Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MerricB" data-source="post: 5143855" data-attributes="member: 3586">I was thinking about the different levels of player involvement when playing a RPG. This isn't an in-depth analysis, but feel free to add to it in your comments.One of the unusual things about the D&D Encounters series is that it can allow a player to play one encounter each week with their character... but have all their companions change from week to week. This would seem to me to be the least involving sort of D&D I've heard of: you don't even get a full session's roleplaying out of it. You're fully working on the relationship between your character and the encounter/adventure. So, for the D&D Encounter, you're looking at the Player-Character relationship (with a more mechanical view of it, due to limited roleplaying opportunities). There's no meaningful relationship with the world: anything you change that wasn't scripted won't remain changed next session, except as regards your character.An aside: the D&D Encounter sessions are not always combats. Session 3 can have no combat in it at all.At the next level of involvement/engagement upwards (although this is a continuum), you have the play seen in the Living campaigns: you get a full session with other people, but any changes to the world are scripted, and you might be with different people next time. The major difference here is that you get a full session (3-5 encounters!) with the group, so intra-party interaction becomes more important.Of course, if you always have the same DM and players in one of the Living Campaigns, you can start approaching the next level: the Adventure Path (which, to some extent, can include shorter adventures). Your interaction with the world is still scripted (yes, you can approach it differently, but it does presume certain interactions occur). As you're now talking about an entire campaign with the same players and DM, the relationship between the party become significantly stronger. You also have much more of an ongoing story, allowing more engagement with that part of the game.Finally - and good DMs will elevate scripted adventures and APs to this level - you start engaging with the world fully: if you change something, it will remain changed. This can happen with DM-created adventures and campaign structures, or with AP/published adventures if the DM adapts them to what came before. (It's what can happen with megaadventures like the Temple of Elemental evil, if the DM isn't constrained to what is written on the page).So:* Interaction with the Character* Interaction with the Group* Engagement with the Story* Interaction with the CampaignOr something like that.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. 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).I know, in my lazier moments, the interaction with the campaign of my players isn't all that it could be... "let's just run the next adventure in this series, guys). I also know that there are times that running non-scripted campaigns for some of my players is a frustrating experience; they prefer me to set the major goals for the campaign, but the supporting cast of characters and their place in the campaign world is changing in response to their decisions, so even though I've imposed a structure over their adventures, it's still their actions that are important.Thoughts?Cheers!</blockquote>

Verification