My style is pretty similar to this.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Game Type--How Do You Play?
- Thread starter Paladin82
- Start date
Hussar
Legend
I'd call that a story based game without player immunities. You have a pretty strong theme and the game is "about something". Well, "about something" is close enough to having a story. Sure, it might not be detailed, but, it's still there.
I still have no idea why people treat plot like a four letter word.
In our game, it's pretty story based. Not that the story is GM generated - it can be player generated as well. But, there is certainly no plot immunity. Characters can die and the story will simply change because of it.
ACreepierFolklaw
First Post
I suppose as a DM for me the plot is pretty important, I studied screenwriting in university and that influenced me as a GM a lot.
But at the same time you cannot shoehorn players into a plot they're not interested in. Just in the same way you can’t write a screenplay no one is interested in but yourself. I tend to give my players a free reign but with an escalating situation that they become implicated or connected to in some sense. I hope that what my players like about my games is the way that JJ Abrahams-style mysteries can draw them into something they genuinely want to solve/understand/break. But of course what makes it interesting for me is the unexpected behaviour of my players which I treat as fairly as I know how; if I have spent hours preparing something that they aren’t interested in, I’m not going to force them into it just cause I spent 3 days on the maps and handouts.
Just like in the movies, a good GM knows what to leave on the cutting room floor as the players ARE the audience. if they don't feel free and happy, what the hell is the point?
So it’s complicated… plot based, sometimes with plot immunity, sometimes not, sometimes sandbox sometimes not… I just try to make the best story the players want to play.
But as a player I like to play all sorts of different styles anything goes really, as long as I gets to play a Gnome who can talk anybody into anything I can have fun. (Although I hate to hear about numbers)
But at the same time you cannot shoehorn players into a plot they're not interested in. Just in the same way you can’t write a screenplay no one is interested in but yourself. I tend to give my players a free reign but with an escalating situation that they become implicated or connected to in some sense. I hope that what my players like about my games is the way that JJ Abrahams-style mysteries can draw them into something they genuinely want to solve/understand/break. But of course what makes it interesting for me is the unexpected behaviour of my players which I treat as fairly as I know how; if I have spent hours preparing something that they aren’t interested in, I’m not going to force them into it just cause I spent 3 days on the maps and handouts.
Just like in the movies, a good GM knows what to leave on the cutting room floor as the players ARE the audience. if they don't feel free and happy, what the hell is the point?
So it’s complicated… plot based, sometimes with plot immunity, sometimes not, sometimes sandbox sometimes not… I just try to make the best story the players want to play.
But as a player I like to play all sorts of different styles anything goes really, as long as I gets to play a Gnome who can talk anybody into anything I can have fun. (Although I hate to hear about numbers)
Gilladian
Adventurer
I chose "sandbox with an overarching goal" but my goal is set by the players and may change over the whole campaign.
For example, my current campaign is set up with the dungeon-a-day dragon's delve a few miles south of the starting town. And all around it there are mysterious ruins, bandits in the forest, and trade routes to the east and west.
My PCs plunged into the dungeon first, then spent some time around town, went out east to a trade outpost on the highroad, cleared one player's farm of debt, and now own another property. They've been dungeoneering a LOT lately, but that could change significantly at any moment if some other idea catches hold on them.
For example, my current campaign is set up with the dungeon-a-day dragon's delve a few miles south of the starting town. And all around it there are mysterious ruins, bandits in the forest, and trade routes to the east and west.
My PCs plunged into the dungeon first, then spent some time around town, went out east to a trade outpost on the highroad, cleared one player's farm of debt, and now own another property. They've been dungeoneering a LOT lately, but that could change significantly at any moment if some other idea catches hold on them.
"Sandbox style but with some overarching goal beyond power and alignment"
When playing I always try to accrue personal power for myself, carve a section of the campaign world out (at least figuratively) and "own" as much of it as I can, while still hopefully driving conflict and stories for the DM through my actions.
When running, I don't know what exactly is in 90% of the hexes on my map, I throw rumors like crazy at the group, which sometimes do and sometimes don't pan out into something interesting. I encourage the same sort of "stake your claim" playstyle I enjoy as a player. I never worry about awarding xp (and my players have finally stopped asking for it after encounters), I let major conflicts and scenario resolution determine experience growth. I have stopped caring if I drop a powerful item or grant a player an uber ability: I have prayed at the Altar of Balance for some 8 years, and now I have found it is less of a headache in just asking someone what they want, and finding a cool or interesting way to give it to them without blowing up the world.
The players themselves I let come up with "overarching goals" I simply have events happening in the world, which will roll on whether the PCs fight, run, or come back to later. I am no respecter of level or CR. If they decide to wander into a dragon's den, it will eat them if it can manage it.
My main focus is in giving enough detail for the world to matter to them, but not giving it so much that they feel there's no stone left unturned and nothing new under the sun.
PS: I love hex maps. Not really on topic, but I've been doing maps for my campaign lately and they are excellent for brainstorming conflicts/adventure sites.
When playing I always try to accrue personal power for myself, carve a section of the campaign world out (at least figuratively) and "own" as much of it as I can, while still hopefully driving conflict and stories for the DM through my actions.
When running, I don't know what exactly is in 90% of the hexes on my map, I throw rumors like crazy at the group, which sometimes do and sometimes don't pan out into something interesting. I encourage the same sort of "stake your claim" playstyle I enjoy as a player. I never worry about awarding xp (and my players have finally stopped asking for it after encounters), I let major conflicts and scenario resolution determine experience growth. I have stopped caring if I drop a powerful item or grant a player an uber ability: I have prayed at the Altar of Balance for some 8 years, and now I have found it is less of a headache in just asking someone what they want, and finding a cool or interesting way to give it to them without blowing up the world.
The players themselves I let come up with "overarching goals" I simply have events happening in the world, which will roll on whether the PCs fight, run, or come back to later. I am no respecter of level or CR. If they decide to wander into a dragon's den, it will eat them if it can manage it.
My main focus is in giving enough detail for the world to matter to them, but not giving it so much that they feel there's no stone left unturned and nothing new under the sun.
PS: I love hex maps. Not really on topic, but I've been doing maps for my campaign lately and they are excellent for brainstorming conflicts/adventure sites.
JediSoth
Voice Over Artist & Author
When I play, I usually cower with my hands over my eyes awaiting the imminent death of my PC.
When I GM, I run a mixture of a sandbox and structured campaign. There are certain plot points I have that work together to form a metaplot, but I'll let the players go off the rails. I figure if they don't take one of my hooks, then it wasn't interesting to begin with (or one of my creative asides for verisimilitude was a more tempting hook than the real one).
When I GM, I run a mixture of a sandbox and structured campaign. There are certain plot points I have that work together to form a metaplot, but I'll let the players go off the rails. I figure if they don't take one of my hooks, then it wasn't interesting to begin with (or one of my creative asides for verisimilitude was a more tempting hook than the real one).
Philotomy Jurament
First Post
Fortune and glory!
(I'm of the opinion that when you present a sandbox with interesting bits and tell the players the goal is fortune and glory, you get the best of both worlds: the freedom of the sandbox, but also a story (or stories) that will come about through play. Sandbox doesn't mean "no story," it just means "story that writes itself through play.")
(I'm of the opinion that when you present a sandbox with interesting bits and tell the players the goal is fortune and glory, you get the best of both worlds: the freedom of the sandbox, but also a story (or stories) that will come about through play. Sandbox doesn't mean "no story," it just means "story that writes itself through play.")
KidSnide
Adventurer
I chose story-driven with immunity, but it's not really accurate. The characters are part of an organization that directs them from place to place. They have the freedom to abandon the organization, but -- as a practical matter -- they choose to follow the guidelines from one adventure to the next.
Once they get there, they experience a directed sandbox. The high-level goals are provided by the organization, but the players tend to add a number of their own goals and have a large amount of flexibility about how to go about facilitating them. NPCs work independently on their own goals, but I decide how much the independent NPC activity interacts with the PC-directed activity depending on the pacing needs of any particular session.
There is limited story immunity, in the sense that I won't let major characters die without a conscious assumption of risk by the player. (Resurrection magic is rarely available.) However, that story immunity goes away whenever the PCs have a particularly important engagement. Since a third to half the fighting (and almost all of the most dangerous fighting) takes place in the context of particularly important engagements, the practical effects of story immunity are fairly limited.
-KS
Once they get there, they experience a directed sandbox. The high-level goals are provided by the organization, but the players tend to add a number of their own goals and have a large amount of flexibility about how to go about facilitating them. NPCs work independently on their own goals, but I decide how much the independent NPC activity interacts with the PC-directed activity depending on the pacing needs of any particular session.
There is limited story immunity, in the sense that I won't let major characters die without a conscious assumption of risk by the player. (Resurrection magic is rarely available.) However, that story immunity goes away whenever the PCs have a particularly important engagement. Since a third to half the fighting (and almost all of the most dangerous fighting) takes place in the context of particularly important engagements, the practical effects of story immunity are fairly limited.
-KS
howandwhy99
Adventurer
I chose option 1, but agree with The Jester too.
I don't see alignment as a goal, per se. It's more of an obstacle or an aid depending on how the players engage it. Power is by class and that's really where option 2 comes in.
The only overall arching goal for any of the players that is written into the game is to be the best in their class as they can. But attempting to level up is hardly mandatory. A person doesn't need to reach the end of the Mario Bros. level either, but further advancement is predicated on it.
I don't see alignment as a goal, per se. It's more of an obstacle or an aid depending on how the players engage it. Power is by class and that's really where option 2 comes in.
The only overall arching goal for any of the players that is written into the game is to be the best in their class as they can. But attempting to level up is hardly mandatory. A person doesn't need to reach the end of the Mario Bros. level either, but further advancement is predicated on it.
