Dookie in the Sandbox?

[Krensky]

Off topic, but...I am a criminal lawyer, and I don't know of any jurisdiction where this is true. Maybe that's a law outside the United States, or maybe there's a state out there with a "good samaritan" law like you're describing, but I can assure you that under the English common law most American law is rooted in, there was no such obligation.

While there are circumstances where what I said is true, I concede that as a general statement it is incorrect under common law. My rhetorical point is still valid since failure to act can rise (or perhaps sink) to the level of a crime, and that inaction is still a choice.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think it's difficult to define at all. A railroad is, as I already said, when the GM uses GM fiat to cause any intended player action to autofail except for the one, "correct" action that he's predetermined. I've never (until now) ever heard anyone try to use the term in any other way in all the years I've been discussing gaming. It's not only easy to define, it's a well accepted and commonly agreed upon definition.

You are using it to refer to any consequences that are the results of PC action. Well, I take that back. You make exceptions based on criteria that I can't understand.

I don't think that's the only definition of railroad as ST very rightly points out in the next post.

If I put a chasm between you and the goal in the adventure, that's not what I consider railroading, even though it is going to force you to take certain actions. ((Now if I put the chasm there AFTER you arrived, that would certainly be railroading ))

I think ST's definition is far more fitting really. If the adventure you go on has you travel by ship from Port A to Port B, there's really only one way you can do it. Take a ship in a pretty much direct route between the two points. If I script an encounter somewhere between those two points, I still do not consider that railroading, but, I'm sure others might.

 

[Desdichado]

I think ST's definition is far more relevent, but that's an expansion of railroading as I've heard it used.

I mean, it's great for discussion--better even, just not how I've heard the word used before

 

[takasi]

And all of that suddenly stops once the world starts. That makes absolutely no sense. Once the PCs enter the game everyone else stops acting and going about their business until the players walk close enough to them? It just doesn't make any sense. The real world is not as static is you claim. It never was.

Even I have trouble picturing a completely static world where nothing happens. All worlds have some level of dynamic activity. There is a level of pacing though, and this can be measured from world to world.

One thing to examine is out of the ordinary, non 'status quo' events. For example, the crime rate in our world stays relatively the same in any given area from year to year. But sometimes there are crimes that are out of the ordinary, that are so bizarre they capture attention. Examples include a person in a position of power being assassinated or a maniac going on a killing spree or a terrorist bomb being detonated.

In your fantasy world, how often do events like these happen in a given community, like a small town? Once every decade? Every year? Every month? Every day? Every hour?

In a more status quo sandbox game, these out of the ordinary events happen much less frequently. Sure there are routine dangers, but nothing so unusual that they would change society.

Another analogy is weather. Status quo does not mean it has to be always sunny (or cloudy) in the world. There are storms and seasons, day and night. Sometimes there are really big storms that wipe out communities, but how often does that happen? Maybe once a generation? Or have you placed your campaign in the magical medieval version of a hurricane prone gulf town, where these things happen every year?

It's your example. Even if they're not in a hurry, which given the nature of doomsday cults would be unlikely, why should they go into a holding pattern because the PCs decided to sit in the tavern for a month or go do something else entirely for a year. Once you introduce villains with motivations other than "sit here and wait for the PCs to show up and kill me" you need top keep those villains pursuing the goals, even if the players ignore it.

The DM determines the goals and sets the timeline.

More Dynamic: There are doomsday cults hiding in every tavern cellar who try to enact a different wacky scheme to shake up the world every day.

More Status Quo: There are fewer cults, they gather farther away from society and for they are 'sleepers', willing to wait for years after the campaign starts before striking.

 

[Remathilis]

"Goldilocks" Version: There are few cults, but one is gathering near the town the PCs are staying by fate, luck, or happenstance. At the next full moon, they are summoning a demon to begin amassing power needed to destroy the world. The PCs have until the next full moon (determined by the DM, a week? two?) to stop the cult from summoning the demon, if they fail; the demon comes and the cult is now more powerful and better capable to spreading their evil plans. Succeed and you nip it in the bud.

Best of both worlds, eh?

 

[Krensky]

Even I have trouble picturing a completely static world where nothing happens. All worlds have some level of dynamic activity. There is a level of pacing though, and this can be measured from world to world.

Yet you are advocating a world were nothing happens unless the player characters initiate it.

One thing to examine is out of the ordinary, non 'status quo' events. For example, the crime rate in our world stays relatively the same in any given area from year to year. But sometimes there are crimes that are out of the ordinary, that are so bizarre they capture attention. Examples include a person in a position of power being assassinated or a maniac going on a killing spree or a terrorist bomb being detonated.

These happen every day in the real world and careful studies have shown that's been the case for a long, long time.

In your fantasy world, how often do events like these happen in a given community, like a small town? Once every decade? Every year? Every month? Every day? Every hour?

In the last fantasy game I ran there might be one noteworthy bizarre event a month to a year. Cow with two heads, man bites dog, crop circle, whatever. Most of these have no real effect on the world as a whole. They don't in real life. On the small area the PCs are dealing with they can.

In a more status quo sandbox game, these out of the ordinary events happen much less frequently. Sure there are routine dangers, but nothing so unusual that they would change society.

Danger or the perception of danger changes society by it's very nature.

Another analogy is weather. Status quo does not mean it has to be always sunny (or cloudy) in the world. There are storms and seasons, day and night. Sometimes there are really big storms that wipe out communities, but how often does that happen? Maybe once a generation? Or have you placed your campaign in the magical medieval version of a hurricane prone gulf town, where these things happen every year?

Part of the world I last ran and hope to run again are like that. Others are not. Most of the action last time I ran it took place in a place prone to bad storms because that's where the prizes were to be had.

The DM determines the goals and sets the timeline.

Depends on the table.

More Dynamic: There are doomsday cults hiding in every tavern cellar who try to enact a different wacky scheme to shake up the world every day.

Wow. That's a completely ridiculous extreme. I've only ever seen that in a supers game where it's to be expected.

More Status Quo: There are fewer cults, they gather farther away from society and for they are 'sleepers', willing to wait for years after the campaign starts before striking.

I think you're conflating different things here. Status Quo would involve the cult not doing anything until the PCs stumble on it. Dynamic would involve the GM having some idea of the cult's motivations, methods, progress, and timetable. A cult of the tentacley-faced squid god has a scheme to wake him up they have been working on for over a century. If they can do X, Y, and Z by the next solar elcipse, something bad will happen.

Now, if the players ignore the hooks or just don't see them and go and follow something else, a decent GM will either have them fail quietly off camera or have them succeed (or fail) in some way that has the potential to cause problems (read: adventures). A bad GM will have them under every rock until the players address it. A stunningly bad GM would run to the date of the eclipse, describe the end of the world, and then end the game, blaming the players for not saving the world because they didn't think the rumors of the cult were compelling or didn't even hear them because they didn't stop at the right tavern.

You seem to be saying all dynamic worlds involve world shattering events, all the time. That's not how things go.

 

[takasi]

"Goldilocks" Version: There are few cults, but one is gathering near the town the PCs are staying by fate, luck, or happenstance. At the next full moon, they are summoning a demon to begin amassing power needed to destroy the world. The PCs have until the next full moon (determined by the DM, a week? two?) to stop the cult from summoning the demon, if they fail; the demon comes and the cult is now more powerful and better capable to spreading their evil plans. Succeed and you nip it in the bud.

Best of both worlds, eh?

Everyone has different tastes and there is no best. Papa bear likes the big chair little girl.

In your example there may be a group of players that have no desire to engage the cult, but they don't want their characters to have to deal with the demon. They'll play along, but that doesn't mean they're doing what they really want to do.

Another group might love the DM putting a lot of pressure and timelines on them.

Another group might be bored with this. Just one demon? Hmmm, well Monday we're dealing with the dead rising from the cemetary, an Tuesday we have that out of control golem rampaging through the streets, and we know on Friday there'll be a dragon arriving to collect its ransom...let's pencil this demon thing for next week.

 

[Hussar]

Y'know what? Reading through this makes me really, really happy that I no longer world build and don't have to worry about any of this crap.

Build adventures for your players, because you should know what will interest them, and ignore the rest of it. Drop a couple of juicy locations if that's what floats their boat, or do something with more plot, whatever. Just eject all the world building beforehand.

It works for me.

 

[takasi]

Yet you are advocating a world were nothing happens unless the player characters initiate it.

I personally prefer a world where there are few major changes to the status quo. There's still day and night, seasons, orc raiders, births and deaths, routine stuff. The world does move, but it's still pretty much the same. But it's a pretty crappy world, and players have the opportunity to make it better.

This is not a 'world where nothing happens'.

These happen every day in the real world and careful studies have shown that's been the case for a long, long time.

Care to share these studies?

At least in the scope of a D&D game, for a realistic medieval game I don't see major upheaval happening on a daily basis for any given community. Maybe a few times in a generation at most. This is fantasy though, and it can happen as frequently as the table can stomach.

I think you're conflating different things here. Status Quo would involve the cult not doing anything until the PCs stumble on it.

I personally don't prefer revolving events around the PCs. I like an independent world where events do occur outside of the scope of the PCs. It makes the game world realistic.

Status quo does not mean the world stops completely and waits for the PCs to do something. It just means that in general things don't change very frequently. In this example the cult takes its time. Players might stumble upon the plot and deal with it, but they would get a sense that the cult has been around for a while and it'll still be there tomorrow if they want to deal with it. These more procrastinator friendly worlds give players more freedom.

 

[Remathilis]

In your example there may be a group of players that have no desire to engage the cult, but they don't want their characters to have to deal with the demon. They'll play along, but that doesn't mean they're doing what they really want to do.

Then the players are amoral basterds who could care less that a demon is being summoned. The PCs might go fight the cult with gusto (good), they might do it for the status quo/not wanting things to suck (neutral/unaligned) or they might not care, or secret want to help (evil).

Now there's a demon on the world, and he might have bigger plans. What that entails is up the DM. But, as Rush once said "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Another group might love the DM putting a lot of pressure and timelines on them.

Another group might be bored with this. Just one demon? Hmmm, well Monday we're dealing with the dead rising from the cemetary, an Tuesday we have that out of control golem rampaging through the streets, and we know on Friday there'll be a dragon arriving to collect its ransom...let's pencil this demon thing for next week.

Well, there is such as thing as too many plot hooks. A wise DM spaces his catastrophes with space between. The world IS static; it doesn't move in any way the DM doesn't want it to. Left on their own, Kings don't die, demons don't get summoned, or worlds don't get shattered. DMs do that, and the DM (as a PLAYER) has as much right to influence the world as the PCs do (as players).

Too much dynamicism leads to uncontrolable worlds where your actions don't matter. Too little leads to a cardboard cut-out world where the PCs are the only actors and the rest is all stage-prop. A mix, allowing the PCs to be proactive (lets go to Oakenshield Keep to plunder its riches) and reactive (Crap, that magic ring was a lich's phylactery and now he's loose in Greyhawk!) make the world appear dynmaic, but the action still focused on the players actions (and consequences).