Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Guiding players to more sandbox-y play?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6182933" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>The approach I took at the start of my 4e game was a bit different from what S'mon suggests here, but not completely different. I told each player that their PC (i) must have a loyalty to something/someone, and (ii) must have a reason to be ready to fight goblins.</p><p></p><p>The point of (i) was to get them focusing on locating their PCs within the 4e gameworld, <em>and to tell me about that</em>. The point of (ii) was to get them in the right sort of frame for the first adventure I was planning to run (a 4e adaptation of the B/X module Night's Dark Terror). What I found was that this was (mostly) enough to generate initial momentum, and then subsequent momentum was somewhat self-generating - I would toss in things based on their loyalties, or something that had come out in play based on their dealings with the goblins, and they would respond to that, and the game would build its own direction and momentum. (The reason I say "mostly" is because on a couple of occasions - say once every 10 or so sessions, especially earlier in the campaign - I had to deliberately think about how to kick-start things after a bit of a lull in the drama, and so would go back to a core PC loyalty, or something that had come up earlier in the campaign, like an old villain, and build that into a new encounter that would grab the players.)</p><p></p><p>What I see as a difference between my (ii) and S'mon's default motivation is that it is much more local to a particular adventure, so it kicks things off while leaving development open-ended. But I agree that there should be choices in play. My emphasis is less on "procedural" choices (do we take the left door or the right door) and more on "dramatic/thematic" choices (do we help this person or that person), and I use the stuff about loyalties, plus developments that have come out of it in play, to shape those dramatic choices. I tend to find that, provided I've correctly worked out what the players care about (and getting them to state that loyalty helped early on) then generally they will respond to those dramatic choices themselves without me need to do anything extra to encourage them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6182933, member: 42582"] The approach I took at the start of my 4e game was a bit different from what S'mon suggests here, but not completely different. I told each player that their PC (i) must have a loyalty to something/someone, and (ii) must have a reason to be ready to fight goblins. The point of (i) was to get them focusing on locating their PCs within the 4e gameworld, [I]and to tell me about that[/I]. The point of (ii) was to get them in the right sort of frame for the first adventure I was planning to run (a 4e adaptation of the B/X module Night's Dark Terror). What I found was that this was (mostly) enough to generate initial momentum, and then subsequent momentum was somewhat self-generating - I would toss in things based on their loyalties, or something that had come out in play based on their dealings with the goblins, and they would respond to that, and the game would build its own direction and momentum. (The reason I say "mostly" is because on a couple of occasions - say once every 10 or so sessions, especially earlier in the campaign - I had to deliberately think about how to kick-start things after a bit of a lull in the drama, and so would go back to a core PC loyalty, or something that had come up earlier in the campaign, like an old villain, and build that into a new encounter that would grab the players.) What I see as a difference between my (ii) and S'mon's default motivation is that it is much more local to a particular adventure, so it kicks things off while leaving development open-ended. But I agree that there should be choices in play. My emphasis is less on "procedural" choices (do we take the left door or the right door) and more on "dramatic/thematic" choices (do we help this person or that person), and I use the stuff about loyalties, plus developments that have come out of it in play, to shape those dramatic choices. I tend to find that, provided I've correctly worked out what the players care about (and getting them to state that loyalty helped early on) then generally they will respond to those dramatic choices themselves without me need to do anything extra to encourage them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Guiding players to more sandbox-y play?
Top