Player involvement - and Sandboxes

[The Ghost]

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.

It has been my experience that players enter into campaigns with PC goals set before any play actually begins. Engagement comes through the pursuit of these goals.

When I sit down to make a character I decide what I want that character to achieve (a little bit of coin; a nice keep in the hills; to kill a red dragon; etc.). Plot hooks become alternate things I can do if any prove interesting to me. But that driving force behind my character is what goals I made for him at character creation.

I am not sure if proactive players are the majority or the minority - they are most certainly the majority among those I play with.

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

 

[Hussar]

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

I see what you're saying, but, as I said, I've had my fill of gaming foreplay. If you have a stable group, then, more power to you. The past four years are actually the first time since high school that I've played with anyone longer than about two years. And that's pretty brutal considering I don't think there's been more than a month or two here or there that I haven't been in a weekly game.

Far, FAR too much time spent just getting into the setting, and not enough meat.

Of course, this might change later. But, for now, I'm all about the wham, bam thank you ma'am. Minimum of foreplay, maximum of effect. Ok, I think I've abused this analogy about as much as the Mistress permits.

 

[Hussar]

It has been my experience that players enter into campaigns with PC goals set before any play actually begins. Engagement comes through the pursuit of these goals.

When I sit down to make a character I decide what I want that character to achieve (a little bit of coin; a nice keep in the hills; to kill a red dragon; etc.). Plot hooks become alternate things I can do if any prove interesting to me. But that driving force behind my character is what goals I made for him at character creation.

I am not sure if proactive players are the majority or the minority - they are most certainly the majority among those I play with.

But, how do you actually pursue those goals? There are four or five other players at the table, all with their own goals. The group half-lives I've been experiencing (or at least the campaign ones) have been about 1 to 2 years MAX. Most are less. There are so many goals, most of which are not connected to each other, that we just don't have time to really get anywhere before the campaign goes kerblooie.

Another question too - how often do you play and how long are your sessions? I think this plays a very strong factor as well. I play fairly short sessions at 3 hours, so, there isn't a whole lot of time at the table to spend on one person's goals to the exclusion of everyone else.

Like I say, I love getting into the setting, learning about the intricacies and whatnot, but, having the rug pulled out time after time after time, I find myself not caring anywhere near as much as I used to.

I'm not about the power. But, I'm also not about pissing about on a bunch of unrelated stuff when I know that the half-life of the group or the campaign is very short.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I see what you're saying, but, as I said, I've had my fill of gaming foreplay.

As they say, "Different strokes for different folks".

I don't begrudge you your non-sandbox game, and I can see how it would appeal to some. After all, DragonLance didn't undersell, AFAICT. I'm not trying to suggest that what works for you either doesn't, or shouldn't, do so.

But, how do you actually pursue those goals? There are four or five other players at the table, all with their own goals.

If you can get four or five (or more) other players at the table, each with their own goals in their own lives, I would say they've already demonstrated the ability to cooperate on mutual goals. Getting them to cooperate on individual goals is another matter, but D&D has always been a game in which protecting the welfare of your party members is the key to protecting your own welfare.

I have never found it a difficult problem, and it is something I largely leave in the laps of the players. If a PC has a goal, has helped others achieve their goals, and the other players are unwilling to allow game time to that player's goals, well, I as GM get to say which members of a split group get what focus when.

On very rare occasions, I have simply allowed very selfish players to wait while following the goals of another, far more cooperative, player. And by "very rare" I mean, once or thrice over the course of my gaming "career" (Christmas day 1979 to now).


RC

 

[Sammael]

I ask all my players to define their characters' goals prior to the beginning of the campaign. Some do... but most don't. I also remind them periodically to set those goals (however basic) and ask them if there is anything they want me to do with the campaign in order to accommodate those goals.

Case in point - my primary group (we've been gaming together for about 8 years).

Player 1 (half-elf bard) - started the campaign without any goals whatsoever (other than classic bardic "I want to be a superstar" type of thing); recently, thanks to two events that occurred in the campaign, he decided to define two primary goals - finding his elven father (of whom he knows very little) and discovering more about his elven heritage.

Player 2 (gnome mage) - started the campaign without any goals, still has no specific goals; short-term goals involve coming up with new inventions. Wants to see where the story will go.

Player 3 (half-elf druid, new player) - started the campaign without any goals, specific goals now include getting in touch with her spiritual nature, learning to dreamwalk, and stuff like that. Nothing that would help drive the campaign in any particular direction.

Player 4 (half-orc fighter) - started the campaign without any goals, still has no specific goals (other than breaking racial stereotypes about dumb and aggressive half-orcs).

Player 5 (elf cleric) - just quit the campaign due to personal issues; this particular player was always good at setting up personal goals that were usually in complete contradiction with everybody else's goals, and then, after I've spent an ungodly amount of time working on incorporating his goals into the campaign, he'd switch characters.

As I said in the other thread, proactive players are a minority among my gaming circle (both the close circle, which includes about 20 people, and the wider circle, which includes about 50).

 

[Hussar]

But, RC, assume for a second that everyone is playing nice. So, you have five separate, mutually exclusive (in the sense that one does not in any way impact the other) goals at the table. So, we help Bob first, then Jane, then Sue, then Dave then me. Then we go back to Bob (again, assuming we don't complete everyone's goal the first time around).

So, we spend ten sessions, two of which are devoted to any particular goal. Ten sessions later, the group and/or the campaign dies and no one got anywhere near their goal, even though everyone was helping everyone else.

It doesn't require jerk players. Everyone can be 100% supportive of everyone else, but, because the campaign doesn't survive longer than 30-50 sessions, no one actually manages to achieve any goals.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But, RC, assume for a second that everyone is playing nice. So, you have five separate, mutually exclusive (in the sense that one does not in any way impact the other) goals at the table.

This is where you run into problems. Why are the goals mutually exclusive?

Part of setting up a sandbox game, IMHO anyway, is ensuring that things are interconnected. When you pull a string over here, it moves a widget over there.

Let's use Sammael's players as an example, since he's been so kind as to give us a quick rundown:

Player 1 (half-elf bard) - started the campaign without any goals whatsoever (other than classic bardic "I want to be a superstar" type of thing); recently, thanks to two events that occurred in the campaign, he decided to define two primary goals - finding his elven father (of whom he knows very little) and discovering more about his elven heritage.

Player 2 (gnome mage) - started the campaign without any goals, still has no specific goals; short-term goals involve coming up with new inventions. Wants to see where the story will go.

Player 3 (half-elf druid, new player) - started the campaign without any goals, specific goals now include getting in touch with her spiritual nature, learning to dreamwalk, and stuff like that. Nothing that would help drive the campaign in any particular direction.

Player 4 (half-orc fighter) - started the campaign without any goals, still has no specific goals (other than breaking racial stereotypes about dumb and aggressive half-orcs).

Player 1 wants to find his father and learn more about elves.

Player 2 wants to invent stuff and see where the story goes.

Player 3 wants to explore her spiritual nature and learn to dreamwalk.

Player 4 wants to break half-orc stereotypes.

Only Player 1's goal requires him to go to anywhere specific -- wherever his father is, wherever elves are, wherever clues are. Player 2 will want downtime, so as to invent things. Player 3 will also want downtime for reflection, will probably want to investigate spiritual sites, and will want to locate those who can dreamwalk. Player 3 would probably appreciate some dream sequences, or even an adventure on the Plane of Dreams. Player 4 can go anywhere, so long as he can be cultured, thoughtful, and nice.

So, within the sandbox, Player 1 wants to head toward the Elven Wood. The others have no reason not to go along. As they do so, the DM seeds hooks about elven spirituality (which Player 3 will appreciate), has encounters where the half-orc is initially viewed as nasty and brutish, and perhaps changes some opinions (which Player 4 will appreciate). Player 2 wants to see where the story goes.

Later, other plot hooks and adventure seeds take the group to Big City, where Player 2 purchases and stocks a lab for inventing things. This seriously cuts into his funds, so he asks the group to follow up on a treasure map they found earlier.

Meanwhile, Player 3's investigations in dreamwalking have taken a sinister turn, as another dreamwalker begins stalking her. Following the treasure map twines two "adventures"; one when the PCs are sleeping, another when they are awake.

Etc., etc., etc.



RC

 

[Sammael]

So, within the sandbox, Player 1 wants to head toward the Elven Wood. The others have no reason not to go along. As they do so, the DM seeds hooks about elven spirituality (which Player 3 will appreciate), has encounters where the half-orc is initially viewed as nasty and brutish, and perhaps changes some opinions (which Player 4 will appreciate). Player 2 wants to see where the story goes.

Interestingly enough, this is exactly how it happened. The added point is that there is an overarching plot (of my devising) which sent the party to the Elven Wood in the first place (elves are returning from Evermeet en masse and wish to re-settle some of their old empires; party members are asked to act as envoys and scouts). Thus, it's not a true sandbox, since there are some "railroad tracks" in place (though the players can get off the train and get back on however they wish).

Later, other plot hooks and adventure seeds take the group to Big City, where Player 2 purchases and stocks a lab for inventing things. This seriously cuts into his funds, so he asks the group to follow up on a treasure map they found earlier.

Meanwhile, Player 3's investigations in dreamwalking have taken a sinister turn, as another dreamwalker begins stalking her. Following the treasure map twines two "adventures"; one when the PCs are sleeping, another when they are awake.

These ideas mirror my own, and I'm sure they will develop into a myriad of great subplots. However, the "elven return" plot remains for the players to pursue - or not, if they chose to abandon it.

 

[The Ghost]

But, how do you actually pursue those goals? There are four or five other players at the table, all with their own goals. The group half-lives I've been experiencing (or at least the campaign ones) have been about 1 to 2 years MAX. Most are less. There are so many goals, most of which are not connected to each other, that we just don't have time to really get anywhere before the campaign goes kerblooie.

Hussar - RC's example (taken ever-so-kindly from Sammael) is a good example of how the campaigns play out at my table.

Another question too - how often do you play and how long are your sessions? I think this plays a very strong factor as well. I play fairly short sessions at 3 hours, so, there isn't a whole lot of time at the table to spend on one person's goals to the exclusion of everyone else.

Every other Sunday night for five hours per session. Campaigns typically run eighteen months to three years (About as much time as it takes to go from level 1 to level 13-15 in 3.5e).

 

[The Ghost]

These ideas mirror my own, and I'm sure they will develop into a myriad of great subplots. However, the "elven return" plot remains for the players to pursue - or not, if they chose to abandon it.

Apparently great minds think alike as the DM in my Forgotten Realms game just used the "elven return" as the theme of his campaign. Despite my character's goals being unrelated to the theme it made for a hell-of-a fun campaign.