Welcome to “That’s How I Roll,” my new column about anything and everything related to tabletop RPGs, seen through the lens of my personal gaming experience. For my first article, I decided to share my thoughts on sandbox campaigns in RPGs; in the future, you may see GM tips and tricks, lists of helpful RPG software and resources, RPG reviews, flash-fiction-turned-RPG-scenarios, or perhaps something else entirely. I’m looking forward to bringing you new ideas and content every Tuesday, and I hope you’ll read along!
I love sandbox campaigns. After years and years of playing and GMing, I’ve realized that the only campaigns I’ve consistently enjoyed participating in are ones that follow a sandbox model rather than a planned one. Now, I want to state up front that there’s no wrong way to structure a roleplaying campaign, as long as everyone is having fun. I don’t want anyone to think that I hate planned campaigns or that I judge people who enjoy them negatively. Planned campaigns can be a lot of fun, assuming you have the time and inclination to do the work and preparation required. I should probably also state that I recognize that a planned campaign doesn’t mean that you have to plan everything upfront, or that there’s no way for the narrative to change during the course of play; I only use the term “planned campaign” in order to distinguish it from what I consider to be “sandbox campaigns.” With that out of the way, let’s talk a bit more about sandbox gaming.
I define sandbox campaigns as a particular type of gaming with three defining characteristics. They are:
- The GM presents situations, not plots.
- The PCs drive the narrative
- The world operates independently of the PCs.
Let’s examine each of these points in turn.
The GM Presents Situations, Not Plots
Tell me if this sounds familiar: Princess Cliché, the daughter of King Moneybags, is kidnapped by the evil wizard Baddude and locked away at the top of his tower. The king charges the PCs with rescuing the princess, and so they must storm the wizard’s tower, defeat Baddude and his minions, and bring Cliché back to Moneybags.
On the surface, there’s nothing wrong with the scenario above. In fact, it could make a very fun and exciting adventure for the right group of players. However, it also makes a lot of assumptions about the PCs’ desires and motivations, and the way the narrative will unfold. First off, it requires that the PCs will be inclined to take interest in the kidnapping at all – even if rewards and threats are presented, that’s hardly a foolproof guarantee. Another assumption this makes is that the PCs will go in guns ablazing, mowing through enemies left and right until they finally get to the wizard and have an epic battle. That’s one possible strategy, but a creative party might come up with many other alternative methods to accomplish their objectives, like negotiating for the princess’s release or bypassing the enemies by scaling the tower. Do you really want to deny your players the opportunity to come up with their own plans? Alternatively, do you really want to plan out separate adventures with challenges tailored to each of the possibilities above? Hats off if you do, but I personally don’t have and don’t want to spend that kind of time and effort.
So, what’s the alternative? Present situations, not plots. What this means in practical terms is that a GM should come up with interesting situations/hooks that the PCs could decide to get involved in, but let it be their choice – don’t force it. This means that if the players don’t seem interested in the kidnapping plot, don’t force the issue. Let the situation play out naturally. There will be plenty of opportunities in the future to present new hooks to your players. On the other hand, you probably should have some idea of what a fight in the wizard’s tower would look like, or what challenges there might be in trying to scale the tower, but there’s no need to map the entire adventure out around any or all of those particular scenarios. Not only will this give your players more narrative and creative freedom, but it also means that when the characters choose to pursue a particular hook, it’s because they are interested and buying into what’s happening. That alone is a godsend for any GM who has struggled to keep their players interested and invested in their campaign; it also has the added benefit of playing into the second defining feature of a sandbox campaign, namely that the PCs drive the narrative.
The PCs Drive the Narrative
As a GM, I have repeatedly been in a situation where I’m just not sure what sort of situation or plot hook to offer my players. Will they be interested in dungeon-crawling for treasure? Would they want to negotiate peace between two warring tribes so they can face an even greater threat together? Sometimes I’m feeling uninspired and just can’t think of any ideas at all. In a sandbox campaign, this isn’t a problem, because the PCs drive the narrative. All you have to do is sit back, and let them decide where they want to go and what they want to do. They want to slay a dragon? Cool, feed them rumors about the dragon’s lair in the caves to the West. They want to start up a valuable fur-trading venture in a remote town? Sure, why not, but now they’ll either need to go hunt for furs in the haunted forest, and/or do a job for the capital city’s merchants’ guild to get access to their wares.
As you have probably realized, this type of campaigning does comes with a couple caveats. First, it requires that the PCs have to be proactive in making decisions about what they want to do. They can’t just sit on their butts expecting someone to burst through the door and offer them a quest while showering them with gold and equipment. If they want adventure and rewards, they have to go out there and seek it! Secondly, the GM either has to be ready to improvise when the PCs come up with an unexpected plan, or to ask your players for more time to prepare for their new course of action. Sometimes the GM can devise convenient excuses to delay a particular action and even turn it into a new hook – sure, you can go explore the Frozen North that I have in no way mapped out or planned yet, but you’ll need to complete a quest for the guards at The Wall before they’ll let you cross through. In my experience, dealing with these constraints are more than worth it in the end; not only does the GM save time planning and preparing a sequence of adventures, but the players are almost assuredly going to be invested in what’s happening. After all, they’re the ones who decided to explore the Frozen North to begin with! And finally, all this leads us to the third defining feature of a sandbox campaign: the world operates independently of the PCs.
The World Operates Independently of the PCs
Remember that time when the wizard kidnapped the princess, but the party decided not to get involved? Oh well, I guess the princess will just wallow in misery at the top of that tower forever. Except, of course that won’t happen! If the PCs decline the quest, the king won’t just shrug it off and let his daughter rot. Maybe he’ll hire another (NPC) hero/party, and they’ll get all the glory and riches. Maybe he’ll be furious at the PCs for their heartlessness, and vow to spend the rest of his days hunting the PCs down in vengeance. Maybe the wizard decides to sacrifice the princess in a dark ritual to unleash doom upon the land, and now the players have to deal with the aftermath.
The point is, just because the PCs decide not to get involved with something doesn’t mean that nothing happens. A sandbox campaign entails creating a living world, and that world keeps on turning whether the PCs like it or not. Everything the PCs do (or don’t do) should have consequences that shape the people, places, and events of the world. This is essential, because if there are no consequences to their actions, then the PCs won’t feel like their actions make a difference; if they feel like their actions don’t make a difference, then they aren’t going to be as motivated to engage with and drive the narrative; if they aren’t actively driving the narrative, it makes it much more difficult to present them with situations to pursue, and without situations to pursue the campaign will get boring or fall apart completely. To that end, whenever you’re thinking up situations to present to the PCs, always ask yourself what the consequences of inaction, success, and failure are. That way, regardless of their response to the situation or the final outcome, you have an idea of what will happen next, and what new situations will arise that you can present to your PCs. And thus the cycle will continue (and hopefully much fun will be had) until the GM and the players decide it’s a good time to stop.
Final Thoughts
Sandbox campaigns are a lot of fun. They do require their own sort of planning and preparation, but in general it’s much less time-consuming than the sort of prep that goes into a planned campaign. They encourage player engagement, they allow the PCs to make meaningful choices, and the resulting narrative can surprise everyone at the table – including the GM! I hope you’ll consider running or playing in a sandbox campaign if you haven’t or aren’t already. At the very least, I hope I’ve given you a deeper appreciation and understanding of sandboxing, even if you think you may still prefer planned campaigns.
Happy gaming, and see you next week!
Do you have thoughts or questions about the article or suggestions for future content? Leave a comment below or drop me a line at jtdimino@d20radio.com
J.T. Dimino
Latest posts by J.T. Dimino (see all)
- The PC Factory: Aedan the Druid (Old School Essentials) - January 26, 2021
