Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Janx]

Now, you can justify changes however you like. The mindless zombies somehow destroyed the bridge. A freak storm suddenly destroyed the bridge whatever. It's not really important to me. You destroyed the bridge to tell a better story. If the bridge wasn't destroyed, the PC's would just run away and there would be no adventure.

Just because you justify it through in world actions doesn't make it any less story based. It just makes it a lot more believable.

I'm OK with that. Anything in the game should make sense. Making changes or justifying changes should always make sense.

As a DM, I already accept that I have to make stuff up when the PCs do something unexpected, or I have to invent consequences when the PCs commit a crime. I choose whether anybody sees the PC stab an NPC. I choose whether the cops get called. I choose IF the cops get there in time. I choose how the cops react, and so on.

I therefore choose to take out the bridge, so the scenario isn't too easy. if I do so, it has to make sense. If the PCs circumvent something I thought would happen and prepared for, I choose whether to move it, recycle it, skip it, or have something comletely different happen.

The goal, whenever I do so, is to setup a situation where the PC faces a challenge or has to make a Choice. It's usually safe to assume they're going to choose something to beat the bad guy, but I'm often surprised by the nuance of how they choose to do it. And that's the fun part.

Probably something to note, that when I try to make a story out of it, I'm not planning for long multi-session adventures. I write enough material to cover 4-6 hours. I may have a mental note of big events I'd like to see happen (like having the PCs be at the Battle of the Line versus the elves). But I only write what I need for the next session.

This means I get plenty of room for course correction. I can safely predict what'll happen when the party has shore leave at the island where the monk's dojo is. But I got no clue what they'll do when they learn that a rival dojo has taken something important. Actually, I do know, the monk will go after it, and the PCs will likely help him. But after that, I got no clue how carefal they will be, or how Slicey they'll get.

So I won't say I run a sandbox, but I try to set up a small situation, where I'm dead certain the PCs will get involved, by making it personal to the PCs. After that, the players do whatever they do in that environment, chasing a goal that I knew they'd go after. But the choice was never about "do they fetch the mcguffin", it's "how do they pursue it"

Just like I don't really get a choice to go to work or not (technically I do, but the reality is, I gotta pay a mortgage and feed a family). So that's not really a choice. Nor is the route I take to work a choice. It's not meaningful anyway. But what I do at work is meaningful. How I choose to solve the problems I face either protects my job, or puts me at risk. Those are Choices.

 

[Hussar]

So: Perhaps we should roll this back. You keep asking how to develop depth in a 'sandbox' campaign. Before addressing that, I would need to know what you think a 'sandbox' campaign consists of....

My idea of sandbox seems to jive with how you describe it. The world is created in big hexes and various adventure locations seeded throughout. However, I think where I might be going wrong is that I assumed that those adventure locations are static in that they don't change dependent upon the characters being played. If the DM places "Spooky Castle" on Hex A7, then that will always be a spooky castle. It won't suddenly morph into a castle inhabited by living people with a serving baron controlling the local countryside. It's going to be an "undead (or something suitably creepy) adventure location".

So, if my party, consisting of any PC's, arrives at Hex A7, then they will see a spooky castle. That castle will not change (well, until the PC's actually interact with it of course - killing the baddies and taking it over is always an option. ) whether I have a LG group of paladins or a NE group of assassins.

Apparently this is where I'm getting things wrong.

Now, my question again is, if sandbox elements can change depending on the characters, then why do they change? If I go to Cave C in the Caves of Chaos and the inhabitants there are based on the group that I bring with me, why? Why do the inhabitants change from orcs to dopplegangers (as an example)?

So I won't say I run a sandbox, but I try to set up a small situation, where I'm dead certain the PCs will get involved, by making it personal to the PCs. After that, the players do whatever they do in that environment, chasing a goal that I knew they'd go after. But the choice was never about "do they fetch the mcguffin", it's "how do they pursue it"

Which is pretty close to how I play as well.

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

An anology (and a non-food one at that ) comes to mind.

I see sandbox play like Lego. You have the elements - blocks, flat pieces, whatever, at the start and the players along with the GM work together to build something. What they build is pretty much unknown at the start. There are some limitations, of course, since Lego only comes in certain shapes, but, the goal of play is to build something.

I see story based play, or "Limited Scenario" ( a term that Ariosto uses that I think fits perfectly) as closer to building puzzles. You have pieces at the beginning and you have a pretty good idea of what it should look like at the end. However, how you get from A to Z is up to the players and the GM. You could build the outside first, you could sort the pieces, you could just place them as you go. That's up to the players. But, your final picture is pretty much completely known at the outset. The goal here is the process of building that picture, not the picture itself.

Note, that neither activity is better than the other. Just the focus tends to be different. Lego builds organically with each person adding what they think is interesting. The process is fun but the end result is fairly unknown which can result in your Lego tower being unstable and crashing to the ground.

Puzzles can be fun as well, but, can suffer from too much structure, (too much railroading) and can be terribly confining.

Me? Personally, sometimes I like puzzles and sometimes I like Lego.

 

[Janx]

continuing with Hussar's discussion.. he said something about having an idea of the ending..hold on, let me find it...
"But, your final picture is pretty much completely known at the outset. The goal here is the process of building that picture, not the picture itself."

Let's take my example of the PCs at Monk Dojo island.

bad guys have taken something from the dojo. The monk will do whatever his sensei says, because I told the PC that in his player briefing when the campaign started many sessions ago. This game is his "character" episode, so it's mostly about him, though he is socially obligated to involve the other players (meta game rule, don't take NPCs on the away mission, take other players).

I figure out ahead of time all the basic stuff, like where did the bad monks take the mcguffin, and then how would the PC monk figure out where to go (so he can find clues, and so I know what to plan). Then I plan out the basic path assuming those clues are mostly followed. Throw in asome challenges, and put the BBEG at the end. I pretty much assume the PCs will beat the bad guys and go back home.

So that "sounds" like it matches what Hussar said.

Here's the twist. I may be a lazy DM and only planned what I wrote. However, I don't expect the PCs to follow the plan. Once the PCs are hooked in, I gotta wing it. My default ending is they deliver the McGuffin to the sensei. The reailty is, I have to adapt to what the players do. If they make good choices or plans, I move them closer to the success path, using most of my written material. If they do something different, I make up a new ending to fit it. As long as they're doing smart things to get the McGuffin, I'll make the path they take get there, there's no sense not doing that. If they get wierd on me, or get new information that changes their outlook, then I change it up completely.

The adventure was years ago, I'd have to open the file to see what I actually ran that session. The monk was "Garibaldi" from B5 and this was monk backstory. He was only partly successful, which led to some shame, which led him to alcholism, which fit in perfect for my real plan...It wasn't important to the long term plan on this contributing to his alcoholism. I had allowed for not having that parallel. But on the other hand, take it when you can get it.

Heck, I even managed to get the Sinclair equivalent Paladin PC to ram his ship into an elven destroyer at the Battle of the Line.

Players are easily manipulated.

The risk I took in running a B5 emulation was railroading players into exact copies of the tv show. On the other hand, the game was rich in story-ism and since the players hadn't seen the show, they thought they had the coolest adventure ever. Because it was dramatic and epic and about them.

 

[Ariosto]

I have answered your questions and thus far pretty much ignored the snark. I am not "baiting" as you call it Ariosto and repeatedly RC ...

You have not answered the question of just what this "depth" is that you imply must be lacking.

If you really do not see how the implication is baiting, then you could pay attention to our explanation and put on your thinking cap -- or just take our word for it and quit the futile repetition of rhetoric that we are unlikely to find any less inane the umpteenth time.

And, to make it intersesting.. RC and Ariosto should answer with thier definition as well...

As I have stated, I wash my hands of that because if I define it so as to mean what I thought it meant when I had use for it, then any number of people -- who either have no interest in, or are actively opposed to, that sharing of history and experience -- will proceed to insist that I am using the term wrong and ... so therefore whatever I may have to say is (but of course!) wrong as well.

I am heartily tired of the absurdity. Not only do I know damned well what I experienced in the first quarter-century of D&D, but significant parts of that are matters of record. "Sandbox"? I never needed it before, and I can do without it now.

What would be helpful, if Hussar really wants an answer to his "question", is his definition of depth -- and for him to quit insisting on baloney (that is insulting as well as simply false) that has been repeatedly identified as such.

 

[The Shaman]

Now, apparently my understanding is faulty of what you mean by a sandbox . It was always my understanding that a sandbox was pretty much carved in stone before the players hit the table. Over there is Giant Land, over there is Slaver Land, over there is the Spooky Castle.

Now, apparently, that's false. Spooky castle in a sandbox, can morph into any other castle based on what the DM feels will make a better game.

No, I think that when most gamers describe a sandbox, they're talking about a status quo setting, a setting in which the the spooky castle has skeletons, giants spiders, and ghouls and ghasts, or the Wilderlands hex has a ruined keep with three giant scorpions and a 500 gp ruby hidden in a clay pot in it, or the star system features a mainworld with the profile D-622567-6 S Na Ni Po 220, regardless of when or how the adventurers explore it.

The idea that the inhabitants of the spooky castle change to match the abilities and/or current interests of the adventurers is not at all what I associate with sandbox settings. While the jargon of rpgs is nowhere near completely uniform, in my experience that's really the antithesis of a sandbox setting.

In a sandbox with which I'm familiar, the spooky castle changes if the current inhabitants are replaced by new inhabitants, such as after the adventurers kill the undead and vermin and a tribe of orcs moves in subsequent to the adventurers moving on.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hussar,

I think you are compounding several people's answers, and assuming that they all believe everything that each other is saying.

I will try to get you a more complete answer this afternoon, when I have more time to type.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

The idea that the inhabitants of the spooky castle change to match the abilities and/or current interests of the adventurers is not at all what I associate with sandbox settings. While the jargon of rpgs is nowhere near completely uniform, in my experience that's really the antithesis of a sandbox setting.

In a sandbox with which I'm familiar, the spooky castle changes if the current inhabitants are replaced by new inhabitants, such as after the adventurers kill the undead and vermin and a tribe of orcs moves in subsequent to the adventurers moving on.

Agreed.

However, if a palyer should create a PC whose father died in the spooky castle, I reserve the right to (1) locate the father's body, and/or (2) place the father as some sort of undead creature within said spooky castle. I also reserve the right to incorporate the father into whatever is happening at the spooky castle.

For instance, if the spooky castle is really a front for smugglers, I reserve the right to make the father one of those smugglers, and very much alive.



RC

 

[The Shaman]

However, if a palyer should create a PC whose father died in the spooky castle, I reserve the right to (1) locate the father's body, and/or (2) place the father as some sort of undead creature within said spooky castle.

Okay.

I'm not likely to do something like this in the games I run. I have no problem with discovering the remains of dear old dad, if the player was explicit that pops died in the castle. But, "Ludooooooovicussssssssss, I'm your faaaaaaaatherrrrrrr . . . " isn't likely to come up in game; I prefer the game to focus on what the characters have done in actual play, not about background details that no one experienced first-hand, not even the player who wrote them.

I also reserve the right to incorporate the father into whatever is happening at the spooky castle.

For instance, if the spooky castle is really a front for smugglers, I reserve the right to make the father one of those smugglers, and very much alive.

And I wouldn't touch this with the proverbial eleven-foot pole.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

The idea that the inhabitants of the spooky castle change to match the abilities and/or current interests of the adventurers is not at all what I associate with sandbox settings. In a sandbox with which I'm familiar, the spooky castle changes if the current inhabitants are replaced by new inhabitants, such as after the adventurers kill the undead and vermin and a tribe of orcs moves in subsequent to the adventurers moving on.

This is what I've understood to be the (somewhat) negative definition of a sandbox. One thing makes me curious though. I've experienced both first and second hand the horror stories of low-level PCs stumbling upon a dragon and suffering a TPK. Has anyone ever heard of sessions where high-level PCs stumble upon the band of orcs? I haven't experienced that flip-side of the coin. Would you find such a non-challenge of an evening of gaming fun? I know I wouldn't, just as I wouldn't find being slaughtered by a dragon that we "accidentally" found being very fun.

However, if a palyer should create a PC whose father died in the spooky castle, I reserve the right to (1) locate the father's body, and/or (2) place the father as some sort of undead creature within said spooky castle. I also reserve the right to incorporate the father into whatever is happening at the spooky castle.

For instance, if the spooky castle is really a front for smugglers, I reserve the right to make the father one of those smugglers, and very much alive.

Okay.

I'm not likely to do something like this in the games I run. I have no problem with discovering the remains of dear old dad, if the player was explicit that pops died in the castle. But, "Ludooooooovicussssssssss, I'm your faaaaaaaatherrrrrrr . . . " isn't likely to come up in game; I prefer the game to focus on what the characters have done in actual play, not about background details that no one experienced first-hand, not even the player who wrote them.And I wouldn't touch this with the proverbial eleven-foot pole.

I find this odd. RC's use of the character's backgrounds to me is awesome. I understand wantig the focus to be on the characters current accomplishments. But why would you ignore the history of the character? The player took the time to immerse himself in your world by writing a background tied to your setting. When he goes to Spooky Castle it seems like it would be more exciting to discover a twist than to just experience exactly what the player wrote. "He died there. Yep, there's his body. Hrm." By turning the character's father into an involved NPC you now have hooked that player into your word and given him even more reason to be invested.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Has anyone ever heard of sessions where high-level PCs stumble upon the band of orcs?

Yes.

This is one of the reasons that a sandbox is better, IMHO, in a game with a power curve that is less steep. That said, though, there is no reason that the higher-level PCs cannot have fun. And, if they are not having fun, they are always free to go and do something else.

In RCFG, players are encouraged to keep a "character stable", so that higher-level characters have henchmen to go do smaller stuff while they tackle larger problems and engage in changing the world/area to suit themselves.

RC's use of the character's backgrounds to me is awesome.

Thank you.

In one game, the players knew the following going in:

Selby-by-the-Water was once much larger than it is today, for more than half of the town now lies beneath Lake Elidyr. Locals now call this area “Selby-beneath-the-Waves.” What remains is still a bustling town, but folk avoid the ruined areas at night, including the docksides where Selby-beneath-the-Waves can still be seen.

Selby-by-the-Water was founded to protect a deepwater harbor on Lake Elidyr. A great wall surrounds the town proper from Weirwood the Great, but farms and small businesses arose outside of the village wall. There are now wooden partial walls and watchtowers that protect these areas. The village has grown in a radial pattern from the harbor, with several canals cutting through the central village.

Forty-seven years ago, Selby-by-the-Water was wracked by tremors, and more than half the town was destroyed. The tower of Amoreth the Arcane collapsed in smoke and fire. Underground explosions damaged buildings. Whole sections of the town subsided, and were covered by the lake.

Amoreth the Arcane was never seen again – some thought he had died in some dangerous experiment, but others thought that he fled the disaster he had caused. In the aftermath, the sewers and undercity of Selby-by-the-Water have been broken and partly submerged, with new entrances appearing and old ones becoming lost.

Entry into the Wizard’s Tower is forbidden upon pain of death.​

One player decided to use this background. He wanted his gnome bard to be an orphan, whose parents were confederates of Amoreth the Arcane. He believed that his parents were evil, and had abandoned him at birth.

Now, I knew that Amoreth the Arcane had actually been trying to stop an enclave of aboleth from undermining the town, and that he had partially succeeded at the cost of his tower, his reputation, and his life. Therefore, I also knew that the gnome's parents were not evil, and had sacrificed themselves to save their newborn child.

If the PCs had not eventually entered the ruined tower of Amoreth the Arcane (after another collapse, and their discovery of an aboleth), they never would have learned the above. And that would have been okay. In my notes for the tower, I only made one change -- I added the spirit of the gnome's mother, so that she could one time tell her son that she was proud of him before fading away. Had the gnome not gone there, the spirit would linger still, but not manifest.

In no other way did that area change. And the story of Amoreth the Arcane, although embellished by the addition of gnome assistants, did not substantially change.

If the spooky old castle on the hill is the abode of ghouls, it is the abode of ghouls regardless of what level the PCs are when they get there. If a PC's father, mother, or brother went in there and never returned, I can pretty well extrapolate that the ghouls got him or her, either rendering the character a ghoul or a pile of cracked bones. And, either way, that becomes a part of the sandbox. If that PC doesn't go to the spooky castle, that's okay. If other PCs slaughter the ghouls there, and the first PC never learns what happened to her family member, that's okay too. If the PC goes there, and gets killed in the first encounter, that's also okay.

But, once I have accepted a character background, I will do what I can to make that background make sense within the world. If a player suggests a background that I know cannot make sense within the world, I will offer a revision that does make sense.

I encourage players to get caught up in the pieces of the sandbox. Discovering what happened a generation ago, a century ago, or an age ago is one of the thrills such a setting can allow for. Linking characters to the setting's past and present in no way diminishes the players' interest in the setting's future. If anything, it increases their ardour to form that future.

IMHO, and IME.

(And, Hussar, did that answer your question?)


RC