I'm not yet really a good enough GM for a true sandbox campaign.
But that's ok, because my group doesn't do well with them. If there isn't a fairly railroad-ish plot line, they just dither and argue. Then nothing ever gets accomplished and they get frustrated.
So me and the other GM just don't even try to do that anymore. I do kinda miss playing in a real sandbox campaign though.
I feel like with my players, a "true sandbox" would end up becoming a streamlined adventure out of their own desire. Whenever they're given down time, usually from an NPC advisor doing research or waiting for new weapons to be made for them, several of them seek out side-quests to do in their downtime and the remaining players go along.
I had more of a sandbox going with my Pokemon conversion. There was this over-arching goal of exploring periodical ancient ruins that the placeholder Team Rocket was also interested in, but most of the time my players were roleplaying day job work, training, or other things. At one point I had one player going on a date with an NPC that rebuffed everyone else's advances, and the rest of the group was trying to hide in the diner and play tricks on them with their Pokemon.
It was fun, but I'm not sure I'll get the same mentality out of them in Pathfinder. Eh, it's worth trying sometime.
... Exactly what do you mean by sandbox, anyway? The term is used pretty broadly as anything from loot driven dungeon crawls to heavily character motivated stories. ... Sandbox is usually brought up on these boards in relation to stuff just being in the world and the party choosing its challenges rather than only encountering CR appropriate monsters. ...
That is a very common problem with invented terms. Since it is not a part of the 'standard' language as a whole it has the same problems as any other jargon. Basically there is no definition of the term. So each individual listener (or reader) invents their own definintion based on the context where they first heard it used and whether they think of it in complimentary or derogatory relations.
You can watch extremely viscious flame wars on these boards where people are insulting each other to the point where you can think they are foaming at the mouth wherever they are typing. But if you really look at the details of what they are saying, their actual positions are not very far apart. They just are using the same jargon to mean very different things.
It's kinda sad really. But for some reason, having your own particular jargon for your hobby/career/subject makes people feel superior and 'in-the-know' so I'm sure it will continue. But it is an example of evolving language actually hindering communication.
Whenever I put up a post heavily dependant on the jargon being used, I try to remember to define the term as I mean it. Still most readers seem to only 'see' the term with their own definition.
How I understand the term sandbox game is the GM essentially states "You're in the city of Xville, known for Y and Z. What do you do and how do you live?" and that's that.
The only problem I have with running games this way is that every character ends up going in different directions. Not only is the party not an actual party, but everyone sits around waiting while the GM has 1-on-1 sessions with them in turns.
That's basically the only time as a player when I'm not having any fun, so I try to minimize it when I'm running.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It takes a different mindset to play sandbox style, and is imperative to set this up before starting. You should never have each character wandering off in a different direction. If this happens then the setup failed and you need to restart. You are making a buddy movie, not pulp fiction. It should be about how the players came together forming irrevocable bonds, not a montage of vaguely related individuals.
I've ran my own sandbox campaigns for many years, incorporating numerous modules into my own content. Frequently players ran in a direction I never anticipated, bypassing all my careful planning. One thing I've learned is to never force your characters onto the path you want them to go, that just makes people angry and frustrated.
First, if you want your players to go on your planned adventure then give them a good pitch. If you tell them to check out the ancient ruined temple of boredom, they're going to pass. If your story is interesting, then the players are going to want to follow it up and find out what happens. Remember they are the heroes in the tale, they should be leading the action, not getting dragged along.
Second, your players don't know what you planned. If they go somewhere unexpected, you can always move the adventure to where they are already heading.
... Of course, the problem with not having any jargon is that you have to spell out the definition everytime you want to talk about something.
I don't think it's about feeling superior. It's just a nature attempt to be more concise.
But umpteen pages of argument over an unaknowledged difference in definition is not more concise.
In this context 'sandbox' is being used by some people to mean something that doesn't have an easy statement in just a couple of words. But even a short paragraph definition would have been shorter that the several posts where people are obviously meaning different things. And this isn't even one of the more controversial terms.Example:
Start a post that says, "I don't allow power-gamers at my table!" Seems like a very concise statement. If the thread doesn't get locked, I bet it will be over 100 replies by the end of the day. If you actually read the arguments and if you can get people to actually give their definition of the term, you will find that most of them are not very far off from each other in what they won't allow at the table.
Start a post that says, "I don't allow people that cheat at my table!" You will get a few posts of well duh, nobody should.
- Change 'cheat' to 'try and beat the other players to prove they are superior' in that statement and see how it changes.
- Change 'cheat' to 'find every loop hole in the rules trying to break the system' in that statement and see how it changes.
- Change 'cheat' to 'try to be the best at what ever they do' in that statement and see how it changes.
- Change 'cheat' to 'optimize their PC so they can only do one thing and are useless at anything else' in that statement and see how it changes.
- Change 'cheat' to 'refuse to role play and only do the mechanics of combat' in that statement and see how it changes.
- Change 'cheat' to 'try and make a PC that is very useful in most situations that come up' in that statement and see how it changes.
- Change 'cheat' to 'don't gimp their PC's in a misguided attemp to make them unique' in that statement and see how it changes.
As different as they are, every one of those is central to the definition of 'power gamer' to a segment of the posters on these forums. Yet you will see page after page of people getting rabid over whether or not power-gamers should be allowed, are unavoidable, are desireable, or should be kicked out of the human race. During the arguments, they will actively avoid and purposefully ignore defining what they are actually arguing about and will just keep using the same term 'power-gamer' on and on.
I read a study one that analysed some of the common business/career jargon. Almost all of them were simply replacing an already existing term with a non-standard use of another already existing term. (Or variation of an existing term like changing nouns to verbs.)
My company uses (depending upon department) Engineering Change Notice, Product Change Notice, and Electronic Part Classification Notification all instead of the mundane and simple Print Revision. Also in the last few years they have gotten into 'dispositioned' instead of 'decided' for some odd reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The technical term is 'simulationist'
Where the rules and the map set the stage, but the plot is 'whatever comes up'...
I never run modules. Every campaign I've ever ran was simulationist and it works in every system as long as the players themselves can come up with goals for themselves.
If they can't you just make them members of an organization that gives them 'missions...'
---
When your campaign is just
"Pathfighter II Hyperfighting"
"Player characters... VS... Balrog... FIGHT!"
That's called 'gamist'
---
Running a module is 'narrativist' because theres a story to be told and the story kinda takes precedence over any of the characters. I'm a player in 2 separate games at the moment and they're both narrativist... Very constraining and mostly linear.
Even if you're not running a module you're 'narrativist' if the gm says 'this is how my world is so even though the rulebook says you could do such and such, in this campaign i'm not allowing it because thats not how my story/world works'
Because the 'story' not only trumps the players "but I don't want to go into the sewers... my character would never go into a sewer"
but also the rules "what do you mean I cant play a tiefling?"
Heheh. This reminds me of an adventure I ran.
There's a big attack on the city, and a call for adventurers. The PCs arrive, see a building that has just about exploded, and an NPC indicates that the inside should be investigated.
They went in a couple rooms, saw a stairway and said ... "Uh ... we don't really want to go in there."
They advanced through the adventure arguing with the mayor and threatening to kill him or to cause a riot if he didn't evacuate the city. They evacuated most of the city over a few days, and tried solving the problem by waiting for further explosions~ to confront the cause instead of going down (where the plot keys were >.>). I admit that I reacted kind of slowly and poorly, but I eventually added in some content and some patterns for the group to investigate. I had to do some changes behind the scenes though, because if I ran the adventure's progression as planned, the final battle would have probably been unbeatable -- and it didn't seem fair to slap the group with the consequences of a ticking clock, when they hadn't ever found out there was a time element in play. They only knew that more people would die over time, and they were already trying to handle that.
Yes. Dont let the threefold model pigionhole you. Its not an absolute. Its a spectrum.
The amount of weight that you put into
Player free will: simulationist
Stats and combat (wargaming): gamist
Story: narrativist.
Its not that you cant have all 3. The question is where do you put your focus and do you focus on it to the detriment of the other 2. My personal goal is never to let the combat or the story to override player free will. It doesnt mean I never have combat or a story. Like EWHM I'm also an extreme simulationist.
It doesnt mean I cant minmax a character build or enjoy combat or enjoy the story in a module... but I do feel the shackles of a module and, if a gm isnt capable of or willing to letting me get off the rails a little bit, I certainly do start to get that feeling that the story can be told without me and my input doesnt matter. I'm just on the train headed to the destination, lookin at the scenery.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am running my primary group in a wide-open sandbox right now. It's World of Darkness set in New England. Since we are all from New England it provides a familiar environment with enough room to more so they should never wander too far outside it if at all.
All of the above advice is fantastic and I have found many of the above things to be vital. Reskinning is one I use all the time. I also have a number of small plots ready to go at any given time. As far as interrupting or delaying them I use the Raymond Chandler method of two guys with guns kick the door in. It's not always that literal but I use events they cannot ignore if they get lost or become unmotivated.
The advice about ensuring the characters don't outgrow the sandbox is an important one, especially when using a game like Pathfinder that has a steep power curve. The shallower the power curve the easier it is to run a sandbox in my opinion. In my New England there are plenty of big challenges in the supernatural power structures and the group are going to need to be quite powerful indeed if they want to tangle with the vampires and mages in Boston.
My players are accustomed to considerably more linear play so it has been interesting to see them try to adapt to dozens of hooks and threads scattered about. They seem to latch on to the clearest one and follow it until it is run dry before finding something else to do.
Sandbox play isn't for everyone and it requires a GM who can think on their feet. In my opinion however, they can be hella rewarding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Make sure you have a cover if you live in a community with outdoor cats.And a shovel and pail. Can't forget the shovel and pail.
While these two posts were meant as a joke; I find these two elements (well, three if you count shovel and pale as two items) are all you really need... metaphorically.
Cat-proof cover: You need to lay your bases (together) with the players, set your themes and advertise them. That's your cover making sure no player come-in to "poop" in your game mistaking your playground for something else.
Shovel and Pale: Gather the tools that will allow you to construct fun elements for the game. Some GM will be satisfied with a simple shovel and pale, some like to gather a few rocks and bits of bark. Some will purchase sandcastle forms and bring out an assortment of seashells collected during last vacation. At this point it's up to personal tastes.
The rest is imagination, skills and willingness to have fun with friends...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Truth be told the simulationist/gamist/narrativist breakdown I use is a peronal modification of what was originally called GNS theory, which can be read about here. The original author of the GNS theory threefold model has abandoned it citing that it's confusing and doesnt make much sense and each model crosses over into the others (which I agree that to an extent it always should)... My version then of the threefold model simplifies the question and instead defines the 'nature of the campaign' or the 'primary focus of the campaign'
The cliffs notes version of the difference between original GNS theory and mine are
GNS Gamist: we're not sure particularly why (or it doesnt particularly matter to us why) we're fighting what we're fighting, but each fight gets progressively more difficult and dangerous, and each party member's capabilities need to be essentially equal. Though our challenges get progressivly more difficult, they are also 'scripted' to match our party's capabilities very closely... Pathfinder happens to lean, and society play even moreso, on this version of gamist 'balance'.
My gamist: the point is we dont care about the why we're fighting or how the enemy got here, lets just get our fight on! And having played many other systems besides pathfinder I've thrown the idea of 'character effectivenesses being equal' right out the window. In this case the primary focus of the campaign is on putting stats against stats, and combat for combat's sake above, necessarily, the 'why are we fighting' or 'how did we get into this mess' or even 'what will happen if we kill this guy'.... Such compications are an afterthought to 'lets get it on!' Once more into the breach, dear friends! While my version of gamist is still all about fighty fighting, the idea that you'll never, or you should rarely, run into something thats outside your party's power curve is not part of my personal philosophy. 'Balance for balance's sake' is not significant enough to be a 'campaign focus' in my opinion.
---
GNS Narrativist: Focus is not on challenging not the players 'combat statistics' but the 'nature of their character'... Focusing is on combating a character's weaknesses or focusing on the less easily resolved moral dilemmas of a character instead. (like making paladins fall, for example). On the wiki it is said that it is difficult to put these kind of challenges into an adventure path or module or predetermined story because the characters are often surpising in the unexpected ways they solve these 'moral or ethical crossroads'
My narrativist: Putting challenge to a characters weaknesses isnt always about confronting complicated alignment or 'code' issues, and can sometimes be about challenging the fact that a player simply didnt choose to put any points into swimming so every so often you toss a river in to the campaign to see how the characters deal with the challenge of coping with the achilles heels they've built into themselves. These challenges are part of every good campaign, but are not 'campaign defining'. In this case the primary focus of the campaign is the story. Adventure paths and modules are a story and you're kind of along for the ride. Sometimes the story is linear or flowcharty, but the point is that you've got to get from the beginning of the story to the end of the story and too much deviation from the story can ruin the story, but the 'story' is the thing. Personal character choices can give them some semblance of free will but for the most part no matter what you do you're headed for the story's ending. It doesnt preclude targeting a characters weaknesses or limit the characters from getting off the rails, but if the characters get too far off the rails, the story breaks down and the end-as-written/predicted can never be reached.
I also happen to include games where you're only allowed to or restricted from playing certain races or classes into 'narrativist' play because the 'nature/narrative of the world takes precedence over the player's normally less restricted choices' even if you're planning on running a sandbox, but thats a personal proclivity of mine, being the sole developer of takeda-style threefold model.
---
GNS Simulationist: Trying above all else to faithfully recreate a familiar genre, or trying through subtle manipulation to generate a 'mood or tone'. Again this sort of philosophy can occur in any campaign and is not 'campaign defining', but in this case the idea seems to be that the focus is on the 'world around you'
My simulationist: Since focusing on the world around you should be present in any campaign, the "primary focus" of the simulationist is the opposite of the previous two. Instead of focusing on a characters stats and combatworthyness to the exclusion of how it came to be in the world or the effects that such combat has on the world, or my view on narrativist where the world may 'seem' to react to player decisions but in the end the same conclusion will be reached regardless (like a module or adventure path), the primary focus is on the players alone. The world reacts to their goals and decisions, and the campaign is made up of the world's reactions to those decisions. It doesnt defacto preclude combat, or focusing on characters weaknesses or development of a rich world or a world that is 'true to a genre'... All it does is make no presumptions about whats going to happen next because the players are the one's writing the 'module' as they go. This is closest to what is commonly referred to as 'sandbox' or 'freestyle' because the gm isnt really playing a defacto-unalterable prewritten story, but 'an environment' (which includes npcs and monsters), and the environment's/npcs/monsters reaction to the players becomes the story.
I know. Its kinda funky. And now that I read it, maybe not so cliffs notesy either. But there it is. Takeda style threefold model.
So like I said above, for me:
Gamist=Focus on the fighting!
Narrativist=Focus on the story and the 'world' and the 'theme'!
Simulationist=Focus on the characters!
And no campaign necessarily lacks any of these three, the question is do you or does your table focus on or prefer to focus on one or two of these to the exclusion of the others? As a gm I unfailingly prefer to run simulationist sandboxes, and as a player i'm involved in a pair of narrativist campaigns at the moment. When I was growing up myself and my table were staunchly gamist.
To wax additionally a little more anedcotal, while it might be tough to call any particular campaign or session 'gamist/narrativist/simulationist' by the original GNS theory model which is often messy and unclear and tries to jumble unlike concepts together that arent particular to the actual words 'gamist/narrativist/simulationist', I feel that its almost impossible not to have a clear answer which kind of session you're running under my definitions of the threefold model.
And its not to say that any of them are bad. I happen to like simulationist sandbox because of its pure unrestrained free will, where the characters actions have a purpose and an effect, but the characters goals are entirely of their own choosing.
I happen to like my version of narrativist the least, since I strongly feel 'the railroad' and after 25 years or so of gaming, my character concepts and goals are usually a little 'off the wall'. Thats not to say that once a set of simulationist players gets around to choosing a goal that you don't pretty much handle it like a narrative. Just happens to be a narrative the players chose on their own so they're less likely to step off of rails they set down for themselves.
Gamist is interesting. I will say that I feel like 'combat feats' were developed for the sake of both giving the fighter more power, and for nailing down some rules about the more 'imaginative' things people try to pull off in combat'... I remember as an adnd2e gamist that combat-centered campaigning was plenty interesting and fun because we tried very hard to fill fights with more eloquent/interesting detail than just 'I stab him' 'I slash him' 'it claws you'... We weren't so much 'dicing off against another set of stats and abilities' as we were 'choreographing a fight scene'. I liked it because you could pull off nearly everything that is now considered a 'combat feat' without having to take a feat first. I hate to say it but theres a part of me that feels like fighters have become weaker for having to 'invest' in such imaginative tactics rather than just use them... It may be why I only play spellcasters in pathfinder and to some degree why there's so much ire about fighters and monks and thieves being 'underpowered'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I do when I run a sandbox game is to tell my player you get to run the first adventure. With the idea of how your characters meant and why they are sticking together. It is usualy a great RP session with me mostly in the back ground maybe setting the scene and RPing NPCs that need to be done.
Doing this I believe creats a more natural flow on PC being a party. So when I do have to do 1 on 1 RP during game sessions most of the time PCs do actualy have important RP between themselves...also it is more likely that other PCs will include the others in their schemes and such.
Also I find it handy to require background from my players but I tell them don't name any villains that appear...and don't naarowly define anything to strongly about the villain. This allows me to create a single villain who is out for the PC(how long he lasts does not matter) which can also bring the group together.
I also encourage my PCs to write the background together...so they can start knowing each other with a history.
One thing I do when I run a sandbox game is to tell my player you get to run the first adventure. With the idea of how your characters meant and why they are sticking together. It is usualy a great RP session with me mostly in the back ground maybe setting the scene and RPing NPCs that need to be done...
I tried something like this once. I got maybe 5 minutes of "I'm a half-orc named Tom and I want to be the greatest halbardeir in the the world." Then everyone just looked at me.
... I also encourage my PCs to write the background together...so they can start knowing each other with a history.
I don't think I could ever get them to make their backstories together.
I have tried unsuccessfully several times to get my group to make the mechanics of their characters together so that they fit together. Never works they always come with a finished character and intend to run it no matter what anyone else is running. (There is one guy who tries to be more of a team player and fit in the group, but then he usually seems resentful that he is the only one.)
I really don't think it is so much that they are uncooperative. I think it is more that they think about PC's in their free time. And over the last umpteen weeks they have fallen in love with some particular build that they have been working on 'forever.'
...At the risk of starting a flame war...ick.
It's really not that bad. I'm probably making it sound worse than it is. Several are still kinda new to this type of RPG. They have mostly just done online shoot-ups that are called an RPG.
We're still having decent fun most of the time anyway. So it's good. =)
@kydeem'de Morcain: I understand your situration some what...as I do deal with occassionaly with new players. I usualy just try to ease them into it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I only really gm in the sandbox. Part of my love for the game is sub-creation--world design. The degrees in Anthropology and Archaeology lend themselves to crafting sandbox worlds with cultures and realities all their own. I build continents to play on--so options are wide open.
Now--I do take PF modules and re-skin them all the time because as much as I love the sandbox--adventurers also like story arcs and character development that comes along with chained adventures.
How do you do this for a continent when you players might hop a ship well away from your carefully planned adventure?
I have a couple of suggestions:
1) ** spoiler omitted **
2)** spoiler omitted **
3) ** spoiler omitted **
4) ** spoiler omitted **...
:D
Sandboxes are just great. So much that can be done, no need to be linear at all. For published adventures and paths, just slot them in and allow time to roam and do other stuff between books.You are anthrop, I'm in Sociology. Both can get the world building juices flowing.
Contrary players are easy to deal with.
Okay, you go off alone, sweet.
How do you do this for a continent when you players might hop a ship well away from your carefully planned adventure?The skill of being a GM is to know your players and know how to hook them into the game. The best of those "railroad" while still leaving the illusion of free will. It helps if you have players who aren't determined to be contrary just for the sake of it. If they are, then don't reward that behavior.
Um...the idea of a sandbox is that there are no 'railroads' even one covered by the most convincing illusions that the players can't see.
Personaly if the PCs ignore something and suddenly go across the world...the plot continues and well provides a adventure later.
Well you can have the mostly roam sandbox with the firm adventure path option. So the world shrinks when they are following a book or mini adventure like paizo graces us with. When not locked in, you are pretty damn free and can do things in your own time, but when set to course the course runs its course.
They can of course change their course and bail from an adventure path, but that flippancy should be discouraged of course.
If the players really want to jump all over the map with no more predictability than Brownian motion, then they can't blame the GM for the relative lack of depth to their campaign. Especially if it's a group of 8 players and they all want to scatter to 8 different places at once. (At that point, they're not really looking to play a campaign but a series of solo sessions all at once.)
Yes in that extreme case you have a point. But my players know better that to split the party.
Well you can have the mostly roam sandbox with the firm adventure path option. So the world shrinks when they are following a book or mini adventure like paizo graces us with. When not locked in, you are pretty damn free and can do things in your own time, but when set to course the course runs its course.
They can of course change their course and bail from an adventure path, but that flippancy should be discouraged of course.
The flippancy is sort of the point of a sandbox.
Lets say you run an AP where the party is suppose to uncover an assassin and protect the king, and the party says, "we don't have a rogue, we aren't specialized for this and the assassin is too hard to find. Good luck with life king."
The GM gets to roll to see if the king lives. If not, then the adventure continues: the king dies, people blame the party, maybe the assassin has a person vendeta against the group, maybe the crown jewels are stolen... maybe the new king is better?! whatever. That's the point.
Maybe the assassin tracks them down and thanks them for not taking the job. "Let me get you chaps some beer."