Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Imaro]

But, that's the problem. All of the things the players will interact with are separate and distinct from their characters or backgrounds for the most part. Even if they players read the entire campaign setting back to front, the odds that their particular backgrounds will tie to any specific element are pretty tenous. That spooky castle on the hill exists in the campaign world irrespective of whatever players or characters are brought to play.

To me, I'd much rather change the campaign world to reflect the characters. If they are playing a bunch of church knights out to slay undead Van Helsing style, then, fine, spooky castle it is. If, OTOH, they are all playing ninja assassins (shudder), then spooky castle isn't going to cut the mustard. Instead, it will be a living castle of someone they need to spy on.

Ok, I'm curious... what do you do if a player isn't ready or doesn't want to flesh their character's background out before you all get to playing? Do you force them to anyway so that you can tie them into your campaign (this seems more for your benefit than for the player)... or do you ignore them as far as tie-ins go (so then if you've done this what is the big deal about having pre-game connections and hooks.)?

A second point is that the PC's are only missing background until they interact with something or someone in the campaign... yet even with out the detailed, pre-written background there are ways to tie PC's into a sandbox campaign, it just takes some creativity and cooperation. One of the techniques I've used when running a sandbox is that the characters can interject a certain number of memories, flashbacks or dreams that can help tie them (with DM and/or tab le approval) into the NPC's/events/locations/etc. of the campaign.

Finally I think your example of the ninja and the spooky castle are exactly what I'm talking about. I think a story of a clan of ninja who enter a manor, for whatever reason, only to discover it full of undead and spirits could make for a fun and interesting adveture... yet by your method, you have automatically discarded it because it doesn't fit within your vision of a "ninja campaign"... IMO, it seems you could miss out on some cool adventures and plotlines because you are purposefully limiting yourself and your players. Like I said earlier your method may provide for a more focused game... but that doesn't necessarily translate to a more fun game.

People talk about this, but, IME, what actually happens is the campaign never gets a chance to gain any depth. The players are constantly trying to see what's over the next hill, so never stay in one place long enough to make any connections or whatnot to the campaign world.

I'm not trying to be snarky, but this seems to be a problem with your ability to run a sandbox... not with the concept of sandbox play (especially since you've fallen back on insinuating that people who have run these types of campaigns may just be talking but not actuallly doing).

IME, you have to create things that entice and present the opportunity for the PC's to want and create connections. I mean don't they have a home base? what are the politics going on within it and how do they affect the PC's? How do they uncover the locations of things without researching and/or interacting with those who would know more in their homebase? Do they seek out mentors and masters to train with? Henchmen or companions to adventure with? How about rivals that are seeking the same things they are?

 

[SkidAce]

I disagree with your presentation. I think its more like a mix where you can scale story from 1 to 5 and scale game from 1 to 5.. they are not exclusive, altho one can be paid more attention than the other.

Using this, my game could be descibed as S3/G5, whereas it appears Hussar would be more along the lines of S5/G3.

And a pretty good bet that his game is just as fun/good as I hope mine is.

I actually agree with you to an extent. The "they are not exclusive" part. Which is why I said I don't think anyone plays at the extreme ends. I just consider more of one to be less of the other, due to (IMO) being at ends of the style spectrum.

However, it is a good bet that your game, Hussar's game, and my game are all enjoyable and fun. I don't think there is anything wrong with any particular style...whatever works for the group.

Good points Primitive Screwhead, thanks...

 

[Ariosto]

If you are recycling adventures from one campaign to the next, then those adventures, by their very nature, have to be generic.

But I am not -- because I am not predetermining adventures in the first place.

How can you avoid being generic and bland while still maintaining a campaign so open ended that it doesn't matter who plays what in it?

So, the only way in which it can "matter who plays what" is by playing your way? Thus, any other kind of campaign must be "generic and bland"?

Unlike certain other statements that were in fact matters of fact and so properly addressed as such, these actually are opinions. They are opinions about campaigns of which you in fact do not have, and by reasonable extrapolation are not likely ever to be in a position to have, first-hand knowledge. Of what consequence, then, should they be to those of us who in fact are engaged in those campaigns?

The big, fundamental difference here is between
(A) the conception of an "adventure" as something that happens to player-characters (DM's "plot') and
(B) the conception of an "adventure" as something the player-characters do (players' "plot").

It appears that some people, so far from not liking (B) might simply not grasp the concept in the first place. That might have less to do with expecting any game to be a "fiction" than with expecting any game to have unambiguous victory conditions. "But how does one win?" seems to be a common enough puzzlement about old-style RPGs.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I don't see improved player motivation to be a strength of sandbox. After all, the players have already chosen to turn up. They've travelled maybe some distance. They've selected this GM's game out of many activities they could be doing. The players are already motivated to play in whatever the GM serves up for the evening's entertainment. Whether he has prepared one, or several, adventures doesn't matter.

What I feel is the great strength of sandbox is that it makes player decisions matter. The players are more important. They can affect the course of the campaign at a more macroscopic level than in a non-sandbox game.

A possible flaw in a sandbox is if the adventures on offer are too similar. This makes the players choice less important. It doesn't really matter if you have a choice of a dozen different adventures if all those adventures are basically the same. The Caves of Chaos in the module The Keep On The Borderlands suffer from this problem to a large extent. The humanoid lairs are very, very same-y. Guard post, common room, females and young, prisoners, chief, treasure hoard. It's basically just the same lair repeated six times over but with different hit dice. D&D in general suffers from this problem - too many dungeons. Too many monsters. Too many fights.

It could be said that this great strength of sandbox, the players ability to choose adventures, is only an improvement over non-sandbox within the course of a session. In a non-sandbox game, the GM can still prepare adventures according to player desires between sessions. It's only within the confines of a session that he's more restricted.

Here I'm using sandbox to mean the GM has prepared more than one adventure prior to each session. So it's perfectly possible, even in a non-sandbox, for the GM to select his single adventure according to the events of the previous session, and/or the desires expressed by the players.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It appears that some people, so far from not liking (B) might simply not grasp the concept in the first place. That might have less to do with expecting any game to be a "fiction" than with expecting any game to have unambiguous victory conditions. "But how does one win?" seems to be a common enough puzzlement about old-style RPGs.

I'd say old school D&D does have a fairly unambiguous victory condition - get to name level. In this respect it's the same as 3e and 4e, where the goal is to get to 20th and 30th level respectively.

There are certainly lose conditions - PC death. Avoiding losing could be said to be a minor victory, in the absence of satisfying the major victory condition.

I don't see any difference between old and new here.

 

[Ariosto]

I don't see any difference between old and new here.

Do you see the difference between A and B?

Also, is there anything that does not "look like a story" to you?

Here I'm using sandbox to mean the GM has prepared more than one adventure prior to each session.

In that case, I definitely do not run a "sandbox".

You know what? That appears to do away in one sweep with a whole lot of nonsense from certain parties!

I referee a D&D campaign in accordance with the instructions for doing so in the seminal works. If you really want to find out what I mean, then you can ask me and pay attention to what I say about my own campaign.

I will not "play the game" of letting you tell me how my campaign "must" be -- and accepting the "sandbox" label apparently has been reduced to an excuse for you to do just that.

 

[Hussar]

However, the act of formulating goals and bolting them onto a pre-existing ruleset does not necessarily create a game. The ruleset must be altered so that the outcome of newly-bolted goals is unknown, and so that player choices and/or actions affect that outcome. It is not enough to simply bolt on new goals.

And this is where we disagree. I do not think that the ruleset needs to be altered. Thus, I don't think we're ever going to agree on this one.

You are quite correct. However, if the PC's choose to investigate, the spooky castle can be populated by either undead or be the focal point of a political schema that needs to be spied on... depending on the players, the PCs, and the general feel of the game.
/snip

Hang on a tick here. Excellent post btw, but, I wanted to tease this out. You're saying that nothing in the game world exists until the PC's interact with it and that game world elements can and will be changed to suit the particular group of players and characters.

This is not how I have seen sandbox detailed in the past. To most people, a sandbox world exists independently of the PC's and details are fixed. That spooky castle has whatever the DM has put in that spooky castle regardless of what group is playing.

If your sandbox is maleable to the group playing, then I'm not sure if it counts as a sandbox anymore.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, I'm curious... what do you do if a player isn't ready or doesn't want to flesh their character's background out before you all get to playing? Do you force them to anyway so that you can tie them into your campaign (this seems more for your benefit than for the player)... or do you ignore them as far as tie-ins go (so then if you've done this what is the big deal about having pre-game connections and hooks.)?

I play with players for which this is not an issue. Our playstyles match. So, tbh, I can't really answer you. We also spend the entire first session collectively creating characters, so, unless said player is sitting in the corner playing on his Iphone, he's going to create a character tied to the rest of the party and the campaign.

An example of one method I used to great effect can be found: here.

A second point is that the PC's are only missing background until they interact with something or someone in the campaign... yet even with out the detailed, pre-written background there are ways to tie PC's into a sandbox campaign, it just takes some creativity and cooperation. One of the techniques I've used when running a sandbox is that the characters can interject a certain number of memories, flashbacks or dreams that can help tie them (with DM and/or tab le approval) into the NPC's/events/locations/etc. of the campaign.

So your sandbox appears to be similar to Primitive Screwhead's. The sandbox is kinda sorta there, but can be altered as needed by the players with the collaboration of the DM. Sounds like a fun game.

Finally I think your example of the ninja and the spooky castle are exactly what I'm talking about. I think a story of a clan of ninja who enter a manor, for whatever reason, only to discover it full of undead and spirits could make for a fun and interesting adveture... yet by your method, you have automatically discarded it because it doesn't fit within your vision of a "ninja campaign"... IMO, it seems you could miss out on some cool adventures and plotlines because you are purposefully limiting yourself and your players. Like I said earlier your method may provide for a more focused game... but that doesn't necessarily translate to a more fun game.

Never said that it did. See below for more.

I'm not trying to be snarky, but this seems to be a problem with your ability to run a sandbox... not with the concept of sandbox play (especially since you've fallen back on insinuating that people who have run these types of campaigns may just be talking but not actuallly doing).

IME, you have to create things that entice and present the opportunity for the PC's to want and create connections. I mean don't they have a home base? what are the politics going on within it and how do they affect the PC's? How do they uncover the locations of things without researching and/or interacting with those who would know more in their homebase? Do they seek out mentors and masters to train with? Henchmen or companions to adventure with? How about rivals that are seeking the same things they are?

Actually, before the campaign begins, I probably have no idea if they have a home base. I have no idea what politics are going on and how the PC's fit into that. As far as uncovering locations, that's a pretty broad question. Why are they doing that? What prompted them?

My point is, all those details are given to me by the players when they create their characters. The players, with me, create the campaign and the campaign is tailored specifically for this group of characters. Nothing is interchangeable.

------------------------

While I realize throughout this thread, I've been arguing for a specific kind of game, it should not be thought that I always run this kind of game, nor do I think it's superior. I've run sandbox games (World's Largest Dungeon is a good example). I've run lots of different kinds of games. My point here has been to simply present an alternative.

People consistently claim that sandbox campaigns are the epitome of gaming. I disagree. I find they're fantastic for swashbuckling, beer and pretzels games where the players just want to have a blast and kill some goblins. However, I don't find that sandbox games - games where the world is independent of the players - lead to very deep games. I find the reverse is true, either as a player or a DM.

 

[Hussar]

Do you see the difference between A and B?

Also, is there anything that does not "look like a story" to you?

In that case, I definitely do not run a "sandbox".

You know what? That appears to do away in one sweep with a whole lot of nonsense from certain parties!

I referee a D&D campaign in accordance with the instructions for doing so in the seminal works. If you really want to find out what I mean, then you can ask me and pay attention to what I say about my own campaign.

I will not "play the game" of letting you tell me how my campaign "must" be -- and accepting the "sandbox" label apparently has been reduced to an excuse for you to do just that.

Well, considering that Doug M's definition of sandbox is pretty much the standard definition of a sandbox campaign - a campaign where the world contains a number of adventures that the players can choose from at any given time - how do YOU define sandbox play?

 

[Ariosto]

how do YOU define sandbox play?

I don't. I wash my hands of that. The only reason I ever accepted the neologism was because it seemed to mean what "D&D campaign" formerly meant. If it's being defined by people who either don't have a clue about that in the first place or are actively hostile to it, then I have no more use for the term than I had in the preceding three decades of gaming.

In my campaign, adventures are not little DM-determined boxes to get shut into. ("To repeat this menu, press 5.") They are whatever players choose to do. The 1st ed. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook section on "Successful Adventures" is founded on that understanding.

Whether the purpose is so simple as to discover a flight of stairs to the next lowest unexplored level or so difficult as to find and destroy an altar to an alien god, some firm objective should be established and then adhered to as strongly as possible. Note, however, that inflexibility or foolish stubbornness is often fatal.