Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Starfox" data-source="post: 5586058" data-attributes="member: 2303">There is another thing to be considered here, and that is campaign premise. When recruiting players to a game, whether to give them directions on what characters to play and what kind of gameplay to expect is important. Suppose the GM has a two-year plot to end the world in the works. But the introduction to the game doesn't mention this, it encourages the players to make characters deeply rooted in the detailed game world. Well, they do - making a gardener, a dancer, and a stargazer. These three become friends and seek out problems based around gardening, social dancing (and the intrigues thereof) and finding high mountains with clear views of the stars. The GM introduces hints about the end of the world, which the players decline to handle as being out-of-character to them. Instead they develop their interests, becoming deeply entangled in the world and involved in their characters. After two years, all hell breaks loose, and the players are justifiably angry at the DM for arbitarily destroying what they built. And they are right - the game did not live up to its premise.What I am trying to say is that in a sandbox, the GM must be prepared to take on responsibility for his own plots. If the world destruction plot turns out not to engage the players, there should be some NPC to handle it while the players muck around in the sand. This NPC could be a character the PCs deal with to convey some of the drama of the story, and the players might be tangentially involved in the plot - the gardener might make a herbal remedy, the dancer may facilitate an alliance, and the stargazer might make a map or provide crucial navigation aid. But if the GM is not satisfied with the level of player involvement in the plot, it is his own fault for not setting the premise clearly enough from the beginning.</blockquote>

Verification