Do you run or play in a Sandbox or Linear game

[Garmorn]

What exactly can you do about if they take the ship and go rogue? Happened in a Star Trek movie.

Then you have a new setting. It is the same as if a Paladin led party in a save the world game changed sides. You have to reset the entire campaign.

I not saying that is can't happen but if they want to stay in character and run a special campaign then there is a narrow structure on how it is run. You are changing the entire game when you change the parameters your talking about. It is like if your group had decided to play a game as PI's who solve murder mysteries, that is one setting (or what ever you want to call it) then suddenly they head out into the wilderness and start being explores.

 

[pawsplay]

Then you have a new setting. It is the same as if a Paladin led party in a save the world game changed sides. You have to reset the entire campaign.

I not saying that is can't happen but if they want to stay in character and run a special campaign then there is a narrow structure on how it is run. You are changing the entire game when you change the parameters your talking about. It is like if your group had decided to play a game as PI's who solve murder mysteries, that is one setting (or what ever you want to call it) then suddenly they head out into the wilderness and start being explores.

Hm. I would argue that as long as the decision made are essentially possible, you can't say the entire game has changed. Events have taken a new turn, an unexpected one.

 

[Hussar]

What exactly can you do about if they take the ship and go rogue? Happened in a Star Trek movie.

I would call that players piddling all over the social contract at the table.

We've agreed to play X scenario. Suddenly radically altering the scenario while still expecting the GM to continue things along is a bad player.

It's no different than the guy who wants to play his Neutral Evil Drow Assassin in the party of LG heroes. Now, if everyone comes to the table with evil characters, then perhaps running a Shining Knights campaign is a bad idea.

Me, if my group has agreed to play X and then suddenly the players decide to play Y, I'd simply hand the books to someone else and say, "Ok, who's GMing this new campaign?"

 

[Garmorn]

I would call that players piddling all over the social contract at the table.

We've agreed to play X scenario. Suddenly radically altering the scenario while still expecting the GM to continue things along is a bad player.

It's no different than the guy who wants to play his Neutral Evil Drow Assassin in the party of LG heroes. Now, if everyone comes to the table with evil characters, then perhaps running a Shining Knights campaign is a bad idea.

Me, if my group has agreed to play X and then suddenly the players decide to play Y, I'd simply hand the books to someone else and say, "Ok, who's GMing this new campaign?"

This is what I meant. Thanks Hussar.

Rules, settings, DM actions, and player reactions all contribute to one extreme or the other. This is on reason it is impossible to run a PURE sand box or railroad game. You can get close if you work at it and the DM has the most power but other influences will also make a little (some big) difference.

 

[Hussar]

On the flipside, it works the other way too. The GM decides that he's going to run a sandbox style game and the players all stop in the Color Animal inn and stay there, doing nothing, day after day, waiting for the GM to roll up the plot wagon and initiate an adventure.

In both cases, there is a breakdown of communication between the players and the GM and expectations at the table.

 

[pawsplay]

I would call that players piddling all over the social contract at the table.

We've agreed to play X scenario. Suddenly radically altering the scenario while still expecting the GM to continue things along is a bad player.

It's no different than the guy who wants to play his Neutral Evil Drow Assassin in the party of LG heroes. Now, if everyone comes to the table with evil characters, then perhaps running a Shining Knights campaign is a bad idea.

Me, if my group has agreed to play X and then suddenly the players decide to play Y, I'd simply hand the books to someone else and say, "Ok, who's GMing this new campaign?"

I think it is different. If the players have an in-character rationale for going rogue, that's quite different than a player bringing an alien element into the game. Maybe it's my own biases, but I would prefer to follow a new thread wherever it goes, in the promise of a story, and most importantly, something surprising.

 

[Garmorn]

I think it is different. If the players have an in-character rationale for going rogue, that's quite different than a player bringing an alien element into the game. Maybe it's my own biases, but I would prefer to follow a new thread wherever it goes, in the promise of a story, and most importantly, something surprising.

Yes, and it would radically change the game. If something happened in a high fantasy game to change your group led by a Paladin and Cleric to become evil or decide to help the big bad that is differently a different game as far as setting rules and approach. Every plot encounter would have to be reworked with the change in sides taken into account.

So yes I agree with your concept that it should be possible but that takes the game out of the setting limitations that the original 'setting' had. This does not in anyway invalidate the rules of the original 'setting'.

 

[Hussar]

I think it is different. If the players have an in-character rationale for going rogue, that's quite different than a player bringing an alien element into the game. Maybe it's my own biases, but I would prefer to follow a new thread wherever it goes, in the promise of a story, and most importantly, something surprising.

I suppose it's difficult to say anything with any definitive strength without context. My point is, in a game with a strong focus, when the players actively go against that focus, there's a pretty strong likelihood of communication issues.

I mean, sure, a Timelord could go evil and try to take over the galaxy, but, if I'm playing the Doctor Who RPG (in various iterations), suddenly going over to the dark side is very, very much out of character. Same with, say, a 007 game where your 00 agent suddenly decides to join a terrorist cell and blow up Parliament. I'm sure there are other examples out there.

 

[Garthanos]

Can the player characters say, "Yeah, not our problem. Let's go find a tomb to loot!" instead?

generic tombs have a couple of coppers in them and some mouldy old clothes a few ground up bone bits etc.... you want to not be a hero that is the kind of things you find.

 

[Hussar]

Pawsplay - a question. During character creation, is it okay to limit player choices?

If it is, why is it okay then and not after the game starts?

When I ran an all evil 3.5 D&D game, I flat out stated that it was a PVE environment - no killing other PC's. I left it entirely up to the players to sort out the details, but, I strictly forbade attacking other PC's.

Is that acceptable behavior from the GM?