt, graveyard, burial mound it becomes full of undead? It's more realistic to have a tomb that just has dead bodies in it, right?--but that type of realism can get boring. But, I don't know...maybe once in awhile, wouldn't a tomb be more interesting if there was something else guarding it? Instead of a crypt of dead gnomes having undead...it would be more realistic to me to have some sort of golems or mechanical traps or creatures guarding it?

Why does one random room in a random dungeon have 4 undead skeletons in it...how did they get there? There is no other undead but these 4 skeletons...? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Throw in a necromancer..ok..now its starting to make sense...or an artifact that attracts undead...now its making more sense. So I personally like my stuff to be more realistic in that sense. I get that other people don't care as much and that's ok, but I get to have a preference too. Throw in a little weird once in awhile..ok cool, but weird can still 'make sense' and have a place.

As for sandbox=realism. Doesn't it make sense? To have a place where other things are happening and not on some set schedule? Wouldn't that make things feel more real? Isn't that the beautiful thing about a sandbox approach? I get that there are different ways or methods or enjoyment of playing the game, but I prefer to avoid stagnation (or very limited choice) and play in a sandbox where things are happening--that my decisions have consequences (an opportunity lost, or new ones occur), that I have the freedom to choose what I want to do or go. It feels more realistic to me.

If my DM pulled out Ghost Tower of Inverness or whatever and stated that's what we are playing tonight...it would immediately take the wind out of my sails. I'd find it lame and severely limiting my choice and options. Sure, it would eventually get fun being in the dungeon, but immediately I feel like the DM just pulled out Monopoly and gave me a gaming piece to move around. The DM just took away my choice. I would much rather have our party decide to go there on our own after hearing rumors, etc...or not...and go elsewhere. It would feel more realistic to me in a game sense. Since that's easier to do with a sandbox approach, I guess I equate it with realism.

This is getting a little away from the thread's purpose I think though.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Chiming into the reality discussion, without addressing any point in particular:

Realism isn't so much a reflection of our own world into a fantasy world - it's more of a statement that everything in your world has a logical, plausible consistency. You can't directly compare a fantasy world to the real world because it's just way too different.

The people in RPGs know that magic exists, for one... deities too. Could you imagine what our world would be like if we had not only concrete evidence that God exists, but also that all other Gods exist too, and they talk to us and interact with us all the time? Clerics are essentially walking miracles in the real world, but not even worth consideration in a D&D setting. To strive to make things applicable to our reality is futile - in admitting so, the best we can aim for is to make things plausible in the crafted reality of the game world. All this is set by the DM - he remembers details and makes things logical. He pictures the ramifications of things like magic and gods on the world and makes people act appropriately to that being the reality of things.

Skeletons in a tomb seems weird to our reality, but it should be perfectly normal in a society where necromantic magic is known to concretely exist. The realism of it is all how the DM has framed their appearance in his world. Why are there four skeletons in this room? Well it's because they were buried in substandard coffins, well-before the cremation decree and stone mausoleum ordinance took effect - people from that era are just prone to showing up as skeletons from time to time, kinda like that great grand-pappy off-hand racism had which shocks us now but was the norm of the time.

As for living, breathing spaces with "tons of shit going on" - the quantum ogre is a problem that only exists to the DM... to the players, he's just a normal ogre. You don't need every part to move; that's a lot to track. Creative tricks and evocative situations can illicit any feeling you want from your players. You need some sort of "player-agency interface", sure, but a light touch can go a long way. Players want to feel like they've juked the system, but they don't need a whole clockwork machine to get that feeling. You give them a patrol whose route they can follow and exploit, an order of battle that can shift the dynamic of a fight, or even just enemies who use guerrilla tactics, but that's honestly enough to whet their appetite for choices. They don't need to be able to stalk every opponent for the perfect opportunity, or flank around in every encounter, or pit every faction against every other faction. They need chances to do it, sure, but not every single time it can be crammed into the adventure.

 

[Malrex]

Chiming into the reality discussion, without addressing any point in particular:

Realism isn't so much a reflection of our own world into a fantasy world - it's more of a statement that everything in your world has a logical, plausible consistency. You can't directly compare a fantasy world to the real world because it's just way too different.

Yes, that's what I mean--that everything in the fantasy world (i.e. sandbox) has a logical consistency. That's what I prefer (and realize others may not). Thanks DP.

 

[Beoric]

the quantum ogre is a problem that only exists to the DM... to the players, he's just a normal ogre.

I disagree. As a player, I can tell when an encounter is there for the sake of having an encounter. Especially if I am colouring outside the lines; if there is a main road and a forest road, and I decide to trailblaze through the woods between the two roads, and I still run into a set piece battle, I know something is up.

This is why tools to procedurally create content are so useful, so that not just the type of encounter but the odds of having one respond to player choices, rather then the DM decreeing that thou shalt have an encounter irrespective of the choices you make.