Plots in a Sandbox

[Umbran]

Wow, another false analogy. You're on fire.

Less snark, please.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Fair enough. There's always a weakness in specific hypotheticals, so I won't posit one. However, as a more broad statement: I'm coming from the standpoint that the choice to take risk upon yourself for the sake of the good of another is meaningful. Similarly, the choice to not take that risk is also meaningful.

Whereas, if the choices presented to you, are, say, A and A, where A is "take risk upon yourself for the sake of the good of another", that choice isn't meaningful because it isn't really a choice.

In this case, the only meaningful choice offered is "Do you wanna play this game or not?"

YMMV, of course.



RC

 

[Witty Comeback]

That is just what I was wondering, because different people seemed to mean quite different, and even vigorously opposed, things.

Forked here.

 

[Umbran]

Whereas, if the choices presented to you, are, say, A and A, where A is "take risk upon yourself for the sake of the good of another", that choice isn't meaningful because it isn't really a choice.

We are talking about Sandbox play, right? I present the players with a plot hook. They can take it, or not. The choice is between A and Not A - the players are always free to initiate anything they darn well feel like that has nothing to do with any hooks I have presented.

 

[Raven Crowking]

We are talking about Sandbox play, right? I present the players with a plot hook. They can take it, or not. The choice is between A and Not A - the players are always free to initiate anything they darn well feel like that has nothing to do with any hooks I have presented.

The minute you suggest that there is only one hook, I suggest that you are not running a sandbox. At least not as the term is commonly used, or as I use the term. What you are running, AFAICT, is what is usually called a "railroad".


RC

 

[Janx]

...
Well, you can, if you and your players don't mind living with the consequences of the adventurers failing completely. A front-row seat for the apocalypse certainly offers some intriguing gaming possibilities.

However, I think it's possible to have all sorts of interesting intrigues and adventures that don't involve epic events.

Bingo.

This is how an "impartial" DM still has bias on the campaign.

Let's pretend a party can only deal with 1 threat at a time. At least based on the idea that there's a finite number of problems they can successfully deal with.

If you want the world to generally maintain a static state, you only throw 1 threat at a time, and keep the coming at a steady pace. The result is, the party will be working on threats, and not advancing on anything else. But "evil" won't be gaining the upper hand.

If you want to overwhelm them, maybe take them down some pegs, you throw in multiple threats at the same time. The party can only deal with one, so the other one "wins". It's really a lose-lose for the party.

The important thing about threats is, as a real threat, the party has no choice to deal with it. If a dragon threatens their lumber business, and they have an opportunity to make a trade alliance in Farville, they don't have a choice. They have to deal with the threat, because if they head out to Farville, the dragon burns down the business they're trying to expand to Farville.

My main point is, you can push the PCs around with threats. Too many, and you change the campaign world to where the PCs are losing, THat's no less true for the plots of NPCs as it is for swarming them with monsters. It is a tool that DM should recognize they posess, and use accordingly.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think it's possible to have all sorts of interesting intrigues and adventures that don't involve pushing the PCs around with threats.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think it's possible to have all sorts of interesting intrigues and adventures that don't involve pushing the PCs around with threats.

Yes. Some of the most entertaining adventures in my campaigns have been ones initiated by the PC's due to something they wished to accomplish that wasn't in any way, a threat.

 

[The Shaman]

I think it's possible to have all sorts of interesting intrigues and adventures that don't involve pushing the PCs around with threats.

Yes. Some of the most entertaining adventures in my campaigns have been ones initiated by the PC's due to something they wished to accomplish that wasn't in any way, a threat.

My ideal as a referee is to be reacting to what the players and their characters are doing, not the other way 'round.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

My ideal as a referee is to be reacting to what the players and their characters are doing, not the other way 'round.

Those have always been my best games. I was often amazed at how good the players were in providing me with seeds, which I then turned into hooks. It was especially fun when they drew connections and conclusions different than my own ideas, which I found better than my own, and so took their ideas and scrapped my own. They look smart, and I know they are interested since it came from them.