Player involvement - and Sandboxes

[ggroy]

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.

Over the years I've noticed games with players who are relatively quiet + passive as players and are playing after work to let off some steam and have fun, frequently are the groups which ended up preferring to play a module straight though or sometimes even an outright railroad.

Lately I've been playing some occasional pickup evening games of Castles & Crusades with such a group of quiet/passive + "tired after a day at work" type players. With this particular group, we just use some pre-generated characters that we make slight modifications to (ie. change a few weapons, spells, etc ...). The DM just takes some short adventures from old modules, Dungeon magazine, etc ... and runs the game for 3 or 4 hours.

The Castles & Crusades ruleset is simple enough that characters can be made relatively quickly when required, and the combat moves relatively quickly compared to 3E/3.5E. 3E/3.5E players can recognize the C&C ruleset easily too, whom may not have played earlier TSR editions of D&D/AD&D before.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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

We play Bi-weekly sessions that run about 5 hours each. A typical encounter can last as little as 20 minutes to over half a session depending on the situation. I have lowered average hit points and increased at-will damage overall for my game.

In our last session we spent about 45 min in a roleplaying encounter ( the party met some newcomers to the keep) and shopping for some minor magical trinkets from Ophelia, a cute little gnome merchant who had set up her wagon in the courtyard. After an uneventful walk to the caves of Chaos, the party entered the evil temple via a secret door that they had used the day before to break in and cause a bit of mayhem. The PC's had thus put the place on general alert and there was a sizable force waiting for them ( "Shut the door they only saw me!!" ) Taking on that force head on took the remainder of the session. However, this included several waves of opposition from the alerted temple and not what I would call "typical":

13 skeleton soldiers (non minions) , and then..........

10 zombie thugs (minions), led by 2 underpriests of party level, and then......

An elite enemy boss along with his two scary elite guards, and then.....


We ended the action there with the party wounded, mostly out of dailys and action points, and more trouble certainly headed thier way.

They could retreat and rest but they have solid intel than an innocent will become a sacrifice victim somewhere in the complex today and there are 2 paladins in the group......

Overall the combats are going by pretty fast and we haven't really felt the bite of slog so far. Back when someone else was running KOTS and we were playing strictly RAW it was a different story.

While not ideal, the game is providing the fun we need for now.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I have lowered average hit points and increased at-will damage overall for my game.

I could see that as a big help.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

preferring to play a module straight though

could be a "sandbox" in itself. It depends on what the "module" is.

The gauntlet of wargame scenarios, as epitomized by "Kobold Hall" in the 4e DMG, is obviously different from the room to roam, "In Search of the Unknown", in Quasqueton (Module B1).

3E/3.5E players can recognize the C&C ruleset easily too, whom may not have played earlier TSR editions of D&D/AD&D before.

It's funny how far cosmetics go. I find it just a drag to do arithmetic with each roll, but that's comfy to the new-school gamers. I don't know why the designers suggested modifying for primes on the other side, but I would recommend instead giving players the +6 bonus to jot down.

 

[MerricB]

I don't know why the designers suggested modifying for primes on the other side

Possibly a desire to try and be different at the expense of good game design.

I very much enjoy the old table look-up of the old AD&D combat charts; I appreciate how 3E and 4E have a simple addition going on (although I think the numbers get too big at the higher ends for it to be sufficiently simple). I don't appreciate systems like THAC0 or the Prime system.

The Prime system as written is completely stupid: instead of the player just adding 6 to their roll, it requires on every check for the DM to ask if the stat is one of the player's Primes before the check can be resolved. Huh?

 

[MerricB]

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

Erm... please don't write "WotC-D&D", because, as a generalisation, it's not true. As I recall, many 3E combats took an extremely reasonable time to resolve. High-level games are a different kettle of fish. 4E does have that problem with combat length at all levels, which you might remember me writing about before. Overlong-combats aren't always the enemy of sandboxes, they're also the enemy of storytelling and roleplaying. It's too easy for the game to devolve utterly into combat.

I really need to see if I can run some AD&D adventures sometime soon, as I need to reacquaint myself with what it feels like to run that system. (Major problem: finding players).

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

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?

What does it mean? It means I didn't express myself well at all, nor was I fully carrying through the process.

The level of interaction I'm talking about here (which is most likely not "fullest" at all) is where you talk to Bob the local king, befriend him, and next week he remembers you befriended him, and reacts based on that.

Compare that to a RPGA campaign with different DMs. Something that happens one week in the world probably doesn't maintain to the next session.

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?

There are levels of decisions - and script freedom. GDQ and A1-4 are scripted series, in which the players have a certain level of freedom, but the overall progress of their quest is defined by the adventures. In theory - and if the DM is willing - they can wander off the map into their own adventures, but I would say that many groups accept the contract that they're going through with the quest.

However, having decisions that affect the game for longer than the session in which they occur is more of the level I'm discussing here, rather than a decision as to which adventure to take next.

Cheers!

 

[Ariosto]

It is no exaggeration to state that the fantasy world builds itself, almost as if the milieu actually takes on a life and reality of its own. This is not to say that an occult power takes over. It is simply that the interaction of judge and players shapes the bare bones of the initial creation into something far larger. It becomes fleshed out, and adventuring breathes life into a make-believe world. ... What this all boils down to is that once the campaign is set in motion, you will become more a recorder of events, while the milieu seemingly charts its own course!

- Gygax, DMG, p. 87

The level of interaction I'm talking about here (which is most likely not "fullest" at all) is where you talk to Bob the local king, befriend him, and next week he remembers you befriended him, and reacts based on that.

Compare that to a RPGA campaign with different DMs. Something that happens one week in the world probably doesn't maintain to the next session.

Well, RPGA LFR events at the FLGS are -- besides a bunch of acronyms! -- a poor model, to my mind, for "real" campaigns. As I recall, one accumulates coupons that (in theory) are supposed eventually to provide moments of continuity. I never actually saw one used, and suspect that, after a fair number number of sessions, it might be easy to forget about them or miss the applicable one while hunting through a stack.

Engaging actual human memories with really memorable characters and events works much better, I think! I can't see a real campaign without DM continuity. If there are multiple DMs, then they need to work on ways to coordinate.

One night, when the RPGA group was doing a scenario I had already been through both as player and as DM, I joined a local, multi-DM 4e campaign that was successor to previous 3e and 2e (IIRC) campaigns. I liked that session a lot better than any other experience I have had of 4e (which is at any rate not my cup of tea).

It's great when, instead of the DM telling players what their "characters know", the players themselves can use actual knowledge from actual experiences of events in play.

 

[MerricB]

Well, RPGA LFR events at the FLGS are -- besides a bunch of acronyms! -- a poor model, to my mind, for "real" campaigns.

Well, if you return to my original post, I'm interested in what play experience people can get out of each form of D&D play; yes, they're not a "real" campaign, but neither do they advertise themselves as one. OTOH, they are a step up from completely unrelated adventures!

Within them you are can experience continuity of player characters and continuity of story. Continuity of group is not assumed, and the continuity of setting is poor at best, save when a single DM takes a single group through the adventures. Why then is the DM not running another campaign - alas, in these cases, it probably boils down to "not enough time or inspiration to do their own campaign."

Cheers!

 

[Ariosto]

continuity of story

Maybe, as there are codes suggesting some such sequence to scenarios. That would depend, of course, on actually getting to play them in sequence.

There was not, however, enough for me to tell the difference between scenarios in order (in a home game) and scenarios all jumbled (at the FLGS), without looking at the labels.

It's too easy for the game to devolve utterly into combat.

Definitely -- in part because that's what some people are likely to desire, having been attracted by clear billing of combat as mainly what the game is about.

Another alternative would be long but rare combats, but a game design might need some adjustment in that case if important parts are based on having more frequent fights.

I used to play Champions with people who distinguished basically "combat" and "non-combat" sessions. The difference could be subtle, especially in the case of long sessions. On the other hand, it was possible for a single battle to take up several hours -- or to go all night without a Bam! or Pow!.

I think it tends to work out better to pack some variety into each session. I personally prefer a good mix in each hour or so of play.