Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Hussar]

There's plenty of room between "infinite" and just 3 or 4!

Of course, it's plenty easy to chop down possibilities and lay rails. All it takes is lack of imagination.

Only four possible reasons to go to Giant Land? Only five possible ways to get there? That would be 20 adventures already, and I could think of more.

The beauty of it is that I don't have to! The players are likely to think of things I never would have thunk.

That's not entirely fair to characterize reduction of possibilities as a lack of imagination though.

If you are travelling from X to Y over an ocean, it's most likely you're going to do it by ship and that ship will most likely take a single path. A bridge over a ravine is not a railroad.

In other words it is not necessarily true that a reduction of options is the result of a lack of skill by the GM. If the campaign is about sea life and everyone has agreed to that, making the players start on a boat isn't railroading, it's part of the game.

 

[Ariosto]

the BBEG's plan ...

Savagepedia Dictionary of Gamer Slang & Jargon: BBEG (acronym): “Big Bad Evil Guy”. This is the boss that is responsible for the larger story arc. When PCs encounter the BBEG, it will either be so that the BBEG can taunt the PC’s and escape to fight another day, or it will be final showdown, the climax of the campaign.
See also: Big Bad, Boss, Miniboss

###NOW GO AWAY OR I SHALL TAUNT YOU A SECOND TIME.###

This triggers a reaction from the players. ...

“Roll to disbelieve” (expression): Referring to illusions. Often it is shouted by players in serious predicaments as a joke, implying that the bad situation is (hopefully) just an illusion.

###PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN.###

At some point, the BBEG gets beat.

“All your base are belong to us!” (expression): Phrase meaning, “You cannot defeating us/me!”
Etymology: From the poor translation of the Japanese video game Zero Wing, 1989.

Monty Hauler (noun): A campaign where everything is 'given away', i.e., enemies are easy to kill and treasure and experience are easily earned.
Etymology: Named after the host of the popular game show, Let’s Make A Deal which had a reputation as a game with easy challenges with huge rewards.

 

[Ariosto]

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.

Try D&D 4E, maybe, if someone must always play a Paladin. [/JOKE]

If you really are tired of retreads of "Epically Beat the BBEG", then just stop setting them up!

If you're having gobs of fun doing what you're doing, then just keep doing it.

What the hey -- it's not exactly rocket science.

 

[The Shaman]

I personally wouldn't want to play with this guy particularly. I tend to be a bit more immersive in my gaming. But, should we deliberatly exclude this guy as well? Where do you draw the line?

Four guys get together on a Saturday morning to play doubles on the tennis courts at a rec center.

One of the guys played in high school, another used to take lessons years ago, and a third is just getting into the game. They're in reasonable shape for their respective ages, but no one would be likely to call these guys ahtletes. They own their own rackets, strictly recreational grade. But they keep score and roate partners and enjoy the competition while they'e on the court.

The fourth guy is buddies with the other three, and as they all enjoy each other's company, he's invited to participate in their Saturday game. He's just there to have fun with his friends. He doesn't really care about playing tennis, he's not into holding serve or volleying and whatnot. He just wants to have some fun with his buddies for four hours. His ability to return the ball is tenuous at best. The events in the tennis game are not his focus at all. For him, the achievement of his goal is, "Did I have a good time with my friends?"

How much fun do you think the other three are going have playing with this guy? Were the rules of tennis designed with this guy in mind? Would you invite him back for another Saturday if that's all he brings to the game?

Does that mean that someone who isn't into a particular play style should be considered to not even be playing?

Is this guy actually playing tennis?

 

[Ariosto]

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. ... 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.

Wait, what?
Got lost there.
Forgot this was
EN World WFF 'N' Proof / Diplomacy / Hacky Sack News

Silly me. I was thinking this had something to do with role playing games.

 

[Ariosto]

I agree that "How much beer can I drink while playing chess" isn't really a game of chess particularly. It is, however, IMO, still a game.

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

HOW MANY TIMES have we told Hussar, "No! Seeing how much beer you can drink is not a game!", eh?

Really, how many times have we said that? Anyone?

Because I honestly don't remember it. But then, I'm just a silly old dancing straw man, ain't I?

 

[CharlesRyan]

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.

RC, I've come to the conclusion that you and I are not in disagreement about anything other than terminology and perhaps a different emphasis in GMing style.

That said, I don't think your definition is shared by a lot of people who adhere to the sandbox philosophy.

 

[CharlesRyan]

Unfortunately a distressing number of players are conditioned by referees who run plot-heavy games. . .

I would argue that this "distressing" number of players has been conditioned by a lifetime of books, movies, graphic novels, oral storytelling, and other fictions, which are all based upon certain story-structure fundaments. (These in turn are ruled by certain basics of human perception and pattern recognition.)

Chekov's gun tells us that in a story, if we see a gun early on, we expect it to be used later. Put into this context, if your fictional environment introduces a spooky castle on a hill, it's natural for your players to assume it's significant in some way. This is true in every other fictional context your players have ever experienced throughout their lives. Why would you expect it not to be true in your fictional game?

If I can put words into your mouth, I think your answer is "because my sandbox isn't a story; it's a simulation of a realistic fantasy world. The realisim of this simulation dictates that not every spooky castle is significant." OK. Maybe that would work, but I think you need to be really explicit about that with your players, so they can overcome their natural tendency to react to a fictional environment as, well, fiction.

But I, personally, fail to see where this exercise in simulation actually results in a better, more satisfying game--especially given the extra effort required to get past the player's normal reactions.

And even if you cling to the idea that this unfortunate, distressing situation is caused by other GMs' conditioning, that might lead one to ask: If so many players and GMs play this way, maybe it's not because of GM brainwashing after all. Maybe its because that's the way they like to play!

 

[Ariosto]

That said, I don't think your definition is shared by a lot of people who adhere to the sandbox philosophy.

Does anyone "adhere to the sandbox philosophy"? I for one had never encountered the term until the past few years, but it seemed to refer to what I had always known as a "D&D campaign" -- just following the instructions given for playing a game.

Maybe I am unclear on what RC's "definition" is, but I'll take it that you find the reference to organic relationships among campaign elements in that quote startling.

I wonder not only how else you imagine "sandbox" worlds are structured, but on what basis you imagine it.

On all the articles in The Strategic Review and The Dragon and White Dwarf advocating arbitrariness?
On the advances in reaching for randomness bruited in Chivalry & Sorcery, RuneQuest, DragonQuest, and so on?
On the careful attention to creating chaos in the Dungeon Masters Guide?
On the absence of examples of historical processes, geographic and economic and social influences, the activities of player-characters, etc., shaping the lay of the land in famous campaigns?

 

[Ariosto]

Put into this context, if your fictional environment introduces a spooky castle on a hill, it's natural for your players to assume it's significant in some way.

(1) It is not a fictional environment; it is a game environment. That's no startling, fish-out-of-water change from the normal expectation of a board game or card game.

(2) The spooky castle is significant in some way. (It's "spooky", anyhow.) That way just does not necessarily happen to have anything to do with Chimal and Jommy's quest for the Potent Pampooties of Prehistory.