Yeah I think it's a generally a good idea to have some kind of end-point in mind for a campaign. Even for a sandbox I like to have a couple "win conditions" wherein if the players achieve X goal, I'll bolt on a final adventure and end it. Generally it's going to be a pretty major goal like "become king", which the campaign probably won't last long enough to get to, but at least it provides some direction.

Generally I'm moving more towards a more goal-oriented campaign structure. I've said this recently in other threads, but randomly wandering around with no end goal is starting to wear on me as a player, and I'm noticing the same listlessness in the players in my sandbox games. I'm running a sandbox now, but after it ends I'll probably move to a mission-based structure for the next one.

Quote from: DocFlamingo on February 17, 2024, 04:27:59 PM
Good points. I like to start a new campaign in a very sandbox--do as you will fashion and then find something that interests the party and build a more narrative series of adventures based off that once I know they're into it. I'll run that then go back to sandbox style for a time, do a few this or that sessions, then maybe do another longer, multi-session adventure when it seems appropriate.  Flexibility is all important.

That's how I've always done it. Then i will occasionally retroactively make a baddie from the initial sandbox section connected to the big bad or whatever so the players think things are far more planned out than it ever was.

Quote from: Ruprecht on February 17, 2024, 05:35:01 PM

Quote from: DocFlamingo on February 17, 2024, 04:27:59 PM
Good points. I like to start a new campaign in a very sandbox--do as you will fashion and then find something that interests the party and build a more narrative series of adventures based off that once I know they're into it. I'll run that then go back to sandbox style for a time, do a few this or that sessions, then maybe do another longer, multi-session adventure when it seems appropriate.  Flexibility is all important.

That's how I've always done it. Then i will occasionally retroactively make a baddie from the initial sandbox section connected to the big bad or whatever so the players think things are far more planned out than it ever was.

That's an excellent point. The Venture Brothers did a lot of throw-away gags which they later integrated into larger plot-lines and made it seem like they intended it all along. A strong sense of continuity and coherence lends a lot of weight to even a very free-form campaign.

Quote from: DocFlamingo on February 17, 2024, 04:27:59 PM
Good points. I like to start a new campaign in a very sandbox--do as you will fashion and then find something that interests the party and build a more narrative series of adventures based off that once I know they're into it. I'll run that then go back to sandbox style for a time, do a few this or that sessions, then maybe do another longer, multi-session adventure when it seems appropriate.  Flexibility is all important.

Yes, that's very much my style too. Start with a sandbox, plenty of hooks. See what interests the players, and especially what they bring to the table. It's their game too, and as GM I love to be surprised by how things go. I run Red Dawn and the PCs join with the Soviets? Awesome!    Maybe there's a statue at the end dedicated to the Wolverines, those brave Workers & Peasants who brought International Socialism to America.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 17, 2024, 05:07:49 PM
I've said this recently in other threads, but randomly wandering around with no end goal is starting to wear on me as a player, and I'm noticing the same listlessness in the players in my sandbox games. I'm running a sandbox now, but after it ends I'll probably move to a mission-based structure for the next one.

I feel like there's something going wrong here. Why aren't the players developing their own goals? That's what sandboxing is all about.

My campaigns tend to run 4 months to a year, with 1 session per week. Each session is around 3 hours, occasionally going to 4 or 5 hours if we have time and interest. That gives players enough time and adventure to hit 8th-12th level with one or two characters.

That said, I tend to run games in the same campaign world, so while we may have 3 or 4 campaigns in a year, they usually build off the same material. Campaigns tend to come to an end either because the players are satisfied with their higher level characters, or have a desire to start off fresh in a new area. Plus my buddies and I are always coming up with new ideas, so we like to swap DMs often. We're usually never without a game or a DM as a result.

Quote from: S'mon on February 17, 2024, 06:06:07 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 17, 2024, 05:07:49 PM
I've said this recently in other threads, but randomly wandering around with no end goal is starting to wear on me as a player, and I'm noticing the same listlessness in the players in my sandbox games. I'm running a sandbox now, but after it ends I'll probably move to a mission-based structure for the next one.

I feel like there's something going wrong here. Why aren't the players developing their own goals? That's what sandboxing is all about.

I've given this a fair chunk of thought, and I reckon there's a few common factors.

The biggest and most universal one is temperament and motivation. Some people just aren't self-starters. Some people aren't motivated by money or power (in games at least). Some people are just lazy and want the adventure dropped in front of them. Those kinds of players are always going to fair less well with sandboxing than they will with having a goal presented with them. In my sandbox games, I tend to get a mix. I usually have two or three players who will actively scheme towards their own goals, --usually political influence-- and then the rest of the group are passengers who just want to move to the next adventure. Even the active schemers aren't terribly interested in treasure or XP for it's own sake. They're still pursuing a story, they just want to push the direction of it themselves.

Probably second biggest is decision paralysis. Present a group of five or six players with a completely open sandbox, and you often get a deadlock on what to do next. I generally see better results if the players are presented a menu of 2-5 options to choose between for their next move. There's also an issue of shared imagination here. I've noticed a lot of players really have a hard time connecting with a sandbox at the large scale. It's almost as if they file the setting information away as "background fluff" and don't recognize elements of the setting as real things they can interact with until they encounter them directly during normal play.

A problem I've seen a lot in sandbox games I've played in is the DM not picking up what the players are putting down. A player will come up with some kind of scheme to get ahead in the world, and the DM will either brush it off or misunderstand the intent. That only has to happen a couple of times before players give up. Obviously I try not to do that in my games, but no one's ever aware they're doing it.

Another issue is time. This is probably unique to games played in shorter sessions, but when you're running a two to four hour session, sandboxing (particularly hexcrawling) can feel like a waste of time. A random encounter stands out more if it's half the session. I think you can mitigate this to a great degree if you put in the work to keep travel and random encounters interesting, but it's probably the case at some basic level that short sessions lend themselves better to a more focused experience.

A setup I've wanted to try which I think mitigates all these issues is the city sandbox. You take a highly stratified fantasy metropolis like Lankhmar or Night City (or Altdorf, Sigil, Ankh-Morpork or whatever; the possibilities are endless), set your players at the absolute bottom of the ladder and tell them "your mission is to claw your way to the top of the heap, however you can do it". That gets them signed on to the broad campaign goal from the outset. The smaller sandbox limits the decision paralysis. Travel is less of an issue within a city, and you'd naturally expect fewer random encounters, so it's more time efficient.

For campaign play I like to leave it open ended. If the players want to do something else for a while the campaign can always be set aside and picked up again when there is interest. I have never felt the need to 'End Things' after a pre-determined amount of time or number of sessions.

One shots, for game store or game day event play is a different matter. When you have a 3 or 4 hour time slot to run an adventure then you want to make sure that some sort of conclusion can be reached in that time slot. The game is for a group that may never all get together again so it kind of has to be self contained.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 17, 2024, 10:25:08 PM

Quote from: S'mon on February 17, 2024, 06:06:07 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 17, 2024, 05:07:49 PM
I've said this recently in other threads, but randomly wandering around with no end goal is starting to wear on me as a player, and I'm noticing the same listlessness in the players in my sandbox games. I'm running a sandbox now, but after it ends I'll probably move to a mission-based structure for the next one.

I feel like there's something going wrong here. Why aren't the players developing their own goals? That's what sandboxing is all about.

I've given this a fair chunk of thought, and I reckon there's a few common factors.

The biggest and most universal one is temperament and motivation. Some people just aren't self-starters. Some people aren't motivated by money or power (in games at least). Some people are just lazy and want the adventure dropped in front of them. Those kinds of players are always going to fair less well with sandboxing than they will with having a goal presented with them. In my sandbox games, I tend to get a mix. I usually have two or three players who will actively scheme towards their own goals, --usually political influence-- and then the rest of the group are passengers who just want to move to the next adventure. Even the active schemers aren't terribly interested in treasure or XP for it's own sake. They're still pursuing a story, they just want to push the direction of it themselves.

Probably second biggest is decision paralysis. Present a group of five or six players with a completely open sandbox, and you often get a deadlock on what to do next. I generally see better results if the players are presented a menu of 2-5 options to choose between for their next move. There's also an issue of shared imagination here. I've noticed a lot of players really have a hard time connecting with a sandbox at the large scale. It's almost as if they file the setting information away as "background fluff" and don't recognize elements of the setting as real things they can interact with until they encounter them directly during normal play.

A problem I've seen a lot in sandbox games I've played in is the DM not picking up what the players are putting down. A player will come up with some kind of scheme to get ahead in the world, and the DM will either brush it off or misunderstand the intent. That only has to happen a couple of times before players give up. Obviously I try not to do that in my games, but no one's ever aware they're doing it.

Another issue is time. This is probably unique to games played in shorter sessions, but when you're running a two to four hour session, sandboxing (particularly hexcrawling) can feel like a waste of time. A random encounter stands out more if it's half the session. I think you can mitigate this to a great degree if you put in the work to keep travel and random encounters interesting, but it's probably the case at some basic level that short sessions lend themselves better to a more focused experience.

A setup I've wanted to try which I think mitigates all these issues is the city sandbox. You take a highly stratified fantasy metropolis like Lankhmar or Night City (or Altdorf, Sigil, Ankh-Morpork or whatever; the possibilities are endless), set your players at the absolute bottom of the ladder and tell them "your mission is to claw your way to the top of the heap, however you can do it". That gets them signed on to the broad campaign goal from the outset. The smaller sandbox limits the decision paralysis. Travel is less of an issue within a city, and you'd naturally expect fewer random encounters, so it's more time efficient.

Good thoughts!
Only 2-3 self motivated players is completely normal - you only really need 1 if they're at every game, but there's a big risk of them developing 'main character syndrome' so 2-3 is ideal IME. An entire group of self motivated self starters can be too much to handle, and tends to be highly fissile as competing agendas develop.
Decision paralysis - a sandbox without plenty of cool hooks is a litter box. Players only need a couple options, but the GM also needs to let things go in unexpected directions. For my 5e Basic game I have a rumour table, PCs can have 1 roll/week if they spend a gp carousing. I may do the same
with the new Cyberpunk game. I totally agree that a sandbox should be limited scale - the core area in my 5e Basic game is the town of Threshold and an 8x8 mile wilderness valley. In my Cyberpunk game it's South Night City, which IMC only has a population of something over 100,000 or so.
Not picking up on plans/communication - yes this is an issue. Maybe a player has a cool to them idea  but doesn't really express it well. Maybe the GM doesn't like it, it doesn't fit the game theme or doesn't seem to go anywhere. Looking at stuff from a different angle can really help there.
Time - I mostly disagree in that I find short frequent sessions are better suited to following one PC's agenda, then can wrap it and do a different one next time. Some games like 4e D&D just hate sandboxing though. But a huge battle can be fine if it's infrequent. Eg the massive shootout with the Dirty Cops kicking off my Cyberpunk game I think worked well, but I wouldn't want every game to be like that.
I agree re city sandbox, or neighbourhood within a large city. Give them a sandbox of limited scope they can easily grasp; it can always be expanded later.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 17, 2024, 03:44:55 PM
While RPGs are not story-making games, you can absolutely "plan" a campaign to last 10-12 sessions, and I think it is a good idea.

Absolutely not. Again, RPGs are not scripted media, the "story" is an emergent property of the game and not a preplanned outcome.
Assuming and end after an arbitrary duration is met is simply stupid.

Quote from: NotFromAroundHere on February 17, 2024, 01:32:12 PM

Quote from: DocFlamingo on February 16, 2024, 10:55:12 PM
My personal advice, for what it may be worth, is that when you start a new campaign plan in advance for it to run for ten to a dozen sessions.

You're not writing a story, you're playing a game. It runs for as long as it needs to run or as long as there's sufficient interest for it, not for an arbitrary, predetermined number of sessions.
Leave short campaigns to shit like storygames.

Modules usually have a beginning, and end. Sometimes not much of a middle as a meander.

Planning a campaign with a thought out conclusion is not storybaming or necessarily plot. You know have an idea where things will likely end.

Quote from: NotFromAroundHere on February 18, 2024, 04:06:26 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 17, 2024, 03:44:55 PM
While RPGs are not story-making games, you can absolutely "plan" a campaign to last 10-12 sessions, and I think it is a good idea.

Absolutely not. Again, RPGs are not scripted media, the "story" is an emergent property of the game and not a preplanned outcome.
Assuming and end after an arbitrary duration is met is simply stupid.

A1-4 Slave Lords
T1-4 Hommlet to Temple of Elemental Evil
G1-3, D1-3, Q1, Against the Giants, Descent to the depth of the Earth/Shrine of the Kuo-Toa, Vault of the Drow, Queen of the Demonweb Pits.
U1-3, Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, Danger at Dunwater, The Final Enemy
X4,X5,X10, Master of the Desert Nomads, Temple of Death, Red Arrow Black Shield

All of these module series have a starting scenario and end goal, all also have elements of exploration in the wilderness (except Slave Lords).

All of the above will play out differently each time you run them.  You can have pre planned stuff and still have a non story game. 

This is exactly the sort of dogmatic OneTrueWayism that made me avoid the entire OSR scene for years.

Quote from: DocFlamingo on February 16, 2024, 10:55:12 PM
Also, don't be afraid to run a few one-off adventures, perhaps with premade characters, to find your stride before you get into something much larger; especially when playing with a new group of people where you don't know if everyone is going to commit to a more involved campaign.

I went even smaller for a Starfinder mercs campaign that was sadly a casualty of Covid.
I aimed for 2-3 mini chunks of content. Stuff that could be completed in less than an evening of play. My thought was #1. Just to try it out and see how it ran, and #2. To give the players choice of content. If they didn't want to take a contract, that was maybe 30 minutes of prep, and most of that typing and looking up stats and numbers, and I can always recycle prep for later.
Everyone seemed to have fun, and I was going to leave loose threads for the players to pick up to indicate the more long-term content they wanted to pursue.
And the Covid hit and everything went to shit. Ah well.

Quote from: NotFromAroundHere on February 18, 2024, 04:06:26 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 17, 2024, 03:44:55 PM
While RPGs are not story-making games, you can absolutely "plan" a campaign to last 10-12 sessions, and I think it is a good idea.

Absolutely not. Again, RPGs are not scripted media, the "story" is an emergent property of the game and not a preplanned outcome.
Assuming and end after an arbitrary duration is met is simply stupid.

Bro, do you even lift?