Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Doug McCrae]

If the players opt in to the quest, there is your quest fantasy.

And if they don't? I'm the GM, I want a goddamn epic quest. If sandbox does not deliver my epic quest then it has failed me! Failed!!

Actually, I agree with Hussar. Some campaign concepts are not a good fit for sandbox. James Bond, from what I've seen, is reactive. Bad guy makes evil plot, James is told by M to foil evil plot, James foils evil plot. He's a lot like a superhero. The world of James Bond isn't like that of D&D, there aren't hundreds of different breeds of monster to kill. The sort of situations worthy of his attention are few and far between. In fact, if we go by the films, these situations only present themselves one at a time.

A chain-of-command is non-sandboxy in a similar way. In the classic D&D sandbox the PCs are like ronin - they have no master. They are free to loot whatever hole in the ground they choose. With a superior officer, the PCs are no longer free. No freedom means no sandbox. Sure, the adventures may be non-linear, but the campaign isn't. Here I'm assuming the orders given to the PCs are not of a very broad nature, such as - "Go to the West Marches and deal with threats to the Empire however you see fit." That would be a sandbox. I'm thinking of far more specific orders such as - "Assassinate the orc high chieftain."

What's that you say? The PCs are free to desert any time they want? Well then it isn't a chain-of-command game. Sandbox, you have failed me again!!

My opinion on horror is that the threat has to be very powerful relative to the PCs, such that failure is by far the most likely outcome. If the PCs are wading through hordes of orcs, D&D style, then it ain't horror. But in a sandbox, the PCs can freely choose weak opponents if they want.

I concede that zombies are a bit different than most horror, where there is usually a single threat such as a serial killer or monster. Zombies are only really dangerous en masse. However there is a problem with the zombie apocalypse set-up being a sandbox which is that the opposition is too same-y. In D&D the players have potentially the whole Monster Manual to choose from. Here it's zombies, zombies and more zombies. Eh, and maybe some soldiers. RC spoke upthread about the great motivational benefits a sandbox brings due to the players being able to freely choose which adventure to undertake. Here, there is no such multiplicity of choice.

I also feel that a lot of horror works by trapping the protagonists somewhere they don't want to be, such as the traditional haunted house setup. How often is the bridge out in a horror movie? This directly goes against the freedom essential to a sandbox.

 

[Doug McCrae]

the sandbox-oriented GM then says "I wonder what the PCs will do when presented with these elements?"

Kill it and take its stuff.

 

[Hussar]

Yes. This comes about by the very nature of playing the game. Over time I will develop relationships with NPCs and the actions (or inactions) I take will impact the setting and, ultimately, the story.



I wonder how much these words mean to the disagreement you and I have over character depth in sandboxes? Most of the campaigns I play in last for years at a time.

And this was a point I brought up earlier. IMO, a story based campaign suits a much, (sometimes MUCH) shorter campaign.

I stand in awe of campaigns that last "years at a time". I really do. IME, campaigns fall apart for any number of reasons, after about 18 months, tops. So, since I have never really been involved in a campaign with that sort of length that you are talking about, I probably just have not seen the results you are getting. That's entirely possible.

The idea that the players choose the world when they create their characters begs the question, "What happens when a PC dies?" Must the players also be given plot protection, further eroding the meaningfulness of their choices, or must the world be changed with each new PC? What if Cousin Susie joins the group? Do we change the world again? If not, how, oh how, is she going to achieve any depth in her play experience?

If you went back and read my posts, you would see that I answered this already. But, one more time, if a PC dies, you stop the campaign. That's what it means when the campaign centers around THOSE characters.

Or, you simply take death off the table. While I realize you disagree with this approach, it does work quite well IMO. In my last D&D campaign, I allowed players to spend all of their remaining Action Points to stabilize at -9 hp no matter what. The only way you could die would be if the entire party died. In which case the campaign was over anyway.

How many players do you have?

Currently, 4.

How many players did you have while running the WLD (which is, essentially, a limited sandbox)? How did you keep them engaged? Are you ever going to answer any of these questions?

Typically 4 or 5 (there was a running joke about the 5th seat having a serious case of ejectionitis. ) They were engaged because it was a light hearted, swash buckling type campaign. It was about as deep as the average puddle. The characters had little or no relationships develop with any other PC's or NPC's, because they died too damn often. 20+ PC deaths in 24 months of gaming means that you don't have a whole lot of depth.

So, I've answered your questions, despite the snark. So, how about answering mine?

When the campaign does not change in any way to fit the characters, how do you gain any depth? Look at Charles Ryan. He gained depth by adapting the campaign world to fit a character in order to gain a more interesting story. What would you do?

 

[Hussar]

RC, I'd respond to your points about my list, but, Doug McCrae pretty much said everything I wanted to say.

If you change the parameters of my examples, then you aren't actually addressing my examples. Can you do the War of the Ring as a sandbox? Certainly. You've shown that. However, can you do EPIC QUEST as a sand box? No, not really, because epic quests require the heroes to actually go on that quest.

If I want to follow a rough line similar to the books, then a sandbox is not going to do what I want.

Note, btw, I said survival horror. That doesn't necessarily mean zombies. But, how is that a sandbox? The players have zero choice in their adventure. They are at location X, the hordes come. There's no choice there.

Granted, there are choices within the scenario - do you go here, do you make a stand, do you walk backwards into the unlit room... that sort of thing. But, even those choices are very, very constrained by the situation. And, typically, you have a very tight time limit or time constraint as well.

A survival horror game is pretty much the antithesis of sandbox.

 

[Ariosto]

I could see a superhero game run in less of a plotted style than usual -- I think Superhero '44, although rather formalized (sort of like En Garde) in the "patrol" rules, was meant to be that way. The heroes were still pretty reactive, though, and I think that's a basic "genre fidelity" thing. Early Lee-Ditko Spider-man stories had the character taking initiatives such as trying to sell his web formula to industry, but those were side-lines with pretty predictable outcomes (sticking Peter Parker back into his "archetype" mold as Spidey).

Call of Cthulhu, I think, usually taps the weird adventure vein of August Derleth's The Trail of Cthulhu, and his development of a clearly defined "mythos", more than the largely self-contained horror stories of Lovecraft. D&D established the winning formula of the "adventure" game with an emphasis on at least some characters surviving more than one expedition and even going on to become notably more capable. (Marc Miller's original Traveller stands almost alone in opposition to the "level up" treadmill.)

So, I could see CoC done D&D-style, with "lairs" of cult activity mapped and "wandering monster" tables perhaps keyed to characters' depth of involvement in the wainscot society of those who deal in Things Man Was Not Meant to Know.

If I were to run JAGS Wonderland/The Book of Knots, I think I probably would go in for more plotted scenarios at least as starting points -- "prologues" or "first chapters", if you will. Losing control is a very central aspect, a "theme", in the situation, along with invasion of or infection by Story. Once "down the rabbit hole", though, and in between "episodes", improvisation is likely to play a big part. How the players deal with things is more important than any pre-conceived menu of outcomes.

 

[Ariosto]

I'm the GM, I want a goddamn epic quest. If sandbox does not deliver my epic quest then it has failed me! Failed!!

Yes, I was going to bring that up ... but note that Hussar is all about getting players to "sign on" beforehand. I don't know, but maybe he sometimes just gives up on his concept because the players want something else -- but everyone knows up front, before it begins, what the limited campaign is going to be about.

 

[Hussar]

A thought about BSG (note, I'm referring to the new series, not the one from the '80's)

How is this a sandbox game?

Your initial points are dictated to you - Caprica is destroyed, you are on the run.

Your goal is dictated to you - Find Earth.

Your means of attaining that goal are dicated to you - Follow the Prophesies.

In what way is this a sandbox.

Ariosto- I would agree actually. If no one wants "Epic Quest" before the game starts, then fine, we do something else. After all, there's no point in doing a campaign that no one wants to do. But, Doug McCrae's point still stands. If we decide to do "Epic Quest" then sandbox - with its wide open choices and fixed setting, probably isn't going to get the job done.

 

[Ariosto]

RC spoke upthread about the great motivational benefits a sandbox brings due to the players being able to freely choose which adventure to undertake. Here, there is no such multiplicity of choice.

Well, the single choice of "killing inhuman monsters" does not come in so many flavors. It's not as if "deal in various ways with human beings" is suddenly a short menu for lack of bugbears and umber hulks.

 

[Ariosto]

If we decide to do "Epic Quest" then sandbox - with its wide open choices and fixed setting, probably isn't going to get the job done.

"Fixed setting"? Once again, I am afraid I cannot speak to the "sandbox" matter. As to the applicability of wide open choices, that is just a circular argument. Either you admit the possibility that the quest for whatever may be pursued however the players choose, and that it may fail, or you do not.

I don't see the arbitrary definition of "epic quest" as being necessarily so artificially limited as being helpful at all. YMMV, though, I guess. Maybe you can provide acceptable terminology for epic quests conducted by players in wide open campaigns.

 

[Ariosto]

I also feel that a lot of horror works by trapping the protagonists somewhere they don't want to be, such as the traditional haunted house setup. How often is the bridge out in a horror movie? This directly goes against the freedom essential to a sandbox.

See why I wash my hands of that "sandbox" baloney? Come on, Doug! Apart perhaps from Hussar, who I don't think calls his mode "sandbox", who do you think really holds that bridges cannot fail in a game world because that infringes "essential" player freedom?

Yes, if you really, really want a reaction of horror then you want a railroad precisely because of its sheer wrongness whether it leads to Auschwitz or Hobb's End. In that case, you'll want it to be pretty obvious at some point.

The basic desire, though, to be assured of a particular affect, is I think intrinsically opposed to the game fundamentals. Games are not, I think, about such certainties. The motive is purely an artistic one, directed at an audience -- although providing the possibility of horror in the mix of game elements is not of such foreign character. (This is a matter of degree, as are most things; pure binary dichotomies are uncommon.) Is it possible for such a motive to produce something that is, in a meaningful sense, a game? I think so, but it must be a very limited scenario indeed!