Gaming in an open enviroment

[Gansk]

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.

Well, the people who actually had suggestions gave me some great ideas and I am excited to run a campaign similar to the one you describe.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

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.

No, I am not saying that "the DM has 'a thing in mind' for the players" I am specifically stating that in an open game (IMO) the DM has _no_ goals for the PCs. The players are pursuing their own self-determined goals. They choose the direction. The DM then creates a world in which they can meet their goals in a variety of ways. The players gather information and pick a course of action that they think will achieve their goal.

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.

This is god-mode. Whatever you choose is right. If you enjoy this, by all means continue, but I don't enjoy a game where the choices I make don't matter.

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.

I'm interested in hearing about any ideas you have on such task resolution and how to "take a different approach than conventional play." (As long as it isn't "whatever the players choose is right.")

 

[Mishihari Lord]

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."

While this is a totally legitimate play style, and one I'm actually interested in trying, I don't think D&D is the game to do it with. There are other games that have mechanics to support this style. The right tool for the right job and all that.

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). The following critique is right-on; players need to be able to fail in order to succeed. Otherwise, thier choices have no meaning.

A minor objection here, challenge-based gaming shouldn't be characterized as being about killing monsters and taking their stuff. This actually gets dull fairly quickly. There are plenty of ways to provide challenges that aren't shallow. (Such as picking the right adventure to go on to further your goal)

 

[LostSoul]

A minor objection here, challenge-based gaming shouldn't be characterized as being about killing monsters and taking their stuff.

Right, it's one possible way to look approach challenge-based gaming. I'll go back and edit the post.

I also agree with you that D&D isn't the best for the type of gaming I described (but you can still do it).

 

[barsoomcore]

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.

Just out of curiousity, Stormborn, but why do you care? I'm quite enjoying this conversation and would just as soon see it continue in this thread. Is there some issue you have with the conversation proceeding without you?

 

[barsoomcore]

I had the feeling you were arguing my proposed "style" could not exists and that's what I was disagreeing over.

See, I thought you were just trying to make me say your terminology was correct. Which I remain happy to do, if it helps.

You entirely missed my point. Reread my whole paragraph or move on.

Actually, I have to admit that your whole paragraph pretty much defeated my comprehension abilities. I have a great deal of trouble understanding your ideas, Bastoche, and I really wish you'd write more clearly.

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.

Monster = NPC
Kill = Influence

Yes, it does focus on "influencing NPCs". I guess if you hadn't snipped out the bit where I said, "Whether it's kill the orcs and acquire their stuff", you might have understood that.

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.

See, here's a case where I'm having trouble understanding you. I THINK, based on what you wrote below, that you are arguing FOR the "active/active" case, which is kind of funny, because I am, too.

But what if the PCs never go anywhere near the room? What if they use move earth for some other purpose, and, without even knowing it's there, collapse the secret room where the monsters are trying to move out of, before they even have a chance to move?

I see that as a situation where the DM has to make a call, and either shrug and say, "Okay, they killed those monsters, and they'll never even know," or say, "Hm, I'll just shift that secret room fifty feet to the left and have the monsters come out NOW." What decision I would make in that case would depend far more on the current state of the game and the players (is another fight appropriate now, will it be exciting or tedious, is there important information here that I don't have another easy way to communicate, do I in fact have fifty feet of room to the left...) than it would on any considerations of "campaign style". I don't know about you, but the games I run tend to vary widely in how they're operated from one session to another (or even within a single session). Sometimes I'm determined to get the PCs on a particular track, sometimes I don't care what they do.

What distinguish a style from another is where the focus is.

Right. I'm glad we agree on SOMETHING.

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.

Well, I don't necessarily disagree with that, but that's only ONE possible motive for a DM, right? I don't ever want to "give an edge" over my PCs, I want them to feel like they are playing in a world that exists beyond the boundaries of the game itself. A world where there are surprises for them, but that still appears to operate in a consistent manner. A world where they are not the only agents of change.

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).

Well, you're clearly better at predicting your PCs than I am at predicting mine.

Of course I HOPED that all my work would come out and present the PC with a choice. That's why I did the work. But as I am usually juggling the activities of thirty or forty NPCs, along with a bunch of PCs who regularly surprise me with their decisions (and the assorted two dozens things I've suddenly realised I've forgotten and have to come up with arbitrary decisions on the spot over), on occasion I put time into developing material that they never encounter. At one point I decided that the Emir's secret police were weeding out "intellectuals" in Al-Tizim, because I thought they were planning to go to Al-Tizim. Well, they decided to do something else, and so the persecutions of intellectuals never came up for them and they never got involved.

Should that then mean I should erase the work I did and pretend it never happened? My style (based as it is on my own laziness) is to preserve the work I've done even if the party should never come across it. Because I'm bad at predicting what my PCs will do, I never know when suddenly they ARE going to run across something I had planted from a year back. So I keep that stuff in the campaign. So that when they DO show up in Al-Tizim, I can refer it and say, "Okay, it's been a year since the purge, so perhaps there's an underground resistance now in the city. Maybe the PCs are sitting in a cafe and some crazy guy comes in with a bomb, determined to avenge the slaughtered historians. Yeah, that sounds like fun."

Or even if I don't, and they go to Al-Tizim and ask somebody, "So what's new around town?" I actually have something to say: "Well, the purges are over." It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with them, but it gives a sense of versimilitude to the setting. And if they decide to get involved, it DOES have something to do with them.

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?

You have described exactly how I run things. Except that I expand the available choices to the player. He could choose the family cause, the righteous cause, he could ignore the whole thing if he chooses to, he could decide to try and take advantage of the situation for his own selfish ends, he could try to blow up the courts and overthrow the government.

Sort of "active/active/active/active..." choice. Point being that because I can't reduce my player's possible choices down to one of two options, I can't perfectly predict what direction the story will go in, and therefore can't predict what information is actually going to be needed. Which necessarily means that at times I will develop material that doesn't get used. I've learned not to let that frustrate me -- instead to let it be a part in developing a living, breathing world that my players can explore.

I'm interested in how you handle the case where the PCs arrive in a new place and decide to find out what is going on there. Do they know that whatever you tell them will be their next adventure? In the style I usually run, they find out a bunch of stuff, all of which I've made up, some of which I HOPE they'll find interesting enough to pursue and turn into an adventure. But most of which will just be "flavour text" that serves to make the game world feel more complete to them.

 

[Bastoche]

Ok lots of stuff going on!

No, I am not saying that "the DM has 'a thing in mind' for the players" I am specifically stating that in an open game (IMO) the DM has _no_ goals for the PCs. The players are pursuing their own self-determined goals. They choose the direction. The DM then creates a world in which they can meet their goals in a variety of ways. The players gather information and pick a course of action that they think will achieve their goal.

Right. But if the goal are determined up front by the players via background instead of chosen "of the fly" during the game, it's not the same. The former is still closed but closed by the PCs and the later is open.

This is god-mode. Whatever you choose is right. If you enjoy this, by all means continue, but I don't enjoy a game where the choices I make don't matter.

Monster = NPC
Kill = Influence

Yes, it does focus on "influencing NPCs". I guess if you hadn't snipped out the bit where I said, "Whether it's kill the orcs and acquire their stuff", you might have understood that.

For the first quote: no it's not god mode because each choice cause a conscequence. In god mode, there's no conscequence. And "god-mode" is not the proper term as I'm demonstrated already in a prior post.

In the second quote's example, it's not the same since if the PC choose to "avoid meeting the NPCs" they will not influence them. The kind of choices I'm suggesting are choices that no matter what you choose, you will influence NPC. If NPC = monster and influence = killing them (or bypassing them by talking whatever), you need to "force" the meeting if you want the PC to influence them. On my family example, no matter what the PC choose, he WILL influence both his family and it's rival.

While this is a totally legitimate play style, and one I'm actually interested in trying, I don't think D&D is the game to do it with. There are other games that have mechanics to support this style. The right tool for the right job and all that.

I agree 100% but it seems like it's taboo on this board to say that D&D does not support every playing style.

Actually, I have to admit that your whole paragraph pretty much defeated my comprehension abilities. I have a great deal of trouble understanding your ideas, Bastoche, and I really wish you'd write more clearly.

I blame my french as english is not my first language. I'll give it another try:

What I consider as "closed ended" is a case in which what the NPC plans to do is sorta independant of the NPC's relationship with the PCs themselves and/or how the players-via-their-PC are emotionnally (or maybe rationnally) involved with what the NPCs is planning. That's what I was saying by "making the enounters matter. The conflict must be active on both side of the coin rather than active one side and passive the other (picking the hook or not) or passive bothways (heavy railroad).

In other words, if the NPC's action is a "program" that is executed when and only when the PCs encounter them (same if it's executed in background maybe independently of the PC's actions), it's like a pre-written scenario. The way it will actually be played out is left to the interaction between players and DM but the general outcome is more or less predetermined by the NPC's goals/motivation/plot. What I'm suggesting is that the other way to do it is to have the general outcome determined by the player's choice and right on the spot. To have a choice made on the spot, it has to be conflicting with regards to the motivations of the character.

So to return to the active/passive thing:

I THINK, based on what you wrote below, that you are arguing FOR the "active/active" case, which is kind of funny, because I am, too.

I'm not arguing for or against active/active. I'm arguing that to have open ended play, you MUST only have active/active choices (there may be others but they are to the game similar to buying trail ration or a new sword like a necessary evil. In other words, it's not the object of the game but we have to go through such instances of play eventually. It should always take a short table time).

But what if the PCs never go anywhere near the room? What if they use move earth for some other purpose, and, without even knowing it's there, collapse the secret room where the monsters are trying to move out of, before they even have a chance to move?

I see that as a situation where the DM has to make a call, and either shrug and say, "Okay, they killed those monsters, and they'll never even know," or say, "Hm, I'll just shift that secret room fifty feet to the left and have the monsters come out NOW." What decision I would make in that case would depend far more on the current state of the game and the players (is another fight appropriate now, will it be exciting or tedious, is there important information here that I don't have another easy way to communicate, do I in fact have fifty feet of room to the left...) than it would on any considerations of "campaign style". I don't know about you, but the games I run tend to vary widely in how they're operated from one session to another (or even within a single session). Sometimes I'm determined to get the PCs on a particular track, sometimes I don't care what they do.

Then it means that the encounter does not provide to the players a conflict/situation/encounter that favors their style of play!!! So the "campaign style" consideration here is that such an encounter should never happen (at least not that exact same way) in "open-gaming" style. The encounter does not provide a significant choice to make for the players and will be a boring encounter to such player.

(...) I want them to feel like they are playing in a world that exists beyond the boundaries of the game itself. A world where there are surprises for them, but that still appears to operate in a consistent manner. A world where they are not the only agents of change.

BAM! There you have it! (I let go the DM screwing the player part as it should be eleminated from any game). You could've started the sentence by: "My playing style is such that..." These desires for a campaign world is incompatible with the "significant/open gaming" style I'm suggesting. Consistency, a world outside of the PC, etc. That's exactly what I was trying to say in my paragraph I had re explained above.

(...)Of course I HOPED that all my work would come out and present the PC with a choice.(...)
I never know when suddenly they ARE going to run across something I had planted from a year back.(...)

In open gaming style, the role of the DM is not to hope the PC "falls" on the plot. You put it in their way. That's the whole point. I'll give an example in few lines. Second, YOU have determined how the world "is" in some part of the world (Al-Tizim for example). Since they never went there, is there really a reason NOT to report the "purge" to the time they get there? The players will NEVER know. It's one adventure or another! (that being said, it's not the open-gaming I'm speaking of. Just a very lazy way to run pseudo-open ended). Suppose your original scenario was the after-purge with the rebellion? You need to provide your players with a challenge. As long as it fits their challenge rating, versimilitude is not there just by that very fact. But it's ok because it's agreed upon that most of the game time will be spent facing encounters of the proper challenge rating. That's the point of this game. One challenge or another? The same in the player's point of view. Our DM runs that way but on top of that, he wants "his story" to go on and that's much worst with regards to versimilitude. He let us run around in circle until "the program" is ready to be executed (because of time frame or "space" frame). I would prefer if he railroaded us. Then we would spend time facing his challenges and he would see us run his scenario. But again, I repeat that this is NOT the open gaming I'm suggesting. I'm just illustrating that the notion of versimilitude does NOT exists in the players mind. Only in the DM's because only He "knows".

You have described exactly how I run things. Except that I expand the available choices to the player. He could choose the family cause, the righteous cause, he could ignore the whole thing if he chooses to, he could decide to try and take advantage of the situation for his own selfish ends, he could try to blow up the courts and overthrow the government.

Sort of "active/active/active/active..." choice. Point being that because I can't reduce my player's possible choices down to one of two options, I can't perfectly predict what direction the story will go in, and therefore can't predict what information is actually going to be needed. Which necessarily means that at times I will develop material that doesn't get used. I've learned not to let that frustrate me -- instead to let it be a part in developing a living, breathing world that my players can explore.

I'm interested in how you handle the case where the PCs arrive in a new place and decide to find out what is going on there. Do they know that whatever you tell them will be their next adventure? In the style I usually run, they find out a bunch of stuff, all of which I've made up, some of which I HOPE they'll find interesting enough to pursue and turn into an adventure. But most of which will just be "flavour text" that serves to make the game world feel more complete to them.

This is were the confusion creeps up. As was pointed out by Mishihari Lord and Lost Soul, D&D 3E is not the perfect system to run "open" gaming. You need a mechanic that encourage the PC choose between "family" or "duty" (in my example) and not some other "we haven't thought of that" options. That's were the background kicks in. In the way you run things (as my understanding of how you run it), the families just exists because they *do*. To give flavor the the game world. A credibility. Texture, etc, you name it. In my suggestion, the families exists because both duty and familiy are equally important to the player via his character. "My character is a dutyfull knight who prides himself in his flawless respect for it and is very loyal to his family who runs a long tradition of family loyalty." The (devious ) DM thens create that "no win" scenario where his duty part conflicts with his family loyalty part. It must be emphasized here that the players wants such conflict. If the player does not expect such a play, he might very well feel cheated that his character is "flawed" by the DM's plot. But I'm assuming that such conflict are what makes the game fun for such players and the background supply is there exactly to meddle with one way or another. At the point of the game where the choice is made, either the campaign ends because it was the point (after a climatic battle ) or the players lists new priorities to meddle with next time. There is many ways to run this. The most intuitive introduction to D&D players IMO is through the riddle of steel.

Now I said I was to give an example. Here it is. Frodo Baggins. He is not the only agent of change since he must have opponents. If the ring was returned to Sauron, he wouldn't have changed the world, Sauron would have.

The "traditionnal" way to run things is the challenges facing toward mount doom. Success means keeping going on, failure means losing to Sauron (or milder like a set back or false start (the snowy pass I forgot the name because of the avalanche caused be saruman in the movie)). Here, we have to assume a bit of railroading since the "end" of the story is more or less set in stone. But let's assume that the story went that way *by chance* i.e. that was what the players wanted.

The way I'm suggesting is that the player (Fordo) WILL get to mount doom. We could also assume that he will destroy the ring. But the "choices" or "challenges" are not bashing the monsters, getting to mount doom with a successful climb check or successfull hide vs the nazgul, etc. Instead the choices are "Should I remain loyal to the group or should I save them by leaving alone with the ring". "Should I be a real good hobbit and stay home not having any adventures or should I go with the ring?". "Should I try to save my friends or not risk losing the ring to the Nazgul (at the tower)?". "Should I kill evil Gollum or follow him to mount doom?". And Aragorn asked at some point "Should I let frodo go or not?" and the long question about "Should I claim kingship and face my demons or remain in the shadows and stay pure for sure?". Boromir and Faramir struggle: "should I take the ring from Fordo or not?" Etc. And the plot was throw "in their faces" by Gandalf and arguably the ring as some sort of NPC/demon, the NPCs weren't there because they *were* but to get the story going. To present choices to the players. In such a game success does not equal to acheiving your goal and failure *not* acheiving it. Success makes achieving your goal easier and failure harder.

 

[barsoomcore]

What if [the party] use move earth for some other purpose, and, without even knowing it's there, collapse the secret room where the monsters are trying to move out of, before they even have a chance to move?

such an encounter should never happen

What? How do you suggest I prevent it? I mean, come on.

Are you suggesting a style of DMing where NOTHING is invented ahead of time, where the DM's role is simply to respond to the players' actions as they happen, with absolutely zero notion of anything beyond what the player is currently interacting with? So that until the player says, "I look around the corner," the DM has no idea what might lie around the corner?

Because otherwise I can't fathom what you're getting at here.

So if you could clarify that for me, that would help.

Also, if you'd answer my question in the previous post:

I'm interested in how you handle the case where the PCs arrive in a new place and decide to find out what is going on there. Do they know that whatever you tell them will be their next adventure?

Please let me know how you handle this case.

I'm also beginning to suspect that you are not, in fact, a DM, and that your point of view is from the players' side. Is that correct? Your arguments would make much more sense to me in that case.

 

[Bastoche]

What? How do you suggest I prevent it? I mean, come on.

Are you suggesting a style of DMing where NOTHING is invented ahead of time, where the DM's role is simply to respond to the players' actions as they happen, with absolutely zero notion of anything beyond what the player is currently interacting with? So that until the player says, "I look around the corner," the DM has no idea what might lie around the corner?

Because otherwise I can't fathom what you're getting at here.

So if you could clarify that for me, that would help.

No no no. Things are created ahead of time but with the very specific purpose of providing opportuniities to make choices and not for the purpose of "making a credible world". The universe does not exists because it *does* and the more "pre-defined" it is, the more options the players have. It exists for the sole purpose of giving options to players! The point is that what the world *is* is irrelevant to "fun" so it can be made on the fly as we evolve in it (and keeping record of it for "further" comprehensivness and/or credibility. So my point is that making a dungeon crawling "plot" is not facilitating the sort of play I'm suggesting. An example for a facilitating encounter would be in my family feud dispute example any NPC (or discovery of records) that would lead the PCs to learn that the dutyful way and the loyal (to family) way are opposite sides of a single coin. It assumes the player provides background/character build up to encourage such instances of play/creation of encounters. Hope it clarifies.

I'm interested in how you handle the case where the PCs arrive in a new place and decide to find out what is going on there. Do they know that whatever you tell them will be their next adventure?

The fact that they know it or not is irrelevant in the 2 styles of play I'm discussing about here. In the first example (the "challenging" way) they are expecting it because that's what makes the game fun for them. In the second case, "what is going on there" is "any situation that prompt significant choices". And my defintion of "significant" is synonymous to "inner conflict" (to the player or group of players).

I'm also beginning to suspect that you are not, in fact, a DM, and that your point of view is from the players' side. Is that correct? Your arguments would make much more sense to me in that case.

I am of the opinion that it should be irrelevant from what point of view we are looking. The DM in fact is "just another player" in the sense that he should also be playing the same game as the others (i.e. use the same rules that may or may not grant him priviledges like dice fudging). He has a different role in the game, that's for sure but he's a player nonetheless. If I told you I was speaking as a DM, what would not make sense?

EDIT: I want to add something about that DM's stance vs the player's. The distinction is important for one reason. In you're way to run things, the DM's "imaginary universe" includes many features that the players are not aware of and may never be aware of. These parts IMO are NOT part of the game. They're like the hotels in monopoly that aren't built yet and remains in the bag. The "game" is what is shared by all the players and the DM (or agruably at least between one of the player and the DM for solo part or witheld info among (against?) other players. The rest does not "exists" until it is actually "encountered".

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Right. But if the goal are determined up front by the players via background instead of chosen "of the fly" during the game, it's not the same. The former is still closed but closed by the PCs and the later is open.

I'm not talking about using things from the player's background, I'm talking about polling them at the end of the last play session to find out what they want to do in the next. If you object even to this, then I have to ask _why_ you want the style of play you define as open. The usual reasons cited for people advocating "open play" (which differs from the definition you're using) is to empower the players by letting them determine the story and course of actions. This level of openness (open and closed are not your only choices, there is a whole spectrum of play styles in-between) meets that goal and still allows the DM to prepare. With a higher level of openness, the DM can't prepare and your game will suffer

For the first quote: no it's not god mode because each choice cause a conscequence. In god mode, there's no conscequence. And "god-mode" is not the proper term as I'm demonstrated already in a prior post.

Nope. I let you define "openness"; I get to define "god-mode" "God mode" meanse no chance of failure. You can choose to win in different ways, but you always win. I'm not applying this to the game as a whole, since you can still lose still lose in the challenges you meet, just to the choice of course of actions. You want to "always win" in your choice. Whatever you do becomes the main story. I like the choice of courses of action to be part of the game. The better I choose, the more relevant my encounters will be to my goal and the more succesful I'll be.

I'm now wondering if this is a difference between Simulaitonist and Narrativist play. I'm a pretty hard-core simulationist, and have never been in a really narrativist game.

In other words, if the NPC's action is a "program" that is executed when and only when the PCs encounter them (same if it's executed in background maybe independently of the PC's actions), it's like a pre-written scenario. The way it will actually be played out is left to the interaction between players and DM but the general outcome is more or less predetermined by the NPC's goals/motivation/plot. What I'm suggesting is that the other way to do it is to have the general outcome determined by the player's choice and right on the spot. To have a choice made on the spot, it has to be conflicting with regards to the motivations of the character.

You're not making a general argument for open vs closed play here. You're making an argument for winging it rather than using prepared material if the point of your game is to explore your characters' personailty. This is a pretty specific and unusual style of play.

I can't really comment on whether you're right or not, because I have little experience with this type of play. While I do assert that the level of openness you advocate will cause more problems then it's worth generally, it may indeed help you achieve better play in that one very specific style of play.

Then it means that the encounter does not provide to the players a conflict/situation/encounter that favors their style of play!!! So the "campaign style" consideration here is that such an encounter should never happen (at least not that exact same way) in "open-gaming" style. The encounter does not provide a significant choice to make for the players and will be a boring encounter to such player.

Againg this is an "exploring your personailty" vs "facing challenges in the world" issue. It's a totally separate issue than open vs closed.

(...) I want them to feel like they are playing in a world that exists beyond the boundaries of the game itself. A world where there are surprises for them, but that still appears to operate in a consistent manner. A world where they are not the only agents of change.

BAM! There you have it! (I let go the DM screwing the player part as it should be eleminated from any game). You could've started the sentence by: "My playing style is such that..." These desires for a campaign world is incompatible with the "significant/open gaming" style I'm suggesting. Consistency, a world outside of the PC, etc. That's exactly what I was trying to say in my paragraph I had re explained above.

Again, "the world revolves around the PCs" vs not is a different issue than open vs closed. You can have a high level of openness in your game without requiring that your PCs are the center of the universe. Personally, I find that this style lacks versimmilitude.

In open gaming style, the role of the DM is not to hope the PC "falls" on the plot. You put it in their way. That's the whole point. I'll give an example in few lines. Second, YOU have determined how the world "is" in some part of the world (Al-Tizim for example). Since they never went there, is there really a reason NOT to report the "purge" to the time they get there? The players will NEVER know. It's one adventure or another! (that being said, it's not the open-gaming I'm speaking of. Just a very lazy way to run pseudo-open ended). Suppose your original scenario was the after-purge with the rebellion? You need to provide your players with a challenge. As long as it fits their challenge rating, versimilitude is not there just by that very fact. But it's ok because it's agreed upon that most of the game time will be spent facing encounters of the proper challenge rating. That's the point of this game. One challenge or another? The same in the player's point of view. Our DM runs that way but on top of that, he wants "his story" to go on and that's much worst with regards to versimilitude. He let us run around in circle until "the program" is ready to be executed (because of time frame or "space" frame). I would prefer if he railroaded us. Then we would spend time facing his challenges and he would see us run his scenario. But again, I repeat that this is NOT the open gaming I'm suggesting. I'm just illustrating that the notion of versimilitude does NOT exists in the players mind. Only in the DM's because only He "knows".

Where to start? First, verisimilitude, defined as "the appearance of reality" exists only in the players' minds. The world never appears real to the DM because he knows where the holes are.

One challenge or another is not the same in the players' eyes. Some challenges are more fun than others. Some challenges will advance their goals better than others. Some challenges are harder than others. (They don't have to be, but I found that having all encounters near a party's CR (again) lacks virisimilitude.

It's starting to sound like your desire for openness is due to a DM that's railroading you. "Nothing happens until you do what I want you to" is just as much a railroad as "You head back to town? Okay, you're surrounded by a swirl of lights and find yourself entering the dragon's lair" There are better ways to address this issue.

I think the reason I had a hard time understanding you at first is not your English (which is just fine) but the set of assumptions you're working from. If you had said "I want a super-open game" because it supports exploring characters' personailities, playing with the PCs as the center of the universe, and narrativist play goals I would have understood much more quickly. I took this as a discussion of open vs closed play in general terms.