Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[Wik]

West Marches is amazing, and I really hope to be able to do something like that one day.

I'd love to do one using something like 4e, but with much of the assumed modifiers (bonuses from magic items, for example) stripped out. At reduced XP, so that PCs don't rocket up in XP.

Idea #1 would be set in a place similar to the Isle of Dread, with European-style colonial powers competing to control the area. It'd be a bit different from West Marches, in that there would be much RP (which power do the individual PCs side with? Do they help out with colonial mapping/trade missions? and so on) in the town area. But beyond that, it'd be RAW West Marches.

Idea #2 would be D&D in space, sort of. PCs have a fort (a moon base, or something), and they could explore planets. It'd pretty much be spelljammer, but done in a way that was less silly.

Idea #3 would be DARK SUN. How to really make a West Marches DS game would be difficult, though, because to me DARK SUN was about the interplay between the wilds and the cities. And West Marches is not about the cities (once you enter a city, the GM pretty much has to start dropping plot hooks).

I had the intention of running a game like this when the DDI table came out (every second friday, on my flex day!), but now... I have no clue. Which makes me sad.

***

Onto the topic at hand (it seems to change every five pages or so!)... I prefer simulationism in a game. I find Gamist approaches to make sense (it is a game, after all, and it should have fun mechanics), but when they override Simulationism, I get lost. I've said elsewhere in this thread that if a game becomes too Gamist, it's more or less competing with my Xbox. And my Xbox will always win in such a competition - it can run a purely "gamist" approach over an RPG, any day.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I should mention here that I also prefer sand-box, if I have time to craft it to that complexity. My current sci-fi campaign has been in planning for two months.

However, as for the story? I will develop it as the players make choices in the world. I have a number of enemies in the galaxy I'm creating, so that wherever the players go, I have a tool to create an overwhelming obstacle to surmount.

It's a sand-box, but one that I am willing to manipulate to place characters into challenging situations and create stories (because, bless their hearts, they will do nothing but trade runs if I let them).

Sounds good!

It should be noted that sandbox =/= static.

Part of setting up & administering a sandbox is deciding who the NPCs are and what crazy plans they might have to get what they want (whatever that might be). The PCs do not need to be the instigators of all events in the world. Indeed, they should not be. As their interests conflict with NPC interests (or with the interests of other PCs!), stories arise spontaneously.

As a DM, I find these stories are often better than anything I would have come up with myself (and I have sold several short stories over the years).


RC

 

[Wik]

I should mention here that I also prefer sand-box, if I have time to craft it to that complexity. My current sci-fi campaign has been in planning for two months.

However, as for the story? I will develop it as the players make choices in the world. I have a number of enemies in the galaxy I'm creating, so that wherever the players go, I have a tool to create an overwhelming obstacle to surmount.

It's a sand-box, but one that I am willing to manipulate to place characters into challenging situations and create stories (because, bless their hearts, they will do nothing but trade runs if I let them).

Not to be a dink, here, but that's not sandbox. If it were a true sandbox, you'd let them run trade runs, and nothing more. The point isn't to make stories to react to your players... it's to run a consistent world, and let the players make their own stories.

Those stories might not be as seemingly grand as in a planned campaign, but they are just as fascinating if the PCs make the goals themselves. For example, in a planned campaign, the PCs might have to kill the great Necromancer Lord Xxyphylzzaz, lord of many consonants and slayer of vowels... while in a sandbox, they might decide that they need to "get rid of that guard tower on the old abandoned road so we can make better smuggling runs". I can GUARANTEE you that the second story will be remembered more than the first, simply because the PCs chose it for themselves.

Now, that doesn't mean you need to prep everything beforehand. If the PCs look like they have a goal shaping up, you are advised to make the dungeon/adventure site/layout or whatever else. But the difference is, you're making that area to conform to previous notes, and not catering it to the players. And the players realize this. If they find they lack the abilities, they grumble, get creative, and try to solve the thing even though they lack a skilled tracker (or whatever else). If they have that tracker, the ranger feels like he made a smart move in play, and knows that you didn't just throw that encounter in there to make him feel useful.

 

[Wik]

Oh, I forgot to say - please don't feel like I'm slamming your campaign. It'd be one I'd love to play in, and it sounds great. It's a great style, with semi-sandbox elements. But it's more of what used to be called an "Open" or "matrix" style game (to use the 1e DMG survival guide). In essence, you create a plot (or multiple plots), and let the PCs react to them... while a "true" sandbox has the PCs creating their own plot, and you refereeing the results impartially.

But, yeah, I'd love to fly around in your sci-fi game. Shotgun on the Alien-hating, chain-smoking, sports-loving jock with a flamethrower who gets beaten to a pulp every session, but is always able to dust himself off and then blame it on the aliens stealing all our jobs.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Oh, I forgot to say - please don't feel like I'm slamming your campaign. It'd be one I'd love to play in, and it sounds great. It's a great style, with semi-sandbox elements. But it's more of what used to be called an "Open" or "matrix" style game (to use the 1e DMG survival guide). In essence, you create a plot (or multiple plots), and let the PCs react to them... while a "true" sandbox has the PCs creating their own plot, and you refereeing the results impartially.

Hrm.

I would tend to disagree, because Wilderlands of High Fantasy, for example, has lots of little plot threads, but has to be the largest published sandbox there is.

A "matrix" style game, as I understand it, has an ongoing plot that the PCs will become enmeshed in, with adventures that they will undertake, mixed in with parts where they choose what to do.

Saying, "OK, they are going to Tatooine. There are Hutts here that want someone to smuggle in spices along the Kessel Run, a group of stormtroopers looking for rebel droids, a starship pilot with a bounty on his head that the PCs might choose to chase, and a speeder bike gang hunting for lost ruins where a great treasure is said to lie hidden." doesn't make it less of a sandbox. It just gives some hooks and some context for choices.

EDIT: Assuming, of course, that the PCs are the ones deciding to go to Tatooine!

It's perfectly acceptable within a sandbox for the Duke to try to hire -- or coerce -- the PCs into doing something for him. After all, the Duke, the Duke's goals, and the Duke's money are all part of the sandbox, too.

IMHO, of course.


RC

 

[Wik]

EDIT: Assuming, of course, that the PCs are the ones deciding to go to Tatooine!

That, of course, is the difference between a matrix/open campaign and a true sandbox. You are entirely right. What I was reacting to, though, was this:

(because, bless their hearts, they will do nothing but trade runs if I let them).

When the GM has that mindset, it cannot really be a sandbox. It can be a fun game, no doubt at all in my mind there, but it cannot be a sandbox.

The rest of my post was just pointing out my opinions on sandbox play.

I should define my vocab here, because the 1e DSG is now very, very old for a book (it's only a few years younger than I am!).

A Matrix Game is one in which the PCs are given a plot, and there are multiple paths they can follow (usually predetermined by the GM). Each path adds something towards the plot, and may give a bonus on other paths to be pursued later. Essentially, it's a plot-based game that is very fluid in design. An example would be the PCs having to stop the slavers - they could ally with the orcs, they could explore the slavers' lair, or they could set up a defense of their hometown. If they set up the defence, different things will happen to them than if they had allied with the orcs... but, at some point, they'll tackle other goals in a semi-open setting.

An open game is almost a sandbox. The GM seeds an area with many conflicts, and the PCs follow up on the ones that interest them. Many of these plots can be major (wars, feuds, and pre-published adventures). In the original definition, the GM of an open game is encouraged to prohibit the PCs' actions in some way to keep them to a smaller area that is manageable by the GM, and to create new challenges with the party in mind. An example would be to destroy the PCs ship so they couldn't leave Tatooine. In essence, the open campaign model implies that the GM still retain control over plot.

A sandbox, meanwhile, has none of that. The GM pre-arranges most of the setting before he knows who the PCs are. After they are made, he creates new adventures, but keeping to his original "script" of the setting, rather than creating adventures catered for the PCs. he has no control over plot, and instead reacts to PC actions. A sandbox, essentially, has no major plots (unlike the open campaign), but is instead a collection of much smaller, user-created plots.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Nicely defined.

Caveat: In the sandbox, the DM has control over NPC plots; he has no control over whether or not the PCs are interested in them. Some NPC plots may intersect PC plots. This is not pre-planned, but occurs organically.

A sandbox does not have to be static except for what the PCs do. Indeed, it should not remain static, because otherwise what the PCs choose not to do has no meaning. Thus, the Ghost Tower of Inverness might appear once each century, but the PCs might not care (or even learn this fact). An old ally, or an old enemy, might disappear inside the Ghost Tower, however. Likewise, orcs may pillage a town and burn down one of the PCs' favourite inns while the PCs are away.

The "events" charts in the back of the 1e OA are good inspiration toward keeping a sandbox breathing even where the PCs are not directly involved.


RC

 

[Wik]

Thanks. I could be quoting the DSG out of context, but those are how I remembered the definitions, and how they stand out in my mind.

Also, for the record, I think all three are great models to adopt in a game. I'm currently running basically a matrix game, and it's my default in many campaigns. Personally, I love it when GMs use any of these models, and while I'd prefer either Sandbox or Open, I'd really prefer the GM run whichever he is most comfortable with - because it'll be a killer game in any case.

That being said... god... I want to run a sandbox.

 

[BryonD]

I have a DM that runs games much like GW does (or, at least, as far as I can infer from GW). He once spent 3 years developing a game world before it was ready to play. The current setting he is planning has been building on that game world for an additional 2-1/2 years, and in excruciating detail. It will probably be rich in NPC's who are very powerful, on every side of the potential factions. Some will be on our side. Others will be against our side. All of them will look at us as piss-ants.

My character will invariably say, " it. My character goes and gets a beer." Attendance peters out until the campaign fizzles and we move on to another DM who will put maybe a month of planning in, and plot the thing around the party.

He goes through all that work, and all we really wanted was to be important. Different strokes, and all that.

EDIT: I should mention that he has gotten a couple really great campaigns under his belt. Those were the games where the party killed all the important NPC's.

World building is its own thing. A DM can world build in a manner that enhances at table play and a DM can world build in a way that grinds against at table play. The scenario you describe is clearly the later. And "a couple really great campaigns" aside, if your description is fair and honest then this DM is quite capable of losing sight of the point and being a terrible DM. Kinda like a pitcher with a 103 mph fast ball. He's awesome, unless he can't hit the strike zone, in which case he sucks. Being a great world builder does not a great DM make. And judging a system based on piss poor DMing is a flawed analysis.

World building is great, and is pretty much about the DM's ideas. Gaming at the table is great and is about the sum of the people at the table being involved. Nothing matches what you get when those things have synergy. But that synergy demands an awareness of the needs of both parts.

I've spent over three years on settings before. But never once have I been unable to hit the ground running on day one. There may be some degrees of differing opinion, but I also never make the players at the table feel like they are second tier to "my vision of the world".

A game that offers both increases the potential to really screw things up. It has to be done right. You can make a more safe game by bolting a bunch of limitations on the mechanics. But that kicks the legs out from under any chance of that synergy. If the old way was getting screwed up by piss poor DMing, then safe is going to do less harm and you will and be more happy with that. But if you are hitting it right on the synergy, then those training wheels are just going to hold you back.

 

[Lanefan]

World design:

I've spent over three years on settings before. But never once have I been unable to hit the ground running on day one.

Ayup.

Once the house rules are in place, it's possible to drop the puck with only 1) a village or home base, 2) an adventure that needs doing, and 3) a very vague idea of greater things such as what the name of the realm is and who's the King this week. Oh, and the village has to have a tavern.

The sticking point is that the greater world design dictates some of the house rules. Determining what languages exist (and by extension, what languages the PCs might speak) means determining what cultures exist, and where, inrelation to the PCs' starting point. Also, unless all the PCs are going to be natives of the starting village (unlikely, as most parties aren't all the same race) you need enough design in place to allow character backgrounds to make sense.

For my current campgian, the design process went rules==>world==>rules.

Snowflakes:

My take on this is "You're a snowflake among countless others. Go out and make yourself special...or melt." And yes, there's other adventurers out there. And powerful non-adventurers, be they retired, types who gained levels slowly in ways other than adventuring (there badly needs to be a mechanism for this; all editions), or whatever.

I've an adventure in mind for the not-too-distant future where the party will arrive at the adventure just after a more powerful group went in and got trashed; the PCs go in and (in theory) finish up against weakened opponents...unless they dawdle and give the opponents time to recover, in which case they're in big trouble.

Sandbox vs. adventure path:

I usually try to have a rough storyboard of the next several adventures each party will hit - it's interesting to, years later, go back and see if my storyboard ended up bearing any resemblance to what they went on and did. But the storyboard isn't cast in stone, and I've no way of predicting what they'll actually do with a given story or adventure. Last night, for example, my players quite innocently threw a *severe* monkey wrench into a storyline they don't even know about yet; to the point where I either make major background changes, or reveal far too much far too soon, or kill off a PC without ever telling the player why - all simply through playing their characters in character and doing things I didn't expect.

Keep in mind the game has to be fun for the DM too. The example given earlier where the party would do nothing but trade runs if given the chance might be fun for the players but would bore the crap out of me as DM.

Lanefan