# Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs



## AverageCitizen (Nov 9, 2009)

Story games are more rewarding, period.

The Caveat:
I understand that different player group/DM combinations will find different styles of gaming satisfying. Personally, I prefer rich stories so much that I avoid groups who just want to screw around. Some people are the opposite. We don't game together, and that's _ok._ My point here is I think they are missing out.

The Why:
We need to remember that the Players are the_ only _audience that matters. We are assisting them in writing a story that _they_ enjoy, through a medium of limited collaboration that makes such cooperation both more difficult and more satisfying.

We as DMs have only one job, and everything we do is periphery to it. _Our job is to validate our players wildest daydreams and make every single one of them come true._ Nobody wants to admit to lame empowerment fantasies, but everybody has them whether they know it or not. If the game "coincidentally" lets players live out those fantasies, they'll have an unbelievably great time. Every DM has probably run a game that struck a particularly harmonious chord and illicited a general "that was awesome" response. I would suggest that this is why.

Not only do we have to make their dreams come true, we have to do it quickly. We only have a few hours at the table a week, so we can't afford to waste time. Every encounter should either1. Uncover what their dreams are​2. create a scenario in which those dreams will make the player a hero (or anti-hero, if that's what they're in to) or​3. allow one or more PCs to realize or come closer to realizing those desires.​Pull that off, and they'll love you for it. As DMs we have to power to make people feel good about themselves, and I don't think they even realize it as it happens. They just have a good time, and they don't know exactly why. I don't even know why, I just know it works. We could probably ask Freud.

The only real way to accomplish those three tasks in the time allotted is with an engaging story. Themes, morals, conflicts and other artistic touches usually reserved for Russian tragedies are satisfying for me to share with the players and serve a double purpose: to illuminate and later validate their secret ambitions. It makes them feel like everything was planned to make some grand point or pose a deep question and that their actions as characters advanced that higher goal. Its like a music lover who's only sung in the shower taking the stage at a karaoke and getting a standing ovation. I build the world and set the story so they can live out their secret fantasies center stage and not feel ashamed. And at the end, if your good at Russian tragedy, everybody feels like they've learned something. That's why it's the greatest game ever played.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Nov 9, 2009)

Nah they just wanna kick in the door, kill the monsters and take their stuff!


----------



## Starfox (Nov 9, 2009)

Basically, I agree. But, in practice, I find I am one of the players whose dreams and desires are in need of fulfillment too, and I am uniquely qualified to fulfill that particular set of dreams. Its worthwhile work to fulfill others' dreams as well, but damned hard. It's very easy to either focus too much on your own dream, alienating the players, or or too little, alienating yourself.


----------



## the Jester (Nov 9, 2009)

AverageCitizen said:


> We need to remember that the Players are the_ only _audience that matters. We are assisting them in writing a story that _they_ enjoy, through a medium of limited collaboration that makes such cooperation both more difficult and more satisfying.
> 
> We as DMs have only one job, and everything we do is periphery to it. _Our job is to validate our players wildest daydreams and make every single one of them come true._




As a long-time "primary dm" for many groups, I couldn't disagree more. What you post might be true for _your preferred playstyle,_ but I don't find it to be true at all for mine.

I could as easily say that the dm's primary job is to _have fun,_ and the players are there to amuse him while he does it.


----------



## maddman75 (Nov 9, 2009)

I'm with you Average Citizen.  I run games that create great stories, but I'll be clear that I only do this because I think its fun, and my group thinks its fun.  We like exploring conflicts and themes.  We like having big dramatic moments.  We like each session to wrap up the current conflict as handily as a weekly TV show, even if there is a larger 'plot arc' working.

I don't think its about dream fulfillment for my group though.  At least I hope not, my players are pretty adept at coming up with flawed, in some ways defective characters.    My Hunter group consists of an underage prostitute, a racist hillbilly, a paranoid conspiracy theorist, and the 'third shooter' at Columbine.*  Their first vampire they had tracked down to a cellar, and had a moral argument about whether they should kill it or not - one character argued vehemently that the vampire, as far as they knew, was hypnotizing people and feeding, then leaving them out somewhere.  But they weren't killing anyone!

For us, I think its all about conflict.  I think of my games as a sort of dramatic sandbox.  I don't do the stuff you usually talk about with sandboxing - large predefined area, theme of exploration.  But I do give the PCs free reign to go where they want in the story.  And sometimes those places are dark, but they're almost always awesome.

And that's the fun of it for me.  They think I do all the work.  Ha!  At best I come up with a monster of the week, push a couple of conflict at them, and sit back and let them entertain me.  


* - Yeah, I know 'edgy'.  But after hearing the backstory I decided to allow it.  He was taken in by the shooters convinced there was a monster at the school.  When he figured out their real plan, he got out of dodge.  Just some background that might follow him.  Wanted to explain in an attempt to ward off any flames.


----------



## Elbeghast (Nov 9, 2009)

AverageCitizen said:


> Story games are more rewarding, period.



How is the OP not claiming that "my play style is superior to your play style, period"?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 9, 2009)

Elbeghast said:


> How is the OP not claiming that "my play style is superior to your play style, period"?




You noticed that too.


----------



## Goken100 (Nov 9, 2009)

I think the OP makes an interesting point.  It's probably true for many that their wish-fulfillment has something to do with what they'd like to happen to their characters.  But I doubt it's true for everyone.

Look at D&D as a form of fiction.  Its interactive and personal, but it's still fiction, akin to books, plays, movies, television, comics, and bedtime stories.  People enjoy fiction for lots of complex reasons.  It's true for D&D as well.

I'd suggest amending the thesis to "find out what each players wants for the character, and make that happen".  That's almost certain to be a winner.  But it's not necessarily what the player personally dreams of.


----------



## Oni (Nov 9, 2009)

> Our job is to validate our players wildest daydreams and make every single one of them come true.




How much then are you willing to allow your players to fail?  Can their characters lose, can they die?  Is defeat truly a possibility?  

I don't really think it's the GM's job to treat player aspirations of wish fulfillment like a to-do list.  More I think it's the GM's job to facilitate fun by creating interesting situations and then fairly adjudicating them according to the style of game their playing.   


BTW, when you say story game, what exactly do you mean?  Is it just a matter of how seriously the world and characters are taken, or is it about telling a specific story or what?  Maybe I'm being dense, but I'm not 100% clear on what you're advocating beyond "feed your players power fantasies and they'll love you".


----------



## fuzzlewump (Nov 9, 2009)

Oni said:


> How much then are you willing to allow your players to fail?  Can their characters lose, can they die?  Is defeat truly a possibility?



From my point of view, only if the players want their characters to be able to lose. I think most players want a real possibility of failure, because that makes success sweeter, so that does not interfere with OP's post at all.

If you do have players that don't want failure to be a possibility, then it shouldn't be. It's hard to imagine for me, but if that was the case that should be the game. Perhaps they keep coming back to life in a Planescape:Torment sort of way, or something along those lines.

Also, your "interesting situations" framework is not mutually exclusive from the original post. It's just a matter of making interesting situations from the desires of the players. For instance, a player tells you his character is searching for the man who killed his father. For a more rewarding game, the combats should make the character closer to finding that man. I don't agree with _every _combat, unless you're an incredibly sly writer. I don't think every character with separate goals can have their stories furthered  by each combat.

And, if all player's want is to bust down doors and take treasure, then _that is _their dream that the OP is speaking of.


----------



## avin (Nov 9, 2009)

my players are only in it for the free boze and snacks... /cry


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 9, 2009)

avin said:


> my players are only in it for the free boze and snacks... /cry




That is a shame. 

Your players get free booze? 

Tell me about your campaign, it sounds fascinating.


----------



## maddman75 (Nov 9, 2009)

fuzzlewump said:


> From my point of view, only if the players want their characters to be able to lose. I think most players want a real possibility of failure, because that makes success sweeter, so that does not interfere with OP's post at all.




This is the tricky part.  One of John Wick's articles talked about the John McClaine Principle.  Essentially, almost all PCs want to be John McClaine from Die Hard.  They want to be outgunned, outnumbered, but because they are clever and fighting for What's Right, they come out in the end.  But only after getting punched, kicked, tossed around, ducking under machine-gun fire, running barefoot across broken glass, and jumping out of a 40th floor window crashing into another window and yelling 'Yippie-kai-ay, MFer!' before laying the bad guy out.  They're bruised, bloody, and limping, but they came out on top.

So how do we get that in a game?  The more 'old school' style RPG says the way to get there is to focus on the outgunned and outnumbered.  Throw machine guns and broken glass and see if they can do it.  Some of us find that deeply unsatisfying though.  Either we try to act like John McClaine and get killed, or we tread carefully, cautiously, downright paranoid.  But that doesn't feel like John McClaine either.

The solution is to disassociate 'character death' and 'defeat'.  My players know that I'm a downright evil bastard, and cackle madly as they flail under my torments.  However, I don't tend to kill PCs very often.  In many games I upfront tell them 'your character isn't going to die if you don't want them to.'  Since I'm doing all this character driven conflict and drama, killing a PC is much more disruptive.  But I can find ways to make them pay for failure.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 9, 2009)

As the GM, my job is to make is to make sure that when the Batman takes down the Joker, it's because he earned it, not because his name is on the cover. If you want your wildest fantasies to come true, write some fan fic.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Nov 9, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> So how do we get that in a game?  The more 'old school' style RPG says the way to get there is to focus on the outgunned and outnumbered.  Throw machine guns and broken glass and see if they can do it.  Some of us find that deeply unsatisfying though.  Either we try to act like John McClaine and get killed, or we tread carefully, cautiously, downright paranoid.  But that doesn't feel like John McClaine either.



In my opinion you're confusing John McClaine and Rambo here. (I'm talking only about Die Hard 1 here). The odds are against McClaine, but he doesn't just take the elevator to where the hostages are and the BBEG are and just open fire. He is very cool and calculating, hiding from his pursuers, taking their stuff when he can, and using guerrilla warfare to take them down.


----------



## AverageCitizen (Nov 9, 2009)

Starfox said:


> It's very easy to either focus too much on your own dream, alienating the players, or or too little, alienating yourself.




Yeah, I'm being player-centric here, but you're definitely right. We DMs need to get our kicks too, but I have more fun when I manage to do both.



maddman75 said:


> I'm with you Average Citizen.  I run games that create great stories, but I'll be clear that I only do this because I think its fun, and my group thinks its fun.  We like exploring conflicts and themes.  We like having big dramatic moments.  We like each session to wrap up the current conflict as handily as a weekly TV show, even if there is a larger 'plot arc' working.
> 
> I don't think its about dream fulfillment for my group though.  At least I hope not, my players are pretty adept at coming up with flawed, in some ways defective characters.




Good on you guys. That sounds fun.

I think that players that are more self-aware or more well-read (interesting how those tend to go together) are more able to isolate different parts of their personality or even potential personality and channel that into a character. But in DnD and in literature, the best characters are ones that we can relate to. So... I'd suggest that your players have more diverse, literate and well-developed fantasies, but you're still in the business of helping them explore those, just maybe one part at a time.



Elbeghast said:


> How is the OP not claiming that "my play style is superior to your play style, period"?




Yeah sorry about that. I don't mean anything by it. For some people its just a game, but for some people its a game + some other interesting stuff. That's all I'm suggesting here.



Goken100 said:


> I think the OP makes an interesting point.  It's probably true for many that their wish-fulfillment has something to do with what they'd like to happen to their characters.  But I doubt it's true for everyone.
> 
> Look at D&D as a form of fiction.  Its interactive and personal, but it's still fiction, akin to books, plays, movies, television, comics, and bedtime stories.  People enjoy fiction for lots of complex reasons.  It's true for D&D as well.
> 
> I'd suggest amending the thesis to "find out what each players wants for the character, and make that happen".  That's almost certain to be a winner.  But it's not necessarily what the player personally dreams of.




I think your amended thesis is a winner, but I don't think its as far from the original as it seems. I was just trying to make the point that sometimes the players don't have a conscious plan, but they still have hopes and experiences that we can leverage to make the story satisfying for them. If they've already got it figured out, then by all means help them get there, we just have to make sure their goals are validated with struggle and some supporting story elements.

I read a book called "the Hero With a Thousand Faces" (I think) and it explored the fact that pretty much all popular stories speak to us on a deep level and something about them is familiar and relates to our own desires, fears, or experiences. Its kind of like that argument that there are only like 6 stories that get retold over and over, I forget the exact number. So I'd suggest that the reason there are so many complicated reasons why people like fiction is because people have many complicated layers in their psychological makeup. See what I'm saying? 



Oni said:


> How much then are you willing to allow your players to fail?  Can their characters lose, can they die?  Is defeat truly a possibility?




You've never day-dreamed about dying? About who would show up at your funeral and what they would say?

You've never wanted to go out in a blaze of glory?



> BTW, when you say story game, what exactly do you mean?  Is it just a matter of how seriously the world and characters are taken, or is it about telling a specific story or what?  Maybe I'm being dense, but I'm not 100% clear on what you're advocating beyond "feed your players power fantasies and they'll love you".




I think when you say "a matter of how seriously the world and the characters are taken" you're getting really close. I hadn't thought about it that way, but yeah I think its something like that. I'll have to think about it.



fuzzlewump said:


> From my point of view, only if the players want their characters to be able to lose. I think most players want a real possibility of failure, because that makes success sweeter, so that does not interfere with OP's post at all.
> 
> Also, your "interesting situations" framework is not mutually exclusive from the original post. It's just a matter of making interesting situations from the desires of the players. For instance, a player tells you his character is searching for the man who killed his father. For a more rewarding game, the combats should make the character closer to finding that man. I don't agree with _every _combat, unless you're an incredibly sly writer. I don't think every character with separate goals can have their stories furthered  by each combat.
> 
> And, if all player's want is to bust down doors and take treasure, then _that is _their dream that the OP is speaking of.




Yeah you get it. When I say _every_ encounter do remember that we have more than one player here, so it doesn't have to be working for everybody. And also I'm talking about an ideal here. In practice things tend to get a bit murky...

Note: Combats are not the only encounters I was referencing.



pawsplay said:


> As the GM, my job is to make is to make sure that when the Batman takes down the Joker, it's because he earned it, not because his name is on the cover. If you want your wildest fantasies to come true, write some fan fic.




Many fanfics are fantasies without validation. Just giving your players everything they are after may be what they _think_ they want, but what they really want is a fight. How many times in your fantasies have you beaten the Joker without him making you earn it?


----------



## AverageCitizen (Nov 9, 2009)

the Jester said:


> As a long-time "primary dm" for many groups, I couldn't disagree more. What you post might be true for _your preferred playstyle,_ but I don't find it to be true at all for mine.
> 
> I could as easily say that the dm's primary job is to _have fun,_ and the players are there to amuse him while he does it.




Thats cool. And you're right, this is just me. I get a kick out of fulfilling the players. Still I think you may be missing what I mean by validate. Most of what GMs do is validation. We make them earn it so that it means more.

Still I am not sure if that is your qualm so I am just guessing here. I'd be interested in hearing more about why you disagree.


----------



## maddman75 (Nov 9, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> As the GM, my job is to make is to make sure that when the Batman takes down the Joker, it's because he earned it, not because his name is on the cover. If you want your wildest fantasies to come true, write some fan fic.




Uh, thanks for telling me that I'm gaming wrong.

I understand the other style, just talking about what makes my game tick.

Generally, I'm not going to be asking the question 'can Batman take down the Joker.'  Its going to be more along the lines of 'What will Batman give up to take down the Joker?' or 'Can Batman take out someone as crazy as the Joker without going crazy himself?'

That doesn't mean I should be writing fanfic instead of playing games.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 9, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> Uh, thanks for telling me that I'm gaming wrong.




I don't believe I have addressed you, personally.



> I understand the other style, just talking about what makes my game tick.
> 
> Generally, I'm not going to be asking the question 'can Batman take down the Joker.'  Its going to be more along the lines of 'What will Batman give up to take down the Joker?' or 'Can Batman take out someone as crazy as the Joker without going crazy himself?'
> 
> That doesn't mean I should be writing fanfic instead of playing games.




I don't understand how you can have an RPG without uncertainty. I mean, I've seen freeform RPGs, and those are well and good, but I just don't get how someone can pick up D&D or DC Heroes or Vampire and believe they can know the future without compromising the basic design of the game.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 9, 2009)

Whatever floats your boat, baby!

However, if you try to convince the rest of us that the purpose of a game of Chess is to make sure that White always gets Black in check mate, then you're being absurd. Bringing that attitude to a normal Chess match is obnoxious.

There is a conventional understanding, and that serves an eminently practical purpose. It is the same with Dungeons & Dragons as with Bunnies & Burrows or Axis & Allies, Dogs in the Vineyard or My Life With Master, Snit Stomping or Scrabble.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 9, 2009)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> So how do we get that in a game? The more 'old school' style RPG says the way to get there is to focus on the outgunned and outnumbered.



Total baloney!

Bruce Willis has as much to do with the design of 'old school' RPGs as Michael Jackson has to do with Tchaikovsky's composition for the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom.


----------



## AverageCitizen (Nov 9, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Whatever rocks your boat, baby!
> 
> However, if you try to convince the rest of us that the purpose of a game of Chess is to make sure that White always gets Black in check mate, then you're being absurd. Bringing that attitude to a normal Chess match is obnoxious.
> 
> There is a conventional understanding, and that serves an eminently practical purpose. It is the same with Dungeons & Dragons as with Bunnies & Burrows or Axis & Allies, Dogs in the Vineyard or My Life With Master, Snit Stomping or Scrabble.




You're a cool guy.

So, the idea isn't to convince people to change the way they game, I'm just hoping to help people discover a potentially overlooked source of satisfaction. I am not saying you should game this way, I'm saying there is a good chance you already do, and most people probably at least lightly implement some of these concepts. So consider my thoughts as a possible explanation of why you game the way you do. If it doesn't fit, thats fine, but I am suggesting that if you really think about what brings you and your players satisfaction at its most basic level it [edit: or at least a big part of it] will probably be something like what I am describing. If we consciously acknowledge it we might be able to make it better.

Unrelated: What exactly is the conventional understanding about DnD?


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 10, 2009)

> Unrelated: What exactly is the conventional understanding about DnD?



Actually related: "Books are Books, Games are Games" (title of a Sorcerer's Scroll column in Dragon 30 years ago).

The DM (a.k.a. Judge or Referee) must not take sides. The DM is not playing for or against the players but presenting a challenge to their skills. Some characters survive, succeed and grow more powerful; other "pawns" perish, but there is normally no end point at which players have "won" or "lost". (A tournament obviously is a bit different.)


----------



## AverageCitizen (Nov 10, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Actually related: "Books are Books, Games are Games" (title of a Sorcerer's Scroll column in Dragon 30 years ago).
> 
> The DM (a.k.a. Judge or Referee) must not take sides. The DM is not playing for or against the players but presenting a challenge to their skills. Some characters survive, succeed and grow more powerful; other "pawns" perish, but there is normally no end point at which players have "won" or "lost". (A tournament obviously is a bit different.)




I think you were right and there are some things are that fundamentally different about our games. Still I see exactly what you mean about challenging the players, so maybe its more of a difference in priorities than mutually exclusive styles.

I do not agree with the Books are Books, Games are Games statement. DnD is a game, but it also something very much more than a game. I believe that some of the inherent assumptions that have existed in RPGs from the beginning are unnecessary and hold us back. The GM is only a referee in a periphery sense. I keep the rules and challenge the players because it makes the game more fun, not because I'm adhering to an ideal of objectivity.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 10, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> There is a conventional understanding, and that serves an eminently practical purpose. It is the same with Dungeons & Dragons as with Bunnies & Burrows or Axis & Allies, Dogs in the Vineyard or My Life With Master, Snit Stomping or Scrabble.




I am not at all sure the conventional wisdom has it that D&D and B&B are the same as Scrabble, Snit Stomping, or Axis and Allies.

If you look around at the occasional thread trying to define what an RPG is, this question usually comes up - are RPGs "games".  The answer is that it depends upon your definition of "game".  Classic, strict games have specific win conditions, and limited durations.  RPGs don't.  You might consider any tactical engagement to have a win condition of survive", but the game as a whole cannot be won or lost, _per se_, especially if you are playing sandbox-style.  RPGs generally only fit "game" in a slightly more loose definition.


----------



## Joseph Rossow (Nov 10, 2009)

This certainly is an interesting argument.  Here's my 2 cents.

*1. * I disagree with the OP on the job of the DM.  A DM's job is to _entertain_.

*2.*  Allow me to quote one of the posts...


			
				maddman75 said:
			
		

> disassociate 'character death' and 'defeat'



That, right there, is exceptionally important.  Just because a player's _character_ isn't having fun doesn't mean the _player_ isn't having fun, nor is one a requisite for the other.

*3.*  I agree that story is essential.  But DM's simply achieve this by enforcing consequences upon actions.

_"You went in and stole the Goblin King's Hoard out from under his nose?  He raises an army and burns down the village to get it back."_

_"You seduce the evil sorceress to get her to remove a curse?  Now she wants to take you on a vacation... in the Abyss."_

So long as the chain of consequences and actions remains rational and real, a story will always be produced from a game.


----------



## Herobizkit (Nov 10, 2009)

AverageCitizen said:


> Unrelated: What exactly is the conventional understanding about DnD?



It's the same understanding that you see thrown around here quite often: DnD is about killing things and taking their stuff.

If you never run a single combat in DnD, some may argue that you're Missing The Point.  If you never award XP and/or allow the characters to advance in level, that's fine, too - but you'll be sure at some point that they will want to improve.  How one measures success and improvement determines how much fun one ends up having.

For example, take myself and my roommate.  We have alternately played and DM'd solo campaigns for over a decade.

As a player:
* For him, he ALWAYS wants to amass a huge treasure hoard, then use said hoard to create a stronghold, attract followers, and make a new city/town/fort/kingdom to rule.
* For myself, I always want my characters to learn new abilities, try new character concepts, and finesse "the rules" to create interesting and (hopefully) unique heroes.

As a DM:
* For him, he likes to create epic plots. worlds with epic histories spanning ver ten thousand years.  He uses his same campaign world each time, which has an epic history spanning over ten thousand game years.  I try to add my own personal flair with each new character I make.
* For me, I like the creative process, but I run each game as if it were its own separate TV serial.  One character, one area, one group of "supporting cast", and once we finish that campaign, I'm off for a new setting/concept/game system to try.

He's great at planning and details, while I'm great at off-the-cuff DMing.  He's a superb tactician; I'm a superb role-player.
If we were one DM, we'd be awesome. *lolz*
But we're not.

And so, we each have to make some concessions if we are to enjoy each other's DMing and play style.  I think the same applies to every set of DM and players out there; once each knows what is "fun" for the other, hilarity can ensue and everyone has a good time.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 10, 2009)

Umbran, your response goes off at such a strange tangent that I reckon I must have been terribly unclear!

The "it" I meant as the same is simply the existence of a commonly agreed upon meaning of the term. There may be a game in which one gets a Triple Word Score for Breaking a Square with a Royal Flush and Snake Eyes in a Bolotomus, but it would probably be unhelpful to advertise it as "Dungeons & Dragons".

"Classic, strict games" is obviously a narrower category than "games". Here's what I mean:

Non-game: a puzzle with a single optimal solution, the discovery of which makes further "play" pointless.

Non-game: an entertainment in which the "player" has no significant choices, making the illusory "play" pointless.

Finitude is not necessary. That *Diplomacy* in practice tends to have an end and a winner and losers is an "accident". In an "ideally" played game, the other players would always team up to prevent someone from attaining the victory conditions.

Nor is it an incomprehensible leap from the open-ended nature of "rules for (*non-*fantastic) medieval wargames campaigns" to Dungeons & Dragons. Indeed it was so small that Gygax and Arneson considered it unnecessary to mention any difference in the original D&D rules books.

Neither did they make any mention of "plot"!

Among the other games Gygax designed was one he called Dragon Chess. It is no less fine and fun a game for not having been adopted as the official rules set of the United States Chess Federation.


----------



## Korgoth (Nov 10, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> As the GM, my job is to make is to make sure that when the Batman takes down the Joker, it's because he earned it, not because his name is on the cover. If you want your wildest fantasies to come true, write some fan fic.




You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to pawsplay again.


----------



## the Jester (Nov 10, 2009)

AverageCitizen said:


> Yeah sorry about that. I don't mean anything by it. For some people its just a game, but for some people its a game + some other interesting stuff. That's all I'm suggesting here.




I don't know if you realize this, but you're still denigrating other playstyles by suggesting that they are "just a game" while yours is "just a game + some other interesting stuff". You can have all that extra interesting stuff without a player-centric game. 



AverageCitizen said:


> Thats cool. And you're right, this is just me. I get a kick out of fulfilling the players. Still I think you may be missing what I mean by validate. Most of what GMs do is validation. We make them earn it so that it means more.
> 
> Still I am not sure if that is your qualm so I am just guessing here. I'd be interested in hearing more about why you disagree.




Well, to clarify, I definitely want the players in my game to enjoy the game- that's why they keep coming back for more- but I don't think entertaining the players is at the top of my duties as dm. It's on the list, but there are many more important aspects to my game (and, again, this is all about playstyle preference). 

For instance, I think running a consistent game is more important than stroking the players. So is building a consistent milieu. So is having my npcs and monsters act appropriate to their intelligence- the classic example of a mystery adventure where the Int 25 villain makes tons of stupid mistakes satisfies the players, because it makes it _easy for them to win,_ but I find it terribly dissatisfying, since an Int 25 villain _wouldn't make those mistakes._ If I want a villain to act dumb, I make sure the villain actually _is_ done- or that there is another reason for them to act that way (emotional entanglements, etc). 



AverageCitizen said:


> I do not agree with the Books are Books, Games are Games statement. DnD is a game, but it also something very much more than a game. I believe that some of the inherent assumptions that have existed in RPGs from the beginning are unnecessary and hold us back. The GM is only a referee in a periphery sense. I keep the rules and challenge the players because it makes the game more fun, not because I'm adhering to an ideal of objectivity.




Again, playstyle choice. DnD is indeed "just a game"- but, run and played right, it's a game that includes all kinds of crazy elements of acting, storytelling, etc. I think most players that have come to gaming within a group that coddles the players would be shocked at games like mine, and that is okay. Players that fit well with my style of game would be bored to death in a campaign where nobody ever dies, or where everything evolves to match the level of the party regardless of what level it was six game months ago. Dms that fudge the dice are fine for a certain style of game, but I roll almost all my dice in the open and let the chips fall where they may. Personally, a non-objective dm really sours me on a campaign very quickly.

I think trying to claim the "more than just a game" label for your playstyle really implies a disdain for the way others play the game. I am pretty sure that isn't your intent, but that is how you are coming across to me. 

I'm not saying one style is "better" than the other- just that I have a strong preference for one over the other, and my players are perfectly happy to play my style of game. Hell, I almost always have a 'waiting list' of potential players longer than the 6-10 I let into the group! So if what you mean by "more than just a game" is "a game that your players really enjoy," I think you'll find that there are many, many groups that play very differently from yours whose members are having the time of their lives.


----------



## AverageCitizen (Nov 10, 2009)

the Jester said:


> I don't know if you realize this, but you're still denigrating other playstyles by suggesting that they are "just a game" while yours is "just a game + some other interesting stuff". You can have all that extra interesting stuff without a player-centric game.




I may have mistaken your game style. There definitely are some people who like to keep DnD strictly to the battle grid, and that is fine. If that's not you, then in my admittedly broad generalizations I'd lump you in with the "game+" group. I hope I am not continuing to offend, because that really isn't my intent.



> Well, to clarify, I definitely want the players in my game to enjoy the game- that's why they keep coming back for more- but I don't think entertaining the players is at the top of my duties as dm. It's on the list, but there are many more important aspects to my game (and, again, this is all about playstyle preference).



Fair enough. I am beginning to suspect that our 'lists' of duties as a DM is more similar than you might think (probably due me not representing myself well) but the lists are in different order. Anyway, moving right along...



> For instance, I think running a consistent game is more important than stroking the players. So is building a consistent milieu. So is having my npcs and monsters act appropriate to their intelligence- the classic example of a mystery adventure where the Int 25 villain makes tons of stupid mistakes satisfies the players, because it makes it _easy for them to win,_ but I find it terribly dissatisfying, since an Int 25 villain _wouldn't make those mistakes._ If I want a villain to act dumb, I make sure the villain actually _is_ done- or that there is another reason for them to act that way (emotional entanglements, etc).



Okay, so I don't mean to flog a dead horse, but this section of the post, submitted as a counter-point to my OP, shows that I have clearly failed to communicate my point of view so I am going to try to clarify and I'll try to be concise.

I am very picky about my players, and I think this section of your post shows why. If the players are happier with an INT 25 villian making stupid mistakes then _I don't play with those people._ Its not fun for me. The players I have chosen to play with (I have a waiting list as well) are the ones that would be _extremely_ dissatisfied if the Professor Moriarty in our campaign were to be stupid for no good reason. In fact, when I was first starting out I'd occasionally overlook some angle of the story or strategy that would accidentally allow for easy victory, and all of us were very disappointed with the outcome. I have run into a few really immature RPers who just want to win. I guess I shouldn't say immature, maybe they just use DnD to unwind and they want a punching bag. That's fine, but personally I can't stand power-gaming.

Hear that everyone? _I don't like _power-gaming (not the people who do it, just the style). If you think I am advocating it, please reconsider my comments with that in mind. Notice the very end part about story and validation. Power gaming is an example of following all the steps I outlined originally _except_ validation. IMO, in order for someone to really be satisfied with an outcome, it has to be hard-won as well as well delivered. I feel that power-gaming is like junk food. It might be sweet but it lacks substance and is ultimately less satisfying.

Hopefully that makes me more clear. I guess theoretically if you were being as player-centric as I suggested originally, if you were stuck with a group of power-gamers that would be a problem. But that is why I pick my players. If you run a player-centric game, picking your players is picking your style.



> Again, playstyle choice. DnD is indeed "just a game"- but, run and played right, it's a game that includes all kinds of crazy elements of acting, storytelling, etc. I think most players that have come to gaming within a group that coddles the players would be shocked at games like mine, and that is okay. Players that fit well with my style of game would be bored to death in a campaign where nobody ever dies, or where everything evolves to match the level of the party regardless of what level it was six game months ago. Dms that fudge the dice are fine for a certain style of game, but I roll almost all my dice in the open and let the chips fall where they may. Personally, a non-objective dm really sours me on a campaign very quickly.



Yeah I agree with everything you said here. I have PC death sometimes, but you probably have a lot more. I very occasionally fudge the rolls, mostly if I feel like I made a mistake in planning, but not always. So yeah, we have some different playing styles. I probably would enjoy your game, its just I have my own style that emphasizes different aspects and it just sorta comes out that way. But those _particular _differences weren't what I was trying to contrast in the original post. I wasn't talking about making it easy or hard. If anything I think to err on the side of difficult is better, because then they might pull it off and it'll be even more satisfying, but if it's too easy then the game is already spoiled. I understand that I am probably difficult to follow right now, I think its mostly because my original post has been misinterpreted (my bad) and so the conversation has spread into several related but difficult to distinguish topics. 



> I think trying to claim the "more than just a game" label for your playstyle really implies a disdain for the way others play the game. I am pretty sure that isn't your intent, but that is how you are coming across to me.
> 
> I'm not saying one style is "better" than the other- just that I have a strong preference for one over the other, and my players are perfectly happy to play my style of game. Hell, I almost always have a 'waiting list' of potential players longer than the 6-10 I let into the group! So if what you mean by "more than just a game" is "a game that your players really enjoy," I think you'll find that there are many, many groups that play very differently from yours whose members are having the time of their lives.



Again, I apologize if I offended. But it is clear here that I have miscommunicated.

The game/game+ statement came from the fact that I thought we were talking about story vs. the absence of story, not player pampering vs. tough love. Because of that, when you disagreed with me I figured you were in the DnD-dungeon-crawl-minis-combat-board-game camp. Some people don't like to mix their fiction with their tabletop gaming, and thats fine, but I think we both agree that there is a lot more to it.

I'll admit that I do have disdain for certain play styles, but I have tried and will try harder to not vocalize it here because that is the rules of the forum. And you know, its a good rule, cause what do I know? I'm just some guy. I shouldn't be allowed to go rain on people's parades. I would like to point out that after learning about it, I really, _really _don't think your game is the type I was talking about in those comments.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 10, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to pawsplay again.



Gotcha covered there.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 10, 2009)

As far as playstyle is concerned, the job of the DM is help provide the most fun and satisfying game possible. How that is achieved will depend on the player group. Some players like to play in a tough game world that requires thier characters to fight tooth and nail for every scrap of success, and others might enjoy a game with little to no risk and heaps of reward and glory. Other players might want something in the middle. 

However the game is played, if the DM and players had a great time then the DM did a good job.

My personal preference is for games that allow the players to determine the level of risk vs reward. My players generally like games that feature failure as a possible option. Knowing that thier choices,actions, and luck brought about their successes provides a more satisfying experience.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Nov 10, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> The DM (a.k.a. Judge or Referee) must not take sides. The DM is not playing for or against the players but presenting a challenge to their skills. Some characters survive, succeed and grow more powerful; other "pawns" perish . . .




Yeah, that was fun. Back in 1979. When I was like, 14. For about three weeks.

Frankly, a good game of Descent sounds like a more engaging RPG than what you're describing.

Don't get me wrong, I like a good game of Descent. Or the occasional dungeon delve that just pits a page full of stats against some tough monsters for an hour or two.

But a dispassionate "tester of skills" is the last thing I want in my GM, or that I want to be as a GM.


----------



## maddman75 (Nov 10, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> I don't understand how you can have an RPG without uncertainty. I mean, I've seen freeform RPGs, and those are well and good, but I just don't get how someone can pick up D&D or DC Heroes or Vampire and believe they can know the future without compromising the basic design of the game.




What in my post suggested that?  Uncertainty is what makes it interesting!  How far will Batman go to take down the Joker?  Will he torture someone to find out where his lair is?  Will he commit murder?  Would be betray old Alfred, or give up the Wayne fortune, if that's what it took?

Just because I know the Joker isn't going to kill Batman doesn't mean that there's no uncertainty, or that everything is a cakewalk!



the Jester said:


> the classic example of a mystery adventure where the Int 25 villain makes tons of stupid mistakes satisfies the players, because it makes it _easy for them to win,_ but I find it terribly dissatisfying, since an Int 25 villain _wouldn't make those mistakes._ If I want a villain to act dumb, I make sure the villain actually _is_ done- or that there is another reason for them to act that way (emotional entanglements, etc).




Why do you think a villain making stupid mistakes would make for a satisfying game?  Do you think players want it to be easy to win?


----------



## Hussar (Nov 10, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> As the GM, my job is to make is to make sure that when the Batman takes down the Joker, it's because he earned it, not because his name is on the cover. If you want your wildest fantasies to come true, write some fan fic.




That's fine, so long as you are only willing to entertain a single purpose to playing an RPG - a fairly traditional way that is certainly loads of fun.

However, you should realize that that's not the only way to play.  Maybe I want to delve into the psychological ramifications of being Batman.  Taking down the Joker is simply the vehicle for that examination, not the focus of the campaign at all. 

I'm totally not saying you are wrong at all.  I've played the way you are describing, and I still play that way.  But not all the time.  There are times when I want my RPG to be a vehicle for something different.

Just to give an example from my current game.  I'm running a hard SF game using the Sufficiently Advanced ruleset.  The first scenario I ran had the players investigating the cause of serious depression and general malaise aboard a colony ship.  They discovered that a toy had been invented that empirically proved that the universe is deterministic and that there is no such thing as free will.

People become addicted to the game in order to try to prove it wrong, fail, and then become almost catatonic and paralyzed by the psychological ramifications.

Now, solving the situation was pretty much entirely secondary to what I wanted out of this scenario which was a discussion on the psychological and socialogical effects of knowing the universe is deterministic.  ((The end solution for the players was to show that the toy was actually a hoax and the universe wasn't actually being proven to be deterministic.))

I don't want to say that I want to do this every single game.  I certainly don't.  But it was a fascinating diversion from the normal Kill Kill Kill Talk Talk Talk of traditional gaming.  Everyone, I think, really enjoyed the scenario.  It really engendered a great deal of discussion and in character rp.  A good time was had by all.

So, no, I reject the idea that all rpg's must be played the same way.  That rpg's have one single purpose and we must adhere to that purpose.  Sometimes I just wanna kill stuff, sometimes I want to explore ideas, sometimes I wanna do something else.  RPG's are a pretty varied medium.  I would certainly never want them to be limited to a single style.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 10, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> Yeah, that was fun. Back in 1979. When I was like, 14. For about three weeks.
> 
> Frankly, a good game of Descent sounds like a more engaging RPG than what you're describing.
> 
> ...




Doing it wrong syndrome strikes again.


----------



## Dykstrav (Nov 10, 2009)

AverageCitizen said:


> You've never day-dreamed about dying? About who would show up at your funeral and what they would say?
> 
> You've never wanted to go out in a blaze of glory?




For what it's worth, I certainly have considered my own death, and I usually have all my characters do it to. After all, what is a more concrete way of telling people what you believe to be important than what you're willing to shuffle off the mortal coil for?



			
				CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> Yeah, that was fun. Back in 1979. When I was like, 14. For about three weeks.
> 
> Frankly, a good game of Descent sounds like a more engaging RPG than what you're describing.
> 
> ...




I'm a bit opposite of this attitude. Unlike some of the players that I've known, I expect a challenge first and foremost. I don't care how compelling the narrative is or how "heroic" my character gets to be if I feel like I'm just walking through it. I want a real danger of character death and a real chance of failure. I want to be rewarded for caution and taking calculated risks.

I'd rather have a character meet a bloody and horrible death through my own choices and skill rather than have them succeed because he's the star of the show, or because the DM wants the players to feel empowered. My ideal DM would be a bit detached, clinical even, almost like a trial lawyer that adjudicates the life of my character without passion, prejudice, or remorse. I wouldn't enjoy the arbitrary, random-character-death sort of DM common in 1E days, but what I want is danger and a very real chance of failure. As long as I felt that the DM was being impartial, I'd be cool with it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 10, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> As the GM, my job is to make is to make sure that when the Batman takes down the Joker, it's because he earned it, not because his name is on the cover.




Hey!  That's _*my*_ job too!  



maddman75 said:


> Generally, I'm not going to be asking the question 'can Batman take down the Joker.'  Its going to be more along the lines of 'What will Batman give up to take down the Joker?' or 'Can Batman take out someone as crazy as the Joker without going crazy himself?'




If Batman knows he is going to win, why should he give up _*anything*_?  Wouldn't that make him crazy?    Even a game that is about how much the PCs are willing to sacrifice in order to win requires that they must sacrifice *something*, or lose, and that the exact degree of sacrifice needed is unclear at the start.  



pawsplay said:


> I don't understand how you can have an RPG without uncertainty. I mean, I've seen freeform RPGs, and those are well and good, but I just don't get how someone can pick up D&D or DC Heroes or Vampire and believe they can know the future without compromising the basic design of the game.




Agreed.



Ariosto said:


> However, if you try to convince the rest of us that the purpose of a game of Chess is to make sure that White always gets Black in check mate, then you're being absurd. Bringing that attitude to a normal Chess match is obnoxious.




Also agreed.



Ariosto said:


> Umbran, your response goes off at such a strange tangent that I reckon I must have been terribly unclear!




Not just me then....... 



ExploderWizard said:


> As far as playstyle is concerned, the job of the DM is help provide the most fun and satisfying game possible. How that is achieved will depend on the player group. Some players like to play in a tough game world that requires thier characters to fight tooth and nail for every scrap of success, and others might enjoy a game with little to no risk and heaps of reward and glory. Other players might want something in the middle.
> 
> However the game is played, if the DM and players had a great time then the DM did a good job.




Also agree.



RC


----------



## Hussar (Nov 10, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If Batman knows he is going to win, why should he give up anything? Wouldn't that make him crazy?  Even a game that is about how much the PCs are willing to sacrifice in order to win requires that they must sacrifice something, or lose, and that the exact degree of sacrifice needed is unclear at the start.




I absolutely know that if I walk into my local 7/11, I can give up 179 yen to buy a can of beer.  If I want that beer, I have to sacrifice my money.

How does knowing that you will win negate the chance of having to sacrifice in order to achieve that?  

I absolutely know that I can sacrifice something in order to gain something I want.  The question in this particular style of game though, is how important is it to me, or rather my character?  Is the win worth the sacrifice and what ramifications are there to that sacrifice.

The end goal of defeating the Joker is not the point of the game.  It might be the point of some games, true.  But, it needs not be the point of all games.


----------



## Korgoth (Nov 10, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> Gotcha covered there.




Thanks!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 10, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Hey!  That's _*my*_ job too!
> 
> 
> 
> If Batman knows he is going to win, why should he give up _*anything*_?  Wouldn't that make him crazy?    Even a game that is about how much the PCs are willing to sacrifice in order to win requires that they must sacrifice *something*, or lose, and that the exact degree of sacrifice needed is unclear at the start.



I think there are two components to it:
1) There is always a way to win. The question is, do the players want to take that way?
2) Death or Survival for the character does not mean failure or success.

Maybe that is insufficient to you to determine it's not about "winning or losing". Treat this description as a short-hand to describe the upper two components. It is to be distinguished from a game where your goal is to come out alive and maybe get XP and treasure in the process, and you lose if your enemies or traps kill you, and win if they don't.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 10, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I absolutely know that if I walk into my local 7/11, I can give up 179 yen to buy a can of beer.  If I want that beer, I have to sacrifice my money.




Yes, but would you call that a game?



> How does knowing that you will win negate the chance of having to sacrifice in order to achieve that?




If you have to give up 179 yen to buy a can of beer, you give up 179 yen or you do not.  Game over.

Knowing that negates the chance of _*having a game*_, not the chance of making a sacrifice.


----------



## Korgoth (Nov 10, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> Yeah, that was fun. Back in 1979. When I was like, 14. For about three weeks.
> 
> Frankly, a good game of Descent sounds like a more engaging RPG than what you're describing.
> 
> ...




Still fun for me and my group now, tough guy.

It's a game and I'm the Referee. The players get to test how clever and resourceful they are, and when they succeed they reap great rewards.

It's one reason why there's not a huge amount of combat in my game. Combat is just one type of challenge, and really a fairly boring kind. More rewarding challenges test the players' ability to solve puzzles, overcome traps/obstacles, thread the needle of complex social interactions and politics, and of course handling encounters with powerful entities of mysterious motivation (i.e. the "weird stuff").


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 10, 2009)

Hussar said:


> That's fine, so long as you are only willing to entertain a single purpose to playing an RPG - a fairly traditional way that is certainly loads of fun.
> 
> However, you should realize that that's not the only way to play.  Maybe I want to delve into the psychological ramifications of being Batman.  Taking down the Joker is simply the vehicle for that examination, not the focus of the campaign at all.




That sounds like a potentially interesting exercise. However, here's the thing: If the Batman is not permitted to die, that either constrains Batman's potential actions or the Joker's permitted responses, probably both. If there are no actual restrictions, but actions that are obviously lethal to Batman occur and he does not die, the result is farce. Disallowing one potential outcome, despite the logical potential for it to occur, is an incomplete game. It's like a video game where you can walk off the map and fall forever. 

Imagine a situation where Batman drinks a bottle of Drano. After a sufficient number of suicide attempts for his remorse over killing the Joker's minions, for instance, the GM will eventually, sadly let Batman die, despite his other intentions. His only other choice is to suspend the player's control over Suicidal Batman. 

Thus, illusionary play is illusionary even to the GM. If the player cannot make a meaningful choice with his PC, play is likely to degenerate as soon as this is sensed or discovered. The only way for this play out with a satisfying ending is for the GM to surrender their role of impartial arbiter of the game world and for the player to surrender their role of impersonating a character through actions, and for both to become collaborative storytellers. That is not "a different play style" or a "personal preference" but actually playing a different sort of game. Collaborative storytelling games, or freeform roleplaying, is a hugely popular hobby, and in fact, Google will find just as many of those "role-playing game" as the kind played here in EN World. But it is a different kind of game with different constraints. 

What I call "storytelling RPGs," like Vampire or most heavily rule-zeroed games, are distinct from "fantasy wargames" like traditional D&D or Champions. One emphasizes poetric tropes, the other realistical resolution. Many games, in actual play, vary between the extremes on a continuum. They are both, however, members of the same family of games, traditional RPGs. 

The big umbrella definition of role-playing includes not only traditional RPGs, as well as freeform games, roleplaying activities used in therapy, improv acting, and lots of other activities. Only traditional RPGs relate to the game as found between pages the pages of a roleplaying game. 

It is certainly permissible to write a traditional RPG that precludes death in all but certain predefined circumstanes. You can run just about any RPG with modifications to work that way. For instance, you might deliberately fudge die rolls to keep PCs alive on their last legs except in dramatic conflicts. However, if PC actions that are out-of-bounds for the story are actually impossible, you are no longer playing a RPG. If Batman is immortal, caught in some Groundhog Day like situation where he must defeat the Joker at some point, the assumptions have been changed. While on the surface, it looks like a tabletop roleplaying game, in reality, it is a freeform roleplaying game more akin to a play-by-post game on some Harry Potter fansite somewhere than to D&D, Vampire, or Fate. 

Illusionary game are not liberated RPGs, or higher-level RPGs, or more story-oriented RPGs. In the extreme, they are misleadingly packaged freeform roleplaying games. Why not put the cards out on the table? But even with more moderate illusionary devices, there is a practical limit to how much you can bend before it breaks. Unless you are actually willing to make it impossible for Batman to die or for Frodo to start fleeing for the farthest corners of the world, you cannot privilege your plot without breaking the game.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 10, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Knowing that negates the chance of having a game, not the chance of making a sacrifice.




Totally disagree.

Knowing that you will beat the Joker isn't going to negate the chance of having a game.  It negates the chance of having the kind of game you want to play, maybe, but, not the chance of having a game.

If I want my game to be about what choices the player has to make between various sacrifices in order to defeat the Joker, then that's my game.  I could totally see a game focusing on the sacrifices the Batman is forced to choose between.  Does he use deadly force, thus sacrificing his humanity?  Does he sacrifice an innocent bystander?  Does he give up a love interest?  Does he give up something else of importance?

I don't really care about the finale.  "Batman catches Joker" has been done to death.  I've seen variations on it a million times.  It's not what I'm interested in.

I've no problem that you're interested in that.  That's fine.  But, my point is, it's not the only possible thing to be interested in.


----------



## the Jester (Nov 10, 2009)

AverageCitizen said:


> The game/game+ statement came from the fact that I thought we were talking about story vs. the absence of story, not player pampering vs. tough love. Because of that, when you disagreed with me I figured you were in the DnD-dungeon-crawl-minis-combat-board-game camp. Some people don't like to mix their fiction with their tabletop gaming, and thats fine, but I think we both agree that there is a lot more to it.




Well, to be absolutely clear, in my campaign there really isn't a story at first. There are actions and consequences, there are choices and aftereffects. The story is what you talk about after the game, once the pcs have made their choices and taken their actions. The story is _what happened with the pcs_- not _what the dm has planned._ And I vastly prefer it that way.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 10, 2009)

Pawsplay said:
			
		

> Imagine a situation where Batman drinks a bottle of Drano. After a sufficient number of suicide attempts for his remorse over killing the Joker's minions, for instance, the GM will eventually, sadly let Batman die, despite his other intentions. His only other choice is to suspend the player's control over Suicidal Batman.




What in what I wrote precludes Batman from offing himself?  

Well, I suppose the part where it's a forgone conclusion that Batman will catch the Joker.  But, then again, that's where buy in comes into play.  It would be pretty seriously out of character for Batman to off himself.  I would find that just as unbelievable as immortal Batman honestly.

But, I reject the idea that only tradional RPG's are "real" RPG's.  We constantly limit what PC's can do in order to play.  How often do you let your D&D PC's create gunpowder for example?  



			
				Pawsplay said:
			
		

> However, if PC actions that are out-of-bounds for the story are actually impossible, you are no longer playing a RPG. If Batman is immortal, caught in some Groundhog Day like situation where he must defeat the Joker at some point, the assumptions have been changed. While on the surface, it looks like a tabletop roleplaying game, in reality, it is a freeform roleplaying game more akin to a play-by-post game on some Harry Potter fansite somewhere than to D&D, Vampire, or Fate.




Wow, people who disagree with you are now writing Harry Potter fanfic.  Nice way to completely misrepresent how a different playstyle actually plays out in order to pave the way for your one true way.

Knowing the resolution of a situation in no way precludes a game from being a role playing game.  Just because you know that you will catch the Joker in the end does not preclude all sorts of avenues being explored.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 10, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Wow, people who disagree with you are now writing Harry Potter fanfic.




That's not an insult.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 10, 2009)

Example of what I am talking about (you can Google harry potter play by post rpg):

PoA's RPG Play by Post Topsites List - Rankings - All Sites


----------



## Hussar (Nov 10, 2009)

Ok, let me rephrase then.

Is the WEG Star Wars game an RPG?  After all, it was right in the rules you couldn't kill certain characters, they had Plot Immunity.

Are the original Dragonlance modules RPG's?  You could not die in the early modules, named PC's and NPC's had plot immunity and the DM was required to provide reasons why they didn't die before certain points.

I'm quite sure there are others as well.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 10, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Ok, let me rephrase then.
> 
> Is the WEG Star Wars game an RPG?  After all, it was right in the rules you couldn't kill certain characters, they had Plot Immunity.




Page number?


----------



## the Jester (Nov 10, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Ok, let me rephrase then.
> 
> Is the WEG Star Wars game an RPG?  After all, it was right in the rules you couldn't kill certain characters, they had Plot Immunity.




I can't speak to this, as I don't have the game and never played it.



Hussar said:


> Are the original Dragonlance modules RPG's?  You could not die in the early modules, named PC's and NPC's had plot immunity and the DM was required to provide reasons why they didn't die before certain points.




Yes, but they are crappy ones, and this is one of the reasons why.

You CAN have plot immunity and unkillable pcs, but some people won't enjoy that at all. Some will- some people LURVE the original Dragonlance stuff- but some won't.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 10, 2009)

I did find this:



			
				The Star Wars Roleplaying Game said:
			
		

> If the players want their characters to go somewhere, you have to tell them what they find there--or come up with a good story reason why they can't go there. - p.71




So at least in the main, the rules seem to be endorsing the right to make choices and the responsibility of the GM to adjudicate them.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 10, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> That sounds like a potentially interesting exercise. However, here's the thing: If the Batman is not permitted to die, that either constrains Batman's potential actions or the Joker's permitted responses, probably both.



He can be permitted to die. But it's not the game rules to decide that. It's the player. "No, I don't allow the Joker to activate the remote trigger and kill the people in the bus. I jump forward and activate the explosives I use to destroy windows and walls, hoping to take him with me." 

But no rule that leads to: "Oh, the Joker hits you for 25 points of damage!" "That brings me down to negative -11! I am dead!"


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 10, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> He can be permitted to die. But it's not the game rules to decide that. It's the player. "No, I don't allow the Joker to activate the remote trigger and kill the people in the bus. I jump forward and activate the explosives I use to destroy windows and walls, hoping to take him with me."
> 
> But no rule that leads to: "Oh, the Joker hits you for 25 points of damage!" "That brings me down to negative -11! I am dead!"




Either is a valid RPG design. Whether you use raw numbers of a sense of the dramatic, however, it is the GM's job to provide reality. In the old Marvel Super Heroes game, you could stabilize any character from dying by checking on them. Losing your Health from a deadly source could only cause you start dying, never to be dead outright. Thus, Aunt May could fall of the Empire State Building, and provided someone took her pulse that round, she would live. It's up to the GM to decide whether that makes any sense, whether Rule Zero needs to be invoked for the integrity of the game. On the one hand, she is probably a pancake. On the other hand, it's Aunt May.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 10, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Knowing that you will beat the Joker isn't going to negate the chance of having a game.  It negates the chance of having the kind of game you want to play, maybe, but, not the chance of having a game.




Yes, but you are ignoring what I am saying in order to make your point.  The focus of the game can be on whatever you like, but some level of unknown variables are required to make that focus a *game* (rather than storytelling).



> If I want my game to be about what choices the player has to make between various sacrifices in order to defeat the Joker, then that's my game.  I could totally see a game focusing on the sacrifices the Batman is forced to choose between.




Me too, but les us examine:



> Does he use deadly force, thus sacrificing his humanity?




What would Batman's motive be in using deadly force, if he knows that he will win if he does not use deadly force?



> Does he sacrifice an innocent bystander?




What would Batman's motive be in sacrificing an innocent bystander, if he knows that he will win if he does not sacrifice an innocent bystander?



> Does he give up a love interest?




What would Batman's motive be in giving up a love interest, if he knows that he will win if he does not give up a love interest?



> Does he give up something else of importance?




What would Batman's motive be in giving up anything, if he knows that he will win if he does not give up anything?

Neither you nor I need to be interested in the finale; my point has nothing to do with being interested in the finale.  It has to do with the logical prerequisites to the questions above having meaning.  Even within the frame of a story, the questions have meaning because, although the reader knows Batman will win, _*Batman does not*_.  

Within the context of a game where a player takes Batman's POV, the uncertainty about what parameters allow him to succeed gives meaning to the questions asked above.  

As an obvious example, sacrificing an innocent now might make it easier to stop the Joker sooner, saving more innocents in the long run.  If Batman knows what will happen in either direction (sacrifice/don't sacrifice), then there is no game -- there is only a math problem or a moral question to be answered.  

In fact, allowing Batman to know the answer aforehand removes all possibility of really exploring the question, as it absolves Batman of the possibility of accidently making a wrong choice.  It is necessary for Batman to be able to choose to commit murder, without that murder being of any actual help, that raises the stakes of the question from a theoretical non-game on/off switch to something that can lead to actual exploration and poignent roleplaying.

Even a game that allows the players to choose the stakes they are gambling with (is this scene worth potentially dying for?) are founded upon the principle that the unknown variables create the tension required for the activity to be a game.  Not raising the stakes might mean losing, after all, and that is what makes raising or not raising the stakes into an actual (rather than an illusory) choice.  

Were I to design a computer chess simulator which always made the same moves in the same order, as soon as the human player became aware of the lack of variables, it would cease to be a game.  Which is why a choose-your-own-adventure book doesn't lead to unlimited RPG satisfaction.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 10, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> He can be permitted to die. But it's not the game rules to decide that. It's the player. "No, I don't allow the Joker to activate the remote trigger and kill the people in the bus. I jump forward and activate the explosives I use to destroy windows and walls, hoping to take him with me."
> 
> But no rule that leads to: "Oh, the Joker hits you for 25 points of damage!" "That brings me down to negative -11! I am dead!"





It is the words *"hoping to take him with me"* that make this a game.  Otherwise ("taking him with me"), it is collaborative storytelling.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 10, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> What I call "storytelling RPGs," like Vampire or most heavily rule-zeroed games, are distinct from "fantasy wargames" like traditional D&D or Champions. One emphasizes poetric tropes, the other realistical resolution.



Vampire's rules are simulationist. Although it bills itself as a storytelling game, the storytelling isn't supported by the rules. This is the Forge's big bone of contention with the game. It's not even particularly rules light imo.

I'd say Champions rules are less realistic, more about simulating fictional tropes, than those of Vampire. Soliloquoy takes no time, big knockbacks, non-linear strength charts allowing PCs to lift aircraft carriers relatively easily. Sure, most of the rules try to simulate what would happen if super-powers were real, but there are some that don't. I don't see any fiction simulation in Vampire. The game is pretentious and tries to fool you with its quotes from Aristotle and Vaclav Havel, but when you strip that away you're left with something not that different from D&D. It's just that it's 'kill things and diablerise them' instead of 'kill things and take their stuff'. There's even alignments (demeanor/nature) and classes, sort of (clans).

What's 'traditional D&D' btw? I can see AD&D as being similar to Champions, at least in terms of its rules heaviness, but OD&D and B/X are heavily rule zeroed. They have to be, the rules that there are being so sparse.


----------



## Korgoth (Nov 10, 2009)

There are two ways to approach the Batman problem:

Approach 1: Batman wins because his player is very shrewd and skillful; he makes excellent choices in every relevant sphere (problem solving, tactics, interaction, etc.). The player has built Batman up to a powerful level and he is always on his game. The game tests the skill of Batman's player, and he is never found wanting... he is a top notch player.

Approach 2: Batman wins because his name is "Batman". Even an absolute n00b to the game will always win with Batman, because Batman has the "I Win" skill with infinity ranks in it. The choices in the game, if any, do not determine victory (a foregone conclusion), but only what happens on the way to that inevitable victory.

Approach 1 is about _excellence_. Batman is excellent and I want to be excellent too; the game gives me a chance to develop and show off excellence. It is like a sport.

Approach 2 is about _wish fulfillment_. Batman is excellent and I want to be Batman; the game gives me a chance to pretend to be excellent whether or not I am personally able to make excellent decisions in any sphere at all. It is like a daydream.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 10, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Vampire's rules are simulationist. Although it bills itself as a storytelling game, the storytelling isn't supported by the rules. This is the Forge's big bone of contention with the game. It's not even particularly rules light imo.




I wasn't saying anything about simulationist versus dramatist. I am not a Forgie at all, and I do not think GNS labels are very useful. The taxonomy I am using has two categories:

- Fantasy wargames: Explore the world, resolution is realistical and simulation-based
- Storytelling RPGs: Explore a story, resolution is dramatic and trope-based

Obviously, a storytelling game can be rules-heavy and mechanistic, and it can certainly meet the GNS definition of a genre-simulation game. 

But even the Forge doesn't use GNS anymore. GNS could never really get a grip on immersion, and of course, when we are talking about the job of the GM, we are precisely talking on the immersive experience of the player.


----------



## maddman75 (Nov 10, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> What would Batman's motive be in using deadly force, if he knows that he will win if he does not use deadly force?
> 
> What would Batman's motive be in sacrificing an innocent bystander, if he knows that he will win if he does not sacrifice an innocent bystander?
> 
> ...




Because not getting killed by the Joker does NOT mean that Batman wins!  Batman surviving to the end of the story is not a victory condition!

If Batman doesn't sacrifice some innocent bystanders, the Joker might get away.

If Batman doesn't give up his love interest, the Joker might kill her.

Batman might not win, in that the Joker will kill a bunch of people, laugh about it, and get away scot-free.  The people of Gotham will live in fear of the Joker, and lose faith in the Dark Knight to protect them, possibly even turning against him.

Does that make more sense?



> Neither you nor I need to be interested in the finale; my point has nothing to do with being interested in the finale.  It has to do with the logical prerequisites to the questions above having meaning.  Even within the frame of a story, the questions have meaning because, although the reader knows Batman will win, _*Batman does not*_.
> 
> No they don't.  The reader knows no such thing, because again, not getting killed by the Joker is not a win.  Stopping the Joker is a win.  You can not be killed by the Joker, but his nefarious plan still goes through.
> 
> And the player can realize something that the character does not.  Metagaming isn't a bad thing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 10, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> Because not getting killed by the Joker does NOT mean that Batman wins!  Batman surviving to the end of the story is not a victory condition!




Did I say it was?

I said that if Batman's victory (whatever victory conditions you like) is not in question, then there is no game.  A game only exists when there are unknown variables that affect the outcome, regardless of what the victory conditions may be.

"[T]he Joker might get away", "the Joker might kill her", and "the Joker will kill a bunch of people, laugh about it, and get away scot-free" are all ways by which Batman might fail, as you yourself note.  So long as this is true, victory is not assured, and there can be a game (rather than just storytelling).

Nobody dies in Monopoly; Monopoly is still a game.  Games rely upon the existence of unknown variables (even if those variables have no element of chance, such as an opponent's moves in a game of chess) that leave the conclusion (victory conditions) in doubt.  They do not rely, AFAICT, upon what the victory conditions are.  In the cooperative game, Bus Depot Diner, for example, the victory conditions are "Feed as many people as you can before the bus leaves the depot; try to do better than your previous best score".

(_*specific games*_ might rely on specific victory or loss conditions, such as checkmate in chess, obviously.)



RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 10, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> It is the words *"hoping to take him with me"* that make this a game.  Otherwise ("taking him with me"), it is collaborative storytelling.



But I didn't mean it that way. I mean it that this was his assumption what would happen. The game rules wouldn't tell him. The DM might have another plan for him - Joker and Batman ending up crippled or something like that.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 10, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But I didn't mean it that way. I mean it that this was his assumption what would happen. The game rules wouldn't tell him. The DM might have another plan for him - Joker and Batman ending up crippled or something like that.




Then the DM is taking the part of the game rules -- providing the unknown variables that are required to have a game.  It doesn't matter what agency makes achieving the victory conditions unknown; what matters is that the victory conditions cannot be automatically achieved simply by sitting at the table.



RC


----------



## Janx (Nov 10, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> "[T]he Joker might get away", "the Joker might kill her", and "the Joker will kill a bunch of people, laugh about it, and get away scot-free" are all ways by which Batman might fail, as you yourself note.  So long as this is true, victory is not assured, and there can be a game (rather than just storytelling).
> 
> RC





Consider however that the GM can present the illusion of a game to the players, but in reality it is storytelling driven by the players.  It doesn't have to be a railroad.  it can all be the player's choice.  But it can be run such that the players PERCIEVE that failure is a risk, but the GM can mitigate that risk in order to have the players come out on top.

Done poorly, it could be a crappy game.  Done well, the players are happy.

My long-time GM is famous for making every session be the biggest challenge we've ever had.  Defeat is always imminent, and we always come up with a plan and save the day.  Are we really that good, or is he doing what the OP originally described, fulfilling our fantasy.

Our GM is also famous for predicting our actions at major decision points.  He's almost never surprised.  He's famous for saying, "I knew you guys were going to react that way, that's why I didn't bother planning on the alternatives."  It almost always works out that way.  He knows his players and their PCs.  He knows how to present the problem such that we'll bite and how we'll probably approach it.  Then he writes down what he needs for that path.  And it works out every time.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 10, 2009)

Janx said:


> Consider however that the GM can present the illusion of a game to the players




Absolutely.



> It doesn't have to be a railroad.




We have different definitions of this term, I think.



RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 10, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> As the GM, my job is to make is to make sure that when the Batman takes down the Joker, it's because he earned it, not because his name is on the cover.



Why does Batman win? It's a very interesting question, with a lot of different answers.

1) Because he's the hero. This can be further broken down into:
1a) Because he's the protagonist.
1b) Because he's morally superior to the Joker.
2) Because he's more capable than the Joker. This could also be broken down:
2a) His natural talents are superior.
2b) He's better trained.
2c) He has better resources and equipment. Ironically, Batman didn't 'earn' these at all - his vast wealth is inherited.
3) Superior preparation. This is closely related to 2b, arguably it's the same category.
4) Because he made the right decisions during the conflict.
5) Luck.

I think (1a) is the real answer. The two foes are actually rather mismatched. Batman is a billionaire, with ten years of training by the world's best martial artists and an arsenal of weapons at his disposal. The Joker is a skinny lunatic in a fright wig. Ofc the writers have to make the battle a close run thing every time for reasons of dramatic tension.

There are analogies for most of these in roleplaying games. Batman might win just because he's a player character. Presumably the GM fudges die rolls or uses the many other resources at his disposal, such as his discretion in setting DCs and the like, to ensure (or make very likely) Batman's win. Alternatively, the system itself might make the PCs stronger than the opposition. There is a crossover into (2) here. Are the PCs better just because they are PCs or is there another, or additional, explanation?

Moral superiority leading to victory is something that occurs rarely, if ever, in rpgs. An example might be Pendragon where certain personality traits, such as Chastity, grant a bonus for being a good Christian.

The PCs winning because they are simply better than the opposition is, imo, by far the most common form of victory in rpgs, including D&D. The adventurers just have better numbers than the orcs, or whatever they are fighting. There are various ways they might have achieved these superior numbers -
i) Granted by system or GM.
ii) Min/maxing. This is, imo, an example of player skill, though a different kind of skill than I think Korgoth is talking about. 
iii) Lucky die rolls for stats.
iv) Cheating.

Superior preparation is analogous to adventure-level planning, mostly non-system stuff, though there could be some system manipulation here, or a player could use out-of-character knowledge, like taking a flask of acid to deal with trolls.

4e is very strong on (4) - the PCs winning because the players made the right decisions in combat. In 3e it's easier to win at the character build stage.

The obvious analogy to luck is the dice rolls the PCs make during combat, rolls to hit, damage and so forth.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Nov 10, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> There are two ways to approach the Batman problem:
> 
> Approach 1: Batman wins because his player is very shrewd and skillful; he makes excellent choices in every relevant sphere (problem solving, tactics, interaction, etc.). The player has built Batman up to a powerful level and he is always on his game. The game tests the skill of Batman's player, and he is never found wanting... he is a top notch player.
> 
> Approach 2: Batman wins because his name is "Batman". Even an absolute n00b to the game will always win with Batman, because Batman has the "I Win" skill with infinity ranks in it. The choices in the game, if any, do not determine victory (a foregone conclusion), but only what happens on the way to that inevitable victory.




So, in Approach 1 only the best of the best ever get to succeed at a roleplaying game, and even then when they're only on their game. Success in roleplaying is only for the true elite, and only on a good day.

The rest of us losers are stuck with Approach 2, I guess.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 10, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> So, in Approach 1 only the best of the best ever get to succeed at a roleplaying game, and even then when they're only on their game. Success in roleplaying is only for the true elite, and only on a good day.





I think it is implicit that the kind of success Batman achieves (at least in the comics) is far & beyond what ordinary people consider success.  It is a sort of uber-success.

One can succeed in a role-playing game without succeeding like Batman succeeds.  It is the expectation to always succeed as Batman succeeds that is being examined.


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 10, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> The rest of us losers are stuck with Approach 2, I guess.




Why? 
Or are you saying there is no reason to play without a guaranteed complete victory?


Approach 1 means that Batman is as good as the decisions made by the player. In some cases he will be utterly victorious, in others he will fail to some extent.

What do we do when we fall?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 10, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> What do we do when we fall?



The cleric casts Raise Dead.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 10, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> The cleric casts Raise Dead.




 Quite so Master Bruce.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Nov 10, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Are you saying there is no reason to play without a guaranteed complete victory?




No, I'm saying there's probably some sort of middle ground.

Which I think is what Korgoth was saying as well. . . .

I agree with the OP. I think we all come to the table with characters that reflect something we want to experience, whether gritty or glorious. The more the GM delivers that experience, the more fulfilling the game will be.

Nobody finds a hollow, obviously preordained victory fulfilling. We all want challenge. But I don't believe very many people _really_ come to the RPG table looking for a pure test of their tactical skills--that psychographic plays Magic: the Gathering instead.

The middle ground accepts that Batman will likely prevail--yes, largely because he is Batman and he is the protagonist, and we expect the protagonist to prevail in an RPG just like we expect it in a comic, novel, or movie. (As a PC, Batman's dramatic expectation is backed by the game system, which in almost every game (save CoC and maybe Dark Heresy) gives the PCs a statistical advantage over the adversaries they are expected to face.)

The middle ground then expects the game to provide challenges and surprises and dramatic ebb and flow--moments when prevailing is thrown into doubt. Just like in a movie or novel, this doubt can exist even when, objectively, we're pretty certain the heroes will find a way to win.

Going back to Korgoth's post, if I had to choose between the two options, well, I'd quit playing RPGs.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 10, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> No, I'm saying there's probably some sort of middle ground.
> 
> Which I think is what Korgoth was saying as well. . . .
> 
> ...




Playing an rpg isn't about just testing tactical skills. A pure test of strategy could be simulated with a game of chess. A game usually provides some mechanical way to resolve the plans of the players with dice or another random means. Good tactics can help mitigate some of he effects of bad die rolls and some bad tactics can win through if the dice are kind. 



CharlesRyan said:


> The middle ground accepts that Batman will likely prevail--yes, largely because he is Batman and he is the protagonist, and we expect the protagonist to prevail in an RPG just like we expect it in a comic, novel, or movie.




Success must be in doubt for there to much of game. Otherwise the players have gathered to merely determine how they succeed in a semi-random fashion. 



CharlesRyan said:


> The middle ground then expects the game to provide challenges and surprises and dramatic ebb and flow--moments when prevailing is thrown into doubt. Just like in a movie or novel, this doubt can exist even when, objectively, we're pretty certain the heroes will find a way to win.




Challenges and suprises are great but ultimately meaningless if ultimate victory and utter defeat are not both possibilities.


----------



## Korgoth (Nov 10, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> I think it is implicit that the kind of success Batman achieves (at least in the comics) is far & beyond what ordinary people consider success.  It is a sort of uber-success.
> 
> One can succeed in a role-playing game without succeeding like Batman succeeds.  It is the expectation to always succeed as Batman succeeds that is being examined.




Quite.

D&D is a game. If you want to do well at a game, you have to be good at it. It is an especially good game for you to choose to play if you can have fun winning or losing at it.

You get to do well at Chess or Flames of War or Settlers of Catan because you learn how to make good decisions when playing it. That's what excellent play means... that you have the ability to make good decisions when playing the game.

If you make poor decisions at the game, your pieces will fare poorly (your knight gets captured, your platoon gets rolled up by an enemy assault, you end the game with 2 towns and 5 Victory Points, etc.). It's the same in a role playing game... hence the "game". Ideally you learn from your mistakes and get better at it. Just like I learned the hard way in Flames of War not to deploy an infantry platoon in such a way that you block your own fire lanes in defensive fire... now I do better at the game than before. Which is quite pleasing.

A role player who says things like:
"I punch the Overking in the face"
"I jump between all four trolls and poke one with my epee"
"I leap off the 2,000 foot cliff and aim for a snow bank"
"I tell the dragons that they're a bunch of sissies"
... is not playing Batman. He may _think_ he's playing Batman, but he's actually playing a schlub who thinks he's Batman.

And there are degrees of success... Batman is just a shorthand for the pinnacle of success. Ideally, your success in the game will be commensurate with the quality of decisions that you make during the game (luck excepted). Super awesome decisions mean that you do super awesomely. Poor decisions mean you do poorly. Good decisions mean that you do well.


----------



## the Jester (Nov 10, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> So, in Approach 1 only the best of the best ever get to succeed at a roleplaying game, and even then when they're only on their game. Success in roleplaying is only for the true elite, and only on a good day.




Or else people _learn from their mistakes and gradually achieve more and more mastery of the game._


----------



## CharlesRyan (Nov 10, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Challenges and suprises are great but ultimately meaningless if ultimate victory and utter defeat are not both possibilities.




I don't agree. I have enjoyed many films and novels even though I didn't really think utter defeat was something the writer even considered for the ending. Utter defeat is very rare in fiction, and when it occurs the expectation is usually set up well in advance. (In the RPG arena, this happens as well, CoC and Paranoia being two examples.)

What makes movies and novels and comic books and plays and so on engaging isn't the actual possibility of defeat, but the perception of that possibility. Combine that with challenges and plenty of twists and turns along the way, and doubt about the outcome becomes part of the experience.

In my experience, RPGs really aren't any different. Like fiction and movies, they rely on the suspension of disbelief, and part of that suspension is ignoring the fact that the protagonists almost alway prevail.

And when you get right down to is, the RPG experience usually isn't about whether you're going to win or lose in the end anyway--it's about _what you're going to do next_ to get out of the current sticky situation. The perceived possibility of defeat adds to the tension that makes those decisions interesting. I suppose the real possibility of defeat supports that perception, but I don't think it's necessary for most people.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Nov 10, 2009)

the Jester said:


> Or else people _learn from their mistakes and gradually achieve more and more mastery of the game._




Really? Mastery of the game is really what it's about for you?

Why do you play RPGs? There are much better game categories for honing your game-playing skills.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 10, 2009)

the Jester said:


> Or else people _learn from their mistakes and gradually achieve more and more mastery of the game._



Sure, until they switch to new group and another DM, in which case they'll have hope their mastery is portable, or else they'll have to start from scratch, learning how to master _this_ DM's set of challenges.  

Is there an objective form of 'D&D mastery'? D&D isn't chess. It _is_ a game where the winning strategies are decided, often on the fly, by the invariable subjective and frequently fickle person sitting behind the cardboard screen wearing a viking hat. 

We can talk about what constitutes 'mastery' under different kinds of DM's in groups with differing play goals. But more than that... I'm thinking 'no'.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 10, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> There are much better game categories for honing your game-playing skills.



For example, you could start with all the games whose gameplay engines don't require the use of frequently fickle, subjective, human arbiters wearing viking hats.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 10, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> A role player who says things like:
> "I punch the Overking in the face"
> "I jump between all four trolls and poke one with my epee"
> "I leap off the 2,000 foot cliff and aim for a snow bank"
> "I tell the dragons that they're a bunch of sissies"



Hey, at least this guy isn't boring.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 10, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> I do not think GNS labels are very useful.



They're not perfect. There's a grey area between narrativism and simulation of fiction for example, as I think you alluded to.

But GNS is very useful for analysing this discussion imo. Korgoth, the Jester, your comment about Batman having to earn his win? Pure, 100%, Gamism. Gamism means challenging the player. The player is expected to try to win. Or, at least, try not to lose, there being no such thing as an ultimate victory in D&D.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 10, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Hey, at least this guy isn't boring.



Wait, Korgoth meant those to be _negative_ things?


----------



## the Jester (Nov 10, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> Really? Mastery of the game is really what it's about for you?




Not entirely, but I certainly see that as a valid playstyle choice.



CharlesRyan said:


> Why do you play RPGs? There are much better game categories for honing your game-playing skills.




Well, I do play other games too. But rpgs, and especially DnD, are the most fun.


----------



## Theroc (Nov 11, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Wait, Korgoth meant those to be _negative_ things?




Well, he did say the player behind that character was roleplaying a "Schlub who thinks he's batman"

Schlub seems to sound negative to me.

Anyway, what if I make awesome decisions and try lots of cool things, but roll 1's and 2's all the time, and I lose.  Does that mean I suck at D&D, and I need to learn to play better?  I'm not trying to trivialize anyone's argument here, but the whole "Approach 1 is about player Excellence" doesn't seem to account for an epic failure due to bad luck.  

If D&D were chess, I could see this approach concept more clearly, but since we've involved chance, there is ALWAYS a chance for 'failure'.  Unless the DM fudges things, but I don't understand how a player who is tactically unsound could not roll a string of crits and mow down the baddies in very epic fashion, and 'Win' despite 'sucking'.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 11, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> They're not perfect. There's a grey area between narrativism and simulation of fiction for example, as I think you alluded to.
> 
> But GNS is very useful for analysing this discussion imo. Korgoth, the Jester, your comment about Batman having to earn his win? Pure, 100%, Gamism. Gamism means challenging the player. The player is expected to try to win. Or, at least, try not to lose, there being no such thing as an ultimate victory in D&D.




To me, it's about being Batman. Batman is trying to win. I am acting "as-if" Batman. It's not about winning a game, it's about Batman trying to stop the Joker from killing innocent people. As a player, I "win" just by showing up at the table. Since GNS has nothing to say about that, GNS has very little worth saying. Any theory that purports Vampire was a bad design is a theory in conflict with reality.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 11, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> Really? Mastery of the game is really what it's about for you?
> 
> Why do you play RPGs? There are much better game categories for honing your game-playing skills.




Why do I play RPGs? To be Batman. If you are reading "tactical play" as the criterion for good role-playing, you are not reading the posts in counterpoint to the OP and drawing the same understanding I am. 

It is permissible to play a sucky Batman and get wasted. It is permissible to set the bar so low that virtually anyone could win as Batman--episodes of Super Friends seem to be predicatated on this level challenge. "Oh, gosh, Brainiac, why didn't we forsee that Superman would simply toss our large monster into space while Batman and Aquaman arrested us right here in our base? Who could have imagined?" That is also permissible. It's also permissible to put Batman through the ringer, in fact, Call of Cthulhu and some versions of espionage games basically work at this level most of the time. Maybe Batman gets turned into a vampire and just wanders around drinking blood, in between stopping crimes and trying to figure out if there is still clear picture in his mind what justice is. That is also permissible. 

There is no "you must be this smart to play" bar for participating in and enjoying RPGs beyond understanding the basic premise and being able to grapple your end of the rules. At the same time, when the GM informs you that orcs are attacking, I expect you to respond as if your PC were in mortal danger and respond appropriately, if not always brilliantly. "I draw my sword," is a pretty good start.


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 11, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> There is no "you must be this smart to play" bar for participating in and enjoying RPGs beyond understanding the basic premise and being able to grapple your end of the rules. At the same time, when the GM informs you that orcs are attacking, I expect you to respond as if your PC were in mortal danger and respond appropriately, if not always brilliantly. "I draw my sword," is a pretty good start.




Not if you're a wizard.

There is a "you must be this smart to play" bar.  It's enforced by the group.  The other players in the group are going to judge your contributions to the game; what criteria they use is going to form the creative agenda, one of G-N-S.  That operates at a different level than "I came here to play Batman."  (Which would be Exploration of Character in Big Model terms.)


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 11, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> To me, it's about being Batman. Batman is trying to win. I am acting "as-if" Batman. It's not about winning a game, it's about Batman trying to stop the Joker from killing innocent people. As a player, I "win" just by showing up at the table. Since GNS has nothing to say about that, GNS has very little worth saying.



GNS says that's Simulationism.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 11, 2009)

Cross posting my own post from the other thread which seems to be almost a carbon copy of this one, right down to the Batman analogies.  

Take another example of the Batman catching the Joker. What if catching the Joker is the beginning of the scenario? The scenario goes - The Joker kidnaps Robin (insert favorite NPC here) and tortures him - breaking his mind. The Batman follows the Joker's clues and the Joker lets Batman catch him in order to reveal what he's done to Robin. The Batman is pushed to the edge, but decides not to take it too far. Robin, his mind broken, picks up Harley Quin's gun and blows the Joker's brains out.

((Note, this is taken pretty much verbatim from one of the Batman animated movies))

This is where the scenario starts. The Joker had no intention of escaping. But, now, the scenario is how does Batman deal with both the destruction of Robin and Robin's murder of the Joker? Does it push Batman over the edge? Does he get another sidekick? How does he deal with this?

Right here, we have "Batman catches the Joker" as a sort of win condition.  After all, that's Batman's goal.  However, the win condition comes with the price - Robin murders the Joker.

You can certainly have known up front win conditions and still have a game.

If you expand RPG's to include other genre, like say, Tragedy, then you have all sorts of different methods open up and other methods close down in order to explore that genre.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 11, 2009)

> Anyway, what if I make awesome decisions and try lots of cool things, but roll 1's and 2's all the time, and I lose.



Learn not to count on luck.


----------



## Korgoth (Nov 11, 2009)

Theroc said:


> Anyway, what if I make awesome decisions and try lots of cool things, but roll 1's and 2's all the time, and I lose.  Does that mean I suck at D&D, and I need to learn to play better?  I'm not trying to trivialize anyone's argument here, but the whole "Approach 1 is about player Excellence" doesn't seem to account for an epic failure due to bad luck.
> 
> If D&D were chess, I could see this approach concept more clearly, but since we've involved chance, there is ALWAYS a chance for 'failure'.  Unless the DM fudges things, but I don't understand how a player who is tactically unsound could not roll a string of crits and mow down the baddies in very epic fashion, and 'Win' despite 'sucking'.




War is Hell. The first guy off the Higgins boat on Normandy might have been the most gifted, sensitive artist of the Impressionist school since Monet, and also been a crack shot and a supreme athlete. Too bad his cranium got turned into a red mist by a burst from an MG42 before he even set both feet on the beach.

There's a reason that the cherry blossom is a symbol of the warrior in the bushido: it falls to the ground in its prime.

You're right that the 'world' of Chess is a rarified one where the Black Queen never slips on a banana peel and takes a header, ruining what would have been a perfect fork. If there were such a hero as Batman, he would be theoretically susceptible to misadventure as well... but not in the same measure. If Batman falls down during combat (he rarely does because he's so skillful, but it could happen), he actually has a hope of getting up again before getting waxed. That alone makes him a cut above the rest.

In any game with luck, it is theoretically possible that a guy who makes all the right decisions could lose, and a guy who makes all the wrong decisions could win. From a game theory standpoint, in any given instance it's better to be lucky than to be smart.

But the smart guy gets to be smart every day. The lucky guy has no idea when his streak will be over (or start). A theoretical ultra-lucky sod could breeze through everything while always doing exactly the wrong thing... but if you're making a plan, don't plan on getting lucky. Plan on minimizing risk and maximizing benefit.

But yeah, gang aft agley. Get a helmet!


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 11, 2009)

> Since we've involved chance, there is ALWAYS a chance for 'failure'.



One might think that obvious, but a lot of folks in the RPG field seem not to grasp it.

Yeah, there's a reason that reading or watching the adventures of Superman does not involve making saving throws. There's a reason story tellers from Homer to J.K. Rowling do it without dice.

It's the same freaking reason that dice by design do indeed figure prominently in D&D!


----------



## Hussar (Nov 11, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> War is Hell. The first guy off the Higgins boat on Normandy might have been the most gifted, sensitive artist of the Impressionist school since Monet, and also been a crack shot and a supreme athlete. Too bad his cranium got turned into a red mist by a burst from an MG42 before he even set both feet on the beach.
> 
> There's a reason that the cherry blossom is a symbol of the warrior in the bushido: it falls to the ground in its prime.
> 
> ...




The trick here is though Korgoth, this is not the only way to play.  It is most certainly one way to play and it's loads of fun.  But, it's not the only way.

For some people, the events of the game are secondary.  The events are simply a vehicle for allowing an exploration of a theme and the game is about that exploration, not the framing.  I believe that's what's meant by narrativist gaming, but, I'm not a GNS guy, so, I'm kinda shooting in the dark here.

Taking your D-Day example, we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the outcome of the invasion.  Instead of playing a recreation of the invasion with an open ended result (a great deal of fun, mind you), we instead stipulate the events beforehand as following history.  We know that it's going to be a meat grinder and the Allies will carry the day.

However, the game could about preserving your humanity in the face of this horror.  The game could be about the relationships between soldiers a la Band of Brothers.  The game could be about being a German soldier knowing that this is your last stand and how do you deal with that.  These are all valid (and IMO interesting) games.  They are not what you're talking about, true.  but they are interesting nonetheless.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Nov 11, 2009)

Hussar and I seem to be on the same side of the argument, but my point is not really the same as his (though I think his is true and valid).

_My_ point is that even though we know the outcome of the battle, the first 24 minutes of Saving Private Ryan are still engrossing, thrilling, and intense. In fiction, a preordained outcome is not antithetical to enjoyment--in fact, it really doesn't have much to do with it one way or another.

And I think the same thing is true with RPGs. When you get down to it, what really matters when you're gathered around the table isn't _how will this all end?_, it's _what's going to happen next?_.

And maybe that's the difference between a GM who likes plot and a railroader. The plotter may have a structure in mind, but he doesn't know what will happen next any more than the players do. He simply keeps his eye on the destination and adjusts over the course of the campaign or adventure to get there.

The railroader decides what will happen next and enforces that.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 11, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> GNS says that's Simulationism.




Simulationism says that Batman is invested in beating the Joker, not that I am.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 11, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> Not if you're a wizard.
> 
> There is a "you must be this smart to play" bar.  It's enforced by the group.  The other players in the group are going to judge your contributions to the game; what criteria they use is going to form the creative agenda, one of G-N-S.




Sure, but that's a social rule. Has nothing to do with playstyle, certainly nothing to do with pre-ordained outcomes versus uncertainy.



> That operates at a different level than "I came here to play Batman."  (Which would be Exploration of Character in Big Model terms.)




It might be in some situations, but in the case of, "I want to be Batman," it most certainly is not. It's not about exploring his motivations or nuances, it's about punching evil in the face. It's saying, "I'm Batman." GNS is a low calorie version of literary modernism. It doesn't even have words for the dramaturgical elements of role-playing, much less the creative expression of acting as if a character. In GNS, the PC is a puppet of the player; in my view, the PC is animated. GNS also claims that simulation shuns metagaming perspectives, but if Batman is trying to win, and I am animating Batman, I do not shun metagaming perspectives, only incongruence.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 11, 2009)

Charlesryan is saying what I want to say so much better.  He is a smartypants.  

Someone rep that man!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 11, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Cross posting my own post from the other thread which seems to be almost a carbon copy of this one, right down to the Batman analogies.





Assume my _*brilliant*_ response there was cut & pasted here.  


RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 11, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Batman is trying to win. I am acting "as-if" Batman.





pawsplay said:


> if Batman is trying to win, and I am animating Batman, I do not shun metagaming perspectives, only incongruence.



Could you explain this a bit further? What sort of metagaming are you talking about?


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 11, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Could you explain this a bit further? What sort of metagaming are you talking about?




For instance, I might choose the most efficacious hand-to-hand attack I have access to for a given round of combat. If I am playing a supposedly incompetent character, that is metagaming and poor character portrayal. If I am playing Batman, that is metagaming and likely good character portrayal. If all attack options are equivalent, then the only choices are those of portrayal ("I backhand the Joker").


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 11, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Simulationism says that Batman is invested in beating the Joker, not that I am.



Fair enough. From your last few posts I think I've got a better perspective on where you are coming from now and I accept that GNS isn't very useful for analysing the way you play roleplaying games.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 11, 2009)

Hussar said:


> For some people, the events of the game are secondary.  The events are simply a vehicle for allowing an exploration of a theme and the game is about that exploration, not the framing.




If the events in the "game" don't matter, we call that a "discussion" or "shooting the breeze".



> Taking your D-Day example, we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the outcome of the invasion.  Instead of playing a recreation of the invasion with an open ended result (a great deal of fun, mind you), we instead stipulate the events beforehand as following history.  We know that it's going to be a meat grinder and the Allies will carry the day.




This is a "framework" into which game events must fit.



> However, the game could about preserving your humanity in the face of this horror.  The game could be about the relationships between soldiers a la Band of Brothers.  The game could be about being a German soldier knowing that this is your last stand and how do you deal with that.  These are all valid (and IMO interesting) games.  They are not what you're talking about, true.  but they are interesting nonetheless.




This could be a game, or it could be shooting the breeze, depending upon what is actually done.

For example, if the game is about preserving your humanity in the face of this horror, there must be some means of quantifying humanity, losing humanity, and (possibly) regaining humanity through the choices you make.  

Moreover, one of the following must also be true:

(1)  The players do not know aforehand the conditions that can cause one to lose or gain humanity (very, very hard to set up, as this would seem obvious), or

(2)  There is a second victory condition at odds with the first, so that the interplay becomes one of coming to a satisfying resolution of seemingly mutually contradictory objectives.  I.e., preserve your humanity while also taking out a particular machine gun outpost.

Both scenarios demand that some victory condition may fail in order for a game to exist.  You might lose your humanity; you might fail to take out the machine gun outpost.  You might fail in both.  It should be difficult to succeed at both in order to make the exploration meaningful.

Within this game, the outcome of the framework story is not in doubt.  It does not have to be.  However, the outcome of _*the story of the game*_ is in doubt.  It must be, or there is no game.



CharlesRyan said:


> When you get down to it, what really matters when you're gathered around the table isn't _how will this all end?_, it's _what's going to happen next?_.




Again, there is a difference between the story of the game and the framework story in which that game takes place.  Certainly, they may be permeable (the framework intrudes on the game, obviously, and the game may well intrude upon the framework, depending upon the abilities of the PCs and NPCs to affect wide events).

As an example of the game story intruding on the framework, imagine a game where the exploration is "What will Batman sacrifice to stop the Joker from detonating a nuclear bomb in downtown Gotham City?"  The game is set up so that Batman has opposing victory conditions of (1) preserve your humanity and (2) stop the Joker.  In order for there to be a game, it must be possible (however unlikely) for Batman to fail in either, or both, victory conditions.

Imagine then that Batman fails.  The GM has two options:

A.  Allow the framework to intrude on the story:  The bomb turns out to be a dud, Superman swoops in and saves the day at the last minute.

B.  Allow the story to intrude on the framework:  The bomb goes off and Gotham City is no more.

"A" risks nullifying the player's input into the game (and therefore the player's investment in the game).  "B" risks changing the framework so much that the players again lose investment.

Whether you favour "A" or "B" is, of course, a matter of taste.  Whether or not you can fail within the story of the game, however, is not.  It is the thing that differentiates a game from a discussion (or collaborative story telling).


RC


----------



## Hussar (Nov 11, 2009)

Or, C:  Take the Batman catching the Joker as written and then work within the framework of the game to determine exactly how that was achieved.

I reject the notion that you must have a "win" condition in order to have a game.  Or rather, the win condition must be directly tied to the events of the game.

Again, you might call it "shooting the breeze" and that's fine.  It's not for you.  Fair enough.  But, just because you don't like it doesn't make it not a game.  It all depends on what the focus of a particular game is.  For you, it's about the events of the game.  You state:



			
				RC said:
			
		

> quantifying humanity, losing humanity, and (possibly) regaining humanity through the choices you make.




thus, anything not specifically quantified by the game is irrelavent to your play.  And that's fine.  It's just not the only way to play.

This statement:



> Within this game, the outcome of the framework story is not in doubt. It does not have to be. However, the outcome of the story of the game is in doubt. It must be, or there is no game.




is a bit vague though.  What exactly do you mean by the "story of the game"?  Are you specifically referring to the actions?  The encounters of the game, to use D&D parlance?  Is that the only thing you mean?

After all, in a tragedy game, the outcome is fixed.  I KNOW I'm going to die.  The question is how.  To me, the how is FAR more interesting than the what.  I don't care particularly about the what of the story.  At least, most of the what anyway.  It's the how and the why that interests me.

To be honest, this is one of the reasons I really dislike most SF rpg's.  SF RPG's play out, typically, like D&D in space.  They're traditional games, go here, solve this problem, get the reward, move on.  And they follow a specific branch of SF which is not the kind that I particularly like.  I prefer SF that is focused on concept rather than plot.  Stephen Baxter, Cory Doctorow, Isaac Asimov and Robert Reed rather than Heinlein or P. J. Farmer.

So, if I want an RPG that follows the kind of SF that I want, traditional RPG's aren't going to get it done for me.  I don't really give a toss about saving the galaxy from the invading aliens.  I want to examine, within the context of a role playing scenario, how people and societies are affected by omniscience (a la Frank Herbert).  

You brush it off as "shooting the breeze" or "Collective storytelling".  My reply to that is, all RPG's are an exercise in collective storytelling whether you like it or not.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 11, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> I don't agree. I have enjoyed many films and novels even though I didn't really think utter defeat was something the writer even considered for the ending. Utter defeat is very rare in fiction, and when it occurs the expectation is usually set up well in advance. (In the RPG arena, this happens as well, CoC and Paranoia being two examples.)
> 
> What makes movies and novels and comic books and plays and so on engaging isn't the actual possibility of defeat, but the perception of that possibility. Combine that with challenges and plenty of twists and turns along the way, and doubt about the outcome becomes part of the experience.
> 
> ...






CharlesRyan said:


> Hussar and I seem to be on the same side of the argument, but my point is not really the same as his (though I think his is true and valid).
> 
> _My_ point is that even though we know the outcome of the battle, the first 24 minutes of Saving Private Ryan are still engrossing, thrilling, and intense. In fiction, a preordained outcome is not antithetical to enjoyment--in fact, it really doesn't have much to do with it one way or another.
> 
> ...





A known destination is a form of railroad. My opinion on rpgs differs because I do not see them as the same type of entertainment form as novels or movies. These entertainment forms are passive in nature, the reader or viewer takes in the experience that the creator wants to present. Those enjoying a book or movie have no opportunity to affect any changes to what is read or watched. 

An rpg is an active entertainment form. The game part of rpg implys that the outcome of the experience is not known at the start. 

The game part is the big difference for me. Lets take another game instead of an rpg to substitute as an example. Suppose our group is watching a baseball game on TV. The game is exciting and close. Both teams are very good and we don't know who will win. Assuming we enjoy watching televised baseball, a large part of the attraction is not knowing who will win. 

Let us change the scenario a bit. Assume we are watching the same game but this time it is from a DVR recording. We know from the announcement on the news that team A won 7-6 but we do not know how the score ended up that way. We can still watch the whole game to see how it played out and satisfy the baseball statistician geek needs of the group but the spark of excitement just isn't there. We know the outcome of the game so team B having two men on with 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth isn't a nailbiting experience. Based on the final score we know that the man currently at bat is not going to get so much as a base hit. 

I want rpgs to have the excitement of a live game. Playing towards a known end just doesn't satisfy the gaming need for me.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 11, 2009)

Oh, hey, EW, I totally 100% agree with you.  

Playing in the second way you talk about is not for everyone, and personally, it's not for me all the time either.  But, having just recently discovered it, I'm finding it rather a lot of fun.  And your baseball analogy works very well.

I have absolutely zero problems with someone saying "Thanks, but no thanks".  That's fine.  I've certainly played to the unknown end for years and I will do so again.  What bugs me, and I think others who have chimed in here, is when people step up and try to claim that the second method isn't valid at all.  That just because I'm watching a replay, it is no longer enjoyable, nor can it possibly be enjoyable.

'cos that's certainly the vibe I've gotten from these threads from some people.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 11, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I have absolutely zero problems with someone saying "Thanks, but no thanks". That's fine. I've certainly played to the unknown end for years and I will do so again. What bugs me, and I think others who have chimed in here, is when people step up and try to claim that the second method isn't valid at all. That just because I'm watching a replay, it is no longer enjoyable, nor can it possibly be enjoyable.
> 
> 'cos that's certainly the vibe I've gotten from these threads from some people.




If the known end method of entertainment is interesting and fun for those involved then there isn't a thing wrong with it. You might be confusing the terms "valid" and "game". To me, such experiences do not qualify as a game but DO qualify as a valid and acceptable form of entertainment.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 11, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Or, C:  Take the Batman catching the Joker as written and then work within the framework of the game to determine exactly how that was achieved.




That would actually be an example of "A".  



> I reject the notion that you must have a "win" condition in order to have a game.  Or rather, the win condition must be directly tied to the events of the game.




Pretty much sums up a rejection of the notion of a game, then.  The argument becomes one of terminology.  I am curious, though, as to whether or not you could sample me a commercial RPG (i.e., something I could examine) where you believe that the win conditions are not tied to the events of the game.

I suspect that your analysis of any such ruleset is incomplete, but I would be more than happy to learn that I am wrong.



> Again, you might call it "shooting the breeze" and that's fine.  It's not for you.  Fair enough.  But, just because you don't like it doesn't make it not a game.




Oh, I like "shooting the breeze", too.  I just don't mistake it for a game.

I suspect that we would agree that your game is a game, that we are effectively "talking past each other".  I suspect from your statements that in your game you are not distinguishing between what I called the "framework" and the "story of the game".  As a result, you view the outcome as known where only the outcome of the framework is known.

For example, in a game modelled off of the original Star Trek series, the status quo would be the expected outcome of every "episode" (adventure).  The status quo is effectively the framework; the events of the adventure are the "story of the game".  So, the events when the USS Enterprise encounter the Tholians are unknown (this is what the game is about), but that the USS Enterprise will survive its encounter with the Tholians, with major crew intact, can be known.

In order to achieve this effect, the GM can do any of the following with the victory conditions of the episode:

(1)  Not have them involved with the survival of the USS Enterprise or the crew.  I.e., the question being resolved in the game is, can Captain Kirk et al prevent the Tholians from destroying Outpost K-11?  Or, can the USS Enterprise get the Tholians to negotiate a peace treaty with the Gorn?

(2)  Make the Tholian threat to the USS Enterprise & crew so small that the odds of failure are infintesimally small.

(3)  Prepare (or wing) a deux ex machina solution to prevent the Tholians from destroying the USS Enterprise & crew should the PCs fail.

Out of these options, (1) is probably the most satisfying, and I believe it is what you mean when you say that the Batman/Joker outcome is known.  In this case, though, the "story of the game" (aka, "How are the victory conditions resolved?") have nothing to do with the USS Enterprise being destroyed, and are still completely open to all sorts of possible outcomes.

I believe that you are imagining that I am saying "everything must be in doubt" for a game to exist.  I am not.  All that must be in doubt is the outcome of the victory conditions.  I believe that what you are calling "the focus of a particular game" is the area of the game on which the victory conditions are predicated.

The "events of the game" do not have to be encounters; they are whatever choices are meaningful for the resolution of the victory conditions.  

In your tradgedy game example, for instance, the HOW of your death is predicated on the game situations you face.  The victory conditions are, presumably, to meet conditions that make your (known aforehand) sacrifice either worthwhile or satisfying in some other way.  The game (or game scenario) must have some means (even if subjective) of quantifying that value, of opposing that value, and of making the choices that lead to increasing that value something more than a simple checklist.  The unknown aspect of the game -- the thing that makes it a game -- is attempting to increase that value (competing against other players or the game itself, depending upon the nature of the game).

As a result, the outcome of the tragedy game is not that you are going to die.  The framework is that you are going to die.  The outcome is rather what value you manage to achieve prior to dying, or through the act of dying.



> To be honest, this is one of the reasons I really dislike most SF rpg's.  SF RPG's play out, typically, like D&D in space.




I would agree.  It is, simply put, easier to quantify certain kinds of victory conditions than others, and most games make use of those easily quantifiable data.  Heck, this shouldn't be surprising, when a lot of people playing games with less easily quantifiable data are not even aware that they are meeting victory conditions, or that the outcome of the game is not the framework, or that the outcome is even in doubt!


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 11, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> To me, such experiences do not qualify as a game but DO qualify as a valid and acceptable form of entertainment.





This.

With the exception that, from the examples given, I do not believe Hussar is correct in his estimation that the outcome is known.  I think that the actual thing he is describing *is* a game, but that _*his description of it *_would not qualify it as a game.  

I think he is mistaking the framework for the game.

Batman cannot fail to catch the Joker for the same reason that the houses in Monopoly do not catch fire; neither event is part of the game.  Saying that I know the shoe won't get eaten by the dog in Monopoly is not the same as saying that I know the outcome of the game (although I might be mistaken in so believing).


RC


----------



## Hussar (Nov 11, 2009)

Well, since you asked so nicely. 

I'm currently playing Sufficiently Advanced.  You can find it here for free and legal

In SA, you are agents for a time traveling omnicient AI.  The AI sends you on missions and will dictate particular terms to you regarding that mission.  For example, the mission might be, "Travel to Planet X.  A terrorist is going to plant a bomb in a crowded bus station.  Observe the terrorist and aprehend him or her after the bomb explodes."

Players are expected to abide by these terms within the game.  The entire point of the game is how do you justify these things?  The AI are omnicient.  They are attempting to bring about a perfect utopia future by sending messages back to their past selves who then send the players out on various missions.

In the above scenario, we know exactly what's going to happen.  And the players are not allowed to stop it.  The purpose of playing this scenario is to examine the moral implications of the situation.  There is no win or lose condition here since the players have the ability to declare at any point that they have caught the terrorist.  Note that the story of the game will change depending on which theme they choose to use to catch the terrorist, but, catching the terrorist is never, not for a second, in doubt.  It's using the game to explore a philosophical point.

So, yes, these games do exist.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 11, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Well, since you asked so nicely.




I'll read it.



> For example, the mission might be, "Travel to Planet X.  A terrorist is going to plant a bomb in a crowded bus station.  Observe the terrorist and aprehend him or her after the bomb explodes."




The victory conditions here seem to be "aprehend him or her after the bomb explodes".  Do the players know exactly what's going to happen _*with relation to the victory conditions?*_

If not, you are mistaking the framework for the game.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 11, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I'm currently playing Sufficiently Advanced.  You can find it here for free and legal




I've given it a brief skim, and will be happy to look at specifics if you like.  One of the first things I noted was the resolution mechanics in place for determining whether or not you meet the victory conditions of the scenario.

As an example of a game where the outcome of the story is uknown, this seems to be an epic fail.

Again, you seem to be mistaking the framework for the story.  In chess, I know that the knight will not turn into a queen.  That doesn't mean that I know the outcome.  In Monopoly, I know that a thermonuclear war will not break out, destroying all the properties.  That does not mean that I know the outcome.  It only means that I know the framework in which the outcome can occur.


RC


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 11, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Well, since you asked so nicely.
> 
> I'm currently playing Sufficiently Advanced.  You can find it here for free and legal
> 
> ...




Since I am not an omniscient AI and the players, from the vantage of the present situation, do have free will, this seems destined to not work out from time to time.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Nov 11, 2009)

Somewhere along the way, without me consciously realizing it (I'm like a frog in a pot of water, I guess), the concept of "having a plot" has become synonymous with "knowing how the game will end." I've contributed to it myself, by running with the D-Day analogy and ruminating on whether knowing the outcome matters.

So let me backtrack and clarify my own position:

I view plot in RPGs as providing structure and a method for introducing and playing out elements that create a satisfying experience for the players based on classic story structure.

That means I have a pretty good idea of what's going to happen in the third act of my campaign. Metaphorically, I expect the hobbits to reach the volcano in an attempt to throw in the ring.

That does *not* mean that I have predetermined whether they'll succeed or fail. Honestly, I think they probably will, because like most GMs I'll put together a challenge that's tough, has its share of surprises, and really puts the PCs through the wringer--but will be scaled appropriately to the capabilities of their characters. (In fact, it's safe to say that if they fail in the final encounter of a 3-year campaign, I will feel I've failed as a GM. But I will also feel I've failed if it's too easy and seems anticlimactic.) But I don't know for sure, and finding out is part of the fun for me as much as for the players.

EW, I agree with your sports analogies. Dramatic tension is important in an RPG, just as it is in fiction, and a known outcome spoils that tension. (Of course, "predetermined" is not the same as "known.") So I want to clarify that I've never advocated a known or even predetermined outcome. And I don't believe that predetermination of outcome is a necessary part of the use of plot in an RPG.


----------



## maddman75 (Nov 11, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> A role player who says things like:
> "I punch the Overking in the face"
> "I jump between all four trolls and poke one with my epee"
> "I leap off the 2,000 foot cliff and aim for a snow bank"
> ...




This matters a great deal as to which game one is playing, doesn't it?  Thinking of the games I run, in say Call of Cthulhu this is going to end up with a dead character.  In other games, such as Buffy or Exalted, there are metagame mechanics that make this sort of 'awesome for the sake of awesome' doable, as well as turning them into the kind of game mechanic one can play with.



Mallus said:


> For example, you could start with all the games whose gameplay engines don't require the use of frequently fickle, subjective, human arbiters wearing viking hats.




I don't normally wear a viking hat when I GM, but dammit maybe I should start!



pawsplay said:


> Since GNS has nothing to say about that, GNS has very little worth saying. Any theory that purports Vampire was a bad design is a theory in conflict with reality.




That to me is one of the biggest weaknesses of GNS.  According to the theory, both D&D and Vampire are terrible games, and therefore should not be successful at all.  In reality, they are two of the most popular games of all time.  You can either conclude that there's a problem with the theory, or smugly declare that all these sheeple don't get what gaming is really about.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Nov 11, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> The game part of rpg implys that the outcome of the experience is not known at the start.




I wonder if part of our disagreement may be that we're glossing over the concept of "outcome."

In the analogies used in this thread, Batman catches the Joker, the Allies take the beach at Normandy, the Ring is thrown into the volcano, and Team A won 7-6. Those are the outcomes we've talked about, and they're pretty cut and dried.

But at the RPG game table, the concept of outcome may be more nuanced. The good guys take out the BBEG, is it a clean sweep or a near-TPK? In the last 3E campaign I played, my character threw himself into Xoriat to save the day at the end. I don't think any of us saw that coming, even if we all, tacitly, expected that the heroes would end up victorious.

So, my previous post notwithstanding, I might argue that even when a final victory/loss result is known or assumed at the beginning of the game, that's a far cry from knowing the outcome in the full sense.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 11, 2009)

I think that we are nearing agreement, except that I would note the following:

In the Batman catches the Joker example, assuming the player is taking on the role of Batman, what the player knows is that he has all of the resources necessary to catch the Joker, assuming that he can employ them effectively.  The element of sacrifice (and the thematic component of the game) comes from the tension between the desire to avoid sacrifices (and thus preserve Batman's humanity) and the desire to employ resources effectively (and thus capture the Joker).

If the player knows aforehand that Superman will swoop in if he fails, the player may still invest, but will not (I would argue, cannot) to the same degree as if the player's decisions actually determined the final outcome.

In BB:RotJ, what happened to the Joker when Bruce Wayne was Batman is part of the framework of the story.  Whether or not the new Batman can stop the new Joker is very much in doubt.  It is this doubt, and the consequences for failure, that provide motivation for the good guys.  Could the new Batman know that the animator would suffer a fatal heart attack, and the cartoon terror be no more, he could have simply left the Joker alone (as Bruce Wayne wanted him to).

Reading through the rules of Sufficiently Advanced, it is clear that the same is true in that game.  The players have some ability to control what elements of the game they wish to interact with (and thus have some control over what the victory conditions of any particular scenario are), but the outcome of those victory conditions is very much in doubt.

The game demonstrates that the author is aware that PCs must face difficulty (doubt) about the outcome of the victory conditions in order to make the game work.  This is discussed on page 167 (Inaccessible Stories), although the author doesn't mirror the terminology I am using.  

There are certain stories that are much harder to tell in Sufficiently Advanced than in other role-playing games. Some of them are much-beloved standbys of both fantasy and science fiction, so it’s worth mentioning them before you try to use them. Some are merely difficult to use; others become all but impossible to tell.

A story about a journey through unknown places is exceptionally hard to do. Players often have access to wormholes, and those that do not usually have a replicator available, which which they can make motor vehicles, ultralight aircraft, or other transportation.  To tell a story that involves a lot of travel by foot, you’ll need to strand the characters without access to a replicator or the infosphere, and that’s not easy.​
IOW, if the players have the means to defeat the plot without being forced to interact with it, you don't have a game.

Frankly, it boggles my mind that this observation is in doubt.



RC


----------



## Ydars (Nov 11, 2009)

I agree with CharlesRyan: that plot is not necessarily equal to railroad but think that we need to think deeper about outcomes.

If the resolution of every scene/fight/situation/roleplay in an adventure is defined as an outcome, the design problem becomes how to allow as many outcomes as possible from each scene, whilst still creating a situation where it makes sense for scene 1 to follow scene 2 etc (or at least allowing the DM to get some play out of his pre-prepared locations/NPCs etc.

What I am saying is, is I want the resolution of each scene to be meaningful and not just the resolution of the whole campaign. 

For that to be true, each scene has to have multiple outcomes and if that is true, you are going to end up with many roads/locations/logic paths that are never followed or played: this is a serious waste of GM prep time. 

This is why the "sand-boxers" would argue that we should concentrate on designing a reusable environment for the players to interact with rather than using plot to corall the action to certain times and places. 

I don't entirely agree with them, but think that we need some better general strategies for allowing adventure writers and DMs to create plots that have a backstory without pre-determining the outcome of any scene/fight/roleplay.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 11, 2009)

Here's something else from the Designer's Notes, page 170:

On the Main Balance

Characters with high Capabilities have lowerrated Themes, and take worse Complications
to get Twists that do less. Why? 

On one level, this is the same thing you see in a point-balanced game (like GURPS or Hero). Blow all your points on attributes and you have nothing left for spiffy tricks. It’s one thing to play an Old-Worlder when you get some kind of benefit from it, but if all you get is the shaft, it’s just not fun. It’s game balance, because you’re playing a game.​
IOW, the abilities of various players to manipulate the game in order to meet victory conditions should be relatively equal.  That's what game balance is.

If there was nothing in doubt, there would be no reason to worry about who could do what.  It wouldn't affect anything, anyway.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 11, 2009)

Ydars said:


> What I am saying is, is I want the resolution of each scene to be meaningful and not just the resolution of the whole campaign.




Imagine, if you would, that your scenes are like rounds in a D&D combat.  Each scene/round changes the conditions of the subsequent scenes/rounds, making the ultimate victory conditions either easier, or more difficult, to achieve, until the adventure/combat is resolved one way or another.

This is something that attrition-model D&D does very, very well, but there are a lot of other ways to do it.

Success lies not in getting the PCs to buy into your scenes, but in negotiating victory conditions that the players are interested in (including just letting them choose their goals!) and then determining how the outcomes of your scenes fit into that overarching victory condition.


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 11, 2009)

Ydars said:


> I agree with CharlesRyan: that plot is not necessarily equal to railroad but think that we need to think deeper about outcomes.
> 
> If the resolution of every scene/fight/situation/roleplay in an adventure is defined as an outcome, the design problem becomes how to allow as many outcomes as possible from each scene, whilst still creating a situation where it makes sense for scene 1 to follow scene 2 etc (or at least allowing the DM to get some play out of his pre-prepared locations/NPCs etc.
> 
> ...




The trap of having to conform to certain times and places for the action can be avoided without having to abandon the concept of story and plot.

I broke down my thoughts on this in another thread here:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/267646-confession-i-like-plot-3.html#post4991306

Plots can be hatched and carried out all while making the choices of the PC's still meaningful.

Plots are not the actual problem in these situations most of the time. Plots are often forced to stand in front of the firing squad while the real culprit; scene scripting, looks on and laughs. 

When a DM envisions certain events occuring in a particular way and shapes gameplay decisions around making that vision a reality then he/she falls into the trap of scene scripting. 

Scene scripting happens when the DM anticipates the PC's actions far too much. When this anticipation is way off the PC's get labeled as plot murderers when in reality they are only guilty of scene skirting. 

When the DM has moment of "they are ruining my plot!!!" it becomes time to ask exactly who is having thier plot ruined. Is the plot/backstory really ruined or it merely a case of an unplayed out scene being tossed in the wastebasket by an unexpected decision?


----------



## Ydars (Nov 11, 2009)

I completely agree: scene scripting is the root of the railroad.

However, the problem is, because of limited prep time, if we create a plot we have a tendancy to make scene 1 follow scene 2 follow scene 3. This can actually be a form of plot scripting because outcomes that break this chain of causality will not be favored by a DM who has just done a ton of statting/mapping/ etc.

What strategies have you used to avoid scene scripting and which ones would be of use to people WRITING adventures down? I know there are many techniques for doing it on the fly, but what if you are trying to preserve choice in a set of scenes whilst still stringing them together logically in a published module? I ask, as that is where I think the problem starts, because many people run published modules when they start to DM and get into bad habits as a result.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 11, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> That to me is one of the biggest weaknesses of GNS.  According to the theory, both D&D and Vampire are terrible games, and therefore should not be successful at all.  In reality, they are two of the most popular games of all time.  You can either conclude that there's a problem with the theory, or smugly declare that all these sheeple don't get what gaming is really about.



It seems to me one of its failures might be that it pretends that a game is only good if focuses on _one _of the G-N-S. (And later it seems to say only N counts for something).


----------



## Ydars (Nov 11, 2009)

Thanks for your reply RavenCrowKing.

I have used the idea of incremental gains across a number of scenes to get to a final goal in a module I just finished for Ordo Draconis.

In the module, the PCs are in a Manor House, owned by the BBEG, in secret passages that the BBEG does not know about. Their goal is to let some attackers in, so that the Manor will fall, and they have until morning.

There are a number of scenes, that can be played in any order and which the PCs can try and deal with however they like (or not at all). The overall outcome of the attack on the Manor is determined by the summation of whether the PCs, drug the guards, discover and open the siege tunnel running under the walls, signal the attack at the correct time etc etc. So this removes some of the "sting" if any one part of the plot goes a certain way. I then wrote rules for what happens if the PCs are seen or alert the guards accidentally etc etc. So it is a bit like a mini-sandbox with only an over-arching goal.

Can you think of any other ways to achieve the same sort of balance between plot and free-form play?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 11, 2009)

They key (IMHO) is to allow the possibility of multiple solutions to any given problem, while knowing full well that another solution might be presented by the players that you didn't think of.  "Here is the goal, here are your resources, what do you do?"  Various options can add resources, modify the goal, etc., just as various events in a combat can shift the strategems or goals (run away!) of the participants.

IMHO, if the GM seeds opportunities, without worrying about whether they will manifest, and allows the players to recognize opportunities the GM neither intended nor expected, then all is right with the (game) world.

RC


----------



## Janx (Nov 11, 2009)

As usual CR hit on a point I was going to make.

As a DM, I typically expect the players to win every combat encounter, and to "win" the adventure.  Not because I "let" them.  But because that's the default assumption.  Players do stuff or try new tactics, until they are successful.

The encounters are usually scaled to the party level, which means, on some level, the party is expected to win.  There's always variance in what it takes to win, and the party's status after winning.

In the same vein, if you run a murder mystery plot, there is an expected path.  PCs get involved with murder investigation.  PCs follow clues.  PCs confront murderer.  There's a whole bunch of variance that can happen in there AND follow that chain of events.  There's also the possibility of NOT making it to the end confrontation.  But generally, you start with a basic path, and ad-lib the changes as you go.

Why?  Because it is easier to plan on a basic obvious path than to plan on all possible paths and outcomes.  Plus, since no plan survives contact with the enemy, you'd be wasting your time over-planning elements that won't be used.

The elements you use to write your murder adventure will include clues, NPCs, a villain, and some locations.  As the PCs wander around your "plot", you'll have to shift these elements to keep up with the party's choices, to give them an outcome, as befits their choices.

This is no different than on the DM's turn during combat, he looks at how many orcs he has left, where they are in relation to the party, and gives them actions to continue the combat to an outcome that befits the party's choices.

Basically, just because I wrote an ambush encounter with 5 orcs that I expected the party to deal with and continue on their quest, doesn't mean the most obvious outcome will happen.  I use the bits I have to make each round make sense relative to what has occurred.  That may even mean having to orcs capture rather than kill the party because I was on the cusp of a TPK in what should have been an easy encounter, due to good rolls on my part, and bad rolls for the players.

Likewise, in my murder mystery, I use all the elements I wrote up to keep the investigation the PCs are actively pursuing in motion.  That means moving things along with some new events if the game gets bogged down due to confusion.  it may mean shifting things entirely if the PCs go down a new direction.  Since you can't have a murder mystery without a killer and some clues, you've got to have a plan of how the basic path works out.

This in turn does not make it a railroad.  It is simply running the game.  Which since the dawn of RPG time, has been what GMs are expected to do.  And since a number of us are able to run a game using these methods, without making it a railroad, and making it a challenge and not a "freebie feel-good" ride, all these arguments about railroading are...off track.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 11, 2009)

Elbeghast said:


> How is the OP not claiming that "my play style is superior to your play style, period"?



He is, although I don't think he's meaning to.

Still; it's a refreshing change to see "storygames" held out that way after the barrage of sandbox, OSR playstyle held out as objectively better discussion that seems to otherwise float around every RPG discussion forum I hang out at anymore.


----------



## maddman75 (Nov 11, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> It seems to me one of its failures might be that it pretends that a game is only good if focuses on _one _of the G-N-S. (And later it seems to say only N counts for something).




Ah yes, GNS proves that gaming has something for everyone.  Gamism is for immature munchkins, Simulationism is for basement-dwelling grognards, and Narrativism is for good-looking right-thinking non-communists.  

I think the three agenda are there, but there are more agenda out there and variations.  For instance, I rather like games that deal with themes and characters working through those themes.  However, I don't get into the aspect that says its my own personal beliefs, I find it just as fun (moreso) to deal with the beliefs of a fictional personality.  And it is where they intersect that I find them more interesting.  How do we turn the themes of the game into a mechanic?  How do we simulate a world that reflects these themes.

GNS has produces some fun, awesome games.  But I don't think its the be-all, end-all of gaming theory.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 11, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> If the known end method of entertainment is interesting and fun for those involved then there isn't a thing wrong with it. You might be confusing the terms "valid" and "game". To me, such experiences do not qualify as a game but DO qualify as a valid and acceptable form of entertainment.



No, I think the recent explosion of derogatory buzzwords in the online RPG communities is certainly problematic.  You can't go around saying, "that's not even a game" or "that's what I call 'shooting the breeze'" or "I'm creating a new label called 'storygames' for your playstyle, which is in opposition to 'true roleplaying games'" and all the other nonsense that I've seen in recent months and then turn around and say that you think all of these are equally valid.

For some reason One True Wayism™ and RPG evangelism is really faddish right now.  I've seen a lot more of it in the last year or two than I ever did in the previous ten or fifteen years that I've been talking about RPGs online.  This thread is rampant with it, sadly.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 11, 2009)

GNS works best as a theory to describe what certain players enjoy most from the game.  As a model on which to build games, it fails pretty spectacularly, since as Maddman said, it would predict that D&D and Vampire would be terrible games rather than #1 and #2 in the market year over year over year.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 11, 2009)

Hobo said:


> No, I think the recent explosion of derogatory buzzwords in the online RPG communities is certainly problematic.  You can't go around saying, "that's not even a game" or "that's what I call 'shooting the breeze'" or "I'm creating a new label called 'storygames' for your playstyle, which is in opposition to 'true roleplaying games'" and all the other nonsense that I've seen in recent months and then turn around and say that you think all of these are equally valid.
> 
> For some reason One True Wayism™ and RPG evangelism is really faddish right now.  I've seen a lot more of it in the last year or two than I ever did in the previous ten or fifteen years that I've been talking about RPGs online.  This thread is rampant with it, sadly.




Sorry, Hobo, but what Hussar described and the game rules he used to back up that description are at odds.  What Hussar described was not a game; it was discussion about a theme and/or making up a story about a theme.  

The word "game" has meaning, which I didn't invent, and "games theory" goes quite a bit farther than the latest fad in rpgs.

Also, "shooting the breeze" is a valid activity, even if not a game, that we all engage in AFAICT.  Saying "X is not Y" doesn't make X intrinsically better than Y or vice versa; it only means that they are different things.

In any event, examination of Hussar's claims demonstrated that it was his description that was at odds with being a game, not the game itself or (presumably) the playstyle.



RC


----------



## CharlesRyan (Nov 11, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Plots are not the actual problem in these situations most of the time. Plots are often forced to stand in front of the firing squad while the real culprit; scene scripting, looks on and laughs.




Very nicely put.



Raven Crowking said:


> IMHO, if the GM seeds opportunities, without worrying about whether they will manifest, and allows the players to recognize opportunities the GM neither intended nor expected, then all is right with the (game) world.




Couldn't agree more. My point (and I think we're in agreement on this) is that the above is not antithetical to plot. The GM simply needs to understand that his plot, just like his encounters and scenes, starts according to his vision, then is in the hands of entire group. Over the course of the adventure or campaign, he can steer events toward it, or adjust it to match events, but he can't expect it to unfold according to some preconceived plan.

I like to think of a plot as a road map, and the campaign as a leisurely road trip. You look at the map and see your starting point and destination. You probably even see an obvious or likely route. But once you're on the road, you see the sights, you take a few unplanned turns, your passengers ask for a detour--you might even find a few roadblocks. No problem. There are other routes that keep you headed in the desired direction. You'll get there in time, but the journey will be the most fun if everyone is willing to let the route sort itself as you go. Explore. Enjoy the scenery. Get lost for a while. It's all good, and if you keep the map by your side and peek back at it once and a while, you will reach your destination.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 11, 2009)

No, you're still artificially trying to limit what is and isn't a game.  Roleplaying games (as traditionally defined, before the One True Wayers tried to modify the definitions to suit their own tastes) have _always_ had elements unusual to games.

Also; plenty of other games as traditionally defined lack winners, losers, or much in the way of rules.  How is Hussar's game any less of a game than Spin the Bottle, Telephone, or Smear the Queer?

Lots of games that we played as children stressed participation and enjoying the experience, not winning, not "gaming" the rules, not even the presence of rules at all, for that matter.  Yet hopefully nobody would be assinine enough to claim that they weren't actually games in an attempt to create false exclusionism.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 11, 2009)

Ydars said:


> I completely agree: scene scripting is the root of the railroad.
> 
> However, the problem is, because of limited prep time, if we create a plot we have a tendancy to make scene 1 follow scene 2 follow scene 3. This can actually be a form of plot scripting because outcomes that break this chain of causality will not be favored by a DM who has just done a ton of statting/mapping/ etc.




Joining plots and scenes at the hip is the beginning of the trouble. When you detail the plot of an entity in the campaign try not to morph that plot into scenes involving the PC's. Make a note of the plot, who or what is behind it, and the likely means in which it will be carried out. Setting a scene is different than scripting one. 

A set scene is pre-PC interaction. A murder investigation scenario begins with a dead NPC. The scene is set and any choices the PC's make will be in relation to this established scene. 

Another example: The PC's have a captive and leave him/her unguarded someplace. The DM could have the captive rescued or escape if desired. The PC's chose not to keep tabs on the captive and this choice could mean escape or rescue. If the PC's were on guard or set a trap for such attempts the DM should not automatically just decide that the captive escapes. This would render the choice to be vigilant meaningless.





Ydars said:


> What strategies have you used to avoid scene scripting and which ones would be of use to people WRITING adventures down? I know there are many techniques for doing it on the fly, but what if you are trying to preserve choice in a set of scenes whilst still stringing them together logically in a published module? I ask, as that is where I think the problem starts, because many people run published modules when they start to DM and get into bad habits as a result.




A published module does not have to be scripted nor does it have to be devoid of plots or backstory. 

What I like to do to avoid scripting is not stringing scenes together.  What I like to string together is a series of events that take place based on a basic setup, PC decisions, resolutions of those decisions, application of consequences.  Repeat. 

Basic setup: 
This is where the backstory and plots of the major players are detailed. Who is planning what and when, information known (and unknown!) and resources available to get the job done. The initial scene is described to the PC's based on info available to them at which point we go to.......

PC Decisions:
Do they take the hook and decide to act? If yes we resolve any actions they wish to take. If no we skip to application of consequences.

What if the PC's say "no"? In the event that the PC's do not take a hook we have our handy notes from the basic setup describing the plot so we can use that information to determine the consequences of the PC's failure to act. If the PC's really are needed to make a difference in the world then the DM should allow the foul plans outlined to be successful unless the PC's decide to act. 

Resolutions:
Ok the PC's have decided to do something. This is where the meat of prep work goes. Locations, treasures, statistics & tactics for any opposition. Resolve the effects of player decisions & actions. 

Consequences:
The PC's have decided to work against the foul plot being hatched by the bad guys. They have stuck thier collective nose in things and screwed up the villain's beautiful plan. Determine what response would be appropriate from the villain and effects thier actions have on the environment. 

Thus the flow of campaign follows a logical action/reaction format. The scenes happen wherever the PC's make them rather than being pre-set up on a soundstage. The adventure has details on locations where interesting scenes can take place and a logical structure for how they _might_ play out. The actual sequence of events will be shaped by the players. 

As far as a published adventure goes, these will have to be written based on the PC's taking the hook. Even good old B2 starts with the premise that the PC's will choose to adventure in the vicinity of the Keep. 

A good example of structure would be L2 _The Assassins Knot. _There is a plot, an outline of what the villain does and when, details on the area for the adventure, and most importantly does _not_ assume the PC's take specific actions. It is one my favorite 1E modules.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 11, 2009)

Hobo said:


> No, I think the recent explosion of derogatory buzzwords in the online RPG communities is certainly problematic. You can't go around saying, "that's not even a game" or "that's what I call 'shooting the breeze'" or "I'm creating a new label called 'storygames' for your playstyle, which is in opposition to 'true roleplaying games'" and all the other nonsense that I've seen in recent months and then turn around and say that you think all of these are equally valid.




If an activity is fun for someone how is it not valid to call it entertainment? Not being a game is a different argument from what constitutes valid entertainment.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 11, 2009)

Hobo said:


> Also; plenty of other games as traditionally defined lack winners, losers, or much in the way of rules.  How is Hussar's game any less of a game than Spin the Bottle?




There are winners and losers in Spin the Bottle, my friend.  The victory conditions are just subjective, rather than objective, and occur as a result of each spin (i.e., each spin is its own game).  

Game - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 11, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> If an activity is fun for someone how is it not valid to call it entertainment? Not being a game is a different argument from what constitutes valid entertainment.




Can someone XP ExploderWizard for me?


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> There are winners and losers in Spin the Bottle, my friend.  The victory conditions are just subjective, rather than objective, and occur as a result of each spin (i.e., each spin is its own game).



Heh.  Yeah, kinda.  Not technically, but yeah I see your point.

How about Truth or Dare, then?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 11, 2009)

Hobo said:


> Heh.  Yeah, kinda.  Not technically, but yeah I see your point.
> 
> How about Truth or Dare, then?




Hobo, have you never played Truth or Dare?!?

What I said about Spin the Bottle can apply a hell of a lot more to Truth or Dare than it does to Spin the Bottle!  Especially if you end up locked outside the hotel room in all your bare-bottomed glory!


RC


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 11, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> If an activity is fun for someone how is it not valid to call it entertainment? Not being a game is a different argument from what constitutes valid entertainment.



But it is a game, so why would you try to say that it's not?  What possible agenda could someone have to try and exclude games that aren't exactly like the kinds of game that they already like to play?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 11, 2009)

Hobo said:


> But it is a game, so why would you try to say that it's not?  What possible agenda could someone have to try and exclude games that aren't exactly like the kinds of game that they already like to play?




Well, in the case of Hussar's posts, what he was talking about was a game, but he was not describing it accurately.  What he described was not a game because of those inaccuracies.  Exploring the same led to the discovery of a nifty new system for me to read up on and possibly play.  With any luck, exploring the same also led to someone seeing how the system they are using works a bit more clearly.

Win/win from my perspective.  


RC


EDIT:  The value of examining anything is always directly related to how open-minded you can be about it.  None of us is always as open-minded as we would like, obviously.  However, examining what things mean is usually of some value (even if it might sometimes seem pedantic).  This discussion has certainly brought some of my own ideas into sharper focus for me, and expanded my horizons in terms of game systems available, if nothing else.  I can only hope that it has done as much, or more, for others.


----------



## The Ghost (Nov 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Can someone XP ExploderWizard for me?




Sadly, no. Because...



> You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to ExploderWizard again.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 11, 2009)

Me too.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Nov 11, 2009)

Ydars said:


> What strategies have you used to avoid scene scripting and which ones would be of use to people WRITING adventures down?




My answer applies to homemade adventures and would at the least require some polish before it would be truly useful to published adventure authors.

Bullet points are your friend. They help you focus on what's actually important without getting bogged down in details. They keep things succinct, maximizing your flexibility when you're actually playing. They discourage a level of detail that devolves your encounter idea into a scene script.

When I start to work on an adventure, I usually write a page or so of notes that set up the background of the adventure--what has gone before, and the real scoop on what's happening now.

Then I write a few bullet points on what the adventure should accomplish as relates to the campaign plotline (things like "introduce this NPC who might become an ally later" or "give the heroes a chance to learn more about the mcguffin's backstory")

Then I write a few bullet points for each of the major NPCs or factions associated with the story: what they are trying to achieve.

Finally, I write a few bullet points for encounters I expect to occur in each of the three acts, one bullet point per encounter. Generally speaking, at this point the later acts have fewer and vaguer encounters than the first act, but I try to visualize a likely course of events and usually have an interesting set-piece in mind for the climax or a few key scenes (often the turning points between acts, which include plot twists or major reveals).

Each encounter follows a similar outline, on a smaller scale. Usually one or two sentences setting up the encounter. If I know when and where the encounter is likely to occur, I bullet point the date, the weather, and the phase of the moon. If the encounter is tied to a specific location, I do a few bullet points of "boxed text," but I usually keep that in my head. Then a few bullet points about what the NPCs/monsters will do proactively, and how they'll respond to the most likely player actions. I also try to come up with all the little details that might be relevant (the names of minor NPCs in the scene, for example) even if they're unlikely to be used, because those details really bring the game to life, and I find it hard to come up with them on the spot. (Sometimes I think writing the little things down is more important than the major plot points or even stat blocks--I can fake those things more convincingly than the details!)

Follow that up with necessary supporting data--stat blocks; who's who lists of NPCs, etc., and you're golden!

Now here's the kicker: I usually only write down enough encounters to take me through the next game session, with maybe a couple extra to spare in case the players make better time than expected. After all, I have the single bullet points in the overall outline as my road map. When I'm preparing for the next session, I review my overall bullet points (what the bad guys want to achieve, the three acts, etc.), and I detail the next few encounters as above. Because I haven't already committed to too much detail, these encounters can be designed in reaction to what has happened in the story so far.

I guess the bottom line is this: Don't write yourself into a corner. Keep things loose and flexible. Nail down the details that have nothing to do with player decisions (NPC names and the like), while keeping the rest of it vague. Allow yourself to develop a lot of the content at the gaming table, instead of beforehand. Give yourself a road map, but don't plan any details too far in advance. And make liberal use of the bullet point!

(Oh, one more thing: Bullet points are also much easier to reference in play than dense running text.)


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 11, 2009)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I reject the notion that you must have a "win" condition in order to have a game. Or rather, [that?] the win condition must be directly tied to the events of the game.



Dissociation actually seems to have been the *preferred* mode among hip "story-telling" game designers for some time!

The approach tends to feel to me like nothing so much as a visit to a casino. It does not, for me, enhance role-playing or narrative. I would rather go quite free-form (the _Dark Cults_ card game having succeeded in my experience) -- or use *actual rules of drama* in the game.

However it's done, we need some element of uncertainty and significant choice in order to play a game. Just going along for a ride on the GM's roller coaster is something else: an entertainment.


----------



## maddman75 (Nov 11, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> If an activity is fun for someone how is it not valid to call it entertainment? Not being a game is a different argument from what constitutes valid entertainment.




Because it is an attempt to invalidate someone else's way of playing the game.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 11, 2009)

> Because it is an attempt to invalidate someone else's way of playing the game.



Ah, no. See, you're taking as privileged -- as unquestionable _credo_ apart from which is only heresy -- the claim that activity X _is_ in the first place a "way of playing the game".

How then is there any such thing as "the game" to play? How can Wizards of the Coast have anything to sell, much less something different enough from Flying Buffalo's product to warrant getting lawyered up over trademark?

"We played Hungry Hungry Hippos for three hours. Then I was slain by an elf."


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 11, 2009)

oops


----------



## IvanDragonov (Nov 12, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> My answer applies to homemade adventures and would at the least require some polish before it would be truly useful to published adventure authors.
> 
> Bullet points are your friend. They help you focus on what's actually important without getting bogged down in details. They keep things succinct, maximizing your flexibility when you're actually playing. They discourage a level of detail that devolves your encounter idea into a scene script.
> 
> ...




I totally agree. I only ever have a basic outline of what is going to happen. Basically you need to know how your NPCs are going to react to things, i.e. personality and I always know what the NPCs will do to push the plot along. You also need to have PCs who like to PLAY adventures for the plot, not just hack and slash and disrupt things. I also take PC suggestions for a campaign (group of seperate adventures equaling one main epic, like LOTR or War of the Lance, i think) and they each get to put a certain aspect in, which keeps them actually interested and eager to play. Some have been to have a shrunken head involved, so a villian had a powerful artifact that was a shrunken head. Another was to have a villian who became a good guy kill another villian so that happened. PCs should love to play the game and adventures. Having random encounters is like original D&D in dungeons, it gets boring like that I think. That's why Greyhawk made such a huge splash when it came out. Just some thoughts!


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 12, 2009)

> Basically you need to know how your NPCs are going to react to things, i.e. personality



Yep! The actual tenor of response -- just how positive or negative -- may vary in accordance with a reaction roll or suchlike, but a good basic idea of what would be in character is a very powerful resource. I gather that I'm not eccentric in forming such a character sketch prior to writing a scene in fiction, either.

Somehow, a lot of RPG scenario designers get it into their heads to put the cart before the horse in that regard!



> Having random encounters is like original D&D in dungeons, it gets boring like that I think. That's why Greyhawk made such a huge splash when it came out.



I can't make head or tail of what you're trying to say here, but the phrasing vaguely suggests certain slanders often hurled (in disregard for actual history) at a game I have enjoyed for more than 30 years.


----------



## IvanDragonov (Nov 12, 2009)

I didn't mean it like that. What I meant was random hack and slash gets old after a while. Heck I played old school d&d for years! And Greyhawk made a huge impact, because it was the first setting that was out of dungeons and instead took place in a city. Everything needs at least an inkling of plot (returning to what I was saying before because I have the attention span of a goldfish)


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 12, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> I can't make head or tail of what you're trying to say here, but the phrasing vaguely suggests certain slanders often hurled (in disregard for actual history) at a game I have enjoyed for more than 30 years.




At least he didn't say it was just "a visit to a casino" for him, eh?


----------



## Hussar (Nov 12, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sorry, Hobo, but what Hussar described and the game rules he used to back up that description are at odds.  What Hussar described was not a game; it was discussion about a theme and/or making up a story about a theme.
> /snip
> In any event, examination of Hussar's claims demonstrated that it was his description that was at odds with being a game, not the game itself or (presumably) the playstyle.
> 
> ...




Except for one very salient point which you glossed over.

The players, through the use of twists, can resolve any conflict at any point in time to their own benefit.  Twists uber ales is a quote you missed (look under the conflicts chapter).

For example, an Old Worlder, with no technological advances or gadgets is faced by a battle mech armed with weapons capable of blowing a ship out of orbit from the ground.  The old worlder is a PC and the battle mech is an NPC.

The Old Worlder wins EVERY SINGLE TIME.  He simply uses his twists and the mech pilot loses.  NO MATTER WHAT.  Now, the twists might cost him something down the road, but, for this particular scenario, the Old Worlder wins every time.  There is no unknown.  He's a PC, he wins.  End of story.

The idea that you must have a win condition to have a game is just wrong.  Take a video game where, the longer you play, the more difficult it becomes until it becomes so difficult you cannot win.  You know the end result of starting this game every single time.

I suppose the arguement could be made that survival time is the win condition, but, that's outside of the game.  The game itself doesn't measure that.  There's no survival clock in Pacman or in a pinball game.  "Beat my last score" might be a goal that the player comes up with for himself, but, that's the player deciding a win condition, not the game.  

"Keep this going as long as possible" is certainly a style of play for lots and lots of games.  For Sufficiently Advanced, you have the same thing.  How long can the players keep the scenario going before someone hits the eject button and takes the story in a totally different direction?

If that qualifies as your win condition, I suppose then that's fair enough.

But, pulling quotes out of context of a text you've barely read is not proving your point RC.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 12, 2009)

Hobo said:


> But it is a game, so why would you try to say that it's not?  What possible agenda could someone have to try and exclude games that aren't exactly like the kinds of game that they already like to play?




Hobo, I don't think anyone is trying to oppress you or others by defining "game." However, I cannot be in a discussion and permit game to mean absolutely anything. Therefore, it behooves you to admit there might be limitations on what can rightly be called a game, because a word only has meaning if that meaning is shared between the people communicating. As has already been pointed out, game already has a lot of history within the RPG community as taking a certain form, and in the wider world, games have various definitions and connotations that bear on what we would consider a roleplaying _game_. Unless you use the definition of game as being "something frivalous," virtually every definition involves amusement, purposeful activity, challenge, and surprise. 

Further, although there are various definitions of tabletop RPGs, they all come to general agreement on the vast majority of games. The further you depart from those shared premises, the more likely you are to not meet someone's definition. At the point at which an RPG is played in a fashion that the most logical result is not permitted, you have errored for virtually any RPG. 

Playing a scene, with a beginning and a foregone conclusion, could be a game, but it's not a roleplaying game, because in a roleplaying game, a character has full freedom of action. If you wanted to be really picky, you might call it a role-taking game, but honestly there is little reason to call it something other than a storytelling game, or improvisation. If, for instance, the Joker's defeat is a known destination, then you are playing an improvisational storytelling game in which you determine how that occurs, using dice or whatever as aids in play. However, Batman's player is not really roleplaying, except in the most literal sense of playing a role, like an actor. The player is not inhabiting Batman, but rather, inhabiting a playing space. At the point at which you have two co-authors writing a story, you are not playing a roleplaying game. 

The moment logic is allowed to triumph over the framework, you have restored meaningful choice to the equation. Being literally unable to change the course of Normandy because they are not capable still leaves the players in full command of their characters.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 12, 2009)

Heh.



			
				Ariosto said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by Hussar
> I reject the notion that you must have a "win" condition in order to have a game. Or rather, [that?] the win condition must be directly tied to the events of the game.




If you're going to try to correct my English, please, learn the language first.  That phrase does not need a "that" and in fact, "that" can be removed from nearly every sentence where it appears without problem.  



> "We played Hungry Hungry Hippos for three hours. Then I was slain by an elf."




Well, I played Jenga for three hours then got eaten by a zombie.  Most people seem to think that's a pretty decent game.  



> The approach tends to feel to me like nothing so much as a visit to a casino. It does not, for me, enhance role-playing or narrative. I would rather go quite free-form (the Dark Cults card game having succeeded in my experience) -- or use actual rules of drama in the game.
> 
> However it's done, we need some element of uncertainty and significant choice in order to play a game. Just going along for a ride on the GM's roller coaster is something else: an entertainment.




Who is this "we" you refer to?  I certainly don't need that.  I am perfectly happy using an RPG in order to explore themes and concepts in a manner which does not require me to adhere to random polyhedrals for conflict resolution.  You might need that.  And that's fine.  I got zero problem with that.

However, please, it's not the only way of gaming.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 12, 2009)

> At least he didn't say it was just "a visit to a casino" for him, eh?



I *resemble* that remark! Dissociated bets and probability-crunching exercises were what *my* "dramatic" design became, too much for my taste.

What the heck else is the game component to be _about_ when by design it's divorced from simulation? This is also the problem with "Eurostyle" board games. They might in some vague sense suggest railway journeys or tropical farming or whatever -- but it's a very thin veneer, underneath which "there's no there there".

Minimizing the mechanics so that they don't draw attention to themselves so much as provide inspiration for the story -- as in Dark Cults -- is one way to go. Bringing specific fictional content to the fore, as in Tales of the Arabian Nights, is another.

What I initially hoped to do was have Rules of Drama themselves govern the game: foreshadowing, poetic justice, that sort of thing. I have yet to see _that_ fully implemented!


----------



## Hussar (Nov 12, 2009)

Pawsplay said:
			
		

> Playing a scene, with a beginning and a foregone conclusion, could be a game, but it's not a roleplaying game, because in a roleplaying game, a character has full freedom of action.




No, they don't.  They never, ever do.  Their freedom of action is limited by a thousand different factors.  

However, "freedom of action" is not a prerequisite for a role playing game.  It might be a pre-requisite for a role playing game you want to play, and that's fine.  But, in a game where the outcome is a given, you can still play a role, you can still make meaningful choices, just not ones that affect the eventual outcome.

Having less choices does not make something not a roleplaying game.

For some, role playing game is about role assumption (not that this is universal) and exploring the feelings and whatnot that come with that role.  It's not about solving the riddle or completing the quest.  That's secondary to why they come to the table.  

And, yes, they are playing a role playing game.  Not in the way you typically play and that's fine.  But, not playing the way you do does not make something not a role playing game either.

Am I playing a game?  Yup.
Am I assuming a role within the fictional universe of that game?  Yup

I'm playing a role playing game.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 12, 2009)

Hussar said:
			
		

> If you're going to try to correct my English, please, learn the language first. That phrase does not need a "that" and in fact, "that" can be removed from nearly every sentence where it appears without problem.



Easy, killer!

Do you *reject the the notion that* the win condition must be directly tied to the events of the game?

Or *is your view*, "Rather, the win condition must be directly tied to the events of the game."?


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 12, 2009)

Hussar said:


> No, they don't.  They never, ever do.  Their freedom of action is limited by a thousand different factors.
> 
> However, "freedom of action" is not a prerequisite for a role playing game.  It might be a pre-requisite for a role playing game you want to play, and that's fine.  But, in a game where the outcome is a given, you can still play a role, you can still make meaningful choices, just not ones that affect the eventual outcome.




Freedom of action is a prerequisite for a role playing game. Being able to affect any given outcome is not a prerequisite for freedom of action. A meanginful choice means you get to choose, not that you get to define the terms of the choice.



> Having less choices does not make something not a roleplaying game.




Correct. Having less kinds of choices, however, does. To be an RPG, any action that is conceivable within the setting requires a resolution. That is part of what an RPG is. In an RPG, saying, "You are not allowed to jump off the building," is not allowed. You can jump off the building, you can try and fail to jump off the building, you could discover that you cannot jump... but you can still make the decision to jump and demand the GM tell you the outcome.



> For some, role playing game is about role assumption (not that this is universal) and exploring the feelings and whatnot that come with that role.  It's not about solving the riddle or completing the quest.  That's secondary to why they come to the table.




Sure, and I'm one of them.



> And, yes, they are playing a role playing game.  Not in the way you typically play and that's fine.  But, not playing the way you do does not make something not a role playing game either.
> 
> Am I playing a game?  Yup.
> Am I assuming a role within the fictional universe of that game?  Yup
> ...




You're equivocating. Ever played Monopoly?

Are you playing a game? Yup.
Am I assuming a role witin the fictional universe of that game? Yup. I'm an aspiring hotel monopolist.

I'm playing a role playing game! 

Once again, there is a problem presented by your assertion you are allowed to define terms however you want.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 12, 2009)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Who is this "we" you refer to? I certainly don't need that. I am perfectly happy using an RPG in order to explore themes and concepts in a manner which does not require me to adhere to random polyhedrals for conflict resolution. You might need that. And that's fine. I got zero problem with that.
> 
> However, please, it's not the only way of gaming.




Look, it's just a well established convention in the hobby that when we speak of a *game* we mean something a bit more specific than the vague "an amusement or pastime". It's a bit much to expect that we're all totally ignorant of conventional usage of the term.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 12, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Playing a scene, with a beginning and a foregone conclusion, could be a game, but it's not a roleplaying game, because in a roleplaying game, a character has full freedom of action. If you wanted to be really picky, you might call it a role-taking game, but honestly there is little reason to call it something other than a storytelling game, or improvisation.



If I might interject here for a moment: would it be more accurate to say that as long as the characters still get to make meaningful choices which result in different outcomes, even if all of the outcomes have certain similar elements, it is still a role-playing game?

Consider the following (admittedly fairly contrived) scenario: the characters are chasing after a fleeing villian when they come across a group of farmers menaced by a band of hobgoblins. The players could choose to ignore the farmers' plight and continue to chase after the villain, in which case they are likely to capture him after a hard fight, or they can stop to help the farmers, in which case the villian will escape them. However, the DM has decided that if the villain escapes from the PCs, he will encounter another group of bounty hunters who will capture him instead. Further assume that the players are experienced enough to know that they have no real chance of success if they split the party in order to pursue both objectives, so they must effectively choose between helping the farmers or continuing to pursue the villian. 

Now, in both cases, the villian is captured. The only difference is who does the capturing. Is this still a role-playing game?

Now add a further twist: if the players decide to continue pursuing the villian, a mounted patrol of guardsmen come by shortly after they leave the scene and saves the farmers so that even that outcome remains unchanged regardless of the players' choice. Effectively, the players' choice becomes whether they want to be known as the heroes who captured the villian or the heroes who saved the farmers. Is this still a role-playing game?


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 12, 2009)

FireLance said:


> If I might interject here for a moment: would it be more accurate to say that as long as the characters still get to make meaningful choices which result in different outcomes, even if all of the outcomes have certain similar elements, it is still a role-playing game?




Sure. The only qualifications are that it be a real choice and the consequences of the choice be logical.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 12, 2009)

> And Greyhawk made a huge impact, because it was the first setting that was out of dungeons and instead took place in a city.



*City State of the Invincible Overlord* in the *Wilderlands* preceded the World of Greyhawk Folio and later Boxed Set, neither of which particularly "took place in a city". If you're thinking of the eventual City of Greyhawk boxed set, that was a _really_ late entry in the fantasy-game city field!


> What I meant was random hack and slash gets old after a while. Heck I played old school d&d for years!



See, the way you put that, it sort of looks like an equation of "random hack and slash" with "old school D&D". Which is, you know, a bit misleading as the XP incentives in OS D&D are to _avoid_ random fights and get treasures with as little trouble as possible. That's sort of the opposite of "new school" 2e, 3e and 4e, in which wandering monsters are "XP on the hoof" and slaughter is the primary way to advance.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 12, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> What makes movies and novels and comic books and plays and so on engaging isn't the actual possibility of defeat, but the perception of that possibility. Combine that with challenges and plenty of twists and turns along the way, and doubt about the outcome becomes part of the experience.
> 
> In my experience, RPGs really aren't any different.



And in my experience, they are quite different: in fact, that difference is one of the fundamental appeals for me of roleplaying games _vis-à-vis_ movies, novels. comic books, _et cetera_.

I have zero say in how a story or a movie or a comic book plays out. I have no control over the choices of any of the characters; I can only discover what the author has in mind for them.

Playing a roleplaying game is nothing like that experience. I control one or more of the characters, and I decide how they react to the situations that unfold in the course of play. My skill as a player and the luck of the dice determine what happens when that character attempts to do something in the game-world.

For me, that experience is nothing like reading a story or watching a film.







			
				CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> Like fiction and movies, they rely on the suspension of disbelief, and part of that suspension is ignoring the fact that the protagonists almost alway prevail.



But you can play roleplaying games in such a way that the presumption of the protagonists prevailing is removed, eliminating the need for suspension of disbelief and further distancing the experience of playing a roleplaying game from reading stories _et al_.







			
				CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> And when you get right down to is, the RPG experience usually isn't about whether you're going to win or lose in the end anyway--it's about _what you're going to do next_ to get out of the current sticky situation. The perceived possibility of defeat adds to the tension that makes those decisions interesting. *I suppose the real possibility of defeat supports that perception*, but I don't think it's necessary for most people.



That "real possibility of defeat," as opposed to the "perceived possibility," is one of those fundamental appeals of roleplaying games that I alluded to in the beginning of my post. It's one of the elements that separates gaming from reading a book or watching a film.







CharlesRyan said:


> _My_ point is that even though we know the outcome of the battle, the first 24 minutes of Saving Private Ryan are still engrossing, thrilling, and intense. In fiction, a preordained outcome is not antithetical to enjoyment--in fact, it really doesn't have much to do with it one way or another.



We may know the outcome of the battle, but with a couple of exceptions we don't know the outcome of the battle on the characters on the screen. We can surmise that Toms Hanks and Sizemore are going to get off the beach, but the decision to cast relative unknowns in the supporting roles means that when we see faces in the LCVP as the landing craft races for the beach, we don't know who lives and who dies when the ramp drops. Part of my investment in that initial scene in the theatre, aside from the very visceral reaction of considering my grandfather landing on Palau and Saipan, comes from not knowing the fates of the many soldiers introduced in that scene.

But again, however engrossing or intense or horrifying that scene may be, the experience of it is very different than having the ability to say in the context of playing a game, "Okay, I'm tossing a smoke grenade to cover my dash from the hedgehog to the sand embankment, and once I get there, I'll prep a rifle grenade to drop on that machinegun nest."

Two very different experiences.







			
				CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> And I think the same thing is true with RPGs. When you get down to it, what really matters when you're gathered around the table isn't _how will this all end?_, it's _what's going to happen next?_.



When you know that your character can fail and fail epically, then _how will this end?_ really matters because there may not be a _what's going to happen next?_ for that character.







CharlesRyan said:


> Why do you play RPGs? There are much better game categories for honing your game-playing skills.



Why do you play RPGs? There are much better media for creating shared fiction.

As for me, I enjoy the game part of "roleplaying game" as much as I do the "roleplaying" part. There are rules to master, tactics and strategies to test, skill to be gained.


----------



## Gizmoduck5000 (Nov 12, 2009)

What a load of horse dung.

If you want to create a work of narrative excellence...then forgo the rulebooks and dice and just write a damn book.

If you want to create a work of compelling theater...then try out for a stage play.

Both offer potentially more tangible rewards than an RPG...last I checked, they don't give out Pulitzers or Tonys for "best roleplaying game."

We play games for one purpose above all else...to have _fun_. Some people find the more thespy/talky aspects of the game more fun than the hack n' slash which is perfectly fine...but for the OP to claim that beer n' pretzel gamers are "missing out" because they don't share his/her playstyle is nothing more than pretentious, self-important ass-hattery of the worst order.

_"It's not ROLL-playing it's ROLE-playing!"_

We see this little rhetorical gem bandied about constantly on gaming forums...but in actuality, neither is correct. It's a roleplaying GAME...and as someone much more eloquent than I has stated:

_"Anyone who prioritizes artistic expression over fun in a GAME has their head so far up their own ass, they can tongue their tonsils from behind."_


----------



## fuzzlewump (Nov 12, 2009)

Gizmoduck5000 said:


> We play games for one purpose above all else...to have _fun_. Some people find the more thespy/talky aspects of the game more fun than the hack n' slash which is perfectly fine...but for the OP to claim that beer n' pretzel gamers are "missing out" because they don't share his/her playstyle is nothing more than pretentious, self-important ass-hattery of the worst order.



I don't disagree that it is pretentious and self-important, but is it true? Would people who play 'beer and pretzel' games have more fun with story elements? It's an honest question for me, doesn't every D&D game have some amount of story element? Do you name your character? Do you ever speak in character? Can you call your character something more, even if only an ounce more, than a pile of numbers?

I don't know what you're implying by 'beer and pretzel' exactly, but I think that anyone playing D&D will have more fun to have at least that 'ounce more' of story. Maybe it's a "my playstyle can beat up your playstyle" argument, but I can't imagine someone wanting to imagine silhouettes floating around and making 'attacks' on other silhouettes until one of them disappears. You probably want to imagine fantasy monsters and heroes or something of that sort to go along with the numbers.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 12, 2009)

The contention is really over whether to let story emerge from (in being told about) events driven by players playing their roles pretty much as real people in a real world ... or whether to impose an artificial plot, so that the "players" are that more in the theatrical sense of actors following a script in order to present a preconceived story.


----------



## Gizmoduck5000 (Nov 12, 2009)

fuzzlewump said:


> Maybe it's a "my playstyle can beat up your playstyle" argument, but I can't imagine someone wanting to imagine silhouettes floating around and making 'attacks' on other silhouettes until one of them disappears. You probably want to imagine fantasy monsters and heroes or something of that sort to go along with the numbers.




It absolutely IS a "my playstyle can beat up your playstyle" argument...and as always it's an argument completely without merit.

Maybe there are people out there that want nothing more than to play a set of numbers beating on another set of numbers...who cares? It's not like you have to play at their table, is it?

Assigning value judgments to people's hobbies is arrogant and ultimately masturbatory.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 12, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Except for one very salient point which you glossed over.
> 
> The players, through the use of twists, can resolve any conflict at any point in time to their own benefit.  Twists uber ales is a quote you missed (look under the conflicts chapter).




Didn't ignore it; the designers warn you that using it to resolve the main conflict can easily remove you from the game.

In SA, it is clear that the players are intended to have a great deal of control over the framework, including a high level of control over what the victory conditions are, and what the means for resolving those victory conditions are.  That is not the same as saying, as you did, that the outcome was known aforehand.  

Nor does your "very salient point" make the outcome known aforehand (assuming, as you did earlier, and as the designers do, that the player actually wishes to engage with the game).  Shifting the terrain doesn't make your argument any stronger.

Again, your example is a critical fail toward demonstrating your position, while it is a good example reinforcing mine.  

I realize that I didn't prove my point _*to you*_, but then I cannot conceive of what would actually do so.  The game is available for anyone to examine, and encourage them to do so.  They can easily make up their own minds.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 12, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Playing a scene, with a beginning and a foregone conclusion, could be a game, but it's not a roleplaying game, because in a roleplaying game, a character has full freedom of action.





Oddly enough, for all of Hussar's claim to the contrary, the game he cites allows for a greater range of unknown outcome, due to a greater range of control over the framework, than is typical in a game like D&D.

I believe pawsplay is wrong when he makes the above comment, because all games exist within a framework, and no game allows "full freedom of action" (in that the player's actions are always constrained by the framework).  In 1e D&D, for example, the framework tells my magic-user what spells he can cast, and how many times per day.  The framework is actually quite constrictive.

Normandy can be the framework for a game that allows a very wide range of action -- wider, perhaps, than in the typical RPG -- while still leaving the framework (the wider historical picture) intact.  That would not impede its being an RPG at all.


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 12, 2009)

Hobo said:


> But it is a game, so why would you try to say that it's not? What possible agenda could someone have to try and exclude games that aren't exactly like the kinds of game that they already like to play?






maddman75 said:


> Because it is an attempt to invalidate someone else's way of playing the game.




Activities that are not games are excluded from the _games _category by virtue of thier nature. No one needs to do this. 

Perhaps there is a mistake in terminology going on. Success and failure are NOT the same as winning and losing. Winning or losing a game requires that game to have a defined end along with victory/loss conditions that can be objectively measured. D&D is not a competetive game. The game does not have a defined endpoint and specific victory conditions. If the PC's defeat the big bad guy and save the world then they have achieved a measure of _success _but not victory. Likewise if several PC's die while attempting to eliminate the big bad then the group experiences a measure of _failure_ but this is not a loss. 

Either way, the game can continue. The "end" of the game is entirely subjective. Even after a TPK the players can roll up new characters and carry on.

Gameplay and resolution mechanics exist because the outcome of certain actions are in doubt. If there is no doubt, then there is no need to roll the bones in the first place. The illusion of doubt can only produce the illusion of a game. In a fixed boxing match those who agree to the fix are removing the sport from the activity. The boxers still throw punches and the crowd still cheers but there is no sport taking place. The match has become an exhibition (usually to make money). If the crowd is on board with the arrangement and still enjoys watching it, does that put the sport back into the activity? I think not.

In a similar vein, engaging in a "game" in which the PC's _will_ be successful regardless of the twists and turns employed to get there does indeed take the _gaming_ part of the activity off the table. This in no way invalidates such activity from being fun or worthwhile for those involved,  but merely from being a _game._


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 12, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> The contention is really over whether to let story emerge from (in being told about) events driven by players playing their roles pretty much as real people in a real world ... or whether to impose an artificial plot, so that the "players" are that more in the theatrical sense of actors following a script in order to present a preconceived story.




Although I agree that Hussar is crouching the argument in these terms, I find nothing in SA that contradicts "let story emerge from (in being told about) events driven by players playing their roles pretty much as real people in a real world".

And, contrary to his assertation SA uses dice.

And, contrary to his implied assertation, dice (or any other random number generator) are not needed to provide uncertainty of outcome.  Witness chess, checkers, and go.

The only conclusion I can draw here is that Hussar has not actually paid close attention to the structure of the activity he is participating in, and has not been honest with himself or with us about his level of understanding of the same.

(And that's not a poke; I've been guilty of the same in the past, and will no doubt be guilty of the same in the future.  AFAICT, we all have.)



RC


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 12, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> I can't make head or tail of what you're trying to say here, but the phrasing vaguely suggests certain slanders often hurled (in disregard for actual history) at a game I have enjoyed for more than 30 years.



That's absurd.  He offered up an opinion (the "I think" qualifier) to basic dungeoncrawling had gotten boring.

I find it boring too.  It's not slanderous to say that I think dungeoncrawling is boring, it's a valid opinion.  It's also not personal no matter how long you've played the game, and the "actual history" as evidenced by the changing fads in game design seem to suggest that that is exactly what happened.  That's why the so-called "Hickman Revolution" was so popular; folks (in general) were _tired_ of disassociated dungeoncrawling.  It was (and remains, IME) a playstyle in decline.


----------



## Janx (Nov 12, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> The contention is really over whether to let story emerge from (in being told about) events driven by players playing their roles pretty much as real people in a real world ... or whether to impose an artificial plot, so that the "players" are that more in the theatrical sense of actors following a script in order to present a preconceived story.




I think you just missed the point of the conversation.  I don't think ANYBODY in here is advocating "an artificial plot, so that the "players" are that more in the theatrical sense of actors following a script in order to present a preconceived story."

Folks advocating plot are NOT using the definition of plot as "script" (def #4 if I recall).  They are using the definition where it sumarrizes the situation.

If we're talking about potato salad recipes, it would be polite of you to contribute to recipe discussion, not food poisoning.  A brief reminder to refrigerate is sufficient advice to avoid the perils or improper potato salad processing.  Otherwise going on and on about food poisoning is just thread crapping.

If you're incredulous that we can run a game with a plot, ask for examples.  Just please, stop with this plot=railroad crap that doesn't move the discussion along.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 12, 2009)

Hobo said:


> It's not slanderous to say that I think dungeoncrawling is boring, it's a valid opinion.  It's also not personal no matter how long you've played the game




Hobo is correct.  Personal preference is something everyone has, and taking offense because someone's personal preference doesn't match our own is ultimately absurd.

(Of course, that doesn't mean you can redefine "dungeon crawl" to mean "drinking in a pub" because you enjoy drinking  in a pub and you want to convince your buds who enjoy dungeon crawling that they've always enjoyed drinking in a pub, too -- they just think they were doing something else due to nostalgia.   

It is perfectly valid, IMHO, to expect terms to carry some form of meaning.  Otherwise terminology is useless.  I am not in favour of accepting that "X means anything I want X to mean" simply because it seems politically correct to accept that sort of statement [in that otherwise you might be accused of pedentry, dismissing someone's playstyle, or whatever].  YMMV.)


RC


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 12, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Hobo, I don't think anyone is trying to oppress you or others by defining "game." However, I cannot be in a discussion and permit game to mean absolutely anything.



Don't be melodramatic; I don't feel oppressed.  However, I cannot be in a discussion in which common usage of the word "game" is ignored in favor of some more limited definition that suits the purpose of the guy trying to coin it, but no one else.  You're trying to limit the definition of game in such a way that commonly accepted games are excluded.  The flippant discussion aside, there is no "win condition" to Spin the Bottle or Truth or Dare, for example.  Therefore, saying that a game must have a "win condition" or it isn't a game is patently and obviously false, unless you try to say that Spin the Bottle and Truth or Dare are not games.  Since such a claim is assinine, the claim was put forward that actually there are win conditions, but I hope that wasn't put forth seriously, because, c'mon.  That's one of the worst cases of special pleading I've read in a long time.


			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Playing a scene, with a beginning and a foregone conclusion, could be a game, but it's not a roleplaying game, because in a roleplaying game, a character has full freedom of action.



That's another easily falsifiable claim.  Of course in a roleplaying game, a character doesn't _necessarily_ have full freedom of action.  In almost every game I've ever been in, the game has had all kinds of limitations, from the obvious ("no, you can't build a giant laser to write your name on the moon; this is D&D and you're a 1st level halfling rogue") to the local and situational ("No, I don't allow any male players to play female characters; I've had too many problems with them") to the mechanical ("I said you're a 1st level halfling rogue!  No, you cannot cast fireball at the goblins!")

Because Hussar's example restricts freedom of action in different ways than you're used to, you (apparently) aren't seeing the dichotomy; but your game has all kinds of restrictions on freedom of action too.  They just fade into the background because you're used to them.

So using that qualifier is easily falsifiable, and creating a new label because "that's not a roleplaying game" is a bad idea.  Back in my day, if a game came out like that, we'd just say, "that's a really weird concept for a roleplaying game.  I don't like it.  No thanks."  Where this idea came from that we must now redefine roleplaying games specifically to exclude games we don't like is a mystery to me.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 12, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Sure. The only qualifications are that it be a real choice and the consequences of the choice be logical.



:shrug:  You obviously just made that up, though, is the problem.  That's not a qualifier for a roleplaying game.  It might be a qualifier to a _good_ roleplaying game, but I've played in plenty (and mostly not enjoyed them, but that's neither here nor there) where that was not true.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 12, 2009)

A note on what ExploderWizard said, above:

In an RPG, there are generally games nestled within games.  For example, each combat can be viewed as a single game, with victory conditions such as survival, killing the bad guys, avoiding a TPK, etc.  The victory conditions are subject to change as the combat goes on.

Likewise, each round within that combat can be viewed as its own game, where the victory conditions measure your effectiveness in the round.

Likewise, each session, each adventure, each arc, etc., can have victory conditions while containing within them an almost infinite number of shorter "games" that each has its own set of victory conditions.

"Victory conditions" do not imply that the RPG is over; they imply that the participants can measure some level of success or failure.

The same is true in games like chess or Monopoly.  Capturing your opponent's queen is a measurable victory, even if you ultimately lose the game.  Landing on Boardwalk after your opponent built hotels there is a measurable failure in Monopoly.


RC


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 12, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> That "real possibility of defeat," as opposed to the "perceived possibility," is one of those fundamental appeals of roleplaying games that I alluded to in the beginning of my post. It's one of the elements that separates gaming from reading a book or watching a film.



Ah, but see here you are failing to separate what _you_ like about RPGs from what is _inherent_ and _objective_ about RPGs.  

I like that too; don't get me wrong.  But just because that's what I like, I don't try to claim that that's an objective quality of RPGs.  It's just a quality of an RPG that I would be interested in playing.

Also (and not directed at you, Shaman), I think we've kinda lost sight here of the fact that Hussar's admittedly kinda extreme example aside, we're talking about GMs who like to plan a bit of plot into the game.  How we got to such an extreme of "that's not even a game anymore!" I'm not sure (and I don't have the patience to go back through the thread and find out).  I think these rather extremist claims really don't help meaningful discussion.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 12, 2009)

Hobo said:


> The flippant discussion aside, there is no "win condition" to Spin the Bottle or Truth or Dare, for example.  Therefore, saying that a game must have a "win condition" or it isn't a game is patently and obviously false, unless you try to say that Spin the Bottle and Truth or Dare are not games.  Since such a claim is assinine, the claim was put forward that actually there are win conditions, but I hope that wasn't put forth seriously, because, c'mon.  That's one of the worst cases of special pleading I've read in a long time.




Hobo, if it will help, I will be happy to go into Truth or Dare to some extent, and I will be happy to discuss how game play has win conditions, as well as how player choices can raise the stakes for both winners and losers.  If you are willing to discuss this with an open mind, I think I can demonstrate to you why Truth or Dare is a game, and why it meets the criteria described for being a game.  

In doing so, I think a better understanding of Spin the Bottle will emerge as well.

Heck, after laying out ground rules, we could actually _*play*_ Truth or Dare on EN World, and if doing so does not convince you that there are victory conditions in the game, nothing will!


RC


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 12, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Hobo is correct.



I'm tempted to put that in my sig.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 12, 2009)

Hobo said:


> I'm tempted to put that in my sig.




Feel free.  I call 'em as I see 'em.

Actually, that's the third time in two days:  (1) Your take on The Incredibles is supported by the commentary of the creators, (2) your take on Dracula is supported by my reading (and, apparently, Umbran agreed as well that your take is not mutually exclusive, but supportive, of his), and (3) now.

Take it for what it's worth.  You're on a roll.  


RC


----------



## maddman75 (Nov 12, 2009)

Gizmoduck5000 said:


> What a load of horse dung.
> 
> If you want to create a work of narrative excellence...then forgo the rulebooks and dice and just write a damn book.
> 
> ...




This is smug, arrogant and insulting.  This might come as a huge shock to you, but my and my friends play games centered around stories and dealing with themes _because we think its fun!_

Playing in a sandbox is not in any way shape or form 'better', 'superior', or 'more pure' than playing with dramatics.  It is far more fun for my friends and I.  Who exactly are you to tell us that we have our heads up our asses?

As for defining characteristics of an RPG, I'd propose "A game that creates fictional space the players can explore and experience.  The game rules determine events in that fictional space, though their results can be overridden if it would violate the fiction."

A wordy way to say 'has a GM or other means to remove nonsensical results'.  You can play Monopoly and imagine yourself as a real estate tycoon, but there's no accounting for giving a property to a player 'because it would make sense'.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 12, 2009)

Hobo said:


> Ah, but see here you are failing to separate what _you_ like about RPGs from what is _inherent_ and _objective_ about RPGs.



Well, let's take another look at that.







The Shaman said:


> That "real possibility of defeat," as opposed to the "perceived possibility," is one of those fundamental appeals of roleplaying games *that I alluded to in the beginning of my post*. It's one of the elements that separates gaming from reading a book or watching a film.



Hmm, there's a specific reference to something I wrote earlier in my post.

What was that all about again?







The Shaman said:


> And *in my experience*, they are quite different: in fact, that difference is one of the fundamental appeals *for me* of roleplaying games _vis-à-vis_ movies, novels. comic books, _et cetera_. . . . *For me*, that experience is nothing like reading a story or watching a film.



So actually, _taken in context_, it appears I was only talking about one person's experience and interests: my own.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 12, 2009)

I'd accept "A game that creates fictional space the players can explore and experience.  The game rules determine the outcome of some events in that fictional space, though the participants do not necessarily rely solely upon the game rules to determine outcomes."


RC


----------



## Umbran (Nov 12, 2009)

Several people here have gotten rude.

Is One True Wayism rude?  Yes.

Is responding with vitriol and nastiness rude?  Yes.

So, thread be warned - best behavior from this point on.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 12, 2009)

FireLance said:


> Consider the following (admittedly fairly contrived) scenario: the characters are chasing after a fleeing villian when they come across a group of farmers menaced by a band of hobgoblins. The players could choose to ignore the farmers' plight and continue to chase after the villain, in which case they are likely to capture him after a hard fight, or they can stop to help the farmers, in which case the villian will escape them. However, the DM has decided that if the villain escapes from the PCs, he will encounter another group of bounty hunters who will capture him instead. Further assume that the players are experienced enough to know that they have no real chance of success if they split the party in order to pursue both objectives, so they must effectively choose between helping the farmers or continuing to pursue the villian.
> 
> Now, in both cases, the villian is captured. The only difference is who does the capturing. Is this still a role-playing game?
> 
> Now add a further twist: if the players decide to continue pursuing the villian, a mounted patrol of guardsmen come by shortly after they leave the scene and saves the farmers so that even that outcome remains unchanged regardless of the players' choice. Effectively, the players' choice becomes whether they want to be known as the heroes who captured the villian or the heroes who saved the farmers. Is this still a role-playing game?



I'm not going to get into the debate about whether something constitutes a roleplaying game or not - _that way lies SAN loss_ - but I would like to comment on these outcomes: as a player, I might lose some faith in the referee if the situations played out the way they're outlined here.

The players and their characters made a meaningful choice, but the game-world remains _status quo ante_. If this happens over and over again, I would start to feel like my choices were pretty meaningless in the bigger picture, that the referee 's decided, "This is the way of it," and the actions of our characters don't carry meaningful consequences with respect to the world around the characters.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 12, 2009)

Shaman,

See if you like this example better:  http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...46-confession-i-like-plot-10.html#post4995334


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 12, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Shaman,
> 
> See if you like this example better:  http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...46-confession-i-like-plot-10.html#post4995334



Good scenario. I replied in the other thread.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 12, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> Good scenario. I replied in the other thread.




Thank you.  So did I.

RC


----------



## Gizmoduck5000 (Nov 12, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> This is smug, arrogant and insulting.  This might come as a huge shock to you, but my and my friends play games centered around stories and dealing with themes _because we think its fun!_




Yes...I am smug, arrogant and insulting.

I'm also completely right.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 12, 2009)

Gizmoduck5000 said:


> Yes...I am smug, arrogant and insulting.
> 
> I'm also completely right.




Gizmoduck5000, have you met Umbran yet?  I have a sneaking suspicion that you are about to!


RC


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 12, 2009)

Gizmoduck5000 said:


> Yes...I am smug, arrogant and insulting.
> 
> I'm also completely right.



Not really.  In order for your argument to have merit, you have to assume that artistic expression and fun are mutually exclusive terms.

Instead of the perfectly viable idea that maybe artistic expression _is_ fun to some players.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 12, 2009)

Hobo said:
			
		

> That's absurd.  He offered up an opinion (the "I think" qualifier) to basic dungeoncrawling had gotten boring.



As a matter of fact, he offered:


			
				IvanDragonov said:
			
		

> *Having random encounters is like original D&D in dungeons*, it gets boring like that I think.



I do not think my observation, concerning the part in bold here, and the historical use of such equations, was absurd. In any case, it certainly had nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's strictly personal opinion that "dungeoncrawling is boring"!


			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Hobo is correct.



Yes, but not _relevant_ to what he was addressing. It is correct not to beat one's wife, but that does not make it correct to throw out, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Answer yes or no!"

I did not take issue with -- or refer to at all, for that matter -- ID's preference. I did not claim that ID was slandering anything or anyone. I merely pointed out that the phrasing was reminiscent of certain invidious stereotypes, and how those are in fact misleading.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 12, 2009)

Alright, folks, the behavior in here has already yielded one temporary ban.  Let us have no more.

A guideline - if you are here to prove you are right, you are probably in the wrong place, and the attempt isn't likely to be constructive for anyone.  I'd strongly advise against continuing.  If you are here to discuss and exchange information, and to learn about how others do things, and why, then by all means continue.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 12, 2009)

I don't think quibbles over whether "plot" or "game" or "railroad" is the right word for something are likely to carry us forward.

I do not regard my job as DM to be "telling a story to" or "fulfilling the wishes of" the other participants. No doubt determined nit-picking could score the rhetorical point of "Aha! You're wrong about that!" -- but wouldn't it be silly? The meaning would probably be clear enough in contrast with the approach of a DM who does describe his or her view in such terms.

That said, the very confusion over the different meanings of plot suggests that there is some overlap in practical techniques. They all have to do with _planning_ of one sort or another!


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 12, 2009)

Right; if anything the discussion has suggested that despite the appearance of great rhetorical divides, good GMs probably really don't do things all that differently, practically speaking.


----------



## IvanDragonov (Nov 12, 2009)

All we have to say without the negativity is that DMs DM in different ways. Nothing is better or worse, it's ALL PERSONAL TASTE. Like I am more of a plot and role-playing DM than hack and slash and random encounters. But as a PC I love doing either or. My saying I felt hack and slash was old school D&D was in no way insulting or negative, but my personal thought. My buddy also DMed and he did it sooooo different than I did, but we loved PCing in each others campaign for different reasons and borrowed techniques from each other. That's what this should be, not some arguement over what is or is not plot or an RPG. Let's be friends!


----------



## Hussar (Nov 13, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> /snip
> 
> You're equivocating. Ever played Monopoly?
> 
> ...




Sorry, no.  There is no role assumption in Monopoly.  Nothing in the rules suggests that you would change your style of play based on whether you are the shoe or the battleship or the car.  There are no mechanics in place whatsoever that changes the game depending on whatever role you choose. 

That being said, you could certainly change Monopoly INTO a role playing game if you so chose.  However, the game, as it is written is most certainly not because there are no roles within the game.  Or rather, everyone is playing the exact identical role, which amounts to the same thing.



Raven Crowking said:


> Although I agree that Hussar is crouching the argument in these terms, I find nothing in SA that contradicts "let story emerge from (in being told about) events driven by players playing their roles pretty much as real people in a real world".
> 
> And, contrary to his assertation SA uses dice.




Buh what?  When did I assert that SA doesn't use dice?  



> And, contrary to his implied assertation, dice (or any other random number generator) are not needed to provide uncertainty of outcome.  Witness chess, checkers, and go.
> 
> The only conclusion I can draw here is that Hussar has not actually paid close attention to the structure of the activity he is participating in, and has not been honest with himself or with us about his level of understanding of the same.
> 
> ...




I think that your cursory reading of the rules has possibly been less than exhaustive.

In SA, at any point in time, the player can declare the scenario over.  He can use his twists to resolve the scenario to a satisfactory conclusion.  Any time.

Now, the game does include task resolution mechanics (and kinda neat ones at that) for the times when the player doesn't want to end the scenario.  

The goal of the game is to see how long you can keep the scenario in play.  So long as everyone is enjoying the scenario, no one has any reason to spend a twist to resolve the action.  However, if someone decides that he or she doesn't like what's happening right now, he can decide to change the scenario or simply declare the scenario or even resolved.

Going back to the Batman vs Joker example as it might be played out in SA.  You have the scenario of Batman hunting for the Joker.  The players play it out as per the mechanics, doing all sorts of Batmanny things.  So long as everyone at the table is enjoying the scenario, everything's groovy and it plays out pretty much like a standard RPG.  However, a few hours into the scenario, the player hits a brick wall.  He's painted himself into a corner and the Joker is going to escape.

The player spends a twist, narrates the effects, and the Joker is caught.  Now, there might be negative consequences here, because likely that will take a pretty large number of twists to accomplish and the only way to gain more twists is to take negative consequences for yourself.

And, now we get back into the idea of exploring the moral implications and whatnot of Batman's activities as his negative consequences result in the death of Jim Gordon (a very real possibilty in this system).

Or, take another example, taking the ring to Mount Doom.  The entire Lord of the Rings could be played out as an extended conflict.  In SA, conflicts are defined by rounds, same as most RPG's, but the length of a round varies depending on the conflict.  A round can easily be a month or even a year, depending on the nature of the conflict.  As you go back and forth, the participants lose reserve in each lost contest (the amount can vary from various sources) and when a participant runs out of reserve, they lose the conflict and the winner dictates the victory conditions.

It is also possible to regain reserve by switching into a faster time slice to resolve a separate, but related conflict.  Thus Mines of Moria would be a faster conflict possibly to gain resource.  So one and so forth.

However, since Frodo is a PC and Sauran is not, at any point in time, Frodo's player can simply declare the ring goes into the volcano.  Depending on how many twists he had to spend there, the negative consequences could easily be the loss of a finger and the Harrowing of the Shire.

As I said, the goal of the game isn't to determine the resolution of the event.  The event will be resolved.  It can't not be resolved.  Any player at any time can declare it so.  The goal of the game is to keep it interesting enough to the participants that no one does that.  So long as everyone is engaged in the scenario and no one wants to pull the rip cord, the scenario continues in a fairly traditional way.

Now, all that being said, in actual play, it rarely goes that way.  For one thing, it's a pretty rare player who will just declare that he hates the scenario and chucks it.  Most players are willing to try to make the scenario enjoyable for everyone.  The Frodo player just nixing the entire LotR is fairly unlikely.  But, it is entirely possible.

Probably the most telling example of what I'm talking about comes from the DM's advice section in the back:



			
				Sufficiently Advanced Page 161 said:
			
		

> For GMs:
> Sufficiently Advanced is a game that eats plot.
> Compared to other games, a few well placed Twists
> and the intelligent application of godlike abilities can
> ...




Sorry for the wall of text.  I was away from the boards for a couple of days, and this has been churning around in my brain.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 13, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Hobo, if it will help, I will be happy to go into Truth or Dare to some extent, and I will be happy to discuss how game play has win conditions, as well as how player choices can raise the stakes for both winners and losers.  If you are willing to discuss this with an open mind, I think I can demonstrate to you why Truth or Dare is a game, and why it meets the criteria described for being a game.
> 
> In doing so, I think a better understanding of Spin the Bottle will emerge as well.
> 
> ...




Just a further comment on this.  Man I'm verbose tonight.  Sorry.  

There are a plethora of games in the world whose only "win" condition is "how long can we keep this up?"  I guess that is a kind of win condition, but, it's not what I think you're referring to RC.  It's not a game where you really win, but, simply have degrees of losing.

If I play Pac Man for three minutes or thirty minutes, did I win at Pac Man?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 13, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Buh what?  When did I assert that SA doesn't use dice?




Hussar, I really don't know how to respond to you until we parse out exactly what you are asserting.

1.  The outcome of the game (but not the game framework) must be unknown for an entertainment to qualify as a game.

Do you now accept that or deny that?

2.  The resolution of the outcome must be affected by the choices of the players.  I.e., meaningful choices within a game must exist wherein the players' actions in-game affect the resolution of the game iteslf.

Do you now accept or deny that?

EDIT:

3.  Victory conditions (goals) must exist for an entertainment to be a game, and the unknown part of the outcome must directly relate to whether or not, or to what degree, those victory conditions are met.

Do you now accept or deny that?

If you accept all three, and your only point (now) is that not all things need to be unknown, I don't know why you are arguing with me.




RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 13, 2009)

Hussar said:


> There are a plethora of games in the world whose only "win" condition is "how long can we keep this up?"  I guess that is a kind of win condition, but, it's not what I think you're referring to RC.  It's not a game where you really win, but, simply have degrees of losing.
> 
> If I play Pac Man for three minutes or thirty minutes, did I win at Pac Man?




I believe that, upthread, in this thread or another, I described a game in which the win conditions include simply beating your previous best (Bus Depot Diner).  A game can certainly have degrees of victory; victory conditions do not need to be zero-sum.

Truth or Dare is an excellent example of a game that seems very simple at first glance, but when examined closely reveals strategy, social engineering, bluff, and theory-of-consciousness elements.  At a glance, the goal is "how long can we keep this up?" but when examined more closely (and certainly when actual play is examined) the game is really won on the basis of information exchange.

If a player selects "Truth", he has the option of attempting to bluff, should the question he is asked be one he does not wish to answer truthfully.  Failing in this usually ends the game, and at the same time the failed bluff often reveals the truth the player was attempting to hide.

"Dare" exists as a counterpoint to "Truth", without which many people might not play.  Dares typically become increasingly difficult as the game progresses for two reasons:  (1) for the same reason Truths do, as outlined below, and (2) to give players increasing reason to select "Truth".  Obviously, you can balk at a Dare, but doing so forfeits the game.

Truths tend to be tentative at first, because (1) players wish to have "Truth" selected, and (2) upping the ante for others automatically ups the ante for yourself as well.  Moreover, players are less likely to balk with a slowly progressing degree of personal information required.  I.e., sharing smaller confidences makes it easier to share larger confidences.

Note also that Dares and Truths are often intertwined, based upon what the other player actually wishes to know.  Thus, selecting "Truth" might lead to "Do you like me?" while selecting "Dare" might lead to necking for five minutes alone in the closet -- the same information is conveyed either way.

Each player is also trying to limit his or her own vulnerability.  Thus, if Joe wants to know if Sarah likes him, Joe might ask as a series of Truths:  "Is there any boy you like?" "Do you like anyone in this room?" and "Who?" in an attempt to limit his vulnerability by admitting that he likes Sarah.  Of course, he is also fencing with his answers/Dare responses, to avoid revealing the same (or other information he might not wish to reveal).

There is a reason why Truth or Dare is played mostly by adolescents, teenagers, and unattached groups of young adults.  Successful play can often lead to sexual encounters (to one degree or another).  Of course, successful play also generally requires that the participants pretend not to understand what the win conditions are, or what their end goals are.

----

In Pac Man, the win condition is not simply "How long can I keep this up?", but rather "What score can I achieve?"  The score is there to make objective how well you did.  Indeed, if you do well enough, you get to place your initials on the machine's "High Score" so everyone can see how good you are.

When you play Pac Man, the outcome of the victory conditions is unknown (i.e., you do not know what your score will be), and the outcome is directly related to the choices you make.  It is, therefore, a game.

_*What the victory conditions (goals) are is unimportant when determining if something is a game*_; there must be victory conditions, however.



RC


----------



## Hussar (Nov 13, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Hussar, I really don't know how to respond to you until we parse out exactly what you are asserting.
> 
> 1.  The outcome of the game (but the game framework) must be unknown for an entertainment to qualify as a game.
> 
> Do you now accept that or deny that?




I disagree.  ((I also assume you mean "but _not_ the game framework))  You can certainly know the outcome of the game and still qualify as a game.  I think the problem here though is you have split out game and framework.  

"Get the high score" is not part of the Pac Man game.  The game does not reward you in any way for getting the high score (other than perhaps posting it I suppose, but, that's not a requirement).  The "framework" of pacman is that you will endlessly circle around the board, chomping dots until you lose.  That's it.  That is 100% known at the beginning of the game.

In the same way, a game where players can declare the game over at any point in time is still a game.  I'm not sure why you separate out "framework" by which I take it you mean mechanics from the "game" which consists of the interaction of the mechanics and the players.



> 2.  The resolution of the outcome must be affected by the choices of the players.  I.e., meaningful choices within a game must exist wherein the players' actions in-game affect the resolution of the game iteslf.
> 
> Do you now accept or deny that?




I still deny that.  The resolution of the game does not have to be affected by the players in order to have a game.  There is nothing you can do that will prevent you from losing at Pac Man.  You will lose.  Every single time you play.  No choices you make will change that.  Yet, I would argue that Pac Man remains a game.



> EDIT:
> 
> 3.  Victory conditions (goals) must exist for an entertainment to be a game, and the unknown part of the outcome must directly relate to whether or not, or to what degree, those victory conditions are met.
> 
> Do you now accept or deny that?




Now that I agree with.  There must be some sort of goal in order to have a game.  However, goal does not have to be related in any way to the resolution of a specific event within the game.  If the goal is simply, "Keep it going as long as you can", then the game itself is only tangentially related to that goal.  Everyone is invested in continuing the game, not because they want to resolve any specific element or condition of the game, but because they want to keep the game going.  Presumably because keeping the game going is fun.  



> If you accept all three, and your only point (now) is that not all things need to be unknown, I don't know why you are arguing with me.
> 
> RC




Well, I think I've answered that.  You seem to be fixated on the idea that there absolutely must be an unknown resolution in order to have a game.  I disagree.  The resolution can be known at the outset of the game, and still have a game.  

Going back to the sports analogy.  Sure, I might know the final score of the game, but, I can be interested in all sorts of other elements that aren't related to who actually won the game.  Did someone break a record during the game?  Was someone injured?  How were the umpire's calls?  What errors were made?  

Like I said, I can play Frodo, know absolutely that I will drop the ring into the mountain, and yet still have a game between points A and Z, despite the fact that A and Z are absolutely known to me.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 13, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> _*What the victory conditions (goals) are is unimportant when determining if something is a game*_; there must be victory conditions, however.
> 
> 
> 
> RC




I would not say that this is 100% accurate. I would say that there must be victory conditions in order to determine a winner or loser of a particular game. 

A non-competetive game (such as D&D) has no winner or loser and thus no victory conditions. Victory conditions cannot exist without a defined end to the game. The score in Pac Man is a measure of victory instead of merely a measure of success because when the player runs out of "lives" the game is decidedly over. 

It is possible to achieve success or failure in a D&D without winning or losing. If defeating the BBEG represents ultimate success and a TPK is ultimate failure and player choices can lead to either one or to a lesser degree of either one nothing is won or lost unless the game is declared to be over by the players. 

It would be possible to assign victory/loss conditions to the game in advance and the game would thus be over when and if these were met but no such conditions are part of the rules.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 13, 2009)

Hussar said:


> ((I also assume you mean "but _not_ the game framework))




d'oh!  EDIT:  Fixed.  Thanks.



> You can certainly know the outcome of the game and still qualify as a game.  I think the problem here though is you have split out game and framework.




Pretend for a moment that you accept my splitting out of game and framework.  Do you still object?

After all, if you say "Get the high score" is not part of the Pac Man game, I could equally say "getting checkmate" is not part of chess.  The game does not reward you in any way for getting checkmate (other than perhaps your winning I suppose, but, that's not a requirement).  

If you agree that 

The "framework" of pacman is that you will endlessly circle around the board, chomping dots until you lose.  That's it.  That is 100% known at the beginning of the game.​
and that your goal is to last as long as you can, doing as well as you can (what score measures), then the outcome of the goal is not known at the beginning of the game.  Only the framework is.



> I still deny that.  The resolution of the game does not have to be affected by the players in order to have a game.  There is nothing you can do that will prevent you from losing at Pac Man.  You will lose.  Every single time you play.  No choices you make will change that.  Yet, I would argue that Pac Man remains a game.




Again, though, if you accept _a priori_ that "the resolution of the game" means how the goals of the game are resolved, and the goal of pac man is "last as long as you can, doing as well as you can", do you still deny that the the resolution must be affected by the players?

IOW, if in Pac Man the goal is to last as long as you can, it is not a game if the resolution of that goal is based on a random timer that you cannot affect.

BTW, in your SA game example, if the goal is "Keep the game going as long as you can", then offering mechanics that end the game become tantamount to agreeing that one player can walk away from a chess game _in media res_.  Which is always true, for any game.  



ExploderWizard said:


> I would not say that this is 100% accurate. I would say that there must be victory conditions in order to determine a winner or loser of a particular game.
> 
> A non-competetive game (such as D&D) has no winner or loser and thus no victory conditions. Victory conditions cannot exist without a defined end to the game.




Victory conditions in D&D (for example) relate to scenarios.  Any given session of D&D might have a number of victory conditions, often selected by the players (goals) and sometimes imposed by the DM.  In the original game, the victory conditions were "survive", "explore", and "get treasure".  Victory was measured by XP, gp, and character level, as well as items that increase character ability to achieve the three primary goals.

It would be fair to say that any given D&D session, or any given D&D scenario (if you like, even any given D&D encounter) is a game, but the overarching and ongoing campaign is a framework for that game, rather than being a game in and of itself.


RC


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 13, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Sorry, no.  There is no role assumption in Monopoly.  Nothing in the rules suggests that you would change your style of play based on whether you are the shoe or the battleship or the car.  There are no mechanics in place whatsoever that changes the game depending on whatever role you choose.




Each player has a unique identity. They don't all move together, occupy the same space together, and so forth. I don't recall any rule that says an RPG has to have more than one character class. So to reiterate, I am fine with various definitions of RPGs, but I am not satisfied with a definition that includes Monopoly, and it's possible that a definition that excludes Monopoly might exclude other types of games as well.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 13, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Victory conditions in D&D (for example) relate to scenarios. Any given session of D&D might have a number of victory conditions, often selected by the players (goals) and sometimes imposed by the DM. In the original game, the victory conditions were "survive", "explore", and "get treasure". Victory was measured by XP, gp, and character level, as well as items that increase character ability to achieve the three primary goals.
> 
> It would be fair to say that any given D&D session, or any given D&D scenario (if you like, even any given D&D encounter) is a game, but the overarching and ongoing campaign is a framework for that game, rather than being a game in and of itself.
> 
> ...




I think we are on the same page looking at different words. I see success as the measure you are using as victory.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 13, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Victory conditions in D&D (for example) relate to scenarios.  Any given session of D&D might have a number of victory conditions, often selected by the players (goals) and sometimes imposed by the DM.  In the original game, the victory conditions were "survive", "explore", and "get treasure".  Victory was measured by XP, gp, and character level, as well as items that increase character ability to achieve the three primary goals.
> 
> It would be fair to say that any given D&D session, or any given D&D scenario (if you like, even any given D&D encounter) is a game, but the overarching and ongoing campaign is a framework for that game, rather than being a game in and of itself.
> 
> ...




I'm not convinced victory conditions are a necessary part of a game, at least in a conventional understanding of victory conditions. I think all that is necessary is for something to be done for amusement and for it to have some kind of rules. "Let's think of words starting with M" could be a game. "Let's kill orcs and win the pie" is also a game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 13, 2009)

I am trying to maintain a stable nomenclature between posts to make the ideas I am attempting to express more accessible.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 13, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> I'm not convinced victory conditions are a necessary part of a game, at least in a conventional understanding of victory conditions. I think all that is necessary is for something to be done for amusement and for it to have some kind of rules. "Let's think of words starting with M" could be a game. "Let's kill orcs and win the pie" is also a game.




pawsplay,

Why must it have some kind of rules?  Aren't the purpose of those rules to moderate how a goal is met?  Is there not a goal inherent in "Let's think of words starting with M", such as "Think of as many words starting with M as you can" or "Think of three words starting with M"?

Having "victory conditions" means nothing more determining how well the goal of a game is met.

"I couldn't think of any words starting with M" is a kind of loss.  "I could only think of 265 words starting with M, whereas pawsplay thought of 3,758" is a kind of conditional victory.  I succeeded in the overt goal, but failed to compete effectively with pawsplay.

In the cooperative game, Bus Depot Diner, the overarching goal is to feed everyone before the bus leaves.  This is almost impossible, but allows for a type of complete victory.  Otherwise, you win on a sliding scale based on how many people you can feed.  The secondary victory condition is to do better than you did on your previous attempts.

The framework (the bus will eventually leave) is known, but the outcome (how many people you will feed before the bus leaves) is unknown.

In some cases, the victory conditions of a game are not overt.  This is the case with Truth or Dare, where the goal of the game requires pretending that you do not know what the goal is in order to succeed.  

It is a good rule of thumb, when examining any game, that you can uncover the goal by determining first (1) what outcomes are unknown?, and (2) what can the players influence?  Answer those two questions, and not only does the nature of the game become far clearer, but that clarity usually brings with it a better understanding of the game itself (and hence better/more satisfying play).

EDIT:  Example:  In Scrabble, one of the unknown outcomes is "What spaces will be open on my turn?" and this is one of the things players can influence (esp. by blocking access to high-point spots that they cannot themselves use).  Failure to understand this not only limits your own score, but causes you to set up your opponent so that he can get a higher score than he otherwise could.  Therefore, "keep your opponent's score as low as you can" is a hidden victory condition that feeds into the main victory condition of Scrabble (have the highest score when all the tiles are used).


RC
RC


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 14, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> pawsplay,
> 
> Why must it have some kind of rules?  Aren't the purpose of those rules to moderate how a goal is met?  Is there not a goal inherent in "Let's think of words starting with M", such as "Think of as many words starting with M as you can" or "Think of three words starting with M"?




Sure, but having a goal is not the same thing as having victory conditions. Victory conditions imply some kind of terminal condition that wins the game.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 14, 2009)

Hussar said:
			
		

> However, the game, as it is written is most certainly not because there are no roles within the game. Or rather, everyone is playing the exact identical role, which amounts to the same thing.



You have the same _game-mechanical options_, but that's "the exact identical role" only in the same sense as playing two characters of the same class in a game like D&D, or any two characters in a game like RuneQuest.

That's a funny way to bring up the actually significant factor of _role-playing_. People who game in glass houses should not throw rocks at Park Place.

Don't make Homer Hippo hungry. You wouldn't like him when he's hungry.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 14, 2009)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The resolution of the game does not have to be affected by the players in order to have a game.



Sure, sure -- in the sense in which Bingo, Pachinko, Slot Machine, etc., are games. That's a different kind of 'gaming' for a different kind of 'gamers'. Snakes & Ladders generally falls into a different demographic culturally, but it's the same kind of thing practically.



> There is nothing you can do that will prevent you from losing at Pac Man.



Oh, so is that what you meant by 'resolution'? It's pretty silly to say that one "loses" at Pac Man simply because (being human) one must eventually stop playing. That is just as true of any other undertaking! It's absurd redefinition into meaningless noise.



> Going back to the sports analogy. Sure, I might know the final score of the game, but, I can be interested in all sorts of other elements that aren't related to who actually won the game.



And you're *still* not playing a game! The term for what you're doing is "watching a video recording".



> Like I said, I can play Frodo, know absolutely that I will drop the ring into the mountain, and yet still have a game between points A and Z, despite the fact that A and Z are absolutely known to me.



Sure. I don't think RC disagrees with you on that point. A and Z, I think, are what he would call "the framework". It does not follow, though, that any old way of getting from A to Z constitutes a game.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 15, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Each player has a unique identity. They don't all move together, occupy the same space together, and so forth. I don't recall any rule that says an RPG has to have more than one character class. So to reiterate, I am fine with various definitions of RPGs, but I am not satisfied with a definition that includes Monopoly, and it's possible that a definition that excludes Monopoly might exclude other types of games as well.




Each player sure.  But, each character does not have a unique identity.  There is also no narrative flow from one event to the next.  There is no reason why I visit Baltic Avenue after visiting Park Place.  There is no reason why, after x number of squares I get 200 dollars.  There is no reason why rolling 3 doubles in a row lands me in jail.

While a game may not have to have multiple classes to be an RPG, it does need to have multiple roles.  If there is no distinction between me playing the shoe and me playing the battleship, there are no roles.  Pretending I'm a slum lord, for example, does not change the game in the slightest.

Now I could add role playing rules to Monopoly.  But, as I state in this thread Monopoly as written doesn't fit my criteria for an RPG.

As far as goal vs win conditions, I totally disagree.  There are many, many reasons to play a game that have nothing to do with win conditions.  For example, in teaching, we use role play all the time as a teaching tool.  I'd certainly call it a game - we're playing shopkeeper, or, in the case of my very young students, house.  My adult students engage in free form role play all the time.  

That's where I'm having a problem RC.  You are insisting that the only goal that makes a game really a game is a win condition.  You claimed that "exploration of a philosophical point" is not a  goal that allows what we're doing to be called a game.  It's "shooting the breeze".  

To me, using the framework of the game to explore a concept, or to reinforce teaching points, or various other activities, does count as playing a game where the goal is divorced from any win/lose conditions in the game itself.

Take Emergent Gameplay  The player creates goals that have nothing to do with the framework of the game.  Machinima is probably the best example I can come up with here.  I'm playing Halo, for example, to make a movie.  I am playing a game.  But, my goals have nothing to do with the goals of the game I'm playing and beyond "Let's make an interesting movie" aren't really a win condition style goal.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Each player sure.  But, each character does not have a unique identity.




Sure, they do. Each has a different appearance, occupies a different point in space and time, and has its own pile of money.



> There is also no narrative flow from one event to the next.  There is no reason why I visit Baltic Avenue after visiting Park Place.  There is no reason why, after x number of squares I get 200 dollars.  There is no reason why rolling 3 doubles in a row lands me in jail.




Sure, there is. It's abstract play. Nonetheless, you always go to jail after rolling three doubles, not before. You can't go around the board again until you get out of jail. Etc. The events are logically connected, and they all form part of the narrative of "getting rich and defeating the other players."

In my view, Monopoly fails in two respects. As you touched on, a game piece is not precisely an avatar. Hence, my requirement that a player act as-if their character. Second, the choice of actions are limited. You can't go backwards. You can't donate all your money to charity and seek new meaning in life. You can't sabotage the other players' properties.  The game doesn't support those attempts, even in the abstract, although the presence of a GM could make it minimally possible.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 16, 2009)

Whereas Pawsplay, I think you're splitting hairs here.

The game assumes no difference in playing the shoe or the battleship.  None.  There is no concept of personality attached to your playing piece.  You call it "avatar", I call it role assumption.  I think it's the same thing.

However, your definition of narrative flow is way off.  Narrative flow presumes some degree of believability or verisimilitude.  There is no narrative of why you went to jail.  There is no reason beyond "I rolled 3 doubles".  Within the game there is no reason, and thus no narrative.  

To me, unlimited choices is not a pre-requisite for an RPG.  Heck, if I play Vampire, I cannot go outside during the day.  Does that mean Vampire is no longer an RPG?


----------



## Theroc (Nov 16, 2009)

Hussar said:


> To me, unlimited choices is not a pre-requisite for an RPG.  Heck, if I play Vampire, I cannot go outside during the day.  Does that mean Vampire is no longer an RPG?




I don't know the rules of Vampire, but must ask: Do the rules of Vampire explicitly say you CANNOT choose to go outside?  Or does it simply say you will die if you do (As with D&D vampires).

If it's the latter, the choice is still present.  The former actually removes the choice by stating it violates the game rules.

And yes, I do realize that's nitpicking as instantly dying in MY mind is the same as saying you can't, unless suicide is the goal.  But I believe this MIGHT be what Pawsplay was getting at with choice.  The option is there, even if stupid.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 16, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Whereas Pawsplay, I think you're splitting hairs here.
> 
> The game assumes no difference in playing the shoe or the battleship.  None.  There is no concept of personality attached to your playing piece.




Basic D&D admits no differences between two fighters with identical ability scores. Mechanical differences do not constitute a personality.



> You call it "avatar", I call it role assumption.  I think it's the same thing.




Probably, but it hasn't stopped you from playing fast and loose with definitions. I don't know with certainty what "role assumption" means to you. I know that in my view, role assumption implies freedom of choice. Yet you do not seem to believe real choice is a prerequisite. Hence, the controversy.



> However, your definition of narrative flow is way off.  Narrative flow presumes some degree of believability or verisimilitude.  There is no narrative of why you went to jail.  There is no reason beyond "I rolled 3 doubles".  Within the game there is no reason, and thus no narrative.




There was a causal event, a natural consequence, and continuity. Hence, it is a narrative. "Jail" is an imaginary place, so it's certainly not a literal depiction of events.



> To me, unlimited choices is not a pre-requisite for an RPG.  Heck, if I play Vampire, I cannot go outside during the day.  Does that mean Vampire is no longer an RPG?




The fact that going out during the day will kill you is precisely what makes Vampire an RPG. Going outside is a meaningful choice with logical consequences. Not being able to go outside, literally, would be a characteristic of a boardgame or some kind of narrative game, not an RPG. Imagine trying to tell a story where a vampire could literally not commit suicide by exposure to sunlight, because sunlight destroys vampires who are exposed to it. No sense at all. 

"Unlimited choices" is not a prerequisite for an RPG at all. Unlimited _choice_, singular, is. The state of being able to choose. The specific options are always, necessarily, limited. A PC should be able to take _any_ choice, not _every_ choice. A character cannot draw a revolver if he doesn't have one. But if he has a revolver, he can draw it unless something makes it impossible. 

How is that splitting a hair? Either a player is entitled to make a choice, or they aren't. You are free to argue that an RPG does not truly require freedom of action, but I do not understand how you can argue there is no difference between a limitation of the game and a limitation imposed on a character within a story. I, personally, am not constrained in an way if my vampire cannot go out during the day, but if you say my vampire cannot commit suicide by sunbathing, you are restricting me, personally.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 16, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Sure, but having a goal is not the same thing as having victory conditions. Victory conditions imply some kind of terminal condition that wins the game.




So, terminology aside, does that mean we agree?

Because, apart from attempting to be consistent, I am not married to terminology.  You can say "VC is not a good term for what you say the term describes" and my answer is only "I don't have a better one" and "my concern is with what the term describes; we could agree to call it AstroMoose, and I would be find with that".


RC


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 16, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> So, terminology aside, does that mean we agree?




If we can't agree on terminology, we really can't agree. ... But I think we are trying to approach the same idea. I think "purposeful activity" or even just "activity" might possibly be the terms I would use. _Victory conditions _implies termination as well as competition, even if that's not a literal requirement of that phrase, and even just_ pursuing a goal _implies some kind of singularity, when play may begin with a rather general aim and goals may be discovered during play. Does _purposeful activity _sound like it might describe what you are thinking of?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 16, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> If we can't agree on terminology, we really can't agree. ...




If you use the term "red" to mean what I call "blue", we can both agree so long as we understand that the definition we are agreeing to is that used by the other.  My agreeing with you that a stop sign is red does not mean that I am denying it to be blue by my definition.  Nor does your accepting that it is what I call blue making you somehow colour blind.

IMHO, "purposeful activity" is too vague (there is a purpose to my reading a book or watching a movie).....but I don't care as long as we agree to a meaning.

I would argue that each game session, and/or each adventure is a discrete game, with its own (often unique) victory conditions, and that the overarching campaign is a framework in which those discrete games take place.  This is similar to the idea that each round of The Prisoner's Dilemna is a distinct game, but when you know that you are going to play multiple rounds with the same players, the winning strategy changes.

"Objective fullfillment" offers the same problem as "purposeful activity":  It fails to imply that the objective/purpose is contested or difficult.  But, again, I am not married to the terminology, and will happily adopt your term for the purposes of discussion, so long as we agree as to what the term means.


RC


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 17, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> "Objective fullfillment" offers the same problem as "purposeful activity":  It fails to imply that the objective/purpose is contested or difficult.  But, again, I am not married to the terminology, and will happily adopt your term for the purposes of discussion, so long as we agree as to what the term means.




Does it have to be contested or difficult? Is it not possible to have an easy and elementary RPG?


----------



## Hussar (Nov 17, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Basic D&D admits no differences between two fighters with identical ability scores. Mechanical differences do not constitute a personality.




How does this conflict with what I said.  Just because two characters are mechanically identical does not mean that they have the same role.  One could have an entirely different personality than the other.  Role assumption assumes that they will and an RPG assumes that you will choose to play your character differently.  And that this difference will come out during play.

There is no way to make a persona affect how I play Monopoly.  And certainly nothing in Monopoly presumes that I will change my persona in any way in order to play.




> Probably, but it hasn't stopped you from playing fast and loose with definitions. I don't know with certainty what "role assumption" means to you. I know that in my view, role assumption implies freedom of choice. Yet you do not seem to believe real choice is a prerequisite. Hence, the controversy.
> 
> 
> 
> There was a causal event, a natural consequence, and continuity. Hence, it is a narrative. "Jail" is an imaginary place, so it's certainly not a literal depiction of events.




Abstract does not mean imaginary.  While I agree that abstraction can be used to determine narrative events, they have to be an abstraction of something.  If there are no literal events to depict, how can you have any sort of narrative.  While I can abstract a combat scene using all sorts of mechanics, that abstraction still maps onto a narrative, logically consistent scene.  You cannot have that in Monopoly.



> The fact that going out during the day will kill you is precisely what makes Vampire an RPG. Going outside is a meaningful choice with logical consequences. Not being able to go outside, literally, would be a characteristic of a boardgame or some kind of narrative game, not an RPG. Imagine trying to tell a story where a vampire could literally not commit suicide by exposure to sunlight, because sunlight destroys vampires who are exposed to it. No sense at all.




Again, I claim shenanigans here.  "Go outside and you die" is effectively the same as not allowing you to go outside.  If you go outside, you are ejected from the game.  How is that not a prohibition?



> "Unlimited choices" is not a prerequisite for an RPG at all. Unlimited _choice_, singular, is. The state of being able to choose. The specific options are always, necessarily, limited. A PC should be able to take _any_ choice, not _every_ choice. A character cannot draw a revolver if he doesn't have one. But if he has a revolver, he can draw it unless something makes it impossible.
> 
> How is that splitting a hair? Either a player is entitled to make a choice, or they aren't. You are free to argue that an RPG does not truly require freedom of action, but I do not understand how you can argue there is no difference between a limitation of the game and a limitation imposed on a character within a story. I, personally, am not constrained in an way if my vampire cannot go out during the day, but if you say my vampire cannot commit suicide by sunbathing, you are restricting me, personally.




I would argue that there is no difference here.  "If you go outside in daylight, you may no longer play this game" is no different than, "If you don't want to play this game, quit".  The player always has the choice to not play.  

How is there any difference from kicking the table and knocking over all the chess pieces and "if you do this you cannot play anymore"?

In any game, you always have the choice to not play.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 17, 2009)

Hussar, are you trying to argue that Vampire: the Masquerade is not an RPG _because players take the roles of vampires_???

"Jump into molten steel and you die" is just as much the same as "If you jump into molten steel you may no longer play this game", and as little different from "If you don't want to play this game, quit."

So, can we by Hussar's definition have an RPG in which characters are vulnerable to anything at all? Or would even Superman: the Wish Fulfillment be ineligible because Soupy has a weakness for kryptonite?

Man, much of the time I think even you don't know what the cheese-it you're arguing.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 17, 2009)

Hussar said:


> How does this conflict with what I said.  Just because two characters are mechanically identical does not mean that they have the same role.  One could have an entirely different personality than the other.  Role assumption assumes that they will and an RPG assumes that you will choose to play your character differently.  And that this difference will come out during play.
> 
> There is no way to make a persona affect how I play Monopoly.  And certainly nothing in Monopoly presumes that I will change my persona in any way in order to play.




Unless the board is very large, playing Monopoly will require a change in persona, and unless you are an early 20th century hotel investor in New Jersey, your behavior will be influenced by the premise of the game. You need something more than "assume an imaginary role" to have an RPG.



> Again, I claim shenanigans here.  "Go outside and you die" is effectively the same as not allowing you to go outside.  If you go outside, you are ejected from the game.  How is that not a prohibition?




Because you can go outside and die.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Does it have to be contested or difficult? Is it not possible to have an easy and elementary RPG?




Imagine if you will, a line on which the degree of difficulty toward meeting the game's goals are arrayed from 1 to 10 (almost certain to almost impossible).  You can have a game anywhere in that range, but not in 0 or 11 (certain success or certain failure to meet the goals).


RC


----------



## Hussar (Nov 17, 2009)

Pawsplay - I believe that we're coming at this from opposite ends.

For you, you look at the prohibition to commit suicide for the PC and say that that prohibition makes the game no longer an RPG.  I look at it as, this is an act that is totally out of character for a character in this game, and as such will almost never come up in play, thus it's effectively the same as flat out ruling you can't do it.

An option that no one exercises is no different than no option at all, IMO.

From what you are saying, if I add a rule to D&D that says you may not have your PC fall on his own sword, that makes D&D no longer an RPG.  I disagree, obviously.  I think that the odds are fantastically small that you will ever fall on your own sword in D&D (at least deliberately, without adding in critical fumble tables  ).  As such, I have no problem saying, "You cannot commit suicide with your character" and still have an RPG.

I believe that should clear up Ariosto's apparent lack of reading comprehension abilities as well.

As far as role assumption, I think you are conflating role with class or profession.  Fighter is no more a role than accountant.  That's not who you are, it's just what you do.  What differentiates two D&D fighters with identical stats and equipment?  

To me, the difference is the roles that the players assume for those characters.  One might be a noble knight and the other a gutter brawler.  One might adhere to a code of conduct, the other swears fealty to a liege.  On and on.  The role that you assume with these two characters has little or nothing to do with class.

That brings us back to Monopoly.  You do not assume any role in Monopoly.  The game certainly does not expect you to.  You play as yourself all the time.  The fictional job of hotel builder is there, but, it in no way has any impact on how you play the game.  There's no more role in Monopoly than Chess.  I'm certainly not expected to act like Sun Tsu or Kasperov when I play chess.  I might immitate some of their tactics, but, that's about it.

I'm certainly not expected to act like Donald Trump when I play Monopoly either.  

Now, I can, but, the game does not place this expectation on me at all.  I can be entirely myself, making decisions without any guidance from the role I have assumed.  There is no more role assumption in Monopoly than in Snakes and Ladders.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 17, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Imagine if you will, a line on which the degree of difficulty toward meeting the game's goals are arrayed from 1 to 10 (almost certain to almost impossible).  You can have a game anywhere in that range, but not in 0 or 11 (certain success or certain failure to meet the goals).
> 
> 
> RC




Heh.  And this is the crux of our disagreement.  I have no problem with a game which has 0 or 11 built into the mechanics.  The goal of the game becomes divorced from the events within the game, true, but, it's still a game nonetheless.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Heh.  And this is the crux of our disagreement.  I have no problem with a game which has 0 or 11 built into the mechanics.  The goal of the game becomes divorced from the events within the game, true, but, it's still a game nonetheless.




(1)  I don't believe, based on our previous posts, that we mean the same thing by "goal", and 

(2)  If we do, then we definitely disagree, as I don't think of reading a book as a game (which it would be, AFAICT, under your definition).


RC


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 17, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Imagine if you will, a line on which the degree of difficulty toward meeting the game's goals are arrayed from 1 to 10 (almost certain to almost impossible).  You can have a game anywhere in that range, but not in 0 or 11 (certain success or certain failure to meet the goals).
> 
> 
> RC




If you mean goals of play, I think I can buy this. However, I think goals, in the context of a game, makes me think of in-game objectives, which are not always explicitly present (though if the characters have any vitality to them, goals will arise duing play). I think this may be a case where vocabulary is very important. The Forgie term "agenda" springs to mind but obviously comes with some baggage.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 17, 2009)

Hussar said:


> For you, you look at the prohibition to commit suicide for the PC and say that that prohibition makes the game no longer an RPG.  I look at it as, this is an act that is totally out of character for a character in this game, and as such will almost never come up in play, thus it's effectively the same as flat out ruling you can't do it.




How do you know it's out of character? Particularly, if the player made the character?


----------



## Umbran (Nov 17, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I believe that should clear up Ariosto's apparent lack of reading comprehension abilities as well.





Rude.  Very rude.  

And ironic, really.  How many times on these boards have moderators posted warnings against being insulting, or getting personal?  One might wonder how you can bear to accuse others of lacking in comprehension skills while demonstrating your own lack in that area in the same sentence.  

How about we all avoid this kind of stuff in the future, hm?


----------



## Hussar (Nov 17, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> How do you know it's out of character? Particularly, if the player made the character?




How many characters have you seen in D&D for which killing themselves would be in character?  Outside of perhaps a Japanese inspired Oriental adventures style game.

Let me be perfectly clear here.  I do think that falling on your own sword for no reason, while perhaps not explicitly forbidden by the game, is certainly not a real option in any game I've ever played.  As I said, outside of a Oriental adventures style D&D campaign, when is commiting suicide for no apparent reason considered acceptable play?

Raven Crowking.  Again, we're back to where we started.  Just because the start points and end points are fixed does not mean that all points in between are.  Your example of a book presumes that there is only two states, complete freedom where all points, from beginning to end, can be changed and no freedom where all points must be fixed.

This is where we disagree.  I think you certainly can have a fixed beginning, and a fixed ending, but all the points in between those two points can have a huge number of choices.  We start in the Shire, we end on the volcano, but, how we get from point A to point B is the game.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 17, 2009)

Hussar said:


> As I said, outside of a Oriental adventures style D&D campaign, when is commiting suicide for no apparent reason considered acceptable play?




Vampire: The Masquerade.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Raven Crowking.  Again, we're back to where we started.  Just because the start points and end points are fixed does not mean that all points in between are.




Nor did I say that.  What I said is that the outcome of the goal(s) must be unknown.  If you can example me something where (1) the outcome of the goal(s) is known, and (2) the outcome of the goal(s) is not fixed, I will be quite surprised indeed.

When reading a book, my goal is to read the book.  The outcome is known.  Do I read it on the can?  In bed?  On the subway?  The route is unknown, but has nothing to do with the goal.

Conversely, I can easily conceive of a game, *as I have said multiple times in this and other threads*, where the framework is fixed (including going to Mount Doom), but where the goal(s) (i.e., find out who is going to turn on the Nine Walkers, and thwart his attempt) is unknown.  Mind you, the outcome of the goal(s) being unknown is going to impact the framework, so it would only be accurate to say that _*part of the outcome*_ is known, and that it is _*the important part*_ (i.e., the part that is the outcome of the goals of the players) that is unknown.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Nov 17, 2009)

RC said:
			
		

> When reading a book, my goal is to read the book. The outcome is known. Do I read it on the can? In bed? On the subway? The route is unknown, but has nothing to do with the goal.




Hang on, why is your goal to read the book necessarily?  That is one possible goal, but there are others that could exist.  Perhaps you want to expand your vocabulary.  Perhaps you want to learn something.  Why is "finish this book" the only possible goal.

Thus, I can finish the book, which is one goal of having a book, yet my primary purpose of reading the book isn't simply to finish it.  My goal has very little to do with the act of reading the book.  My goal is to expand my vocabulary (for example).  Thus the end result is entirely known (I will finish the book), and the achievement of my goal is pretty much a foregone conclusion (assuming there is at least one new word in this book).

So, you can certainly know that you will achieve all your goals in reading this book.

Or, if you look at it another way, if you accept that simply resolving a situation in an RPG is not the only goal you can have during play, then event resolution does not have to be unknown in order to achieve a goal during play.

Pawsplay - umm what?  What kind of V:TM game do you play where a player will turn to you and say, "Y'know what?  I don't like this character, I go for a walk outside" and this is entirely in character and acceptable behaviour at the table?  

In any game I've ever played, in any system, offing your own character for no apparent reason is seen as very bad play.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Or, if you look at it another way, if you accept that simply resolving a situation in an RPG is not the only goal you can have during play, then event resolution does not have to be unknown in order to achieve a goal during play.





Oh, you can roleplay without any concern whatsoever with event resolution.  Concern with event resolution, however, is a property of _*games*_.

It is also, I note, a property of Sufficiently Advanced.  Is there any particular game that you think it is not a property of?


RC


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 17, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Pawsplay - umm what?  What kind of V:TM game do you play where a player will turn to you and say, "Y'know what?  I don't like this character, I go for a walk outside" and this is entirely in character and acceptable behaviour at the table?




So you're a damned undead creature whose humanity has been stolen. It's out of character to be suicidal? It's certainly in genre. Ann Rice's books feature several attempted vampire suicides. It's not that I would expect someone to say, "This vampire sucks, I'm standing in the sun," although if they did, I wonder what you could do to stop them, apart from taking away control of their character. It seems more likely that a character might:

- Commit suicide after quite a number of sessions, in which the character's misery is explored, leading to a natural and thought-provoking conclusion that life as a monster is not worth living
- Stay behind to save a life, confirming their humanity and allowing them to die with moral integrity
- Risk exposure, without intending to commit suicide. In this case, the possibility of exposure to the sun exists, which means it is not only possible but the GM must be ready with some kind of adjudication if it occurs.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 17, 2009)

I'd like to understand what others think the victory conditions or measures of success are in children's games?

I don't believe children set out with any goal in mind when playing Cowboys & Indians. You wouldn't tell a 6-year-old to go write a book or audition for a play instead of collaboratively creating a story about Cops & Robbers. These look to me like games without meaningful victory conditions, measures of success, or even rules. The sole intent is to pretend to be someone you are not.

I can also imagine that a game could use the same framework from a more mature perspective. The intent would still be to explore another role and how you would handle that role. You would create a story together not for the purpose of passing it to others outside the game or to play out for an audience, but instead for the sole enjoyment of those playing the game. That's what makes this type of an activity a game to me and not just "shooting the breeze", writing a book, or acting in a play.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Oh, you can roleplay without any concern whatsoever with event resolution. Concern with event resolution, however, is a property of games.




To me, the intent behind why you are roleplaying determines whether it is a gam or not. If you are doing so to help others understand the roles of others then it is a Roleplaying Exercise, like those used by companies and therapists. If you are roleplaying because you wish to entertain an audience, then you are most likely an Improv actor or aspiring to be one. But if you are just getting together with a bunch of friends to roleplay for the fun of it, then it is a game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 17, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I don't believe children set out with any goal in mind when playing Cowboys & Indians. You wouldn't tell a 6-year-old to go write a book or audition for a play instead of collaboratively creating a story about Cops & Robbers. These look to me like games without meaningful victory conditions, measures of success, or even rules. The sole intent is to pretend to be someone you are not.




I would classify these as play, but not as games.


RC


----------



## maddman75 (Nov 17, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> I would classify these as play, but not as games.
> 
> 
> RC




Agreed.  They are roleplay, but as they lack rules are not games.  They could be turned into RPGs very simply, by having some basic rule like 'we play rock paper scissors and winner says if you get shot or not'.  Or guessing a number, or taking turns declaring outcomes.

Though that adds another factor to RPG definition - actions are not played out, but described.  Unless you're LARPing, but even those who play those recognize them as being different.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 17, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> Agreed.  They are roleplay, but as they lack rules are not games.  They could be turned into RPGs very simply, by having some basic rule like 'we play rock paper scissors and winner says if you get shot or not'.  Or guessing a number, or taking turns declaring outcomes.
> 
> Though that adds another factor to RPG definition - actions are not played out, but described.  Unless you're LARPing, but even those who play those recognize them as being different.




Even in a LARP, play consists of the imaginary actions, not the literal ones. If I walk over and say "Hi," I am representing my character doing it.


----------



## maddman75 (Nov 17, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Even in a LARP, play consists of the imaginary actions, not the literal ones. If I walk over and say "Hi," I am representing my character doing it.




Same with cowboys and indians, or cops and robbers.  You didn't need handcuffs to arrest someone, or even toy bows and arrows if you didn't have them.


----------



## Theroc (Nov 17, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Even in a LARP, play consists of the imaginary actions, not the literal ones. If I walk over and say "Hi," I am representing my character doing it.




This is somewhat offtopic, I believe, but I am not quite certain I understand how LARP works.

For example: How does one regulate success and failure?  Does it use rules such as D&D, and the players simply represent the 'minis' that one would normally use?  Does the player's physical actions have impact on their 'mechanical' actions?

I've never seen any LARP and the like so I am entirely ignorant of how it 'really' works.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 18, 2009)

Theroc said:


> This is somewhat offtopic, I believe, but I am not quite certain I understand how LARP works.
> 
> For example: How does one regulate success and failure?  Does it use rules such as D&D, and the players simply represent the 'minis' that one would normally use?  Does the player's physical actions have impact on their 'mechanical' actions?
> 
> I've never seen any LARP and the like so I am entirely ignorant of how it 'really' works.




That really depends on the LARP. Many LARPs use rock-paper-scissors for contests, with superior stats granting a number of mulligans. On the other hand, something like NERO or Amtgard uses foam-padded or latex boffer weapons. Similarly, I've seen lockpicking handled every way from letting something with Lockpicking pick a lock to handing out poker chips to "spend" on lockpicking attempts to a coathanger rigged with an electric buzzer you have to get a wire ring around without touching.


----------



## Theroc (Nov 18, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> That really depends on the LARP. Many LARPs use rock-paper-scissors for contests, with superior stats granting a number of mulligans.* On the other hand, something like NERO or Amtgard uses foam-padded or latex boffer weapons.* Similarly, I've seen lockpicking handled every way from letting something with Lockpicking pick a lock to handing out poker chips to "spend" on lockpicking attempts to a coathanger rigged with an electric buzzer you have to get a wire ring around without touching.




Emphasis mine.  If I as a person am trained/taught swordfighting techniques, how would this affect a LARP that adjudicates anything through 'boffing'?  Example: Say I'm fighting someone who is statistically better than I am, but I'm actually the better swordsman.  Am I supposed to hold back or is there some other method for levelling that playing field?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Nov 18, 2009)

Theroc said:


> Emphasis mine.  If I as a person am trained/taught swordfighting techniques, how would this affect a LARP that adjudicates anything through 'boffing'?  Example: Say I'm fighting someone who is statistically better than I am, but I'm actually the better swordsman.  Am I supposed to hold back or is there some other method for levelling that playing field?




I know in a system I played, Havok, you were expected to practice in your spare time and just try to get better if you wanted to play a great swordsman.  Of course, you were allowed to spend character points on sword technique and do more damage with your weapon.  So, other people might have more skill but if you put enough points in your fighting stats, you could take them out in one lucky hit.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 18, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> I would classify these as play, but not as games.




So we're limiting this discussion to a tighter definition of games?



			
				Dictionary.com said:
			
		

> 1. an amusement or pastime: children's games.
> 2. the material or equipment used in playing certain games: a store selling toys and games.
> 3. a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.




In particular the third definition? There's been a lot of discussion about choosing one's own definition. 



			
				maddman75 said:
			
		

> Agreed. They are roleplay, but as they lack rules are not games. They could be turned into RPGs very simply, by having some basic rule like 'we play rock paper scissors and winner says if you get shot or not'. Or guessing a number, or taking turns declaring outcomes.




Ah, but couldn't that resolution be solved the same way it was in Cops & Robbers? Mutual agreement. Sure, it usually came with some argument when we were children, but a mature game could lead to a much more reasonable conclusion to a conflict. Why does the element of chance need to be introduced to make it a game? Would you say that social encounters in 1E and earlier versions of D&D were not games becasue the resolution of that scene wasn't determined by a skill check?

I haven't seen an actual game that takes rules completely out of the picture, but I could imagine one that people might enjoy. Games currently published that I think come closest to this type of play are Prime Time Adventures and Hero's Banner. I'm not completely familiar with either game, but second and third hand accounts put both of these games in the narrative sector. And I've found that exploring these 'narrative control' games for their ideas has given me some good options for the way I approach D&D.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> So we're limiting this discussion to a tighter definition of games?




No.  We are (or I am) limiting this discussion to the appropriate definition of game out of the possible definitions.



			
				Dictionary.com said:
			
		

> wind1  /n. wɪnd, Literary waɪnd; v. wɪnd/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [n. wind, Literary wahynd; v. wind]  Show IPA
> Use wind in a Sentence
> See web results for wind
> See images of wind
> ...




So, when I say that there is a lot of wind blowing outside, how dare I exclude all of those other possible definitions!  When I say that D&D is a game, how dare I not also consider it quarry for hunting!

A word can have multiple definitions.  That does not make those definitions coequal, nor appropriate to all discussion, nor does it mean that those definitions are referring to the same thing.  

I can _*bear*_ to have a discussion about a *bear*, but I'd be an idiot to assume that both "bear"s mean the same, simply because the word "bear" is given more than one meaning.

EDIT:  To be clear, if you want to claim that Hussar's (thus far unsupported by an actual ruleset) "game" in which the end is known, and in which the activity has nothing to do with the outcome of the goals, is "an amusement or pastime" (as in "children's games") I will certainly agree.  I believe I have said it was an amusement or pastime already.  But it is not a game in the sense that Monopoly, RCFG, or D&D are games:  "a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators."




RC


----------



## maddman75 (Nov 18, 2009)

Theroc said:


> This is somewhat offtopic, I believe, but I am not quite certain I understand how LARP works.
> 
> For example: How does one regulate success and failure?  Does it use rules such as D&D, and the players simply represent the 'minis' that one would normally use?  Does the player's physical actions have impact on their 'mechanical' actions?
> 
> I've never seen any LARP and the like so I am entirely ignorant of how it 'really' works.




I just ran my first LARP, a halloween Cthulhu Live game.  Our awesome LGS let us take the place over, giving me three rooms to work with.

In those rules, yes, it wasn't too dissimilar from having players walk around instead of using minis.  They were also in costume and there were lots of props.  As stated, the rules in LARPs can vary.  In this one, players had attributes rated 1-20.  Something simple required a 5, challenging 10, hard 15, and impossible 20.  If you have a skill in something, you apply the relevent attribute.  If you don't, you subtract 5.  It is all kept very minimal, so the GM can have everyone's stats on a clipboard.

For combat, the GM calls Action when people declare their actions.  You gesture your prop toward the person you want to attack.  Make a fist to attack, applying all of your Dex to attacking.  Make a peace sign to put half on defense and half on attack.  Make a palm to put all on defense, and turn around to flee.  Works well enough.

But everyone was in costume, and we made use of props.  When they found the old journal, I'd actually written up a journal for them to find and read.  Characters with weapons had toy versions, and even connived hiding the shotgun in a trench coat.  The 'photographer' used a modern digital camera rather than something old-timey, but that's okay because we have in-character pictures.

Plot-wise, you can make use of anti-characters.  In the plot that I had, a wealthy man invited some investigators to a dinner party to discuss the manner of his father's death.  After the dinner but before they could get many details, the lights wend dark and he was dead (He had a ripped shirt on under his button-up, and some fake blood worked wonderfully.)  My roommate had offered to help out, so she served the dinner dressed as a maid.

When they got to the kitchen, they say that the roast beef they'd just eaten was on a plate along with a severed head and foot, covered in blood, with bloody torture implements hanging nearby.  The maid was also here, armed with a pistol and opened fire.  A journal informed them of the plot - the father has infected Malcolm with his curse and a monster was after him.  He plotted to do the same to the PCs, only making a human sacrifice out of the butler this time, and bribing the maid to help him.

They get the key to the library, go upstairs, and start reading.  I'd laid several books around and hidden papers and newspaper clippings inside them.  They found a ritual that would let them summon the monster and kill it.  They lit a candle, poured a circle of salt on the ground, and did a Latin chant.  The guy from the first scene put on a cloak and mask, and appeared in the center.  They'd armed themselves with silver and managed to finish the monster off.

Everyone had a lot of fun.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 18, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> EDIT:  To be clear, if you want to claim that Hussar's (thus far unsupported by an actual ruleset) "game" in which the end is known, and in which the activity has nothing to do with the outcome of the goals, is "an amusement or pastime" (as in "children's games") I will certainly agree.  I believe I have said it was an amusement or pastime already.  But it is not a game in the sense that Monopoly, RCFG, or D&D are games:  "a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators."




But it is you that is choosing to ignore a definition that has an applicable definition to others. I'm not asking you to make a case as to why other definitions of the word "game" are not applicable to this discussion, it is obvious we can agree on those. But you have failed to prove the first definition of game invalid and thus you are dismissing it. You may not be saying that that type of amusement is inferior, but you are coming off to me as inferring such by dismissing the possibility that someone could create a game in such a sense outside of your definition.

Besides, by the literal definition you've chosen, RPGs in their current form are not games because they are not intended to be competitive.

Since no real world example exists I will try my hand at it:

Framework: Batman is after the Joker. How does he catch him?
Players: 3, 1 as Batman, 1 as the Joker, 1 as other world inhabitants
Structure: Each player assumes the role of their character and describes what he or she is doing.
Conflict Resolution: Mutual agreement.

If the players' intents are not to present this in any form of media to an audience and are solely playing for their own enjoyment, then the above would qualify as a game in my opinion. Could this be just a discussion? Yes, if the people involved were talking about the characters instead of taking their roles. Many things in life are not games in and of themsleves, but could be made into a game. Drinking. Not a game, but certainly turned into one by teens, college students and nostalgic adults.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 18, 2009)

Theroc said:


> Emphasis mine.  If I as a person am trained/taught swordfighting techniques, how would this affect a LARP that adjudicates anything through 'boffing'?  Example: Say I'm fighting someone who is statistically better than I am, but I'm actually the better swordsman.  Am I supposed to hold back or is there some other method for levelling that playing field?




Depends on the game. In NERO or IFGs, higher level players do more damage and have more hit points. In Dagorhir, eveyone has the same stats and there are only two classes, people who fight, and people who say healing poems. In Amtgard, it's about in the middle, where classes and levels do matter, but personal skill matters more. Unless someone has lots of armor or a protective spell, Amtgard combat is almost identical to a Dagorhir type game (solid hit to the torso kills, shots to the limbs wound and potentially kill). 

Since Amtgard emphasizes actual swordsmanhip more, the one and only time I played in an IFGS game, as a 1st level character I killed basically everything in my path, including skeletons with more than a dozen hit points, until some death knight or something cast a fireball on me. Then I died. While every combat game has different nuances, people with martial arts backgrounds or experience with other combat sports who join Amtgard are often able to get up to speed within months or even weeks.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> But it is you that is choosing to ignore a definition that has an applicable definition to others.




You could argue that carrying is important when I am talking grizzlies, too, and you could equally say that I have failed to prove the first definition of bear is invalid.  Equally so, but equally beside the point.

When I am saying "game" I do not mean an amusement such as a children's game.  If you want to play that sort of amusement, all the power to you.  But don't confuse it with a game in the sense that Monopoly, RCFG, or D&D are games: "a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators."

Or, if you are incapable of making the distinction, don't expect me to enable you in maintaining that they are the same thing.


RC


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 18, 2009)

I think I'd like to claim that D&D is an "amusement or pastime," with its similarities to competitive games boosting that use of the word "game." Definition 1 and 3 are not exclusive, and the dictionary is not a technical reference but a linguistice one. I would not classify D&D as "competitive".

Main Entry: com·pe·ti·tion 
Pronunciation: \ˌkäm-pə-ˈti-shən\
Function: noun 
Etymology: Late Latin competition-, competitio, from Latin competere
Date: 1579
1 : the act or process of competing : rivalry: as a : the effort of two or more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by offering the most favorable terms b : active demand by two or more organisms or kinds of organisms for some environmental resource in short supply 
2 : a contest between rivals; also : one's competitors <faced tough competition>

Main Entry: 1ri·val 
Pronunciation: \ˈrī-vəl\
Function: noun 
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin rivalis one using the same stream as another, rival in love, from rivalis of a stream, from rivus stream — more at run
Date: 1577
1 a : one of two or more striving to reach or obtain something that only one can possess b : one striving for competitive advantage
2 obsolete : companion, associate
3 : equal, peer

The GM and players are not "rivals."


----------



## maddman75 (Nov 18, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> The GM and players are not "rivals."




Except in Alpha Complex


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 18, 2009)

Incidentally, Wikipedia has a wealth of definitions of game:

Game - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I like "A game is a form of play with goals and structure." - Kevin Maroney


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> I think I'd like to claim that D&D is an "amusement or pastime," with its similarities to competitive games boosting that use of the word "game." Definition 1 and 3 are not exclusive




Salmon is a subset of fish, as def 3 is a subset of def 1.  That does not make all fish salmon, nor does it make all amusements into "games" in the same sense.



> I would not classify D&D as "competitive".




Bus Depot Diner, _*again*_.  Every player is working together, but they are working together to beat a challenge supplied by the design of the game itself.  

Again, if you wish to claim that something is an amusement or pastime, I have no problem with that whatsoever.  But I am not enabling the idea that "salmon" and "fish" mean the same thing, regardless of anyone's deeply held belief that sharks are really a kind of salmon.  You can organize meaning in that way -- and if you do, hey, whatever floats your boat -- but unless there is a clear advantage in doing so, all you are doing is inhibiting clear communication.

IMHO, of course.  YMMV.


RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 18, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> You could argue that carrying is important when I am talking grizzlies, too, and you could equally say that I have failed to prove the first definition of bear is invalid.  Equally so, but equally beside the point.




And you are diverting the real topic here again. I'm not trying to argue any definitions of "game" that I do not believe are relavent to the discussion.



Raven Crowking said:


> When I am saying "game" I do not mean an amusement such as a children's game.  If you want to play that sort of amusement, all the power to you.  But don't confuse it with a game in the sense that Monopoly, RCFG, or D&D are games: "a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators."
> 
> Or, if you are incapable of making the distinction, don't expect me to enable you in maintaining that they are the same thing.




I am capable in making the distinction between two different kinds of games. But you are contenting that one form of game is actually not a game and therefore dismissing anyone who believes they are playing a game.

I've watched this over the years from all different angles. Some people who do not game look down upon gamers as outcast pursuers of immature pasttimes who aren't really playing a game but instead pretending to be an elf. Some gamers do the same to LARPers. This derision is unfounded and it is what you are participating in when you dismiss a less (or non-) structured game because it doesn't fit your definition.

[Edit: you answered pawsplay already] And what about my D&D example above? Have 1E D&D players temporarily stopped playing the game when they enter a social encounter? Can't you imagine a game that was comprised solely of social encounters like those in 1E D&D? I'm not asking if you would like such a game, but if one could exist using just social encounters from a system without a skill resolution system.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> And you are diverting the real topic here again. I'm not trying to argue any definitions of "game" that I do not believe are relavent to the discussion.




Then I imagine that you and I are going to have a hard time discussing the term.  "Any amusement or pastime" is far too broad a definition to allow any conclusions to be drawn about anything, eh?  It works well to cloud communication, but little else.  IMHO.  YMMV.



> I've watched this over the years from all different angles. Some people who do not game look down upon gamers as outcast pursuers of immature pasttimes who aren't really playing a game but instead pretending to be an elf.




So, some people drew a distinction that you didn't like, or thought was invalid, and therefore all people who draw any distinction share the same motives, and all distinctions are therefore suspect and invalid?  Not what you mean?  Then, rather irrelevant, isn't it?

Again, if you cannot see the difference, I am not going to enable you in claiming that there is none.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> And what about my D&D example above? Have 1E D&D players temporarily stopped playing the game when they enter a social encounter? Can't you imagine a game that was comprised solely of social encounters like those in 1E D&D? I'm not asking if you would like such a game, but if one could exist using just social encounters from a system without a skill resolution system.




If you read my posts in this, and related, threads, I believe you would know my answers to your questions:

1.  Not specific enough to answer.
2.  No.  Truth or Dare, remember?
3.  Obviously.  Truth or Dare, remember?



RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 18, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> So, some people drew a distinction that you didn't like, or thought was invalid, and therefore all people who draw any distinction share the same motives, and all distinctions are therefore suspect and invalid?  Not what you mean?  Then, rather irrelevant, isn't it?




Fine, that point is irrelevant to the discussion. It was an unnecessary tangent.



Raven Crowking said:


> If you read my posts in this, and related, threads, I believe you would know my answers to your questions:
> 
> 1. Not specific enough to answer.
> 2. No. Truth or Dare, remember?
> 3. Obviously. Truth or Dare, remember?




You would have to explain further. I don't see how 1E D&D social encounters relate to Truth or Dare.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2009)

Look up.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 18, 2009)

One of us needs to stop cross-posting!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 18, 2009)

Requirements for a game (according to Raven Crowking):

1.  Some goal or goals to be met (i.e., victory conditions)
2.  Player actions/choices related to said goal or goals
3.  The resolution of said goal or goals is unknown when the game begins

Nothing more; nothing less.


RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 18, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Requirements for a game (according to Raven Crowking):
> 
> 1.  Some goal or goals to be met (i.e., victory conditions)
> 2.  Player actions/choices related to said goal or goals
> ...




Cops & Robbers:
1. Explore adult themes of duty and morality.
2. Act in the role of a cop or a robber.
3. Will the robber escape, kill the cop, or go to jail?

Theoretical Batman Game:
1. The Batman will catch the Joker, but what will he sacrifice to achieve this goal?
2. A narrative of actions describing the sacrifices made to achieve the goal.
3. What will the player choose to sacrifice to meet his goal.

Looks like we agree. 

As I understand it, Hero's Banner plays much like the TBG above with some added rules to make it more interesting.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Looks like we agree.





Not until you tighten up the relationships between your elements.  

Here's a hint:  I already did the Batman example a day or two back.


RC


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 19, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Salmon is a subset of fish, as def 3 is a subset of def 1.  That does not make all fish salmon, nor does it make all amusements into "games" in the same sense.




Howso? It it was a subset, it would be separated by colons, not get its own number. I think they are distinct definitions.



> Bus Depot Diner, _*again*_.  Every player is working together, but they are working together to beat a challenge supplied by the design of the game itself.




That's not competitive, especially in the sense of competing against a rival. A rival is an equal or peer.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2009)

You are always free to believe whatever you like, pawsplay.  

I will respond when I believe you are actually trying (as opposed to trying to be trying).


RC


----------



## Janx (Nov 19, 2009)

this thread is still going on?  And still nit-picking the definition of a game?

If whatever tangent you're on can't be spun back to "why somebody likes plot" or "our job as DMs" than you're just thread crapping.

I like plot because I like the players to be doing something for a reason, rather than "much ado about nothing"

I like the plot to be centered on the characters.  If there's a war brewing between two nations, it better be because the players are actively involved in it, or it's JUST background fluff while the real plot is about the players.

My job as a DM is to:
make a plot that makes sense in relation to the players
make a plot that the players are interested in
make the plot adapt as the players make choices
allow for a variety of solutions from the players
enforce logical consequences for players' actions

'nuff said.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2009)

Janx said:


> If whatever tangent you're on can't be spun back to "why somebody likes plot" or "our job as DMs" than you're just thread crapping.





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 *can* 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


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 19, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> You are always free to believe whatever you like, pawsplay.
> 
> I will respond when I believe you are actually trying (as opposed to trying to be trying).
> 
> ...




I don't know what you mean but you have succeeded in securing my disinterest.


----------



## Mark (Nov 19, 2009)

As a DM, for RPG campaigns, I do not care to impose a plot upon the players in a game.  I prefer to set up a number of events that might later, but only retrospectively, become plot points in a story that has genesis in the actions of the player characters.  It's probably why I also do not find games based on novels enticing to run or to play.  I do not mind the elements being familiar, nor do I mind if the PCs' actions emulate in some small way those the players have come to know as tropes of any particular genre, but I prefer to give players a lot more free rein in their choices of how (what later amounts to) a story unfolds.


(One-shot adventures and tournament games are a different matter.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 19, 2009)

More on using the definition of game to help plan games:



Raven Crowking said:


> 1.  Some goal or goals to be met (i.e., victory conditions)




It behooves the GM to consider what goals the PCs might meet, because meaningful PC activity is always related to some form of goal.  Goals allow the PCs to engage with the world.  In its simplest form, a goal is something that the PCs (and players) care about, from "acquire loot" to "protect the town" to "get even with the rat who set us up".

When an actor says, "What is my motivation?" he is asking what the goal of his character is in a given scene.  Similarly, failure to provide clear goals prevents players from acting in an appropriate way within the game.  If your players don't know what to do, reconsider how you set goals.

When creating a plot, it is sometimes easiest to start with the NPC goal, and then determine why the PCs would care.  Why would they want to foil the NPC?  What is their goal?  How would they define victory?

And "victory conditions" are important for satisfactory resolution.  The players should be able to tell when they've scored against their foes, when they have been victorious, and when they have only partially met their goals.  By thinking ahead of time about what is required to change the course of mighty rivers (so to speak), the GM can not only supply the information required to help the players set appropriate sub-goals (i.e., the steps needed to meet the bigger goal) but can also ensure that when the mighty rivers' courses move, there is a real impact on the campaign milieu.  

When this happens, victory seems real.  When it does not happen, victory seems hollow.



> 2.  Player actions/choices related to said goal or goals




Once you know what is likely to motivate your players (and their characters), it is possible to consider the actions/choices they are likely to make which relate to those motivations.

If the GM  expects the PCs to examine six adventuring locations on the way to achieving the great goal, the GM better make sure that each of those locations relate to the overall goal in some way.  They can provide equipment, information, or passage to another location, but they must provide something that motivates the players, and allows the players to view progressing through them to be part of the overarching goal.  _*The players must have a sense of their own progress.  They must believe that they can affect the outcome, or they will not be motivated to try.*_



> 3.  The resolution of said goal or goals is unknown when the game begins




Similarly, the players must believe that there is something at stake.  If they are playing an "avert the end of the world scenario" knowing ahead of time that the world will not end, this knowledge not only robs their efforts of any sense of urgency, but it also robs their choices of any meaning.

In a role-playing game, the resolution of the goal(s) is unknown due to the opposition (both direct opposition and incidental opponents, such as wandering monsters) the PCs experience.  The PCs must work to overcome enemies, avoid pitfalls, garner allies, and gain the information/gear they need to meet their goal.  While any single failure or success doesn't mean the success or failure of the whole enterprise, each makes overall success more or less likely.  It is the tension of unknown resolution which makes players sit at the edges of their seats.  

If the outcome of some aspect of the session is known, consider it part of the framework, and move past the framework into the unknown as fast as you can.  If the outcome of some aspect of the session is unknown, _*and is important to the PCs' goals*_, consider it part of the game, and allow the players to engage with it as much as they desire.  At no time should the players be suckered into spending large chunks of time on anything that will not change no matter what their PCs do.

For example, if you are playing A1-A4 in order, don't bother with the fight at the end of A3.  It's part of the framework.  It isn't part of the game.  Narrate what happens, and get on with A4.  In your own creations, try to make the framework as light and as permeable as possible.  Most players are at the table to make meaningful choices, not to listen to long narratives.

If your players are bored, consider the following:

1.  Have I mistaken framework for game?  IOW, am I wasting too much precious game time on things that either do not affect PC goals, or that the PCs cannot affect?

2.  Do the PCs know the victory conditions?  IOW, do the PCs know enough to have clear goals, or are they wandering aimlessly?  Even in a sandbox, it is possible to set clear goals for each session, as well as clear goals for overarching action.  If you read the advice Gary Gygax gave to players in the 1e PHB, you may note that he recommends setting clear goals for each session, even if it's only "find the entrance to the next level".

It's okay to have the victory conditions change in mid-session.  It is not okay to go long stretches of game time without any possibility of setting a goal.

3.  Have I given the PCs some clear idea of actions that can affect goals?  IOW, re-examine the hooks you are using, and make sure that they include not only the goal to be met, but some idea of ways to take action to meet them.

On a related note, try to avoid time wasters that don't have anything to do with player goals.  If you play a game with serious combat grind, consider how much time is wasted to slay a few kobolds that have little to do with the PC's goals.  

It is not only true that the players should be able to take meaningful action toward their goals, it is true that the resolution of events should take game time which is at least vaguely proportional to the amount said events are important to those goals.  Half an hour to an hour spent on a combat with wandering monsters is just too bloody long if you are going to have a lot of wandering monsters.

4.  Do the players already know how this will end?  Do they believe they do?  If there is no doubt how the goals will resolve, then there is no tension.  _*Throw something else into the mix*_.  

Or accept that the remainder of the "adventure" has already become framework.  The outcome is known.  Narrate it briefly, and move on to the next thing.



RC


----------



## CharlesRyan (Nov 20, 2009)

RC, I agree with you completely, at least in the broad strokes. It's hard to imagine any reasonable person disagreeing, frankly.

I suspect that a big stumbling block in this conversation centres around the concept of "outcome"; I think people are often imagining different things when they use that term--even when very specific examples are in use.

That said, I'm surprised that you seem to associate these points with sandbox-style play (or perhaps I've misunderstood you?). In most of the discussions I've been involved with, the pro-sandboxers seemed to have taken the stance that yes, you must play through that encounter with the kobolds, no matter how meaningless it might be. The kobolds are there (according to the GM's notes, or imaginings, or a published adventure, or whatever); to not play through the encounter would be unacceptably manipulative on the part of the GM, who's supposed to be impartial, dispassionate, and utterly unconcerned with the fates of the characters or "meaning" of the encounters.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 20, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> RC, I agree with you completely, at least in the broad strokes. It's hard to imagine any reasonable person disagreeing, frankly.




And yet.......Frankly, there are those who are disagreeing that I would say are generally reasonable people.



> I suspect that a big stumbling block in this conversation centres around the concept of "outcome"; I think people are often imagining different things when they use that term--even when very specific examples are in use.




I agree.  That's why I tried to seperate the game and the framework.



> That said, I'm surprised that you seem to associate these points with sandbox-style play (or perhaps I've misunderstood you?). In most of the discussions I've been involved with, the pro-sandboxers seemed to have taken the stance that yes, you must play through that encounter with the kobolds, no matter how meaningless it might be. The kobolds are there (according to the GM's notes, or imaginings, or a published adventure, or whatever); to not play through the encounter would be unacceptably manipulative on the part of the GM, who's supposed to be impartial, dispassionate, and utterly unconcerned with the fates of the characters or "meaning" of the encounters.




IMHO, and certainly when I use the term, a "sandbox" is a game in which there are plot threads occurring in the world, whether or not the PCs follow them, and where the PCs direct the "action" of the game toward the plot threads that they are interested in.  It is (partially, anyway) still the job of the GM to make this setting "work" in terms of game play.

If you are playing a system where the kobold encounter can be played relatively quickly (1e, OD&D, Basic Fantasy, RCFG), then that encounter doesn't detract from the game.  If you are playing a system where the kobold encounter is going to grind (3e, 4e), then you might want to reconsider placing it in the first place.  Or you could consider having the kobolds scatter, or throw themselves on the PCs' questionable mercy, preferably before the grind/glazed-over look begins.

Being impartial in terms of the game itself doesn't mean that you have to have a sucky framework in which that game takes place.  Originally, wandering monsters were there to make "Greyhawking" a less than viable option, as well as to add to the faux realism of the experience.  When used in this way, these encounters are part of the game.  When exploring, finding out what is there is part of the game.  When they occur "just because" they are part of the framework, and even Gary Gygax gave the advice to ignore them if they were damaging the game (in the 1e DMG).

Parsing out what you are doing when you engage in an activity like a role-playing game might seem like mere pedantry, but it allows you to gain deeper insight into how the parts relate to the whole.  This in turn allows you to make the entire thing better.

IMHO, of course.  YMMV.


RC


----------



## Mark (Nov 20, 2009)

It is just as important in sandbox style play for the setting to react to the PCs as vice versa.  At some point, the grind with kobolds (for example) should not even be an issue as PCs will be able to dispatch them quickly and kobolds will avoid dying by the hand of the PCs.  I disagree that there should be predetermined plot "threads" though there might be what reveal themselves retrospectively as plot "points" that have through PC choice and actions become, again, retrospectively revealed as plot threads.




(Once again adding the caveat that this is for sandbox campaigning, not for a one-shot or tournament style play.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 20, 2009)

Mark said:


> It is just as important in sandbox style play for the setting to react to the PCs as vice versa.  At some point, the grind with kobolds (for example) should not even be an issue as PCs will be able to dispatch them quickly and kobolds will avoid dying by the hand of the PCs.  I disagree that there should be predetermined plot "threads" though there might be what reveal themselves retrospectively as plot "points" that have through PC choice and actions become, again, retrospectively revealed as plot threads.





What I mean by a "plot thread" is something like "Duke Niceguy is secretly a werewolf, ravaging the countryside at night" or "The evil wizard Blastemall is seeking the Ring of Wrong to increase his power; if he gets it he will try to use it to take over Dullsburg".

Knowing that these threads exist ahead of time allows me to seed other adventures with clues to these threads.  One adventure might include, for example, the werewolf who infected Duke Niceguy (and clues that it had encountered the Duke).  Another adventure might include a reference to the Ring of Wrong, or have a letter from Blastemall to an accomplice, describing his hatred of the rulers of Dullsburg.

Without knowing what is going on in the campaign milieu -- without knowing these overarching threads -- it is difficult to inter-relate various adventure sites.  IMHO, when one site points to three other possible adventures, then all is good and the players have plenty of choices.

If I was going to make a campaign world with the Keep on the Borderland, Quasqueton, and Saltmarsh all in the begining area (utilizing the modules they appear in - B2, B1, and U1-3), I would certainly go through the modules and include things that link them together beforehand.  

Without doing this sort of (fun!) work, I would have a hard time running a viable sandbox, let alone an interesting one.

(Again, YMMV)


RC


----------



## Mark (Nov 20, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> What I mean by a "plot thread" is something like "Duke Niceguy is secretly a werewolf, ravaging the countryside at night" or "The evil wizard Blastemall is seeking the Ring of Wrong to increase his power; if he gets it he will try to use it to take over Dullsburg".
> 
> Knowing that these threads exist ahead of time allows me to seed other adventures with clues to these threads.  One adventure might include, for example, the werewolf who infected Duke Niceguy (and clues that it had encountered the Duke).  Another adventure might include a reference to the Ring of Wrong, or have a letter from Blastemall to an accomplice, describing his hatred of the rulers of Dullsburg.
> 
> ...





Well, I think the difference is that having a guy who is a werewolf somewhere would count as a plot "point" in my terminology but plunking down whole modules in designated areas would be like having predetermined plot "threads" lying about.  It's more of an amalgam of sandbox-style and linear-style gameplay where the PCs have choices to make between bursts of linear adventures.  Although one could contend that PCs could leave any given linear adventure and take up a different one at any time, or even spend time in the grey areas between bursts, eventually they have to return to a linear section to progress.   This holds true, too, for if they go back and forth, essentially interweaving the predetermined threads.  This doesn't really emulate sandbox-style play, particularly since, as you proffer above, the style of play you describe above has certain expectations in regard to framework and outcomes that pure sandbox-style play would not have.  Some campaigns work well as one or the other and some as an amalgam, often depending on the players (GM included) involved.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Nov 20, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> IMHO, and certainly when I use the term, a "sandbox" is a game in which there are plot threads occurring in the world, whether or not the PCs follow them, and where the PCs direct the "action" of the game toward the plot threads that they are interested in.




So in other words, in a sandbox, there are multiple potential plots; one or more of these may play out depending on what the players choose to pursue. (Note my use of the words "potential" and "may".) In a "plotted" game, there's a single major plotline; it plays out on the basis of player buy-in from an early stage.

I think I better understand your definition of sandbox now, and it seems entirely reasonable. (I think there are people out there with different, less reasonable definitions of the term, but I'm willing to ignore them just as I've asked others to ignore the railroaders when thinking about games with plot.)



> Parsing out what you are doing when you engage in an activity like a role-playing game might seem like mere pedantry, but it allows you to gain deeper insight into how the parts relate to the whole.  This in turn allows you to make the entire thing better.




I couldn't agree more!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 20, 2009)

Mark said:


> It's more of an amalgam of sandbox-style and linear-style gameplay where the PCs have choices to make between bursts of linear adventures.




All adventures are linear, in the sense that players make one set of choices during any given game session, and making that set of choices precludes other sets of choices during the same time.

The important difference between a sandbox and an adventure path, IMHO, is that the line in an AP is known beforehand (at least in broad outline), while the line in a sandbox is not.

An adventure is only "nonlinear" in any real sense when the "line" being discussed is one drawn by the GM.  Thus, in the aforementioned sandbox, players who travel to Saltmarsh may become enmeshed in the plot of U1-3, or they may not -- if they choose to do something else, the plot of U1-3 unfolds without them, possibly with consequences for the setting.

But, likewise, the elements of U1-3 exist regardless of the plot of said modules.  It is entirely possible for a group of PCs to eliminate the sahuagin threat before travelling to Saltmarsh, so that those elements form a story far different from the one suggested by the module.

The elements of the threads are predetermined, the plans of the NPCs are predetermined, but the actual story of the game is not.  Having a solid framework need not constrain game play along a linear path.



> the style of play you describe above has certain expectations in regard to framework and outcomes that pure sandbox-style play would not have.




Please elaborate.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 20, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> So in other words, in a sandbox, there are multiple potential plots; one or more of these may play out depending on what the players choose to pursue. (Note my use of the words "potential" and "may".) In a "plotted" game, there's a single major plotline; it plays out on the basis of player buy-in from an early stage.





Exactly.

The plots players pursue are "game", those they do not become "framework".  That does not mean that the framework doesn't affect the choices available to the PCs in the game (if they ignore the threat of Blastemall, then Dullsburg becomes a smoking ruin ruled by the evil mage, so visiting their friend the blacksmith who lived there is out), and it doesn't mean that framework elements cannot become game (such as when the PCs want revenge on Blastemall for the blacksmith's death).




RC


----------



## Mark (Nov 20, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> All adventures are linear, in the sense that (. . .)
> 
> The important difference between a sandbox and an adventure path (. . .) is that the line in an AP is known beforehand (at least in broad outline), while the line in a sandbox is not.





Adventure paths *and adventures* are linear prior to the introduction of players.  They may have some branches but are written to be generally linear.




Raven Crowking said:


> An adventure is only "nonlinear" in any real sense when the "line" being discussed is one drawn by the GM.





An adventure is only "nonlinear" when the line only exists retrospectively.  It would not be called an adventure prior to actually happening.  It would only exists as a number of individual elements that later are connected by the choices and actions of the PCs.  Not that the individual elements could not be somehow related and not that the choices could not be predicted as things develop but rather that it is not one or one of several predetermined outcomes.  If it is a predetermined outcome, whether it is the only one, or one of several, then it is essentially linear.




Raven Crowking said:


> The elements of the threads are predetermined, the plans of the NPCs are predetermined, but the actual story of the game is not.  Having a solid framework need not constrain game play along a linear path.





The framework and the thread of a published adventure are essentially the same thing and only really differ in that the thread might remain a single path or might be somewhat frayed to allow for a number of predetermined linear outcomes.




Raven Crowking said:


> Please elaborate.





You already did in your previous posts.  I was agreeing with you, or thought I had been, but I've reread some of your posts and I think I see whence the miscommunication stems.  You seem to redefine things in a way that allows you to use terms in ways that would normally be antithetical.  You use the term "sandbox" to mean something that isn't traditionally sandbox-style, which I think has led to a lot of confusion in this thread.


I wish I had more time to discuss this.  I think it would become a more interesting discussion if the terminology we collectively used was standardized.  Sorry to say, though, that my time is becoming severely limited so hopefully what I have posted already will be of some help to you moving forward.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 20, 2009)

> It would not be called an adventure prior to actually happening.



Actually, it would and was just so in the 1st ed. AD&D books. In that sense, the accent is on "venture".


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 21, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> In most of the discussions I've been involved with, the pro-sandboxers seemed to have taken the stance that yes, you must play through that encounter with the kobolds, no matter how meaningless it might be. The kobolds are there (according to the GM's notes, or imaginings, or a published adventure, or whatever); to not play through the encounter would be unacceptably manipulative on the part of the GM, who's supposed to be impartial, dispassionate, and utterly unconcerned with the fates of the characters or "meaning" of the encounters.



Sandbox, to me, just means the players get a choice as to which adventure they go on. Most games out there aren't sandboxes imo. The GM has prepped one adventure for the evening, so the PCs have to accept it or nothing happens.

The words I'd use to describe the style you've outlined are: _static_, or _status quo_, as opposed to _dynamic_ or _tailored_ (as per the terminology in the 3e DMG chapter 3), and _GM as referee_.

You could have a sandbox where encounters are played out, or even just handwaved, in any amount of detail and the GM could be totally partisan (in any direction). So long as the players get to choose whether to go to the Caves of Chaos, the Sunless Citadel or the Halls of Tizun Thane, then it's a sandbox irrespective of any other GMing issues.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 21, 2009)

Mark said:


> Adventure paths *and adventures* are linear prior to the introduction of players.  They may have some branches but are written to be generally linear.




Hmmm.  I guess you and I write adventures differently, then.  Or you must imagine that adventure means "a sequents of events that must occur in a specified order".  As Ariosto has already (correctly) noted, this is not the useage which existed in early D&D, nor is it the useage I am using now.  

Adventure =/= railroad.

I certainly wouldn't call Keep on the Borderlands (as an excellent example) linear.  You seem hung up on the idea that elements come from modules.  Once they are included in the campaign milieu, however, there is absolutely no difference between elements created by the GM and elements converted by the GM.



> If it is a predetermined outcome, whether it is the only one, or one of several, then it is essentially linear.




This is absolutely nonsensical.

If the outcome is predetermined, then the scenario is linear.

If there are several possible outcomes, and which outcome occurs is not predetermined, then the scenario is not linear.

If the PCs attempt to kill Blastemall, then they either will or they will not succeed.  The fact that the end state is binary does not make their efforts linear _prior to their occurance_ (all scenarios are linear after the fact).  



> The framework and the thread of a published adventure are essentially the same thing and only really differ in that the thread might remain a single path or might be somewhat frayed to allow for a number of predetermined linear outcomes.




Let us say that you are getting ready for the creation of a sandbox game.  In order to do so, you *must* create a framework (setting).  Why would you imagine that this creates a single path, frayed or otherwise?



> You use the term "sandbox" to mean something that isn't traditionally sandbox-style, which I think has led to a lot of confusion in this thread.






Sorry, but I don't see what you are objecting to.  I've been gaming since 1979, and I am pretty sure that I am using the term today in roughly the same way as I first used it.  The only difference is that, now, I've given a lot more thought to the elements that go into that sandbox, and how they interrelate.


RC


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 21, 2009)

> In most of the discussions I've been involved with, the pro-sandboxers seemed to have taken the stance that yes, you must play through that encounter with the kobolds, no matter how meaningless it might be.



Different groups have different customs, but in old-style play -- whether "sand-box" or otherwise -- "fudging" _tends_ to be a means of last resort. Some DMs truly might never interfere. What if there were about to be a TPK even though the players had made all the right moves? "I have not seen the case yet" might be the reply. And what if the players were coasting to victory on lucky rolls? At some point, "the die is cast", and one has committed to whatever fortune brings. Sometimes chance goes against the players, and sometimes it favors them. In the long run, that balances out and dealing with the vagaries is part of the game.

Now, some situations can be effectively pretty linear. Tournament scenarios tend rather toward gauntlets, the Tomb of Horrors infamously so. You can basically press on or turn back. In the latter case, though, if you make it out alive in a campaign context then you should have a wide wilderness before you.

The traditional, "proper" dungeon is quite another matter. So long as the walls in fact constrain movement, what you get is a sort of flow chart of encounters. The players themselves choose their way, and in a well-made dungeon there are a great many ways.

That's basically the whole game in an easily grasped format. Prepare an environment such that there's interesting stuff down the line whichever way the players turn. With a few branches and interconnections, what could have been a line becomes a matrix of many possibilities. With the outcome of each encounter in doubt, and with the consequences informing the dynamics of the rest, you really just have to play to see what happens!


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 21, 2009)

Adventure paths of course presume a general direction of events along with the  arrow of time  -- but that need not be terribly particular. If you're always going forward, but have three ways to go at each step, then 5 steps = 3^5 = 243 possible end points. That need not mean, say, 363 (243+81+27+9+3) unique geographic locations. You can have considerable overlap, and yet there can be quite different states of "the adventure" in the same location depending on the path taken to get there.

My basic point is that a little bit of opening up can go a long way.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 21, 2009)

Please note, I didn't say "remove the kobold encounter because the kobolds are beating the PCs".  Rather, if the encounter is meaningless, the outcome is known, and the glazed look is soon to appear in the players' eyes, _*let the encounter end*_.  If the PCs' victory is as assured to the kobolds as to the players, _*it makes sense that the kobolds surrender or run away*_.

It was also a not-so-subtle point:  System matters.  Some systems, by virtue of their grindy combat rules, are not particularly well suited to a sandbox playstyle.  It is a reasonable rule of thumb that, the more encounters your game will have that don't relate directly to the players' goals, the faster the game should be able to resolve encounters.  Some games are a "Critical Fail" in this respect.  Other games are "Critical Fails" in other respects.

Regardless of what game system you prefer, it is important for the GM to understand how that system affects play, and adjust the setup of his game to make use of that system's strengths, while supporting its weaknesses, to the greatest extent of his skill.  

IOW, If you have four-hour game sessions, and are running 3.5, don't include an encounter with 40 kobolds unless you and your players don't mind doing anything else in that session.  (Even in RCFG or 1e, this is likely to eat up at least half an hour, depending upon your players).


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 21, 2009)

Two points:

*  Those old modules include background and/or rumours for a reason -- and that reason is to help players set goals within the environment presented.  The players rely on the GM to provide enough information to make decisions and set goals.  If the GM isn't supplying it (or making it possible for the PCs to obtain), she isn't doing her job.

*  Having kobolds surrender when they are obviously beat is not fudging.  Nor is it fudging to not create the encounter in the first place.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 21, 2009)

If you are thinking that the advice for "playing through A1 to A4" indicates that "playing through A1 to A4" as written would be possible in a sandbox campaign, that was not my intention.  That was sort of general advice for understanding framework/game.

The fight at the end of A3 cannot be rigged that way within a sandbox, IMHO.  The caves in A4 should exist regardless (and might be used to circumvent much of A3), and the surviving PCs should be deposited in A4 if they lose, but the GM should be willing to allow them to win and explore A4 on their own or not, as they desire.

When adapting a module for a sandbox game, the GM should remove any text that demands any specific outcome to any encounter, or the survival of any specific character so that he/she can appear later.


RC


----------



## CharlesRyan (Nov 23, 2009)

I thought about the relation of "sandbox" to "plot" style games, as defined by the accord I've reached with RC, a bit over the weekend. Please note I am headed definitively into YMMV land here; I'm not asserting that my preferences are superior or that anyone else is wrong in their philosophy. I'm simply observing what to me are some pros and cons.

So, a game is a sandbox if the GM is ready to let the players choose from among a number of adventures/directions. (Yes, I'm simplifying, stay with me.)

The problem here is the GM must have a lot of content ready to go at any time. Seems to me this works best if a GM is running from published adventures, and can just pull what he needs from the shelf. It could also work for a GM who has a lot of time on his hands and loves to create lots of campaign and adventure material, but that GM will not get the satisfaction of bringing most of that to the table. For every one adventure he runs, he's created two or three others purely for the benefit of giving the players a choice of which to pursue.*

(Of course, every time the players emerge from a dungeon, they don't have to have three+ _new_ choices of where to go next. They could have the previous unexploited choices, along with perhaps one or two new ones. But in the long run, this plan ends up being very similar to the plotted, "choice-free" philosophy, only with a slightly wider content pipeline.)

On the flip side, for me the advantage of the "plotted" approach is that it unlocks the story structure toolbox. If the GM has an outline for the adventure or campaign's story arc, he can take advantage of the three-act structure (or similar story theory guideline) to introduce elements into the game in a way that maximizes their impact and creates a very satisfying overall experience. The GM can build elements into the game early on that will be very significant later. He can focus on content that will very likely be used, spending time and energy make _better_ material (as opposed to _more_ material).


* This is a serious issue in the computer game development world. Creating sandbox-like freedom of action within the world is seen as desirable, but spending--literally--millions of dollars to develop content that any given user will never experience certainly isn't. There are many approaches to this issue, but to date the industry hasn't settled on a universal solution.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 23, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> But in the long run, this plan ends up being very similar to the plotted, "choice-free" philosophy, only with a slightly wider content pipeline.




Sorry, but this doesn't follow rationally from your previous observations.  If it is true that a lot of GM work doesn't get used, then it is also true that players have a lot of real choice, and there is no pipeline.



> On the flip side, for me the advantage of the "plotted" approach is that it unlocks the story structure toolbox.




I would argue that the story structure toolbox is available in a sandbox game, but it is available in a weaker form.  Similarly, the "player agency" toolbox is available in a linear game, just in a weaker form.

The trick, IMHO, is to determine how much of one toolbox you are willing to give up in order to unlock tools from the other box.  IMHO, player agency is more important, so I choose to use more of that box.  Your Mileage May Indeed Vary here!  If story structure is important to you, you may wish to restrict player agency to make story structure more prominent.

In a very real way, "story structure" structural elements belong to what I have been calling the "framework", and player agency is the "game".  You can't have the game without framework, but if you have too much framework there isn't very much game left.


RC


----------



## CharlesRyan (Nov 23, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> I would argue that the story structure toolbox is available in a sandbox game, but it is available in a weaker form.  Similarly, the "player agency" toolbox is available in a linear game, just in a weaker form.
> 
> The trick, IMHO, is to determine how much of one toolbox you are willing to give up in order to unlock tools from the other box.




Agreed.



> Sorry, but this doesn't follow rationally from your previous observations.  If it is true that a lot of GM work doesn't get used, then it is also true that players have a lot of real choice, and there is no pipeline.




What I'm saying is, if you start the campaign with, say, three or four adventure options out there for your players, and they pursue one of them, afterword you presumably want them to _still_ have three or four options. One way to achieve that is to create three or four _new_ options. Another way is to add a single new option, so that combined with the original remaining two or three, they still have a balance of three or four.

Now let's say your campaign runs through N adventures. In the first instance, you as a GM have presented the players with (N x 3 or 4) options over the course of the campaign. In the second instance, you have presented the players with (N + 2 or 3) options over the course of the campaign. The second instance is mathematically much closer to N (the number of options in a plotted campaign) than the first instance.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 23, 2009)

Obviously, this depends very much on the game system and the way the DM works.

I sketch out the basics of many, many sites, and I fully describe many others.  As the campaign progresses, I continue the work of fully describing sketched out sites, and of sketching out more sites.

In a game like 3e, it is such a pain in the onager to fully describe sites that it isn't surprising that the prospective DM gets a bit lazy and (may we say it) a bit railroady.  In an easier-to-create-for game (1e, Basic D&D, Basic Fantasy, RCFG) a GM who enjoys being a GM tends to create more material than needed simply because doing so isn't a *chore*.


----------



## Janx (Nov 23, 2009)

CR's 3-4 adventures:
I cheat on my first adventure, i tend to make 1 problem that tries to get all the PCs introduced and roped into a problem to solve that relates to them.  The worst format being "you all hear that Timmy has been kidnapped by Kobolds, being good PCs y'all are obliged to help."  (My initial plots strive for a bit more quality than that....

After that, usually enough interaction has happened with the village and party that the PCs start getting ideas or generating their own hooks, and the next session will be based on that.


RC's sketched out sites:
I hear a keyword 'sites'.  That implies that you sketch out a few dungeons, drop a few hints and see which one the PCs go to.  The extreme of this idea is that there is 1 dungeon for each compass point, and you drop maps and motivations for the PCs to pick one.  


I would estimate that many DMs are lazy like me.  We only want to write the "next" adventure.  We want it to be the right one, that the PCs want to do.  We don't want it to be a railroad.  We don't want it to be a crappy novel or DMPC love-fest.  We want the players to enjory it and be challenged.

for me, that means understanding the players and the PCs and making sure the adventure has elements they're interested, and that each session is "about them".  On the first game, it means making some assumptions of likely player choices to prime the pump.  On any subsequent game, it's a continuation of player preferred plotlines, and course corrections based on player choices between sessions.

that means at the end of session #4, the players just learned that the BBEG has two different evil plans in place, and Player#1 found a clue to who murdered his father.  Ask the players what their basic intent for the next session will be.  They say try to stop plan#1, and while there look into the clue.  So I go home and write the stuff I need to challenge them for that as session #5.  We meet, play it, and I get surprised by how they solve it.  Lather, rinse, repeat.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 23, 2009)

Janx said:


> I cheat on my first adventure, i tend to make 1 problem that tries to get all the PCs introduced and roped into a problem to solve that relates to them.




Me too.  I believe it is crucial that the players have enough information to get involved right from the get-go.



> After that, usually enough interaction has happened with the village and party that the PCs start getting ideas or generating their own hooks, and the next session will be based on that.




Again, me too.  



> RC's sketched out sites:
> I hear a keyword 'sites'.  That implies that you sketch out a few dungeons, drop a few hints and see which one the PCs go to.




That's true.  Initial development requires a few (1-3) local sites be fully fleshed out so that the players don't catch me with my pants down.  While they explore those sites, I put further work into the additional sites/hooks that the players express interest in at the table.  

For example, travelling over a lost roadway, I might inform the PCs that they can hear water running below them and, through holes in the road, see that there are caves below.  I already know roughly what is there, and I already know what I need to if they bite during that game session.  Fully fleshing out those caves, though, only occurs if the PCs express interest, or if I have some free time and feel like doing the work.

Likewise, the PCs might see the glint off something metallic in the far distance, or hear about a ruined city several days' travel away.  If they are interested, I have enough to run with _*now*_, but I'll have more to run with once they have committed.

Finally, if you are so lucky as to have a stable campaign world for multiple groups of players, what one group of players ignores another might pick up on.  In this way, you can get a lot more bang for your design buck.  And signs of your other groups' expeditions are always fun to have PCs run into.


RC


----------



## Janx (Nov 23, 2009)

Raven Crowking;5006956

That's true.  Initial development requires a few (1-3) local sites be fully fleshed out so that the players don't catch me with my pants down.  While they explore those sites said:
			
		

> Glad to hear that my methods aren't too alien...that establishes a baseline of what I mean when I talk about stuff...
> 
> 
> A difference I see, with your sites method, is that, as a PC or a GM, I seldom see the in-game freedom to just check stuff out.  I'm not talking about railroading, I'm talking about how once life starts rolling, you got things to get done, and there's no time to smell the roses (or explore extra dungeons).
> ...


----------



## rogueattorney (Nov 23, 2009)

The key sentence that needs to be uttered at the end of every session for me is, "What do you guys want to do next time?"

"We want to go back to the Caves and finish wiping out the goblins."
"We want to explore the Marshes and see if we can't track down the missing elf and his magic wand."
"We want to follow that treasure map we found."
"We want to go visit the sage and see if he can't identify this magical doo-dad."
"We need some money, so we're going to hire on with a caravan."

Often with multiples of above as the number of players and time available allow.

Once your get your answer, you know what to prepare for next time.  If the players ever do something unexpected, I have found that, "Sorry, guys, I didn't think you'd make it here this time - what do you want to do?" has never once resulted in horrified players leaving the game en masse.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 23, 2009)

> But in the long run, this plan ends up being very similar to the plotted, "choice-free" philosophy, only with a slightly wider content pipeline.





> What I'm saying is, if you start the campaign with, say, three or four adventure options out there for your players, and they pursue one of them, afterword you presumably want them to _still_ have three or four options.



How do you get in the first place into a state in which possible "adventures" are so finite as comprehensively to be counted, much less on the fingers of one hand?!

What you seem determined to miss is the difference between writing a plot and setting up a situation!

The latter is like putting some snacks on the table, stocking the 'fridge' with drinks, and welcoming friends at the door. People interact of their own accord, and that's a party -- or an old-fashioned D&D game.

It need not take a whole lot of work. Really, the factor of reuse of elements means that it takes _less_ labor than plotting, ever less per hour of play the longer the campaign continues.

With reasonable consideration for constraints of time in the imagined situation, it requires negligible voluntary restraint on the players' part to make starting with but a small area mapped quite feasible. Factors in the design of the original game, and in the attitudes of players drawn to play it with skill, make that a snap. Start characters at first level, and you'll have plenty of opportunity to grow.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 23, 2009)

> In a game like 3e, it is such a pain in the onager to fully describe sites that it isn't surprising that the prospective DM gets a bit lazy and (may we say it) a bit railroady.



What I have seen at first hand in 3e, and even more in 4e, is that:
(A) an "encounter" by default means a fight; and
(B) a fight (including related post-combat business) chews up about an hour of real time.

In 4e, a "skill challenge" is close enough to functionally equivalent.

If the DM chooses (A), then the players are very likely to follow that lead even if -- theoretically -- they could deal with the encounter otherwise (even by hurrying on). The incentives _not_ to take whatever the DM serves have, by design, been largely removed even short of Hobson's choice (which is indeed often the bottom line anyway).

So, you've got a six-hour session. Suppose an hour and a half or so, typically, goes to non-game socializing. Throw monsters and/or "skill challenges" at the players four times, and you probably don't have much more than half an hour of other time to fill.

Adjust as your group's mileage varies, but the basic point remains: It's easy-peas-y preparation because there's not so much that _can_ get used in a session.

Heck, if we just gave old-style D&D figures about 10x their normal HP and got rid of effects that win without HP attrition -- to make fights drag on -- and boosted availability of PC healing (to make them _keep_ dragging on, and also cut down needed non-combat time that might distract with other possibilities), then we'd have a game that's super easy on the DM.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 24, 2009)

Been away for a while.  

Honestly, RC, I think that our approaches are just not compatible.  I lean much more towards what Vyvyan Basterd classifies as a "game".  You're don't and that's groovy.  I don't think you have proven what you think you have proven to be honest.  You have basically changed the definitions.

To you, anything which is pre-determined stops being game and starts being framework.  I think that muddies the definition too much.  You can have pre-determined outcomes and still have a game simply because the player's goals are not based on those outcomes.

Thus, Batman catching the Joker is entirely known.  100% known, as it is in Sufficiently Advanced (the use of Twists guarantees that), yet, the goals of play isn't catching the Joker.  To you, that means catching the Joker is simply framework.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 24, 2009)

> yet, the goals of play isn't catching the Joker.  To you, that means catching the Joker is simply framework.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the usage of "framework" here RC's invention? So isn't it his business to define it that way?

What exactly is so profound about his using a single word in place of the phrase "not the goal of play"?


----------



## Hussar (Nov 24, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the usage of "framework" here RC's invention? So isn't it his business to define it that way?
> 
> What exactly is so profound about his using a single word in place of the phrase "not the goal of play"?




That would be my entire point though.  "Not the goal of play" is his invention.  If you discount  his definition of framework then the goal of play can be anything the players decide it to be.  Thus a game does not require unknown resolutions to be a game.

It is only with RC's definition of framework that games gain the requirement of unknown resolutions.  Since, as you say, it's entirely his own invention, I'm not under any particular onus to accept that invention.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 24, 2009)

Janx said:


> A difference I see, with your sites method, is that, as a PC or a GM, I seldom see the in-game freedom to just check stuff out.  I'm not talking about railroading, I'm talking about how once life starts rolling, you got things to get done, and there's no time to smell the roses (or explore extra dungeons).
> 
> We tend to find ourselves in the bind of "we got 3 days ride to ThereVille to stop the villain, and we just found a dungeon...hmmm...dungeon, villain...let's ride!"



How were the players introduced to the villain? How did they come to be pursuing the villain? How did they learn of the villain's plot?







			
				Janx said:
			
		

> It's very easy for a plot to guide the player's path where if they are vested in it, other choices don't matter.



How they become vested in the events of the game is one of the important characteristics of sandbox play, in my experience.







			
				Janx said:
			
		

> For example, the PCs have decided to ride to ThereVille to the village's aid.  Within any encounter, there's tons of choice on how they handle it.  Odds are good, whatever they choose, is something that works towards their goal.
> 
> However, in that same framework, they are NOT likely to choose to do anything that deviates from that goal.  Sure, they'll stop for directions, help a beggar, buy a sword.  But they won't do a u-turn and do something else, just for the heck of it.
> 
> From one angle, following a plot (an objective) cuts down on certain kinds of choices.  What is really happening, is the players already made a major choice and barring a change, automatically discard any option that doesn't move toward the goal.  This looks like a lack of choice, but it isn't.



Characters have goals and pursue them, putting off or aside other options, in sandbox play, too.

Choosing _how _the adventurers will pursue their goals, from among multiple options, is not the same kind of player choice as _whether or not to engage_ with the situation in the first place.







			
				Janx said:
			
		

> Winding this back to RC and his sites method, I tend to see in game play (through the groups I started), that the party seldom has free time to just explore dungeons.  Every dungeon is delved for a plot reason, rather  than a "let's go find stuff" reason.



In a sandbox game, dungeons are explored for the characters' reasons, not the referee's.







			
				Janx said:
			
		

> Thus, it seems like the sites method doesn't come into usefulness for me.



The other day I was fiddling around with what some gamers would probably call a 'relationship map' of some of the significant NPCs in the _Flashing Blades_ campaign I'm working on. 'Relationship map,' in my estimation, is just a fancy term for a flowchart, so I was struck by the comment upthread that a dungeon is also an elaborate flowchart, because when I look at the boxes containing the names of the different NPCs and the lines showing the relationships between them, well, darn if it doesn't look like a lot like a dungeon.

From this perspective, characters are 'rooms,' some with one or two connecting 'passages' (relationships), others are major intersections with a half-dozen or more connections. There are 'secret passages' as well, relationships that are out of the public eye. Each 'room' may offer hazards and rewards, in the form of the goals and resources of the character.

The adventurers can explore the 'rooms' and 'passages' in the course of the game. The thing to remember is this: I'm not deciding for them what rooms and passages they will follow. They can visit as many or as few rooms as they want, engage as many or as few of the non-player characters as they choose. They may find that in the course of their explorations that challenges flow from some rooms across the 'dungeon' to find them: make an ally in one room, and you may find that gets you an enemy in two or three other rooms elsewhere.

So sandbox games don't require 'sites' to be physical localities, in my opinion.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 24, 2009)

> "Not the goal of play" is his invention.



Really? I was quoting you. As you put it, 







> You can have pre-determined outcomes and still have a game simply because the player's goals are not based on those outcomes.



I agree with you there, and with RC that players must have goals the outcomes of which are not predetermined. Otherwise, it's not a game but a scripted (however sketchily) performance.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 24, 2009)

Janx said:
			
		

> Every dungeon is delved for a plot reason, rather  than a "let's go find stuff" reason.



If by "plot reason" you mean "because the DM said so", then there's a big difference. Otherwise:



			
				the 1e PHB said:
			
		

> First get in touch with all those who will be included in the adventure, or if all are not available, at least talk to the better players so that you will be able to _set an objective_ for the adventure.






			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> The other day I was fiddling around with what some gamers would probably call a 'relationship map' of some of the significant NPCs ... From this perspective, characters are 'rooms,' some with one or two connecting 'passages' (relationships), others are major intersections with a half-dozen or more connections. There are 'secret passages' as well, relationships that are out of the public eye. Each 'room' may offer hazards and rewards, in the form of the goals and resources of the character.



Well put!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Really? I was quoting you. As you put it, I agree with you there, and with RC that players must have goals the outcomes of which are not predetermined. Otherwise, it's not a game but a scripted (however sketchily) performance.




This is the problem that I have talking with Hussar.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2009)

As a quick note, if the PCs are always rushing off to counter the Villian of the Hour, how do the players ever get to modify the campaign milieu to their liking?  One of the goals (IMHO and IME) of a sandbox is to allow the players to say "I wish there wasn't slavery in Otherwiseniceville" and then *do something about it*.

If the PCs are always being hurried hither and yon, it seems to me that this level of investment is lost.


RC


----------



## Janx (Nov 24, 2009)

As I apparently didn't clearly state it, I make a plot that the PCs WILL be interested in.  After the first session, all subsequent sessions are based on feedback from the players on exactly what they planned to do based on the outcome of the last session.

Therefore, when I say the players are invested in a plot, or are following a plot, the players have chosen to go do it.

Based on that, what seems to not be getting through to some of you, is that when the party has CHOSEN to race to ThereVille to stop the villain, they are locked in.  Not by chains or DM fiat, but by virtue of the priority of their chosen goal.

A cat will almost always blink when struck with a hammer.  A paladin will almost always volunteer to rescue the princess.

Few of us wake up and decide to skip going to work and go to the museum.  Few of us decide to take a side trek to Iowa to explore it while driving to the mall.  People are predictable and people tend to take actions that move them closer to their goal.

Once you decide to go save the princess, barring a change, a rational party will continue to make choices that lead to that goal.  All other options that don't lead to chosen goals are nullified as choices.

This is the effect I'm talking about.  If you're playing a sandbox where nothing really matters, then of course, your players are free to choose anything.  But then, none of it really matters, not even to the PCs.

I run a game where the world has stuff happening, and the PCs get caught up in it.  Some of what happens is because of what NPCs are doing, some of it happens because of what PCs are doing.  If the PCs are passive, the NPCs start doing more until the PCs get motivated.  If the PCs are active, they'll drive events in the game, forcing NPCs to react.

I also don't run a game for evil NPCs.  Maybe a sandbox is a better format for evil, those types have no ties or loyalty to anything.  But give me a good party, it's pretty predictable what they'll do.  Thus, they have no choice by virtue of who they are.


----------



## SkidAce (Nov 24, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> As a quick note, if the PCs are always rushing off to counter the Villian of the Hour, how do the players ever get to modify the campaign milieu to their liking?  One of the goals (IMHO and IME) of a sandbox is to allow the players to say "I wish there wasn't slavery in Otherwiseniceville" and then *do something about it*.
> 
> If the PCs are always being hurried hither and yon, it seems to me that this level of investment is lost.
> 
> ...




Because the villain of the hour is the one promoting slavery in Otherwiseniceville...

Possibly, they are on this adventure because they chose to do something to modify the campaign.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 24, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> How do you get in the first place into a state in which possible "adventures" are so finite as comprehensively to be counted, much less on the fingers of one hand?!




I find it equally mindboggling that an "infinite" number of adventure-worthy events are occurring in Sandbox World. If such dangerous events are dime-a-dozen how can any of them feel any more special than having your character relieve himself behind a tree? I see nothing wrong with painting the picture of your world for your players, describing the everyday and mundane to breathe life into it, while still only throwing out a few hooks to lead the characters into adventure.

Edit: Even RC's example of players wanting to stop slavery in Otherwiseniceville is an adventure hook that the DM would have had to put out there at some point. Even if you didn't intend for that to be an adventure. Without creative control by the players they would have had to have gotten the plot information from the DM to know that there is a place named Otherwiseniceville and that they practice slavery.


----------



## Janx (Nov 24, 2009)

SkidAce said:


> Because the villain of the hour is the one promoting slavery in Otherwiseniceville...
> 
> Possibly, they are on this adventure because they chose to do something to modify the campaign.




Bingo!

To start a campaign in the style I employ (and have experienced any time I've ever played), you gotta prime the pump.  That means set some stuff up to be happening that the players will be impacted by.  Basically make them cross paths with the BBEG's plan.  The BBEG may not even be that big, he's just bigger than the PCs.

This triggers a reaction from the players.  To which the DM reacts.  And so on in a chain of reactions.

At some point, the BBEG gets beat.  In the process, the players learn more about the world, and start setting up their own side goals.  Once the BBEG is dealt with, they tend to turn these side goals into primary goals.  Now they're the ones setting up the initial action.

The chain reaction system is how they get locked in, because for the most part, they are going to stick with their goal.  The probability of them getting off is low.

The key then, is the initiating action.  At the start of the campaign, it's almost always the DM.  If the DM doesn't the party tends to sit around the bar, waiting for a hook, or they start causing trouble, just to start something moving.

At later stages of the campaign, when the players get some breathing room, they start initiating their own actions (and plot lines).  Like deciding to run for sheriff, since they've been saving it every week.  Or taking over the kingdom.  Or upgrading some magic item. Or finishing out that vengeance oath.

My initiating event, as a GM, tends to be small.  I'm really only looking to get this session going, so I make up a small event, enough to trigger a session's worth of activity.  The village is threatened and needs your help right now is a decent enough hook.  The idea, is to get the party moving together towards a common threat that they can beat in one session.  By doing a short adventure, they get motivated and learn to work together and get used to the new setting.  By making it short, I'm not getting them stuck in some mega-plot that they may or may not be interested in (since I don't know their characters that well yet either).  Plots should have a scope equal to the PCs level.

Once that first session is done, there's usually some outstanding business and PC goals start getting revealed.  That's where the next session tries to incorporate that stuff.  I don't want to have to make up yet another unrelated problem for the village.  I'd rather have thing stuff grow organically based on what the PCs goals or what they've done (or left undone).  What happens in the next session should be a logical progression from the last session and incorporate the player's general intent.

If the players say, we're going to infiltrate the BBEG's staff when we get to ThereVille, then my next session will give them opportunities to observe and infiltrate and avoid detection on the BBEG's staff.  It will not focus on a frontal assault.  Why does this matter?  Because an infiltration mission requires material for the GM that he may not fairly or realistically on the fly.  Plus, I may not have even thought of that had they not told me ahead of time, thus increasing the chance of a DM blockade because it was out of scope (i.e. railroad behavior happens when the PCs try to do stuff the DM doesn't want or didn't anticipate fairly).

That's generally how games flow, for me as a player, and as a DM.

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.  Whereas, an evil PC has no constraints on what he may do, and may be entirely random or inconsistent.  This may be a topic for a new thread...


----------



## Hussar (Nov 24, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Really? I was quoting you. As you put it, I agree with you there, and with RC that players must have goals the outcomes of which are not predetermined. Otherwise, it's not a game but a scripted (however sketchily) performance.




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.

From what I see RC claiming is the following:

1.  For a goal to be a real goal, the achievement (or failure to achieve) that goal must be unknown.

2.  All games must have goals in order to be games.

See, I agree with both these statements.  Where I think RC has gone off track is that he has linked them.  That the game goals can be the only goals that the players can have in order to be playing a game.  I disagree (obviously).  The players can have goals that have little to do with the goals presented 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.  "How long can we keep this going" can be a player goal, and not a game goal.  Even "Can I beat my high score" isn't a goal within many games, yet remains a player goal, despite the fact that the end result of the game is 100% known.



			
				RC said:
			
		

> This is the problem that I have talking with Hussar.




And you were doing so well not stooping to this sort of sniping RC.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2009)

Janx said:


> As I apparently didn't clearly state it, I make a plot that the PCs WILL be interested in.  After the first session, all subsequent sessions are based on feedback from the players on exactly what they planned to do based on the outcome of the last session.




And your players _*never*_ choose to go look at the spooky ruined castle on the hill?  That was the confusing part for me, because I find that, once I have mentioned enough spots like that, sooner or later the PCs are going to want to look into one of them.



> Once you decide to go save the princess, barring a change, a rational party will continue to make choices that lead to that goal.  All other options that don't lead to chosen goals are nullified as choices.




Time has shown me that what seem to be rational choices from one side of the screen are not always what seem to be rational choices from the other side.    But I agree with you in the general case.

@SkidAce:  When I am setting up a milieu, there is not always a single "villian" promoting a social problem.  Sometimes issues are larger, and take more work to deal with, often in between other adventures.  It is important for the players to be able to track their characters' progress with this sort of problem, but instant solutions (kill the villian and take his stuff!) don't always make for the most satisfying outcomes.

I really enjoy games that can hold a distorted mirror to our own world, that can help us "get" another point of view, that broaden our horizons.  

For example, I had a cool play experience a couple of years back where the PCs discussed religion and ethics with a priest of the evil Spider Goddess in the campaign world (this was in a modified Caves of Chaos using modified 3.x rules).  A pivotal moment came when the players realized that the spider cultists were using a nominally "good" scripture to justify sacrificing children.  It was a lot of fun, and a bit frustrating, and made the players have to rethink the "good" cult just a bit.  

Likewise, imagine a problem like that of the American Civil War:  One side has built its economy on slavery, the other has not.  Meanwhile, outside interested parties condemn slavery while making a fortune on the byproducts of slavery (rum and sugar, for example).  Everyone might know what the right thing to do is, but doing the right thing is hard, and has serious economic consequences.  Begining a campaign before the (fantasy world) Civil War, playing out the Civil War, and continuing far into the aftermath is more satisfying (to me, and YMM really V here) than simply stopping Blastemall as part of a single adventure.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2009)

Hussar said:


> 1.  For a goal to be a real goal, the achievement (or failure to achieve) that goal must be unknown.
> 
> 2.  All games must have goals in order to be games.
> 
> See, I agree with both these statements.




Not exactly right, but let's assume that this was accurate.



> Where I think RC has gone off track is that he has linked them.  That the game goals can be the only goals that the players can have in order to be playing a game.




So, the logical chain you object to is

1.  You cannot have B without A
2.  You cannot have C without B
3.  Therefore, you cannot have C without A

These are absolutely linked.

Where you are in error is that you seem to believe the logic chain goes

1.  You cannot have B without A
2.  You cannot have C without B
3.  Therefore, D is precluded

If I have stooped, as you say, it's because there is a real level of frustration inherent in hearing, over and over, in effect, "I understand that (1) You cannot have B without A, and (2) You cannot have C without B.  And I understand that (3) You cannot have C without A, but I absolutely deny that there is a logical connection between these points, moreover what you are really saying is that D is precluded, even if you haven't ever said that, and that cannot be logically inferred from what you have said."

A player can have any goal he likes when he sits down to game.  His goal can be to drink as much beer as humanly possible.  However, that goal is not the goal of the game, and it matters not one whit whether his beer capacity is known or unknown when he sits down when determining whether or not he is playing a game while drinking beer.

I can have a goal of making bad puns while playing chess.  That goal doesn't affect whether or not chess is a game (although it might affect whether or not my opponent will finish the game).  I can have a goal of blowing my nose, doing Monty Python impressions, or drinking a can of Coke.  Again, these goals don't impact the syllogism.

1.  You cannot have B without A
2.  You cannot have C without B
3.  Therefore, you cannot have C without A

You can add any D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, etc., etc. in there that you want without breaking the syllogism.  

However, if you agree, as you said you did, that 

1.  You cannot have B without A
2.  You cannot have C without B

then 

3.  Therefore, you cannot have C without A

automatically follows, whether you like it or not.  



RC


----------



## Janx (Nov 24, 2009)

We're getting somewhere.  I'm fairly certain that you get what I'm saying and aren't taking it to ridiculous extremes.



Raven Crowking said:


> And your players _*never*_ choose to go look at the spooky ruined castle on the hill?  That was the confusing part for me, because I find that, once I have mentioned enough spots like that, sooner or later the PCs are going to want to look into one of them.




I suspect that I seldom introduce the spooky ruined castle on the hill.  Unless it is a deliberate foreshadowing.  I can see good reasons for both styles.  By not doing it, I avoid distracting the PCs with data that isn't pertaining to their current goal.  By adding in extra "future" areas, it makes the world seem fuller and more complex, and may expand PC ideas for future goals (and possibly aid their current goal).



Raven Crowking said:


> Time has shown me that what seem to be rational choices from one side of the screen are not always what seem to be rational choices from the other side.    But I agree with you in the general case.




As you deduce, I am speaking generally.  I don't try to predict how PCs will solve any given encounter, even if I expect that they will solve or bypass it.  I do expect from a high level, that they will do stuff that drives to their goal.  If the bad guy is in the east, it is pretty likely that the party will do something to take them east.  I may not expect that they take a stage coach rather than teleport, but I'm pretty sure they're gonna get there.

And of course, there are exceptions.  As a DM, my job is to handle and integrate exceptions.

All of this stuff requires fitting it in to the players and PCs that you have at the table.  Its the reason I don't do published adventures.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Nov 24, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Imagine a problem like that of the American Civil War:  One side has built its economy on slavery, the other has not.  Meanwhile, outside interested parties condemn slavery while making a fortune on the byproducts of slavery (rum and sugar, for example).  Everyone might know what the right thing to do is, but doing the right thing is hard, and has serious economic consequences.  Begining a campaign before the (fantasy world) Civil War, playing out the Civil War, and continuing far into the aftermath is more satisfying (to me, and YMM really V here) than simply stopping Blastemall as part of a single adventure.




Boy, I totally agree with you. But I don't see how the sandbox philosophy gives you the best toolkit to run this kind of game. I _totally_ think this would come off much better using the story structure toolbox.



> your players _*never*_ choose to go look at the spooky ruined castle on the hill?  That was the confusing part for me, because I find that, once I have mentioned enough spots like that, sooner or later the PCs are going to want to look into one of them.




Fair enough. But the randomly-placed spooky ruined castle on the hill is a feature of the sandbox campaign. In the story structure campaign, the placement isn't random. (It may not be directly related to the plotline--it could be a red herring, the start of a potential subplot, or a potential sidetrek intended to introduce a certain atmosphere or control pacing. But it's not there by chance.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> Fair enough. But the randomly-placed spooky ruined castle on the hill is a feature of the sandbox campaign. In the story structure campaign, the placement isn't random.





Why would its placement be random in a sandbox?  

Sandbox =/= "elements thrown together at random".  Indeed, the less sense a sandbox setting makes, the harder it is for players to navigate it.  A sandbox has a higher requirement for linked backgrounds, and though about placement, than does an AP IMHO & IME.


RC


----------



## Janx (Nov 24, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> Fair enough. But the randomly-placed spooky ruined castle on the hill is a feature of the sandbox campaign. In the story structure campaign, the placement isn't random. (It may not be directly related to the plotline--it could be a red herring, the start of a potential subplot, or a potential sidetrek intended to introduce a certain atmosphere or control pacing. But it's not there by chance.)




CR is on the money.  If I put in the unrelated spooky castle, the players will think it matters and go investigate it, wasting time and advancing the enemy plot.  This is undesirable because the behavior happens for metagame reasons, if the GM mentions it, it must be important (presumably towards the goal).

The KoDT tale of how they found a dead end in the dungeon, which was an artifact of the random map generator, and assumed that no dwarf would build a corridor and stop, it MUST lead to somewhere.  So they dug forever, wasting tons of game time.  The lesson being, be wary of introducing elements into the game that have nothing to do with what the PCs want, or they will assume it IS important to their quest.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2009)

Ah, IOW, they will think they are _*meant to interact with it in some specific way*_.  That makes more sense.

Neither way requires the spooky castle's placement to be random.  It is, again, just a decision between "story elements" toolbox and "player choices" toolbox.  YMMV as to which is more important.

In the Civil War example, in a sandbox, the player choice element allows players to take any side in the debate.  Indeed, they are free to switch sides as things progress.  And, because the campaign doesn't merely arc from A to B to C, they get to live with the longterm consequences of whatever choices they make, for good or ill.  I have a hard time imagining a better model for exploration than one which actively encourages players to explore.


RC


----------



## Janx (Nov 24, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Why would its placement be random in a sandbox?
> 
> Sandbox =/= "elements thrown together at random".  Indeed, the less sense a sandbox setting makes, the harder it is for players to navigate it.  A sandbox has a higher requirement for linked backgrounds, and though about placement, than does an AP IMHO & IME.
> 
> ...




by random, I mean placed there in an unrelated manner, not necessarily by rolling 1d20 to see what is there.  I assume CR means the same.

It is possible that I'm (can't speak for CR) assuming an extreme example of sandbox where DM's just throw on "random" hooks and dungeons and wait for the PC to pick one, just as some other folks have assume that our style means we have a tightly plotted, rigid with no input freedom of choice for the players.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2009)

Janx said:


> by random, I mean placed there in an unrelated manner, not necessarily by rolling 1d20 to see what is there.  I assume CR means the same.




Unrelated to what?


----------



## Janx (Nov 24, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> In the Civil War example, in a sandbox, the player choice element allows players to take any side in the debate.  Indeed, they are free to switch sides as things progress.  And, because the campaign doesn't merely arc from A to B to C, they get to live with the longterm consequences of whatever choices they make, for good or ill.  I have a hard time imagining a better model for exploration than one which actively encourages players to explore.
> 
> 
> RC





In the "story" method, early sessions would have hints of a national division as background fluff.  Some adventures might have elements of it, like acts of terrorism, seccesionism, etc.  I'd see if I can sense which way the PCs are leaning (or not leaning).  If they have a leaning, I'd make some events to affect them that encourage that leaning.

Then news of the war would break, and I'd start making war events happen that directly affect the PCs, particularly in ways that support/encourage their leanings.  Basically, get them actively involved in the war by making bad or good stuff happen to them.

If I had PCs that were neutral, the war would be a back drop to whatever the PCs really wanted to be doing.  it might expose vulnerabilities or opportunies (all the menfolk are at war, the banks are unguarded).

The tricky part would be if the party is split.  That'd be cool, but I'd be inclined to split the groups and run 2 games, until some big climax session.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Nov 24, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Why would its placement be random in a sandbox?
> 
> Sandbox =/= "elements thrown together at random".  Indeed, the less sense a sandbox setting makes, the harder it is for players to navigate it.  A sandbox has a higher requirement for linked backgrounds, and though about placement, than does an AP IMHO & IME.




Fair enough; sorry I used the word "random." How about "unrelated to the events of the campaign?"


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2009)

Janx said:


> The tricky part would be if the party is split.  That'd be cool, but I'd be inclined to split the groups and run 2 games, until some big climax session.




I would be inclined to think that, because they have to work out their differences on the big issues to be effective in their daily stuff, this would be the most effect set-up, assuming that the game was not split.

OTOH, I would say that your story game leans in toward the sandbox side quite a bit.  Use of one toolbox (story elements/player choice) constrains, but does not preclude use of the other.  You just have to find the balance you are most comfortable with.

IMHO, anyway.


RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 24, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> In the Civil War example, in a sandbox, the player choice element allows players to take any side in the debate.  Indeed, they are free to switch sides as things progress.  And, because the campaign doesn't merely arc from A to B to C, they get to live with the longterm consequences of whatever choices they make, for good or ill.




I don't know if it's just the example you are using that's causing me to scratch my head at the moment or a blurring between Sandbox and Plotted. A plotted campaign can allow for players to take any side they wish as well. (1) And campaigns arc from A to B to C whether Sandbox or Plotted and players of either type of campaign have to live with their choices. The only difference I really see is that players that are uninvested in the Civil War story in a sandbox campaign can try to avoid the scenario entirely by declaring that they attempt to jump the border. A Plotted campaign seems to ask the players to buy into the story, whereas a Sandbox seems to allow player choice of story. Why not just ask the players what type of story they are interested in buying into and plot that for them?



(1): [sblock]In my current campaign I'm using Demon Queen's Enclave. The party has already chosen a side and then switched sides after an extended discussion with another NPC.[/sblock]


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> Fair enough; sorry I used the word "random." How about "unrelated to the events of the campaign?"




Sorry, but I am not seeing how this is a requirement of (or even desireable in) a sandbox campaign.

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.  

Fun stuff for everyone.  It certainly led to more in-depth character backgrounds around the table.

In the same campaign, a character was the son of people who had worked with the reviled Amoreth the Arcane when he caused Selby-by-the-Water to collapse.  Now, I knew that this event was caused by aboleth tunnelling beneath the city.  Amoreth the Arcane died trying to stop them.  Therefore, this PC's family died trying to stop them, too.  Again, a fun moment when he discovered that his parents were heroes (of sorts) and had died trying to protect him.

These sorts of stories and story elements can occur throughout the course of a sandbox campaign.  Again, IMHO.  YMMV.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> And campaigns arc from A to B to C whether Sandbox or Plotted and players of either type of campaign have to live with their choices.





Granted.  The difference, IMHO, is that in a sandbox _*the milieu*_ is expected to move from A to B to C, and the players are expected to deal with it however they choose.  In an AP, the _*PCs*_ are expected to move from A to B to C.

I suppose that there is a difference in that I view "jumping the border" to be a valid choice, with consequences all of its own.


RC


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 24, 2009)

Janx said:


> If you're playing a sandbox where nothing really matters, then of course, your players are free to choose anything.  But then, none of it really matters, not even to the PCs.



In a sandbox the adventurers have goals. They are free to pursue those goals however they see fit. In the meantime, there are events going on around them, some of which they may choose to become involved in the course of play, such as aiding an ally. They may find themselves amidst events that affect the setting, such as the outbreak of a war. They may create conflicts, deliberately or inadvertently, such as making a rival.

How you get from there to "nothing really matters" leaves me bumfuzzled, to be honest.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 24, 2009)

Janx said:


> I suspect that I seldom introduce the spooky ruined castle on the hill.  Unless it is a deliberate foreshadowing.  I can see good reasons for both styles.  By not doing it, I avoid distracting the PCs with data that isn't pertaining to their current goal.



And in my games the spooky ruined castle is on the hill regardless of what the adventurers are doing, because that hill has a spooky ruined castle on it.

The players in my games are responsible for pursuing their characters' goals. It's up to them to sift through the information they glean and determine what's relevant and what isn't. If they let themselves be distracted by a spooky ruined castle, then the consequences are on them.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 24, 2009)

Janx said:


> If I put in the unrelated spooky castle, the players will think it matters and go investigate it, wasting time and advancing the enemy plot.  This is undesirable because the behavior happens for metagame reasons, if the GM mentions it, it must be important (presumably towards the goal).



That's why I'm very clear to my players at the outset to rely on what their characters learn in the game and not try to guess what I might be doing behind the screen.

Unfortunately a distressing number of players are conditioned by referees who run plot-heavy games to look for clues to the plot instead of reacting as their characters would in light of what they know and what they want.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> And in my games the spooky ruined castle is on the hill regardless of what the adventurers are doing, because that hill has a spooky ruined castle on it.
> 
> The players in my games are responsible for pursuing their characters' goals. It's up to them to sift through the information they glean and determine what's relevant and what isn't. If they let themselves be distracted by a spooky ruined castle, then the consequences are on them.




Indeed. And, if the players are expected to "sift through the information they glean", then it is a requirement not only for information to be gleanable, but for the milieu to have interelationships that allow the players to "determine what's relevant and what isn't" to their goals.  

IOW, that spooky ruined castle on the hill _*isn't*_ random.  When the DM placed it there, he made certain that it related to some degree to other elements in the milieu.  This is similar to how the evil cleric in the Keep (in KotB) can be related to the evil clerics in the Caves of Chaos.  It is also the reason why we are told what so many folks in Hommlet are doing there.  It is the relationships of the elements that give the whole meaning, whether in a plot-driven game, or in a sandbox.

EDIT:  Another way of looking at it is, in one game, the players ask "What does the DM expect us to do with element X?" and in another game, the players ask "Should we do anything with element X, and if so, what?"



RC


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 24, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Why not just ask the players what type of story they are interested in buying into and plot that for them?



Because the goal is to keep an element of surprise on both sides of the screen. The referee doesn't know what the adventurers will do until they do it, and the adventurers don't know what the world has to offer until they explore it.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 24, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> I suppose that there is a difference in that I view "jumping the border" to be a valid choice, with consequences all of its own.




Oh, definitely. I would never say it isn't a valid choice.



The Shaman said:


> Because the goal is to keep an element of surprise on both sides of the screen. The referee doesn't know what the adventurers will do until they do it, and the adventurers don't know what the world has to offer until they explore it.




Fair enough.

I am seeing this now more as a toolbox. And as more of a sliding scale than an absolute. It really depends on the DM and the group where in that scale you should fall. A good DM will adjust based on where his strengths lie and where his players' strengths lie and where each others desires for gameplay are at any given time. Some DMs are better at crafting the story with preparation, others make better stories on the fly, and surely some are gifted at both to varying degrees. Some players get into character better when they have clearly defined goals laid out for them, others develop better under open story lines, and surely some players enjoy a variety of the styles blended over time.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 24, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> A good DM will adjust based on where his strengths lie and where his players' strengths lie and where each others desires for gameplay are at any given time.



Playing only to one's strengths makes one predictable.

Take risks.







			
				Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> Some DMs are better at crafting the story with preparation, others make better stories on the fly, and surely some are gifted at both to varying degrees.



This assumes that creating a story is the goal of actual play, which in turn may influence how players and referees apprroach the game.

Can you see how a game might play out differently if you remove the expectations of crafting a story?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 24, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> Playing only to one's strengths makes one predictable.




I don't mean that you should exclude other elements and only play to your strengths. But you should be aware of your strengths as that will help you present a fun game. Those other elements, if still included, will potentially become strengths over time.



The Shaman said:


> Take risks.




My strong suit is accounting, but I also like to sing. I'm not going to put my family's financial future at risk by quitting my job and starting a rock band.

I've experimented over my many years of DMing various groups with different place on the sliding scale. You have to "take risks" and explore other elements to determine where your strengths lie in the first place. Some examples:

One player REALLY wanted a completely open sandbox and was vocal enough to convince me and his fellow players to give that end of the scale a go. We even switched from our old favorite Greyhawk to the Realms at his request. I seeded the group with dozens on sites and rumors to entice them in choosing from anything and everything the Realms had to offer. What did they do? They (meaning the mostly silent group led by the vocal sandbox player) ignoring every interesting aspect of the Realms, every plot seed, and even their own backgrounds to wander through the wilderness looking for random encounters. When everyone made it perfectly clear that they had no clue what they wanted to do and that they were bored with sandbox player's seeming lack of purpose they demanded he figure out what they should do. Next stop? Undermountain. If you just wanted to play Undermountain, why not say so instead of saying you wanted a sandbox?

I asked my current players to write personal "Quest Cards" for a new 4E campaign. The result was less than resounding. They didn't want the burden on developing plot. They don't want a sandbox. Took a risk and it fell flat. Players and DMs need a game they enjoy first and foremost without forcing a risk of something they don't enjoy.



The Shaman said:


> This assumes that creating a story is the goal of actual play, which in turn may influence how players and referees apprroach the game.
> 
> Can you see how a game might play out differently if you remove the expectations of crafting a story?




I used the term story and I regret it. I had a feeling it would result in this response from somebody. IMO, a Roleplaying Game *always* results in a story. I didn't mean you should play out a pre-determined story, but instead that the adventures your characters embark upon become a story in their own right. No matter where you fall on the sliding scale you end up with a story.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2009)

VB, play to your strengths, and take smart risks.

You can play to your strengths without becoming predictable (in general) by (1) developing as wide a set of strengths as you can, (2) not playing to your strengths occasionally, and (3) stealing the work of others (i.e., convert others' work to your game).

"Take risks" is good in moderation, and it is good when there is a point to taking that risk.  Sometimes, he who hesitates is lost.  Otherwise, look before you leap.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 24, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Those other elements, if still included, will potentially become strengths over time.



Which is the point is was driving at.







			
				Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> My strong suit is accounting, but I also like to sing. I'm not going to put my family's financial future at risk by quitting my job and starting a rock band.



I was referring only to gaming, not offering a defining philosophy of life! 


			
				Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> One player REALLY wanted a completely open sandbox and was vocal enough to convince me and his fellow players to give that end of the scale a go. We even switched from our old favorite Greyhawk to the Realms at his request. I seeded the group with dozens on sites and rumors to entice them in choosing from anything and everything the Realms had to offer. What did they do? They (meaning the mostly silent group led by the vocal sandbox player) ignoring every interesting aspect of the Realms, every plot seed, and even their own backgrounds to wander through the wilderness looking for random encounters. When everyone made it perfectly clear that they had no clue what they wanted to do and that they were bored with sandbox player's seeming lack of purpose they demanded he figure out what they should do. Next stop? Undermountain. If you just wanted to play Undermountain, why not say so instead of saying you wanted a sandbox?



Because the player requesting sandbox style play clearly didn't understand the responsibility of the players to create their own meaningful objectives for their characters in such a game.







			
				Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> They didn't want the burden on developing plot. They don't want a sandbox. Took a risk and it fell flat. Players and DMs need a game they enjoy first and foremost without forcing a risk of something they don't enjoy.



Yeah, sometimes I feel like there's a whole generation of players out there conditioned to believe they need look for the plotline and follow it at all costs.

But then, that's not really the players' faults; it's the referees and adventure writers who conditioned them to expect it, in my opinion.







			
				Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> I used the term story and I regret it. I had a feeling it would result in this response from somebody. IMO, a Roleplaying Game *always* results in a story. I didn't mean you should play out a pre-determined story, but instead that the adventures your characters embark upon become a story in their own right. No matter where you fall on the sliding scale you end up with a story.



Agreed.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 24, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> Yeah, sometimes I feel like there's a whole generation of players out there conditioned to believe they need look for the plotline and follow it at all costs.
> 
> But then, that's not really the players' faults; it's the referees and adventure writers who conditioned them to expect it, in my opinion.




I haven't noticed it as a generational tie, just personal taste. Some players just don't want the onus of driving plot. And if you throw them into a sandbox they will feel put upon and will not have fun. You can only encourage such players to try to delve into self-driven plot, you can't push them IME. I really don't think its conditioning, it's just personal taste and finding what your players enjoy is the key to running a good game.


----------



## Janx (Nov 24, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> Can you see how a game might play out differently if you remove the expectations of crafting a story?




I think if you scroll back to my description of how I'd run RC's civil war in the story method, that we reach the same outcome and allowance for PC choice.

Just as you are "bumfuzzled" as to why I don't get how your sandbox work, I'm reading your posts about what I'm saying and confused as to why we're disagreeing.


What's frustrating for me, is some number of people hop on this thread and see the words "plot" or "story", and ignore where we talk about getting player feedback, buy-in, and being flexible for player choices and assume we're running a railroad from hell.  

As RC noted, my explanation of the civil war story-style have sandbox elements.

My whole point has been, use story elements to make the game turn into a story.  If you run a sandbox the wrong way, you get a crappy game.  if you run it the right way by tying things together, you get a good game.  That tying of things together is story elements.

The same way that if I take a rigid story, I have a bad game.  If I apply sandbox elements, I get a good game.

We're approaching the running of a game with 2 different primary methods (sandbox or plot) and using techniques from the other method to get a hybrid.  The hybrid is what really matters.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 24, 2009)

In RCFG, I used the following definitions:

Adventure:  Any series of encounters that forms a distinct arc within a campaign.  An adventure could be attempting any goal that the players decide upon, from generally exploring a ruin to getting revenge on an enemy to rescuing the Duke from His enemies. 

Campaign:  A series of play sessions and/or adventures, linked by common characters, a common milieu, and/or an interlinked thematic or plot component.  

Milieu:  The overarching setting in which a series of game sessions takes place, including all of its locations, Powers, NPCs, monsters, and so on.  

Plot:  The machinations of a character within the milieu.  Both player characters and non-player characters can engineer plots within the game, which often then serve as hooks for adventures.  Note that this is different than the plot of a novel, as the outcome is not predetermined.  

Story:  What happens at the game table, only known or told after the events have occurred.  It is not the Game Master’s job in RCFG to plan a story that the player characters are intended to follow, per se.  Rather, the Game Master sets up situations and plots which the player characters may attempt to interact with in whatever way they like.  

Most of these apply to sandbox and more linear games alike, IMHO.  The end of the last definition, of course, differs.


RC


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 24, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I haven't noticed it as a generational tie, just personal taste.



Out of curiosity, when did you start gaming?


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 24, 2009)

Janx said:


> What's frustrating for me, is some number of people hop on this thread and see the words "plot" or "story", and ignore where we talk about getting player feedback, buy-in, and being flexible for player choices and assume we're running a railroad from hell.



You wanna know why? Keep reading. 







			
				Janx said:
			
		

> My whole point has been, use story elements to make the game turn into a story.  If you run a sandbox the wrong way, you get a crappy game.  if you run it the right way by tying things together, you get a good game.  That tying of things together is story elements.



That's why there's such a difference between our opinions, *Janx*. I couldn't agree less with what you wrote there.

If I wanted story elements, I'd be a writer, not a gamer.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 25, 2009)

I gotta agree with Vyvayan Basterd here.  "Roll up the plot wagon" is hardly a new thing.  There's a reason that you have that intro text in pretty much every module ever written.

Even if the plot is as simple as "Go here and kill all the stuff that needs killin'", there are more than enough players out there who are perfectly happy with getting a not so subtle nudge in a given direction.

I've seen more than one group paralyzed by indecision when faced with choices.  At any age.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 25, 2009)

RC said:
			
		

> A player can have any goal he likes when he sits down to game. His goal can be to drink as much beer as humanly possible. However, that goal is not the goal of the game, and it matters not one whit whether his beer capacity is known or unknown when he sits down when determining whether or not he is playing a game while drinking beer.




See, this is where we disagree.  You are claiming that the only goals that you as a player can have during a game are the goals outlined by the game itself in order to be playing any game.  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.

That's why I disagree with you RC.  You are claiming that player goals are irrelavent to whether or not a group of people is actually playing a game.  I might agree that it matters whether or not they are playing a _specific_ game, where I disagree is that they are no longer playing any game at all.

To me, particularly as it pertains to an RPG, where player goals are absolutely key to the game, positing that only game goals can be used to determine whether or not you are playing a game at all is simply not true.  An RPG, because of its open nature, and because of its story telling roots, can certainly be played as a framework for achieving player goals (not character goals, player goals mind you) that have little or nothing to do with the game being played.

A simple example might be the casual player.  He's just there to have fun with his friends.  He doesn't really care about the game, he's not into deep immersion and whatnot.  He just wants to have some fun with his buddies for four hours.  His interaction with the goals of the game is tenuous at best.  The events in the game are not his focus at all.  For him, the achievement of his goal is, "did I have a good time with my friends?".

Is he playing a game or not?  Because, if he's not, I've gotta say that there are many, many D&D gamers who are not playing a game.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 25, 2009)

Hussar said:


> A simple example might be the casual player.  He's just there to have fun with his friends.  He doesn't really care about the game, he's not into deep immersion and whatnot.  He just wants to have some fun with his buddies for four hours.  His interaction with the goals of the game is tenuous at best.  The events in the game are not his focus at all.  For him, the achievement of his goal is, "did I have a good time with my friends?"



Yeah, let's make this guy the benchmark for planning and evaluating our gaming experiences. While we're at it, let's put the limbo stick between two second story windows so we can be sure to get everyone under it.

Anything less would be elitist.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 25, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> Yeah, let's make this guy the benchmark for planning and evaluating our gaming experiences. While we're at it, let's put the limbo stick between two second story windows so we can be sure to get everyone under it.
> 
> Anything less would be elitist.




That's not the point though.  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?  

Or, to put it another way, if someone made an RPG to fit this guy's playstyle, would that be a negative thing?  To me, something like RISUS is right up this guy's alley.  As would a number of very rules light games.

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


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 25, 2009)

Not caught up yet, but:







> Based on that, what seems to not be getting through to some of you, is that when the party has CHOSEN to race to ThereVille to stop the villain, they are locked in. Not by chains or DM fiat, but by virtue of the priority of their chosen goal.



That's cool, but ... don't you play for, like, _a while_? And don't players sometimes choose objectives that don't lock them in 24 - 7 - 52 - 80-to-life? Or is it really "not just an adventure, it's a _job_"?

If that's what you all prefer, then fine and dandy. I think a lot of us (at least of a certain vintage) tend to have more picaresque adventures. Conan, Fafhrd and Mouser, etc. -- even Elric, who really was on hot rails along with his whole world -- wandered and wondered and plundered from one fortune or folly to another. The D&D game has always seemed to me mainly set up for that in spades.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 25, 2009)

> I find it equally mindboggling that an "infinite" number of adventure-worthy events are occurring in Sandbox World.



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.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 25, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Nov 25, 2009)

> 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 (Nov 25, 2009)

> 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 (Nov 25, 2009)

Hussar said:


> 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?







Hussar said:


> 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 (Nov 25, 2009)

Hussar said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 25, 2009)

Hussar said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 25, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> 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 (Nov 25, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> 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 (Nov 25, 2009)

> 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 (Nov 25, 2009)

> 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.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 25, 2009)

Hussar said:


> See, this is where we disagree.  You are claiming that the only goals that you as a player can have during a game are the goals outlined by the game itself in order to be playing any game.




You fail to understand the claim that I am making.

I am making the claim that, in order for an activity to be a game, the player(s) must have a goal related to the outcome of the game itself, and that the outcome of those goal(s) must be unknown.  

The player(s) may have any additional goals they wish.  For these additional goals, it doesn't matter whether or not the outcome is unknown.

Saying that a game must have quality X does not preclude any other qualities, so long as quality X is present.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 25, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> 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.




Perhaps when the RCFG GM's Handbook comes out........


----------



## Janx (Nov 25, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Not caught up yet, but:That's cool, but ... don't you play for, like, _a while_? And don't players sometimes choose objectives that don't lock them in 24 - 7 - 52 - 80-to-life? Or is it really "not just an adventure, it's a _job_"?
> 
> If that's what you all prefer, then fine and dandy. I think a lot of us (at least of a certain vintage) tend to have more picaresque adventures. Conan, Fafhrd and Mouser, etc. -- even Elric, who really was on hot rails along with his whole world -- wandered and wondered and plundered from one fortune or folly to another. The D&D game has always seemed to me mainly set up for that in spades.




I think you're finally acknowledging that you can see the scenario I'm talking about.

The effect I'm describing tends to happen in a serial campaign, where the next sesssion very likely represents the next game day/moment since the group last played.

If you play episodicly, disconnected stories, where the only thing that mattered from last session is what are your stats and what equipment do you have, that describes the conan style.

Both are valid ways of playing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 25, 2009)

Janx, your experience is different from mine here.  I tend to keep track of time, and the next game is almost always the next moment, or only a short period of time has passed if necessary (like the party chooses to spend the winter in X while the paladin commissions new armour).

Yet I see a lot of Conan style, too.

Or, maybe a better description would be, "A lot of goal-driven adventures interspersed with a lot of curiosity-driven adventures".


RC


----------



## Janx (Nov 25, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> In RCFG, I used the following definitions:
> 
> Adventure:  Any series of encounters that forms a distinct arc within a campaign.  An adventure could be attempting any goal that the players decide upon, from generally exploring a ruin to getting revenge on an enemy to rescuing the Duke from His enemies.
> 
> ...




I can agree with these definitions.  Like CR, I don't think we're in actual disagreement.

When I talk about using story elements, in the end, I expect to use them such that the adventure that just finished sounds like a story that made sense.  

Using motivations for the NPCs so their actions make sense
recognizing when the climax is happening and make it climactic
using twists, complications or setbacks when the party screws up or things have gotten too easy or slow
using foreshadowing or chekov's gun to show something that will be important later in the game


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 25, 2009)

Janx said:


> using foreshadowing or chekov's gun to show something that will be important later in the game




On EN World, one often hears how the PCs never have forwarning of the Medusa's lair.  As though creatures live in the world and leave no signs of their being there.  A little foreshadowing (by which I mean adding the pieces of broken statues in areas before the medusa is met) goes a long ways!


RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 25, 2009)

the shaman said:


> out of curiosity, when did you start gaming?




1983. I've played with all age groups from the Gygax crowd (indirectly through Robert Bigelow of Dragon's "Through the Looking Glass") to my own son (8-years-old). My current regular group has members ranging from 21-42 years old. Plus experience running from small GameDays to GenCon.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 25, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




The section I bolded is where we may be talking past each other. I would consider "Giant Land" one hook, even if there are multiple reasons to go there and multiple ways to get there. So, by the way you're looking at it 3-4 adventure hooks become 60-80 hooks. I think that fits a good middle ground between one hand and infinity.

And it does not require a "pure" sandbox campaign to work player input into a campaign. Even with plotted adventures players think of different ways to get there and different reasons to go, so by your view they create new adventures within the adventure all on their own. When a bad DM stifles this and makes it his reason and his way, then it's a railroad and no fun. But there's nothing wrong with giving the hook for Giant Land and letting the players follow it in their own way.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 25, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> (1) It is not a fictional environment; it is a game environment.




I'm not sure I can converse with you on this topic anymore if you cannot equate that a game environment *is* a fictional environment. You may want to watch a certain movie starring Tom Hanks if you are unable to differentiate.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 25, 2009)

You are talking past each other, because of the difference between "hook" and "adventure".

A single adventure can easily support a dozen hooks.  So, if you count hooks rather than adventues, the number can grow pretty large pretty quick.  

If you consider an adventure as a specific outing along a specific course, with a specific goal in mind, you get the numbers Ariosto is talking about.  One of the goals (and strengths) of sandbox play is the re-use of design elements.  So, creating Giant Land does not create just a single adventure, but an element in play that can be used for multiple adventures.

This happens in AP-type games too, albeit to a more limited extent.  For instance, Rise of the Runelords allows for modest exploration of a dungeon complex that the characters must later return to.  Moreover, the town of Sandpoint is used throughout the AP.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 25, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I'm not sure I can converse with you on this topic anymore if you cannot equate that a game environment *is* a fictional environment.




The game environment is a type of fictional environment, even if it cleaves closely to a real-world environment, just as the New York of the Spider-Man movies is a fictional New York.

The distinction Ariosto is trying to draw, I believe, is between the type of fictional environment that occurs in a movie or novel, and the type of fictional environment that occurs in a game.  This is, IMHO, really a matter of how the environment interacts with the medium (film, book, or game).  So, "novel settings" and "game environments" are really subsets of the overarching set "fictional environments".

I don't believe that anyone involved in the discussion actually thinks Castle Greyhawk or Waterdeep are real places!


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 25, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> 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.



I disagree. First, I don't think that fiction and gaming are as alike as you do.

Second, in its second decade roleplaying game designers introduced the notion that gaming should  model the structure of a story, or even be a means of creating a story, and that notion took over thinking in the hobby right at the time the popularity of roleplaying games was reaching its all-time peak.

I suspected that *Vyvyan Basterd* would give me a 1980s start date for gaming because of this.







CharlesRyan said:


> 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_!



*CR*, conditioning is not brainwashing, and honestly it's pretty insulting that you framed my post that way.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 25, 2009)

> by your view they create new adventures within the adventure all on their own.



No. Their adventures ARE "the adventure".



> So, creating Giant Land does not create just a single adventure, but an element in play that can be used for multiple adventures.



Exactly!

FICTIONAL: If boards set up for a *Squad Leader* scenario are a "fictional environment", then fine. That Stone Building on a Level 2 Hill is scary because of its LOS to ground you'll probably want to cross. Chekov's gun? That's _your_ SU 122; it's up to you to bring it to bear, or not.

Quite simply, there are a whole lot of games -- really, the majority! -- in showing up to play which one does not expect to _get told a story_. Your taking for granted something so actually odd is itself curious. The notion that I should offer some special *Warning: This is NOT a Theatrical Production!* to people invited to _play a game_ strikes me as quite outlandish -- as I imagine it would to anyone to whom I am likely to extend such an invitation.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 25, 2009)

FICTIONAL


> 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?




I responded on the understanding by which the argument is logical, i.e., that by "fiction" was meant _the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narrative, esp. in prose form_. So, then Vyvyan Basterd lashed out with:







> I'm not sure I can converse with you on this topic anymore if you cannot equate that a game environment *is* a fictional environment. You may want to watch a certain movie starring Tom Hanks if you are unable to differentiate.




Oh, as in _something feigned, invented or imagined_, as in _an imaginary thing or event postulated_?

Make up your mind, please.


----------



## Janx (Nov 25, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Quite simply, there are a whole lot of games -- really, the majority! -- in showing up to play which one does not expect to _get told a story_. Your taking for granted something so actually odd is itself curious. The notion that I should offer some special *Warning: This is NOT a Theatrical Production!* to people invited to _play a game_ strikes me as quite outlandish -- as I imagine it would to anyone to whom I am likely to extend such an invitation.




I'm too lazy to hunt down the text in all the RPGs and editions that comment on how this "game" does not have any winners or losers, unlike normal games.

It goes back to at least 2E, and I've seen it in countless other non-D&D rpgs.

An RPG seems to be a hybrid of simulation of a fictional world and a theatrical prodction.  The main debate is really that some DMs lean more to the left or right.

In all cases, the DM decides what is there and what happens next.  it is all DM fiat, even the simulation.  As proven the moment something happens that isn't explicitly covered by the rules and the DM makes a decision.  That includes whether to put the front door of the spooky mansion facing north versus south, to which PC gets attacked by Orc #5.

I agree that in no game do I expect to be TOLD a story.  However, in a game about fictional characters (ie. individuals) doing heroic stuff, I expect that the events that occur ultimately FORM a story.

Seriously Ariosto, what's the big deal?  Here's a challenge, write down the events of your last gaming session.  Maybe include an introduction, if the party was in the middle of something.  What you have when you are done, is a story.  It may be well written.  It may not make any sense.  It may be boring.

My intent as a DM, is that when you are done with my game session, and you do that same exercise, that the outcome is a decent story that you enjoyed.  The core objective is of course that you enjoyed it.  Everything else is just a tool and style to achieve that.

Since people enjoy talking about themselves (true, it's the secret trick to mixing at parties, listen to other people).  A story about YOU (ex. your PC) is more fun than a story about ME (ex. my DMPC/NPC).  To reinforce the last statement, the story must be a good one that you built.  Me making up a story about how ariosto saved princess flumph will not appeal to you as much  as me enabling you to save/kill whomever you want in a cool fashion.

You can do that in a sandbox, just as well.  By using story elements.  Or to phrase it in sandbox terms, by not putting unrelated random junk in a world that is static and unmoving.  I don't think in sandbox terms.  I think in story terms.  But that doesn't mean we're actually doing things wrong.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 25, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Quite simply, there are a whole lot of games -- really, the majority! -- in showing up to play which one does not expect to _get told a story_. Your taking for granted something so actually odd is itself curious.




I am not sure that anyone on this thread is actually taking that for granted.  My reading is that some folks are talking about using story elements while in play.  You can use story elements without actually telling someone a story.

I think that the problem is that RPG theorists have defined "sandbox" as mutually exclusive to "using story telling techniques".  When there are ruined statues outside a medusa's lair, that is foreshadowing a potential encounter....a story telling technique that can be used to great effect in a sandbox game.



Janx said:


> I'm too lazy to hunt down the text in all the RPGs and editions that comment on how this "game" does not have any winners or losers, unlike normal games.




As an aside, I would claim that the _*framework*_ has no winners or losers, but most players know when they've done well or done poorly.  I don't think that those editorial comments exhibit a great understanding of games theory, even if they do exhibit an understanding of how to use that framework.


RC


----------



## Mark (Nov 25, 2009)

There's a sliding scale where the sandbox end generally equates to nothing but story elements existing in advance and the plotted end equating to where full tales exist and the player characters are essentially along for the ride.  Very few games take place fully at either end of the sliding scale.  Dropping full pre-written adventures into the mix of a somewhat character driven game tends to fall closer to the plotted end of the sliding scale.  A homebrew with no pre-written adventures and tons of psuedo-static elements (people, places and things) sprinkled all over for the PCs to discover and through exploration link together (with a GM either randomizing or making decisions about reactions, consequences of actions, etc.) tends to fall closer to the sandbox end of the sliding scale.  If one can generally suggest the course and outcome of a game prior to playing, the game probably exists closer to the plotted end of the sliding scale.  If it can only be retold retrospectively because of the vast array of possible choices the PCs had during play, the game probably exists closer to the sandbox end of the sliding scale.  With the right circumstances, players and GM most of these games would be quite enjoyable.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 25, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> FICTIONAL
> 
> 
> I responded on the understanding by which the argument is logical, i.e., that by "fiction" was meant _the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narrative, esp. in prose form_. So, then Vyvyan Basterd lashed out with:
> ...




Your intended use of the word fictional was not clear to me and I took a tongue-in-cheek approach to determining what you meant. Sorry if you took my reply as lashing out at you personally.

I was using the latter definition of fictional. Also, I do not expect to enter a game to tell my players a story. But in an RPG I do expect to create a story as we go in conjuction with the players and the results of the rule system.

The only real difference I'm seeing as we speak of Sandbox vs. Plotted is who is driving the plot. If you have players that enjoy driving the plot then you should turn the dial more towards Sandbox. If they don't, then you should steer more towards Plotted. You can try fine-tuning the dial to get to the point that creates maximum enjoyment for your group. There is no right or wrong place on the dial, except in the case of trying to play under a style that makes the game unenjoyable for your own personal tastes.

@Shaman: Could you provide some evidence that 2nd-decade designers took this attitude? From my readings of Gygax in the '70's and from gaming with those who were close to him, the thing that made D&D not a tactical miniatures wargame like Chainmail was the personalization of your *character* like those in fantasy literature. The story elements were what separated an RPGs from Microarmor.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 25, 2009)

Mark said:


> Dropping full pre-written adventures into the mix of a somewhat character driven game tends to fall closer to the plotted end of the sliding scale.





This is the only part of your post I disagree with, although if you specify/agree that there are certain pre-written adventures that are written as mini-sandboxes themselves (KotB, Lost City of Barakus), I would agree with you fully.


RC


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 25, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I think that the problem is that RPG theorists have defined "sandbox" as mutually exclusive to "using story telling techniques".



Yeah, that looks like A big problem, anyway.

You can _call_ having spoor of Gorgon near its lair "story telling technique", but why the compulsion to do so when in the event it is *game design* technique? Why call an old-style D&D campaign a "sandbox" all of a sudden, if you're going to let people define it into a straw man? The _only_ reason I could see to use the new jargon was for clarity in communication. That's bunk when people don't desire understanding.



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> Seriously Ariosto, what's the big deal?



You tell me. You want what you want as DM. As far I can tell, your players are on the same page. "If it ain't broke, what needs fixed?" The way the rest of us play? Sheesh.


> To reinforce the last statement, the story must be a good one that you built.



Right, I get it. If what I'm building is a "bad" story in your critical judgment, then it's your job to keep me from doing it? "Oh, no! Actually ..."


> You can do that in a sandbox, just as well. By using story elements. Or to phrase it in sandbox terms, by not putting unrelated random junk in a world that is static and unmoving.



Gosh golly wow! You mean, we could actually play D&D in accordance with the instructions for playing D&D, as we have been for 35 years? Only, we need to start talking about it with terms such as "sandbox" and "story"?

You tell _me_: What's the big deal?


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 25, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I am not sure that anyone on this thread is actually taking that for granted. My reading is that some folks are talking about using story elements while in play. You can use story elements without actually telling someone a story.



Oh?


			
				CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> 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.



So, if I have the temerity actually to expect players in a role-playing game to _play their roles_, instead of "meta-gaming", then I need to take pains to point out this unnatural state of affairs.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 26, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> You can _call_ having spoor of Gorgon near its lair "story telling technique", but why the compulsion to do so when in the event it is *game design* technique?




Because people think about their games in different ways, and as a result use different terminology in an attempt to capture and share their thoughts?  

Moreover, it may be an artifact of post-1e games that changed their terminology in direct opposition of earlier D&D.  Certainly, 2e has a more "storyline" approach (from the success of DragonLance, I have little doubt.....and list five great non-Ravenloft 2e modules if you can!  For some settings [Ravenloft] the 2e approach of "Keep 'em alive -- the PCs must win" wasn't followed.  The settings where it was followed provided dismal adventures indeed.  IMHO.  YMMV.).  

I might be wrong about whether or not anyone in this thread is taking for granted "getting told a story" when they sit down to play a game, but I think you are mistaking "hyperbole to counter hyperbole" for a clear statement of opinion.

I have little doubt, from reading his posts, that CharlesRyan is interested in the intersection of story and game.  Certainly, over the course of this discussion he has mused on the same.  But "musing aloud" doesn't make a position concrete, and I have the sense that the bit The Shaman linked to, above, is more exploratory than a statement of a firm philosophy.

Moreover, in the bit you quote, CharlesRyan is right.  At this stage of the game (pun intended), there are so many AP-type campaigns out there, and the AP-type game is promoted so heavily, that it would be wise to let any new players know what your game expects/demands of them.  I would also say, that despite the current AP-heavy offerings out there, were I to run an AP, it would be wise of me to tell the players that upfront.

But even running through an AP is not expecting to be told a story; it is expecting to participate in an unfolding story.  Just as playing in a sandbox is not expecting to be read a world encyclopedia; it is expecting to particpate in the ongoing development/history of a fictional world.

IMHO, anyway.  YMMV.


RC


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 26, 2009)

Well, forewarned is forearmed if ever I'm somehow dealing with new players who even know what an AP is besides a wire service. (I note that at rpg.net, it means "Actual Play" -- as opposed, I suppose, to just talking about philosophy.) I could hunt some down doing the RPGA D&D thing, but they're not likely to play anything else anyhow. They're rather more scarce than preponderant outside their native habitat. Maybe the population is really that much different in Toronto, I guess.

Expecting to get led by the nose DL-style is not expecting to get told a story? Slice it fine as Mr. Literal, but that was just a reference right back to Charles Ryan's post. Take _his_ words straight, please. What's that "fiction" spiel about, then?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 26, 2009)

AP = Adventure Path.

Ariosto, perhaps I am just naive, but I prefer to think the best of people until proven otherwise.  If everyone on EN World were somehow able to sit in a bar together (or other social setting of your choice) where body language and facial expressions were available, most of these problems would go away.

IMHO.  IM (limited) E, even.  YMMV.


----------



## Mark (Nov 27, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> This is the only part of your post I disagree with, although if you specify/agree that there are certain pre-written adventures that are written as mini-sandboxes themselves (KotB, Lost City of Barakus), I would agree with you fully.
> 
> 
> RC





I agree that there are definitely products written more as mini-settings than adventures.  I suppose that is often more like a cluster of elements in a sandbox in the established terminology.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Nov 27, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Expecting to get led by the nose DL-style is not expecting to get told a story?




You've traced a logical circle right back to my original point, in my first comment in this thread, lo those many posts ago.

That point: Using story structure is not the same thing as railroading.

_Yes_, some adventure writers have written railroady adventures. And I agree with you that that's *bad* (in the sense that most players don't find them satisfying).

_Yes_, some GMs, through lack of experience or skill, run railroady games. And I agree with you that that's *bad* (in the sense that most players don't find them satisfying).

But those are issues of poor execution. And adventures and GMs can suck for all sorts of reasons, regardless of the underlying philosophy or toolbox they draw from. The world is full of poorly written and run "sandbox" games as well.

To hold up an example of *bad* and declare "this proves that the underlying philosophy is a failure" is bogus.



> That was just a reference right back to Charles Ryan's post. Take _his_ words straight, please. What's that "fiction" spiel about, then?




You might be confusing my use of the word "fiction" with "story." My apologies. What I mean by fiction is "made up."

My point is that a "made up" environment (your campaign setting), combined with a series of "made up" events (encounters played through by the players), is suggestive of a story, if only on a subconscious level. As a result, most people are going to react, if only on a subconscious level, the way they do to a story. For example, they will (if only on a subconscious level) expect something that seems like it might be significant (that spooky castle) to _be_ significant.

This isn't metagaming. It isn't playing out of character. It is the natural reaction people have, based on a lifetime of experience with fiction.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds to me like you prefer a style of game that is very literally a game. To put it in terms that make sense to me, you're using D&D to create a more sophisticated version of the Descent experience. Fair enough; nothing wrong with that. But I don't think it's what most people are frankly looking for in an RPG (which is why most people don't view Descent as an RPG); and it certainly doesn't invalidate an entire toolbox of GMing tools that lead others to very satisfying game experiences.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 27, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> You fail to understand the claim that I am making.
> 
> I am making the claim that, in order for an activity to be a game, the player(s) must have a goal related to the outcome of the game itself, and that the outcome of those goal(s) must be unknown.
> 
> ...




Oh, no.  I totally understand what you're saying.  I just don't agree with it.

I think that "how much beer can I drink while playing Chess" is most certainly a game.  You think that player goals apart from those dictated by the game itself, are mostly irrelevant.  I disagree.  I think that player goals are certainly relevant and, in some cases, can drastically alter the game you are playing and form new games.

While I certainly would not want to play "how much beer can I drink while playing chess", I do see it as a game with a player defined goal.





Raven Crowking said:


> On EN World, one often hears how the PCs never have forwarning of the Medusa's lair.  As though creatures live in the world and leave no signs of their being there.  A little foreshadowing (by which I mean adding the pieces of broken statues in areas before the medusa is met) goes a long ways!
> 
> 
> RC




Oh please.  Let's not bring up old saws shall we?  For one, why should every medusa out there being so mentally impaired that she cannot clean up after herself be a good use of foreshadowing?  Oh, right, because it spackles over the abysmal save or die mechanics held over from earlier D&D.    Never mind actually going back, reworking the mechanics so that they wouldn't force the DM to use the monster EXACTLY THE SAME WAY EVERY FRIGGIN' TIME.  Yeah, that's good GM advice.  "Hey, whenever you want to use this monster, make sure you make a really obvious trail of breadcrumbs for the players."

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

Going back to the sandbox for a moment.  I have to ask, how do you invest any depth into the sandbox?  After all, the sandbox is made without any input from the players - the characters they choose don't matter, heck even the players at the table don't matter.  The sandbox never changes.

So, if the campaign doesn't change in the slightest depending on who plays in it and what they happen to play, how do you gain any sort of depth?  

Or, to put it another way, why should I care about the spooky castle on the hill beyond grinding for xp?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Oh, no.  I totally understand what you're saying.  I just don't agree with it.




Then why do your restatements of "what I am saying" exhibit exactly the opposite?  Including the bit about the medusa's lair?

If you "totally understand what [I am] saying", why did you write:  "You are claiming that the only goals that you as a player can have during a game are the goals outlined by the game itself in order to be playing any game."?

Demonstrate that you have actually read what you are responding to, and I will be happy to go into how a sandbox can have depth.  I think that the answer is pretty obvious, but then again, that doesn't make it so for all people.  

If you believe "the sandbox never changes", again, it is obvious that you have either not read, or not processed, this thread.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 27, 2009)

RC said:
			
		

> hussar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





If you look at what you said, and look at what I said, I hope that it is obvious to you that they are not the same thing.

Your response didn't address this at all.

It "how much beer can I drink while playing chess" was a game, then "the player(s) must have a goal related to the outcome of the game itself, and that the outcome of those goal(s) must be unknown".  

How does this make "how much beer can I drink while playing chess" not a game?  There is a goal related to the outcome of the game (amount of beer consumed) that is unknown (dependent upon the length of the game and the speed with which you can drink).

Note that this is different than "drinking beer while playing chess", in which there is no goal element in drinking beer with an unknown outcome, but chess is still a game.

Note that this is different than "intentionally spilling my beer on the chess board while playing chess" in which their is a goal element, but the outcome is presumably known.  As I said before, the player(s) may have any additional goals they wish. For these additional goals, it doesn't matter whether or not the outcome is unknown.

And note, the medusa's lair is given as an example of foreshadowing, demonstrating that the "story element" toolbox is a "game element" toolbox in the sandbox as well as outside of it.  Within the context of the post, your response makes no sense whatsoever.

If you demonstrate that you have read and understood what you are responding to, I will be happy to converse with you.  I do not, however, feel like performing the InterWeb Shuffle with you.  There is no point to a conversation where forward progress isn't possible.

(The InterWeb Shuffle:

Person A:  If both X and Y are true, Z must be true.

Person B:  But X is not true.

Person A:  Answers objections to X.

Person B:  But Y is not true.

Person A:  Answers objections to Y.

Person B:  But there is no logical connection between X, Y, and Z.

Person A:  Demonstrates logical connection.

Person B:  But X is not true.

Rinse & repeat)​


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 27, 2009)

> I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds to me like you prefer a style of game that is very literally a game.



As it was designed and presented, very literally, as a game, that should not dismay. As we tell stories about real life, despite its normally not being any more "plot driven" than a traditional D&D game, that stories also emerge from the latter should not dismay. As the greater part of interest in life is in the living, that so the greater part of a D&D game is in the playing -- that it is not primarily a "spectator sport" or theatrical performance -- should perhaps be no more dismaying.



> To put it in terms that make sense to me, you're using D&D to create a more sophisticated version of the Descent experience. Fair enough; nothing wrong with that. But I don't think it's what most people are frankly looking for in an RPG (which is why most people don't view Descent as an RPG)



I am not acquainted with this "Descent", except that it is a board game; and reducing the RPG to the limitations of the board game is actually the kind of consequence I  dread (having seen it quite enough). I wonder why you consider that an appropriate comparison, rather than being content to call the game what it is: *Dungeons & Dragons*, as it has been for 35 years. You could have suggested "a version of the Empire of the Petal Throne experience", or "the Chivalry & Sorcery Experience", or "the Traveller experience", or "the RuneQuest experience", or "the Morrow Project experience", or "the Hârn experience" ... and so on. It's simply "the FRP experience" to me.

The "Descent" comparison comes off as insulting; if meant in no such spirit, then it displays a most pitiable ignorance. At the very least, your knowledge that "most people don't view Descent as an RPG" ought to have informed your reference to the game -- the original DUNGEONS & DRAGONS -- that *defined* the RPG in the first place! Perhaps you were simply unaware of that bit of history.

This is boggling and irritating, to be sure. However, dealing with such bizarre and belligerent rhetoric as yours and Hussar's has taken up far too much of this thread.

I am (and probably was before ever you first played) very well acquainted with the limited scenario even in extended form. _*Shadows of Yog-Sothoth*_ (1982), for instance, preceded the Dragonlance series. The form certainly has its uses, and like most anything else can be done better or more poorly.

Those practical uses and techniques strike me as much more fruitful topics for discussion than the historical-revisionist narrative of a pretentious hobby-ideology, unless EN World is become The Forge.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 27, 2009)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, if the campaign doesn't change in the slightest depending on who plays in it and what they happen to play, how do you gain any sort of depth?



How do YOU gain any sort of depth in the real world?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 27, 2009)

I find nothing bizarre about CR's posts, and any belligerance therein seems to be reciprical.  

Is it really suprising that he tried to come up with a "worst case" no-plot-elements example to counter a worst-case "plot-elements-devour-player-choice" example?

By all means, I understand that the position of having an RPG be anything other than an AP has come under a lot of fire -- from the day Gygax was booted from the TSR building onward, AFAICT.  But this is, IMHO, a pendulum swinging back and forth.  And, like any pendulum, it describes an arc between two sides of the same ground.

Stories arise from game play spontaneously, but they arise from game play _*because the GM and players have included elements that are fun to interact with*_.  The Company of the White Hand can have a rivalry with the Group of Seven in the loosest sandbox, and what happens is a story, even if it is not foreordained.  

I don't believe that CR is suggesting that what happens be foreordained, but rather that the GM consider tossing the Group of Seven into the mix.  I.e., many of his "story elements" are what others would refer to as "game elements".

Now, I certainly agree that CR has mused about whether or not actual player freedom is important if the illusion of player freedom isn't tested.  But, in the very post he posited the question, he also answered it in the affirmative.  Player freedom is important. You are both agreeing on this point, AFAICT.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 27, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> How do YOU gain any sort of depth in the real world?




Doesn't matter.  The question is based on a false premise (that no matter what you do, the sandbox doesn't change).


RC


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 27, 2009)

> Is it really suprising that he tried to come up with a "worst case" no-plot-elements example to counter a worst-case "plot-elements-devour-player-choice" example?



No; it is surprising that he apparently did so _in the absence of_ said example. His demand for a special warning label was not initially directed at me; I simply did not see (and I gather neither did he) any great difference in the way I referee and the way that other person does.

He very clearly laid out that his requirement was based on our considering the game in fact a game rather than a story-telling enterprise. Story as a well-attested _emergent_ property of the undertaking clearly did not count. To be "normal" in his view, we must lay down a structure on the same principles as a stage-play or other "fiction" in that sense -- in particular, on the principle of _economy of elements_. We break the rules by including people, places and things not directly related to "the plot".

Screw that. Who is that guy to dictate such "rules" for playing D&D? It's tiresome.

I'm tired of dealing with it, too, because I have experience with limited scenarios as well as with more open ones, and suspect that I might have gleaned some wisdom worth sharing.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 27, 2009)

> Doesn't matter.  The question is based on a false premise (that no matter what you do, the sandbox doesn't change).



I took that as merely infelicitous phrasing ... but considering the source, you might well be right!

My thought was that Hussar meant that the imagined world does not suddenly "morph" into conformance with each player's "character concept". From what I have read, he has a set of expectations rather more in line with a campaign of sharply limited scope and duration -- one that begins and ends with a particular set of characters and slice of their careers. Thus, his "worlds" are as essentially disposable as stage sets peculiar to a specific production (or, at the most, equivalent to a studio's back lot). The persistent world evolving over years as players and characters come and go is not his thing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 27, 2009)

Well, something is wonky here, because we're both reading the same words, but we are both getting very different content.  

And I hope you don't take this is "picking on" you.  I've a lot of respect for your postings in general.  I just think that, in this case, you are reading the worst possible meaning, and in error in doing so.  One of us isn't understanding what CharlesRyan is saying.

Of course, it could be me.  (shrug)  Wouldn't be the first time, or (I feel confident in saying) the last.


RC


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 27, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> (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.



That was my response to CR's "fiction" spiel directed at The Shaman. What invidious comparison is there?

Then there was Vivyan Basterd's snark based on semantic bait and switch.

In acknowledgment of the various potential meanings of the word, I posted:







> If boards set up for a *Squad Leader* scenario are a "fictional environment", then fine. That Stone Building on a Level 2 Hill is scary because of its LOS to ground you'll probably want to cross. Chekov's gun? That's _your_ SU 122; it's up to you to bring it to bear, or not.
> 
> Quite simply, there are a whole lot of games -- really, the majority! -- in showing up to play which one does not expect to _get told a story_.



Now, if someone wants to backpedal all the way to, "Well, playing out that scenario is all the 'story telling' I really mean," then so be it. If you're not busy beating me with a thesaurus, then I have no need to disarm you, eh?

Go back and read the assertion to which I was responding. Recall that Squad Leader hit the shelves the same year as the blue-cover (Holmes) D&D rule-book. *Neither one* exhibits any concern with a supposed norm of expecting a game to be a "fiction" in the story-sense in which CR uses it. Like the original D&D set (but more clearly), the Holmes text simply explains how to play the game. Unlike far too many later works, it does not burden the reader with some weird definition of "role-playing", any more than Squad Leader burdens the reader with such vacuities as to "war gaming". SL does, however, start with:


> _SQUAD LEADER_ is a very detailed, and therefore very complicated* game. In fact, _SQUAD LEADER_ is more of a game system, than a game. Having mastered this system the player will be able to simulate (or "game") any comparable scale action of WWII in Europe.



Now, the "game system" was pretty much par for the course in the miniatures hobby from which D&D emerged. The key point made in the original set was that its scope need not be limited to the medieval.

Plot, fiction, story, drama, narrative -- whatever such term you want to use -- simply did not figure. At best, it was superfluous; at worst, it would be needlessly confusing. You don't get a load of such art-school chat in _Axis & Allies_, do you? Just play the game, and "drama" takes care of itself!

"How many times have you played cops and robbers with friends? ... Well, when you're playing cops and robbers, you are role playing." If you feel it necessary to offer a definition, then that one from TSR's 1985 _Conan_ game seems about as useful as it gets.

*_The rules-book was all of 36 pages, a magnum opus back then! There was also a two-sided "quick reference data card" for each player, and there were 12 one-page scenarios. By comparison, the "basic" D&D book was 48 pages and Dungeon Module B1 alone was 34 pages (32 pp. plus maps)._


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 27, 2009)

I am not saying that the fault is completely one-sided.

But you have to allow a person to rethink and rephrase if you want to make meaningful progress in a conversation.



RC


----------



## Hussar (Nov 28, 2009)

Ariosto actually has the right of it. 

My point was that in a sandbox, such as been outlined here, the existence of in game elements are not in any way dependent on the players or the characters they create.

Whether I have a group of hack and slashers all playing FyTor and Indiana Elf, or I have a completely different group, that castle on the hill is going to be there and it's going to be spooky.

So, again, how do you gain any depth when nothing in the world is actually tied to the characters?

While Ariosto phrases it in a very negative way, I most certainly create campaigns based entirely on the players playing and the characters they create.  The campaign world changes to accomodate the party.  Thus, the characters are already embedded in a network of elements, relationships and backgrounds, not just with each other but with the game setting itself.

So, back to my original question, when the game setting is carved in stone and does not change in any way for the players or their characters, how do you gain any depth to play?


----------



## Hussar (Nov 28, 2009)

RC - on your interweb shuffle.



> It "how much beer can I drink while playing chess" was a game, then "the player(s) must have a goal related to the outcome of the game itself, and that the outcome of those goal(s) must be unknown".
> 
> How does this make "how much beer can I drink while playing chess" not a game? There is a goal related to the outcome of the game (amount of beer consumed) that is unknown (dependent upon the length of the game and the speed with which you can drink).




Hang on.  Are you saying that "how much beer can I drink during Chess" is a game?

Earlier, you stated that it wasn't a game.



> Originally Posted by RC
> A player can have any goal he likes when he sits down to game. His goal can be to drink as much beer as humanly possible. However, that goal is not the goal of the game, and it matters not one whit whether his beer capacity is known or unknown when he sits down when determining whether or not he is playing a game while drinking beer.




Now, if you accept that "how much beer can I drink during chess" IS a game, then game goals can be defined by the players, rather than by the game itself.  Or rather, to be perfectly pedantic, players can add goals to a given game, thus changing the game into a new game.

Which is what I've been saying all along.

Now, if we agree that player goals can define the parameters of a game, then how is what I originally talked about - a game where the player goal of exploring philosophical points - not a game?

So, to ask very directly, can player goals be added to an existing game to change a game into a new game?


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Nov 28, 2009)

This is an interesting thread, altho as de-lurking commentator... I think I see some of the underlaying issues behind this ongoing discussion. As usual, it comes down to the _definitions_ being used by either side and the _assumptions_ applied to the conversation....




Hussar said:


> My point was that in a sandbox, such as been outlined here, the existence of in game elements are not in any way dependent on the players or the characters they create.
> ...
> So, again, how do you gain any depth when nothing in the world is actually tied to the characters?




  For my defination, a 'sandbox' game is a setting that runs along as a 'world' with, or without the interaction of the players. The players then have the choice of which plot-line they wish to interact with and may freely ignore the dragon slumbering under the mountains to go chasing after the vampire in town... and when the dragon awakes and unleashes death and destruction on the land... so be it.
  In this game setting, the players goals, desires, and characters can alter what the plot elements are I come up with, but very directly address which plot elements that get fleshed out and used.




			
				HUSSAR said:
			
		

> So, back to my original question, when the game setting is carved in stone and does not change in any way for the players or their characters, how do you gain any depth to play?




With my definition above in mind, a 'sandbox' game has significant depth in that the world goes on apace, and changes based on significant events. Sometimes those events include the heroes and sometimes they don't.  They goal is to allow the players the freedom of choice over the over-all plot and raise up those plotlines that are interesting to them.



			
				HUSSAR said:
			
		

> For one, why should every medusa out there being so mentally impaired that she cannot clean up after herself be a good use of foreshadowing? Oh, right, because it spackles over the abysmal save or die mechanics held over from earlier D&D.  Never mind actually going back, reworking the mechanics so that they wouldn't force the DM to use the monster EXACTLY THE SAME WAY EVERY FRIGGIN' TIME. Yeah, that's good GM advice. "Hey, whenever you want to use this monster, make sure you make a really obvious trail of breadcrumbs for the players."




Just had to comment on this one..
  Why does the suggested use of foreshadowing = "EXACTLY THE SAME WAY EVERY FRIGGIN' TIME." ?

  I beleive its generally a good idea to let the players know, in metagame if required, the sort of challenge they may be facing... that way they can plan and prepare for the encounter instead of just reacting. 
 Its also a good idea to occasionally challenge their assumptions and have the same kind of foreshadowing come before a completely different kind of monster.. but only rarely.

 IMHO, the hardest job of DMing is managing player expectations and assumptions. If these expecations are not met, the players do not enjoy the game. If the assumptions are not addressed/corrected... the players do not enjoy the game.
  Last nights session ran the gamut from unhappy players, who made the assumption that the final battle was going to be a TPK, to a happy ending as the DM broke that assumption through some metagaming to get the players to see thier assumption was wrong.. and that they could defeat the BBEG.
  {which they did, altho all the PC's were bloodied and bordering on dropping by the time it was all over}

Its not so much the game elements, story elements, AP, sandbox, etc... that make a good game. Its the DM using those tools to create a game that fits into the players expectations. 
  However, it is good as DM's to understand the tools so that the right tool can be used at the right time and in the right way.

Anyway, enough rambling from me... [/delurk]


----------



## Hussar (Nov 28, 2009)

PS said:
			
		

> With my definition above in mind, a 'sandbox' game has significant depth in that the world goes on apace, and changes based on significant events. Sometimes those events include the heroes and sometimes they don't. They goal is to allow the players the freedom of choice over the over-all plot and raise up those plotlines that are interesting to them.




The problem I'm having though is while the world may have depth, since that depth is independent of the players or the characters, how do they ... swim in those depths so to speak?  

I guess it just seems like a huge amount of work to create a world which has enough separate lines ongoing that would allow the players to find plots (arrgggh that word again) that they can sink their teeth into.  Doesn't it resemble a sort of shotgun approach?  You keep tossing out stuff until it sticks?

Why not just ask?  Why not start from the position that the campaign is going to focus on these characters and the events and elements that you are going to explore arise from the conversation you have with the players before designing the campaign?

After all, in your method, the players become the focal point anyway.  Why not just cut out all the extra work and then really flesh out what is going to be used at the table in the first place?

I will freely admit though, that my campaigns are disposable.  I use them once and then never use them again.  For me, a campaign should be custom made for a particular group of players and their characters, tailored to suit their playstyles and goals.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see the benefit in what you're doing.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 28, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> To hold up an example of *bad* and declare "this proves that the underlying philosophy is a failure" is bogus.



And holding up an example of *good* and declaring, "This proves that the underlying philosophy is a success," is just as bogus.







			
				CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> You might be confusing my use of the word "fiction" with "story."



I don't believe there's confusion, as you used "fiction" as "story" in the post I quoted upthread, e.g., "fiction and movies."







			
				CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> My point is that a "made up" environment (your campaign setting), combined with a series of "made up" events (encounters played through by the players), is suggestive of a story, if only on a subconscious level. As a result, most people are going to react, if only on a subconscious level, the way they do to a story.



The same can be said of any series of events. For example, I wrote a fictional narrative of World War II in middle school following an epic weekend of playing _Third Reich_. I made a story from the game, but at no point in play were we thinking in terms of story elements; the story that emerged could only be seen in retrospect. A plot developed from decisions made by the respective commanders and how they later affected the progress of the game, but at no time were we thinking, "Ooh, staging my air units close to the coast will foreshadow the invasion in the next phase." 







			
				CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> For example, they will (if only on a subconscious level) expect something that seems like it might be significant (that spooky castle) to _be_ significant.



If you've conditioned the players to look for clues to the plot, then perhaps. If you condition the players to focus on what their characters know, instead of metagaming to discern the referee's motives, then in my experience it's less likely to be a distraction.







			
				CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> This isn't metagaming. It isn't playing out of character. It is the natural reaction people have, based on a lifetime of experience with fiction.



It is not necessarily the natural reaction of someone playing a game, however.







			
				CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds to me like you prefer a style of game that is very literally a game. To put it in terms that make sense to me, you're using D&D to create a more sophisticated version of the Descent experience.



A roleplaying game played without emphasizing story-structure doesn't make it a board game.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 28, 2009)

I know this isn't addressed to me, but I'd like to take a second and comment on it...



Hussar said:


> The problem I'm having though is while the world may have depth, since that depth is independent of the players or the characters, how do they ... swim in those depths so to speak?




Uhm, well going with your analogy, I would say they just dive in. They form connections through play, as opposed to those connections being pre-determined. I don't see either as inherently "better" but I can definitely see the differences suiting different playstyles or even different types of players.



Hussar said:


> I guess it just seems like a huge amount of work to create a world which has enough separate lines ongoing that would allow the players to find plots (arrgggh that word again) that they can sink their teeth into. Doesn't it resemble a sort of shotgun approach? You keep tossing out stuff until it sticks??




I don't think it's that much work to create enough seperate hooks that at least one will interest the PC's... especially if you are familiar with your players, or have played before with these people. I could see how someone brand new to the game might be slightly more difficult to judge, but they aren't likely to know what they necessarily want out the game anyway.



Hussar said:


> Why not just ask? Why not start from the position that the campaign is going to focus on these characters and the events and elements that you are going to explore arise from the conversation you have with the players before designing the campaign?




Well one good reason I could entertain for not asking the players is that some people play the game to be entertained, and that entertainment is better for them when they are surprised instead of already knowing what the world holds for their character... Honestly, this is what I always liked about the feel of good S&S fiction, the protagonists always seems to be subject more to the fickle hand of chaos than any type of pre-determined destiny or path... some people like that feel when playing the game. 



Hussar said:


> After all, in your method, the players become the focal point anyway. Why not just cut out all the extra work and then really flesh out what is going to be used at the table in the first place?




Yes the players become the focal point, but "what is going to be used at the table in the first place" isn't pre-determined, but grows organically through the choices the player(s) make. IMO, this allows for the very real chance that the PC's can discover interesting and exciting things that may not have occured to them during pre-campaign plotting. 




Hussar said:


> I will freely admit though, that my campaigns are disposable. I use them once and then never use them again. For me, a campaign should be custom made for a particular group of players and their characters, tailored to suit their playstyles and goals.
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see the benefit in what you're doing.




I don't know what to say to this, except perhaps... you aren't trying to see the benefits in it, because it doesn't suit the style of game you play. Me personally I see the benefits of both styles and have used both in different campaigns.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 28, 2009)

Hussar said:


> The problem I'm having though is while the world may have depth, since that depth is independent of the players or the characters, how do they ... swim in those depths so to speak?




Please.

You can imagine a player (GM) so talented as to arrange a whole world to match a group of PCs, but you cannot imagine a player (player) so talented as to arrange a PC so as to take advantage of the world presented?

Frankly, I have a hard time believing that the people you game with are so inept at creativity, or so unable to use background information to link their characters to the (known) world in a meaningful way.  I have certainly never met anyone who, while playing, was unable to do the same.

And, while "How much beer can Hussar drink while playing chess" may be a game, if you and I sit down to play chess, and we didn't agree to play "How much beer can Hussar drink while playing chess", then you are playing a form of solitaire.

Thus, a player can have any goal he likes when he sits down to play chess. His goal can be to drink as much beer as humanly possible. However, that goal is not the goal of chess, and it matters not one whit whether his beer capacity is known or unknown when he sits down when determining whether or not he is playing chess while drinking beer.  

It has no bearing on whether or not chess is a game (the context bit you....accidently?....cut).  Because, despite your claim that 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> "how much beer can I drink during Chess" is a game?
> 
> Earlier, you stated that it wasn't a game




is simply wrong.  *Once more you fail to understand what you are reading. * There is nothing in what you quoted that says drunk chess cannot be a game, or is not a game.  

It states that whether or not you have a goal of getting drunk has nothing to do with whether or not chess is a game.  And, therefore, even if you know how much you can drink, or how drunk you will get, whether or not the outcome of that goal is known doesn't matter when determining that chess is a game.

Can a game change to meet the goals of the players?  Sure.  There are many varieties of chess, poker, etc.  RCFG is a changed game to meet the goals of the players.  "Drunk chess" can be the same.  And, if I have a goal to stay sober while playing drunk chess, then that is a goal secondary to the game of drunk chess, and has no bearing on whether or not drunk chess is a game.

In conclusion, yes, this is more of your InterWeb Shuffle.

It might be of some benefit, when someone points out that you failed to understand the argument you are replying to, if, rather than simply declaring that you understand it, you took a moment to make sure that you actually did.




RC


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Nov 28, 2009)

Hussar said:


> After all, in your method, the players become the focal point anyway.  Why not just cut out all the extra work and then really flesh out what is going to be used at the table in the first place?
> ...
> I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see the benefit in what you're doing.




Imaro pretty much it the nail on the head with the statement _"...this allows for the very real chance that the PC's can discover interesting and exciting things that may not have occured to them during pre-campaign plotting. "_

The other benefit, for me, is that it is my game world conceived at odd hours of the day with an eye to what sort of world I want to run. I can start a campaign with a group of complete strangers using this method, or.. as is more often the case, get my once a month game up and running without spending two or three months getting characters made and backgrounds built.

There isn't really that much extra work. I have a map of the campaign area and basic concepts as to what events/encounters are happening around the place. If the players show interest, I flesh out that particular area. If they don't, I guess at an outcome in general terms and how it would impact the players and/or change events/encounters in that area.

Example, this next weekend my Lhazaar group is getting together and I have five plots running within the area of the village, and broad ideas for neighboring areas. I have no idea if they will go after any of the plot hooks, meditate and scribe scrolls, start farming, or go haring off on some tangent. Regardless, I am prepared to enjoy whatever path they take. This means I have five encounter sets designed, mini APs if you will.. and thats about it. The rest is pretty much off the cuff.

In comparison, I spend alot more time converting/preparing the AP I am running for my other group. This is primarily because I am not the designer of the world and I have to memorize alot of detail.


Raven Crowking...
  I may have missed it in the back and forth over drunk chess, but why is it important to validate the definition of a _game_? 
 I admit there is alot of terminology being used in various dialects and intents in this thread.. plot, story point, game mechanic, etc... but I don't see why it matters either "a drunk playing chess" vis "playing drunk chess" as far as GM methodology and how to better run a game?


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 28, 2009)

> While Ariosto phrases it in a very negative way, I most certainly create campaigns based entirely on the players playing and the characters they create.



Perhaps *tailored* or *custom fitted* would be a more positive way, eh? Anyhow, that's taking the "limit" in "limited scenario" to an extreme!



> How do you gain any depth to play?



This is thoroughly mystifying. Just what is this problem you see? Please explain.



> I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see the benefit in what you're doing.



Just what the heck you mean by "depth to play" is only more mystifying, as it is precisely depth to which you are objecting here.

Oh, well. One problem with a "scenario" such as you seem to advocate is that it not only can but *must* be much more carefully calibrated than an "environment". You're sticking players into a situation that provides only a limited range of options, and if those don't fit character capabilities, player proficiency, or immediate interest, then you've got what can be a pretty rotten Hobson's choice.

That's not such a problem (A) for a very experienced DM, and (B) with plenty of opportunity for mid-course correction (i.e., preparing a scenario for each session after seeing the results of the last).

(B) Puts your "Why not just cut out all the extra work?" in quite a different light -- or would, if you were not imposing on yourself the need to keep starting from scratch. In the long run, you are making *more* work for yourself. So, the savings in time and energy is one benefit to doing it the "old-fashioned" way. With a campaign apparatus at hand, developed over some months of play, it can be trivial to improvise on the spot a more particular, limited scenario for _any_ reasonable company of characters.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 29, 2009)

> I may have missed it in the back and forth over drunk chess, but why is it important to validate the definition of a _game_?



If one happens to regard D&D rather as a certain young lady in a Jane Austen novel regarded balls, then, "much more fictional, I dare say, but it would not be near so much like a game" may be irksome.

Noting that what one likes happens not to be considered a game, but (for whatever perverse reason) being bent on calling it that, one might wish to convince others to change the meaning of the word.

That is rather unlikely, but it is possible that if someone gets confused enough he'll _say_ that he agrees -- and then one can chalk up a point on a rhetorical scoreboard (which of course _is_ a kind of game).

What is fundamentally at issue here is that plays, novels, comic books, movies, TV dramas, and similar phenomena are pretty generally considered _entertainments, amusements or pastimes_ -- but not games. "Players" in the Mercury Theater sense is not what we mean in the RPG context, and we certainly do not mean mere "audience".


----------



## Janx (Nov 29, 2009)

I think that "How much beer can Hussar drink" would be a pretty stupid and made-up game if he didn't tell the other player.

To make a game out of it, you'd need rules on how many drinks/sips he can take between turns.  You'd need turn limits, otherwise, his first turn could come up,a nd he could drink until passed out under the guise of "I'm thinking about my next move"

Which makes it a game only in the loosest usage of the word.

Children make up games to be a nuisance to others.  they're not games in the sense of having rules and has goal and avictory condition that the opposition is even aware of.  But they'll call it a game.

Hussar's game sounds like one of those.

But seriously, the word has been used to describe a number of things that some may not call a game.  So be it.

The reason I don't place stock in "sandbox" play is because it is an illusion.  On the outside, it may appear that the GM is impartial and has a set of rules he is executing, therefore maintaining a true simulation.  But the fact is, the GM decides a zillion things that influence the world and the game.

He decides the name of the pub the party starts out in.  He may even decided that the party IS starting out in a pub.  He determines the location and facing of the pub, relative to all other objects in the game.  He determines what NPCs are in the pub, and determimes the plot hook each of them may bear.  Technically, the DM might have a tool to generate all that, but odds are good he doesn't.  Furthermore, the plot hooks are most likely made-up by the DM, setting the largest human bias in the system.

From there, the DM determines the nature of all the opposition the PC will encounter while pursuing a chosen plot hook.  The DM will determine the outcome and side effects while doing that.  Another particularly biased action.

While it may seem like the DM has tables for everything, the DM is constantly making decisions that bias the game.  Thus, a sandbox game doesn't really exist.

And there's nothing wrong with that.  Nor is there anything wrong with striving for a true sandbox.  It's simply a matter that having a human DM involved inherently biases the experience, much like how the act of observing an experiment affects the experiment.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 29, 2009)

If it helps get away from the idea of story implying a predetermined outcome, don't think of the players as the readers. Think of them as the authors. No author is 100% certain of the way a story is going to unfold until he sets it down. And quite a few have no idea at all.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 29, 2009)

Roleplaying games have characters and settings. They have descriptive passages, though often not written down. There is an attempt to convey mood and atmosphere. There is dialogue, though each line often has a different writer. They have a beginning, a middle and an end. Even a wide open sandbox has character deaths, which is 'The End' for that particular PC.

Looks like a story to me.

Personally I see rpgs as being both story and game (as well as a bunch of other stuff). Old schoolers got chary of the word 'story' after the excesses of Dragonlance and the 2e era. The problem with those stories is they had one author - the module writer - so freedom was restricted. Story is fine, so long as the players get to write it too.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 29, 2009)

> On the outside, it may appear that the GM is impartial and has a set of rules he is executing, therefore maintaining a true simulation. But the fact is, the GM decides a zillion things that influence the world and the game.



All of a sudden these are somehow incompatibly opposed? And where the hell does "true simulation" enter in? You quite simply *do not know thing one* about what you are talking about!

A Dungeon Master is impartial and has a set of rules he is executing. A Dungeon Master decides countless things that influence  the world and the game. *Both* statements are true, and utterly fundamental to the original fantasy role-playing game of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS.

Have you read the 1st ed. _Dungeon Masters Guide_ even once?



> From there, the DM determines the nature of all the opposition the PC will encounter while pursuing a chosen plot hook.



No, I guess you have not. It is not the DM's job to determine _how_ the players pursue whatever object they may conceive.

You seem stuck in the conception of D&D as a mere succession of pre-designed war-game scenarios, or the "skill challenge" equivalent. In other words, the environment approach is "just illusion" because you arbitrarily assume that the DM pulls some sort of sleight of hand to turn it in fact into your very limited scenario approach instead.

If I were DMing WotC-D&D, the load of labor would surely tempt that way! That's one reason I prefer TSR-D&D.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 29, 2009)

> If it helps get away from the idea of story implying a predetermined outcome, don't think of the players as the readers. Think of them as the authors.



If you can get away from the idea of forcing a predetermined outcome, then maybe you can drop the literary jargon. Do you think? Because either you really, substantially disagree with the objection to predetermined outcome or you're just being contentious for the sake of being contentious.

The issue at hand is not what things might be like for some authors; the issue at hand is that *RPG players are not authors*. "Oh, but I can play a _semantic_ game with that, too -- Humpty Dumpty has nothing on me as an egg-head!" Can we just take that as granted, and get back to the realm of common sense and earnest communication?


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 29, 2009)

Planet Earth has characters and settings. We think of descriptive passages, though often not written down. We perceive mood and atmosphere. There is dialogue, though each line has a different composer. Lives have a beginning, a middle and an end. Even a wide open world has death, which is 'The End' for that particular person.

So, Doug, is there anything that does *not* "look like a story" to you? Because otherwise the usefulness of the term is far from apparent.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 29, 2009)

RC said:
			
		

> And, while "How much beer can Hussar drink while playing chess" may be a game, if you and I sit down to play chess, and we didn't agree to play "How much beer can Hussar drink while playing chess", then you are playing a form of solitaire.
> 
> Thus, a player can have any goal he likes when he sits down to play chess. His goal can be to drink as much beer as humanly possible. However, that goal is not the goal of chess, and it matters not one whit whether his beer capacity is known or unknown when he sits down when determining whether or not he is playing chess while drinking beer.




Talk about changing contexts.

At what point did I say that the group was engaging in this on an individual basis?  I believe  I pretty specifically stated that the entire group was engaged in Hussar's Drunk Chess.    I've always, always referred this to the group, not the single player.   You're totally right.  If one player is playing a game that no one else at the table is playing, then he's pretty out of place.  However, that's never really been my point.

So, do you agree that players, as a group, can formulate goals and, after bolting those goals onto a pre-existing ruleset, can create a game?  Yes or no.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> Uhm, well going with your analogy, I would say they just dive in. They form connections through play, as opposed to those connections being pre-determined. I don't see either as inherently "better" but I can definitely see the differences suiting different playstyles or even different types of players.




But, that's the problem.  All of the things the players will interact with are separate and distinct from their characters or backgrounds for the most part.  Even if they players read the entire campaign setting back to front, the odds that their particular backgrounds will tie to any specific element are pretty tenous.  That spooky castle on the hill exists in the campaign world irrespective of whatever players or characters are brought to play.

To me, I'd much rather change the campaign world to reflect the characters.  If they are playing a bunch of church knights out to slay undead Van Helsing style, then, fine, spooky castle it is.  If, OTOH, they are all playing ninja assassins (shudder), then spooky castle isn't going to cut the mustard.  Instead, it will be a living castle of someone they need to spy on.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> Yes the players become the focal point, but "what is going to be used at the table in the first place" isn't pre-determined, but grows organically through the choices the player(s) make. IMO, this allows for the very real chance that the PC's can discover interesting and exciting things that may not have occured to them during pre-campaign plotting.




People talk about this, but, IME, what actually happens is the campaign never gets a chance to gain any depth.  The players are constantly trying to see what's over the next hill, so never stay in one place long enough to make any connections or whatnot to the campaign world.  



			
				Primative Screwhead said:
			
		

> The other benefit, for me, is that it is my game world conceived at odd hours of the day with an eye to what sort of world I want to run. I can start a campaign with a group of complete strangers using this method, or.. as is more often the case, get my once a month game up and running without spending two or three months getting characters made and backgrounds built.




Ahh, now see here is something intertesting.  "Once a month" group is something I've never experienced.  We've always played weekly.  I quite simply don't have a full month between sessions to work out five different plotlines or scenarios.  OTOH, if we take a session or two (it's never actually taken two, although, it has taken more than one on occassion) to create a party, we're only taking two weeks.

Scheduling was an issue I never really thought of.  I can see how having so much time between sessions would allow you to do this.



			
				Ariosto said:
			
		

> (B) Puts your "Why not just cut out all the extra work?" in quite a different light -- or would, if you were not imposing on yourself the need to keep starting from scratch. In the long run, you are making more work for yourself. So, the savings in time and energy is one benefit to doing it the "old-fashioned" way. With a campaign apparatus at hand, developed over some months of play, it can be trivial to improvise on the spot a more particular, limited scenario for any reasonable company of characters.




Actually, this bit speaks a lot to my question of depth.  If you are recycling adventures from one campaign to the next, then those adventures, by their very nature, have to be generic.  You cannot have an adventure that requires a cleric, for example, if you want to use this adventure in another campaign.  

That's a simple example, but I think you get my meaning.  

Generic adventures, probably best epitomized by modules, are pretty shallow.  They aren't tied to the players, or the characters in anything more than the most tenuous way.  They have to lack strong theme or plot requiring specific elements since either one of those things preclude their recycling.

So, to repeat what I said earlier, I find that sandbox games do lack depth because they aren't tied to the characters or the players.  It's Father Generic giving Quest #14 to investigate Spooky Castle #3.

How can you avoid being generic and bland while still maintaining a campaign so open ended that it doesn't matter who plays what in it?



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> I think that "How much beer can Hussar drink" would be a pretty stupid and made-up game if he didn't tell the other player.
> 
> To make a game out of it, you'd need rules on how many drinks/sips he can take between turns. You'd need turn limits, otherwise, his first turn could come up,a nd he could drink until passed out under the guise of "I'm thinking about my next move"




Totally agree on most of the points.  Although, I don't think you need specific rules like you do.  Playing with reasonable and mature players can remove the need for codified rules, but, otherwise, I agree.  If Hussar doesn't tell anyone he's playing this game, then it's not a game at all.

But, again, that was never my point.  If both players at the table agree to play Drunk Chess, is it a game or not?


----------



## SkidAce (Nov 29, 2009)

I think it's two sides of the same coin....you can't have one without the other.

Both story and game.  In some styles of play the story comes first and players follow along, quite possibly enjoying the ride.  In other styles game comes first and the DM gathers all the infor from players actions and ties it together.  IMHO, not many people play at either end.

If story was -5, 0 was center, and game was +5 (no bias to either side intended), I think most games would run from -3 to +3.  My games tend to sit around +1 or +2.  I have some overarching plot and hooks floating around, but the players drive the train. (pun intended).

Just some thoughts on an interesting thread.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 29, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> You quite simply *do not know thing one* about what you are talking about!





Disagreeing with you does not constitute evidence of ignorance.  Assertion to that effect it does is kind of insulting, and apt to make things get ugly, whether your are correct or not.  It is roughly 100% guaranteed to not convince them you are correct.  So, overall, really not constructive.

I strongly suggest you continue as if others can and do have well-founded opinions that do not agree with yours.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 29, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Talk about changing contexts.




I will take the time and the effort to outline the argument for you.  Hopefully, I will have the time to do it by Wednesday afternoon.

However, I will answer the following now.  You could easily know what my answers would be if you just went upthread and read what was already written.  



> At what point did I say that the group was engaging in this on an individual basis?




How is this relevant to what you quoted, or the post it came from?

In rational discussion, a person can say, 

In the general case X,

but in the case Y, then not-X​
to make a distinction about when X applies.  This is, quite frankly, normal.



> So, do you agree that players, as a group, can formulate goals and, after bolting those goals onto a pre-existing ruleset, can create a game?  Yes or no.




Yes.  

I agree that players, as a group, can formulate goals and, after bolting those goals onto a pre-existing ruleset, can create a game.  

*However, the act of formulating goals and bolting them onto a pre-existing ruleset does not necessarily create a game.  The ruleset must be altered so that the outcome of newly-bolted goals is unknown, and so that player choices and/or actions affect that outcome.  It is not enough to simply bolt on new goals.* 

As Janx said, 



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> To make a game out of it, you'd need rules on how many drinks/sips he can take between turns. You'd need turn limits, otherwise, his first turn could come up,a nd he could drink until passed out under the guise of "I'm thinking about my next move"




I truly hope that you can understand this distinction.



> But, that's the problem.  All of the things the players will interact with are separate and distinct from their characters or backgrounds for the most part.  Even if they players read the entire campaign setting back to front, the odds that their particular backgrounds will tie to any specific element are pretty tenous.




Are you honestly saying that, no matter how much you know about a campaign world, you are incapable of making a character with a background that ties into that world in anything more than the most tenuous way?



> People talk about this, but, IME, what actually happens is the campaign never gets a chance to gain any depth.




I think this ties directly to what your idea of sandbox games is:



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> It's Father Generic giving Quest #14 to investigate Spooky Castle #3.




If you go upthread, there are examples of sandbox games where play is definitely tied into the player's backgrounds.  Your experience may relate to an apparent inability to link characters to a pre-existing world in any meaningful fashion, but I can assure you that your experience is not universal.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> But, again, that was never my point.




I am going to have so much fun outlining this argument.  


RC


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Nov 29, 2009)

Hussar said:


> ...  That spooky castle on the hill exists in the campaign world irrespective of whatever players or characters are brought to play.



 You are quite correct. However, if the PC's choose to investigate, the spooky castle can be populated by either undead or be the focal point of a political schema that needs to be spied on... depending on the players, the PCs, and the general feel of the game.

 The key to sandbox is that, once the details are clarified for the players.. it stays that way. Before then, those details can change as required. An example of this is the port city north of the village IMC. Right now its loosely defined as a port city, and thats about it. If the players choose to go that way I will listen to thier comments about what they expect and play to it.



Hussar said:


> Ahh, now see here is something intertesting.  "Once a month" group is something I've never experienced.
> ...Scheduling was an issue I never really thought of.  I can see how having so much time between sessions would allow you to do this.



 You sir, are lucky. Scheduling a group of players who are married w/ kids and work in the military is a nightmare. I have 8 to 9 players in the game... last session only 4 could make it.

However, this is how I ran games when I had a weekly game back in 2e and CP2020. It takes me more time to prep a module or AP than it does to run off the cuff. I have enough old Dungeon modules and ideas of side-treks to be able to pull pretty much anything out of the hat. 4e has made it easier as monster design can be, and has been, done actually during combat.



Hussar said:


> ...So, to repeat what I said earlier, I find that sandbox games do lack depth because they aren't tied to the characters or the players.  It's Father Generic giving Quest #14 to investigate Spooky Castle #3.
> 
> How can you avoid being generic and bland while still maintaining a campaign so open ended that it doesn't matter who plays what in it?



The devil is in the details. The overall campaign setting can be open to allow a variety of characters, play styles, and motivations. I use Eberron as the base of my world.. then place the PCs in the undefined territories that give me room to adapt.
 Once the PCs get involved, they can build connections and get to know the territory in a way that makes it thiers. Perhaps take over the Thieves Guild or remove the local despot and take over the territory.

That being said, my campaign does have some limitations for races and classes that fit into the world, so its not completely open.. but still not overly restrictive.

Now, when I run an AP.. then the players have to actively choose to accept the limitations of the module set and be happy to go along with any railroad {real or perceived} due to the GM's investment into the AP {money, time, etc} But even then, its a better game if the DM and players can tie the characters motivations into the storyline. Its just harder to do as the DM needs to internalize the APs world, and both sides need to adapt to the limitations of the stated storyline.




Hussar said:


> ... If both players at the table agree to play Drunk Chess, is it a game or not?



I beleive that 'drunk chess' can indeed be a game.. but I don't see the relevance to the discussion here. Even if Drunk Chess has a set of complex rules, referees, and online board discussion groups... DnD is a _game_ that has strong story elements that are more foreground than most other games.  Which, of course, means the debate about whether the story is more important than the game or vice versa.. but the goal of both the story and the game {IMO} is to have an entertaining session... so does the debate really matter as long as the goal is being met?

Funny side note. I once ran a CP2020 session that was completely predetermined. I had set up a black bag operation in which the Agency used the PCs to trigger the third Corperate war. Completely a technical railroad game where the PC's choices were guided to what I needed them to be.
The following day one of my players put it together and realized he had been led around by the nose..and after a couple swear words he congratulated me on one of the best sessions he had ever played in.
 Morale of the story... railroading isn't one of the 7 deadly sins. Killing the fun however, thats murder


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Nov 29, 2009)

SkidAce said:


> I think it's two sides of the same coin....you can't have one without the other.
> 
> ..Just some thoughts on an interesting thread.




I disagree with your presentation. I think its more like a mix where you can scale story from 1 to 5 and scale game from 1 to 5.. they are not exclusive, altho one can be paid more attention than the other.

Using this, my game could be descibed as S3/G5, whereas it appears Hussar would be more along the lines of S5/G3.

And a pretty good bet that his game is just as fun/good as I hope mine is.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 29, 2009)

Hussar said:


> But, that's the problem. All of the things the players will interact with are separate and distinct from their characters or backgrounds for the most part. Even if they players read the entire campaign setting back to front, the odds that their particular backgrounds will tie to any specific element are pretty tenous. That spooky castle on the hill exists in the campaign world irrespective of whatever players or characters are brought to play.
> 
> To me, I'd much rather change the campaign world to reflect the characters. If they are playing a bunch of church knights out to slay undead Van Helsing style, then, fine, spooky castle it is. If, OTOH, they are all playing ninja assassins (shudder), then spooky castle isn't going to cut the mustard. Instead, it will be a living castle of someone they need to spy on.




Ok, I'm curious... what do you do if a player isn't ready or doesn't want to flesh their character's background out before you all get to playing? Do you force them to anyway so that you can tie them into your campaign (this seems more for your benefit than for the player)... or do you ignore them as far as tie-ins go (so then if you've done this what is the big deal about having pre-game connections and hooks.)? 

A second point is that the PC's are only missing background until they interact with something or someone in the campaign... yet even with out the detailed, pre-written background there are ways to tie PC's into a sandbox campaign, it just takes some creativity and cooperation. One of the techniques I've used when running a sandbox is that the characters can interject a certain number of memories, flashbacks or dreams that can help tie them (with DM and/or tab le approval) into the NPC's/events/locations/etc. of the campaign.

Finally I think your example of the ninja and the spooky castle are exactly what I'm talking about. I think a story of a clan of ninja who enter a manor, for whatever reason, only to discover it full of undead and spirits could make for a fun and interesting adveture... yet by your method, you have automatically discarded it because it doesn't fit within your vision of a "ninja campaign"... IMO, it seems you could miss out on some cool adventures and plotlines because you are purposefully limiting yourself and your players. Like I said earlier your method may provide for a more focused game... but that doesn't necessarily translate to a more fun game. 



Hussar said:


> People talk about this, but, IME, what actually happens is the campaign never gets a chance to gain any depth. The players are constantly trying to see what's over the next hill, so never stay in one place long enough to make any connections or whatnot to the campaign world.




I'm not trying to be snarky, but this seems to be a problem with your ability to run a sandbox... not with the concept of sandbox play (especially since you've fallen back on insinuating that people who have run these types of campaigns may just be talking but not actuallly doing).

IME, you have to create things that entice and present the opportunity for the PC's to want and create connections. I mean don't they have a home base? what are the politics going on within it and how do they affect the PC's? How do they uncover the locations of things without researching and/or interacting with those who would know more in their homebase? Do they seek out mentors and masters to train with? Henchmen or companions to adventure with? How about rivals that are seeking the same things they are?


----------



## SkidAce (Nov 29, 2009)

Primitive Screwhead said:


> I disagree with your presentation. I think its more like a mix where you can scale story from 1 to 5 and scale game from 1 to 5.. they are not exclusive, altho one can be paid more attention than the other.
> 
> Using this, my game could be descibed as S3/G5, whereas it appears Hussar would be more along the lines of S5/G3.
> 
> And a pretty good bet that his game is just as fun/good as I hope mine is.




I actually agree with you to an extent.  The "they are not exclusive" part.  Which is why I said I don't think anyone plays at the extreme ends.  I just consider more of one to be less of the other, due to (IMO) being at ends of the style spectrum.

However, it is a good bet that your game, Hussar's game, and my game are all enjoyable and fun.  I don't think there is anything wrong with any particular style...whatever works for the group.

Good points Primitive Screwhead, thanks...


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 29, 2009)

Hussar said:
			
		

> If you are recycling adventures from one campaign to the next, then those adventures, by their very nature, have to be generic.



But I am not -- because I am not predetermining adventures in the first place.



> How can you avoid being generic and bland while still maintaining a campaign so open ended that it doesn't matter who plays what in it?



So, the only way in which it can "matter who plays what" is by playing your way? Thus, any other kind of campaign must be "generic and bland"?

Unlike certain other statements that were in fact matters of fact and so properly addressed as such, these actually are opinions. They are opinions about campaigns of which you in fact do not have, and by reasonable extrapolation are not likely ever to be in a position to have, first-hand knowledge. Of what consequence, then, should they be to those of us who in fact are engaged in those campaigns?

The big, fundamental difference here is between
(A) the conception of an "adventure" as something that _happens to_ player-characters (DM's "plot') and
(B) the conception of an "adventure" as something the player-characters _do_ (players' "plot").

It appears that some people, so far from _not liking_ (B) might simply not grasp the concept in the first place. That might have less to do with expecting any game to be a "fiction" than with expecting any game to have unambiguous victory conditions. "But how does one _win_?" seems to be a common enough puzzlement about old-style RPGs.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 30, 2009)

I don't see improved player motivation to be a strength of sandbox. After all, the players have already chosen to turn up. They've travelled maybe some distance. They've selected this GM's game out of many activities they could be doing. The players are already motivated to play in whatever the GM serves up for the evening's entertainment. Whether he has prepared one, or several, adventures doesn't matter.

What I feel is the great strength of sandbox is that it makes player decisions matter. The players are more important. They can affect the course of the campaign at a more macroscopic level than in a non-sandbox game.

A possible flaw in a sandbox is if the adventures on offer are too similar. This makes the players choice less important. It doesn't really matter if you have a choice of a dozen different adventures if all those adventures are basically the same. The Caves of Chaos in the module The Keep On The Borderlands suffer from this problem to a large extent. The humanoid lairs are very, very same-y. Guard post, common room, females and young, prisoners, chief, treasure hoard. It's basically just the same lair repeated six times over but with different hit dice. D&D in general suffers from this problem - too many dungeons. Too many monsters. Too many fights.

It could be said that this great strength of sandbox, the players ability to choose adventures, is only an improvement over non-sandbox within the course of a session. In a non-sandbox game, the GM can still prepare adventures according to player desires between sessions. It's only within the confines of a session that he's more restricted.

Here I'm using sandbox to mean the GM has prepared more than one adventure prior to each session. So it's perfectly possible, even in a non-sandbox, for the GM to select his single adventure according to the events of the previous session, and/or the desires expressed by the players.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 30, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> It appears that some people, so far from _not liking_ (B) might simply not grasp the concept in the first place. That might have less to do with expecting any game to be a "fiction" than with expecting any game to have unambiguous victory conditions. "But how does one _win_?" seems to be a common enough puzzlement about old-style RPGs.



I'd say old school D&D does have a fairly unambiguous victory condition - get to name level. In this respect it's the same as 3e and 4e, where the goal is to get to 20th and 30th level respectively.

There are certainly lose conditions - PC death. Avoiding losing could be said to be a minor victory, in the absence of satisfying the major victory condition.

I don't see any difference between old and new here.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 30, 2009)

> I don't see any difference between old and new here.



Do you see the difference between A and B?

Also, is there anything that does _not_ "look like a story" to you?



> Here I'm using sandbox to mean the GM has prepared more than one adventure prior to each session.



In that case, I definitely do not run a "sandbox".

You know what? That appears to do away in one sweep with a whole lot of nonsense from certain parties!

I referee *a D&D campaign* in accordance with the instructions for doing so in the seminal works. If you really want to find out what _I_ mean, then you can ask me and pay attention to what I say about my own campaign.

I will not "play the game" of letting you _tell me_ how my campaign "must" be -- and accepting the "sandbox" label apparently has been reduced to an excuse for you to do just that.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 30, 2009)

RC said:
			
		

> However, the act of formulating goals and bolting them onto a pre-existing ruleset does not necessarily create a game. The ruleset must be altered so that the outcome of newly-bolted goals is unknown, and so that player choices and/or actions affect that outcome. It is not enough to simply bolt on new goals.




And this is where we disagree.  I do not think that the ruleset needs to be altered.  Thus, I don't think we're ever going to agree on this one.



Primitive Screwhead said:


> You are quite correct. However, if the PC's choose to investigate, the spooky castle can be populated by either undead or be the focal point of a political schema that needs to be spied on... depending on the players, the PCs, and the general feel of the game.
> /snip




Hang on a tick here.  Excellent post btw, but, I wanted to tease this out.  You're saying that nothing in the game world exists until the PC's interact with it and that game world elements can and will be changed to suit the particular group of players and characters.

This is not how I have seen sandbox detailed in the past.  To most people, a sandbox world exists independently of the PC's and details are fixed.  That spooky castle has whatever the DM has put in that spooky castle regardless of what group is playing.

If your sandbox is maleable to the group playing, then I'm not sure if it counts as a sandbox anymore.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 30, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Ok, I'm curious... what do you do if a player isn't ready or doesn't want to flesh their character's background out before you all get to playing? Do you force them to anyway so that you can tie them into your campaign (this seems more for your benefit than for the player)... or do you ignore them as far as tie-ins go (so then if you've done this what is the big deal about having pre-game connections and hooks.)?




I play with players for which this is not an issue.  Our playstyles match.  So, tbh, I can't really answer you.  We also spend the entire first session collectively creating characters, so, unless said player is sitting in the corner playing on his Iphone, he's going to create a character tied to the rest of the party and the campaign.

An example of one method I used to great effect can be found: here.



> A second point is that the PC's are only missing background until they interact with something or someone in the campaign... yet even with out the detailed, pre-written background there are ways to tie PC's into a sandbox campaign, it just takes some creativity and cooperation. One of the techniques I've used when running a sandbox is that the characters can interject a certain number of memories, flashbacks or dreams that can help tie them (with DM and/or tab le approval) into the NPC's/events/locations/etc. of the campaign.




So your sandbox appears to be similar to Primitive Screwhead's.  The sandbox is kinda sorta there, but can be altered as needed by the players with the collaboration of the DM.  Sounds like a fun game.   



> Finally I think your example of the ninja and the spooky castle are exactly what I'm talking about. I think a story of a clan of ninja who enter a manor, for whatever reason, only to discover it full of undead and spirits could make for a fun and interesting adveture... yet by your method, you have automatically discarded it because it doesn't fit within your vision of a "ninja campaign"... IMO, it seems you could miss out on some cool adventures and plotlines because you are purposefully limiting yourself and your players. Like I said earlier your method may provide for a more focused game... but that doesn't necessarily translate to a more fun game.




Never said that it did.  See below for more.



> I'm not trying to be snarky, but this seems to be a problem with your ability to run a sandbox... not with the concept of sandbox play (especially since you've fallen back on insinuating that people who have run these types of campaigns may just be talking but not actuallly doing).
> 
> IME, you have to create things that entice and present the opportunity for the PC's to want and create connections. I mean don't they have a home base? what are the politics going on within it and how do they affect the PC's? How do they uncover the locations of things without researching and/or interacting with those who would know more in their homebase? Do they seek out mentors and masters to train with? Henchmen or companions to adventure with? How about rivals that are seeking the same things they are?




Actually, before the campaign begins, I probably have no idea if they have a home base.  I have no idea what politics are going on and how the PC's fit into that.  As far as uncovering locations, that's a pretty broad question.  Why are they doing that?  What prompted them?  

My point is, all those details are given to me by the players when they create their characters.  The players, with me, create the campaign and the campaign is tailored specifically for this group of characters.  Nothing is interchangeable. 

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

While I realize throughout this thread, I've been arguing for a specific kind of game, it should not be thought that I always run this kind of game, nor do I think it's superior.  I've run sandbox games (World's Largest Dungeon is a good example).  I've run lots of different kinds of games.  My point here has been to simply present an alternative.

People consistently claim that sandbox campaigns are the epitome of gaming.  I disagree.  I find they're fantastic for swashbuckling, beer and pretzels games where the players just want to have a blast and kill some goblins.  However, I don't find that sandbox games - games where the world is independent of the players - lead to very deep games.  I find the reverse is true, either as a player or a DM.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 30, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Do you see the difference between A and B?
> 
> Also, is there anything that does _not_ "look like a story" to you?
> 
> ...




Well, considering that Doug M's definition of sandbox is pretty much the standard definition of a sandbox campaign - a campaign where the world contains a number of adventures that the players can choose from at any given time - how do YOU define sandbox play?


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 30, 2009)

> how do YOU define sandbox play?



I don't. I wash my hands of that. The only reason I ever accepted the neologism was because it seemed to mean what "D&D campaign" formerly meant. If it's being defined by people who either don't have a clue about that in the first place or are actively hostile to it, then I have no more use for the term than I had in the preceding three decades of gaming.

In my campaign, adventures are not little DM-determined boxes to get shut into. ("To repeat this menu, press 5.") They are whatever players choose to do. The 1st ed. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons _Players Handbook_ section on "Successful Adventures" is founded on that understanding.



> Whether the purpose is so simple as to discover a flight of stairs to the next lowest unexplored level or so difficult as to find and destroy an altar to an alien god, some firm objective should be established and then adhered to as strongly as possible. Note, however, that inflexibility or foolish stubbornness is often fatal.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Nov 30, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> The only reason I ever accepted the neologism was because it seemed to mean what "D&D campaign" formerly meant.




Correction: What "D&D campaign" formerly meant _to you_.

I also played D&D in the 1970s, and I don't agree that one was rigidly confined to your style of play, then any more than now. The hobby was young; nobody had years and years of experience to draw upon--and certainly nothing like the internet to help share experiences. There was a lot of experimentation and players simply doing what seemed like the best thing to them. If anything, in my experience play styles varied _even more_ from group to group than they do now.

You yourself point out that Dragonlance didn't invent the story-oriented campaign--games like CoC and even Empire of the Petal Throne dipped their toes into those waters long before 1984. Well, guess what: So did hundreds of thousands of gamers. On their own. Pretty much from day one.

You weren't the only one around back then, and even if you were your anecdotal evidence is just that: anecdotal. The fact that it's three decades in the past doesn't make it any more reliable.



> In my campaign, adventures are not little DM-determined boxes to get shut into. ("To repeat this menu, press 5.")




It's funny. Your utter rejection of anything that stinks of "art school" or "egghead" describes a game style that, to me, sounds way more restrictive than anything I've proposed.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 30, 2009)

> CoC and even Empire of the Petal Throne dipped their toes into those waters long before 1984



EPT? Not, as far as I know, in any sense that would not apply as well to Blackmoor and Greyhawk -- so unless you have something most interesting to share, I am only puzzled as to what you could possibly mean by "story-oriented campaign".



> I also played D&D in the 1970s, and I don't agree that one was rigidly confined to your style of play, then any more than now.



As I have not made any assertion that "one was rigidly confined to" any style of play ... and as what you have demonstrated is not a sound grasp of what my style of play is ... well, I am at rather a loss.

The limited scenario is fine and dandy as a change of pace in any case, and an obvious necessity for a tournament. If you happen to prefer it as your SOP, then have fun and prosper.

*"For everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way!"* - D&D Volume 3, _The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures_

YOU, however, have indeed presented your way as the right way to play, the normal way, the expected way, the way other than which requires a special WARNING label.

YOU have excluded, chosen a narrow way with no room for those whose way has room for you -- those you attack for the very wideness of their way, its openness to _whatever possibilities arise_.

So, what hypocrisy is this?



> Your utter rejection of anything that stinks of "art school" or "egghead" describes a game style that, to me, sounds way more restrictive than anything I've proposed.



I do not "utterly reject anything that stinks of 'art school'".
I do utterly reject the pomposity of anyone who seeks to make pretentiousness mandatory for all who would play D&D.

The egg-head-ism I reject is Humpty Dumpty's pettifogging semantic slipperiness.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 30, 2009)

Hussar said:


> And this is where we disagree.  I do not think that the ruleset needs to be altered.  Thus, I don't think we're ever going to agree on this one.




If the ruleset doesn't change, then you have people drinking and playing chess, but no new game.

Moreover, your position here is mutually exclusive to things you have already agreed with, as demonstrated by (thus far unresponded to by you) syllogism upthread.

From a rational standpoint, given the syllogism,

A = B
B = C, therefore
A = C​
one can rationally disagree that A = B, or that B = C, but if one accepts A = B and B = C, there is no rational way to then deny that A = C.



> To most people, a sandbox world exists independently of the PC's and details are fixed.  That spooky castle has whatever the DM has put in that spooky castle regardless of what group is playing.




I would agree to a large extent.  I would not change the broad strokes.  Details may change, depending upon PC backgrounds, though.  

However, all sandboxes are "maleable to the group playing" insofar at least as it is the group playing, rather than the GM, that determines what the group does.  And, again, the details can accommodate PC background (as exampled upthread).



Hussar said:


> Well, considering that Doug M's definition of sandbox is pretty much the standard definition of a sandbox campaign - a campaign where the world contains a number of adventures that the players can choose from at any given time - how do YOU define sandbox play?




I would disagree, because "adventures" are not necessarily discrete units in a sandbox setting in the way you (apparently) mean.  Locations are discrete units, certainly, but what happens at a location is not.  

Thus, if the GM takes the time to detail Giant Land, then the PCs may have multiple forays into Giant Land, and not always for the same reasons.  They may cross Giant Land, they may engage in diplomatic relations with Giant Land, they may raid Giant Land, they may seek a ruin lost within Giant Land.  

How the game element "Giant Land" and its sub-elements are used are limited only by the imaginations of the players.

For the GM, this has the advantage of allowing his work to do double duty.  If he created the Village of Hommlet, it could be the PC's home base for the exploration of a certain moathouse, but also contains enough adventure seeds to be of use throughout the lifetime of a campaign.  That is why Gary Gygax included all the affiliations of townsfolk, where they kept their monies, etc.  The site is useful beyond playing as a one-shot.  Indeed, it can be built upon and change over time.  Even within the limitations of the original module, there is a castle in progress of being built which, in campaign play, would demonstrate that Hommlet changes.

Likewise, if run as part of a sandbox, the series A1-A4 can be broken down into elements are rebuilt.  The "yellow sails" of the slavers exist prior to the PCs determining to track them down.  The general locations and network of the slavers can be placed, so that the PCs can run afoul of it by intent or accident.  The GM no longer expects that the PCs will follow the modular series (although it is possible that they do), and the GM will not force the PCs to lose against the Slave Lords just so that he can toss them in the slaver's dungeons.  In fact, the GM may expand upon the slaver's dungeons so that they provide enterprising PCs with a "back door" into the slaver's stronghold!

Moreover, in a sandbox, the PCs may never choose to track the slavers down, or run afoul of them.  The slavers might remain part of the framework.  The PCs might even make use of the slavers for thier own ends.  They might buy slaves, steal a slaver ship, or use the slavers as allies against a common foe.  They might even overthrow the current Slave Lords and take control of the operation.

You keep claiming that the sandbox world is less malleable to the PCs than the AP, but this simply isn't true.  

Even if the players get lots of choices about how the world is when created, that is a very poor exchange for losing the breadth and depth of choices a sandbox allows for thereafter.  

The idea that the players choose the world when they create their characters also 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?

Again, how is it possible that the DM can be so creative as to match a world to 4+ players, but none of those players is so creative as to be capable of matching a character to the world?  How did you cope with this when you were running (and lauding your running of) the World's Largest Dungeon?

In a nutshell, your several positions in this thread require one to accept far too many mutually exclusive statements.


RC


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 30, 2009)

> For the GM, this has the advantage of allowing his work to do double duty.



Or triple, or more! Of course, that depends on a kind of extended campaign. In Hussar's mode of play, for instance, there might not be so much opportunity.

That might be good for another thread: "Why We Like Character: Our Job as DMs".

People and places in a game gain character over the course of extended interaction in play. Relationships and histories emerge organically, as players enter into them.

I do not sit down and write a "module" text about each bit of my campaign environment. Even if I plan to run a set scenario, I'm not trying to explain to _someone else_ how to run it!

Most of the time, I am not doing anything of the sort -- so the more a module is written with assumptions demanding that things bend to them, the more work it is to integrate into an ongoing campaign. Just because a handy "hook" or framing background is provided, though, does not mean that it's going to pose such difficulties.

Also a "one off" can be a pleasant diversion from campaign play. The DM not only can say, "Okay, guys, here's the challenge -- go to it!", but can also feel free really to cut loose. Losing pre-generated characters to the Vaults of Inexorable Doom is more of a lark than losing regular PCs. A single adventure with 29th-level characters might be more fun than having them in an extended campaign.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Nov 30, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> YOU, however, have indeed presented your way as the right way to play. . . .




Au contraire.

I've posited that most people experience a great similarity between roleplaying and other fictional environments, and their expectations reflect that. If you are going to deliver an experience that diverges from their expectations, and you don't let them know, you shouldn't be surprised by some degree of frustration on your part or theirs.

And I've said that if you are frustrated that your players treat your campaign like a story, you should consider the possibility that that's because they want some story in their game.

No value judgement one way or the other. I have my own preferences, but who doesn't?



> YOU have excluded, chosen a narrow way with no room for those whose way has room for you -- those you attack for the very wideness of their way, its openness to _whatever possibilities arise_.




I don't see it the same way. There's a whole gamut of experiences that RPGs can deliver that _are not a possibility_ in your play style. Some of the most satisfying and thrilling moments I've experienced in 30 years of gaming (on both sides of the screen) _could not happen_ in a sandbox style game.

RC's point (if I may put words in his mouth) is that player agency opens a toolbox of GMing techniques that he (and I presume you) find valuable. My point is that story structure opens a different toolbox. RC and I seem to have reached an accord that both sets are valid, and that they are not even completely mutually exclusive.

Your point (again, if I may) seems to be that story structure is A) equals railroading (or at least is inherently more restrictive than sandbox); B) isn't the "true" way to play D&D, because in the old days it was all sandbox all the time; and C) is just an exercise in pretension.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 30, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> RC and I seem to have reached an accord that both sets are valid, and that they are not even completely mutually exclusive.




I have never denied it.

But I do wonder what you think _*could not happen *_in a sandbox style game?


----------



## Hussar (Dec 1, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> *If the ruleset doesn't change, then you have people drinking and playing chess, but no new game.*
> 
> Moreover, your position here is mutually exclusive to things you have already agreed with, as demonstrated by (thus far unresponded to by you) syllogism upthread.
> 
> ...




Again, going around in circles.

The part I bolded is where we disagree.  I do not think that it is a requirement to bolt the player goals into the framework of the game in order to achieve a new game.  Nothing you have said has convinced me of this.  Thus, your logic chain falls apart like the deck of cards it is.  Your chain of logic ONLY works if we presume that player goals MUST be locked into the game framework in order to create a new game.  

Without that detail, your logic chain fails.

Now, since we cannot agree on the initial premise of whether or not player goals must be locked into the game framework, we're at an impasse.

I suggest we drop it and leave it.  We're not going to get anywhere.




> I would agree to a large extent.  I would not change the broad strokes.  Details may change, depending upon PC backgrounds, though.
> 
> However, all sandboxes are "maleable to the group playing" insofar at least as *it is the group playing, rather than the GM, that determines what the group does*.  And, again, the details can accommodate PC background (as exampled upthread).




Again, bolding the important bits.

How?  how is it the group playing which determines what the group does?  The group has absolutely no say in what appears in hex A7 or Hex D9.  That's entirely up to the DM, and, what appears in those hexes doesn't change in any way dependent on the players or the group.  If the DM has decreed that "spooky castle" appears in Hex A7, then that's what appears.

All the players can do is REACT to what the DM presents.  In no way can they determine what they do.



> I would disagree, because "adventures" are not necessarily discrete units in a sandbox setting in the way you (apparently) mean.  Locations are discrete units, certainly, but what happens at a location is not.
> 
> Thus, if the GM takes the time to detail Giant Land, then the PCs may have multiple forays into Giant Land, and not always for the same reasons.  They may cross Giant Land, they may engage in diplomatic relations with Giant Land, they may raid Giant Land, they may seek a ruin lost within Giant Land.
> 
> How the game element "Giant Land" and its sub-elements are used are limited only by the imaginations of the players.




But, the existence of "Giant Land" has nothing to do with what the players want.  It has nothing to do with the player's backgrounds (Unless the DM has specifically told them beforehand that they are going to Giant Land and thus must build that into their backgrounds).  "Giant Land" exists only in the mind of the DM and has no links to the players at all.



> For the GM, this has the advantage of allowing his work to do double duty.  If he created the Village of Hommlet, it could be the PC's home base for the exploration of a certain moathouse, but also contains enough adventure seeds to be of use throughout the lifetime of a campaign.  That is why Gary Gygax included all the affiliations of townsfolk, where they kept their monies, etc.  The site is useful beyond playing as a one-shot.  Indeed, it can be built upon and change over time.  Even within the limitations of the original module, there is a castle in progress of being built which, in campaign play, would demonstrate that Hommlet changes.
> 
> 
> > But, again, that castle in construction HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PLAYERS.  You keep bringing up the same point over and over again.  Yes, I agree this is sandbox play.  But, you have not said one thing to tell me how this relates to the players.  Why should the players care about the castle being built?  They can't buy it.  Unless they kill the two guys who own the castle, they can't take it over as a base.  At best, they could go and beg jobs from the guys who own the castle, but, that's about it.
> ...


----------



## Hussar (Dec 1, 2009)

A later thought occurred and I wanted to add it here:



			
				RC said:
			
		

> The idea that the players choose the world when they create their characters also 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?




There's another obvious answer here as well.  End the campaign and start a new one.

I don't know if I said it here or not, but, IMO, story based campaigns are SHORT.  You have a specific story arc in mind, a specific theme (or themes) to explore and some pretty specific goals.  There's nothing wrong, in my mind, with a campaign lasting six to eight weeks.  

This might also go a long way to explaining the differences we're seeing here in approach.  I do think a sandbox campaign is probably better for campaigns that are intended to last a long time.  A plot based campaign is better suited for campaigns that have a fairly short half life - rarely more than a year IMO.

Like all things, it comes down to what the group wants to get out of the experience.  A lengthy campaign where the players are given a great deal of freedom, but, the world is fairly generic in that it is not built upon any specific group or group of players, or; a campaign that is much shorter, but is specific to the group and/or the characters they are playing.

And, a disclaimer.  I in no way am saying that one is better than the other in any sort of objective way.  Currently, I like shorter, plot heavy games as a GM.  A couple of years from now, that could swing back the other way.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 1, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> No value judgement one way or the other. I have my own preferences, but who doesn't?



I am glad to take you at your word on that! Perhaps you will return the favor and stop trying to attribute to me statements that I have not made, and claiming that my game "must be" or "cannot be" this or that on the basis of your fancy ...



> There's a whole gamut of experiences that RPGs can deliver that _are not a possibility_ in your play style.



... or maybe not. <sigh> Setting aside that you have yet to demonstrate any understanding of what "my play style" is, perhaps you can offer some examples of the "gamut of experiences" thereby not possible. And then perhaps you can explain why that's such a problem when I can -- yes, I know this may be just unthinkable -- play *RPGS other than D&D*!

It is not possible to play (at least quite precisely) Creeks & Crawdads, or Nicotine Girls, or Kill Puppies For Satan, or Panty Explosion, or The Alan Smithee Project, or Best Friends, or any one of thousands of other games in the moment of playing Dungeons & Dragons instead -- or vice-versa, or any which way. So what? I'm not playing D&D when I play Upwords or Rail Baron, either.



> Your point (again, if I may) seems to be that story structure is A) equals railroading (or at least is inherently more restrictive than sandbox); B) isn't the "true" way to play D&D, because in the old days it was all sandbox all the time; and C) is just an exercise in pretension.



You can speak for yourself -- and please do! -- as to what on earth you mean by "story structure".

(A) I'll _try_ to wash my hands of "railroad", even though it has a pretty venerable usage, because that's apparently just another Humpty Dumpty distraction. Knock yourself out defining and redefining it to suit your taste.

I have already disowned "sandbox". You have no basis whatsoever to deprive me of the right to refer to my *Dungeons & Dragons campaign* as just that, and it is plainly false to claim that I am thereby somehow imposing on _you_ in any way.

(B) You fly off the handle at the observation that what you apparently want to mandate as incumbent on others as a rule is not mentioned at all in the seminal works. Simply give up your insistence on dictating to others! The absence of this, that or _anything_ hardly stands in the way of adding to your heart's desire! Add, subtract, multiply, divide ... which part of "decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way" is so hard for you to understand? You decide for yourself alone, though, not for me or anyone else.

(C) Yes, I do think the "RPGs at art" conceit tends to be rather Pretentious, in the Rients Threefold Model sense. If you can't see the silliness in jumping, for instance, from _simulating the process of personal development commonly called "life"_, or _played with metal and plastic figurines, it become improvisational puppet theatre_ -- to "the elf scores a critical hit on these dice rolls" ... well, too bad.


----------



## The Ghost (Dec 1, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I simply asked a question - how do you achieve depth in your campaigns where the campaign is divorced from the players? How do you achieve depth in a campaign where characters are interchangeable and replacing one with another changes nothing?




What do you mean by depth? 

IMHO, character depth comes from his/her philosophies, motivations, goals, fears, etc. and how he/she applies those (reacts) to the events that are transpiring around him/her.

For eample, my current character's goal is to become a deity. Short of that he is willing to consider lichdom as a possibility. He fears death and the eternal servitude that comes with it. In general he is cautious and calculated but will take risks if he feels that it advances his over-arching goal. He acts aloof in his dealings with people but secretly notices everything and takes great pains to right any percieved wrongs. He is a stranger in the country he is adventuring in. 

IME this character has depth - and yet he adventures in a sandbox (one created _before_ I made this character). I don't know if he will succeed or fail - to me that is part of the fun.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 1, 2009)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I simply asked a question - how do you achieve depth in your campaigns where the campaign is divorced from the players? How do you achieve depth in a campaign where characters are interchangeable and replacing one with another changes nothing?




How can there be an "over the horizon" when the Earth is flat? How can there be a round shadow on the Moon when the Earth has four corners?

Hmm ... if only we had a clue!


----------



## Hussar (Dec 1, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> What do you mean by depth?
> 
> IMHO, character depth comes from his/her philosophies, motivations, goals, fears, etc. and how he/she applies those (reacts) to the events that are transpiring around him/her.
> 
> ...




Ahh, now we're getting somewhere.

I agree, this character has depth.  He has goals and a personality.  I might argue that he lacks a bit of relationship with the other characters and the people in the setting, but, that's a quibble and not terribly important.  

Now, how will he succeed at this goal?  What in this setting will allow him to achieve this goal?  How, specifically, will this particular setting allow him to achieve this goal?  Other than the standard D&D thing of simply killing your way up the levels until you reach godhood or lichdom, which can be done in any setting.

This is what I'm talking about.  To me, another way would be to have a setting where your character is on his road to godhood of a specific people.  You would have ties to those people, links, history, a background stretching back.  Your achievement of godhood would likely be pretty much guaranteed, so long as you continue playing.

However, the campaign wouldn't be about that specific goal.  The campaign would be about building your following. What kind of god would you be?  How does becoming immortal affect you?  

Look at the new Dr Who series.  Many (if not most) of the episodes revolve around the Doctor's incredible loneliness.  The fact that he's the last Timelord and nothing he does can change the fact that he's alone, for all time.  It's an incredibly sad story.

In the "I'm gonna be a God" story, we would work together to lay out some themes and concepts that should be brought up during the game.  The game would be about the exploration of those themes.

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

Another weakness of this approach is it really doesn't work well with large groups.  You'll never get a group of six or seven people to be interested in such a limited storyline.  It really won't work for any length of time.  However, in smaller groups, particularly in smaller groups with similar interests and playstyles, this can work very well.

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

The Ghost - I'm not in any way saying what you are doing is wrong.  There's been a few people here who are trying to paint this as an either/or sort of thing and it's not.  I'm simply bringing up alternatives.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Dec 1, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Hang on a tick here.  Excellent post btw, but, I wanted to tease this out.  You're saying that nothing in the game world exists until the PC's interact with it and that game world elements can and will be changed to suit the particular group of players and characters.
> 
> This is not how I have seen sandbox detailed in the past.  To most people, a sandbox world exists independently of the PC's and details are fixed.  That spooky castle has whatever the DM has put in that spooky castle regardless of what group is playing.
> 
> If your sandbox is maleable to the group playing, then I'm not sure if it counts as a sandbox anymore.




Thanks, I try to post only when I have something to say... something I occasionally fail at 

But yes, my world setting is fixed only in broad strokes... along the lines of 'here be dragons', until the PCs get close enough to start interacting with it. The closer they get, the more detail gets created. This means I can tell the players that there is a trading port to the north that is oft called Trafalgars Troubles. If the PCs choose to investigate, I will decide who Trafalgar was, why there are troubles, and what sort of adventures are in the ports local area.
If the PC's don't go there.. the port stays rather vague.
Once they do, the port becomes a known quantity in the world and future adventures, with other PC's, can visit the port and possibly see the impact the previous party left on it.

 This means I don't have to build an entire world.. just the bits my players visit.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 1, 2009)

Hussar said:
			
		

> You are the one implying judgement where none exists.



I think what most of us are doing is noticing how you keep slapping us with the equivalent of, "Well, have you stopped beating your wife yet? I'm just asking a question!"


----------



## Tistur (Dec 1, 2009)

Hi all,

I've been reading this thread for 23 pages now, and I am wondering what people's thoughts are on the following scenerio (which mostly happened to me last winter). I think I've teased out the differences and can predict who will respond how.

A friend of mine anounces his attention to start a game in his ongoing campaign world, in which he is currently running 2 games. I express an interest, and he sends me a general overview of the country we will be playing in and asks what I would like to play. I see a piece about magical experiments being done on criminals, and run with that. 

In a series of emails, we work out that my character, Katrin, was born into a small noble family with lands but little money. She has two siblings, a sister whom she loves and a brother who would go out of his way to remove  his sisters from the inheirtence. So when Katrin went traveling with a friend, her brother arranged for them to be convicted of a bogus crime, and Katrin became an experimental subject (her friend died.) She escaped and went to find her sister, but her brother saw her and arranged her recapture. She has recently escaped again, and stays away from normal society because of her obvious physical differences (from the experiments.)

The DM told me what she knew about her captors and place names and locations. Now, Catrin has several NPCs built into her background, both friendly and hostile. She has motivations of her own, as well as fears and goals (revenge, restoring her body and her rank, and eventually stopping all experimentations near her lands).

So, this would seem to be the first part of Hussar's style (as I am reading it). Except that later in the game, we passed a statue, and another player explained it was of his PC in one of the GM's other games, who saved the village. If Catrin succeeds in stopping experimentation, his PC in that game will have to leave the country when he retires, because his goal is to found a magical medical school, where he will - you guessed it - practice "human" experimentation. This would be, as I understand it, very much like the AD&D approach to worlds, where several groups of PCs (with different players) may be active at any given time.

So, the world was pre-built and pre-existing, but after disscussions with the DM I was able to build a character based firmly in it, with ties to several groups of NPCs.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 1, 2009)

Tistur, whatever rocks your group's boat rocks for y'all.

And you're not trying to tell me that I've got to play just like you or else my game "lacks depth" or some such baloney.

That's excellent!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 1, 2009)

Hussar said:


> 1.  For a goal to be a real goal, the achievement (or failure to achieve) that goal must be unknown.
> 
> 2.  All games must have goals in order to be games.
> 
> See, I agree with both these statements.






Hussar said:


> And this is where we disagree.  I do not think that the ruleset needs to be altered.  Thus, I don't think we're ever going to agree on this one.




Oh, I know, because for you, the goal of a game and the rules of the game require no linkeage.  So, if you play Candyland with the goal of putting your opponent in checkmate, and with no rules to allow you to do so, that's a perfectly legitimate game.

No, we are never going to agree on this one.

I wonder if anyone agrees with you here?



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 1, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> I think what most of us are doing is noticing how you keep slapping us with the equivalent of, "Well, have you stopped beating your wife yet? I'm just asking a question!"




If only it were that simple.

Note the "such a limited storyline" below.  

How, oh how!, will we deal with our limitations!  



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Another weakness of this approach is it really doesn't work well with large groups. You'll never get a group of six or seven people to be interested in such a limited storyline. It really won't work for any length of time. However, in smaller groups, particularly in smaller groups with similar interests and playstyles, this can work very well.




Well, if fourteen people is too small........    Because I've run sandboxes with that many players engaged at the same table.

Currently, there are six players engaged in the RCFG playtest, and I have reached the point where I am turning players away.

How many players do you have?  

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?



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 1, 2009)

@ Tistur:

I am not sure what you are seeking here.  

It sounds like a good game, and it doesn't sound like Hussar's approach to character creation at all.  

In Hussar's approach, the players decide what characters they want to play, and then the GM crafts a world to match those characters.

In your GM's approach, the GM crafts a world, and the player designs a character who fits into that world (something which Hussar, apparently, cannot fathom).

It seems like it's working for your group, though!

I wonder if your GM can keep "six or seven people to be interested in such a limited storyline"?  


RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 1, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> WLD (which is, essentially, a limited sandbox)?




Really? I never thought of any of the "mega-dungeons" as sandboxes. I think this is further evidence to me that our playstyles (yours, Ariosto's, mine) are more similar than they seem in this thread. As you said, if we all sat down for a beer, or better yet a gaming table, we'd probably find the gaming experience quite enjoyable.

And I'll take a stab at your playstyle Ariosto: Create your world (or site in the case of a WLD) and let the players explore.

The flipside of that would be: Create your plot (like an Adventure Path) and let your players explore.

Both can be quite enjoyable. The key is letting your players approach either the world or the plot in their own way without railroading them.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Dec 1, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> But I do wonder what you think _*could not happen *_in a sandbox style game?




You've touched on it yourself when you've talked about, for example, foreshadowing. Putting those statues in front of the medusa's lair lets you foreshadow on the encounter or perhaps adventure level. But it's hard to do it on a larger scale if you aren't willing to work from an outline for the game.

I've enjoyed a few instances when players' jaws almost literally hit the floor at the point of some grand plot twist or reveal. (Both from behind the screen and as one of those players.) A point where the events of an entire lengthy campaign were cast in a whole new light; where connections began to appear between events from the game's early days that seemed insignificant and unrelated at the time. The point at which the players start looking back and say "oh my god, that was about _that_!"

These moments can only occur if they're set up in advance. In an environment where the GM has no idea where the campaign will be in a few months, things like that might happen here or there, but more by chance and never (or very rarely) with the sort of impact or resonance I'm talking about.

It's worth pointing out that the impact is an important part of the experience I'm describing. A given event or encounter, objectively, might happen just as easily in either campaign style. But the resonance it has with the players varies greatly depending on what has happened before in the campaign.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 1, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> You've touched on it yourself when you've talked about, for example, foreshadowing. Putting those statues in front of the medusa's lair lets you foreshadow on the encounter or perhaps adventure level. But it's hard to do it on a larger scale if you aren't willing to work from an outline for the game.




Sorry, but I don't believe that a sandbox prevents one from having an outline of _*how the game world progresses*_.  It just prevents one from outlining how _*the PCs will react *_to that progression.

I find no difficulty with creating foreshadowing in a sandbox.


RC


----------



## CharlesRyan (Dec 1, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The key is letting your players approach either the world or the plot in their own way without railroading them.




This is really well put; I wish I'd thought of stating it that way. It goes to the heart of my original point (that plot does not equal railroad).

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.

(Note that the latter is a comparison of plot to dungeon, not plot to sandbox. Yes, I know that a sandbox is not the same thing as a dungeon, Ariosto, nor am I saying it is.)


----------



## CharlesRyan (Dec 1, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sorry, but I don't believe that a sandbox prevents one from having an outline of _*how the game world progresses*_.




Of course not. But exactly how many plot threads are you going to outline from the beginning of your campaign? 50? 10? 5? 2?

If the answer is 1, is it still a sandbox?

How do subplots fit into all of this? If you're managing 1 main plotline and, say, 4 or 5 related or dependent plotlines, is that a plot game or a sandbox?

I don't mean to imply that sandbox campaigns don't have ongoing events. But if you aren't deliberately focusing on a limited subset of those events, I don't think you can use the full suite of story structure tools to their fullest. (Just like you'd argue that a story oriented campaign doesn't make full use of player agency tools.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 1, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> If you're managing 1 main plotline and, say, 4 or 5 related or dependent plotlines, is that a plot game or a sandbox?




You know from our previous discussion that I don't believe in the dichotomy that this suggests.  I would argue that a sandbox can have any number of ongoing plots, and that it is how those plots are implemented, rather than their existence, which determines whether or not the game is a sandbox.

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 agree that the more the players are allowed to choose what to do, the less the GM can constrain their actions to a narrow path (and, therefore, the less the GM can structure that path).  

This doesn't mean that there is anything that _*could not happen *_in a sandbox game, with the sole exception of a railroad.  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.  I don't think any of us are advocating that.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 1, 2009)

Hussar said:


> The fact that he's the last Timelord and nothing he does can change the fact that he's alone, for all time.




SPOILER ALERT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Just as an aside, Timothy Dalton (once played James Bond) has been photographed wearing a Time Lord costume filiming the final David Tennant two-parter, _The End of Time_.  The rumour is that the Time Lords are, indeed, coming back.  So perhaps the Doctor can do something after all?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 1, 2009)

The crpg Morrowind is a sandbox, a very large one, but also has a main plot featuring, imo, at least one brilliantly jaw-dropping reveal.

In the same way I can see how a pnp sandbox could contain one or more adventure paths, reaping the benefits of build-up and more meaningful climax that that brings. I understand some people run APs with elements of sandbox, allowing a certain amount of deviation from the path.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 1, 2009)

Some examples of what I regard as sand boxes:

The West Marches campaign. The classic example of the sandbox online.
Necromancer Games' The Vault of Larin Karr
The Ruins of Undermountain. A mega-dungeon is a subset of sandbox, in my view. All megadungeons are sandboxes but not all sandboxes are megadungeons.
Morrowind
World of Warcraft

An example of a non-sandbox, in fact an adventure path, is G1-3 Against The Giants. These modules are intended to be played in order. The reveal of the drow in G3 doesn't work very well if you play that module first. Also the sense of progression from hill giants to frost giant to fire giant to drow is important.


----------



## Janx (Dec 1, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> The crpg Morrowind is a sandbox, a very large one, but also has a main plot featuring, imo, at least one brilliantly jaw-dropping reveal.
> 
> In the same way I can see how a pnp sandbox could contain one or more adventure paths, reaping the benefits of build-up and more meaningful climax that that brings. I understand some people run APs with elements of sandbox, allowing a certain amount of deviation from the path.




I've only played a little of Morrowwind, but I've put in 200+ hours on Oblivion.  Great game.

However, one aspect I don't like about Oblivion (which also seems true in Morrowind), is that the PC can pick up a ton of quests and the passage of time does not affect them (for the most part).

The initial problem is that many of these hooks should have a consequence for too much time passing.  In turn, this would cause the side effect of with all these problems happening effectively at once, the PC is not able to solve them all.  This in turn would lead to the bad guys winning a majority of these quests, by virtue of the world only having 1 character who actively solves quests.  

This gist if you have too many simultaneous evil plots that can only be solved by the PCs, then evil will win a majority of those plots and dramatically change the campaign world.

Part of the solution is that for any quest the PC doesn't undertake, an NPC hero MIGHT do it, thereby preventing disaster.

Another part of the solution is to only present a limited set of available quests any given time.  In Oblivion, once the PC has 3-4 quests, don't present him with any more (assuming the PC can accept a quest or refuse to add it to his list).  Thus, there's only a few quests that could "time out" as opposed to all of them.

All of this is supposing that too many quests that are in danger of timing out (i.e. the bad guys win) is a bad thing.  I would argue that unless you want to dramatically change your game world to a state where the bad guys now have the upper hand, that this would be a problem then.

Now one side argument I think I saw from Hussar, was the assumption that a sandbox could entice 6-7 players more than an adventure path style game.  I suspect that's not the problem at all.

If you have 4-5 players, it is easier to get them to reach a consensus on what to do next than a party of 6-7 players.  Regardless of play style.  The more people you have the more different directions folks are going to tend to want to go.

You're either going to split the party or they'll be timeswapping between goals they're pursuing.  I don't think the problem is exclusive to either style.

Having run a game in my style with 6-7 players before, what helped me was setting the starting state of the PCs.  When I did it, the initial state of the campaign was that the PCs were members of the navy or marines serving on the Sea Sprite.  I told the players the way the campaign was going to start (y'all are in the military, serving on this ship).  They then made characters that would fit in this starting state, and we played.

The part I cheated on, was having them be military, they effectively worked for somebody and took orders (went on quests), solving some plot hook buy-in. It would be easy to stay in a rut, but my goal was to take that framework and have the PCs pursue more personal goals and challenge their loyalty, to see what they'd do.

My core point though, is if you have a party of unrelated people, you'll have a hard time getting them to agree to do anything.  This means the game will bog down.  There is value in setting some parameters of character creation to get them pulling together so the group can have a game.  And if you've got 6-7 players, you can easily afford to lose a few who don't want what you're running.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Dec 1, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> The crpg Morrowind is a sandbox, a very large one, but also has a main plot featuring, imo, at least one brilliantly jaw-dropping reveal.




I don't really know Morrowind, so I can't comment directly. But I will concede this: It's certainly possible, I believe, for an enterprising GM to outline 10, or 100, or 1,000 plotlines, place them in a sandbox environment, and then take advantage of story structure tools with the result of a brilliant campaign with an incredible storyline incredibly rendered. Without any sacrifice of player agency, because the players can get that experience no matter where in the sandbox they wander.

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.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 1, 2009)

Janx said:


> 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 (Dec 1, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> 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 (Dec 1, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Dec 1, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> 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 (Dec 1, 2009)

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:



Raven Crowking said:


> 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.*






CharlesRyan said:


> 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 (Dec 1, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> 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 (Dec 1, 2009)

"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 (Dec 1, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> 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 (Dec 1, 2009)

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 (Dec 1, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> 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


----------



## CharlesRyan (Dec 1, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> 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.




Heck, yeah. The game needs to have twists and turns that are unforeseen even to the GM, in my opinion. Keeps the world alive and keeps the GM's job interesting.

The story-oriented GM sits down with his notes after that session and asks "How does this affect things? How do the antagonists react? How about the allies? Do I need to rewrite my next chapter, tweak it, or throw it out? I was going to get to point A in the plot via a certain route--is that still the best route, or does another way make more sense now? Or do I skip point A and start steering toward point B."



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




Mmmmmaybe. But I would argue that yours is the hard way to get there. And that _better_ story structure arises from a little bit of planning and management.



> 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.




Sure, but again in my experience players willingly--gleefully, even--move in the direction of the plot once the initial buy-in has occurred.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 1, 2009)

The sandbox-oriented GM sits down with his notes after that session and asks "How does this affect things? How do the antagonists react? How about the allies? Do I need to rewrite any of my game elements, tweak any of them, or throw any out?

The sandbox-oriented GM does not think in terms of "chapters" however, nor in terms of steering the PCs (apart from ensuring that they have, or can reasonably obtain, information in order to make viable choices).


----------



## CharlesRyan (Dec 1, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> 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!)




Even given your caveat, I'm not sure I agree. I can't speak for my players, but as a player myself, I don't spend much time musing on my GM's intentions as separate from the in-game events.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 1, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> Even given your caveat, I'm not sure I agree. I can't speak for my players, but as a player myself, I don't spend much time musing on my GM's intentions as separate from the in-game events.




I can remember a formulative experience, back in early 1980, where as a PC I was following a road down a gently wooded slope and encountered a swampy area around a lake.  That the area _*actually made sense*_ sparked a crucial epiphany.  That I could _*think about the world as though it really existed, and have those thoughts and the choices they lead to be validated in-game*_ meant that I was not simply trying to read the DM's mind.  The world did not require me to go simply where the DM wished me to.

A good campaign milieu allows you to make choices on this basis, IMHO.  The players should not simply have to guess what the GM is thinking.  When things don't seem to make sense, it should be a clue that the players are missing an important piece of information, not that the GM didn't bother with that part of the world because "the plot" is following A to B to C.

_*If the GM does not treat the world as though parts of it do not matter, the players can make decisions based on the world presented, and make those decisions with confidence.*_

So, sure, in-game events may be a clue as to your GM's intentions if your GM is determining what the plot will be.  But, if you are exploring the dungeons of Madbob, then what you know about Madbob might be the first thing you consider.  Unless, of course, what you know about Madbob is only that the GM wants to steer you toward B.

_*I am not saying your game is like that.*_  But there certainly are published adventure modules that are like that in a nutshell.

EDIT:  This also reminds me of the WLD thread where GMs decide what path their players will follow through the WLD.  WTF?  IMHO, this is something that the players should decide, based on the information that they obtain while exploring.  


RC


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 1, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I agree, this character has depth.  He has goals and a personality.  I might argue that he lacks a bit of relationship with the other characters and the people in the setting, but, that's a quibble and not terribly important.



A character in a sandbox setting may develop important relationships with other characters and people in the setting, if it's that player's desire to do so. The character may rise through a political or social heirarchy, if the character is so inclined. The character may found such a hierarchy, if the player wishes.

The only limits on the character's relationship to the setting and non-player characters are the player's imagination and acquring the means to achieve those goals in the course of the game.







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Now, how will he succeed at this goal? What in this setting will allow him to achieve this goal?  How, specifically, will this particular setting allow him to achieve this goal?



That's up to the player and the character to figure out, using the tools available in the game (or potentially making new tools that don't already exist in the setting).







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> To me, another way would be to have a setting where your character is on his road to godhood of a specific people.  You would have ties to those people, links, history, a background stretching back.



Or you can develop those connections in the course of play instead, which would be my preferred method.







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Your achievement of godhood would likely be pretty much guaranteed, so long as you continue playing.



As both a player and a referee, I expect or offer _opportunities_, not guarantees.


----------



## Janx (Dec 1, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> A character may develop important relationships with other characters and people in the setting, if it's that player's desire to do so. The character may rise through a political or social heirarchy, if the character is so inclined. The character may found such a hierarchy, if the player wishes.
> 
> The only limits on the character's relationship to the setting and non-player characters are the player's imagination and acquring the means to achieve those goals in the course of the game.That's up to the player and the character to figure out, using the tools available in the game (or potentially making new tools that don't already exist in the setting).Or you can deveop those connections in the course of play instead, which would be my preferred method.As both a player and a referee, I expect or offer _opportunities_, not guarantees.




I just removed " in a sandbox setting" from your quote.  Now we should be agreeing on the fundamental principles of what a PC should expect to be able to do in an campaign.

Just because I don't think a sandbox really exists doesn't mean you can't/aren't running a campaign based on the principles of a sandbox.

Nor does it mean that the traits you mention above are exclusive only to a sandbox.


----------



## The Ghost (Dec 1, 2009)

Hussar said:


> The Ghost - I'm not in any way saying what you are doing is wrong.  There's been a few people here who are trying to paint this as an either/or sort of thing and it's not.  I'm simply bringing up alternatives.




Hussar - The Shaman pretty much said in his reply above what I was thinking. I do agree that what you said is another valid and entertaining way to play. I do think it is important to note that character depth can and often does exist in sandbox play.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 1, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Note the "such a limited storyline" below.   How, oh how!, will we deal with our limitations!



I think Hussar there was referring to *his* method.

I got the impression that he thought those observations were revelations, though, rather than points we had noted before and repeatedly (especially considering previous threads with Hussar).

Par for the course, he is likely to turn (on a dime) and retroactively justify that particular dismay, but in the given context ... I think you simply misread.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 1, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> The key is letting your players approach either the world or the plot in their own way without railroading them.



Which raises the key question of just what the heck you mean by "the plot".



			
				CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> You've touched on it yourself when you've talked about, for example, foreshadowing. Putting those statues in front of the medusa's lair lets you foreshadow on the encounter or perhaps adventure level. But it's hard to do it on a larger scale if you aren't willing to work from an outline for the game.
> 
> I've enjoyed a few instances when players' jaws almost literally hit the floor at the point of some grand plot twist or reveal. ... These moments can only occur if they're set up in advance. In an environment where the GM has no idea where the campaign will be in a few months, things like that might happen here or there, but more by chance and never (or very rarely) with the sort of impact or resonance I'm talking about.



"To work from an outline for a game" appears to mean _making things turn out a certain way_, which is correctly distinguished from my (and I think Raven Crowking's) style of play.

Just how it is to be distinguished from "railroading" is obscure, but a matter of which I am trying to wash my hands even though it was for decades a useful term.

Unfortunately, I must fall back on the old term. What CR proposes is simply that "you can't railroad players without laying down rails." I for one will not dispute that!

CR, you prefer what you prefer and we prefer what we prefer. If you would simply accept that, and moreover that a preference for playing old D&D one way does not preclude gaining relevant experience playing other games in other ways, then perhaps you could stop raising polemics against us and start to engage with us in productive discussion of techniques.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 1, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> This is really well put; I wish I'd thought of stating it that way. It goes to the heart of my original point (that plot does not equal railroad).
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...



You keep spinning like a top!

In one moment you attack us precisely _for_ not forcing outcomes; in the next you turn around and offer this. You cannot have it both ways.

Either you in fact disagree with Raven Crowking, or you are just bashing a straw man.

Maybe you have a bizarre, but at least internally consistent, vocabulary in which "plot" is simultaneously "not a railroad" and "not possible in a sandbox".



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> Just because I don't think a sandbox really exists doesn't mean you can't/aren't running a campaign based on the principles of a sandbox.



Right. That _so_ encourages us to let you label us. If anyone wants to claim the "sandbox" label as applicable to him, and try to insist on an actually useful definition, then good luck to him! What _Janx_ would do without it, Heaven knows.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 1, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Which raises the key question of just what the heck you mean by "the plot".




Adventure Paths are well-known for having a single over-arching plot. One major world event is unfolding. Other things going on are minor distractions at best. Instead of the focus being on world or site exploration, the focus turns to exploring this one key plot. Just like discovering new areas in the WLD or exploring Giant Land, the players discover more about the plot as they push towards its finale. Players that have bought into a plot-driven game are less likely to explore the Spooky Castle because it exists unless they discover or suspect that it is somehow tied into the plot.

I've enjoyed games both ways. And it is helpful to understand what method your players lean towards or are currently leaning towards. My wife only likes plot driven games (she only starting playing this decade if that helps any gaming historians). My main group likes to mix it up, so we have no trouble playing some WLD and exploring the site freely or hunkering into a Paizo Adventure Path leading to a showdown with Kyuss.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 1, 2009)

Here's a question: Can a game be a sandbox if the PCs are required to be of good alignment?

Being a good guy - altruistic, constrained by morality - greatly limits one's choice of action and makes it a lot easier for the GM to predict what the PCs will do. My last campaign, which I mentioned upthread, was not what I would call a sandbox and I'd say the main reason it wasn't is because it was a superhero game. Because the PCs were superheroes, whenever I presented a Bad Thing Happening, they pretty much had to try to stop it happening. That's what superheroes do. Sometimes they surprised me, when I started an adventure with a mystery (the disappearance of a killer vigilante for example) as opposed to a clearly bad thing like the murder of an innocent, they might not investigate. And they surprised me greatly when they decided to negotiate with a murdering anti-vivisectionist rather than just arrest her. But in general they were predictable.

In the classic D&D sandbox the PCs are neutral greedy. They want to go up levels. They want gold. They want magic items. The GM can present the players with a variety of holes in the ground (or one very big hole) containing a variety of treasure and monsters and the players are free to make a decision at their leisure as to which monsters they bash.

The greed and power motivation seems to permit more freedom than altruism does. A good guy, when he hears a maiden screaming for help, has to go save her. This being D&D, obviously it's going to be a medusa, or a doppelganger, or a succubus, or an assassin or a woman who turns into a snake. But that doesn't matter, the good PC doesn't know he's playing D&D.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Dec 1, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Which raises the key question of just what the heck you mean by "the plot".
> 
> "To work from an outline for a game" appears to mean _making things turn out a certain way_, which is correctly distinguished from my (and I think Raven Crowking's) style of play.




I think there are distinct levels of "railroading" or "making things turn out a certain way".  Take for example:

The PCs want to leave a path through a forest instead of heading down it.

DM A: "You can't leave the path, lightning bolts come from the sky and nearly strike you any time you get close to the edge."

DM B: "You leave the path.  There is a lot of trees.  You have no idea which way you are going, it all looks the same.  Are you SURE you want to leave the path?"

DM C: "You leave the path, you see dark shapes off in the distance.  They appear to be powerful monsters that will certainly kill you if you continue, are you sure you want to leave the path?"

DM D: "You leave the path.  You wander aimlessly for 5 days, you begin to run low on food.  You haven't found anything interesting.  You will likely starve to death in a couple more days unless you head back."

DM E: "You leave the path, wander through the forest until you come across a town.  Amazingly, enough, it is the town the path lead to."

DM F: "You leave the path, wander through the forest until you come across a man who says that he needs your help to escort him to the town at the end of the path."

Are all kind of different levels of "railroading" and some are certainly more acceptable to different players than others.

Apparently, to some people it matters the intentions behind the DMs actions.  To me, I don't think it matters.  If the guy in DM F's game was placed there as a last ditch effort to get the group following the path again or if he was put there because the DM wrote him up as an NPC with valid motivations who just happened to be going the direction we were going before....well, it just doesn't matter to me.  The end effect is the same.

And that's kind of the point.  If the events of Game A and Game B are identical, does it matter if DM A was running it Sandbox style and DM B was running it AP style?


----------



## rogueattorney (Dec 1, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I think there are distinct levels of "railroading" or "making things turn out a certain way".  Take for example:
> 
> The PCs want to leave a path through a forest instead of heading down it...




The question, though, is why should the DM care if the pcs leave the path?  That's why the 1e DMG had procedures for getting lost and wandering monsters.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 2, 2009)

> I've enjoyed games both ways. And it is helpful to understand what method your players lean towards or are currently leaning towards.



Well, that's progress.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 2, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Here's a question: Can a game be a sandbox if the PCs are required to be of good alignment?



Yes.

That was an easy one.

Btw, there's a world of difference between "good-aligned" and "acting like superheroes" in my games.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 2, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> And that's kind of the point. If the events of Game A and Game B are identical, does it matter if DM A was running it Sandbox style and DM B was running it AP style?



It does not matter to me. To whom do you imagine it possibly could matter, when you arbitrarily define "Sandbox style" such that it is the same thing in the first place?

You're just racing straw men around a track of circular logic, for all I can see.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Dec 2, 2009)

rogueattorney said:


> The question, though, is why should the DM care if the pcs leave the path?  That's why the 1e DMG had procedures for getting lost and wandering monsters.




There's a lot of reasons to care if they leave the path.  If you have a detailed thieves guild written up along with a complex chart explaining the relationship of the various members of the guild to the noble houses of the city and have written up a dungeon containing the item the PCs are looking for complete with stat blocks for all of the monsters in it.  And the entrance to the dungeon is cloaked in magic so only those who have the key can find it, and the leader of one of the noble houses in the city has the key....

It might be a more fun session for both you and your players if they get involved in the political intrigue of the city, trying to get the key through whatever means they can think of than it will be if they wander off the path and instead the session consists of rolling random encounters on a chart.  Not because talking to nobles is superior to fighting random encounters but because one is prepared.

When an adventure is prepared, I can normally tell and it's more fun.  Only the absolutely best DMs can run an adventure made up on the fly and do it well.  Most of the time, it ends up with things like "The Baron?  Uhh...his name is...uhh.....Bo...Bob.  He...uhh...let's see...he's a noble...he greets you....(roll)...warmly."

If I'm the DM, I want them to stay on the path so I can run an interesting adventure as opposed to one I have to wing.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 2, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> There's a lot of reasons to care if they leave the path.



And you, apparently just for the sheer perversity of it, define a "sandbox" game as being driven by those meta-game factors. Got it. What I don't get is just who you think is simultaneously agreeing with your definition and disagreeing with what you infer from it.

It's like choosing to redefine "circle" as meaning the same as "square", and then being baffled that people are not rushing to buy your four-cornered wheels.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 2, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Only the absolutely best DMs can run an adventure made up on the fly and do it well. Most of the time, it ends up with things like "The Baron? Uhh...his name is...uhh.....Bo...Bob. He...uhh...let's see...he's a noble...he greets you....(roll)...warmly."



That kind of improvisation is something I have seen mainly from DMs in the "I'm a _Story Teller_!" camp. Its reputation for badness goes back years before Dragonlance, along with the observation that _some_ players just happen to prefer to be manipulated.

Knowing the Baron well enough that depiction of his demeanor flows naturally from that knowledge is a basic skill of Dungeon Mastering, whichever style of play one may adopt! Knowing your imaginary world well enough to extrapolate quickly and confidently the nature of a random encounter -- or in appropriate detail as needed the furnishings of a peasant's hovel, tradesman's shop, parish church, wayside inn, or whatever else may be at hand -- is part of skill at being a DM as well.

The fundamental stumbling block you need to get over is this notion of "an adventure" as necessarily meaning something the DM does to the players.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 2, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> CR, you prefer what you prefer and we prefer what we prefer.



I suspect the play styles are less divergent than they might appear. The internet has a tendency to exaggerate differences, to polarise opinions. Really, it's a crappy communication tool.

WotC's market survey shows that all dedicated rpgers have the same basic requirements in a game, including "Strong Characters and Exciting Story", "Requires Strategic Thinking" and "Mentally challenging". To me, this demonstrates that everyone wants a bit of game and everyone wants a bit of story. The balance obviously varies quite a bit from player to player, but less than that filthy lying whore, the internet, makes it seem.

Even in the classic modules, one can see elements of plot/story. Descent Into the Depths of the Earth is a story. Progression of bigger giants, deeper drow. Leaders such as Nosnra and Eclavdra are story climaxes. Sure the PCs' actions determine when the climax takes place, maybe it never does, but the point is - the significance of the encounter is there in the text, these encounters, as written, are more significant than a run-of-the-mill 4 hill giant scullery maids.

Likewise when Gary put Scrolls of Protection from Plants in Temple of Elemental Evil, knowing that there are plant monsters, including the BBEG Zuggtmoy. That right there is a story. Maybe the scroll is never found. Maybe the plants are never encountered. It doesn't matter. All a plot is, is a connected series of events. The scroll and the plant monsters form a plot. We don't have to wait until it comes out in play, we can see it in the text. When Gary put that scroll in - he was imagining it being used against the plants. When the reader learns that both elements exist, he also imagines it. He sees how the scroll could be used. At this point, the reader, the GM, has conceived a plot.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 2, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> It's like choosing to redefine "circle" as meaning the same as "square", and then being baffled that people are not rushing to buy your four-cornered wheels.



_Another, when men make a name of two names, whose significations are contradictory and inconsistent; as this name, an ‘incorporeal body,’ or, which is all one, an ‘incorporeal substance,’ and a great number more. For, whensoever any affirmation is false, the two names of which is composed put together and made one signify nothing at all. *For example, if it be a false affirmation to say ‘a quadrangle is round,’ the word ‘round quadrangle’ signifies nothing, but is a mere sound.* So likewise, if it be false to say that virtue can be poured, or blown up and down, the words ‘inpoured virtue,’ ‘inblown virtue,’ are as absurd and insignificant as a ‘round quadrangle.’_


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 2, 2009)

Doug, I still don't know what, if anything, does _not_ "look like a story" to you.

The folks who insist that a lot of DM manipulation is necessary to produce "story" obviously do not believe that whatever happens to emerge in a more wide-open campaign qualifies.

I'll bet your intentions are benign, but perhaps the styles are at least divergent enough to be acknowledged on their own terms rather than whitewashed into "if we close eyes then it doesn't exist" dismissal.



> Even in the classic modules, one can see elements of plot/story. Descent Into the Depths of the Earth is a story.



Most of the classic modules -- certainly that one, and indeed all of the G and D series -- were tournament rounds. An even greater majority of modules, "classic" or not, are (at least by default) limited scenarios.

Where do you get the notion that such contrivances, utterly divorced from any campaign context at all, have anything necessarily to do with a *D&D campaign*?

For my kind of campaign, the apparatus of a rigidly programmed scenario must be stripped away and replaced with a _situation_. I need a dynamic environment, not a relatively static sequence of events.



> Likewise when Gary put Scrolls of Protection from Plants in Temple of Elemental Evil, knowing that there are plant monsters, including the BBEG Zuggtmoy. That right there is a story.



See, you are taking your definition so far out into left field as to make it useless. If everything is a story, nothing is a story.

I say that the scrolls are _game elements_. We play a game, and depending on the choices of the players and the luck of the dice events happen. Afterward, we can tell a story about what happened.

The Loyal Opposition says the scrolls are _story elements_ -- not "a story" in themselves. There is a limited set of sequences of events (not necessarily just one) that by prior criteria constitute the story that it is the DM's job to produce. The DM eliminates the remaining non-story (or at least bad-story) possibilities to keep players on a "right" path until they arrive at a "proper" outcome.


----------



## underthumb (Dec 2, 2009)

Nevermind. This is off topic.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 2, 2009)

_removed by user_


----------



## CharlesRyan (Dec 2, 2009)

rogueattorney said:


> The question, though, is why should the DM care if the pcs leave the path?  That's why the 1e DMG had procedures for getting lost and wandering monsters.




Some time ago--maybe a year--a guy posted a thread about an event in his campaign. The players were approaching a castle. There was a drain that appeared to go into the castle. Some of the players decided to explore the drain. The party was split, the adventure was sent off the rails, and an entire session was wasted--because the drain was irrelevant.

The GM was frustrated with this outcome. He insisted that the drain was appropriate, because it fit his design for the castle. But he was frustrated because his players reacted as though it were more significant than that.

_That's_ why GMs care about the path. Because they know, from their position behind the screen, that in one direction the game is fun, and in another direction it isn't.

Perhaps you find a session or two of exercising the getting lost rules and fighting random encounters to be fun. More power to you, and to your gaming group.

But many people do not. They would consider that wasted time, especially if there are courses of action that are more meaningful to them.

I'd like to point out that this is a simplistic example, with a slate of very simplistic solutions offered. As plot-oriented as I am, I'd like to think that I rarely create a situation where a successful game relies on the players sticking to such a prescribed course, or that I couldn't roll with the players' unexpected choice and find a way for my storyline to progress without undoing their choice.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 2, 2009)

I'm playing in a campaign right now that is way too linear for my taste. It's almost as if I had gone back to RPGA 4e, except it's more coherent.

"Lo, yon passage down which the MacGuffin's twail yet leads -- to fay-you hence is not foe you but foe me!" So quoth the allegedly mighty mage we third-level adventurers had just rescued. At least we did not end up twiddling our thumbs while playing audience to a Mary Sue's exploits. "Go west, young men, but wetune to my woom tonight! Then tune back east, whence ye came. Seek ye the Plot Coupon of Humbuggewee in The City beyond The Mountain, along The Wive-ah, just past The Foe-west, left at The Shwubbewee ... Ah, you can find yo-ah way, then?"

Not that this group has ever been all serious business, but I think we're spending more time on cross-talk during encounters. <cough, cough> "Oh, yeah, the game ...".

The thing is, the fight after fight may as well be a bunch of wandering monsters when they're just served up by the DM as "what's next on the program". Being reactive feels a lot more like being _passive_ than does being proactive.

"There's not enough buy-in, then." No kidding -- but I think that's *why* there's not enough buy-in. Someone else wanted to do _Champions_, but that got shot down and I don't think "It's too complicated" was the only issue. The complication that's really interesting in a superhero shtick is not in combat but in soap opera. (IMO, YMMV)

The set pieces are fine enough, but we don't turn to D&D to be an audience. (I think one new player got stuck on the sidelines far too long in his first session.) We want to instigate, not just investigate. So we instigate a lot of silly incidental stuff that does not take us "off stage" but ends up being rather a distraction from the DM's saga.

And that's the fundamental problem: It's _the DM's_ story.

Sheer lack of skill or poor preparation can get in the way a bit, but I think the biggest DM problem is too much egotism. That can manifest in any style, but the rub is that the DM-as-novelist style depends somewhat more on the "Author's" egotism in the first place just to be successful.

The social gathering is still enjoyable in its own right, and even if we end up having more fun playing a board game afterward -- or just in holding up the combat round with palaver -- then we've still had fun.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Dec 2, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> The sandbox-oriented GM does not think in terms of [. . .] steering the PCs (apart from ensuring that they have, or can reasonably obtain, information in order to make viable choices).




This is a good point, and it made me think a bit. I certainly don't want to think that I "steer" my players excessively, nor do I feel, in the story-oritented campaigns I've played, like I've been "steered."

I think a good story-oriented GM also doesn't think in terms of steering the PCs. He thinks more in terms of steering the world around the PCs.

I've mentioned once or twice the technique of going back to the outline between sessions, reviewing notes, and seeing how the plan needs to be tweaked (or overhauled) going forward. Doing that is not a case of saying "the players circumvented Encounter A. How can I steer them back into Encounter A?" Instead, it's a case of saying "the players are now headed for a new encounter. How can I ensure that the plot objectives served by Encounter A are now served by this new encounter?"


----------



## CharlesRyan (Dec 2, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> "To work from an outline for a game" appears to mean _making things turn out a certain way_.




Only if you assume "outline" is synonymous with "script."


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 2, 2009)

> _That's_ why GMs care about the path. Because they know, from their position behind the screen, that in one direction the game is fun, and in another direction it isn't.



Well, if something is not fun, then we can choose not to spend our time at it. When the D&D game is a Hobson's choice, either the DM's prepared "adventure" or nothing, then we can still choose to spend time at the table on stuff other than the D&D game.

Certainly the most fundamental problem is one of getting everyone on the same page: communication, "social contract", all that good stuff. It may take a while -- yea, even more than a couple of sessions -- for people to digest the dynamics and come up with a good way to broach the subject. It may take longer to sort out and set up a more satisfactory arrangement.

The next most basic problem in that drain case seems to me (based on memory) not just passive but passive-aggressive reliance on the DM, counting on an entitlement that makes a mockery of the game. It might in the event have been for the best for the DM to entertain the fools by entertaining himself, even if it meant killing a few. But I suspect they would have complained about such "interesting times" as well.

That ties into the concept that "an entire session is wasted" when the players spend it actually playing the game, that only the delivery by the DM of something from a particular limited set of outcomes is worthwhile -- regardless of what course of action the players choose to pursue.

The DM's job, one might fairly say, is to entertain his players. There is this caveat: That need not mean just any players! And this: The DM is entitled to be entertained, too. If, as a player, I am not satisfied, then I am entitled to a refund of the full price of admission!

If I cannot get back my time and energy, neither can the DM -- and who has invested more?

DMs need players, and players need DMs, but it does not follow that you must be my DM or that I must play in your campaign.



> Only if you assume "outline" is synonymous with "script."



It's based on the assumption that what you wrote is accurate: that the kind of foreshadowing you had in mind is impossible in Raven Crowking's game.



> It's a case of saying "the players are now headed for a new encounter. How can I ensure that the plot objectives served by Encounter A are now served by this new encounter?"



That looks to me like the old "floating encounter" (sometimes a.k.a. "flying nun") routine in drag. Go north, south, east, west ... it doesn't matter! You're still going to encounter the Sole Survivor of the Sacked Nunnery, only it'll be a Sacked Monastery, Manor or Mine instead. Or the Ambush by Orcs/ Leathery Winged Avians/ Apelike Cannibals/ Mutant Nasties. Or even the [fill in blank with entry from TV Tropes].

Now, that _is_ a great labor-saving device! In a weaker form, one might file away an encounter to draw upon whenever meeting it would be appropriate -- as the DMG suggests for parties of NPC adventurers, which could slow play considerably were one to generate them on the spot when tables consulted in play indicate them.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 2, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> The party was split, the adventure was sent off the rails, and an entire session was wasted--because the drain was irrelevant.




Hrm.  I don't know that I accept your conclusion (i.e., that the session was wasted).

Why did the GM become frustrated?  Why did he care that the adventure was "sent off the rails"?  Weren't the players interested?  It seems that they were.  Don't the players have some say as to what is relevant?  Isn't determining the relevancy of things something that players have to do if the game isn't just a railroad?

How long does it take to investigate a drain, anyway?



> _That's_ why GMs care about the path. Because they know, from their position behind the screen, that in one direction the game is fun, and in another direction it isn't.




I agree that GMs who believe that they know what the players should be doing can make the game less fun when the players decide otherwise.

But if there is a path through the forest, and the players decide to leave the path, maybe (just maybe) they are attempting to leave the rails as well?


RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 2, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Well, that's progress.




If all you were looking for was acceptance of your style of play, I've never denied anyone's style. I've never claimed that my way to play is the instructed way to play a D&D Campaign.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 2, 2009)




----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 2, 2009)

Ariosto said:


>




If you believe I have, please call me out on it. It's probably just a matter of me not explaining myself well enough or a problem with tone not being carried well over the interweb.

I'd also like to see you explain what a "D&D Campaign per the instructed method in the seminal works" actually means to you instead of quoting 1E text as if it were scripture. And maybe explain why pointing at this "instructed method" isn't a case of One True Wayism?

Even though the seminal works has such advice in it, how does that invalidate other advice given by many other RPG authors over the 30+ years following that original advice?


----------



## CharlesRyan (Dec 2, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Why did the GM become frustrated?  Why did he care that the adventure was "sent off the rails"?  Weren't the players interested?  It seems that they were.  Don't the players have some say as to what is relevant?  Isn't determining the relevancy of things something that players have to do if the game isn't just a railroad?




I think the GM and players were frustrated because they spent hours doing things that did not advance them toward their goals (the players labouring under the apprehension that they _were_ advancing, only to slowly realize they were spinning their wheels). And those hours did not result in interesting or fun encounters as an alternative.

You yourself have pointed out that in any environment--sandbox or plot-driven--characters and players develop goals and interests within the game. When those interests are stymied, the result is often frustration. Regardless of whether the plot was spawned by the GM or the players themselves.



> I agree that GMs who believe that they know what the players should be doing can make the game less fun when the players decide otherwise.
> 
> But if there is a path through the forest, and the players decide to leave the path, maybe (just maybe) they are attempting to leave the rails as well?




Sure. Like I said, it's a really simplistic example. In my experience, when the path is that clear-cut, players virtually never choose to leave it on a whim--and you're right: If they do, it's an indication that the path isn't sufficiently compelling; the player buy-in is clearly fading.

More often, the "path" is a plot thread that isn't obvious to the players. They head off into the metaphoric "woods" unknowingly. A good GM lets them, then figures out how to deal with the consequences according to the road map that is his story outline.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 2, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> I think the GM and players were frustrated because they spent hours doing things that did not advance them toward their goals (the players labouring under the apprehension that they _were_ advancing, only to slowly realize they were spinning their wheels). *And those hours did not result in interesting or fun encounters as an alternative.*




I *bolded* the part I think is relevant.

If the GM had been thinking in terms of a sandbox (rather than trying to decide exactly what the players would do, and therefore what he should prep), the drain may well have led to interesting or fun encounters.

Alternatively, the GM could have treated the drain as a single encounter:  

GM:  "You manage to remove the grating.  It smells pretty bad down there."

Player:  "That's okay.  We think that this is important.  We want to fully explore the sewer."  

GM:  "Fully exploring the drain takes only about an hour, as there are no branching passageways or chambers.  The drain leads to a cliff, spilling the water 20 feet down into the sea....possibly farther at low tide.  The entire area is filthy, and your clothing and hair are covered with muck.  After an hour down there, you all smell pretty bad."

Player:  "Hrm.  Better try something else....."​
The GM may also have placed a small lair in the drain (when creating the adventure), possibly with some goody that was actually helpful, to reward player initiative.  In the event that he didn't even consider what was down the drain in the first place, he might create an encounter on the fly (easier by far in some systems than in others!).  

I personally keep a small set of lairs/encounters that can be placed as needed when the players go off somewhere that I haven't fully fleshed out.  For example, when I buy a module that I dislike, I still go through it and extract all of the elements that I do like, including individual NPCs and encounters.  I highly recommend doing the same.

In conclusion, though, the problem was not that the players thought the drain was important -- the problem is that the GM did nothing interesting or fun with their choices.  Nor did he allow the game to move along.  The biggest danger with using an AP is not considering the setting as a whole, and thus only devising/rewarding the predetermined track.  That is, from what you are saying, clearly what happened in this instance.

(The biggest danger with using a sandbox is not considering the players, and thus not providing enough hooks/information to motivate them/allow them to make meaningful decisions.)


RC


EDIT:  The players might have thought that the drain would connect to a guardrobe (bathroom) inside the castle, and thus allow a secret entrance.  If this was the case, and if it was possible to run with this idea, the GM should seriously have considered it.  

In any event, the players were showing serious thought and investment in the setting, and the GM response shot down that thought and investment.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 2, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> In my experience, when the path is that clear-cut, players virtually never choose to leave it on a whim--and you're right: If they do, it's an indication that the path isn't sufficiently compelling; the player buy-in is clearly fading.





There is also the possibility that they wish to see if they _*can*_ leave the path (i.e., if they are actually able to make meaningful choices).  I have seen this many times, and I have done this as a player where the Hand of the GM was all-too-evident.


RC


----------



## underthumb (Dec 2, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> If the GM had been thinking in terms of a sandbox (rather than trying to decide exactly what the players would do, and therefore what he should prep), the drain may well have led to interesting or fun encounters.




I don't entirely agree. One thing that is always stressed in these sandbox discussions is the notion of meaningful choices and meaningful consequences. The GM knew that there was nothing in that drain. This was a pre-written adventure. Thus, the players could choose to go there, but the "meaningful consequence" was an opportunity cost and an unfun session. If the GM decided, in that moment, that the architecture of the fortress had changed to accommodate player whim, that sounds like illusionism to me, which IMHO is less compatible with sandbox assumptions.

In fact, I'm rather surprised to hear you say that you would place lairs and encounters where the players feel like going, rather than by some more abstract logic.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 2, 2009)

underthumb said:


> I don't entirely agree. One thing that is always stressed in these sandbox discussions is the notion of meaningful choices and meaningful consequences. The GM knew that there was nothing in that drain. This was a pre-written adventure.




In which case, I would let that stand.  

Go back and read my post.  I suggested the following:

1.  The GM thought more about it beforehand.
2.  The GM made it a single encounter (the same as not having to play through, say, chewing your food at the inn).
3.  If the GM did not know what was down the drain, he could consider what might be there on the fly.

From what I can tell, it seems to me that the GM did not know what was down the drain in the example, but mentioned it as something that should be there.  

Thus, the players could choose to go there, but the "meaningful consequence" was perhaps an opportunity cost, but _*not*_ an unfun session. 



> If the GM decided, in that moment, that the architecture of the fortress had changed to accommodate player whim, that sounds like illusionism to me, which IMHO is less compatible with sandbox assumptions.




I would agree.  But, consider that the GM might have marked the guardrobe and the drain without any more thought.  This is not dissimilar to, in a wilderness scenario, telling the players that they can find an oak tree even though you haven't detailed every tree in the forest.



> In fact, I'm rather surprised to hear you say that you would place lairs and encounters where the players feel like going, rather than by some more abstract logic.




Again, note "if the players go somewhere that I haven't fully fleshed out".  I don't change work that has been "set" (whether the players have visited it or not), unless it changes as a consequence of the world itself (some orcs move in, an NPC party goes through the area, etc.).  But there is nothing wrong, IMHO, with having materials ready to help in fleshing out areas on the fly (if needed).  In addition, if one uses wandering encounters (and I do), there is no problem whatsoever in including minor lairs within the framework of those encounters, especially if these lairs are of a temporary nature (orcs with a campfire, say).

Obviously, the more prep work done, the less one has to rely upon "winging it", but one should always be prepared to "wing it" if one has to.

EDIT:  Just re-read that post, and I can see how it might imply change during play.  That was not my intention at all.  My intention is:

1.  A GM thinking in sandbox-mode while creating an adventure is more likely to think in terms of total environment, and therefore less likely to make the drain dull to begin with.  This is while game prep is taking place.

2.  A GM who made the drain dull, and knows there is nothing there, can treat it as a single encounter that takes no more than 5-10 minutes (on average) at the game table.

3.  A GM who has not even considered what is down the drain should be prepared to "wing it" and do what he would have done while prepping, had he thought about it:  either put something there, or do not put something there and make it a single encounter.  If the players exhibit sound reasoning as to what is there, and the GM has no reasoning of his own, he should consider stealing their reasoning.


RC


----------



## underthumb (Dec 2, 2009)

Okay, I think I understand your intent now, and I can see how most of your points are still consistent with your stated preferences. However, I still have a few quibbles:



Raven Crowking said:


> 2.  A GM who made the drain dull, and knows there is nothing there, can treat it as a single encounter that takes no more than 5-10 minutes (on average) at the game table.




For players, how does this feel any different than the aforesaid example of walking off a railroaded path into a forest and being told that there's essentially nothing there? The very perfunctory treatment of the area by the GM begs for metagaming on the part of the players and can feel like active restriction. It might even inspire player stubbornness. IIRC, that is what happened in the famous drain example: the drain was objectively difficult to bypass, and this just resulted in _more_ player effort.

I would suggest that the option that is _most_ consistent with the sandbox philosophy, given situation #2, is to allow the experience to occur in real time, allow for the various strength and search checks, and have the players experience their repeated failures. This might lead to a lengthy, boring session, but such is the price of consistency.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 2, 2009)

underthumb said:


> Okay, I think I understand your intent now, and I can see how most of your points are still consistent with your stated preferences.




Yeah.  I tried to be clear in the first post, but was perhaps not as successful as I would prefer.



> For players, how does this feel any different than the aforesaid example of walking off a railroaded path into a forest and being told that there's essentially nothing there?




Well, in the example as given, there is literally nothing in the sewer but a straight tunnel and some muck.  There are not a lot of decision points to gloss over.

In a forest, there are going to be decision points that prevent the same easy level of glossing, but one can still gloss a little:

Player:  We head off the trail, going north.

DM:  What are you trying to do?  Do you head north for a bit and turn, head north for an hour?  A day?

Player:  We'll head north until nightfall, unless something happens first.

DM:  Okay.  You head generally north through an area of rolling pine country.  Occasional boulders and small rocky outcrops break from the ground -- some of these are so large that you must find a way around them -- and there is an undergrowth of thick bracken.  The forest seems quiet, but there are a few birds and squirrels about......

Player:  Hold on.  What kind of birds?  What kind of squirrels?  I remember the black squirrels from the 1e Monster Manual 2!

DM:  Red squirrels mostly.  This is pine country, remember!  The birds are mostly nondescript....small and brown.  Wrens, maybe, or sparrows.  There are a few more colourful birds.  You see a crow or two, and it sometimes seems as though the crows might be watching you as well.

Player:  I don't like these crows.  They may be familiars!

DM:  True, but the ranger and barbarian know well how crows sometimes follow folks hoping for carrion.

Player:  Okay.  But we'll keep an eye on them.

DM (rolls for wandering encounter):  The rest of the march goes uneventfully enough, and a sliver of a moon rises in the sky well before the sun sets.  (The DM rolls for wandering encounters, and discovers a monster lurking nearby -- two dozen orcs!)  There is a smell of wood smoke on the area, and up ahead to your right, maybe 30 yards away, more or less, you can hear voices raised in boisterous song.  From the sounds of them, they're goblins of some kind.

etc.​


> The very perfunctory treatment of the area by the GM begs for metagaming on the part of the players and can feel like active restriction. It might even inspire player stubbornness. IIRC, that is what happened in the famous drain example: the drain was objectively difficult to bypass, and this just resulted in _more_ player effort.




Well, to be fair, if there was a secret door down there, and nothing else, I would treat it the same way.  So, there's your consistency.  In both cases, I would roll a couple of dice behind the screen.  With a secret door, to see if they found it, without, to ensure that they weren't completely sure.

I would also be very happy to elaborate on anything the players found interesting.  Perhaps by opening the grate at the far end, and securing a rope, the PCs can have a sneaky getaway planned!  It isn't my job to tell them what they find interesting!

If the players decided for sure there was a secret door down there, and wanted to look more thoroughly, I would ask "How much time do you want to spend doing that?", make any appropriate checks, and move the game along.

If they wanted me to describe the passage foot-by-foot, I would do that.

What I would not do is describe the passage foot-by-foot if the players didn't insist upon it.  Any more than I would describe chewing food mastication by mastication at the inn, or force the players to haggle when buying equipment if they are willing to pay the asking price.


RC


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 2, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> I would also be very happy to elaborate on anything the players found interesting.  Perhaps by opening the grate at the far end, and securing a rope, the PCs can have a sneaky getaway planned!  It isn't my job to tell them what they find interesting!



That was what I was thinking as I read the example: how can my character use this in the future? Do I need someplace to hide? Can I lure something in there and trap it? Will it work as a supply cache?

I'm always looking for novel ways to use the environment.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 2, 2009)

> And maybe explain why pointing at this "instructed method" isn't a case of One True Wayism?



Because I have pointed at it either and only:
(A) to point out that the One True Wayers are absurdly insisting that I must bow to rules not in fact included in the "rule book" of the game I am playing, nor intended by the designers; or
(B) because the text at which I point explains (helps explain) the method most clearly, for the sake of those who do not understand how I play; or
(C) to point out that the actual True Way of old D&D is to make YOUR game however YOU like it, and to ask folks simply to refrain from bashing me for making MY game as I like it.



> Even though the seminal works has such advice in it, how does that invalidate other advice given by many other RPG authors over the 30+ years following that original advice?



I don't see that it does, except where logically it must. The advice is probably best when it comes to playing those designers' own games as the designers intended. Designers, as much as anyone else, can also acquire expertise in playing games others have designed: Gary Gygax has a lot of sound advice on playing Rail Baron. (I'm not sure he ever even placed in a D&D Invitational tournament, but he knows his own _design intent_ better than anyone else.) However, I would not consider him more an expert on HeroQuest than Robin Laws!


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 2, 2009)

Fair enough. I may be suffering from the same missing tone and intent in your posts. I appreciate the greater elucidation.

I'm interested to learn how much your style does or doesn't diverge from others here. You mentioned setting up a _situation_ for your players to react to. Can you explain further and/or give an example?


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 2, 2009)

I'm not about to try to find and read through that old thread again, but I don't think the exploration of the drain took more than half an hour in real time, however much imaginary time it supposedly occupied.

The real-time-consumer, if I recall correctly, was that *the players split the party* and the other bunch got into a fight. This was WotC-D&D, I'm pretty sure, and 20 minutes real is considered fast for what probably lasts less than a minute imaginary. That "event horizon" holds even if you've got a second DM, unless the drain boys are Time Lords.

You can't absolutely prevent players from doing dumb things unless you take away their ability to decide what their characters try to do.

Whether or not it was "the problem" here, it is indeed easy for the DM to give players wrong impressions about the environment they are exploring. In this case, I'm pretty sure the players who went up the drain were just pulling expectations from their asses along with rope.

The rest of the party thought it a fool's errand, and voted with their feet. Was that perhaps more sensible considering the information at hand? If so, then why blame the DM for the other players' choice? Why blame the DM for the choice to split the party further? I can see -- but not necessarily agree with -- blaming the DM for even giving the rest of the party an opportunity to get into a fight, and the drain boys none.

In the "game" style, that's how it goes. In Contract Bridge, The Russian Campaign or Snits' Revenge, I reap what I sow. I expect no less in Dungeons & Dragons. 

Now, sometimes people get stuck in a mental rut about "rules", and maybe some games make that easier. I'm thinking of a DM whose party was crossing the equivalent of Russia while being harried by native irregular horsemen. Assuming they survived, it was going to be a really long trip -- and a repetitious one. That DM needed a reminder that it need not take a lot of _real_ time to get through those imaginary weeks, which would be boring.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 2, 2009)

The WotC-D&D combat speed is the #1 thing that got me off the habit.

I am really enjoying the faster combats of RCFG......And any retro-clone will give you (much) faster combats than WotC-D&D with a lot less complexity than RCFG combats.

If a group chooses to use a slow-as-molasses engine, that isn't the GM's fault.  I file this directly under "System Matters".  


RC


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 2, 2009)

> You mentioned setting up a _situation_ for your players to react to. Can you explain further and/or give an example?



How about the real world, for a start? When Hussar, for instance, goes off on his strange vectors, part of what makes them so strange is the seeming dismissal of real life as "lacking depth", or whatever. That could, of course, reflect a religious world-view, but even in such a case I think it unusual.

Of course the game-world is not the real world, but I do not think it should be too hard to see the difference between taking the real world as a model and taking Walt Disney World as a model. Even in fantastic fiction, there is a perceptible difference in quality between Howard's Hyborian world, which seems indeed to have weathered ages since the sinking of Atlantis, and the landscape John Jakes provides for Brak, which has all the solidity of a painted canvas backdrop erected just in time for the latest scene.

Such questions of verisimilitude aside, by "situation" I meant a state of affairs that simply is as it is and shall be as it shall be in accordance with cause and effect -- whatever relevant effect (including none) the players may cause. By "scenario",  I meant in this case for instance the common "dungeon module" default: a _mise en scène_ locked in stasis until such time as players arrive, upon which the place and inhabitants suddenly lurch into clockwork motion.

Ah, but is it not a waste of effort -- even if made practical in the first place, say by computer program -- to simulate continuously events in every acre of Secondary Creation as a sort of solitaire game, just on the chance that someday a player might pass through? Yes, indeed; that is certainly not what I do.

However, there is a long way between those extremes!

Suppose I were to set down the _Steading of the Hill Giant Chief_ in my world. Is there really any reason I must, or even should, "run the adventure" as if I were a DM in the Official D&D Tournament back whenever? I see none. The context is totally different, most significantly that the Steading is now part of my campaign.

I treat it as a place with inhabitants pursuing their own objectives. Do _they_ "have plots" in that sense? Yes. Can I "plot" the probable course of events based on what I know of them and other NPCs, and of other processes I have set in motion, hypothetically assuming that players' actions do not interfere? Yes, although I am likely to incorporate probabilistic elements that call for periodic checks (standing in for the mass of cumulative little uncertainties that Von Clausewitz called "friction" and some others call "chaos").

That, however, is the limit of my "plot" creation. The players naturally have "plots" of their own, in the same sense as the hill giants and their allies. I am not interested in determining the outcomes of the intersections of those plots; the choices of players, the luck of the dice and the rules of the game shall do so in due time in actual play. My only concern is to referee the process fairly.

Whatever happens is "the story" we shall discover, and the grist for the mill that shall produce however many stories we will tell when we, "Remember that time when ...".


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 3, 2009)

What is the point of "letting things stand" even though an arbitrary change could (so one might imagine) make a particular thing at a particular moment seem more exciting -- which in such speculation usually means more "successful" in terms of immediate player goals -- and in that sense more "fun"?

The point is to let the players actually play, not simply "get played". A baby may delight in the illusion of "playing" a video game when in fact the machine is flashing "Insert Coin" and running on automatic. An older child may feel emotions associated with victory and defeat while "playing" Chutes and Ladders -- just as an adult may when gambling on the output of a slot machine or Pachinko or lottery ticket.

For some people, such an illusion is enough in a session of D&D, and they willingly suspend disbelief in the DM's disinterest at least until it's time to complain that he or she was not biased _enough_ in their favor.

Might we sometimes make reasonable arguments that the choice of Door #2 was too arbitrary for want of adequate information? Certainly, taking into account any reasonable _opportunities_ for investigation that the players passed up. Maybe the consequence was too harsh? Maybe, but what if another group -- that took a "common sense" precaution -- was barely inconvenienced?

What is unreasonable, if one really is at all interested in playing a game, is to demand that options should be so close to equally satisfying as to make choice trivial. 

The more a DM "fudges" in secret, whether "for" or "against" the PCs, the sooner he or she is likely to get caught. If it's all in the open, then of course the players know and (to the extent they trust the DM not _also_ to have done some on the sly) there is at least no question after the fact as to whether this or that particular "little" thing was due to the DM's interference.

What remains in doubt is _how things might have gone without that interference_ -- including the bigger things that from small things someday come. Are the players' victories really their own? What of their losses?

The answer often comes quickly enough when they find themselves in a game without such a "nanny" DM, a game that instead tests their skills.

The DM can get into a Catch-22. "But if you don't change that roll, then my character is dead, and it's only because you _wanted_ to kill my character! You're mean!" The DM who has not yet so changed a roll can honestly deny the desire while enforcing the outcome impartially.

The DM who gives in and so "saves" a character ensures that the accusation will indeed be valid whenever he or she _fails_ to do so and allows a PC to perish.

So it is with letting players spend as much (or as little) time as _they_ choose in poking about here or there. "No secret doors in those walls, either. What will you do now?" "How much longer do want to go down this passage? Okay ... you still have encountered nothing of interest when you stop for your next rest break."


----------



## underthumb (Dec 3, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> The more a DM "fudges" in secret, whether "for" or "against" the PCs, the sooner he or she is likely to get caught.
> 
> -snip-
> 
> ...




I think we all agree that "fudging" can negate the significance of player actions. But let's walk this reasoning back a bit. 

Let's say, for instance, that I, as a GM, create an encounter with 6 orcs in it. However, let's also say that in doing so, I make a kind of error. It's not that I get the math "wrong" in some simple sense, but rather that I forget that certain weapons are capable of this or that action, and orcs have this or that power, and that these things, in combination, create an encounter that is far more deadly than my original intent. I only realize this when my PCs start dropping fast. (Who knows, maybe I made this encounter under time pressure or lack of sleep.)

So here's my question for you, Ariosto. Let's say I agree with your perspective on things and I want to avoid being a "nanny" GM. Are the orcs as I originally created them sacrosanct, players be damned? Is it time for a TPK? Or do I fudge things in the middle of the encounter when I realize the error I made originally?

I think my larger point is this: it's all well and good to advocate against fudging in the abstract, but it seems to assume little or no error on the part of the GM, both in preparation and in actual play.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 3, 2009)

> I forget that certain weapons are capable of this or that action, and orcs have this or that power, and that these things, in combination, create an encounter that is far more deadly than my original intent.



Did the players forget? Did they know in the first place? On what basis are *they* choosing to risk such such an encounter, and how to respond in the event?

If you, the DM, really don't know your own creation, then how do the players? "I know this dungeon like the back of my -- say, when did I get that freckle?"

But seriously, folks, the great thing about getting old and overdrawn in the memory bank is the opportunities for surprise and discovery. If you're playing with friends, then I think you should be able to work it out. "Oh, yeah -- you would have noticed that heavy blaster cupola when you first looked. Belay that, then!"

Don't ask me a loaded rhetorical question like that, daring me to knock some chip off your shoulder. It's your game, and I'm not in it! I'll bet your friends will respond better if you handle the situation with some maturity and common sense, too.

If you're playing with a pack of rabid rules lawyers, then ... I'm sorry. But it's not even in my power to "fudge" that choice for you!


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 3, 2009)

One thing that comes up to remind me how linear that campaign is that I mentioned earlier is we'll have a case in which, for instance, the DM cuts the number of monsters in an encounter because the dice were against us in the preceding one.

Do you think I objected when the DM did that? Think again! But it added to growing discomfort.

The DM in an earliet encounter had done just the "Really? I didn't realize that ..." routine underthumb suggested: arbitrarily "nerfing" my sleep spell -- the spell _he_ gave me in the first place! -- to ensure that a fight would be as hard on us as he wanted it to be.

If we had a reasonable chance to _avoid_ that sequence of fights, then it would not be necessary.

YES, the DM IS responsible for what happens when he or she takes critical decisions away from the players! I agree with that 100%!

I do _not_ agree with the notion that, just because that other fellow chooses to take away that player freedom, it's incumbent on me to choose the same way.

Nor do I believe that, once having noticed it as a player, I have no share of blame for finding myself in such a scenario. How we go forward is something for all of us in that group to work out together. Most probably, we will finish "the adventure" that fellow has planned and then have someone else take over as DM (maybe me, although I took the last turn before this).


----------



## underthumb (Dec 3, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Did the players forget? Did they know in the first place? On what basis are *they* choosing to risk such such an encounter, and how to respond in the event?




Assume that the players made an error generated from my own faulty preparation. That is, I presented them with multiple cues of a manageable encounter. They reasoned, based on all the evidence that I presented them, that it would be quite doable. But things went south very, very quickly. Say, in a single round. Now PC lives hang in the balance, and it's almost entirely because I made an error in my prior prep work.



> Don't ask me a loaded rhetorical question like that, daring me to knock some chip off your shoulder.




I'm trying to understand how the rubber meets the road in your approach to GMing. To do so, I'm giving you an example that is not too far-fetched, and one that I've dealt with in the past. The situation is sticky, and not nearly so clear-cut as common fudging examples.

I agree that I should be able to "work it out" with friends. But the point is that the situation probably requires correction. It may require the dreaded dice fudging, or it may require, as you suggest, that I manufacture some other reason for the PCs to get out safely. But in either case, I would suggest that I have "nannied" them. I fudged either the dice or the situational characteristics.

The only non-nanny option is to let them die.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 3, 2009)

> The only non-nanny option is to let them die.



That's your opinion, and it is at least better informed than the opinion of someone who cannot be present in the situation (even if it had some existence outside the confines of your mind). So, I would say that it's about as fine an opinion as one might reasonably desire.

But it is _not_ some objective "fact" possessing a certain inalienable truth value that I (or anyone else) must either acknowledge or be simply wrong about. Even if it _were_ that, any inference as to what you "ought to" do would be a subjective value judgment -- another opinion!


----------



## underthumb (Dec 3, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> That's your opinion...
> 
> -snip-
> 
> But it is _not_ some objective "fact" possessing a certain inalienable truth value that I (or anyone else) must either acknowledge or be simply wrong about.




Feel free to add the words "I would suggest that" to the beginning of my quoted statement. It maintains consistency with my intent.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Dec 3, 2009)

Hi, all--

This has been a terrific conversation--one of the most interesting I've been involved with in something like five years of visiting EN World on a daily basis. You all have given me a lot to think about, and I've learned quite a bit. (After 30 years of GMing, I still enjoy learning how to further polish my craft.) I've passed around a few XP in the process.

More than one person has commented that most of the opinion points in this thread are not as far apart as they might seem. I'll wrap up my participation in this conversation with this example.

My current campaign (very much plot-oriented) is set in Europe in 1199 (a Europe in which the magic and magical creatures believed in by medieval people are in fact real). In a recent adventure, the heroes faced a cult that formed around a relic brought back from the crusader kingdoms: a stone angel believed to have been carved by one of the Three Kings as a representation of the epiphany he experienced at the birth of Christ.

I did a little research on those kings when preparing the adventure, and discovered that one--the best candidate for association with this relic, in fact--was believed to have been called Gastaphar; the francophone Europeans shoehorned that into the name Gaspard. Wow, stumbling across that factoid was an epiphany in its own right. One of my PCs is named Gaspard!

This cast a whole new light on the adventure I was preparing; surely the cultists would see some sort of significance in this coincidence. As a result, both the preparation and the execution of the adventure went in some unexpected directions. I was, nevertheless, able to build in the plot points my campaign outline called for.

In the end, my players said they really enjoyed the adventure, and so did I. An unpredictable mix of a well-developed world, a thought-out but not slavishly adhered-to plot outline, and the never fully predictable decisions of the players led to that result.​
I'm pretty sure RC would consider my campaign setting a sandbox--it consists of the whole of medieval Europe, after all, and I have a library of history books (and the entire internet) as my campaign manual. And in some ways I might be what RC considers a sandbox GM: That adventure was set in Verdun, but the players made an unexpected side-trek to Paris. I would never undermine such a decision; I see it as my job to make the story fit their actions, not vice versa. (And I would bore quickly of the campaign if they only did things I foresaw.)

But I still see some of the tools that uniquely come from story planning as the most consequential to the experience I'm delivering, so I will forever think of myself as a "plot" GM.

I think this is my last post in this thread--not because it's taken a bad turn, but because I think it's run its course. Thanks again to everyone for making it a good one!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 3, 2009)

underthumb said:


> I think we all agree that "fudging" can negate the significance of player actions.




I wouldn't use the word "can".  I would use the "does".



> But let's walk this reasoning back a bit.
> 
> Let's say, for instance, that I, as a GM, create an encounter with 6 orcs in it. However, let's also say that in doing so, I make a kind of error. It's not that I get the math "wrong" in some simple sense, but rather that I forget that certain weapons are capable of this or that action, and orcs have this or that power, and that these things, in combination, create an encounter that is far more deadly than my original intent. I only realize this when my PCs start dropping fast. (Who knows, maybe I made this encounter under time pressure or lack of sleep.)




So, if I understand it right, your question amounts to:

"If the DM does something totally inept during prep, should he fix it during play?"

My answer is "No", with the following caveats:

1.  In an AP setting, the players are truly doomed, as the DM is pulling the strings leading them to this encounter.  Poor, poor players.

2.  In a sandbox setting, the players have pulled the strings leading them to this encounter.

3.  Surely, for a good group of players, there is something other than "We can take them!" and "TPK!" to choose from.  Please note that this is player choice I'm talking about here.

4.  Surely, for a good GM, there is something other than "The PCs can take them!" and "TPK!" to choose from.  I don't know about your world.  If it is already established that orcs take no prisoners, then I guess that's just too bad.  Play your monsters as they would act.  Do orcs always kill prisoners?  Even ones they are in no danger from?  Or do they capture them for ransom?  For enslavement?

5.  Which edition are we talking about, where the DM sets this encounter up?  The answer indicates just how inept our poor DM is!

6.  The sandbox GM is not so concerned with how the encounter plays out, in general.  In the sandbox, at least, a TPK is an acceptable -- but not a desireable -- outcome.

7.  Taking away player agency will never compensate for shoddy GMing.  Thinking that this is a solution is a mistake.  One that will damage your game the more you do it.....and one that is harder to avoid doing again the more you do it.

All IMHO and IME.  All YMMV.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 3, 2009)

Some additional caveats, based off some later posts:

So, my understanding of the example is that the DM screwed up royally in prep work, failed to notice his screw up when presenting his materials, and essentially told the players there was an easy encounter ahead when there was a TPK.

The question asked is, should the DM change things on the fly?

My answer is, No.   This would prevent the players from learning some valuable information:

1.  Just because all signs point to an easy victory, they should not assume that the signs are right.

2.  Perhaps the DM is not as competent as they might have thought.

EDIT:  3.  I would also find limited retcon acceptable if, for instance, the DM forgot to mention that the orcs were attacking with turbolasers for three rounds....i.e., a temporal rollback to the point where PC actions would have changed had they better information _*that the PCs should have had*_.  This does not mean back to before the encounter began, when the DM was telling them how easy it would be -- the orcs could well have been smart enough to avoid making their lair look like a death trap.

If the DM error is "Oh, did I forget to tell you that all of your characters know there is an ancient red dragon in this cave?  Did I forget to mention the sulphurous scent?  Or the tracks?  Or the bones?  Sorry about that, but you're facing the dragon now.  What do you do?" the idea of a rollback is out.  The only rational thing to do is end the session and get a new DM.  /EDIT

Some subpoints for (2):

2a:  In TSR-D&D models, PCs were intended to start at 1st level, and slowly gain in power.  This not only gave players a chance to fully understand their characters' powers; it also gave the DM a chance to truly "learn the system" before being thrown into the deep end.  

2b:  It is easier to balance encounters using the TSR-D&D attrition model than the 3e attrition model or the 4e encounter model.  In the TSR-D&D attrition model, if a few encounters are tougher than expected, the usual result is simply that the PCs withdraw (if they are wise).  If not, well, they knew they were pretty banged up when they chose to press on.

2c.  Anyone who can attract and keep players has a perfect right to GM, and to GM their game in whatever manner they desire.  

2d.  However, simply wanting to sit behind the screen doesn't mean that you are ready to do so.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 3, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> I'm pretty sure RC would consider my campaign setting a sandbox





If

(1) when you use the word "plot" you mean "things the NPCs are doing", "things happening in the world" and/or "things the PCs decide to do, and if

(2) when you use the word "story" you mean "things that happened in the game", both opposed to meaning

"game events that I decided the PCs will experience in the way I decided the PCs would experience them"

then I would agree.




RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 3, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Suppose I were to set down the _Steading of the Hill Giant Chief_ in my world. I treat it as a place with inhabitants pursuing their own objectives. Do _they_ "have plots" in that sense? Yes. Can I "plot" the probable course of events based on what I know of them and other NPCs, and of other processes I have set in motion, hypothetically assuming that players' actions do not interfere? Yes.
> 
> That, however, is the limit of my "plot" creation. The players naturally have "plots" of their own, in the same sense as the hill giants and their allies. I am not interested in determining the outcomes of the intersections of those plots; the choices of players, the luck of the dice and the rules of the game shall do so in due time in actual play. My only concern is to referee the process fairly.
> 
> Whatever happens is "the story" we shall discover, and the grist for the mill that shall produce however many stories we will tell when we, "Remember that time when ...".




I had surmised that this was the case. Our play styles really don't differ at all. The way you have used the terms "plot" and "story" above are what I have been trying to explain all along. I mostly run pre-published adventures nowadays, but the NPCs in those adventures have their own goals and react to the actions of the players as I deem appropriate. I've never ascribed to the idea that monsters sit waiting in rooms for the adventures to show up. Sometimes much to my players' dismay. 



Ariosto said:


> The answer often comes quickly enough when they find themselves in a game without such a "nanny" DM, a game that instead tests their skills.
> 
> The DM can get into a Catch-22. "But if you don't change that roll, then my character is dead, and it's only because you _wanted_ to kill my character! You're mean!" The DM who has not yet so changed a roll can honestly deny the desire while enforcing the outcome impartially.




Agreed. I took the Basterd moniker for good reasons. My players expect and respect that I let the chips fall as they may. And that I play my NPCs reasonably. As RC suggests, not every defeat ends in the death of the character and there have been many a hostage, prisoner, impending sacrifice. None of these events are plotted into the written adventure and come about only when the players do something to cause the plot to change.

My favorite Basterd moment was at a one-shot game day event when my players pleaded with my wife (who was participating in another game) to ease up on their PCs. She just smirked and said "He kills off my characters, what do you want me to do about it."


----------



## Hussar (Dec 3, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> If only it were that simple.
> 
> Note the "such a limited storyline" below.
> 
> ...




Umm, RC, it would really, REALLY help if you'd read before you reply.

Those limitations you quoted were the limitations OF MY OWN STYLE.  A sandbox is much better at dealing with large groups.  I said that.



Raven Crowking said:


> @ Tistur:
> 
> I am not sure what you are seeking here.
> 
> ...




Sigh.  Again, you are placing judgement where none exists.

I HAVE PLAYED AND ENJOYED SANDBOX GAMES.  They do work.  I never said they didn't.

However, I do have a problem with sandbox games in that they are generally not terribly deep.  I asked how you add depth to your sandbox, and all I get are insults about abusing my wife, and flip, glib answers that say nothing.

I really wonder why you cannot answer the question.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 3, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> Hussar - The Shaman pretty much said in his reply above what I was thinking. I do agree that what you said is another valid and entertaining way to play. I do think it is important to note that character depth can and often does exist in sandbox play.




Thank you for getting it.  

I'm left wondering though, if the setting you are playing in does not in any way actually relate to the character or its goals, how do you achieve depth?  Isn't depth achieved by the relationships the character builds and his impact on the setting?



Ariosto said:


> I think Hussar there was referring to *his* method.
> 
> I got the impression that he thought those observations were revelations, though, rather than points we had noted before and repeatedly (especially considering previous threads with Hussar).
> 
> Par for the course, he is likely to turn (on a dime) and retroactively justify that particular dismay, but in the given context ... I think you simply misread.




Well, I must admit Ariosto, that's the second time you've rightly corrected Raven Crowking on his misreading of what I've said.

Now, if we could just do it without the antagonism and snark, we'd be getting somewhere.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 3, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> If
> 
> (1) when you use the word "plot" you mean "things the NPCs are doing", "things happening in the world" and/or "things the PCs decide to do, and if
> 
> ...




RC, would you have a problem if story instead was defined as:

"Game events that everyone at the table decided the PC's will experience although the exact details are undecided."

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

Oh, and since you asked:

Things you either cannot do or are damnably difficult to do with a sandbox campaign:


Survival horror.
High fantasy, particularly quest fantasy.
Campaigns where the PC's are integral to the campaign.  For example, if you wanted to play Battlestar Galactica with the players taking the roles of the positions (not necessarily the characters) of Admiral, CAG, President etc.  
Campaigns where you have a present chain of command.
Spy campaigns (after all, Bond doesn't wander around looking for bad guys, he goes on missions)
Campaigns focused on single (or very small numbers) of themes.

Before the wailing and gnashing of teeth.  Yes, I know you can work around those campaigns in some fashion.  But, it's going to be very difficult and possibly not worth the effort.


----------



## Janx (Dec 3, 2009)

Hussar said:


> RC, would you have a problem if story instead was defined as:
> 
> "Game events that everyone at the table decided the PC's will experience although the exact details are undecided."
> 
> ...




I'd hate to be the one defending a sandbox, but some of these don't look like they could NOT be done that way.

Survival horror, seems like a perfect fit for a sandbox.  The sandbox = the land is full of zombies.  Go survive.  Unless I'm misreading survival horror...

BSG: that could be done. Everybody gets assigned roles, and then the sandbox opens with 31 thousand and some change colonists to take care of.  Go.  The fact that some of them have secrets, no big deal, or that some of them have secrets that they don't even know about, is even less a big deal, more a plot twist...

The BSG brings up a good example, and I've done this with Babylon5, which is to take a story, and turn it into a D&D game.  The key thing to making it work, is to take the ideas, not the literal order of events.  If you're looking to recreate the show in D&D, you're on a track to railroad hell.  If you're looking to set a scenario where the players are the leaders of the last survivors from an major enemy attack, then go to town.  Hearing the initial statement from your players of "Oh cool, it's like Battlestar Galactica" is one thing. At the end, the sequence of events should not be just like Battlestar Galactica.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 3, 2009)

Hussar said:


> RC, would you have a problem if story instead was defined as:
> 
> "Game events that everyone at the table decided the PC's will experience although the exact details are undecided."




I would not qualify that as a good working definition of a sandbox.



> Things you either cannot do or are damnably difficult to do with a sandbox campaign:




Survival horror.  Why not?  Set the sandbox after the collapse of civilization.  Sprinkle with infectious zombies.  The best treasure you can find are a few shotgun shells or a flashlight.

High fantasy, particularly quest fantasy.  Why not?  As has already been noted, LotR could have been played as a sandbox.  If the players opt in to the quest, there is your quest fantasy.

Campaigns where the PC's are integral to the campaign.  This is a bizarre thing to think you cannot do in a sandbox.  Whyever couldn't you play a fighter who has control of the lands all about?  After all, isn't that what the original game was pointed toward?  If you wanted to play Battlestar Galactica with the players taking the roles of the positions (not necessarily the characters) of Admiral, CAG, President etc., why not?  Sandbox doesn't affect who you are -- merely what you can do.

Campaigns where you have a present chain of command.  Why not?  I have played in a sandbox based off Star Trek TOS.  The chain of command is part of the sandbox.  You can go against the chain of command.  Kirk did.

Spy campaigns (after all, Bond doesn't wander around looking for bad guys, he goes on missions).  Again, so?  And, your knowledge of Bond is weak, my friend.  He does indeed wander around looking for bad guys, both in the movies and books.

Campaigns focused on single (or very small numbers) of themes.  Why not?  All one has to do is devise areas, characters, and other game elements based on those themes.



> Before the wailing and gnashing of teeth.  Yes, I know you can work around those campaigns in some fashion.  But, it's going to be very difficult and possibly not worth the effort.




It will not be difficult at all.  Not even remotely.

Any halfway decent GM could pull off any of these sandboxes with no more effort than a typical D&D sandbox -- in some cases, quite a bit less -- and could do so with very satisfying results.  Are you claiming that you would find any of these difficult?

----

I do admit that, near the end there, I was just skimming your posts.  Once you started telling me what I was saying (without any apparent comprehension on your part) and started quoting me saying X when what you quoted said Y, I began to think I was wasting my time giving your posts any real consideration.

That being true, I should simply have ignored them.

My apologies.


RC


EDIT:  Going back and re-reading your post, though, I can see why I misunderstood.  Because you didn't identify which style you were talking about clearly in the bit I quoted, I thought you were saying more of what you were saying upthread.....i.e., how one cannot have any depth, etc., etc. with a sandbox.

And you still haven't answered many of the questions asked of you.

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?

How many players do you have? 

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?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 3, 2009)

Hussar said:


> all I get are insults about abusing my wife





Just so you are aware:  "Did you stop abusing your wife yet?" is a classic example of a question that is worded so that the answer, regardless of what it is, can be read as damning.  This is because, implicit in the question itself, is the idea that the person being asked is, or was, abusing his (or her) wife.

This was brought up (and not by me) because of the implicit ideas in the questions you asked.

You keep saying things like "the setting you are playing in does not in any way actually relate to the character or its goals" and this is absurd.  I can create an adventure path that does not in any way actually relate to the character or its goals, and I can create a character in a sandbox who does not in any way relate to the world, or relate his goals to the world.  

But both are examples of crappy playing, not the normal experiences of people who are good at RPGs.  

At least IMHO and IME.   YMM(obviously)V.




RC


----------



## The Ghost (Dec 3, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Thank you for getting it.
> 
> I'm left wondering though, if the setting you are playing in does not in any way actually relate to the character or its goals, how do you achieve depth? Isn't depth achieved by the relationships the character builds and his impact on the setting?




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. 



			
				The Ghost said:
			
		

> Over time...




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.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 3, 2009)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Things you either cannot do or are damnably difficult to do with a sandbox campaign:



Setting aside "sandbox" as too vague and substituting the original D&D campaign model (which is also, e.g., the original Traveller model), I think you are wrong and I think I see where you made the wrong turn.

If you are in a chain of command, then that is part of your character role. It is a subset of the situations possible in the world. It does not suddenly change the nature of the world!

In an open campaign, you can get yourself out of the chain of command -- and disobeying orders is one way to do that! You're not forced to keep doing whatever your boss says just because "that's the story".



> I'm left wondering though, *if the setting you are playing in does not in any way actually relate to the character or its goals*, how do you achieve depth? Isn't depth achieved by the relationships the character builds and his impact on the setting?



The part in bold is plain "beating your wife" style rhetoric. The next sentence is slightly veiled, but the implication is that, in games played differently from yours, characters do not build relationships or have impact on the setting. Your "questions" are sheer nonsense unless one gives assent to your predicate claims.

The real answer is that those claims are simply false. There is no need to "justify" with a "how" a state of affairs that is nonexistent in the first place.

The rest of us just don't share your additional stipulation that the world must be "made to order" for my player-character, a projection of the persona. We are less interested in that kind of wish fulfillment than in building relationships with people and places and phenomena having their _own_ identities. That is more like the relationships we have in our lives, and more like _the relationships that fictional characters are usually portrayed as having with the people and places in their worlds_.

As to "impact on the setting" we are more interested in doing that by _actually playing the game_ than in just saying, without any actual challenge in accomplishment, _Oh, my character is so boss! She did that and that, and got this and this, and then she met those guys, and they went over there, and it was totally rad, and then that other thing was awesome, but not as awesome as ...

_Making it future tense ("My character is _going to be_ so awesome! He's gonna do this, and own that at level x, and then become something else) is not a big difference if it's basically an entitlement and "playing the game" is just putting in time on the track to scheduled stations.


----------



## KidSnide (Dec 3, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> In an open campaign, you can get yourself out of the chain of command -- and disobeying orders is one way to do that! You're not forced to keep doing whatever your boss says just because "that's the story".




I think one of the difficulties this discussion has been having is that a good sandbox game works in almost the same way as a good story game -- we just think about them differently.  

In my mind, the biggest different between a sandbox game and a story game is whether the game is focused on situations for the PCs to explore (and then affect) or on goals for the PCs to accomplish (or fail at accomplishing).  Of course a sandbox game needs goals (or it will be very dull) and a story game needs situations (or it will lack any flexibility), the question is which comes first in the mind of the GM.

In a good game of either type, (1) the PCs will work towards goals that the players (and their characters) have bought into (2) in a situation that is flexible enough to let the PCs approach the goal in a number of ways.  Those aren't sandbox or story - they're just good D&D.

On a practical level, the biggest difference is who has responsibility for deciding what the PCs do on a macro level.  In a sandbox, the GM responds to the PC's goals (usually built in character creation and evolving over time).  In a story, the GM provides the goals and the PCs build characters who are motivated to accomplish them.  (Or, the PCs and GM collaborate to figure out what the game will be about and build characters and world together.)

There are powerful merits to both approaches.  Although I think of myself a story gamer, I also believe that it is absolutely and immensely vital (1) that the PCs "buy into" the goal and (2) that the story of the game be "about" the PCs in almost every meaningful way.  I also admit that a sandbox approach is an almost surefire way to accomplish #2 and an excellent way to accomplish #1, at least in as much as the PCs choose their goals and, therefore, are more likely to buy into them.

But I also think it's important for the PCs to pursue goals in which the pursuit is interesting.  Of course, a good situation is likely to produce an interesting adventure, but I (as a story-focused player) prefer my GM to point me towards their best material.  Of course, a good sandbox GM can provide guidence concerning which situations are the most interesting ones to explore, but I don't think a sandbox GM who always points the PCs towards the next best situation is all that different from a story GM.

And, of course, I should add that this is all about personal preference (and, probably, which types of /bad/ games you've experienced).  Personally, I don't care for exploration.  I care about accomplishment.  And, so, I like my GMs to put things to accomplish in front of me -- don't waste my time making me find them.  And help me figure out which ones I should do first, because that decision is usually not interesting to me.

But I get that freedom and the ability to explore is also something that many players (and GMs!) like.  So I don't think there is anything wrong with pursuing a game that is focused more on responding to player desire than pointing the player to what the GM thinks is his (or her) best material.

-KS


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 4, 2009)

KidSnide said:


> In my mind, the biggest different between a sandbox game and a story game is whether the game is focused on situations for the PCs to explore (and then affect) or on goals for the PCs to accomplish (or fail at accomplishing).  Of course a sandbox game needs goals (or it will be very dull) and a story game needs situations (or it will lack any flexibility), the question is which comes first in the mind of the GM.



I think Ariosto and RC would say that, in a sandbox, the world (or setting or milieu) comes first in the mind of the GM.

I would say that, for a clear-cut case of story-oriented GMing, what comes first are dramatic situations. A big reveal that the BBEG is a PC's father for example, or that the Gandalf-type figure the PCs have been following is really more like the Wizard of Oz. Other story-oriented ideas might be adhering to a certain structure (such as the 3-act structure), or trying to evoke a certain mood or atmosphere.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 4, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> I think Ariosto and RC would say that, in a sandbox, the world (or setting or milieu) comes first in the mind of the GM.
> 
> I would say that, for a clear-cut case of story-oriented GMing, what comes first are dramatic situations. A big reveal that the BBEG is a PC's father for example, or that the Gandalf-type figure the PCs have been following is really more like the Wizard of Oz. Other story-oriented ideas might be adhering to a certain structure (such as the 3-act structure), or trying to evoke a certain mood or atmosphere.




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.


RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 4, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> 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 (Dec 4, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> 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 (Dec 4, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> 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.



			
				RavenCrowking said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 4, 2009)

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 (Dec 4, 2009)

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 (Dec 4, 2009)

> 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 (Dec 4, 2009)

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 (Dec 4, 2009)

> 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 (Dec 4, 2009)

> 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 (Dec 4, 2009)

> 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!


----------



## KidSnide (Dec 4, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> 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 (Dec 4, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> 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 (Dec 4, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> "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 (Dec 4, 2009)

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 (Dec 4, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> 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 (Dec 4, 2009)

KidSnide said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Dec 4, 2009)

> 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 (Dec 4, 2009)

Great topic BTW.  Very good posts.

jh


----------



## KidSnide (Dec 4, 2009)

Hussar said:


> 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 (Dec 4, 2009)

> 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.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 4, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> 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!!




What you cannot do in a sandbox is a railroad.  Otherwise, it is pretty open ended.



> 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.




D&D characters, from what I've seen, are reactive.  Bad guys make evil plot/old creepy castle is full of stuff.  Players find out about it through story hooks, players foil evil plot/explore old creepy castle.

Obviously, not good sandbox material.



> 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.




Barring, of course, the clerics with thier temples, the monks, the druids, etc., etc.  Are you actually making the claim that, in a sandbox campaign, the PCs cannot become part of, or command a, chain of command?

Why, then, did 3e explicitly remove the implicit chain-of-command materials from the game?



> With a superior officer, the PCs are no longer free. No freedom means no sandbox.




Without the ability to snuff out the sun with a thought, the PCs are no longer free.  No freedom means no sandbox.

Really?

Would you argue that the real world is not (effectively) a sandbox?  Must you be free of any chain of command to be in the real world?  Must you be free to sack Macy's or Gimble's without any consequences, or you are not free?  



> 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!!




I agree that the sandbox does not do railroads.  

The sandbox says, largely, "Here are the starting conditions.  What do you do now?"  That allows for *any* campaign type _*that the players want to do*_.  It does not allow for the DM to railroad the players.

If you wish to choose what the players do, the sandbox will fail you.  

If you wish to choose what setting the players do it in, the general tone of the setting, the mood of the setting, the themes, and what sorts of options are easily accessible, the sandbox is admirable.

But it sucks at railroads.



> 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.




Within any setting, there must be restrictions on choice to deal with or to overcome, and consequences for choices made to deal with, or choices are meaningless.  



Hussar said:


> 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.




Then why do you doubt that the campaigns which last "years at a time" have depth?  



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




That "the campaign does not change in any way to fit the characters" is a false premise.  Until you get rid of this false premise, you are doomed to misunderstanding.

Look at Charles Ryan.  With some potential caveats, I agreed that his game would qualify as a sandbox.  You say "He gained depth by adapting the campaign world to fit a character in order to gain a more interesting story."  I say "He extrapolated from what he knew about the campaign world to determine what the NPCs would do."

He didn't change the cult to match the character.  He recognized that the cultists, being cultists, would place a higher value of coincidence than you or I would.  If he had, say, a Cult of X, but changed it to a Cult of Y, because Character Z was named Nearly-Y, then it wouldn't be a sandbox.  It would be far more in keeping with what you propose -- changing the world to match the characters.

The GM asking himself "What makes sense for these NPCs to do?" isn't a violation of the sandbox game.  It is a requirement for a sandbox game.  Letting the NPCs do something that makes no sense because it would seem to make a "good story" from the GM's POV, OTOH, is not.

CharlesRyan did the first, not the second.

Upthread, I described a character who included, in his background, that his parents worked with Amoreth the Arcane.  He fit his character into the world, and, because of what I knew about Amoreth the Arcane (which he did not at the time the character background was written), his character's connection with the world became enriched.

Consider the PC whose background includes seven brothers, a sister, a mother, and a father who died delving into the Dungeon of Tears.  The PC, with a single character, adds nine NPCs to the campaign world, one of whom is (presumably) deceased.  This doesn't make the campaign somehow "not a sandbox".  

A sandbox world is not fixed, irresolute and untouchable for all time, like some great jewel that the players cannot touch.  That would be, perhaps, a "stonebox".  Sandboxes change and evolve in whatever way seems natural to the participants.  The sandbox seeks to emulate a real world, with real world consistency.  And, to be consistent with the real world, this requires actual change.  

Go back to the drain example.  If the GM knows what is there, the GM should not change it because of PC choices.  Indeed, to do so would invalidate the agency of PC choice.  But that doesn't mean that the GM should stretch the drain out into 20 encounter areas, either, and thus consume the play session with it.

OTOH, if the GM does not know what is down the drain, he should be ready to go with (in order of importance) whatever seems, first, most consistent with the world, and, secondly, most fun.  Again, this is already covered upthread.

The same with "combat plans".  It is perfectly valid for the GM to devise plans for what creatures normally do in combat, or are likely to do.  If the PCs do something very unlikely, though, those plans become guidelines at best.  Indeed, if monsters have a plan of attack, and the PCs throw that plan of attack into disarray, the first thought through my mind is "Morale Check with a healthy penalty!"



Hussar said:


> 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 the players desire to go on that quest, then a sandbox can do it just fine.  If the players do not, then not so much.

As I said, the sandbox is probably the worst vehicle possible for a railroad.  They are pretty well mutually exclusive.



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




Really?  I guess that depends upon what you mean by "a rough line similar to the books".

*  Characters begin indecisive, not knowing what to do?  Check.

*  Characters have different ideas about how they should proceed, where they should go, and what their actual quest should be?  Check.

*  Character death?  Check.

*  False starts, random encounters, and monsters unrelated to the primary quest?  Check.

*  Opportunities to veer from the straight course and seek other solutions to the problem?  Check.

*  Ability for party to split and explore different objectives?  Check.

*  Follow the book slavishly, making the same choices the literary characters made?  Nope.  Sandbox does not do railroads.



> 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.




I can (and have) played both Gamma World and D&D as games where the players have very little in terms of resources, where survival was the order of the day, and where horrific elements abound.  As a player.  And, believe me, my choices mattered.  I died a gruesome and horrible death in both (very fun) campaigns, more than once, but my choices mattered.  And both games were sandboxes.  Actually, both games were run by the same GM, who was very competent at that sort of game.  

Actually, the original Gamma World was a great ruleset for this sort of game.  Your PC could be hampered with all sorts of nasty mutations.

I have also run scenarios that, through player action, have turned into survival horror, in normal D&D.  Although this isn't the entire world being one of survival horror, there can certainly be places in the world where angels fear to tread (and PCs discover that they are less powerful than they thought they were).

Turn the shoe a moment, though.  Upthread, you were certainly vocal about how choices matter despite the outcome being known.  I agreed that, so long as the outcome is largely framework, and that there are meaningful choices to be made related to the goal of the game itself (in the above cases, the goal was to survive as long as you could).  Why are you suddenly now suggesting that choices don't matter if the odds are good that, sooner or later, you will die?



Hussar said:


> 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?




No.  See above.

What you are describing is a way to do a sandbox, theoretically, but not particularly the best way.  Possibly not even a possible way, except for a very limited setting.



> 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.




Again, I disagree.

The GM can design with a particular goal in mind, so long as the goal is a situation the PCs must deal with rather than something the PCs do.  

Easy example:  After three years, campaign time, the Fimbrulwinter starts.  Everything gets cold, and, unless something is done about it, everything dies.



> 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.




Let us know how it goes.  Perhaps it will clear up some of your misconceptions.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 4, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> How often is the bridge out in a horror movie? This directly goes against the freedom essential to a sandbox.





Are you really suggesting that monsters cannot remove a bridge in a sandbox, to limit escape routes?  

Or weather?  Or time?

I will grant, a priori, that the bridge isn't stable on the way in, and then conveniently out on the way back, but that is hardly the limit of possibility.  If the evil necromancer has the bridge rigged to collapse just before his zombie hoard arises, then there's your bridge out.  Of course, in this case it might be possible to prevent the bridge from being out in the first place, possibly through examining the structure ("Hey!  What are these charges doing here?!?") or through setting a guard.  

It isn't the GM's job to ensure that the PCs fail.  All the GM need do is give the PCs enough rope, and enough opportunities to use it, and they will hang themselves.  Set up areas where horror survival is a possible "adventure" and, sooner or later, you will find yourself running such a scenario.



RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 4, 2009)

Hussar said:


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




The difference is that there in-game reasons why the bridge might be out. You could foreshadow it with approaching storm clouds. The being responsible for the horror situation could detroy the bridge. And as long as you don't stop the players from still trying to cross without the use of the bridge there is no railroad. Deep ravine, dark of night, set the difficulty of crossing appropriately and players invested in their characters shouldn't risk them frivilously.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 4, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Deep ravine, dark of night, set the difficulty of crossing appropriately and players invested in their characters shouldn't risk them frivilously.




_*But if they do, that's okay!*_


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 4, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> And as long as you don't stop the players from still trying to cross without the use of the bridge there is no railroad.






Raven Crowking said:


> _*But if they do, that's okay!*_




*Obviously I agree with you!* Stop skimming posts. tsk tsk!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 5, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> *Obviously I agree with you!* Stop skimming posts. tsk tsk!




I didn't post that for your bnefit....just to make sure it was clear for...um...others.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 7, 2009)

HIGHLY recommended reading, posted by Ydars in another thread:

ars ludi » Grand Experiments: West Marches


----------



## Hussar (Dec 8, 2009)

RC said:
			
		

> Then why do you doubt that the campaigns which last "years at a time" have depth?




Where did I say that?

I ASKED a question.  How do you gain depth in a sandbox.  Now, apparently my understanding is faulty of what you mean by a sandbox .  It was always my understanding that a sandbox was pretty much carved in stone before the players hit the table.  Over there is Giant Land, over there is Slaver Land, over there is the Spooky Castle.

Now, apparently, that's false.  Spooky castle in a sandbox, can morph into any other castle based on what the DM feels will make a better game.  Me, I'd describe that as changing the setting to make a better story.  You seem to disagree with that characterization, but, meh, it's a wash in the end.

If a sandbox can be changed at any point in time in order to create a better "experience" (I'd say story, but, apparently that's a bad word) then our playstyles are much closer than you like to think.  If everything in the world is fluid until such time as the players interact with it, then what is the criteria for change?

In a "sandbox", why are setting elements being changed for specific groups of players and characters?

Now, you can justify changes however you like.  The mindless zombies somehow destroyed the bridge.  A freak storm suddenly destroyed the bridge whatever.  It's not really important to me.  You destroyed the bridge to tell a better story.  If the bridge wasn't destroyed, the PC's would just run away and there would be no adventure.

Just because you justify it through in world actions doesn't make it any less story based.  It just makes it a lot more believable.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 8, 2009)

I would just like to add.

Ariosto and RC - I have answered your questions and thus far pretty much ignored the snark.  I am not "baiting" as you call it Ariosto and repeatedly RC, you have made some pretty personal comments here.  Are your points really so weak that you cannot actually counter my arguments without the personal attacks?  This is the third time I've asked that the snark and personal commentary stop.  

It's an interesting topic, and one that I'm rather enjoying.  It would be nice, however, if you could actually discuss the topic, rather than the poster.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Dec 8, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I ASKED a question.  How do you gain depth in a sandbox.  Now, apparently my understanding is faulty of what you mean by a sandbox .  It was always my understanding that a sandbox was pretty much carved in stone before the players hit the table.  Over there is Giant Land, over there is Slaver Land, over there is the Spooky Castle.
> 
> Now, apparently, that's false.  Spooky castle in a sandbox, can morph into any other castle based on what the DM feels will make a better game.  Me, I'd describe that as changing the setting to make a better story.  You seem to disagree with that characterization, but, meh, it's a wash in the end.



I think you are hitting the nail on the head as far as why this discussion is being so lengthy. My personal view of a sandbox is very similar to the #1 hit in google here... 
 Basically a sandbox game means the DM has a large scale map of the world with 5 to 10 mile wide hexes and markings that state 'here be dragons' {and whatnot}. The DM also has a number of plot hooks and ideas for adventures, kindof a stable of possible session adventures. 
 Perhaps on the map there is a spooky castle... and since it is there it will always be such {unless someone burns it down}. Now, if the PC's investigate.. then the DM fills in the details as to what is in/at/around the castle based on what would be fun for the group. The PC's adventures then  become part of the history of the campaign.
  Enough information is littered about that a portion of the game revolves around investigating and preparing for adventures... as opposed to just diving in. This is in part due to the fact that if that spooky castle had been explored by an earlier group of higher level characters, it might be a bit dangerous for the new group to go into.

This may be completely different than what RavenCrowking thinks is a 'sandbox', but my guess is his definition is only shades of degree off... just as yours is shades off from mine. Some people prefer a more fluidic/short memory campaign that insulates the players from non CR-equivilent encounters and reduces the reliance on investigation/world knowledge. Others slide to the other end of the scale of 'set in stone' where you better check up on whats in the next hex.. and come back in a dozen levels or so.

So: Perhaps we should roll this back. You keep asking how to develop depth in a 'sandbox' campaign. Before addressing that, I would need to know what you think a 'sandbox' campaign consists of....

And, to make it intersesting.. RC and Ariosto should answer with thier definition as well... 

 I bet between those definitions lie the answer to the discussion...


----------



## Janx (Dec 8, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Now, you can justify changes however you like.  The mindless zombies somehow destroyed the bridge.  A freak storm suddenly destroyed the bridge whatever.  It's not really important to me.  You destroyed the bridge to tell a better story.  If the bridge wasn't destroyed, the PC's would just run away and there would be no adventure.
> 
> Just because you justify it through in world actions doesn't make it any less story based.  It just makes it a lot more believable.




I'm OK with that.  Anything in the game should make sense.  Making changes or justifying changes should always make sense.

As a DM, I already accept that I have to make stuff up when the PCs do something unexpected, or I have to invent consequences when the PCs commit a crime.  I choose whether anybody sees the PC stab an NPC.  I choose whether the cops get called.  I choose IF the cops get there in time.  I choose how the cops react, and so on.

I therefore choose to take out the bridge, so the scenario isn't too easy.  if I do so, it has to make sense.  If the PCs circumvent something I thought would happen and prepared for, I choose whether to move it, recycle it, skip it, or have something comletely different happen.

The goal, whenever I do so, is to setup a situation where the PC faces a challenge or has to make a Choice.  It's usually safe to assume they're going to choose something to beat the bad guy, but I'm often surprised by the nuance of how they choose to do it.  And that's the fun part.

Probably something to note, that when I try to make a story out of it, I'm not planning for long multi-session adventures.  I write enough material to cover 4-6 hours.  I may have a mental note of big events I'd like to see happen (like having the PCs be at the Battle of the Line versus the elves).  But I only write what I need for the next session.  

This means I get plenty of room for course correction.  I can safely predict what'll happen when the party has shore leave at the island where the monk's dojo is.  But I got no clue what they'll do when they learn that a rival dojo has taken something important.  Actually, I do know, the monk will go after it, and the PCs will likely help him.  But after that, I got no clue how carefal they will be, or how Slicey they'll get.

So I won't say I run a sandbox, but I try to set up a small situation, where I'm dead certain the PCs will get involved, by making it personal to the PCs.  After that, the players do whatever they do in that environment, chasing a goal that I knew they'd go after.  But the choice was never about "do they fetch the mcguffin", it's "how do they pursue it"

Just like I don't really get a choice to go to work or not (technically I do, but the reality is, I gotta pay a mortgage and feed a family).  So that's not really a choice.  Nor is the route I take to work a choice.  It's not meaningful anyway.  But what I do at work is meaningful.  How I choose to solve the problems I face either protects my job, or puts me at risk.  Those are Choices.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 8, 2009)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> So: Perhaps we should roll this back. You keep asking how to develop depth in a 'sandbox' campaign. Before addressing that, I would need to know what you think a 'sandbox' campaign consists of....




My idea of sandbox seems to jive with how you describe it.  The world is created in big hexes and various adventure locations seeded throughout.  However, I think where I might be going wrong is that I assumed that those adventure locations are static in that they don't change dependent upon the characters being played.  If the DM places "Spooky Castle" on Hex A7, then that will always be a spooky castle.  It won't suddenly morph into a castle inhabited by living people with a serving baron controlling the local countryside.  It's going to be an "undead (or something suitably creepy) adventure location".

So, if my party, consisting of any PC's, arrives at Hex A7, then they will see a spooky castle.  That castle will not change (well, until the PC's actually interact with it of course - killing the baddies and taking it over is always an option.  ) whether I have a LG group of paladins or a NE group of assassins.

Apparently this is where I'm getting things wrong.

Now, my question again is, if sandbox elements can change depending on the characters, then why do they change?  If I go to Cave C in the Caves of Chaos and the inhabitants there are based on the group that I bring with me, why?  Why do the inhabitants change from orcs to dopplegangers (as an example)?



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> So I won't say I run a sandbox, but I try to set up a small situation, where I'm dead certain the PCs will get involved, by making it personal to the PCs. After that, the players do whatever they do in that environment, chasing a goal that I knew they'd go after. But the choice was never about "do they fetch the mcguffin", it's "how do they pursue it"




Which is pretty close to how I play as well.

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

An anology (and a non-food one at that  ) comes to mind.  

I see sandbox play like Lego.  You have the elements - blocks, flat pieces, whatever, at the start and the players along with the GM work together to build something.  What they build is pretty much unknown at the start.  There are some limitations, of course, since Lego only comes in certain shapes, but, the goal of play is to build something.

I see story based play, or "Limited Scenario" ( a term that Ariosto uses that I think fits perfectly) as closer to building puzzles.  You have pieces at the beginning and you have a pretty good idea of what it should look like at the end.  However, how you get from A to Z is up to the players and the GM.  You could build the outside first, you could sort the pieces, you could just place them as you go.  That's up to the players.  But, your final picture is pretty much completely known at the outset.  The goal here is the process of building that picture, not the picture itself.

Note, that neither activity is better than the other.  Just the focus tends to be different.  Lego builds organically with each person adding what they think is interesting.  The process is fun but the end result is fairly unknown which can result in your Lego tower being unstable and crashing to the ground.

Puzzles can be fun as well, but, can suffer from too much structure, (too much railroading) and can be terribly confining.  

Me?  Personally, sometimes I like puzzles and sometimes I like Lego.


----------



## Janx (Dec 8, 2009)

continuing with Hussar's discussion.. he said something about having an idea of the ending..hold on, let me find it...
"But, your final picture is pretty much completely known at the outset. The goal here is the process of building that picture, not the picture itself."

Let's take my example of the PCs at Monk Dojo island.

bad guys have taken something from the dojo.  The monk will do whatever his sensei says, because I told the PC that in his player briefing when the campaign started many sessions ago.  This game is his "character" episode, so it's mostly about him, though he is socially obligated to involve the other players (meta game rule, don't take NPCs on the away mission, take other players).

I figure out ahead of time all the basic stuff, like where did the bad monks take the mcguffin, and then how would the PC monk figure out where to go (so he can find clues, and so I know what to plan).  Then I plan out the basic path assuming those clues are mostly followed.  Throw in asome challenges, and put the BBEG at the end.  I pretty much assume the PCs will beat the bad guys and go back home.

So that "sounds" like it matches what Hussar said.

Here's the twist.  I may be a lazy DM and only planned what I wrote.  However, I don't expect the PCs to follow the plan.  Once the PCs are hooked in, I gotta wing it.  My default ending is they deliver the McGuffin to the sensei.  The reailty is, I have to adapt to what the players do.  If they make good choices or plans, I move them closer to the success path, using most of my written material.  If they do something different, I make up a new ending to fit it.  As long as they're doing smart things to get the McGuffin, I'll make the path they take get there, there's no sense not doing that.  If they get wierd on me, or get new information that changes their outlook, then I change it up completely.

The adventure was years ago, I'd have to open the file to see what I actually ran that session.  The monk was "Garibaldi" from B5 and this was monk backstory. He was only partly successful, which led to some shame, which led him to alcholism, which fit in perfect for my real plan...It wasn't important to the long term plan on this contributing to his alcoholism.  I had allowed for not having that parallel.  But on the other hand, take it when you can get it.

Heck, I even managed to get the Sinclair equivalent Paladin PC to ram his ship into an elven destroyer at the Battle of the Line.

Players are easily manipulated.

The risk I took in running a B5 emulation was railroading players into exact copies of the tv show.  On the other hand, the game was rich in story-ism and since the players hadn't seen the show, they thought they had the coolest adventure ever.  Because it was dramatic and epic and about them.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 8, 2009)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I have answered your questions and thus far pretty much ignored the snark. I am not "baiting" as you call it Ariosto and repeatedly RC ...



You have not answered the question of just what this "depth" is that you imply must be lacking.

If you really do not see how the implication is baiting, then you could pay attention to our explanation and put on your thinking cap -- or just take our word for it and quit the futile repetition of rhetoric that we are unlikely to find any less inane the umpteenth time.



			
				Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> And, to make it intersesting.. RC and Ariosto should answer with thier definition as well...



As I have stated, I wash my hands of that because if I define it so as to mean what I thought it meant when I had use for it, then any number of people -- who either have no interest in, or are actively opposed to, that sharing of history and experience -- will proceed to insist that I am using the term wrong and ... so therefore whatever I may have to say is (but of course!) wrong as well.

I am heartily tired of the absurdity. Not only do I know damned well what I experienced in the first quarter-century of D&D, but significant parts of that are matters of record. "Sandbox"? I never needed it before, and I can do without it now.

What would be helpful, if Hussar really wants an answer to his "question", is his definition of *depth* -- and for him to quit insisting on baloney (that is insulting as well as simply false) that has been repeatedly identified as such.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 8, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Now, apparently my understanding is faulty of what you mean by a sandbox .  It was always my understanding that a sandbox was pretty much carved in stone before the players hit the table.  Over there is Giant Land, over there is Slaver Land, over there is the Spooky Castle.
> 
> Now, apparently, that's false.  Spooky castle in a sandbox, can morph into any other castle based on what the DM feels will make a better game.



No, I think that when _most_ gamers describe a sandbox, they're talking about a _status quo_ setting, a setting in which the the spooky castle has skeletons, giants spiders, and ghouls and ghasts, or the Wilderlands hex has a ruined keep with three giant scorpions and a 500 gp ruby hidden in a clay pot in it, or the star system features a mainworld with the profile D-622567-6 S Na Ni Po 220, regardless of when or how the adventurers explore it.

The idea that the inhabitants of the spooky castle change to match the abilities and/or current interests of the adventurers is not at all what I associate with sandbox settings. While the jargon of rpgs is nowhere near completely uniform, in my experience that's really the antithesis of a sandbox setting.

In a sandbox with which I'm familiar, the spooky castle changes if the current inhabitants are replaced by new inhabitants, such as after the adventurers kill the undead and vermin and a tribe of orcs moves in subsequent to the adventurers moving on.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 8, 2009)

Hussar,

I think you are compounding several people's answers, and assuming that they all believe everything that each other is saying.

I will try to get you a more complete answer this afternoon, when I have more time to type.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 8, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> The idea that the inhabitants of the spooky castle change to match the abilities and/or current interests of the adventurers is not at all what I associate with sandbox settings. While the jargon of rpgs is nowhere near completely uniform, in my experience that's really the antithesis of a sandbox setting.
> 
> In a sandbox with which I'm familiar, the spooky castle changes if the current inhabitants are replaced by new inhabitants, such as after the adventurers kill the undead and vermin and a tribe of orcs moves in subsequent to the adventurers moving on.




Agreed.

However, if a palyer should create a PC whose father died in the spooky castle, I reserve the right to (1) locate the father's body, and/or (2) place the father as some sort of undead creature within said spooky castle.  I also reserve the right to incorporate the father into whatever is happening at the spooky castle.

For instance, if the spooky castle is really a front for smugglers, I reserve the right to make the father one of those smugglers, and very much alive.



RC


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 8, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> However, if a palyer should create a PC whose father died in the spooky castle, I reserve the right to (1) locate the father's body, and/or (2) place the father as some sort of undead creature within said spooky castle.



Okay.

I'm not likely to do something like this in the games I run. I have no problem with discovering the remains of dear old dad, if the player was explicit that pops died in the castle. But, "Ludooooooovicussssssssss, I'm your faaaaaaaatherrrrrrr . . . " isn't likely to come up in game; I prefer the game to focus on what the characters have done in actual play, not about background details that no one experienced first-hand, not even the player who wrote them.







			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I also reserve the right to incorporate the father into whatever is happening at the spooky castle.
> 
> For instance, if the spooky castle is really a front for smugglers, I reserve the right to make the father one of those smugglers, and very much alive.



And I wouldn't touch this with the proverbial eleven-foot pole.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 8, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> The idea that the inhabitants of the spooky castle change to match the abilities and/or current interests of the adventurers is not at all what I associate with sandbox settings. In a sandbox with which I'm familiar, the spooky castle changes if the current inhabitants are replaced by new inhabitants, such as after the adventurers kill the undead and vermin and a tribe of orcs moves in subsequent to the adventurers moving on.




This is what I've understood to be the (somewhat) negative definition of a sandbox. One thing makes me curious though. I've experienced both first and second hand the horror stories of low-level PCs stumbling upon a dragon and suffering a TPK. Has anyone ever heard of sessions where high-level PCs stumble upon the band of orcs? I haven't experienced that flip-side of the coin. Would you find such a non-challenge of an evening of gaming fun? I know I wouldn't, just as I wouldn't find being slaughtered by a dragon that we "accidentally" found being very fun.



Raven Crowking said:


> However, if a palyer should create a PC whose father died in the spooky castle, I reserve the right to (1) locate the father's body, and/or (2) place the father as some sort of undead creature within said spooky castle.  I also reserve the right to incorporate the father into whatever is happening at the spooky castle.
> 
> For instance, if the spooky castle is really a front for smugglers, I reserve the right to make the father one of those smugglers, and very much alive.






The Shaman said:


> Okay.
> 
> I'm not likely to do something like this in the games I run. I have no problem with discovering the remains of dear old dad, if the player was explicit that pops died in the castle. But, "Ludooooooovicussssssssss, I'm your faaaaaaaatherrrrrrr . . . " isn't likely to come up in game; I prefer the game to focus on what the characters have done in actual play, not about background details that no one experienced first-hand, not even the player who wrote them.And I wouldn't touch this with the proverbial eleven-foot pole.




I find this odd. RC's use of the character's backgrounds to me is awesome. I understand wantig the focus to be on the characters current accomplishments. But why would you ignore the history of the character? The player took the time to immerse himself in your world by writing a background tied to your setting. When he goes to Spooky Castle it seems like it would be more exciting to discover a twist than to just experience exactly what the player wrote. "He died there. Yep, there's his body. Hrm." By turning the character's father into an involved NPC you now have hooked that player into your word and given him even more reason to be invested.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 8, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Has anyone ever heard of sessions where high-level PCs stumble upon the band of orcs?




Yes.

This is one of the reasons that a sandbox is better, IMHO, in a game with a power curve that is less steep.  That said, though, there is no reason that the higher-level PCs cannot have fun.  And, if they are not having fun, they are always free to go and do something else.

In RCFG, players are encouraged to keep a "character stable", so that higher-level characters have henchmen to go do smaller stuff while they tackle larger problems and engage in changing the world/area to suit themselves.



> RC's use of the character's backgrounds to me is awesome.




Thank you.

In one game, the players knew the following going in:

Selby-by-the-Water was once much larger than it is today, for more than half of the town now lies beneath Lake Elidyr. Locals now call this area “Selby-beneath-the-Waves.” What remains is still a bustling town, but folk avoid the ruined areas at night, including the docksides where Selby-beneath-the-Waves can still be seen.

Selby-by-the-Water was founded to protect a deepwater harbor on Lake Elidyr. A great wall surrounds the town proper from Weirwood the Great, but farms and small businesses arose outside of the village wall.  There are now wooden partial walls and watchtowers that protect these areas. The village has grown in a radial pattern from the harbor, with several canals cutting through the central village.

Forty-seven years ago, Selby-by-the-Water was wracked by tremors, and more than half the town was destroyed. The tower of Amoreth the Arcane collapsed in smoke and fire. Underground explosions damaged buildings. Whole sections of the town subsided, and were covered by the lake.  

Amoreth the Arcane was never seen again – some thought he had died in some dangerous experiment, but others thought that he fled the disaster he had caused. In the aftermath, the sewers and undercity of Selby-by-the-Water have been broken and partly submerged, with new entrances appearing and old ones becoming lost.

Entry into the Wizard’s Tower is forbidden upon pain of death.​
One player decided to use this background.  He wanted his gnome bard to be an orphan, whose parents were confederates of Amoreth the Arcane.  He believed that his parents were evil, and had abandoned him at birth.

Now, I knew that Amoreth the Arcane had actually been trying to stop an enclave of aboleth from undermining the town, and that he had partially succeeded at the cost of his tower, his reputation, and his life.  Therefore, I also knew that the gnome's parents were not evil, and had sacrificed themselves to save their newborn child.

If the PCs had not eventually entered the ruined tower of Amoreth the Arcane (after another collapse, and their discovery of an aboleth), they never would have learned the above.  And that would have been okay.  In my notes for the tower, I only made one change -- I added the spirit of the gnome's mother, so that she could one time tell her son that she was proud of him before fading away.  Had the gnome not gone there, the spirit would linger still, but not manifest.

In no other way did that area change.  And the story of Amoreth the Arcane, although embellished by the addition of gnome assistants, did not substantially change.

If the spooky old castle on the hill is the abode of ghouls, it is the abode of ghouls regardless of what level the PCs are when they get there.  If a PC's father, mother, or brother went in there and never returned, I can pretty well extrapolate that the ghouls got him or her, either rendering the character a ghoul or a pile of cracked bones.  And, either way, that becomes a part of the sandbox.  If that PC doesn't go to the spooky castle, that's okay.  If other PCs slaughter the ghouls there, and the first PC never learns what happened to her family member, that's okay too.  If the PC goes there, and gets killed in the first encounter, that's also okay.

But, once I have accepted a character background, I will do what I can to make that background make sense within the world.  If a player suggests a background that I know cannot make sense within the world, I will offer a revision that does make sense.

I encourage players to get caught up in the pieces of the sandbox.  Discovering what happened a generation ago, a century ago, or an age ago is one of the thrills such a setting can allow for.  Linking characters to the setting's past and present in no way diminishes the players' interest in the setting's future.  If anything, it increases their ardour to form that future.

IMHO, and IME.

(And, Hussar, did that answer your question?)


RC


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 8, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> This is what I've understood to be the (somewhat) negative definition of a sandbox.



Whereas I understand it to be a positive example of a _status quo_ setting.







Vyvyan Basterd said:


> One thing makes me curious though. I've experienced both first and second hand the horror stories of low-level PCs stumbling upon a dragon and suffering a TPK. Has anyone ever heard of sessions where high-level PCs stumble upon the band of orcs? I haven't experienced that flip-side of the coin. Would you find such a non-challenge of an evening of gaming fun? I know I wouldn't, just as I wouldn't find being slaughtered by a dragon that we "accidentally" found being very fun.



First, in my experience a group of high-level characters showing off their awesomeness on weaker but still deserving foes tends to make for a fun encounter.

A group of mid-high level characters in my 3e campaign were confronted by a swarm of first level bandits while travelling; the players talked about that encounter for weeks afterward, of the many ways they sliced and diced and fricaseed the hapless would-be brigands. And they received accolades from a neaby villagers for clearing the road of the menace to the settlement; the players reveled in the rock star treatment for quite a while, actually.

Second, a _status quo_ setting (I'm getting tired of the ways 'sandbox' is being misused in this thread, so I'm going to go back to the older, pre-video game descriptive phrase) isn't challenge after challenge after challenge served up my a complaisant game master. If you eliminate a threat in an area, then you need to go looking for trouble instead of waiting around for it to find you (while expecting it to be level-appropriate at the same time).

Adventurers in _status quo_ settings must be proactive. Adventure is out there, and if you're bored by the local offerings, you need to dig deeper, or sail further, to find it.







			
				Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> I find this odd. RC's use of the character's backgrounds to me is awesome.



Of course it is. It's what you, and a whole lot of other gamers, grew up expecting from roleplaying games because that's what the designers served up.







			
				Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> I understand wantig the focus to be on the characters current accomplishments. But why would you ignore the history of the character? The player took the time to immerse himself in your world by writing a background tied to your setting. When he goes to Spooky Castle it seems like it would be more exciting to discover a twist than to just experience exactly what the player wrote. "He died there. Yep, there's his body. Hrm." By turning the character's father into an involved NPC you now have hooked that player into your word and given him even more reason to be invested.



Because background is, to me, mere fanwank that no one experiences in play.

What I tell my players is a good background explains your character's motivation for not staying home and being a tradesman or an accountant or a courtier, _and then stops_. A background sets up the game; it doesn't intrude upon it.

Some examples of what I mean will help.
 "My character hates orcs because they killed his family when he was a boy!" versus "My character hates orcs because they killed half our party, including my best mate, in those caverns we were exploring near the keep."
 "My character has sworn vengeance against the baron de Bauchery for abducting Princess Pinkflower, my teenage love!" versus "My character has sworn vengeance against the baron de Bauchery for abducting my mistress, Princess Pinkflower, while we were on a diplomatic mission for the king."
 "Oh noes, the wight is my long-lost father!" versus "Oh noes, the wight is our former cleric!"
See the difference? One belongs to no one but the player; the other is part of the collective experience of everyone playing the game.

What happens around the table should always be more interesting and more exciting and more troublesome and more glorious to the players and their characters than _stuff that never happened_ except in one person's imagination.

This goes back to the idea that _status quo_ settings 'lack depth,' where depth is defined as how much 'background' the players and the game master force into play. The depth in a _status quo_ setting comes from the relationships the adventurers build during the game. Again, it requires proactive players who understand that the game-world is wide open to their machinations, that friendships and rivalries result from what the characters do, not who they are, in particular not who they are based on what the player wrote down on the character sheet before the first die was thrown with real consequences on the line.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 8, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> I'm getting tired of the ways 'sandbox' is being misused in this thread








> Adventurers in _status quo_ settings must be proactive. Adventure is out there, and if you're bored by the local offerings, you need to dig deeper, or sail further, to find it.




What does this have to do with background?

If Castle Spooky contains 10 ghouls, one of which is Bobby Sue's dad, when those ghouls are dead, the party needs to move on.  If Castle Spooky contains 10 ghouls, none of which is Bobby Sue's dad, when those ghouls are dead, the party needs to move on.

Whether or not PC background penetrates setting background has nothing to do with it.



> Of course it is. It's what you, and a whole lot of other gamers, grew up expecting from roleplaying games because that's what the designers served up.




Holmes Basic?  Gary Gygax's 1e?  

Yes, they suggested the creation of a character.  Gary went so far as to include tables (secondary skills in the 1e DMG, more in UA) to help develop who your character was before he became Joe Swordsman.



> Because background is, to me, mere fanwank that no one experiences in play.




Do you have any idea how often I've heard the same said about the creation of setting materials?  

The value of any generated material is based upon how it is used in play.  This is true of setting materials; it is true of PC background.  

The history one creates when detailing a setting may not be experienced directly in play, but it is experienced indirectly in the way it influences what is experienced.  It enriches the setting.

I find it odd that, on one hand, you say

What I tell my players is a good background explains your character's motivation for not staying home and being a tradesman or an accountant or a courtier, _and then stops_. A background sets up the game; it doesn't intrude upon it.​
and on the other, you say

What happens around the table should always be more interesting and more exciting and more troublesome and more glorious to the players and their characters than _stuff that never happened_ except in one person's imagination.​
You apparently object to background becoming part of what happens around the table.  Why bother with any background at all, if it has no bearing on what happens around the table?  Why know who built the town, or where the dungeon came from?  Why bother with anything?

Don't get mired in the past?  That I can agree with.  Don't get mired in the past to the detriment of what's happening now?  Yup.  Double yup.

"Depth" (IMHO) is not defined by "how much 'background' the players and the game master force into play", but rather by the level of emotional investment the game generates, regardless of source.  Allowing the PCs to have backgrounds that penetrate the setting does not, in any way, shape, or form, damage the depth that comes from the relationships the adventurers build during the game.  It didn't in 1979; it doesn't today.

(And that doesn't mean that a PC can make up any background either; it must be approved by the GM.  Setting-damaging backgrounds are right out.)

Upthread, I suggested that the "status quo" setting Hussar described may well be impossible.  This is because I do not believe that it is possible, ever, to fully detail a world prior to play beginning.  Sooner or later, the GM will have to build more, and to extrapolate from what is known about the setting.  There is, IMHO, no way to avoid this.

As a result, I do not believe that there is any problem whatsoever with logical extrapolation on the basis of character backgrounds or whathaveyou.  If a character background is intended as a showhog, ("I am pursued by the agents of SPECTRE!") or to give some advantage ("I am the nephew of the King!") then it should be vetoed.  If the character background is intended to tie the character to the world, and to further invest the player in what is happening at the tabletop, then I am all for it.

YMMV, and obviously does.



RC


----------



## Hussar (Dec 8, 2009)

I have to admit that my understanding of a "sandbox" is far closer to The Shaman's that Raven Crowking's.  So, I guess I've always thought of Sandbox as a Status Quo setting.  First time I've heard that term, so, cool.  I like learning new things.

Like all things, I suppose, it becomes a spectrum.  RC's sandbox leans considerably closer to Status Quo that what I'm proposing.   

See, I disagree that backgrounds amount to fanwank.  They can, and I've certainly seen that, but, they don't have to.  The best way to get away from backgrounds that are divorced from what's going on in the campaign is to create parties as a group exercise rather than a solo thing.  The entire group works together to create backgrounds that are linked both to each other and to the setting as well.  Out of those backgrounds, the campaign goals are defined (or it could be the other way around as well - campaign goals define backgrounds) and a Limited Scenario is born.

Ariosto - hrm.  What is meant by character depth.  Well...  I'd say character depth comes from connections between the main characters and between the main characters and NPC's.  Depth also comes from the characters having a sense of history and a sense of direction and purpose as well.  It's a bit nebulous I'll admit.  

The problem I see with the sandbox that RC is talking about, is the individual character's are pretty much replaceable.  That's fine, if you want that, but, that's not always the case.  I just watched Star Wars for the umpteenth time a few days ago.  Now, if we were to do a Star Wars sandbox, based on the movie, then it shouldn't matter if Guido shoots Han.  Han dies, Han's player rolls up a new character and maybe Luke teams up with Chewie and flies the Falcon away.

But, what if I want a more specific storyline.  What if I WANT those particular characters in the game?  A couple more character death's and suddenly the storyline is pretty much in the garbage compactor.  Luke gets killed in the Mos Eisley Cantina, thus the rest of the plotline for the next three movies goes down the tubes.

Now, I'm pretty sure that RC would say, so what?  Who cares?  The new story, based on the replacement characters is just as compelling and just as interesting.  And he's right.  Or rather he can be right.  That story with Leia becoming the Jedi Master could be every bit as interesting as the original one.

But, it's not the story or the game I want to play.  At least, not this time.  Maybe next time.  I want to play out the story of Luke Skywalker, teamed up with Han Solo.  Sometimes, it's not a bad thing to have a more specific storyline in mind, so long as the players are on board before hand.

Anyway, it's late, I'm rambling.  This probably makes no sense.    Gnite all.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 8, 2009)

Sigh, just one more post.



			
				RC said:
			
		

> "Depth" (IMHO) is not defined by "how much 'background' the players and the game master force into play", but rather by the level of emotional investment the game generates, regardless of source. Allowing the PCs to have backgrounds that penetrate the setting does not, in any way, shape, or form, damage the depth that comes from the relationships the adventurers build during the game. It didn't in 1979; it doesn't today.




Well said.  Totally agree.



> (And that doesn't mean that a PC can make up any background either; it must be approved by the GM. Setting-damaging backgrounds are right out.)




This of course, presumes that the GM must create a setting before the campaign is played.  If, OTOH, the setting is based on the character backgrounds, then this problem goes away.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 8, 2009)

Hussar said:


> The problem I see with the sandbox that RC is talking about, is the individual character's are pretty much replaceable.  That's fine, if you want that, but, that's not always the case.




It is always the case to me.  If I wanted to do a specific storyline, I would write a story.  (Check out my website.  It's true.)



> But, what if I want a more specific storyline.  What if I WANT those particular characters in the game?  A couple more character death's and suddenly the storyline is pretty much in the garbage compactor.




Yup.  Sandbox doesn't do railroad.  The more the GM wants to impose "what should happen" or "what will happen", the less sandbox can accomodate him.  For that matter, the less player choice can accomodate him.  



> Now, I'm pretty sure that RC would say, so what?  Who cares?  The new story, based on the replacement characters is just as compelling and just as interesting.  And he's right.  Or rather he can be right.  That story with Leia becoming the Jedi Master could be every bit as interesting as the original one.




He would go even farther and say that there is no story until after the events have occurred.



Hussar said:


> Well said.  Totally agree.




Careful.  That could become a habit.  



> This of course, presumes that the GM must create a setting before the campaign is played.  If, OTOH, the setting is based on the character backgrounds, then this problem goes away.




What problem?



RC


----------



## Janx (Dec 8, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> What I tell my players is a good background explains your character's motivation for not staying home and being a tradesman or an accountant or a courtier, _and then stops_. A background sets up the game; it doesn't intrude upon it.
> 
> Some examples of what I mean will help.
> "My character hates orcs because they killed his family when he was a boy!" versus "My character hates orcs because they killed half our party, including my best mate, in those caverns we were exploring near the keep."
> ...





I agree with this. All I want for a PC background is a simple justification for why you're a fighter and not a farmer, and maybe some names of NPCs you know (ie. family members).

Too many times I see backgrounds trying to introduce a plot hook for the PC, or build some long term goal like "I want to be a necromancer" or setup the PC as some sort of bad ass.

The problem is, the PC is 18 years old.  Compared to what's coming, nothing interesting has ever happened in that character's life.  And 18 year olds don't know what they want to be when they're older, let alone "become an evil necromancer". And at 1st level, the PC is hardly a bad ass, so stop trying to write what your stats don't support.

Your character will be cooler and you'll have more feeling for your character when all the drama happens IN game.  When your backstory at 10th level is all the stuff that happened in the last 9 levels.

Basically, skip trying to write melodrama that your parents were killed when you were young and your sister was kidnapped before your were 1st level.  Instead, let the DM run the world, you actually meet and interact with your parents and sister in a few sessions, then he kills your parents and kidnaps your sister.

If you though having a hook of something bad happening to your PC pre-game was good and dramatic, having something bad happening to your PC in-game will have far more weight and impact and drama.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 8, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> Because background is, to me, mere fanwank.






Janx said:


> Basically, skip trying to write melodrama that your parents were killed when you were young and your sister was kidnapped before your were 1st level.  Instead, let the DM run the world.




This is an attitude I can personally do without. "Mere fanwank" and "let the DM run the world" were positions I once held, passed down from those who taught me the game. Over time I realized I enjoyed having the input of my players and that they enjoyed the game more because they felt they were a part of it, not just along for the ride.



The Shaman said:


> What I tell my players is a good background explains your character's motivation for not staying home and being a tradesman or an accountant or a courtier, _and then stops_.




See, this type of character doesn't feel like a real person to me. It feels more like an artificial construct that only came into being when it started adventuring. Characters *are* artificial constructs, but part of what makes RPGs different than other forms of games is that they should feel like real people (relative to their world) to the greatest extent that you can achieve.



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> *The problem is, the PC is 18 years old.* Compared to what's coming, nothing interesting has ever happened in that character's life. And 18 year olds don't know what they want to be when they're older, let alone "become an evil necromancer". And at 1st level, the PC is hardly a bad ass, so stop trying to write what your stats don't support.




Who says so? You? The books? My starting PC has no requirement to be 18 years old. The events to come may be more interesting to the general public, but the events that shaped my character's life before adventuring are not only interesting to him but deeply personal. Some 18-year-ols *do* know exactly what they want to be and even if they don't why can't they aspire? It doesn't mean they won't change their aspirations later. And if you're writing a background that make you sound like a badass, it could be because the character *thinks* he is a badass and will have the opportunity in-game to discover whether he truly is or whether he will be shown his true place.


----------



## The Ghost (Dec 8, 2009)

Janx said:


> I agree with this. All I want for a PC background is a simple justification for why you're a fighter and not a farmer, and maybe some names of NPCs you know (ie. family members).
> 
> Too many times I see backgrounds trying to introduce a plot hook for the PC, or build some long term goal like "I want to be a necromancer" or setup the PC as some sort of bad ass.




What, exactly, is wrong with having long-term goals? It is one thing for a first level character to state "I want *to be* a powerful necromancer" it is another to state "I *am* a powerful necromancer." I have no problem with the first but I would with the second.



Janx said:


> The problem is, the PC is 18 years old.  Compared to what's coming, nothing interesting has ever happened in that character's life.  And 18 year olds don't know what they want to be when they're older, let alone "become an evil necromancer". And at 1st level, the PC is hardly a bad ass, so stop trying to write what your stats don't support.




Are all PCs 18 years old when a campaign starts?  They sure are not in my games. My current character (the one I referenced a few pages back) was 45 at the start of the campaign.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 8, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> What, exactly, is wrong with having long-term goals? It is one thing for a first level character to state "I want *to be* a powerful necromancer" it is another to state "I *am* a powerful necromancer." I have no problem with the first but I would with the second.




I tend to be more open and let the player write what he wants. I stipulate that no one is allowed to garner anything for their character beyond what a normal starting character is allowed.

"I *am* a powerful necromancer." - You *think* you are, others will prove you wrong.

"I'm the nephew of the King." - Sure. And he thinks you're a whiny little git and leaves you to fend for yourself. A commoner in his court probably has a better chance of gaining the King's favor because he at least doesn't have an opinion about them yet.

Players have tried to use their background to their advantage in my games for years. Instead of vetoing their background I like to meet their loaded background with the likes of a cursed wish. Players who have learned this the hard way in my games tend to write much more reasonable backgrounds.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 8, 2009)

Janx said:


> Too many times I see backgrounds trying to introduce a plot hook for the PC




Is this a "plot hook" like "My grandfather had the +27 Sword of Doom, which was lost in my garden"?  Or a "plot hook" like "My character wants to kill orcs"?  Because I can't see the problem with the second plot hook.



> or build some long term goal like "I want to be a necromancer"




Which is a problem why?

Why build a setting that encourages player choices without wanting the player characters to have long term goals?  Having a long term goal doesn't mean you succeed in achieving it.



> or setup the PC as some sort of bad ass.




Is the player trying to gain some undue advantage?  Or does he just want to be a member in good standing in the local Thieves' Guild?  In the former case, as has already been suggested, tell him "No".  In the latter case, if this is a replacement PC, and the players already know enough about the local Thieves' Guild to allow the player to assume the role, why not?



> The problem is, the PC is 18 years old.  Compared to what's coming, nothing interesting has ever happened in that character's life.




If the GM is a good one, this will be true no matter what the player wrote for his background, so long as the background isn't setting-breaking or allowing an undue advantage.



> And 18 year olds don't know what they want to be when they're older, let alone "become an evil necromancer". And at 1st level, the PC is hardly a bad ass, so stop trying to write what your stats don't support.




I would suspect that anyone who becomes an adventurer at 18 probably has a much better idea what he wishes to do than most.  Otherwise, why not become a grocer?  That risk-taking is because the character is driven to be more than those around him.  

As for being a "bad ass", how many 18-year-olds do you know?    Lots of younger folks think that they are bad asses, or present themselves that way.  The kid in _*Unforgiven*_ is a perfect example of a "bad ass" character whose veneer gets stripped away over the course of the film.

The proper response, IMHO, to a player who thinks that his PC is a bad ass is "Prove it".



> Your character will be cooler and you'll have more feeling for your character when all the drama happens IN game.  When your backstory at 10th level is all the stuff that happened in the last 9 levels.




If you were forced to have just one or the other, I would agree with you.  However, the nifty thing about RPGs (for some of us, at least) is that you are not.  So, if a background gives a "cool factor" of 1, and the stuff that happens in the game gives a "cool factor" of 100, then 101 is still more than 100.

The only problem, of course, is if your GM is unable/unwilling to give that "cool factor" of 1, or if giving that "cool factor" or 1 makes the GM unable/unwilling to dish out the 100.

A reasonable background that fits into the world gets rewarded.  A craptacular background, seeking position or advantage, gets vetoed or ignored.



> If you though having a hook of something bad happening to your PC pre-game was good and dramatic, having something bad happening to your PC in-game will have far more weight and impact and drama.




These things are not mutually exclusive.



RC


----------



## Janx (Dec 8, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> What, exactly, is wrong with having long-term goals? It is one thing for a first level character to state "I want *to be* a powerful necromancer" it is another to state "I *am* a powerful necromancer." I have no problem with the first but I would with the second.
> 
> 
> 
> Are all PCs 18 years old when a campaign starts?  They sure are not in my games. My current character (the one I referenced a few pages back) was 45 at the start of the campaign.




If your PCs are not young at 1st level, you are an exception and obviously my statement about an 18 year old does not apply.

For 18 year olds, most don't have far reaching plans because as Dr. Phil says, they're brains ain't finished growing yet.

Such statements of "I want to be a god" or "I want to rule this empire" or "I want to be a necromancer lich" are the statements of the player's long term goal.  For a PC, such statements for most people would be out of character.

To me, it's more plausible to develop into such a goal through game events, rather than declaring pre-game that he has this high and lofty goal to pursue in a game world he hasn't even seen.


----------



## The Ghost (Dec 8, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> What, exactly, is wrong with having long-term goals? It is one thing for a first level character to state "I want *to be* a powerful necromancer" it is another to state "I *am* a powerful necromancer." I have no problem with the first but I would with the second.






Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I tend to be more open and let the player write what he wants. I stipulate that no one is allowed to garner anything for their character beyond what a normal starting character is allowed.
> 
> "I *am* a powerful necromancer." - You *think* you are, others will prove you wrong.




Perhaps "may" is a better word than "would"?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 8, 2009)

Janx said:


> If your PCs are not young at 1st level, you are an exception and obviously my statement about an 18 year old does not apply.




For his character to be an exception, there must be a rule. Where did you find such rule? In the table of _suggested_ starting ages of various editions of D&D?



Janx said:


> For 18 year olds, *most* don't have far reaching plans because as Dr. Phil says, they're brains ain't finished growing yet.




[Emphasis mine.] And *most* don't run off to become professional adventurers. Besides, stating a goal doesn't mean you will achieve it or even pursue it. A 4-year-old can have a goal to be a fireman when he grows up. Some kids stick with that goal and achieve it, others change their minds and become accountants.



Janx said:


> Such statements of "I want to be a god" or "I want to rule this empire" or "I want to be a necromancer lich" are the statements of the player's long term goal.  For a PC, such statements for most people would be out of character.




This is a case of railroading IMO. The _only_ person that can tell you whether a character is being played out of character is the player that created the character.



Janx said:


> To me, it's more plausible to develop into such a goal through game events, rather than declaring pre-game that he has this high and lofty goal to pursue in a game world he hasn't even seen.




But see, _this_ is out of character thinking to me. Your character *has* seen the game world before you created him. Why couldn't he have goals within the world before your created him?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 8, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> [Emphasis mine.] And *most* don't run off to become professional adventurers. Besides, stating a goal doesn't mean you will achieve it or even pursue it. A 4-year-old can have a goal to be a fireman when he grows up. Some kids stick with that goal and achieve it, others change their minds and become accountants.




Indeed.

"Sorry, Bob, your character has the will and focus to learn to manipulate magic, but not to have any goals in doing so.  Sorry, Clarissa, but your cleric may already be old enough to dedicate herself to a deity, but she isn't old enough to dedicate herself to wanting to found a temple one day."

I can just see how this goes over at the table.  



> This is a case of railroading IMO. The _only_ person that can tell you whether a character is being played out of character is the player that created the character.




Agreed.

Having a goal and attaining the goal are two seperate things.  

Moreover, I have yet to see an example of how a reasonable background does anything other than enhance the game.  Would anyone care to provide one or two that we can examine?

NOTE:  As a GM, I firmly support your right to run any kind of game you want, so long as you can get people to sit at your table.  I have no objection to your running a "no backgrounds" game.  I do, however, object to the implication that such a game is somehow superior....unless, of course, you can show me why you believe it to be true, and your reasoning makes sense.

RC


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 8, 2009)

> I've experienced both first and second hand the horror stories of low-level PCs stumbling upon a dragon and suffering a TPK. Has anyone ever heard of sessions where high-level PCs stumble upon the band of orcs? I haven't experienced that flip-side of the coin. Would you find such a non-challenge of an evening of gaming fun? I know I wouldn't, just as I wouldn't find being slaughtered by a dragon that we "accidentally" found being very fun.



One encounter hardly constitutes "an evening of gaming" in any version of D&D *I* want to play! 

You encounter what you encounter -- it need not follow that you fight it. In the dungeons, encounter distances are pretty close ... and wandering monsters are *keyed to dungeon level*. In the wilderness, you tend to spot critters further away, with more chance to evade them ... and type and number encountered depend on the region.

If you *choose* to go to a country mired in anarchy and civil war, then just how "accidental" is your run-in with a warlord's army? If you choose to delve deeper in quest of richer treasures, then it's your responsibility to be mindful of greater risks -- and "know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em; know when to walk away, and know when to run!"


----------



## fuzzlewump (Dec 8, 2009)

Player input is definitely the best thing to happen to my D&D games.  Putting in character backgrounds is not creating hooks, it's (to make a fishing analogy) telling the DM what bait they like to eat. 

The DM still creates all the hooks, all the story, everything. But instead of say "GO TO HOMMLET AND KILL ELEMENTAL EVILS" he instead says "GO TO HOMMLET AND KILL THE ELEMENTAL EVILS THAT KILLED YOUR PARENTS." Assumedly, the player said that his or her parents were killed by demons in this case. Either way, they're going to The Temple of Elemental Evil; but in the latter, the player gave you a great reason to motivate him or her and you used it, increasing the fun for all.

Saying that the 'DM knows best' might have been true for me about 10 years ago when the DM was the most mature person in the group. Now that everyone is an adult that sentiment has never been more wrong.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 8, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> What does this have to do with background?



Not a thing. I wasn't talking about background at all until after the next quoted section of *VB*'s post.







			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Whether or not PC background penetrates setting background has nothing to do with it.



And I never said it did.







			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Holmes Basic?  Gary Gygax's 1e?



_Dragonlance_. _Ravenloft_. _Forgotten Realms_.

Eighties, not Seventies, as I talked about upthread.







			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Do you have any idea how often I've heard the same said about the creation of setting materials?



As have I.

Somebody once told me the moon landings were faked, too. That doesn't make it true, though. 







			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The value of any generated material is based upon how it is used in play.  This is true of setting materials; it is true of PC background.



Setting material is open equally to all of the players during the course of the game. Character background describes events that take place wholly out of the game.

Not the same thing.







			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You apparently object to background becoming part of what happens around the table.  Why bother with any background at all, if it has no bearing on what happens around the table?  Why know who built the town, or where the dungeon came from?  Why bother with anything?



_Reductio ad absurdum_, *RC*? Really?

I don't expect that from you.







			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Don't get mired in the past?  That I can agree with.  Don't get mired in the past to the detriment of what's happening now?  Yup.  Double yup.



Agreed.







			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Upthread, I suggested that the "status quo" setting Hussar described may well be impossible.  This is because I do not believe that it is possible, ever, to fully detail a world prior to play beginning.  Sooner or later, the GM will have to build more, and to extrapolate from what is known about the setting.  There is, IMHO, no way to avoid this.
> 
> As a result, I do not believe that there is any problem whatsoever with logical extrapolation on the basis of character backgrounds or whathaveyou.  If a character background is intended as a showhog, ("I am pursued by the agents of SPECTRE!") or to give some advantage ("I am the nephew of the King!") then it should be vetoed.  If the character background is intended to tie the character to the world, and to further invest the player in what is happening at the tabletop, then I am all for it.



I'm going to come back to this at a later time; too many distractions right now.


----------



## The Ghost (Dec 8, 2009)

Janx said:


> If your PCs are not young at 1st level, you are an exception and obviously my statement about an 18 year old does not apply.






Vyvyan Basterd said:


> For his character to be an exception, there must be a rule. Where did you find such rule? In the table of _suggested_ starting ages of various editions of D&D?




And in this particular case the rule is on Page 109 of the 3.5 Player's Handbook. "AGE ~ You can choose or randomly generate your character's age." (emphasis mine) 

With the groups that I have played with it is quite common to create characters who are much older than the minimum. In 3.5 that is 16 or 17 depending on starting class.



Janx said:


> For 18 year olds, most don't have far reaching plans because as Dr. Phil says, they're brains ain't finished growing yet.




Certainly - goals, dreams, plans, etc. are subject to change as a person grows older. I don't dispute that. However, that does not mean that they did not have goals at that age nor does it mean that they did not make decisions based on those goals. 



Janx said:


> Such statements of "I want to be a god" or "I want to rule this empire" or "I want to be a necromancer lich" are the statements of the player's long term goal. For a PC, such statements for most people would be out of character.




And yet in the real world young people often say things like "I want to be President" or "I want to be a famous golfer" or "I want to..." and it is often considered perfectly within their character to say. How is it out of character for a 1st level PC to state the equivalent?

Most characters will fail at achieving their goals just as most people in real life do not live up to their goals. Having the ability to achieve ones goals does not mean that they do not have the desire though.



Janx said:


> To me, it's more plausible to develop into such a goal through game events, rather than declaring pre-game that he has this high and lofty goal to pursue in a game world he hasn't even seen.






Vyvyan Basterd said:


> But see, _this_ is out of character thinking to me. Your character *has* seen the game world before you created him. Why couldn't he have goals within the world before your created him?




What Vyvyan Basterd said.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 8, 2009)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, what if I want a more specific storyline.



Then that's what you want. I'm still not seeing how it follows that everyone who wants a wide world to explore instead "lacks depth". 







> Sometimes, it's not a bad thing to have a more specific storyline in mind, so long as the players are on board before hand.



But by _assuming_ that it's up to the DM to "tell a story" and the players to go along, we get ...



			
				fuzzlewump said:
			
		

> The DM still creates all the hooks, all the story, everything. ...  Either way, they're going to The Temple of Elemental Evil ...



 and 







> Saying that the 'DM knows best' might have been true for me about 10 years ago when the DM was the most mature person in the group. Now that everyone is an adult that sentiment has never been more wrong.



Some of us, though, have been adults for a long time -- and for a long time enjoyed the original saying that *it is up to the players to choose what their characters undertake, to act as self-determining protagonists rather than like fish being played.*.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 8, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> This is an attitude I can personally do without. "Mere fanwank" and "let the DM run the world" were positions I once held, passed down from those who taught me the game. Over time I realized I enjoyed having the input of my players and that they enjoyed the game more because they felt they were a part of it, not just along for the ride.



Y'know, I can't tell who this is in response to, because it has nothing at all to do with what either *Janx* or I wrote.

Players can pursue whatever they want for their characters during the game. They can change whatever is in their power to change in the game-world, limited only by their imagination, skill, and luck. "Just along for the ride" is more a problem of would-be storytellers, in my experience.







			
				Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> See, this type of character doesn't feel like a real person to me. It feels more like an artificial construct that only came into being when it started adventuring. Characters *are* artificial constructs, but part of what makes RPGs different than other forms of games is that they should feel like real people (relative to their world) to the greatest extent that you can achieve.



For me, characters feel more like real people when their backgrounds are largely *un*exceptional; it's what they do at the table that makes them exceptional, not pre-game fiction exercises.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 8, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Moreover, I have yet to see an example of how a reasonable background does anything other than enhance the game. Would anyone care to provide one or two that we can examine?



Better that *you* should do so, else it looks as if you simply define "reasonable" as "not doing anything other than enhance the game".


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 8, 2009)

fuzzlewump said:


> Player input is definitely the best thing to happen to my D&D games.



Player input is the best thing to happen to my games, too.

I'm constantly seeking input, usually like this: "Okay, what do your characters do now?"

My games wouldn't be the same without it.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Dec 8, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> What happens around the table should always be more interesting and more exciting and more troublesome and more glorious to the players and their characters than _stuff that never happened_ except in one person's imagination.
> 
> ...
> 
> The depth in a _status quo_ setting comes from the relationships the adventurers build during the game. Again, it requires proactive players who understand that the game-world is wide open to their machinations, that friendships and rivalries result from what the characters do, not who they are, in particular not who they are based on what the player wrote down on the character sheet before the first die was thrown with real consequences on the line.



_What the characters do_ should be based on who they are, which should be based on what they wrote down. If you write down that you're character has a very strong defensive nature, he defends his friends when insulted by a drunkard in the tavern. It also can mean he opens his mouth to the duke when the duke calls his friend a 'street rat' or whatever. Yes, you can develop a personality while playing, but you won't claim you became "loud-mouthed" or "defensive" out of nowhere. Most people would claim that trait had been around for awhile, and thus, have a background beyond motivation as you strive for.

The point is, _not_ allowing background to intrude into the game means that the players are just trying to find the path of least resistance. They would never reach back under the falling door in order to grab their hat like Indiana Jones, it's just a bad idea with not much reward.  They would never be the last one out when facing a dragon in order to make sure their team gets out. If they do, then they have at least some kind of rudimentary background beyond simple motivation. Without a background, how can you know what your characters will do? Isn't always calculating and making the best choice no matter what you are playing 1. not very interesting and 2. not human?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 8, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> For me, characters feel more like real people when their backgrounds are largely *un*exceptional; it's what they do at the table that makes them exceptional, not pre-game fiction exercises.



Don't D&D PCs have to be exceptional? They have to be prepared to go down monster-infested holes and kill what lives there. And they can't stop after their first big score, they have to keep doing it, so great is their lust for gold and/or monster killin'. These are in no way ordinary people, they're greedy psychopaths. Also even at 1st level they possess monster killin' talents beyond those of the typical peasant farmer who presumably makes up 90% of the population.

This is in fact more true of a sandbox than of a heavily plotted game. In a sandbox the PCs have to be 'self starters', more highly motivated than in a plotted game where one can expect the adventure to come to the PCs.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 8, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Better that *you* should do so, else it looks as if you simply define "reasonable" as "not doing anything other than enhance the game".




Upthread I gave some examples of things I would not allow.  

In a nutshell:  

1.  Anything that breaks/damages the setting, 

2.  Attempts to gain special advantage over the other players and/or setting.


RC


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 9, 2009)

Having tried both extremes on the "ante-game biography" spectrum, I definitely lean toward the lean for D&D.

Yes, that goes for NPCs as well!

It's no skin off my nose if the DM has written the bloody _Silmarillion_ -- so long as I don't have to sit through a recital or do a homework assignment. I come to the table to _make_ history!

I feel the same way about "the story of what Character X did before the game". Do I dig playing the character-generation solo game in _Traveller_? Yes! Do I want to spend group-game time listening to you rattle on about your character's previous career? Probably not.

If it happens to come up in a context and with such brevity as to make it an interesting anecdote rather than a boring saga, then so be it. I have had far too many encounters with Drolls, though, in my role-playing career.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 9, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Upthread I gave some examples of things I would not allow.
> 
> In a nutshell:
> 
> ...



Yes, but do you now mean to say that you consider those *reasonable*? Or is it a post for which only "True Scotsmen" need apply?


----------



## Oni (Dec 9, 2009)

fuzzlewump said:


> _What the characters do_ should be based on who they are, which should be based on what they wrote down. If you write down that you're character has a very strong defensive nature, he defends his friends when insulted by a drunkard in the tavern. It also can mean he opens his mouth to the duke when the duke calls his friend a 'street rat' or whatever. Yes, you can develop a personality while playing, but you won't claim you became "loud-mouthed" or "defensive" out of nowhere. Most people would claim that trait had been around for awhile, and thus, have a background beyond motivation as you strive for.




I've hashed this out in other threads, but I think it's safe to say there is more than one way to approach this.  Are a character's actions based on who they are, or is who they are based on their actions?  Why can't you discover a the character your playing is a loudmouth over the course of play, why can't emerging patterns over the course of play define a character just as easily as setting the parameters before the start of play?  You needn't claim any trait out of nowhere, it simply is.  



> The point is, _not_ allowing background to intrude into the game means that the players are just trying to find the path of least resistance. They would never reach back under the falling door in order to grab their hat like Indiana Jones, it's just a bad idea with not much reward.  They would never be the last one out when facing a dragon in order to make sure their team gets out. If they do, then they have at least some kind of rudimentary background beyond simple motivation. Without a background, how can you know what your characters will do? Isn't always calculating and making the best choice no matter what you are playing 1. not very interesting and 2. not human?




This is only true if you accept that characters stop developing once play starts.  I do not.  How do you know what a character will do?  Maybe you won't until he's done it.  Just remember, today's adventure, is tomorrow's background.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Dec 9, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> But by _assuming_ that it's up to the DM to "tell a story" and the players to go along, we get ...
> 
> and Some of us, though, have been adults for a long time -- and for a long time enjoyed the original saying that *it is up to the players to choose what their characters undertake, to act as self-determining protagonists rather than like fish being played.*.




I don't think it needs to be an either/or problem.  I don't think that simply because the DM has a story in mind that I'm somehow a "fish being played" any more than I'm somehow being played when I sit down and watch a movie or read a book because I don't tell the movie or book which way I want it to go.

I think DMs who have a story in mind can leave enough leeway in their story for me to make a meaningful contribution to the way the story goes and I think DMs who have no story in mind can still play me like a fish.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 9, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Yes, but do you now mean to say that you consider those *reasonable*? Or is it a post for which only "True Scotsmen" need apply?




By defining what is not reasonable, one defines what is reasonable as well.

C'mon, Ariosto, is this sort of wordplay necessary?  I can certainly understand not wanting to have each player hand you a novel....but is a brief paragraph....a line even? so bad.

"My family was slaughtered by orcs, so I came to Raven's Hollow to learn the ways of a fighting man and get revenge."  Hmmmm.  I really can't see where this is going to harm the game.  And, if near Raven's Hollow the DM has placed the Bleeding Eye tribe, I can't see where the DM mentioning that the PC recognizes its standard is going to do harm.

Could you explain it to me?


----------



## fuzzlewump (Dec 9, 2009)

Oni said:


> I've hashed this out in other threads, but I think it's safe to say there is more than one way to approach this.  Are a character's actions based on who they are, or is who they are based on their actions?  Why can't you discover a the character your playing is a loudmouth over the course of play, why can't emerging patterns over the course of play define a character just as easily as setting the parameters before the start of play?  You needn't claim any trait out of nowhere, it simply is.



Maybe reread my post; I'm saying that the trait doesn't appear out of nowhere. If you start realizing your character is becoming a loud-mouth, it's safe to say that he was before the session started, even if you didn't write it down. This is of course case by case. If something really traumatic happens maybe he develops a silent trait or an anger trait or some such during the session itself. Anyway, I'm saying that to realize a trait like 'loud-mouthed' over the course of a session is fine, but it's still evidence of background intruding into play. Once you realize that your character is loud-mouthed, that trait influences decisions made.

As far as do actions make the personality or does personality make the actions? It's really both. But whenever your making a character separate from your own personality, I believe it's best to set down what the personality of the character is beforehand, or else you're either only going to make decisions consistent with your own personality, which would be the case in a beer and pretzels combat oriented game mentioned toward the beginning of the thread, or make inconsistent decisions, like say switching back and forth between being good and evil erratically, with no explanation like say bipolar disorder. That said, no character is going to be completely consistent, but there should indeed be tendencies.



> This is only true if you accept that characters stop developing once play starts.  I do not.  How do you know what a character will do?  Maybe you won't until he's done it.  Just remember, today's adventure, is tomorrow's background.



I agree, I'm really only talking about before the first session as "background." I'm really talking about 'prologue' here, or what happens before the story begins. Once the story begins, you can use whatever nomenclature you want, but I'm saying it's a good idea, if you want to roleplay a personality other than your own, to set down some guidelines before-hand which will help guide your character's decisions.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Dec 9, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> and Some of us, though, have been adults for a long time -- and for a long time enjoyed the original saying that *it is up to the players to choose what their characters undertake, to act as self-determining protagonists rather than like fish being played.*.



I agree! But what I meant was that in a game where railroading is going to happen no matter what, you might as well use player backgrounds as bait, give them SOME tiny amount of input into your game world.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 10, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> Y'know, I can't tell who this is in response to, because it has nothing at all to do with what either *Janx* or I wrote.
> 
> Players can pursue whatever they want for their characters during the game. They can change whatever is in their power to change in the game-world, limited only by their imagination, skill, and luck. "Just along for the ride" is more a problem of would-be storytellers, in my experience.For me, characters feel more like real people when their backgrounds are largely *un*exceptional; it's what they do at the table that makes them exceptional, not pre-game fiction exercises.




This was in response to both of you and it relates directly to what you wrote. Part of the game is creating the world and the other part is playing within the created world. Some people believe the former part only belongs to the DM, while I'm sure most would agree that the latter belongs to both. I believe that both parts should be open to both the DM and the players. And calling the player's attempts to add to the creation aspect of the game "mere fanwank" or telling them not to bother and "let the DM run the world" or even labelling their work as "pre-game fiction exercises" while your work was obviously something else entirely is deplorable to me. You may say that a player that wishes to create should DM. Maybe this is his attempt to participate in creating on a small scale to learn the skills or maybe he has DMed and misses that aspect of the game while he is a player.


----------



## Janx (Dec 10, 2009)

perhaps there's a more middle of the road outlook than the extreme of what I said.

My main point was really that writing a lot of pre-game events in your back story is less valuable than defining your character in game.

Of course I do like seeing some content in character backgrounds.  Its good to get a sense of the nature of the character (which thus should explain how the PC behaves in game, thus telling me if he is OUT of character).

On the other end, since a PC may or may not live to second level, it's not worth putting a lot of back story detail in until they've lived a bit and proven they can hack it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 10, 2009)

This I can agree with.


----------



## Woas (Dec 10, 2009)

What if defining the character's backstory in some detail determines the characters ability in the present (i.e., in game)?





Janx said:


> perhaps there's a more middle of the road outlook than the extreme of what I said.
> 
> My main point was really that writing a lot of pre-game events in your back story is less valuable than defining your character in game.
> 
> ...


----------



## Janx (Dec 10, 2009)

Woas said:


> What if defining the character's backstory in some detail determines the characters ability in the present (i.e., in game)?




good question.  I'd have to ponder what's out of bounds and what's in bounds.

Saying, "My parents shipped me off to wizards school.  I just graduated." would make sense if you were playing a wizard.

Maybe not so much if you were playing a fighter.

Saying "My parents shipped me off to wizards school.  I killed the headmaster with a fireball spell that I learned from his secret library." would probably be out of bounds.

Aside from having an event of dubious nature (really, a 1st level killing a presumably high level...) it also is trying to claim the PC used a spell they can't cast.

Assuming the back story for a 1st level PC is supposed to be a true document of the PC's background for the GM to read, rather than "what the PC is telling others", then whatever's written should make sense within the scope of what a 1st level PC should be able to do.

So a PC can't write in stuff to start the game with that the PC can't start the game with.  I expect the backstory to JUSTIFY the PC as is.

Plus, as we know, I'm wary of the PC introducing major pre-game events.  Kicking a head master's butt sounds like something that'd be cooler in play (and require proving in play).

Did I answer the question, or did I miss?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 10, 2009)

Janx said:


> So a PC can't write in stuff to start the game with that the PC can't start the game with.  I expect the backstory to JUSTIFY the PC as is.





This is exactly it.  IMHO, at least.


RC


----------



## Woas (Dec 10, 2009)

You answered but I'm not sure you realize it Janx.

As a player, creating a player-character claiming "My parents shipped me off to wizards school. I just graduated." means as a player you have just created part of the fiction. Everyone else playing including the GM agrees and understands that somewhere in the fictional world that the characters are part of there is 1) A school of wizardry, 2) that it accepts students and isn't say, an invite only secret society,  3) people graduate from it so thus are taught magic in some regimented way and isn't say, some ritual or inborn ability only the seventh sons of seventh sons can learn, 4) that there are other graduates out there.

What if a player had written, "My character is a veteran of the defeated side of the recent Civil War". By civil war I don't necessarily mean the American Civil War or any other real world historic civil wars but a fictitious, world altering event in the fictitious game we are all playing. (Say the Wood vs High Elf civil war) 
That player has just introduced a pre-game event and we can imply, just like the sentence about being a graduate from wizard school a number of game setting info, plus info about the character.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 10, 2009)

Janx said:


> perhaps there's a more middle of the road outlook than the extreme of what I said.
> 
> My main point was really that writing a lot of pre-game events in your back story is less valuable than defining your character in game.




I can agree with this. In-game events are more valuable but they don't totally negate the value of a good background.



Janx said:


> good question.  I'd have to ponder what's out of bounds and what's in bounds.
> 
> Saying, "My parents shipped me off to wizards school.  I just graduated." would make sense if you were playing a wizard.
> 
> ...




They could have shipped him there and he failed because he spent too much time somehow learning swordplay. Or the character could just be a liar. Definitely so in the case of the headmaster murderer. Because by the mere stipulation those of us advocating backgrounds have placed a 1st-level wizard could not start the game knowing fireball. The background cannot give the character a rules-breaking advantage.



Janx said:


> Assuming the back story for a 1st level PC is supposed to be a true document of the PC's background for the GM to read, rather than "what the PC is telling others", then whatever's written should make sense within the scope of what a 1st level PC should be able to do.




With that assumption, yes. I try not to assume. But then again I don't have players that deliberately try to break the rules of the game through backstory. They *have* tried to gain roleplaying advantage and when I believe they are being too greedy I usually twist their story in ways they don't expect. Like the King who thinks his nephew is a whiny git.



Janx said:


> So a PC can't write in stuff to start the game with that the PC can't start the game with.  I expect the backstory to JUSTIFY the PC as is.




Agreed.



Janx said:


> Plus, as we know, I'm wary of the PC introducing major pre-game events.  Kicking a head master's butt sounds like something that'd be cooler in play (and require proving in play).




I'm wary of such backgrounds, but more likely to roll with them. It could be fun having a low-level wizard roaming about claiming that he killed the very-much-alive headmaster of the local wizard's college.


----------



## The Ghost (Dec 10, 2009)

Janx said:


> So a PC can't write in stuff to start the game with that the PC can't start the game with.  I expect the backstory to JUSTIFY the PC as is.




This I agree with. 

However, there one question I am left with; what about a character's goals and ambitions? Take your average first-level fighter. He was conscripted into the army, served in various posts, and is now out to make a name for himself as an adventurer. His goal is to one day become a lord of his own manor. Is this acceptable? What if instead his goal was to become a legendary warrior whose tales are told by bards throughout all the lands? What I wonder is where exactly is the dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 10, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> What I wonder is where exactly is the dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable?




In the mind of each DM. 

Just from the small set of examples provided here you can see that.


----------



## The Ghost (Dec 10, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> In the mind of each DM.
> 
> Just from the small set of examples provided here you can see that.




Oh, I agree! I am just curious as to where Janx sets his. I consider it an important part of my growth as a DM to learn how others do things.


----------



## Janx (Dec 10, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> This I agree with.
> 
> However, there one question I am left with; what about a character's goals and ambitions? Take your average first-level fighter. He was conscripted into the army, served in various posts, and is now out to make a name for himself as an adventurer. His goal is to one day become a lord of his own manor. Is this acceptable? What if instead his goal was to become a legendary warrior whose tales are told by bards throughout all the lands? What I wonder is where exactly is the dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable?




That's a good question too, and I find this line of questiong to be more fruitful to getting answers than either of us making broad statements.

I do suspect that VB hit in on the head that it's in the mind of the DM.  A subjective, rather objective decision.  Some players have some really stupid backstory ideas.  Primarily because you gotta write a backstory the DM likes.  If he doesn't like it, you've already annoyed the DM and the game hasn't even started.  Supposedly impartial DM or not, them's the breaks.


Now I tend to expect a 1st level to be young (regardless of what the current ruleset may say, that's what happens when old people play new editions).  As such, I don't tend to expect a lot of accomplishments out of PCs pre-game.

Having run a military campaign where the PCs WERE in the military, it might not be applicable for the PC to have quit the army.  But then I'd communicate that starting point information before character creation.


Let me morph those 2 stories into back story paragraphs:

Joe was conscripted into the army, served in various posts, and is now out to make a name for himself as an adventurer. His goal is to one day become a lord of his own manor. 

Bill's goal is to become a legendary warrior whose tales are told by bards throughout all the lands?

I probably don't have a problem with either of them (assuming there was an applicable army in the region for Joe to have joined).

What tends to bug me are the megalomaniac goals for 1st level PCs who shouldn't even know if such a thing exists or is possible.

While many players have goals for their PC to become a god, such a thought is likely not even possible in the small un-exposed mind of a 1st level PC.  Give them some power and clues that godhood and greater power and possible, and NOW it's plausible that the idea of achieving godhood is a rational goal for your PC.

Certain backstory ideas bug the heck out of me.  Odds are good, in the hands of a good writer, the same idea could pass my desk and not even make me twitch.

But in general, pre-game, I don't really want more than a paragraph of backstory.  There's no point in making heavy investment until you've proven yourself, and you've seen how the game is actually going to go.  Then it'll be worth adding on or re-writing (with out conflicting anything that's gone on before).

Perhaps my thinking is shaped by a wait and see attitude. As a player, I tend to start the game with that initial paragraph which at most says where I'm from and how I learned my PC class.  After that, I need to see what the actual game world is going to be, and what opportunities there are.  If the first session has us accidentally letting out a plague of rust monsters on the land, or being framed and wanted criminals (happened in the same 1st game session and not in that order) then we're going to be playing a survival game and whatever grandiose plans for a lord's manor or bard's fame are going to be quite irrelevant.

A lot of times, all I need to do as a PC is spot a problem, start fixing it, and opportunies will open up, and that's where goals start shaping.

That and it's my general experience that the player doesn't know the world well enough to craft detailed material before the game starts.  Playing a session usually explains way more about the enviroment than any hand-out ever does.  I've played in plenty of games where there's not a hand-out or briefing, so it's roll it up and welcome to the world.

From that, you might be able to see why I don't think a player is qualified to make much of a background before the game has started.  They just don't know what makes sense until they see it for themselves.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 10, 2009)

Janx said:


> What tends to bug me are the megalomaniac goals for 1st level PCs who shouldn't even know if such a thing exists or is possible.
> 
> While many players have goals for their PC to become a god, such a thought is likely not even possible in the small un-exposed mind of a 1st level PC.  Give them some power and clues that godhood and greater power and possible, and NOW it's plausible that the idea of achieving godhood is a rational goal for your PC.




I always assume that PCs have access to the folklore of the region they are in.  I also assume that most players will set reasonable goals for the milieu (at least, once the milieu was understood).

Those who want to start out as the "Chosen of Thor" are simply told "No".  

I am also willing to play a "That's what your PC believes" game if necessary, and if I think it will be fun.

Example:  "My PC totally kicked his master's arse with a _fireball_ before the game even started!" might turn out to mean "My master totally duped me into believing that I cast a _fireball_, while he stood by chuckling at his illusory demise.  He then used my apparent power to set me up into thinking I could take on his enemies.  While I destracted them by getting pounded, he nipped in and took what he wanted.  Then he made sure to let me know what a fool I had been by showing me what a _fireball_ actually looks like."  

Of course, everything after "My master totally duped me into believing that I cast a _fireball_, while he stood by chuckling at his illusory demise." takes place in-game.  So, perhaps, the player (or his comrades) catch on before it is too late.

Does the player come back?  Meh.

In a not-so-distant game, in a campaign where the PCs were told (1) there are no good dragons, and (2) demons and devils pretend to be gods to dupe the foolish into doing their bidding, a player brought in a paladin of a hitherto-unknown "good dragon god".  Can you guess what the reality was?



> That and it's my general experience that the player doesn't know the world well enough to craft detailed material before the game starts.  Playing a session usually explains way more about the enviroment than any hand-out ever does.




What about replacement characters, after the players presumably have some information to go on?  It is, IME, usually when the players know something about the campaign milieu that they have become invested enough to care who, and what, they are related to.


RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 10, 2009)

Janx said:


> Some players have some really stupid backstory ideas.




Like: "My half-orc was made fun of by the other children in town. They threw biscuits at him and called him names. He gathered up the lobbed biscuits to help feed his poor family. He took the nickname "Biscuit" to remind him of his shameful youth." 

I allowed this one, strange as it was. Maybe because it wasn't the usual "my parents are dead" trope.



Janx said:


> Now I tend to expect a 1st level to be young (regardless of what the current ruleset may say, that's what happens when old people play new editions).  As such, I don't tend to expect a lot of accomplishments out of PCs pre-game.




IME, players feel the same and usually don't write grand accomplishments for their PCs. I would consider a background containing a major accomplishment though and think of fun ways to incorporate it into the game.



Janx said:


> Having run a military campaign where the PCs WERE in the military, it might not be applicable for the PC to have quit the army.  But then I'd communicate that starting point information before character creation.




Setting up the starting point is, IMO, key to helping players springboard a good background. Even if the starting point is the town where you plan to start the campaign or more detailed like your military campaign.



Janx said:


> What tends to bug me are the megalomaniac goals for 1st level PCs who shouldn't even know if such a thing exists or is possible.
> While many players have goals for their PC to become a god, such a thought is likely not even possible in the small un-exposed mind of a 1st level PC.  Give them some power and clues that godhood and greater power and possible, and NOW it's plausible that the idea of achieving godhood is a rational goal for your PC.




If they don't know something exists, then yes I could see a slight problem, although the character could just be delusional. Not knowing if it's possible shouldn't stop anyone from _wanting_ to be something. Who says a goal has to be rational? I mean wanting to delve into the bowels of the earth to fight deadly creatures isn't a very rational thought for the average person.



Janx said:


> But in general, pre-game, I don't really want more than a paragraph of backstory.  There's no point in making heavy investment until you've proven yourself, and you've seen how the game is actually going to go.  Then it'll be worth adding on or re-writing (with out conflicting anything that's gone on before).




I don't usually appreciate multiple paragraphs of backstory either. I would rather prefer the relevant points.



Janx said:


> That and it's my general experience that the player doesn't know the world well enough to craft detailed material before the game starts.  Playing a session usually explains way more about the enviroment than any hand-out ever does.  I've played in plenty of games where there's not a hand-out or briefing, so it's roll it up and welcome to the world.
> 
> From that, you might be able to see why I don't think a player is qualified to make much of a background before the game has started.  They just don't know what makes sense until they see it for themselves.




I ask for a short background with vague reference points. Then I will help the player link his idea to the world.



Raven Crowking said:


> Those who want to start out as the "Chosen of Thor" are simply told "No".




And I love to "Say Yes!" I try to feel the player out on why he was motivated to write a background as the "Chosen of Thor." If his intent was to just be extremely dedicated to his deity, no issues. If it was to try to gain an advantage, lets just say that gods are demanding of their chosen and expect more out them than the average mortal. 



Raven Crowking said:


> Example:  "My PC totally kicked his master's arse with a _fireball_ before the game even started!" might turn out to mean "My master totally duped me into believing that I cast a _fireball_, while he stood by chuckling at his illusory demise.  He then used my apparent power to set me up into thinking I could take on his enemies.  While I destracted them by getting pounded, he nipped in and took what he wanted.  Then he made sure to let me know what a fool I had been by showing me what a _fireball_ actually looks like."  Of course, everything after "My master totally duped me into believing that I cast a _fireball_, while he stood by chuckling at his illusory demise." takes place in-game.  So, perhaps, the player (or his comrades) catch on before it is too late.
> 
> In a not-so-distant game, in a campaign where the PCs were told (1) there are no good dragons, and (2) demons and devils pretend to be gods to dupe the foolish into doing their bidding, a player brought in a paladin of a hitherto-unknown "good dragon god".  Can you guess what the reality was?




I like these.



Raven Crowking said:


> Does the player come back?  Meh.




Mine do and they've known for a long time what a Basterd I am.


----------



## Janx (Dec 10, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> What about replacement characters, after the players presumably have some information to go on?  It is, IME, usually when the players know something about the campaign milieu that they have become invested enough to care who, and what, they are related to.
> 
> 
> RC




This is also a good question.

One of the things I find is that I tend to play core rules, and when I start a new campaign, it's usually pretty basic.  I've figured out where elves come from, some fluff for all the main classes, etc.  As a result, I tend to not like new campaigns with new rulebooks (that I haven't seen before).

In the same vein, I don't tend to like wierd races and such, because I haven't heard of them to consider where they fit into my world.

At least in an initial campaign.  Once the game's been going for a bit, everyone's got the hang of what makes sense, a new book comes out, and I have time to ponder incorporating elements, then when Joe the fighter dies, and you need to make a new PC, it may make perfect sense for it to be a Lizardman SpellChaser from that lizardman country you just became allies with.

I tend to GM with the mindset that it doesn't exist until I figure out where it fits and how.  Whereas my friend and fellow GM (of which I've played in numerous and lengthy campaigns) tends to let anything published into the game and doesn't tend to worry about fitting it in first.  Different approaches.

Consider that one of the fluff bits I wrote for my campaign was an entire martial arts style and dojo with history, just to cover "where monks come from"  It's in my blog, somewhere.

During world building, I'll figure out where each race comes from, what the clerics worship, and since clerics get so much attention, I'll take a look at making sure the other classes make sense, unless they are "socially self-explanatory."  Thus, a monk dojo or two, a wizard's guild or tower or some such, etc.  These in turn let PCs tie into the game world (because I try to give them something to hook into).


----------



## KidSnide (Dec 10, 2009)

Janx said:


> That and it's my general experience that the player doesn't know the world well enough to craft detailed material before the game starts.  Playing a session usually explains way more about the enviroment than any hand-out ever does.  I've played in plenty of games where there's not a hand-out or briefing, so it's roll it up and welcome to the world.




In my experience, the GM and player need to sit down and talk for 2-3 hours before the player is ready to make a character in the GM's world.  Expecting a player to hand a GM a background that fits the GMs world is pretty unrealistic (unless you're using a well-understood setting), but it's definitely possible for a player and GM to work out a background together without any of the player background disfunction described up-thread.

Or, at least it's possible if both the player and GM are willing to put the work into it...

-KS


----------



## Woas (Dec 11, 2009)

Janx said:


> I do suspect that VB hit in on the head that it's in the mind of the DM.




You believe then that the fictional world or space the game takes place in is in the sole hands of the GM then, yes?




Janx said:


> Now I tend to expect a 1st level to be young (regardless of what the current ruleset may say, that's what happens when old people play new editions).  As such, I don't tend to expect a lot of accomplishments out of PCs pre-game




What if you are not playing a game where you start at a higher level, or does not uses levels at all?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 11, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> And I love to "Say Yes!" I try to feel the player out on why he was motivated to write a background as the "Chosen of Thor." If his intent was to just be extremely dedicated to his deity, no issues. If it was to try to gain an advantage, lets just say that gods are demanding of their chosen and expect more out them than the average mortal.




My intent was that his intent was to gain an advantage.



> I like these.




Thanks.



> Mine do and they've known for a long time what a Basterd I am.




I didn't mean to imply that mine do not.  I meant to imply that, if they do not, I'm fine with that.  It does not change my DMing method.  There are lots of people who would like to play in games I run that I don't have a seat for, so I've got no worries about a player here or there deciding that they would prefer a different style of gaming.



RC


----------



## Janx (Dec 11, 2009)

Woas said:


> You believe then that the fictional world or space the game takes place in is in the sole hands of the GM then, yes?




The initiating space is primarily the domain of the DM.  THe player doesn't have the authority to change or create, to some extent.  Obviously, the act of creating a PC is the act of creation, as is tying it to the world.  The player has limited rights pre-game.  Smart players know how to get away with more, by making things up the DM likes, they inherently get to create more than dumb players who rub the GM the wrong way with their ideas.

Given how we don't really get much more control than that in the real world...

One friend, who's not allowed to DM (for a variety of reasons that the group has deemed him unfit), had a tendency to accept whatever the players said and make it real.  Accidentally say "I hope these aren't werewolves" and you'll find that they are.  Especially bad when your first level and you don't have any magic or silver.



Woas said:


> What if you are not playing a game where you start at a higher level, or does not uses levels at all?




I would expect a higher level char to be older.  How much older is always a fuzzy thing, but older would make more sense.

I hate games without levels.  Particularly ones where the chars get skills that increase dramatically over the course of play.  The problem is that tying those increases to levels gives the GM a handy tool for guaging the strength of the party.  Whereas, with no levels, all the GM knows is the PCs aren't new and they don't suck anymore.

However, the foundation is the same, a new unskilled PC is likely young (and I expect the same for NPCs).  A PC with higher skills is likely older.

Just a note, in my games, I do make time go by, just to avoid the scenario of PCs who get to level 20 in 3 months game time.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 11, 2009)

Woas said:


> You believe then that the fictional world or space the game takes place in is in the sole hands of the GM then, yes?




I know you aren't asking me, but I'd like to add something since this built off a comment I made. My comment regarded where the line of appropriateness lies. I still believe that line is determined in a collective manner, but there has to be a final decision-maker and that is the DM. An example, in one campaign set in Greyhawk a player expressed his wishes to play a Warforged. I didn't think this was appropriate outside of Eberron, but I asked the player how he thought his character would fit into the game world. His proposed background and refluffing of the Warforged changed my mind and his character was deemed appropriate for that campaign.


----------



## Woas (Dec 11, 2009)

Janx said:


> The initiating space is primarily the domain of the DM.  THe player doesn't have the authority to change or create, to some extent.  Obviously, the act of creating a PC is the act of creation, as is tying it to the world.




What if one or more of the players came up with the idea or basis of the fictitious game, but another person offered or was chosen to GM it? You see the GM as more than just "a referee" then I take it?



Janx said:


> I hate games without levels.




Ahhh. Now this is an important factor and certainly shows our angles of approach to this question. As for myself, I hate games with levels (and pre-defined class packages). 




Janx said:


> However, the foundation is the same, a new unskilled PC is likely young...




Then you would not accept a young character claiming in their backstory that they are a child and heir to the current ruling family (or son/daughter to the current Senator or whatever government the game uses), whose skills taken at character generation reflect?


----------



## Woas (Dec 11, 2009)

In my view, the parts of the whole (that is, everyone who is actively playing in the game) are the final arbiter of what is right or wrong for the game, not solely the GM.

Taking your situation about the warforged, I would have pressed it to the rest of the players. "Does everyone thing warforged, based on his backstory, are ok for the game?"




Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I know you aren't asking me, but I'd like to add something since this built off a comment I made. My comment regarded where the line of appropriateness lies. I still believe that line is determined in a collective manner, but there has to be a final decision-maker and that is the DM. An example, in one campaign set in Greyhawk a player expressed his wishes to play a Warforged. I didn't think this was appropriate outside of Eberron, but I asked the player how he thought his character would fit into the game world. His proposed background and refluffing of the Warforged changed my mind and his character was deemed appropriate for that campaign.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 11, 2009)

Woas said:


> In my view, the parts of the whole (that is, everyone who is actively playing in the game) are the final arbiter of what is right or wrong for the game, not solely the GM.
> 
> Taking your situation about the warforged, I would have pressed it to the rest of the players. "Does everyone thing warforged, based on his backstory, are ok for the game?"




Do you require a full consensus, simple majority, or some other measrure of rightness? I do take my players considerations into my decisions. If another player had objected to the Warforged player's background I would ask them to present their reasons. I'm just the final decider when there is a difference in opinion, even if I am one of the participants in the difference. This comes fom the "referee" aspect of being a DM.


----------



## Woas (Dec 11, 2009)

None of the above really... It's more of a refinement process. When someone speaks up and says, "Hey, that idea of yours is a little out there for the game, here is why... blahblah" and raises the issue it is not an automatic veto but more a flag to get others to think about it, brainstorm how it could be made to work or suggest alternatives with the goal of making it stick.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Do you require a full consensus, simple majority, or some other measrure of rightness?.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 11, 2009)

Woas said:


> None of the above really... It's more of a refinement process. When someone speaks up and says, "Hey, that idea of yours is a little out there for the game, here is why... blahblah" and raises the issue it is not an automatic veto but more a flag to get others to think about it, brainstorm how it could be made to work or suggest alternatives with the goal of making it stick.




This is probably a better description of what happens within my group than I was able to explain above. The group still looks to me to help finalize ideas. I realize my previous comments may have sounded like a heavy-handed approach.


----------



## Janx (Dec 11, 2009)

Woas said:


> What if one or more of the players came up with the idea or basis of the fictitious game, but another person offered or was chosen to GM it? You see the GM as more than just "a referee" then I take it?




The DM is effectively the game.  Chaneg the DM, you got a different game.  Don't like the game, find a different one.  Part of this is supply and demand, part of this is the cold hard reality that every DM is different and they are not hot-swappable.

This is kind of like a director of a movie.  It's a vision thing.  Change directors, get a different movie, even with the same original script.

Another variable is "persistent pesty child syndrome".  If a kid is going to keep asking for Mount Splashmore, I'm inclined to be more resistant to take them there the more they ask.  Players get to say what cardinal direction they want to go, or who they want to parley or fight with.  They don't get to tell me that the next villain has to be a vampire, or that they're tired of vampires despite the fact that they let the master loose and he's been making more ever since.  The world moves where it moves (partly because the DM says so) and the PCs live there.  The players don't get to demand what they want to happen next, their PCs will have to do some work.

To cover some of what I consider obvious, yes a DM will listen to what the players are interested in.  If they want to try a murder mystery, he'll probably make one happen.  A players are free to stop hunting down all those vampires, but there are obvious consequences that tend to keep the PCs stuck doing vampire patrol.  Just like real life, some situations keep people stuck working, instead of pursuing their own goals. What I'm talking about in the previous paragraph is that players do not get to create game content or change.  They can suggest or influence the DM.  Their PC can try to enact the player's desire on the player's behalf.  But the PLAYER does not have any right to direct control.



Woas said:


> Ahhh. Now this is an important factor and certainly shows our angles of approach to this question. As for myself, I hate games with levels (and pre-defined class packages).



classes and levels are not tied together.  Yes, D&D is a class and level based system.  Shadowrun is a skills based and non-level based.  It could have been skills based and level based (gaining a level lets you increase skills).  The level acts as a metric, for the DM.

This is like folks who say they don't give out XP, they just say the party leveled up.  In which case,they effectively gave the 3e PC 1000 times the level in XP.  Same diff.





Woas said:


> Janx said:
> 
> 
> > However, the foundation is the same, a new unskilled PC is likely young...
> ...




I'm not seeing the contradiction in what you said, as it relates to what you quoted when you said that.  Being the son of somebody important may justify having ranks in certain skills, but the PC can't break the rules on allocation...


However, I think you may be changing the subject to "what if the PC says they are an heir"?  That's OK, let me consider that.

As a DM, when I see that, it's a warning flag.  Is the player trying to weasel in some money/power/position?  However, as a player, one of my longest running PCs used that tactic.  So I'm guilty of doing it.  In my case, I worded it as "son of councilman" and "venturing into the world to gain experience to be worthy of joining the council".

This was under my more permissive GM friend (not the bad GM).  I was running the first PC in his new campaign world.  What I had done in my backstory was lock in the elven nation, we were now a council of lords, fairly big (300+ members) and member ship was granted by reaching 10th level.  I'd invented the seeds of an idea that the GM liked, so he filled in the rest.  What I'd also done was set myself up as "sure my dad is somebody important, but I'm not getting any extra favors from it right now" as well as set up a goal (reach 10th level, become a council member).

There's a couple of points there.  With that PC's 1 paragraph backstory, I just violated the strictest sense of what I've been talking about here.  I made a goal for a 1st level PC and I invented a bunch of game world details.

I think the limits I see a DM placing on backstories are more of guidelines.  There's a lot of grey area.  Some players can make a backstory idea that the DM just loves because it fits.  Other players come across as trying to pull a fast one.  As a DM, limits and strictness are in place because of the latter type of player.

I think also, for a player, there's a desire to write a backstory that doesn't define your PC as shmuck.  Some players go to far, trying to be "son of the king", and then when the GM twists it down to fit the PC's actual starting circumstance, the PC becomes a shmuck, because it's the only way to justify the son of the king NOT having all sorts of cool advantages.

So in some ways, the limits I'm talking about are also guidelines to players for how to avoid the DM from twisting your backstory so you're a loser.  The first step is to not overreach.


----------



## Janx (Dec 11, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> This is probably a better description of what happens within my group than I was able to explain above. The group still looks to me to help finalize ideas. I realize my previous comments may have sounded like a heavy-handed approach.




Honestly, I think most of the problem sections of this thread come up when people assume the worst most heavy handed intepretation of what the other party said.

I think, in practice, most of us are not heavy handed extremists on any of the philosophies being expoused.

Case in point, earlier I said something was "an exception", and the response was to the effect of "that implies there is a rule".  Which was a play on the phrase "exception, rather than the rule".  That missed my usage completely, as I was referring to statistics.  

Where anything outside the standard deviation range (if I recall the parlance), was an exception.  Exceptions don't count in statistics.  They get averaged out in the long run, or dealt with, as exceptions.  This is what Rule 0 or Step 0 in any game or process is for, which is to deal with exceptions as they happen, rather than try to hyper-document and legaleese everything.

The point is, when somebody says "this is how I would do it", the listener should give them some grace and assume that if the situation varied or changed more, the person would adjust their decision and avoid coming to a horrible extreme problem.


----------



## Woas (Dec 11, 2009)

Janx said:


> The DM is effectively the game.  Chaneg the DM, you got a different game.  Don't like the game, find a different one.  Part of this is supply and demand, part of this is the cold hard reality that every DM is different and they are not hot-swappable.




An interesting point of view.




Janx said:


> It could have been skills based and level based (gaining a level lets you increase skills).  The level acts as a metric, for the DM.




What about games that do not have this metric? For example: Classic (or the more recent Mongoose version) of Traveller? 




Janx said:


> As a DM, when I see that, it's a warning flag.  Is the player trying to weasel in some money/power/position?  However, as a player, one of my longest running PCs used that tactic.




When a player writes something down as backstory or as a note about their character you feel they are writing that as a way to 'get one over' the DM? What if a player is writing those things because that is the topics/themes/meme/goals they want to pursue with the character and are completely innocent requests?



Janx said:


> What I'd also done was set myself up as "sure my dad is somebody important, but I'm not getting any extra favors from it right now"




I suppose this connects with your belief that first level/new characters need to be young, inexperienced, and have access to only the bare minimum of equipment. What if a player were to write in that their character was the son or daughter of somebody important because they legitametly want to explore that possibility and have those resources (more starting money... 'favors', as quick examples). Is it any different writing that than a player writing in they are a graduate from a wizard school to legitimize the fact they can cast spells?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 11, 2009)

Woas said:


> What if a player were to write in that their character was the son or daughter of somebody important because they legitametly want to explore that possibility and have those resources (more starting money... 'favors', as quick examples). Is it any different writing that than a player writing in they are a graduate from a wizard school to legitimize the fact they can cast spells?




It is different than justifying their magical training if the rules of the game have no way for the character to access more starting money or favors* without adequate payback. That type of background could justify a 1E Shadowrun PC that chose Tech as their highest priority. It could also justify a 3E D&D PC that chose a feat that granted them more starting resources. If your background is meant to grant your character something they normally couldn't start with inside the rules, then there is definitely a difference.

*I'd be more lenient on favors as that is more vague and as DM I can limit those favors appropriately. The same favors could arise from the wizard school background anyway.


----------



## Janx (Dec 11, 2009)

Woas said:


> An interesting point of view.




part of me interprets that as invisibly suffixed with " that Woas doesn't subscribe to".  I think that would thereby prove my point.  Have your group fire you and hire me to run the game.  Instantly different tone and style.  Then after 3 sessions fire me and hire Ariosto.  Once again hugely different.

DMs aren't hot-swappable.  That reason is because of the differences in how we approach DMing.




Woas said:


> What about games that do not have this metric? For example: Classic (or the more recent Mongoose version) of Traveller?



That lack of level is what I hate about traveller.  THough traveller also having the built in mechanic for creating PCs with varying experience "levels".  When I say I like levels, it is solely as a mechanic for building NPCs.  If the party is 5th level,that tells me something about its strength and capability, its experience.  If the party has been playing for 10 sessions, what does that mean in regards to the skill level?  I'd have to reverse engineer how many skill points they've earned, or look at their "combat" skills.




Woas said:


> When a player writes something down as backstory or as a note about their character you feel they are writing that as a way to 'get one over' the DM? What if a player is writing those things because that is the topics/themes/meme/goals they want to pursue with the character and are completely innocent requests?




I sense a recurring concept of "players pursuing/exploring themes" in this and the next point by you.  The folks I play with don't consider things from this perspective.  The world is a theme unto itself.  You build your PC to fit in that world and explore the interaction.



Woas said:


> I suppose this connects with your belief that first level/new characters need to be young, inexperienced, and have access to only the bare minimum of equipment. What if a player were to write in that their character was the son or daughter of somebody important because they legitametly want to explore that possibility and have those resources (more starting money... 'favors', as quick examples). Is it any different writing that than a player writing in they are a graduate from a wizard school to legitimize the fact they can cast spells?




If the char-gen rules don't give you more than 100GP starting gold, then you can't have it.  If you can't have it, your background can't say you have it.

Which then gets to you can't "explore playing a rich kid" because the game we're playing doesn't let you make a rich kid.


As a general rule, we don't build a PC to "explore" a theme.  We make a PC that would plausibly fit in the world's starting conditions and stuff happens and we deal with it.  The characters with "angst" and "baggage" accued it and the players felt it because it happened in game, not because they made up some drama on their char sheet.

Thus, the themes we explore are spontaneous/organic.  Not planned out pre-gamestart.

I don't realize that the monk might become an alcoholic until after some sessions where he's disgraced himself, lost his girlfriend who's brother in the rival clan and drinking heavily.  None of those events were stuff I planned as a DM, they were the outcome of player choices during the sessions.  So I talk to the player about it, and he decides that'd be a cool problem, namely because it'll add "chaacter" and be a bit of nuisance challenge for the other players.

Themes happen.  The best ones are because of character growth, which happens in game.  Much like an author discovers as his main character changes within the book.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 11, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Don't D&D PCs have to be exceptional?



Exceptional is relative.

Some gamers assume that their characters are _the_ adventurers in the setting, in which case, yes, they are most exceptional. But some gamers treat the player characters as largely unexceptional, in a world where adventurer is a recognized profession, just another a trade with its own guilds, for example.

You can see the latter view in other games as well. In _Traveller_, the pilot of a merchant starship is about as unexceptional as a pilot for a communter airline in our real world existence. It's an interesting job, but it isn't wildly exceptional.







			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> They have to be prepared to go down monster-infested holes and kill what lives there. And they can't stop after their first big score, they have to keep doing it, so great is their lust for gold and/or monster killin'. These are in no way ordinary people, they're greedy psychopaths.



Does that view apply to a paladin? Or a _lawful good_ cleric?

I think that's a pretty narrow interpretation of the motivations for adventurers in games like _D&D_. 







			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Also even at 1st level they possess monster killin' talents beyond those of the typical peasant farmer who presumably makes up 90% of the population.



In this I agree that this separates player characters _in some games_ from non-player characters - this is not universal across roleplaying games, however.

The degree to which characters are exceptional in terms of abilities varies considerably as well. _Boot Hill_, for example, gives player characters a slight bump on their starting attribute scores, and that's it. It's possible to start with a character who is average in every way; what a player character won't be is _below_ average.







			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> In a sandbox the PCs have to be 'self starters', more highly motivated than in a plotted game where one can expect the adventure to come to the PCs.



I agree very strongly with this.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 11, 2009)

fuzzlewump said:


> _What the characters do_ should be based on who they are, which should be based on what they wrote down. If you write down that you're character has a very strong defensive nature, he defends his friends when insulted by a drunkard in the tavern. It also can mean he opens his mouth to the duke when the duke calls his friend a 'street rat' or whatever. Yes, you can develop a personality while playing, but you won't claim you became "loud-mouthed" or "defensive" out of nowhere. Most people would claim that trait had been around for awhile, and thus, have a background beyond motivation as you strive for.



Or, as *Oni* suggested, the personality that comes out in play can define the character instead.

In my experience, characters with lots of personality built into their background tend to follow one of two routes: either they are hidebound, one-note characters who never change with their circumstances are in the game, or the way they are actually played has little or nothing to do with what's on the sheet.

That's not true of all gamers, but it is something I've seen often enough.







			
				fuzzlewump said:
			
		

> The point is, _not_ allowing background to intrude into the game means that the players are just trying to find the path of least resistance.



I don't think that's true at all.


----------



## Woas (Dec 11, 2009)

Janx said:


> part of me interprets that as invisibly suffixed with " that Woas doesn't subscribe to".  I think that would thereby prove my point.  Have your group fire you and hire me to run the game.  Instantly different tone and style.  Then after 3 sessions fire me and hire Ariosto.  Once again hugely different.
> 
> DMs aren't hot-swappable.  That reason is because of the differences in how we approach DMing.




Not at all. Simply enjoying the conversation an expressing me feelings. I am legitimately interested in the way you see the role of GM. For myself and the main group I play with, GMs are in essence hot-swappable because we see them as basically just another player at the table, albeit with a different job to preform, but "equal" in say to all the other players in terms of game themes and such.

I don't deny that each GM has their own quirks and style. But the scenario I described, where someone thought of a fun game scenario and then someone else offered to GM has happened, a few times in fact with my group. So the thought process of "Only Janx can DM this game until completion because it was Janx's idea." is not one that I've ever thought of it that way. The way I fathom it is more like, "Janx would be good at running this game because he's read all those books/seen all those movies/went to college and got a Masters Degree in this field which is related to the game so would be the best bet for DM. Even though the base idea for the game was mine."




Janx said:


> f the party is 5th level,that tells me something about its strength and capability, its experience.  If the party has been playing for 10 sessions, what does that mean in regards to the skill level?




Although I don't agree with you on this, I won't press the issue (unless you want to fork it) because I feel it's getting off topic. I only went down with this example --well because I didn't see a D&D specific tag on this post so I thought maybe looking at it from a different angles/games might be appropriate.




Janx said:


> If the char-gen rules don't give you more than 100GP starting gold, then you can't have it.  If you can't have it, your background can't say you have it.
> 
> Which then gets to you can't "explore playing a rich kid" because the game we're playing doesn't let you make a rich kid.




Yes, in a game of D&D this is true. But also by the rules of D&D a DM could ask a player for the backstory of their character and they could simply shrug or flip the DM off and say "No way!" and that would be legitamte since the game of D&D does not care. How D&D establishes the avatars in which the players explore the game with is completely divorced of what a player claims their character actually was or is.




Janx said:


> Thus, the themes we explore are spontaneous/organic.  Not planned out pre-gamestart.




You can't have both? Or even yet, you can't have pre-game start drama turn into spontaneous/organic present-game drama?

What reason does the monk disgrace himself in the first place? Player whim? It's a perfectly acceptable answer. Maybe because he is the Prince and heir to the throne and has a lot of extra spending money so the weight of all this expendable funds and favors pushes him to spend it all? 




Janx said:


> Themes happen.  The best ones are because of character growth, which happens in game.  Much like an author discovers as his main character changes within the book.




No doubt about it. Agree 100%.


----------



## Woas (Dec 11, 2009)

Then do you feel the true arbiter of backstory a player creates is the game system itself? 
"That guy" can be a warforged and pick a special race because technically it is in game. But my character can't have a signet ring that might... get me out of jail if I flash it around or other perks like free room and board at Inns or entrance to speak with VIP NPCs because it's not codified by the rules?
Again, I'm not trying to instigate or hark on your personal rulings here. Just using your example from before as it's recent on our minds.




Vyvyan Basterd said:


> It is different than justifying their magical training if the rules of the game have no way for the character to access more starting money or favors* without adequate payback. That type of background could justify a 1E Shadowrun PC that chose Tech as their highest priority. It could also justify a 3E D&D PC that chose a feat that granted them more starting resources. If your background is meant to grant your character something they normally couldn't start with inside the rules, then there is definitely a difference.
> 
> *I'd be more lenient on favors as that is more vague and as DM I can limit those favors appropriately. The same favors could arise from the wizard school background anyway.


----------



## Janx (Dec 11, 2009)

Woas said:


> Not at all. Simply enjoying the conversation an expressing me feelings. I am legitimately interested in the way you see the role of GM. For myself and the main group I play with, GMs are in essence hot-swappable because we see them as basically just another player at the table, albeit with a different job to preform, but "equal" in say to all the other players in terms of game themes and such.




All these seperate quoted topic fragments is getting tricky to manage... 

I think this method is going better than previous methods for trying to explain/justify a methodology.  To much arguing/strawmanning, not enough simple question asking.

I definitely tend to think the DM is the guy in charge, he does all the work, he decides tons of stuff.  It's a different methodology.



Woas said:


> I don't deny that each GM has their own quirks and style. But the scenario I described, where someone thought of a fun game scenario and then someone else offered to GM has happened, a few times in fact with my group. So the thought process of "Only Janx can DM this game until completion because it was Janx's idea." is not one that I've ever thought of it that way. The way I fathom it is more like, "Janx would be good at running this game because he's read all those books/seen all those movies/went to college and got a Masters Degree in this field which is related to the game so would be the best bet for DM. Even though the base idea for the game was mine."




I'm definitely not used to that idea.  Your way is foreign to me, though I think I can envision how it would work successfully.  For me it's an ownership->passion->quality.  The guy who truly owns the idea will be most passionate about making it work.  That could have side-effects...




Woas said:


> Although I don't agree with you on this, I won't press the issue (unless you want to fork it) because I feel it's getting off topic. I only went down with this example --well because I didn't see a D&D specific tag on this post so I thought maybe looking at it from a different angles/games might be appropriate.




Not a problem.  It's not a big deal anyway, just something that has bugged me and my friends when we switch to other rules systems for some campaigns.



Woas said:


> Yes, in a game of D&D this is true. But also by the rules of D&D a DM could ask a player for the backstory of their character and they could simply shrug or flip the DM off and say "No way!" and that would be legitamte since the game of D&D does not care. How D&D establishes the avatars in which the players explore the game with is completely divorced of what a player claims their character actually was or is.




I tend to not seperate them.  But I also have the philosophy of "if you're going to have fun playing BattleTech, stop finding scientific reasons as to why a 100 ton atlas couldn't walk without sinking into the ground and getting stuck."  Basically, make your fluff fit the rules, or you will never be happy with the fluff.



Woas said:


> You can't have both? Or even yet, you can't have pre-game start drama turn into spontaneous/organic present-game drama?
> 
> What reason does the monk disgrace himself in the first place? Player whim? It's a perfectly acceptable answer. Maybe because he is the Prince and heir to the throne and has a lot of extra spending money so the weight of all this expendable funds and favors pushes him to spend it all?




You're right that you could, but as you agree below, the best drama is stuff that happens in game.  If your default assumption is a 1st level PC who is young, he should have "less" drama pre-game, and that will encourage in-game drama to be the high-point.

In the monk example, in 2 actual play sessions, the monk failed to achieve some goals.  Failed as in can't retreat and try again, the girl is dead.  So while I've written about planning a probable PC party path through my adventure that also assumes success, I am more than happy to let things change as the party makes serious mistakes.  The monk is from a pseudo-japanese culture, is very Honor and Giri based.  All it took was in-game failure at very personal goals/tasks to disgrace him.  It wasn't like he failed in a mission he was ordered on as a Marine.  He failed at doing some stuff during his shore leave that was Honor related.  For our group, it wasn't some made up before-game reason.  The monk player entered the game, tried to do some "monk" personal side-quest stuff, and failed.  The nature of the side-quests was directly honor related (for him).  He did not want to fail, he didn't decide ahead of time, you know, it'd be fun exploring losing my girl-friend so I think I'll fail this mission.

That's what made it all the more richer.  The player failed.  He felt that failure.  And that failure was then reflected in the PC.  And yes, as DM, I had a hand in presenting the opportunity for failing...but then, that's the point of taking on a challenge.  

I could have just made some combat encounters for him to get monky on.  Instead, I made encounters that had meaning for the PC.  The player, being invested in the PC, felt what the PC felt.  The failure hurt, because it had in-game and out of game impact.


Or I could have done the monk as a Prince who blows his money.  I like the outcome of my method.  Getting an emotional reaction out of a player that is relayed back into the PC is priceless.

When I talk about using story elements.  That's what I mean and why I use them.



Woas said:


> No doubt about it. Agree 100%.




I think that if a DM let the player put in backstory drama, the value would be to use it to drive IN-GAME drama.  Basically, go ahead and have a little pre-game drama, I'll use it to twist the fork and build you some real drama.

My main focus is, the in-game drama is where the money-shot is.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 11, 2009)

Woas said:


> Then do you feel the true arbiter of backstory a player creates is the game system itself?
> "That guy" can be a warforged and pick a special race because technically it is in game. But my character can't have a signet ring that might... get me out of jail if I flash it around or other perks like free room and board at Inns or entrance to speak with VIP NPCs because it's not codified by the rules?
> Again, I'm not trying to instigate or hark on your personal rulings here. Just using your example from before as it's recent on our minds.




Your signet ring example falls under the favors category, IMO. I would expect your character with the signet ring to have skills to back up his background of having connections and clout. And in-game your background could give you a discretionary bonus to get you out of jail, gain free room and board, or gain entrance to speak with VIPs. You've got my outlook turned around. If there is a rule to cover "it" you can't use your background to circumvent the rule. The portions of the game that aren't directly covered by the rules, such as gaining the above favors, can be influenced by a well-presented background.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 11, 2009)

Janx said:


> If the char-gen rules don't give you more than 100GP starting gold, then you can't have it.  If you can't have it, your background can't say you have it.
> 
> Which then gets to you can't "explore playing a rich kid" because the game we're playing doesn't let you make a rich kid.




I get your point, but I disagree with the example. Each character can have their 100 gp worth of gear for entirely different reasons. 100 gp is ALOT of money. You could be the rich kid who has all the shiny new stuff, while the barbarian could have scavenged his dirty old gear from the pile of orc gear his clan claimed in their past victories. Same mechanical outcome, different methods of appropriation. As long as the "rich kid" isn't trying to start with more than 100 gp of gear there isn't a problem, IMO.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 14, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Then that's what you want. I'm still not seeing how it follows that everyone who wants a wide world to explore instead "lacks depth". But by _assuming_ that it's up to the DM to "tell a story" and the players to go along, we get ...
> 
> and Some of us, though, have been adults for a long time -- and for a long time enjoyed the original saying that *it is up to the players to choose what their characters undertake, to act as self-determining protagonists rather than like fish being played.*.




It lacks depth because, at the time of character generation, the PC's have almost no connection to the campaign.  While, as has been mentioned earlier, that depth may be achieved over time, that presumes that the campaign will last that long AND that the player will be playing the same character long enough to achieve that depth.

Which gets back to my point with RC about character death.  If characters are replaceable, why would I, as the player, bother achieving any depth?  If it makes absolutely no difference when I go to Giant Land whether I play a paladin or an assassin - we'll meet exactly the same things, in the keyed adventure (to use your words) - how can depth be achieved?

It's like saying that half way through a movie, you whack the protagonist, replace him with a totally new character with no previous interaction with the story and it will be as equally emotionally resonating as a movie where the protagonist actually continues throughout the entire story.

So, again, I'm going to ask, other than "over time" how do you achieve emotional resonance within the game?

This of course, presumes that emotional resonance, or depth is a goal of play.  If it's not, then who cares?  If I'm doing nothing but dungeon crawls, killing and looting with my buddies, then no worries.  I LOVE that kind of gaming too.  It's a blast.  But, it's about as deep as the average rain puddle.  Sometimes I want a campaign with a bit more meat to it.  A more emotional experience.  So, if I want to run a sandbox, or a "status quo" campaign, how can I achieve that resonance?


----------



## Hussar (Dec 14, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> Player input is the best thing to happen to my games, too.
> 
> I'm constantly seeking input, usually like this: "Okay, what do your characters do now?"
> 
> My games wouldn't be the same without it.




My point here is that this is not the only way of doing things.  When designing a campaign, another approach is to start by asking the players, "what game do you want to play?" and working as a group to hash out a rough outline of a game - typically high level stuff like theme, genre, maybe a couple of highlights.



Raven Crowking said:


> My intent was that his intent was to gain an advantage.
> /snip
> RC




My solution is to not play with people like this any more.  Since you have a choice of players, why would you include someone at your table whose play style you obviously don't share?  If someone is trying to abuse the system to gain mechanical advantage, and continues to do so despite being told that such play is not preferred at the table, why play with this person?



Janx said:


> The initiating space is primarily the domain of the DM.  THe player doesn't have the authority to change or create, to some extent.  Obviously, the act of creating a PC is the act of creation, as is tying it to the world.  The player has limited rights pre-game.  Smart players know how to get away with more, by making things up the DM likes, they inherently get to create more than dumb players who rub the GM the wrong way with their ideas.
> 
> Given how we don't really get much more control than that in the real world...
> /snip




This is certainly one approach to gaming, and IMO, probably the most common one as well.  I've certainly played, continue to play and DM in this style as well.  Not all the time, now, but, there's certainly nothing wrong with it.

My ((proabably terribly described)) argument has been that this does not have to be true.  That it is entirely possible for the players to be actively engaged in setting creation, even during play.  They can also be actively engaged in theme and plot as well.  It does require a very different mindset from the players though.  The players have to be willing to take a different view of the campaign - in other words, they have to become a LOT less passive in their consumption of the game.  

To me, there's nothing wrong with this.  The play goals are simply very different from a standard (if that's the right term) campaign.  Instead of "experience the adventures and see what happens" goals shift towards explorations of themes or concepts.  If the group agrees to play a campaign centered around gender politics, for example, the events of the campaign are less important than that exploration.  The events act as a framework or catalyst for generating that exploration.

I guess, at the end of the day, it comes all the way back to the usual disagreement I have with Raven Crowking - how important is the setting?    If exploration of setting is very important (which to RC and others I believe it is) then obviously it makes sense for the GM to have a much greater control and emphasis on the setting.  OTOH, if exploration of the setting is less important, and exploration of concept is more important, then setting gets to fade back and plot becomes a lot stronger.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 14, 2009)

Ariosto said:
			
		

> and Some of us, though, have been adults for a long time -- and for a long time enjoyed the original saying that it is up to the players to choose what their characters undertake, to act as self-determining protagonists rather than like fish being played..




But, what if that choice is made BEFORE the campaign starts?  Does that invalidate the choice?


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 14, 2009)

> It lacks depth because, at the time of character generation, the PC's have almost no connection to the campaign.



You can say so, but that does not make it so. Alternatively, you could stop trying to claim a monopoly on depth. It's odd that you either do not see or really do intend the implication that *real life* "lacks depth".



> If it makes absolutely no difference when I go to Giant Land whether I play a paladin or an assassin - we'll meet exactly the same things, in the keyed adventure (to use your words) - how can depth be achieved?



First, a big HUH?? to "in the keyed adventure (to use your words)". Second ... come on, _really_ ... does the independent existence of San Francisco really doom *your* life to petty shallowness? Or do you believe that you have some magical power over all the habitats and inhabitants of Earth, that by its virtue grants your life every bit of depth it possesses?



> It's like saying that half way through a movie, you whack the protagonist, replace him with a totally new character with no previous interaction with the story and it will be as equally emotionally resonating as a movie where the protagonist actually continues throughout the entire story.



No. It's like saying, "We are not watching a movie; we are playing a role-playing game!"



> So, again, I'm going to ask, other than "over time" how do you achieve emotional resonance within the game?



 "Other than over time"? What in blazes do you mean?! Even a heroin junkie needs time to experience the injected rush!



> If I'm doing nothing but dungeon crawls, killing and looting with my buddies, then no worries. ... But, it's about as deep as the average rain puddle.  Sometimes I want a campaign with a bit more meat to it.



Oh, _do tell!_ Please, Hussar, count the ways in which killing and looting in dungeons is *soooo inferior* to killing and looting on your movie set. Please, Hussar, tell us how we *must* be limited to doing *nothing but that* if we do it at all, despite the fact that good old D&D right from the start was for a much wider ranging campaign.

Oh, heck, Hussar, why not just tell us how horribly inferior D&D is to the game you _really_ want to play -- then you can tell us why on Earth you are farting around here on a thread about being *D u n g e o n* Masters????!!!


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 14, 2009)

Hussar said:


> My point here is that this is not the only way of doing things.



I don't see very many people arguing that there is only one way of doing things. I do see people expressing their personal preferences about what they like from a roleplaying game.

Of course there are a couple of exceptions. Like this guy.







Hussar said:


> It lacks depth because, at the time of character generation, the PC's have almost no connection to the campaign.



Now that smacks a bit of onetruewayism.







Hussar said:


> If characters are replaceable, why would I, as the player, bother achieving any depth?



Because you don't know if your character will be replaced or not. You play the character as if he's the only character you'll have in the game, until the events of the game prove otherwise.

Look up John Rawls and the "veil of ignorance" sometime. It applies remarkably well to rpg character creation.







Hussar said:


> It's like saying that half way through a movie, you whack the protagonist, replace him with a totally new character with no previous interaction with the story and it will be as equally emotionally resonating as a movie where the protagonist actually continues throughout the entire story.



As *Ariosto* noted, the experience of playing a roleplaying game is not the same as watching a movie, but just to humor you, watch _To Live and Die in L.A._ sometime.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 14, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Upthread, I suggested that the "status quo" setting Hussar described may well be impossible.  This is because I do not believe that it is possible, ever, to fully detail a world prior to play beginning.  Sooner or later, the GM will have to build more, and to extrapolate from what is known about the setting.  There is, IMHO, no way to avoid this.
> 
> As a result, I do not believe that there is any problem whatsoever with logical extrapolation on the basis of character backgrounds or whathaveyou.  If a character background is intended as a showhog, ("I am pursued by the agents of SPECTRE!") or to give some advantage ("I am the nephew of the King!") then it should be vetoed.  If the character background is intended to tie the character to the world, and to further invest the player in what is happening at the tabletop, then I am all for it.



Upthread I promised I would come back to this, and as I can't sleep erm now's as good a time as any.

One of the best examples I've seen of a system that allows players to develop characters with extensive backgrounds tied to the setting is _Traveller_. Part of my affinity for _Traveller_ is that character generation and background development isn't something that happens _before _the game: it's the first experience of _playing the game_.

Now one of the consequences of playing _Traveller_ is that character backgrounds may run to decades, so when the player asks, "My character spent twenty years in the Scouts; does he know anyone at this base?" the referee must be able to respond to that. Among the many wonderful articles published for the game are supplemental rules for randomly resolving that very question. In this way a referee can let fate play a role (and roll) in the outcome. So that's one way to do it.

Right now I'm prepping for a _Flashing Blades_ game. Characters in _FB_ may have Advantages and Secrets: among these are features like Contact, Secret Loyalty, Debt of Honor, Double, Member of an Order, and others, all of which involve some degree of connection with a non-player character or group. I'm okay with this because the Advantages and Secrets are bounded: if you take a Contact, or a Secret Loyalty, for example, the nature of the relationship is governed by the rules. This helps to avoid the fanwank aspect of chargen that I find so offputting. So that's another.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 14, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> Upthread I promised I would come back to this, and as I can't sleep erm now's as good a time as any.




Glad you did.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 14, 2009)

[Homer] Mmmm ... _Flashing Blades_ ... [/Homer]


----------



## Janx (Dec 14, 2009)

Hussar said:


> It's like saying that half way through a movie, you whack the protagonist, replace him with a totally new character with no previous interaction with the story and it will be as equally emotionally resonating as a movie where the protagonist actually continues throughout the entire story.




PC death is a risk of playing a game where the DM let's the dice decide.

There are pro's to NOT killing of PCs, and there are pro's to killing them off.

A game where the players think they're PCs can die has a different feel than one where they don't think they can die.

This is why the best "we don't kill PCs" DMs don't tell their players that and in fact, make the players THINK the PCs are going to die.

In a game where "anything" can happen and you don't want to be "railroading", PC death is a valid outcome.  It totally changes the story.

However, unlike a movie, the player can roll up a new one, you can either try to pick up the pieces, or drop the story altogether.  This is a big difference from the typical movie.

As a DM, when you're PC dies, the party is now at reduced strength.  I could let the remaining party continue onward to mount doom, and probably take out another PC every few encounters, until I get a TPK.  Or I could let you roll up a new PC and continue the quest back at full strength.  Does that hurt the verisimilitude?  Probably just a bit.  But it's probably more fun.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 14, 2009)

Hussar said:


> My solution is to not play with people like this any more.  Why would you include someone at your table whose play style you obviously don't share?  If someone is trying to abuse the system to gain mechanical advantage, and continues to do so despite being told that such play is not preferred at the table, why play with this person?




Because they're a friend. Because I like screwing with players who try to milk the system. Because the person is new to roleplaying and I'd like to impart the wisdom of my ways upon them. Because excluding people just because they disagree with you is a slippery slope. These are a few reasons I've included someone in our game despite our differences.



Ariosto said:


> Oh, heck, Hussar, why not just tell us how horribly inferior D&D is to the game you _really_ want to play -- then you can tell us why on Earth you are farting around here on a thread about being *D u n g e o n* Masters????!!!




I think you might want to dial back the caffeine intake. Or increase it.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 14, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> I don't see very many people arguing that there is only one way of doing things. I do see people expressing their personal preferences about what they like from a roleplaying game.
> 
> Of course there are a couple of exceptions. Like this guy.Now that smacks a bit of onetruewayism.Because you don't know if your character will be replaced or not. You play the character as if he's the only character you'll have in the game, until the events of the game prove otherwise.




Sigh.  How many times do I have to state that I LIKE PLAYING THE SAME GAMES YOU DO BUT I ALSO LIKE OTHER STYLES TOO!!!!!

That's not onetruewayism.  

You've still not explained how your character in a sandbox has any connection to the setting at character creation.  You take it as a given, yet give no evidence.  The player creates his character, plops down in the place where the DM starts you off at, hits you with the local color, draws attention to the points of interest and then turns to you and says, 

"What do you want to do?"

How is that depth?  How is that engaging in any way?  The choices I have have nothing to do with the character I create.  

Now, as far as playing your character like he's the only one, there's the rub isn't it?  What if I die?  What if I die twice?  How much effort am I going to put into engaging in your campaign after replacing my character for the third time?



> Look up John Rawls and the "veil of ignorance" sometime. It applies remarkably well to rpg character creation.As *Ariosto* noted, the experience of playing a roleplaying game is not the same as watching a movie, but just to humor you, watch _To Live and Die in L.A._ sometime.




The existence of exceptions does not invalidate my point.  Ariosto, for some bizarre reason, seems to think that because the real world is a sandbox, then gaming worlds must be sandboxes too.

You accuse me of onetruewayism, yet, repeatedly, Ariosto at the very least, has been openly derisive of any playstyle other than sandbox.  Yet, you do not take him to task.  One wonders why.



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> PC death is a risk of playing a game where the DM let's the dice decide.
> 
> There are pro's to NOT killing of PCs, and there are pro's to killing them off.
> 
> ...




But notice something here.  Your entire point centers around a combat centric game.  Now, for D&D, that's not a far assumption, but, again, that's not the only way to play.  Exploration of setting is not the only way to play either, despite claims to the contrary in this thread.

Taking death off the table =/= railroading by any stretch of the imagination.

Yes, you can play rpg's completely unlike a movie.  I've never said you couldn't.


----------



## Woas (Dec 14, 2009)

What if the player decided when their character died? For dramatic purposes.



Hussar said:


> It's like saying that half way through a movie, you whack the protagonist, replace him with a totally new character with no previous interaction with the story and it will be as equally emotionally resonating as a movie where the protagonist actually continues throughout the entire story.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 14, 2009)

Y'know what?  I'm out.  I'm done.  This has gotten personal, yet again.  For some reason, people are misreading what I'm saying, taking it to mean things that are obviously not true, simply to dogpile on a point that I'm not even trying to make.

Shame really.  I enjoyed this conversation.  But, apparently, even the suggestion that there might be other ways to play is just too much for some.

Have fun.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 14, 2009)

Woas said:


> What if the player decided when their character died? For dramatic purposes.




Dammit, ninja'd as I was posting.  

To me, it totally depends on what style of game you are running.  In the sandbox style, that's pretty much a no no.  You probably shouldn't do that.

However, in a theme based game?  Totally for that.  Since emotional depth is the goal here, I can get behind that completely.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 14, 2009)

Hussar said:


> You've still not explained how your character in a sandbox has any connection to the setting at character creation.  You take it as a given, yet give no evidence.




I gave clear examples.  What happened to them?



> How is that depth?  How is that engaging in any way?  The choices I have have nothing to do with the character I create.




You have still to answer what you mean by "depth".

Now add to that what you mean by "engaging".

Finally, it is untrue that "The choices [you] have have nothing to do with the character [you] create" unless you are somehow unable to make a character that makes sense within the milieu presented.  Me, I have no such difficulty.  I've honestly met very, very few people who do.


RC


----------



## Woas (Dec 14, 2009)

Can you explain further? A sandbox style game (I use the term loosely as I still don't know what the consensus meaning of that word is around here but anyway...) allowing a player to determine their character's death as the ultimate sacrifice/bargaining chip to alter events, especially if the game uses some sort of game-economy (bennies, fate points, etc.) that allow the player further narrative/scenario control would be a yes yes.





Hussar said:


> To me, it totally depends on what style of game you are running.  In the sandbox style, that's pretty much a no no.  You probably shouldn't do that.
> 
> However, in a theme based game?  Totally for that.  Since emotional depth is the goal here, I can get behind that completely.


----------



## Janx (Dec 14, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Sigh.  How many times do I have to state that I LIKE PLAYING THE SAME GAMES YOU DO BUT I ALSO LIKE OTHER STYLES TOO!!!!!
> 
> That's not onetruewayism.




I'm OK with that.  On just about anythread here, we should ALL assume the other person is talking about their methods and how they are working for them.  Thus, Hussar talks about HussarWayism, and Ariosto is talking about Ariostoism.  Where some folks take it to onetruewayism is by attacking somebody else's wayism.



Hussar said:


> You've still not explained how your character in a sandbox has any connection to the setting at character creation.  You take it as a given, yet give no evidence.  The player creates his character, plops down in the place where the DM starts you off at, hits you with the local color, draws attention to the points of interest and then turns to you and says,
> 
> "What do you want to do?"
> 
> How is that depth?  How is that engaging in any way?  The choices I have have nothing to do with the character I create.




I don't disagree with this.  In any of the games that I have had minimal planning with my PC and the DM and the world, before game start, they probably have minimal depth.  I believe I have made memorable characters despite that, though some were less memorable than others.  I believe that my more memorable of those characters were because I brought a depth to those characters, despite the lack of material to work with.  I won't claim "acting skill", but what I'm talking about is how an actor can bring a character to life.  At times, I can make more out of what little I've been given to work with.  And as the game goes on, it gets better.



Hussar said:


> Now, as far as playing your character like he's the only one, there's the rub isn't it?  What if I die?  What if I die twice?  How much effort am I going to put into engaging in your campaign after replacing my character for the third time?




Yup, that sucks.  But I'm a story GM, not a sandbox GM.  SO I do try to prevent PC death when I can.  I have to make the PCs believe death is very possible.  And at times, the dice have to fall where they may.  PC death is a tricky thing.  There are side effects for protecting PCs and benefits.  There are side effects for killing them off willy nilly, and benefits.



Hussar said:


> The existence of exceptions does not invalidate my point.  Ariosto, for some bizarre reason, seems to think that because the real world is a sandbox, then gaming worlds must be sandboxes too.




I think I said something to the same effect.  Exceptions don't count.  They're interesting, they're anecdotal.  For the purposes of making a general rule or observation, they don't count.  Yet people like to cite them anway.

I like to think that people play RPGs to get away from the real world.  To do what they can't, and NOT have the same consequences and limitations that block them from venting their frustrations in real life.



Hussar said:


> You accuse me of onetruewayism, yet, repeatedly, Ariosto at the very least, has been openly derisive of any playstyle other than sandbox.  Yet, you do not take him to task.  One wonders why.




I don't disagree with you here.  Ariosto has been chastized at least once by a moderator in this thread, and in the earlier pages he seemed to be the "dogs suck, why would you want one" type person at a dog show.  He could use to show a little respect and tone down the rhetoric when he's in a thread about a topic he disagrees with.



Hussar said:


> But notice something here.  Your entire point centers around a combat centric game.  Now, for D&D, that's not a far assumption, but, again, that's not the only way to play.  Exploration of setting is not the only way to play either, despite claims to the contrary in this thread.
> 
> Taking death off the table =/= railroading by any stretch of the imagination.
> 
> Yes, you can play rpg's completely unlike a movie.  I've never said you couldn't.




Yeah, I do assume a lot of combat, but then I'm mostly talking D&D.  Even D&D doesn't have to be pure combat.  But then, the base topic of that point was PC death, which generally happens in combat....

My point was that some folks cited earlier in this post will take anything said here to mean railroading, as evidenced by the length of this thread and how much it was NOT about using plot, and instead trying to explain how plot was not railroading.


----------



## Janx (Dec 14, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> I gave clear examples.  What happened to them?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




RC, it might be handy to start over a bit with Hussar.  I've mostly lost base on what the two of you were even debating.  Which seems to be the problem that I keep seeing posts of "if you see what I posted way back long ago, I answered your question".  Which post, what question?

While my definition of depth or engaging probably varies, I assume its close enough to either of yours to be able to talk about it.

What's a depth or engaging mean to a character on a TV show.  I assume it's nearly the same thing in an RPG.

Go watch the pilot episode of a TV show.   Then watch the whole season.

Some characters lacked depth in the pilot, others didn't.  Some of the characters gained depth over the course of the season.

It is probable that the show writers did not write a ton of backstory for a pilot.  They probably did make up a little bit, just not all the details that show up in later "personal" episodes.

The actor (aka player) brings depth to a PC, not just by the material written in backstory, but by how they interpret and play with what they have.

In many ways, the character is defined more by what you see on screen (game play), than by what was written down in backstory.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 14, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Sigh.  How many times do I have to state that I LIKE PLAYING THE SAME GAMES YOU DO BUT I ALSO LIKE OTHER STYLES TOO!!!!!



Okay.

I don't believe I've said anything to the contrary.







Hussar said:


> That's not onetruewayism.



Liking a playstyle doesn't mean one can't approach it with a bit of onetruewayism; they aren't mutually exclusive propositions.

Personally I try to be careful to qualify when I'm speaking in what I believe are general truths applicable to most games and gamers (something I do very, very rarely) and when I'm talking about things that are specific to my own preferences and experiences. If you think it would help, I'll just try to assume that when you make these sorts of statements . . . 







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> ;5027589It lacks depth because, at the time of character generation, the PC's have almost no connection to the campaign. While, as has been mentioned earlier, that depth may be achieved over time, that presumes that the campaign will last that long AND that the player will be playing the same character long enough to achieve that depth.



. . . that you're speaking solely to your own experience and preference and not trying to make a sweeping generalization about a play style. Hopefully this will serve to clear up misunderstandings.







Hussar said:


> You've still not explained how your character in a sandbox has any connection to the setting at character creation.  You take it as a given, yet give no evidence.  The player creates his character, plops down in the place where the DM starts you off at, hits you with the local color, draws attention to the points of interest and then turns to you and says,
> 
> "What do you want to do?"
> 
> How is that depth?  How is that engaging in any way?  The choices I have have nothing to do with the character I create.



Upthread I explained the kinds of character backgrounds I like to see from players. Let me quote that for you again.







The Shaman said:


> What I tell my players is a good background explains your character's motivation for not staying home and being a tradesman or an accountant or a courtier, _and then stops_. A background sets up the game; it doesn't intrude upon it.



If the players have done what I've asked of them, each of those characters has a reason to dive into that world. They hit the ground looking for trouble, right from the giddyup. They are engaged from the very moment we start playing because they took the time to determine why they are where they are.

"My character is the son of a Scots Guardsman and aspires to be a Marshal of France." "My character is a remittance man, but his measly stipend isn't enough to support him in the fashion to which he is accustomed." "My character is a student of theology who plans to pursue dual careers in the Church and as a royal minister, like Richelieu." "My character broke the gender barrier by becoming a fencing master and she wants to earn the reputation as the best fencer in France . . . no, Europe!"

In my opinion every one of those characters is fully engaged with the setting from the moment we sit at the table together, because I asked the players to determine why their characters choose to adventure. They have goals to pursue, not a plot to follow.

And the only thing needed to make those characters was a simple introduction to the setting.







Hussar said:


> Now, as far as playing your character like he's the only one, there's the rub isn't it?  What if I die?  What if I die twice?  How much effort am I going to put into engaging in your campaign after replacing my character for the third time?



You tell me. You said upthread that you like many different styles of play, too, so why would you keep making characters, if indeed you really enjoy this playstyle?

In my experience, if a player enjoys playing the game I'm running, then that player will continue to make characters for the game as many times as necessary, in order to keep playing. A character death is a setback, not a reaons to quit.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 14, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> [Homer] Mmmm ... _Flashing Blades_ ... [/Homer]



Now, if only you live in SoCal . . .


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 14, 2009)

Janx said:


> This is why the best "we don't kill PCs" DMs don't tell their players that and in fact, make the players THINK the PCs are going to die.



In my experience those are in fact among the worst referees to play with.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 14, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Since emotional depth is the goal here . . .



"Emotional depth is the goal?"

So tell me, how much emotional depth does a carefully plotted, thematically organized game have the first time the players sit down at the table together? How does writing a character's background into the setting, or better yet, building the setting around the character's background, produce immediate emotional depth right from the giddyup?


----------



## Janx (Dec 14, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> "Emotional depth is the goal?"
> 
> So tell me, how much emotional depth does a carefully plotted, thematically organized game have the first time the players sit down at the table together? How does writing a character's background into the setting, or better yet, building the setting around the character's background, produce immediate emotional depth right from the giddyup?




If I accept emotional depth as the goal, it is the goal, not the starting condition.

So I agree with Shaman that there isn't neccessarily emotional depth from the giddyup.

I suspect Shaman is also questioning that emotional depth is the goal for everybody.  I'd agree that not all players or DMs have that goal.

I think some DMs can use emotional depth as a tool (if I get you to be emotionally invested in your PC, it gives me more options and hooks, and you're probably liking your PC more).

I think some players have a goal of emotional depth.  They want to be their PC, so they must feel for the PC.

Not everybody plays that way.


----------



## Janx (Dec 14, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> In my experience those are in fact among the worst referees to play with.




My longtime DM was very good at running games where at the climax, we always thought we were going to die.  And we'd always come up with a plan to win the day.  So we felt smart, and we felt afraid.  As a fellow DM, I know that behind the screen, he'd fudge a few dice rolls either way, when he needed to.  Given that he's been running games for the group since we started in 1990 and this group is still going today, I suspect he's a good enough DM.

I think I'd like to hear an example of how it was bad.  Care to share?


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 14, 2009)

Janx said:


> I think I'd like to hear an example of how it was bad.



I'm not fond of referees who lie to their players and cheat on rolls.

If you want to narrate an outcome, then go ahead; just don't roll dice and pretend they say something they don't. If you roll the dice, live with the consequences. Then we're all playing the same game together.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 15, 2009)

> Ariosto, for some bizarre reason, seems to think that because the real world is a sandbox, then gaming worlds must be sandboxes too.



Nope. Wrong on all counts -- not least in that I don't even think that "sandbox" means anything in particular!



> Ariosto at the very least, has been openly derisive of any playstyle other than sandbox.



You keep using that word, and I do not think it means what you think it means ... to RC ... who does not think the same as Doug ... and so on.

I have in fact written of my experiences enjoying different styles. I *invented* a "drama-driven game", for scrying of lard!

What I openly deride is your putting down everyone who does not agree to your superiority. What I openly deride is your insistence, over and over and over again, on telling us that our games are this or that insulting thing no matter how many times we tell you how they actually are.



> Now, for D&D, that's not a far assumption, but, again, that's not the only way to play.



Some things sort of go with playing *Vampire: the Masquerade* or *Sorcerer*; some go with playing *Call of Cthulhu*, others with *RuneQuest* and others yet with *Pendragon*. Normal people do not expect *Axis & Allies* to be just like *Thurn and Taxis*, and accept that *Stratego* is different from *Mille Bornes*.

There are an *awful lot of games* not played just like yours, Hussar!


----------

