Dookie in the Sandbox?

[Rel]

Takasi.

So, what do your villains actually do? Since they clearly never march on the civilized lands, threaten innocent dog beauticians or raze a hometown. What's more they're never planning to do these things, because that sort of ticking clock runs the railroad timetable. Why are they villains and why are the PCs justified in killing them?

I think this is an interesting question given the stance of the OP.

I'd also wonder, if this has been established as the way the world works, whether the PC's have a lot of "15 minute adventuring days". Is there any compelling reason not to rest after every encounter?

 

[takasi]

So, what do your villains actually do?

Here are some categories of enemies for the PCs in a status quo world:

Evil Overlords. Zero Percent Approval Rating or possibly Villain with Good Publicity. They are the ones who have established the Crapsack world for the heroes.

Infestations. Monsters are going wild in an old settlement, trade route, wilderness area, etc.

Schemers. Within hidden lairs there are villains plotting to make changes to the status quo. Eventually they will become a threat to the world, but it's not something the heroes need to take care of immediately.

And what about changes? Do changes ever happen in your world? In your world would America invade Iraq and Afghanistan? Would Michael Jackson have died?

There will eventually be natural changes beyond what the PCs do, but they won't happen so rapidly that they impact the campaign.

I can not imagine what your game worlds are possibly like, but they sound a strange and spooky place... nothing like Earth.

Actually it's pretty close. There are many locations and periods in history where several generations pass with very few changes socially, politically, technologically, etc.

I think it's an anachronism to think that in 20 years there will be rapid changes to the world. I think that's more of a modern idea of futurism that seeps into the mindests of DMs.

And remember, the protagonists (I think by saying heroes I'm confusing people) will (hopefully) bring change to the world.

 

[takasi]

I'd also wonder, if this has been established as the way the world works, whether the PC's have a lot of "15 minute adventuring days". Is there any compelling reason not to rest after every encounter?

Remember that most traditional dungeon crawls are (at least as presented) perfect examples of status quo sandbox areas. You have the same compelling reasons to continue, mainly:

No place to rest. If you're far from an inn then you might be safer on your feet with your weapon and armor ready.

Searching takes time. Places are frequently trapped. Taking 20 on every five foot square takes a large part of the day.

Responses to character action. The idea of the status quo is to avoid making major setting changes outside of the scope of a player's proactive choices. This is not to say that on a micro scale that the environment can't react to players. If adventurers go into an area and retreat, they may find some changes when they come back. Now some smart alec might say 'but that's not 100% static'. Usually anything taken to an extreme sucks. Like I keep saying, every game has a mix of styles.

 

[takasi]

By your reconing, these are all railroads because they have some set of consequences for failure to act. By your definition, life is a railroad.

I've noticed that there are many straw man arguments here.

I have said repeatedly that event based games put pressure on players, and IMO a railroad is when this pressure is intolerable. A racetrack or highway is not a railroad, but it sure is more of a railroad than a parking lot is. Some players want to go off road, but they either aren't given the right vehicles or the terrain is presented as unpassable, or just less pleasant than their expectations of a good time.

All fine and good. You know who else has self-motivation? Every single NPC, including the villians.

This is where the setting makes a big difference. If the world provides more motivation for villains to act then their choices will overshadow those of the PCs. In darker times it's the heroes who want change, not villains. At least, it's not very difficult to create a realistic setting that offers this.

That's still GM fiat. Changes in 'normal' RPGs only happen because the GM causes them. That may be triggered and determined by player action, but only the GM makes changes. The question you haven't answered is why only the players get to determine this. Why is the GM in your view nothing more then a computer cranking out quests like so much CRPG?

Well first of all, the GM has to setup the status quo in the first place.

It's funny that you say the GM is a robot. If anything, I think the DM has to be MORE creative in this case. If the villains and events are happening independent of the PCs actions, then anyone can develop this for the DM. He can just pick up a module, or adventure path, or railroad, or whatever and crank out the world as given.

A sandbox GM has to be more reactive. Instead of plotting doom to the setting, he gets to make changes to the status quo in a positive way as the PCs improve the world. I think this actually fosters a more cooperative relationship between players and DMs and inspires fewer meta game attitudes, munchkinism and 'us vs them' attitudes.

Speaking of munchkinism, this style of play also makes it easier for PCs to choose their own challenges. It's just a matter of understanding the world around them and avoiding areas that are seen as too difficult. This lets the PCs make whatever type of character they want, even if it's not completely optimal. The DM is not the player's adversary and is not plotting their doom. Instead, the players are the ones risking their characters for the betterment of the game world.

There's that false dicotomy again. Who said coast? The players have to engage in the plot, follow hooks and leads, address the conflicts, and overcome their challenges.

Like I said, there can be a lot to do on a train. But you're not the one who is really driving it. The DM is moving the world without you while you coast along.

That's why a status quo world is boring. The players choices don't matter because nothing happens when they aren't around.

First of all, you can have excitement within a world even if it's static. Second, player choices matter even more BECAUSE nothing happens when they make no choices.

 

[Remathilis]

Eh, maybe you have better players than I, because if I ran a game without some semblance of narrative, my PCs would be the ones going about creating doomsday plans, overthrowing kings, and setting themselves in position of power.

Idle hands, and all...

 

[underthumb]

takasi-

It's not about the option to do something, it's about the option to avoid something. When you can't avoid it then it's a rail. It's an edge you can't get around. The consequences are inevitable.

GM: "It starts raining."

Player: "Stop railroading!"

I grant that the above is an exaggeration of your argument, because you also talk about the nature of the consequences attached to inaction. But if the PC absolutely hates rain, and there's no nearby shelter, this might approach your definition of railroading.

Here's what it seems like to me. It seems like you want to borrow the negative weight of the term "railroading" to characterize games that do not meet your personal and idiosyncratic standards. It's not just that other campaign styles are less preferred, it's that they are, in fact, bad. Why? Because we all know railroading is bad. And that's what other games are. Railroads. And even if they're not blatant railroads, they're still infected by some railroading, which is still bad. Railroading, like a disease, infects everyone's campaigns. Except yours and the few who share your philosophy.

 

[Desdichado]

Searching takes time. Places are frequently trapped. Taking 20 on every five foot square takes a large part of the day.

I think I just died a little bit right there.

This is where the setting makes a big difference. If the world provides more motivation for villains to act then their choices will overshadow those of the PCs. In darker times it's the heroes who want change, not villains. At least, it's not very difficult to create a realistic setting that offers this.

Well, that's an unwarranted assumption.

It's funny that you say the GM is a robot. If anything, I think the DM has to be MORE creative in this case. If the villains and events are happening independent of the PCs actions, then anyone can develop this for the DM. He can just pick up a module, or adventure path, or railroad, or whatever and crank out the world as given.

As is that. Nobody in this thread has really been talking about published, pre-written adventures.

Speaking of munchkinism, this style of play also makes it easier for PCs to choose their own challenges. It's just a matter of understanding the world around them and avoiding areas that are seen as too difficult. This lets the PCs make whatever type of character they want, even if it's not completely optimal. The DM is not the player's adversary and is not plotting their doom. Instead, the players are the ones risking their characters for the betterment of the game world.

Again; who's the one making strawmen arguments here? You have done a lot of arguing against cases that nobody is making.

Like I said, there can be a lot to do on a train. But you're not the one who is really driving it. The DM is moving the world without you while you coast along.

Yeah, but the problem is, you're equating any DM action at all with railroading. Like I said earlier, you keep trying to reduce this to a binary pair. Even as you claim that you're not doing so. Having villains that have their own agendas, and who actually act on them does not make the PC's suddenly in a position to coast. Quite the opposite, in fact, they need to react in some way, which means they need to be decisive and on their toes much more than in a setting where nothing happens unless they make it happen. Talk about coasting! But it's only a railroad if the GM says, in effect, that there's only one acceptable way for them to react.

 

[takasi]

Eh, maybe you have better players than I, because if I ran a game without some semblance of narrative, my PCs would be the ones going about creating doomsday plans, overthrowing kings, and setting themselves in position of power.

To be fair (and hopefully to help Hobo see that I'm not trolling), see:

Quicksand Box - Television Tropes & Idioms

This trope applies to video games, but I think it applies to tabletop games too.

A major difference is that DMs can build the world based on the player's preferences, goals and character motivations. A computer game can't do that. You can still setup a narrative. For example, let's say a player dreams of creating a Harry Potter style academy. The DM can create a world where this doesn't exist, or even one where magic is banned or is tightly controlled. This player is sort of the medieval 'Wizard X', looking for magic sensitive people to befriend and possibly recruit.

The DM can pull a player out of the quicksand much better than a computer can. It's a major strength of our hobby over video games.

 

[takasi]

GM: "It starts raining."

Player: "Stop railroading!"

I have actually seen that at a Gameday.

The DM was running 'A Dark and Stormy Knight', the freebie intro adventure for 3rd edition. Most of the players understood that this was a standard module, and being at a gameday with strangers they sort of expected some type of gamist/narrativist setup.

But not one of the players in my group.

GM: 'So because it is raining, and the weather is so bad, you all meet up in cave.'

Player: 'Why would I do that? I'll just wait it out.'

GM: 'Um, no, it's raining REALLY hard. You need to go into the cave.'

Player: 'Grumble grumble'

It was pretty obvious that the reason for the rain was not a natural, status quo part of the world. It was introduced for narrative/gamist purposes. And yeah, the player didn't like that at all. I can tolerate that, because I'm a fairly laid back player, but this player has a specific style he likes.

And still I agree with him that the setup in the module is a very good example of railroading.

 

[takasi]

Sorry Hobo, I keep saying 'heroes' when I mean protagonists and villains when I mean enemies. Please understand that I'm not limiting this to heroism or making assumptions about character alignment. OK?

As is that. Nobody in this thread has really been talking about published, pre-written adventures.

My point is that if the DM is spending his time on creating villains and plots that are more or less independent of the players then you could modularize the ideas, package them and sell them. They can become interchangeable with other campaigns. I feel this is more 'robotic' than anything a reactive, positive sandbox DM would do differently.

Having villains that have their own agendas, and who actually act on them does not make the PC's suddenly in a position to coast. Quite the opposite, in fact, they need to react in some way, which means they need to be decisive and on their toes much more than in a setting where nothing happens unless they make it happen. Talk about coasting!

Well it's not coasting if the world isn't moving.

Why do the PCs in the dynamic world have to react? Can they just get into a magical bomb shelter and peek out every few years or so to see how the world's passing by? If they do what will have happened to the world?

In a static game there's no point in doing that. This provides more motivated to go out and explore the world.

But it's only a railroad if the GM says, in effect, that there's only one acceptable way for them to react.

I'm sorry I guess we just disagree on that. I think a DM can be 'railroading' players even if there's more than a single action to take. The number of actions and amount of freedom is relative to what someone calls a railroad. For you it sounds like nothing is a railroad as long as there are two possible tracks. For others it may be 10, or 20, or 50, or whatever. Some people want freedom more than others I guess.