Player involvement - and Sandboxes

[Raven Crowking]

I have never seen desire for true sandboxing with my players, as I think RCK is advocating.

They definatley like being part of something bigger. They aren't always that "self-motivated" (though that depends).

Please note that I do not define the term "sandbox" as something which doesn't include larger world events. I just don't predetermine the PCs' relationship to those events.

I also advocate including several "default adventure locations", which serve the function of a "campaign dungeon" -- places the players know they can go to find trouble.

When I have seen someone want to go off the beaten path, they are usually the only ones that want to head in that direction.

Often.....but I view it as the players' job to determine their goals. If Bob wants to go off the beaten path, it is Bob's job to convince the others to do so, or not. This is a fun part of the game, IMHO.

Of course, I also advocate a sandbox where each player has a stable of characters, so if Bob wants his paladin to go to Gygaxville, and Sue wants her cleric to go to the temple in Gary City, then Sue can have her ranger go with the paladin, and Bob can have his thief accompany the cleric.

Right now, in the RCFG playtest, most of the players have more than one PC, and those PCs are engaged in different things. One group is dealing with orcs waylaying caravans, while another contingent is going to a city to seek out an enchanter. Still other PCs are doing other things.

Didn't we just have a really long thread on sandboxing? I think the mods should merge this one with it, to avoid repetition...

Different topic, IMHO.

I'd love to see this level of involvement and interest in the games I run.

I see it regularly.

Of course, things the players fail to notice today might interfere with their killing other things and taking those things' stuff tomorrow. I am also pretty explicit in that, should you decide to sit in the tavern drinking grog, events still take place -- they just pass you by.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

The two keys to making a sandbox lots of fun for the players are to make sure that actions have consequences and to drop plot hooks like leaves from trees. The pcs shouldn't have to look very hard to find something to do- they should be surrounded by options. And the options they choose (and don't choose) should have ramifications.

All IMHO, of course.

Exactly.

The campaign milieu has a "flow" (as it were); there are always things you can do, and know about. There are always pressures from outside, trying to force you to do what they wish, or trying to take things that are yours/you care about. If you only wish to react, there is plenty to react to.

But that proactive player? Well, you can go along with his flow, too, and become embroiled in his schemes. And, if you wish to partake in the focus that player is getting, you may discover that you have goals of your own, too.

That is, IMHO and IME, usually how it works. Some players play mostly "leads", others play mostly "supports", and the folks who start out with "supporting" roles sometimes become the most innovative leaders.


RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

I agree that the large majority of players aren't interested in sandboxing. Personally it's a big plus for me, both in ttrpgs and crpgs (particularly the latter), but I think I'm in the minority, as evidenced by the success of adventure path type published scenarios.

Most players, it seems to me, care about the plot, they like to be challenged, they want to make interesting decisions, they want freedom (within the adventure) but they don't really care about the world. They don't care about being able to choose from multiple adventures, one is as good as another, if they all contain the opportunities - challenge, decision-making - I mentioned. The thing they really care about the most is their power level relative to the other players, which I think is down to the natural human tendency to compete with, and compare ourselves to, our peers.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Most players, it seems to me, care about the plot, they like to be challenged, they want to make interesting decisions, they want freedom (within the adventure) but they don't really care about the world. They don't care about being able to choose from multiple adventures, one is as good as another, if they all contain the opportunities - challenge, decision-making - I mentioned. The thing they really care about the most is their power level relative to the other players, which I think is down to the natural human tendency to compete with, and compare ourselves to, our peers.

This makes me really glad that my gaming group isn't like "most players".

 

[ggroy]

In practice I found that very few of my players ever read a prepackaged setting book, even when I loaned them my book for a week. Very little to no incentive to read such books for the most part.

The few times the players ever did a lot of work in familiarizing themselves with a setting, were in games where the main DM had the players create their own village/town/region, gods, etc ... as a part of their character's backstory. These few campaigns were sandbox games, where the DM job was rotated every once in a while. If and when the players entered into the hometown region of a particular player, that particular player would take on the DM's job and run their player character as an NPC. The world was essentially a collaborative effort by all the players, and not just the main DM.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This makes me really glad that my gaming group isn't like "most players".

Indeed.

IME, though, this has little to do with the players, and a lot to do with whether or not the GM makes the world meaningful. If the GM makes the world meaningful, then players will be interested in the world. If the world is just a backdrop, then that it all it will ever be.


RC

 

[The Shaman]

Thoughts?

I've never heard of anything like "D&D Encounters." It sounds more like Warhammer or Axis and Allies miniatures than any tabletop roleplaying game in which I've ever participated.

Players and characters may come and go over time, but I've never played 'pick-up' games of any roleplaying game in the way that's described here.

That said, I don't think the "player-character" relationship you describe is all that uncommon, but I think it's a function of the rewards system of many tabletop roleplaying games, not the nature of the setting. A player may have the same relationship to his character in a sandboxy-type setting if the rewards system of the game places a high emphasis on improving the character in terms of rules mechanics: "After each encounter I get x experience and y treasure, which translate into my character improving his scores by z amount."

Not all games are like this, however. Traveller, for example, includes an experience system which resulted in incremental changes to a character over a long period of time, so 'character advancement' took on a very different meaning in the course of play; it's about as far from the experience of playing Dungeons and Dragons as one can get and still have characters improving their skills, attributes, and so on. The rewards system in Traveller isn't experience points: the rewards are tied to the setting, like credits in your pocket, improving one's Social Standing or even gaining an Imperial title, upgrading your starship or buying a new one, and so on.

Other games offer very explicit opportunities to advance in ways that are integral to the setting. Characters in Flashing Blades may be focused on nothing more than becoming bad-arsed swordfighters, but the system provides for characters to become marshals and admirals of France, bishops and cardinals of the Church, grand masters of knightly orders, or royal ministers to the king. The rewards system for Flashing Blades enmeshes the characters in the setting - and while it's possible to play a character who is nothing but a duelist, I've never seen that happen in actual play: the players who enjoy the game tend to gravitate toward those careers which gain their characters' influence and power in the setting, not just notches on their rapiers.

So I don't agree that this is a function of setting so much as it is a function of the rewards system of the game. In my personal experience, D&D doesn't need to be all about character power, and it doesn't take a sandbox setting to make it so: it requires in-game rewards other than experience points. Prestige classes, as they were originally presented in 3e, were one means of achieving both: new skills and abilities for your character plus a connection to the setting through the non-rules mechanics, setting-and-roleplaying-oriented requirements to gain the class, such as joining an order or guild. It was a great idea, and one of my favorite features of the game.

 

[Insight]

Indeed.

IME, though, this has little to do with the players, and a lot to do with whether or not the GM makes the world meaningful. If the GM makes the world meaningful, then players will be interested in the world. If the world is just a backdrop, then that it all it will ever be.


RC

Unfortunately, this is not always true. As they say, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force him to drink." If you're fortunate enough to have players who care about the setting, then yes, you're right. But in the vast majority of my 25 years as both a player and DM/GM, players who show any interest in the setting are in the vast minority.

It doesn't matter how much work you put into a setting/world if the players inherently just want to kill things and take their stuff. You simply cannot force them to care about minutiae.

 

[The Shaman]

It doesn't matter how much work you put into a setting/world if the players inherently just want to kill things and take their stuff. You simply cannot force them to care about minutiae.

No, you can't, which is why setting expectations at the beginning of the game is important.

There's no problem with saying, "Yeah, that doesn't sound like it would work for me." However, it's best if that happens before actual play starts, in my experience.

Tell me, do some of you believe that every game should appeal to every player?

 

[Insight]

No, you can't, which is why setting expectations at the beginning of the game is important.

There's no problem with saying, "Yeah, that doesn't sound like it would work for me." However, it's best if that happens before actual play starts, in my experience.

Tell me, do some of you believe that every game should appeal to every player?

Of course not.

A lot of it also depends on how (the DM) lays out the campaign and the setting. Also, I've run into more than my fair share of meek/shy/quiet players who only voice concern when they are nearing (or past) the point of no return.

Honestly, I wish players would be more open in revealing their expectations and motivations. Some are scared they won't get to play if they speak up and thus keep playing even though they aren't having fun. Kinda weird if you ask me, but some people are just like this.