Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[CharlesRyan]

The only reason I ever accepted the neologism was because it seemed to mean what "D&D campaign" formerly meant.

Correction: What "D&D campaign" formerly meant to you.

I also played D&D in the 1970s, and I don't agree that one was rigidly confined to your style of play, then any more than now. The hobby was young; nobody had years and years of experience to draw upon--and certainly nothing like the internet to help share experiences. There was a lot of experimentation and players simply doing what seemed like the best thing to them. If anything, in my experience play styles varied even more from group to group than they do now.

You yourself point out that Dragonlance didn't invent the story-oriented campaign--games like CoC and even Empire of the Petal Throne dipped their toes into those waters long before 1984. Well, guess what: So did hundreds of thousands of gamers. On their own. Pretty much from day one.

You weren't the only one around back then, and even if you were your anecdotal evidence is just that: anecdotal. The fact that it's three decades in the past doesn't make it any more reliable.

In my campaign, adventures are not little DM-determined boxes to get shut into. ("To repeat this menu, press 5.")

It's funny. Your utter rejection of anything that stinks of "art school" or "egghead" describes a game style that, to me, sounds way more restrictive than anything I've proposed.

 

[Ariosto]

CoC and even Empire of the Petal Throne dipped their toes into those waters long before 1984

EPT? Not, as far as I know, in any sense that would not apply as well to Blackmoor and Greyhawk -- so unless you have something most interesting to share, I am only puzzled as to what you could possibly mean by "story-oriented campaign".

I also played D&D in the 1970s, and I don't agree that one was rigidly confined to your style of play, then any more than now.

As I have not made any assertion that "one was rigidly confined to" any style of play ... and as what you have demonstrated is not a sound grasp of what my style of play is ... well, I am at rather a loss.

The limited scenario is fine and dandy as a change of pace in any case, and an obvious necessity for a tournament. If you happen to prefer it as your SOP, then have fun and prosper.

"For everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way!" - D&D Volume 3, The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures

YOU, however, have indeed presented your way as the right way to play, the normal way, the expected way, the way other than which requires a special WARNING label.

YOU have excluded, chosen a narrow way with no room for those whose way has room for you -- those you attack for the very wideness of their way, its openness to whatever possibilities arise.

So, what hypocrisy is this?

Your utter rejection of anything that stinks of "art school" or "egghead" describes a game style that, to me, sounds way more restrictive than anything I've proposed.

I do not "utterly reject anything that stinks of 'art school'".
I do utterly reject the pomposity of anyone who seeks to make pretentiousness mandatory for all who would play D&D.

The egg-head-ism I reject is Humpty Dumpty's pettifogging semantic slipperiness.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And this is where we disagree. I do not think that the ruleset needs to be altered. Thus, I don't think we're ever going to agree on this one.

If the ruleset doesn't change, then you have people drinking and playing chess, but no new game.

Moreover, your position here is mutually exclusive to things you have already agreed with, as demonstrated by (thus far unresponded to by you) syllogism upthread.

From a rational standpoint, given the syllogism,

A = B
B = C, therefore
A = C​

one can rationally disagree that A = B, or that B = C, but if one accepts A = B and B = C, there is no rational way to then deny that A = C.

To most people, a sandbox world exists independently of the PC's and details are fixed. That spooky castle has whatever the DM has put in that spooky castle regardless of what group is playing.

I would agree to a large extent. I would not change the broad strokes. Details may change, depending upon PC backgrounds, though.

However, all sandboxes are "maleable to the group playing" insofar at least as it is the group playing, rather than the GM, that determines what the group does. And, again, the details can accommodate PC background (as exampled upthread).

Well, considering that Doug M's definition of sandbox is pretty much the standard definition of a sandbox campaign - a campaign where the world contains a number of adventures that the players can choose from at any given time - how do YOU define sandbox play?

I would disagree, because "adventures" are not necessarily discrete units in a sandbox setting in the way you (apparently) mean. Locations are discrete units, certainly, but what happens at a location is not.

Thus, if the GM takes the time to detail Giant Land, then the PCs may have multiple forays into Giant Land, and not always for the same reasons. They may cross Giant Land, they may engage in diplomatic relations with Giant Land, they may raid Giant Land, they may seek a ruin lost within Giant Land.

How the game element "Giant Land" and its sub-elements are used are limited only by the imaginations of the players.

For the GM, this has the advantage of allowing his work to do double duty. If he created the Village of Hommlet, it could be the PC's home base for the exploration of a certain moathouse, but also contains enough adventure seeds to be of use throughout the lifetime of a campaign. That is why Gary Gygax included all the affiliations of townsfolk, where they kept their monies, etc. The site is useful beyond playing as a one-shot. Indeed, it can be built upon and change over time. Even within the limitations of the original module, there is a castle in progress of being built which, in campaign play, would demonstrate that Hommlet changes.

Likewise, if run as part of a sandbox, the series A1-A4 can be broken down into elements are rebuilt. The "yellow sails" of the slavers exist prior to the PCs determining to track them down. The general locations and network of the slavers can be placed, so that the PCs can run afoul of it by intent or accident. The GM no longer expects that the PCs will follow the modular series (although it is possible that they do), and the GM will not force the PCs to lose against the Slave Lords just so that he can toss them in the slaver's dungeons. In fact, the GM may expand upon the slaver's dungeons so that they provide enterprising PCs with a "back door" into the slaver's stronghold!

Moreover, in a sandbox, the PCs may never choose to track the slavers down, or run afoul of them. The slavers might remain part of the framework. The PCs might even make use of the slavers for thier own ends. They might buy slaves, steal a slaver ship, or use the slavers as allies against a common foe. They might even overthrow the current Slave Lords and take control of the operation.

You keep claiming that the sandbox world is less malleable to the PCs than the AP, but this simply isn't true.

Even if the players get lots of choices about how the world is when created, that is a very poor exchange for losing the breadth and depth of choices a sandbox allows for thereafter.

The idea that the players choose the world when they create their characters also begs the question, "What happens when a PC dies?" Must the players also be given plot protection, further eroding the meaningfulness of their choices, or must the world be changed with each new PC? What if Cousin Susie joins the group? Do we change the world again? If not, how, oh how, is she going to achieve any depth in her play experience?

Again, how is it possible that the DM can be so creative as to match a world to 4+ players, but none of those players is so creative as to be capable of matching a character to the world? How did you cope with this when you were running (and lauding your running of) the World's Largest Dungeon?

In a nutshell, your several positions in this thread require one to accept far too many mutually exclusive statements.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

For the GM, this has the advantage of allowing his work to do double duty.

Or triple, or more! Of course, that depends on a kind of extended campaign. In Hussar's mode of play, for instance, there might not be so much opportunity.

That might be good for another thread: "Why We Like Character: Our Job as DMs".

People and places in a game gain character over the course of extended interaction in play. Relationships and histories emerge organically, as players enter into them.

I do not sit down and write a "module" text about each bit of my campaign environment. Even if I plan to run a set scenario, I'm not trying to explain to someone else how to run it!

Most of the time, I am not doing anything of the sort -- so the more a module is written with assumptions demanding that things bend to them, the more work it is to integrate into an ongoing campaign. Just because a handy "hook" or framing background is provided, though, does not mean that it's going to pose such difficulties.

Also a "one off" can be a pleasant diversion from campaign play. The DM not only can say, "Okay, guys, here's the challenge -- go to it!", but can also feel free really to cut loose. Losing pre-generated characters to the Vaults of Inexorable Doom is more of a lark than losing regular PCs. A single adventure with 29th-level characters might be more fun than having them in an extended campaign.

 

[CharlesRyan]

YOU, however, have indeed presented your way as the right way to play. . . .

Au contraire.

I've posited that most people experience a great similarity between roleplaying and other fictional environments, and their expectations reflect that. If you are going to deliver an experience that diverges from their expectations, and you don't let them know, you shouldn't be surprised by some degree of frustration on your part or theirs.

And I've said that if you are frustrated that your players treat your campaign like a story, you should consider the possibility that that's because they want some story in their game.

No value judgement one way or the other. I have my own preferences, but who doesn't?

YOU have excluded, chosen a narrow way with no room for those whose way has room for you -- those you attack for the very wideness of their way, its openness to whatever possibilities arise.

I don't see it the same way. There's a whole gamut of experiences that RPGs can deliver that are not a possibility in your play style. Some of the most satisfying and thrilling moments I've experienced in 30 years of gaming (on both sides of the screen) could not happen in a sandbox style game.

RC's point (if I may put words in his mouth) is that player agency opens a toolbox of GMing techniques that he (and I presume you) find valuable. My point is that story structure opens a different toolbox. RC and I seem to have reached an accord that both sets are valid, and that they are not even completely mutually exclusive.

Your point (again, if I may) seems to be that story structure is A) equals railroading (or at least is inherently more restrictive than sandbox); B) isn't the "true" way to play D&D, because in the old days it was all sandbox all the time; and C) is just an exercise in pretension.

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC and I seem to have reached an accord that both sets are valid, and that they are not even completely mutually exclusive.

I have never denied it.

But I do wonder what you think could not happen in a sandbox style game?

 

[Hussar]

If the ruleset doesn't change, then you have people drinking and playing chess, but no new game.

Moreover, your position here is mutually exclusive to things you have already agreed with, as demonstrated by (thus far unresponded to by you) syllogism upthread.

From a rational standpoint, given the syllogism,

A = B
B = C, therefore
A = C​

one can rationally disagree that A = B, or that B = C, but if one accepts A = B and B = C, there is no rational way to then deny that A = C.

Again, going around in circles.

The part I bolded is where we disagree. I do not think that it is a requirement to bolt the player goals into the framework of the game in order to achieve a new game. Nothing you have said has convinced me of this. Thus, your logic chain falls apart like the deck of cards it is. Your chain of logic ONLY works if we presume that player goals MUST be locked into the game framework in order to create a new game.

Without that detail, your logic chain fails.

Now, since we cannot agree on the initial premise of whether or not player goals must be locked into the game framework, we're at an impasse.

I suggest we drop it and leave it. We're not going to get anywhere.

I would agree to a large extent. I would not change the broad strokes. Details may change, depending upon PC backgrounds, though.

However, all sandboxes are "maleable to the group playing" insofar at least as it is the group playing, rather than the GM, that determines what the group does. And, again, the details can accommodate PC background (as exampled upthread).

Again, bolding the important bits.

How? how is it the group playing which determines what the group does? The group has absolutely no say in what appears in hex A7 or Hex D9. That's entirely up to the DM, and, what appears in those hexes doesn't change in any way dependent on the players or the group. If the DM has decreed that "spooky castle" appears in Hex A7, then that's what appears.

All the players can do is REACT to what the DM presents. In no way can they determine what they do.

I would disagree, because "adventures" are not necessarily discrete units in a sandbox setting in the way you (apparently) mean. Locations are discrete units, certainly, but what happens at a location is not.

Thus, if the GM takes the time to detail Giant Land, then the PCs may have multiple forays into Giant Land, and not always for the same reasons. They may cross Giant Land, they may engage in diplomatic relations with Giant Land, they may raid Giant Land, they may seek a ruin lost within Giant Land.

How the game element "Giant Land" and its sub-elements are used are limited only by the imaginations of the players.

But, the existence of "Giant Land" has nothing to do with what the players want. It has nothing to do with the player's backgrounds (Unless the DM has specifically told them beforehand that they are going to Giant Land and thus must build that into their backgrounds). "Giant Land" exists only in the mind of the DM and has no links to the players at all.

For the GM, this has the advantage of allowing his work to do double duty. If he created the Village of Hommlet, it could be the PC's home base for the exploration of a certain moathouse, but also contains enough adventure seeds to be of use throughout the lifetime of a campaign. That is why Gary Gygax included all the affiliations of townsfolk, where they kept their monies, etc. The site is useful beyond playing as a one-shot. Indeed, it can be built upon and change over time. Even within the limitations of the original module, there is a castle in progress of being built which, in campaign play, would demonstrate that Hommlet changes.

But, again, that castle in construction HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PLAYERS. You keep bringing up the same point over and over again. Yes, I agree this is sandbox play. But, you have not said one thing to tell me how this relates to the players. Why should the players care about the castle being built? They can't buy it. Unless they kill the two guys who own the castle, they can't take it over as a base. At best, they could go and beg jobs from the guys who own the castle, but, that's about it.

Likewise, if run as part of a sandbox, the series A1-A4 can be broken down into elements are rebuilt. The "yellow sails" of the slavers exist prior to the PCs determining to track them down. The general locations and network of the slavers can be placed, so that the PCs can run afoul of it by intent or accident. The GM no longer expects that the PCs will follow the modular series (although it is possible that they do), and the GM will not force the PCs to lose against the Slave Lords just so that he can toss them in the slaver's dungeons. In fact, the GM may expand upon the slaver's dungeons so that they provide enterprising PCs with a "back door" into the slaver's stronghold!

Moreover, in a sandbox, the PCs may never choose to track the slavers down, or run afoul of them. The slavers might remain part of the framework. The PCs might even make use of the slavers for thier own ends. They might buy slaves, steal a slaver ship, or use the slavers as allies against a common foe. They might even overthrow the current Slave Lords and take control of the operation.

But, nothing about the slave lords is remotely tied to the players. The only connection they have with them is if they choose to go out and look for the slavers. The slavers exist independent of the PC's. The PC's have no real input into this campaign before it starts.

You keep claiming that the sandbox world is less malleable to the PCs than the AP, but this simply isn't true.

Even if the players get lots of choices about how the world is when created, that is a very poor exchange for losing the breadth and depth of choices a sandbox allows for thereafter.

Why? Nothing you have claimed here has given any breadth or depth. The players are totally interchangeable, the characters are interchangeable. The players or the characters have no links whatsoever to the campaign. I can remove my character, replace it with an entirely new character and nothing changes. How is that depth?

The idea that the players choose the world when they create their characters also begs the question, "What happens when a PC dies?" Must the players also be given plot protection, further eroding the meaningfulness of their choices, or must the world be changed with each new PC? What if Cousin Susie joins the group? Do we change the world again? If not, how, oh how, is she going to achieve any depth in her play experience?

Again, this is your assumption that character death gives meaning to character choices. I disagree, and we're not likely going to agree on this one. And, in case you think I'm just talking here, I'm playing a game RIGHT NOW where characters CANNOT DIE, unless the player chooses to let the character die.

If Cousin Susie joins the group? Yup, the world changes. Lots of things will change. Maybe elements will even be ret-conned to fit those changes. My players and characters are not interchangeable. They are actually integral to the plot and story of the campaign. I cannot simply drop out Sir Lancelot and parachute in Harry Potter and carry on like nothing is different.

Again, how is it possible that the DM can be so creative as to match a world to 4+ players, but none of those players is so creative as to be capable of matching a character to the world? How did you cope with this when you were running (and lauding your running of) the World's Largest Dungeon?

In a nutshell, your several positions in this thread require one to accept far too many mutually exclusive statements.


RC

I would point back a couple of posts where I have stated that what I'm talking about here IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TO RUN A GAME. I have run sandbox games. The WLD is one of them. But, the WLD was a light hearted fun game. It was not deep or meaningful. Characters were interchangeable and plots, such as they were, were about as deep as the average puddle.

So, yes, you can run a game in a sandbox. Yes, they can be fun games. Nowhere did I say different. You are the one implying judgement where none exists.

I simply asked a question - how do you achieve depth in your campaigns where the campaign is divorced from the players? How do you achieve depth in a campaign where characters are interchangeable and replacing one with another changes nothing?

Appologies if asking questions is seen as judgement.

 

[Hussar]

A later thought occurred and I wanted to add it here:

The idea that the players choose the world when they create their characters also begs the question, "What happens when a PC dies?" Must the players also be given plot protection, further eroding the meaningfulness of their choices, or must the world be changed with each new PC? What if Cousin Susie joins the group? Do we change the world again? If not, how, oh how, is she going to achieve any depth in her play experience?

There's another obvious answer here as well. End the campaign and start a new one.

I don't know if I said it here or not, but, IMO, story based campaigns are SHORT. You have a specific story arc in mind, a specific theme (or themes) to explore and some pretty specific goals. There's nothing wrong, in my mind, with a campaign lasting six to eight weeks.

This might also go a long way to explaining the differences we're seeing here in approach. I do think a sandbox campaign is probably better for campaigns that are intended to last a long time. A plot based campaign is better suited for campaigns that have a fairly short half life - rarely more than a year IMO.

Like all things, it comes down to what the group wants to get out of the experience. A lengthy campaign where the players are given a great deal of freedom, but, the world is fairly generic in that it is not built upon any specific group or group of players, or; a campaign that is much shorter, but is specific to the group and/or the characters they are playing.

And, a disclaimer. I in no way am saying that one is better than the other in any sort of objective way. Currently, I like shorter, plot heavy games as a GM. A couple of years from now, that could swing back the other way.

 

[Ariosto]

No value judgement one way or the other. I have my own preferences, but who doesn't?

I am glad to take you at your word on that! Perhaps you will return the favor and stop trying to attribute to me statements that I have not made, and claiming that my game "must be" or "cannot be" this or that on the basis of your fancy ...

There's a whole gamut of experiences that RPGs can deliver that are not a possibility in your play style.

... or maybe not. <sigh> Setting aside that you have yet to demonstrate any understanding of what "my play style" is, perhaps you can offer some examples of the "gamut of experiences" thereby not possible. And then perhaps you can explain why that's such a problem when I can -- yes, I know this may be just unthinkable -- play RPGS other than D&D!

It is not possible to play (at least quite precisely) Creeks & Crawdads, or Nicotine Girls, or Kill Puppies For Satan, or Panty Explosion, or The Alan Smithee Project, or Best Friends, or any one of thousands of other games in the moment of playing Dungeons & Dragons instead -- or vice-versa, or any which way. So what? I'm not playing D&D when I play Upwords or Rail Baron, either.

Your point (again, if I may) seems to be that story structure is A) equals railroading (or at least is inherently more restrictive than sandbox); B) isn't the "true" way to play D&D, because in the old days it was all sandbox all the time; and C) is just an exercise in pretension.

You can speak for yourself -- and please do! -- as to what on earth you mean by "story structure".

(A) I'll try to wash my hands of "railroad", even though it has a pretty venerable usage, because that's apparently just another Humpty Dumpty distraction. Knock yourself out defining and redefining it to suit your taste.

I have already disowned "sandbox". You have no basis whatsoever to deprive me of the right to refer to my Dungeons & Dragons campaign as just that, and it is plainly false to claim that I am thereby somehow imposing on you in any way.

(B) You fly off the handle at the observation that what you apparently want to mandate as incumbent on others as a rule is not mentioned at all in the seminal works. Simply give up your insistence on dictating to others! The absence of this, that or anything hardly stands in the way of adding to your heart's desire! Add, subtract, multiply, divide ... which part of "decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way" is so hard for you to understand? You decide for yourself alone, though, not for me or anyone else.

(C) Yes, I do think the "RPGs at art" conceit tends to be rather Pretentious, in the Rients Threefold Model sense. If you can't see the silliness in jumping, for instance, from simulating the process of personal development commonly called "life", or played with metal and plastic figurines, it become improvisational puppet theatre -- to "the elf scores a critical hit on these dice rolls" ... well, too bad.

 

[The Ghost]

I simply asked a question - how do you achieve depth in your campaigns where the campaign is divorced from the players? How do you achieve depth in a campaign where characters are interchangeable and replacing one with another changes nothing?

What do you mean by depth?

IMHO, character depth comes from his/her philosophies, motivations, goals, fears, etc. and how he/she applies those (reacts) to the events that are transpiring around him/her.

For eample, my current character's goal is to become a deity. Short of that he is willing to consider lichdom as a possibility. He fears death and the eternal servitude that comes with it. In general he is cautious and calculated but will take risks if he feels that it advances his over-arching goal. He acts aloof in his dealings with people but secretly notices everything and takes great pains to right any percieved wrongs. He is a stranger in the country he is adventuring in.

IME this character has depth - and yet he adventures in a sandbox (one created before I made this character). I don't know if he will succeed or fail - to me that is part of the fun.