Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Thank you! for so neatly explaining in one sentence what I've spent ages trying to say and have yet to say it well!
A Question Of Agency?
- Thread starter zarionofarabel
- Start date
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
And I would note that the various thinkers who developed the liberal agenda upon which the Democratic movement was built really don't agree. In fact what are now today called 'liberals' generally don't agree. Not to delve too much into politics, but the argument that a lack of national health insurance makes people 'free' would be a classic argument, where liberals will respond 'yeah, free to die.' I'm not convinced I want that kind of 'freedom' or that it has much meaning.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
You know this also completely explains lots of games, including many that don't look like yours at all, right? It's so vague that it doesn't have much explanatory power at all -- it could sound like anyone's game.Thank you! for so neatly explaining in one sentence what I've spent ages trying to say and have yet to say it well!
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
I definitely do not mean the analogy in a pejorative sense. I mean it simply in the sense of describing the agency at a table in a 'classic' RPG. Rule 0, you're utterly in charge. Yes, it is a game, and being dictator of your dinner table is not some morally reprehensible thing. Especially not if you provide good entertainment value! Still, there is a sense in which players may be more stifled than you may imagine.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Earlier (and often) in the thread I referenced the benevolent dictator -- life can be very good under one, but some will still chafe at it. D&D mostly runs this way, normally, as do other "mainstream" games. It's the model where there is a Rule Zero in place.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Please keep the damn politics out of it.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
@zarionofarabel
I'm really curious why you have been liking everything someone has posted in this thread?
I'm really curious why you have been liking everything someone has posted in this thread?
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
They've answered that already.
robconley
Hero
Well the ripples are the choices, mine and the players. The wave interference are the consequences of those choice. Then on top of that new pebbles are thrown in by myself and the players creating new patterns on the "surface" of the setting. A major difference between my approach and the other being described is that I don't have a preconceived notion of where the pebbles may fall.
On my side it starts out with the description of the NPC characters, their motivations, and their plans. The NPCs plans get updated after every session to reflect what the player do or don't. That is in essence the interference patterns eluded to in my analogy. Because I don't control the what the player decide, things often and do take off in unexpected direction.
I ran 14 groups as part of the formal playtest of my Scourge of the Demon Wolf sandbox adventure. Plus the initial time using 3.X, then another time using GURPS, and three times with D&D 5e, and once heavily modified for Adventures in Middle Earth. All started with the same initial circumstances, one of them dealt with it the same way and had very different experiences. One group antagonized the village priest, another turn them into allay. Most groups kept the wandering beggars safe from the wolves and the angry villager who blame them for the current issue. One managed to unite the two group to stand against the Demon Wolf pack and led them to victory when they attacked.
The process is straight forward. Jettison one's preconceived notions, set the stage, see what the PCs do, and react in accordance to how the NPCs personalities and details are defined. After the session update the setting and its characters. Rinse and repeat throughout the life of the campaign following where the players go until it reaches a stopping point.
hawkeyefan
Legend
Yes, that’s exactly what it is. And although there are pathways, it is possible to not stick to the paths, but it’s recommended when the crew does this that the GM make seizing the claim harder or more involved.
As for what I thought might be questionable to you about this, there are two things, I think. First, the players are immediately aware of this map as soon as they pick a crew; it’s actually right on their crew sheet. None of it must be discovered or learned through play, although the specifics may need to be.
Which leads me to the second point; each of the claims is presented very loosely from a fictional standpoint, but each has a specifically defined mechanical advantage. What is “Turf” exactly? What is a “Vice Den”? Sure, we have ideas, but the specific details are not yet set, and likely would not become so until the claim comes up as a possible point of interest.
It’s also very possible for the players to initiate a lot of this, possibly including some of the details for a claim.
For instance, the crew may have a need for more turf (turf is just territory that makes it easier for your crew to advance to a higher tier, which improves your gear and standing and so on). The crew may also be tussling with a specific gang, the Red Sashes, let’s say. So they may propose something like “We need some more turf if we’re gonna move up a tier, so we gotta grab some turf, but we don’t want to make any new enemies, so let’s grab something from the Red Sashes. They have to have some kind of turf in the area, right?”
Then the GM would likely add some details to round it out, and then that would be the next Score for the crew.
Now, this may also come from the GM, too. It doesn’t have to just come from the players. The GM may even let the players propose one idea, and then add another. So he may respond to the above with “Yes, the Red Sashes control the waterfront along the canal between Song Street and Bell Street. They have street kids who sling spark there. It’s a central location with access to a few nearby districts, so it’s a profitable spot. As such, it’s well defended. But...if you’re interested in seizing some turf, the area called Underbridge is similar to the waterfront , but it’s closer to you, and less well guarded. But, it’s run by the Crows....so you’d have an easier time taking that, but then you’d be pissing off a whole other gang. What do you want to do?”
So these details are not at all set ahead of play. And the players can initiate some of their goals and possibly even details about those goals. But I think the example here still shows how a GM can take that and then craft a meaningful choice out of it.
What do you think about that?
It handles it very differently than you describe, honestly. Like the book is an exceptional example of a sandbox. It gives you all these different elements...districts, factions, institutions, cultures....but it lets you place them in the sandbox where you’d like. It let’s you pick and choose which are interesting to you and which you’ll use in play. And this is true of the players as well as the GM.
The players will pick their crew type and the district where they lair and also the district where they operate (these may be the same or may be different). These decisions start to feed into others which starts to naturally suggest certain factions and so on.
But the things don’t become specific until they need to be. The GM does not determine every holding of each gang and how many men they have and so on. Each of the main factions gets a half page entry that briefly describes them, lists a few members and a couple traits for each, and offers a couple of assets, and some general goals.
Do you think that the lack of specificity would be an obstacle to sandbox play? And I mean like a significant obstacle, not just something the group would balk at because it’s unfamiliar?
Similar Threads
