Players: it's your responsibility to carry a story.

[S'mon]

But, how do the PC's "encounter" these NPC's? They wander the city, dungeon crawling style, taking random turns until they "find" adventure? You, as the DM, just ask which random streets they decide to head down, describing what they see until they find something that catches their eye?

Or, do you have a couple of scenarios in the hopper at the outset, just to get the player's feet wet, introduce the setting, introduce a couple of NPC's and then sit back?

More the former, but I do include 'bangs' - including events that initiate street wandering, such as subsequent fleeing from enemies/the Law - and 'floating hooks' which can be dropped in during random wandering where appropriate and can lead to the developed locales in the 'Wraith Overlord' supplement. If you stretch definitions the latter two could be considered 'scenarios'.

 

[S'mon]

Note that my approach to sandbox reality is that while much is predetermined, much 'crystallises' into certainty at the point of contact with the players. Before that point a floating plot hook is in a Schrodinger state, not yet attached to NPC A, B, or C. Which NPC it attaches to will have consequences for that NPC and for the campaign as a whole. Eg IMC when plot hook A (To Despot Ruins) did *not* attach to an NPC it established that she did not have a sister with sons kidnapped by goblins, when plot hook B (To Patrician Theatre) did attach to her it established that she was the niece of a Marquis, and also an orphan and only child.

 

[Lanefan]

I read a lot of essays over the years suggesting that D&D could be used to run this, that, and the other kind of adventure, but often with a caveat along the line of, ". . . if you just change this rule . . ."

Yet the truly remarkable thing is the design was robust enough that you *could* change this rule or that rule to suit the setting and still have a very playable game.

One thing about these conversations is that you only ever have a partial sense of how others are playing the game, and how typical or untypical their games are, or one's own game is.

I have seen you, in other threads, defending the legitimacy of intra-party conflict. I agree with you on that, and I feel that this fits with a readiness to be open to multiple different approaches to the resolution of an encounter.

I wonder if we are typical or not. I certainly feel that the same sorts of GMs who dislike intraparty conflict, or "evil" PCs, might be hesitant about the players resolving an encounter by paying slavers to buy the freedom of their slaves.

It all comes down to how willing you are as DM to hit the curveball. Quite frankly, some simply can't do it, or are afraid to try; and I rather suspect those are the type you're referring to here.

As for selling people into slavery:

One of the key PCs in my game has the past profession of "slaver" and the personality to go with it. Early in the campaign, the party captures a gang of guys raiding a village. They don't want to just kill them, but taking them back to town is going to lead to far too much time wasted in court; but Cassandra has a solution: instead of calling these guys 'prisoners', think of them as 'inventory'. So the captives are taken to the coast and sold into slavery.

A couple of PCs rather objected to this, and tipped off the local authorities. Several rounds of bribes and counter-bribes later (the local constabulary did very well out of all this) the objecting PCs ended up being *given* - not sold, but given - to the slavers by the rest of the party, as a gift!

(and the nice side-effect here was that one of the PCs they gave away turned out to be rather significant; the party had to later go and rescue him, allowing me to run a variant of the A-Series modules...)

Lan-"if they give me hooks, I'll bait 'em"-efan

 

[The Shaman]

Yet the truly remarkable thing is the design was robust enough that you *could* change this rule or that rule to suit the setting and still have a very playable game.

Very true.

My contention is not that one shouldn't make or apply new rules - it's that many of the suggested rules I saw over the years don't necessarily mesh with the core conceits of the game. If a proposed rule change doesn't consider and isn't integrated with how characters are created and rewarded, then in my most humble and personal opinion, it's at best an inelegant solution.

 

[SteveC]

As much as I agree with the notion that it's the player's responsibility to go out and do something, there's a corollary to that: the GM is responsible for actually giving them something to do when they do follow that lead.

This comes from a game that I've been playing in for the last few weeks, but am likely done with. I GM most of the time, so I'm always trying to help a GM out when I'm playing: there's a mysterious stranger in the corner? I'm going to find a reason for my character to go speak with them. People are disappearing in the old mine? Let's find out what's going on!

But when the GM inserts so many colorful characters or situations into play without having anything come of it, it's not colorful, it's not realistic, it just becomes annoying!

I'm a pretty busy guy, so I'm normally giving up something to come play RPGs. There seems to be some notion with some GMs that there must be a passage of a certain amount of real time and a certain amount of interaction with NPCs before it becomes the magical time when something that's actually interesting will happen. Stop that!

The last session we spent four hours covering a four day journey to a nearby village that could have been summarized by "you reach the village of Fallcrest after traveling for four days. Along the way you come across some farmers transporting the harvest to Winterhaven, who tell you that the road ahead is clear. One night you hear the howling of wolves, but even the keen-eyes of the eleven ranger are unable to detect any sign of them. You're at the gates of Fallcrest, what would you like to do now?"

Seriously? That was four hours of my life I won't be able to get back. Was it realistic that the journey took a session? Darned if I know, but I do know that it did represent the tedium of a journey on horseback.

Okay, that was a bit of a rant, but I think the idea is sound... I'll delve into the intricacies of your world, but don't waste my time by having the result be tedious!

--Steve

 

[Nameless1]

You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to SteveC again.

I'm a pretty busy guy, so I'm normally giving up something to come play RPGs. There seems to be some notion with some GMs that there must be a passage of a certain amount of real time and a certain amount of interaction with NPCs before it becomes the magical time when something that's actually interesting will happen. Stop that!

I personally feel that every moment of play should have some point. The GM should always be thinking, "What am I accomplishing with this scene." If the answer is ever "Well, I'm just not ready to have something cool happen," you should break for the night. Every scene should move the plot forward or give a meaningful insight into the characters involved. Even reinforcing theme is not a really good reason to have a scene. Theme can be reinforced concurrently with advancing the story or showing characterization. Even beer and pretzels guys should relate to frustration over the story related by SteveC. Cut the crap out of your games!

And before anyone jumps all over me about using the word "plot" above, all I mean with that is that the situation is evolving. That relationship map that I talked of up thread should be called into play. Someone should be trying to forward their agenda. There is no predetermined outcome, but someone should be trying something in an effort to change the dynamic state that is the situation. The relationship map is the GMs crib sheet for figuring out on the fly who might want to try something that would affect the PCs/NPCs. Use it.

 

[Ariosto]

Players, it is your responsibility to communicate productively with the GM to make the game more fun at the time -- not just to complain after the fact to strangers on the Internet.

That was four hours of my life I won't be able to get back.

I'm betting it was you who decided how you spent that time, with 479 chances not to spend another minute the same way.

I recall a fellow who somehow got it into his head that it might be necessary to play out a tedious retreat across the Russian steppes in months of real time. I don't recall the reasoning, which was just bizarre to me anyhow.

I do recall that the reason I learned of this was that the referee asked online for advice about how to avoid a boring game.

I do not think I have ever met a GM who wanted to bore players.

I would be astounded if a GM responded to a player saying, "Please, can we gloss over details of encounters along the way, and cut to arriving at our destination?" by refusing the request -- unless the other players wanted to carry on.

Moreover, I simply cannot see how your one-paragraph summary can be the whole story.

1." Along the way you come across some farmers transporting the harvest to Winterhaven, who tell you that the road ahead is clear. "

2. "One night you hear the howling of wolves, but even the keen-eyes of the eleven ranger are unable to detect any sign of them."

Even if it took the GM more than 30 seconds to say those things, there is no way it took four hours. If it took four hours and your "game" consisted of nothing but listening to the GM, then you have an even bigger problem.

No, I will bet that you players actually chose something other than, "We'll be on our way, then." You engaged in activities, and those took up time.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

I would be astounded if a GM responded to a player saying, "Please, can we gloss over details of encounters along the way, and cut to arriving at our destination?" by refusing the request -- unless the other players wanted to carry on.
/snip

Really? You've never had a DM force you to play out scenes you found boring and asked to gloss over. Lucky man.

Heck, I quit a group over exactly this. Glacial pacing, screwing around with trivialities, that sort of thing. To give an example, we were playing in a Shackled City campaign. We had met a very nasty creature in an underground lair, and were forced to retreat.

I decided that since we were in a fairly large city and my character background was caravan guard that hiring a dozen guys with longspears or crossbows was a great idea. Their sole purpose was to whack this critter and we'd send them back home. A hunting party so to speak.

The DM forced me to interview every single prospective hireling, in character, in first person. I had to gather their history, talk them into coming etc. etc. We spent a significant amount of time gathering THREE spear carriers. Who then proceeded to be far more nuisance than help as they would pull on any traps we found, wander off like kittens and whatnot.

I quit the group shortly afterward. Only loyalty to what was a very good DM otherwise kept me there that long. But, I realized that I was spending the entire session being frustrated and bored and life's too short for that.

So, wrapping back around, if you've never run into this, count yourself lucky. That DM was the latest time I've hit that, certainly not the first time.

There are many, many DM's out there for whom pacing is a foreign concept and who think that arbitrarily throwing difficulties at the players equals challenging the players.

 

[Ariosto]

The DM forced me to interview every single prospective hireling, in character, in first person.

I presume that what you mean is that
(A) you objected
and
(B) the other players agreed with you
and
(C) the DM insisted that was the only way to hire a group of men at arms
and
(D) you chose to go along with that.

If you neglected (A), or if (B) was false, then I am not astounded.

 

[Merkuri]

I presume that what you mean is that
(A) you objected
and
(B) the other players agreed with you
and
(C) the DM insisted that was the only way to hire a group of men at arms
and
(D) you chose to go along with that.

If you neglected (A), or if (B) was false, then I am not astounded.

So what? Life's too short to stay with a group where your playstyles don't match. I'm guessing that was not the only thing that made Hussar leave.