The core mechanic -- am I doing it wrong?

[Noumenon]

this breaks so significantly from my experience it's foreign to me.

With a human DM, you either pick between a list of adventure hooks or you delve into a bunch of random tables. You could theoretically pack up and go to the elven kingdom, but since you know it doesn't actually exist yet, there's nothing there to entice you. Also, you know that the DM's interest lies elsewhere and the other players have their own agendas keeping you where you are. DA:O gives you real options and doesn't put any pressure on you what order you do them.

I have tried to run a game where the players could follow their own lead and it was really stressful. Free rein is an illusion with a human DM just as it is in DA:O, but DA:O's illusion is better.

 

[JamesonCourage]

With a human DM, you either pick between a list of adventure hooks or you delve into a bunch of random tables.

I usually don't deal in either, and I run my game for 8-16 hours per week.

You could theoretically pack up and go to the elven kingdom, but since you know it doesn't actually exist yet, there's nothing there to entice you. Also, you know that the DM's interest lies elsewhere and the other players have their own agendas keeping you where you are. DA:O gives you real options and doesn't put any pressure on you what order you do them.

In my sandbox game, the action is where the players make it, or if anything is happening somewhere in the setting. The players can go cause trouble, deal with troublemakers, build a city, destroy one, or anything else they decide to accomplish. Of course, they need skill, luck, and creativity, but it's possible.

My last setting had a full continental map from the beginning, even though they mostly dealt with a single country. I soon added other continents, even though they didn't use them for a long while. If players see the continent of Foraldren, they know that Nissalli is the elven country that is on the southern side, and that it's warring with Salik, the troll nation to the north, which is also battling with the dwarven country of Kalamane on the northern side. All of these nations, in turn, are teaming up with the other immortal races to battle the invading demons (from Sayreshi), in the great Theyline Forest on the eastern half of the continent, so that the demons don't breach the Gates of Neecro and reach the Everlasting Song, which gives the immortal races their immortality.

The players knew this was going on long before they interacted with it. Each of these nations (and the Theyline Forest) is also filled with cities and towns, and filled with people with their own goals. And we didn't touch on Utopitres (another continent), and the various other things happening on it. And, of course, there's the nefarious plots on Param (the continent where they started), political maneuvering, settlements being formed, negotiations with the "savage races", and the like. And, of course, there's all of the other realms, such as Equirous, the dream realm, and the two continents it has on it, Joyant (the dream continent) and Kanevacanire (the nightmare continent). And, on top of all of these, there's all of the more "mundane" things going on: someone owes money to a moneylender and is in trouble, a charming conman is trying to escape town, romantic interests, managing a family, and the like.

I have tried to run a game where the players could follow their own lead and it was really stressful. Free rein is an illusion with a human DM just as it is in DA:O, but DA:O's illusion is better.

This is definitely going to vary from group to group. Sandbox play may not be for your group.

You can definitely create a living, breathing world, though. The players can definitely pursue their own goals and interact with that living, breathing world. You don't make a storyline or plot the main focus, you make an engaging setting with creatures with their own goals and motivations, plop the PCs down into the world, and then See What Happens.

They can engage with the setting, and experience the consequences of that engagement. Free rein is not necessarily an illusion, in my opinion, because I run a game where I would completely buck against it being labeled that way. I push no story, I have no endgame in mind. I'm here, running the world, having NPCs act the way I think they would based on their exposure to the setting I've created. When PCs act, the NPCs react as I feel is appropriate, much as PCs react to progressive acts by NPCs (based on what I feel is appropriate).

I never play with a mindset of "the PCs will need to accomplish X" when I run my game, and the players know that there's nothing I'm going to prod them to do. There's no "they should do this" or "they need to do that" in my notes. Hell, I basically don't have any notes! If I do, it's names of NPCs, dates, or maybe hit die/brief description of a creature.

It's something that appeals to some players, but games that are led by players choices are often very fun, interesting, engaging games. They are not stressful to my players (they just pursue their goals, and those goals are set organically in play), and it's definitely not stressful to me (I have absolutely no "GM homework" each session, because I have nothing to plot out, prepare for, or the like).

I get that it doesn't work for you (from what you've tried), but I can say in completely humble honesty that you are mistaken when you make a statement like "Free rein is an illusion with a human DM". That's an objective statement that just doesn't hold true to many GMs, such as myself or [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION].

So, again, we'll have to agree to disagree. Our anecdotal evidence is too different, but I do feel mine counters your broad statement. As always, play what you like

 

[SensoryThought]

There are a couple of problems with the concept that a player 'knows exactly what they can do' based on their sheet. First, it removes the random factor from the game, which adds excitement and risk to attempted actions. Second, when there are factors the player doesn't know about (ie the new boots they boot on were cursed boots of lead that halve jumping so they only go 15 feet), the 'player knows' system beaks down.

I think saying 'I try to jump over the pit' and knowing you have say 12 Athletics and that your DM regularly assigns DC15 for a 30ft jump means you are likely to succeed. You roll your dice and 3 or more you describe you success.

As an aside, one of the things I like about 4e is the relatively streamlined skills system. As a DM, nearly every out of combat thing my players have wanted has been readily covered by the core skills (except sailing/ navigating a ship - maybe Nature, but that would be a reach).

 

[S'mon]

I get that it doesn't work for you (from what you've tried), but I can say in completely humble honesty that you are mistaken when you make a statement like "Free rein is an illusion with a human DM". That's an objective statement that just doesn't hold true to many GMs, such as myself or [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION].

Yeah; I think the thing is that as GM I really enjoy finding out what happens, just as much as the players. I don't get that GMing a pre-plotted campaign. I'm constantly trying to make my games more open, less linear/pre-plotted, and the more I do that the more fun they get. I'm finding that the less restrictive the campaign premise, the better the game - eg "You're adventurers" is ok, so that the players know that PCs who clearly cease being adventurers are retired from play. I've used "You're servants of Person/Group X" before but it is not so good IME, it ties things down too far for me.

The Open campaign does IME require a lot of material, but this doesn't have to be created by the GM. I've had success with the Yggsburgh and Wilderlands sandboxes, despite their very different designs (Yggsburgh 30x50 mile area, Wilderlands thousands and thousands of miles) but my 4e FR campaign is also going well; using Loudwater and surrounds as a fairly sandboxy area but mostly using published adventures. The adventures tend to offer hooks to the PCs, but the open-ness comes in that the PCs are free to accept or reject hooks usually without any immediate great disaster, I have a lot more adventures available than I expect to use, and I can always make more stuff in response to player interest & decisions.

 

[S'mon]

The DM has a story he wants to tell. The players want to partake in the game, not necessarily the story. So for most editions, the DM has a story he wants the players to be involved in, and the players dont know the main story, so they try to live in the world, and often go off in other directions, so the DM has to wrangle them back in. For the most part its DM story vs Player sidetracking.

That seems a highly dysfunctional situation to me.

(Sorry, came in late - I don't normally look at the 5e forum).

 

[Noumenon]

Jameson, XP is not working for me again (it goes on and off, not browser-dependent) but thanks for explaining how you play trying to bridge the gap.

 

[Astrosicebear]

That seems a highly dysfunctional situation to me.

(Sorry, came in late - I don't normally look at the 5e forum).

I agree it sounds dysfunctional, and may not be what I intended to say. Let me try to clarify.

As a DM, no matter the playstyle (pre-generated story,living world, adventure path or module), you have the responsibility to direct the flow of the game. The DM is the story teller. Now whether the DM is an omniscient, omnipotent narrator, or a subtle, gentle director, is not relevant. What is relevant is that the DM and players have a dialogue going on.

My initial statement wasnt mean as 'DMs have a story regardless of the players intentions' but rather that the DM is the facilitator of the story BOTH the DM and players are mutually participating in.

A system that allows a DM more leeway in crafting that narrative without the rules getting in the way, like with what the OP was talking about is the point I was trying to make, albiet poorly.

 

[Noumenon]

You can definitely create a living, breathing world, though. The players can definitely pursue their own goals and interact with that living, breathing world.

The part I'm not getting here is how the players do things. It's easy for me to imagine preparing a big old campaign world and a dream continent called Joyant and no specific railroad for the PCs to be on. It's not easy for me to imagine being a player, let's say we just cleared a dungeon and the local river spirit will no longer be flooding the local town... how does one player just go "Hey guys, let's leave everything that's going on here and go to the dream continent"? Sure it exists, but why would you go there instead of following a local plot hook? Do people just like to go and poke around? Do people say stuff like "I want to go to the dream continent because I'm an elf and I've never had a dream, and I want to know what it's like?"

I've built characters who wanted to make a pilgrimage to the site of the battle where their race was born, or who were adopted by humans and wanted to find their genealogy among the tieflings. It seems like the only way that could ever happen is to ask the DM "please can I go on a pilgrimage, can you make a plot for the other players?" or "next time we switch areas can my tiefling ancestral house be there?" Otherwise it's like "Hey DM and other players, can you throw away any plans you have and do my thing instead?"

 

[JamesonCourage]

The part I'm not getting here is how the players do things.

Okay, I'll let you know what works for my group (so take it as just what works for my group, and not everyone).

First, when everyone makes characters, they have a theme. Are they adventurers? Warlords? "Good guys" who just go around helping people out? For example, right now my players are adventurers. They can take missions from the adventuring guild, from independent sources on behalf of the guild, or they sometimes "go looking for dangerous supernatural beings to hunt down" in their free time. No matter what, they're in control of what they do.

So, let's look at some things that have happened so far. They took a mission to go to the west of the Vertland Forest, where local cults were leaving the forest to attack nearby villages. They arrived, cleaved up one cult force attacking the town, and found a lead (through the leader of the force whom they took prisoner) that pointed to a larger threat. They reported in, and completed their contract. They were then offered a new contract: find out more of what's going on, plus a big bonus if they stopped it if it's dangerous. They could either take it (meaning the players are interested in it), or they could say, "we got our mission done, and while we appreciate the offer, we're going to head back to the west coast to look for something else" and leave.

They took the mission. They spoke with some NPCs, found some more bad guys, and found some more information. There was someone raising undead through a cult (and claiming to be a god), and so the party reported back, completing the "information" section of the contract. They could now leave, or continue through for the bonus. They took the bonus, and continued to hunt down this "god".

They found out (through infiltrating the cult and speaking to his right-hand man) that the leader was some sort of ghost/lich, and that he resided in a local haunted castle. They prepared (talked to a local ally NPC for advice), and set off to the castle. They can always leave, if they want to, but they went through with it. They fought a small army, killed the ghost/lich, and then the right-hand man. Then they left, reported in, and completed the bonus contract.

From there, they had options. They didn't have a new lead. So, what now? They knew about some warlords who wanted the castle, but knew it was haunted so they couldn't have it (they could go try to "sell" the castle to them). They knew about a healer who might be able to heal a permanent wound a PC had gained. They knew about a lake monster controlled by some sort of witch that was apparently letting it feed on locals that they could go deal with. They could go check in with the guild, or any one of a half-dozen allies to look for contracts.

This is when the party can really decide what they want to do (just like before they got their first mission). What mood are they in? Do they want to explore (Joyant, here we come!)? Do they want to go exterminate dangerous supernatural forces free of charge (lake monster and witch)? Do they want to patch up a PC and get some down time (healer)? Do they want to try to earn some money ("selling" the castle to the warlords)? Do they not know what they want, but know the region they want to work (allies with contracts)? Do they not know what they want, including the region (back to the guild)?

It seems like the only way that could ever happen is to ask the DM "please can I go on a pilgrimage, can you make a plot for the other players?" or "next time we switch areas can my tiefling ancestral house be there?" Otherwise it's like "Hey DM and other players, can you throw away any plans you have and do my thing instead?"

In these situations, there isn't always a "next plot point" to go to. I don't map things by plot points. I don't plan plots at all. When they engage with part of the setting, I have a very good idea of what's going on there, and how creatures react to them interacting with the setting. If they want to go do something, I wing it.

It's up to the players, as a group, to find something that will intrigue them. I basically have a system that goes:

GM: What interests you?
Players: That sounds interesting.
GM: Go do that, then!

That's about all there is to it. Do they want to deal with the skirmishes between warlords? Do they like battles at all? Do they want to engage in politics? Find families? Get better gear, or more money? Go on a quest for a magic item, or hire other people to go on it for them? Do they want to take a mission to scout out and close a crevice to the hells, or go sink ships in the islands? Do they want to retire from adventuring and take up another profession?

It's up to them. They decide what to do, and they engage with the setting. The setting evolves, as appropriate (so as a reaction to their actions, and independent of it). And then, together, we see what happens. But, in terms of what the party does next... that's up to them to figure out. I'm not going to change the setting if someone asks ("can my tiefling ancestral house be there?"), but I'll work with them when they make their character ("can I have been raised here, with my family here, even if I don't know?" "Sure.").

At any rate, I hope that sheds a little more light on how my group operates. As always, play what you like

 

[DMKastmaria]

The part I'm not getting here is how the players do things. It's easy for me to imagine preparing a big old campaign world and a dream continent called Joyant and no specific railroad for the PCs to be on. It's not easy for me to imagine being a player, let's say we just cleared a dungeon and the local river spirit will no longer be flooding the local town... how does one player just go "Hey guys, let's leave everything that's going on here and go to the dream continent"? Sure it exists, but why would you go there instead of following a local plot hook? Do people just like to go and poke around? Do people say stuff like "I want to go to the dream continent because I'm an elf and I've never had a dream, and I want to know what it's like?"

I've built characters who wanted to make a pilgrimage to the site of the battle where their race was born, or who were adopted by humans and wanted to find their genealogy among the tieflings. It seems like the only way that could ever happen is to ask the DM "please can I go on a pilgrimage, can you make a plot for the other players?" or "next time we switch areas can my tiefling ancestral house be there?" Otherwise it's like "Hey DM and other players, can you throw away any plans you have and do my thing instead?"

Yes. The player's are free to ignore any adventure hook. Period. Adventure hooks are always being provided and generated. The party can create their own "hook." (Like, "Let's rob a bank!")

Once things get going, their actions and the results of those actions will produce opportunities, consequences, etc. If the above mentioned bank was actually run by the Thieves Guild, for instance, the consequences could lead to a campaign's worth of play! All on a player's whim to rob a bank!

The fact that the TG secretly owned the bank, would have been something I decided (or randomly determined) when I created the city. Not my style, to decide something like that after the fact.

It's up to the party as a whole to decide what they want to do and that includes indulging a member's desire to follow a specific line of inquiry/action.

And no, the player doesn't ask the DM "please can I go..."

The player simply says, "I go." That's the point.

The player's do what they want. What sounds most interesting, intriguing, profitable, or whatever.

As the DM, I'm the neutral judge. They do whatever they want. The rest of the world, will do it's own thing. As always, the adventure arises from the interaction between the PC's and everything else in the milieu.