Gaming in an open enviroment

[Hussar]

I would just like to add here as an aside, that I am totally jonesing for a "site-based" adventure right about now. I am so SICK of plot and long-term machinations. I wanna kill some monsters and take their stuff!

Somebody, anybody, point me to the nearest orc cave, STAT!

-The Gneech, who hasn't used his Cleave feat in months

I would humbly point you to the link in my siggie if you are interested in gaming online. Although, currently due to some internet issues, my linkie no workie at the moment, but, if you would care to email me at wlddmhussar at hotmail dot com, I'll certainly see what I can do.

As far as the idea of method acting style role playing, actually, I'm fairly surprised as to how much is actually going on. My guys have learned very quickly that many of the critters will talk and don't mind cutting deals. While it's not Shakespeare by any stretch of the imagination, it's actually starting to become a fairly moderately decent rp game as well as kill stuff and take their loot.

Anyone who thinks that this situation can't lead to high rp has never watched Lost.

On a side note, one of the other DM's in the project is running the WLD as an XCrawl type adventure. Loads of fun and something that I would consider pretty decent on the rp scale.

 

[The_Gneech]

I would humbly point you to the link in my siggie if you are interested in gaming online. Although, currently due to some internet issues, my linkie no workie at the moment, but, if you would care to email me at wlddmhussar at hotmail dot com, I'll certainly see what I can do.

Many thanks for the invite! I'm really looking more for face-to-face than online, tho. Thanks anyway!

-The Gneech

 

[Bastoche]

I'm happy to have contributed to your sense of self-worth, sir. If you need any further pointless intellectual gratification, just ask.

No need to aim low thank you. Am I allowed to insult you now? I had the feeling you were arguing my proposed "style" could not exists and that's what I was disagreeing over.

Um, what? If what you're... [snip] ...NPCs (just in a very basic, black and white sort of way).

You entirely missed my point. Reread my whole paragraph or move on. That being said, no it's NOT the whole point. There is some players out there for whom influencing NPCs is irrelevant to their RPGing experience. Dungeon crawl does not focus on "influencing NPCs". It's and active/passive thing. You get in the room where there's monster, you kill them take the treasure. That's the active side. You DON'T get in the room, the monsters remains there and nothing ever happen to them. It's the passive point. An active/active example would involve giving a purpose to these monsters and it moves a zillion miles away from simple dungeon crawl. Such an example might be that the monsters are trying to move out of the room inside the room where the PCs are. If the PCs do not want to fight them for any reason, they would face the challenge of blocking the door (for example) or escaping.

(about significant choices/actions/etc) I think all gamers want that to a greater or lesser degree. Again, you seem to want to make qualitative distinctions where the difference is purely one of degree.

What distinguish a style from another is where the focus is. For some the focus is on the stats on the sheet and that's a perfectly fine way to play if everyone around the table plays that way. For others, it's the acheivement. For others it's taking up challenge ("Charge!") for others it's to play a game that represent an alternate reality with an as high accuracy, etc. There's some aspect that can be mixed and others that cannot. And depending on the mix of players (including the DM) you have, it may or may not work.

You seem to conflate DM plots with NPC plots (not to mention campaign plots) so I'm not always sure what you're getting at here. I would find it surprising if you felt that NPCs plotting and scheming were a bad thing -- all your examples have been of DMs plotting how the campaign should go, rather than NPCs.

Unless the "DM's plot" is to sorta cheat the players (that is create a plot using his DM's knowledge (of the PC, environement, etc) to give an edge over the PC), I beleive there is no differences between a plotting DM and his plotting NPCs. It's actually the same "mind" plotting here.

That to me is VERY different from most of the examples you've been giving, where the DM expects the party to behave in a certain way. To me, this is just making sure that the setting is a living, breathing thing that the PCs can explore and interact with as they see fit.

Perfect example. In you example, the life is *already there*. If the PCs did not exists, the imagined world would still go 'round. What I'm suggesting here is that another way to prepare, is to prepare for the PC only. Not because of some "external" (to the PCs) "internal" (to the game world) consistency. In what I'm suggesting, the encounters do not exists because they do but rather because they WILL be thrown at the face of the PC to create opportunities for them to make choices (rather than find a obstacle). The challenge (if any, at that point "challenge" becomes optionnal) will occur after the choice. An example might be the following:

Suppose that in your example, the PC's familly wronged the other and that's the very reason why the other is on their toe. They're not trying to "gain control", they're trying to "regain control". The choice would occur when the PC finds out (and he will that's the whole point). He could choose the family cause or the righteous cause. It's and active/active choice. It's not a "avoid conscequences/face conscequences". See what I mean? The DM creates the plot because it will come to the PC's ears. Not because it might. It's open ended because the player has all the latitude to decide for himself which is the right cause and which is the wrong. Instead of "you turned the challenge down (or up) now face the conscequences"

 

[Mishihari Lord]

First, I'm saying that players who's idea of "fun" is "get the story going", like myself, will consider that "false starts" and "setbacks" (by design. more on that later) is a tremendous waste of (real world) time i.e. boring. If the setbacks and false starts are due to poor tactics and poor rolls (bad luck) then it's OK. That's what the "taking the challenge" is all about and that's the concept on which all the treasure acquiring, XP gaining and leveling up is all about. (If you don't buy all that challenge rating stuff, then it's another game we're talking about). Playing "god-mode" is EXACTLY the perfect opposite of what I'm saying. God mode means you never fail a roll and never use poor tactics. In god mode, the only "setbacks" you can meet, is when "the DM says so" i.e. by design (more later ). In practice these setbacks are "PC failing to find the (or "a") plot hook". If you mix and match "false starts" with "failed rolls", the failure rate sky rockets and the campaign goes downhill. The player then get a DM vs players feeling. They feel like the DM is cheating. He is actually cheating if the players do not agree to such "storytelling" and it's not if the agree. IMO, these "false starts" and "setbacks" should not be played. They should be quickly narrated by the DM.

If a setback takes an entire session to play, I find this VERY boring. And most players I game with do too. In a session, D&D players likes to get things going (and usually, the DM too).

Okay, I got your point, but I think you're missing something.

In a truly open game, the players pick their goals, adventures, missions, etc. The DM should give them enough information to make good choices, but even so they're not always going to choose correctly. They'll miss clues, misinterpret information, use poor logic, and end up going off on a task that's totally irrelevant to what they want to accomplish. I would say that this is the player's fault and not the DM's.

If you insist that every task the players choose to involve themselves in is significant to their story, then you have a couple of problems

1) An important part of open ended gaming is allowing the players to make a choice about their course of action. If all of the choices are "right" i.e. forward their goals, then all of your choices are the same and there's no reason to choose one over the other. It's not really much of a choice. The challenge is removed from making the choice, which take away part of the fun.

2) It removes player motivation to make such choices. "It doesn't matter if we rescue the princess, rob a bank, or travel oversees, the DM knows our goal is to get rich and found a kingdom, so we'll move towards that goal no matter what we do."

3) It hurts versimmilitude. Your characters lead a charmed life in that everything they do turns into an adventure. Pretty unbelievable.

 

[Gansk]

1) An important part of open ended gaming is allowing the players to make a choice about their course of action. If all of the choices are "right" i.e. forward their goals, then all of your choices are the same and there's no reason to choose one over the other. It's not really much of a choice. The challenge is removed from making the choice, which take away part of the fun.

2) It removes player motivation to make such choices. "It doesn't matter if we rescue the princess, rob a bank, or travel oversees, the DM knows our goal is to get rich and found a kingdom, so we'll move towards that goal no matter what we do."

3) It hurts versimmilitude. Your characters lead a charmed life in that everything they do turns into an adventure. Pretty unbelievable.

Far be it from me to put words in Bastoche's mouth, but I think he would argue that you can still succeed or fail in robbing the bank, rescuing the princess, etc. So the fun for the player is generated by taking on the challenge, but not in guessing which challenge could contribute to the player's goals. He doesn't want to pursue anything that is a red herring. If certain choices were easier or harder than others, I would assume that is OK and still fun.

I'm just playing devil's advocate, I don't necessarily agree with his point of view. I especially agree with your point #3. One time I had the party deliver a document to a monastery. The monk took the document and to the party's surprise, did not offer a new assignment to them. They were free to stay if they liked, but nothing happened while they were there. The player response - "cool".

 

[Bastoche]

Okay, I got your point, but I think you're missing something.

In a truly open game, the players pick their goals, adventures, missions, etc. The DM should give them enough information to make good choices, but even so they're not always going to choose correctly. They'll miss clues, misinterpret information, use poor logic, and end up going off on a task that's totally irrelevant to what they want to accomplish. I would say that this is the player's fault and not the DM's.

This is exactly NOT open gaming. The DM should not encourage PCs to "take the right path" in open gaming via in-game "clues". He should make everything the players choose to be (or become) the right path. If it seems logical to the PC (4 people on average) and not to the DM (1 person), I can't imagine it being SO off track as to be a dead end. What I understand here is that you are suggesting that "good" players should "find" the plot hook naturally. It just don't happen if you let them be totally "free". You either have to railroad them on the right path to a degree or be railroaded, as the DM, by their ideas.

That's exactly the problem in our game. We miss clues and misinterpert information. It's not the player's fault. Neither is it entirely the DM's in fact it's both. The real problem is that the DM can't put himself in his players shoes. Clues that seems obvious to him may not seem obvious to the players. The DM has further insight on "the great scheme of things" and that's what makes him unable to judge what is "poor logic" and what is not. And that's because D&D feature no clear mechanics for such tasks resolution. That's the reason why true "open gaming" needs a completely different approach than "conventionnal" play. For an example, read my previous post in response to barsoomcore concerning the family feud.

If you insist that every task the players choose to involve themselves in is significant to their story, then you have a couple of problems

1) An important part of open ended gaming is allowing the players to make a choice about their course of action. If all of the choices are "right" i.e. forward their goals, then all of your choices are the same and there's no reason to choose one over the other. It's not really much of a choice. The challenge is removed from making the choice, which take away part of the fun.

2) It removes player motivation to make such choices. "It doesn't matter if we rescue the princess, rob a bank, or travel oversees, the DM knows our goal is to get rich and found a kingdom, so we'll move towards that goal no matter what we do."

3) It hurts versimmilitude. Your characters lead a charmed life in that everything they do turns into an adventure. Pretty unbelievable.

1) your opinion is biased by the fact that the DM has "a thing in mind" for the players. Making the players choices "void" by putting "your story" in their face no matter what they choose. You assume there has to be a very specific goal from the start (becoming king or acquiring treasure or finding long lost brother, etc). The other thing is that the "choice" I'm talking about is not "course of action" but rather choice of direction. I refer again to my family feud example.

2) Yes and no. If the players really do say what you suggest they will, then it implies such players do not want open gaming. But if they do want open gaming, such train of thought will never ever crosses their mind! The motivation is not the goal, it's making the choice itself. The fun doesn't emerge from accomplishment itself but by making the choices that leads to accomplishment.

3) Is it any more believable than the fact that all bad guys they encounter in "convential" play "just" happen to be the same CR as the players? Everything they choose in such instance is not automatic success. There's still rolls to be made and strategy to make. It's just the all the non-roll mechanics are not an excuse to have combat of the right challenge rating to reach the goal but rather an end in itself. And it's certainly NOT a charmed life because there never is an "obvious" path. Every paths are equally dark and equally leads to crashing conscequences. My family or the right path? When you have to choose between two equally important goals, etc. Instead of "find the solution the DM has hidden in his game world".

 

[Bastoche]

Far be it from me to put words in Bastoche's mouth, but I think he would argue that you can still succeed or fail in robbing the bank, rescuing the princess, etc. So the fun for the player is generated by taking on the challenge, but not in guessing which challenge could contribute to the player's goals. He doesn't want to pursue anything that is a red herring. If certain choices were easier or harder than others, I would assume that is OK and still fun.

Yes. But it's not the "open-gaming" I'm suggesting. Basically, what you're putting in my month here ( ) is at one end of the close-open spectrum. The challenges are clear and success is determined via the various mechanics involved to rob the bank, save the princess and so on. If you "turn down" the challenge, the bank is never robbed, the princesse is never saved (and if such actions are eventually performed by NPCs, it becomes accessory/irrelevant to the (PC's) story). In the open ended end, you have to choose between A and B and A excludes B (you can't pick both) but you would like VERY much to pick both. It's always a critical choice. That's what motivates the players and takes you away from the point #3. That's what I meant by "making the encounters significant".

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

IMHO open gaming is more about setting a world up to be explored.. a world that will grind on regardless of what the party may do.. and a world that may not be CR equivilent at all times.
The keys to running such a game are actually simple:

Detailed world that has various NPC driven plots.
Players who are engaged in the game, not simply showing up to see what this episode has to offer.

I have run one such game, in CP2020, where the initial modules trailed off into a free-form campaign based mainly on what the players chose to do. Around them various empires rose and fell. I had two players who drove much of the action.

I have also played in such a game, SW WEG.

Admittably the main driving motivation in both games boiled down to 'survive with style', with occasional "poke the evil empire in the eye and steal some cash" type activities.

Unfortunately half of the requirement for this style of play is out of the GM's hands. It depends so much on the players you have available.

 

[LostSoul]

There are two types of gaming being discussed here, and things take on a different light when you look at it from those different viewpoints.

Let's say that you want to overcome challenges (fighting monsters, taking their stuff edit: or trying to become king of the land, finding out who killed Tommy, etc.). The following critique is right-on; players need to be able to fail in order to succeed. Otherwise, thier choices have no meaning.

1) An important part of open ended gaming is allowing the players to make a choice about their course of action. If all of the choices are "right" i.e. forward their goals, then all of your choices are the same and there's no reason to choose one over the other. It's not really much of a choice. The challenge is removed from making the choice, which take away part of the fun.

2) It removes player motivation to make such choices. "It doesn't matter if we rescue the princess, rob a bank, or travel oversees, the DM knows our goal is to get rich and found a kingdom, so we'll move towards that goal no matter what we do."

3) It hurts versimmilitude. Your characters lead a charmed life in that everything they do turns into an adventure. Pretty unbelievable.

But if you look at it in a different way - let's say that the player's goal is to address the issue: What's more important, friends or duty? Things are different then.

1) No choices are "right" or "wrong". What's important is that players have the ability to make the choice between duty or friendship. The DM's job is to force the players to make that choice, and make the choice difficult (so that it really is a choice - if you can fulfill your duty and be true to your friends, there's no dillema, no real choice).

2) Players move towards their goal by making that choice. Because making that choice is their goal. All game-play should be about making that choice.

3) Verisimilitude comes in because of the consequences of making those choices. The player who choses duty over friendship has to suffer the loss of friends. That's what gives his choice meaning.

In this case, when the players aren't able to make choices that are important to the story - which is the reason they are at the table in the first place - you're just giving them boring play. Like forcing kick-in-the-door types to roleplay a shopping trip.

edit: It's important to say that players can still "fail" at the task. For example, one player can say, "My PC is going to choose to follow his duty here, and that means saving the princess." He can still fail to save the princess.

Success or failure of the task isn't important; his choice to save the princess is. Success means it's a heroic story with a happy ending, and failure means it's a tragic story with the hero going up against unwinnable odds because he believes so much in duty. Even more interesting is when your game system has mechanics that allow the PCs to live in almost any circumstance except when they decide that "this is so important I'm willing to risk my life over it."

 

[Stormborn]

OK folks, enough is enough. At no point did I ever ask for a definition of open gaming. I set forth a plan to run a campaign a certain way and asked for comments and suggestions about that plan. Pelor forbid that I should use the term "open" to describe a campaign ever again. If, however, people still want to discuss terms then I am going to ask you to go start a new thread.

Mods, I think this one has stopped attempting to answer my original post. Please shut it down.