Quote from: S'mon;714220re "having whatever you feel like happen"

I think you need to be careful to distinguish between "what I have already decided will happen, whatever the players now decide to do" and "what I now decide will happen, in response to player input". Both are "having whatever you feel like happen", but the former is Illusionism and the latter is not.

What about degrees?  E.g. "this villian will hate the PCs no matter what they do"

You're being inflexible (railroading), you're letting the PCs interact with the expectation that they can change things (illusionism), but you're not really restricting anyone's actions.

It's all grey to me.

Quote from: mcbobbo;714585What about degrees?  E.g. "this villian will hate the PCs no matter what they do"

That sounds like simple railroading. I suppose you could create a villain who hates everyone, but he'd either be ineffective or a manipulative psychopath type.

Creating an NPC with a requirement that he will have a certain disposition towards the PCs seems inimical to a sandbox game, and not something I would do. I often create villainous NPCs who the PCs end up allying with. Sometimes the PCs are also villainous, sometimes they're good guys allying with Stalin against Hitler.

Quote from: S'mon;714640That sounds like simple railroading. I suppose you could create a villain who hates everyone, but he'd either be ineffective or a manipulative psychopath type.

Creating an NPC with a requirement that he will have a certain disposition towards the PCs seems inimical to a sandbox game, and not something I would do. I often create villainous NPCs who the PCs end up allying with. Sometimes the PCs are also villainous, sometimes they're good guys allying with Stalin against Hitler.

I think your brush is too broad, because (I assume) you allow more leeway from your non-humans.

Typical sandbox dogma says that if you attack the adult red dragon at level 5, he eats you, but it isn't railroading.  Nor would it be to pre-determine that there's just nothing they will (likely) ever have to offer the dragon to convince it otherwise.

But perhaps on a human, it trips your railroading sensor.

Nope... There are places in my sandbox game worlds where there are no random encounters at all.

Quote from: mcbobbo;714643Typical sandbox dogma says that if you attack the adult red dragon at level 5, he eats you, but it isn't railroading.  Nor would it be to pre-determine that there's just nothing they will (likely) ever have to offer the dragon to convince it otherwise.

I don't need to predetermine that ghoul number 83 will never ally with the PCs. I determine its initial disposition and if the players somehow come up with an effective way to get ghoul number 83 on their side, so be it. I'm not thinking in terms of plots at all, so this "pre-determine that there's just nothing they will (likely) ever have to offer the dragon to convince it otherwise" just never comes up. I know the dragon or ghoul or alligator's disposition, possibly with the aid of a Reaction check (I like the BX 2d6 system) and it's open from there.

But of course you realize that said dragon has all the same entitlement to a personality that the villain from my post above does?

They're conceits.  Conceits with bad labels, at that.

But as you suggest, it's best to let the dice decide wherever possible.

I'll say it depends.

The smaller the area your sandbox is to cover (for example, you agree on a game that's about gangs fighting it out in Medieval City, as compared to a game where you are merchants flying Spacecraft 1000 in space), the less need for it there is. While a system of random encounters will add flavour (just to check once in a while if a random street peddler or pickpocket doesn't harrass one of the players), you can just prepare key NPCs with agendas and interloping plots, city's economy, and timeline of events "what will happen if players will not change anything", some things to do outside of the main plots, then give players the freedom to move around the city and involve themselves in city's life. Or, in the space game, if it'll be, say, heavily focused around economic game, you can just prepare an economy model for a part of galaxy.

On the other hand, some form of randomising encounters (not even necessary to stick to them, just something that'll give you an idea while you're out of them) will allow you to bring some flavour to the games (since rather than going "so you travel 14 days", you can go "after X days of travel, your scanners suddenly pick up...", and give you a quick way out when players radically go off the map.

Quote from: mcbobbo;714651But of course you realize that said dragon has all the same entitlement to a personality that the villain from my post above does?

They're conceits.  Conceits with bad labels, at that.

I'm not sure what this means.

Quote from: mcbobbo;714643I think your brush is too broad, because (I assume) you allow more leeway from your non-humans.

Typical sandbox dogma says that if you attack the adult red dragon at level 5, he eats you, but it isn't railroading.  Nor would it be to pre-determine that there's just nothing they will (likely) ever have to offer the dragon to convince it otherwise.

But perhaps on a human, it trips your railroading sensor.

I don't know what sandbox dogma this is or where you got it but it is by no means universal.

An adult red dragon might have a use for a party of mid-level adventurers depending on its intelligence and what goals it wants to accomplish.

The duller the dragon the more likely it will just eat first and not bother asking questions. Such an occurance wouldn't be a railroad unless the party had no options other than face the dragon.

I would add that allthough I greatly prefer encounters where non direct slaughter is a viable option, sometimes the Deathknight just wants to kill you, regardless of your winning smile.

I don't think a rare deadly unavoidable threat is off limits, but you don't want to do that very often, in my opinion.

The 'unavoidable' is the main problem.

Quote from: Bill;714755I would add that allthough I greatly prefer encounters where non direct slaughter is a viable option, sometimes the Deathknight just wants to kill you, regardless of your winning smile.

I don't think a rare deadly unavoidable threat is off limits, but you don't want to do that very often, in my opinion.

The 'unavoidable' is the main problem.

There are also varying degrees of "unavoidable". There is the classic unavoidable from a zero decision standpoint:

campaign begins, characters travel, rocks fall, everyone dies.

which is the kind of heavy handed killer DM that new school players seem to be so afraid of, but wouldn't last long with any players in most situations.

Then there is the unavoidable from a certain position that was arrived at by a number of (bad) player choices:

" Why do I have to fight a lich? I'm 1st level! "

" You decided to explore on your own while everyone else was resting, and gathering rumors."

" So"

" You thought the tomb of Thundal the undying sounded like a cool place to check out."

"Yeah"

" When you spotted an undead creature in ruined wizards robes, you attempted to sneak up on it and pick its pockets."

"Uh huh. And..."

" Roll for initiative."

Obviously both of these examples are extremes. What is actually unavoidable and what could be possibly avoided depending on player choice can be very different.

Most of these questions about deadly questions can be resolved by looking as if you were really there. If there was really a cave with a adult red dragon what would happen and why?

The error is placing things and treating it like a frozen moment in time coming alive only with the players come across it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;714760There are also varying degrees of "unavoidable". There is the classic unavoidable from a zero decision standpoint:

campaign begins, characters travel, rocks fall, everyone dies.

which is the kind of heavy handed killer DM that new school players seem to be so afraid of, but wouldn't last long with any players in most situations.

Then there is the unavoidable from a certain position that was arrived at by a number of (bad) player choices:

" Why do I have to fight a lich? I'm 1st level! "

" You decided to explore on your own while everyone else was resting, and gathering rumors."

" So"

" You thought the tomb of Thundal the undying sounded like a cool place to check out."

"Yeah"

" When you spotted an undead creature in ruined wizards robes, you attempted to sneak up on it and pick its pockets."

"Uh huh. And..."

" Roll for initiative."

Obviously both of these examples are extremes. What is actually unavoidable and what could be possibly avoided depending on player choice can be very different.

I meant unavoidable as in "Gm forces you to fight no matter what"

Quote from: mcbobbo;714134From a 'purist' standpoint, I don't think you can 'keep it in your head' and claim 'sandbox sainthood'.  

No, of course not - but this idea of sandbox purity that gets batted around occasionally is a load of crap.  People that wag fingers at someone for not passing their sandbox litmus test are just talking in circles.

Sometimes I use random encounter tables.  Sometimes I use random event tables.  Sometimes I pull something from a "list of notes/stuff I think should be in here somewhere eventually" based on the vibe at the table (if the crowd is looking for a light/comedic night, that's what we do).  I try to keep a 'world in motion', but you have to use common sense regarding whether a table result trumps your better judgment or whether you overrule a table. (Of course, why roll on the table in the first place if you're going to overrule it - just make a decision).

All that said, I think random encounters are an important component of sandbox play, but they aren't the be-all end-all.

Thanks for all the replies.

I was going to go back and opininate on all the post but the response was much more than I expected and most points were covered by someone else's reply.

I was just positing it as something I wondered about. I know how I plan to run it but having others introduce ideas was useful. I am not a purist by far so sandbox is just a label of convenience for the campaign. In my mind it fits the main criteria in that I have no major plot or planned encounters for the group. I am allowing the group to wander as it will.

Thanks again