Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Doug McCrae]

There is value in setting some parameters of character creation to get them pulling together so the group can have a game.

Yeah, all the sandboxes I mentioned above actually place some significant limitations on the players. In the West Marches campaign for example the PCs have to staty in the West Marches. They can't travel to a distant continent or all the GM's work will have been wasted.

Likewise the classic D&D sandbox assumes the PCs all want gold and magic items and are prepared to risk terrible danger in order to get those things. In other words, they all have to be greedy psychopaths. If the PCs just want to open a pub then the game doesn't work. Likewise if some of the PCs are normal people with a normal person's attitude towards monster-filled holes in the ground (ie don't go anywhere near them) then classic D&D doesn't work. I've seen this happen in D&D on more than one occasion actually.

 

[Doug McCrae]

But to get there, he's creating 10, or 100, or 1,000 times as much content as his players will ever encounter (not actually, since a lot of the content will cross storylines, but you get my point).

Yes, I think your point that foreshadowing is easier in an AP than in a sandbox is sound. It must be the case because the main elements of foreshadowing and APs - that the future is fixed - are the same.

One could say that all the benefits of APs - stronger more meaningful climax, more anticipation, more build-up - are story benefits. That an AP is more like a story than a sandbox is. Or is an AP a LotR style epic, while a sandbox is like a lot of short pulp magazine stories?

 

[CharlesRyan]

See, this

Plots can be explored, just like maps. A GM worth his salt doesn't force players through a set of preconceived scenes with preconceived outcomes any more than he designs a dungeon that's just a straight line of rooms.

In fact, the plot-oriented GM probably has more leeway than a GM running the classic dungeon; the players aren't constrained by walls and can run off in unexpected directions. As I've said many times before, the good GM doesn't just allow this, he welcomes it. Keeps the game interesting. He can always go back to his notes between sessions and see how the new direction impacts things and what changes, if any, he needs to make to keep on course down the outline.​

sounds sandbox-y to me, so long as the PCs have the opportunity of exploring whatever plots they want, so long as whatever plots they choose to ignore continue to impact the setting, and so long as they are free to devise plots of their own.

I think we're in pretty close agreement on many of the qualities of a good GM. Note, though, that I wasn't saying the above was particularly storyish or sandboxy--I was merely supporting my point that plot does not equal railroad.

This doesn't mean that there is anything that could not happen in a sandbox game, with the sole exception of a railroad.

I guess we might just have to disagree on this one. Certainly, there are no in-game events (other than railroading) that are unique to story style games. But a well-crafted story-based campaign can deliver experiences, I believe, that are very unlikely to occur in a sandbox environment. (Note: I concede that there may be experiences a sandbox can deliver that a story campaign can't. Don't know what those are, but I accept the concept.)

Certainly, as a player I have experienced moments in campaigns that I don't believe could have happened if the GM hadn't carefully constructed his campaign outline in advance.

And as a GM, I have delivered experiences that I don't think I could have successfully delivered if I hadn't been able to work from a campaign outline that made assumptions about the general course of events to come.

The only way to use the "full suite of story structure tools to their fullest" is to eliminate player agency altogether and write a story.

OK, I'm going to concede this on a literal reading: It is true that one gains maximum control over story if the players have no input whatsoever. I guess I was unclear when I said "to their fullest"; I meant "to their fullest as a practical tool within an RPG that retains a sufficient degree of player input to be fun, engaging, and rewarding for all involved."

 

[Janx]

But to get there, he's creating 10, or 100, or 1,000 times as much content as his players will ever encounter (not actually, since a lot of the content will cross storylines, but you get my point).

That's fine for the R&D department of a CRPG studio, assuming that's part of their design goals and they have the budget for it. It can be pretty onerous for a single GM, however.

From a labor standpoint, I'd rather write 1 adventure where I correctly guess what the players will do in each scene, thus I only generate the material I'm actually going to need.

In reality, I can't guess that well, so I have to write more material, just in case AND be prepared to make adjustments because it can't ever be fully solved with more material.

I'm also happy to avoid writing material for stuff I'm pretty sure I won't need. And the ways to do that involve knowing your players, setting the initial campaign parameters, and adjusting what you work on next based on player feedback.

 

[CharlesRyan]

I just want to call this out, because I think at this point in the conversation some big misperceptions can hang on small differences in language:

sounds sandbox-y to me, so long as the PCs have the opportunity of exploring whatever plots they want, so long as whatever plots they choose to ignore continue to impact the setting, and so long as they are free to devise plots of their own.

And as a GM, I have delivered experiences that I don't think I could have successfully delivered if I hadn't been able to work from a campaign outline that made assumptions about the general course of events to come.

It's really important to point out that I don't see these two concepts as mutually exclusive.

If the players do not buy into the core conflict of a story-based campaign, you have a problem. But that's usually known by the end of the second session.

In my experience, once the players are into that conflict, the GM is in a position to make those assumptions I mention above. As I have advocated time and again, he can't be too specific--an outline is just that, and it's also a working document that changes shape over time. But with the conflict established and the world (including the factions and NPCs and locations that bear upon the conflict) in place, there needn't be any further limits (if you can even call that initial buy-in a "limit") on player agency.

Ignored elements continuing to impact the setting? Practically a requirement of a plot-oriented game.

Players exploring plots of their own choosing, or devising their own? I've never, in 30 years of GMing, had a player go off on an unrelated tangent. But related tangents (otherwise known as subplots) happen all the time, and many of the best are entirely spawned by the players.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Yes, I think your point that foreshadowing is easier in an AP than in a sandbox is sound. It must be the case because the main elements of foreshadowing and APs - that the future is fixed - are the same.

One could say that all the benefits of APs - stronger more meaningful climax, more anticipation, more build-up - are story benefits. That an AP is more like a story than a sandbox is. Or is an AP a LotR style epic, while a sandbox is like a lot of short pulp magazine stories?

Yeah, this is pretty much how I look at it. A sandbox game tends to involve a string of "small stories". Sometimes the stories are related to each other, sometimes they aren't. Often they are less "focused" stories(in that they are more like episodes of Star Trek and less like episodes of Babylon 5).

 

[Raven Crowking]

"Run multiple groups in the same world" is another way to prevent Evil from gaining too much of a foothold.

Another way is "Don't let the (failure of the PCs/failure of the PCs to act) to result in something you can't live with". Barony of Lord FriendlytoPCs becomes Barony of Lord Mwahaha? Not only can I live with that, but it might even motivate the players after the fact.

Story arises naturally from the game. I would go so far as to say that story structure arises naturally from a good game.

I have heard some folks say, re: character creation, that the DM controls all of the world, and the players only their characters, so shouldn't the DM bend the world to fit the characters? Or allow any character type the players want?

I would say that the DM controls all of the world, but the players control their characters' actions, so the DM should allow them to do so with the context of a world that makes sense insofar as the DM is able to make it make sense.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's really important to point out that I don't see these two concepts as mutually exclusive.

Nor I, and I am sorry if you thought I meant otherwise.

The only difference that I can see is that "If the players do not buy into the core conflict of a story-based campaign, you have a problem" whereas I am in a position to make assumptions about the future of the world -- barring PC interference -- whether the "players are into that conflict" or not. Heck, if there is a "core conflict", they might not even be aware of it yet.

As an easy example, Lord Mwahaha wants to annex the barony of Lord FriendlytoPCs. Can I foreshadow this plot thread? Yes I can! Does it require that the PCs oppose Lord Mwahaha for me to foreshadow this plot thread? No it does not!

The only real difference I see between the foreshadowing I do, and the foreshadowing you do, is that my players are asking "What does this mean is happening in the world?" while yours are asking "What does this mean is happening in the plot?" I.e., my group is wondering what Lord Mwahaha is up to as opposed to what the DM is up to.

(But even so, this is really blurry, because your group is also wondering what Lord Mwahaha is up to, and mine is also wondering what I am up to.....only the emphasis has changed!)

Sandbox, IMHO, is not in any way, shape, or form the antithesis of plotted. It is the antithesis of "Adventure Path", which is a particular type of plotted.



RC

 

[Gentlegamer]

I skimmed some of the thread, and it sounds like the OP would prefer RPGs where the players have more mechanical influence on the game "narative" through various means. Torg, for example, allowed players to play cards that reflected "plot points" they wanted to encounter, on the fly, during the game. This allows them to participate on the "meta level" of shaping the plot/story of the game which is normally the realm of the GM.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes, I think your point that foreshadowing is easier in an AP than in a sandbox is sound. It must be the case because the main elements of foreshadowing and APs - that the future is fixed - are the same.

One could say that all the benefits of APs - stronger more meaningful climax, more anticipation, more build-up - are story benefits. That an AP is more like a story than a sandbox is. Or is an AP a LotR style epic, while a sandbox is like a lot of short pulp magazine stories?

Lord of the Rings could be run as a sandbox. The GM need merely know what Sauron is doing, what the other major players of Middle Earth are doing, and set things in motion.

If the PCs destroy the Ring, then it is the story of their triumph. If they fail, then it is the story of their failure. If they go do something else, then it is the story of their dealing with the collapse of the Third Age and the Rule of Sauron in the Fourth Age. Perhaps they even try to use the Ring themselves, as Boromir sought to do. Again, this will tell a different story.

Easy enough to do, and the marching armies of Sauron foreshadow major changes to the milieu, regardless of what happens.


RC