Act structure in adventure design

[Imaro]

I think what Janx is saying that the pure form of sandbox play doesn't exist, and can't - not without a truly impartial ref, like a computer. The DM is always going to have an agenda.

Me, I think that's a good thing. I think the DM's agenda is part of what makes any play fun.

Oh, I understand exactly what Janx is saying, I'm just pointing out that taking a playstyle to it's most extreme and platonic form is often going to result in absurdity. Now using sandbox as most people use the term who run those games is a different story...

Here's an example... in a "pure" storytelling based style an rpg would no longer be an actual game anymore, since nothing would be left up to randomness and only those things which best suit the story the DM wants to be constructed will be allowed to take place...thus a storytelling style campaign can't exist...

 

[Piratecat]

Stop baiting one another, please. It's okay to disagree; just do so politely, and don't make it personal.

 

[Ariosto]

If the PC's at level 1 decide they're more interested in exploring the Northlands than fighting Orcus, you can still use your magick DM wand to keep your cool battle with Orcus in the picture by making his cult a cult of Northlands barbarians or something.

I would ask, "What would Charles Dickens do?" -- and then probably do a little less than that in the coincidence department, because I'm no Dickens.

I have found that trying too hard to set up a dramatic confrontation tends to result in comedy, as the players mock the creaking of the machinery. Once that starts, it's hard to stop, and after a bit any serious climax is probably shot to hell. Unless parody is fine with you, know when to let go!

A story (at least one of "adventure") tends to be more satisfying when it's about the protagonists' actions more than their reactions, and that's especially true when players are choosing actions in a story-game.

There are times for the GM to recognize that the story most worth telling is not the one he had in mind. That sometimes happens even to novelists, when characters take on "lives of their own" in the imagination.

 

[LostSoul]

Here's an example... in a "pure" storytelling based style an rpg would no longer be an actual game anymore, since nothing would be left up to randomness and only those things which best suit the story the DM wants to be constructed will be allowed to take place...thus a storytelling style campaign can't exist...

I agree that the "game" and the "story" can conflict; however...

Consider: the value of good rules is to create outcomes that no one would have created without them, but ones that everyone is happy with.

I think randomness can play an important role in a "storytelling game".

 

[Imaro]

I agree that the "game" and the "story" can conflict; however...

Consider: the value of good rules is to create outcomes that no one would have created without them, but ones that everyone is happy with.

I think randomness can play an important role in a "storytelling game".

Yes unless you take the storytelling style to the extreme or platonic idea, then only what is best for the story would ever be allowed to happen... that's not randomness. My whole point is about the absurdity of trying to use perfect images of something to argue against their existence (especially since nothing is ever 100%).

 

[LostSoul]

Yes unless you take the storytelling style to the extreme or platonic idea, then only what is best for the story would ever be allowed to happen... that's not randomness. My whole point is about the absurdity of trying to use perfect images of something to argue against their existence (especially since nothing is ever 100%).

What I'm saying is that randomness can create what is best for the story.

edit: I do agree with your point, it's pointless to argue absolutes.

 

[Imaro]

What I'm saying is that randomness can create what is best for the story.

Oh, I totally agree (it's one of the reasons I enjoy sandboxes)... this isn't my feelings on randomness just an example to make a point about going to extremes.

edit: I do agree with your point, it's pointless to argue absolutes.

That's really all I'm saying, for Janx, and CharlesRyan, to argue the concept and existence of the sandbox playstyle for D&D is an illusion and that it doesn't exist while using only the ideal or platonic form of it to demonstrate that (not to mention choosing to define it in a way that suits their arguments) is not only a little disingenuous but also begs the question of what playstyle does exist if it must be the ideal form of it or it doesn't actually exist.

 

[Ariosto]

Setting aside abstractly ideal forms, there is in practice a tension between "telling the players a story" and "refereeing a game."

The game itself pretty well takes care of creating stories if one has the resources for a campaign in the grand old style: many players pursuing their own goals, very frequent sessions, a grand-strategic war-game aspect. In such a campaign, the players are creating so many "plot lines" that it's almost superfluous for the GM to do so.

That's a context of which some critics of "sandbox play" (a new term, meaning simply what "campaign play" meant in the old days) may be unaware, and for good reason: most folks nowadays don't have those resources. Legendary GMs such as Arneson, Gygax, Barker and Hargrave were always in a somewhat elite league. It was easier to approach when war-games clubs (however informal) were common, and it's probably still easier for young people in school than for most older people with heavy work and family responsibilities. As well, there is more competition these days for one's leisure time.

Besides being unnecessary, and perhaps as practical as herding cats, the imposition of a dramatic structure on a campaign made about as much sense in the original context as doing so to a sporting event. Then again, professional wrestling has become very popular!

So, we've got different circumstances and a different kind of game envisioned. That different techniques should be brought to bear seems natural.

Equating "different" with "better" or "worse" does not strike me as productive here. The OP established some goals, and we may have ideas of ways to further them.

 

[CharlesRyan]

For Janx, and CharlesRyan, to argue the concept and existence of the sandbox playstyle for D&D is an illusion and that it doesn't exist while using only the ideal or platonic form of it to demonstrate that [. . .] is [. . .] disingenuous.

You're absolutely right; my apologies. Let me reapproach from a clearer perspective.

I've been involved in some conversations recently, here on ENWorld, in which it seemed some people were promoting and defending the "platonic ideal" of the sandbox.

It also seems, here in this very thread, that some people view story oriented games--or even non-story games that incorporate any storytelling technique--as the "platonic ideal" of the railroad.

I don't believe in either platonic ideal--the platonic sandbox is an impossibility, and the platonic railroad is approached only by the most ham-handed and inexperienced of GMs (the sort that are not likely to create a fun game no matter what GMing techniques they favour).

My actual perspective is that awareness of storytelling techniques enhances any GM's skills, regardless of whether they prefer to develop strong story arcs or not. Understanding story is really about understanding how your players perceive your game and the events within in it. It informs the decisions you make, particularly when planning your game, whether you're building a story outline or a dungeon map.

Rejecting story techniques is like rejecting a whole suite of useful tools. And it seems like a lot of people do that, based on a philosophical adherence to a platonic ideal I don't believe in (and further, bolstering their rejection by referring another platonic ideal I don't believe in).

I hope that's clearer, and seems a bit less disingenuous.