Player involvement - and Sandboxes

[ggroy]

I did came across a game where all the players actually preferred a railroad, instead of a sandbox.

When I first played 4E D&D, the first DM pulled out midway in the middle of the campaign due to other pressing commitments. We were just finished playing "Keep on the Shadowfell" when this happened. The first DM more or less played it close to how the module was written. At the time, we were figuring out the 4E ruleset.

After the first DM left, I ended up DM'ing the game. I asked the players whether they wanted to do a sandbox style game, for which they all agreed at first. (We ended up using the then released 4E Forgotten Realms at the time). But after playing every week for over a month or so, it turned out the players were not so interested anymore in a sandbox, and wanted to go back to playing straight through a module. It turned out with this particular group, there wasn't any particular dominant player who was leading the group anywhere. As much as I tried presenting the group with possible choices of directions, the game ended up becoming "rudderless" with no clear direction at all. It turned out these players had never really played in any sandbox games previously. So we agreed to stop the game abruptly and I resigned as DM. One of the other players changed over to DM. I continued playing with this group as a player, where we went through the "Thunderspire Labyrinth" module.

At the time when I resigned as DM of the first game, I started another 4E game on a different evening, with a different group which had more experienced players who were accustomed to sandbox type games. For this more experienced group of players, the sandbox game format was what exactly they wanted and the game didn't become rudderless.

 

[Ariosto]

For RPGA LFR, they wanted to have the particularity of a player's personal characters. With no guaranteed continuity of players or characters, an extended plot line did not make much sense. So, they went for one-session scenarios that don't require any continuity.

As I mentioned in another thread, that element of ad hoc parties, formed from a large pool of players each with a bullpen of characters, is familiar from "the old days". It's something I think is often missed in discussions of "balance" that take for granted the monolithic party advancing in lockstep.

In my experience, the table gets to choose a scenario from those available. So, there's an element of player choice.

A notable point: In LFR, the party (at least in terms of players) forms first, and afterward comes selection of scenario. If it is feasible, I think it pretty desirable in a "sandbox" campaign for players to get their plans together -- and notify the referee of them -- ahead of the session. That seems to help avoid some of the headaches that seem often to worry people.

Once into the scenario, though, options are very limited. As I think Raven Crowking may have observed earlier, when one looks at why players' interactions with the world are of little significance, one reason is the limitations on player freedom.

When we capture a pirate ship, we are not allowed to sail off in it because -- as in a video game -- that would take us out of the scenario and so effectively over "the edge of the world". Of course, neither can we keep it for use in a later scenario.

Nor can we stay in a place, and we are not likely to return to one to see the changes we have wrought, because we cannot really make changes. The place would only ever be however a writer dictated it should be for the next scenario, regardless of our efforts. So, instead, it is perpetually returned to its initial state like the town in the movie Groundhog Day. (Also as in the movie, or in a video game, players can keep practicing to get "the solution" down pat. They just need to keep bringing different characters.)

There is nothing personal about the scenarios. We are merely choosing from a menu a complete "package deal", more like tourists than like daring captains. Instead of plotting and scheming, we conform to someone else's plot scheme.

Nor are there many significant choices even in the progress of the very linear scenario. Almost all the import of an encounter, barring character death, is self-referential. The real game is at that level, each encounter basically a game unto itself.

Or perhaps the real game is at the character "build" level, and all the rest is rather as the rounds of combat tend to be in old D&D: feedback on the quality of the really significant and strategic choices. In the old game, those were on the rather dramatic order of whether to fight in the first place.

In the new one, the focus seems to be at the two ends of choosing which powers to "build into" a character, and which power to use this round. I know those are really the bee's knees to many people, but to me they are more like trivia cluttering the way back to the really interesting choices.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Going back over my 3e experiences, so, the last 10 years, it would break down thus:

Camp 1 - fellow teachers at a Korean university - 1 year, then contracts ended and moved

Camp 2 - Began online VTT play. Used Scarred Lands. Lasted about 2 years. Had over FIFTY players pass through the table. One original player.

Camp 3 - (not me DMing) last 2 years. I'm the only original player before the campaign died of unnatural causes.

Camp 4 - Scarred Lands again. Sandbox set in Shelzar. Died after six months.

Camp 5 - World's Largest Dungeon - 2 years, very sandboxy, 2 original players, 2 more that started very early in the campaign, about a dozen or so others that floated through the cursed "fifth chair". Sigh. First satisfactory ending to a campaign since 1e.

Camp 6 - Age of Worms. 1 year. Died. (not me DMing)

Camp 7 - Eberron (not me DMing) - 4 players throughout. 1 year. Satisfactory ending.

Camp 8 - Savage Tide - 1.5 years - 4 players throughout. 1 year. Satisfactory ending.

Since then, we've been game hopping - trying a bunch of new systems. No real campaign play at all. It's been a blast.

So, about the first half of my 3e experience has been in campaigns that died unnatural causes. Fortunately, my other group is now pretty stable and things have gotten much better. But, because of my past experience, I'm pretty reticent about planning to have a campaign that runs that long.

Of course, my newest campaign (Sufficiently Advanced again) is my shot at a bit of a hybrid. The main plot of the campaign is fairly linear. Each scenario may be more or less linear (some are downright unlinear), but there is a strong link between each scenario. However, at a higher level, the players can control large organizations in which they can pursue a number of self generated goals. Essentially, I want to have it all - a linear campaign where I can set up a fairly strong story with some fairly specific themes and goals, and a sandbox campaign where the players can do pretty much whatever they like.

I'm just a greedy bastard that way.

 

[MerricB]

It turned out with this particular group, there wasn't any particular dominant player who was leading the group anywhere. As much as I tried presenting the group with possible choices of directions, the game ended up becoming "rudderless" with no clear direction at all.

I think the need for a leader-type amongst the group is important; or one with strong personal motivations.

Cheers!

 

[weem]

I think the need for a leader-type amongst the group is important; or one with strong personal motivations.

Cheers!

Absolutely. I had one group I would never consider for such a game because none of them cared to do more than they needed to in order to get by, let alone step up and drive. But, add any one of the players I know who excels there, and I know not only would it work well, but the other players would much rather it be that way and would enjoy themselves much more.

 

[Ariosto]

Even in the RPGA scenarios, which are extremely linear in their overall structure, there is some expectation of players "having a clue" enough not to be totally perverse.

Something bad is going on, the villagers say, and the source seems to be over yonder in the fairy woods/ abandoned temple/ creepy sea-caves / wherever. Or there's something some patron wants and will reward them as fetch it. Or some other such lead.

That's where the only adventure at hand is to be found, and yet I have never seen players miss the clues. I have not seen them decide to pass it up entirely. I have not seen them sitting around doing nothing for four hours.

If people have more than one way to turn, if indeed whichever way they turn these core assumptions of the D&D world (courtesy of the 4e DMG, p. 150) apply ...

The World Is A Fantastic Place

The World Is Ancient

The World Is Mysterious

Monsters Are Everywhere

Adventurers Are Exceptional

... then people have to work harder to avoid adventure.

The only really heavy-handed railroading I have seen in RPGA was when players were "supposed to" go through a combat or a skill challenge but wanted to respond to a particular sub-situation in another way.

Even in those cases, it was (I am pretty sure) not an RPGA requirement. It was a matter of the DMs' unwillingness to improvise. I would chalk up those occasions alongside DMs who would not allow people even to try things, rather than applying the "page 42" guidelines.

 

[Ariosto]

If people do not want the freedom of multiple options, but do want "the full range of interaction with the campaign", then what does that mean? What is it they want?

I wouldn't be utterly surprised that if, even in a moderately scripted campaign, that you can make your decisions count and cause the campaign's script to be adapted (obviously, you need a DM who can do so).

How does "making your decisions count" work when people want not to make decisions in the first place? How are they to know what the script was?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think the need for a leader-type amongst the group is important; or one with strong personal motivations.

Cheers!

Even more important, IMHO, is the choice of game system.

The longer it takes to resolve an encounter in a game system, the more weight each encounter bears in determining whether or not the session was fun. In a game where encounters routinely take 30+ minutes to resolve, this means that each encounter should contribute more overall to the game session than a system where many encounters are resolved in 5 minutes or less.

For this reason alone, IMHO, WotC-D&D is a poor venue for sandboxing.


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

Even more important, IMHO, is the choice of game system.

The longer it takes to resolve an encounter in a game system, the more weight each encounter bears in determining whether or not the session was fun. In a game where encounters routinely take 30+ minutes to resolve, this means that each encounter should contribute more overall to the game session than a system where many encounters are resolved in 5 minutes or less.

For this reason alone, IMHO, WotC-D&D is a poor venue for sandboxing.


RC

Not too long ago I might have agreed about this but I have been running a 4E sandbox campaign since last September and its been going very well.

We just played our 12th session of the campaign this past Friday and events seem to be moving at a satisfactory pace. I'm using a converted Return to the Keep on the Borderlands along with some homebrewed material to start things off. I haven't modified the maps or the way I run encounters to accomodate the 4E mechanics and the results have been great thus far. The players decide where to go and what to spend thier valuable time doing. A good part of one session was spent on the trial of a bandit captain that the party had captured and brought to the keep. They could have just left sworn statements as thier testimony and moved on. Instead they negotiated a plea bargain that would save the bandit from the noose in exchange for valuable intel about the real bad guys in the area that the bandits were working for. The sentence was reduced to life in a work camp.

I do think that encounter resolution in real time does have an impact on the pace of campaign event progress and that if things are moving too slowly then some groups might find that less enjoyable but this would be the case in a storyline driven game or a sandbox IMHO.

Actually I see the problem being worse in a story based game because the players have less control over the pace and direction of things and might be more likely to blame the system and/or DM for the slow progress.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Not too long ago I might have agreed about this but I have been running a 4E sandbox campaign since last September and its been going very well.

How long are your game sessions, and how long does it take to resolve the average encounter? These are critical, to my mind. If you have long sessions, and/or if you resolve encounters more swiftly (i.e., have houseruled to end grind), I could see it working.

After all, I ran 3e.

I just don't think we are talking about ideal systems here.


RC