Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Raven Crowking]

If you are thinking that the advice for "playing through A1 to A4" indicates that "playing through A1 to A4" as written would be possible in a sandbox campaign, that was not my intention. That was sort of general advice for understanding framework/game.

The fight at the end of A3 cannot be rigged that way within a sandbox, IMHO. The caves in A4 should exist regardless (and might be used to circumvent much of A3), and the surviving PCs should be deposited in A4 if they lose, but the GM should be willing to allow them to win and explore A4 on their own or not, as they desire.

When adapting a module for a sandbox game, the GM should remove any text that demands any specific outcome to any encounter, or the survival of any specific character so that he/she can appear later.


RC

 

[CharlesRyan]

I thought about the relation of "sandbox" to "plot" style games, as defined by the accord I've reached with RC, a bit over the weekend. Please note I am headed definitively into YMMV land here; I'm not asserting that my preferences are superior or that anyone else is wrong in their philosophy. I'm simply observing what to me are some pros and cons.

So, a game is a sandbox if the GM is ready to let the players choose from among a number of adventures/directions. (Yes, I'm simplifying, stay with me.)

The problem here is the GM must have a lot of content ready to go at any time. Seems to me this works best if a GM is running from published adventures, and can just pull what he needs from the shelf. It could also work for a GM who has a lot of time on his hands and loves to create lots of campaign and adventure material, but that GM will not get the satisfaction of bringing most of that to the table. For every one adventure he runs, he's created two or three others purely for the benefit of giving the players a choice of which to pursue.*

(Of course, every time the players emerge from a dungeon, they don't have to have three+ new choices of where to go next. They could have the previous unexploited choices, along with perhaps one or two new ones. But in the long run, this plan ends up being very similar to the plotted, "choice-free" philosophy, only with a slightly wider content pipeline.)

On the flip side, for me the advantage of the "plotted" approach is that it unlocks the story structure toolbox. If the GM has an outline for the adventure or campaign's story arc, he can take advantage of the three-act structure (or similar story theory guideline) to introduce elements into the game in a way that maximizes their impact and creates a very satisfying overall experience. The GM can build elements into the game early on that will be very significant later. He can focus on content that will very likely be used, spending time and energy make better material (as opposed to more material).


* This is a serious issue in the computer game development world. Creating sandbox-like freedom of action within the world is seen as desirable, but spending--literally--millions of dollars to develop content that any given user will never experience certainly isn't. There are many approaches to this issue, but to date the industry hasn't settled on a universal solution.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But in the long run, this plan ends up being very similar to the plotted, "choice-free" philosophy, only with a slightly wider content pipeline.

Sorry, but this doesn't follow rationally from your previous observations. If it is true that a lot of GM work doesn't get used, then it is also true that players have a lot of real choice, and there is no pipeline.

On the flip side, for me the advantage of the "plotted" approach is that it unlocks the story structure toolbox.

I would argue that the story structure toolbox is available in a sandbox game, but it is available in a weaker form. Similarly, the "player agency" toolbox is available in a linear game, just in a weaker form.

The trick, IMHO, is to determine how much of one toolbox you are willing to give up in order to unlock tools from the other box. IMHO, player agency is more important, so I choose to use more of that box. Your Mileage May Indeed Vary here! If story structure is important to you, you may wish to restrict player agency to make story structure more prominent.

In a very real way, "story structure" structural elements belong to what I have been calling the "framework", and player agency is the "game". You can't have the game without framework, but if you have too much framework there isn't very much game left.


RC

 

[CharlesRyan]

I would argue that the story structure toolbox is available in a sandbox game, but it is available in a weaker form. Similarly, the "player agency" toolbox is available in a linear game, just in a weaker form.

The trick, IMHO, is to determine how much of one toolbox you are willing to give up in order to unlock tools from the other box.

Agreed.

Sorry, but this doesn't follow rationally from your previous observations. If it is true that a lot of GM work doesn't get used, then it is also true that players have a lot of real choice, and there is no pipeline.

What I'm saying is, if you start the campaign with, say, three or four adventure options out there for your players, and they pursue one of them, afterword you presumably want them to still have three or four options. One way to achieve that is to create three or four new options. Another way is to add a single new option, so that combined with the original remaining two or three, they still have a balance of three or four.

Now let's say your campaign runs through N adventures. In the first instance, you as a GM have presented the players with (N x 3 or 4) options over the course of the campaign. In the second instance, you have presented the players with (N + 2 or 3) options over the course of the campaign. The second instance is mathematically much closer to N (the number of options in a plotted campaign) than the first instance.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Obviously, this depends very much on the game system and the way the DM works.

I sketch out the basics of many, many sites, and I fully describe many others. As the campaign progresses, I continue the work of fully describing sketched out sites, and of sketching out more sites.

In a game like 3e, it is such a pain in the onager to fully describe sites that it isn't surprising that the prospective DM gets a bit lazy and (may we say it) a bit railroady. In an easier-to-create-for game (1e, Basic D&D, Basic Fantasy, RCFG) a GM who enjoys being a GM tends to create more material than needed simply because doing so isn't a chore.

 

[Janx]

CR's 3-4 adventures:
I cheat on my first adventure, i tend to make 1 problem that tries to get all the PCs introduced and roped into a problem to solve that relates to them. The worst format being "you all hear that Timmy has been kidnapped by Kobolds, being good PCs y'all are obliged to help." (My initial plots strive for a bit more quality than that....

After that, usually enough interaction has happened with the village and party that the PCs start getting ideas or generating their own hooks, and the next session will be based on that.


RC's sketched out sites:
I hear a keyword 'sites'. That implies that you sketch out a few dungeons, drop a few hints and see which one the PCs go to. The extreme of this idea is that there is 1 dungeon for each compass point, and you drop maps and motivations for the PCs to pick one.


I would estimate that many DMs are lazy like me. We only want to write the "next" adventure. We want it to be the right one, that the PCs want to do. We don't want it to be a railroad. We don't want it to be a crappy novel or DMPC love-fest. We want the players to enjory it and be challenged.

for me, that means understanding the players and the PCs and making sure the adventure has elements they're interested, and that each session is "about them". On the first game, it means making some assumptions of likely player choices to prime the pump. On any subsequent game, it's a continuation of player preferred plotlines, and course corrections based on player choices between sessions.

that means at the end of session #4, the players just learned that the BBEG has two different evil plans in place, and Player#1 found a clue to who murdered his father. Ask the players what their basic intent for the next session will be. They say try to stop plan#1, and while there look into the clue. So I go home and write the stuff I need to challenge them for that as session #5. We meet, play it, and I get surprised by how they solve it. Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I cheat on my first adventure, i tend to make 1 problem that tries to get all the PCs introduced and roped into a problem to solve that relates to them.

Me too. I believe it is crucial that the players have enough information to get involved right from the get-go.

After that, usually enough interaction has happened with the village and party that the PCs start getting ideas or generating their own hooks, and the next session will be based on that.

Again, me too.

RC's sketched out sites:
I hear a keyword 'sites'. That implies that you sketch out a few dungeons, drop a few hints and see which one the PCs go to.

That's true. Initial development requires a few (1-3) local sites be fully fleshed out so that the players don't catch me with my pants down. While they explore those sites, I put further work into the additional sites/hooks that the players express interest in at the table.

For example, travelling over a lost roadway, I might inform the PCs that they can hear water running below them and, through holes in the road, see that there are caves below. I already know roughly what is there, and I already know what I need to if they bite during that game session. Fully fleshing out those caves, though, only occurs if the PCs express interest, or if I have some free time and feel like doing the work.

Likewise, the PCs might see the glint off something metallic in the far distance, or hear about a ruined city several days' travel away. If they are interested, I have enough to run with now, but I'll have more to run with once they have committed.

Finally, if you are so lucky as to have a stable campaign world for multiple groups of players, what one group of players ignores another might pick up on. In this way, you can get a lot more bang for your design buck. And signs of your other groups' expeditions are always fun to have PCs run into.


RC

 

[Janx]

Glad to hear that my methods aren't too alien...that establishes a baseline of what I mean when I talk about stuff...


A difference I see, with your sites method, is that, as a PC or a GM, I seldom see the in-game freedom to just check stuff out. I'm not talking about railroading, I'm talking about how once life starts rolling, you got things to get done, and there's no time to smell the roses (or explore extra dungeons).

We tend to find ourselves in the bind of "we got 3 days ride to ThereVille to stop the villain, and we just found a dungeon...hmmm...dungeon, villain...let's ride!"

It's very easy for a plot to guide the player's path where if they are vested in it, other choices don't matter.

For example, the PCs have decided to ride to ThereVille to the village's aid. Within any encounter, there's tons of choice on how they handle it. Odds are good, whatever they choose, is something that works towards their goal.

However, in that same framework, they are NOT likely to choose to do anything that deviates from that goal. Sure, they'll stop for directions, help a beggar, buy a sword. But they won't do a u-turn and do something else, just for the heck of it.

From one angle, following a plot (an objective) cuts down on certain kinds of choices. What is really happening, is the players already made a major choice and barring a change, automatically discard any option that doesn't move toward the goal. This looks like a lack of choice, but it isn't.

Winding this back to RC and his sites method, I tend to see in game play (through the groups I started), that the party seldom has free time to just explore dungeons. Every dungeon is delved for a plot reason, rather than a "let's go find stuff" reason.

Thus, it seems like the sites method doesn't come into usefulness for me.

It might also be that all unseen dungeons are alike. If you present me with 4 dungeons, barring some descriptive of relative risk, they are effectively all alike, even if they are not. As a player, with no other information, it doesn't matter which one I choose. At which point, why bother drawing 4 dungeons or even presenting me with 4 dungeons. Just tell me there's 1 nearby dungeon, would I like to explore it?

 

[rogueattorney]

The key sentence that needs to be uttered at the end of every session for me is, "What do you guys want to do next time?"

"We want to go back to the Caves and finish wiping out the goblins."
"We want to explore the Marshes and see if we can't track down the missing elf and his magic wand."
"We want to follow that treasure map we found."
"We want to go visit the sage and see if he can't identify this magical doo-dad."
"We need some money, so we're going to hire on with a caravan."

Often with multiples of above as the number of players and time available allow.

Once your get your answer, you know what to prepare for next time. If the players ever do something unexpected, I have found that, "Sorry, guys, I didn't think you'd make it here this time - what do you want to do?" has never once resulted in horrified players leaving the game en masse.

 

[Ariosto]

But in the long run, this plan ends up being very similar to the plotted, "choice-free" philosophy, only with a slightly wider content pipeline.

What I'm saying is, if you start the campaign with, say, three or four adventure options out there for your players, and they pursue one of them, afterword you presumably want them to still have three or four options.

How do you get in the first place into a state in which possible "adventures" are so finite as comprehensively to be counted, much less on the fingers of one hand?!

What you seem determined to miss is the difference between writing a plot and setting up a situation!

The latter is like putting some snacks on the table, stocking the 'fridge' with drinks, and welcoming friends at the door. People interact of their own accord, and that's a party -- or an old-fashioned D&D game.

It need not take a whole lot of work. Really, the factor of reuse of elements means that it takes less labor than plotting, ever less per hour of play the longer the campaign continues.

With reasonable consideration for constraints of time in the imagined situation, it requires negligible voluntary restraint on the players' part to make starting with but a small area mapped quite feasible. Factors in the design of the original game, and in the attitudes of players drawn to play it with skill, make that a snap. Start characters at first level, and you'll have plenty of opportunity to grow.