Dookie in the Sandbox?

[Hussar]

Heh, now I do like a good dungeon crawl once in a while. However, the dungeons that I run always have a point beyond, Kill and Loot. It's more, "Go to the lair of the baddie and make sure he doesn't eat any more villagers" sort of thing. There is a plot. When I run large dungeons, there will be numerous story lines occuring within the dungeon, which is essentially just a concept map of where the players can go.

Although, to be fair, what do you consider to be a "dungeon", Hobo? Is a castle, like Castle Ravenloft, a dungeon?

Or does dungeon here simply mean random collection of rooms roughly linked by a very loose and probably very unbelievable story?

 

[takasi]

DMing is like obedience training. There are positive rewards for good behavior, like a pet or a treat, and there are negative rewards for bad behavior, like a swat on the nose with a newspaper. Most obedience trainers would not encourage negative rewards.

Event based world evolving games are very negative. If you don't do a certain thing by a certain time then the world will change for the worse. I think rat bastard DMs tend to lean towards this style of gaming. Also, a good writer will probably prefer this style. It's easier to make players follow his story, and even though he won't admit it that's a better thing for him because he's a better writer. I think this may also be why many modern day module authors who get far more kudos today through email and message boards prefer to encourage these types of games, to the point of writing an entire group's campaign for them in advance.

Site based status quo games are primarily positive. If a player does absolutely nothing, they will not be punished. The world will pretty much be exactly as it was last week, month or year. If they want to live their entire life in an inn, so be it. The only time the world changes is when players do something good. This makes the DM follow their story.

In site based games, DMs have no idea what changes will happen in the world, because it depends on what the players do next. In event based games DMs can say 'I can make story changes even if the players do nothing', and this is exactly how the slippery road to railing begins.

A positive rewarding DM will help build an exciting world that evolves as players take action, not devolves as players take inaction. This is a good theme for medieval fantasy. There are monsters, and life sucks. Only when heroes step up and conquer evil will there be progress. People within the world understand this. But some DMs prefer to offer a dark spiral of death, with dark plots and events in place that threaten a cushy starting point (that honestly, most players really won't care about when they first start playing). I play medieval fantasy because it represents dark times, when evil has won and society has crumbled. Where monsters are real and all hope is lost until heroes emerge.

I know not everyone plays this style, but I prefer traditional sword and sorcery. Where civilization is ruled by evil and/or ignorant leadership. Where most people live in slavery and/or poverty. Where there are signs everywhere that things were better at one time. Adventurers rise up from the ashes and make a change in the world for the better. There is little to no consequence if you die in battle, because hope was lost long ago. Only the greatest of all can deliver society from evil.

 

[Desdichado]

Although, to be fair, what do you consider to be a "dungeon", Hobo? Is a castle, like Castle Ravenloft, a dungeon?

Or does dungeon here simply mean random collection of rooms roughly linked by a very loose and probably very unbelievable story?

More the latter. I say that I don't do dungeons, but that's not exactly true, it's slightly more accurate to say that I just don't do the paradigm of static, site-based adventures. It's also true that I rarely do actual dungeons, but on occasion, yeah, I'll have PCs stumble through a castle or temple, or even a cave complex. But it's more about the paradigm of why I'm playing that I don't follow anymore, and to be honest with you, never really did. I think my D&D prodigal son days were severely influenced by the fact that I was disappointed with this (to me) paradigm of pretty pointless playing.

DMing is like obedience training. There are positive rewards for good behavior, like a pet or a treat, and there are negative rewards for bad behavior, like a swat on the nose with a newspaper. Most obedience trainers would not encourage negative rewards.

I disagree with that pretty emphatically. My players are not puppies, needing to be molded, we're all highly creative adults. In fact, my players are, in fact, mostly also all GMs of various games. Running a game is a collaborative process. The GM doesn't call all the shots, and "push" his players towards a certain playstyle, he presents options, and all the players (including the GM) work together to get the game they all want.

In other words, I don't think your analogy represents any good game I've ever been involved in. It does, however, resemble a number of really bad games that I've been involved in, and which I happily left behind.

Event based world evolving games are very negative. If you don't do a certain thing by a certain time then the world will change for the worse. I think rat bastard DMs tend to lean towards this style of gaming.

Who cares? It's not the real world. These characters aren't actually the players. Having characters be in a situation that's worse is entertaining. How many good books have you seen where the characters didn't confront problems? How interesting movies have you seen where the characters just went about their routine?

Yeah, bad things happen. That's kinda the whole point of playing in the first place.

Also, a good writer will probably prefer this style. It's easier to make players follow his story, and even though he won't admit it that's a better thing for him because he's a better writer. I think this may also be why many modern day module authors who get far more kudos today through email and message boards prefer to encourage these types of games, to the point of writing an entire group's campaign for them in advance.

That may be true for a subset of GMs out there, but everyone who's said anything about it in this thread to date has made it quite clear that that doesn't resemble their games at all.

Site based status quo games are primarily positive. If a player does absolutely nothing, they will not be punished. The world will pretty much be exactly as it was last week, month or year. If they want to live their entire life in an inn, so be it. The only time the world changes is when players do something good. This makes the DM follow their story.

You've set up a false dichotomy in calling this "positive" and in implying that GMs can only follow the story of the players if it's site-based, "sandbox" gaming. You've seen an awful lot of evidence, if you've paid attention to any of it, that that's not true in this thread.

In site based games, DMs have no idea what changes will happen in the world, because it depends on what the players do next. In event based games DMs can say 'I can make story changes even if the players do nothing', and this is exactly how the slippery road to railing begins.

No, no, no, no, no. What are "story" changes? The environment changes and evolves. NPCs have agendas. They do things. Things happen. That's not the story. The story is the PCs. What do they react to? Which problems do they think are interesting, and which do they decide to let go?

I think it's a bit disingenious to say that's the slippery slope to railroading, that the environment changes. I'd argue that that slope really isn't very slippery at all.

A positive rewarding DM will help build an exciting world that evolves as players take action, not devolves as players take inaction. This is a good theme for medieval fantasy. There are monsters, and life sucks. Only when heroes step up and conquer evil will there be progress. People within the world understand this. But some DMs prefer to offer a dark spiral of death, with dark plots and events in place that threaten a cushy starting point (that honestly, most players really won't care about when they first start playing). I play medieval fantasy because it represents dark times, when evil has won and society has crumbled. Where monsters are real and all hope is lost until heroes emerge.

This already is much more railroady than any game I've ever run. Who said the players have to be heros? Who says that they must confront evil? Who says they have to foster progress? See, in my "event-based" games, I make none of those assumptions. That's all stuff for the PCs to decide. Many, many, times, I've had players not want to follow that predictable, "railroaded" route, and done other things entirely.

You say that the PCs could stay in the inn and not do anything, therefore your game isn't railroady, but honestly... is that true? Have you ever had anyone do that? What kind of game would you have, in that case?

You've created another false dichotomy. You don't have a game if your players don't engage the site you've got.

I know not everyone plays this style, but I prefer traditional sword and sorcery. Where civilization is ruled by evil and/or ignorant leadership. Where most people live in slavery and/or poverty. Where there are signs everywhere that things were better at one time. Adventurers rise up from the ashes and make a change in the world for the better. There is little to no consequence if you die in battle, because hope was lost long ago. Only the greatest of all can deliver society from evil.

I don't know that heroically deliverying society from evil feels very sword & sorcery to me. That's kinda in opposition to most sword & sorcery.

 

[Krensky]

DMing is like obedience training. There are positive rewards for good behavior, like a pet or a treat, and there are negative rewards for bad behavior, like a swat on the nose with a newspaper. Most obedience trainers would not encourage negative rewards.

In as far as a GM should reward behavior (good descriptions, witty and in character or appropriate one liners, etc) he wishes to see more of, yes. You completely over state the analogy though.

Event based world evolving games are very negative. If you don't do a certain thing by a certain time then the world will change for the worse.

How amazingly realistic.

I think rat bastard DMs tend to lean towards this style of gaming. Also, a good writer will probably prefer this style. It's easier to make players follow his story, and even though he won't admit it that's a better thing for him because he's a better writer. I think this may also be why many modern day module authors who get far more kudos today through email and message boards prefer to encourage these types of games, to the point of writing an entire group's campaign for them in advance.

Uh huh.

Site based status quo games are primarily positive. If a player does absolutely nothing, they will not be punished. The world will pretty much be exactly as it was last week, month or year. If they want to live their entire life in an inn, so be it. The only time the world changes is when players do something good. This makes the DM follow their story.

Sounds rather boring actually. One of my main issues with sandbox CRPGS like Oblivion is that there's no sense of urgency. The villain will sit there, knife poised above the damsel forever while you dink around doing side quests, robbing passers by, whatever.

In my games, if the players do nothing, the game ends because I get bored. If they ignore hooks that lead towards a given 'end of the world' plot they may be presented with stronger hooks at a later point when the villian's plans are further developed, or the villian's plot may fizzle out. Or the world may end and they need to pick up the pieces.

In site based games, DMs have no idea what changes will happen in the world, because it depends on what the players do next. In event based games DMs can say 'I can make story changes even if the players do nothing', and this is exactly how the slippery road to railing begins.

Ah, the old 'anything other then a sandbox is railroading' argument. I honestly fail to see how a world the exists and progresses independently of the charaters and their actions is any more railroady then one where everything enters stasis once it's out of range of the PCs.

A positive rewarding DM will help build an exciting world that evolves as players take action, not devolves as players take inaction. This is a good theme for medieval fantasy. There are monsters, and life sucks. Only when heroes step up and conquer evil will there be progress. People within the world understand this.

Has nothing to do with sandbox vs plot driven play. My games evolve regardless of the players action. They can effect that evolution, but things happen regardless of their action or inaction. Based on feedback, they like this because it builds verisimilitude and makes their choices matter. Choosing to take a job smuggling contraband rather then refugees will change the world in a small fashion and the players might discover that said refugees are dead when they come back, or that the refugees have informed the authorities. Conversely running the refugees across the border brings them into a different set of problems, perhaps illness or a run in with the people chasing them or the contraband merchants. Not to mention the refugees have no real money and the smuggling run was very lucrative.

It's about giving the illusion of an actual functional world, not just a list of locations and quest triggers. If I or my players want that we have video games.

 

[takasi]

I disagree with that pretty emphatically. My players are not puppies, needing to be molded, we're all highly creative adults. In fact, my players are, in fact, mostly also all GMs of various games. Running a game is a collaborative process. The GM doesn't call all the shots, and "push" his players towards a certain playstyle, he presents options, and all the players (including the GM) work together to get the game they all want.

The thing about analogies is that they aren't always perfect. Players aren't puppies, but GMs still reward players. There are positive methods and negative methods. Players can see progress when they accomplish their own goals, or they can see changes if they fail to accomplish someone else's goals (which are usually something concocted by the DM).

In other words, I don't think your analogy represents any good game I've ever been involved in. It does, however, resemble a number of really bad games that I've been involved in, and which I happily left behind.

I would love to read about an example of a good game that doesn't involve positive or negative rewards that did not originate from the GM. I'm sure players can offer each other rewards too, but the final decisions on how the world changes ultimately come from the GM right?

Who cares? It's not the real world. These characters aren't actually the players. Having characters be in a situation that's worse is entertaining. How many good books have you seen where the characters didn't confront problems? How interesting movies have you seen where the characters just went about their routine?

GMs can offer a status quo world where players can get themselves into dramatic situations. It's their choice though, and if they choose to avoid a situation then there are little to no consequences. The danger of the situations they put themselves into is more important than the impending doom that might befall someone else if they fail. It's more personal.

Yeah, bad things happen. That's kinda the whole point of playing in the first place.

Again, you can have bad things happen in status quo games, but it's the result of getting yourself into dangerous situations. It's not the result of choosing to ignore the GM's ideas.

You've set up a false dichotomy in calling this "positive" and in implying that GMs can only follow the story of the players if it's site-based, "sandbox" gaming. You've seen an awful lot of evidence, if you've paid attention to any of it, that that's not true in this thread.

I didn't say they can only follow the story if the entire game is status quo. Some games have a mix of status quo sandbox play and world changing timed event play. Most games out there have a mix of positive and negative reward methods.

No, no, no, no, no. What are "story" changes? The environment changes and evolves. NPCs have agendas. They do things. Things happen. That's not the story. The story is the PCs. What do they react to? Which problems do they think are interesting, and which do they decide to let go?

Any time something happens in the world it's a part of the story.

This already is much more railroady than any game I've ever run. Who said the players have to be heros? Who says that they must confront evil? Who says they have to foster progress? See, in my "event-based" games, I make none of those assumptions. That's all stuff for the PCs to decide. Many, many, times, I've had players not want to follow that predictable, "railroaded" route, and done other things entirely.

I never said they had to do anything. They can sit in the inn if they want. They can loot and pillage and join in the dark times if that's what they choose to do.

I think what you might be implying is that the players might not like the status quo, or what you have to do to change the status quo. I agree, because just the fact that the GM is the one who makes those changes is another restriction of freedom from the players. Ideally the players work together with the GM to tell him what they want the status quo to be like, how dark things are and what their personal character goals will be before the campaign even starts.

You say that the PCs could stay in the inn and not do anything, therefore your game isn't railroady, but honestly... is that true? Have you ever had anyone do that? What kind of game would you have, in that case?

I've had a few starting sessions where players just sat around a tavern and BS'd with the locals to learn about the area. Sometimes they get a good idea of the area and stay, other times they move on.

I don't know that heroically deliverying society from evil feels very sword & sorcery to me. That's kinda in opposition to most sword & sorcery.

I think this entire conversation could use an examination of the difference in style when playing in a 'Heroic fantasy' game:

Heroic Fantasy - Television Tropes & Idioms

vs playing in a 'High Fantasy' game:

High Fantasy - Television Tropes & Idioms

One tends to foster railroading more often than the other, IMO.

 

[Desdichado]

The thing about analogies is that they aren't always perfect. Players aren't puppies, but GMs still reward players. There are positive methods and negative methods. Players can see progress when they accomplish their own goals, or they can see changes if they fail to accomplish someone else's goals (which are usually something concocted by the DM).

Again; if you assume that the players find that negative. Which, in my experience, is often a flawed assumption. If your players demand a world with the illusion of reality, as opposed to the illusion of being a big video game environment, then they don't feel slapped on the nose when the environment marches on without them. In fact, I've got players who essentially demand that the world do just that, and give me negative reinforcement behavior about a game world that doesn't do anything, or feel at all "real."

I would love to read about an example of a good game that doesn't involve positive or negative rewards that did not originate from the GM. I'm sure players can offer each other rewards too, but the final decisions on how the world changes ultimately come from the GM right?

Players also offer reinforcement to the GM too, in terms of how much they engage with and enjoy elements of his game.

Also, yeah... why, as a GM, must I always decide everything? I'm perfectly willing and in fact quite happy to incorporate player designed elements into any campaign I run. I think you're making too big a deal on who's got the "final word." Yeah, as GM, when I run I have the "final word." That's not nearly as important as the fact that I don't necessarily always have the "initial word." That's usually a more powerful and important word anyway; if players start postulating likely sequences of events, and I think it sounds cool, yeah, I'll grab it and integrate it in a heartbeat.

GMs can offer a status quo world where players can get themselves into dramatic situations. It's their choice though, and if they choose to avoid a situation then there are little to no consequences. The danger of the situations they put themselves into is more important than the impending doom that might befall someone else if they fail. It's more personal.

This is a taste thing, but to me, it's merely more trite. Because they could just walk away from it, and who cares? It's only personal if the dangers have sufficient motivation to make them personal. I've never yet played in a sandbox style static world where I thought that was the case. Our motivation was, "we're bored---let's got over here and see if anything interesting happens." That's not what I call a game that's personal.

I never said they had to do anything. They can sit in the inn if they want. They can loot and pillage and join in the dark times if that's what they choose to do.

Yes, I realize that, and I said so in the question that you... answered. My point is, they can't realistically sit in the tavern for the whole game, because that's a sucky game that would almost certainly bore everyone involved, including yourself, after an hour or two.

I think what you might be implying is that the players might not like the status quo, or what you have to do to change the status quo. I agree, because just the fact that the GM is the one who makes those changes is another restriction of freedom from the players. Ideally the players work together with the GM to tell him what they want the status quo to be like, how dark things are and what their personal character goals will be before the campaign even starts.

No, that's not what I've ever implied at any point. What I'm implying is that your insistence that anything other than a complete and total site-based sandbox is a railroad is, frankly, absurd, and it's hampering our ability to have a meaningful conversation. Sandbox and railroads are endpoints on a spectrum, and a game that is not one endpoint is not necessarily the other endpoint. Most likely it's somewhere on the spectrum. You keep trying to create a false binary by implying that anything other than a complete and total sandbox takes away player freedom; but your own examples seem less "free" to me than many of my event-based games. Or maybe you're just expressing yourself poorly. Or maybe we're focusing too much on "corner cases" so we're not seeing the forest for the trees.

Still, let's take an example. Let's say the PCs are in this tavern, and they take to disliking a disreputable looking character at one table. Since they're free to do so, let's say they take incredible insult to this guy, and attack him, killing him in the bar. They find out he's got some gold on him. Plus, they get XP for killing him. "Hey, we're being positively reinforced in this behavior! let's start killing everyone else in the tavern!" What is your "sandbox" approach to this? What if they decide that's all they want to go; to from town to town killing people in taverns?

I know the situation sounds vaguely absurd, but frankly, so do most of your pronouncements, so I'm trying to posit an exaggerated situation to see if that can't help me to understand where you're coming from.

I think this entire conversation could use an examination of the difference in style when playing in a 'Heroic fantasy' game:

Heroic Fantasy - Television Tropes & Idioms

vs playing in a 'High Fantasy' game:

High Fantasy - Television Tropes & Idioms

I don't know who "tvtropes" is, but it's too bad they mis-used those labels. What they call 'heroic fantasy' is what most people call 'sword & sorcery'. Heroic fantasy isn't really a recognized subgenre label, but when it is used, it's most often an umbrella term that's broad enough to include both S&S and high fantasy.

One tends to foster railroading more often than the other, IMO.

Neither has any bearing whatsoever on railroading or not. I suspect that you're not using the word 'railroading' in the same way that I've always heard it used before, though, and we're not even talking about the same thing.

 

[takasi]

Again; if you assume that the players find that negative. Which, in my experience, is often a flawed assumption.

Sorry, I meant to say I'm defining it as negative in relationship to the character, not necessarily the player. Some players might love to see their characters tortured within the game world, but it's still torture to the character.

If your players demand a world with the illusion of reality, as opposed to the illusion of being a big video game environment, then they don't feel slapped on the nose when the environment marches on without them. In fact, I've got players who essentially demand that the world do just that, and give me negative reinforcement behavior about a game world that doesn't do anything, or feel at all "real."

Later in your post you mention how I am labeling things as black and white. If you have that impression I apologize. I have tried to say that most games are a mix of styles. In this example, there is a pace to how the environment marches on and who it marches on.

If you look at the timeline for existing campaign settings, many of them exhibit 'medieval stasis':

Medieval Stasis - Television Tropes & Idioms

If someone was buried and woke up 100 years in the future, how much would have really changed? 10 years? 1 year? 1 week?

Here are some tropes that some DMs who favor event driven games frequently use:

Doomed Hometown - Television Tropes & Idioms
Refusal Of The Call - Television Tropes & Idioms
The Call Knows Where You Live - Television Tropes & Idioms
You Can't Go Home Again - Television Tropes & Idioms

Also, yeah... why, as a GM, must I always decide everything?

The nature of the GM is that he knows what's beyond the 'fog of war'. He has to make secret decisions.

I'm perfectly willing and in fact quite happy to incorporate player designed elements into any campaign I run.

Some players may enjoy that to a certain extent. As a player it's not as fun to roleplay in character if I have too much out of character info (especially if I designed that out of character info).

Because they could just walk away from it, and who cares? It's only personal if the dangers have sufficient motivation to make them personal. I've never yet played in a sandbox style static world where I thought that was the case. Our motivation was, "we're bored---let's got over here and see if anything interesting happens." That's not what I call a game that's personal.

This is where the setting design is important.

DMs may present a Peaceable Kingdom; for a game in which the Heroes can save the world from impending doom. DMs may also present a Wasteland, for a story in which the Heroes ca restore their world. Many worlds have a combination of both, but I think for sandbox play it's easier to have a Wasteland.

This can be viewed from a small scale too. For example, let's take a look at a mine. In one example the mine could be a Wasteland, currently nonfunctional and overrun with monsters. If players choose to clean it up then it can be prosperous again. Or this could be a mine in a Peaceable Kingdom, but there are rumors to be investigated about cults and monsters plotting to destroy the mine. If the characters do not act then the mine will be lost. In the second example there is much more pressure on the players to act.

Whether something is a railroad or not depends on how much pressure is on the players to act. Some players are more tolerant of pressure than others.

Yes, I realize that, and I said so in the question that you... answered. My point is, they can't realistically sit in the tavern for the whole game, because that's a sucky game that would almost certainly bore everyone involved, including yourself, after an hour or two.

I've had a fun time at conventions rolling up characters and doing nothing but sitting around a fake tavern talking about adventures and learning about a DM's game world. YMMV.

No, that's not what I've ever implied at any point. What I'm implying is that your insistence that anything other than a complete and total site-based sandbox is a railroad is, frankly, absurd, and it's hampering our ability to have a meaningful conversation.

I apologize if I sound like I'm insisting on anything. That's not my intention.

Sandbox and railroads are endpoints on a spectrum, and a game that is not one endpoint is not necessarily the other endpoint. Most likely it's somewhere on the spectrum. You keep trying to create a false binary by implying that anything other than a complete and total sandbox takes away player freedom; but your own examples seem less "free" to me than many of my event-based games.

Which examples are you referring to, and in what way are they less free?

Still, let's take an example. Let's say the PCs are in this tavern, and they take to disliking a disreputable looking character at one table. Since they're free to do so, let's say they take incredible insult to this guy, and attack him, killing him in the bar. They find out he's got some gold on him. Plus, they get XP for killing him. "Hey, we're being positively reinforced in this behavior! let's start killing everyone else in the tavern!" What is your "sandbox" approach to this? What if they decide that's all they want to go; to from town to town killing people in taverns?

If all of the players and the DM really, truly wanted to play in a world where this is possible, then sure, why not?

Sort of like a monstrous medieval version of the Wild West. You don't like someone then kill them. No one else seems to mind. It's every man, woman and child for themselves.

Now let's say they don't really want that. What they want is to be chased. They want to change the world in a negative way. They want to be villains.

In this case the negative becomes the positive. They want to play Grand Theft Auto in a D&D world, racking up sheriff badges as they go on a killing spree. They are changing the world, but at their own pace and freestyle.

 

[Doug McCrae]

This can be viewed from a small scale too. For example, let's take a look at a mine. In one example the mine could be a Wasteland, currently nonfunctional and overrun with monsters. If players choose to clean it up then it can be prosperous again. Or this could be a mine in a Peaceable Kingdom, but there are rumors to be investigated about cults and monsters plotting to destroy the mine. If the characters do not act then the mine will be lost. In the second example there is much more pressure on the players to act.

Whether something is a railroad or not depends on how much pressure is on the players to act. Some players are more tolerant of pressure than others

Whether it's a happy but threatened mine or a monster-infested ex-mine, the PCs are going to have to fight deadly monsters to either preserve or improve it. Player characters always need a strong motivation to risk their lives. This is a significant problem with old school play. Why do they go down holes filled with deadly monsters if the monsters don't really need killing? If nothing really bad will happen if the monsters stay alive? It's a plausibility issue. Why do the PCs want gold and magic items and level-ups so badly?

The answer in old school play of course is that it's just a game. The PCs aren't real people. They go down dangerous holes because if they didn't the players would have a boring evening.

However I assume your games aren't like that. The PCs in your games seem to have more plausible motivations but the players chaff against them, which is a bit odd, considering the players created those motivations. If I create a character that really hates orcs, so he's 'forced' to go on orc killing adventures the GM presents then isn't it my fault for creating the character in the first place? Amn't I communicating to the GM that I *want* to kill orcs?

I've had a fun time at conventions rolling up characters and doing nothing but sitting around a fake tavern talking about adventures and learning about a DM's game world. YMMV.

My mileage most definitely varies and so does that of most rpgers, imo.

 

[Doug McCrae]

If you look at the timeline for existing campaign settings, many of them exhibit 'medieval stasis':

Medieval Stasis - Television Tropes & Idioms

If someone was buried and woke up 100 years in the future, how much would have really changed? 10 years? 1 year? 1 week?

Medieval Stasis refers to the past, not the future.

Here are some tropes that some DMs who favor event driven games frequently use:

Doomed Hometown - Television Tropes & Idioms
Refusal Of The Call - Television Tropes & Idioms
The Call Knows Where You Live - Television Tropes & Idioms
You Can't Go Home Again - Television Tropes & Idioms

A PC could avoid all of those. They're actually less heavy-handed than the save-the-world bit. Almost any rational being wants to go on living so they have to save the world (or escape to another). But hometown destroyed? Not everyone has to be Batman, a PC could plausibly go about his life without necessarily seeking revenge.

It is a bit of a plot hammer though, yeah. But remember that players mostly do want to go along with the GM's plot. They want to get to the interesting prepared bits, not wander aimlessly through the forest killing wandering monsters. Who won't even have any treasure! [sob]

It's hard to say at what point it becomes railroading, I guess it's when the players feel they have insufficient control over the game, and it varies for different players. Yours obviously have a particularly low threshold.

 

[takasi]

Whether it's a happy but threatened mine or a monster-infested ex-mine, the PCs are going to have to fight deadly monsters to either preserve or improve it. Player characters always need a strong motivation to risk their lives. This is a significant problem with old school play. Why do they go down holes filled with deadly monsters if the monsters don't really need killing? If nothing really bad will happen if the monsters stay alive? It's a plausibility issue. Why do the PCs want gold and magic items and level-ups so badly?

I don't follow you here.

In this case, the motivation to restore the mine is power and the satisfaction of saving the world, at least this part of the world anyway. Whichever group takes over the mine will now grow in power all thanks to the heroes.

The status quo has changed for the better. This is a powerful motivating factor. It can provide just as much of a sense of accomplishment and heroism as preventing an ideal status quo from changing. It's even more satisfying, in my opinion as a player, because I had a more active say in the change.

However I assume your games aren't like that. The PCs in your games seem to have more plausible motivations but the players chaff against them, which is a bit odd, considering the players created those motivations. If I create a character that really hates orcs, so he's 'forced' to go on orc killing adventures the GM presents then isn't it my fault for creating the character in the first place? Amn't I communicating to the GM that I *want* to kill orcs?

Even in this example there are different ways to go about it. I can create a character who hates orcs. Orcs have already killed my parents, best friend and my little dog too. It's a part of my backstory, which now makes it a part of the status quo of the game world when we start to play. Orcs regularly terrorize the countryside, it's just a fact of life.

A DM can decide that something is going to change. Orcs are teaming up with some super villain to lead a war to wipe out humanity. This is a very event driven campaign. Not only does the hero hate orcs, but now he must fight them or else they're going to take over the world.

Or the DM can just keep it status quo. If the hero doesn't act then life will go on and the orcs will end up killing some other future hero's dog. But if the hero wants to track down the orcs and slaughter them then the world will change. The little dogs will be safe (at least from the orcs). Seeing this change in the game world is a very strong motivation to become a hero.