Why is it a bad thing to optimise?

[Pentius]

Which is why, like I said upthread, "sidequests" make no sense here. "Sidequests" imply that there is a main, GM-dominated, quest, and that player-initiated activity is peripheral. That's not how I prefer to approach the game.

Minor point of discussion:

I would say "sidequest" does definitely imply the existence of a "main quest", but in a game where quests can be partially, or even entirely player-driven, I don't see why the main quest couldn't be player-driven as well. The existence of a quest of lesser importance next to one of greater importance does not mandate who is behind either one.

 

[Elf Witch]

Cool setup.

The "plot" in your campaign is driven by the maneuverings of two powerful entities in the campaign world.

This plot exists and develops with or without influence from the PCs (based on the description). I didn't notice anything in your plot that directly mentions PC involvement much less involvement of a specific nature.

When the PCs do meddle in the affairs of these entities on thier own terms it seems like they are interacting with the plots of Bahamut and Tiamat rather than THE plot.

Well the players asked me to run a heroic style campaign where they made a difference. So I came up with this I also wanted to run a dragon centric campaign after getting Races of Dragons.

So I started the game with them getting the call from Bahmut in their dreams and then they ended up meeting up at his abandoned temple and they were the only ones who enter through the warded door.

I had several hooks set up and we went from there. I kept a campaign record with the hooks and ideas with what happens next. The PCs actions often changed things.

I never had a plan for how things would end. And yes when they meddled in things they were interacting with Bahmut and Tiamats plots.

My players loved it. They never felt they were railroaded or had no choice.

You can run a game with an overall plot and not railroad. I have played in them and I have run them. I usually prefer them to sandbox games.

 

[Elf Witch]

How does this differ from the Age of Worms AP where the PCs interact with the plots (different definition - meaning 'schemes') of a god and his minions?

Is plot a bad word just because in some campaigns it seems singular? Is an AP considered a railroad just because a single major plotline exists (each I've played also has subplots)?

This is what I'm talkig about when I say the different approaches to define one's game seem to come to similar ends with differences arising based on type of preparation and segregation of plot authority.

I play in an Age of Worms campaign. And yes there is an element of railroading because there is a linear path. It is both the same as my homebrew campaign and also different.

It is the same as there is an over all plot mine is the dragon war AOW is the bad guys trying to bring about the Age of Worms.

The difference is in my homebrew there are a lot more choices on what to do. AOW not so much. If you deviate from the adventure path to much then it because harder for the DM to continue. Now if the DM is fine on this and loves winging it then fine. But if the DM does not want to wing it as much and is using an AP because it is easier for them then you can't do it without derailing the game.

We players knew we would be playing an AP so we have the mindset to look for the next plot hook. I view it as the contract between player and DM. We the players agreed to play in the AP so we need to do that and not make the DMs job to hard.

Now how we handle each plot hook is up to us. We can fight, negotiate, but we can't really run away because we need the clues and items to be able to continue.

 

[Hussar]

It seems the vampiric mouse has been wallflowering this conversation:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/columns/310139-plot-not-four-letter-word.html

Needless to say, I agree with pretty much all his points except one - the continuum is not sandbox <---> railroad, it's sandbox <---> linear. Again, it's ridiculously easy to railroad in a sandbox campaign.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Agreed. Everyone must submit to the definitions above, or they are badwrongpoopyheads.

If we are not talking about grave plots then I am taking my ball and going home.

 

[Evenglare]

Yeah, im not reading 22 pages of things. So just by answering the topic. It's not bad to optimize assuming you have some sort of meaningful drawback relevant to the game or else your character is 1 dimensional and contributes nothing to the narrative.

 

[catsclaw227]

Unfortunately, the topic has taken a long and winding divergence. I asked moderators to take this back on topic and it hasn't happened.

 

[catsclaw227]

double post.

 

[pemerton]

It seems the vampiric mouse has been wallflowering this conversation

Thanks for the heads up.

a DM's motive plays into the question, as well as his actions. Consequences that make sense in the larger campaign might not equate to a railroad, while consequences put in place solely to force the PCs back on script do--even if the consequences, on the surface, look the same.

I agree with this. It was the point I made upthread about the landslide - we can't tell what is going on their without context - how does it fit into the expectations of everyone at the table, their understanding of what has come before, their understanding of what might follow?

A skilled DM runs a plot flexibly, in reaction to what the PCs do.

<snip>

Now, lots of people will argue that the story is what the PCs make of it. And to an extent, I agree. I despise feeling railroaded, and the most well thought-out story in the world won't change that.

<snip>

I don't want to feel like my character is helpless to do anything but play through pre-arranged steps--but I do 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.

I'm generally sympathetic to this, although I think it puts a bit too much emphasis on the GM generating the plot - suggesting some sort of high concept simulationism - rather than on the players generating the plot by engaging meaningful situations - which is my own preference for play.

"sandbox" and "railroad" aren't binary terms. They're a continuum, and only become problematic at either extreme.

I don't agree with this. It is a continuum that only makes sense within the confines of exploration-focused play: in a sandbox, exploration is of the setting (and situation is mostly in the hands of the players), whereas in a railroad exploration is of the situation (and everything but colour and some modest narration pertaining to the PCs is in the hands of the GM).

But once you step out of simulationist play into other ways of playing - such as the afore-mentioned player-driven approach - then there can be play that is neither sandbox, nor railroad, nor halfway between. Namely, play that invovles GM authority over situation, shared authority over content/backstory (players have their PCs, GM has most of the rest, some points of overlap plus details that are more colour than meaty content are negotiated), and plot as the result of all participants engaging the action resolution mechanics.

Why are we still talking about plot in RPGs as if nothing has changed since White Wolf and AD&D 2nd ed?

 

[S'mon]

That is, the players - through the backstory and build of their PCs, and then building on those things over the course of play - signal clear goals and thematic concerns, and as GM I design encounters and scenarios that speak to those goals and thematic concerns. In 4e terms, you could think of this as player-designed quests.

While I like this approach very much in principle, in practice I find that these days (gaming with adults with jobs & families) the problem of unreliable player attendance puts a huge spanner in the works of a game based around individual PC backstories and goals. I've been burned too many times building stuff around a particular PC and then they either miss the session or even drop the campaign. I've been the unreliable player too, not long ago my Savage Worlds GM designed a bunch of stuff to let my PC shine, I got sick and couldn't make the game.

I've tried the "not running game if player is away" approach and it's disastrous too, you end up never running the game, huge gaps, everyone forgets, the game is unreliable so no one prioritises it. Better IME to always run a game for whoever turns up - but that means not building much stuff around the concerns of particular PCs.