Hussar
Legend
Yeah, this right there probably explains far more than anything else.
Your campaigns run about twice to three times as long as mine do.
BOTE said:
How so?
Player involvement - and Sandboxes
- Thread starter MerricB
- Start date
Yeah, this right there probably explains far more than anything else.
Your campaigns run about twice to three times as long as mine do.
How so?
catsclaw227
First Post
I haven't taken jabs at sandbox gaming. When I was doing it, I enjoyed it. Just because I haven't done a sandbox style campaign for a long time, doesn't mean that I dislike it. These illusory jabs at sandbox gaming are your misinterpretations of my statements. I have stated OVER and OVER that I don't place a value judgment one way or the other if one is "better" than the other.
And I did the same, from the late 70's and into the early 90's.
In the late 70s (1978 and 1979) we played with our AD&D PHB (and later, my new AD&D DMG) along with some of the Judges Guild (my first DM had a bunch of the JG supplements) stuff and our own imagination. We also threw in stuff from the old Arduin Grimoire Supplements 1 and 2, as well.
We ran campaigns, we did modules, and we did campaigns that had modules! Is that similar to your experience?
When did I say it was either-or? I didn't "shove" any adventures into our campaigns, though sometimes the players wanted to play in a couple so I worked them in. I also ran "one-shots" of published adventures (Barrier Peaks immediately comes to mind, as well as Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh).
I still have my old City State of the Invincible Overlord, Dark Tower, Wilderlands of High Fantasy, Glory Hole Dwarven Mine and Tarantis.
Heck, Tarantis was the main city in the second campaign I ever DMed!
Not ONCE have I stated that there was only one way to DM a sandbox.
MerricB said:
The general motivation for undertaking adventures is like the Hokey-Pokey: "That's what it's all about!" That's how one plays the game.
In old D&D, there is also the pursuit of treasure. The game is effectively endless, without any final win or loss, but one can keep score. Treasure -> experience points -> levels. Most of all, though, the game is a world.
It is a world in which "the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" Descend the stairs into the underworld, and see what there is to see. A ghoul? A jinn? A dog with eyes as big as saucers? Chests of silver? Pools of curious water? A table set for a feast, with an uncanny host? Glowing swords? Scrolls of spells? A talking brass horse?
There is only one way to find out. And here is a caravan to Samarkand; a ship bound for magic-littered shores beyond the Sea of Al-Karkar; a mystic with a page from the Book of Hidden Treasures describing the City of Brass; a glint of emerald in the clouds; a tower that appeared mysteriously one day, with no apparent door but with a high, small window of crystal from which unearthly music creeps by night to plant horrible dreams in the minds of men.
One starts to poke and prod and see what happens, to fill in the map and put together pieces. The first particular adventures become reconnaissance defining the objects of later ones. Actions have reactions, and consequences have consequences. Beings become friends, rivals, enemies -- perhaps all three in one! Treasure brought into circulation sometimes changes situations significantly. Enchanted artifacts are won and lost. Heroes and villains and lovers undergo metamorphoses or die, perhaps only to live again.
So, you spend several years defining your campaign world - every site, etc. - and then let the players choose where to go? No matter what they do, you've already got the site designed?
Last edited:
That's unfortunate, Hussar. Of course, I went through a period where even getting in a single game of D&D was impossible. I've now got two pretty stable campaigns; although neither could be strictly described a sandbox. In fact, you could definitely say one of them isn't; the other one has the potential, but isn't.
That second campaign - my Greyhawk homebrew - is a fascinating study. The players who participate in it aren't comfortable with driving the action. When it comes to the goals of their characters, there are none that are apparent as regards the greater campaign. At times they seem content to drift along, seizing any chance to adventure as offered by me the DM.
Meanwhile, the more successful campaigns I've run have been ones where I've driven the action, for instance: the land is under invasion by the Fhoi Myore... you need to stop them. In theory the players have the ability to go where they want and approach this in the manner they need; in practice, it ends up as more quest-driven where the quests come from me.
Thus, I set the parameters around the adventures the group goes on; their character motivations are "save the land", "go on adventure" and "be with my friends", but the genesis of the adventure is fully in my hands.
Meanwhile, another of my successful games, although it did have a lot of the DM-determined quests in it, also had a player who was very active for their own motivations: she wanted to gain power over people. When the opportunity came for her to gain status in a town, she took it. The adventures I then designed were reactions to her actions. (You've displaced the local lord? He comes for revenge. You survived his revenge, and now you want to face him in his lair? Well, I'll design his lair).
I couldn't describe the campaign as pure sandbox, but elements of it were certainly of that nature, and this part was very player-driven.
The level of engagement in that latter campaign with the elements of the campaign world was very high, needless to say.
However, and relating back to the levels of engagement in my original post, is it necessary for adventures to be derived from player action for the highest level of engagement with the campaign? I think the definition of "highest level" is fuzzy enough that you could define it as the answer being either "yes" or "no"; so a definite answer isn't obvious.
How much does it matter if a game's adventures are DM-driven or player-driven? Is this something that is actually more dependent on the dynamics of the group rather than something we can make definitive statements about? The more I consider it, the more I believe that might be the case.
Cheers!
No. I do it per the instructions in the books -- only with not so many dungeon levels to start. It grows over years, like a tree.MerricB said:
Please, by what logic did you derive that notion from these words?
me said:
Why is that so hard to understand? Do you need to read Churchill's six-volume The Second World War to have a "motivation" before playing Axis & Allies? How about Bireme & Galley, Command & Colors, Crossbows & Catapults, Privateers & Gentlemen, Raiders & Traders, Stocks & Bonds or Thurn & Taxis?
Once you are playing Axis & Allies, what motivates what you do? For most people, they are attempting to win the game, and their overall goals are set down by the designer of the game. The play from then on is set by attempting to move towards that ultimate goal, as adjusted by the countertactics (and countering the tactics) of the other players.
However, the method by which they move towards that goal - do they build up their forces first then invade; do they invade with a smaller force looking for a quick victory - is up to them and not determined by the game designer - save the general parameters of the game system.
In D&D terms, it's like running a campaign where you and the players have agreed on the overall goal (Destroy the Dark Tower), but from then on the players determine what path they take towards that goal. Of course, they might need to react to NPC actions, but they have the luxury of doing or avoiding such actions.
Compare then to the more limited choices of Command & Colours: Ancients or even Thurn und Taxis. In both games, you're limited to what your cards allow. In some cases, you have a relatively wide selection of options; sometimes you are extremely constrained. Your goal is normally to win, but you have much fewer options. In both these games, your play may be constrained greatly, especially in comparison to other games.
The scripting in these games also varies; Arkham Horror is a pretty impressive addition to the adventure genre. It's interesting to see how sandboxy it and a game like Talisman plays. Conversely, a game like Knizia's Lord of the Rings is far more scripted. Each board has a goal (or two).
The similarity between all of these games is that their ultimate goals are well-defined by the game designer. When you pick up and play one of them, you know what the game experience will be like.
The difference with D&D is profound: in D&D, the ultimate goal may be decided by the DM, by the players, or indeed for there to be no ultimate goal. Going exploring and looking around might be an initial spur for some D&D games, but it hardly applies to all.
It matters as much as what game one wants to play.MerricB said:
"DM-driven" cuts out strategy. It's analogous to stringing together several tactical scenarios. "We'll re-fight Brandywine, Freeman's Farm, Germantown and Bemis Heights."
That's dandy if what one wants is to line up the troops and start shooting.
If one would prefer to start with the strategic situation, say, right after Princeton, and maneuver to whatever battles may in the event arise as a consequence of one's moves, then that is something else.
MerricB said:
I never saw this problem in the 1970s or 1980s. People played D&D because it was the game they wanted to play. There was no confusion as to the expectations. How to score points was about as clear as in basketball -- which has never kept the Harlem Globetrotters from playing their own game.
I think the problem is no profound difference between old D&D and other traditional games. I think the problem is a profound difference between those and what some people wanted D&D to be -- what it really is now, from WotC.
Obviously, Axis & Allies was nothing like Vampire: the Masquerade. Old D&D, on the other hand, bore a confusing superficial resemblance.
Well, this is again a difference between old and new. I don't see that the new has so much to do with exploration. If one doesn't get enough of a kick out of playing in/with the sand, then one may as well walk on by the sandbox.
Last edited:
The Shaman
First Post
Interesting analogy. I like it.
