D&D General Sandbox and/or/vs Linear campaigns

[Bedrockgames]

EDIT: Not just the wrong, thread, but the wrong forum lol

 

[Micah Sweet]

Though it still increases the attention you need to give to one player, at least to some degree.

Not if everyone's doing it.

 

[Lanefan]

I sometimes make a ruling during a game to keep things going and am more than willing to discuss in person or by text my decision after the game. But setting aside a specific time? Nope.

Were my weeks a lot busier I could easily see setting aside a specific time (say, Sunday afternoons) to work on game stuff, and if I let my players know that's generally the best time to get hold of me and talk about game stuff* it would pretty much amount to what bloodtide's doing, only less formalized.

I don't see why he's getting mocked for this. At least he's making himself available outside actual game time, which is something not all DMs do.

* - which may or may not include rulings or rules disputes, depending on the situation.

 

[Lanefan]

Though it still increases the attention you need to give to one player, at least to some degree.

During the session, how and-or why, if the player's only playing one of them at a time?

Out-of-session, sure; we can update how well the potion shop is doing with a few simple emails. No big deal.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not if everyone's doing it.

While true, you almost need to pre-select for that, as some people are really into downtime activities, and some just want to get back to what they think of as "the actual game". This is a much bigger issue with a game covering both traditional adventuring and what I think of as "base management" elements (and I'm very aware, as I've run a campaign like that in a non-fantasy context). If you go in indicating the focus is going to be heavily on the management end, it tends to be more likely to have gotten collective buy-in and people are less concerned about getting into the traditional play-cycles.

 

[Thomas Shey]

During the session, how and-or why, if the player's only playing one of them at a time?

Six individual players doing different things is more time consuming that one group doing something. If your opinion is to the contrary, you've lost me because what I've just said has been true in every place I've seen it going on.

Out-of-session, sure; we can update how well the potion shop is doing with a few simple emails. No big deal.

Yeah, I wasn't talking what I think of as bluebooking here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

While true, you almost need to pre-select for that, as some people are really into downtime activities, and some just want to get back to what they think of as "the actual game". This is a much bigger issue with a game covering both traditional adventuring and what I think of as "base management" elements (and I'm very aware, as I've run a campaign like that in a non-fantasy context). If you go in indicating the focus is going to be heavily on the management end, it tends to be more likely to have gotten collective buy-in and people are less concerned about getting into the traditional play-cycles.

Believe me, I know all about the difficulty of getting buy-in for a less adventure path-oriented game.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I always smile when people talk about and approach roleplaying games like an engineering project.

Glad you’re enjoying the conversation!

 

[bloodtide]

Wait, you literally set aside time at the weekend to run an appeals court for players to contest your rulings?

Yes. Though really they can do so anytime that is not game time. I don't waste game time.

How about "My character will stay in town and run his potion shop while my other character joins the party for this adventure."

For a great many players the idea that they have two 'active' characters at the same time is some sort of taboo.

I understand that you are trying to inject levity, but the problem is that Bloodtide is perfectly serious with these claims.

I found it to work out great.

First, the problem players often don't even TRY their dumb ideas. They know I will say no and that they won't be able to ruin the game for an hour with their dumb explanation. Too many DMs are weak and after a player(s) waste 10-20-30 or more minutes arguing the weak DM will just say "okay player you win" just to be able to play the game again.

Second, it does defeat the jerk players that are just there to disrupt the game.

Third, amazing a lot of the problem players don't think it is a big enough deal to talk about outside the game. They LOVE to ruin a game in progress with their beyond stupid argument, but it's not so important otherwise.

 

[Endie]

Yes. Though really they can do so anytime that is not game time. I don't waste game time.

For a great many players the idea that they have two 'active' characters at the same time is some sort of taboo.

I found it to work out great.

First, the problem players often don't even TRY their dumb ideas. They know I will say no and that they won't be able to ruin the game for an hour with their dumb explanation. Too many DMs are weak and after a player(s) waste 10-20-30 or more minutes arguing the weak DM will just say "okay player you win" just to be able to play the game again.

Second, it does defeat the jerk players that are just there to disrupt the game.

Third, amazing a lot of the problem players don't think it is a big enough deal to talk about outside the game. They LOVE to ruin a game in progress with their beyond stupid argument, but it's not so important otherwise.

Can’t believe you would say no as player-dm to your players what a linear railroad you run smh.