I wonder if people here (in this thread) actually ever have played an actual sandbox campaign.

The wheedling of meta-engineering campaigns based on "numbers of sessions" and "fights per session" down inevitably to the player-centric "damage per round" ultimately is just ignoring the actual game itself.

But this comes from the notion that "running an adventure" is supposed to act like a scripted story. When the reality is the "story" is what the PC's do. And the GM's job is only to facilitate them doing things as represented by the setting. Saying something like "I don't have time to do a multi-year campaign" is like saying "I don't have any intention of playing TTRPG's for years."

If the campaign is unscripted, you simply play. The campaign is over when everyone agrees its over. This largely depends on the depth of skill of your GM. Inversely it depends on the quality of the GM's player's and their capacity for engagement - and directly that tension that exists between them.

No amount of badly scripted adventures will hold a group long term, and no amount of well scripted one-shots will truly give the feeling of total player agency as long as the script takes dominance over the actual game.

It's bizarre. Pre-determining campaign length is like setting an alarm for having sex. Granted by this analogy, doing one-shots as a "campaign" is like claiming premature ejaculation is good sex. Well at least someone got theirs... Aim higher, go deeper (pun intended).

Quote from: tenbones on February 23, 2024, 02:08:20 PM
I wonder if people here (in this thread) actually ever have played an actual sandbox campaign.

How do you run a sandbox campaign? You specifically. I know how I run mine.

Well first I establish with my players what I want to run - they get input. I usually pitch a few ideas thematically of what I'm interested in running. Fantasy ? Supers? Horror? Cyberpunk? then I start drilling down on possible concepts. Mind you, everyone know just because we're starting thematically, precisely NONE of my campaigns require we remain on theme, that's really up to the players.

So how I build a sandbox - I'm going to swipe a post I made a while ago, here on this forum.

The First Layer
So let's pretend, for example, I'm starting a Pirate Campaign. The first thing I do is start building out the starting area (so for example my version of Tortuga). I populate it with NPC's, factions, places of interest, and jam pack it with as much detail as I think will be cool. I figure out all the interconnected sinew - between factions, NPC motivations and goals etc. All the things that the PC's can interact with directly. This is the first immediate tier. It exists without anything expressly required other than the PC's being there. In other words, it's a self-contained "Village of Hommlet" that the PC's could wander around on their own and even adventure there. It can be as expansive as you need it to be, but it should scale based on the PC's actions involving whatever content you've created there to express that location to the hilt. This assumes that the PC's are going to be based there for some period... (and wherever they're going to be based, I build that location out exactly the same way with the new location's issues being customized to the circumstances).

The Second Layer
Behind the scenes I consider the "economy" of the place - basically if there are Pirates, that means I need to know the means about how they go about pirating, handle loot (plugged into factions and NPC's) - effectively I build a basic map of who, what, where, when, how the place operates. This means outlining WHO are the people being potentially pirated. Nations? City-states? Other pirates? Free Traders? The PC's don't need to know any of this. The point is this is the next layer. These are the possible interactions that can occur where the PC's leave their home-base and *do* things out there, that could possibly affect things in the First Layer. In fact - it SHOULD affect things in the First Layer.

So let's say the PC's set out from Tortuga, and start pirating and they keep hitting these ships along a certain trade-route... and for the most part their victims are from a particular City-State/Nation. AT MINIMUM they return to Tortuga with increased rep, and booty. This *should* change elements of the First Layer to represent that. Anything from certain NPC's being pro/con the PC's actions. Factions reacting to the PC's endeavors etc. This is pretty basic - you can ramp it up with some complexity - the PC's hit a convoy and they get a treasure map/information that would directly effect the "economy" of Tortuga. The map could lead to a module, or a dungeon, and/or secrets that would disrupt the First Layer greatly. It could be the discovery of actual *power* (magic items, spells, gear, whatever) that can either propel the PC's out of this layer, or to become major players in the First Layer. All of this becomes fodder for creating a potential Third Layer.

Third Layer
The Third Layer is what exists expressly outside of the ecosystem of the first two layers. These are Ports o' Call beyond the "Pirate Game concept". So the PC's get caught in a storm that brings them to some other land... the world expands. The question becomes do the players stay here? If so, then you rinse/repeat what you do in the First/Second Layer - only you do it in this new locale. What happens now, is you're creating a much more expansive game - new issues, new interactions all working together based on the actions of the PC's.

In terms of scaling "power" - that's entirely dependent on what the constraints of your setting allows (and what you want to deal with). In our make-believe game here - I may have started in the First Layer with magic being "low powered"... but in the Second Layer they may have risen to prominence where the discovery of something else where that status quo may change. They might discover a spellbook for instance where now greater magic is allowed to filter in. OR they end up on an adventure that takes them into the Third Layer and that location has an entirely difference status-quo on power... perhaps the PC's bring that back to the First Layer after a brief layover in the Third? Or maybe they STAY there... and soak it up and assimilate.

The key is to consider this as early as possible before you pull the trigger on it. These constraints should be bolstered by the system you choose to run. Some systems don't handle "high-power" well. And it might not require it. Again it depends on the constraints. You'll note here at no point do I talk specifically about "Domain Play", or "Modules" etc. Because it all has its place depending on your bandwidth as a GM.

As a sandbox GM - player agency is a top priority for me. For other GM's they might not like wrestling with all those variables, but the way I build out layers in my campaigns as above is a model for inexperienced sandbox GM's to get a mental handhold on it because if you build it out right, it *almost* runs itself. You just have to learn how to use carrot/stick tactics to keep the PC's moving and doing stuff and let the world react to their actions and reactions.

The campaigns proceeds until it comes to some natural resolution. I've had games last a month, years, TPK's on session 3... heh, it happens. My part is to do all I can to give the PC's the playground to go crazy. It ends where it ends.


The important thing here is that while I'm building a sandbox for my players to dive into, I'm not telling them overtly what to do. In Session 0 I *am* helping them conceive of their characters and grounding their ideas into the context of the Sandbox Starting point so they generally know exactly why their PC is there. We'll suss out some details that are of interest to them - and it might be something I never considered for the Sandbox in the first place, which can spur more content to create and tantalize with.

For instance if one of my players wanted to play a Mage, we'd discuss what/why/when/where his Mage is in this place, and now I'd have to think about "what do Mages do here?" then before the game starts I'd have all that sorted out. It might be that Mage in Tortuga have some special code they live by due to a Curse(tm) placed upon the region. Or that all Mages are expected to do <X> or <Y> happens - of course the players don't necessarily know this. It's something *specific* for them to discover that other characters may never know about - because they're not Mages. The scale of these things is entirely up to you. The goal is to make it interesting and adventure-worthy. I do *not* believe in itnerant characters "just because". They can *become* itinerant characters in-game, but they're not going to start that way. Especially casters.

Quote from: tenbones on February 23, 2024, 04:59:32 PM
Well first I establish with my players what I want to run - they get input. I usually pitch a few ideas thematically of what I'm interested in running. Fantasy ? Supers? Horror? Cyberpunk? then I start drilling down on possible concepts. Mind you, everyone know just because we're starting thematically, precisely NONE of my campaigns require we remain on theme, that's really up to the players.

So how I build a sandbox - I'm going to swipe a post I made a while ago, here on this forum.

The First Layer
So let's pretend, for example, I'm starting a Pirate Campaign. The first thing I do is start building out the starting area (so for example my version of Tortuga). I populate it with NPC's, factions, places of interest, and jam pack it with as much detail as I think will be cool. I figure out all the interconnected sinew - between factions, NPC motivations and goals etc. All the things that the PC's can interact with directly. This is the first immediate tier. It exists without anything expressly required other than the PC's being there. In other words, it's a self-contained "Village of Hommlet" that the PC's could wander around on their own and even adventure there. It can be as expansive as you need it to be, but it should scale based on the PC's actions involving whatever content you've created there to express that location to the hilt. This assumes that the PC's are going to be based there for some period... (and wherever they're going to be based, I build that location out exactly the same way with the new location's issues being customized to the circumstances).

The Second Layer
Behind the scenes I consider the "economy" of the place - basically if there are Pirates, that means I need to know the means about how they go about pirating, handle loot (plugged into factions and NPC's) - effectively I build a basic map of who, what, where, when, how the place operates. This means outlining WHO are the people being potentially pirated. Nations? City-states? Other pirates? Free Traders? The PC's don't need to know any of this. The point is this is the next layer. These are the possible interactions that can occur where the PC's leave their home-base and *do* things out there, that could possibly affect things in the First Layer. In fact - it SHOULD affect things in the First Layer.

So let's say the PC's set out from Tortuga, and start pirating and they keep hitting these ships along a certain trade-route... and for the most part their victims are from a particular City-State/Nation. AT MINIMUM they return to Tortuga with increased rep, and booty. This *should* change elements of the First Layer to represent that. Anything from certain NPC's being pro/con the PC's actions. Factions reacting to the PC's endeavors etc. This is pretty basic - you can ramp it up with some complexity - the PC's hit a convoy and they get a treasure map/information that would directly effect the "economy" of Tortuga. The map could lead to a module, or a dungeon, and/or secrets that would disrupt the First Layer greatly. It could be the discovery of actual *power* (magic items, spells, gear, whatever) that can either propel the PC's out of this layer, or to become major players in the First Layer. All of this becomes fodder for creating a potential Third Layer.

Third Layer
The Third Layer is what exists expressly outside of the ecosystem of the first two layers. These are Ports o' Call beyond the "Pirate Game concept". So the PC's get caught in a storm that brings them to some other land... the world expands. The question becomes do the players stay here? If so, then you rinse/repeat what you do in the First/Second Layer - only you do it in this new locale. What happens now, is you're creating a much more expansive game - new issues, new interactions all working together based on the actions of the PC's.

In terms of scaling "power" - that's entirely dependent on what the constraints of your setting allows (and what you want to deal with). In our make-believe game here - I may have started in the First Layer with magic being "low powered"... but in the Second Layer they may have risen to prominence where the discovery of something else where that status quo may change. They might discover a spellbook for instance where now greater magic is allowed to filter in. OR they end up on an adventure that takes them into the Third Layer and that location has an entirely difference status-quo on power... perhaps the PC's bring that back to the First Layer after a brief layover in the Third? Or maybe they STAY there... and soak it up and assimilate.

The key is to consider this as early as possible before you pull the trigger on it. These constraints should be bolstered by the system you choose to run. Some systems don't handle "high-power" well. And it might not require it. Again it depends on the constraints. You'll note here at no point do I talk specifically about "Domain Play", or "Modules" etc. Because it all has its place depending on your bandwidth as a GM.

As a sandbox GM - player agency is a top priority for me. For other GM's they might not like wrestling with all those variables, but the way I build out layers in my campaigns as above is a model for inexperienced sandbox GM's to get a mental handhold on it because if you build it out right, it *almost* runs itself. You just have to learn how to use carrot/stick tactics to keep the PC's moving and doing stuff and let the world react to their actions and reactions.

The campaigns proceeds until it comes to some natural resolution. I've had games last a month, years, TPK's on session 3... heh, it happens. My part is to do all I can to give the PC's the playground to go crazy. It ends where it ends.

Ok yeah. Now say I'm running a similar campaign and I've got three or four adventure threads that the characters are pursuing, and I want to wrap up the campaign and I don't want to leave any threads dangling. We may return to the campaign at a later date, but I don't want to leave anything major up in the air in case the group changes, they forget stuff, the adventure gets "cold", etc.
I can eyeball how long the existing content will last based on previous experience. I can even cut them short early, for example, Captain Bushellback, the rival of the characters was killed by the Royal Navy off screen.
I don't want to go too heavy handed, and it may take shorter or a bit longer than my estimations, but as an experienced GM, I'm pretty good at pacing and estimating how long content will last. Heck, that's how I pace the new adventure leads that I introduce.

In my experience, it's generally true that most players see the end coming after extended play where everyone will be happy to stop. Especially if there are obvious openings to revisiting the sandbox later.

of course trick is sticking that landing so it happens.

Quote from: tenbones on February 23, 2024, 02:08:20 PM
I wonder if people here (in this thread) actually ever have played an actual sandbox campaign.

The wheedling of meta-engineering campaigns based on "numbers of sessions" and "fights per session" down inevitably to the player-centric "damage per round" ultimately is just ignoring the actual game itself.

But this comes from the notion that "running an adventure" is supposed to act like a scripted story. When the reality is the "story" is what the PC's do. And the GM's job is only to facilitate them doing things as represented by the setting. Saying something like "I don't have time to do a multi-year campaign" is like saying "I don't have any intention of playing TTRPG's for years."

If the campaign is unscripted, you simply play. The campaign is over when everyone agrees its over. This largely depends on the depth of skill of your GM. Inversely it depends on the quality of the GM's player's and their capacity for engagement - and directly that tension that exists between them.

No amount of badly scripted adventures will hold a group long term, and no amount of well scripted one-shots will truly give the feeling of total player agency as long as the script takes dominance over the actual game.

It's bizarre. Pre-determining campaign length is like setting an alarm for having sex. Granted by this analogy, doing one-shots as a "campaign" is like claiming premature ejaculation is good sex. Well at least someone got theirs... Aim higher, go deeper (pun intended).

I've run a couple of sandbox campaigns - currently running one - but I don't see the issue with making a rough estimation about how much it will last.

Again, think Curse of Strahd, Tomb of Annihilation, Nights Dark Terror, etc. CoS is done when the PCs kill Strahd or get killed. Likewise for ToA and Acererak (ToA even ahs a ticking clock, the world will end if the PCs do not succeed in 60 days or whatever, making the duration even easier to calculate).

Remember Gygax advises in the DMG that the campaign must eventually show a good x evil (or Law x Chaos) backdrop to the whole thing.

Episodic play is also possible, especially with multiple antagonists.

I don't see why play a campaign until everyone is bored - that has happened to me once, but not on purpose (the players just couldn't stomach the death of one important PC).

Also, every couple of years I like to change settings anyway.

Well, I usually have a fairly good estimate on how long a campaign will last, but not how long the setting will last.  That's because to me a campaign is a specific set of characters and their exploits towards some major goal(s).  Doesn't even matter if it's a pure linear thing with pre-cooked adventures or a pure sandbox with the players driving everything.  I may very well do multiple campaigns in that same setting, and some of those campaigns may even have overlapping characters.  My campaigns typically run 18 to 24 months.  The setting usually ends when I feel I've got most of the good mysteries out of it, and am ready to move onto a new one.  That's a lot more difficult to predict. 

There is something I don't think I've ever considered: when has a setting run dry?

I know most people have a dim view of the Forgotten Realms, usually because of the same reason they have dim views of D&D as a game - because it's been pooped upon by an endless river of diarrhea of bad ideas through various incarnations.

Honestly, I've never run dry of ideas of what to do with it, or in it. Greybox is Realms is merely a canvas for me. I always put my own take on a specific place. Same with Greyhawk. And I always use the 1e source material for my inspiration. I've run my own homebrew worlds before, only a few of them ever really caught on.

But even a better example - my Supers games. I liberally use Marvel and DC in the same way. Star Wars too. I take a basic slate and just run with it. I've never actually run dry on any particular established setting. Set them down for a while? Sure. Never ran dry tho.

For me, it's not so much a setting running dry as having another setting idea that I want to do more.  Plus, the settings I enjoy the most are my own, anyway.  I've tended to switch settings when I switch systems.  The Realms is a good example of that.  There's a ton of stuff that I could still have a blast with in that setting, not to mention several major areas I've never even touched.  Yet, since my last Realms campaign over 20 years ago, it's never bubbled higher than 4 or 5 on my list of things to do next. 

I suspect that my current settings will have longer legs than any I have done for awhile.  It helps that the system and setting are a match. 

Quote from: tenbones on February 23, 2024, 02:08:20 PM
I wonder if people here (in this thread) actually ever have played an actual sandbox campaign.

The wheedling of meta-engineering campaigns based on "numbers of sessions" and "fights per session" down inevitably to the player-centric "damage per round" ultimately is just ignoring the actual game itself.

But this comes from the notion that "running an adventure" is supposed to act like a scripted story. When the reality is the "story" is what the PC's do. And the GM's job is only to facilitate them doing things as represented by the setting. Saying something like "I don't have time to do a multi-year campaign" is like saying "I don't have any intention of playing TTRPG's for years."

If the campaign is unscripted, you simply play. The campaign is over when everyone agrees its over. This largely depends on the depth of skill of your GM. Inversely it depends on the quality of the GM's player's and their capacity for engagement - and directly that tension that exists between them.

No amount of badly scripted adventures will hold a group long term, and no amount of well scripted one-shots will truly give the feeling of total player agency as long as the script takes dominance over the actual game.

It's bizarre. Pre-determining campaign length is like setting an alarm for having sex. Granted by this analogy, doing one-shots as a "campaign" is like claiming premature ejaculation is good sex. Well at least someone got theirs... Aim higher, go deeper (pun intended).

A man after my own heart.

Yes, this is the way.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 23, 2024, 06:36:18 PM
Also, every couple of years I like to change settings anyway.

The biggest hurdle for us back in the day, to a really long term campaign, was DM/System/Setting hopping.

It's still a problem.

Developing GM skills to get past the linear module-running, and the "novelist-wish-fulfillment" railroading into learning how to sandbox requires individuals that actually *want* to GM, rather than just be the guy that fills the role because no one else wants to the job.

I'm literally in the middle of setting up a studio in my office to start talking about these methods and GMing as a developmental process for YT/Rumble. Especially with the D&D implosion happening/incoming with 6e. We're gonna need more GM's than ever.

/Starship Troopers Engaged

So I'm doing my part!

Would you like to know more?

Currently my campaign (the first i've ran in decades) has been going on for about 3 years now.  Playing every other week on average, and the party is
just now hitting 5th-6th level, so far so good.  Pace seems about right for how much we get done in a session.  The campaign is pretty much a
sandbox, though I've tossed a few old modules at the players for old times sake.  Was fun, as my older players (the others who played in the 1980's)
had mostly forgotten even the details of the Keep on the Borderlands, and the younger 5e players of course never had heard of it, was nice to run it
again after so long, never thought I'd have the chance given how ubiquitous it was back in the day.  Apart from that, though, pretty much everything
i just made up myself. 

Major events unfold when they are meant to by the lose timeline I have, though there's no overarching plot per se, the group has plenty of small ways
to influence events, which will improve as they get more levels and practice under their collective belts.  Seems better to let the story unfold naturally
as the result of the players decisions, and those are getting more complicated all the time.

No burnout yet, if i survive another 10 years, could go on just as long as that!  heh heh.

Greetings!

Interesting. I can't say that I share the theoretical "problem" of setting burnout, or frenetically changing campaign settings. My campaigns have all been set within my campaign setting of Thandor forever now, since I'd say 1980. I have periodically been entertained and inspired by other campaign settings, such as the Old World of 1E WHFRP, Greyhawk, Known World, Mystara, and Greybox Forgotten Realms. And Talislanta! While each has been inspiring, and enjoys various merits, all have shortcomings and flaws. So, I continue to keep game campaigns set within Thandor.

As far as "Campaign Length" goes, or the campaign lifespan, I have never embraced any set ending point. Campaigns endure and proceed, usually for many months and years, ending at various points when various players have changed careers, adopting radically different schedules, or moved too far away for practical game meetings.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Four-foot-one.