I might be playing in a friends game at some point and I’ve thought about doing the “god wizard” thing but with a Bard since it’s all newbies to the game. I was thinking it’d be neat to run a support-style character who’s more interested in finding a good story to tell than being in the spotlight
Two of my characters have started as chroniclers for their respective parties
One even got their ballad about the death of another party member to the equivalent of the top of the charts
[Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
+2
Sir FabulousMalevolent Squid GodRegistered Userregular
D&D 4e. I know the sentiment on these forums is strangely more positive than in general, but let me tell you that was the first system I played, and I was the DM.
And fighting was all well and good, but I had literally no idea how to run a non-combat encounter. I remember reading and re-reading the skill check section of the book being like 'I guess I'm just fucking stupid because this doesn't make sense to me.'
I wonder if it would be better for me now that I've DM'd 5e for years and years and dabbled in GMing several other systems too.
what you actually do during non-combat play I think was definitely a big hole in the instruction design for 4E
what was it, like, "do skill challenges!" and then skill challenges are just roll skill checks several times and hope your players meet the number of successes they need because there's no clear guidelines on what to do if you fail?
4e understood that D&D, no matter what it tries to call itself, is a tactical combat game with roleplay as a light seasoning.
This is why 4E is my favorite.
But also let's not pretend that it wasn't also out there trying to sell itself as the everything game. Even if the systems were pretty solidly based on that principle, that's not something that any of those books were outright telling you in the introduction. And honestly, the broader RPG scene was much less strong when it was released, there weren't as many good options if you didn't want to play a tactical combat game.
RPGs are generally built around checks even if they obfuscate it with gimicks. Pathfinder 2E at least has some robust mechanics for investigation, chases, etc. to make skill checks more varied,
4e understood that D&D, no matter what it tries to call itself, is a tactical combat game with roleplay as a light seasoning.
This is why 4E is my favorite.
But also let's not pretend that it wasn't also out there trying to sell itself as the everything game. Even if the systems were pretty solidly based on that principle, that's not something that any of those books were outright telling you in the introduction. And honestly, the broader RPG scene was much less strong when it was released, there weren't as many good options if you didn't want to play a tactical combat game.
In the thread in Critical Failures I posted the entire intro from the 4th ed players handbook and it actually is quite clear about what kind of setting and theme it is for.
Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
0
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
Like, honestly the complaints that 4e doesn't facilitate anything out of combat is genuinely confusing to me and I'm not playing this up or joking even a little
There's exactly as many rules for it as any other edition. You make a skill check. If anything there's more rules because there are explicit mechanics for needing to make multiple skill checks sometimes.
I find it really interesting to go back and read the books from older editions and other games. And to do so carefully in order to compare how we played back then and what the popular conception was vs what was actually in the books.
The biggest difference is with 1st and 2nd ed. I think in large part because it was so long between the release of the Players Hanbook and Dungeon Masters Guide each time. I dont know anyone who played even remotely like what is in the book.
4e understood that D&D, no matter what it tries to call itself, is a tactical combat game with roleplay as a light seasoning.
Something important to note here, I think: Wizards of the Coast's take on D&D is a tactical combat game. Earlier D&D, OD&D and AD&D and Basic, was... well, combat was still a thing but the actual rules focus wasn't really in that direction?
OD&D, for instance, is really more about mapping challenges. Monsters are an obstacle to make mapping the labyrinth harder, much like angled corridors and sloped passages and moving walls and teleportation hallways. And once you get into wilderness adventures, well, that's less tactical combat and more just... breaking out a wargame. Probably 10:1 scale on the number of soldiers each piece represents, I reckon, because those 180 warriors guarding that castle kind of require that.
In some ways, OD&D is very much a fine-tuned clockwork of a boardgame, with the players exploring a maze and trying to escape with as much treasure as they can. It's really interesting to see how the game has involved since, really, and it's worth a peek.
Basic is simplified in some ways, and more complicated in others - it actually has its own combat system in the book, for example, and there's some basic combat maneuvers like "here's how you disengage from combat". IIRC it still spends more paragraphs on how to resolve running away from monsters than it does on how to fight them, though. It's... not a complex system. It's still largely about the dungeon, or the wilderness, with combat just being a thing that happens in those places.
AD&D 1E brought out all kinds of overly complex and specific rules that weigh the whole thing down... but it also didn't really have, like, tactical positioning or choosing who to attack? No, really, if there's multiple targets then you randomly determine who in the group gets hit. (1E DMG p.70). Both for ranged and melee. (I don't think a lot of players used that rule, to be honest.)
There's some rules for tactical grid-based combat with flank/rear bonuses but it's... kind of half-baked and doesn't seem fully in agreement with the rest of the rules around it. I'm pretty sure that it's mostly just there to sell the miniatures they advertise in the same paragraph?
AD&D 2E... well, that's kind of the edition where they went all-in on how D&D was actually about following these grand metaplot adventures and kind of sidelined a lot of the combat. The core of 1E's rules remains, though, even if it's mostly just pared down to choosing where to move and who to attack (actually possible in 2E, I think?). Notably I think tactical grid-based combat is entirely absent from the core books, although I think it might've returned in later products trying to complicate the combat system.
3E is where they go hard on tactical combat, actual designed encounters with specific enemy locations, a whole lot of combat options... and also where resolving a combat scene starts to take longer than five minutes, of course. 4E iterates on what 3E started (it's very similar to late-3.5E design, e.g. the Tome of Battle) and 5E went back to a more pared-down version of 3E's combat, but it's all very similar in its approach. Movement matters, location matters, characters actually have options for what to do in combat (note that in the older editions, even a Wizard might only have a handful of combat-relevant spells!)... the combat is the game. Those exploration rules that were seemingly so important in earlier editions? Nah, not really a thing anymore.
3.0 still had a designated mapper as a player duty. 3.5 ditched that entirely.
We could really use an Exploration Renaissance. Video games have gotten decent at it but I think a lot of RPGs miss out on the feel of wonder at the world along the path. Maybe put a dedicated part of the treasure and XP into the world by default to start. Some shinies off the beaten path and some XP for helping a merchant fix a wagon wheel, etc.
Incenjucar on
+3
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
edited August 13
I think we're in an exploration renaissance - like, that's the whole thing of West Marches/Hexcrawl gameplay, which I feel like I've been seeing everywhere for the past couple of years. Heart is probably the highest profile exploration based game I can think of off hand, but there's a bunch of exploration stuff built into Stonetop and Wildsea as well.
Edit: Wanderhome and Torchbearer are also worth mentioning, with two different sorts of exploration focus.
We could really use an Exploration Renaissance. Video games have gotten decent at it but I think a lot of RPGs miss out on the feel of wonder at the world along the path. Maybe put a dedicated part of the treasure and XP into the world by default to start. Some shinies off the beaten path and some XP for helping a merchant fix a wagon wheel, etc.
I'd be down for something like that. You got me thinking about what if there was a game with the pillars of D&D but they were more equal than they are now? Like have player roles dedicated to combat, exploration, and social interactions? Like, everyone can participate in each but certain roles get bonuses and pillar-specific abilities to do their jobs, and maybe those dedicated players also get extra rewards for doing what they're dedicated to? Like for combat everyone can do some basic stuff like hit, move, disengage, etc., but combat classes get skills and powers that let them kick ass. For exploration anyone can look around and do basic climbing, jumping, etc., but exploration classes can jump farther, cast spells that facilitate investigation and movement, etc. Same for social situations. I guess you'd have to find a way to give each pillar some depth and complexity, but without making any of them take too long or feel like a slog or have players sit around bored and unable to contribute anything when it's not their specialty being dealt with. I dunno, I'm not a game designer and maybe it's a flawed idea, and also maybe it's already been attempted (I don't keep up with many ttrpgs)
We could really use an Exploration Renaissance. Video games have gotten decent at it but I think a lot of RPGs miss out on the feel of wonder at the world along the path. Maybe put a dedicated part of the treasure and XP into the world by default to start. Some shinies off the beaten path and some XP for helping a merchant fix a wagon wheel, etc.
I know Numenera was supposed to be focused on this aspect as opposed to kill thing get xp
Monte Cook kinda yarks on about it in the foreword if memory serves
Not a fan of the cypher system though
You go in the cage, cage goes in the water, you go in the water. Shark's in the water, our shark.
We could really use an Exploration Renaissance. Video games have gotten decent at it but I think a lot of RPGs miss out on the feel of wonder at the world along the path. Maybe put a dedicated part of the treasure and XP into the world by default to start. Some shinies off the beaten path and some XP for helping a merchant fix a wagon wheel, etc.
I know Numenera was supposed to be focused on this aspect as opposed to kill thing get xp
Monte Cook kinda yarks on about it in the foreword if memory serves
Not a fan of the cypher system though
Oh yeah, the Numenera box set I got has two books, Discovery and Destiny. The first one is, I think, the original game and the second one is sort of an expansion for it with a focus on exploration and building a community, with new classes and rules that are sort of designed for it? I read the first book but I don't think I ever read the second but briefly so I could be wrong. I think I'll go do that now, since even if I never play I can mine them for some ideas
I think we're in an exploration renaissance - like, that's the whole thing of West Marches/Hexcrawl gameplay, which I feel like I've been seeing everywhere for the past couple of years. Heart is probably the highest profile exploration based game I can think of off hand, but there's a bunch of exploration stuff built into Stonetop and Wildsea as well.
Edit: Wanderhome and Torchbearer are also worth mentioning, with two different sorts of exploration focus.
The biggest draw to west marches and hex crawl stuff for me is that, to me, at their heart they’re about writing your own story, discovering places, making experiences that you’ll end up retelling fondly, and how everything here in this made up world is perilous and strange, but also wondrous and fantastical, and there’s I dunno a certain beautiful truth to that that on paper I find compelling for shared storytelling experiences
You go in the cage, cage goes in the water, you go in the water. Shark's in the water, our shark.
We could really use an Exploration Renaissance. Video games have gotten decent at it but I think a lot of RPGs miss out on the feel of wonder at the world along the path. Maybe put a dedicated part of the treasure and XP into the world by default to start. Some shinies off the beaten path and some XP for helping a merchant fix a wagon wheel, etc.
I know Numenera was supposed to be focused on this aspect as opposed to kill thing get xp
Monte Cook kinda yarks on about it in the foreword if memory serves
Not a fan of the cypher system though
Oh yeah, the Numenera box set I got has two books, Discovery and Destiny. The first one is, I think, the original game and the second one is sort of an expansion for it with a focus on exploration and building a community, with new classes and rules that are sort of designed for it? I read the first book but I don't think I ever read the second but briefly so I could be wrong. I think I'll go do that now, since even if I never play I can mine them for some ideas
Yeah the box set is new, I believe it’s a reprint of the original game with updates to the system. I have the original single book release along with some splat books. I’ve used it for ideas in much the same way. I love the science fantasy angle it uses
You go in the cage, cage goes in the water, you go in the water. Shark's in the water, our shark.
I think we're in an exploration renaissance - like, that's the whole thing of West Marches/Hexcrawl gameplay, which I feel like I've been seeing everywhere for the past couple of years. Heart is probably the highest profile exploration based game I can think of off hand, but there's a bunch of exploration stuff built into Stonetop and Wildsea as well.
Edit: Wanderhome and Torchbearer are also worth mentioning, with two different sorts of exploration focus.
The biggest draw to west marches and hex crawl stuff for me is that, to me, at their heart they’re about writing your own story, discovering places, making experiences that you’ll end up retelling fondly, and how everything here in this made up world is perilous and strange, but also wondrous and fantastical, and there’s I dunno a certain beautiful truth to that that on paper I find compelling for shared storytelling experiences
I think that, fundamentally, the difference is just that between a sandbox and a designed experience.
to put it in videogame terms, a typical WotC D&D adventure is akin to The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. You've got a fairly linear adventure from setpiece to setpiece and linearly solved dungeon to linearly solved dungeon, with plenty of plotty plot stuff that can happen at appropriate times. Something like West Marches is more akin to The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, where it's an open world game that, yes, does have some designed encounters... but there's no expectation of which order you'll encounter them in, and it's more about "what's beyond that hill over there?"
But also, of course, West Marches in its original formulation is also more of an MMORPG-esque thing: you're exploring the world, sure, but so are a dozen other people in varied parties at different times! You might ask "What's beyond that hill?" and Alice might chime in with "oh, I went there with Bob last Tuesday, here's what happened..."
I think that, fundamentally, the difference is just that between a sandbox and a designed experience.
to put it in videogame terms, a typical WotC D&D adventure is akin to The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. You've got a fairly linear adventure from setpiece to setpiece and linearly solved dungeon to linearly solved dungeon, with plenty of plotty plot stuff that can happen at appropriate times. Something like West Marches is more akin to The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, where it's an open world game that, yes, does have some designed encounters... but there's no expectation of which order you'll encounter them in, and it's more about "what's beyond that hill over there?"
This hits pretty close to a campaign I've been idly constructing for a few years, but I know I'll never get to play.
An open world, sandbox hexcrawl kind of game taking direct inspiration from Breath of the Wild, Tomb of Annihilation, and Lost.
The player characters get drawn to a strange world from all over the multiverse and the DM just straight up gives them three main quests to figure out. Where are you, why are you there, and how do you get home?
I structured my Fallout 2d20 campaign around the concept of The Oregon Trail, having the PCs over 10 sessions go on a linear journey from Wasteland Missouri to Oregon, and then when they reached Oregon, it's now an open world/sandbox exploration where they slowly unveil parts of the map and interact with the factions and points of interest in Oregon (which is much more like a "Last of Us" apocalypse than a "Fallout" apocalypse because the bombs didn't drop there and something is keeping the radiation/fallout from fucking everything up, a mystery that the PCs have yet to solve).
Part of this was to alleviate some of the issues that we've had running The One Ring and Ryuutama (both games have robust travel/exploration rules that are an integral part of the gameplay loop), where it's a bit overwhelming to learn everything about a system AND do some open-ended exploration at the same time. It's been going great, and I would highly recommend easing players into the concept of a sandbox game by giving them a linear adventure series to establish their characters and personalities before cutting them loose to explore.
Personally I admit I've never really enjoyed "oh here's a big map, now just do whatever" sandboxes much. But then I'm also the guy that has never found any appeal in stuff like Minecraft.
I tend to much prefer games that are about a thing and then end. Sometimes these games are long because the thing involves a long story! But there's typically always a fairly clear target and direction, the question is generally how do we go about this, rather than what do we do now, kind of thing.
Personally I admit I've never really enjoyed "oh here's a big map, now just do whatever" sandboxes much. But then I'm also the guy that has never found any appeal in stuff like Minecraft.
I tend to much prefer games that are about a thing and then end. Sometimes these games are long because the thing involves a long story! But there's typically always a fairly clear target and direction, the question is generally how do we go about this, rather than what do we do now, kind of thing.
So, the counter point to the campaign I mentioned above is like this. A story about a small group of soldiers trying to overthrow a tyrant. It would all take place in one city with one objective: kill the king. A really limited scale and scope for a story. I really like both extremes a lot, and think there's a lot of interesting things to explore in both.
Just joined a game for the first time since before COVID, found out that all these guys are libertarian AI Tech bro types.
WELLP
You should play a wizard and convince them to invest in your ConjureCoin, a magical currency that only you can see, making it much safer than gold.
Hang on I've got a magic item for this, let's see here:
Non-Functional Talisman - Jewelry, Common
A coin-sized bronze medallion suspended from a chain of tiny interlocking cubes. The surface of the medallion is etched with an intricate pattern of unique but meaningless squiggles. It is neither beautiful nor memorably ugly.
The peculiar magic of this talisman prevents it from ever serving a function, even an improvised one. Place it atop a sheaf of papers and they will slip loose at the first breeze, hurl it at a window and the glass will refuse to shatter. Its sole positive effect is to grant the bearer advantage on persuasion rolls when trying to sell one or more Non-Functional Talismans.
+22
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Personally I admit I've never really enjoyed "oh here's a big map, now just do whatever" sandboxes much. But then I'm also the guy that has never found any appeal in stuff like Minecraft.
I tend to much prefer games that are about a thing and then end. Sometimes these games are long because the thing involves a long story! But there's typically always a fairly clear target and direction, the question is generally how do we go about this, rather than what do we do now, kind of thing.
I feel like a sandbox campaign that feels like minecraft is probably a pretty poor one.
You need some sort of direction, whether it's obvious landmarks you can see from your village in West Marches or a clear objective (Find X artefacts based on an old map).
Posts
Two of my characters have started as chroniclers for their respective parties
One even got their ballad about the death of another party member to the equivalent of the top of the charts
And fighting was all well and good, but I had literally no idea how to run a non-combat encounter. I remember reading and re-reading the skill check section of the book being like 'I guess I'm just fucking stupid because this doesn't make sense to me.'
I wonder if it would be better for me now that I've DM'd 5e for years and years and dabbled in GMing several other systems too.
Switch Friend Code: SW-1406-1275-7906
what was it, like, "do skill challenges!" and then skill challenges are just roll skill checks several times and hope your players meet the number of successes they need because there's no clear guidelines on what to do if you fail?
The skill check.
And, by and large, it has remained the same since at least 3rd edition.
This is why 4E is my favorite.
But also let's not pretend that it wasn't also out there trying to sell itself as the everything game. Even if the systems were pretty solidly based on that principle, that's not something that any of those books were outright telling you in the introduction. And honestly, the broader RPG scene was much less strong when it was released, there weren't as many good options if you didn't want to play a tactical combat game.
In the thread in Critical Failures I posted the entire intro from the 4th ed players handbook and it actually is quite clear about what kind of setting and theme it is for.
There's exactly as many rules for it as any other edition. You make a skill check. If anything there's more rules because there are explicit mechanics for needing to make multiple skill checks sometimes.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The biggest difference is with 1st and 2nd ed. I think in large part because it was so long between the release of the Players Hanbook and Dungeon Masters Guide each time. I dont know anyone who played even remotely like what is in the book.
Something important to note here, I think: Wizards of the Coast's take on D&D is a tactical combat game. Earlier D&D, OD&D and AD&D and Basic, was... well, combat was still a thing but the actual rules focus wasn't really in that direction?
OD&D, for instance, is really more about mapping challenges. Monsters are an obstacle to make mapping the labyrinth harder, much like angled corridors and sloped passages and moving walls and teleportation hallways. And once you get into wilderness adventures, well, that's less tactical combat and more just... breaking out a wargame. Probably 10:1 scale on the number of soldiers each piece represents, I reckon, because those 180 warriors guarding that castle kind of require that.
In some ways, OD&D is very much a fine-tuned clockwork of a boardgame, with the players exploring a maze and trying to escape with as much treasure as they can. It's really interesting to see how the game has involved since, really, and it's worth a peek.
Basic is simplified in some ways, and more complicated in others - it actually has its own combat system in the book, for example, and there's some basic combat maneuvers like "here's how you disengage from combat". IIRC it still spends more paragraphs on how to resolve running away from monsters than it does on how to fight them, though. It's... not a complex system. It's still largely about the dungeon, or the wilderness, with combat just being a thing that happens in those places.
AD&D 1E brought out all kinds of overly complex and specific rules that weigh the whole thing down... but it also didn't really have, like, tactical positioning or choosing who to attack? No, really, if there's multiple targets then you randomly determine who in the group gets hit. (1E DMG p.70). Both for ranged and melee. (I don't think a lot of players used that rule, to be honest.)
There's some rules for tactical grid-based combat with flank/rear bonuses but it's... kind of half-baked and doesn't seem fully in agreement with the rest of the rules around it. I'm pretty sure that it's mostly just there to sell the miniatures they advertise in the same paragraph?
AD&D 2E... well, that's kind of the edition where they went all-in on how D&D was actually about following these grand metaplot adventures and kind of sidelined a lot of the combat. The core of 1E's rules remains, though, even if it's mostly just pared down to choosing where to move and who to attack (actually possible in 2E, I think?). Notably I think tactical grid-based combat is entirely absent from the core books, although I think it might've returned in later products trying to complicate the combat system.
3E is where they go hard on tactical combat, actual designed encounters with specific enemy locations, a whole lot of combat options... and also where resolving a combat scene starts to take longer than five minutes, of course. 4E iterates on what 3E started (it's very similar to late-3.5E design, e.g. the Tome of Battle) and 5E went back to a more pared-down version of 3E's combat, but it's all very similar in its approach. Movement matters, location matters, characters actually have options for what to do in combat (note that in the older editions, even a Wizard might only have a handful of combat-relevant spells!)... the combat is the game. Those exploration rules that were seemingly so important in earlier editions? Nah, not really a thing anymore.
3.0 still had a designated mapper as a player duty. 3.5 ditched that entirely.
Edit: Wanderhome and Torchbearer are also worth mentioning, with two different sorts of exploration focus.
I'd be down for something like that. You got me thinking about what if there was a game with the pillars of D&D but they were more equal than they are now? Like have player roles dedicated to combat, exploration, and social interactions? Like, everyone can participate in each but certain roles get bonuses and pillar-specific abilities to do their jobs, and maybe those dedicated players also get extra rewards for doing what they're dedicated to? Like for combat everyone can do some basic stuff like hit, move, disengage, etc., but combat classes get skills and powers that let them kick ass. For exploration anyone can look around and do basic climbing, jumping, etc., but exploration classes can jump farther, cast spells that facilitate investigation and movement, etc. Same for social situations. I guess you'd have to find a way to give each pillar some depth and complexity, but without making any of them take too long or feel like a slog or have players sit around bored and unable to contribute anything when it's not their specialty being dealt with. I dunno, I'm not a game designer and maybe it's a flawed idea, and also maybe it's already been attempted (I don't keep up with many ttrpgs)
I know Numenera was supposed to be focused on this aspect as opposed to kill thing get xp
Monte Cook kinda yarks on about it in the foreword if memory serves
Not a fan of the cypher system though
Oh yeah, the Numenera box set I got has two books, Discovery and Destiny. The first one is, I think, the original game and the second one is sort of an expansion for it with a focus on exploration and building a community, with new classes and rules that are sort of designed for it? I read the first book but I don't think I ever read the second but briefly so I could be wrong. I think I'll go do that now, since even if I never play I can mine them for some ideas
The biggest draw to west marches and hex crawl stuff for me is that, to me, at their heart they’re about writing your own story, discovering places, making experiences that you’ll end up retelling fondly, and how everything here in this made up world is perilous and strange, but also wondrous and fantastical, and there’s I dunno a certain beautiful truth to that that on paper I find compelling for shared storytelling experiences
Yeah the box set is new, I believe it’s a reprint of the original game with updates to the system. I have the original single book release along with some splat books. I’ve used it for ideas in much the same way. I love the science fantasy angle it uses
I really miss the 4E era version of the D&D threads on Critical Failures. It was such a fun and positive place with constant activity and enthusiasm.
I think that, fundamentally, the difference is just that between a sandbox and a designed experience.
to put it in videogame terms, a typical WotC D&D adventure is akin to The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. You've got a fairly linear adventure from setpiece to setpiece and linearly solved dungeon to linearly solved dungeon, with plenty of plotty plot stuff that can happen at appropriate times. Something like West Marches is more akin to The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, where it's an open world game that, yes, does have some designed encounters... but there's no expectation of which order you'll encounter them in, and it's more about "what's beyond that hill over there?"
But also, of course, West Marches in its original formulation is also more of an MMORPG-esque thing: you're exploring the world, sure, but so are a dozen other people in varied parties at different times! You might ask "What's beyond that hill?" and Alice might chime in with "oh, I went there with Bob last Tuesday, here's what happened..."
(This all also goes for megadungeons, of course!)
Pretty psyched, I'll share some little notes if anyone is curious
This hits pretty close to a campaign I've been idly constructing for a few years, but I know I'll never get to play.
An open world, sandbox hexcrawl kind of game taking direct inspiration from Breath of the Wild, Tomb of Annihilation, and Lost.
The player characters get drawn to a strange world from all over the multiverse and the DM just straight up gives them three main quests to figure out. Where are you, why are you there, and how do you get home?
Part of this was to alleviate some of the issues that we've had running The One Ring and Ryuutama (both games have robust travel/exploration rules that are an integral part of the gameplay loop), where it's a bit overwhelming to learn everything about a system AND do some open-ended exploration at the same time. It's been going great, and I would highly recommend easing players into the concept of a sandbox game by giving them a linear adventure series to establish their characters and personalities before cutting them loose to explore.
I tend to much prefer games that are about a thing and then end. Sometimes these games are long because the thing involves a long story! But there's typically always a fairly clear target and direction, the question is generally how do we go about this, rather than what do we do now, kind of thing.
So, the counter point to the campaign I mentioned above is like this. A story about a small group of soldiers trying to overthrow a tyrant. It would all take place in one city with one objective: kill the king. A really limited scale and scope for a story. I really like both extremes a lot, and think there's a lot of interesting things to explore in both.
WELLP
You should play a wizard and convince them to invest in your ConjureCoin, a magical currency that only you can see, making it much safer than gold.
Charge them actual cash at the table for every spell your wizard casts. Spells aren't a public service!
Then complain vociferously when they won't halt the adventure to let you sleep.
Hang on I've got a magic item for this, let's see here:
Okay, I am ashamed I laughed
One of the players decided on the name Shadowbane Grimblade
Perfect, no notes
I feel like a sandbox campaign that feels like minecraft is probably a pretty poor one.
You need some sort of direction, whether it's obvious landmarks you can see from your village in West Marches or a clear objective (Find X artefacts based on an old map).