Sandbox campaign: best way to introduce the settlement

[Necrozius]

I'm about to start a campaign that will be very "sandbox-y" (ie, PC-driven).

The location is a very hostile island with only one friendly settlement which is their base of operations (while they may befriend some of the locals, they will never be fully accepted or supported by those groups). Their base settlement will be their "home" for the entire campaign.

(For those in the know, it is Monster Island for Mythras, the settlement being Port Grimsand).

While I have LOTS of detail ready (shops, factions, important NPCs, cults), I want the players to get to know the place without getting overwhelmed.

Do you have any tips for gradually getting the players / PCs familiar with such an important location?

I was thinking of starting with a street urchin offering to show them the major sights/sounds for a few coin literally as they disembark at the port.

 

[Nick J]

I know if I was a player, I'd immediately be suspicious of the urchin, suspecting the malicious GM was about to lure us into a dark alley to be mugged. Since Grimsand is supposed to be a safe haven, maybe just let the players describe where they want to go and what they want to see? Give vivid descriptions of the hustle and bustle and look and feel of the place as they poke around, but I wouldn't go too crazy on the detail up front. Presuming they are fresh arrivals, literally just off of the boat, They'll probably seek a place to stay, a place to relax, and eventually how to make some money. Let them ask you if there is anyone around to show them the sights, then introduce the urchin (or beggar, or whomever). Is it vitally important that they have the full lay of the land right away?

 

[arjunstc]

Show them a map of the town - their view from the deck as the ship pulled into port. Doesn't have to be a fully detailed and keyed 2D map; in fact, it's better if it's an old style perspective map, like this:

Let them ask: What's this tall building here? Where can I buy some weapons?

Then you just feed them the lore as you answer their questions.

Oh in Freeport there is s scam where halflings pretend to be children who offer to be your guides and then lead you into alleys to be robbed.

 

[saskganesh]

Give them the overview map! Yeah. Draw it pretty.

Have them meet interesting local NPC friends forthwith. Most of these should not be assholes. All these new friends have interesting problems, which are all adventure seeds. I think the players will develop meaningful agency only after they get some immersion in the locale and have some stakes in the ground. A little bit of the heavy hand by the DM is a good thing in the beginning before you let go.

The urchin is a fair start. Maybe he knows someone the PC's might like to know, some one who has an interesting problem... .

Players can learn the setting as they go. No need for a upfront preamble of a traveloque. They will only learn the lore if they get into the game.

 

[ScytheSong]

They came by ship, right? So what have the sailors they traveled with said about the settlement? Does the captain have an inn he recommends, or a map of the town that they can look at/copy? If this town has urchins, maybe one is a friend of some of the sailors. Or there may be a few "ladies of negotiable virtue" who work the docks and are relatively trustworthy (as far as the sailors know).

What we call "warm hand-offs" today was business as usual in the past. Maybe the players have a letter of introduction to the mayor of the settlement, or the captain of the town guard, in the manner of D'Artangnan in *The Three Musketeers*.

 

[Ravenswing]

Well, the easiest way to convince people that the urchin isn't leading them into an ambush? (Besides just not having that paranoid a campaign.) Have TEN urchins there. Three of them are trying to get the players to three separate inns, two are steering them towards brothels, one's pushing a pricey general merchant, and sure, two of them are pickpockets.

Are any in the party of a visibly elevated social status? If so, the harbormaster notices, sends a runner to the richest social climber in town, and ten minutes later, a well-dressed groom runs them down with an invite. There'll be a dinner tonight -- and let the players see that the groom goes on to verify with the ship captain that the consignment of choice foreign brandies for his employer arrived! -- and such social elite the town has will be there. The head of the White Death, the leading local merchant, an exiled noble or two, the town's eccentric wizard. People who have information about the town and are willing to blab over a goblet of Diamond Mountain Private Reserve.

In any event, make the entire first session about this. Presuming you had a Session Zero talk with your players about what the campaign would be about, so hopefully they grasp the usefulness of getting to know people. Of course if they have any sense they'll find out about the town's best armourer, whether there's a temple, whether there are wizards or alchemists, where they can get unadulterated provisions.

 

[Dr Jack]

I always think it's fine to rely on the characters knowing more than the players.

If I was running this scenario I would explain that the PCs arrived several weeks before and have had time to get to know the place. Then I'd give the map and a list of important places, as well as important political/other figures and factions, and explain a bit about the inn they're staying at and who else is staying there. If they want to know more about any of these you can give them a run down of whatever they're interested in. This way, when you start introducing a new faction or individual you can just tell the players who they are when it's relevant rather than trying to get them to figure it out beforehand. This also means you can start the game with the players having some contacts and rumours that will help get the first session off the ground.

 

[Necrozius]

FYI: the urchin was just one idea. I'm definitely not married to it.

Great ideas folks, thanks!

 

[Nick J]

If you want to go in media res you could always have the urchin fleeing down the street and dodging behind the PCs for cover while the guards go tramping past, unless the PCs want to give him up and turn him over. If they turn him over perhaps the guards are grateful and vouch for the characters, or maybe the urchin is a low-level operative for the thieves' guild and that opens up some other opportunities? This at least gives them the chance to make a meaingful decision with some consequences without it being strictly about facing combat or real danger.

 

[Brock Savage]

Sandbox campaign: best way to introduce the settlement​

First of all, a discussion of general tips for introducing a campaign's "home base" would be a great topic for the board.

General advice:

• If the initial settlement is "home base" then its portrayal helps set the tone for your entire campaign. Whatever your tone is going to be, this is the prime opportunity to deliver it with some brief and punchy exposition.
• Since the home base of a sandboxy game is almost always the last bastion of civilization at the border of a dangerous frontier, I find it impactful to drive this home as soon as I start the campaign. Normally this means kicking things off in media res on the last leg of the journey from civilization to home base. In addition to action I mix things up with a couple important and consequential decisions.
• Avoid starting a sandboxy game with players wandering around town trying to "find the fun." A lack of direction is the number one killer of sandboxy games. Give them clear and obvious hooks to adventure ASAP. This isn't railroading, it's akin to using guardrails so the campaign doesn't completely derail. The players should feel like they can can do adventure hooks A, B, or C in addition to anything else they can think of.

Specific advice

• Setting up an encounter with a single urchin can end up with the party saying "not interested" and then what? If this is a "very hostile" island with one safe port, the arrival of a ship is almost certainly a big fucking deal for the locals. if nothing else the arrival of a ship announces an infusion of cash and goods that cannot be produced locally. There will be a literal crowd. In addition to laborers, investors, and officials with legitimate reasons to be there, you will have sight-seers along with people looking to make a buck- urchins, pick pockets, beggars, pedlars, bawds, hookers, scam artists, etc.
• This is a perfect opportunity to introduce one of those important NPCs or factions you mentioned, esp if they have an adventure hook to give the PCs direction right away so they don't have to aimlessly wander around town "looking for the fun"

 

[PolarBlues]

Sandbox purists may object to the whole idea of the GM decide where the player character home base is located. I am not a purist, I don't care.

One very effective way to teach the players about the setting without any exposition is to do it collaboratively. Have the players come up with key locations and factions in the city and, presto, there is no need to learn about them. But it seems that ship has sailed for you and if I'm honest I enjoy that approach more as GM (as it saves me a ton of work) than as a player.

Maps are OK. Diagrams are better. In a diagram you annotate in boxes key locations, NPCs, factions without worrying about scale or geography. Also the trouble with a map is that if its not on the map already, it is presumed not to exist. Whereas with a diagram, what you are showing are clear a subset of places of interest. And you just need a Jamboard to whip up a diagram, not artistic ability required.

Other than that, just assume the characters know things that player don't yet and fill them in as and when needed.

 

[Ravenswing]

Sandbox purists may object to the whole idea of the GM decide where the player character home base is located. I am not a purist, I don't care.

I'd tell such a purist to stick it in his ear. Doing up a town takes prep work: deciding what's there, deciding what personalities are around, and the more detail work I can put in, the richer the place is. I have no love for cutting a session short hours early because the players (a) outrun my preparation, and (b) nevertheless expect my usual high level of detail.

 

[Necrozius]

Sandbox purists may object to the whole idea of the GM decide where the player character home base is located. I am not a purist, I don't care.

Definite food for thought.

Not a setup for every table. My players want to discover and find things. I’m not forcing them to use the one “friendly” settlement as their home base: they’re free to try to make peace with the mostly hostile local cultures. But the “settlement on the borderlands” setup will make things much easier.

In my case, I found the pre-made sandbox of Monster Island to be really compelling, and so I’m using it (as it saves ME time preparing).

But yes, collaborative world building has its benefits. I’ve done that before, and it is fun, but also fraught with other drawbacks that I’ve experienced (design by committees has some definite cons, especially for the GM if players contradict your descriptions and rulings in-game).

 

[Bilharzia]

Although not designed for new players or new PCs, I recommend the scenario "A Bird in the Hand" as an intro to Monster Island. It starts off in Grimsand and uses it as a springboard into an adventure inland. As a side benefit it provides some hexcrawl rules specific to the setting, and a pretty elegant sidekick system for what are effectively henchmen for PCs.

 

[chuckdee]

I'm about to start a campaign that will be very "sandbox-y" (ie, PC-driven).

The location is a very hostile island with only one friendly settlement which is their base of operations (while they may befriend some of the locals, they will never be fully accepted or supported by those groups). Their base settlement will be their "home" for the entire campaign.

(For those in the know, it is Monster Island for Mythras, the settlement being Port Grimsand).

While I have LOTS of detail ready (shops, factions, important NPCs, cults), I want the players to get to know the place without getting overwhelmed.

Do you have any tips for gradually getting the players / PCs familiar with such an important location?

I was thinking of starting with a street urchin offering to show them the major sights/sounds for a few coin literally as they disembark at the port.

I tend to create an in-game subjective pamphlet rather than a person. Maybe it's a flyer they pick up from some one about seeing the sights or something they get off an announcement board as they get to the city. But it just gives what I want them to know, but doesn't answer all the questions so they have to choose what to believe and what they pursue.

 

[Fenris-77]

So you have lots of bits ready to populate the settlement, that's good. To color inside the lines of sandbox play you need to just let them go and see what hooks or bits they interact with and run with that.

For me the most useful thing is to make sure all the bits, the people and factions especially, are tightly intertwined. When the characters pluck on one of those threads that leaves you a ton of room to decide what the consequences are. Plus it usually means that wherever the players start, they'll eventually end up branching out.

 

[soltakss]

Do you have any tips for gradually getting the players / PCs familiar with such an important location?

Have them start somewhere.

Give them a map of the townn/city.

Give them a map of the island, if there is one.

Have scenarios that take them places.

Ask them where they want to go.

 

[Necrozius]

Have them start somewhere.

Give them a map of the townn/city.

Give them a map of the island, if there is one.

Have scenarios that take them places.

Ask them where they want to go.

Sound, broad advice for a sandbox campaign. Although I’m asking about getting the players more familiar with, and invested in the main settlement. However, your advice scaled down to the settlement itself would work too!

Basically everything is a fractal.

 

[soltakss]

Although I’m asking about getting the players more familiar with, and invested in the main settlement.

Give them a map of the settlement.

Have a series of scenarios that introduce them to the main areas of town and the movers and shakers.

Perhaps draw up a "What Everyone Knows" document that details important places and people.

But, scenarios and scenario hooks are what bring out the most information.

Don't spend an hour describing the town and its people and history, as people's eyes will glaze over after 5 minutes.

 

[Atelerix]

Forbidden Lands has the hook that the PCs are settlers, explorers, treasure hunters in a region that was closed off a century ago for unknown magical reasons, and largely wiped clean of sentient life.

The travel and recovery mechanics encourage PCs to set up a base fairly quickly, but the onus is on them to make the settlement expand, attracting NPCs -farmers, bakers, stonemasons - and defending their new lands as they encounter stronger and more organised foes.

Of course, NPCs bring more plot hooks...

Several of the dungeons/sites in the GM book are set up to become potential bases once they've been cleared.

Not the solution for every sandbox, but a welcome alternative. It's a setup that would work in Glorantha for the areas covered by the Syndics Ban, or in Kevin Crawford's Red Tide setting.

 

[arjunstc]

Forbidden Lands has the hook that the PCs are settlers, explorers, treasure hunters in a region that was closed off a century ago for unknown magical reasons, and largely wiped clean of sentient life.

I'm sorry to say this, but the fluff behind Forbidden Lands is stupid. Like, really really stupid.

We are asked to believe that after a period of 265 years during when people could not travel more than half a day's journey from their own home, numerous settlements could survive, and that everyone could still understand each other's language?

The rules are fine - I used them for my Sorcery! campaign - but if someone wants to use the background for a hex-crawl, stronghold-management campaign, I suggest making the Blood Mist an eight year long plague which decimated the population. Travel was all but non-existent because early on people would kill anyone from outside their settlement on sight out of fear of the plague. All forms of central authority and trade collapsed. Unless you lived next to a mine you had no new metal. The most well-traveled people - merchants and adventurers - all died early during the outbreak, and after eight years knowledge of what lay beyond the horizon had been forgotten

 

[Fenris-77]

I think Atelerix was more focused on the mechanics there, and opinions of the setting fluff don't really impact that much. That said, I love and use the FL system but I don't use the setting. It wasn't an issue of me thinking it stupid, I just didn't grab me. Thankfully the system is super easy to separate from the setting.

 

[Atelerix]

Thanks Fenris-77 I've said several times on here that the "wilderness" rules system in FL, and the way it ties in to the core rules, has engaged my players more than similar considerations in any other game.

Fair points A arjunstc The background I can take or leave - I don't mind the Blood Mist, but I'm a forgiving soul. I find the design goals to be a little "emo".

The conceit of the base-building rules is at least something different, and would work in a range of other settings - colonisation scenarios for example. It was clearly influenced by computer game survival and base-building mechanics.

 

[Fenris-77]

Thanks Fenris-77 I've said several times on here that the "wilderness" rules system in FL, and the way it ties in to the core rules, has engaged my players more than similar considerations in any other game.

Fair points A arjunstc The background I can take or leave - I don't mind the Blood Mist, but I'm a forgiving soul. I find the design goals to be a little "emo".

The conceit of the base-building rules is at least something different, and would work in a range of other settings - colonisation scenarios for example. It was clearly influenced by computer game survival and base-building mechanics.

I think it's a better system that 'just something different' personally. The mechanics are fantastic.

 

[opaopajr]

You need safe places. Not necessarily boring -- so evocative, populated, filled with potential -- but definitely safe places. That can be an employer's warehouse, cozy inn/tavern, temple garden, etc. The challenge is letting your players relax, let their guard down, and be open to the sense of place after the excitement occurs.

Often you might get someone stuck on excitement and they check out of the game until "something important" (read: combat) happens. Ignore that behavior, there will always be that type. Without the contrast you don't have a livable, breathable place, just a catastrophe-prone hellscape for adrenalin junkies. That's not a place filled with meaningful choices but a forced-feeding of 'Adventure!' to the squeakiest wheel. Trust that the unspoken majority is enjoying a colorful breather to explore and socialize on their terms.

Again, Safety allows curiosity, curiosity leads to Secrets, which leads to complications and Suspense, and so on...

 

[Fenris-77]

In my games there is no 'safe'. There's maybe safer and less safe, but not safe full stop. Nothing of any interest happens when things are safe, there are no consequences when things are safe, and I've found that consequences, more than anything else, are what make it seem like the world is, to use a hackneyed phrase, in motion. I find that conflict, more than safety, leads to curiosity. Players aren't often going to be curious about shit that doesn't affect them. They're curious because it matters to them somehow. After that I agree that curiosity leads to to secrets and thence to suspense.

 

[AsenRG]

In my games there is no 'safe'. There's maybe safer and less safe, but not safe full stop. Nothing of any interest happens when things are safe, there are no consequences when things are safe, and I've found that consequences, more than anything else, are what make it seem like the world is, to use a hackneyed phrase, in motion. I find that conflict, more than safety, leads to curiosity. Players aren't often going to be curious about shit that doesn't affect them. They're curious because it matters to them somehow. After that I agree that curiosity leads to to secrets and thence to suspense.

But you have to allow the players to think their base is "safe" or they'll keep fortifying it ad infinitum. Then you might have to reveal it's just "safer"...but that's for later.

 

[chuckdee]

But you have to allow the players to think their base is "safe" or they'll keep fortifying it ad infinitum. Then you might have to reveal it's just "safer"...but that's for later.

That's where the stick part comes into play, IMO. If they turtle, let them see that turtling isn't all its cracked up to be.

 

[Fenris-77]

But you have to allow the players to think their base is "safe" or they'll keep fortifying it ad infinitum. Then you might have to reveal it's just "safer"...but that's for later.

Actually, I think the opposite is true. If the players have a fortified base it probably needs to get attacked, otherwise what's the point of having a fortified base? I'm pretty sure that any game where the players have a fortified base it's appropriate to place the base in danger. If it were safe they could just be planning their shenanigans in their parents garage.

 

[Necrozius]

In my games there is no 'safe'. There's maybe safer and less safe, but not safe full stop. Nothing of any interest happens when things are safe, there are no consequences when things are safe, and I've found that consequences, more than anything else, are what make it seem like the world is, to use a hackneyed phrase, in motion. I find that conflict, more than safety, leads to curiosity. Players aren't often going to be curious about shit that doesn't affect them. They're curious because it matters to them somehow. After that I agree that curiosity leads to to secrets and thence to suspense.

Port Grimsand on Monster Island is definitely safer than the rest of the island… somewhat.

Boy there are a lot of human-sacrificing cults behind those tough walls.

 

[AsenRG]

Actually, I think the opposite is true. If the players have a fortified base it probably needs to get attacked, otherwise what's the point of having a fortified base? I'm pretty sure that any game where the players have a fortified base it's appropriate to place the base in danger. If it were safe they could just be planning their shenanigans in their parents garage.

Depends. If they fortified it* well enough that attacking it would obviously be a significant challenge, why would anyone attack it, and often? High walls can work as prevention, not merely fortification. And NPCs aren't idiots (mostly), they'd only attack if they think they stand a reasonable chance. Of course, they can be wrong in their estimates, but that's a separate matter...
So, sure it shall get attacked...eventually. That's why I said it's not "safe", just "safer". But for a significant period of time, they must be allowed to get a pause from attacks until someone finds a way to breach those defenses.
And of course, other attacks might get easily foiled in the meantime, especially from those NPCs who aren't in the "mostly not idiots" group, or are prone to overestimate their own abilities!


*Including "staffing it with NPCs", potentially.

 

[chuckdee]

Depends. If they fortified it* well enough that attacking it would obviously be a significant challenge, why would anyone attack it, and often? High walls can work as prevention, not merely fortification. And NPCs aren't idiots (mostly), they'd only attack if they think they stand a reasonable chance. Of course, they can be wrong in their estimates, but that's a separate matter...
So, sure it shall get attacked...eventually. That's why I said it's not "safe", just "safer". But for a significant period of time, they must be allowed to get a pause from attacks until someone finds a way to breach those defenses.
And of course, other attacks might get easily foiled in the meantime, especially from those NPCs who aren't in the "mostly not idiots" group, or are prone to overestimate their own abilities!


*Including "staffing it with NPCs", potentially.

There's always someone with a bigger stick. If not... why not? The PCs have to have someone to shake their fist at and aspire to be...

 

[AsenRG]

There's always someone with a bigger stick. If not... why not? The PCs have to have someone to shake their fist at and aspire to be...

At some point, "having a bigger stick" doesn't quite justify actually using said stick, though. Potential losses have to be weighed vs gains.

 

[opaopajr]

Hey, you all do you, guys.

I am speaking from repeated experience that when I wanted my players to relax, trust me as GM more, and touch the environs, I had far better chances by having places where they could catch their breath. The few adversarial or false sense of security ploys I used backfired extremely hard. Trying to unclench any possible Munchkin players at the table is hard, triggering their control freak paranoia extremely easy.

It's not a mode of play I want to run because it came off in the end competitive and stifling. It defeats both my goal of exploring my content and giving player control of tone to shift as they desired. If they were reacting to their paranoid perceptions of me -- and in table social dynamics it only takes one who loudly fears the most to trump most else -- a lot of free wheeling fun and waiting prepared content was left on the table.

It's advice I give not for campaign design, but for table social management. If you know that is not a social possibility at your tables, congratulations!

 

[Necrozius]

That’s good advice opaopajr . I’ve made sure to make some very likeable NPCs, or tough ones that show respect once the PCs demonstrated their abilities. The players are more invested already.

 

[AsenRG]

Hey, you all do you, guys.

I am speaking from repeated experience that when I wanted my players to relax, trust me as GM more, and touch the environs, I had far better chances by having places where they could catch their breath. The few adversarial or false sense of security ploys I used backfired extremely hard.

Also true IME.
OTOH, then the safe places become a valued resource, and sooner or later an enemy of the PCs is bound to go against those as well...
So we're back to the balancing act known as Refereeing, and taking decisions in the moment!

 

[chuckdee]

Hey, you all do you, guys.

I am speaking from repeated experience that when I wanted my players to relax, trust me as GM more, and touch the environs, I had far better chances by having places where they could catch their breath. The few adversarial or false sense of security ploys I used backfired extremely hard. Trying to unclench any possible Munchkin players at the table is hard, triggering their control freak paranoia extremely easy.

It's not a mode of play I want to run because it came off in the end competitive and stifling. It defeats both my goal of exploring my content and giving player control of tone to shift as they desired. If they were reacting to their paranoid perceptions of me -- and in table social dynamics it only takes one who loudly fears the most to trump most else -- a lot of free wheeling fun and waiting prepared content was left on the table.

It's advice I give not for campaign design, but for table social management. If you know that is not a social possibility at your tables, congratulations!

It really depends on the type of game you run. My favorite type of game to run are horror and conspiracy, no matter the genre. So comfort is just not on the tin and what the players sign up for.

 

[Voros]

Sound, broad advice for a sandbox campaign. Although I’m asking about getting the players more familiar with, and invested in the main settlement. However, your advice scaled down to the settlement itself would work too!

Basically everything is a fractal.

Perhaps look at the PC playbooks in Beyond the Wall which tie the PCs to the village and each other for some ideas. Perhaps the 'settlement' is their hometown. That doesn't mean they have to be beloved there, quite the opposite!