Player involvement - and Sandboxes

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Duelling anecdotes, and all that.

I started DMing on Christmas Day 1979, and in the time that has followed I spent 4 years in the US Army, moved a few times after, and finally moved to Canada. I've run and played in many games in Wisconsin, Missouri, Indiana, Louisiana, West Virginia, California, and Ontario, and possibly a few more places that I can't think of at the moment. Over the course of this, I've run games for literally hundreds of players, including campaigns with more than 40 participants and games with more than a dozen seated at the table.

During this time, I have discovered that there are players who, given a well-run sandbox game, are not interested. But, IME, they are in the vast minority. I have met many players who thought they didn't like the style until they tried it. Overwhelmingly, it is my experience that a well-run sandbox is the preferable game environment. I would estimate it in the range of 10 to 1.

Obviously, not every game system is designed to run a sandbox well. Also obviosuly, not every setting is equally conducive to a sandbox. I would hate to try to run Doctor Who as a sandbox, for example!

I have never had difficulties making players care about the setting. I have known players that others have had difficulties with in this regard, that I have not, so I tend to chalk up the difference to whether or not the DM makes the setting count.

You cannot force a horse to drink, but a thirsty horse will drink more often than not, if you can lead it to water. Unfortunately, the various DMGs to date have had little to say on imparting this skill! There have been some good articles in Dragon over the years, however.

It may be that you have had bad luck with the players Fate has thrown at you. It may also be that I have had extraordinarily good luck in the same. Actually, I know I have had extraordinarily good luck, because I have certainly had some fantastic players over the years! The RCFG playtest group is certainly all one could hope for in a group -- a full table of smart, amusing, and involved personalities!

In short, my experience differs from yours. My opinions are coloured by my experience, but I can't really say that my experience is more "universal" than anyone else's.

Again, duelling anecdotes.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

Absolutely not!

Life is too short to play games you don't enjoy, and no one can run a game or design a ruleset that everyone will enjoy!

(Prove me wrong.....I'd enjoy that! )

RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

When speaking of players caring about the setting, what I am referring to (at least for my games) is the specific campaign and what is taking place within it.
If using a published setting I don't care if the players are interested in the offical game world lore or not. Being engaged in the events that surround thier actual characters is what is important.

 

[BenBrown]

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.

I wouldn't base too much on what's published in the way of adventures. An Adventure Path is a lot easier to write than a good "sandbox region".

 

[Glyfair]

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.

I think there is one big exception to this, though. Players who have the opportunity to get their own base, populate it with followers, build up this area (perhaps adventuring to do so), protect it from threats, etc. tend to really like this. Unfortunately, that style of play has sort of died down since first edition (and wasn't done very often even then, at least in my experience).

 

[Ariosto]

While there seems to be a lot of in interest in sandbox style games (including my own interest), it also seems to come entirely from DM's. I'm not sure I have seen anyone yet mention that this is the style of game they want to PLAY in

Then you have missed my own comments (in sundry threads) about my being lately a player in a "story line" game. I like the break from DMing, but I would indeed prefer to play a more open scenario.

It led me to wonder if some of the desire people have to play in "sandbox" settings isn't actually wanting the complete free will given to their characters, but instead wanting the full range of interaction with the campaign.

In my case, it's mostly just wanting to play a game. The alternatives often don't even satisfy on that score.

In any case, it's hard to avoid the fact that they usually are quite far from what I want when I want "to play D&D".

When I was introduced to D&D, it "clicked" because it was so much like a game that I (at 10) had been playing with some other fellows ranging into their early teens. Others had been up to similar things longer, e.g., the Slobbovians.

Slobbovia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, yes, the "shared world" aspect is part of it, although my focus is on interacting with the world via the role I'm playing.

I can enjoy a straight-up individual-level wargame, but that's something else -- something for which I might turn, for instance, to The Fantasy Trip (which also makes a nicely detailed RPG, with In the Labyrinth).

Traveller nailed, for me, much the same vibe as D&D in a more elegant package, and (probably because I had been an SF fan first) quickly became my favorite.

The free PDF of 1983 Starter Traveller at ENworld's RPGnow store is pretty nifty. It's not a stripped-down "lite" version, but (by apparent intent, anyhow) all the material from the standard or basic set (Books 1-3), with charts and tables in a separate booklet, plus a couple of short adventures ("Mission on Mithril" and "Shadows").

Unfortunately, they mentioned but then left out the Experience chapter. Maybe this is the source of the legend that "classic" Traveller has no experience system?

 

[steenan]

There are several types of choices that players perceive as meaningful and get fun from them. A few of them are based on interacting with the setting in such a way that it requires a sandbox game to work. The rest is not - but the engagement with the setting, in general sense, stays crucial.

What I mean by "engagement with the setting" is players' feeling that the fictional places, persons etc. they interact with are important. As long as they are only perceived as props, players will focus on concrete things represented in the real world - dice, numbers and miniatures. When they care about what happens in the imagined space, choices that affect it gain meaning. They may be world-changing or they may be extremely local (like a conversation with a barmaid that PCs will never meet again), but they have moral weight and create emotional investment.

The engagement with imagined events comes in many flavors. It may focus on the story aspect, its flow and dramatics. It may focus on exploration of characters' personalities, on how they react to various situations and how these change them. It may focus on relations with PCs and NPCs, on various social issues. It may focus on exploring the world or on changing it to fit one's desires. Some of these are best served by a sandbox game, some work better with a predefined (although flexible) plot. The unifying aspect is the focus on what happens in game first and on the real world aspects (social and game mechanical) second.

 

[Ariosto]

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.

Yeah, that's something I remember from the 1970s-80s, but have not seen lately. It was usually the closest thing to co-DMing in my circle. It was not so much from "back story" as from characters becoming Baron Ravens Heath and delving D&D-style dungeons in which to stash their loot and monstrous guardians beneath Ravens Heath Castle.

 

[Hussar]

Honestly, I think players are more engaged by a plot based campaign because there is something RIGHT NOW that grabs their attention. They don't have to work to find something that matters. The thing that matters is right in front of them, right from the outset.

In a very open campaign, even if you do "drop hooks like leaves from a tree", the players have no real sense of engagement at the outset. It takes a fair bit of time to get into the setting when there is no big hook drawing them in at the outset.

And, speaking as someone who has had WAY too many games peter out and fail due to real life issues (both as a player and a DM), I've spent far too much time on what amounts to foreplay. I start a campaign (again, either as a player or a DM), put lots of effort into it, really try to engage in it, and then, six, eight months later, the group is seventh level, Bob and Suzie are going off to do something else, Dave's started working night shift and can't make game night and poof, campaign ends just as we are really getting going.

In all the years I've gamed, I can count the number of satsifactorily ended campaigns on one hand, even after a rather severe shop class incident. There are a metric boat load of campaigns strewn behind me that have died unnatural deaths. And I'm really tired of it. When I start a campaign, I want to KNOW that it's going somewhere and that it's going to get there in a reasonable amount of time.

I'm just tired of doing way too much gaming foreplay and not getting to the climax.

 

[Raven Crowking]

At the start of a sandbox campaign, I absolutely agree that it is worthwhile to give the players something to do immediately. Over the course of following that initial suggestion, the PCs discover many other potential things that they could be doing, and begin to plot and scheme. Obviously, the players can reject that initial something as well, if they already have some idea of what they'd like to do. At least, that's how it works when I am running the game.

I also don't plan the end of the campaign from its start. For me, the journey is far more important than the destination. I enjoy the foreplay! Also, the games that I run have multiple climaxes, as each scheme, plot, or exploration is successful or not.

So, my vote is for lots of gaming foreplay interspersed with multiple gaming climaxes. I'm not in a rush.


RC