Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5002934" data-attributes="member: 18280">Your admonishment is accepted.Recognizing that there is a goal in a game allows one to consider what sorts of victory conditions various sessions and campaign arcs can have.&nbsp; This is not to say that you must consider what the PCs are expected to accomplish; within a sandbox campaign, though, it is important to give some thought to what the PCs can accomplish.&nbsp; This means looking at the campaign world in terms of various plot arcs, even if the &quot;plot&quot; is as simple as &quot;Explore the five-chamber Crypt of Kings&quot; or &quot;Find a Shrubbery for the Knights Who Say Ne&quot;.When sandboxing, &quot;plot&quot; is often &quot;what the NPCs are up to&quot;, but this information is useless in actual game terms unless the GM also considers how the NPCs' goals and actions intersect with the PCs, how the PCs can get involved with those intersectiongs, and what can happen as a result.&nbsp; This doesn't mean that the GM should fix things in stone, and be unwilling to accept a PC-driven intersection he or she has not foreseen.&nbsp; What it does mean is that, by considering the ways these interactions can occur, the GM has hopefully prepared some material (even if only in his or her head) to help when &quot;winging it&quot; due to unforeseen PC actions.4e's quest rules, and the special XP cases of 2e, seem to me to be explicitly embracing the idea of examining pieces of the game in terms of their plot potential.&nbsp; Certainly, they allow for the adoption of specific game goals, with specific rewards for achieving them.Personally, I prefer plot to be handled in a sort of loose manner.&nbsp; The GM knows what the NPCs are planning, and what they will do to achieve their goals if no one (PC or NPC) intervenes, but stops between sessions to consider how the milieu has progressed due to PC actions -- which might include NPCs discovering things/getting more involved that the GM initially imagined they might.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 5002934, member: 18280"] Your admonishment is accepted. Recognizing that there is a goal in a game allows one to consider what sorts of victory conditions various sessions and campaign arcs can have. This is not to say that you must consider what the PCs are expected to accomplish; within a sandbox campaign, though, it is important to give some thought to what the PCs [B][I]can[/I][/B] accomplish. This means looking at the campaign world in terms of various plot arcs, even if the "plot" is as simple as "Explore the five-chamber Crypt of Kings" or "Find a Shrubbery for the Knights Who Say Ne". When sandboxing, "plot" is often "what the NPCs are up to", but this information is useless in actual game terms unless the GM also considers how the NPCs' goals and actions intersect with the PCs, how the PCs can get involved with those intersectiongs, and what can happen as a result. This doesn't mean that the GM should fix things in stone, and be unwilling to accept a PC-driven intersection he or she has not foreseen. What it does mean is that, by considering the ways these interactions can occur, the GM has hopefully prepared some material (even if only in his or her head) to help when "winging it" due to unforeseen PC actions. 4e's quest rules, and the special XP cases of 2e, seem to me to be explicitly embracing the idea of examining pieces of the game in terms of their plot potential. Certainly, they allow for the adoption of specific game goals, with specific rewards for achieving them. Personally, I prefer plot to be handled in a sort of loose manner. The GM knows what the NPCs are planning, and what they will do to achieve their goals if no one (PC or NPC) intervenes, but stops between sessions to consider how the milieu has progressed due to PC actions -- which might include NPCs discovering things/getting more involved that the GM initially imagined they might. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification