Gaming in an open enviroment

[LostSoul]

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.

That's a good point. What they call event-based adventures tend to be pretty open, since there isn't anything forcing PCs to head down one corridor or another. The classic module "The Keep on the Borderlands" is pretty open - once you're there, all the choices are in the player's hands. Investigate the bandits? Find that old hermit? Kill the kobolds first, or the orcs? etc.

It relies on D&D's standard motiviation - adventuring for power and for profit. Which is great, since the game rules reinforce this motivation.

It is, however, pretty intensive in prep-time. (Unless you buy the module!) There are ways to cut down on this - using standard monsters as per the Monster Manual, NPC generators, WotC's map-a-week, even the old random dungeon generator from the back of the 1st edition AD&D DMG.

 

[Bastoche]

That's a good point. What they call event-based adventures tend to be pretty open, since there isn't anything forcing PCs to head down one corridor or another. The classic module "The Keep on the Borderlands" is pretty open - once you're there, all the choices are in the player's hands. Investigate the bandits? Find that old hermit? Kill the kobolds first, or the orcs? etc. note by bastoche: doesn't it sounds EXACTLY like BG?

It relies on D&D's standard motiviation - adventuring for power and for profit. Which is great, since the game rules reinforce this motivation.

It is, however, pretty intensive in prep-time. (Unless you buy the module!) There are ways to cut down on this - using standard monsters as per the Monster Manual, NPC generators, WotC's map-a-week, even the old random dungeon generator from the back of the 1st edition AD&D DMG.

Exactly. And I agree with Hussar. In fact that's the prefect Gygaxism and a VERY fun way to play. There isn't much "role playing" going on, as most people on this board consider being "role playing", but it's a great game nonetheless!

 

[barsoomcore]

You are making a false assumption that every player play or should play your way.

Sigh. No, I'm not.

I'm observing that fun comes from overcoming challenges. Obviously everyone has their own threshold of how difficult a challenge needs to be before frustration overwhelms enjoyment.

Okay, maybe it's not so obvious, since this conversation continues. So I'll say it clearly:

Everyone has their own threshold of how difficult a challenge needs to be before frustration overwhelms enjoyment.

In addition, everyone has their own ideas as to what constitute reasonable challenges.

Finally, being challenged as to your ideas on challenges isn't ALWAYS a bad thing.

All that said, a game will be fun to the extent that the DM is able to provide the players with sorts and degree of challenges they find fun.

The players' assumptions about sorts and degrees can be wrong, as can the DM's, of course.

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."

Only different.

But I agree, it's important for DM and players to have some common ground as to what sort of game they want to play. I even said so earlier in this thread, so it's nice we agree on that.

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".

Okay, I'll admit that the type of game you're defining as "open" exists. And if you want to use the term "open-ended" to describe it, that's fine with me. I don't consider the word "closed" very suitable to describe my games, since I literally have NO IDEA what direction they're going to go in.

I know what the NPCs are doing (or at least what they're PLANNING to do), and I know what crazy "acts of god" events I intend to introduce, but what will happen as a result? No idea whatsoever.

If the setbacks and false starts are due to poor tactics and poor rolls (bad luck) then it's OK.

I think you're missing the point here. Your definition of "poor tactics" is not necessarily going to be the same as anyone else's. I think it's reasonable to say that in a, say, urban mystery game, that deciding who to talk to and what to ask them is part of the tactics the party must employ. So if they decide to talk to somebody who doesn't know anything, they could be reasonably accused of employing poor tactics, and thus their lack of success is appropriate, as opposed to a failure of the DM or evidence of some very different "type" of game. It's just a question of what you consider tactics and what you consider necessary story development, and everyone is going to place that line differently.

If a setback takes an entire session to play, I find this VERY boring.

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.

Like I said. Except that obviously it's NOT so obvious, since you keep missing it.

It seems like we agree, pretty much, and I bet that you'd frickin LOVE my games, Bastoche. I don't just sit there like a lump letting the PCs waste their time, nor do I give them every little thing their cold hearts desire. They struggle and they get cranky at times, but they cheer like mad when things turn out and they have a great sense of accomplishment in the end.

I think you're assuming I'm a DM like the one you're currently saddled with, who sounds to me like a crappy DM -- mainly because he runs sessions his players find boring. I don't know of any other criteria for determining how good or bad a DM is.

 

[The_Gneech]

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

 

[Bastoche]

I'm observing that fun comes from overcoming challenges.

No. False again. For some typs of players, fun comes from overcoming challenges. For some other players, fun can be making significant choices (moral or otherwise). Overcoming challenges is NOT the only way to have fun RPGing. That being said, I'll return to the rest of your post after I poster this one assumung we stick to the sub part of RPG games that assumes challenges.

 

[Crothian]

No. False again. For some typs of players, fun comes from overcoming challenges. For some other players, fun can be making significant choices (moral or otherwise). Overcoming challenges is NOT the only way to have fun RPGing. That being said, I'll return to the rest of your post after I poster this one assumung we stick to the sub part of RPG games that assumes challenges.

making significant choices moral or otherwise is a type of challenge

 

[Bastoche]

Ok I'm finished. A few sidenotes but I get the feeling we're arguing now over semantics rather than substance.

Okay, I'll admit that the type of game you're defining as "open" exists. And if you want to use the term "open-ended" to describe it, that's fine with me. I don't consider the word "closed" very suitable to describe my games, since I literally have NO IDEA what direction they're going to go in.

I know what the NPCs are doing (or at least what they're PLANNING to do), and I know what crazy "acts of god" events I intend to introduce, but what will happen as a result? No idea whatsoever.

First I accept your admission and pretty much was the only thing I wanted out of this discussion. Thanks
Second, on the semantics issues. 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).

I think you're missing the point here. Your definition of "poor tactics" is not necessarily going to be the same as anyone else's. I think it's reasonable to say that in a, say, urban mystery game, that deciding who to talk to and what to ask them is part of the tactics the party must employ. So if they decide to talk to somebody who doesn't know anything, they could be reasonably accused of employing poor tactics, and thus their lack of success is appropriate, as opposed to a failure of the DM or evidence of some very different "type" of game. It's just a question of what you consider tactics and what you consider necessary story development, and everyone is going to place that line differently.

I like that example because that's exactly what we are doing. It's not really related to the open vs close ended spectrum but rather in the boring pseudo open vs fun pseudo open (what you run and don't want to call closed and that I don't want to call open ). If I choose to speak with the wrong NPC (poor tactic) I should not investigate for 2 gameplay hours rolling numerous successful checks to end up in a dead end. The DM should just say in a few minutes (maybe after a few rolls): "You successfully find out this option to be a dead end" and then let's move on. It might be problematic when the rolls fails. But all in all, in the end it's a failure anyway.

Now for the open vs close. In a political/urban mystery intrigue, in which players assume the open end-ness is well defined one way or another, false starts may very well be everything you'll face especially is failure on a false start reduce the probabilty of success for further tryouts. Like compromising the PCs reputation voiding them of any future success.

I think you're assuming I'm a DM like the one you're currently saddled with, who sounds to me like a crappy DM -- mainly because he runs sessions his players find boring. I don't know of any other criteria for determining how good or bad a DM is.

As for my DM, I wouldn't say is crappy. One who doesn't run the types of games I'd like to play with regards to player's lattitude. He has a metaplot going on and if we don't follow the metaplot (which is hidden among false starts put there for sake of "credibility/canon value" (FRCS) ) we pretty much run around in circle. There was some problems we ran into that are well recognized (it was a bit an experimental campaign after all) like throwing "optionnal" side quests. We also faced a HUGE wealth/level issue where basically the challenges were so challenging we didn't liked the rewards (there were to small to respect the wealth/level RAW motion). But the REAL problem IMO, is that the DM tries to run 3 different "styles" of play at the same time that are incompatible.

The game themselves aren't boring and in retrospect most are OK. It's just the way it's going. It feels like a struggle. All the ingredients should be there: the players agrees to face a challenge, we like our characters and the setting. We also like the metaplot. It's just how it's going that I dislike. We face WAY too many dead ends and I highly doubt it's only a matter of tactics. It has to be a matter of gaming philosophy. And I think it's the DM struggling with himself over what he wants to do.

The main problem is running a metaplot while leaving complete lattitude to the PCs. I have a feeling it doesn't work unless the DM uses illusionism (put the plot "in our way" as we evolve in the game world). There's related issues with the FRCS with the type of campaign we're running. I feel my PC, his actions and his acheivements are overshadowed by all the numerous canon NPCs that are "just there". I think the world is just too much. Wow. It's turning into a personnal rant I'll stop now and just say that I wish my insights allow the OP to avoid the pitfalls in which we fell.

What I want out of gaming is that the actions of my PC to be significant vs the story, vs the challenges and vs the imagined universe. And I think this can only be acheived is the plot is written by the DM "one session" at a time. I don't want to feel there's a "hidden agenda" the we uncover slowly as we play.

 

[Torm]

Ok I'm finished. A few sidenotes but I get the feeling we're arguing now over semantics rather than substance.

Hmmmm.......

My point here is this: You people would argue semantics with a brick wall.

Yes, yes, I see......

Oh, when will they ever learn? Oh, when will they ever learn?

 

[barsoomcore]

Hmmmm.......

Yes, yes, I see......

This especially makes me laugh:

First I accept your admission and pretty much was the only thing I wanted out of this discussion.

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

...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.

Um, what? If what you're saying is that PC's should be able to influence what NPCs do, then, duh. I think (and I'm sure you're going to smack me down with your mighty wit for this) that influencing NPC action is THE WHOLE FRICKING POINT of role-playing games. Wether it's kill the orcs and acquire their stuff, or convince the third daughter of the Duke that her father is not a murdering tyrant, PCs attempt to have an impact on NPCs. That's the basic mechanic of all RPGs.

HOW NPCs are influenced of course varies from one campaign to another, but even the most hack-and-slash game can be considered to revolve around influencing NPCs (just in a very basic, black and white sort of way).

What I want out of gaming is that the actions of my PC to be significant vs the story, vs the challenges and vs the imagined universe.

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.

And I think this can only be acheived is (if) the plot is written by the DM "one session" at a time. I don't want to feel there's a "hidden agenda" the we uncover slowly as we play.

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.

In the games I like to run, there are numerous NPCs, all up to their tricks in the background. The players may NEVER run across these plots -- that's not the point. THOSE plots aren't the story of the campaign -- the story of the campaign is the actions of the PCs. Those plots exist in order to provide obstacles, allies, and excitement for the PCs, should they happen to run afoul of them.

For example, again in Barsoom, one of the key trade families had been trying to get control of the lands of one of the PC's families. They launched a court action to have the lands transferred to their control, and it bounced around the courts for some time. I WAS thinking that at some point it would come to a head, the PC would discover what was going on, and want to put a stop to it.

Instead, the party got interested in other stuff, and in the process, inadverdently caused the death of the trade family member most responsible for pushing the court deals through. They never even knew it was going on. I knew, though, and because I knew, I was able to play the NPCs involved in a very specific way, and decide how they would react to given actions by the PCs.

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.

 

[jester47]

An open ended game largely depends on how fast you can reach the relevant info.

The Wilderlands of High Fantasy campaign setting is built around this principle. It is based on having enough idea hooks ready to go but leaving them in limbo for the DM to mould the situation around.

If you want an open ended game without lots of prep buy the PDFs of the four wilderlands products by Necromancer games, And the 3.5 adventures that NG has published. Then get the PDFs of the dungeon crawl classics by goodman games. When it comes out get Rappan Athuk Reloaded. Then start mining the free downloads for the good stuff.

That will give you the ability to handle most anything with little prep time.

Aaron.