Quote from: walkerp;257833I don't see anything mutually exclusive between sandbox and plotlines, as long as the latter developped organically out of the PCs interaction with the environment and as long as they continue to have the agency to abandon the plotline at any time (knowing, though, that there will probably be repercussions for doing so).

Yes, that's right.

Quote from: One Horse Town;257503One thing I've noticed about them that can crop up is what I call 'dip & run'. The characters investigate an area until things get a bit too challenging and then leg it, quite often never to return. Who cares right, we've got these pretty gems that we can use to live like kings for a few weeks, why risk our lives further?

It could be the issue isn't so much about the sandbox format but with the underlining motivation of the party. I don't know anything about your campaign, but if for instance you have a party who basically doing stuff for money, once they have the money the sensible thing would be for them to retire. Likewise when a job gets too dangerous, if you are in it for cash,  you are going to consider pulling out - can't spend it if you are dead?

If the party have some sort of common cause, responsibility or personal stake they are less likely to dip & run.

Quote from: Soylent Green;257859If the party have some sort of common cause, responsibility or personal stake they are less likely to dip & run.

I think that's a good area to investigate, Soylent Green, but I worry that the idea of "common cause" is starting to work against the sandbox.  

No, as I started to write this I realized that whether or not the players work together is not part of the sandbox definition.  It's just what I have set up for my Aces & Eights campaign. The characters don't have to be part of a party and they don't have to work together if they don't want.

I think that in a typical "footloose adventurers" sandbox campaign, dip & run is inevitable and should not be discouraged.  Solution: short adventures!

The best approach I've found is to create a campaign map, ca 5-10 miles/hex (Estar's Points of Light setting maps are a classic example) and then seed the map with short adventures, plot hooks, etc.  My most successful sandbox used a lot of old White Dwarf scenarios, usually 4-6 pages, plus a bunch of the free 3e adventures from WotC's website.  All were low-to-mid level (ca 1st-6th); depending on what order they were played in some might be very tough for the PCs, others quite easy, but nothing competely trivial or impossibly lethal.  Also, you can put the lower level adventures closest to the PC's centrally placed start location so they'll likely encounter those first, with higher level stuff at the edges of the map.

Quote from: S'mon;257863I think that in a typical "footloose adventurers" sandbox campaign, dip & run is inevitable and should not be discouraged.  Solution: short adventures!

The best approach I've found is to create a campaign map, ca 5-10 miles/hex (Estar's Points of Light setting maps are a classic example) and then seed the map with short adventures, plot hooks, etc.  My most successful sandbox used a lot of old White Dwarf scenarios, usually 4-6 pages, plus a bunch of the free 3e adventures from WotC's website.  All were low-to-mid level (ca 1st-6th); depending on what order they were played in some might be very tough for the PCs, others quite easy, but nothing competely trivial or impossibly lethal.  Also, you can put the lower level adventures closest to the PC's centrally placed start location so they'll likely encounter those first, with higher level stuff at the edges of the map.

Emminently sensible.

Quote from: walkerp;257861No, as I started to write this I realized that whether or not the players work together is not part of the sandbox definition.  It's just what I have set up for my Aces & Eights campaign. The characters don't have to be part of a party and they don't have to work together if they don't want.

The party splitting up happens frequently in my games. I try to manipulate things so that the goals of the various PCs are "big" goals that makes keeping everyone together a big incentive.

I had a campaign that split into two separate session because individual character's goals started to conflict with one another. Toward the end of the all mage campaign the party split evenly between the pro-guild faction and the anti-guild faction. Nothing bad out of game just happened that way. Note Edward (the background I posted) was one of the pro-mage's guild characters.

This issue probably the most artificial thing that happens during my campaign. Players and myself recognize that not sticking together almost always make things unplayable. It does promote roleplaying a bit as the players debate among each other over what they are going to peruse.

We used to have a strict no-party-split rule, because it got so damned boring and complicated, but as our GM has developed, and as our players have gotten older, more patient, and more mature, we've lifted the ban. It's helped the flow - no more out-of-character influence on in-character actions - and it's actually nice to kick back and spectate for five minutes while the other group does their thing. Paul likes to pace like TV or film, so it flows nicely, just as when a group of characters on [pick your TV show] are doing one thing, and then you switch to a new group next scene.

Quote from: Engine;257952We used to have a strict no-party-split rule, because it got so damned boring and complicated, but as our GM has developed, and as our players have gotten older, more patient, and more mature, we've lifted the ban. It's helped the flow - no more out-of-character influence on in-character actions - and it's actually nice to kick back and spectate for five minutes while the other group does their thing. Paul likes to pace like TV or film, so it flows nicely, just as when a group of characters on [pick your TV show] are doing one thing, and then you switch to a new group next scene.

Basically same in my group. My players will often split up when they hit town. The type of split I am talking about are extended splits where one group goes west and the other goes east.

Quote from: estar;257960Basically same in my group. My players will often split up when they hit town. The type of split I am talking about are extended splits where one group goes west and the other goes east.

That is a bitch. We do try to prevent things like that from happening, as much out of pity for the poor GM as anything else. Recently, most of the characters were forced [due to public criminal activity] to leave Seattle for...well, a while, anyway. One of the players realized his character wouldn't actually leave, so instead of splitting, he's going to retire the character. It's a hard choice, but it's one of the reasons it's nice to play with a solid, long-term group that can make wise choices.

Just don't let the PCs bail on something without consequences. They clear the first few levels of the temple and then bail... so the remaining cultists come looking for the purloined treasures and to seek revenge for their murdered pals. The PCs slay the orcish advance guard, but the army itself marches on.

PCs should have a choice about which plots and stories are initiated, but don't necessarily control the pacing and development of a plot or story once it does begin to develop (though they should still exert more control of that than in a more plot-oriented game). Even choosing to avoid a plot can be story - how do they escape the cultists, or the rampaging army as it travels around the countryside?

Remember: hexes are not Vegas. What you do in J764R doesn't have to stay in J764R.

Quote from: Engine;257952We used to have a strict no-party-split rule, because it got so damned boring and complicated, but as our GM has developed, and as our players have gotten older, more patient, and more mature, we've lifted the ban. It's helped the flow - no more out-of-character influence on in-character actions - and it's actually nice to kick back and spectate for five minutes while the other group does their thing. Paul likes to pace like TV or film, so it flows nicely, just as when a group of characters on [pick your TV show] are doing one thing, and then you switch to a new group next scene.

Dude, just let everyone run a bunch of PCs, and swap them out or combine them as you need. We did that in our last campaign, and it worked like a dream.  It's easiest if you start off with one and multiply according to need. You can always reconcile groups and PCs when you please, and swap between groups for each session.

For example, at one point we had four or five different parties going simultaneously, and every few sessions we'd swap which one it was. The DM made a few notes about what happened in the previous session, and would use them to establish at what point in the timeline this new group was hopping in (or back in). We did that for about seven or eight sessions, then shifted back to the main party (who'd been on a boat traveling to another continent for six months), and from that point on, we'd run the occasional one-shot-within-a-campaign starring the other PCs.

I find this also helps with character-churn more generally. It's really good if you have some players who always want to try new types of characters or who have a million good ideas for PCs.

I would say the ability to "Get the Fuck Out of Dodge" is a feature, not a bug.

RPGPundit

Granted, "Getting the Fuck out of Dodge" sometimes means Wyatt Earp is going to round up the posse and follow you...

RPGPundit

My PCs aren't worried about Earp. It's Doc Holliday, who scares them.

Regards,
David R

I think what Rob does, and what I used to do back when I had the time, is extend the sandbox to the level of the gameworld's culture and politics.

As opposed to an "anarchist" sandbox a la original Wilderlands, where players careen through a world so thinly populated that the cultural/political coherence of any entity doesn't extend beyond a few hexes, nor does that matter much.

On a related note, a few weeks ago Rob posted the IMO ideal starting set-up for a Traveller subsector sandbox along these lines.