Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Raven Crowking]

It's more of an amalgam of sandbox-style and linear-style gameplay where the PCs have choices to make between bursts of linear adventures.

All adventures are linear, in the sense that players make one set of choices during any given game session, and making that set of choices precludes other sets of choices during the same time.

The important difference between a sandbox and an adventure path, IMHO, is that the line in an AP is known beforehand (at least in broad outline), while the line in a sandbox is not.

An adventure is only "nonlinear" in any real sense when the "line" being discussed is one drawn by the GM. Thus, in the aforementioned sandbox, players who travel to Saltmarsh may become enmeshed in the plot of U1-3, or they may not -- if they choose to do something else, the plot of U1-3 unfolds without them, possibly with consequences for the setting.

But, likewise, the elements of U1-3 exist regardless of the plot of said modules. It is entirely possible for a group of PCs to eliminate the sahuagin threat before travelling to Saltmarsh, so that those elements form a story far different from the one suggested by the module.

The elements of the threads are predetermined, the plans of the NPCs are predetermined, but the actual story of the game is not. Having a solid framework need not constrain game play along a linear path.

the style of play you describe above has certain expectations in regard to framework and outcomes that pure sandbox-style play would not have.

Please elaborate.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

So in other words, in a sandbox, there are multiple potential plots; one or more of these may play out depending on what the players choose to pursue. (Note my use of the words "potential" and "may".) In a "plotted" game, there's a single major plotline; it plays out on the basis of player buy-in from an early stage.

Exactly.

The plots players pursue are "game", those they do not become "framework". That does not mean that the framework doesn't affect the choices available to the PCs in the game (if they ignore the threat of Blastemall, then Dullsburg becomes a smoking ruin ruled by the evil mage, so visiting their friend the blacksmith who lived there is out), and it doesn't mean that framework elements cannot become game (such as when the PCs want revenge on Blastemall for the blacksmith's death).




RC

 

[Mark]

All adventures are linear, in the sense that (. . .)

The important difference between a sandbox and an adventure path (. . .) is that the line in an AP is known beforehand (at least in broad outline), while the line in a sandbox is not.

Adventure paths *and adventures* are linear prior to the introduction of players. They may have some branches but are written to be generally linear.

An adventure is only "nonlinear" in any real sense when the "line" being discussed is one drawn by the GM.

An adventure is only "nonlinear" when the line only exists retrospectively. It would not be called an adventure prior to actually happening. It would only exists as a number of individual elements that later are connected by the choices and actions of the PCs. Not that the individual elements could not be somehow related and not that the choices could not be predicted as things develop but rather that it is not one or one of several predetermined outcomes. If it is a predetermined outcome, whether it is the only one, or one of several, then it is essentially linear.

The elements of the threads are predetermined, the plans of the NPCs are predetermined, but the actual story of the game is not. Having a solid framework need not constrain game play along a linear path.

The framework and the thread of a published adventure are essentially the same thing and only really differ in that the thread might remain a single path or might be somewhat frayed to allow for a number of predetermined linear outcomes.

Please elaborate.

You already did in your previous posts. I was agreeing with you, or thought I had been, but I've reread some of your posts and I think I see whence the miscommunication stems. You seem to redefine things in a way that allows you to use terms in ways that would normally be antithetical. You use the term "sandbox" to mean something that isn't traditionally sandbox-style, which I think has led to a lot of confusion in this thread.


I wish I had more time to discuss this. I think it would become a more interesting discussion if the terminology we collectively used was standardized. Sorry to say, though, that my time is becoming severely limited so hopefully what I have posted already will be of some help to you moving forward.

 

[Ariosto]

It would not be called an adventure prior to actually happening.

Actually, it would and was just so in the 1st ed. AD&D books. In that sense, the accent is on "venture".

 

[Doug McCrae]

In most of the discussions I've been involved with, the pro-sandboxers seemed to have taken the stance that yes, you must play through that encounter with the kobolds, no matter how meaningless it might be. The kobolds are there (according to the GM's notes, or imaginings, or a published adventure, or whatever); to not play through the encounter would be unacceptably manipulative on the part of the GM, who's supposed to be impartial, dispassionate, and utterly unconcerned with the fates of the characters or "meaning" of the encounters.

Sandbox, to me, just means the players get a choice as to which adventure they go on. Most games out there aren't sandboxes imo. The GM has prepped one adventure for the evening, so the PCs have to accept it or nothing happens.

The words I'd use to describe the style you've outlined are: static, or status quo, as opposed to dynamic or tailored (as per the terminology in the 3e DMG chapter 3), and GM as referee.

You could have a sandbox where encounters are played out, or even just handwaved, in any amount of detail and the GM could be totally partisan (in any direction). So long as the players get to choose whether to go to the Caves of Chaos, the Sunless Citadel or the Halls of Tizun Thane, then it's a sandbox irrespective of any other GMing issues.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Adventure paths *and adventures* are linear prior to the introduction of players. They may have some branches but are written to be generally linear.

Hmmm. I guess you and I write adventures differently, then. Or you must imagine that adventure means "a sequents of events that must occur in a specified order". As Ariosto has already (correctly) noted, this is not the useage which existed in early D&D, nor is it the useage I am using now.

Adventure =/= railroad.

I certainly wouldn't call Keep on the Borderlands (as an excellent example) linear. You seem hung up on the idea that elements come from modules. Once they are included in the campaign milieu, however, there is absolutely no difference between elements created by the GM and elements converted by the GM.

If it is a predetermined outcome, whether it is the only one, or one of several, then it is essentially linear.

This is absolutely nonsensical.

If the outcome is predetermined, then the scenario is linear.

If there are several possible outcomes, and which outcome occurs is not predetermined, then the scenario is not linear.

If the PCs attempt to kill Blastemall, then they either will or they will not succeed. The fact that the end state is binary does not make their efforts linear prior to their occurance (all scenarios are linear after the fact).

The framework and the thread of a published adventure are essentially the same thing and only really differ in that the thread might remain a single path or might be somewhat frayed to allow for a number of predetermined linear outcomes.

Let us say that you are getting ready for the creation of a sandbox game. In order to do so, you must create a framework (setting). Why would you imagine that this creates a single path, frayed or otherwise?

You use the term "sandbox" to mean something that isn't traditionally sandbox-style, which I think has led to a lot of confusion in this thread.

Sorry, but I don't see what you are objecting to. I've been gaming since 1979, and I am pretty sure that I am using the term today in roughly the same way as I first used it. The only difference is that, now, I've given a lot more thought to the elements that go into that sandbox, and how they interrelate.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

In most of the discussions I've been involved with, the pro-sandboxers seemed to have taken the stance that yes, you must play through that encounter with the kobolds, no matter how meaningless it might be.

Different groups have different customs, but in old-style play -- whether "sand-box" or otherwise -- "fudging" tends to be a means of last resort. Some DMs truly might never interfere. What if there were about to be a TPK even though the players had made all the right moves? "I have not seen the case yet" might be the reply. And what if the players were coasting to victory on lucky rolls? At some point, "the die is cast", and one has committed to whatever fortune brings. Sometimes chance goes against the players, and sometimes it favors them. In the long run, that balances out and dealing with the vagaries is part of the game.

Now, some situations can be effectively pretty linear. Tournament scenarios tend rather toward gauntlets, the Tomb of Horrors infamously so. You can basically press on or turn back. In the latter case, though, if you make it out alive in a campaign context then you should have a wide wilderness before you.

The traditional, "proper" dungeon is quite another matter. So long as the walls in fact constrain movement, what you get is a sort of flow chart of encounters. The players themselves choose their way, and in a well-made dungeon there are a great many ways.

That's basically the whole game in an easily grasped format. Prepare an environment such that there's interesting stuff down the line whichever way the players turn. With a few branches and interconnections, what could have been a line becomes a matrix of many possibilities. With the outcome of each encounter in doubt, and with the consequences informing the dynamics of the rest, you really just have to play to see what happens!

 

[Ariosto]

Adventure paths of course presume a general direction of events along with the arrow of time -- but that need not be terribly particular. If you're always going forward, but have three ways to go at each step, then 5 steps = 3^5 = 243 possible end points. That need not mean, say, 363 (243+81+27+9+3) unique geographic locations. You can have considerable overlap, and yet there can be quite different states of "the adventure" in the same location depending on the path taken to get there.

My basic point is that a little bit of opening up can go a long way.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Please note, I didn't say "remove the kobold encounter because the kobolds are beating the PCs". Rather, if the encounter is meaningless, the outcome is known, and the glazed look is soon to appear in the players' eyes, let the encounter end. If the PCs' victory is as assured to the kobolds as to the players, it makes sense that the kobolds surrender or run away.

It was also a not-so-subtle point: System matters. Some systems, by virtue of their grindy combat rules, are not particularly well suited to a sandbox playstyle. It is a reasonable rule of thumb that, the more encounters your game will have that don't relate directly to the players' goals, the faster the game should be able to resolve encounters. Some games are a "Critical Fail" in this respect. Other games are "Critical Fails" in other respects.

Regardless of what game system you prefer, it is important for the GM to understand how that system affects play, and adjust the setup of his game to make use of that system's strengths, while supporting its weaknesses, to the greatest extent of his skill.

IOW, If you have four-hour game sessions, and are running 3.5, don't include an encounter with 40 kobolds unless you and your players don't mind doing anything else in that session. (Even in RCFG or 1e, this is likely to eat up at least half an hour, depending upon your players).


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Two points:

* Those old modules include background and/or rumours for a reason -- and that reason is to help players set goals within the environment presented. The players rely on the GM to provide enough information to make decisions and set goals. If the GM isn't supplying it (or making it possible for the PCs to obtain), she isn't doing her job.

* Having kobolds surrender when they are obviously beat is not fudging. Nor is it fudging to not create the encounter in the first place.


RC