Dookie in the Sandbox?

[takasi]

Question 1: What types of games are you playing right now?

Site-based freeform: Simulationist, site based adventures. PCs are free to explore in a generally static sandbox. Sessions can often take place in large, open areas (wilderness).

Event-based metaplots: Narrativist, story driven games. NPCs proactively intrude on the lives of PCs, often resulting in frequent setting changes depending on player action. Sessions can often take place in areas with NPCs (cities).

Modular setups: Gamist, tourney style beer & pretzels challenges. RPGA or 'out of the book'. Sessions can often take place in small enclosed areas (dungeons).

Games usually offer a combo of all of these, often with one or two more dominant than the rest.

I'm playing in two games right now. The first is primarily simulationist. We are all elves exploring the world of Everquest. The second is primarily gamist. We are red shirt fodder trying to defeat the Temple of Elemental Evil.

Question 2: If you are playing (or have played) in a site-based, freeform game, what are some issues you've encountered and/or tips for other players/DMs?

As a player, one issue I'm seeing is that encounters seem very random. We're third level, so that should mean we can go back to areas that were challenging at first level and do really well. This is a 3.5 game and my character is an enchanter with spells like sleep and daze. These are very effective spells against lower hit die creatures but not so much vs higher. However, we frequently stumble upon groups of enemies that are beyond our ability because their appearance 'makes sense' in the context of the world. I think it's just an issue of getting to know the world better and avoiding places that are too dangerous.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm not a big fan of the GNS (and other buzzwords) labels for my gaming taste, but I primarily only run what you call "Event-based metaplots: Narrativist, story driven games. NPCs proactively intrude on the lives of PCs, often resulting in frequent setting changes depending on player action. Sessions can often take place in areas with NPCs (cities)."

I've also called my games "sandboxes" though, because I plan very little and the setting reacts to what the PCs do, rather than the reverse. I'm somewhat OCD about giving PCs their head, almost to the point of them wondering what they're "supposed" to do sometimes. When they start looking like they're floundering and confused, then I'll nudge them along, but otherwise, like I said, I'm kinda OCD about not railroading.

 

[cmrscorpio]

I'm somewhat OCD about giving PCs their head, almost to the point of them wondering what they're "supposed" to do sometimes. When they start looking like they're floundering and confused, then I'll nudge them along, but otherwise, like I said, I'm kinda OCD about not railroading.

You said it, man. In some groups, it is a very fine line to walk. More often than not, I see myself drifting a little too far into having the players unsure of what to do next. It has been a fine balance that I've struggled with for as long as I've been in the DM's chair. I've gotten pretty good at introducing new players to the game and walking them into the sheer openness I strive for in my games. My biggest problems have come when I've DMed for veteran players who I've not trained and they aren't used to my style.

 

[takasi]

That's always an interesting side topic. What exactly do you tolerate as a 'railroad'?

Some of the people I game with have a near zero tolerance level. They define railroading as any event that causes their character, in character, to feel compelled to act. For example, let's say the players are headed to a village to restock on supplies while exploring an old mine. Several villagers exhibit signs of a plague. These players will immediately grumble, because they know if they roleplay their characters properly they will need to investigate the cause of the plague, and since lives are at stake this 'quest' becomes more important than their desire to explore the mine. However, as players, out of character, they were having fun exploring the mine and don't want to stop. They feel 'railroaded'.

The DM may not have plotted this sequence of events. He may have put these villagers and their plague within the game world before he even knew the players would explore the mine, and they just now happen to stumble upon this town. These players are going to be unhappy with this setting though because their characters cannot reasonably reject presented plot hooks.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I would say: Event-based metaplots: Narrativist, story driven games. NPCs proactively intrude on the lives of PCs, often resulting in frequent setting changes depending on player action. Sessions can often take place in areas with NPCs (cities). Would be the closest, though, to get specific my games are essentially player-driven mystery games.

I do tend to run them in cities, since well I love cities anyway and it is much more sutibable location for Noir, Hardboil, Mystery, etc. style games. Usually it is set-up using a mind-map where different clues and events are scattered about with different possible leads and conclusions branching off to one another. There is a spark/plot hock that gets the PCs rolling and the clues and major scenes get revealed as the PCs come across them, almost like scripted events but with the DM obviously having more control to tweak for what has happened. What this leads too is a plot being unravelled but one that isn't railroaded since the PCs control the mystery and may focus in a different direction. Whole scenes and clues may be left untouched. Also helps that the players can influence the world with them brining in towns, items, NPCs, etc.

Since things like combat, major skill challenges and the like have lots of tailoring to fit the PCs and the current events to make them as cinematic and be the set-pieces for the campaign. So can't really suggest much from my games for your randomness. Heck your talk of knowing where in the world to step can't work in my games either, since the world morphs and changes depending on narrative need. You need a town somewhere it is there, you need the train to take 2 weeks, it takes 2 weeks, etc. In many regards the choices of the PCs and the unravelling of the story has ultimate control over the shape of the setting.

 

[takasi]

Heck your talk of knowing where in the world to step can't work in my games either, since the world morphs and changes depending on narrative need.

One litmus test of game style is 'what's on your table'. If you have few if any maps of the world it's probably more narrative. If you spend a lot of time looking at 'hex' maps (or any overland map) to figure out what you're doing, it's probably more simulationist. Finally, if you're really only concerned about the 5 foot combat grid it's mainly gamist.

 

[cmrscorpio]

Some of the people I game with have a near zero tolerance level. They define railroading as any event that causes their character, in character, to feel compelled to act. For example, let's say the players are headed to a village to restock on supplies while exploring an old mine. Several villagers exhibit signs of a plague. These players will immediately grumble, because they know if they roleplay their characters properly they will need to investigate the cause of the plague, and since lives are at stake this 'quest' becomes more important than their desire to explore the mine. However, as players, out of character, they were having fun exploring the mine and don't want to stop. They feel 'railroaded'.

The DM may not have plotted this sequence of events. He may have put these villagers and their plague within the game world before he even knew the players would explore the mine, and they just now happen to stumble upon this town. These players are going to be unhappy with this setting though because their characters cannot reasonably reject presented plot hooks.

Now that has to be one of the broadest definition of railroading I've ever heard. In that case, how do those characters ever discover adventures in the first place? Under that strict criteria, any element of the game that the DM introduces would be considered railroading.

If your players are grumbing because they created characters who would respond to the plague, don't they see that the problem lies not in the DM but in the characters they made? Unless the DM has decreed that (in 4e) only LG and G characters are acceptable, then they have the option to ignore the plague plothook. Even if they are playing LG and G characters, ignoring the plague isn't an evil act. If a paladin or some other character has a moral code that the presence of plague compels him to intervene, then that player can't complain because he made a character with such a strict moral code. They especially have the option to not follow the plague plothook if the DM has already provided them an alternative adventure.

The whole situation just reminds me of the old "alignment = straightjacket" arguments.

 

[maddman75]

One litmus test of game style is 'what's on your table'. If you have few if any maps of the world it's probably more narrative. If you spend a lot of time looking at 'hex' maps (or any overland map) to figure out what you're doing, it's probably more simulationist. Finally, if you're really only concerned about the 5 foot combat grid it's mainly gamist.

I don't use any maps, as a rule. I find them far more limiting than general descriptions of what's where.

I'd be in the event-based for the stuff I run. Though I'd refer to it as character based. The events that happen are either in response to their past actions or designed to get a reaction or explore a conflict with one or more of the characters. There's a bit of a sandbox element, as there's plenty of detail in the town and they can go where they like.

I'll agree to not being the hugest fan of GNS type stuff. I think the types exist, but there's likely more than three and focusing on one to the exclusion of others isn't the holy grail of game design.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I don't use any maps, as a rule. I find them far more limiting than general descriptions of what's where.

Yeah I find myself constrained by maps as well. Setting down a map in my eyes means that you are constrained by past-ideas and thoughts and the current momentum and avenue that the plot is going on can get skewered or have less impact without the proper locations. This is especially true considering that my players are allowed to place their own cities/towns, NPCs, unique landmarks, etc. in the world. So having a defined world makes this much harder.

 

[Desdichado]

That's always an interesting side topic. What exactly do you tolerate as a 'railroad'?

I think what I've come to tolerate over time is that I intuitively stumbled onto the theory that's been expressed more formally as "narrow-wide-narrow." You have to railroad a bit at the beginning of a campaign, hence the game is narrow. The players don't yet have a grasp on either their characters or the setting, therefore if you just turn them loose, they get confused and don't know what to do. They aren't (yet) sufficiently integrated into the setting to react to it organically.

However, after a session or two, you open it up and let it be "wider." This is where I consider my games to resemble a "narrative sandbox." The PC's can decide what to do. Which plot hooks to follow and which to ignore. Which plot hooks that I didn't dangle in front of them do they want to actually create on their own, etc.

And any decent campaign has to have an end, in which the GM narrows it again, based on events in the campaign.

Narrow-wide-narrow.

The DM may not have plotted this sequence of events. He may have put these villagers and their plague within the game world before he even knew the players would explore the mine, and they just now happen to stumble upon this town. These players are going to be unhappy with this setting though because their characters cannot reasonably reject presented plot hooks.

No offense, but I'd call that a pretty absurd definition of railroading, and one so broad as to make discussion about it almost untenable. I mean, I'm sure you point it out because it's so extreme, but holy cow.

It's also flat out wrong. Players can always reasonably reject any plot hook they like. In fact, it's a favorite tactic of mine to purposefully present more plot hooks than they can follow up on, just to see which ones they think are interesting.

Of course, then after they've saved the kingdom from one threat, I like to turn around and go, "OK, so you know that potential hobgoblin invasion you didn't follow through on? Well, guess what? They invaded while you were off fighting those fey in the kingdom next door. Now your king has been executed, a puppet king is in his place, and hobgoblin military police have locked down the city." But that's because I'm kinda a bastard.

I'll agree to not being the hugest fan of GNS type stuff. I think the types exist, but there's likely more than three and focusing on one to the exclusion of others isn't the holy grail of game design.

Yeah, me neither. It's interesting from a theoretical discussion point, but I've rarely found that any real games resemble the GNS endpoints very well at all.