Dookie in the Sandbox?

[takasi]

Medieval Stasis refers to the past, not the future.

The future is tomorrow's present, and today is tomorrow's past.

It's interesting to see the level of medieval stasis in a DM's world, and I think it's important for gauging how the status quo can change. You can have a world where life sucks. It was a crapsack for the hero's father, grandfather and greatgrandfather, and unless the hero does something about it his children will have a horrible life too.

You can also have an idyllic world that has grown prosperous recently, that players are comfortable with, until some Sealed Evil in a Can is unleashed on the unsuspecting heroes. Unless the heroes act the world will turn into that Shackled, Savage Age of Crapsack Stasis.

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.

Something good for the hero is removed from the game world because of the hero's inaction. Contrast this with a wretched land where the heroes must build a safe place if they want to have a home.

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]

Even killing a wandering monster in the forest can have a positive impact on surrounding communities. That can be worth much more than treasure in a good roleplaying game.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

Then maybe I'm not following you. Because this:

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.

Is not railroading as it's traditionally defined. Railroading is "there's only one way to accomplish these goals, and any other ideas that players may have about what to do or how to accomplish them fail due to GM fiat, if it's not what the GM has already outlined as the adventure's conclusion."

I'd argue that that "pressure" is fake anyway. The players don't have any pressure to act on a hint that the world's in danger. I've had a group of characters described, by the players, as "so egotistical and arrogant that they don't believe any of this could possibly affect them anyway." I've had cynical characters who thought that the "end" of the world would probably be good for it anyway. I've had characters who tried to bilk the situation for all the gold they could get. I've had characters who simply scoffed at the hints of impending world doom and didn't believe there was really a problem.

The idea that presentation of potential plot hooks equals pressure and therefore railroading is not consistent with railroading as it's currently used by almost every gamer with which I've had this discussion. I think we're not using the terms to mean the same thing at all.

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.

I haven't. And an entire campaign of it?

I mean, you're right. YMMV. Maybe that's great to you. But, you've at least got to admit that that makes your tastes in that regard very niche.

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

All your discussion about carving out a bit of safe haven and progress. To me, that implies a very strong assumption about what kinds of characters you're going to have, and what kinds of activities they're going to engage in. Assumptions that I don't make.

 

[Ariosto]

The answer in old school play of course is that it's just a game.

Yep! It makes life much easier when people showing up to play a game of Dungeons & Dragons need no special "motivation" to delve into dungeons and deal with dragons. A game of Anomie & Addiction, Crisis & Catharsis, or the like, would call for different preparation.

 

[takasi]

Is not railroading as it's traditionally defined. Railroading is "there's only one way to accomplish these goals, and any other ideas that players may have about what to do or how to accomplish them fail due to GM fiat, if it's not what the GM has already outlined as the adventure's conclusion."

Take this example:

A player wants to buy a potion that makes her pet dog pretty. The only place she has bought this potion before was in Little Town. She arrives at Little Town to discover that the potion maker is in mortal danger. She wants to keep buying potions from this guy. There's only one way to accomplish her goal and that's to help out. It doesn't have to be one path; railroads can lead to several destinations, but they have tracks you must follow. In this scenario the track comes from GM fiat. 'Let's endanger the potion maker!' While the player can choose to ignore the danger (which seems out of character), she now has an ugly dog.

Players start labeling a game as a railroad when these events occur so frequently that players are no longer satisfied with the game.

I'd argue that that "pressure" is fake anyway. The players don't have any pressure to act on a hint that the world's in danger. I've had a group of characters described, by the players, as "so egotistical and arrogant that they don't believe any of this could possibly affect them anyway." I've had cynical characters who thought that the "end" of the world would probably be good for it anyway. I've had characters who tried to bilk the situation for all the gold they could get. I've had characters who simply scoffed at the hints of impending world doom and didn't believe there was really a problem.

What about the characters who do want to save the world? Or when the characters find out later that things are now horrible, and that their outlook was flawed?

If they're OK with how things went down then kudos to them for having fun. Some players may look at what has happened and say 'well it's not really my fault, the DM made all of this crap up.' In that respect there's no pressure, but there's also no reward. Where is the fun there?

I haven't. And an entire campaign of it?

I mean, you're right. YMMV. Maybe that's great to you. But, you've at least got to admit that that makes your tastes in that regard very niche.

I never said it was an entire campaign. But if that's what the players really wanted to do, why stop them? They're having fun. Why poop in their sandbox?

It might not be a tavern. They might be exploring a mine. Or hitting on a shopkeeper. If everyone's having fun then there's no need to inject changes into the status quo.

All your discussion about carving out a bit of safe haven and progress. To me, that implies a very strong assumption about what kinds of characters you're going to have, and what kinds of activities they're going to engage in. Assumptions that I don't make.

That was just one example of player motivation. I also included the Wild West and Grand Theft Auto examples. If a character is really trying to play an anti-hero who is forced to adventure then that's great too. But make no mistake that you are kicking him around and IMO every player has a breaking point.

 

[Doug McCrae]

There's another factor here that's limiting the scope for action of Takasi's PCs - they seem to be good guys. Hobo's PCs otoh sound like right gits!

I myself have sometimes been a bit frustrated by that in the past, when it says 'good' on my character sheet, my choices are a *lot* more limited.

 

[Doug McCrae]

While the player can choose to ignore the danger (which seems out of character), she now has an ugly dog.

Nightmare.

 

[Desdichado]

A player wants to buy a potion that makes her pet dog pretty. The only place she has bought this potion before was in Little Town. She arrives at Little Town to discover that the potion maker is in mortal danger. She wants to keep buying potions from this guy. There's only one way to accomplish her goal and that's to help out. It doesn't have to be one path; railroads can lead to several destinations, but they have tracks you must follow. In this scenario the track comes from GM fiat. 'Let's endanger the potion maker!' While the player can choose to ignore the danger (which seems out of character), she now has an ugly dog.

Players start labeling a game as a railroad when these events occur so frequently that players are no longer satisfied with the game.

See, I've never heard that kind of thing called a railroad before. That's a potential hook. You can follow it or not. Even in a sandbox game, when you go to a specific area, there's stuff to do there. You can choose to engage it or not. Saying that, "it's railroading because it'd be out of character for my character to not follow through on this hook" is a HUGE red herring. How is that the GM's doing? YOU as the player made the character. If you don't like that it'd be out of character, then have a different personality. That's totally under your control.

Also; presenting plot hooks = railroading. I'm still boggling over that notion. Really; that's not what railroading means. At all.

What about the characters who do want to save the world? Or when the characters find out later that things are now horrible, and that their outlook was flawed?

What about it?

If they're OK with how things went down then kudos to them for having fun. Some players may look at what has happened and say 'well it's not really my fault, the DM made all of this crap up.' In that respect there's no pressure, but there's also no reward. Where is the fun there?

What do you mean by reward? The reward is a rewarding play experience. I don't actually believe that any other reward is worth playing for, personally.

I never said it was an entire campaign. But if that's what the players really wanted to do, why stop them? They're having fun. Why poop in their sandbox?

I know, I did. I presented what I thought was a really absurd idea for a campaign, and you said, "hey, I've done that at one-shots and had fun". Since my I-thought-this-was-an-extreme-example didn't phase you, I'm upping the ante.

Anyway; why not do it? Because it's not fun for me. Also, I'd be really surprised to find that more than a very small handful of gamers would have fun with that either. If everyone's having fun, then hey, yeah, more power to you.

There's another factor here that's limiting the scope for action of Takasi's PCs - they seem to be good guys. Hobo's PCs otoh sound like right gits!

That is frequently true. Often, a side-effect of eliminating alignment, is that players are no longer constrained by what a box on the sheet says about their character's personality. Effectively speaking, many of them would be classified as evil if we bothered to do so, I think.

 

[coyote6]

Take this example:

A player wants to buy a potion that makes her pet dog pretty. The only place she has bought this potion before was in Little Town. She arrives at Little Town to discover that the potion maker is in mortal danger. She wants to keep buying potions from this guy. There's only one way to accomplish her goal and that's to help out.

That's not true, though. You could find another potion maker that can make the potion. You can kill the potion maker and take his stuff (specifically, the "make dog pretty" potion recipe), then make your own potions, or sell/give it to another potion maker so you can continue to purchase potions of canine beautification. Or you could just look for other ways to make your dog pretty. Or get a dog that doesn't need cosmetic alchemy to be pretty. Or upgrade to a pony.

I don't see the rails on this one. Looks like a hook to me, one that the PC or player can take or leave as they see fit.

 

[Ariosto]

The fact that it has personal significance to a player-character would tend, from all that I have seen, to make it an especially desirable addition to a campaign. I cannot recall ever meeting a player who considered stasis anything but a boring state of affairs. A "hook" for something that can become a "plot" is the sort of thing of which I am inclined to think, "the more the merrier"!

 

[Remathilis]

It's interesting to see the level of medieval stasis in a DM's world, and I think it's important for gauging how the status quo can change. You can have a world where life sucks. It was a crapsack for the hero's father, grandfather and greatgrandfather, and unless the hero does something about it his children will have a horrible life too.

You can also have an idyllic world that has grown prosperous recently, that players are comfortable with, until some Sealed Evil in a Can is unleashed on the unsuspecting heroes. Unless the heroes act the world will turn into that Shackled, Savage Age of Crapsack Stasis.

Something good for the hero is removed from the game world because of the hero's inaction. Contrast this with a wretched land where the heroes must build a safe place if they want to have a home.

Even killing a wandering monster in the forest can have a positive impact on surrounding communities. That can be worth much more than treasure in a good roleplaying game.

Huh. I think I get your point.

You're arguing that event-based DMing is about halting the progression of good to bad. (The peaceful kingdom is threatened; stop the menace or all will be ruined) whereas status-quo is about improving the bad into good (the desolate ruined kingdom must be cleared of menaces so it can be prosperous again.)

I don't really see a difference, IMHO. The ruined kingdom got ruined by SOMETHING. Its all a matter of when. The peaceable kingdom today that isn't saved by the PCS becomes the ruined kingdom tomorrow the PCs clean out. A good game has give and take. Sometimes Acerack sits around in his tomb waiting for foolish heroes to try to plunder it, but other days he leaves to go do evil things to the local countryside (and thus insure more foolish heroes try to enter his tomb).

I can agree though too much metaplot-driven gaming leads to a world where the PCs have no control; if the PCs must decide between stopping the Githyanki incursion or defeating Orcus's plan to unseat the Raven Queen; the world is boned either way since they can't do both at the same time. However, I find again a bit of give and take works; if the the PCs hear a magic sword might be helpful in stopping Orcus's plan, the plot dutifully waits for them while they get the sword. If they decide to forget Orcus and go become pirates; they might have a new god of Death in the near future.

Then again, as I stated before; MY PLAYERS LIKE BEING HEROES (even if some are anti-heroes) so setting up a "save the world" motif isn't a bother, its a goal.