Gaming in an open enviroment

[Stormborn]

The nature of any game, RPG or CRPG or other, neccesitate that it be in at least someway bound by the limitations of the resources available to the one constructing the enviroment, DM or programmer. However, I feel like most of the games I have played in or run were a little to "closed" for the PCs. That there hasn't a feeling that the PCs could do anything they wanted and still continue to play the game. I am sure that this is because all the DMs in my group, myself included, are really big on Plot and Story, to various degrees. When we have tried to give the PCs more freedom the players, again myself included as both player and DM, often feel frustrated, not knowing what to do next. I think that the players have liked the games that where they were basically the main characters in the story that took them through certain key story points, even if they meandered a bit between them, but I also think that they would like the experiance of being able to create the "story" themselves.

To this end I have a "No Plan" Plan:

1) Get a highly detailed enviroment, I am thinking Ptolus when it comes out but Sharn or another city book might work too.
2) Go through my Dungeon magazines and index them based on level, enviroment, elements etc.
3) Get a big list of NPCs ready and in a format I can make notes on.
4) Have an initial "adventure" or three ready for 1st level characters the first day of play.
5) Subsequent games have the Dungeon adventures with encounters and plots appropriate for their level on hand. Scatter hooks throughout and and see if they take any of them.
6) As the game develops see what they have done and how they have reacted, bring in elements later to possibly hook together a "metaplot" if such a thing works out. (For example, if they PCs seemed to run afoul of a Cult periodically, later this might draw the attention of that Cults leadership who would then proactively start dealing with the PCs.)

Now, I can deal with all of that pretty well I think. The problem I see is how to have the hooks of 5) integrated in such away that they seem natural and organic. I know that lots of books have rumor generators and such, and maybe thats how I will do it. But I know thats the sticking place for me and my group.

So, suggestions? Does anyone run a pretty much Open Campaign? What are your experiances with running/playing such a game?

I am obviously thinking way ahead on this, but I usually do, so any advice or comments would be appretiated.

 

[jdrakeh]

So, suggestions?

Think of the world as existing independent of the PCs. Just because they don't pick up a plot hook, don't discard it - let their failure to pick up a plot hook effect the world, as well (i.e., run out the consequences of the PCs not following a plot hook in your head and apply those consequences to the setting). This well help with making said plot hooks feel natural.

Does anyone run a pretty much Open Campaign?

That's pretty much the only type of campaign I run.

What are your experiances with running/playing such a game?

Pretty good, once I realized that the world revolves despite the PCs, rather than because of them.

 

[el-remmen]

What you describe is exactly what I when I first sat down to create Aquerra

While I keep an overall plot in mind, the PCs can go anywhere and do anything and I have just enough notes about anywhere to run with it until I have time to sit down and really detail - usually based on notes made during the game so I can remain consistant - and consistancy is the most important thing when it comes to running the game this way.

One of the things I did was come up with a "core phrase" for each area of the world so that no matter what else was happening, while the PCs are there I filter it through what that phrase means to me and this keep a semblance of consistancy and verisimilitude.

Example:

The Kingdom of Herman Land: "Everything is for sale."

So when the PCs travel there I always keep that in mind - now, does that mean every physical object is for sale? No. It just is a reminder that people there are generally bribable, or have their price - they are business-minded and maybe a little ambitious when it comes to money.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

So, suggestions? Does anyone run a pretty much Open Campaign? What are your experiances with running/playing such a game?

This is the only way I really know how to run a campaign anymore. For years now, unless I'm using a published module I have at best a page of notes or some pre-generated stat blocks for specific encounters I want to run. Oh, and sometimes a general idea of what direction I want to specifically take the game during a given session. The rest is off-the-cuff, by-the-seat-of-my-pants, on-the-fly improvisation.

In some ways I just keep throwing things against the wall until something sticks. The thngs that the players pick up on is as often as not the trivial details rather than the neon-lit signs that say "THIS BE THE PLOT HOOK MATEY!" It is when I am most descriptive that the players seem most apt to pick up on ideas that I didn't even intend to be there and run with them. If I simply plop the world down and ask them, "Where do you want to go today?", they know they have all the options in the world but their characters have none of the motivation to do anything except what they've written into their backgrounds (if they WROTE a background which they don't).

As an example: When I'm describing a room in a dungeon with a book on a shelf rather than say it's a book about history in a kingdom across the sea, I'll give them a title and author off the top of my head, I'll mention the author again later when they find a letter in a desk, I'll decide I may be giving them a bit too much money and tell them that the coins are from another country and they'll get lower value for them when they exchange them at the money-changers - and the coins are from the country mentioned in the book. The players may or may not pick up on these connections that I'm just throwing out all the time at random, but when they do the adventures write themselves as we go along. The world feels alive to them because it IS alive. Not even I know what shape it's really going to take when I start the game.

When I start a new campaign I may have a general story arc about the release of captured evil gods upon the world that will cover the entire campaign but it will be the players reactions to my random descriptions that will create secondary themes like statues making repeated appearances, or having a lot of the information they discover coming from books rather than people, or repeated travel to foreign lands, or other planes of existence being prominently featured, etc.

One of the techniques I use is that whenever the players are talking about the piles of information I've been giving them I SHUT UP and let them talk. They WILL ALWAYS find connections and ideas that interest them that were never intended to really be there. The really difficult part - and the part that most challenges MY creativity - is finding a way to tie together a lot of loose ends into a cohesive whole. Failure to do so tends to make the game a lot like the X-Files - there's always more questions and seldom any real answers. You have to know when to tell them that what they THINK is important and related information actually ISN'T in order to wrap up some of the plot and story lines that you wind up weaving. In fact that's a good analogy - you're weaving a cloth out of random threads but you can't weave it in every direction at once. Some of the threads make up the EDGES of the cloth you're weaving.

I would recommend Terry Pratchett's Discworld books as good inspirational material for how your campaign might wind up looking as you use this technique. As his books initially unfold you get information about seemingly unrelated events, people, and things. As they progress you find that certain of these are more important than you might have thought at first. As they reach the story climax it is revealed (sometimes gradually, sometimes all at once) how these things actually relate to each other - sometimes intimately so. Then it's all wrapped up and you can proceed with the next book.

Edit: forgot to mention - one of the keys to making this really work is to take lots of notes. I actually slack off even more because I have a player or two that will wind up taking all the notes I need. As long as I can occasionally read THEIR notes I can devote even more of my time during the game to making it up. If it weren't for that I'd probably end up taping our game sessions so that I could review later, take notes, and mine for ideas.

 

[barsoomcore]

Lots of NPCs. And make your NPCs real people, out there doing stuff, plotting and scheming and causing trouble.

I remember my first experience pitching a TV series and the producer listening to us politely and then, when we were done, leaning forward and saying, "You don't have a Relic."

Now, non-Canadians are thinking, "What is this? Tomb Raider?" but Canadians (those above a certain age) will remember the character Relic from the old series Beachcombers. Relic was a cranky, not super-bright, argumentative type who would cause trouble just for the sake of it. The producer (who'd worked on the show) had learned how important it was to have characters who always stir up trouble. They make it so much easier to generate stories.

This is true of campaigns. You need NPCs who, regardless of whether they're good guys or bad guys, are just always going to be running around causing trouble. They're nosey, they're power-hungry, they're vindictive, they're insane, they're self-righteous, whatever. But have LOTS of them. So whenever you need somebody to cause things to happen (or, if you work like me, somebody who might plausibly turn out to be responsible for the latest goofy thing I just decided to have happen cause I was bored), you've got a whole list of them and you can keep things moving.

I don't know of anything that is more important for running an open type of campaign.

 

[CarlZog]

When we have tried to give the PCs more freedom the players, again myself included as both player and DM, often feel frustrated, not knowing what to do next.

Developing character backrounds and personalities is one of the keys to resolving this in an open-ended game. What motivates a person to want to do things? What are his interests, personal goals for his life? Fleshing out characters helps players answer the question, "What does my character feel like doing now?" It's also a wonderful guide for you, as the DM, to understand what type of adventures would naturally entice the characters. You can also mine their backgrounds for adventure ideas.

One idea I've used and like is to have each player create three friends, three foes and three contacts for his character. They don't have to be detailed stat characters, just a name, and a description of who the NPC is to the character. These give them immediate relationships in the world, and can be the source of ideas for you.



Carl

 

[Bastoche]

I currently play in a campaign where the DM does exactly what you want to suggest.

My conclusion: it just plain does not work. Maybe some GM can pull it off but in such instance, it implies MANY wasted hours of preperation time.

Here's my take on it:

If you want to have an "open ended" game, you MUST not have a plot line. You MUST let the player do what they want to do and fill in from there. Impossible to pull off in a "canon" setting IMO, unless ALL the players are VERY well versed in the setting already.

Sometimes, the players wil talk among themselves (in or out game) about what they think is happening. Often, they come up with things you haven't though of. Make it happen.

What we have is a campaign where the whole "story" is "imposed" by the DM. The conclusion of the campaign is written, so to speak, but not in details. The DM then provides a "situation" and/or "environment" to players hoping/wishing the players will "follow" the hook "volontarly". It just don't work.

If the DM wants absolutly to write HIS story with the players improvising the "lines" it must be accepted up front by all the players in which case the more or less are consiously "railroaded". If you want them to all total freedom, writting a "story" up front is a sure way to meltdown and frustrations.

So what's the DM's job in an open ended format? Provide challenges that is of the proper CR "on the fly".

For example:

A NPC is dominated by a wizard. He tries to convince the PCs to do action X. They find this suspicious and for some reason assume it's a doppleganger trying to pull their legs.

In the case of a "story" written by the DM, the dominated NPC is still a dominated NPC and if the DM do not provides hints or a "suggested" solution (opposite to "letting the players do whatever") to find out what happen, you end up with very frustrated players.

On the open ended format, the NPC "becomes" a doppleganger (to the DM only, to the PC he would've been a doppleganger all along!!!) and then the DM pulls out a pre-generated doppleganger and the story ends. Next session, the DM prepares a story for the what why and how the doppleganger was there (most probably salvaging the wizard plot but now with a doppleganger or a doppleganger wizard...).

Some game systems better allow that open ended thing with a better technique for DMs to prepare for such campaigns. Like the game Donjon for example http://www.anvilwerks.com/?Donjon

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Having the right players is the prerequisite for an open campaign. I tried running one for a while and watched the players flounder around in "where's the plot-hook" mode. I tried dropping hints as to the goings on in the world. I tried the clue by four. But none of it worked. Unless there was an NPC with a suggestion about what to do, they would sit there and wait for one to come along, and when an NPC came along, even if his plan wasn't the best, they jumped on his bandwagon with gusto. Now, I did have one player who joined the group for a while who thrived in the open environment. His characters came with hooks and backgrounds and didn't need NPCs to tell them what to do. For the sessions when he was there, the open campaign worked a lot better. But, he was busy and had some issues in his personal life, and couldn't make every session so, when he wasn't there, the other players went back to floundering after plot-hooks.

Whatever else you do, you need to have the right players to run an open campaign.

 

[barsoomcore]

Bastoche, you seem to be drastically overstating the idea of open-ended. There's no reason to assume that every suggestion the players make will turn out to be the truth. Why couldn't they discover the NPC was in fact dominated? That's got nothing to do with trying to tell a specific story or being open-ended.

Likewise, E-B, I don't think you have to abandon the idea of plot hooks. You can still have the mysterious powerful NPC offering quests to the heroes.

Being open-ended means not assuming that the players will react in any particular way to any particular stimulus. So maybe they'll go on the offered quest, maybe they won't. If they don't, Powerful NPC goes off and finds somebody else to take on the task that needs doing. Maybe they decide the NPC is a doppleganger and kill him, only to find out he wasn't. Oops. Now the story is about our heroes on the run for a murder they accidentally committed.

Some nights you go looking for adventure; some nights, adventure comes looking for you.

 

[shilsen]

I don't know of anything that is more important for running an open type of campaign.

Stewardesses?

Bastoche, you seem to be drastically overstating the idea of open-ended. There's no reason to assume that every suggestion the players make will turn out to be the truth. Why couldn't they discover the NPC was in fact dominated? That's got nothing to do with trying to tell a specific story or being open-ended.

What he said. An open-ended campaign doesn't mean that every choice of the PCs will have equal validity.

Likewise, E-B, I don't think you have to abandon the idea of plot hooks. You can still have the mysterious powerful NPC offering quests to the heroes.

True. I'm running a couple of very open-ended games, and in both of them, I threw a dozen plot hooks at the PCs in the first two sessions. In neither case had I fleshed out the plot hooks or did I have any expectations of which they would follow. The ones that they did decide to take up were fleshed out, developed upon, and ended up having a significant influence on the direction of the campaign. The ones they didn't choose either fell by the wayside and/or developed behind the scenes and in some cases will affect the campaign's future. And as time has gone on, more plot hooks have appeared and some have been created by the PCs' actions/choices. An open-ended game isn't one that has no plot hooks. IME, it's one where PCs have multiple choices in taking up and following plot hooks, and the freedom to create their own.

Being open-ended means not assuming that the players will react in any particular way to any particular stimulus. So maybe they'll go on the offered quest, maybe they won't. If they don't, Powerful NPC goes off and finds somebody else to take on the task that needs doing. Maybe they decide the NPC is a doppleganger and kill him, only to find out he wasn't. Oops. Now the story is about our heroes on the run for a murder they accidentally committed.

Some nights you go looking for adventure; some nights, adventure comes looking for you.

Yup, yup, yup.