Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[SkidAce]

As a quick note, if the PCs are always rushing off to counter the Villian of the Hour, how do the players ever get to modify the campaign milieu to their liking? One of the goals (IMHO and IME) of a sandbox is to allow the players to say "I wish there wasn't slavery in Otherwiseniceville" and then do something about it.

If the PCs are always being hurried hither and yon, it seems to me that this level of investment is lost.


RC

Because the villain of the hour is the one promoting slavery in Otherwiseniceville...

Possibly, they are on this adventure because they chose to do something to modify the campaign.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

How do you get in the first place into a state in which possible "adventures" are so finite as comprehensively to be counted, much less on the fingers of one hand?!

I find it equally mindboggling that an "infinite" number of adventure-worthy events are occurring in Sandbox World. If such dangerous events are dime-a-dozen how can any of them feel any more special than having your character relieve himself behind a tree? I see nothing wrong with painting the picture of your world for your players, describing the everyday and mundane to breathe life into it, while still only throwing out a few hooks to lead the characters into adventure.

Edit: Even RC's example of players wanting to stop slavery in Otherwiseniceville is an adventure hook that the DM would have had to put out there at some point. Even if you didn't intend for that to be an adventure. Without creative control by the players they would have had to have gotten the plot information from the DM to know that there is a place named Otherwiseniceville and that they practice slavery.

 

[Janx]

Because the villain of the hour is the one promoting slavery in Otherwiseniceville...

Possibly, they are on this adventure because they chose to do something to modify the campaign.

Bingo!

To start a campaign in the style I employ (and have experienced any time I've ever played), you gotta prime the pump. That means set some stuff up to be happening that the players will be impacted by. Basically make them cross paths with the BBEG's plan. The BBEG may not even be that big, he's just bigger than the PCs.

This triggers a reaction from the players. To which the DM reacts. And so on in a chain of reactions.

At some point, the BBEG gets beat. In the process, the players learn more about the world, and start setting up their own side goals. Once the BBEG is dealt with, they tend to turn these side goals into primary goals. Now they're the ones setting up the initial action.

The chain reaction system is how they get locked in, because for the most part, they are going to stick with their goal. The probability of them getting off is low.

The key then, is the initiating action. At the start of the campaign, it's almost always the DM. If the DM doesn't the party tends to sit around the bar, waiting for a hook, or they start causing trouble, just to start something moving.

At later stages of the campaign, when the players get some breathing room, they start initiating their own actions (and plot lines). Like deciding to run for sheriff, since they've been saving it every week. Or taking over the kingdom. Or upgrading some magic item. Or finishing out that vengeance oath.

My initiating event, as a GM, tends to be small. I'm really only looking to get this session going, so I make up a small event, enough to trigger a session's worth of activity. The village is threatened and needs your help right now is a decent enough hook. The idea, is to get the party moving together towards a common threat that they can beat in one session. By doing a short adventure, they get motivated and learn to work together and get used to the new setting. By making it short, I'm not getting them stuck in some mega-plot that they may or may not be interested in (since I don't know their characters that well yet either). Plots should have a scope equal to the PCs level.

Once that first session is done, there's usually some outstanding business and PC goals start getting revealed. That's where the next session tries to incorporate that stuff. I don't want to have to make up yet another unrelated problem for the village. I'd rather have thing stuff grow organically based on what the PCs goals or what they've done (or left undone). What happens in the next session should be a logical progression from the last session and incorporate the player's general intent.

If the players say, we're going to infiltrate the BBEG's staff when we get to ThereVille, then my next session will give them opportunities to observe and infiltrate and avoid detection on the BBEG's staff. It will not focus on a frontal assault. Why does this matter? Because an infiltration mission requires material for the GM that he may not fairly or realistically on the fly. Plus, I may not have even thought of that had they not told me ahead of time, thus increasing the chance of a DM blockade because it was out of scope (i.e. railroad behavior happens when the PCs try to do stuff the DM doesn't want or didn't anticipate fairly).

That's generally how games flow, for me as a player, and as a DM.

One thing to note, this behavior of PC lock-in is something that I see in Good aligned characters. In a way, they lose freedom of choice, because their alignment generally indicates their response to plot hooks or encounters. Whereas, an evil PC has no constraints on what he may do, and may be entirely random or inconsistent. This may be a topic for a new thread...

 

[Hussar]

Really? I was quoting you. As you put it, I agree with you there, and with RC that players must have goals the outcomes of which are not predetermined. Otherwise, it's not a game but a scripted (however sketchily) performance.

The difference lies in where the goals exist. For me, the goals of the players may not be directly linked to the game itself. The players may simply be using the game as a vehicle for exploring goals which have little direct bearing on what is occurring in the game.

From what I see RC claiming is the following:

1. For a goal to be a real goal, the achievement (or failure to achieve) that goal must be unknown.

2. All games must have goals in order to be games.

See, I agree with both these statements. Where I think RC has gone off track is that he has linked them. That the game goals can be the only goals that the players can have in order to be playing a game. I disagree (obviously). The players can have goals that have little to do with the goals presented in the game.

Thus, a game could be a "sketchily scripted performance" and still be a game because the player's goals aren't directly tied to the game itself. "Explore a philosophical point" can be a player goal that is not explicit or even implicit in a particular game. "How long can we keep this going" can be a player goal, and not a game goal. Even "Can I beat my high score" isn't a goal within many games, yet remains a player goal, despite the fact that the end result of the game is 100% known.

This is the problem that I have talking with Hussar.

And you were doing so well not stooping to this sort of sniping RC.

 

[Raven Crowking]

As I apparently didn't clearly state it, I make a plot that the PCs WILL be interested in. After the first session, all subsequent sessions are based on feedback from the players on exactly what they planned to do based on the outcome of the last session.

And your players never choose to go look at the spooky ruined castle on the hill? That was the confusing part for me, because I find that, once I have mentioned enough spots like that, sooner or later the PCs are going to want to look into one of them.

Once you decide to go save the princess, barring a change, a rational party will continue to make choices that lead to that goal. All other options that don't lead to chosen goals are nullified as choices.

Time has shown me that what seem to be rational choices from one side of the screen are not always what seem to be rational choices from the other side. But I agree with you in the general case.

@SkidAce: When I am setting up a milieu, there is not always a single "villian" promoting a social problem. Sometimes issues are larger, and take more work to deal with, often in between other adventures. It is important for the players to be able to track their characters' progress with this sort of problem, but instant solutions (kill the villian and take his stuff!) don't always make for the most satisfying outcomes.

I really enjoy games that can hold a distorted mirror to our own world, that can help us "get" another point of view, that broaden our horizons.

For example, I had a cool play experience a couple of years back where the PCs discussed religion and ethics with a priest of the evil Spider Goddess in the campaign world (this was in a modified Caves of Chaos using modified 3.x rules). A pivotal moment came when the players realized that the spider cultists were using a nominally "good" scripture to justify sacrificing children. It was a lot of fun, and a bit frustrating, and made the players have to rethink the "good" cult just a bit.

Likewise, imagine a problem like that of the American Civil War: One side has built its economy on slavery, the other has not. Meanwhile, outside interested parties condemn slavery while making a fortune on the byproducts of slavery (rum and sugar, for example). Everyone might know what the right thing to do is, but doing the right thing is hard, and has serious economic consequences. Begining a campaign before the (fantasy world) Civil War, playing out the Civil War, and continuing far into the aftermath is more satisfying (to me, and YMM really V here) than simply stopping Blastemall as part of a single adventure.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

1. For a goal to be a real goal, the achievement (or failure to achieve) that goal must be unknown.

2. All games must have goals in order to be games.

See, I agree with both these statements.

Not exactly right, but let's assume that this was accurate.

Where I think RC has gone off track is that he has linked them. That the game goals can be the only goals that the players can have in order to be playing a game.

So, the logical chain you object to is

1. You cannot have B without A
2. You cannot have C without B
3. Therefore, you cannot have C without A

These are absolutely linked.

Where you are in error is that you seem to believe the logic chain goes

1. You cannot have B without A
2. You cannot have C without B
3. Therefore, D is precluded

If I have stooped, as you say, it's because there is a real level of frustration inherent in hearing, over and over, in effect, "I understand that (1) You cannot have B without A, and (2) You cannot have C without B. And I understand that (3) You cannot have C without A, but I absolutely deny that there is a logical connection between these points, moreover what you are really saying is that D is precluded, even if you haven't ever said that, and that cannot be logically inferred from what you have said."

A player can have any goal he likes when he sits down to game. His goal can be to drink as much beer as humanly possible. However, that goal is not the goal of the game, and it matters not one whit whether his beer capacity is known or unknown when he sits down when determining whether or not he is playing a game while drinking beer.

I can have a goal of making bad puns while playing chess. That goal doesn't affect whether or not chess is a game (although it might affect whether or not my opponent will finish the game). I can have a goal of blowing my nose, doing Monty Python impressions, or drinking a can of Coke. Again, these goals don't impact the syllogism.

1. You cannot have B without A
2. You cannot have C without B
3. Therefore, you cannot have C without A

You can add any D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, etc., etc. in there that you want without breaking the syllogism.

However, if you agree, as you said you did, that

1. You cannot have B without A
2. You cannot have C without B

then

3. Therefore, you cannot have C without A

automatically follows, whether you like it or not.



RC

 

[Janx]

We're getting somewhere. I'm fairly certain that you get what I'm saying and aren't taking it to ridiculous extremes.

And your players never choose to go look at the spooky ruined castle on the hill? That was the confusing part for me, because I find that, once I have mentioned enough spots like that, sooner or later the PCs are going to want to look into one of them.

I suspect that I seldom introduce the spooky ruined castle on the hill. Unless it is a deliberate foreshadowing. I can see good reasons for both styles. By not doing it, I avoid distracting the PCs with data that isn't pertaining to their current goal. By adding in extra "future" areas, it makes the world seem fuller and more complex, and may expand PC ideas for future goals (and possibly aid their current goal).

Time has shown me that what seem to be rational choices from one side of the screen are not always what seem to be rational choices from the other side. But I agree with you in the general case.

As you deduce, I am speaking generally. I don't try to predict how PCs will solve any given encounter, even if I expect that they will solve or bypass it. I do expect from a high level, that they will do stuff that drives to their goal. If the bad guy is in the east, it is pretty likely that the party will do something to take them east. I may not expect that they take a stage coach rather than teleport, but I'm pretty sure they're gonna get there.

And of course, there are exceptions. As a DM, my job is to handle and integrate exceptions.

All of this stuff requires fitting it in to the players and PCs that you have at the table. Its the reason I don't do published adventures.

 

[CharlesRyan]

Imagine a problem like that of the American Civil War: One side has built its economy on slavery, the other has not. Meanwhile, outside interested parties condemn slavery while making a fortune on the byproducts of slavery (rum and sugar, for example). Everyone might know what the right thing to do is, but doing the right thing is hard, and has serious economic consequences. Begining a campaign before the (fantasy world) Civil War, playing out the Civil War, and continuing far into the aftermath is more satisfying (to me, and YMM really V here) than simply stopping Blastemall as part of a single adventure.

Boy, I totally agree with you. But I don't see how the sandbox philosophy gives you the best toolkit to run this kind of game. I totally think this would come off much better using the story structure toolbox.

your players never choose to go look at the spooky ruined castle on the hill? That was the confusing part for me, because I find that, once I have mentioned enough spots like that, sooner or later the PCs are going to want to look into one of them.

Fair enough. But the randomly-placed spooky ruined castle on the hill is a feature of the sandbox campaign. In the story structure campaign, the placement isn't random. (It may not be directly related to the plotline--it could be a red herring, the start of a potential subplot, or a potential sidetrek intended to introduce a certain atmosphere or control pacing. But it's not there by chance.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Fair enough. But the randomly-placed spooky ruined castle on the hill is a feature of the sandbox campaign. In the story structure campaign, the placement isn't random.

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

 

[Janx]

Fair enough. But the randomly-placed spooky ruined castle on the hill is a feature of the sandbox campaign. In the story structure campaign, the placement isn't random. (It may not be directly related to the plotline--it could be a red herring, the start of a potential subplot, or a potential sidetrek intended to introduce a certain atmosphere or control pacing. But it's not there by chance.)

CR is on the money. If I put in the unrelated spooky castle, the players will think it matters and go investigate it, wasting time and advancing the enemy plot. This is undesirable because the behavior happens for metagame reasons, if the GM mentions it, it must be important (presumably towards the goal).

The KoDT tale of how they found a dead end in the dungeon, which was an artifact of the random map generator, and assumed that no dwarf would build a corridor and stop, it MUST lead to somewhere. So they dug forever, wasting tons of game time. The lesson being, be wary of introducing elements into the game that have nothing to do with what the PCs want, or they will assume it IS important to their quest.