It reminded me of something I'd thought about a few times though. I wonder how viable it'd be to build a D&D campaign around the "sandbox" concept. For those of you not familiar with these types of video games (Oblivion, Fallout 3, Grand Theft Auto, etc.), you are dropped into a massive and detailed world, with a vague hint at a main quest.
But then you go do whatever you want. Explore, trade, hunt bounties, etc.
The DM would have to map out the region, and then place "dungeons" and encounters around the region. The players come and go as they please, making their own quests, and encountering things as they get near them, or hear rumors about them, or whatever. It's a very "organic" experience and is a bit more realistic than the traditional D&D game which consists of a planned hook, beginning, middle, and end. It's be almost totally unplanned, with the players paving their own way.
I'd kinda like to experiment with that concept for my next campaign.
Thoughts?
Plus for me, at least, Sandbox-style campaign can start off as very easy, but then turn into a lot of work.
I'd kinda like to experiment with that concept for my next campaign.
Thoughts?
Well, you could just pick up Judges Guild Wilderlands.
I'm pretty sure this is exactly what you are looking for.
I understand it was updated and expanded to 3E, so there shouldn't be too much trouble finding it. It is even in .pdf if you are really having a tough go at it. One of the digital retailers should have it available.
Funny how Old School concepts are returning to the forefront.
Take note.
Well, I do technically insert a core storyline in there, but I leave it to the players how to inject themselves into it. The world keeps on moving, and the villains keep on being villains, but the players can choose, whenever they feel like it, to be heroes.
As player, I like it (to a point). As DM, I can't stand it. Too much work to create balance-on-the-fly when you're using adventures you spent hours creating, or even adventures you paid for.
There's the reason. I'm an improv DM... and even when I write up adventures, I pull a lot of **** out of my ass. Sandbox-styled worlds are hell if you aren't comfortable with working on-the-fly.
4e requires good designed, pre-planned encounters to make the system shine. This is hard to achieve in a sandbox sytle of game. I will not use 4e for this kind of campaign (using instead a boardless system, like Earthdawn). I will definitively use 4e for an AP-type game.
Uh... no, it doesn't. I've been playing the game using randomly produced encounters, on-the-fly designed adventures, and freeform gameplay since 4E started. The DMG has info on how to randomly produce encounters. So... no.
Uh... no, it doesn't. I've been playing the game using randomly produced encounters, on-the-fly designed adventures, and freeform gameplay since 4E started. The DMG has info on how to randomly produce encounters. So... no.
Me too. But the marginal improvement in quality (read: fun) I get by properly planning an encounter in 4e (template, placement, terrain, traps, etc.) is huge compared to doing the same using older versions. At least in my experience, of course.
Me too. But the marginal improvement in quality (read: fun) I get by properly planning an encounter in 4e (template, placement, terrain, traps, etc.) is huge compared to doing the same using older versions. At least in my experience, of course.
Not really. It's no more complex than when in prior editions to 3rd Edition (because remember folks, 4th Edition is NOT the first grid-based D&D) I would describe the terrain to my players and gauge the appropriate modifications to play. Just as always, I draw up a map... the difference being that I do so on grid paper, and the grid actually matters (whereas back in 2E the grid was simply there to help me gauge distances and the like).
Mike Mearls blogged a bit about using entirely pre-published PoL material to make a heroic-tier sandbox in the Nentir Vale, here - http://kotgl.blogspot.com/2009/03/lego-box-campaign.html .
I've tried sandbox style with my players in D&D and they didn't really like it (frankly they don't even especially enjoy it in WoD. To them a game session that includes hardly any actual combat, even in WoD, is just a waste of time. *Sigh*.. guess you cant pick all your players. And they have their upsides. They are just all old D&D players and they have a hard time deciding what to do without actual dirion from me lol.
However you could say start with a standpoint of Nentir Vale, flesh out the cities, include plot hooks for each, and pre-design encounters, lairs, etc. You could use Dungeon Delve even to this affect.
It would be a lot of work, but once you were done you could let your players play as they will with a sandbox of Nentir Vale and go. Also as you played you would get a general sense of where your players are going and between sessions you could fill out more of the stuff you expect they will be doing. Like if your players are exploring a catacomb filled beach with shear cliffs rising a hundred feet in the air, you can flesh that area out for the next session, or put an old mansion on the top of the cliff to explore.
Not really. It's no more complex than when in prior editions to 3rd Edition (because remember folks, 4th Edition is NOT the first grid-based D&D) I would describe the terrain to my players and gauge the appropriate modifications to play. Just as always, I draw up a map... the difference being that I do so on grid paper, and the grid actually matters (whereas back in 2E the grid was simply there to help me gauge distances and the like).
Fine if that's your experience. But my point wasn't that you cannot run random encounters in 4e. Indeed, I do, but if those kind of encounters composes the big chunk of a campaign, like frequently happens in a sandbox, I feel I'm not exploiting one of the finest points of 4e. Anyway, I'd rather play a boardless system when in sandbox mode.
I'm not saying they won't stop and ask how they can go about it, but rather if they even have to go with resolving an action. A well-run game will have players convinced that the event that self-resolved was planned that way and that the event they resolved required their intervention.
Note that by saying "Well-Run Game," I'm not saying that any game that doesn't follow this is not well-run.
4e requires good designed, pre-planned encounters to make the system shine. This is hard to achieve in a sandbox sytle of game. I will not use 4e for this kind of campaign (using instead a boardless system, like Earthdawn). I will definitively use 4e for an AP-type game.
4E gives you all of the tools, templates, and information you need to veer off course if you need to.
Things don't always go according to plan. Even in the most well thought out adventure played by your most loyal "story first" RPers. Stuff happens that isn't planned.
4E is so consistent with its rules, especially in terms of encounter planning, that it's easy to modify as you go. At least it has been for me.
Fine if that's your experience. But my point wasn't that you cannot run random encounters in 4e. Indeed, I do, but if those kind of encounters composes the big chunk of a campaign, like frequently happens in a sandbox, I feel I'm not exploiting one of the finest points of 4e. Anyway, I'd rather play a boardless system when in sandbox mode.
I've been able to enjoy many of 4E's greatest strengths in my seemingly random campaign. I have randomly generated encounters with monsters structured according to region, randomly generated treasure that still fits with the parcel structure of the game, and a freeform setting where my players decide which quests they will take and why. I've basically been using all the tools that 4E grants me, without any loss.
But hey, everyone disagrees. That said, I agree... my favorite sandbox-styled system is Shadowrun, hands down (doesn't really have anything to do with the gridlessness, however).
Now, until I'm really comfortable with 4e like I was with previous editions and most other RPGs, it is some work. I find it actually a lot harder to prepare enemies than it used to be since once you knew the math of 3rd, for example, you could make anything up on the spot with only maybe HP being annoying to calculate. With 4e, the math is easy, but I have to invent powers, which is a colossal pain sometimes. Especially when I don't know what the monster will actually be until the game itself. Still, it works and its good.
I rather like the "sandbox" design. But it would have to be very detailed and fleshed out... which means a lot of time, sweat, and patience on the part of the DM.
IMHO
Does a 400 page world bible filled with ecology information of every monster I've ever used, every race that exists, and more count as very detailed and fleshed out? That's mine.
As a player, I wouldn't like it. I'm not asking for a railroaded, predetermined game, but sandbox games run the problem of presenting no real goal. Playing a game like Fallout or Oblivion is very different from D&D; it is much harder to get the feeling of true exploration when your poor DM is trying to make it all up as he goes.
Actually, mine don't have that issue. Basically events occur in the world (as in my setting, the core theme is a revolutionary war), and I leave it to the players to figure out what to do. They can either choose a side and how they will help that side, or they can choose to try and stay out of the fight... no matter their decision, the consequence will turn into an adventure.
As a player, I wouldn't like it. I'm not asking for a railroaded, predetermined game, but sandbox games run the problem of presenting no real goal. Playing a game like Fallout or Oblivion is very different from D&D; it is much harder to get the feeling of true exploration when your poor DM is trying to make it all up as he goes.
You forget that a Sandbox Campaign can very well be planned. You don't even need to plan every inch of the gameworld, simply have a vague idea of encounters and events in the vicinity of the players.
That's how I've run my games since the end days of 3.5 and currently in 4e; a Core plot that will possibly lead to epic events, dotted arround with several sidequests and encounters. I thank Oblivion, Morrowind and most of all Daggerfall for this.
Does a 400 page world bible filled with ecology information of every monster I've ever used, every race that exists, and more count as very detailed and fleshed out? That's mine.
My hat's off to you. That's a real commitment. How much do your players get involved in / familiar with the fluff? Because if they're pretty fluent in the gameworld, that would make for some awesome roleplay.
As for me, I'm trying something new for introducing campaign fluff. I'm gonna have index cards for each city/race/organization, and give them to the players when its topic comes up. I stole the idea from Mass Effect's codex. The players would be free to browse through all the cards whenever or ask me more about anything, though.
Sounds awesome!
I commend you on the time spent and obvious love that went into it!
Definitely. It's a work-in-progress spanning over 12 years of D&D.
My hat's off to you. That's a real commitment. How much do your players get involved in / familiar with the fluff? Because if they're pretty fluent in the gameworld, that would make for some awesome roleplay.
As for me, I'm trying something new for introducing campaign fluff. I'm gonna have index cards for each city/race/organization, and give them to the players when its topic comes up. I stole the idea from Mass Effect's codex. The players would be free to browse through all the cards whenever or ask me more about anything, though.
My players know a fairly limited amount... most of my information is only details I would know for continuity purposes, and a lot of it was from older gaming groups which I no longer game with, so the info that was relevant is unknown by my current group.
That said, I'd recommend any budding world-builder to write a LMB: Laymen's Bible. Basically it's a smaller book detailing common information that player characters would know solely by merit of living in the world... things like cultures, basic history, race relations, a bestiary for well-known animals. Things like that really help player's immerse themselves into your world.
I would find a sandbox world more acceptable and doable (as a DM) in a game system that does not have level advancement. GURPS, Shadowrun, and TSR's Marvel Super Heroes RPG were perfect for this. D&D has never, in my opinion, been ideally suited to it. Go north at level one and you should find something different than if you go north at level 15.
Yeah. A freeform RPG is significantly easier to run in a skill-based game in comparison to any level-based game. It's one of the many sacrifices inherent to a class-based structure.
I don't recall that the concept of plot based highly directed adventures really EXISTED back in the early days. There was some recognition of plot as a convenience to the DM
"hmmm, it would be a lot easier if I can get the players to go into that dungeon nobody has explored yet, and I don't want these low level guys stumbling into the Temple of Death, so I'll have the local Thieve's Guild Master hire them to find the McGuffin in the dungeon."
I seem to recall that the first real published hint of the concept of plot directed stuff was probably modules A1-4. Actually I'm not sure many of the newer published adventures have much more in the way of plot than those did.
I think the one problem with a sandbox and 4e is that when specific things are located in specific areas it is a bit hard to predict what the players will run into. While it was certainly true that higher level encounters were trouble for lower level PCs in odd/1e/2e that the way 4e monsters scale means basically if you stray out of your level you promptly die big time. 1e characters could at least HIT a monster well above their level, possibly even kill it. Run into something 6-7 levels over your head in 4e it just eats you and laughs at your feeble attempts to scratch its AC.
Level areas have always been pretty much the answer. It is pretty easy to see if you look at WoG stuff that was hit upon real early on. Different geographical areas tend to have themes and zones of greater and lesser hazard. One can at least hope that by the time the new 1st level party makes it into the Melthian Mts they've hit 4th or 5th level and MIGHT at least survive the nasties long enough to run. Hopefully they'll also be wise enough not to come back for a while too!
basically you can do whatever you want, as well as influence events, but i have a story/plot/whatever that will happen and it's entirely up to the players if they want to get involved.
by story/plot/whatever i mean that there are events that will occur. if left alone, the necromancer will raise enough undead to storm Thorpeton, then use them to run down Townsville and eventually Citysburg. if the players don't do anything, the local army may or may not be able to mobilize fast enough and the country might start having a real zombie problem.player intervention might allow the people of thorpeton to escape, they might actually fend off the undead or kill the necromancer
or that King Uppercrust will wage war on the neighbouring country for they stole his daughter (in truth she ran away to join the gnomish circus and unfortunately she has no way to return home from the Feywild when they left the moral plane). the PCs might investigate the odd disappearance or along their planar travels find the homesick royalty being forced to wed an eladrin prince (a gift from the gnomes to the eladrin), with her begging to return home.
things will happen, stories will occur. it's up to the pcs if they want to get involved with those stories or instigate their own.
I never liked the "poof you are all in a bar...this dude runs in asks you save his family and dies...of course you are going to help right????"
We are still having a blast
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1169336
Some things I am having to over come. The final fantasy level up tactic.
Lets walk around the town till we get some encounters then go back to town.
Got to work on that one
As for the "lets just wander around and have encounters until we level up" thing, so what? Are the encounters interesting? If the players are having fun, then its fine. Besides, nothing says those encounters can't lead to an adventure. Sometimes the adventure finds the PCs.
You wander the town for an hour when you find yourselves walking down a deserted street. You notice 3 thuggish looking characters pulling a man who looks like a shopkeeper out into the street. [party intervenes, combat encounter, the nasty protection racket thugs go to meet their maker].
Late in the night the door of your room at the Olde Sea Captain Inn comes crashing open and 6 toughs swarm into your room! [The local mob doesn't really like having its enforcers roughed up]. Now the PCs are involved in an adventure all right. Given that the local Thieves' Guild is detailed, the Inn is detailed, the local toughs are roughly statted out (or can be pulled pretty quick from the MM) there isn't too much trouble setting it up. The Guildmaster is a former PC, so we have a pretty good handle on his abilities and personality. Not only that but there are a few notes on various adventure hooks relating to the Guild. Maybe the adventurers get dragged in front of said arch thief and he says "well, well, well, a band of goody two shoes adventurers, have I got a deal for you..."
I keep a TWiki going these days. Way back when the campaign resided in about 10 big 3 ring binders. Modern tech is great. Now I can go to the search function and find every note ever made that ties into the Thieves' Guild. Every adventure in the game gets a little bit of a writeup, every new fact is noted, etc. If I'm ahead in my adventure planning, then I'll just sketch in a new area or devise new ongoing plots. Remember, timing is usually flexible as well. If it would be interesting for a plot to be developed to a certain point when the PCs happen to stumble on it, then conveniently it is at that point whenever someone happens to get there.
There isn't really that much difference between sandboxes and totally planned adventures. To a large extent it will be up to the PCs as to which way things evolve. Players that just stick to your script are not going to interact too much with the world. Those that wander all over will pretty much MAKE a sandbox of their own. Of course that assumes the world is extensive enough in nature. You CAN create a campaign world that is so constrained that the PCs pretty can't go anywhere, but they'll probably break out of that box eventually.
They can't go everywhere on the map (at least not at first) but by localizing them to first one hub, then another, then another, I can steadily develop the setting as DM. Maybe this isn't actual sandbox play (its not limitless freedom); it does give the illusion of freedom however and by design, the world is open-ended as the players (and DM) desire.
I think of video game adventures like Ocarina of Time. I start out with no real idea just how expansive the world actually is. By the middle of the game, I begin to see exactly how all these new doorways I've opend and these new paths I've explored come together to form the world. By the end, its all there on the map.
If I can create this same sort of feeling of 'awesome' ;) for the players in our D&D campaign, I've did my job. Edit: Or is that 'done my job?' :P.
Most of this work will probably go unnoticed by the PCs as their choices points them in a certain direction, but I feel confident that down the road I'll be able to come back to this world for different campaigns.
I believe the real attraction to sandbox style is using former campaigns as a histrory and as a way of fleshing out the landscape for future campaigns.
For me a sandbox campaign is the polar opposite of a "standard" D&D game (both are great fun btw).
In a standard campaign, you have "the environment" and the PCs reacting to it (DM crafts a quest/dungeon, PC go in it). In a sandbox campaign, you have PCs, they to whatever they want, and the environment reacts to them.
So, to create a sandbox campaign, you need:
- To create a very interesting and fairly detailed setting (factions, npcs, legends, places, etc) with a good internal logic (i.e. npcs/faction motivations and why are things the way they are).
- To have strong character motivations. This is the heart of the campaign, because it will affect what the PCs actually do. This will probably tie in with a general quest or direction the campaign will take. For example, it can be that they want to conquer the kingdom, or find the mysteries of the Ancients or something more general like "protect the innocent" or "become powerful".
Contrary to a conventional campaign, you, as a DM, do not have to prepare in advance how the PCs will achieve their goal (but you can probably vaguely guess the direction the PCs will take, and so add more details in that direction). - To improvise game sessions. Only the background and setting are created in advance, not the individual game sessions.
You can still add details while running the campaign, incorporating details and explanations for things you improvised in the last session, and creating more details for things geographically near the PCs at the moment.
This also means you need a fairly rules-light and combat-light campaign, especially with D&D (since I find that cool and interesting combats take preparation, which you can't really do while improvising). - To have pro-active players. You'll basically tell the players: ok do whatever you want. For some players, this kind of freedom is too much, they won't know what to do and the game will be extremely boring because you can't really push the players in the quest's direction like you normally can.
Basically the players decide what they want to do (thus creating "the quest") and you make the environment respond to them, while keeping with the setting's internal logic (and while keeping fun in mind).
In my experience this kind of campaign can give you really great game sessions, often with little or no preparation on the DM's part (once the PCs get the ball rolling), but also can give you reaaal crappy sessions if the PCs are stuck/don't know what to do (i.e. nothing happens).
By the way, it's also very liberating to play as a DM, because you don't really have any limits, and you don't have to keep balance in mind all the time, you just have to react logically and create fun and interesting situations when you can.
For example, let's say the players are in a mostly low-powered campaign and suddenly get hold of Godlike Powers/Artifacts and can now rule the Kingdom. What should you do ? Nothing. Let them. See how they like having their friends and allies turn jealous and treacherous, or finding they now get the attention of things much more ancient and powerful than they are. Instead of killing goblins now, have them kill Grutnir the Goblin God of Trickery. The sky's the limit (or not, in this case).
Why not ? As long as it's fun.
I would call my campaign a sandbox. Players can do what they want, but that doesn't mean they will always be in control of their own destiny or simply wandering loose about the countryside. I'm going to initiate some action. Sure the players can really decide how they are going to react to what happens, and they have the freedom to initiate action of their own without my help, but they are rarely, if ever, left with no clear direction they can take.
As for the need to extemporize, it is there, but again I'd say 90% of the time it is pretty clear what direction the PCs are going to be going in for the next session or even numerous sessions to come. They COULD suddenly decide to stop doing one thing and go off in a completely new direction, and it happens with fair regularity, but once they have some momentum going they usually don't do that.
And there is no real reason why there cannot be adventure sequences that are pretty much like what you would find in other types of campaigns. Goblins start raiding the local area and take prisoners. The local authorities know the PCs perhaps, so they get asked to do something about it. Chances are they'll take the hook. Maybe it will even involve more personal motivations like the prisoners are friends or relatives of the characters, etc.
I don't see how that makes the game NOT a sandbox.
I also don't really see how fundamentally it differs a lot from other styles of game. No amount of armtwisting, short of putting the PCs at knife point ever makes them go in a specific direction. All DMs have to be prepared to some extent to extemporize. Maybe with a game that is set up for linear adventuring the DM has more motivation to steer the action back to his predetermined course, but you can do that in any game if you want to.
So, I'd say there may be multiple definitions of, or degrees of sandboxing.
Also I'm not really convinced that 4e is radically different in terms of ease of setting up ad-hoc encounters and adventures than other systems. Monsters are largely drag-n-drop. Sure you are limited mostly to the ones that are supplied by the game or you have invented in that case, but that was pretty much true in other games as well. The demands of terrain and whatnot in say 1e AD&D might have been somewhat less, but not a lot. I'm pretty good at winging things like that as well.
Besides, if you have LOTS of stuff that has been pregenerated and set up it is not all that hard to drop in one of a whole list of encounters that have been designed to work in a given area of the world. If the PCs are in Orc-Land then I'm pretty likely to have 3 or 4 quick drop in encounter settings to use. I might need to add or remove a monster or two, or mix and match a tactical map with some monsters.
In any case I haven't found a huge difference between 1e,2e, and 4e as rule systems to use for this kind of play.