DM: Okay group! Your characters are sitting around a table in the Tavern "The Flying Monkey". What do you want to do? Players: .................................................................................................. .
So while you’re all sitting around, drinking and using your dwindling spare cash someone takes a seat at the bar nearby. He’s clearly agitated, orders two of the strongest drink the barkeep will give him and downs one immediately. You can hear him mutter “no choice.. gotta do it..” as he starts on the next drink
As a sandbox DM, i find there is no better story to tell than the way your Milieu works, and no better way to tell it than letting the players discover (and suffer) it as they play.
Being a DM who neither has the time nor desire to build out my own world, I leverage published campaigns/modules to provide my players with their adventures. Further, in a true sandbox game there is much more effort required by the players to do 'homework' between sessions, which I have found to be rare with the players I have played with across my 40+ years of gaming. I think the newer players to DnD, being heavily leaning into player agency, put much more desire on sandbox style games. As you mentioned the player direct the story and the DM is there to provide the world that their story can exist in. If there is a reason that there is a dearth of DM's it is likely because you are asking them to take on a lot of heavy lifting (design, creation, reaction to your wants/needs as players) and that is a big step to take from a simple player to that level of world crafter.
Your players don't really need to do homework between sessions of a sandbox than they need to do homework between two work shifts. They actually shouldn't be doing any "homework" between sessions, they shouldn't be suddenly learning things non-diegetically.
I’m a bit confused Trevor. It appears that you are in favor of ‘railroad’ style play because it is too much work for you and your players? It seems a weird thing to me with the openness of the early campaign worlds and even versions of the game. I also don’t see a lot of ‘homework’ for players other than perhaps rewriting characters on new sheets to update equipment or stats that may have changed in previous session(s). The DM should minimally do some ‘homework’ to at least make some connection between adventures or read up on the current adventure.
If a sandbox is pushing the narrative to be character-centric, and the players have provided sufficient backstory/motivation/goals for their character, then what happens in the game usually is just exploration of those things. The GM becomes a referee, but also throws in challenges of the PC's "character" - who they are and why they do what they do. Player agency and sandbox style is nothing new in tRPGs, they are just talked about more now than they used to be. RPGs have evolved over the last 50 years, after all, to suit the modern consensus of what they should be and what they shouldn't be.
@@orokusaki1243 they're talked about *more* now? Sandbox was the de facto play style for most of the history of the hobby. Adventure paths (the thing WotC calls campaigns these days) are a biproduct of the Dungeon magazine era (pre-Paizo). 20 years ago, nobody was playing bloated adventures with a single narrative and a three act structure and nearly everybody was playing a sandbox or a frame story. Sandboxing is returning to the tradition of tabletop role playing and moving away from the new wave of the narrated board game.
@@josephcarriveau9691 Yeah, youtube has plenty of DM-HELP! channels that have videos about sandbox campaigns. This video, is also doing just that. "Adventure Paths" were originally "Module Series" in D&D b/x and AD&D. Don't forget "tournament modules", which are like modern "one-shots". There was a mix of sandbox, linear, and railroad even back in those. So saying "sandbox is the de facto play style", is plain false. How a campaign is run depends largely upon the one running it, and perhaps one style became the expected way to run, over time, thus why the modern iterations seem so railroady to some, but are still merely suggestions to others. Consider: As those early DMs looked to literature to help them tell stories better, so too did the 3-act structure get incorporated into what was otherwise a more improvisational game. Meanwhile: This surely had an effect on Players' narrating and perhaps their agency as well. The product will follow what the customers want(or seem to want). (I once watched a middle-aged DM monologue for 10 minutes, then pause for player input, and after the first player briefly asked something, he went on to monologue for another 10 minutes. It surely went on longer, but I'd changed to another stream at that point.) When I started 35 years ago, people would either: String modules together to make a campaign; Start a campaign in a module and then homebrew off of that; Run a world built from scratch; Or run a homebrew campaign based in a setting box set. There hasn't been much deviation since, people are still doing this. "OneD&D" is certainly moving towards the board game that players can narrate while playing. Sandbox, linear, and railroad will always be there for the folks at the table to mix and match so as to play the game in a way they all enjoy. I do think it serves to distinguish "sandbox" to mean the style of a world. It is confused when one also incorporates the narrative style and the plot style into the single word.
This makes me think of my last gaming group, and why I haven't tried to go back to that table. We played a lot of railroad campaigns, most of us were miniature warhammers so it was very military, mostly being sent on quests by whoever paid us. When I tried to run a sandbox for them they complained that they didn't feel like they had any control, it made me reflect on all the games we'd played. They had a boss and he told them what was expected of them; then I had a bunch of random NPCs in their lives complain to them over breakfast, they chose to go on a random critter hunt instead of going to the guard captain who was going to send them to fight goblins. After 3 days of choosing to hunt critters I had the main story event advance a half step, not a total failure or success. So here we are 4 sessions in and they realize they have been ignoring the main problem, but they just acted frustrated instead of acknowledging the messengers and gate guards that reminded them they were expected by the captain. It was interesting, and really reflected your video. My characters are usually pretty strong willed, but I'm always happy to have someone else take the spotlight. Seeing my friends act like sheep following the usual dms lead was very revealing, they all seemed to be waiting for me to be setting the scene. I'm looking at setting up a drop in, sandbox, rpg night at a gaming store or bar now
The game FATE has a line in their character creation section: "Proactive, Competent people who lead Dramatic lives". Meanwhile, others have said various things that amount to: if you want to play an adventure, then make an adventurer, and then go find the adventure. The idea is that it is a game. Are they playing it? What is the expectation difference, because there clearly is one if they only realized in the 4th session that they've skipped a vital plot hook. It is likely why they feel they don't have any control, it is still railroady: be told quest, go on quest, complete quest. When running a sandbox, the GM really needs to take cues from the Players' Characters. To give them back the control, let them go look for plot hooks instead of exclusively dangling your own in front of them. Triggers and Events can also be a good solution, but the PCs have to do the triggering and decide how to deal with any event that crops up. It is fine to have background timers/clocks/plots that are happening, these things can change the world. Just don't let these things steal the agency of the Players or otherwise force them to participate. If they're not interested in engaging in a particular situation, just advance it normally and let it grow - *if* it is even worthwhile to do so. It is more natural to just make these things push up against the things the party is trying to do, becoming an obstacle (of some degree and at some point) on the path they want to be on.
This is why evil campaigns should be more normalized since a lot of people are too scared of doing something themselves. It's more than being a dumb murderhobo you get to plan and learn the game's limits or your own. It's why for me I honestly like playing healers because they gives me a job when we're in town and there's down time. Especially if I took the Healer feat in a 5e game. Yeah I'm charging money because these supplies aren't free and the rooms aren't either. That's what I noticed a lot of people just end up being just "murderhobos" just moving from plot point to plot point.
@@ExeErdna one of the big positives of that table, that I will be bringing forward, is that securing and supporting a home base was general really important to them. So sure we were doing murder, but we weren't hobos; my last character ended up owning a bar and ran a mercenary company out of the back. It meant we had projects and NPCs that were important to us
I think that Sandbox campaigns can be very memorable but they require the PCs to have goals and motivations of their own. The players need to know that they have the agency to make things up in the game, the GM shouldnt be the only player able to create game elements. As GMs we should ask ourselves, is it ok in your game for a player to make things ups such as to say that their PC knows a alchemist in the town they just arrived in, possibly an old friend who moved here. It would be a great opportunity for the PC to visit the alchemist as a known contact to find out rumours in the town, but probably shoudn’t be used to purchase discounted alchemist fire. I try and follow the mantra, that if players treat something as important then I usually try and make it important to the story. If they go out of their way to interact with the beggar who you added in the alley just as a scene dressing, then he becomes part of the story, possibly he as hired to keep on eye on the party or is a former adventurer suffering from a curse. In your example above, it the PCs go out on a critter hunt then that becomes the story, and possibly the critters are minions of an evil druid. You can tie it back into your original plot line with the goblins, maybe he is a goblin druid. It requires the GM to think on their feet a lot and be willing to sideline their planned storyline, though I find I can often bend the story back close to what I originally planned. The story tends to be better because of the ideas and direction from the PCs.
@@ExeErdna "This is why evil campaigns should be more normalized since a lot of people are too scared of doing something themselves. It's more than being a dumb murderhobo" Here's something to look into if you're unfamiliar and adapting it would probably make a great basis for a sandbox rpg. There's a pc strategy game in EA called 'Shadows of Forbidden Gods'. It has a system that I would describe as middle earth meats crusader kings. There's countries and nobles and armies and wars and stuff. Thing is, you're not playing that game. At least mostly not directly. You start with a single cultist agent. You grow the size of your cult. Corrupt nobles. Embed your cult into key points of civilization like sewers, palaces and libraries. Spread shadow over the land. Drive populations insane. Sow animosity between nations. Manipulate religions. Etc. Etc. You don't run a nation. You manipulate nations from the shadows. Overall, your goal is to sow as much mayhem and chaos as possible in order to pave the way for the coming of your dark god. There are also heroes. A lot of them. This gives rise to a pretty important aspect - You generally, very strongly, want to maintain a low profile. You *can* have an orc warlord rampaging around and slaying heroes. It can even be a good strategy in some situations. Inevitably though, it won't be long before he's infamous and every hero in the realm goes to kill him. At the end of the day, you probably don't want to be the big villain that the chosen one and all of his bajillion friends will inevitably crush. Why would you when you can instigate a civil war and have the heroes fighting each other? Anyways, it really leans into and looks at a lot of the fantasy good vs evil tropes from the reverse perspective. Cool game worth checking out. I'm sure there's a hell of a lot of ideas there that can be adapted into rpg form.
I get where you're coming from, but as a DM who only ever ended up in the role because noone else in my group is ever willing, the power to guide the story a bit is literally the only thing that brings the role any joy for me. I don't want to literally just be the background guy who builds all the content for the players to do with as they wish 100% while I take the backseat and have no agency. I already work in the service industry for my paychecks, I don't want to do it in my hobby too. Yknow? I like a balance myself between sandbox and a planned story. I build a general story chunk by chunk, with lots of room for player choice, but I still generally have a main idea for a plot focus. I just alter and build it around the player's choices actively, rather than hardline sticking to the first draft version that I come up with in the start.
the difference is that you wouldnt be presenting destiny .. youd be presenting consequences. And the story would be emergent .. as much a surprise to you as the players. I guess its just as weird and seemingly "unplayable" to us grognards that youd even WANT a railroad .. I mean .. why are the players there at all? railroad feels like watching a movie .. at least to me :) While I havnt sat in much 5e, what little Ive seen fills me with some pretty strange emotions .. at one table, there was maybe 10 players, they fell off and got replaced a lot .. and what we were doing, where we were going, and why .. nobody had a bloody clue and they didnt even care .. leveling up was ALL they cared about lol :) and the GM was reading a speech to us I kid you not IN ELVISH lol .. yeah that was definitely a single player game :)
You should try playing some other version of D&D-Basic or Original….not heroic play through the story 5e DnD….it is quite rewarding. Railroading is okay with a n illusion of choice but steering the story-and giving you agency? Nah….
@@theaverageglasses6197 lol .. yeah see to my grognard eyes .. If what youre sayin is indeed the case .. you dont need players to support your single player game do you? really? what you want mate .. is an electric model train set :)
Our best ever campaign started when our Casey Jones DM failed to turn up one week. Sat without character sheets we twiddled our thumbs and then commenced the greatest sandbox game. Every character woke up without a memory in a strange city. The temporary self appointed new dm just created the world as we walked. Our ideas and goals were vital because he had done zero prep and everything (even the system itself) was being invented on the hoof. It was a grim European city ...weird photographs left in hotel rooms ...armed guards on the street ...we bluffed and faked ...exploring district by district and the GM listened carefully to our choices. He even watched movies after players said "oh cool, this is just like that film ..." to stuff. It was the ultimate RPG our group ever undertook and the steam train DM never managed to run a published adventure with us again.
Free League has a few sandbox games - Twilight 2k, Forbidden Lands - they're 'hex crawls' where each hex is chosen by the players ("hey, let's go HERE") and the GM either pulls the encounters/adventure out of their ass, or they roll on 10 random tables for random shit to happen.
Funnily enough, this is one of the reasons I love the New World of Darkness games like Vampre the Requiem. There are so many problems inherent in being a Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, or Changeling that there is practically no way to get too railroady... by their very nature shit is going to go off the rails when a feeding goes wrong or a pack pisses off the Spirit of the Chicago River.
That used to be true of D&D too. Just replace being a monster with loving a psedo-medival society, but gradually that stuff was removed. In fact WoTC's stated design goal in 3e was to eliminate everything that kept players from always being in dungeons or combat (while also making dungeons worse by removing the more robust time keeping and having no one on their team who can design a good dungeon.)
@@greasysmith3150 I've never played pre-3rd, but reading some OSR stuff I don't think I get that, because it seems like the only thing really referenced seems to be dungeons and combat. Maybe it was more of a culture or maybe I'm reading the wrong books. I've never run dungeons and always preferred political machinations and stuff like that and I found the skill system in 3rd to really open that up because there were rules in the system to support that
@@Fwibos lol. My group plays a lot. The World of Darkness subreddit has a lot of us as well, although a minority. My group prefers the 1st edition while 2e is more common over there (the version with the tilts and conditions) but still
@@jasonGamesMaster most osr stuff is based on B/X what i said is more true of AD&D and slightly more true of BECMI (though becmi is a lot closer to B/X in that regard). It is also a culture thing imo, because BECMI is all about political machinations since you're expected to create your own kingdoms and such. BECMI also has a skill system though its an optional rule and i dont think you need it, just the reaction roles table at most and roleplay. The cultural part comes in with the fact the culture if play of OSR and early d&d is that anything not covered by the rules is up to the DM to decide which is why Ad&d has an explaination if bell curves and linear distribution with dice so the DM understands why asking for a 2d6 roll is different than a 1d12 when deciding how to do something. Theres also stuff the old roll 1d20 under your attribute to do a task related to that attribute that a lot of people used and is sort of how BECMI's skill system works. This is why you'll find a lot of people find 3e restrictive because the expectation is that you can do whats on your character sheet rather than what makes sense. Horatio was a Baker before he was an adventurer so he should have no trouble making a cake vs. Horatio spent 5 skill points on baking so he can roll to make a cake.
ปีที่แล้ว +8
The old school systems that can be found in the OSR are pretty much all about Sandbox campaigns!
Years ago when I tried running a sandbox Cyberpunk 2020 game the players just kept sitting around the bar waiting for jobs and adventures to come to them. :/
Thanks for the video. Back in the day, sandbox was done via the hexcrawl. I've done sandbox, linear play and various iterations in-between and found strengths/weaknesses to each. My experience is that the advantage of linear play (especially pre-bought adventures) is that they are easy to DM and work well for players who are willing to hop on the plot train, but is quite restrictive in agency and can even discourage player engagement. Sandbox gives maximum verisimilitude, flexibility and player agency, but it requires a LOT of DM prep, player engagement, and initiative to create/drive the plot. Sandbox games can also overwhelm players with choices. I tend to run a mixture, where there are multiple clear choices but the players decide which path to walk and which 'rides' in the 'theme park' they want to go on. That combination of agency and direction seems to work well for my table. YMMV. Thanks again for the great content.
Sandbox play is a staple of the OSR, and you'll even find some sandbox settings published by some OSR publishers. In fact, that was the norm when I first started playing in the 70's and 80's, and it's still how I run my games. If you want a terrific in-depth treatment of how to do a sanbox, look up "The West Marches Campaign" for a series of blog posts on the subject.
I’ve had 3 sandbox campaigns over my years as a DM and those three were my absolute favorite games I have ran. The worlds were fleshed out significantly, with every major player or faction having a formulated agenda and plan to achieve said agenda. I had dozens of templated NPC types that I could pull for any particular individual the party ran across, so that every NPC could feel fleshed out. The players created businesses and organizations to forward their objectives, sought patrons for resources and every faction’s agenda moved forward in a way applicable to the events occurring due to the players. I miss that play style.
This video made me realize I only run sandbox-style games. My main method is as follows: have some kind of idea of an interesting premise we didn't try yet (usually in a lucid dream) and discuss it with potential players; once we have agreed on what we'll be doing/starting with, we get on with gaming and I make shit up ad-hoc for the first session. Then, I think about the story line and what the players are interested in and mostly just lucid dream ideas. Some fit right away into the stories the players are creating, some don't and I leave them alone (i.e.: do not try to force them in)... As a good writer once said, the good ideas bubble up again to surface of your mind later on their own anyway. In a game I'm currently running, the players are now finally in a situation where I can insert an idea I had like nearly 3 years ago when we started. The idea was too cool to forget about but not appropriate for the game & players/NPCs then; feels rewarding to be able to include it now! :)
True sandbox is boring, I prefer what I am going to call the “Gavel Pit”. I take the principles of sandbox gaming, use the player interaction as a feedback loop. Then I design lore, world events, etc. Most of my world design is done at the table, I do this almost algorithmically. If the players are pushing the campaign towards stealing and looting, I create layers of the world to support that. If players want to own an inn, I create layers of the world to support that. It’s not quite a sandbox because the story naturally becomes more linear as it forms around them. They may get swept up by the events and drama that they caused, making their choices more limited because of previous choices. At times they may have full sandbox experience and at times they may be trapped in more linear progression. Either way, everything I do is basically creating where the rubber meets the road. Players determine the path, I make the path interesting through improve and planning. I should also note that I design full maps every session and spend a minimum of 10 hours of prep for a fully immersive world where we have “representative maps” for everything. The key when you make maps is to let players know that the map is just a representation and there is a lot not represented on city/battle/regional/world maps. My players seem to have a blast and do some insane things that leave us all having a good time. For all those that say they enjoy linear the best to enjoy GMing….linear gameplay is a trap. You end up stuck in your own stories and have less freedom then keeping it semi-sandbox. Trust me. Adaptability > Linear story. That goes for you as well. Prepare world, not story. Partially form plot hooks for things you and the players would like. Let their investment in your world guide your decisions and you will have fun because of how engaged they are with your mutual story. Just my thoughts. PS. I have anti-roleplaying players who are now Grade A roleplayers due to this style of play.
After 30+ years DM'ing, I unashamedly say I fall into the "both" category then. I have offered total open freedom to my players in the past and it ended up sometimes being a roadblock for them. If you make a lot of choices on offer to allow players to pick and chose what they would like to get involved with, I feel the games have more than often run more smoothly. I do have constraints, you cant give the players total freedom as if you pick the wrong type of person to play, it could end up ruining the game for other players and the DM as they make.. you know.. "that character".
i prefer sand box games but i always start them out as theme park games. i recently ran ghosts of saltmarsh and realized a lot of the stuff in saltmarsh lined up really well with a homebrew i was making. so now my campaign starts with ghosts of saltmarsh and evolves into a sandbox where the players sort of know what's at stake and who is the bad guy is but the direction can go in any way they wish.
The best three sandbox modules I have read are “Neverland” by Andrew Kolb, “OZ” by Andrew Kolb, and “The Dark of Hotsprings Island”. Notably, none of them published by WotC…Tomb of Annihilation COULD be a good sandbox as long as you drop the death curse and fix the random encounters and point of interest density. Linear/branching adventure paths can be a ton of fun! But I do prefer sandboxes. With Sandboxes, one problem I see regularly is that GM’s make them without conflicting factions and rumors surrounding some things going on around the area. Just dropping players into a world without anything going on is a recipe for disaster.
the first part of Rime is sorta sandboxy, but really the best sandbox "official" modules come from way back in the day like L1 Secret of Bone Hill. Notably, the old Judges Guild Wilderlands of High Fantasy stuff was entirely sandbox based too
@@user-jq1mg2mz7o absolutely. B2 and X1 have a much more open world feel (of the ones that I have read) and others are great to plop down into your sandbox as toys to play with if your PC’s pursue them. I have read L1 but it was a good number of years ago…I remember it looking quite good!
This is where it pays to outline a few 'movers and shakers' in the setting and their relations to each other, with a couple of vague 'things they're trying to do' attached. Then see what the players get interested in. Some games like Godbound have a whole 'faction' system to help with that kind of thing, so you can every so often throw a few dice to see what said movers/shakers other than the PC's have been doing and how well that's been going for them. If the PC's hear that the kingdom they happen to be in is at the brink of war over trade disputes originating not far from their location, odds are decent they'll poke their noses in.
I think both linear( not railroads) and sandboxes have their own benefits which can both end poorly or great. Railroads often lead to a combat only game or worse a railroaded combat game at the worst.
I agree. I like to have a sandbox style game with linear or better phrased "story points" that create a story arc the players can find and purse if they want to or not. If the story arc is important to the game and the players refuse it, then have npcs run it as needed and use the story arc as world building instead.
1. Part of the issue with setting up sandboxes is this idea that the GM just always takes a back seat... not EVERYTHING has to be driven by the players, non-player activity can still happen. Worlds/Stars Without Number style faction turns, weather occurs & changes who knows what, there is still a BBEG & they will still BBE even if the players choose not to confront him. Too many folks I think get attached to this idea of sandbox where the PCs are the sole driving narrative force, when really the core principle should just be not artificially constraining player choices & putting them down a linear series of narrative events. That still leaves room for a lot of GM creativity.. although it still leaves wanna-be novelists & screenplay writers in the cold. 2. Another reason GMs are reluctant to setup sandboxes is the time & effort involved... you have to have material prepped for whatever & where-ever the players are taking the game... if they go over the mountain you need to know what's on the other damn side. Logistically this snowballs fast. Adding linearity (& pre-written adventures, most of which tend towards linearity) makes things easier. This I think scares away even the GMs who would WANT to run a sandbox campaign.
My creative style for putting together a world for my games is sort of open theme park style, giving the players nearly infinite directions to take the party. There is a BBG (or 5), but I set it up in a way that the players can do what they want when it comes to choosing quest to go handle. It also allows me to literally create a whole globe as the map, with various notes for each town/city/burg on the world.
I like the idea of a hybrid sandbox with a broke down railroad in it. You can follow the broke down railroad and see where it goes, or you can go off the beaten path and see what's out there. :)
There was a time, back in 2nd AD&D and even into 3rd edition when WotC actually released extensive world setting books. I would use these as the ground work for the sandbox games I would run back in the day. The problem with 5th Edition (and it started in 4th) was they stopped coming out with rich, in depth world settings and came out with adventures set in a campaign world (like Curse of Strahd). Back when I was in school, it was easier for me and the groups I ran to create sandbox experiences. The last few years, I have found that it has been harder to make the time to put into creating a setting to do sandbox and I have also found that a lot of the players I have DM'd haven't cared for doing sandbox...they rather have solid goals/hooks provided and to go after the big bad guy. I have enjoyed using Paizo's adventure paths as they have elements of sandboxing, but yes, they probably fall more into theme park style. Would I love to go back to sandbox gaming...probably, but it would really depend on the others at the table. As I have become a forever GM, I need players that are willing to put in the work that is necessary to make a sandbox work and unfortunately, my experience has been that out of 4 players at the table, I'll have one that really would embrace sandbox and the other 3 who would less inclined (or in other words not give me enough to work with to make a sandbox viable).
This vid makes me nostalgic. In my younger years sandbox was our norm. But as we got older and had more responsibilities it wasn't just number of sessions that suffered but how much prep time I had. World building and knowing the options for monsters are hard and take time so I began leaning more on prepublished adventures. As mentioned in the video the players see that and don't want to be disruptive to it so try harder to follow along. The games are still a lot of fun, but don't have any of the wild stories we still share from the old days.
You need to have players that want to write their own stories or sandboxes don't work to well. I've tried to run open ended plot hooks everywhere sandbox games. Sometimes it works, but more often I get analysis paralysis and they can't choose or they literally want a railroad story.
That's exactly what happened to me in my last campaign. I wanted my players to decide what they wanted to do and where they wanted to go, leave what would happen next entirely on their hands, but they ended up confused and indecisive, I had to change the style from a Sand Box to a Theme Park.
It's hard, but sometimes you need to add some "DM"PCs with their own agenda to show them how to do it. Don't go overboard with it or you will end up being DM and PC in your own game.
I always run sandbox. One time, before RotS came out, a soldier tossed General Grievous' cape over his head and space docked him. In my current game, the players have a carnelian cube with 4 unknown sides and it's basically just sitting in a saddle bag. Random silver nameplate they found on a tomb though, that gets used every session.
They also found a partial dungeon map I drew and noted as if written by a failed adventurer. As a result of misreading "rope bridge" they named the party -The (Consensual) Nonconsensual Overpass Cult-
I DM 2 campaigns taking place in Exandria. Both of them started off on rails to get the group going. I tried sandboxing campaigns before, players were unengaged from the very beginning. No good. However, both current campaigns flew off the rails within a couple of sessions. I never tried laying fresh rails in front of them. They’re in freefall now, landing is the players‘ problem now 😊
I love railroad DMs! I figure out where they want us to go, what they want us to do, and I do it as quickly as possible. It's amazing what kind of concessions you can get from a satisfied DM. Oddly, none of my player friends ever figured this out, and I was almost always the DM. I also started doing sandbox games because they couldn't take a hint. But the few times I got to play, I was unstoppable!
If someone handed me a huge book, told me to read it, and decide what I want to do my first question would be: then why the fuck do we need you as a DM? Most people, and I say this as someone who cut his rpg teeth on adnd back in the mid 90s in my teens, want to have a series of quests that they can solve on their own. What you (🙄) dismissively call a "theme park". People don't want to do what you did: ruin the session via a lack of breaks/controls. That's why most systems suggest taking the pre made stuff, adding your own flare, but keeping it fairly on task.
I've been running games for a looooong time, and have adopted a hybrid model in which everything is informed and driven by the players, but also uses a persistent world to provide some scaffolding to build on, and modular set-piece encounters to make it a bit easier for me. Like many of the people here, my players lack the initiative to make a true sandbox viable. I dont know if this is something that happens with age or simply less time to play.
I totally agree! Thank you for making these videos...I love making it a sandbox at my table and only occasionally throw in a "theme park ride" when I need to change up the pacing or buy a little time for something else to be more well prepared. Sadly, I have run out of players who really understand and enjoy this style of play but thanks to you putting this out there maybe a few more have been prepared for a GM like me...(beause I KNOW there are more GM/DMs out there like me....)
I've run all three types. I use railroad if I don't know a group very well. It helps me figure out what each player is looking for. Once I've gone through an adventure or two, I'll start a home brew where they get to decide much more. I have multiple stories, NPCs working on things, and consequences for every action taken (good or bad).
lol one thing i've noticed from your videos is that if there is a "plot" or something happening in the background that the players will have to deal with themselves or it will come to deal with them, it's a RAIL ROAD!!!! arrhhhhgggg lol. Just something i've noticed for a while now.
Professor Dungeon Master at the DungeonCraft TH-cam channel has a single one page plot generator in his notebook which he argues can generate enough content to run a campaign for years. One page = Years of content. With books like that, who would make any money producing books?
Watching PDM and Questing Beast was like taking magic mushrooms to me; revealed a whole world i didnt know existed, and explaind lots of "odd" rules I didt get from 2e. And Ive been dming for 20 years...
The opposite of the Sandbox Game is not the Railroad...it is a Linear Game. I enjoy Linear Games and every single last Sandbox Game I have been a part of over the last 42 years has been a complete disaster, ending after a session or two due to no direction and everyone feeling like they were just floundering with no purpose or the GM having to improvise everything because it is impossible to be prepared when you have no idea where the characters will go, then the full improve game session with nothing ready just sucks, and everyone bails. Current gaming group has been together for almost 20 years now, 100% linear games and everyone is loving it.
Dichotomies are so tired. And a bit lazy. I think it's fantastic that there are a lot of DMs and players who love playing sandbox games. Truly -- people should play in ways that bring them joy. This premise is why I get so aggravated when sandbox aficionados elevate their preferred gaming style by setting up false dichotomies and demeaning other gaming styles by setting up straw men to knock over with a smug harrumph. Are there DMs who are frustrated would-be novelists and control freaks? Are there play groups who struggle to make independent decisions without a heavy hand? Yup. Totally. But to use these cases as a way to insinuate that any campaign that involves an overarching narrative trajectory is a "railroad" (or a "theme park," constructed as a so-called middle way that really isn't) is really the worst kind of entitled gatekeeping. Is is possible -- possible? -- that many players are brought to the game because they want to *co-create* an epic story with a DM, in a world which involves both a big world where important events transpire that demand the attention of heroes as well as a world where the choices and agency of PCs shape that world and the larger story. It is possible -- possible? -- that imagining the game as collaborative storytelling is not the "fault" of controlling DMs, unengaged players, and/or a conspiracy of corporate overlords in which an ideology of "narrative direction" is an oppressive hegemony imposed by railroad robber barons to keep the proles ignorant. Maybe many players would rather imagine themselves as epic hero characters in Lord of the Rings, the Earthsea Saga or the Wheel of Time rather than in Minecraft or The Sims. (See what I did there?) Of *course* well-run sandboxes are more than The Sims -- and well-run campaigns with a broad underlying narrative arc with BBEGs are more than 1980s AD&D modules. Can't we imagine campaigns with worlds like Skyrim, where the availability of endless variation is always there and available, but there is still a main plot thread that, one way or another based on player choices, is the actual point of the campaign experience where players can work hard to ultimately achieve a satisfying victory? Indeed, visual examples in the video of complex characters with individual motivations that run contrary to the primary direction of the protagonists (like Boromir?) came from sources like LOTR... which is a freaking *story*. TTRPG campaign styles are a continuum, not a dichotomy. If players enjoy a gaming style that you don't, maybe consider celebrating that they find joy in their games rather than being so goddamn judgmental.
If you want sandbox campaign support, there was stuff like that in the '90s. A lot of the 2e D&D city books, and to some extent also VtM city books skew that way - some also have an obnoxious railroad, but they still give you a web of NPCs with goals and relationships such that you can often discard the railroad and just run the characters. Those VtM books are how I first discovered a more freeform sandboxy play style.
Great points in this video. I just realized the just-started PF2e campaign I'm GMing has all the makings of a sandbox campaign and instead of feeling nervous about not having "a plan", I'll just lean back and see what my lovely crazy players will make of it. Thanks for the encouragement!
Who else remembers the craziness that was artifacts in the 1st Ed DMG? Each group could have significantly different version of the same artifact from each other group because the powers were left to be determined by the DM for the particular game. I mean…. The Eye of Vecna had 2 minor benign powers, 2 major benign powers, 1 major malevolent effect, and 1 prime power ; all to be decided by the DM from tables of suggestions.
Railroads are very effective at moving people (and goods) around the landscape. But in the game world, as well the real world, railroads work well when there is a whole network of them moving people and goods in all sorts of directions. Delivering people or goods to where they might be needed. Although occasionally the trains are ambushed by bandits and the tracks torn up by rebels, or that bridge ahead mined by dynamite. Players tend to need destinations to aim for in a game, and the best destinations are the ones that interact with the world. Whether that be supplied by the players or hinted at by the gamemaster. Especially at the beginning. The important thing to remember is consequences, and building on them. Of course the most fun sandboxes are those where you have multiple groups of player(s) moving around the same campaign world doing their things. And watching as their interactions collide and create things you could never imagine.
As someone who has played in both sandbox and linear campaigns, as well as ran campaigns alternating between linear and sandbox, I have found that the most interesting structure of campaign for both the player and the GM is not purely sandbox nor purely linear; rather, a mix of both that leans toward the sandbox side. Specifically, the campaign starts with all of the characters having a common goal that they work to achieve throughout the whole campaign, and the characters pursue that goal however they please. This gives the campaign a direction for the players without limiting how they achieve their goal. This way, the GM is not completely dependent on the character to make decisions like in a sandbox, and the players all have at least one common goal that encourages the party to work together to complete. As long as it is made clear that this is the primary goal for every character, the players can build their characters around that goal so the players don't feel like their characters are in situations that they would not want to be in.
I'm with you on this and I granularize this down to session-by-session. I have found that offering 2-3 pre-scripted options along with "squirrel" (the PCs chase down their own agendas) works best. This gives the players both agency and focused goals, while giving the DM direction and limits on required prep.
It isn't D&D related but I GM'd a long-running Dungeon World game (which is sandbox by its nature) and the biggest issue I saw was with continuity. We played once per week and, by the time the next session rolled around, the players' motivations had evaporated in the real life interim. This led them to being erratic and to doing semi-regular one-eighties. This only magnified over the longer term. I would throw reminders at them, have a "previously in Dungeon World" recap and even took to transcribing the recorded game sessions - to little effect. I'm all for sandbox games - just be aware of the challenges. In the end, as the GM, I asked to end the game and switch systems (I collect TTRPGs and was interested in trying something else out). I'm running a published adventure for literally the first time in my 40-year gaming "career" and it's like taking a vacation. Very little improvisation and ad lib - a nice break for the ol' duder's head.
Also as a DM that uses minis and table terrain, I have to be a little "rail-roady" at times. I give players agency on how to tackle a scenario but if I spent weeks painting and planning a dungeon crawl they can travel east across the plains, north through the mountains, west across the marshes, or south into the deserts, but they will always find themselves at the same cave with a stairway going down no matter where they go. It's easier to give players total agency when you are doing theater of the mind. Minis or even maps and tokens usually require a bit more planning.
Wilderlands of High Fantasy created by Judges Guild in 1976 is still the best sandbox world ever created. It is seeded with dozens and dozens of hamlets, villages, towns, the City State of the Invincible Overlord, the City State of the World Emperor, as well as animal and monster lairs, all located across sixteen, very large hexagon maps. I’ve been running games there for forty-plus years for numerous groups. I use an adventure matrix surrounding the starting point and set the PC’s loose. Unfortunately, over this time, I’ve found that D&D breaks down around 7th-10th level and so I’ve rarely continued a campaign beyond that point. Your videos are superior!
@@Arnkel Thanks for the inquiry. An adventure matrix, as I understand it, is in opposition to a railroad, or linear campaign arc. I develop nodes, usually nine boxes, containing adventure locations relating to the main antagonist and his evil plans. The PC’s are introduced to the plans with an inciting event, and if they get involved, clues from that encounter can lead them to two or three other locations. You, as the GM, don’t know which one they’ll pursue, but those locations will also lead to other locations. This method doesn’t require you to have everything written up, and can prepare only what the PC’s decide to investigate. There are some D&D video creators on here that can do a better job explaining it than I have. This method gives the player’s more agency over what they want to do.
I like the sandbox style with themes. I generally float in story and encounter s previously concocted, but altered based on what the they players choose to do and where theY choose to go. It makes it exciting for players and the dm, because we can never really know what the PC will do
A pre published sandbox adventure is impossible to publish. By it's very definition, it relies on improvisation on the part of the dm. The world campaign book(s) are the closest you can get, You did, however, miss out a fourth option: The Narrative Game. There, the dm runs a plot, but it's entirely up to the players whether they engage or not. Regardless, the plot keeps going according to the timeline that the dm has worked out according to the initial adventure and modified for any PC actions (usually, this would be delays, although it would be possible for a party to actually help the villain). The party may be right in the centre of things if they followed the clues or instructions they were given, or they may witness some of the resulting actions of the villain's henchmen... or just hear muttered rumours at the tavern, including how the "hired bunch of adventurers" ran away like cowards. Heck, if they ran away from the plot they were handed, then that plot may succeed or fail. If it fails, the resulting slaughter will be on the party's hands potentially and, if they accepted payment for the job, they now have an annoyed ex-employee who wants their money back, so the party now has a new adventure, one of their own creation. You also get to play with alignments of various party members, after they stood by and allowed the slaughter of innocents, without even trying to help. Worse still is if they are identified as having bailed, instead of helping. Wanted posters everywhere, being barred from guilds and taverns and generally shunned by society. If they try to strong-arm someone (and someone will... there's a hothead in every group), they'll have made things worse and may even have good NPCs hunting for them. You can also move planned encounters around, too... if they deserve another way to reengage with the plot. Nobody will know except you, if they waste too much time, they'll be witness to a localised "end of the world " event where all they get to do now is try to get out alive... and get to tell everyone that it was their fault. And party splits resulting in TWO factions?? I wish... in my experience, they either suspend some individuality and work as one, or end up going off in ones or twos... But proper sandbox games require experience, the ability to think on the fly and time between sessions to reevaluate things according to the players' actions. That's not something you can box up and sell. Especially since printed modules are primarily for beginner dms or those who don't have time to keep adjusting their adventures for repercussions of player actions.
You describe the way I have DMed for more than 45 years, I like to design a world with very brief descriptions. Focus in on a single region with more descriptions. Focus even more on a starting area with even more descriptions. Build several NPCs who will mostly be somewhere in the beginning area at some time. Create several "dungeon" areas that are filled in, knowing at least 70% will never be touched by the PCs. Create groups with various things going on, some that tie to other groups and some that tie to other regions. Most of this will never be touched by the PCs. Think of it like background for a novel that has not even been plotted out yet, let alone written. Hold session 0 (we didn't call it that back in the day, we called it "rolling up characters"). I usually have a handout with information that all the PCs should know already, some higher level info about the beginning area. Give some individual information known by each character based upon their back story (key here, only the player of each character knows that specific information and it is up to them to decide whether they share with the group or not). Then turn 'em loose and let them do what they will. If they go somewhere or do something you have nothing prepared for, make it up as you go and take copious notes for insertion into your world/campaign descriptions. You can just drop in an encounter area from a module or a one shot. I purchase so many modules I know I will never use entirely for this purpose (which is why I LOVED The Dungeon magazine back in the day). You can create random encounters. Perhaps that random bandit cadre they encountered as they decided to move to a different region that you haven't fleshed out much is a go between for a group in the beginning region and a group that will be in the region to which they are moving. Maybe that group of gnolls in the gnoll camp you stole from Module XYZ is a recon patrol from a group planning a raid. Your imagination is the only block here and so long as you can devise interesting things in your mind to tie things your PCs do together with your notes and thoughts, you make the character actions even bigger than they can imagine, you will start to develop your side of the story by the seat of your pants and the characters will have more input into the overall plot than even you have. For me, DMing like this has always been the way.
My pre made adventures, like dungeons, used to be mostly generic and not tied to a location until the players discovered it, when I'd note the location of the map in my notes. Saves on the work that way. 😊 I think "session 0" is between rolling and actually playing... the old "ok, so what is your character aiming to do and why is he adventuring?" Sessions that us old schoolers used to have.
@@BFalconUK I always did that when rolling up characters. Usually did the roll up alone one on one with a player. Works great for helping to formulate the campaign as well as you get the individual desires of each player and can incorporate it all together.
I stopped 13.54 mins in to say this.. My Dearest Lass.. tisk task tisk.. I hath fallen undt love with yew until this video. 😢. You disappoint me so! Here's why. I've been at this DM thing since ohhh abut 1982? Over the decades I've DMd/been a plyr in countless campaigns. Maybe I'm in the minority here but DnD wasn't my main gig. Life was, growing up to be a family man was, becoming an engineer was. And I can say this for sure: I've been one of the best improv and planning DMs my players ever had, (maybe they lied to me?😅) and it takes 50 blue million hours a week to be a sandbox DM vs the 4-5hrs/it takes to be a planned encounter/module, DM. Go look it up thar be stats for it milady. All my players had lives to lead outside DnD. They didn't have time to get into their characters so intensely as to spend more than 1-2 hrs ACTUALLY PUTTING TIME INTO THEIR CHARACTERS. All this crap needs to be talked about EVEN BEFORE SESSION 0. Then players & DMs can decide what THEY Collectively want out of they game. As A DM I let my players know that I have devised at least 5 major plot scenarios with as many as 9-10 subplots. (Yes it does sound like a novel doesn't it.) But here's the rub(bish?) My players always felt like they were being railroaded! They knew that ole DM Steve had done the work and they had 5 major railroad lines with 9 or 10 tiny lines on their monopoly board. Lastly.. and I'll leave you with this my lovely... If the players are actually coming together, (either doing whatever they want, or being "herded") they're being successful and you know what comes with success baby doll? POPULARITY & RESPONSIBILITY. 😊 Eventually they'll start out at 3rd level, become a wonderful team, make it to say 14th level THEN THEYLL START TO GET REAL JOBS for realms saving adventures. That's why I've had more than 50 players and 16+ campaigns in my 4 decades of being a storytelling DM. Let them do what they want st lower levels then insure they have fun at higher levels because kids... realms-saving is where it's at. Not this baby sandbox crap.. I still love ya tho.. You're my favorite. Steve C
the publisher factor in this discussion is much larger than we think: it is in wotc's interest to publish railroads because they get to choose and decide what kinds of games and "content" they can sell and thus market to players. you couldnt sell Strahd action figures if the module was "ravenloft sandbox" where Strahd could be totally irrelevant to the paths the players take or killed off by background machinations between equally un/important NPCs in ravenloft. this profit motive heavily skews wotc into the direction of railroads. you mentioned this at the end with the vecna example and it's 100% true there's also i think the video game aspect to it. limitations of video game programming in the old days have bred a certain mentality to how a player should interact with the game, and that mentality has continued to modern games and then backwashed into newer players of ttrpgs.
All my games have had some element of sandbox. I've only ran 2 complete campaigns that were 99% sandbox. A post-apoc road warrior type campaign and the one I'm running now in a shattered multiverse. Sandbox is my font of inspiration as the players generally wind up setting their own hooks.
As an ADHD forever GM, sandbox campaigns are my *dream*. Think about it; no need to deliberate and despair as the players sidestep the material I've prepared, because they *literally* decide what happens next and all I have to do is come up with the now and immediate future possibilities which can be dropped or elaborated on as it becomes clear which way they're going. Why I'm so sad about this though is normally my players see me as having to provide a compelling story whilst still allowing almost anything to happen. Nearest I came to perfection got shot down when what I thought was where I got the balance right, had the best time only to be told there wasn't really any point to the game. My advice based on experience but also because I've not been able to test it works I also say your mileage may vary, in the session 0, make it clear that this is a sandbox and *they* are responsible for heading in a direction they want to, and have frequent ooc dialogue to make sure nothing is being RPd into a corner.
Regardless of your arguments, you said, "It's not ontologically wrong" and I had to subscribe. I've never heard that word outside of philosophy courses. I don't know as I agree, but damn that word needed to have been applied to D&D in some way. That's the Vancian way of game theory, ya know. Its like scrabble. Can't wait to view your backlist.
I just started my first sandbox game, and I'm the DM. So, the timing of this video is serendipitous. I've sent it to my group and hope it will make this campaign, that has been going well, even better. I also wouldn't mind any other advice about taking on a Sandbox Campaign. Thanks!
This is where the value of underrepresented supplements like Acquisitions Inc. come in. With special player roles like "The Decisionist", there are in-game mechanics designed to help with out of game resolutions that reward the players for taking initiative. As opposed to the passive witness model of most games, where players wait to be lead on rails through the DM's funhouse (D&D Cartoon anyone?). Tie this in with a plethora of NPC's and locations the players will want to return to, both liked and disliked, and the Sandbox model can sing.
I'm a DM who has built his own world, a sandbox of sorts (as I love to improv and think on my feet). The group is allowed to plot their own course. What I found important to keep the game going is to make sure that it is a living world that continues to move forward regardless of what they do (though how it moves forward is based on the group's decisions to a large extent). I found without the world moving forward on it's own is that the group loses focus and the group has less fun.
Man, love Railroads. Sandbox games are mostly bs players tell each other. There are no sandbox games in the real world, only players that think they are in a sandbox game
I've either run or played in a handful of sandbox campaigns in the last 10 years or so. Most fell apart after 3-6 months. Often the players couldn't grasp that they were supposed to drive the narrative forward. Or 1-2 players would take the initiative but then the remaining players would be either indecisive or say nothing at all. It got to the point where I began wondering if D&D... as it is now... trains players to think in linear patterns, passively waiting for WotC or the DM to give them something to do, instead of fostering creativity.
Been playing in a consistent campaign world (with multiple GM's) for over 25 years. We have all invested in this long story (both as 'good guys' and as 'bad guys' acting in opposition). As such we effectively need to have a theme park, as there is a lot of investment in time and effort. We did get a new GM at one point, and he immediately tried to derail the entire world order. If we play true sandbox then we will not be playing our Greyhawk. Works for us.
I used to think squirrel fighting was just exploitation of arboreal rodents, but then I saw the match between Squeaks McSqueakin' and Eep Eeepameep, and ever since I am a fan. The middleweight championships are where the true fights take place - heavyweight is just all power and no finesse, and lightweight feels like watching pipe cleaners wrasslin'.
One of the things that will ruin a sandbox campaing the fastest is the type of player that doesn't really take the game seriously and just enjoys kicking shit over just to see what happens.
Omg, yes. In one of our Werewolf the Forsaken games we had a guy who went out of the way to piss off the spirits and the Pure AND the other Forsaken packs.... we ended up sacrificing him to appease the Spirit of the Chicago River, lol
So, running a sandbox doesn't mean just letting a player do anything they want. If a player is going to take an action that is going to negatively effect everyone else at the table, it is okay to stop, and see if everyone else is on board. When I see moments of conflict like that crop up, I look for a player who is obviously annoyed at what the F-Around Player is doing, and say "F-Around is about to Find Out. Are you doing anything to intervene?" This usually at least gets the conversation going. If you have a whole table of F-Around guys, well, congrats, you are now running an Evil Game and can start catering to that. Let them be the villains they are acting like. They'll probably think it's hilarious when things finally catch up to them as long as they feel like it's fair. If it's only one guy causing problems, and he won't get on board with everyone else, well, maybe don't invite that guy back.
@Dungeons & Discourse Could you create a video instructing how to create characters with their own motivations for a sandbox campaign that are going to form a cohesive party to work together rather than each character wanting to go their own way individually with no interest or common ground with the rest of the party?
As a GM I find I'm not good enough at free style for full sandbox. It also requires more prep which may not then be rewarded. As a player, I like to feel like I'm in a film or TV show. I like some direction. Using backstories often aids in shaping a story around the players.
I rescued two orphaned squirrel babies last year and hand-raised them. They have a large dog kennel cage lined with wire mesh for a home and I will absolutely attest that Squirrelly WWE Cage Matches are highly entertaining daily events. (If I released them they would be eaten in a day. Especially Sandy, she's way too domestic now.)
I've always run a sandbox in every game I run. I've played in railroad campaigns and have enjoyed about half of them. It's not inherently bad to railroad.
i agree! It's a matter of taste, but I have the most fun when we engage with the things that separate TTRPGs from other forms of play - namely the open, improvisational nature of TTRPG games
There is another option to satisfy GM worldbuilding AND allow for sandbox. It's the one our current GM uses: "The world is happening around you whether you interact with it or not. Do your own thing, or get involved in the world events (on any side, or create your own "side"). Both are fine. The GM can tell a story that is happening, and flesh out both this information, and the world in which it resides. This can be either tangential to, or woven into what the players are doing. Either way provides the players with a believable world that doesn't pause until the player presses "go" on the quest. "No need to rush, we'll get there in the nick of time no matter what we do" is not a thing in a world like that.
As well as my last comment, just wanted to say separately that your videos are great, entertaining and I feel you voice my own opinions in a way I chuckle at. If as a fellow forever GM you want to do a remote sandbox campaign I'll happily oblige (you may need to recruit more like-minded players but I can imagine that would also be an entertaining montage) :D
All true. The main problems I've seen with running a true sandbox is i) players don't set their own direction and bumble around, and ii) it's just a lot of work of the GM who can't prepare a scenario (much) in advance. Also, the game mechanics don't lend themselves to it - there are so many loopholes in the rules that allow an adventuring party to make money without any adventuring, that they all just go down the organised crime route! To be fair to WoTC, the second part of ToD, Rise of Tiamat, actually has the potential to be a somewhat of a sandbox - with alternative paths being presented by a Council that represents Patrons, and can set some direction, if the party can't decide what they want to do. There are a number of set piece encounters that are on the "story path" but others that can be slotted in against a path of the players' own making. Unless you completely prevent player agency, and just treat it as a bunch of Patron adventures, It's much more work for the DM to run this part vs. the very linear game of the first part, Hoard of the Dragon Queen.
I start a game out as a theme park. It gives the players structure and direction. The players then take that and go off in their own direction, morphing the setting into more of a sandbox. The trick is not to force a plot down someone's throat. If they're not interested in it, slowly walk it off stage and replace it with another one. Repeat, giving the sandbox kind of a "oh, there's other stuff happening in the world besides us" feel. I balance this by making kind of a project timeline for every villain. Every plot out there marches along to its own schedule, and if the players interact with it, it foils it or moves the goal posts. And if they don't care, then they just hear about it later. Because that story I wanted to tell as a GM... if none of the players want to hear it, then its not worth telling at the table.
I've always thought the best campaign is a sandbox with "story points" for an overall story arc and/or mini story arcs.. This lets players do their own thing but also gives an outlet for the DM's story. I think this gives the best of both worlds.
I have been dming since last century, I would run a session 0 but also an adventure 0. The adv 0 would start as a railroad, but then give more and more options to the point that I could tell how the party/player group wanted to play. I would then switch to Railroad, theme park or sandbox. My Fav are sandbox with some theme parks inside. You could leave a railroad mid way, then later on it would have consequences.
Maybe there is a huge pent up demand from players for "pure" sandbox DMs. You describe something that, when done well, has the potential to be an exquisite, premium experience. If only there were enough "skilled" DMs out there willing to devote the vast time, energy, and (yes) money required to meet the expectations of the players with this pent up demand. Hopefully these players will be able to find those few and precious DMs who are worth while, willing, and able to make this happen for them. And thank you so much for everything you've been doing lately on this topic-- setting the expectations of players to that much higher standard, where those standards in fact should be. We have to make sure that all those scrub DMs get the message, after all, and move away from their ultimately meaningless theme parks and railroads to this much better, much more rewarding (for everyone, really) mode of play. Truly, these last few monologues have shown a light on my own inadequacies and made me want to do better, to BE better.
Felt the need to clarify. My above response was heavily sarcastic. I think this take is seriously detrimental, both to new DMs, those thinking of DMing, and folks like me who have been DMing a long time. Really enjoy Discourse's takes on most other things... and it sounds like she's had an amazing gaming experience that she genuinely wants to share with the community. So I will give the benefit of the doubt that she doesn't mean to belittle all DMs except those who create the perfect soundbox world... and immense work that they do... and the pressures that they feel, made all the worse by an almost built in imposter syndrome and pressure to perform... but it certainly feels that way. I like the videos where the focus of the righteous, biting sarcasm and wit are the institutions and corporations that cause systemic issues in our hobby and prey on the community of players... not the players themselves. Okay... I'm done. I feel better now. Had a nice couple of hours of mowing my lawn. :D
Sandbox games suck. They work for maybe 5 sessions before they just fall apart. I’ve spent 3 hours waiting for players to decide what to do. Then there are the competing conflicts. Go save the town from goblins or deal with the river dam that seems to always be breaking. Ok let’s debate. Also abandoned quests that lead to constant random encounters as the DM needs to fill space when players suddenly change directions. The best games are those where the players think they are in a sandbox but they really aren’t.
Our group prefered episodic predfined mystery related game sessions. Having run many I prefered to call my sandbox mysteries "a web of bread crumbs" which inevitably ended/or not with an ultimate resolution scene. Often, as usual, strands of the web were created by the players themselves often requiring GM improv not for the faint of heart....
Sandbox games are the only kind of campaigns that I enjoy running. Challenging the character’s beliefs and the players goals is my happy place. I’m a worldbuilder, and my worlds exist as a backdrop for the stories my players want to tell. This is the way.
Your comment about pretty rare. I can think of at least ten campaigns I played with 6 different groups. 4 ended in the party killing itself and the other 6 fell apart because the quieter and more passive players were completely ignored and run over by the more aggressive players. Options are fine but there needs to be structure are its just a murder hobo fest of players gratifying themselves. A healthy mix of of sandbox with structure and support to move any kind of narrative forward has been my most memorable games. Also helps to get new, shy, or passive players immersed. A DM's job is really a challenge to provide the best compromise for everyone at the table.
I dunno, the lost omen line from paizo fulfills the need that you want. There are ideas for adventures, stats for monsters, and more importantly, available for the players to read and pull from as well for where they want to go and build characters with
I think the way I run campaigns and somewhere between a theme park and a sandbox. I provide the world that has its own rules. I put a lot of plot Hooks and calls to Adventure around. I create a couple big issues that will probably affect the players or something they care about even if they are ignored. Then I let the players decide what to do I have the world respond. The only thing I don't particularly like is if the players wander off the maps and preparations that I've done, but they can I'd with whomever they want, let the big bads destroy the town in the problems grow. They can try to rob the friendly neighborhood magic shop. They can try to become mayor of the town. I almost think that sandboxes are less about the campaign and more about the gamemaster's Style. I think a competent Gamemaster probably could take almost any module and effectively turned it into a sandbox though he might need to provide a lot of new content if the players really go in a strange Direction.
Hey guys, yesterday I had an idea. I ask ChatGPT to create me dozens of original random d100 tables for Critical Failures, Successes (Melee, Spell Casting, Ability and Skill checks tables), lvl 1-3 Corpse Loot and Chest Loot tables, Town & City Professions, Names, Personality, Random Character tables, lvl 1-3 Surface, Dungeon & Sea Encounters tables, Object of Intrigue tables, Artifacts and Relics tables and even a Divine Intervention table. They are amazing! I'm sure I'll think of more. I added some Basic/OSR artwork where it would fit, printed & laminated them all last night. Sandboxes are much easier to run on the fly when your well prepared!
Sandbox games require players (and the DM) to be able make their own goals. This isn't a problem that is limited to D&D or TTRPGs. Even in video games, players complain if they are not given some kind of goal or direction. (It's a common complaint I hear about Terraria.) I try to provide a goal for my players. Or several. But how the players go about it... I stopped, long ago, trying to craft a narrative. I try to write notes about alternate ways for a desired or key encounter to go, and, perhaps because of how my players play, I over develop the area. That NPC who lives on the edge of the village near the woods is mostly already fleshed out. My players needed a goal to focus on, and towards.
DM: Okay group! Your characters are sitting around a table in the Tavern "The Flying Monkey". What do you want to do? Players: .................................................................................................. .
Best to start them with a couple rumours, or at least mention a few NPCs they can talk to.
So while you’re all sitting around, drinking and using your dwindling spare cash someone takes a seat at the bar nearby. He’s clearly agitated, orders two of the strongest drink the barkeep will give him and downs one immediately. You can hear him mutter “no choice.. gotta do it..” as he starts on the next drink
As a sandbox DM, i find there is no better story to tell than the way your Milieu works, and no better way to tell it than letting the players discover (and suffer) it as they play.
Being a DM who neither has the time nor desire to build out my own world, I leverage published campaigns/modules to provide my players with their adventures. Further, in a true sandbox game there is much more effort required by the players to do 'homework' between sessions, which I have found to be rare with the players I have played with across my 40+ years of gaming.
I think the newer players to DnD, being heavily leaning into player agency, put much more desire on sandbox style games. As you mentioned the player direct the story and the DM is there to provide the world that their story can exist in. If there is a reason that there is a dearth of DM's it is likely because you are asking them to take on a lot of heavy lifting (design, creation, reaction to your wants/needs as players) and that is a big step to take from a simple player to that level of world crafter.
Your players don't really need to do homework between sessions of a sandbox than they need to do homework between two work shifts. They actually shouldn't be doing any "homework" between sessions, they shouldn't be suddenly learning things non-diegetically.
I’m a bit confused Trevor. It appears that you are in favor of ‘railroad’ style play because it is too much work for you and your players? It seems a weird thing to me with the openness of the early campaign worlds and even versions of the game. I also don’t see a lot of ‘homework’ for players other than perhaps rewriting characters on new sheets to update equipment or stats that may have changed in previous session(s). The DM should minimally do some ‘homework’ to at least make some connection between adventures or read up on the current adventure.
If a sandbox is pushing the narrative to be character-centric, and the players have provided sufficient backstory/motivation/goals for their character, then what happens in the game usually is just exploration of those things. The GM becomes a referee, but also throws in challenges of the PC's "character" - who they are and why they do what they do.
Player agency and sandbox style is nothing new in tRPGs, they are just talked about more now than they used to be. RPGs have evolved over the last 50 years, after all, to suit the modern consensus of what they should be and what they shouldn't be.
@@orokusaki1243 they're talked about *more* now?
Sandbox was the de facto play style for most of the history of the hobby. Adventure paths (the thing WotC calls campaigns these days) are a biproduct of the Dungeon magazine era (pre-Paizo).
20 years ago, nobody was playing bloated adventures with a single narrative and a three act structure and nearly everybody was playing a sandbox or a frame story. Sandboxing is returning to the tradition of tabletop role playing and moving away from the new wave of the narrated board game.
@@josephcarriveau9691 Yeah, youtube has plenty of DM-HELP! channels that have videos about sandbox campaigns. This video, is also doing just that.
"Adventure Paths" were originally "Module Series" in D&D b/x and AD&D. Don't forget "tournament modules", which are like modern "one-shots". There was a mix of sandbox, linear, and railroad even back in those. So saying "sandbox is the de facto play style", is plain false.
How a campaign is run depends largely upon the one running it, and perhaps one style became the expected way to run, over time, thus why the modern iterations seem so railroady to some, but are still merely suggestions to others.
Consider: As those early DMs looked to literature to help them tell stories better, so too did the 3-act structure get incorporated into what was otherwise a more improvisational game. Meanwhile: This surely had an effect on Players' narrating and perhaps their agency as well. The product will follow what the customers want(or seem to want).
(I once watched a middle-aged DM monologue for 10 minutes, then pause for player input, and after the first player briefly asked something, he went on to monologue for another 10 minutes. It surely went on longer, but I'd changed to another stream at that point.)
When I started 35 years ago, people would either: String modules together to make a campaign; Start a campaign in a module and then homebrew off of that; Run a world built from scratch; Or run a homebrew campaign based in a setting box set. There hasn't been much deviation since, people are still doing this.
"OneD&D" is certainly moving towards the board game that players can narrate while playing. Sandbox, linear, and railroad will always be there for the folks at the table to mix and match so as to play the game in a way they all enjoy.
I do think it serves to distinguish "sandbox" to mean the style of a world. It is confused when one also incorporates the narrative style and the plot style into the single word.
This makes me think of my last gaming group, and why I haven't tried to go back to that table. We played a lot of railroad campaigns, most of us were miniature warhammers so it was very military, mostly being sent on quests by whoever paid us.
When I tried to run a sandbox for them they complained that they didn't feel like they had any control, it made me reflect on all the games we'd played. They had a boss and he told them what was expected of them; then I had a bunch of random NPCs in their lives complain to them over breakfast, they chose to go on a random critter hunt instead of going to the guard captain who was going to send them to fight goblins. After 3 days of choosing to hunt critters I had the main story event advance a half step, not a total failure or success. So here we are 4 sessions in and they realize they have been ignoring the main problem, but they just acted frustrated instead of acknowledging the messengers and gate guards that reminded them they were expected by the captain.
It was interesting, and really reflected your video. My characters are usually pretty strong willed, but I'm always happy to have someone else take the spotlight. Seeing my friends act like sheep following the usual dms lead was very revealing, they all seemed to be waiting for me to be setting the scene. I'm looking at setting up a drop in, sandbox, rpg night at a gaming store or bar now
The game FATE has a line in their character creation section: "Proactive, Competent people who lead Dramatic lives". Meanwhile, others have said various things that amount to: if you want to play an adventure, then make an adventurer, and then go find the adventure.
The idea is that it is a game. Are they playing it? What is the expectation difference, because there clearly is one if they only realized in the 4th session that they've skipped a vital plot hook. It is likely why they feel they don't have any control, it is still railroady: be told quest, go on quest, complete quest.
When running a sandbox, the GM really needs to take cues from the Players' Characters. To give them back the control, let them go look for plot hooks instead of exclusively dangling your own in front of them. Triggers and Events can also be a good solution, but the PCs have to do the triggering and decide how to deal with any event that crops up.
It is fine to have background timers/clocks/plots that are happening, these things can change the world. Just don't let these things steal the agency of the Players or otherwise force them to participate. If they're not interested in engaging in a particular situation, just advance it normally and let it grow - *if* it is even worthwhile to do so. It is more natural to just make these things push up against the things the party is trying to do, becoming an obstacle (of some degree and at some point) on the path they want to be on.
This is why evil campaigns should be more normalized since a lot of people are too scared of doing something themselves. It's more than being a dumb murderhobo you get to plan and learn the game's limits or your own. It's why for me I honestly like playing healers because they gives me a job when we're in town and there's down time. Especially if I took the Healer feat in a 5e game. Yeah I'm charging money because these supplies aren't free and the rooms aren't either. That's what I noticed a lot of people just end up being just "murderhobos" just moving from plot point to plot point.
@@ExeErdna one of the big positives of that table, that I will be bringing forward, is that securing and supporting a home base was general really important to them. So sure we were doing murder, but we weren't hobos; my last character ended up owning a bar and ran a mercenary company out of the back. It meant we had projects and NPCs that were important to us
I think that Sandbox campaigns can be very memorable but they require the PCs to have goals and motivations of their own. The players need to know that they have the agency to make things up in the game, the GM shouldnt be the only player able to create game elements. As GMs we should ask ourselves, is it ok in your game for a player to make things ups such as to say that their PC knows a alchemist in the town they just arrived in, possibly an old friend who moved here. It would be a great opportunity for the PC to visit the alchemist as a known contact to find out rumours in the town, but probably shoudn’t be used to purchase discounted alchemist fire.
I try and follow the mantra, that if players treat something as important then I usually try and make it important to the story. If they go out of their way to interact with the beggar who you added in the alley just as a scene dressing, then he becomes part of the story, possibly he as hired to keep on eye on the party or is a former adventurer suffering from a curse. In your example above, it the PCs go out on a critter hunt then that becomes the story, and possibly the critters are minions of an evil druid. You can tie it back into your original plot line with the goblins, maybe he is a goblin druid.
It requires the GM to think on their feet a lot and be willing to sideline their planned storyline, though I find I can often bend the story back close to what I originally planned. The story tends to be better because of the ideas and direction from the PCs.
@@ExeErdna "This is why evil campaigns should be more normalized since a lot of people are too scared of doing something themselves. It's more than being a dumb murderhobo"
Here's something to look into if you're unfamiliar and adapting it would probably make a great basis for a sandbox rpg.
There's a pc strategy game in EA called 'Shadows of Forbidden Gods'. It has a system that I would describe as middle earth meats crusader kings. There's countries and nobles and armies and wars and stuff. Thing is, you're not playing that game. At least mostly not directly.
You start with a single cultist agent. You grow the size of your cult. Corrupt nobles. Embed your cult into key points of civilization like sewers, palaces and libraries. Spread shadow over the land. Drive populations insane. Sow animosity between nations. Manipulate religions. Etc. Etc. You don't run a nation. You manipulate nations from the shadows.
Overall, your goal is to sow as much mayhem and chaos as possible in order to pave the way for the coming of your dark god.
There are also heroes. A lot of them. This gives rise to a pretty important aspect - You generally, very strongly, want to maintain a low profile. You *can* have an orc warlord rampaging around and slaying heroes. It can even be a good strategy in some situations. Inevitably though, it won't be long before he's infamous and every hero in the realm goes to kill him. At the end of the day, you probably don't want to be the big villain that the chosen one and all of his bajillion friends will inevitably crush. Why would you when you can instigate a civil war and have the heroes fighting each other?
Anyways, it really leans into and looks at a lot of the fantasy good vs evil tropes from the reverse perspective. Cool game worth checking out. I'm sure there's a hell of a lot of ideas there that can be adapted into rpg form.
I get where you're coming from, but as a DM who only ever ended up in the role because noone else in my group is ever willing, the power to guide the story a bit is literally the only thing that brings the role any joy for me. I don't want to literally just be the background guy who builds all the content for the players to do with as they wish 100% while I take the backseat and have no agency. I already work in the service industry for my paychecks, I don't want to do it in my hobby too. Yknow? I like a balance myself between sandbox and a planned story. I build a general story chunk by chunk, with lots of room for player choice, but I still generally have a main idea for a plot focus. I just alter and build it around the player's choices actively, rather than hardline sticking to the first draft version that I come up with in the start.
the difference is that you wouldnt be presenting destiny .. youd be presenting consequences. And the story would be emergent .. as much a surprise to you as the players. I guess its just as weird and seemingly "unplayable" to us grognards that youd even WANT a railroad .. I mean .. why are the players there at all? railroad feels like watching a movie .. at least to me :) While I havnt sat in much 5e, what little Ive seen fills me with some pretty strange emotions .. at one table, there was maybe 10 players, they fell off and got replaced a lot .. and what we were doing, where we were going, and why .. nobody had a bloody clue and they didnt even care .. leveling up was ALL they cared about lol :) and the GM was reading a speech to us I kid you not IN ELVISH lol .. yeah that was definitely a single player game :)
You should try playing some other version of D&D-Basic or Original….not heroic play through the story 5e DnD….it is quite rewarding.
Railroading is okay with a n illusion of choice but steering the story-and giving you agency? Nah….
I build my game universe like a clock, cog by cog, with the goal of having the clock run itself.
I am the GM. I am not "just another player".
you’d be surprised how much agency the DM has in a sandbox campaign, because you are also a player who controls everyone else.
@@theaverageglasses6197 lol .. yeah see to my grognard eyes .. If what youre sayin is indeed the case .. you dont need players to support your single player game do you? really? what you want mate .. is an electric model train set :)
Our best ever campaign started when our Casey Jones DM failed to turn up one week. Sat without character sheets we twiddled our thumbs and then commenced the greatest sandbox game. Every character woke up without a memory in a strange city. The temporary self appointed new dm just created the world as we walked. Our ideas and goals were vital because he had done zero prep and everything (even the system itself) was being invented on the hoof. It was a grim European city ...weird photographs left in hotel rooms ...armed guards on the street ...we bluffed and faked ...exploring district by district and the GM listened carefully to our choices. He even watched movies after players said "oh cool, this is just like that film ..." to stuff. It was the ultimate RPG our group ever undertook and the steam train DM never managed to run a published adventure with us again.
Free League has a few sandbox games - Twilight 2k, Forbidden Lands - they're 'hex crawls' where each hex is chosen by the players ("hey, let's go HERE") and the GM either pulls the encounters/adventure out of their ass, or they roll on 10 random tables for random shit to happen.
Forbidden Lands is a fantastic game.
Ooh, gonna have to check it out.
Funnily enough, this is one of the reasons I love the New World of Darkness games like Vampre the Requiem. There are so many problems inherent in being a Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, or Changeling that there is practically no way to get too railroady... by their very nature shit is going to go off the rails when a feeding goes wrong or a pack pisses off the Spirit of the Chicago River.
That used to be true of D&D too. Just replace being a monster with loving a psedo-medival society, but gradually that stuff was removed. In fact WoTC's stated design goal in 3e was to eliminate everything that kept players from always being in dungeons or combat (while also making dungeons worse by removing the more robust time keeping and having no one on their team who can design a good dungeon.)
@@greasysmith3150 I've never played pre-3rd, but reading some OSR stuff I don't think I get that, because it seems like the only thing really referenced seems to be dungeons and combat. Maybe it was more of a culture or maybe I'm reading the wrong books. I've never run dungeons and always preferred political machinations and stuff like that and I found the skill system in 3rd to really open that up because there were rules in the system to support that
Sir, you are the first person I know who also likes NWoD.
@@Fwibos lol. My group plays a lot. The World of Darkness subreddit has a lot of us as well, although a minority. My group prefers the 1st edition while 2e is more common over there (the version with the tilts and conditions) but still
@@jasonGamesMaster most osr stuff is based on B/X what i said is more true of AD&D and slightly more true of BECMI (though becmi is a lot closer to B/X in that regard). It is also a culture thing imo, because BECMI is all about political machinations since you're expected to create your own kingdoms and such. BECMI also has a skill system though its an optional rule and i dont think you need it, just the reaction roles table at most and roleplay. The cultural part comes in with the fact the culture if play of OSR and early d&d is that anything not covered by the rules is up to the DM to decide which is why Ad&d has an explaination if bell curves and linear distribution with dice so the DM understands why asking for a 2d6 roll is different than a 1d12 when deciding how to do something. Theres also stuff the old roll 1d20 under your attribute to do a task related to that attribute that a lot of people used and is sort of how BECMI's skill system works. This is why you'll find a lot of people find 3e restrictive because the expectation is that you can do whats on your character sheet rather than what makes sense. Horatio was a Baker before he was an adventurer so he should have no trouble making a cake vs. Horatio spent 5 skill points on baking so he can roll to make a cake.
The old school systems that can be found in the OSR are pretty much all about Sandbox campaigns!
Years ago when I tried running a sandbox Cyberpunk 2020 game the players just kept sitting around the bar waiting for jobs and adventures to come to them. :/
Thanks for the video. Back in the day, sandbox was done via the hexcrawl. I've done sandbox, linear play and various iterations in-between and found strengths/weaknesses to each. My experience is that the advantage of linear play (especially pre-bought adventures) is that they are easy to DM and work well for players who are willing to hop on the plot train, but is quite restrictive in agency and can even discourage player engagement. Sandbox gives maximum verisimilitude, flexibility and player agency, but it requires a LOT of DM prep, player engagement, and initiative to create/drive the plot. Sandbox games can also overwhelm players with choices. I tend to run a mixture, where there are multiple clear choices but the players decide which path to walk and which 'rides' in the 'theme park' they want to go on. That combination of agency and direction seems to work well for my table. YMMV. Thanks again for the great content.
Sandbox play is a staple of the OSR, and you'll even find some sandbox settings published by some OSR publishers. In fact, that was the norm when I first started playing in the 70's and 80's, and it's still how I run my games. If you want a terrific in-depth treatment of how to do a sanbox, look up "The West Marches Campaign" for a series of blog posts on the subject.
I’ve had 3 sandbox campaigns over my years as a DM and those three were my absolute favorite games I have ran. The worlds were fleshed out significantly, with every major player or faction having a formulated agenda and plan to achieve said agenda. I had dozens of templated NPC types that I could pull for any particular individual the party ran across, so that every NPC could feel fleshed out. The players created businesses and organizations to forward their objectives, sought patrons for resources and every faction’s agenda moved forward in a way applicable to the events occurring due to the players. I miss that play style.
This video made me realize I only run sandbox-style games. My main method is as follows: have some kind of idea of an interesting premise we didn't try yet (usually in a lucid dream) and discuss it with potential players; once we have agreed on what we'll be doing/starting with, we get on with gaming and I make shit up ad-hoc for the first session. Then, I think about the story line and what the players are interested in and mostly just lucid dream ideas. Some fit right away into the stories the players are creating, some don't and I leave them alone (i.e.: do not try to force them in)... As a good writer once said, the good ideas bubble up again to surface of your mind later on their own anyway.
In a game I'm currently running, the players are now finally in a situation where I can insert an idea I had like nearly 3 years ago when we started. The idea was too cool to forget about but not appropriate for the game & players/NPCs then; feels rewarding to be able to include it now! :)
Brian Blessed is the best part of Flash Gordon, hands down
Funny. Was just watching Black Adder the other day, thinking the same thing.
True sandbox is boring, I prefer what I am going to call the “Gavel Pit”. I take the principles of sandbox gaming, use the player interaction as a feedback loop. Then I design lore, world events, etc.
Most of my world design is done at the table, I do this almost algorithmically. If the players are pushing the campaign towards stealing and looting, I create layers of the world to support that. If players want to own an inn, I create layers of the world to support that.
It’s not quite a sandbox because the story naturally becomes more linear as it forms around them. They may get swept up by the events and drama that they caused, making their choices more limited because of previous choices. At times they may have full sandbox experience and at times they may be trapped in more linear progression.
Either way, everything I do is basically creating where the rubber meets the road. Players determine the path, I make the path interesting through improve and planning.
I should also note that I design full maps every session and spend a minimum of 10 hours of prep for a fully immersive world where we have “representative maps” for everything.
The key when you make maps is to let players know that the map is just a representation and there is a lot not represented on city/battle/regional/world maps. My players seem to have a blast and do some insane things that leave us all having a good time. For all those that say they enjoy linear the best to enjoy GMing….linear gameplay is a trap. You end up stuck in your own stories and have less freedom then keeping it semi-sandbox. Trust me. Adaptability > Linear story. That goes for you as well. Prepare world, not story. Partially form plot hooks for things you and the players would like. Let their investment in your world guide your decisions and you will have fun because of how engaged they are with your mutual story.
Just my thoughts.
PS. I have anti-roleplaying players who are now Grade A roleplayers due to this style of play.
Always excited to see a video from you! One of the very few people in the community who isn't afraid to call things as it is. :)
Thank you!!
After 30+ years DM'ing, I unashamedly say I fall into the "both" category then. I have offered total open freedom to my players in the past and it ended up sometimes being a roadblock for them. If you make a lot of choices on offer to allow players to pick and chose what they would like to get involved with, I feel the games have more than often run more smoothly. I do have constraints, you cant give the players total freedom as if you pick the wrong type of person to play, it could end up ruining the game for other players and the DM as they make.. you know.. "that character".
i prefer sand box games but i always start them out as theme park games. i recently ran ghosts of saltmarsh and realized a lot of the stuff in saltmarsh lined up really well with a homebrew i was making. so now my campaign starts with ghosts of saltmarsh and evolves into a sandbox where the players sort of know what's at stake and who is the bad guy is but the direction can go in any way they wish.
The best three sandbox modules I have read are “Neverland” by Andrew Kolb, “OZ” by Andrew Kolb, and “The Dark of Hotsprings Island”.
Notably, none of them published by WotC…Tomb of Annihilation COULD be a good sandbox as long as you drop the death curse and fix the random encounters and point of interest density.
Linear/branching adventure paths can be a ton of fun! But I do prefer sandboxes.
With Sandboxes, one problem I see regularly is that GM’s make them without conflicting factions and rumors surrounding some things going on around the area. Just dropping players into a world without anything going on is a recipe for disaster.
the first part of Rime is sorta sandboxy, but really the best sandbox "official" modules come from way back in the day like L1 Secret of Bone Hill. Notably, the old Judges Guild Wilderlands of High Fantasy stuff was entirely sandbox based too
@@user-jq1mg2mz7o absolutely. B2 and X1 have a much more open world feel (of the ones that I have read) and others are great to plop down into your sandbox as toys to play with if your PC’s pursue them. I have read L1 but it was a good number of years ago…I remember it looking quite good!
This is where it pays to outline a few 'movers and shakers' in the setting and their relations to each other, with a couple of vague 'things they're trying to do' attached. Then see what the players get interested in. Some games like Godbound have a whole 'faction' system to help with that kind of thing, so you can every so often throw a few dice to see what said movers/shakers other than the PC's have been doing and how well that's been going for them. If the PC's hear that the kingdom they happen to be in is at the brink of war over trade disputes originating not far from their location, odds are decent they'll poke their noses in.
I think both linear( not railroads) and sandboxes have their own benefits which can both end poorly or great. Railroads often lead to a combat only game or worse a railroaded combat game at the worst.
I agree. I like to have a sandbox style game with linear or better phrased "story points" that create a story arc the players can find and purse if they want to or not. If the story arc is important to the game and the players refuse it, then have npcs run it as needed and use the story arc as world building instead.
1. Part of the issue with setting up sandboxes is this idea that the GM just always takes a back seat... not EVERYTHING has to be driven by the players, non-player activity can still happen. Worlds/Stars Without Number style faction turns, weather occurs & changes who knows what, there is still a BBEG & they will still BBE even if the players choose not to confront him. Too many folks I think get attached to this idea of sandbox where the PCs are the sole driving narrative force, when really the core principle should just be not artificially constraining player choices & putting them down a linear series of narrative events. That still leaves room for a lot of GM creativity.. although it still leaves wanna-be novelists & screenplay writers in the cold.
2. Another reason GMs are reluctant to setup sandboxes is the time & effort involved... you have to have material prepped for whatever & where-ever the players are taking the game... if they go over the mountain you need to know what's on the other damn side. Logistically this snowballs fast. Adding linearity (& pre-written adventures, most of which tend towards linearity) makes things easier. This I think scares away even the GMs who would WANT to run a sandbox campaign.
My creative style for putting together a world for my games is sort of open theme park style, giving the players nearly infinite directions to take the party. There is a BBG (or 5), but I set it up in a way that the players can do what they want when it comes to choosing quest to go handle. It also allows me to literally create a whole globe as the map, with various notes for each town/city/burg on the world.
I like the idea of a hybrid sandbox with a broke down railroad in it. You can follow the broke down railroad and see where it goes, or you can go off the beaten path and see what's out there. :)
That sounds cool!
There was a time, back in 2nd AD&D and even into 3rd edition when WotC actually released extensive world setting books. I would use these as the ground work for the sandbox games I would run back in the day. The problem with 5th Edition (and it started in 4th) was they stopped coming out with rich, in depth world settings and came out with adventures set in a campaign world (like Curse of Strahd).
Back when I was in school, it was easier for me and the groups I ran to create sandbox experiences. The last few years, I have found that it has been harder to make the time to put into creating a setting to do sandbox and I have also found that a lot of the players I have DM'd haven't cared for doing sandbox...they rather have solid goals/hooks provided and to go after the big bad guy. I have enjoyed using Paizo's adventure paths as they have elements of sandboxing, but yes, they probably fall more into theme park style.
Would I love to go back to sandbox gaming...probably, but it would really depend on the others at the table. As I have become a forever GM, I need players that are willing to put in the work that is necessary to make a sandbox work and unfortunately, my experience has been that out of 4 players at the table, I'll have one that really would embrace sandbox and the other 3 who would less inclined (or in other words not give me enough to work with to make a sandbox viable).
This vid makes me nostalgic. In my younger years sandbox was our norm. But as we got older and had more responsibilities it wasn't just number of sessions that suffered but how much prep time I had. World building and knowing the options for monsters are hard and take time so I began leaning more on prepublished adventures. As mentioned in the video the players see that and don't want to be disruptive to it so try harder to follow along.
The games are still a lot of fun, but don't have any of the wild stories we still share from the old days.
The game that most breaks TTRPGs to me is the "secret theme park", where the GM knows what they want the plot to be but won't tell you. 😖
You need to have players that want to write their own stories or sandboxes don't work to well. I've tried to run open ended plot hooks everywhere sandbox games. Sometimes it works, but more often I get analysis paralysis and they can't choose or they literally want a railroad story.
That’s when the players see a giant disembodied divine hand pointing “this way you fools!” :D
That's exactly what happened to me in my last campaign. I wanted my players to decide what they wanted to do and where they wanted to go, leave what would happen next entirely on their hands, but they ended up confused and indecisive, I had to change the style from a Sand Box to a Theme Park.
It's hard, but sometimes you need to add some "DM"PCs with their own agenda to show them how to do it. Don't go overboard with it or you will end up being DM and PC in your own game.
I always run sandbox. One time, before RotS came out, a soldier tossed General Grievous' cape over his head and space docked him. In my current game, the players have a carnelian cube with 4 unknown sides and it's basically just sitting in a saddle bag. Random silver nameplate they found on a tomb though, that gets used every session.
They also found a partial dungeon map I drew and noted as if written by a failed adventurer. As a result of misreading "rope bridge" they named the party -The (Consensual) Nonconsensual Overpass Cult-
I DM 2 campaigns taking place in Exandria. Both of them started off on rails to get the group going. I tried sandboxing campaigns before, players were unengaged from the very beginning. No good.
However, both current campaigns flew off the rails within a couple of sessions. I never tried laying fresh rails in front of them. They’re in freefall now, landing is the players‘ problem now 😊
I normally don't put winged people in my fantasy games..... but the idea of a flying Brian Blessed Barbarian King makes me rethink this.
It makes me sad I can't get my players to watch Flash Gordon : |
damn, that is sad :(
@@ClockworkOuroborous Dang, If it wasn't for the Star Wars trilogy, the Flash Gordon movie would be my favorite live action Sci-Fi movie of all time!
I love railroad DMs! I figure out where they want us to go, what they want us to do, and I do it as quickly as possible. It's amazing what kind of concessions you can get from a satisfied DM. Oddly, none of my player friends ever figured this out, and I was almost always the DM. I also started doing sandbox games because they couldn't take a hint. But the few times I got to play, I was unstoppable!
If someone handed me a huge book, told me to read it, and decide what I want to do my first question would be: then why the fuck do we need you as a DM?
Most people, and I say this as someone who cut his rpg teeth on adnd back in the mid 90s in my teens, want to have a series of quests that they can solve on their own. What you (🙄) dismissively call a "theme park".
People don't want to do what you did: ruin the session via a lack of breaks/controls. That's why most systems suggest taking the pre made stuff, adding your own flare, but keeping it fairly on task.
I've been running games for a looooong time, and have adopted a hybrid model in which everything is informed and driven by the players, but also uses a persistent world to provide some scaffolding to build on, and modular set-piece encounters to make it a bit easier for me. Like many of the people here, my players lack the initiative to make a true sandbox viable. I dont know if this is something that happens with age or simply less time to play.
I totally agree! Thank you for making these videos...I love making it a sandbox at my table and only occasionally throw in a "theme park ride" when I need to change up the pacing or buy a little time for something else to be more well prepared. Sadly, I have run out of players who really understand and enjoy this style of play but thanks to you putting this out there maybe a few more have been prepared for a GM like me...(beause I KNOW there are more GM/DMs out there like me....)
I've run all three types. I use railroad if I don't know a group very well. It helps me figure out what each player is looking for.
Once I've gone through an adventure or two, I'll start a home brew where they get to decide much more.
I have multiple stories, NPCs working on things, and consequences for every action taken (good or bad).
Apocalypse world has a great way to do sandbox through making multiple Fronts that the players can choose to engage with or not.
lol one thing i've noticed from your videos is that if there is a "plot" or something happening in the background that the players will have to deal with themselves or it will come to deal with them, it's a RAIL ROAD!!!! arrhhhhgggg lol. Just something i've noticed for a while now.
Professor Dungeon Master at the DungeonCraft TH-cam channel has a single one page plot generator in his notebook which he argues can generate enough content to run a campaign for years. One page = Years of content. With books like that, who would make any money producing books?
Watching PDM and Questing Beast was like taking magic mushrooms to me; revealed a whole world i didnt know existed, and explaind lots of "odd" rules I didt get from 2e.
And Ive been dming for 20 years...
@@Dinofaustivoro His best rules hacks are throw out the rules.
The opposite of the Sandbox Game is not the Railroad...it is a Linear Game. I enjoy Linear Games and every single last Sandbox Game I have been a part of over the last 42 years has been a complete disaster, ending after a session or two due to no direction and everyone feeling like they were just floundering with no purpose or the GM having to improvise everything because it is impossible to be prepared when you have no idea where the characters will go, then the full improve game session with nothing ready just sucks, and everyone bails.
Current gaming group has been together for almost 20 years now, 100% linear games and everyone is loving it.
Dichotomies are so tired. And a bit lazy. I think it's fantastic that there are a lot of DMs and players who love playing sandbox games. Truly -- people should play in ways that bring them joy. This premise is why I get so aggravated when sandbox aficionados elevate their preferred gaming style by setting up false dichotomies and demeaning other gaming styles by setting up straw men to knock over with a smug harrumph.
Are there DMs who are frustrated would-be novelists and control freaks? Are there play groups who struggle to make independent decisions without a heavy hand? Yup. Totally. But to use these cases as a way to insinuate that any campaign that involves an overarching narrative trajectory is a "railroad" (or a "theme park," constructed as a so-called middle way that really isn't) is really the worst kind of entitled gatekeeping. Is is possible -- possible? -- that many players are brought to the game because they want to *co-create* an epic story with a DM, in a world which involves both a big world where important events transpire that demand the attention of heroes as well as a world where the choices and agency of PCs shape that world and the larger story. It is possible -- possible? -- that imagining the game as collaborative storytelling is not the "fault" of controlling DMs, unengaged players, and/or a conspiracy of corporate overlords in which an ideology of "narrative direction" is an oppressive hegemony imposed by railroad robber barons to keep the proles ignorant.
Maybe many players would rather imagine themselves as epic hero characters in Lord of the Rings, the Earthsea Saga or the Wheel of Time rather than in Minecraft or The Sims.
(See what I did there?)
Of *course* well-run sandboxes are more than The Sims -- and well-run campaigns with a broad underlying narrative arc with BBEGs are more than 1980s AD&D modules. Can't we imagine campaigns with worlds like Skyrim, where the availability of endless variation is always there and available, but there is still a main plot thread that, one way or another based on player choices, is the actual point of the campaign experience where players can work hard to ultimately achieve a satisfying victory? Indeed, visual examples in the video of complex characters with individual motivations that run contrary to the primary direction of the protagonists (like Boromir?) came from sources like LOTR... which is a freaking *story*.
TTRPG campaign styles are a continuum, not a dichotomy. If players enjoy a gaming style that you don't, maybe consider celebrating that they find joy in their games rather than being so goddamn judgmental.
If you want sandbox campaign support, there was stuff like that in the '90s. A lot of the 2e D&D city books, and to some extent also VtM city books skew that way - some also have an obnoxious railroad, but they still give you a web of NPCs with goals and relationships such that you can often discard the railroad and just run the characters. Those VtM books are how I first discovered a more freeform sandboxy play style.
Great points in this video. I just realized the just-started PF2e campaign I'm GMing has all the makings of a sandbox campaign and instead of feeling nervous about not having "a plan", I'll just lean back and see what my lovely crazy players will make of it. Thanks for the encouragement!
Who else remembers the craziness that was artifacts in the 1st Ed DMG? Each group could have significantly different version of the same artifact from each other group because the powers were left to be determined by the DM for the particular game. I mean…. The Eye of Vecna had 2 minor benign powers, 2 major benign powers, 1 major malevolent effect, and 1 prime power ; all to be decided by the DM from tables of suggestions.
You'd better the find that humble ant pretty quick!
Actually had a DM take those artifact tables from first edition and totally randomized them for 5th edition.
Railroads are very effective at moving people (and goods) around the landscape. But in the game world, as well the real world, railroads work well when there is a whole network of them moving people and goods in all sorts of directions. Delivering people or goods to where they might be needed. Although occasionally the trains are ambushed by bandits and the tracks torn up by rebels, or that bridge ahead mined by dynamite. Players tend to need destinations to aim for in a game, and the best destinations are the ones that interact with the world. Whether that be supplied by the players or hinted at by the gamemaster. Especially at the beginning. The important thing to remember is consequences, and building on them.
Of course the most fun sandboxes are those where you have multiple groups of player(s) moving around the same campaign world doing their things. And watching as their interactions collide and create things you could never imagine.
As someone who has played in both sandbox and linear campaigns, as well as ran campaigns alternating between linear and sandbox, I have found that the most interesting structure of campaign for both the player and the GM is not purely sandbox nor purely linear; rather, a mix of both that leans toward the sandbox side. Specifically, the campaign starts with all of the characters having a common goal that they work to achieve throughout the whole campaign, and the characters pursue that goal however they please. This gives the campaign a direction for the players without limiting how they achieve their goal.
This way, the GM is not completely dependent on the character to make decisions like in a sandbox, and the players all have at least one common goal that encourages the party to work together to complete. As long as it is made clear that this is the primary goal for every character, the players can build their characters around that goal so the players don't feel like their characters are in situations that they would not want to be in.
I'm with you on this and I granularize this down to session-by-session. I have found that offering 2-3 pre-scripted options along with "squirrel" (the PCs chase down their own agendas) works best. This gives the players both agency and focused goals, while giving the DM direction and limits on required prep.
It isn't D&D related but I GM'd a long-running Dungeon World game (which is sandbox by its nature) and the biggest issue I saw was with continuity. We played once per week and, by the time the next session rolled around, the players' motivations had evaporated in the real life interim. This led them to being erratic and to doing semi-regular one-eighties. This only magnified over the longer term. I would throw reminders at them, have a "previously in Dungeon World" recap and even took to transcribing the recorded game sessions - to little effect.
I'm all for sandbox games - just be aware of the challenges. In the end, as the GM, I asked to end the game and switch systems (I collect TTRPGs and was interested in trying something else out). I'm running a published adventure for literally the first time in my 40-year gaming "career" and it's like taking a vacation. Very little improvisation and ad lib - a nice break for the ol' duder's head.
Also as a DM that uses minis and table terrain, I have to be a little "rail-roady" at times. I give players agency on how to tackle a scenario but if I spent weeks painting and planning a dungeon crawl they can travel east across the plains, north through the mountains, west across the marshes, or south into the deserts, but they will always find themselves at the same cave with a stairway going down no matter where they go. It's easier to give players total agency when you are doing theater of the mind. Minis or even maps and tokens usually require a bit more planning.
Wilderlands of High Fantasy created by Judges Guild in 1976 is still the best sandbox world ever created. It is seeded with dozens and dozens of hamlets, villages, towns, the City State of the Invincible Overlord, the City State of the World Emperor, as well as animal and monster lairs, all located across sixteen, very large hexagon maps. I’ve been running games there for forty-plus years for numerous groups. I use an adventure matrix surrounding the starting point and set the PC’s loose. Unfortunately, over this time, I’ve found that D&D breaks down around 7th-10th level and so I’ve rarely continued a campaign beyond that point. Your videos are superior!
Genuinely curious; what do you mean by Adventure Matrix?
@@Arnkel Thanks for the inquiry. An adventure matrix, as I understand it, is in opposition to a railroad, or linear campaign arc. I develop nodes, usually nine boxes, containing adventure locations relating to the main antagonist and his evil plans. The PC’s are introduced to the plans with an inciting event, and if they get involved, clues from that encounter can lead them to two or three other locations. You, as the GM, don’t know which one they’ll pursue, but those locations will also lead to other locations. This method doesn’t require you to have everything written up, and can prepare only what the PC’s decide to investigate. There are some D&D video creators on here that can do a better job explaining it than I have. This method gives the player’s more agency over what they want to do.
I like the sandbox style with themes. I generally float in story and encounter s previously concocted, but altered based on what the they players choose to do and where theY choose to go. It makes it exciting for players and the dm, because we can never really know what the PC will do
A pre published sandbox adventure is impossible to publish. By it's very definition, it relies on improvisation on the part of the dm. The world campaign book(s) are the closest you can get,
You did, however, miss out a fourth option: The Narrative Game. There, the dm runs a plot, but it's entirely up to the players whether they engage or not. Regardless, the plot keeps going according to the timeline that the dm has worked out according to the initial adventure and modified for any PC actions (usually, this would be delays, although it would be possible for a party to actually help the villain). The party may be right in the centre of things if they followed the clues or instructions they were given, or they may witness some of the resulting actions of the villain's henchmen... or just hear muttered rumours at the tavern, including how the "hired bunch of adventurers" ran away like cowards. Heck, if they ran away from the plot they were handed, then that plot may succeed or fail. If it fails, the resulting slaughter will be on the party's hands potentially and, if they accepted payment for the job, they now have an annoyed ex-employee who wants their money back, so the party now has a new adventure, one of their own creation.
You also get to play with alignments of various party members, after they stood by and allowed the slaughter of innocents, without even trying to help. Worse still is if they are identified as having bailed, instead of helping. Wanted posters everywhere, being barred from guilds and taverns and generally shunned by society. If they try to strong-arm someone (and someone will... there's a hothead in every group), they'll have made things worse and may even have good NPCs hunting for them.
You can also move planned encounters around, too... if they deserve another way to reengage with the plot. Nobody will know except you, if they waste too much time, they'll be witness to a localised "end of the world " event where all they get to do now is try to get out alive... and get to tell everyone that it was their fault.
And party splits resulting in TWO factions?? I wish... in my experience, they either suspend some individuality and work as one, or end up going off in ones or twos...
But proper sandbox games require experience, the ability to think on the fly and time between sessions to reevaluate things according to the players' actions. That's not something you can box up and sell. Especially since printed modules are primarily for beginner dms or those who don't have time to keep adjusting their adventures for repercussions of player actions.
You describe the way I have DMed for more than 45 years, I like to design a world with very brief descriptions. Focus in on a single region with more descriptions. Focus even more on a starting area with even more descriptions. Build several NPCs who will mostly be somewhere in the beginning area at some time. Create several "dungeon" areas that are filled in, knowing at least 70% will never be touched by the PCs. Create groups with various things going on, some that tie to other groups and some that tie to other regions. Most of this will never be touched by the PCs. Think of it like background for a novel that has not even been plotted out yet, let alone written. Hold session 0 (we didn't call it that back in the day, we called it "rolling up characters"). I usually have a handout with information that all the PCs should know already, some higher level info about the beginning area. Give some individual information known by each character based upon their back story (key here, only the player of each character knows that specific information and it is up to them to decide whether they share with the group or not).
Then turn 'em loose and let them do what they will. If they go somewhere or do something you have nothing prepared for, make it up as you go and take copious notes for insertion into your world/campaign descriptions. You can just drop in an encounter area from a module or a one shot. I purchase so many modules I know I will never use entirely for this purpose (which is why I LOVED The Dungeon magazine back in the day). You can create random encounters. Perhaps that random bandit cadre they encountered as they decided to move to a different region that you haven't fleshed out much is a go between for a group in the beginning region and a group that will be in the region to which they are moving. Maybe that group of gnolls in the gnoll camp you stole from Module XYZ is a recon patrol from a group planning a raid. Your imagination is the only block here and so long as you can devise interesting things in your mind to tie things your PCs do together with your notes and thoughts, you make the character actions even bigger than they can imagine, you will start to develop your side of the story by the seat of your pants and the characters will have more input into the overall plot than even you have. For me, DMing like this has always been the way.
My pre made adventures, like dungeons, used to be mostly generic and not tied to a location until the players discovered it, when I'd note the location of the map in my notes. Saves on the work that way. 😊
I think "session 0" is between rolling and actually playing... the old "ok, so what is your character aiming to do and why is he adventuring?" Sessions that us old schoolers used to have.
@@BFalconUK I always did that when rolling up characters. Usually did the roll up alone one on one with a player. Works great for helping to formulate the campaign as well as you get the individual desires of each player and can incorporate it all together.
One thing about a Sandbox Campaign that needs to be said is, Every player, can pursue their own goals wildly different goals, at the same time
12:30 But I like skeletons and robbing the villagers graves is the easiest way to source them. Damn railroad games are tough on necromancers 💀
I also like my games abandoned halfway through.
I stopped 13.54 mins in to say this..
My Dearest Lass.. tisk task tisk.. I hath fallen undt love with yew until this video. 😢. You disappoint me so! Here's why.
I've been at this DM thing since ohhh abut 1982? Over the decades I've DMd/been a plyr in countless campaigns. Maybe I'm in the minority here but DnD wasn't my main gig. Life was, growing up to be a family man was, becoming an engineer was. And I can say this for sure: I've been one of the best improv and planning DMs my players ever had, (maybe they lied to me?😅) and it takes 50 blue million hours a week to be a sandbox DM vs the 4-5hrs/it takes to be a planned encounter/module, DM. Go look it up thar be stats for it milady. All my players had lives to lead outside DnD. They didn't have time to get into their characters so intensely as to spend more than 1-2 hrs ACTUALLY PUTTING TIME INTO THEIR CHARACTERS.
All this crap needs to be talked about EVEN BEFORE SESSION 0. Then players & DMs can decide what THEY Collectively want out of they game.
As A DM I let my players know that I have devised at least 5 major plot scenarios with as many as 9-10 subplots. (Yes it does sound like a novel doesn't it.)
But here's the rub(bish?) My players always felt like they were being railroaded! They knew that ole DM Steve had done the work and they had 5 major railroad lines with 9 or 10 tiny lines on their monopoly board.
Lastly.. and I'll leave you with this my lovely...
If the players are actually coming together, (either doing whatever they want, or being "herded") they're being successful and you know what comes with success baby doll? POPULARITY & RESPONSIBILITY. 😊 Eventually they'll start out at 3rd level, become a wonderful team, make it to say 14th level THEN THEYLL START TO GET REAL JOBS for realms saving adventures. That's why I've had more than 50 players and 16+ campaigns in my 4 decades of being a storytelling DM. Let them do what they want st lower levels then insure they have fun at higher levels because kids... realms-saving is where it's at. Not this baby sandbox crap..
I still love ya tho.. You're my favorite.
Steve C
the publisher factor in this discussion is much larger than we think: it is in wotc's interest to publish railroads because they get to choose and decide what kinds of games and "content" they can sell and thus market to players. you couldnt sell Strahd action figures if the module was "ravenloft sandbox" where Strahd could be totally irrelevant to the paths the players take or killed off by background machinations between equally un/important NPCs in ravenloft. this profit motive heavily skews wotc into the direction of railroads. you mentioned this at the end with the vecna example and it's 100% true
there's also i think the video game aspect to it. limitations of video game programming in the old days have bred a certain mentality to how a player should interact with the game, and that mentality has continued to modern games and then backwashed into newer players of ttrpgs.
All my games have had some element of sandbox. I've only ran 2 complete campaigns that were 99% sandbox. A post-apoc road warrior type campaign and the one I'm running now in a shattered multiverse. Sandbox is my font of inspiration as the players generally wind up setting their own hooks.
As an ADHD forever GM, sandbox campaigns are my *dream*. Think about it; no need to deliberate and despair as the players sidestep the material I've prepared, because they *literally* decide what happens next and all I have to do is come up with the now and immediate future possibilities which can be dropped or elaborated on as it becomes clear which way they're going.
Why I'm so sad about this though is normally my players see me as having to provide a compelling story whilst still allowing almost anything to happen. Nearest I came to perfection got shot down when what I thought was where I got the balance right, had the best time only to be told there wasn't really any point to the game.
My advice based on experience but also because I've not been able to test it works I also say your mileage may vary, in the session 0, make it clear that this is a sandbox and *they* are responsible for heading in a direction they want to, and have frequent ooc dialogue to make sure nothing is being RPd into a corner.
Regardless of your arguments, you said, "It's not ontologically wrong" and I had to subscribe. I've never heard that word outside of philosophy courses. I don't know as I agree, but damn that word needed to have been applied to D&D in some way. That's the Vancian way of game theory, ya know. Its like scrabble. Can't wait to view your backlist.
The Eric Satie music made me smile - it's absolutely the last music I'd think of as game play music, but now I'm reconsidering everything... ❤
I just started my first sandbox game, and I'm the DM. So, the timing of this video is serendipitous. I've sent it to my group and hope it will make this campaign, that has been going well, even better. I also wouldn't mind any other advice about taking on a Sandbox Campaign. Thanks!
This is where the value of underrepresented supplements like Acquisitions Inc. come in. With special player roles like "The Decisionist", there are in-game mechanics designed to help with out of game resolutions that reward the players for taking initiative. As opposed to the passive witness model of most games, where players wait to be lead on rails through the DM's funhouse (D&D Cartoon anyone?). Tie this in with a plethora of NPC's and locations the players will want to return to, both liked and disliked, and the Sandbox model can sing.
I’m just not that kind of service top.
Give me theme park style campaign or let’s play a miniatures skirmish game like Frostgrave instead.
I'm a DM who has built his own world, a sandbox of sorts (as I love to improv and think on my feet). The group is allowed to plot their own course. What I found important to keep the game going is to make sure that it is a living world that continues to move forward regardless of what they do (though how it moves forward is based on the group's decisions to a large extent). I found without the world moving forward on it's own is that the group loses focus and the group has less fun.
Man, love Railroads. Sandbox games are mostly bs players tell each other. There are no sandbox games in the real world, only players that think they are in a sandbox game
Anybody interested in a sandbox game should check out Forbidden Lands, it's pretty much designed for just that.
I love people who complain about rail roady games. Its great when problem players expose themselves.
I've either run or played in a handful of sandbox campaigns in the last 10 years or so. Most fell apart after 3-6 months. Often the players couldn't grasp that they were supposed to drive the narrative forward. Or 1-2 players would take the initiative but then the remaining players would be either indecisive or say nothing at all.
It got to the point where I began wondering if D&D... as it is now... trains players to think in linear patterns, passively waiting for WotC or the DM to give them something to do, instead of fostering creativity.
Been playing in a consistent campaign world (with multiple GM's) for over 25 years. We have all invested in this long story (both as 'good guys' and as 'bad guys' acting in opposition). As such we effectively need to have a theme park, as there is a lot of investment in time and effort. We did get a new GM at one point, and he immediately tried to derail the entire world order. If we play true sandbox then we will not be playing our Greyhawk. Works for us.
Discord, I think there is a cream now that will clear up your case of Vecna.
I used to think squirrel fighting was just exploitation of arboreal rodents, but then I saw the match between Squeaks McSqueakin' and Eep Eeepameep, and ever since I am a fan. The middleweight championships are where the true fights take place - heavyweight is just all power and no finesse, and lightweight feels like watching pipe cleaners wrasslin'.
i like running sandbox games. i did not realize that sandbox style weren't popular; it just seems more freeing
One of the things that will ruin a sandbox campaing the fastest is the type of player that doesn't really take the game seriously and just enjoys kicking shit over just to see what happens.
Omg, yes. In one of our Werewolf the Forsaken games we had a guy who went out of the way to piss off the spirits and the Pure AND the other Forsaken packs.... we ended up sacrificing him to appease the Spirit of the Chicago River, lol
The key there is consequences. If they kick shit over enough, some of that shit is going to kick back hard…
Why? You dont need to hold your punches. If they kick the wrong shit they could easily get their foot chopped. No PC is essential...
So, running a sandbox doesn't mean just letting a player do anything they want. If a player is going to take an action that is going to negatively effect everyone else at the table, it is okay to stop, and see if everyone else is on board.
When I see moments of conflict like that crop up, I look for a player who is obviously annoyed at what the F-Around Player is doing, and say "F-Around is about to Find Out. Are you doing anything to intervene?" This usually at least gets the conversation going.
If you have a whole table of F-Around guys, well, congrats, you are now running an Evil Game and can start catering to that. Let them be the villains they are acting like. They'll probably think it's hilarious when things finally catch up to them as long as they feel like it's fair.
If it's only one guy causing problems, and he won't get on board with everyone else, well, maybe don't invite that guy back.
@@johnathanrhoades7751 yeah. Definitely. The surest way for a GM to derail a sandbox is to not enforce those consequences
@Dungeons & Discourse Could you create a video instructing how to create characters with their own motivations for a sandbox campaign that are going to form a cohesive party to work together rather than each character wanting to go their own way individually with no interest or common ground with the rest of the party?
Sure! That sounds like fun! :)
As a GM I find I'm not good enough at free style for full sandbox. It also requires more prep which may not then be rewarded. As a player, I like to feel like I'm in a film or TV show. I like some direction. Using backstories often aids in shaping a story around the players.
I rescued two orphaned squirrel babies last year and hand-raised them. They have a large dog kennel cage lined with wire mesh for a home and I will absolutely attest that Squirrelly WWE Cage Matches are highly entertaining daily events. (If I released them they would be eaten in a day. Especially Sandy, she's way too domestic now.)
I've always run a sandbox in every game I run. I've played in railroad campaigns and have enjoyed about half of them. It's not inherently bad to railroad.
i agree! It's a matter of taste, but I have the most fun when we engage with the things that separate TTRPGs from other forms of play - namely the open, improvisational nature of TTRPG games
There is another option to satisfy GM worldbuilding AND allow for sandbox. It's the one our current GM uses: "The world is happening around you whether you interact with it or not. Do your own thing, or get involved in the world events (on any side, or create your own "side"). Both are fine. The GM can tell a story that is happening, and flesh out both this information, and the world in which it resides. This can be either tangential to, or woven into what the players are doing. Either way provides the players with a believable world that doesn't pause until the player presses "go" on the quest. "No need to rush, we'll get there in the nick of time no matter what we do" is not a thing in a world like that.
As well as my last comment, just wanted to say separately that your videos are great, entertaining and I feel you voice my own opinions in a way I chuckle at. If as a fellow forever GM you want to do a remote sandbox campaign I'll happily oblige (you may need to recruit more like-minded players but I can imagine that would also be an entertaining montage) :D
All true. The main problems I've seen with running a true sandbox is i) players don't set their own direction and bumble around, and ii) it's just a lot of work of the GM who can't prepare a scenario (much) in advance. Also, the game mechanics don't lend themselves to it - there are so many loopholes in the rules that allow an adventuring party to make money without any adventuring, that they all just go down the organised crime route!
To be fair to WoTC, the second part of ToD, Rise of Tiamat, actually has the potential to be a somewhat of a sandbox - with alternative paths being presented by a Council that represents Patrons, and can set some direction, if the party can't decide what they want to do. There are a number of set piece encounters that are on the "story path" but others that can be slotted in against a path of the players' own making. Unless you completely prevent player agency, and just treat it as a bunch of Patron adventures, It's much more work for the DM to run this part vs. the very linear game of the first part, Hoard of the Dragon Queen.
I start a game out as a theme park. It gives the players structure and direction. The players then take that and go off in their own direction, morphing the setting into more of a sandbox.
The trick is not to force a plot down someone's throat. If they're not interested in it, slowly walk it off stage and replace it with another one. Repeat, giving the sandbox kind of a "oh, there's other stuff happening in the world besides us" feel.
I balance this by making kind of a project timeline for every villain. Every plot out there marches along to its own schedule, and if the players interact with it, it foils it or moves the goal posts. And if they don't care, then they just hear about it later. Because that story I wanted to tell as a GM... if none of the players want to hear it, then its not worth telling at the table.
I've always thought the best campaign is a sandbox with "story points" for an overall story arc and/or mini story arcs.. This lets players do their own thing but also gives an outlet for the DM's story. I think this gives the best of both worlds.
I have been dming since last century, I would run a session 0 but also an adventure 0. The adv 0 would start as a railroad, but then give more and more options to the point that I could tell how the party/player group wanted to play. I would then switch to Railroad, theme park or sandbox.
My Fav are sandbox with some theme parks inside. You could leave a railroad mid way, then later on it would have consequences.
Maybe there is a huge pent up demand from players for "pure" sandbox DMs. You describe something that, when done well, has the potential to be an exquisite, premium experience. If only there were enough "skilled" DMs out there willing to devote the vast time, energy, and (yes) money required to meet the expectations of the players with this pent up demand. Hopefully these players will be able to find those few and precious DMs who are worth while, willing, and able to make this happen for them. And thank you so much for everything you've been doing lately on this topic-- setting the expectations of players to that much higher standard, where those standards in fact should be. We have to make sure that all those scrub DMs get the message, after all, and move away from their ultimately meaningless theme parks and railroads to this much better, much more rewarding (for everyone, really) mode of play. Truly, these last few monologues have shown a light on my own inadequacies and made me want to do better, to BE better.
Felt the need to clarify. My above response was heavily sarcastic. I think this take is seriously detrimental, both to new DMs, those thinking of DMing, and folks like me who have been DMing a long time. Really enjoy Discourse's takes on most other things... and it sounds like she's had an amazing gaming experience that she genuinely wants to share with the community. So I will give the benefit of the doubt that she doesn't mean to belittle all DMs except those who create the perfect soundbox world... and immense work that they do... and the pressures that they feel, made all the worse by an almost built in imposter syndrome and pressure to perform... but it certainly feels that way. I like the videos where the focus of the righteous, biting sarcasm and wit are the institutions and corporations that cause systemic issues in our hobby and prey on the community of players... not the players themselves. Okay... I'm done. I feel better now. Had a nice couple of hours of mowing my lawn. :D
I'm working on a sandbox campaign right now! And you're right about the players. I feel like I'm trying to pick the next fellowship of the ring.
Sandbox games suck. They work for maybe 5 sessions before they just fall apart. I’ve spent 3 hours waiting for players to decide what to do. Then there are the competing conflicts. Go save the town from goblins or deal with the river dam that seems to always be breaking. Ok let’s debate. Also abandoned quests that lead to constant random encounters as the DM needs to fill space when players suddenly change directions. The best games are those where the players think they are in a sandbox but they really aren’t.
Our group prefered episodic predfined mystery related game sessions. Having run many I prefered to call my sandbox mysteries "a web of bread crumbs" which inevitably ended/or not with an ultimate resolution scene. Often, as usual, strands of the web were created by the players themselves often requiring GM improv not for the faint of heart....
I do try to have a sand box … but i wind up having numbered houses lol .. maybe I’ll make it they can choose multiple-paths..
Sandbox games are the only kind of campaigns that I enjoy running. Challenging the character’s beliefs and the players goals is my happy place. I’m a worldbuilder, and my worlds exist as a backdrop for the stories my players want to tell. This is the way.
This sounds like people need to look at the 'Henderson Scale' for how badly/far a campaign can go off course.
That Alexandrian rec is amazing. Subscribed and liked a bunch of your vids just for that.
How is it antithetical to rpgs when railroad adventures is precisely how the game was invented?
it is antithetical to all the strengths of a TTRPG
Your comment about pretty rare. I can think of at least ten campaigns I played with 6 different groups. 4 ended in the party killing itself and the other 6 fell apart because the quieter and more passive players were completely ignored and run over by the more aggressive players. Options are fine but there needs to be structure are its just a murder hobo fest of players gratifying themselves. A healthy mix of of sandbox with structure and support to move any kind of narrative forward has been my most memorable games. Also helps to get new, shy, or passive players immersed. A DM's job is really a challenge to provide the best compromise for everyone at the table.
I dunno, the lost omen line from paizo fulfills the need that you want. There are ideas for adventures, stats for monsters, and more importantly, available for the players to read and pull from as well for where they want to go and build characters with
I think the way I run campaigns and somewhere between a theme park and a sandbox. I provide the world that has its own rules. I put a lot of plot Hooks and calls to Adventure around. I create a couple big issues that will probably affect the players or something they care about even if they are ignored. Then I let the players decide what to do I have the world respond. The only thing I don't particularly like is if the players wander off the maps and preparations that I've done, but they can I'd with whomever they want, let the big bads destroy the town in the problems grow. They can try to rob the friendly neighborhood magic shop. They can try to become mayor of the town. I almost think that sandboxes are less about the campaign and more about the gamemaster's Style. I think a competent Gamemaster probably could take almost any module and effectively turned it into a sandbox though he might need to provide a lot of new content if the players really go in a strange Direction.
The best ttrpg book for "sandbox play" is called Scarlet Heroes.
The best ttrpg system for sandbox play is D100 Dungeon for solo or group play.
Hey guys, yesterday I had an idea. I ask ChatGPT to create me dozens of original random d100 tables for Critical Failures, Successes (Melee, Spell Casting, Ability and Skill checks tables), lvl 1-3 Corpse Loot and Chest Loot tables, Town & City Professions, Names, Personality, Random Character tables, lvl 1-3 Surface, Dungeon & Sea Encounters tables, Object of Intrigue tables, Artifacts and Relics tables and even a Divine Intervention table. They are amazing! I'm sure I'll think of more. I added some Basic/OSR artwork where it would fit, printed & laminated them all last night. Sandboxes are much easier to run on the fly when your well prepared!
Players often need direction. You give them open choices and they freeze. True sandbox takes good players and a very adaptable DM.
Sandbox games require players (and the DM) to be able make their own goals. This isn't a problem that is limited to D&D or TTRPGs. Even in video games, players complain if they are not given some kind of goal or direction. (It's a common complaint I hear about Terraria.)
I try to provide a goal for my players. Or several. But how the players go about it... I stopped, long ago, trying to craft a narrative. I try to write notes about alternate ways for a desired or key encounter to go, and, perhaps because of how my players play, I over develop the area. That NPC who lives on the edge of the village near the woods is mostly already fleshed out.
My players needed a goal to focus on, and towards.