Dookie in the Sandbox?

[Piratecat]

Hey, guys, please don't make accusations of trolling - especially when people are clearly trying to discuss the topic. It distracts people and derails the conversation.

 

[MarkB]

No in that case the thing compelling the characters to act comes from player motivation. Players, in my experience, tend to enjoy this more, as opposed to having characters compelled to act because of something an NPC has done.

I don't see the distinction. I'm not sure there is one. Why on earth would a plot hook based purely on a static environmental factor be any more inoffensive than one based upon a living, breathing person? And in what way is the mine example a matter of player motivation, whilst a sick villager is a matter of character motivation?

I agree. I said earlier that you can have a road from town a to town b infested with high level monsters, with the only safe point being the road, i.e. almost any MMO out there.

No, you can't do that. Putting an infestation of monsters off the road is a constraint against leaving the road, and by your definitions that's pure railroad.

The difference is that players can change the world. Heck, if they get to be high enough level they can even move rivers and lakes and flatten the land. Or they can travel to other worlds and find a better home; the choice is up to them.

So basically, if this setting is too characterful, the players will either modify it to something less interesting, or move to a suitably boring alternative.

 

[ST]

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...

I'd love to run that game ... looks like the players stepped up and provided the narrative!

Seriously. That sounds like it'd be pretty cool.

As far as the issues of GM Force/Railroading being talked about the last page or so, I think it's essential that the GM provide adversity and challenges to overcome. The GM absolutely can push and prod at PCs to make their lives difficult; they have to, to make things interesting. That doesn't prevent the players from having their PCs freely make their own choices.

 

[takasi]

I say it's coming from the GM for not having a plot.

The GM created a setting with a lot of plots and stories that have happened before the players assumed their characters. Ideally, he worked together with the players to build a world based on their backstories.

That's not what I said. The players are just doing good. The Overlord hears about it, and not liking do-gooders and being a proactive sort of guy who read the evil overlord list and knows that it's best to nip these things in the bud sends someone out to shank them before they start messing with him.

Villains don't need to be so proactive unless they're directly threatened. That's not an unbelievable scenario. It's less believable, to me, that the overlord just happened to pick on the PCs simply because they're cleaning up an area that's outside of his domain. Once they impact his realm then sure, it makes sense. Otherwise it just smells like the DM is picking on the players.

So we come back to the "Only the players deserve to have fun." bit. If the players don't engage with the hooks for the cult at all its best to shuffle them off for use later or for re-skinning or whatever. If they do and then choose to wander off, well, at that point why should the cult just stop until they reenter the PC's range again?

To answer your question I need to ask questions about the cult. Why are they in such a hurry? Who designed it the world that way? The DM? Why?

The DM having a plot outline and notes on the things that go on in the world independent of the PCs are not twisted machinations. As for it being an extreme, its perfectly consistent with your descriptions of GMing.

GM: The villiage ahead of you seems to be beseiged by goblins.

See that doesn't really fit the style I'm talking about. If the village is beseiged by goblins, is this a regular occurance? Is this something new? If it's regular, and the town survived before then it will survive again. It sucks, but then again life in that world sucks. There are monsters and goblins. That sucks. Oh well. If the players move along and come back, the goblins might be there again, but it's not like they were frozen in a nonsensical siege.

 

[takasi]

If the GM is not bullying you into taking the one true path, it's not a railroad. If you can say no and the game goes on without the universe conspiring to make you do what the GM wants, it's not a railroad.

I think what people consider 'bullying' and 'saying no' varies. I don't see it as black and white as some people are claiming.

 

[takasi]

I don't see the distinction. I'm not sure there is one. Why on earth would a plot hook based purely on a static environmental factor be any more inoffensive than one based upon a living, breathing person? And in what way is the mine example a matter of player motivation, whilst a sick villager is a matter of character motivation?

It's all a matter of time, which determines priority and pressure. The sick villagers are going to die. The mine isn't going anywhere, at least not as soon as the villagers.

No, you can't do that. Putting an infestation of monsters off the road is a constraint against leaving the road, and by your definitions that's pure railroad.

I agree. There are levels of infestations, and just general obstacles to player freedom in world design, and players will have different tolerance levels. A good DM is aware of that too and takes it into consideration. Ideally he builds the world for his players and their characters with their desires in mind.

 

[Desdichado]

If the DM is making some crazy, fast moving dynamic world, why not play an eccentric character who builds his own impenetrable tower and watches the DM tell us how his setting unfolds? It only sounds boring if the world is more stagnant, in which case the player might be motivated to go out and have his own turn at changing the world.

No, it sounds boring either way.

I can think of a million reasons why a character would want to adventure and change the world. If you can't, then I guess maybe you should just let the DM do it for you after all.

Yeah, see, responses like that make it unlikely that good discussion will ensue. You know that your play style is idiosynchraitc and unusual, and yet anyone who expresses a desire to do something different is met with incoherent value judgements and arguments.

I'd like to have a good discussion about sandbox vs. narrative styles, but this isn't a good discussion. You've consistently tried to 1) redefine commonly used jargon, 2) cast opposing viewpoints in an extreme light to make them look ridiculous, and 3) attack complete and total strawmen arguments that don't at all resemble the arguments that have been made so far in this thread. As well as gradually slip more and more into passive-aggressive, insulting language. If you want to have a good discussion about this, please help enable it. Don't say stuff like, well, like the part I just quoted up there.

Can you define it again? You said it's just one track right? How about if there are only two? Or five? Or ten? How many options have to be on the table to prevent something from being a railroad?

Because as you said earlier there are always at least two tracks: do or do not. So I guess railroads don't exist?

Sure, why not. They don't exist at all. That'll dovetail nicely with your concept of everything being a railroad.

 

[takasi]

So basically, if this setting is too characterful, the players will either modify it to something less interesting, or move to a suitably boring alternative.

That's one of my ideals. The world starts off as total crap. It was once great, but now it sucks.

Players come along and change it so that it's cool for them. You might think the end result is boring, because now the players are happy with the world. If it was too easy to get to that point then you can make the world more difficult to tame.

Then you (or the players) can tear it down once the players retire (or create characters with different agendas than the previous characters, who think the New World sucks and want to build another one) and start over again.

 

[Desdichado]

Hey, guys, please don't make accusations of trolling - especially when people are clearly trying to discuss the topic. It distracts people and derails the conversation.

Whoops, sorry.

 

[takasi]

1) redefine commonly used jargon

Sure, why not. They don't exist at all. That'll dovetail nicely with your concept of everything being a railroad.

I'm not redefining, I'm stating that it's difficult to define. I don't think any DM would say 'Railroads are aweseome!' yet so frequently I hear players from various groups complaining that their game is a railroad. When I talk to the DM he says 'why of course not, they have tons of freedom!' I think it's sort of a grey area, and I've been explaining the components that make people think they're in a railroad and why. I'm sorry if my posts sound like trolling to you, but I guess I feel like I'm having trouble getting my points across. I think it's because it sounds like I'm attacking event based games, but honestly that's really the only game style where I hear frequent complaints about railroading.