Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rel" data-source="post: 5556078" data-attributes="member: 99">I think there are two different topics here that function entirely independent of one another.&nbsp; One is playstyle.&nbsp; The other is what I call &quot;buy-in&quot;.Just so I'm clear about what I'm referring to with playstyle, I don't consider &quot;sandbox&quot; or &quot;adventure path&quot; to be playstyles.&nbsp; I think of those more as... &quot;campaign structures&quot; might be a good term.&nbsp; When I say playstyle I mean that somebody is a &quot;butt kicker&quot; who really enjoys the parts of the game where they get to engage in combat.&nbsp; Or &quot;story teller&quot; who latches on to the plot elements of a campaign (whether they be plot elements posed by the GM or generated by the PC's).The buy-in is where you have an explicit not-in-character conversation between the GM and the players where the GM poses to run a certain campaign structure and the players all say, &quot;Yes.&nbsp; We agree to this.&quot;&nbsp; It is very much a social contract and there are (and should be) consequences for breaking it.&nbsp; It is this kind of buy-in conversation where the GM says, &quot;I'm going to run the Savage Tides Adventure Path.&nbsp; Is everybody cool with that?&quot;&nbsp; By agreeing to play the adventure path the players are essentially saying that, whatever other choices their characters may make, they will promise to bite on the plot hooks that pull them further into the published adventure.I've seen the notion expressed (not suggesting it was by anybody in this thread - I frankly don't recall who posted it) that a sandbox game needs no such buy-in because the GM is placing no expectations upon the players in terms of what their characters do.&nbsp; However I would suggest that buy-in is still necessary because the GM expects the characters to do something.&nbsp; Some players might otherwise sit around waiting for the game to come to them.&nbsp; There may be exceptions such as where a GM always runs games as sandboxes and the players always play well in those sandboxes.&nbsp; But some sort of buy-in happened at some point in the past and essentially that social contract is still unchanged and intact.Personally I run games that fall in the middle somewhere.&nbsp; I almost never run published adventures of any kind, but I steal ideas from them liberally.&nbsp; Most of my games tend to have a theme of some kind and I make damn sure that before we start rolling any dice that I have full player buy-in concerning that theme.&nbsp; Like when I wanted to run a game that had a Pirates of the Caribbean theme, the buy-in conversation included the specific sentiment that, &quot;Hey you guys don't have to be aboard a ship every single session.&nbsp; Going ashore and having adventures there can certainly happen.&nbsp; But it's generally agreed that this is a nautical themed campaign and returning to the sea is going to be where the action is.&nbsp; So no long journeys into the heart of South America to capture lost Incan Gold, ok?&quot;&nbsp; And everybody said &quot;Sounds fine.&quot; and we got the game started.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rel, post: 5556078, member: 99"] I think there are two different topics here that function entirely independent of one another. One is playstyle. The other is what I call "buy-in". Just so I'm clear about what I'm referring to with playstyle, I don't consider "sandbox" or "adventure path" to be playstyles. I think of those more as... "campaign structures" might be a good term. When I say playstyle I mean that somebody is a "butt kicker" who really enjoys the parts of the game where they get to engage in combat. Or "story teller" who latches on to the plot elements of a campaign (whether they be plot elements posed by the GM or generated by the PC's). The buy-in is where you have an explicit not-in-character conversation between the GM and the players where the GM poses to run a certain campaign structure and the players all say, "Yes. We agree to this." It is very much a social contract and there are (and should be) consequences for breaking it. It is this kind of buy-in conversation where the GM says, "I'm going to run the Savage Tides Adventure Path. Is everybody cool with that?" By agreeing to play the adventure path the players are essentially saying that, whatever other choices their characters may make, they will promise to bite on the plot hooks that pull them further into the published adventure. I've seen the notion expressed (not suggesting it was by anybody in this thread - I frankly don't recall who posted it) that a sandbox game needs no such buy-in because the GM is placing no expectations upon the players in terms of what their characters do. However I would suggest that buy-in is still necessary because the GM expects the characters to do [I]something[/I]. Some players might otherwise sit around waiting for the game to come to them. There may be exceptions such as where a GM always runs games as sandboxes and the players always play well in those sandboxes. But some sort of buy-in happened at some point in the past and essentially that social contract is still unchanged and intact. Personally I run games that fall in the middle somewhere. I almost never run published adventures of any kind, but I steal ideas from them liberally. Most of my games tend to have a theme of some kind and I make damn sure that before we start rolling any dice that I have full player buy-in concerning that theme. Like when I wanted to run a game that had a Pirates of the Caribbean theme, the buy-in conversation included the specific sentiment that, "Hey you guys don't have to be aboard a ship every single session. Going ashore and having adventures there can certainly happen. But it's generally agreed that this is a nautical themed campaign and returning to the sea is going to be where the action is. So no long journeys into the heart of South America to capture lost Incan Gold, ok?" And everybody said "Sounds fine." and we got the game started. [/QUOTE]

Verification