Pathfinder 1E Sandboxes? Forked from Paizo reinvents hexcrawling

[Bluenose]

That seems a fairly simple example to keep track of!

All the GM has to do is think, "What happened this session? Who was involved? How does that affect future events?"


RC

It is a simple example. Until I start keeping track of every messenger, every bandit gang, every piece of diplomatic correspondence just in case the PCs interact with it. And checking to see what the consequences of a message getting through/not getting through are. Because if I decide that what the PCs did has no long-term effect, that's one form of railroad, and if I decide that everything they do has a major effect, that's almost like saying they're the only people in a world of cardboard cut-outs. Neither is entirely satisfactory, which means some sort of compromise between the two extremes needs to be worked out - probably by each individual GM and group.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I suspect there's another issue at hand as well. The GM generally has huge amounts of information about the world at his command, in the back of their head. The players don't. They have only what they've been told, and often don't feel secure in making assumptions beyond that.

Lacking information with which to narrow down the possibilities, players will often succumb to option paralysis.

In a linear game, not knowing what to do is just as problematic, if the GM doesn't supply sufficient information. Well, more problematic, really, because players cannot simply choose one option among many.

It is a simple example. Until I start keeping track of every messenger, every bandit gang, every piece of diplomatic correspondence just in case the PCs interact with it.

Wouldn't it be far simpler to determine the effects of what the PCs actually do interact with? This sounds like a hypothetical increase of work for no actual gain, with no actual difference in play.

For example, in the last game I ran, two PCs decided to try to rob a goldsmiths. They were seen by the Watch, left tracks, were heard by the neighbour, opened up the 2nd floor nursery window (the smith lived over his establishment), and then left without robbing anything.

Net result? The nanny was fired for leaving the window open. Because nothing was taken, there was no reason to consult the watch or the neighbour; it appeared only that the nursery window was left unlatched and open.

I make a note, remember that it happened, and keep it in mind in case it might affect future events. This is hardly rocket science.


RC

 

[billd91]

It is a simple example. Until I start keeping track of every messenger, every bandit gang, every piece of diplomatic correspondence just in case the PCs interact with it. And checking to see what the consequences of a message getting through/not getting through are. Because if I decide that what the PCs did has no long-term effect, that's one form of railroad, and if I decide that everything they do has a major effect, that's almost like saying they're the only people in a world of cardboard cut-outs. Neither is entirely satisfactory, which means some sort of compromise between the two extremes needs to be worked out - probably by each individual GM and group.

I think you're running into the issue of missing the forest because you're focusing on the trees at the one extreme. Tracking every piece of diplomatic correspondence isn't a realistic way to tackle the possibility of PCs having a possible effect, nor is assuming that the everything the PCs do has this massive butterfly effect.
A middle way truly is the best way to go. Encounter tables can help you with this. If the PCs are traveling in an area where diplomatic couriers also ply their trade, put couriers on the encounter table with a reasonably appropriate frequency. If they interfere with the courier, have some decision rule for how important his messages were (low, moderate, high, critical) and then only make the effort to make a serious determination of their long-term effects for exchanges of high or critical import. And then, of course, make further adjustments locally for higher security for couriers in response to PC banditry.

And if they never encounter a courier, you never have to worry about tracking diplomatic correspondence.

That's just one example of finding a way to determine just what PC events may actually be important or far-reaching enough to worry about.

 

[The Shaman]

Probably because that, as I mentioned earlier, is akin to requiring your characters to be entrepreneurs. In the real world, relatively few people have the personality to be entrepreneurs. Why would these same people want to do so in game, suddenly?

Relatively few people in the real world have the personality to be assassins, or pit fighters, or holy warriors, or make deals with demons in exchange for supernatural power, but they readily assume these roles in roleplaying games.

How is assuming the role of a proactive adventure-seeker any different?

Probably because to a significant number of players that doesn't sound very interesting. They'd rather have an adventure semi-spoonfed to them that's exciting than go look for a 9-5 in-game.

That's actually my point: most adventurers aren't looking for 9-5 jobs, so in the games I run that means they should be actively looking for adventure, stirring the pot, making contacts, gathering intelligence.

The spoon-feeding part is, in my humble opnion, simple conditioning. It was not always thus, and it need not be so everafter. If more referees stop spoon-feeding their players, if more players assume greater responsibility for what happens in the game, I think you'd see a sea-change in how published adventures are written.

How is this different from how I run a game, where I throw out all kinds of potential hooks for players to do with as they will? Other than that I "railroad" a bit for the first session or two until the players have found their own feet, and when I'm ready to stop, I start "forcing" things to come to a head and close out satisfyingly, what you describe as your sandbox sounds nearly exactly the same as how I describe my non-sandbox.

Well, railroading the first session or two and forcing things to reach a conclusion are pretty significant differences.

But those differences asde, perhaps the key difference is none of what I'm putting out to the players are "hooks." There's no 'line' attached, no adventure path or series of linked encounters to follow, no BBEG encounter to be "forced" in for a "satisfying" conclusion.

In planning my game, I begin with a beginning, and then I full-stop. I don't give much thought to what happens next, because I prefer to take my cues from the adventurers. Their choices, leavened by fate in the form of dice rolls, make up the game.

For example, let's say the adventurers in Le Ballet . . . take a stroll on the Pont-Neuf. I'll decribe the basic setting -the merchants and their stalls, the actors busking, beggars, well-dressed bourgeoisie and nobles strolling in their finery, the archers of the provost-marshal on patrol, students in their gowns expounding on some point of theology in Latin, the shouting bargemen from the river below the bridge. And then I'll roll for random encounters: maybe it's a beautiful noblewoman and her maidservant, or a pickpocket masquerading as a beggar, or students from rival fencing fraternities trading insults and looking fierce. I'll throw in a random reaction roll should the adventurers interact with any of these, to guide me on the npcs' behavior.

And that's where I stop. Everything else follows from what the adventurers choose to pursue. I don't prepare plots for the adventurers to chase; I assess the consequences of the adventurers' actions, and the world responds accordingly.

 

[The Shaman]

Because, from my experience, the vast majority of D&D players can't deal with that. When placed in a sandbox, those players are simply overwhelmed with the idea that they can go anywhere, do anything... so they basically waste session upon session on pointless bickering regarding their party's direction and goals.

If they even manage to form a party in the first place (since forcing the characters to start as a party sort of defeats the point of the sandbox).

I disagree: forcing the adventurers to stay together as a party could be at cross-purposes with a sandbox-type game.

That said, the degree of connection between adventurers beginning their careers tends to vary quite a bit, in my experience. Some start closely linked, some are merely in the same location at the same time when the action begins.

But I don't see an inherent problem with player choices influencing the future direction of the game to say, "We start here together."

 

[Umbran]

In a linear game, not knowing what to do is just as problematic, if the GM doesn't supply sufficient information. Well, more problematic, really, because players cannot simply choose one option among many.

Both are problems, yes.

In a linear game, lack of information means the character doesn't know what to do next - in essence, they cannot make tactical decisions. However, they at least have some idea of what the goal they're pursuing.

The sort of information debt I'm talking about for a sandbox game leaves a player in a position where it is difficult to make strategic decisions. And without a strategy, they also cannot devise a tactic to implement the strategy.

 

[The Shaman]

*snipped*

Bluenose, forgive me for not addressing this myself, but RC and billd91 pretty much covered anything I would've said, so I won't belabor points well-made.

 

[The Shaman]

The sort of information debt I'm talking about for a sandbox game leaves a player in a position where it is difficult to make strategic decisions. And without a strategy, they also cannot devise a tactic to implement the strategy.

I can't speak for other referees, but my games tend to be full of useful information sources. If your character needs information to develop a strategy, then your character needs to ask questions.

I'm not seeing the hurdle here.

 

[Desdichado]

Relatively few people in the real world have the personality to be assassins, or pit fighters, or holy warriors, or make deals with demons in exchange for supernatural power, but they readily assume these roles in roleplaying games.

How is assuming the role of a proactive adventure-seeker any different?

There's a huge difference, because one concerns the behavior of the characters... namely, your example of being assassins, pit fighters, etc., while the other concerns the behavior of the players.

That's actually my point: most adventurers aren't looking for 9-5 jobs, so in the games I run that means they should be actively looking for adventure, stirring the pot, making contacts, gathering intelligence.

Yeah, sorry, I misread that part of your post.

The spoon-feeding part is, in my humble opnion, simple conditioning. It was not always thus, and it need not be so everafter. If more referees stop spoon-feeding their players, if more players assume greater responsibility for what happens in the game, I think you'd see a sea-change in how published adventures are written.

I don't think so. I support a more passive cause and effect relationship there, i.e., modules that had a bit more of a "story" framework became more prevalent because people liked them and they sold well. The idea that gamers were conditioned by modules, especially in an environment that's famous (or perhaps infamous, depending on whom you ask, I suppose) for its do-it-yourself attitude seems to be a case of the tail wagging the dog rather than the other way around.

Well, railroading the first session or two and forcing things to reach a conclusion are pretty significant differences.

I don't think so. But let me ask you a question. When it becomes obvious that the campaign is winding down, either because everyone's losing interest, eyeing some other game, setting or character concept, do you just stop? Or do you try to end the game on a high note by wrapping stuff up? Of does that never happen, and you're actually still just playing the same campaign taht you started, I dunno, years and years ago?

But those differences asde, perhaps the key difference is none of what I'm putting out to the players are "hooks." There's no 'line' attached, no adventure path or series of linked encounters to follow, no BBEG encounter to be "forced" in for a "satisfying" conclusion.

I think you're misunderstanding my campaign running style. There aren't any lines attached to mine either, except as I make them up, usually completely on the fly, once the hooks are bitten into. That's just commonly used vocabulary, not meant to be a fully robust analogy with fishing.

I do, however, have a decent idea in my mind of major things going on in the setting that the PCs may or may not choose to interact with. I.e., if they bite on a hook, then I have a pretty good idea what the rest of the world is likely to do as a reaction to the PCs actions.

But again, that sounds like what you're describing for your game too.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Both are problems, yes.

In a linear game, lack of information means the character doesn't know what to do next - in essence, they cannot make tactical decisions. However, they at least have some idea of what the goal they're pursuing.

The sort of information debt I'm talking about for a sandbox game leaves a player in a position where it is difficult to make strategic decisions. And without a strategy, they also cannot devise a tactic to implement the strategy.

What you seem to be talking about, re: Sandboxes, is a lack of information required to set goals.

What I am talking about, re: linear games, is a lack of information required to determine what the goal the GM set is.

Same problem.....except that, in the sandbox, anything can be a goal, and in the linear game, the players must tease out what specific goal will be rewarded.

If we play "What if the GM fails to supply enough information", you don't win because your game is linear.

I can't speak for other referees, but my games tend to be full of useful information sources. If your character needs information to develop a strategy, then your character needs to ask questions.

I'm not seeing the hurdle here.

Indeed.

Equally true in linear and sandbox games.


RC