Why is it a bad thing to optimise?

[S'mon]

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.

I agree of course - APs are typically fairly linear in construction, whether the GM railroads in them to keep the PCs on track or force a particular outcome is a different question. And in sandboxes there can be railroading especially around the edges of the box - unbeatable giants to the north, impassable desert to the south, impassable ocean to the east, unscalable mountains to the west. Or just a bright 'you can't go there' line.

Within the sandbox there would need to be choice of where to go or it's not a sandbox, and having a range of desirability in threat/reward ratios within different sandbox areas does not constitute railroading, I may differ from Hussar there. The traditional megadungeon allows players to go where they want and make their own judgement about likely threat level, how much risk they want to undertake - more risk for likely higher reward - etc.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] - we have a "quorom" rule - at least 3 of the 5 players (other PCs are then played by the table as NPCs, and where it is feasible for them to slip into the background they do so).

My solution to the problem is to build situations that speak to multiple players/PCs: the hobgoblin mage who is guarding the captured villagers has an imp familiar. The dwarf and wizard hate goblins. The paladin want to rescue villagers. The imp will taunt the chaos sorcerer with promises of techniques to "master the chaos".

Or: the hag exiles from the Feywild live in the ruined manor of a former archmage which has spider-filled pits and tunnels beneath it. The drow sorcerer is obsessed by the Feywild (and hates spiders). The wizard wants to learn about the archmage, and also wants to be cured of slavering canker. The dwarf is wondering whether he is cut out to be a pit fighter (as it turns out, he wasn't - he's now a warpriest of Moradin instead).

The principal villain in the current scenario also ticks multiple boxes: he is a wizard cultist of Vecna who is also a leader of goblin and hobgoblin armies which capture villagers and enslave them, knows secrets of the ancient minotaur empire that was overthrown by non-fallen Nerath, and has done a deal with the aforementioned hags to gain access to their world-crossing tower. The PC wizard is also an invoker of Ioun, Erathis and Vecna, who want to restore Nerath. The dwarf hates goblins and hobgoblins - ancient enemies of the dwarves - and has an ambiguous relationship to the minotaurs, having discovered that the dwarves served a long period of tutelage under them. The paladin (of the Raven Queen) wants to save the villagers, stop the marauding armies, and defeat Vecna. As a tiefling, he also has a passing interest in fallen empires. The drow chaos sorcerer wants to make his way to the Feywild via the world-crossing tower, to pursue his goal of reuniting the sundered elves. This will probably require learning some secrets of the ancient days.

I find it's all about interweaving things into a complex mess, such that multiple players have something at stake in every situation, and all have something at stake in the overarching scenario.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

Oh so true. For a while I only had a 4 player group which meant that if one or two couldn't make the game, it got postponed. Since we we only play this game twice a month, several cancellations in a row just killed the momentum of the campaign.

I got tired of all the missed sessions and recruited some more players from the FLGS (after meeting with them there of course). I now have 8 players.

I'm running Dragon Age so the system is light enough to handle it. The best part is even if half of the group can't make it, we still have a game. I'm also not bothering to work in a lot of backstory stuff because I don't know which players will be there from session to session.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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

While I do think this discussion has evolved organically from the OT, I will oblige catsclaw's reasonable request to the new "Plot is not a 4-letter word" thread.

 

[catsclaw227]

While I do think this discussion has evolved organically from the OT, I will oblige catsclaw's whiny (j/k) reasonable request to the new "Plot is not a 4-letter word" thread.

Thank you.

But you could have done it without the whiny comment. Crossing it out and putting a (j/k) just makes it more inappropriate.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Thank you.

But you could have done it without the whiny comment. Crossing it out and putting a (j/k) just makes it more inappropriate.

I really was just kidding with very friendly intent. I sincerely apologize if I offended you.

Edit: (j/k) does mean "just kidding," right? I'd hate to think I misinterpreted an internet shorthand and said something too harsh. Even EW's experience comment mentioned the (j/k) being harsh.

 

[catsclaw227]

So, if I'm reading this correctly, it would have been more appropriate to just say "whiny?" I'll keep that in mind for next time.

No. A more appropriate sentence would have been:

"While I do think this discussion has evolved organically from the OT, I will oblige catsclaw's request to the new "Plot is not a 4-letter word" thread. "

I really was just kidding with very friendly intent. I sincerely apologize if I offended you.

Edit: (j/k) does mean "just kidding," right? I'd hate to think I misinterpreted an internet shorthand and said something too harsh. Even EW's experience comment mentioned the (j/k) being harsh.

Typically, if someone throws out an insult online and then adds a wink or a (j/k) it means that they really weren't just kidding, nor being silly. More often than not, they just want others to think they were joking. What was the intent of the "whiny" comment anyway?

Throwing out an insult on the internet is never a good idea unless you know the other poster well, even in jest. I don't know you at all and if you had made that comment to me in person, you would likely have a bloody nose.

Yes, I am having a bad day, but even if I was my usual cheery self, it would still rub me wrong.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Typically, if someone throws out an insult online and then adds a wink or a (j/k) it means that they really weren't just kidding, nor being silly. More often than not, they just want others to think they were joking. What was the intent of the "whiny" comment anyway?

My intent was a friendly ribbing. Although we don't know each other personally, we've both been around ENWorld a long time and some days, especially when I'm having a good day and in a good mood, I feel like we are friends in a shared community. I sincerely did not know that "(j/k)" was commonly interpreted as "they really weren't just kidding, nor being silly."

 

[prosfilaes]

No. A more appropriate sentence would have been:

"While I do think this discussion has evolved organically from the OT, I will oblige catsclaw's request to the new "Plot is not a 4-letter word" thread. "

"...Even though he was being whiny about it".

Throwing out an insult on the internet is never a good idea unless you know the other poster well, even in jest.

It wasn't an insult; it was criticism.

I don't know you at all and if you had made that comment to me in person, you would likely have a bloody nose.

So should he have just punched you in the nose? Or is it okay just for you to criticize what people say by physical attacks?

 

[catsclaw227]

If I get in a jokey, chummy mood next time would it be appropriate to say? "Come on guys, Momma catsclaw is kicking us out. "

Apparently, you don't know when to stop.

"...Even though he was being whiny about it".

What are the quotes for?

It wasn't an insult; it was criticism.

I was criticized for asking if we could stay on topic? And you think that's OK? How nice.