"Plot" is not a four-letter word

jmucchiello said:

It's funny but I didn't know a sandbox did not have things happening off screen . . .

Click to expand...

Every 'sandbox' I've ever run, or played in, has things going on around the adventurers all the time.

I don't know where the vampire rodent gets the idea that this isn't the case.

Mouseferatu said:

Now, I'm not talking about a sandbox game, where the DM has no story in mind to guide the PCs. I'm talking about a middle ground, where the DM puts specific events in motion, but without a roadmap as to how the PCs are going to react.

Click to expand...

"Events in motion" pretty much describes every 'sandbox,' setting I've run since I was about fourteen or so.

Status quo doesn't mean static.

Mouseferatu said:

I want to feel like my character is part of a story, not just a world. I want the things we do to matter. I want there to be consequences, not merely to our actions and successes, but to our inaction and our failures.

Click to expand...

The "story of our (real) lives" is only seen in retrospect; the 'story' in a 'sandbox' game is similarly produced, and it includes consequences for roads not taken, for rosebuds not gathered.

In our Flashing Blades game, one of the adventurers was courting an Italian noblewoman in Paris; as a result of the courtship, and the events which transpired from it, the adventurers are now exiled from Paris and on the run from the Cardinal's agents. They chose to head to Grenoble, to join a mercenary company on its way to the war in Italy; their absence from Paris means that a npc ally is now at risk as a consequence of events which have nothing at all to do with the adventurers directly, but which, if they'd not been exiled, they might have learned about and perhaps influenced on the basis of their relationship with her.

Mouseferatu said:

I want mysteries. I want surprises. I want recurring NPCs that we come to care about, and recurring villains we come to hate. I want to walk away from the table talking about how . . . I can't believe it turned out that Father Reginald and the Dragon Prince were actually in cahoots. . . . I want [significant nemeses] to have not just a name, but a personality, and a plan. I want [them] to be doing something other than serving as the end-boss to a dungeon, and I want whatever it's doing to have far-reaching consequences.

Click to expand...

None of this is in any way precluded in a sandbox setting.

Mouseferatu said:

When a campaign is over, when all is said and done, I want to feel like the story and characters were interesting enough in their own right that one could write a novel, or a few seasons of TV, based on the same basic skeleton. Not detail for detail, not chapter for chapter, but based on the core ideas.

Click to expand...

I prefer the outcome to feel like a biography, not a story.

The Shaman said:

I prefer the outcome to feel like a biography, not a story.

Click to expand...

And that's totally fair. But it's not what I'm looking for.

As to the rest, I'm entirely willing to accept the possibility that my reaction to sandbox games may very well come from the same place as other people's reactions to plot-centric games. That is, it may indeed come from a lack of exposure to good examples, as opposed to the nature of the playstyle itself.

I still don't think, just based on my own personal tastes, that I'd ever like them as much as a plot-focused game. (See above, re: what I want the campaign to feel like after the fact.) But that said, if someone I knew wanted to run a sandbox game, and assured me that it would be more like what you're describing and less like what I've experienced, I'd certainly be willing to give it a go.

Mouseferatu said:

And that's totally fair. But it's not what I'm looking for.

Click to expand...

Different strokes makes a horse race. Or something like that.

Mouseferatu said:

As to the rest, I'm entirely willing to accept the possibility that my reaction to sandbox games may very well come from the same place as other people's reactions to plot-centric games. That is, it may indeed come from a lack of exposure to good examples, as opposed to the nature of the playstyle itself.

Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I agree that an adventure plot is not in and of itself railroading; railroading is what some (bad, in my opinion) referees do when their players and the adventurers won't stick to the adventure as written.

Mouseferatu said:

But that said, if someone I knew wanted to run a sandbox game, and assured me that it would be more like what you're describing and less like what I've experienced, I'd certainly be willing to give it a go.

Click to expand...

This is what my sandbox looks like in actual play.

I have been a DM for 20 years and I concur with much of what is said. Role gaming is not a total free form experience where players get to run around killing things as they see fit, they should play World of Warcraft if they want that. I have been fortunate for much of my 20 years I have had players who agree with this and in fact get bored if there is no big story they are working towards. Good rolegaming is about the collaborative unveiling of a story for which both players and DM have equal responsibility. Our group has just started out on the War Of The Burning Sky for 4E. I as a DM briefed the group roughly on the concept behind the campaign and the players have thrown themselves in to the big story. Some chose to become instant members of the resistance fighting against oppresion of an empire others have choosen more self motivated paths of get rich through others mis-fortunes. All this makes the job of being a DM easier as no one comes up with more drugged crazed paranoirure about villians and side plots than the players themselves. As DM you just have to be listening and work thier ideas in seamlessly which also has the effect of rewarding their contribution to the story and encouraging more.