Player involvement - and Sandboxes

[MerricB]

I was thinking about the different levels of player involvement when playing a RPG. This isn't an in-depth analysis, but feel free to add to it in your comments.

One of the unusual things about the D&D Encounters series is that it can allow a player to play one encounter each week with their character... but have all their companions change from week to week. This would seem to me to be the least involving sort of D&D I've heard of: you don't even get a full session's roleplaying out of it. You're fully working on the relationship between your character and the encounter/adventure.

So, for the D&D Encounter, you're looking at the Player-Character relationship (with a more mechanical view of it, due to limited roleplaying opportunities). There's no meaningful relationship with the world: anything you change that wasn't scripted won't remain changed next session, except as regards your character.

An aside: the D&D Encounter sessions are not always combats. Session 3 can have no combat in it at all.

At the next level of involvement/engagement upwards (although this is a continuum), you have the play seen in the Living campaigns: you get a full session with other people, but any changes to the world are scripted, and you might be with different people next time. The major difference here is that you get a full session (3-5 encounters!) with the group, so intra-party interaction becomes more important.

Of course, if you always have the same DM and players in one of the Living Campaigns, you can start approaching the next level: the Adventure Path (which, to some extent, can include shorter adventures). Your interaction with the world is still scripted (yes, you can approach it differently, but it does presume certain interactions occur). As you're now talking about an entire campaign with the same players and DM, the relationship between the party become significantly stronger. You also have much more of an ongoing story, allowing more engagement with that part of the game.

Finally - and good DMs will elevate scripted adventures and APs to this level - you start engaging with the world fully: if you change something, it will remain changed. This can happen with DM-created adventures and campaign structures, or with AP/published adventures if the DM adapts them to what came before. (It's what can happen with megaadventures like the Temple of Elemental evil, if the DM isn't constrained to what is written on the page).

So:
* Interaction with the Character
* Interaction with the Group
* Engagement with the Story
* Interaction with the Campaign

Or something like that.

It led me to wonder if some of the desire people have to play in "sandbox" settings isn't actually wanting the complete free will given to their characters, but instead wanting the full range of interaction with the campaign. I wouldn't be utterly surprised that if, even in a moderately scripted campaign, that you can make your decisions count and cause the campaign's script to be adapted (obviously, you need a DM who can do so).

I know, in my lazier moments, the interaction with the campaign of my players isn't all that it could be... "let's just run the next adventure in this series, guys). I also know that there are times that running non-scripted campaigns for some of my players is a frustrating experience; they prefer me to set the major goals for the campaign, but the supporting cast of characters and their place in the campaign world is changing in response to their decisions, so even though I've imposed a structure over their adventures, it's still their actions that are important.

Thoughts?

Cheers!

 

[Insight]

In my 25 years of gaming (has it been that long?), I have never run into players who wanted to do much of anything in terms of the game setting. At most, players wanted to perhaps contribute a little bit inasmuch as their character was involved, but never anything beyond that. For example, a character who was a noble might want to build a list of his relatives in said noble family.

I blame some of this on early D&D's focus on the dichotomy between DM and player. Initially, the DM was encouraged to rule his game with an iron fist, and players who grew up in that era had (and may still have) that mindset. Players who never experienced 1E (or even 2E) first-hand often have a different approach to the DM-Player relationship.

In terms of D&D Encounters, this is merely an extension of the "hands-off" approach of Living (RPGA) games; the interaction here is minimal at best and most players (and DMs) don't feel any need to play with the setting, nor should they, to be honest. In this sense, however, I believe that you get what you pay for, or, in this case, you get an equal return on your time investment; you put in no preparation and get no sense of attachment in return. It seems to me that a lot of players like this. D&D Encounters, because there is no long term campaign with which to be concerned, is perfect for the casual gamer or someone who just doesn't have time to commit to a regular weekly game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I would say that it is obvious that fuller campaign interaction is part of the desire to play in a sandbox game, but IMHO you have simply failed to go far enough with your analysis.

The salient question is, why does it matter whether my actions as a player can change the campaign setting in a meaningful way? The answer is that, within the context of the game, those persistent changes mean that what you did has meaning. The choices you make have meaning.

You can then look at your Encounters/Living Campaign/AP continuum and ask "What meaningful choices are available?"

And, if you answer that question honestly, you will see why some of us add "Sandbox" to the continuum you are outlining, and why it has appeal.


RC

 

[MerricB]

To some extent, engaging with the game setting doesn't mean creating bits of it wholesale; although that is possible in some games. Instead, it means interacting it in a meaningful way so that when you return that way, it remains changed and significant to you.

For instance, I created a young girl, Penny, who was the ward of the Count of Ulek, and who was basically adopted as a mascot by the group. They used to sneak out of the castle together and go on adventures, and things like that.

A few years later, a new campaign with the same players (and one of the same characters) began in Ulek, and Penny was still there, although now on the verge of womanhood. This character was important to the players, and they were dreadfully concerned by what happened in the campaign to her. This particular campaign had a number of characters like Penny, and the engagement of the characters with the setting was fantastic to see: they wanted to protect Ulek, because they liked the characters there.

Because of this, they'd come up with schemes to help the characters that weren't dictated by myself. Although there was a strong storyline in this campaign, the essential background to it lifted it above many other games I've seen and run.

Cheers!

 

[TerraDave]

they prefer me to set the major goals for the campaign, but the supporting cast of characters and their place in the campaign world is changing in response to their decisions, so even though I've imposed a structure over their adventures, it's still their actions that are important.

Thoughts?

Cheers!

Thats it.

I have never seen desire for true sandboxing with my players, as I think RCK is advocating.

They definatley like being part of something bigger. They aren't always that "self-motivated" (though that depends). (and, yhings also tend to go better when I am prepared, but anyways). And then there is this, which I don't think gets enough emphasis:

You probably have more then one player.

When I have seen someone want to go off the beaten path, they are usually the only ones that want to head in that direction. I think the biggest job for the DM is to prep something that has broad appeal and keeps everyone basically working together (while still allowing for always fun inter-party tension).

 

[Sammael]

Didn't we just have a really long thread on sandboxing? I think the mods should merge this one with it, to avoid repetition...

 

[Insight]

To some extent, engaging with the game setting doesn't mean creating bits of it wholesale; although that is possible in some games. Instead, it means interacting it in a meaningful way so that when you return that way, it remains changed and significant to you.

For instance, I created a young girl, Penny, who was the ward of the Count of Ulek, and who was basically adopted as a mascot by the group. They used to sneak out of the castle together and go on adventures, and things like that.

A few years later, a new campaign with the same players (and one of the same characters) began in Ulek, and Penny was still there, although now on the verge of womanhood. This character was important to the players, and they were dreadfully concerned by what happened in the campaign to her. This particular campaign had a number of characters like Penny, and the engagement of the characters with the setting was fantastic to see: they wanted to protect Ulek, because they liked the characters there.

Because of this, they'd come up with schemes to help the characters that weren't dictated by myself. Although there was a strong storyline in this campaign, the essential background to it lifted it above many other games I've seen and run.

Cheers!

I'd love to see this level of involvement and interest in the games I run. Nowadays, it's all about leveling up and getting new toys. Anything that interferes with or draws the game away from said pursuit is to be ignored.

 

[TerraDave]

Didn't we just have a really long thread on sandboxing? I think the mods should merge this one with it, to avoid repetition...

This is a more general theory that includes that hot topic.

(and if you are tired of it, its not like someone is making you read this thread).

 

[weem]

Excellent topic.

I am the kind of player who is very self-motivated. I like to work up relatively detailed backgrounds for my characters and really get inside their heads in a game. My characters react to DM actions (as most do) based on his background, etc - but I also make sure my character has goals of their own, and so their actions take those into consideration. If there were to be a game with no real direction from the DM - a more open/sandbox-style game perhaps - I would have a field day, and could spend a lot of time exploring my characters goals, making the DM's role more reactionary (though it might bore the other players to death).

With that said, I know personally one other person (of all my gaming friends here locally) who enjoys playing (as a PC) like this - out of many many players. All the rest prefer there to be the kind of structure that allows them to go with the flow - following the DM along the story, even if it means being railroaded in many cases.

This had me thinking...

While there seems to be a lot of in interest in sandbox style games (including my own interest), it also seems to come entirely from DM's. I'm not sure I have seen anyone yet mention that this is the style of game they want to PLAY in - it all seems to be "I'm thinking my next game will be sandbox style", or "help me with my upcoming sandbox campaign" discussions, etc. Granted, some would say we have a lot of DM's here at ENW, but this seems to be the same across the various discussion boards I frequent.

The two DM's I play under seem to fit into this category as well. Both talk about opening their game up more, or running a sandbox-style game next, but neither of them (both players in my campaign) would be that into PLAYING in one.

I explained to my current players (and former players) how I would approach such a game - how I think it would be fun, what would make it cool, etc - and with one exception, there was a great lack of enthusiasm.

It seems as though the idea of running such a campaign (and all of the new/creative energy explored in developing the idea) is the most appealing aspect - but the end result is something that most simply don't care to participate in - it requires too much work for players perhaps, having to drive the game from their seats, etc. At least this is how things appear to be from my end, with those I know, and from what I see in various discussions.

Is the idea of a "sandbox" game, from a DM's perspective, more appealing than the reality from a Player's perspective? From my angle, it just might be.

 

[the Jester]

The two keys to making a sandbox lots of fun for the players are to make sure that actions have consequences and to drop plot hooks like leaves from trees. The pcs shouldn't have to look very hard to find something to do- they should be surrounded by options. And the options they choose (and don't choose) should have ramifications.

All IMHO, of course.