Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Ariosto]

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.

What I have seen at first hand in 3e, and even more in 4e, is that:
(A) an "encounter" by default means a fight; and
(B) a fight (including related post-combat business) chews up about an hour of real time.

In 4e, a "skill challenge" is close enough to functionally equivalent.

If the DM chooses (A), then the players are very likely to follow that lead even if -- theoretically -- they could deal with the encounter otherwise (even by hurrying on). The incentives not to take whatever the DM serves have, by design, been largely removed even short of Hobson's choice (which is indeed often the bottom line anyway).

So, you've got a six-hour session. Suppose an hour and a half or so, typically, goes to non-game socializing. Throw monsters and/or "skill challenges" at the players four times, and you probably don't have much more than half an hour of other time to fill.

Adjust as your group's mileage varies, but the basic point remains: It's easy-peas-y preparation because there's not so much that can get used in a session.

Heck, if we just gave old-style D&D figures about 10x their normal HP and got rid of effects that win without HP attrition -- to make fights drag on -- and boosted availability of PC healing (to make them keep dragging on, and also cut down needed non-combat time that might distract with other possibilities), then we'd have a game that's super easy on the DM.

 

[Hussar]

Been away for a while.

Honestly, RC, I think that our approaches are just not compatible. I lean much more towards what Vyvyan Basterd classifies as a "game". You're don't and that's groovy. I don't think you have proven what you think you have proven to be honest. You have basically changed the definitions.

To you, anything which is pre-determined stops being game and starts being framework. I think that muddies the definition too much. You can have pre-determined outcomes and still have a game simply because the player's goals are not based on those outcomes.

Thus, Batman catching the Joker is entirely known. 100% known, as it is in Sufficiently Advanced (the use of Twists guarantees that), yet, the goals of play isn't catching the Joker. To you, that means catching the Joker is simply framework.

 

[Ariosto]

yet, the goals of play isn't catching the Joker. To you, that means catching the Joker is simply framework.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the usage of "framework" here RC's invention? So isn't it his business to define it that way?

What exactly is so profound about his using a single word in place of the phrase "not the goal of play"?

 

[Hussar]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the usage of "framework" here RC's invention? So isn't it his business to define it that way?

What exactly is so profound about his using a single word in place of the phrase "not the goal of play"?

That would be my entire point though. "Not the goal of play" is his invention. If you discount his definition of framework then the goal of play can be anything the players decide it to be. Thus a game does not require unknown resolutions to be a game.

It is only with RC's definition of framework that games gain the requirement of unknown resolutions. Since, as you say, it's entirely his own invention, I'm not under any particular onus to accept that invention.

 

[The Shaman]

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!"

How were the players introduced to the villain? How did they come to be pursuing the villain? How did they learn of the villain's plot?

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.

How they become vested in the events of the game is one of the important characteristics of sandbox play, in my experience.

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.

Characters have goals and pursue them, putting off or aside other options, in sandbox play, too.

Choosing how the adventurers will pursue their goals, from among multiple options, is not the same kind of player choice as whether or not to engage with the situation in the first place.

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.

In a sandbox game, dungeons are explored for the characters' reasons, not the referee's.

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

The other day I was fiddling around with what some gamers would probably call a 'relationship map' of some of the significant NPCs in the Flashing Blades campaign I'm working on. 'Relationship map,' in my estimation, is just a fancy term for a flowchart, so I was struck by the comment upthread that a dungeon is also an elaborate flowchart, because when I look at the boxes containing the names of the different NPCs and the lines showing the relationships between them, well, darn if it doesn't look like a lot like a dungeon.

From this perspective, characters are 'rooms,' some with one or two connecting 'passages' (relationships), others are major intersections with a half-dozen or more connections. There are 'secret passages' as well, relationships that are out of the public eye. Each 'room' may offer hazards and rewards, in the form of the goals and resources of the character.

The adventurers can explore the 'rooms' and 'passages' in the course of the game. The thing to remember is this: I'm not deciding for them what rooms and passages they will follow. They can visit as many or as few rooms as they want, engage as many or as few of the non-player characters as they choose. They may find that in the course of their explorations that challenges flow from some rooms across the 'dungeon' to find them: make an ally in one room, and you may find that gets you an enemy in two or three other rooms elsewhere.

So sandbox games don't require 'sites' to be physical localities, in my opinion.

 

[Ariosto]

"Not the goal of play" is his invention.

Really? I was quoting you. As you put it,

You can have pre-determined outcomes and still have a game simply because the player's goals are not based on those outcomes.

I agree with you there, and with RC that players must have goals the outcomes of which are not predetermined. Otherwise, it's not a game but a scripted (however sketchily) performance.

 

[Ariosto]

Every dungeon is delved for a plot reason, rather than a "let's go find stuff" reason.

If by "plot reason" you mean "because the DM said so", then there's a big difference. Otherwise:

First get in touch with all those who will be included in the adventure, or if all are not available, at least talk to the better players so that you will be able to set an objective for the adventure.

The other day I was fiddling around with what some gamers would probably call a 'relationship map' of some of the significant NPCs ... From this perspective, characters are 'rooms,' some with one or two connecting 'passages' (relationships), others are major intersections with a half-dozen or more connections. There are 'secret passages' as well, relationships that are out of the public eye. Each 'room' may offer hazards and rewards, in the form of the goals and resources of the character.

Well put!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Really? I was quoting you. As you put it, I agree with you there, and with RC that players must have goals the outcomes of which are not predetermined. Otherwise, it's not a game but a scripted (however sketchily) performance.

This is the problem that I have talking with Hussar.

 

[Raven Crowking]

As a quick note, if the PCs are always rushing off to counter the Villian of the Hour, how do the players ever get to modify the campaign milieu to their liking? One of the goals (IMHO and IME) of a sandbox is to allow the players to say "I wish there wasn't slavery in Otherwiseniceville" and then do something about it.

If the PCs are always being hurried hither and yon, it seems to me that this level of investment is lost.


RC

 

[Janx]

As I apparently didn't clearly state it, I make a plot that the PCs WILL be interested in. After the first session, all subsequent sessions are based on feedback from the players on exactly what they planned to do based on the outcome of the last session.

Therefore, when I say the players are invested in a plot, or are following a plot, the players have chosen to go do it.

Based on that, what seems to not be getting through to some of you, is that when the party has CHOSEN to race to ThereVille to stop the villain, they are locked in. Not by chains or DM fiat, but by virtue of the priority of their chosen goal.

A cat will almost always blink when struck with a hammer. A paladin will almost always volunteer to rescue the princess.

Few of us wake up and decide to skip going to work and go to the museum. Few of us decide to take a side trek to Iowa to explore it while driving to the mall. People are predictable and people tend to take actions that move them closer to their goal.

Once you decide to go save the princess, barring a change, a rational party will continue to make choices that lead to that goal. All other options that don't lead to chosen goals are nullified as choices.

This is the effect I'm talking about. If you're playing a sandbox where nothing really matters, then of course, your players are free to choose anything. But then, none of it really matters, not even to the PCs.

I run a game where the world has stuff happening, and the PCs get caught up in it. Some of what happens is because of what NPCs are doing, some of it happens because of what PCs are doing. If the PCs are passive, the NPCs start doing more until the PCs get motivated. If the PCs are active, they'll drive events in the game, forcing NPCs to react.

I also don't run a game for evil NPCs. Maybe a sandbox is a better format for evil, those types have no ties or loyalty to anything. But give me a good party, it's pretty predictable what they'll do. Thus, they have no choice by virtue of who they are.