How different PC motivations support sandbox and campaign play

[Maxperson]

Hiya!
Anyway...because my games are "deadly", wealth is usually one of those "It sure would be nice to find a thousand gold pieces!" things. They are usually thinking "But honestly, I'd just rather have something other than a loincloth, a rock, and 1/4 of a water skin traipsing around in this desert after being teleported by that eff'ing crypt thing!"

And the corollary... "I haven't had anything to drink for 20 hours and the sun is beating down on me. My feet are dragging as I walk and this other two thousand gold pieces are awfully heavy right about now. Maybe a caravan will see the trail of gold and find me. Nah! With my luck it will be desert bandits."

 

[Maxperson]

See, that's evidence of your personal position, on the spectrum from Sandbox to Railroad. There are DMs who respond to deviation with "Get back onto the rails!". I've played with a DM who had enemies appear out of nowhere, and attack the PCs, as a response to PCs having an in-character discussion of whether and how they want to follow the plot hook. If you cannot imagine that level of railroading, good for you; but I have seen it, so that affects my view of the spectrum.

I don't follow you here. I've also encountered hard railroad DMs and completely open sandbox games. The spectrum runs from one extreme to the other, but having encountered both doesn't change how I view the spectrum. The spectrum just is. A particular game along the spectrum is what I would develop a view on.

 

[Maxperson]

No, I'm flat out saying that RPG combat systems are full of fiat and chance and don't actually get anywhere close to real combat. And that's a good thing, usually.

Right. In a real combat it's not going to be possible for 20 enemies(goblins) to move from 20 feet in front of me in a large room to move(one at a time mind you) 20 feet behind me in said room and close off my escape. RPG combat isn't even remotely realistic. It's a necessary evil to run it the way RPGs do, because a realistic model just doesn't work well, and with all of the detail involved it would take days to complete the fight.

 

[Lanefan]

If a player declares "My PC tries to sell the Bag of Holding", or "I go looking for someone who will sell me a Bag of Holding", then the DM's response will fall somewhere on the spectrum of railroad to sandbox.

Very railroad: "No. There is absolutely no way for you to do that. Don't ask again."
Moderate: "That's not gonna be easy, you know. You've never seen a Magic Item Shoppe."
Very sandbox: "Tell me more about how you go about that project."
Very co-creationist: "I haven't really thought yet about how that happens in this setting. Let's figure it out together. What have we established, so far, about the creation of magic items, and who already has them, and about trade?"

X: "How much of the session do we want to spend on whether that's possible, and if so, whether you can establish a favorable price? I've got a Big Fight prepped; if we spend more than an hour on downtime, then that bumps the Big Fight to next session. Is anyone other than Steve interested in this process? If not, then Steve, could we schedule a one-on-one, between regular sessions?"

You missed one:

Get-on-with-it style: "Done. 10,000 g.p."

 

[Riley37]

That's not an economic system, it's an arbitrary decision to reference a snapshot of real world prices.

That's not what...

Cool, I guess you know how my game works well enough to stand on high and denounce it

Yeah, right back at you.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's not what...



Yeah, right back at you.

Winning!

 

[Shasarak]

And the corollary... "I haven't had anything to drink for 20 hours and the sun is beating down on me. My feet are dragging as I walk and this other two thousand gold pieces are awfully heavy right about now. Maybe a caravan will see the trail of gold and find me. Nah! With my luck it will be desert bandits."

And the corollary... "I get to the cache that I prepared earlier that has all the necessary components that I would need to survive"

I have not had to go up against a adversarial DM for years. Ah the nostalgic feeling of a well prepared adventuring SOP.

 

[Maxperson]

And the corollary... "I get to the cache that I prepared earlier that has all the necessary components that I would need to survive"

I have not had to go up against a adversarial DM for years. Ah the nostalgic feeling of a well prepared adventuring SOP.

There was nothing adversarial about either post. Crypt things teleport you somewhere nasty. It's what they(not the DM) do. Deserts are a place that you don't want to be encumbered when you are out of supplies, so unessential things like gold get ditched.

 

[Shasarak]

There was nothing adversarial about either post. Crypt things teleport you somewhere nasty. It's what they(not the DM) do. Deserts are a place that you don't want to be encumbered when you are out of supplies, so unessential things like gold get ditched.

How do I do it? I run a rather harsh "old skool" style of game; the world IS out to kill the PC's. I, the DM, am the "world", ergo I am out to kill the PC's.

So "the world is out to kill the PCs" is not adversarial eh?

 

[Maxperson]

So "the world is out to kill the PCs" is not adversarial eh?

Did you read the rest? Apparently not, since I know you wouldn't be pulling a sentence or two out of context to accuse someone of being an adversarial DM. Let me quote it below and bold the important parts.

That said, I am the world...so I don't really care one way or the other. Seems contradictory, huh? It isn't. When I DM I play the opposition as they would behave or be capable of based on a myriad of factors, most of which is "how tough does the creature think it is... how tough the creature actually is... how intelligent is the creature with regard figuring out when it is in a situation falling to the first or second point". Alignment plays a big part. Good creatures will avoid or try and "end it quickly". Neutral creatures are primarily driven by survival vs. danger (a risk:reward thing). Evil creatures will try to hurt/kill things whenever they think they can get away with it.

He's saying he just plays the creatures as they would and should act, without caring one way or the other. He's just the neutral DM playing the world, and many creatures in that world are out to get the PCs, NOT THE DM.