Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Raven Crowking]

Ah, IOW, they will think they are meant to interact with it in some specific way. That makes more sense.

Neither way requires the spooky castle's placement to be random. It is, again, just a decision between "story elements" toolbox and "player choices" toolbox. YMMV as to which is more important.

In the Civil War example, in a sandbox, the player choice element allows players to take any side in the debate. Indeed, they are free to switch sides as things progress. And, because the campaign doesn't merely arc from A to B to C, they get to live with the longterm consequences of whatever choices they make, for good or ill. I have a hard time imagining a better model for exploration than one which actively encourages players to explore.


RC

 

[Janx]

Why would its placement be random in a sandbox?

Sandbox =/= "elements thrown together at random". Indeed, the less sense a sandbox setting makes, the harder it is for players to navigate it. A sandbox has a higher requirement for linked backgrounds, and though about placement, than does an AP IMHO & IME.


RC

by random, I mean placed there in an unrelated manner, not necessarily by rolling 1d20 to see what is there. I assume CR means the same.

It is possible that I'm (can't speak for CR) assuming an extreme example of sandbox where DM's just throw on "random" hooks and dungeons and wait for the PC to pick one, just as some other folks have assume that our style means we have a tightly plotted, rigid with no input freedom of choice for the players.

 

[Raven Crowking]

by random, I mean placed there in an unrelated manner, not necessarily by rolling 1d20 to see what is there. I assume CR means the same.

Unrelated to what?

 

[Janx]

In the Civil War example, in a sandbox, the player choice element allows players to take any side in the debate. Indeed, they are free to switch sides as things progress. And, because the campaign doesn't merely arc from A to B to C, they get to live with the longterm consequences of whatever choices they make, for good or ill. I have a hard time imagining a better model for exploration than one which actively encourages players to explore.


RC

In the "story" method, early sessions would have hints of a national division as background fluff. Some adventures might have elements of it, like acts of terrorism, seccesionism, etc. I'd see if I can sense which way the PCs are leaning (or not leaning). If they have a leaning, I'd make some events to affect them that encourage that leaning.

Then news of the war would break, and I'd start making war events happen that directly affect the PCs, particularly in ways that support/encourage their leanings. Basically, get them actively involved in the war by making bad or good stuff happen to them.

If I had PCs that were neutral, the war would be a back drop to whatever the PCs really wanted to be doing. it might expose vulnerabilities or opportunies (all the menfolk are at war, the banks are unguarded).

The tricky part would be if the party is split. That'd be cool, but I'd be inclined to split the groups and run 2 games, until some big climax session.

 

[CharlesRyan]

Why would its placement be random in a sandbox?

Sandbox =/= "elements thrown together at random". Indeed, the less sense a sandbox setting makes, the harder it is for players to navigate it. A sandbox has a higher requirement for linked backgrounds, and though about placement, than does an AP IMHO & IME.

Fair enough; sorry I used the word "random." How about "unrelated to the events of the campaign?"

 

[Raven Crowking]

The tricky part would be if the party is split. That'd be cool, but I'd be inclined to split the groups and run 2 games, until some big climax session.

I would be inclined to think that, because they have to work out their differences on the big issues to be effective in their daily stuff, this would be the most effect set-up, assuming that the game was not split.

OTOH, I would say that your story game leans in toward the sandbox side quite a bit. Use of one toolbox (story elements/player choice) constrains, but does not preclude use of the other. You just have to find the balance you are most comfortable with.

IMHO, anyway.


RC

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

In the Civil War example, in a sandbox, the player choice element allows players to take any side in the debate. Indeed, they are free to switch sides as things progress. And, because the campaign doesn't merely arc from A to B to C, they get to live with the longterm consequences of whatever choices they make, for good or ill.

I don't know if it's just the example you are using that's causing me to scratch my head at the moment or a blurring between Sandbox and Plotted. A plotted campaign can allow for players to take any side they wish as well. (1) And campaigns arc from A to B to C whether Sandbox or Plotted and players of either type of campaign have to live with their choices. The only difference I really see is that players that are uninvested in the Civil War story in a sandbox campaign can try to avoid the scenario entirely by declaring that they attempt to jump the border. A Plotted campaign seems to ask the players to buy into the story, whereas a Sandbox seems to allow player choice of story. Why not just ask the players what type of story they are interested in buying into and plot that for them?



(1): [sblock]In my current campaign I'm using Demon Queen's Enclave. The party has already chosen a side and then switched sides after an extended discussion with another NPC.[/sblock]

 

[Raven Crowking]

Fair enough; sorry I used the word "random." How about "unrelated to the events of the campaign?"

Sorry, but I am not seeing how this is a requirement of (or even desireable in) a sandbox campaign.

One goal (IMHO, anyway) of sandbox design is to interrelate things so that there is always an organic relationship between campaign elements.

Nor does a sandbox preclude using strong story elements (again, IMHO). In one campaign, a player decided that he began the game with amnesia. He didn't know who he was, but was taken in by a religious order. I then decided who he was, and worked those elements into the game. It turned out that he was the reflection of a powerful wizard, that had escaped from the Plane of Mirrors.

Fun stuff for everyone. It certainly led to more in-depth character backgrounds around the table.

In the same campaign, a character was the son of people who had worked with the reviled Amoreth the Arcane when he caused Selby-by-the-Water to collapse. Now, I knew that this event was caused by aboleth tunnelling beneath the city. Amoreth the Arcane died trying to stop them. Therefore, this PC's family died trying to stop them, too. Again, a fun moment when he discovered that his parents were heroes (of sorts) and had died trying to protect him.

These sorts of stories and story elements can occur throughout the course of a sandbox campaign. Again, IMHO. YMMV.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

And campaigns arc from A to B to C whether Sandbox or Plotted and players of either type of campaign have to live with their choices.

Granted. The difference, IMHO, is that in a sandbox the milieu is expected to move from A to B to C, and the players are expected to deal with it however they choose. In an AP, the PCs are expected to move from A to B to C.

I suppose that there is a difference in that I view "jumping the border" to be a valid choice, with consequences all of its own.


RC

 

[The Shaman]

If you're playing a sandbox where nothing really matters, then of course, your players are free to choose anything. But then, none of it really matters, not even to the PCs.

In a sandbox the adventurers have goals. They are free to pursue those goals however they see fit. In the meantime, there are events going on around them, some of which they may choose to become involved in the course of play, such as aiding an ally. They may find themselves amidst events that affect the setting, such as the outbreak of a war. They may create conflicts, deliberately or inadvertently, such as making a rival.

How you get from there to "nothing really matters" leaves me bumfuzzled, to be honest.