Grain size in your sandbox?

[K]

Nah, I dont like this method. What if the players dont care for your story, or for political conflicts to begin with ? Then you have a setup that you find awesome yourself and will probrably have tons of fun running, but the same wont hold true for your players....

You are still thinking like a railroader.

To a sandboxer, the war between two political figures is just a bunch of opportunities. Do they investigate the intrigues and try to use what they find to gather allies? Do they hire themselves to a faction for hack-and-slash fun? Do they try to protect the people from the fallout from the war? Do they try to build a temple or a business while the city around them is being fought over by two ruthless tyrants? Do they simply compete with agents of the two forces who are trying to delve the same ruins for the same magic loot?

The possibilities are endless and it's the role of the DM to provide the backdrop for that to happen and to adjust to player actions. For example, if they loot a lot of the ruins that the Merchant Prince's forces were going to loot, they might tip the balance for the other guy or draw the Prince's ire so that he frames them for some attack.

[MisterDee]

What you need to run a good sandbox:

1-A metaplot that doesn't depend on the party to reach a tolerable endstate;

2-Background info (history/geography) that isn't utterly tied to the metaplot;

3-A willingness to ask the players "so, what do you guys want to do next?" at the end of every session;

4-Players that will give you useful answers to question #3.

------

Point 1 is fairly easy to do once you acknowledge it: you can't run a sandbox with your farmboy-to-demigod novel plot.

Point 2 is that binder of setting history and maps. History's fine if it's just history: but if everything that's written in it is tied to your metaplot, then you have an enormous chunk of content that is dry to read and pretty bad to the sandbox experience. Same thing with maps - it's cool to have different countries and cool locales, it's bad if you have the Desolation of the Final Boss as a prominent terrain feature.

Point 3 is hugely important. If you can't allow players to go off-rail from what you were planning to do, don't run a sandbox.

Point 4 is even more important. If your players are not able to give you directions, then your sandbox is going to be boring as fuck. "We fuck around picking fights in the tavern and wandering in circles looking for random encounters" is not an enjoyable evening.

[silva]

To a sandboxer, the war between two political figures is just a bunch of opportunities

K, I agree a sandbox-loving player will generally be more proactive and constantly in search for opportunities like that. I totally agree with you here.

But we shouldnt forget that before being a sandbox-loving player he is a normal guy like any other and will have personal preferences and wants from their gaming sessions, and this includes things like "Nah, I dont like politics, I prefer things more close and personal" or "Politics bore me, lets raid some dungeons" or even "Yeah, I love politics!". Thus the importance of the GM trying to pinpoint what their players want from the game before it starts - so he doesnt spend time building political setups when the players just want to infiltrate corps for paydata, or building corp infiltration setups when the players want political intrigue.

And of course, this is a ever ongoing process, where such measurement is made at each end of session/plot-arc or other downtime the GM prefers. Thats why I think games that make use of explicit flags are really handy for this, because they force players to say what they want from the game upfront.

[MGuy]

To a sandboxer, the war between two political figures is just a bunch of opportunities

K, I agree a sandbox-loving player will generally be more proactive and constantly in search for opportunities like that. I totally agree with you here.

But we shouldnt forget that before being a sandbox-loving player he is a normal guy like any other and will have personal preferences and wants from their gaming sessions, and this includes things like "Nah, I dont like politics, I prefer things more close and personal" or "Politics bore me, lets raid some dungeons" or even "Yeah, I love politics!". Thus the importance of the GM trying to pinpoint what their players want from the game before it starts - so he doesnt spend time building political setups when the players just want to infiltrate corps for paydata, or building corp infiltration setups when the players want political intrigue.

And of course, this is a ever ongoing process, where such measurement is made at each end of session/plot-arc or other downtime the GM prefers. Thats why I think games that make use of explicit flags are really handy for this, because they force players to say what they want from the game upfront.

Silva, did you read the entirety of what his post?

[Chamomile]

1-A metaplot that doesn't depend on the party to reach a tolerable endstate;

2-Background info (history/geography) that isn't utterly tied to the metaplot;

3-A willingness to ask the players "so, what do you guys want to do next?" at the end of every session;

4-Players that will give you useful answers to question #3.

Finding point 4 is much harder than I'd like it to be. I have no idea what I'll do if the group I game with right now ever falls apart.

[Antariuk]

3-A willingness to ask the players "so, what do you guys want to do next?" at the end of every session

I did that in a free-style (it's 'sandboxy') Eberron game I've been running for about 1,5 years now, and I got really tired of it because the players became passive in some ways and waited for me to do that. Right now its about 50-50, sometimes they tell me what they're doing next, sometimes I ask (and offer a few options if they seem totally lost), but most sessions endlings see a bit discussion about plans for the next time, which I am glad for. After reading about the West Marches campaign I totally know how I'm going to set up my next game, and I won't involve me asking any questions to my players about their next move.

[Laertes]

Finding point 4 is much harder than I'd like it to be. I have no idea what I'll do if the group I game with right now ever falls apart.

Players who genuinely like sandboxes are actually rarer than you think, and rarer than they think. A lot of people will talk excitedly about wanting a sandbox, until they actually play in one and realise that the responsibility of finding their own stories and motivations is something they'd rather not have.

I think a lot of the time when people say "I want a sandbox" what they actually mean is "I want the GM to lay out a linear game and then not get annoyed when I decide to deliberately derail it."

[ishy]

Players who genuinely like sandboxes are actually rarer than you think, and rarer than they think. A lot of people will talk excitedly about wanting a sandbox, until they actually play in one and realise that the responsibility of finding their own stories and motivations is something they'd rather not have.

That sounds like a DM failure. Way too often when DMs run a sandbox game, they either provide no information to the player ('find your own stories') or hide the information and expect the players to read their minds to find ways to interact with the world.
Basically, a DM needs to create ways for the other players to interact with the world in a sandbox game. If you just dump them into a city and ask players: "what do you want to do?", many players have no clue what their options actually are.

It usually works a lot better, if you provide information they can act upon or if you work with your players during character generation, so they can set some goals.

[silva]

What Ishy just said.

Silva, did you read the entirety of what his post ?

Yup, and I agree with it. I just quoted the part I disagree with.

[RadiantPhoenix]

I think a lot of the time when people say "I want a sandbox" what they actually mean is "I want the GM to lay out a linear game and then not get annoyed when I decide to deliberately derail it."

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=375555#375555

[hogarth]

Players who genuinely like sandboxes are actually rarer than you think, and rarer than they think. A lot of people will talk excitedly about wanting a sandbox, until they actually play in one and realise that the responsibility of finding their own stories and motivations is something they'd rather not have.

That sounds like a DM failure. Way too often when DMs run a sandbox game, they either provide no information to the player ('find your own stories') or hide the information and expect the players to read their minds to find ways to interact with the world.

How is it a GM failure that most players want to fight enemies, talk to NPCs and solve puzzles?

There is a minority of players who really care about "making an impact on the game world" or "collaborative creative writing", but in my experience many of those people end up as GMs anyways, so asking what they want as players is somewhat moot.

[ishy]

How is it a GM failure that most players want to fight enemies, talk to NPCs and solve puzzles?

Because it sounded like the players in that game had no clue how to find / make: enemies, NPCs worth talking too or puzzles to solve.

[hogarth]

How is it a GM failure that most players want to fight enemies, talk to NPCs and solve puzzles?

Because it sounded like the players in that game had no clue how to find / make: enemies, NPCs worth talking too or puzzles to solve.

Note that my list included only three things. Most players I know are less enthused about the fourth thing that you're implying exists: "Do some miscellaneous other stuff that you're not interested in, but that the GM requires you to do before throwing enemies, NPCs and monsters in your direction".

[ishy]

Ah I'm sorry, since you quoted me, I thought you were talking about something I said, instead of a random irrelevant monologue.

[Laertes]

That sounds like a DM failure. Way too often when DMs run a sandbox game, they either provide no information to the player ('find your own stories') or hide the information and expect the players to read their minds to find ways to interact with the world.

I think it's rather a failure of the way that we as a hobby think of sandboxes. People talk about "a sandbox game" as though it's the holy grail of gaming and it's the shining city on the hill that will be perfect for everybody. Then when people get there they discover that, you know, it's sort of nice but it's not really their thing. Due to the way we talk up sandboxes as being objectively the best thing rather than just a matter of taste, people often don't consider the possibility that sandboxes aren't to their tastes and assume it must be a GM failure.

I'm not saying it's not a GM failure at times. I'm just saying that I've run sandboxes where I've sat down the players and said, "okay, we're going to spend this entire session brainstorming a world that we're all excited about playing in and has lots of stuff in it", and they respond with "What? Dude, that's your job. I just want to be given missions."

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=375555#375555

Agree wholeheartedly. Running the wrong game for the wrong crowd is a basic error. It's why I get so annoyed with players who are unable to accurately tell me what sort of game they want.

I mean, fair is fair if you're a newbie and you don't know enough to know your own preferences; but if you're one of the "chargen is the game, play is just the exam to see how well you did at chargen" crowd and you tell me that you want to play an MTP-heavy political intrigue game, that's because you suck at communication and not because I suck as a GM.

[silva]

Due to the way we talk up sandboxes as being objectively the best thing rather than just a matter of taste, people often don't consider the possibility that sandboxes aren't to their tastes and assume it must be a GM failure.

True. I would say player agency is an objectively positive thing, specific styles (like railroading or sandboxing) not so much.

[Laertes]

True. I would say player agency is an objectively positive thing, specific styles (like railroading or sandboxing) not so much.

Player agency is objectively positive to a GM, at least to my style of GMming. I've met players who really dislike having agency, though. It takes all sorts.

[nockermensch]

I think a lot of the time when people say "I want a sandbox" what they actually mean is "I want the GM to lay out a linear game and then not get annoyed when I decide to deliberately derail it."

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=375555#375555

I think the most important question here is: LTR or RTL?

[RadiantPhoenix]

I think a lot of the time when people say "I want a sandbox" what they actually mean is "I want the GM to lay out a linear game and then not get annoyed when I decide to deliberately derail it."

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=375555#375555

I think the most important question here is: LTR or RTL?

RTL.

Also, because the posts it's based on (there are only three) are long, I split them up over multiple text boxes.

The first (Top-right) panel is virgil, the guy is Swordslinger, and the rest of the girl's lines are FatR.

[hogarth]

Player agency is objectively positive to a GM, at least to my style of GMming. I've met players who really dislike having agency, though. It takes all sorts.

I think the thought process goes something like this:

"If I let the GM lead me around by the nose, then I'll get to play in a series of cool encounters the GM has put some thought into ahead of time. But if I make my own choices about where to go, then I might end up with a boring random encounter or an encounter that the GM is clumsily forced to make up on the fly instead."

[Mord]

After reading about the West Marches campaign I totally know how I'm going to set up my next game, and I won't involve me asking any questions to my players about their next move.

West Marches? My interest is piqued; may I have a link?

[Red_Rob]

From the "Hexcrawl sandboxing tips" thread:

Obligatory link:

http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/7 ... t-marches/

I just had the opportunity to read this in its totality and, man, its a awesome piece of advice and tips for sandboxing.

Thanks Rob!

[Mord]

From the "Hexcrawl sandboxing tips" thread:

Obligatory link:

http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/7 ... t-marches/

I just had the opportunity to read this in its totality and, man, its a awesome piece of advice and tips for sandboxing.

Thanks Rob!

Thanks Rob!