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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Haltherrion" data-source="post: 5109761" data-attributes="member: 18253">Some decades ago, my games used to look more like this but I don't find it practical these days. It isn't because I don't like building sandboxes. But my views on the whole matter have shifted. For starters, I view the whole thing more as a spectruum:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">one end of the spectruum a true andbox where the ref can create enough material ahead of time and ad lib neutrally for the rest that the ref is essentially providing a fantasy world simulation that the players interact with.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">the other end is a setting with only enough desribed to support a story driven by the referee. In the extreme case no player decisions matter but in likely workable cases, players can decide the little things but the basic unfolding of events is in the ref's hands.</li> </ul>I don't think anyone claims to truly do the first one but there are a number who tend strongly to that side. Over the years, I have drifted more to the middle and have played in other's games that are more towards the latter and yet are perfectly enjoyable and perhaps, more memorable. It is my belief that there is actually nothing superior to one method over the other. You don't find too many arguing on the second end of the continuum but you do find plenty suggesting that the sandbox end is somehow superior. I suggest each referee tries to understand his own abilities and interests (sandboxes can take a lot of out of game time, for instance which you had better enjoy) as well as the engagement level and interests of the players and work from there. Success on the sandbox side of things is largely driven by player engagement I've found and one reason I have shifted to the middle over the years is that without me, the referee, providing more story and more goals, the players tend to wander aimlessly and have a less enjoyable time which, over the long run, means they have more mysterious scheduling conflicts, etc. Are my players bad players? Well, as a group, they certainly don't put as much into the campaign as they did in other years, namely my distant college and high school days. Perhaps some of that is that my friends are less nerdy but I think the real reason is that they are now adults with a lot of other demands on their time and drawing up the castle plans to their PC's new character isn't top on their list of play-time activities. Have my ref skills weakened? I suppose that's possible but I think it is more the opposite: with experience I have dissected campaigns past to see what works and what doesn't and tried to improve my own and my players' gaming experiences. To me, that means engaging more in the story creation side of things. Typically for me, that means providing multiple plot seeds that the players can choose from. Not a lot, usually 2-3 (I am mortal afterall). Once they choose a plot, they certainly can take it places I haven't anticipated but the understanding among players and refs is that they stick to it unless they have good reason to depart from it. Why? Well, they will get prepared, well considered material from me if I know where they are going. If they go on a random tangent, they get ad libbed stuff. The former is usually memorable with plenty of surprises to engage the players. The latter is fun at the time but readily forgotten. The nice thing about RPGs is that a wide range of styles can work. Specifically, you can still have a good skill ref, accomplished skilled players, without having to have a sandbox-ish world. There is nothing inherently superior about the sandbox.</blockquote>

Verification