Gaming in an open enviroment

[Bastoche]

My definition of "open gaming" is "story written by the players as their characters evolve in the game world". Having "strong background goals" is not open gaming. It's an agreed beforehand list of plot hooks.

But I'll just live with the fact that most posters in this thread assume that "open gaming" means a choice os plot hooks to choose from.

So from my personnal experience, I'l suggest the following:

- Restrain from introducing situations and encounters just for the sake of "realism/credibility". In other words all encounters in which the PCs have choices to make should be important to the story. Why? Because they won't be able to make the difference between "mundane" encounters and "plot hooks". Unless they are dead obvious in which case the magic is lost (in other words the PCs sees through your "veil").

- If you buy all that "encounters must be challenging to grant XP" when you run your games, make succesful checks count. For example, suppose the PC want to find info about a certain secret organisation and ask the wrong person when they make a succesful check (let's say roll nat 20 on diplomacy check), it's frustrating to be told: "you masterfully discover that this guy knows nothing!" Once in a while, it might be fine. But in principle, succeeding a skill check (difficult or not) should lead the PC *somewhere*. The example I showed here is avoided by making all encounters count.

- Pick up as much feedback from the PC as possible. When they seem involved in the game, when non-verbal languages speaks they're having fun TAKE NOTES!

- Most importantly, talk with your players out of game before the start of the campaign about "open gaming". Ask them what they think it is. How important it is to them, etc. They may not want "open" gaming...

- If you want to run "open gaming" as "not predefined solutions" allow them to have their solutions actually work. This points requires to be explained a bit further. Once they have suggested their solution, figure out a check or a list of checks to be made for the solution to work. If you judge it's impossible to do it that way, allow them a int/wis or knowledge check to reconsider.

I remember a session we had a while back in which we had found a great plan. We were spying a lady that possessed a certain artifact we needed to recover and at some stage, we learned she had some accomplices with whom she did awfful things. So we manage to disguise as one of them to intimidate another one. We had some bluff, diplomacy and disguise checks successful. But since it was determined in advance by the DM that this guy knew nothing, we encountred a dead end. All in all in that specific quest, we faced 5 dead ends in which we had all successfully win the checks. VERY FRUSTRATING!!!

I think that's about it. Good luck!

EDIT: IMO, overdetailed background may also feature some problems. For instance, a player might include a fact about his PC just for the sake of credibility or completeness. It may not be important for the PLAYER to explore that aspect of his character. The background as a pseudo open gaming "carrot provider" should stick to the IMPORTANT facts.

 

[Torm]

You can do the same thing with monsters, locations, and lots of other stuff.

And if you really want to go farther along this train of thought, you can do what I call "invisibly closed" scenarios. You would have to be an awesome DM to do this for a whole campaign, though - I do it here and there, now and then, in otherwise "open" or "closed" campaigns, but I certainly couldn't do a whole campaign. I'd give myself away too often.

A (way-oversimplified) explanation of what I mean follows:

DM: You are in a room with four exits - one is a narrowish door leading north, one is a door that seems a little wider than normal leading south, and the other two, to the east and west, look like the doors you've seen in the remainder of the dungeon. [Waits for PC to decide something.]

PC: I'm going through the narrow door.

DM: As you pass through the narrow door, you must have triggered something, because the door slams closed and you need to make a Reflex save to avoid the falling rocks that are collapsing on this side of the door....

[PC rolls, DM allows as low as seems reasonable to save - this trap isn't the point of anything he has planned.]

DM: You are in a room with a collapsed southern wall, and a door to the north. The door is guarded by a feral and somewhat drunk looking kobold wearing primitive armor..... [and play continues from here.]

The above scenario makes it look like the player chose the room he ended up in, but in reality, it would have been the same room no matter which direction he went, with the same collapsed wall, and the only difference being that it would have been rotated 180 degrees had he gone south instead of north. Looks Open, but is Closed.

 

[barsoomcore]

In other words all encounters in which the PCs have choices to make should be important to the story.

See, I disagree with this. If every choice is important, then the PCs are never tense or worried that they're wasting time.

It's like in a horror film when our heroes think they've cornered the creature -- they can hear it scrabbling and scuffling, they get ready, they throw open the door and...

it's the cat.

Everyone screams, everyone's a little bit relieved, but in the end the tension just rachets up even further. And the next time they're closing in on the beastie, the question stands -- are they really going to find it this time or is it just another cat?

If your PCs never find themselves going down any dead ends, there's no tension.

That said, obviously there's a balance that's required here, and part of being a good DM is delivering fun to your players, not mindlessly forcing them to follow whatever plan you have in mind. But it's part of your job to delay their success, to frustrate them and confuse them so that when they succeed, they feel like they really overcame some obstacles.

I've had my PCs try to rebel on me, telling me that they felt helpless and frustrated and unable to proceed. They asked me to give them a clue. They asked me to adjust my style so that things were easier for them.

I said, "No. Trust me, I know what I'm doing."

Six years later, we wrapped the campaign with the exact same set of people we'd started with. We all had a great time.

 

[Aikuchi]

I concur - barsoomore.

My players only really feel successful after one or more failed attempts at something. The plotting and vengeance fueled enthusiasim is amazing when applied by frustrated players. The only few times, Ive seen some of the best plays are when they failed ... utterly the first or first few times!

(smiles)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Amen, Aikuchi & Barsoomcore. There is NOTHING like the taste of success after repeated failure!

That is why I like the idea of the recurring villain. Perfected in form by the comic book biz, the recurring master villain gets under players' skins. He haunts them. They want him so bad they can taste him...because they've fought the bastard SO MANY TIMES...

And then they finally get him for real.

They breathe deeply...its like having a tall glass of home-made ice tea, with as much mint and lemon as you want.

(At least until he shows up again! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!! )

 

[LostSoul]

If your PCs never find themselves going down any dead ends, there's no tension.

I think I see where the earlier disconnect that we've had is coming from. We're talking about two different play styles - or looking at the same issue from those different viewpoints.

I could be wrong.

Anyway, looking at it that way, I agree with both barsoomcore (you need some choices to lead to dead ends in order to creatre tension) and Bastoche (all choices must be important). It just depends on what your style is.

 

[Hussar]

I have to admit that I tried to run a more "open" game the last time and failed miserably. I was using the Scarred Lands setting of Shelzar and intended to run a fairly mature themed game. It bombed. I just couldn't seem to get the players interested in the setting no matter what I did. I developed NPC's and they ignored them. I flat out asked what they would like to do and they gave me blank looks. I dangled hook after hook in front of them and nothing happened. Until I started actively pushing in one direction or another, the game just stalled.

I'll admit that I'm very weak when it comes to NPC's, but sheesh. The next time I try that, I'm going to have to do a LOT more set up than what I did. And start with players who actually want to play in the setting rather than treating it as vanilla DnD.

On the other hand, I suppose my current game in the World's Largest Dungeon could be considered very open ended. Other than the fact that they have to escape someday, everything they do is entirely up to them. The Dungeon doesn't really care what route they take or what actions. It simply reacts. I've been reading the World's Largest Thread and other groups that are in the same area as I am are having entirely different experiences. I suppose that makes for an "open" game.

 

[Bastoche]

See, I disagree with this. If every choice is important, then the PCs are never tense or worried that they're wasting time.

It's like in a horror film when our heroes think they've cornered the creature -- they can hear it scrabbling and scuffling, they get ready, they throw open the door and...

it's the cat.

Everyone screams, everyone's a little bit relieved, but in the end the tension just rachets up even further. And the next time they're closing in on the beastie, the question stands -- are they really going to find it this time or is it just another cat?

If your PCs never find themselves going down any dead ends, there's no tension.

That said, obviously there's a balance that's required here, and part of being a good DM is delivering fun to your players, not mindlessly forcing them to follow whatever plan you have in mind. But it's part of your job to delay their success, to frustrate them and confuse them so that when they succeed, they feel like they really overcame some obstacles.

I've had my PCs try to rebel on me, telling me that they felt helpless and frustrated and unable to proceed. They asked me to give them a clue. They asked me to adjust my style so that things were easier for them.

I said, "No. Trust me, I know what I'm doing."

Six years later, we wrapped the campaign with the exact same set of people we'd started with. We all had a great time.

You are making a false assumption that every player play or should play your way. Not every game has a DM for whom's job is "to delay their success, to frustrate them and confuse them so that when they succeed, they feel like they really overcame some obstacles." And I can garantee you I wouldn't have stick with you as a DM for 6 years (maybe a month). My DM is currently doing it your way and I'm still in the game only for a friend who's leaving our area sooner or later. As soon as his gone, I'm out! People can play it that way, it can be fine for yourself and your players. But if that's not where you fun comes from, there's no way out.

It's like recieving people at home to play monopoly and you show them a risk game telling them "Monopoly? No. Trust me, I know what I'm doing." If they don't care about risk, you will lose their trust in a jiffy. However if the players never played risk and wants to give it a shot and in the end like it, they may very well stick for 6 years.

My comment you quoted applies to players who wants an open ended game if you play your way with players who wants open-ended playing, they will leave. I can garantee that.

Lost soul got it right. read his posts where he quotes you about tension.

Here on one end you're telling me "It's impossible to play the open-ended game you suggest" and to prove that, you use the other end where you tell me that in your successful games, you had to do it closed ended. You are not proving open endedness doesn't exists. You are proving it's not your "thing".

 

[Mishihari Lord]

You are making a false assumption that every player play or should play your way. Not every game has a DM for whom's job is "to delay their success, to frustrate them and confuse them so that when they succeed, they feel like they really overcame some obstacles." And I can garantee you I wouldn't have stick with you as a DM for 6 years (maybe a month). My DM is currently doing it your way and I'm still in the game only for a friend who's leaving our area sooner or later. As soon as his gone, I'm out! People can play it that way, it can be fine for yourself and your players. But if that's not where you fun comes from, there's no way out.

Could you clarify this? I'm pretty sure I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but it sounds like you're saying that PCs shouldn't suffer any setbacks or false starts. This would be about as much fun as playing a shooter video game in god-mode.

 

[Bastoche]

Could you clarify this? I'm pretty sure I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but it sounds like you're saying that PCs shouldn't suffer any setbacks or false starts. This would be about as much fun as playing a shooter video game in god-mode.

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).

Now to setbacks by design: What I'm saying is that setbacks should happened because of failed rolls or poor tactics not because of the DM's "master plan" or the player's failure to "find the hook". And/or because the players expect to play one theme while the DM is enforcing another.

An example of the later is the following. And suppose it's only one DM + one player just for sake of simplicity of the argument.

Let's say the DM has a majestic idea for a super cool campaign involving a crazy chase in the underdark after an evil lich who's plotting to open a rift in the multiverse that would cause the destruction of the planet if he's not stopped. There's quite a few assuptions in regards to the play style with such a campaign. First, it's gonna be an underground campaign. So a player building a horseman/cavalier character is pretty much screwed. Second it's an epic quest (in the sense that failure = end of the world/campaign). Third it will be a long lasting one (1st level characters can't take up a lich). The assumptions themselves are irrelerant. What is relevant is that the player and the DM must agree beforehand of the direction the campaign is going. If the player insist on playing a cavalier, the DM will either have to forego the underground part of his idea or find another player. If they decide to ignore the issue and play, they will face a problem sooner or later. The DM will be frustrated that his player is unable to face his chalenges since the character is innapropriate and the player will be frustrated because his character fails not because he's "just" failing but because of a fault of design.

Now return to the "open" vs "close" aspect. If a player expect to play a game in which he IS the one who "drives" the story via his choices, a DM who still wants "control" over the story will generate frustration. If there's a fuzzy line between "important" encounters vs "normal/realistic/setback/false start" encounter, the player feels cheated. Well at the very least, myself as a player feel cheated. Most players don't mind being cheated that way even if it bores them becasue they've never played any other way before. They may falsely conclude that is a "normal" bug of RPG and maybe it's charm. The misconception here is that you think that what I quote as "open ended" = chicken out from the DM's challenge. That's false. What I'm saying is if we are to play a game of challenges, I, as a player, should be able to identify them clearly. And success or failure should be a RAW thing: a failed roll or a poor tactic.

So my whole point here is the following. IF your players really want open play and IF you want to provide it, numerous plot hooks is NOT open play and it will eventually bore the players once they figure out what annoys them. And I must emphasise that IT WILL NOT BORE EACH AND EVERY PLAYER. Only those who wants REAL open gaming.

There is not much difference between a devious DM and a DM playing devious NPCs. It should not be a battle of wit between players and DM IMO. It should be about playing a challenging story. It's not fun for the DM to have the PC lagging for X minutes/hours/sessions because they can't find the "trick" behind the confusing input the DM gives just for the sake of confusing things. It similar to the DM being the guy pulling the string attached to a wallet the players are trying to pick up in vain.