Plots in a Sandbox

[howandwhy99]

Let's say that they ignore the necromancer who wants to plumb the depths of the ancient crypt, and the guy who wants to keep it hidden.
SNIP
But what about the necromancer and the hidden crypt? What happens there? This seems to be trickier.

And what if you've got a number of "necromancers" wandering the land, with their own little plots, mucking stuff up? How many of these guys is too many? How many is too few? How does the scale of their plots (from "I want to take over my neighbour's farm" to "Let the world burn") feed into that?

You need these other guys or else the first choice (to take over the logging camp) wasn't a choice, it was the only thing for the PCs to do.

Per my original post, I would have the scenario timeline of the necromancer advance until a state of equilibrium was reached. This timeline and the state thereafter could be reentered at any future point, but will only change if the PCs actions alter the elements within the module through direct or indirect means.

A number of necromancers, foes, creatures, items, etc., do populate the land. They are parts of the other areas in the world not yet encountered or affected and therefore in equilibrium. The number of elements are based upon the size of the dungeons involved. Don't detail too much of this abstraction, only to the extent your players can reach in a single session and what you can handle. The rest can remain abstracted until events required those elements to be rolled up. If a module is added, I'd the players know. Or even let them pick one, but with the understanding it is homebrewed to fit the rules of the world. I let the players' backgrounds detail abstracted elements, working with the players on a descriptive level to incorporate them into the hidden rules behind the screen.

 

[The Shaman]

As to illusionist refereeing, it is my opinion that even sandbox gaming (as run by a human) is an illusion.

There's a poster over at Big Purple who jumps into just about every thread on historical roleplaying games to insist that what we're all doing is actually fantasy gaming.

Doesn't change the accepted meaning one whit.

 

[ExploderWizard]

True but isn't this really just semantics?

The assumed agreement is that we all sit around the table so that the PCs can star in an epic story. That's their wish fulfilled; it's why we're there.

We all know what happens when we assume. I will only go so far as to say that we all sit around a table to have a good time playing a game.

Starring in an epic story is one possibility.
Exploring a fantasy world through an assumed role is another.

The wish fulfillment I was talking about was specific character wishes - find this exact sword, defeat this specific NPC.

Otherwise your definition of 'wish fulfillment' also applies to the sandbox game ExploderWizard said would not appeal to those motivated by wish fulfillment. Or any fantasy RPG for that matter.

How does this definition apply to the sandbox game? The sandbox game does not begin with the assumption that the PC's are heroes. Acts of heroism in a sandbox game feel more genuine because the PC's performing them are actually going above and beyond instead of merely following the "expected" course of action. An act of heroism should be meaningful and memorable.

To be clear, the wish fulfillment I was talking about was indeed about playing in order to star in an epic story.

In a game where the odds of character death on the first adventure are greater than those of survival, a sandbox game is a poor fit for such wishes.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think it is an illusion that the players have choice as to whether they face stronger threats. With useful intel, a party that knows it is 1st level and that monsters get tougher as they go deeper, they will not choose to go too deep. In fact, odds are good, they'll clear out level 1, attempt level 2, and if they take more damage than they can easily heal, they will stop. It is highly unlikely they will advance to the 5th level, even in a mad race for it.

Thus, while the players have a "choice" it is not a meaningful Choice.

Furthermore, if the DM deprives the party of intel, and they run into a high level enemy, the players also do not have a meaningful choice. They didn't really choose to face it, and their most logical choice will be to retreat, if they figure it out.

In the 1e PHB, Mr.Gygax warns players that there may exist tricks or traps that can deposit them into more dangerous areas, and suggests methods to counter them. I have encountered such tricks and traps as a player, and have run the same as a GM. In both cases, it is my firm experience that player choice matters.

Mind you, your above statements could apply to chess as well. If one assumes that, given any specific configuration of the board, there is always a "best move", then one can claim that a chess player makes no meaningful decisions -- he either makes the best move, which is meaningless because it is the only logical choice, or he makes a substandard move, which is meaningless because it is not the best move.

You can follow that line of reasoning until you have confirmed that nothing has any meaning whatsoever, but frankly that is somewhere I would rather not go. Suffice it to say, we differ in our experience and opinion as to what constitutes meaningful choice.



RC

 

[howandwhy99]

Thus, while the players have a "choice" it is not a meaningful Choice.

I think I see your disagreement. It sounds like you are saying too easy or too hard of odds for success make a choice no longer meaningful. This makes sense, but I still disagree.

Of course, choosing a dungeon level to explore is hardly the only choice going on in a game. The core game is not one of combat attrition anyways. Engaging in combat need only be indirectly relevant to a game, if the players choose not to. The actual game's scope is vast given the variety of possible methods available to players to overcoming any given challenge. It is not the odds of only one tactic, but the complexity of a challenge across all means to overcome it that determine its' difficulty. Needing to stay on one dungeon level only appears as an empty choice, a given, when the game is approached in a solely hack and slash or equally monotone style. Rather success is rewarded by thinking outside the box.

Allowing players to choose their own difficulty level is the only meaningful choice, IMHO, given the alternative. This choice offers intelligent players a means to face odds most players would avoid. It also allows inexperienced players to seek safer ground to maintain the degree of achievement they enjoy.

 

[Snoweel]

There's a poster over at Big Purple who jumps into just about every thread on historical roleplaying games to insist that what we're all doing is actually fantasy gaming.

Doesn't change the accepted meaning one whit.

That's a particularly poor analogy mate.

Description =/= terminology

We all know what happens when we assume. I will only go so far as to say that we all sit around a table to have a good time playing a game.

Starring in an epic story is one possibility.
Exploring a fantasy world through an assumed role is another.

Yeah I was actually talking about my particular group.

How does this definition apply to the sandbox game? The sandbox game does not begin with the assumption that the PC's are heroes.

No but it does start with the assumption that they are characters in a fantasy world.

My own games don't start with the assumption that the PCs are heroes either, just that they're not villains.

Acts of heroism in a sandbox game feel more genuine because the PC's performing them are actually going above and beyond instead of merely following the "expected" course of action. An act of heroism should be meaningful and memorable.

Acts of heroism are completely illusory when the life you're risking is just an abstract collection of ideas and numbers. So don't start preaching to me.

To be clear, the wish fulfillment I was talking about was indeed about playing in order to star in an epic story.

As opposed to appearing in a story where your proxy has all the courage, determination and self-discipline he/she needs to achieve greatness?

The only difference I'm seeing in these two wish fulfillment fantasies is that one assumes a higher degree of luck than the other.

In a game where the odds of character death on the first adventure are greater than those of survival, a sandbox game is a poor fit for such wishes.

Character death on the first adventure is the most meaningless of all, since the character is rapidly replaced by one of equal worth.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"You must spread some XP around before giving it to howandwhy99 again."

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think I see your disagreement. It sounds like you are saying too easy or too hard of odds for success make a choice no longer meaningful. This makes sense, but I still disagree.

Of course, choosing a dungeon level to explore is hardly the only choice going on in a game. The core game is not one of combat attrition anyways. Engaging in combat need only be indirectly relevant to a game, if the players choose not to. The actual game's scope is vast given the variety of possible methods available to players to overcoming any given challenge. It is not the odds of only one tactic, but the complexity of a challenge across all means to overcome it that determine its' difficulty. Needing to stay on one dungeon level only appears as an empty choice, a given, when the game is approached in a solely hack and slash or equally monotone style. Rather success is rewarded by thinking outside the box.

Allowing players to choose their own difficulty level is the only meaningful choice, IMHO, given the alternative. This choice offers intelligent players a means to face odds most players would avoid. It also allows inexperienced players to seek safer ground to maintain the degree of achievement they enjoy.

I gotta spread some xp around.

I do find it interesting that "meaningful choice" is linked with "appropriate challenge" which in turn is translated into "beat the snot out of it in a standard fight" these days.

 

[the Jester]

As a tangent to the nature of the level of dungeon=CR of monsters idea:

I think it is an illusion that the players have choice as to whether they face stronger threats. With useful intel, a party that knows it is 1st level and that monsters get tougher as they go deeper, they will not choose to go too deep. In fact, odds are good, they'll clear out level 1, attempt level 2, and if they take more damage than they can easily heal, they will stop. It is highly unlikely they will advance to the 5th level, even in a mad race for it.

Thus, while the players have a "choice" it is not a meaningful Choice.

Certainly it is.

It doesn't sound like you're too familiar with classical megadungeons. Let me pull out a specific example: the Temple of Elemental Evil. Great big ol' multi-leveled megadungeon that is harder the deeper you go. One of the cool things about it is that you can find ways down into the deep levels early on, if you get lucky or look in the right places. I've run ToEE many times, and on several of those occasions, the pcs have chosen to take the deep levels on when they weren't high enough level for them to be anything less than deadly. Did some of those groups flee when they realized they were in trouble? Certainly. Did all of them? Nope, and one or two even managed to make a couple of forays in and come out alive.

How is this a non-meaningful choice? I think perhaps the type of players you are used to are simply predictable and not up to a serious challenge; however, there are players out there who would take that same challenge up.

It sounds like you have very limited experience with sandboxes, so forgive me if I take your posts with a grain of salt.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"You must spread some XP around before giving it to ExploderWizard again."