This raises an interesting question derived from the two ways in which we use the word ‘scale’ in RPGs - as a measure of geography and of the scope of play and the relationship between them. It is not an original point to observe that, if one were to take a quasi-medieval fantasy world (my own particular jam and/or preference and/or prejudice) one could generate hundreds of hours of play from one small corner of one minor English rural county. Given the density and spacing of arable villages and market towns there would be a ‘point of interest’ every few hundred metres, half a dozen stories within a slow morning’s walk. Just look at an OS map of modern rural England and notice how much ‘stuff’ is in any given square mile - and this in an era when the rural population is tiny compared to pre-modern times. The stories found there should probably be ‘small scale’ (although if one wants to have a hidden temple to the evil gods under every marketplace, have at it, it’s just not my thing…). But this need not equate to ‘trivial’. The hardships and joys, loves and hates, dilemmas and conflicts of peasants and farmers can be as vivid and compelling to play out in an RPG as a continent-spanning, world-shattering campaign. A sandbox can therefore absolutely be ‘small-scale’ in both senses of the word and such is my personal preference. Conversely, as a purely practical matter, if you’re going to run a game that centres on the dynastic war for the the throne, one will drive oneself mad trying to create landscapes of such intimate detail that will, in any event, probably never come into focus as the party moves between court, castle and battlefield.
Something you didn't touch on in the article (or at least I didn't see it) is that a small sandbox makes it easier for GMs to prep and play. Its a lot less information for them to have in thier heads. I love Dolmenwood, I'm prepping a game of it right now actually, but there is so much to it. Its massive, and dense, and amazing, and I'm worried I won't be able to keep everything in my head.
This is exactly the conclusion that I hope people come to after reading this ;) There’s a big focus in the community sometimes on settings of huge scale, which often gives GMs a ton of work. Compact sandboxes can provide just as much depth without having to prep a large world.
This raises an interesting question derived from the two ways in which we use the word ‘scale’ in RPGs - as a measure of geography and of the scope of play and the relationship between them. It is not an original point to observe that, if one were to take a quasi-medieval fantasy world (my own particular jam and/or preference and/or prejudice) one could generate hundreds of hours of play from one small corner of one minor English rural county. Given the density and spacing of arable villages and market towns there would be a ‘point of interest’ every few hundred metres, half a dozen stories within a slow morning’s walk. Just look at an OS map of modern rural England and notice how much ‘stuff’ is in any given square mile - and this in an era when the rural population is tiny compared to pre-modern times. The stories found there should probably be ‘small scale’ (although if one wants to have a hidden temple to the evil gods under every marketplace, have at it, it’s just not my thing…). But this need not equate to ‘trivial’. The hardships and joys, loves and hates, dilemmas and conflicts of peasants and farmers can be as vivid and compelling to play out in an RPG as a continent-spanning, world-shattering campaign. A sandbox can therefore absolutely be ‘small-scale’ in both senses of the word and such is my personal preference. Conversely, as a purely practical matter, if you’re going to run a game that centres on the dynastic war for the the throne, one will drive oneself mad trying to create landscapes of such intimate detail that will, in any event, probably never come into focus as the party moves between court, castle and battlefield.
Spot on!
"think less about bredth, and more about density." love it, great thought.
Depth has a breadth all its own.
Something you didn't touch on in the article (or at least I didn't see it) is that a small sandbox makes it easier for GMs to prep and play. Its a lot less information for them to have in thier heads. I love Dolmenwood, I'm prepping a game of it right now actually, but there is so much to it. Its massive, and dense, and amazing, and I'm worried I won't be able to keep everything in my head.
This is exactly the conclusion that I hope people come to after reading this ;) There’s a big focus in the community sometimes on settings of huge scale, which often gives GMs a ton of work. Compact sandboxes can provide just as much depth without having to prep a large world.
I was already thinking of drawing up some hexflower maps, so now I’m really excited to give it a try, hehe!
It's such a fun when to set up for a game!