Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[KidSnide]

Nah.
Game elements come first for both. You know....settings, NPCs, the plots of NPCs, etc. The story-oriented GM then determines what should happen with those plot elements ("What would make a cool/dramatic scene is if the PCs.....") whereas the sandbox-oriented GM then says "I wonder what the PCs will do when presented with these elements?" and crafts some more elements.

Well, speaking as a story-oriented hybrid GM, game elements are a big part of pre-planning, but sometimes I pick moments and try to build the game to them.

For example, about seven years into my last campaign, the PC party was hunting for the great individual they thought to apotheosize (as it were) into an allied demi-god (Hope) if put into the right situation. When she went missing they went after her, to find her dead -- an impossible event according to their prophesy. At that point, they realized the prophecy was wrong and it was *the PCs* who could (collectively) apotheosize into the a demi-god (in their case, Unity).

Sure, I guess you could see this as a game element, but it was really the moment I was driving to -- that single point when the players realized that they weren't finding someone who could save the world. They had to save the world themselves. (Then, everyone gained 3 levels and had a massive set fight against a hated enemy they used to think was unbeatable.)

It was a miracle that they players actually figured it out at the same time (and while I had them standing in a circle, too). But, in my book at least, this was an example of wanting a dramatic effect and then building plot elements (and manipulating the hell out of the players) to get the moment. As a GM, you need to sparing with this sort of idea. (I think of it as a once every 1-3 years kind of ploy.) But it's definitely possible.

-KS

 

[Stoat]

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.

Really? Auschwitz?

 

[Hussar]

"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.

I say the setting is fixed since, as I understand it, the setting does not change dependent on the characters or the players. The DM starts with the setting, places the characters in that setting and then play starts. Is this an unacceptable definition of sandbox play?

Can a quest be pursued however the players choose? That will really depend on the quest won't it? After all, if the quest is, "Drop the ring in Mount Doom", as some point in time, they are going to have to go to Mount Doom and drop in the ring. Now they may ride giant eagles to get there, they might tunnel their way with admantine spoons, but, at some point in time, to complete the quest, they will have to go there and do their task.

A quest campaign, by its very nature limits choices. It has to. You are tasked to do X. You are opposed by Y. Possibly you have a time limit as well. So, no, I don't think you can do epic quests in a wide open campaign. At least, not be design.

Actually, that last thought might be important. You could have a situation in a wide open campaign where the players decide to go to Mount Doom and drop in the ring. Thus, you get the epic quest after the fact. After all, they could choose to go on to a different quest at any time and possibly come back later or not, as they wish.

So, the epic quest occurs. But, not as a designed goal. It occurs mostly by the organic development of the campaign.

That, IMO, is the big difference. And I think you agree. In a wide open campaign, the GM cannot design with any particular goal in mind, since the players may opt to do something entirely different. So, in the wide open campaign, if an epic quest occurs, it happens because the players decide that that's the direction they want to go after play has begun.

In a story based campaign, you make that decision before play begins. In a story based campaign, the group has all either bought into, or possibly deliberately designed, the epic quest, and the GM is there to keep things moving in the agreed upon direction.

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

Like I said, there are some serious issues with the story based approach. What if the players change their minds? What if the players, half way through, find something else that tweaks their interest? What if your group changes? Etc. Etc.

My answer to these issues is to keep story based games short. These are not going to be multi-year epics that sprawl all over the place. Short, sweet, to the point and done.

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

Heh, btw, on a side note, I'm starting to play in a campaign on Tuesday set in the Discworld universe. From the information I've seen, it's pretty much a sandbox setup. Sounds like a blast.

 

[KidSnide]

I guess I should add one more thing...

When I design moments - usually narrated "cut scenes" set to music that I pick out ahead of time - I try not to get too attached to them. It's quite common that I have to change my planned narration to accommodate the fact that the PCs didn't play it out the way I thought they would and meaningful portion of the time, I have to cut the scene but it just doesn't fit the action anymore.

...and I realize that most GMs don't do this. So, obviously, YMMV.

-KS

 

[Hussar]

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?
/snippage of Godwinning

Hang on. So, you're saying that it's perfectly okay to change game world elements in order to ensure that the players will follow a particular plotline, but that's apparently NOT railroading?

How is, "The bridge is out" any different from "the forest is impenetrable" or any other really onerous railroading techniques?

To me, the difference is, in a story game, the players have already agreed to play "survival horror" (such as All Flesh Must Be Eaten) and understand that certain genre staples pretty much have to be accepted. The bridge will be out. The power grid will go off. The house will have a basement regardless of where it is. And an attic as well. Etc. Etc.

In a "wide open campaign" as you seem to be calling it, how is forcing the players to play a particular scenario consistent with player freedom?

 

[Hussar]

I guess I should add one more thing...

When I design moments - usually narrated "cut scenes" set to music that I pick out ahead of time - I try not to get too attached to them. It's quite common that I have to change my planned narration to accommodate the fact that the PCs didn't play it out the way I thought they would and meaningful portion of the time, I have to cut the scene but it just doesn't fit the action anymore.

...and I realize that most GMs don't do this. So, obviously, YMMV.

-KS

I've been wanting to use cut scenes in my games for a while. I'm still struggling with it. I'm in the process of building a new campaign now, so, I'll give it another whirl. Here's hoping. But, that's excellent advice about not getting too attached to them. Excellent advice for any story based game out there as well. You (and I mean this in the generic you) have to be pretty willing to eject elements at the drop of the hat to make story games work, IMO.

 

[Ariosto]

When the campaign does not change in any way to fit the characters, how do you gain any depth?

"To fit the characters" is not so inflammatory as your previous baiting, but ...

What do you mean by "depth"? It looks as if it must be a quality the real world lacks.

If you mean, "resemblance to a contrived story", then the answer is that we do not "gain" it, because we do not want it -- and it would come at the loss of what we do want.

But I don't think that's what much of anyone besides you means by "depth" in a game!

 

[Emirikol]

Great topic BTW. Very good posts.

jh

 

[KidSnide]

I've been wanting to use cut scenes in my games for a while. I'm still struggling with it. I'm in the process of building a new campaign now, so, I'll give it another whirl. Here's hoping. But, that's excellent advice about not getting too attached to them. Excellent advice for any story based game out there as well. You (and I mean this in the generic you) have to be pretty willing to eject elements at the drop of the hat to make story games work, IMO.

I try a lot of weird things in my game (an adventure that take place entirely in the head of one PC where that PC's player is the only one who doesn't know that's what's going on, a Memento-style backwards timeline, a time travel game where the PCs learned that an alternative version of themselves blew up their world creating the one the PCs know, a 14-month long complexity 400 skill challenge*). IME, players will put up with an awful lot of strangeness if you're willing to move on when it looks like they're not having fun.

YMMV.

(Really, other parts of my game are very sandboxy...)

-KS

* That last one is not recommended...

 

[Ariosto]

A quest campaign, by its very nature limits choices. It has to. You are tasked to do X. You are opposed by Y. Possibly you have a time limit as well. So, no, I don't think you can do epic quests in a wide open campaign.

If you define something as being possible in only one very narrowly precise way, then ... well, naturally! "No, defeating the Not So Bright Lady's Army of Badness and making the World safe for Monarchy is not enough. Victory cannot be ours until you complete the Scavenger Hunt of Gnomic Utterances!" Fine. Make it so, if you like. I just don't see that it's necessary.

In a wide open campaign, the GM cannot design with any particular goal in mind, since the players may opt to do something entirely different. So, in the wide open campaign, if an epic quest occurs, it happens because the players decide that that's the direction they want to go after play has begun.

Hallelujah! Although actually they can decide before play if they want. The key is what's in bold.

So, you're saying that it's perfectly okay to change game world elements in order to ensure that the players will follow a particular plotline, but that's apparently NOT railroading?

That would be railroading, but railroading might be perfectly okay; it depends on the players.

It does not follow that a bridge's collapse must be a Message From God to be interpreted as, "Get back on the plot line!" It amazes me how closed some minds are.

Anyhow, someone (Doug?) defined a sandbox as a campaign in which the DM has several adventures prepared. Why couldn't this be one of those? The players are free to cross that bridge or not, but on the other side things start to happen. Maybe things like those in Hobb's End in John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness ... maybe it's a railroad, but -- whether you read them or not -- the signs were posted before the conductor punched your ticket!

A scenario in which the PCs are somehow stranded (geographically, financially, politically, etc.) can be a lot of fun. Dungeonland and The Land Beyond the Magic Mirror are great tests of D&D-playing skill (and potentially a kick for the Lewis Carroll references).

It should be easy to come up with other cases of what might be called "commuter lines", surprises that whisk players into a new situation -- and then cut them loose to make of it what they will.