Role-playing Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for gamemasters and players of tabletop, paper-and-pencil role-playing games. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top


I'm a relative new GM who only run a 2 years long heavily railroaded fantasy campaign that went south for various problems and that I decided to drop.

Now I started to run a sci-fi sandbox campaign (system is Mongoose Traveller) and so far we had few sessions and my players are enjoining it.

Until now I followed the main backstory of two of my players' characters: the search of the lost sister of one of them, loved by the other PC.
Their motivation the strongest in the party: another PC has no real motivations and the last has a long term and we could say "easy" motivation (founding outposts of his secret organization in various planets) that allows him just to follow their peregrinations during the search. I have to point out that he played just a session with us so his backstory have not been explored yet.

The Problem

The problem I want to address is that due to our real life we have a really limited timeframe of playing time of 2 hours per week, and I feel this really constraining to the sanbox-style campaign I want to run.

I feel that these 2 hours of time are too little to "explore the sandbox" without diluting their plans and motivations during the campaign, in fact until now even avoiding random encounters and events not bound to their plans (and I agree with this answer) we advanced just a little in the campaign (speaking in campaign time, not real time).
Since it's a sandbox I'd like to add random encounters, side quests and so on, but I feel this will exponentially prolong the campaign at the point that the pacing of the events the PCs are taking part will slow to a crawl in real-life time.

What I'm asking

Have you suggestions on how to run a sandbox campaign with the limited playtime we have, with random encounters and events and side-quests?
Or should I drop my want-to-be sandbox style and go on with a plot-driven campaign (I mean, not railroading, but following and reacting to my players' actions and intentions without random events/encounters, side quests and so on)?

Some clarifications

I know I should talk with my players and in fact I will. I'll ask them if they'd like random events and side-quests or if they prefer a more straightforward campaign without this sort of things. I'll also ask them If they care if this campaign will potentially go on "forever" and be slower in the resolution of things or if they'd like to see their motivations and plans end in a more limited time.


What I really care is to have more general approaches to this problems because I feel that I'll always (at least, as far as I can see in this part of my life) have this little timeframe to run my campaigns so I'll often have this problem. It's ok to have answers (or part of them) related to my actual problem with my actual campaign.

Thank you in advance!

share|improve this question
How feasible is electronic communication? Will your players respond to your emails on a regular basis, or would they not reply until the day of the next session? – Bobson Aug 12 '14 at 19:44
If you are consistently adapting to your players' motivations and goals for their characters, the game is effectively sand-boxed. Just continue to adapt to the actions of the players and it will basically be the same to them. If that means a random NPC they choose to talk to has a side-quest, so be it... keep it interesting. – Aviose Aug 12 '14 at 20:10
@Bobson I see electronic communication not very feasible. One of the players never uses email and never checks it, and I have no facebook, and I don't think they'll use it much anyway. Another problem is I have not so much time left to use this method, but it's a good suggestion nevertheless, useful in other or future situations. I'll keep it in mind. – FraNe91 Aug 13 '14 at 11:43
This accurately describes how I run my sandbox - do you have lots of time outside the game to prepare? If so, I can give the low-down on my techniques/findings. – Rob Lang Aug 13 '14 at 21:09
Unluckily I have not much time, in fact I'm trying to learn improvisation techniques in order to prepare the least possible. Thank you anyway! – FraNe91 Aug 14 '14 at 9:10
up vote 5 down vote accepted

The essence of sandbox play is following where the players lead, and it sounds like you're already doing that.

What adding randomness does is make the world feel more alive and larger than the thread that the PCs are pursuing/creating, allowing the players to make informed decisions about where they want to drive the game. You don't need to be constantly interrupting them with random encounters, but using them as a "spice" enhances the game and increases the players' knowledge of their environment, which itself increases the players' agency.

And don't worry about diversions derailing the campaign or slowing its advancement—the point of a sandbox is that there is no right path. If your players choose to diverge from their goals… it's because they have more goals than the one. If they want to advance one goal (not "the campaign"), then they will prioritise that goal even when distractions occur.

As long as your randomly-added distractions aren't mini side-railroads that force the players onto them, you can trust that they won't interfere with the players' freedom to choose their direction and speed. If the players choose to be distracted: that is where the campaign is. If they choose to not be distracted: that is where the campaign is.

Just remember that the campaign is where the players lead, no matter whether it was their idea or yours, and you can cut through this Gordian knot of worry about whether you "should" distract them with random things and whether the campaign is advancing at the "right" speed. There is no right speed or direction in a sandbox, only choices and outcomes.

share|improve this answer

First, I will echo the comments left: Electronic Communication during the week if possible, and Keep it Interesting. That said, session length need not have a major effect on the quality of play. Each session can build right where the last left off, with perhaps a minute of recap. Questions and clarifications could ideally be done over email/instant messages during the week, but even these would not take too much time.

The real key here is focus. In a typical session with my friends of 5-6 hours, there's chatting, crosstalk, a lunch break, etc. In a two hour session, it might help to have players arrive focused and ready to play, minimize outside distractions.

I would, however, minimize randomness of the world. Don't put in too many side cases, random encounters, and unnecessary fights. Keep things moving. Of course, PCs may seek these things out, in which case, let them. But don't plan too many of your own.

share|improve this answer
Oops. I did NOT mean to drag this topic back to the top of the list. I was only editing a typo! – Longspeak Mar 12 '15 at 16:09
No fear! That's normal, since the front page is sorted by activity by default (and seeing what's been changed recently is actually desirable for various reasons). It happens all the time, and you haven't done anything unusual. :) – SevenSidedDie Mar 12 '15 at 16:25

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.