Dookie in the Sandbox?

[takasi]

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?

In this case the GM introduces static elements into the world that players can explore freely. The group maps out the uncharted wilderness while discovering adventure sites. No DM plots are needed because whatever the players are doing becomes the plot.

Not a direct analogy, but MMO worlds are for the most part very static like this. Some people find them boring because they never change, but other people really like them. To each his own.

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.

It's not an evil act, but it is based on an out of character motivation. They want their character motivations to match their out of character motivations, and it's tough to do that when they're being presented with timed events that any reasonable person in a game world would see as holding a higher priority to follow.

 

[takasi]

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.

Some of the players I know who like sandbox play would not enjoy that setting. Is there a reason why there must be so many plots and issues that are shaking up the world? In my experience some players would prefer to create the drama and action themselves rather than have it concocted by the DM.

This is partially why one of the players in our group loved the original Greyhawk setting but hated everything developed From the Ashes.

 

[Desdichado]

Some of the players I know who like sandbox play would not enjoy that setting. Is there a reason why there must be so many plots and issues that are shaking up the world? In my experience some players would prefer to create the drama and action themselves rather than have it concocted by the DM.

This is partially why one of the players in our group loved the original Greyhawk setting but hated everything developed From the Ashes.

Not to be too flippant, but do they also not enjoy living in the real world?

Yes there are several reasons why there must be so many plots and issues going on at once. 1) It's interesting, and the alternative is boring (to me; goes without saying), 2) It's "verisimilitudeinistic" and the alternative is unbelievable, 3) It plays to the strengths of the format.

It's interesting that you compare the classic "simulationist sandbox" to an MMO, because that's the kind of games MMOs are better suited for. As you get progressively more static, there's progressively less need for a GM in the first place, and you're no longer playing to the strength of the format. In fact, you get to the point where a CRPG is a better format for that type of game than a tabletop. At that point, why play anymore? Just log onto World of Warcraft, or fire up the latest chapter of the Elder Scrolls games, and you'll get almost exactly that experience, and it's much easier and more convenient.

 

[takasi]

2) It's "verisimilitudeinistic" and the alternative is unbelievable

Perhaps if taken to the extreme on either side. It's really a matter of time and setting. If you have an invasion of monsters every single day it becomes an issue. But if it's every few years then there's no reason why players can't explore the world during moments of peace. Along the theory of 'narrow-wide-narrow', I would actually say that in the beginning it's a good time to let players explore freely and understand the world around them. If they come up with their own motivations for going into the wilderness then it can be more rewarding when they're successful.

In fact, you get to the point where a CRPG is a better format for that type of game than a tabletop.

It's difficult to replace imagination. In fact I think this medium presents the game better when you can explore a fantasy world freely because tables have more options in want they want to imagine. I think proactive exploration (when there are fewer scripted sequences of events) requires a more reactive DM than when players are reacting to metaplots. And a talented DM is much better at rendering little nuances and coming up with details, IMO, than a computer is.

 

[LostSoul]

Interesting thread. Would be better if the GNS stuff was dropped.

I'm in two games right now... actually three but the third one has barely started, so I'll pretend it doesn't count.

In the first one it's site-based sandbox, player driven. The world reacts to the PCs who shake up the status quo. The PCs decide where to go and what to face; since it's my first shot at this kind of game, I've been making the threat level explicit ("this is a 4th-level dungeon").

I haven't really encountered any problems yet. Except players moving away, that sucks.


The other game I'd call story-driven. Is there a metaplot? I would say no, it's very character-driven, though everything was set into motion by the actions of an NPC.

There's a lot of character "growth" in this game. My character started out looking for vengance after his home town was burned by orcs. Now he's a lieutenant in what's left of the orcish horde. Last session he assassinated the King and kidnapped the Queen. My character has evolved organically due to events and interactions with NPCs.

None of us have any idea what is going to happen, and that includes the DM. We just play our characters.

 

[Hjorimir]

Some of the players I know who like sandbox play would not enjoy that setting. Is there a reason why there must be so many plots and issues that are shaking up the world? In my experience some players would prefer to create the drama and action themselves rather than have it concocted by the DM.

This is partially why one of the players in our group loved the original Greyhawk setting but hated everything developed From the Ashes.

I don't know about Hobo, but this is how I run my games. I do it for a number of reasons. For one, yes, I think it creates a sense of versimilitude. I also find that if I leave my seven or so players to their own devices the group quickly falls apart because they can't seem to agree on the time of day.

Metaplots create a unity of purpose for all of the characters involved (though each may have a different particular stake in said metaplot).

Funny thing, I tried to run a completely open sandbox game after a couple of my players came to me complaining of feeling a bit railroaded. That went on for about six months before those exact players came back and admitted they were wrong and wanted me to drop some metaplots on them. They were literally paralyzed with too many decisions in the sandbox (I made sure to give lots of details of things all over the place...here's your world, go play).

Today we all laugh about it and agree that players want to pretend they have free choice, but please tell us where the adventure is.

To be accurate, I run a metaplot within the sandbox. At times they wander off to explore the box, but they always manage to find their way back to the metaplot and I support either mode based on the mood of the group at large.

 

[Ferret]

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.

Thats about what I do. I'd rather make up half the campaign and fit it to what my players want to do. So they want more puzzles? Then that's not a dragon in the next room it's a maze.

One awesome example was when I had a Mutant game called More than human. One character had been mainly non-combat and struggling as I'd not put much talking in. they did have 'phasing' powers and 'Cyberkinesis'. So I make there be a giant Super computer. This character IMMEDIATELY phases in and starts to control it. Worked a charm. They loved it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not a huge fan of GNS, but I like your "sandbox"/"event"/"one-off" format.

The one I'm starting on Sunday is primarily of the second style. There's certainly sandboxing going on (PC's are free to do anything), and the missions are fairly modular in nature (show up, survive, keep going), but my attention as DM is focused on linking the characters and NPC's (monsters and villains included) together in an ongoing story of heroics. I want the characters to confront big changes, and to perhaps undergo big changes themselves, to grow, respond, and either succeed or fail at their goals and dreams, based on who they are (and who the players choose those characters to be), not what they do or how well they maximize their points.

It's strongly influenced by my FFZ work on a heavily story-based game, but the idea is certainly flexible enough to apply to ANY game.

 

[ST]

Interesting thread. Would be better if the GNS stuff was dropped.

Agreed; it's not used correctly in any case ("GM creates a story, players participate" is not Narrativist at all), and it doesn't add anything here.

Maybe "GM's Plotted Campaign" / "Sandbox" / "Module Play"? I dunno, those labels are fairly close to what he's talking about, and they're clear enough.

 

[takasi]

Agreed; it's not used correctly in any case ("GM creates a story, players participate" is not Narrativist at all), and it doesn't add anything here.

I apologize for using the term Narrativist. Maybe the GDS Dramatist is more appropriate here? *shrug* Either way the point of the thread was more for issues that have come up with sandboxes, and I wanted to start off by explaining briefly what the different styles are.