Gaming in an open enviroment

[Justin Bacon]

"No campaign is COMPLETELY open. The very idea is nonsense."

False. Some games are.

Theoretically you might be right. Realistically, however, there is no campaign which is COMPLETELY open.

For starters, a completely open campaign wouldn't and couldn't have any rules. Rules immediately imply that you can't do something, thereby closing the campaign.

Second, there wouldn't and couldn't be a GM. A GM, in order to GM, must be able to arbitrate actions -- but arbitrating an action means that you decide what happens, which immediately closes the campaign.

And so forth. Such a game doesn't exist. Sorry to burst your bubble.

This does not, of course, mean that the concepts of "open" and "closed" are useless. But it does mean that you need to accept that your personal set of preferences is not the platonic perfection of "openness" while all the rest of us are toiling in the dark shadows of "closed" campaigns.

If you want to seriously argue that the DM, by having it rain today, has "railroaded" the PCs into getting wet, so be it. There's a glimmer of truth there, because the DM has, in fact, made a choice which affected the PCs without letting the players have input. But I find that definition of "railroaded" to be utterly useless. And the claim that this type of gaming is inherently "bad" or that it constitutes nothing but "the players reading the DM's book about rainy days" absurd.

Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[Torm]

Theoretically you might be right. Realistically, however, there is no campaign which is COMPLETELY open.

He's not even theoretically correct, unless he is operating outside of our universe. The real universe is not a completely open environment for us to play the game of life in - there are limitations like physical laws and such. I may be able to decide whether or not to obey traffic laws, but I sure can't just decide to disobey the law of gravity. As such, any gaming environment created by a DM who exists in a closed environment is going to be, by definition, even more closed.

My point here is this: You people would argue semantics with a brick wall. I think we all know what is meant by 'open' and 'closed' in this context without an extensive argument about it.

Back on topic, my games seem to tend to work best when I leave them as open as possible (bound, as I am, to the laws of the physical universe ), where even I don't know what is about to happen next until right before I begin telling it, and I allow the conversations I hear between the players to lightly influence my thought processes.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

For starters, a completely open campaign wouldn't and couldn't have any rules. Rules immediately imply that you can't do something, thereby closing the campaign.

Most respectfully, I think you're defining "Open Campaign" so broadly that it is not only beyond the scope of the conversation, but also beyond the scope of the real world.

The OP, myself and others are clearly talking about a campaign in which the DM presents his game world to the players and the players exercise their free will to choose where they will go, what they will investigate, etc., as opposed to a campaign in which the players are merely offered a series of preplanned encounters. Its the difference between a bag of beads and a neclace.

Second, there wouldn't and couldn't be a GM. A GM, in order to GM, must be able to arbitrate actions -- but arbitrating an action means that you decide what happens, which immediately closes the campaign.

In your overbroad definition, true.

But in the context of the OP's premise, this is nonsesnse. This is the GM acting in his capacity of adjudicating and informing Players of the effects of their actions. Essentially, the GM is acting as a reporter on the rules of the campaign universe, or even god, if you will, enforcing cause & effect.

 

[Torm]

 

[Justin Bacon]

Most respectfully, I think you're defining "Open Campaign" so broadly that it is not only beyond the scope of the conversation, but also beyond the scope of the real world.

I am doing no such thing. I was illustrating the fallacy of defining "open" in such a strict fashion that it has no real world meaning whatsoever. And then I specifically stated that it was not only useless to use such a definition, but absurd to do so.

Try to pay attention before attempting to participate in a discussion. The lack of reading comprehension in this thread is already truly atrocious. It doesn't need to be made any worse.

Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[Crothian]

For starters, a completely open campaign wouldn't and couldn't have any rules. Rules immediately imply that you can't do something, thereby closing the campaign.

I don't think an open campaign means that the players get to be able to do whatever they want. They can try to do what they want, but the rules are there to figure out if they succeed or not.

 

[Pielorinho]

Try to pay attention before attempting to participate in a discussion. The lack of reading comprehension in this thread is already truly atrocious. It doesn't need to be made any worse.

Moderator's Notes
Justin, telling someone to pay attention etc. is not appropriate behavior on this message board. I'm barring you from this thread; do not post in it again. And in future threads, be careful not to tell people what they're doing and not to insult people in any way, shape, or form.

(If you feel that you have been insulted in this thread, please report the post that you feel has insulted you; I've not read the entire thread, but rather read the post of yours which was reported).

Daniel

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Due to Pielorinho's intercession, I won't respond to J.A.B.'s last post.

 

[Henry]

I think that if Henry shows up in this thread, he'll tell you that Candyland isn't necessarily a better outcome - or even all that different from a portal to hell.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

Sorry, just had a flashback to last week's game.

 

[Henry]

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.

I have done this in the past with a Forgotten Realms campaign that went very well, and recently with an Arcana Unearthed campaign (that went decently but went on indefinate hiatus - don't know if we'll finish it.) My answer was to have an extensive campaign planner organized as follows:

--Player Character general stat blocks (overview to remember their capabilities)
--NPC matrix (name, important stats, descriptors & characteristics)
--Past plot hooks (almost a journal, only sketchier)
--Future plot hooks (about a dozen, one for each environment they were near)
--Calendar (current day, upcoming events, etc.)

In this way, I kept abreast of where they were and where they were going. They wandered about nine months real-time from place to place just having a blast! I made sure to remember flavor hooks to keep the world alive (they often ran into people doing their own thing, sometimes they helped, sometimes they didn't) and I also made sure that any plot hooks could be altered to be dropped in with existing NPC's, etc.

The Forgotten Realms was an excellent place to do this; I had so much flavor material to draw from, I could describe nearly every locale they wanted to visit, and give them detail run-downs of everything they would experience. My prep-time wasn't so much creation, as it was study and research!