Sandbox RPG: help me understand

[hawkeyefan]

I think this is very much a common sense thing: sandbox lean heavily on immersion and in character decision making. And that is cool. But some people can take that too far. At the end of the day, you aren't entering into delusional states where you can't see you are still in the room with people. And when it comes to stuff like this, different groups will have very different lines of what is acceptable in an RPG (if I were playing with a group of hammer film fans, I would expect different sensibilities than if I was playing with a group of devout born again Christians).

Drawing a line for something people find uncomfortable like that, I don't see it as the same as a qualifier like "stay pirates the whole game'. Is it a limit? Yes, but it is a limit imposed by the social expectations of the people you are gaming with, not the style of sandbox.

Also, this is often a result of maturity levels, and life experience. When I was in middle school, my expectations were very different from my group of friends than now. It is generally advisable to play with people you are either on the same page there with, or with people whose antics don't bother you to the extent that it makes the game unpleasant.

Torture is one of those things that comes up most naturally I think, because players often want to get information from people and monsters. And that is definitely a line for some players and not others.

Yeah, I agree....I don't think that expecting people to kind of temper themselves with regard to socially questionable content is the same as with other types of content like theme or premise or what have you. I expect there may be people who would view any limit as an issue, though.

And yeah, I think torture is a common example. Just given the nature of the kinds of worlds and characters and events that tend to take place in RPGs, questioning a captured opponent is pretty common. And once that's common, the idea of torture is not far off.

As kids, such things are not as easily understood, so you hope as we get older, people start to realize the impact of such a decision. There may absolutely be a place for this in some games; the Spire game I described had the PCs do some really questionable shit in the name of their cause, but it was a significant decision to do so, it took a toll, and we didn't linger on the specifics. One of the other games I'm in is likely similar, but then a third I'd be shocked to see that kind of thing come up, although no one made any specific content restriction requests at the start.

 

[Lundgren]

I don't like the term "pure sandbox", it seems unnecessary and once again implies that there's some degree of quality.

The issue regarding squick in games I don't consider to have anything to do with a discussion of sandboxes really, because it applies to any RPG, regardless of playstyle.

There might be better qualifier for that. Still, as I mentioned, it might matter in what context one uses the phrase and there might be contexts where the term do stand on it own legs. A qualifier doesn't have to be a single word, and might more be of "where/but/however" followed by a sentence of several paragraphs.

Squick or "this would bore me" is still meta-limitations on the game, and limits on how the "campaign might be trashed." I think most of us have just some potential story hooks, so there isn't even a campaign to trash.

As I see that all implementations would be qualified in one way or another. The "pure state" or "umbrella term" seems to the stem for both of us, and also seems to agree that there is no degree of quality or that one would be better or worse other than personal preferences. The "don't leave the Caribbean" is very different than "go wherever you want, but don't make murder hobos", but they are both "qualified sandboxes" and thus part of the sandbox definition/umbrella/unqualified stem.

So... Maybe we are actually, in a very convoluted way, just be arguing about the semantics regarding "umbrella term"?

 

[Tommy Brownell]

So... Maybe we are actually, in a very convoluted way, just be arguing about the semantics regarding "umbrella term"?

This board? Argue about semantics? That'll be a cold day in Missouri.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't like the term "pure sandbox", it seems unnecessary and once again implies that there's some degree of quality.

Yeah, I agree. "Pure" has become one of those words that can be really tricky.

I think it's useful to have some kind of way of differentiating between various types of sandbox, but pure might not be the best word.

Unrestricted or Unlimited or something like that seems apt to me. They seem to describe the important element.

 

[ffilz]

I

Yeah, I agree. "Pure" has become one of those words that can be really tricky.



Unrestricted or Unlimited or something like that seems apt to me. They seem to describe the important element.

Yea, that makes sense. I will grant Robert's expectation of what "sandbox" by itself means, but sometimes it's helpful to make it clear that one really is talking about Robert's idea and not what other people thing "sandbox" by itself means.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

As well as seeing it as a scale, this one might best be solved by seeing a game as subcategories.

If your PCs can go or do anything within the logic of the setting, that's a sandbox setting.

If you place no restrictions on character gen other than the logic of the setting, that's sandbox character gen.

If you have no off limits content that's sandbox content.

The only one I suspect doesn't exist is sandbox content. Generally, groups that have been together a long time just know where the lines are without being told. And in my experience the edgiest of edgelords are normally the most easy to wind up if you hit the right buttons.

 

[Endless Flight]

…because players often want to get information from people and monsters…

 

[Skarg]

...

I mean, I'm not surprised at the assertion, I know some people were holding to similar beliefs (I think Skarg seemed to be in favour of that). So I'm just surprised at hearing it from you. Ah well.
...

I tired to look back to see what similar beliefs I might be in favor of, but I don't think I really get the topic.

I like my worlds to seem real and be fair and discoverable, and I sometimes over-prep because I enjoy it, but I don't have every armorer statted out in advance, not by a long run. However, when an armorer comes into play, I will tend to assume they are actual person, and start detailing him as much as need be, and try to remember/record some of what he was like, in case the PCs return.

It's certainly possible for me to conjure an idea of an NPC off the top of my hand, and to conjure TFT or GURPS stats for them as needed with some mix of intuition and dice on the fly.

I won't, however, have one highly unusual armorer who will certainly appear the first time any PC messes with an armorer. And if I randomly generate an armorer's stats, and if whatever that random process is, indicates some detail that the PCs would have noticed, then I'll override that result, because it's been established in play that what the random process says isn't true.

But I don't know what you folks were really talking about for sure, so I'll stop rambling.

 

[Skarg]

Guys, here's a real situation where my expectation of a Full Sandbox clashed hard against the DM's expectation of Qualified Sandbox.

We were playing 1st level B/X characters in a game advertised as sandbox (you can approach whichever dungeon whichever way you want).
I'm playing a wizard by whim of the dice (3 Strength...), but whatever, I'm trying to make him thrive and prosper. His backstory is a mix of D&D and 1001 nights - he was a trader, got into studying the occult, squandered his father's inheritance on it, now is looking for a way to get prosperous again and thus, "atone for his missteps", as common in the source material. I even named him Hassan, Abdullah, or something similar because that's where I got the idea from (I was reading 1001 nights at the time, so that was meant to be "credit where credit is due").
Yes, that matters. Not the part about being wizard, the backstory.

Because then we managed to find a huge haul of diamonds. After first adventure, we had gold in the 4-5 digits. Each.
Of course, that means we're now 1 XP short of 3rd level.
So my IC suggestion was "let's make those money even more - we can become really respected traders if we invest them smartly, and along the way we'd get to see new places as well, find more magic for me, and teachers of martial techniques for the warriors, everyone wins!" (Or something like this, it was years and years ago).
I still maintain that made total sense IC!
DM's answer: "I'm running a dungeoncrawling game, and I see you're not mentioning dungeons".
Another player: "Yeah, and I'm here to dungeoncrawl".
Me, amazed: "But once the PCs, most of which have claimed being motivated by greed and love of luxury, that kind of stuff, now have that kind of money...why would they keep risking their lives when they can become both respectable, and live in luxury? We're playing dungeoncrawling adventurers, but you said the game is sandbox, right?"
End result, the GM told me via PM (we were playing on TBP) to leave the game. I was determined not be a good fit, or something. Even me offering to just drop the argument didn't work.
Well, I wasn't that sad to go. I was only sorry that, while I tried to leave my PC's money to the rest of the party, he was having none of it (as a Ref, I tend to kill off PCs that are no longer being played, barring request to the contrary). So the DM basically ended up giving a huge chunk of resources to what was now an NPC...which made no sense to me!

Now, who was in the wrong? Nobody (though they probably believed otherwise). It was a miscommunication, we just weren't playing the kind of game I thought we were - and the DM had never offered to run what I though he was.

But I'm sure you can see that this is clearly a case where making a distinction between sandbox and qualified sandbox at the recruitment would have helped to avoid the whole thing, right?

Well, that seems to me like you were correctly roleplaying your character, and that your DM didn't know how to handle that very well.

Seems to me too that it makes sense that since the other PCs had different ideas, your character would want to leave the adventuring party and take their wealth with them to re-invest and become a merchant and/or find new friends.

The DM seems to have been unable/unwilling to play that out, but having your PC leave and perhaps be NPC'd would make sense. It also makes sense to me that character's loot would not stay with the party.

I actually think it's cool when PCs get into situations where they want to do other things than adventure around, and when they do, as long as it's NOT "ok, so he auto-dies" nor "ok, so we get all his stuff, right" nor "ok, so can I start a new PC with the full XP/wealth/etc of the retired PC". i.e. I like natural logical consequences.

 

[ffilz]

Hmm, back to the quantum armorer...

I think it would be just fine in keeping with a sandbox if you brainstormed various types of NPCs and had a book of ready to go NPCs. Then when you need an armorer, you look through the book and pick one, by choice, or randomly, possibly considering which one would be the best fit. I agree that if some details have been determined in play before you reach for stats, then you may need to modify the stats so the statted up armorer doesn't contradict what was already established in play. Sometimes if there's a detail that wouldn't change how the PCs engaged, I will retro and say "actually the armorer has X feature."

 

[SJB]

When they start acting like bad guys, send good guys after them.

Or if they are doing bad things to people, even bad people, they are going to make enemies.

Actions have consequences.

If it's just overly disturbing for you and you want it to stop, have that conversation.

1. Why, if they are the rough men standing ready to do violence so that peaceful people can sleep soundly in their beds?
2. Why, if they are careful to establish plausible deniability?
3. Certainly.
4. Absolutely, yes. We are back to no tossers/no pooping in the sandbox.

 

[Fenris-77]

Hmm, back to the quantum armorer...

I think it would be just fine in keeping with a sandbox if you brainstormed various types of NPCs and had a book of ready to go NPCs. Then when you need an armorer, you look through the book and pick one, by choice, or randomly, possibly considering which one would be the best fit. I agree that if some details have been determined in play before you reach for stats, then you may need to modify the stats so the statted up armorer doesn't contradict what was already established in play. Sometimes if there's a detail that wouldn't change how the PCs engaged, I will retro and say "actually the armorer has X feature."

In lieu of a specific table I'll generally throw 2 or 3 six-siders with a general high-is-good index and go with it. In this case: one for quality of shop, one for the NPC (trustworthy to shady) and one for the NPCs reaction. So I throw a 2, a 5 and a 4. It's a somewhat poor shop, probably with crap inventory, run by a pretty trustworthy/capable seeming armorer who' has a pretty neutral reaction to the NPCs. Run those things together and it's probably a shop that down on it's luck despite the skill of the armorer. That's a lot of story out of 3d6.

 

[robertsconley]

...and what's wrong with him being Generic Template#3, based off the way I've roleplayed him so far?

As a side note one of the volumes I am in the middle of writing is called the Domesday Codex, a compendium of NPCs for the Majestic Fantasy RPG. It in essence at bunch of generic template #3 designed to work together to paint a picture of life within my Majest Fantasy Realms. For example there a section about bandits, brigands, and how the rural criminal network works. Along with a section on their urban counterparts of course.

 

[ffilz]

As a side note one of the volumes I am in the middle of writing is called the Domesday Codex, a compendium of NPCs for the Majestic Fantasy RPG. It in essence at bunch of generic template #3 designed to work together to paint a picture of life within my Majest Fantasy Realms. For example there a section about bandits, brigands, and how the rural criminal network works. Along with a section on their urban counterparts of course.

Oh, I can see in a few years when you've published more of your Majestic Fantasy Realms material that it could be a great thing to base running some flavor of D&D (quite likely yours). While the Wilderlands of High Fantasy has a lot of appeal to me, there's aspects of it that are just too sparse and incomplete to feel like a really playable setting considering the time I have available and my general implications, but make a setting as easy for me to run as Glorantha and you've got me sold.

 

[Alohan]

I had a conversation about this on reddit, but it left me unsatisfied. The debater was more interested in telling me THAT I was wrong rather than HOW I was wrong in my perception of RPGs and Sandboxes. He did say it was more environment-driven than plot-driven which, because I write fiction for part of my living, doesn't make a huge amount of sense (for me ....they're interlinked)

I plainly do not understand what people mean when they talk about sandbox TTRPGs. Because from my point of view, all TTRPGs are sandbox. You can be playing a hard-boiled detective in 1920a Chicago and the GM can throw superheroes at you. Or you can (especially in a narrative game), make up any possible outcome.

So what am I missing?

Basically with a Sandbox RPG the GM prepares a couple enemies for the area the player characters are currently adventuring in and let’s them loose on it.

All the adventure happens from player initiative. The GM could improvise some events which the player characters can get involved with or not. I honestly never liked Sandbox RPGs, it always felt unfocused and not as fun as a more quest based campaign.

 

[Endless Flight]

Welcome to the Pub Alohan.

 

[Alohan]

Welcome to the Pub Alohan.

Thanks!
I’m happy to be here.

 

[robertsconley]

I honestly never liked Sandbox RPGs, it always felt unfocused and not as fun as a more quest based campaign.

When folks like myself began to discuss what we did with the Wilderlands and called a sandbox campaign, shortly after we been getting report of campaign failing. Among the reasons is the one you related that it felt unfocused. I didn't have this issue with my campaign so I sat down and tried to figure what it was I was doing different.

It turns out that I always gave players, group and individual reasons for adventuring as their characters. For example one campaign everybody played a magic user who was member of a magical order call the Order of Thoth. But beyond that I discussed with each players how they thought each character fit within the mage's guild and what their goal. It wasn't elaborate just a normal part of the pre-game banter every group has. I call this the Initial Context.

So I made sure the starting circumstances covered what I was told along with a few other things beyond that. In general over the years I found that players hate feeling like their choices are the equivalent of throwing a dart at a board in the dark. Also not all Initial Context are about the players starting out as free agents able to go anywhere. Some groups opt for something more structured like being under orders as part of a mercenary company.


For example one player's goal was to own a potion shop in the City State of the Invincible Overlord. He made an alchemist character (we were using GURPS) of course, but more than, I gave him a handful of contacts he knew among them were existing potion shop owners. So while the ownership of a potion shop was going to be a long term thing, he had enough to get started. And while it didn't play a much of role during the first couple of adventures. Pretty much it allowed the party to score a deal on some badly needed potion. It started to pay off in the middle of the campaign when he started gaining some wealth. And it definitely influenced how he handled his share of the treasure as he saved quite a bit of it while the rest of the party spent theirs on equipment and magic stuff.

So finally he had the funds, found the building, had the connections to purchase the building and was able to get his potion shop. One thing you have to understand about this player that OOG he was an expert carpenter and could make beautiful wooden furniture and signs. So he comes to the next session and displays this really outstanding sign for his potion shop.

ALEX"s POTIONS
WE SELL POTIONS CHEEP.

We all started laughing and he went "What?". Finally when we stopped, we said "Dude, read your sign again." So he turned it around and the stricken look on his face was priceless when he realized then that he misspelled the word cheap. Otherwise that sign was a great piece of craftsmanship.

If you were to play in my Majestic Wilderlands and happened to wander a certain street in the City State of the Invincible Overlord. You will still find a potion shop with that sign hanging in front of it.

 

[AsenRG]

I tired to look back to see what similar beliefs I might be in favor of, but I don't think I really get the topic.

It was a thread long ago where you had expressed some views that I remember, albeit vaguely, to be similar to Black Leaf 's opinion that "improvising in a sandbox requires illusionism".

I like my worlds to seem real and be fair and discoverable, and I sometimes over-prep because I enjoy it, but I don't have every armorer statted out in advance, not by a long run. However, when an armorer comes into play, I will tend to assume they are actual person, and start detailing him as much as need be, and try to remember/record some of what he was like, in case the PCs return.

It's certainly possible for me to conjure an idea of an NPC off the top of my hand, and to conjure TFT or GURPS stats for them as needed with some mix of intuition and dice on the fly.

I won't, however, have one highly unusual armorer who will certainly appear the first time any PC messes with an armorer. And if I randomly generate an armorer's stats, and if whatever that random process is, indicates some detail that the PCs would have noticed, then I'll override that result, because it's been established in play that what the random process says isn't true.

But I don't know what you folks were really talking about for sure, so I'll stop rambling.

That, however, is pretty much how I do it as well, minus the overprepping. So I might be misremembering that past thread, or maybe we had a case of miscommunication...which has happened on internet before and likely will happen again is happening now on another forum as well.

Well, that seems to me like you were correctly roleplaying your character, and that your DM didn't know how to handle that very well.

Seems to me too that it makes sense that since the other PCs had different ideas, your character would want to leave the adventuring party and take their wealth with them to re-invest and become a merchant and/or find new friends.

The DM seems to have been unable/unwilling to play that out, but having your PC leave and perhaps be NPC'd would make sense.

I don't think he didn't know how to roll it. I'm quite sure he didn't want to know.
Which is totally fine, like how I don't want to know the best practices of running Pathfinder adventures.

It also makes sense to me that character's loot would not stay with the party.

Well, it was a group with strong "PCs vs the world" attitude. Besides, it didn't matter much to me - I don't re-use PCs, except as a huge exception - and this wasn't the case - so the PC might as well have died, from my PoV as a player.

I actually think it's cool when PCs get into situations where they want to do other things than adventure around, and when they do, as long as it's NOT "ok, so he auto-dies" nor "ok, so we get all his stuff, right" nor "ok, so can I start a new PC with the full XP/wealth/etc of the retired PC". i.e. I like natural logical consequences.

Yeah, but this was a group that considered "we get all his stuff" to be the natural order of things.

Hmm, back to the quantum armorer...

I think it would be just fine in keeping with a sandbox if you brainstormed various types of NPCs and had a book of ready to go NPCs. Then when you need an armorer, you look through the book and pick one, by choice, or randomly, possibly considering which one would be the best fit. I agree that if some details have been determined in play before you reach for stats, then you may need to modify the stats so the statted up armorer doesn't contradict what was already established in play. Sometimes if there's a detail that wouldn't change how the PCs engaged, I will retro and say "actually the armorer has X feature."

Well, I always have ready to go NPCs!
When I was running ORE, I had "Professional X: 5d dicepool in Profession and one or two other skills, 3 dice social and TWO other skills, 2 dice everything else", "Good/Veteran Professional: 6d, see above", and "consummate professional: 5d+HD, see above". Keep in mind, those are values that would get bonuses for day-to-day tasks, taking time, and the like - just as in GURPS, where day-to-day tasks are rolled at the huge bonus of +4 (and Cepheus Engine allows you to get bonuses for time).

As a side note one of the volumes I am in the middle of writing is called the Domesday Codex, a compendium of NPCs for the Majestic Fantasy RPG. It in essence at bunch of generic template #3 designed to work together to paint a picture of life within my Majest Fantasy Realms. For example there a section about bandits, brigands, and how the rural criminal network works. Along with a section on their urban counterparts of course.

I always find such books most useful as a Referee!

Basically with a Sandbox RPG the GM prepares a couple enemies for the area the player characters are currently adventuring in and let’s them loose on it.

All the adventure happens from player initiative. The GM could improvise some events which the player characters can get involved with or not. I honestly never liked Sandbox RPGs, it always felt unfocused and not as fun as a more quest based campaign.

Sorry, man, but that's not how sandbox adventures work...
I don't prepare opposition, that's "dungeon logic applied to a sandbox". I prepare situations. The PCs can entangle themselves in whatever way they see fit, or none. If you don't, I know what is going to happen, too.
When you get to the area, I establish - by strict time records, and other means, including the famous way of generating new stuff known under the scientific name "ex recto" - at what stage of the development of the situation the PCs appear. Then I describe that. And some situations might require them to address the matters in some way (i.e. highway brigands).

And of course, you like what you like.


Either way, welcome to the Pub!

 

[chuckdee]

I had a conversation about this on reddit

That's not going to end well...

 

[Fenris-77]

That's not going to end well...

I think that depends on your appreciation for punching people in the face...

 

[Moonglum]

Characters can undertake quests in a Sandbox campaign. It is totally fine for the setting to have people, places, things and events that inspire quests. The critical distinction is that they can also ignore or abandon a quest, or act against the progress of someone else's attempt at that quest, as they see fit. It's up to them.

E.g., a railroad approach to a late third age middle earth campaign might effectively force the players to help do something or another that aids the fellowship's efforts to ruin that beautiful ring. A sandbox approach to the same setting, period and events would allow for the possibility that the players just say 'screw it' and start a thieves guild in Umbar, or hunt down the fellowship and steal the ring, or anything else they think would be fun. And a good DM would be able to deal with any of it without getting their knickers in a knot.

 

[Tulpa Girl]

I think that depends on your appreciation for punching people in the face...

Or the lack of the opportunity thereof.

 

[Fenris-77]

Or the lack of the opportunity thereof.

There's no lack of opportunity, only a lack of will. Or perhaps the presence of caution, I always get those confused.

 

[chuckdee]

There's no lack of opportunity, only a lack of will. Or perhaps the presence of caution, I always get those confused.

Well, first there is the Dox step, so it can be a hill to get over...

 

[Fenris-77]

Well, first there is the Dox step, so it can be a hill to get over...

I am confused. Would you like my IP? I'm not sure what's at stake here...

 

[Tulpa Girl]

The next time I run a superhero campaign, there will be a character who literally has the ability to punch people through the internet.

 

[AsenRG]

The next time I run a superhero campaign, there will be a character who literally has the ability to punch people through the internet.

That's OP like hell!

 

[TJS]

Characters can undertake quests in a Sandbox campaign. It is totally fine for the setting to have people, places, things and events that inspire quests. The critical distinction is that they can also ignore or abandon a quest, or act against the progress of someone else's attempt at that quest, as they see fit. It's up to them.

E.g., a railroad approach to a late third age middle earth campaign might effectively force the players to help do something or another that aids the fellowship's efforts to ruin that beautiful ring. A sandbox approach to the same setting, period and events would allow for the possibility that the players just say 'screw it' and start a thieves guild in Umbar, or hunt down the fellowship and steal the ring, or anything else they think would be fun. And a good DM would be able to deal with any of it without getting their knickers in a knot.

I can see this, but it seems unsatisfactory to me.

I've played in games where the GM says something like "It's a sandbox but play generally heroic characters" (or even not necessarily GM direction - the players just decide to do that) and then you start the game and you find there's a secret cabal of demons running the kingdom so that's clearly what the game's about. I mean the GM may be fine in theory with withen players deciding not to deal with the demon threat and travelling to the next country, but since we did create heroic characters and this is the situation we're immersed in it would seem perverse to do that.

And I'm not criticising the above kind of game, I just think the difference between "It's fine if you don't want to engage with the demon thing", or "please stay within the starting kingdom and deal with the situation there" is really not very relevant in practice.

If you give me a map and say, "you can go anywhere in this map". I want to know there are structures in place that will help faciliate travel anywhere across the map. If we start in a single city, and there's lots of factions allowing opportunities to be embroiled in local politics, then we're probably not leaving the city, because there's so much to bite on right here. So your game might be fun an' all, but the advertised "you can go anywhere on the map" rings somewhat hollow.

If I can go anywhere on the map, I'd like to see some kind of structure in place that encourages going anywhere on the map. (Eg build your factions on a continental rather than local scale)

And I've experienced this from the GMs perspective as well, I've run quite a few games where I envisaged lots of travel and movement but I did my job too well in making the starting location interesting - and then I have to decide between being a hands off GM and letting the players drive things, or throwing them a giant plothook to somewhere else in the setting I'd really like them to go.

 

[CRKrueger]

There's a very different reason I value those massive 600 page hardback rule books. For hucking...

Or you can use it to bat d30's at people.

 

[TristramEvans]

The next time I run a superhero campaign, there will be a character who literally has the ability to punch people through the internet.

Meme-Fist!

 

[Fenris-77]

Meme-Fist!

If I ever run a Supers game I hope you'd consent to play that role at least for the first session.

 

[TristramEvans]

If I ever run a Supers game I hope you'd consent to play that role at least for the first session.

 

[Skarg]

...
Well, it was a group with strong "PCs vs the world" attitude. Besides, it didn't matter much to me - I don't re-use PCs, except as a huge exception - and this wasn't the case - so the PC might as well have died, from my PoV as a player.

To me, it matters if the game has a meta-effect where PCs magically drop dead and/or actually blink out of the game world when they stop being played. because I like to play games without surreal meta-effects.

Yeah, but this was a group that considered "we get all his stuff" to be the natural order of things.

It also matters to me if the PCs are the sort that will kill and/or rob their comrades if they ever choose to leave "the party." All the more reason to leave that party, or not join it in the first place. I'd also hope the players would have coherent characters in mind, and roleplay them as long as they are controlling that character, so there would be no meta-cooperation with that character letting the group kill or loot them. It seems to me that if the character wants to take their loot and invest it in non-adventuring ways, then they want to stay alive and keep their loot. And if they know the rest of the party are going to try to loot them if they leave, then they'll leave in such a way to not let them know and/or not give them that opportunity. (Or if that seems difficult, they may consider wiping out the group preemptively and taking their loot . . .)

 

[Skarg]

I can see this, but it seems unsatisfactory to me.

I've played in games where the GM says something like "It's a sandbox but play generally heroic characters" (or even not necessarily GM direction - the players just decide to do that) and then you start the game and you find there's a secret cabal of demons running the kingdom so that's clearly what the game's about. I mean the GM may be fine in theory with withen players deciding not to deal with the demon threat and travelling to the next country, but since we did create heroic characters and this is the situation we're immersed in it would seem perverse to do that.

And I'm not criticising the above kind of game, I just think the difference between "It's fine if you don't want to engage with the demon thing", or "please stay within the starting kingdom and deal with the situation there" is really not very relevant in practice.

If you give me a map and say, "you can go anywhere in this map". I want to know there are structures in place that will help faciliate travel anywhere across the map. If we start in a single city, and there's lots of factions allowing opportunities to be embroiled in local politics, then we're problem not leaving the city, because there's so much to bite on right here. So you're game might be fun an' all, but the advertised "you can go anywhere on the map" rings somewhat hollow.

If I can go anywhere on the map, I'd like to see some kind of structure in place that encourages going anywhere on the map. (Eg build your factions on a continental rather than local scale)

And I've experienced this from the GMs perspective as well, I've run quite a few games where I envisaged lots of travel and movement but I did my job too well in making the starting location interesting - and then I have to decide between being a hands off GM and letting the players drive things, or throwing them a giant plothook to somewhere else in the setting I'd really like them to go.

The games I've usually enjoyed running and playing in most had free movement and action, but also world situations and smaller-scale situations, including adventure situations, and NPC patrons and groups that PC could join (or oppose) to get involved in adventures, or not.

Usually the PCs would start with "a map" but it would not be "the map". It would be an incomplete and somewhat inaccurate map of the area around where the PCs are from, showing places they know something about. But the GMs maps world would cover much more area, and those other places would get more detail if/when players started heading toward them.

How easy or difficult it was to get from place to place was something for the PCs to research, discover, and/or figure out how to handle, if they wanted to go to those places. That's part of the reason for the maps - to have a game about a place that has actual terrain and situations that matter, and interacting with them.

The regional details were rarely "there's a secret cabal of demons running the kingdom", or if they were, it'd tend to be like it says, a secret, so probably pretty unlikely the PCs would learn of it unless they did a lot of investigation in that direction. There were plenty of powerful evil things the PCs could take on, but there wasn't often a presumption the PCs were the ones obliged to deal with them.

In the games I've played where there were particular evil things intended for the PCs to take on, those tended to feel rather artificial to me.

I guess to me there's a natural contract of "you get to play a character in a game world that makes sense, where you can choose what to do" which tends to work well and make sense to me. It does tend to have some adventures and some villains and things to discover and causes one could fight for and so on, but I prefer it when the PCs aren't obliged to do what the GM planned.

In contrast, there are published modules, and GMs who like to plan out what will happen in a campaign, and tropes and forms like "big bad bosses" and their "lieutenants" and "story arcs", which I tend to want to avoid. And those players seems to be the ones who sometimes talk about "sandboxes" or "hex crawls" as some sort of pure ideal that sounds at first more like the way I like to play, but also sounds excessively pointless and unstructured and/or random, and then gets bemoaned as something aimless and pointless and uninteresting.

 

[TJS]

It doesn't matter if the regional details are evil threats. That's just an example.

It could just be you reach X city. Here's a bunch of things to interact with and a bunch of factions who want things. It does't take very long for the PCs to become very embroiled in this kind of situation. Suddenly it's 10 sessions later and the players have help one gang to wipe out another gang, and are using their influence in the now weakened allied gang to take it over and take control of the city's underworld.

Which can make for an awesome game, but at a certain point as GM you realise the players aren't going to be leaving that city of their own volition unless things suddenly go so badly for them that they have to flee.

 

[ffilz]

It doesn't matter if the regional details are evil threats. That's just an example.

It could just be you reach X city. Here's a bunch of things to interact with and a bunch of factions who want things. It does't take very long for the PCs to become very embroiled in this kind of situation. Suddenly it's 10 sessions later and the players have help one gang to wipe out another gang, and are using their influence in the now weakened allied gang to take it over and take control of the city's underworld.

Which can make for an awesome game, but at a certain point as GM you realise the players aren't going to be leaving that city of their own volition unless things suddenly go so badly for them that they have to flee.

And what's wrong with that? I see nothing wrong with having a wide world that is open to the players, and a region, locale, or city, that is very interesting to the players and entices them to stay in that area and engage that situation. Read Robert's various play descriptions. He has wide world (originally Wilderlands of High Fantasy) but many (most? all?) campaigns start in a small region which Robert sets up an engaging initial situation and other stuff to be engaged with. At any time though the players can say "the heck with this, we're going haring off in this direction." Of course good players will do so because something in the current situation entices them to do so. But just because they never do, doesn't mean the existence and map of the wider world is misleading or useless or some such.

 

[TJS]

And what's wrong with that? I see nothing wrong with having a wide world that is open to the players, and a region, locale, or city, that is very interesting to the players and entices them to stay in that area and engage that situation. Read Robert's various play descriptions. He has wide world (originally Wilderlands of High Fantasy) but many (most? all?) campaigns start in a small region which Robert sets up an engaging initial situation and other stuff to be engaged with. At any time though the players can say "the heck with this, we're going haring off in this direction." Of course good players will do so because something in the current situation entices them to do so. But just because they never do, doesn't mean the existence and map of the wider world is misleading or useless or some such.

Nothing's wrong with it. But if you run 5 sandboxes and set them up the same way and keep getting the same result, you might start thinking about how the structure has a very big effect on how the sandbox plays out and that using different structures and initial set-ups might lead to things playing out differently.

And that if players saying ""the heck with this, we're going haring off in this direction" sounds cool but you don't actually see it happen in practice, then maybe there is something that can be done to make that more likely* (And that the mere freedom to do so is really not worth all much).

*Like say, make the starting locations less involved, and build factional conflict across entire regions, make starting rumours and threads lead away from places rather than focused within. (All of which is, I would note, technically just setting design).

 

[robertsconley]

And that if players saying ""the heck with this, we're going haring off in this direction" sounds cool but you don't actually see it happen in practice, then maybe there is something that can be done to make that more likely* (And that the mere freedom to do so is really not worth all much).

The point of a sandbox is to let the players decide what they are going to do in the setting. Your desires as a referee doesn't matter in that respect. My fun is seeing how players deal with the setting and its characters, my creativity is focused on thinking up consequences and keeping the world in motion around the players. I couldn't give two shit whether they want to leave a city or go "haring off" at every opportunity. I will cover either possibility and anything in between.

If I want to look at something specific in my setting I will pitch it as one of the possibilities for answering the question of "What do you want Rob to run next?". And some of my pitches never come to fruitarian despite offering it as part of a list.

I have this idea based on something the players did in a earlier campaign that caused the fall of a kingdom. The campaign is set during the kingdoms last days. The campaign is about sailing across the Sea of Five Winds to it's southern shores and locating a site for colony. Then returning and getting the exile expedition organized. Make it across the sea and then getting the colony established. At least that the plan in-game at the beginning. Whether that actually happens who knows.

The players could make it partway across the Sea of Five Winds and say fuck it and use the ship for their own purposes. The players may come back from their exploration, say it not worth it, and decide to sell out the exiles to the enemy and go from there.

But alas always it was one of my other pitches were more interesting to that group at the moment. Likely because the premise is a big ask from a in-game perspective for a bunch of character. Much for the same reason that I only ran one campaign where everybody was a member of the city guard dealing with the street problems of City State for themselves.

 

[ffilz]

Nothing's wrong with it. But if you run 5 sandboxes and set them up the same way and keep getting the same result, you might start thinking about how the structure has a very big effect on how the sandbox plays out and that using different structures and initial set-ups might lead to things playing out differently.

And that if players saying ""the heck with this, we're going haring off in this direction" sounds cool but you don't actually see it happen in practice, then maybe there is something that can be done to make that more likely* (And that the mere freedom to do so is really not worth all much).

*Like say, make the starting locations less involved, and build factional conflict across entire regions, make starting rumours and threads lead away from places rather than focused within. (All of which is, I would note, technically just setting design).

Sure. The main sandbox I run is Glorantha. I have yet to have a PC group stay in place, though I've had little interest from PCs in going to Balazar other than when I set up a caravan to Balazar as an initial situation for a campaign (which ended before the PCs got to Balazar). Every other campaign has ranged between Sartar and Prax except for a Dorastor campaign that also ended prematurely.

My RQ Thieves Guild campaign is about to leave Haven, because actually the Thieves Guild adventures for starting thieves are kind of limited and some bashing around in the city didn't really pan out that well. Actually, it could head off into great sandbox land. The PCs were all conceived of as fledgling thieves hoping to join the Thieves Guild but as that is wearing thin, the same PCs are probably going to use their abilities and go do other stuff. I dunno how long the campaign is going to last because I don't have enough sense of a world to really be able to convey options to the players to make it truly a sandbox, or to know what to do if the players bite some hook and go for it.

Glorantha is a setting I CAN provide the players with interesting hooks, or I can wing something if they grab hold of some place on the map and decide to head there.