Quote from: EstarThe successful sandbox campaign reached a point where the players have enough knowledge about the setting to where they feel they can make reasonable choices. The ones that failed where because the players felt they were just throwing darts randomly onto the hex map and going to that point. It seemed hit or miss to whether a sandbox campaign got that point where the players had enough knowledge to make reasonable choices.

Yes.  The Point of immersion where the player is making choices with 'in-game' logic, not rulebook or real world logic.  And as you said, one of the key points is the availability of in-game knowledge.

Quote from: Spinachcat;454228"Buddy Flick" D&D is a completely valid for many groups and "Sandbox" is in no way superior. I love sandboxes, but many players show up to the table to see what the GM has cooked up for them. Pro-active players are great, but they are not the norm in my experience.

A sandbox needs a resourceful GM who can create cool stuff on the spur of the moment. There are plenty of very good GMs who can't do that, but instead need time to craft their adventures. For these GMs, sandbox is a ton of work.

Wide open sand box is definitely more work intensive and while I really like that style of play, I have had a lot of fun going more episodic - it is a lower stress kind of game in a way. I think that it works the best if you are explicit about "ok, we're just going to assume this is the adventure of the week, are you guys on board?"

But then I tend to then run each "episode" as a mini-sandbox.

I think what I really rankle at as a player, and thus try to avoid as a DM, is the funnel effect toward how the episode might end -I would rather it start according to the PCs and have a fresh start from the next episode rather than have them be links in a chain that I can't avoid climbing.

Quote from: Phillip;454315The lesson: don't prepare plot lines.

Plot lines expire in short order.

Dynamic environments can figure in years of play.

Whilst very true, cut and run still plays a part in dynamic environments.

Quote from: One Horse Town;454299I think i posted a thread about it way back when, but the biggest problem i find with sandboxes is the player mentality of "cut and run."

That is, keep going until the going gets tough, then get the hell out of dodge.

It's one of those things I don't necessarily consider a problem. It might cause a new adventure down the road if they do something like unseal a monster, anger a warlord, etc., and just leave, of course.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;454296Very good post and ideas from estar, as usual.
 

Appreciate the compliment.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;454296I'm not sure the context-setting session has to be one-on-one, though. After all, the starting village can just be the PC's home village, and the group can share some stories of how they grew up together, and so on. I did this with my Tiwesdæg series of campaigns, and it usually worked fairly well. Where it worked poorly was when players put little effort into character generation, and/or had a purely reactive approach to the campaign, "this is the hook, let's bite."

It can be a one on one rpg session, but the pre-game I personally use isn't that. What I use more of a interview approach. Which is why I will get into into the details in another post.  

The pre-game can any number of things even a group setup as you mentioned, the important part is that it is done before the start of play, and it conveys both campaign and personal character info. Doing this give the context in which the players can being interacting with your setting.

I don't have much to add really. I think your post Rob and ChicagoWiz's, the others' here cover it. See also Jeff's comments. All I can say is that I'm just kind of surprised that the same questions resurface over and over again about the world in motion and how you keep things going and how you provide choices and how you motivate players who don't know what to do and so on, so forth.

Quote from: Benoist;454327I don't have much to add really. I think your post Rob and ChicagoWiz's, the others' here cover it. See also Jeff's comments. All I can say is that I'm just kind of surprised that the same questions resurface over and over again about the world in motion and how you keep things going and how you provide choices and how you motivate players who don't know what to do and so on, so forth.

It because it was a style of play that hasn't received much attention since the mid 80s. Dragonlance pretty much made what a campaign is in the eyes of the publishing world. VtM only reinforced this.  As a novice after the mid 80s these were the examples you were given.

Quote from: estar;454332It because it was a style of play that hasn't received much attention since the mid 80s. Dragonlance pretty much made what a campaign is in the eyes of the publishing world. VtM only reinforced this.  As a novice after the mid 80s these were the examples you were given.

In addition, people are always wanting to apply lessons from other mediums to roleplaying games. Sometimes this is appropriate. Often it's as nonsensical as talking about how to effectively pan the camera in your novel.

What do you all mean by "cut and run"?

In my experience, what players choose do to or not do is not a problem. If I make up a place that's so uninteresting that nobody wants to visit it, then that's my problem.

I wonder whether you are talking about some very short-term perspective. The more there is to see and do, the less likely it is that any one bit is getting used just at this moment. As time goes on, and there's even more stuff in the world, there's even more stuff "off stage" at any moment.

However, the longer the campaign goes on, the more likely it is that any thing will see use not just once but many times.

In the long run, it is this factor that means one gets more mileage out of what one has made than if one were making only 'episodes' that get used but once.

Quote from: Phillip;454439What do you all mean by "cut and run"?

I have seen this with players. They come to a city and start mixing it up and pushing adventure buttons. The GM puts effort into developing this city and the NPCs and brings it alive so there are push/pull efforts responding to the PC's actions. The GM gets invested in the city...understandably because they are putting in the work. So things get heated for the PCs or their plan backfires or whatever and the PCs flee to the next location, rinse and repeat.

Not all GMs will define that as fun.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;454296It can also help to simply lay it out to the players, "There is no grand plot for you to fulfill, there are things happening in the world, and if you do nothing, there's a certain course they'll take. You can redirect the stream of events, or create your own streams, it's up to you."

DO you worry about a danger that the events which you, the DM, are interested in will overwhelm the events the players have taken in?

I'm talking about a situation where, say, the players have knowledge of two cities, within a few days travel of each other. In the North city, they find some cult of Orcus activity. In the South city, the players get involved with local gang activity. You the DM have decided that the Orcus cult is trying to raise Orcus with dire consequences if they are not stopped, perhaps world-wide. However, the player show little interest in the Orcus cult quite early on, and focus on trying to take down the gangs in South city and clean up the city. What do you do with the Orcus cult? Do you drop it? Do you progress it and let their plan succeed, imposing those consequences on the players? Do you avoid world-spanning consequences altogether?

Quote from: One Horse Town;454299I think i posted a thread about it way back when, but the biggest problem i find with sandboxes is the player mentality of "cut and run."

That is, keep going until the going gets tough, then get the hell out of dodge.

The lesson? Don't over-prepare material.

I think it's fair from the outset for the DM to demand players create characters with a certain amount of non-ditchiness built into them--they have important ties to the setting, or compelling reasons to engage in the setting. Characters with no family, who adventure just because can be fairly vetoed.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;454339In addition, people are always wanting to apply lessons from other mediums to roleplaying games. Sometimes this is appropriate. Often it's as nonsensical as talking about how to effectively pan the camera in your novel.

Heh. On the other hand, I have found as a player but especially as a GM, forcing myself to describe things in terms of camera shots and movement helps a lot. It breaks a habit of describing the action in vague generalizations, and instead makes me focus of specifics of here and now.

The setup given in the Original D&D books is an excellent way to start.

The one amendment I would make is that you really don't need to work up half a dozen dungeon levels first; two should be plenty for a few sessions of exploration. I am assuming levels on the order of those in most old "modules" I have seen.

Sketch out a "home base". Greyhawk is a big city, but smaller settlements are in my experience more common. The Keep on the Borderlands and Village of Hommlett are examples of packages that give a good start to make your own, to flesh out and modify to your taste. The City State of the Invincible Overlord offers a bigger burg.

"Bazaars, inns, taverns, shops, temples" are prominent among features to consider, as well as a Thieves' Quarter. Will there be a Slayers' Brotherhood making it more convenient to hire mercenaries? There certainly ought to be a worthy or three engaged in trading cash for gems, magic items, antiquities and artwork.

When I say "sketch", I mean it. The Keep will want a bit more detail early, such as whatever names for NPCs may fit your milieu, and probably some floor plans for places your players frequent. Hommlett, City State, and the like have had more work put into them than you need to (or probably should) put into your own creation before starting to play.

Actual play is invaluable to creating really useful, fun stuff. I have met a number of people who labored over notebooks year after year, working on campaigns that were always "not ready yet". Not only were they not playing, but if ever they did get around to it, I doubt that it was so much better for all that.

Probably it was worse, because one person's work in isolation just does not have as much imagination going into it as a real living, breathing affair.

Writing fiction, I have to be concerned with "believability", but real life has no such requirement. Real life can throw curves that nobody would have thought plausible. It's the same thing when it comes to a real campaign in play, as opposed to a theoretically constructed one.

D&D Volume 1: "In addition, the players themselves will interact in such a way as to make the campaign variable and unique, and this is quite desirable." Unfortunately, you're likely to get a lot less of this if (as seems usual these days) you don't have the large number of players, in multiple adventuring companies, that were an assumed part of the original game.

That is a notable handicap. It's like trying to play Diplomacy with just two players -- or more like just one, as one of them is the Game Master. Now, you have an added burden of work because you must in effect simulate the missing players.

Alternatively, one might take advantage of this here Internetwork to hook up  a referee to player ratio on the order of the recommended "1:20 or thereabouts." Even in the old BBS days, MUD (Multiple User Dungeon) programs developed some pretty great campaigns. Today, we can play human-moderated actual D&D by forum posts and e-mails from all over the globe without long-distance fees.

But I get ahead of myself!

A randomly generated (but see below) dungeon level of 36 rooms breaks down on average like this per D&D Vol. 3:
4 with treasure (hidden or trapped)
6 with monster (no treasure)
6 with monster and treasure
20 "empty" (neither monster nor treasure)

The treasures in question are minor ones from a table in that book, not Treasure Types. You by default don't roll % in Lair for these guys, because the idea is that you have already placed the most important treasures in carefully chosen locations. Random generation is just a help for filling in the less significant areas.

How many major treasures there should be, and how rich, is a matter for your own contemplation. I think there should be at least enough to "level up" a couple of parties of expected strength, or more (in a bigger level) for a campaign with multiple parties. Having to "clear the level" to get enough points is to my mind undesirable.

The general aim in layout is to provide many possible routes through the environment. "Gauntlets" with only two ways to go (forward or backward) may form rare small portions, but usually should be avoidable. Secret doors and passages can provide advantages once found, and should be common enough so that some are likely to be found. Dead ends can trap players fleeing from pursuit, if the players flee into unmapped territory. Chambers with multiple exits, and forks and turns in corridors, serve to assist in shaking off pursuers.

D&D Volume 3:

QuoteIn laying out your dungeons keep in mind that downward (and upward) mobility is desirable, for players will not find a game enjoyable which confines them too much. On the other hand unusual areas and rich treasures should be relatively difficult to locate, and access must be limited. The layout of a level will affect the route most often followed by players. Observation of the most frequently used passages and explored rooms will guide the referee in preparation of successive levels, which, of course, should be progressively more dangerous and difficult.

The large proportion of "empty" areas -- those without trap, treasure or monster -- contributes to mobility. It does not follow that all those places should be truly absent of interest. Indeed, the inclusion of features suggesting the possibility of peril or reward helps make discovery of the real thing more exciting. One can build an atmosphere of mystery and suspense with what one places, offer clues to what lies beyond, and even "tell a story" of past events. Even things for which one sees no practical use may become resources for cunning players.

To maintain freshness, it is necessary periodically to repopulate and remodel a much-explored level. D&D Volume 3 offers a number of suggestions.

One problem some DMs have is that they have taken a bit too much to heart advice to "rationalize" their dungeons. It may be a nice touch to have middens, privies, ventilation and so on worked out in detail -- but not to the extent of forgetting that this is a game of fantasy.

Pretty much anything you can imagine can be "in" the underworld, as the dungeons need not be limited to the physical extent of a bunch of caves any more than are the caverns of Ningauble in Leiber's tales of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. Even the literal subterranean ways can and ought to be at least as full of varied wonders as the Arabian Nights' Entertainments.

There are more than a dozen volumes of those, and no shortage of other fantastic fiction from the Grimm Brothers and Andrew Lang to recent sagas such as those begun in Drake's Lord of the Isles and Modesitt's Magic of Recluse. No real fantasy fan should want for inspiration, so there is no excuse for boring dungeons.

One good lesson to take from the "rationalizers", though, is that monsters should not all be just ciphers. The stronger among the intelligent ones in particular need a little development as characters. They usually should be up to something in addition to (or perhaps even instead of) lying in wait for adventurers on which to nosh. They should have relationships, friendly or otherwise, with other monsters. When players try to converse with them, they ought to have interesting things to say.

Most of the weaker can be treated as 'extras' until such time as player interest may warrant more development (which may be improvised). Parleys are likely to be conducted with leaders, and fights are likely to dispose of the rank and file before they get a chance to display much character development.

Related to this point is the benefit of preparing one's own Wandering Monster tables with particular individuals listed. Instead of turning to encounter tables in the books and getting plain old "ogres", one rolls up (say) "Gristle Gut and the Beer Barrel Gang."

There is of course much more one could say about towns and dungeons, but let us turn to the Wilderness.

The D&D assumption seems to be something like depopulated and reforested Dark Ages Europe, with the numinous castles and lakes and so on of Mallory's Arthurian tales (and the fantasies of William Morris) mixed in. The Fields Men Know end not far from the home base, which is on the frontier of Elfland and points beyond.

D&D Volume 3:

QuoteThe so-called Wilderness really consists of unexplored land, cities and castles, not to mention the area immediately surrounding the castle (ruined or otherwise) which housed the dungeons. ...The terrain beyond the immediate surroundings of the dungeon area should be unknown to all but the referee.

...When players venture into this area they should have a blank hexagon map, and as they move over each hex the referee will inform them as to what kind of terrain is in that hex. This form of exploring will eventually enable players to know the lay of the land in their immediate area and thus be able to select a site upon which to build their castles.

Judges Guild's Wilderlands of High Fantasy provide a ready-made environs, and a good example for emulation. Gygax's Dungeon Masters Guide includes a host of tables (even unto random generation of terrain) that have proven very handy.

Both dungeon and wilderness expeditions tend to involve reconnaissance first, followed by plans of action to capitalize on what has been discovered. Even prior to venturing forth, players may wish to gather what rumors, information and legends may be had in town (usually for a price).

This goes both ways: Information is a commodity that players can sell! This is one of those things more immediately evident in a full campaign with multiple adventures afoot.

The usual unit of (very roughly) "turns" at the campaign level is the week. Dungeon and wilderness expeditions, healing, research and recruitment, upkeep, construction, and so on are basically kept track of week by week.

In a big campaign of the Blackmoor/Greyhawk sort, it is less likely that the DM will have "the usual suspects" at the table just because "it's time for our weekly session". The DM's time and energy are limited, and players are probably coming and going and forming new alliances with some frequency.

At least in my experience, the way it typically works is that players form an enterprise before scheduling a session. Interesting adventures tend to get priority over "I dunno what I want to do."

Gygax's Players Handbook, at pages 107 and 109 (Successful Adventures) has good advice for players that a prospective DM can "reverse engineer". The emphasis is on dungeon forays, but the principles are widely applicable.

Quote from: two_fishes;454466I'm talking about a situation where, say, the players have knowledge of two cities, within a few days travel of each other. In the North city, they find some cult of Orcus activity. In the South city, the players get involved with local gang activity. You the DM have decided that the Orcus cult is trying to raise Orcus with dire consequences if they are not stopped, perhaps world-wide. However, the player show little interest in the Orcus cult quite early on, and focus on trying to take down the gangs in South city and clean up the city. What do you do with the Orcus cult? Do you drop it? Do you progress it and let their plan succeed, imposing those consequences on the players? Do you avoid world-spanning consequences altogether?

I can only speak for myself but I really try to avoid "the fate of the world lies in the PCs hands" situations, in part because I want to leave the option of "cut and run" open to the PCs. If the players taking on the Cult of Orcus in North Town is the only thing standing between every living being on the planet turning into a zombie slave come the winter solstice then the PCs really don't have a choice between Orcus and the Thieves' Guild - it's take on the cult of orcus or game over, time to roll up guys for Traveller.

That doesn't mean the world is is stasis or there aren't any consequences, but both as player and GM I would rather have stakes that are compelling but not coercive. For example, let's say the cult of Orcus goes unchecked and by the winter's solstice Orcus is summoned into the temple crypts, and North Town becomes the City of Death that is now hostile to other towns in the region, and undead start showing up on the encounter tables within several days march of it. Plus let's say its political alliances with other human cities shatter, so East Town is now on its own and a power void exists. More adventures exist in the campaign world in this situation.

Quote from: two_fishes;454466I think it's fair from the outset for the DM to demand players create characters with a certain amount of non-ditchiness built into them--they have important ties to the setting, or compelling reasons to engage in the setting. Characters with no family, who adventure just because can be fairly vetoed.

I think it's fair to do so, but not always necessary. Characters with a lot of family or social ties are great but rootless wanderers can also make for great play.

Quote from: two_fishes;454469Heh. On the other hand, I have found as a player but especially as a GM, forcing myself to describe things in terms of camera shots and movement helps a lot. It breaks a habit of describing the action in vague generalizations, and instead makes me focus of specifics of here and now.

That is a good point, that kind of visualization as GM is helpful for describing what the players see from the perspective of someone entering the room, rounding the hilltop, being suprised by the monster, etc.

I am not personally a fan of "cutting" or editing "scenes" for a storytelling effect in RPGs though - I would rather let what the players do shape the action rather than dramatic concerns.

Quote from: two_fishes;454466I'm talking about a situation where, say, the players have knowledge of two cities, within a few days travel of each other. In the North city, they find some cult of Orcus activity. In the South city, the players get involved with local gang activity. You the DM have decided that the Orcus cult is trying to raise Orcus with dire consequences if they are not stopped, perhaps world-wide. However, the player show little interest in the Orcus cult quite early on, and focus on trying to take down the gangs in South city and clean up the city. What do you do with the Orcus cult? Do you drop it? Do you progress it and let their plan succeed, imposing those consequences on the players? Do you avoid world-spanning consequences altogether?

How I would handle this varies. If I don't want the Orcus cult as a stronger influence in the world, the plot gets stopped or set back by NPCs.  If I definitely want a stronger Orcus cult for future use, their plot works at least partially. If I don't care, I figure out how likely their plot is to succeed and roll the dice. In my sandbox campaigns, there are other heroes out doing their own thing just as there are evils out doing their own thing. If the players don't handle problem X, someone else might.  Or they might not. Or the plot might even fall apart on its own -- perhaps there was infighting in the Orcus cult or their method of summoning Orcus just doesn't work.