# Players: it's your responsibility to carry a story.



## Kzach (Aug 16, 2010)

Firstly, let's get some DM'ing credentials out of the way to qualify what I'm about to say.

I've been DM'ing D&D games since I was thirteen. The moment I picked up the PHB, the very next thing I did was pick up a DMG, and the very next thing after that, was DM a game. I have DM'd for literally hundreds of people. Primarily this has been due to moving a lot. The last time I moved house was the 42nd time I've moved in my life.

Other issues, of course, crop up. Personality conflicts, system preferences, girlfriends, boyfriends, life, etc. Point is, I get a group together and inevitably something happens and I start looking for more people or a new group. I have also DM'd a fair bit for Living games, online and off.

In this time I've learned a lot of things. One of those things is that the onus is always put on the DM to provide the story and keep everything running smoothly. I, however, have come to a different conclusion. IMO, the onus should be on the players.

Inevitably what I find is that even the most die-hard roleplayer who will scream black and blue that they are the bestest roleplayer evar, fails to follow clues, chase leads, investigate possibilities, ask questions of NPC's. In most cases, what they're looking for, is a railroad. They won't admit that, to the group or to themselves, but the fact is, they don't initiate, they follow.

I've done this experiment too many times to count where I've told the group either one or the other, ie. I've said, "Go where you want, do what you want, but the onus is on you to find adventure," and everyone is like, "Yay! Awesome!" and we start the game and sit in a tavern for three hours roleplaying hitting on the barmaids, drinking themselves silly, and provoking fights. Usually this goes on until I finally break and paint a flashing neon sign that says, "Adventure, this way!"

Other times I've said, "Ok, I'm going to railroad you through the plot, is everyone ok with that?" and I get, "Sure, will speed things up!" and then people bitch, moan, whinge and complain about not being able to go where they want and do what they want.

The best solution, I've found, is to simply lie. Tell them it's a sandbox, and then railroad them down a set path. By providing the 'illusion' of choice, everyone's happy. The game continues at a good pace, nobody gets bored or frustrated, and nobody complains about being spoon-fed the plot.

I feel that this situation has developed because of an expectation for the DM to be all and end all. Everyone blames the DM if a game runs badly, or is boring, but do they ever blame themselves?

Part of the reason I'm mentioning this is because recently I have vowed not to DM. A life-long buddy of mine and I met through D&D, and in the last 18 years, we can count the number of times we've both been players in a game together. 90% of the time, I'm DM'ing, the other 10% he's DM'ing. So I said to Hell with it, and now every group I look for, I look as a player, not a DM.

It's here that I've noticed how little people will initiate adventure or follow the DM's clues. Unless they're patently obvious railroads. Players tend to go off on tangents or, and this is what I find really bizarre, purposefully ignore the leads. And it's not like they're doing anything interesting instead. Rolling to seduce the barmaid got boring for me when I was fourteen and no longer initiates giggles.

So I often find myself taking up the mantle of party leader and running with whatever clues the DM has put in front of me. And when there's nothing obvious, I find I am the only one to suggest or initiate avenues of exploration or investigation to find out where to go and what to do.

This, therefore, is a callout to all players. It is not the responsibility of the DM to make a game fun. It's everyone's responsibility at the table. If a game is boring, then perhaps you should look to yourself as a player and contributor to that boredom, instead of placing blame on the one person who has the least control over what happens in the game.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 16, 2010)

Kzach said:


> It's here that I've noticed how little people will initiate adventure or follow the DM's clues. Unless they're patently obvious railroads. Players tend to go off on tangents or, and this is what I find really bizarre, purposefully ignore the leads. And it's not like they're doing anything interesting instead. Rolling to seduce the barmaid got boring for me when I was fourteen and no longer initiates giggles.



I come to a table to roll lots of dice, and enjoy a good story. If I'm not getting a story, I can pretty much deal for a little while if I'm rolling lots of dice in combats.

If I'm not getting to roll dice, I can pretty much deal for a little while if I'm part of an enthralling story.

If I get neither, or even a pittance, then I'm not having fun and I'm miserable.

Like you, I had a long bout on behind the DM screen. Even further I was a LG regional admin, developing plots, authoring mods, then running them at conventions. That experience has fundamentally changed me as a player. I have found myself now coming to the table eagerly wanting to help the DM out keep things moving along.

I'm sure some groups, DMs and players both, totally enjoy the all night BS sessions of roleplaying shopping for groceries, or roleplaying a tavern, or roleplaying a night trying to hook up with everything that moves. Nowadays, anything more than a couple minutes spent on that and I'm getting itchy. Not badwrongfun, but it ain't fun for me.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 16, 2010)

I've been lucky. with my players  For fantasy, I can create the setting stuff, the initial adventure hook, and the players  take the game in their own direction.  Occassionally, I throw in some side adventures and hooks and things for continuity, but they do all kinds of crazy stuff- set out to find a dryad to get the uptight druid "laid", help the barbarian gain status in his clan, start a revolution....

For more modern stuff and supers, yeah, I have to feed them adventures, but still they take off and turn them upside down with the rp.   For example, on the first mission of a monster hunter game, two of the characters worked for a government agency.  One was a very obese computer nerd and tended to stay in the van.  While searching for a creature kidnapping kids, they encountered the third PC  a college student, who runs a "wall of wierd".  The drugged the student and hid him in the van so he wouldn't interfere.  Then, the student came to as they combat guy threw a bag with a child sized goblin tied up inside.   The player had the student go off on the two agents for kidnapping kids and accusing the obese character of eating them (refering to the agent as the"Whale" which stuck).  The whole table was in stiches and the nickname stuck.  
After the second session, the player of "Whale" asked to have an adventure where he would have to come out of the van to meet a girl he only new online.  He rp'd the insecurity of meeting her and the players ran with it.


----------



## HoboGod (Aug 16, 2010)

Ehhhhh, I'll agree to some extent. Sandbox, D&D? HA! That'll be the day. I give them sandboxes when they enter trading posts. Go bother random NPCs for chump change.

As for who's responsibility is it to carry the story? Players can't be trusted to ask NPCs questions regarding the details of "how do we get there?" much less asking each other "what are we doing, today?" The players often think there's one player or another leading the group. The DM ALWAYS leads the group.


----------



## Derulbaskul (Aug 16, 2010)

Players suck.

I feel better now. OK, that statement is slightly tongue-in-cheek but my experience is much the same as Kzach's (except I haven't moved house 42 times): I do find players to be horribly lazy.

Like Kzach I now create the illusion of choice. For all intents and purposes they're in a sandbox but the reality is that they are chugging along a railroad. All that matters is that they think they are making choices.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 16, 2010)

I like to present not so much a railroad as an interchange. There are several trains leaving the station, and the PCs can choose which train or trains they want to catch. 

All the trains are going to reach some destination or another at some point in the future, and are likely to have consequences which set off other future trains.

In other words, in a campaign I don't present players with THE adventure, as much as laying the seeds of a number of adventures. 

Actually, that isn't entirely true. I normally give the illusion of a sandbox but when the rumours are all about goblin attacks in the village to the north, it is pretty obvious what the neophyte adventurers can go and do!

I've know one DM who pretty much always ran pure sandbox games, and I found them incredibly boring - because he didn't put much thought into anything up front, we would come up with an idea, go somewhere, have some on the fly combats without any real impact, and move on. Even at high levels, it was just a case of wandering around and beating people up. Hugely unsatisfying. So as a player - give me a railroad every day - especially if it is a railroad to awesometown (to paraphrase Morrus's sig)

Cheers


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 16, 2010)

Lets get my credentials out of the way, I am mostly a player, and I am very irregular at that, I have dmed a few times, enough to know the ropes and enjoy it when I do, but not enough to call myself a professional.

That said, my experience has taught me one important fact: my experience and your experience are not absolutes, no matter how much we've played or now many games we've ran.  

I'll be frank, I usually play a character who is a straight-forward kind of person, his interests are first and foremost, his/her own, if adventure avails itsself, great, if not, then drinking and hitting on barmaids is a great and honorable past-time.  I play this way because this is who I am, and who I am is the role I am most capable of.  If someone wants to play a treasure-hungry character but fails to be treasure-hungry, that is their failure, but at the same time, it is also a failure on the part of the DM to dangle that lure of treasure in front of them.

Sand-boxes are great for adventuring, but they're horrible for stories.  It is ENTIRELY the DM's job to design and frame a story, even if it's just creating a lot of adventures that could be discovered through an initial sandbox.  It is the job of the players to desire to find adventure, but not to create it.

It's a two-way street, always has been, always will be, DM creates the basic framework for stories, adventures, and so on, pushes the players out of their comfort zone, and then the players fill in the details, all with a helping hand from the DM now and then.  

The short story is: what people want is a well-fleshed out railroad, Nobody wants a one-way street, but neither do they want a 10-lane freeway.  It is the responsibility of EVERYONE to make the game fun, DM and players.  If a DM puts the responsibility on the players, the natural question is of the DM's necessity, if the players put it all on the DM, then the question is of the player's necessity.

Two-way street, end of story.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 16, 2010)

Good thread.



Kzach said:


> Players tend to go off on tangents or, and this is what I find really bizarre, purposefully ignore the leads. And it's not like they're doing anything interesting instead.



I used to do that about ten years ago. It was wrong, I know that now.

I don't think there's any need for a massive sandbox with dozens and dozens of adventure opportunities. A half-dozen or so, tops, should be fine for each session.

It's right, I think, that players follow the GM's lead, waiting for him to initiate with an adventure hook. The GM will, probably, have a limited amount of prepared adventure material. The players, having turned up to a session, presumably want to interact with that material. So it makes sense to wait for the GM to signpost it. Otherwise you run the risk of missing the adventure. (Otoh, the most enjoyable moments always seem to be improvised, like the 'Whale' name mentioned above.)

Players want to be fed at least one adventure hook. But they don't want to feel forced to follow the GM's plot, ie railroaded. My feeling is that the adventure has a whole does have to be 'forced' on the players, but what they do with that adventure is up to them, to a large extent. Sometimes it just won't work. For example siding with the bandits against the villagers in a Magnificent Seven setup would make the game too easy. Tho the GM could maybe improv some other, opposing heroes.

Some adventure hooks are themselves too forced, too railroady. The start of G1 Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, for example, where the PCs will get beheaded if they don't defeat the giants. Yes, if there's only one hook then the players do have to follow it. But you don't have to shove the lack of freedom in the players' faces. At least have the pretence of a sandbox.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 16, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> I've know one DM who pretty much always ran pure sandbox games, and I found them incredibly boring - because he didn't put much thought into anything up front, we would come up with an idea, go somewhere, have some on the fly combats without any real impact, and move on. Even at high levels, it was just a case of wandering around and beating people up. Hugely unsatisfying. So as a player - give me a railroad every day - especially if it is a railroad to awesometown (to paraphrase Morrus's sig)



I've played in a zero prep sandbox that worked. It was Rifts. We had nothing to do so resorted to petty banditry and our schemes always went abominably awry. Good fun.

But yeah, generally speaking, a sandbox needs adventures and those adventures need hooks so the players can find the fun.

If the PCs are only presented with one hook then a sandbox, with non-self starting players, will be identical to a non-sandbox. Say the PCs are sitting in a tavern, waiting for something to do, and they hear a rumour about a great treasure in nearby ruins. Obvious adventure. But those PCs might be in a sandbox with lots of other, unhooked adventures nearby, or the ruins might be all the GM has prepped. The point is, if the players always follow the hook then for all intents and purposes they are the same.


----------



## Anselyn (Aug 16, 2010)

Kzach said:


> ... the most die-hard roleplayer who will scream black and blue that they are the bestest roleplayer evar, ...
> [...]
> 
> we start the game and sit in a tavern for three hours roleplaying hitting on the barmaids, drinking themselves silly, and provoking fights.




The second point does not contradict the first. 

If the players are having fun with their characters as they sit chatting in character - perhaps developing the inter-character relations - and having fun being in the world then that's roleplaying.  It's also fun that you're facilitating by running the NPCs in the tavern and the the bar room brawl. So - take some credit where it's due.

If your concept of roleplaying is that they have to go and kill stuff/get clues then perhaps that should be part of the initial campaign briefing. But - what you're describing above is roleplaying.


----------



## Oryan77 (Aug 16, 2010)

You want credentials? When I took the job placement test back in high school, it came back saying that I should look for a position as a Dungeon Master.

Nobody told me the pay was crap. Now I wish I just stuck to being a player.

As DM, I find myself reminding the players all the time about hooks & plotlines & even often nudging them in the right direction just to get the ball rolling. I can't really blame them. Part of the problem with players though is that as we get older, keeping up with a plot in an adventure almost seems like working overtime. Sometimes you don't want to think much and you just want to react. Sure, it can be interesting to learn about some plotline, but overall, I think people just want to unwind without thinking too much.

I kind of do that with videogames. After working all week, it's actually very relaxing just loading up a FPS and mindlessly run around shooting people. And if I'm playing an RPG videogame like Fallout 3, sometimes I'm just skipping through the dialogue scenes without reading them so I can hurry and get back to the action. That's kind of how I see a lot of players approach D&D sometimes.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Aug 16, 2010)

I don't think it's anybodies responsibility. 

I haven't been DMing as long as you, however when somebody is constantly at odds with their group, it's usually a problem with them and not the players neglecting their storyline responsibilities.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 16, 2010)

Um, sandboxes do require plot hooks - LOTS of plot hooks!  In a strict sandbox the PCs might need to do some work to locate the hooks, but there's nothing wrong with having NPCs mention them during a casual night's drinking:  "The barmaid mentions her nephew and his friends went off exploring the Old Willard Mansion yesterday and he's not come back - the parents are worried sick..."

This is what those old Rumour Tables in sandbox adventures and sourcebooks were for.  The GM should not be running a setting where Nothing Ever Happens, full of Pirates Who Don't Do Anything.

The difference is that in a linear game there is One hook, and the PCs need to follow it or there's no game.  In a sandbox there are lots and lots and lots, and any particular hook can be ignored - in fact some SHOULD be ignored as they may lead to certain death for low-level PCs  - "The King puts out a call for adventurers to slay the Great Wyrm Ancalagorn troubling the Realm" is best ignored by 1st level PCs.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 16, 2010)

Oh,  I think the title of the OP is right.

In a fully sandbox type game, the players have the responsibility to forge their own story.

In a fully linear game, the players have the responsibility to follow the dots of the pre-written story.

Most games fall in-between, eg my Willow Vale campaign was linear at the campaign level, but each scenario within the campaign was largely open and site-based, giving freedom of action within the physical parameters of the adventure.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 16, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> I don't think there's any need for a massive sandbox with dozens and dozens of adventure opportunities. A half-dozen or so, tops, should be fine for each session.




As GM I think I rarely give out more than about 2-3 different 'hooks' in any one session.  The exception would be if the PCs were actively seeking to hoover up every single rumour in a locale, going through a big city like that I guess they could potentially accumulate a double-figure number of hooks, which could be challenging if I had no idea which one or ones they'd then go for.  I might even need to use delaying tactics like the ole 'random' encounter to give me time to prep fully for the next session.


----------



## DragonLancer (Aug 16, 2010)

I'm with Kzach on this one. As a player you wouldn't turn up to a Call of Cthulhu session and then just ignore the scenario that the GM has prepared for your evening's entertainment, so why would you do it in D&D? This may sound harsh but as a player it is your responsibility to turn up and play what your DM has prepared. I don't mean accept railroading, because you can wander on tangents and find your own way through, but if the DM has prepared his campaign or adventure, then play it.

As a DM 90% of the time, I am happy for the playful banter and RP in the tavern for about five minutes. After that I want the players to snap to and play the game. Play the scenario. For that remaining 10% when I'm a player, I want to turn up and take part in the prepared story. I don't see why the majority of the time it should be any different for any other player.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 16, 2010)

S'mon said:


> Oh,  I think the title of the OP is right.
> 
> In a fully sandbox type game, the players have the responsibility to forge their own story.
> 
> ...




This is how I view a good campaign.  Given scenarios should be pretty open and non-linear, but, for me, the needs of pacing dictates that the connections between scenarios should be pretty short.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 16, 2010)

Pretty much agree with the OP, but would phrase it thus: It is the responsibility of the players to do _something_.

When the DM provides a plot hook, it's generally good manners to bite on it. That said, if you _really_ don't like this plot hook--or something else is just too enticing--or you simply misunderstand what the DM expects of you--it's okay to go do something else, and it's the DM's job to roll with it when you do. (Be prepared to take a short break while the DM whips up something interesting, and don't expect the "something interesting" to be too carefully thought-out.) A well-crafted campaign world can dish up adventure anywhere.

What's not okay is to ignore plot hooks, then kick around town doing nothing in particular for the whole session. If you're going to disregard the adventure the DM has crafted for you, then you better go find one of your own.

That's not to say you can't hang around and hit on barmaids for a few minutes. It's a good way to settle in to the game world. But if you fail your Diplomacy check--or Bluff, depending on your pickup line--just accept that you're not going to get any imaginary sex tonight and move on.

(Of course, the _really_ clever DMs will build in plot hooks that trigger when a PC hits on a barmaid. Heh.)


----------



## S'mon (Aug 16, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> (Of course, the _really_ clever DMs will build in plot hooks that trigger when a PC hits on a barmaid. Heh.)




There's also the old "floating hook" trick.  

Example from my City State game - a PC, Deod the Skandik, hit on an attractive female aristocrat, Thaya, at the Bywater Baths, she invited him to call round to her place.  I had an adventure hook ready, she'd ask him to rescue her sister's son from the goblin ruins.  Perhaps because Deod suspected (correctly) that Thaya was married, he didn't take up the offer to call on her.

Meanwhile another PC, Taliesin, was wandering randomly around town, checking things out.  After awhile he gets talking to a halfling baker, Tinker, who's closing up shop.  

And... 

It just so turns out Tinker's sister's boys are missing in the goblin ruins.  

Note that this wasn't railroaded - having dropped the hook, the PCs remain free to accept or reject it.  Once they reject it, fine, it's used, it turns out Thaya doesn't have a sister, Tinker's nephews get eaten by the goblins - the hook won't keep following the PCs around demanding attention like in a bad CRPG.   I might offer a different hook to the goblin ruins later on (in fact I did later on have a different hook for a different PC, the goblins had kidnapped a teacher from the School of Ancient Knowledge), but probably not at least for several sessions with these PCs.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 16, 2010)

I used to find writing up a storyhour was excellent value, as the players would read it and get reminded of important dangling plot hooks from one or more of the adventures.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 16, 2010)

A little sidetrack concerning dangling plot lines:

In one campaign I had a team of NPC adventurers who were roughly the same level as the PC party.

When the PC's rejected a murder mystery investigation proposal from a local merchant, I had the NPC's take care of it. The merchant rewarded them well, and the team became local gossip.

When the PC's heard of dissappearing cows and did nothing, the farmers went to the NPC's, who brought them back. They became friends with the farming community, and local gossip.

When the PC's failed to catch a thief who'd been targeting noble families, got bored and went elsewhere, the NPC's saved the day. And thus their reputation soared.

so

When the PC's went to the king to become part of a high reward campaign against a group of necromancers the king said: "Who are you? _These_ are the heroes I've chosen." Que the NPC team the PC's had been hearing about.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 16, 2010)

The PC's in my current 4e campaign are carrying the story all right... straight off a cliff. Well, technically into a semi-religious Communist revolution which they'll be on the losing side of (protip: don't bet _against_ the rich if they're both competent and vigilant). 

That is, if they aren't killed by the warlock Mafia they just framed for grand theft deity, or during their trip to Hell for a wedding (a Tiefling PC is trying to marry into the Infernal Aristocracy).


----------



## Wicht (Aug 16, 2010)

Part of the art of DMing is the art of presenting the illusion of choice in a way that makes the players feel in control of their character's destiny as the story continues to progress. This is true in both sandbox games (where there are simply more choices) and in more linear games.  

It is also my experience that DM's make better players than players who have never DM'd. 

That said, I'm not going to rant or complain about players because without players the DM has nothing to do but roll dice by himself and move his own character through his own dungeon (been there, done that, not as satisfying as running a group of other people).


----------



## Evilhalfling (Aug 16, 2010)

My campaign is similar to Plane sailing in that its more like an interchange than a railroad.  Even when I don't want or expect it to be. 
Perhaps my hooks and implications are too subtle. 


Or maybe I'm just dissapointed the PCs avoided a hook that was supposed to help set the theme of the campaign, showing what one of the underlying world problems was.  A right of passage, given by the spirits of a PCs destroyed tribe, and the chance to heal the pain of a wounded mountain spirit.  The goliath player flailed to show up, and the rest of the party decided it was his problem. 

They went on to kill a catastrophy dragon threating a town of evil ratmen slavers, (for pay) and then pout because they are not strong enough to attack the town's leader (although they could/did kill some of the town members, who ambushed them on the way back from killing the dragon) 

They even missed the implications that powerful nature spirits could summon/create catastropy dragons. (learned in arcana check) 

I do provide lots of other story hooks, and the PCs are planning on backtracking to follow a older one.  Which they passed up earlier to come try and rescue the slaves from the ratmen. 

What I need is a clue hammer.


----------



## Mortellan (Aug 16, 2010)

Good topic.

I agree with the OP and all those whose experience is that DMs are better players. This is not to say they have more fun, but we are more respectful of what the DM is trying to achieve. I know when I play whatever RPG that I never try to derail a plot but rather prefer the railroad, and I rarely use meta knowledge (example: where I am a player in a Greyhawk game when I'm usually the most knowlegable of that setting).


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 16, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> I used to find writing up a storyhour was excellent value, as the players would read it and get reminded of important dangling plot hooks from one or more of the adventures.



I find I as DM read it and get reminded of dangling plot hooks I'd forgotten about!

What I've learned over time is that while I might have an adventure or story in mind and even have the PCs en route to it, my players never met a red herring they didn't like* and thus side trips and left turns are relatively common.

* - says he, who just got done running an entire adventure that wasn't intended to happen; the party decided to go chase Giants instead of staying on mission...

It has also happened that a party gets on an adventure path but in the first adventure or two gets clobbered so badly that even they realize they are in no fit shape to stay on that path; so they go and look for something else. 

Lanefan


----------



## Kzach (Aug 16, 2010)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> I haven't been DMing as long as you, however when somebody is constantly at odds with their group, it's usually a problem with them and not the players neglecting their storyline responsibilities.




Who is constantly at odds with anyone?

Did you actually read what I posted? Most of the time groups have fallen apart simply because I moved away from the area and it was no longer local for me. I don't own a car and rely on public transport, meaning if I move just two suburbs away, it can mean more than an hour's increase in travel time, and it often means cutting short games at 10ish because busses tend not to run late in most outer suburbs of Melbourne. And it's worse on weekends.

Another thing I've found about groups is that they're extremely fragile, and when you get someone like me who steps up to the plate and organises people, who then stops organising them, they (OMG!) stop being organised. The amount of groups who have had enough people and a perfectly fine venue to play at who have stopped playing together simply because I stopped organising them, I have lost count of.

Have I had conflicts with groups? Sure, and I have left groups because of people I didn't like, and I'm sure people have not liked me either. But I never indicated that there was any disproportionate amount of groups that I've 'been at odds' with, and the fact is, that's simply not the case.

Which makes me wonder just what exactly your agenda was with posting such a comment.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 16, 2010)

On a side-note, if anyone lives in or around Ringwood and wants an extra player who will show up showered, with solid rules knowledge, ready and updated character sheet, and who will follow your plot and clues, email me


----------



## Umbran (Aug 16, 2010)

Kzach said:


> Which makes me wonder just what exactly your agenda was with posting such a comment.




To adjust a phrase: do not attribute to malice that which can be easily explained by simple miscommunication.  Rather than have an "agenda", it is far more likely they just "read into" the post a bit too far, and made some assumptions that you'd say aren't warranted.


----------



## MortonStromgal (Aug 16, 2010)

I find its more important that players have common ideas/goals than that they are proactive. Though I could see that as a problem. I tend to run NPCs with motivations and events. The PCs will at some point run into these NPCs or events and then choose how they will deal with it. This then becomes their part of the story. I had a modern horror where the PCs decided stopping gang violence was more interesting than stopping the unspeakable horror from becoming mayor. It was an interesting game.


----------



## radmod (Aug 16, 2010)

I mostly agree with the OP. I'm presuming he's not saying the players have to _create _the story, just take aid in the direction.

I've tried all three methods: railroad, sandbox and free form. 
Railroad I have no problem with as it gets things going. I, nor the players, have to sit around for hours trying to decide what to do. I've had too many complaints from PCs who don't seem to want to make the decision.
Free form is tricky. I'm currently running a campaign that requires it. As it stands, I have to wait for someone to say _some thing_ to get things going.
Sandbox is what I prefer. Players have options, and they have to live with them. For example, after finishing off a 4 year D&D campaign, everybody was in a strange mood. Ignoring my sandbox, their answer was "We go north!" I would throw out adventure ideas and their answer was "We go north!" I would let them know that going farther north would be more and more dangerous and they'd run against randoms which indicated so; their answer was "We go north!" They went north and were TPK'd. Shortest campaign ever.

I also agree: players suck!


----------



## Chrono22 (Aug 16, 2010)

Yeah, unmotivated players are the worst. The essence of adventure is drive, a desire to move forward, to look for challenges and risks and to overcome them, to explore strange new environments, to seek out new life; new civilizations... to _*boldly*_ go where no one has gone before!
I try not to DM for sticks in the mud, as much as I am able. More than anything, they hold the game and the rest of the players back. After so many games and failed campaigns, I've learned the biggest threat to the adventuring party is disinterest and a lack of ambition, not monsters.


----------



## rogueattorney (Aug 16, 2010)

I've said a number of times on these boards that I'd rather be in a game with great players and a mediocre DM than a game with a great DM and mediocre players.

The DM can only do so much.  It's really up to the players to make the game take flight.  With inspired, proactive, creative players, the DMs main job becomes, "Don't screw things up."


----------



## athos (Aug 16, 2010)

I wish you would DM some 3.5 online with your open concept.  I love those games.  I played in one "sandbox" type game where the players were all goblins and hobgoblins and such in a tribe that branched off.  It was a great concept, but when we got a new player that made a move to grab the power of the group, another player he threatened in whisper killed his PC and the game promptly fell apart.  Such are the ways of evil I suppose.

"Sandbox" games are great if you have one very proactive player who is willing to "lead" the group, but as my previous experience shows, if you have two strong leader types, one has to die or leave it seems or there will be conflict in the group.

With a given mission, the typical style adventure, the group is tied together with a common purpose and is focused on the mission and not trying to gain personal power.  This is a setting most players are comfortable in.

I find when I play in a mission setting, I am very group focused, whereas when I am in a "sandbox" setting where you can do anything you want, I am more apt to get two or three PCs together and try to take over something .  Doesn't matter what, the local castle, the local thieves guild, the local you name it, if someone else is making money on it, my guy wants a piece of the action.  But then, when I play for fun, I like to play characters that are the anti-me, someone I can just go crazy with and do something without regard to being politically correct and nice.

If I knew how to make a poll, I would ask the community whether they are like me and prefer to play a character that is the opposite of them in real life, or if they like to play a character that has the same views and values as they do in real life.  I have always been curious about that.

Anyways, if you have a problem with local players contributing to your game in a positive manner, have you tried going online?  It isn't the same as table top in a couple critical things (like manners, showing up, etc) but there are some very proactive players I have found online that have a lot of creativity.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 16, 2010)

The worst players are the ones that won't bite on any adventure hooks, and won't do anything else either. Either it's because their PC motivation is borked ("My character wouldn't risk his life for money!"), they expect the GM to outright force their PCs to go on the adventure G1 style, or they are just fundamentally boring people.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 16, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> The worst players are the ones that won't bite on any adventure hooks, and won't do anything else either. Either it's because their PC motivation is borked ("My character wouldn't risk his life for money!"), they expect the GM to outright force their PCs to go on the adventure G1 style, or they are just fundamentally boring people.




I've often wondered why people want to play roleplaying games when they don't step outside of themselves to roleplay. I mean... I'm not a very adventurous sort. My child-hood and teenage years were pretty wild with lots of camping, working in tourist destinations, and partying. Nowadays if someone says, "Wanna come party?" I'm more likely to respond, "I'd rather shoot myself in the face with buckshot," and stay home and watch TV.

But when it comes to roleplaying games, I like to play outrageous and adventurous characters who are always on the lookout for adventure and excitement. If my character isn't rescuing a princess, then dammit, he's gonna find one who needs rescuing!

Yet, so many people seem to... I don't know... not get the point of roleplaying? Joe lawyer plays paladin pacifist who defends people's rights in arbitration committees, not gung-ho, in your face, paladin with a vengeful streak. Sam the timid geek, plays the ranger who sits at the back of the group and says nothing and just rolls his two Twin-shot dice every turn, which quickly passes over him to the next person.

Maybe RPG publishers need to explain the concept of roleplaying a bit better.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 17, 2010)

Kzach said:


> On a side-note, if anyone lives in or around Ringwood and wants an extra player who will show up showered, with solid rules knowledge, ready and updated character sheet, and who will follow your plot and clues, email me



Sounds good, but where's Ringwood?  I don't think I live there...

Lanefan


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 17, 2010)

It's the player's role to have goals that mesh with the overall idea of the game.
(ie - we want treasure)

It's the DMs role to use those goals to send the PCs adventuring.
(there's treasure over here in the goblin ruins)

If the players have no goals/goals incompatible with the game (my pc is an insane recluse who wants to stay at home and eat peanuts - he fights crime!), or the DM ignores the PC goals (ok you band of mercenary pirates... the penniless peasant woman asks you to save her husband from a bear out of the goodness of your hearts!), nobody is going anywhere and noone is going to have fun.

I've seen both types of games. And if either party are a little bit slow to rise to the challenge, then it ends up in a vicious cycle: the DM can't be bothered to work PC motivations into the game unless the PCs have motivations, and the PCs can't be bothered to work out motivations if the DM has previously ignored them.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 17, 2010)

Kzach said:
			
		

> Maybe RPG publishers need to explain the concept of roleplaying a bit better.




I think you have a very good point there.  Every RPG in print (or nearly so) has about a page of "What is a roleplaying game" but, other than some sample transcripts, very few RPG's spend much time on "How can you be a GREAT roleplayer".  

Heck, we have an entire manual in D&D devoted to making someone a good DM, but the Player's Handbook is very light on what makes a good player.  The PHB tells you how to make a character, spends a bit of time on how to make a background, but, doesn't spend a lot of time on the pragmatic end of simply playing the game as a player.


----------



## InVinoVeritas (Aug 17, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> > Originally Posted by *Kzach*
> >
> >
> > _On a side-note, if anyone lives in or around Ringwood and wants an extra player who will show up showered, with solid rules knowledge, ready and updated character sheet, and who will follow your plot and clues, email me _
> ...




Hey, I'm near Ringwood! Maybe we could--

Oh, wait, I thought you meant Ringwood, New Jersey. I see you mean Ringwood, Victoria.

Hey, Lanefan's in Victoria! There's a match! How about--

Oh, wait, that's Victoria, British Columbia, not Victoria, Australia.

Sorry, can't help.

Back to the topic...

I remember one adventure I ran that ended in disaster. I was DMing a Living Greyhawk adventure, and the group consisted of one guy who was big into D&D, and a bunch of his friends that weren't that familiar with the game. For every step, they all turned to him to figure out what to do next. Literally.

The problem was that this leader-gamer wasn't a particularly observant or connect-the-dots kind of guy. The adventure was designed as an open-ended mystery.

The first half-hour was essentially:

Me: "Okay, you're in the room. There's XYZ around, a letter on the desk, and books have been pulled out of the bookshelf."
Everyone else: (Turn to stare at friend.)
Friend: "Uhh..."

I ended up essentially retinkering with the adventure in real time to give them something that worked. Really, though, it was just a bad combination of party and adventure.

I agree that the illusion of choice is usually the easiest solution, and the most acceptable. Sometimes, you can get away with a blatant railroad. For example, if the game is a crime procedural. However, you can introduce more choice into the game as long as you're prepared. I've DM'ed enough that I have about four or five adventures that I can run without prep at the drop of a hat, so I can make them available in any game I run. As a result, I make sure they're available hooks for the PCs when I run open-style. 

It's the DM's job to create tantalizing hooks. It's the player's job to nibble at hooks that look interesting. Sometimes, the players can call the shots, and the DM can run with it. However, the players need to actually, you know, call shots, and the DM needs a robust world around them to react and act. It's no mean feat, but with the right players and DM, the full sandbox is quite doable.


----------



## CrimsonReaver (Aug 17, 2010)

When you sit down to game, whether DM or player, you're entering into a relationship with everyone else at the table.  And, like any relationship, communication is absolutely essential to its success or failure.  As are an open mind, a willingness to put in some effort, and the ability to realize when it's simply not working and it's better to part ways than constantly bash your head into a brick wall as you try to make the other person/people into what you want them to be.

When I've been the DM, I've always made a point of asking my would-be players what they want from the experience.  If all they want is combat and loot, with no desire to role-playing or story, then I go the Wizardry route where it's just a X-level dungeon/tower/whatever with a generic goal/boss at the opposite end of where they start.  If they crave story, if the want opportunities to live in their characters, then I strive to present them with a sprawling epic with an expansive cast of NPCs (many of who have recurring roles) in an adventure that spans an entire world (or more) that's impacted by their choices.  Or anything in between - provided it's what *I'm* in the mood to run.  If I'm not feeling it, or I know I'll get burned out DMing it, I offer an alternative, a compromise, or suggest that someone else might be better suited to run that particular style of game.

Similarly, every so often, when a game sessions wraps, I like to ask the players how they're enjoying it.  I mean, usually I can tell when someone is bored or frustrated, but I always try to give my players an audience to make suggestions, to chime in about what they'd like more or less of.  And I like to do it in the open, where all the players can voice their individual quibbles or wants.  Because it's not just an issue of DM vs. players, but the players all have to gel too.

There's almost always one player who gets _really_ into the role-playing element and wants to interact with every possible NPC they encounter, or feels compelled to detail their character's every action or every moment.  Just as there's almost always that one player who constantly screams, "Get to the killing!!!"  The guy who'll stab an NPC mid-sentence because it was taking too long to get to the next battle.  So, it's just as vital that the players feel comfortable within the group, that nobody feels like they have to suppress their desire to role-play for fear of bogging down the game, or curtail their bloodthirst and, instead, turn to IMing on their phone while they wait for the dice rolling to begin.

Everyone is responsible for the fun, and everyone is accountable to everyone else at that table for that fun.  In almost 20 years of gaming, I've had very few bad experiences since I've made a point of talking things out with my groups beforehand, making sure we're all on the same page about what we want from the experience and tweaking things as we go to meet everyone's needs.


So, all that being said, I agree that players are absolutely responsible for carrying the story - as the leads, they're the only ones who can bring it to life, keep it moving forward, and help it evolve - but _only_ if they've signed on for that responsibility.  It's unfair to push a Final Fantasy story on players who were just looking for a little Diablo-style hack 'n' slash fun, and that's a failure of the DM.


----------



## DumbPaladin (Aug 17, 2010)

I too agree that the original poster is correct.  My character's been somewhat thrust into the leadership role, primarily because he's the moral compass and the social glue of the group and NOT because he's the best equipped person to necessarily lead ... but when I don't have my pally choose a mission to undertake, we can sometimes sit and spin our wheels doing things that are not going to earn us any XP at all ...


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Aug 17, 2010)

Kzach said:


> Who is constantly at odds with anyone?
> 
> Did you actually read what I posted? Most of the time groups have fallen apart simply because I moved away from the area and it was no longer local for me. I don't own a car and rely on public transport, meaning if I move just two suburbs away, it can mean more than an hour's increase in travel time, and it often means cutting short games at 10ish because busses tend not to run late in most outer suburbs of Melbourne. And it's worse on weekends.
> 
> ...




No agenda. Your tone with words like "responsibility" and negitive conitations towards self-described "roleplayers" came off as bitter to me. Since you mentioned group troubles I assumed that was the cause. If I'm mistaken, I'm sorry but I still feel a great sesne of bitterness in your OP.

Having said that, I still disagree with you. It doesn't bother me one iota that my players would rather be in the tavern for a few sessions. As long as they're having fun and IMO a good DM can turn any bad gaming situation into at least decent one.


----------



## Greyfeld (Aug 17, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I think you have a very good point there.  Every RPG in print (or nearly so) has about a page of "What is a roleplaying game" but, other than some sample transcripts, very few RPG's spend much time on "How can you be a GREAT roleplayer".
> 
> Heck, we have an entire manual in D&D devoted to making someone a good DM, but the Player's Handbook is very light on what makes a good player.  The PHB tells you how to make a character, spends a bit of time on how to make a background, but, doesn't spend a lot of time on the pragmatic end of simply playing the game as a player.




To be fair, DMing and drawing up character sheets require more coaching from a mechanical standpoint than does RPing.  Role Playing boils down to "use your imagination."

The real problem is that a wide majority of players, despite wanting to RP, are afraid to step outside of their bubble of what is comfortable and familiar.  The only real way to pull them out of that is to lead by example and show them that it's alright to be loud, semi-obnoxious, and create a completely off-the-wall character that doesn't reflect them in RL whatsoever.


----------



## Greyfeld (Aug 17, 2010)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> No agenda. Your tone with words like "responsibility" and negitive conitations towards self-described "roleplayers" came off as bitter to me. Since you mentioned group troubles I assumed that was the cause. If I'm mistaken, I'm sorry but I still feel a great sesne of bitterness in your OP.
> 
> Having said that, I still disagree with you. It doesn't bother me one iota that my players would rather be in the tavern for a few sessions. As long as they're having fun and IMO a good DM can turn any bad gaming situation into at least decent one.




I'd just like to point out that I got the same impression when I read the OP.  I have nevered DMed, so I can only speak from a player perspective.  But throwing around phrases like "it's your responsibility to carry a story" and saying how you have to lie to your players to get them to do anything (all 100+ of them, obviously) gives the impression that you see running a game for non-DM players as an exercise in stupidity, and not worth your time.

Honestly, if I had somebody that said "roll up a character, you're in a tavern.... aaaaaand GO!" I would ask "... what exactly am I supposed to be doing?"  I understand that DMs go through a lot of work and effort to piece together campaigns and plot hooks and such, but it's only fun so long as I actually feel like my character has a reason to remain interested.


----------



## angelababy (Aug 17, 2010)

yeah, I have to feed them adventures, but still they take off and turn them upside down with the rp. While searching for a creature kidnapping kids, they encountered the third PC a college student, who runs a "wall of wierd". give them sandboxes when they enter trading posts. Go bother random NPCs for chump change.
For all intents and purposes they're in a sandbox but the reality is that they are chugging along a railroad. All that matters is that they think they are making choices.
Actually, that isn't entirely true. I normally give the illusion of a sandbox but when the rumours are all about goblin attacks in the village to the north.
Cheers


----------



## Beginning of the End (Aug 17, 2010)

shidaku said:


> Sand-boxes are great for adventuring, but they're horrible for stories.




Given that most stories are driven by the interests of the protagonists, I find this an odd claim to make.

It is a vestigial remnants of the rest of our media consumption culture that results in players wanting to be both (a) play the protagonists and (b) just sit back and passively receive a story.

OTOH, I'm also seeing a lot of "sandbox campaigns suck because they're always set in really boring places" strawmen being spread liberally around the thread. So, yes, it's the DM's responsibility to create a dramatically interesting situations for the PCs to interact with.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 17, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Given that most stories are driven by the interests of the protagonists, I find this an odd claim to make.
> 
> It is a vestigial remnants of the rest of our media consumption culture that results in players wanting to be both (a) play the protagonists and (b) just sit back and passively receive a story.
> 
> OTOH, I'm also seeing a lot of "sandbox campaigns suck because they're always set in really boring places" strawmen being spread liberally around the thread. So, yes, it's the DM's responsibility to create a dramatically interesting situations for the PCs to interact with.




This I mostly agree with.  It's not so much that sandboxes are always boring, it's that bad sandboxes are boring and it's REALLY easy to make bad sandboxes.  Sandboxes done well are fantastic.  But, IMO, a metric boatload of work for the DM to set up and then present to the players in such a way that they actually buy into the setting.

It's far easier to screw up a sandbox than a plotsy campaign.

OTOH, blaming "our media consumption culture" seems like a cop out as well.


----------



## Lord Zack (Aug 17, 2010)

Seriously, do you're players even want to play D&D? Not trying to insult you or you're players, but I would think that if you're playing D&D you're going to be you know adventuring. My players don't need to be prodded to go and adventure. It also helps that one of my players has a strong goal for his character, that I gave them rumors that they heard before the game even began and I also started my campaign with something happening (an attack by bandits on the road to town. Bandits which they're promptly whooped and made they're "hirelings", they're wages being they're lives. Besides that they treat them pretty well though.). But even without that they'd probably have immediately searched for a "plot hook" (the word "plot" isn't really appropriate because I don't have one) and pursued it.

If my players just sat around the tavern drinking beer and hitting and the serving girls I'd be like "After a week or so of wenching and boozing you find you're coin pouches getting rather low. Perhaps you should find some kind of profitable adventure if you wish to continue you're present lifestyle? Unless of course you're characters want to get jobs...". If they made themselves a nuisance by constantly starting fights they might get in trouble with the law, or just get run out of town by angry townsfolk. Even if they are initially unmotivated you don't need to railroad them, just give them some motivation. Heck, they don't even need to leave town to adventure. Adventure can find them. Maybe the barmaid they're hitting on has a boyfriend. Maybe they have they're coin purse snatched. Maybe somebody they know disappears. Maybe the town is attacked by goblins. I think however the best solution is probably to say to you're players "Hey, I know you guys sometimes have problems with motivation. I really want you to figure out a reason for you're character to actually adventure without having to be prodded. Even if it's just 'my character is too lazy to actually work so he wants to find a dungeon to raid'. We're here to play D&D right?"


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 18, 2010)

I have to say, this was my experience of GMing for most of my GMing career (on and off since 1987). It was only until I started playing Indie games the last couple of years that this has not been a problem for me. They have mostly given me and my players the tools necessary to avoid the "spoon fed by the GM or no game" type games. Indies games are great for this kind of thing.

That being said, there are a lot of tactics that can be used to avoid this whole problem in more traditional games. A great source for strategies for this kind of thing is the Ars Ludi blog. Good stuff there.

These exact problems are discussed in a post there called Three Sins of Players. One of the sins is passive players, another is the sabateur. One wrecks a sandbox, another wrecks a plot, and any player can be either or both, depending on the circumstances. 

Plot type games can be enhanced and kept from being railroads by creating situations, not plots. Situations not plots outlines how this is accomplished. Creating situations gives the players something to do that is easily understood, and at times impossible to miss, but doesn't demand a certain response, just _some_ response.

If you want to play a sandbox type game, Grand Experiments: West Marches shows how this is set up in a way that demands player action and investment. The quick spoiler is that the GM does not organize play. The players do. They schedule the session, and only after they give the GM a goal for the session does it happen. No more sitting around the tavern and wasting time. No plan, no play. This series is continued with Grand Experiments: West Marches (part 2), Sharing Info, Grand Experiments: West Marches (part 3), Recycling, Grand Experiments: West Marches (part 4), Death & Danger, and West Marches: Running Your Own.

Another thing that I would suggest to combat all this stuff is to try some Indie games. Taking a look at roleplaying from a different perspective than the traditional helps us to become better gamers. It has definitely made me a better GM. Try Something New: The Indie Exploration Kit is a good sales pitch for why we should do this, and provides a couple of suggestions for where to start. I like and own both games suggested. I also recommend any FATE game, The Committee for the Expolration of Mysteries is one of my favorites, Dogs in the Vinyard is great for sandboxes, InSpectres is easy and fun with little GM guidance, and Lady Blackbird is amazing once you get the hang of player initiation of game/plot.

In essence, I agree that players should be held responsible for bringing the fun, but I disagree that the illusion of a sandbox that is actually a railroad is the answer, or even that it is subconsciously desired by players. Often, it is just the only way that players know to get some fun in their games. Often, it is easy to sit back and have the GM spoon feed you. Often, it is much less satisfying to have only one player (the GM or a leader of the party) bring the fun. When we train ourselves and our players with a few simple tricks, the bar session only happens if everyone wants it to.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 18, 2010)

Lord Zack - there's a danger in getting too bogged down in a specific example.  While I'm pretty sure that few tables actually see groups sit around a bar hitting on wenches for an entire session, I HAVE seen groups, even when they have pretty strongly signposted adventures (ie. they've accepted a particular tasking as needing to be done) screw around for very, very long periods of time on completely trivial stuff.  It's not specifically talking to one NPC for long periods of time, it's talking to EVERY NPC for long periods of time.

It's taking an hour haggling over 5 gp for a spear.  It's taking three hours to determine the exact wording of a Divination spell.  It's poncing about interviewing every single troopie when hiring a dozen spear carriers to go hunt a creature.

It's all about the pacing.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 18, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> OTOH, I'm also seeing a lot of "sandbox campaigns suck because they're always set in really boring places" strawmen being spread liberally around the thread. So, yes, it's the DM's responsibility to create a dramatically interesting situations for the PCs to interact with.




I think you need the right sandbox for the right group.  Some novice players might be overwhelmed by something like the City State of the Invincible Overlord and 'turtle', other players might be bored by the traditional peaceful village + nearby dungeon.

Of course you can have both in the same setting - maybe the PCs start off at the village/dungeon and go to the city when they have a few levels.  Maybe they start out in the city before venturing to the frontier.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 18, 2010)

Hussar said:


> It's far easier to screw up a sandbox than a plotsy campaign.




I dunno, my big screw up have all been plotsy "Here's the adventure" stuff*.  The big advantage of a sandbox is that by definition the players are deciding to do what interests them.  Of course it's then the GM's responsibility to make what interests them interesting, and both need to be on the same page, eg if a PC wants to retire from adventuring and run a shop, it's within the GM's rights to explain this will mean retiring the PC.  In fact I think it's the GM's duty to explain if he thinks a particular course of action will lead to a boring game or the end of the campaign.  I know that's a mistake I've made in the past.

*The biggest screw up I can recall was a very linear "caravan trek" game in the 2e era, ca 1995.  It wasn't going well so I railroad-teleported the PCs to a desert milieu where they got massacred by a Dungeon mag adventure several levels too high for them.  I still shudder at the memory.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 18, 2010)

Hussar said:


> It's taking an hour haggling over 5 gp for a spear.  It's taking three hours to determine the exact wording of a Divination spell.  It's poncing about interviewing every single troopie when hiring a dozen spear carriers to go hunt a creature.
> 
> It's all about the pacing.




That seems like the kind of pacing the GM can control:  "Make a CHA check".  If I as GM think something is boring, I cut to to the chase.  If it's interesting and developing character/plotlines/contacts then I'll run with it.

The big problem I've seen is players/PCs who Turtle, who withdraw and refuse to interact with the setting.  But this happens equally in sandbox, linear, and mixed campaigns, IME.  The PCs wenching in the tavern isn't a problem since I can use that to bring in tons of hooks (leads to adventure) and bangs (events that demand immediate action, not necessarily literal banging...)   Only if the PCs then Turtle and refuse to follow any hooks or engage with the bangs, does it become a problem, and that is extremely rare and dysfunctional player behaviour IME.

If the players are hanging out in the tavern like Mouser & Fafhrd, maybe they're expecting adventure to ensue, as often happened to Mouser & Fafhrd.  If nothing happens this could be a GMing failure as much as a player failure.


----------



## Clarabell (Aug 18, 2010)

I stopped DMing for this very reason. All but one of the players I've had wouldn't take even the most obvious of hints. And its that one player that everyone else follows. I've rarely gone beyond two or three sessions of a game, so about a month ago I took the same vow that I wouldn't DM anymore.

I've been my groups DM for the past fives years or so now. Its what I love to do. I still make worlds, maps, and adventures, but not for me. If someone else wants to DM and needs something, sure, I'll help them out. But anymore, I'm just tired of it.

When I DM, this might be what happens:

On the mans body you find a ring.

Player: I take the ring.

When I'm a player, this is what happens.

On the mans body, you find a ring.

Me: Describe it. What kind of metal is it, what gems, is there a symbol on it?

Another example, which happened recently, was this:

You find yourself at the church and see a few people milling around and a ~--Stray Cat--~ sitting on the steps.

Players: I go into the church.

Completely ignoring the cat, which was a side adventure that could have been very beneficial to them.

The other thing that happens is my players go off on randome, out of character tangents that, while funny, are irrelevant. Some say i take the game to seriously, but the truth is I'm trying to play the game, which hardly happens...at all.

I really do think players need to have more of the responsibility. I'll make a world, but if you don't go find an adventure that's your problem. I don't run YOU ARE THE CHOSEN ONE campaigns. And players ought to focus more on the game. Its supposed to be fun, but when your not even playing, how is the game fun?


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 18, 2010)

S'mon said:


> I think you need the right sandbox for the right group.  Some novice players might be overwhelmed by something like the City State of the Invincible Overlord and 'turtle', other players might be bored by the traditional peaceful village + nearby dungeon.
> 
> Of course you can have both in the same setting - maybe the PCs start off at the village/dungeon and go to the city when they have a few levels.  Maybe they start out in the city before venturing to the frontier.



I find that no matter where I start the party or how amenable the starting area is to adventurers, they will eventually gravitate to the largest city they can find and - unless something dictates otherwise - that will forever become their base of operations.

Lan-"City State of the Invincible Overlord = whole setting in a module"-efan


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 18, 2010)

Clarabell said:


> When I'm a player, this is what happens.
> 
> On the mans body, you find a ring.
> 
> Me: Describe it. What kind of metal is it, what gems, is there a symbol on it?



When I play, it's:

DM: On the man's body, you find a ring.
Me: Take it, put it on and see what it does!



> I really do think players need to have more of the responsibility. I'll make a world, but if you don't go find an adventure that's your problem. I don't run YOU ARE THE CHOSEN ONE campaigns. And players ought to focus more on the game. Its supposed to be fun, but when your not even playing, how is the game fun?



Absolutely.  Just don't get caught in the trap where they have to be playing the way you want.  Some DMs, for example, won't allow in-party feuding or fighting because it gets in the way of "the game"...but if that's how the players want to play their characters, I say let 'em; as to them that *is* the game!

Lanefan


----------



## S'mon (Aug 18, 2010)

Clarabell said:


> You find yourself at the church and see a few people milling around and a ~--Stray Cat--~ sitting on the steps.
> 
> Players: I go into the church.
> 
> Completely ignoring the cat, which was a side adventure that could have been very beneficial to them.




Um, unless my PC was noted for his/her love of cats, that's exactly what I'd do too.  If you wanted the cat to hook in the PCs then it should have approached them, not just sat there like a perfectly ordinary piece of local colour.

Also the "describe the ring" stuff sounds a bit like pixel-bitching to me.  If the ring's appearance is significant, the GM should say so, or roll to see if the PC recognises its significance.

I think this really brings up how the game is a two-way street, it's not all on the players to make it work.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 18, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> I find that no matter where I start the party or how amenable the starting area is to adventurers, they will eventually gravitate to the largest city they can find and - unless something dictates otherwise - that will forever become their base of operations.
> 
> Lan-"City State of the Invincible Overlord = whole setting in a module"-efan




This was inevitable in 3e because of the settlement size-based gp limit on purchase of magic items.

Also PoL settings encourage this.

I think though that if you have a mostly civilised setting where adventure is on the frontier and the cities are safe and dull, the PCs will go where the adventure is.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 18, 2010)

Clarabell said:


> You find yourself at the church and see a few people milling around and a ~--Stray Cat--~ sitting on the steps.
> 
> Players: I go into the church.
> 
> Completely ignoring the cat, which was a side adventure that could have been very beneficial to them.



I think that's perfectly reasonable behaviour on the part of the players. A stray cat is almost the least remarkable thing to be found in a town, there's no reason why the PCs should find it noteworthy or want to interact with it. Imho it's *far* too subtle for an adventure hook.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 18, 2010)

S'mon said:


> The big problem I've seen is players/PCs who Turtle, who withdraw and refuse to interact with the setting.  But this happens equally in sandbox, linear, and mixed campaigns, IME.



I think turtling is a reaction to killer DMing. The whole world is like Tomb of Horrors. If you interact with it in any way, something bad happens. The only way to win is never to interact with anything.

Or maybe the players are just boring people.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 18, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> I think turtling is a reaction to killer DMing. The whole world is like Tomb of Horrors. If you interact with it in any way, something bad happens. The only way to win is never to interact with anything.
> 
> Or maybe the players are just boring people.




Well, the particular player I'm thinking of, his family had fled from behind the Iron Curtain as a child, settled in Argentina just as the Junta was about to take power, then went to Northern Ireland just before the Troubles kicked off.  This life history of dictatorship, oppression and terrorism left him a wee bit Turtley IRL.     And apparently his previous GM had been a "smoke and mirrors" type, a bit Tomb of Horrors-ish, though I only have his own account of that.

Certainly as GM I reject a lot of the Gygaxian tropes that punish curiousity, and I always seek to reward engagement with the setting.  I don't use a lot of dopplegangers, arbitrary deathtraps, or deception plots - I had a deception-based plot recently IMC and the players were pretty much ok with it but I felt a bit uncomfortable, esp as it resulted in the death of 2 PCs, and I doubt I'll do that again soon.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 18, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> The quick spoiler is that the GM does not organize play. The players do. They schedule the session, and only after they give the GM a goal for the session does it happen. No more sitting around the tavern and wasting time. No plan, no play.



It occurs to me that you could do this without a sandbox. The players give the GM an evocative name for the dungeon they want to crash, say with one week's notice and he goes away and creates it.

Somehow the GM and players always have to meet in the middle. There has to be desire to play from both sides. Down my way, GMs are often asked to run a game by players, with a minimal requirement like 'run a superhero game' and provided that requirement is met, the GM can come up with whatever he likes.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 18, 2010)

S'mon said:


> This was inevitable in 3e because of the settlement size-based gp limit on purchase of magic items.
> 
> Also PoL settings encourage this.
> 
> I think though that if you have a mostly civilised setting where adventure is on the frontier and the cities are safe and dull, the PCs will go where the adventure is.



Yep, and afterwards still go back to the biggest city they can find.

I've somewhat solved this in my current campaign by having the biggest city be plain bloody dangerous - sure it's in theory civilized, but it's also a hotbed of murderous scheming, political intrigue, cutthroat espionage, and all-around fun like that.  After a couple of visits and (painful) toe-dabbles into the politics, my crew are now mostly giving the place a wide berth!

Problem is, their adventures elsewhere will (I hope) eventually have significant effects on said scheming and espionage; just like it's already having behind-the-scenes effects on their adventures.  Then the fun really starts... >evil cackle<

Lanefan


----------



## DumbPaladin (Aug 18, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> I find that no matter where I start the party or how amenable the starting area is to adventurers, they will eventually gravitate to the largest city they can find and - unless something dictates otherwise - that will forever become their base of operations.
> 
> Lan-"City State of the Invincible Overlord = whole setting in a module"-efan





I am not sure I entirely agree, although I can see groups of players making such a decision.  But do you think this is still true when the party has access to spells like teleport and plane shift, which really open up their travel options?

Also, is it necessarily a bad thing for the party to form an association with a town, regardless of its size? I'm in a campaign where we've undertaken a couple of missions expressly to benefit the city that have taken us quite far afield ...


----------



## Hussar (Aug 18, 2010)

Sometimes turtling is simply a player's innability, or unwillingness, to engage in the kind of role play the DM puts out in front of them.

I had one player that simply refused to talk to NPC's.  He wouldn't do it.  Didn't mind too much if other players did it and would sit back and let everyone else have a kick at it, but, absolutely refused to engage in doing it himself.  Drove me bananas at the time, but, I realize now I should have just shrugged and moved on.  Since the other players were capable of carrying the ball, it wasn't as big of a deal as I made it out to be.  

Then again, if I had an entire group like that guy, I think I'd blow my brains out.  Well, maybe not that extreme, but, I know there'd be some pretty strong discussions going on and we'd either come to some sort of compromise or I'd be looking for new players.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 18, 2010)

Clarabell said:


> When I DM, this might be what happens:
> 
> On the mans body you find a ring.
> 
> Player: I take the ring.




Me as DM: That's what I expected.  Any curses can turn up later.  And if there was anything really obvious I'd have told you.



> When I'm a player, this is what happens.
> 
> On the mans body, you find a ring.
> 
> Me: Describe it. What kind of metal is it, what gems, is there a symbol on it?




Me as DM: Aggghhh!  That's the third time we've been through that sort of inspection this session.  People wear rings.  About half the adults in this town wear wedding rings.  And if there was anything obvious about it, I'd have mentioned it.  "It looks like an ordinary gold wedding ring, although it's starting to tarnish."  I hope I don't have to describe his boots and belt buckle too.  And she's going to ask me about the tarnish next, isn't she?  I know gold doesn't tarnish - and it's therefore fake.  But he bought it twenty years ago.  You're not going to find the jeweller - he was probably run out of town fifteen years ago.  Or maybe the next plot will be hunting down what's causing the gold in many places to tarnish.  I don't know yet.



> Another example, which happened recently, was this:
> 
> You find yourself at the church and see a few people milling around and a ~--Stray Cat--~ sitting on the steps.




Me (in character):  It's a stray cat.  I saw another dozen this morning.  *shrug*  (Alternatively: That's odd.  It's the first time I've seen one in this town - I wonder what happened to the others...)

Me (out of character): Why did she mention the stray cat?  Clearly there's a plot hook there because unlike most of the DMs I've played with she never mentions extra details in order to flesh out the world.  But my character doesn't know that.  Do I metagame by giving my character OOC knowledge in order to chase down the DM's clumsily thrown plot hook - or do I roleplay what I would do?

From what you've described, it feels as if you learned from computer games - where objects you can interact with are highlighted (hence the "~--Stray Cat--~").  On the tabletop I can't see the "~--", so I'm not going to know you put it there, and the real world doesn't have it at all so even if I realise that you are trying to clue it I'm going to have to metagame with OOC knowledge to see it as a clue.  If you were to have had the cat glowing with arcane energy (i.e. something I could spot in character), that would have been a different story.


----------



## Blackbrrd (Aug 18, 2010)

Some nice observations there OP. 

My preferred way of DM-ing is to give the characters some situations they can/should/must handle. How they handle them is up to the players. Sometimes they just get stuck doing nothing, if so I put up signposts, but otherwise I usually go along with their wacky ideas. 

I prefer handing the characters several situations with a bit conflicting agendas/timing to make it more interesting. Quite a lot of players like to decide things, not so many are born investigators. 

As a player I HATE investigations where you are supposed to follow small clues. It just isn't my thing. On the other hand I love making necessary and important decisions, which is reflected in my DM-style.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 18, 2010)

To play devil's advocate for a moment, I'd note that I've encountered several players who have been reticent about the call to adventure because, it seemed, they'd been "trained" by GMs who ran killer games to be very wary of anything potentially lethal. A game with a high lethality index can be awfully stressful to some players, and therefore they wind up being kind of reticent about stuff that looks like it could be highly lethal. 

If you're looking to teach hesitant players to play more proactively, the most important element to establish is trust. Trust that "If I make a decision, the results will be fun and exciting." In some cases this may mean overcoming old scars, and reinforcing that of all the story hooks you throw out none of them are "trapped" -- which is to say, that if you have a choice between A, B or C that they're all generally viable. Some players have been taught to expect that maybe only B is the "correct" choice, as A will present a TPK and C will destroy the village while you're off wasting time. It's tricky, but reaching such players is a matter of teaching them that the game isn't won or lost at character creation, or based on the first choice you make. And similarly, some players don't trust their DMs to let the dice fall where they may, or to actually acknowledge that their choices are changing the environment.

Sandbox and linear games seem like diametric opposites, but they're almost identical in that they both totally rely on trust between the players and DM. A sandbox without trust breaks down in hesitancy; a linear game without trust disintegrates as players throw themselves in every direction but the main plot. And, of course, a DM who doesn't trust his players isn't going to enjoy the game at all. 

Is it the players' responsibility to carry a story? Yeah, basically. But it's also the DM's responsibility to ensure that the players feel that they have that power, and that using that power is going to result in a fun session. If playing with friends who already trust your technique isn't an option, I'd say figuring out how to build that trust is a priority.


----------



## Naszir (Aug 18, 2010)

Clarabell said:


> When I DM, this might be what happens:
> 
> On the mans body you find a ring.
> 
> ...




To me there needs to be some middle ground here. If the ring is important in some way then there should be some sort of detailed description. If it is not important the DM can allow the player to make up a description. Maybe somewhere further on in the campaign the DM can use what the player came up with. When players start to ask for detailed descriptions of every little tiny thing they come across it bogs the game down. If you are reading a book or watching a movie and there is something described in great detail but has nothing to do with the story it make no sense and you feel like you have just wasted time. 

As for the stay cat. If there is some possibility that it could lead to a good side adventure make the cat memorable. It's not JUST a stray cat. Give it a detailed description. The stray cat may have a slight limp, strange markings, an odd color, its eyes are unusual etc. Give the players a reason to take interest in the cat.

Personally I am just not a quick enough thinker for the free form or sandbox style of play. For the most part I want players who want to stick together, be part of a group and bond. Character personality clashes can be great for role-play as long as they don't get out of hand. I love telling a story that has multiple lines feeding into it where the group is working towards a common goal but is also affecting each of them at an individual level. For this kind of involvement I need time to go through the complexities. Luckily I have a group of guys that meshes well with this play.

With sandboxing and free form I have never understood how a DM keeps all the variables and complexities straight without a lot of "hold on while I write that down" or "hold on, let me look that monster up". I can only imagine the inconsistences that can occur or the hooks that are forgotten or the detail that is missed. 

Players and DMs need to be on the same page. That has to be established at the beginning of a campaign. Player's who decide to go off on their own when they are playing with a DM who is not comfortable with constant random side treks doesn't make the game fun for anyone.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 18, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> From what you've described, it feels as if you learned from computer games - where objects you can interact with are highlighted (hence the "~--Stray Cat--~").





Aha! I missed the highlighting ~--s - clearly this is why I am no good at computer games.  

Like Neon said, I don't think this is good GMing technique.  If you want the PCs to interact with the cat, give them an IC reason to do so.


----------



## radmod (Aug 18, 2010)

Re: the stray cat

When I first GM'd I used to be more effusive in my descriptions.
"Among the people gathered around, you see a tomato seller hawking his wares."
Next thing I knew, the PCs would be interrogating the tomato seller to see if he's some sort of spy. Or they would side-track thinking it was something important. Or they might simply side-track and attempt to haggle with the tomato seller.

Now I've gotten into 'mom' roll (like "because I said so"). I often have to finish a description with a few fake rolls and a "Nothing here catches your attention."

In the stray cat example, I probably would've said "a stray cat staring at you" just to try to get the player's attention.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 18, 2010)

radmod said:


> "Among the people gathered around, you see a tomato seller hawking his wares."
> Next thing I knew, the PCs would be interrogating the tomato seller to see if he's some sort of spy. Or they would side-track thinking it was something important. Or they might simply side-track and attempt to haggle with the tomato seller.



On the other hand, if you're comfortable improvising stuff on the spot, you could simply roll with it.

I've found that sometimes, if the players find a detail that you've provided simply as window-dressing interesting enough to spend time interacting with it, it may be a good idea to reward them by turning it into something important.

This will not always work, but when it does it's very gratifying both for the players and the DM. I've had game session getting completely 'derailed' by what was only planned as yet-another-random-encounter, but great fun was had by all.

Having said all that, in Clarabell's examples I can fully understand the players. The hints were too subtle. Unless the players know your DMing style very well, there's really no reason to suspect a secret meaning behind every detail you provide.

Actually, we had a player in one of our game groups once who asked for details about absolutely everything, e.g. the exact angle of a hill's slope or the shape and materials a chest was made of. It always took ages for him to make any kind of decision.

The annoying thing was that he never actually did anything with the additional information!
He typically just moved on, his curiosity satisfied.

Interestingly, the very same player instantly 'locked-up' when he was required to talk to an npc. He just never knew what to say. But he always insisted on playing social pcs, like bards.

Boy, was I glad when he no longer showed up for our games!


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 18, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> I think that's perfectly reasonable behaviour on the part of the players. A stray cat is almost the least remarkable thing to be found in a town, there's no reason why the PCs should find it noteworthy or want to interact with it. Imho it's *far* too subtle for an adventure hook.




The corpse of a cat, or even the better, an undead cat, or a sparkle-vampire cat.  Players need some kind of coded keyword to make them understand that this object is worth interacting with.  "strange" "very ugly" "suit-wearing cat"




Lanefan said:


> When I play, it's:
> 
> DM: On the man's body, you find a ring.
> Me: Take it, put it on and see what it does!
> ...




I love when my players have done this.  Why the paladin suddenly turned green for a week, he just won't say!  But really events early on like this are a great way to teach "look before you leap".  Because for all they know, they ring is what killed that man.


----------



## athos (Aug 18, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> I think turtling is a reaction to killer DMing. The whole world is like Tomb of Horrors. If you interact with it in any way, something bad happens. The only way to win is never to interact with anything.




This is a very good observation. I have a friend that DMs a game where he is upset his players are becoming more and more withdrawn.

He has a style of DMing where most of the encounters are more powerful than the party and seek to humiliate or put down the party. He tends to take a "me vs. them" old school mentality to DMing that makes players very hesitant to do anything, because if it can be twisted, and used against them, it will be.

He is a very smart and nice person, really... but his DMing style is so out of date for today's players, I just don't know what to tell him that won't hurt his feelings.


----------



## Markn (Aug 18, 2010)

Note:  Skipped most of the thread, don't have time to read it through.

But I will add that I largely agree with the OP.  

I will also add that some players get into a rut, expecting to come to the table to be entertained.  Once that habit develops, the player becomes blind to the fact that THEY can enhance the experience by adding to the entertainment through good story and roleplaying.  They also don't see that THEY can provide entertainment to the other players and the DM by doing so.  

For one particular player in my game, I have seen him change immensely.  He was introduced into D&D in 2e.  He was a great roleplayer back then.  The mechanics of the game didn't seem to interfere with his roleplaying, or perhaps leveling was so slow that to make the game interesting it required more roleplaying.  But then something happened when 3e (and now 4e) came out - now he is so focused on mechanics that roleplaying has become hard for him.  The game has become about this power or that power now.  I often point this out to him, and he changes for a few sessions but just slips back into mechanics mode far too easily.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 18, 2010)

athos said:


> This is a very good observation.



Glad to hear it!

To expand a bit, this is a problem I've been aware of for a while. About ten years ago a GM I knew was complaining about exactly what you describe, the PCs withdrawing, never wanting to interact with the world, turtling. Several people, including myself, told him it was because whenever the PCs touched anything, it bit their hands off. So they stopped touching things.

Consequences for PC actions are regarded, rightly, as a good thing. It's more verisimilitudinous and it's fun for the players to see the effect of their actions on the world. My one-and-a-half year old nephew loves it when he puts his hand in front of the hose and the water skooshes all over. It's a natural, deep-seated, source of enjoyment for us humans.

Problems arise when the GM has a very negative world-view. This is particularly an issue for Brits and certainly was, and is, among several of the GMs I know. Because of this negative world-view the GM's natural response is to make all consequences negative. That's just how their minds work. The PCs can do A, B, C or D but no matter what they choose, something horrible will happen. It will be a different horrible thing for each choice, but it will always be bad. It will even be quite plausible. After all, something bad *can* always happen. It's always a possibility.

Eventually the players learn to do nothing. Unfolding events will still be uniformly bad ofc, but at least they can't be blamed for them.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 18, 2010)

Markn said:


> For one particular player in my game, I have seen him change immensely.  He was introduced into D&D in 2e.  He was a great roleplayer back then.  The mechanics of the game didn't seem to interfere with his roleplaying, or perhaps leveling was so slow that to make the game interesting it required more roleplaying.  But then something happened when 3e (and now 4e) came out - now he is so focused on mechanics that roleplaying has become hard for him.  The game has become about this power or that power now.  I often point this out to him, and he changes for a few sessions but just slips back into mechanics mode far too easily.




I think this might have more to do with the system than the player. I have noticed a similar trend (and I have also seen it go the other way when folks brought up on 3E/4E got to play BECMI for an evening). But that's a matter for another thread.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 18, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> I think this might have more to do with the system than the player. I have noticed a similar trend (and I have also seen it go the other way when folks brought up on 3E/4E got to play BECMI for an evening). But that's a matter for another thread.




I've struggled with this as a player, but especially as GM - it seems like crunch-heavy systems suck up mental energy I'd otherwise be using for fun roleplaying & creativity.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 18, 2010)

Re Turtleing - I think sometimes players in a regular old school-Gygaxian campaign get burned by bad choices a couple times, and start acting like they're in Tomb of Horrors when really it's Village of Hommlet.

The thing is, the Gygaxian approach imposes harsh choices for mistakes (harsher than I personally like), but it's not a screw-you approach, it's a problem-solver approach which rewards clever analysis, logic and creative solutions.  If you have weak analysis skills, or just don't like problem-solving (and as a player I generally don't, not puzzle type problems anyway) then it can seem indistinguishable from an arbitrary death trap.

On a related note, I have a player in my online campaign who is enthusiastic, not a turtle, but seems to have terrible analysis skills.  When I set the threat level high enough to challenge other PCs, his die.  Worse, he thought it was a good idea to steal from the party, causing friction IC and OOC. It doesn't seem at all malevolent, he's just not the wisest cookie in the sage's cookie barrel.  I'd like to keep him as a player but I'm not sure how to without coddling that might rightfully annoy the other players.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 19, 2010)

S'mon said:


> I've struggled with this as a player, but especially as GM - it seems like crunch-heavy systems suck up mental energy I'd otherwise be using for fun roleplaying & creativity.



To me, crunch both gives and takes away.  The longer something takes to calculate (and looking up is worse - I'm looking at you, Rolemaster), the more it takes from creativity.  On the other hand, crunch can give back a lot in fluff - again, Rolemaster's injury tables - or the pushes, pulls, and slides in 4e.  And those give hooks to hang creativity on in a way that not having them wouldn't.

What causes problems for me is when there's a distinction without a significant difference - i.e. the differences take too long and too much brainpower to resolve for only minor differences in results (spending any time to resolve something utterly irrelevant comes under this heading).  Or when the ruleset ties you to doing something that isn't how your character would act.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 19, 2010)

DumbPaladin said:


> I am not sure I entirely agree, although I can see groups of players making such a decision.  But do you think this is still true when the party has access to spells like teleport and plane shift, which really open up their travel options?



Yes.  Even more so, as they can now get to/from the biggest city more easily. 



> Also, is it necessarily a bad thing for the party to form an association with a town, regardless of its size?



Not at all.  I've just learned from experience that if I spend design time fleshing out the town where they start (thinking that'll become their home base) it'll go to waste if there's a bigger city anywhere on the map; because that's inevitably where they'll end up.

Lanefan


----------



## InVinoVeritas (Aug 19, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Yes. Even more so, as they can now get to/from the biggest city more easily.
> 
> Not at all. I've just learned from experience that if I spend design time fleshing out the town where they start (thinking that'll become their home base) it'll go to waste if there's a bigger city anywhere on the map; because that's inevitably where they'll end up.
> 
> Lanefan




Have you ever just killed Ye Olde Magick Shoppe? Getting rid of the magic shop does wonders to help people not seek out big cities--because, suddenly, they don't need to, mostly.

Then again, maybe your players are just the big-city type. Myself, I prefer the countryside.


----------



## Negflar2099 (Aug 19, 2010)

I can only speak to my own experience but as a person who has DM'd nearly every game he's ever been in (and I've been in a lot of games) my experience matches the OP's pretty closely. 

That's not to say I haven't had players who are real leaders who either take the game in an interesting direction I didn't anticipate (which is great with me as long as something is happening) or they follow the clues I've laid out, pick a hook and run with it. Those players are great and not all the rare. The problem is when they do that other players complain, saying that they feel like they have no say in the game. Yet those complaining players never state their opinions and when asked just shrug their shoulders. 

So to recap my players don't want sandboxes because most of them will just sit there for hours just doing nothing, but they don't want hooks because they don't want to be railroaded and they don't want a player to take charge because then they feel like they are not getting any say.

Sometimes being a DM just doesn't pay.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 19, 2010)

Negflar2099 said:


> The problem is when they do that other players complain, saying that they feel like they have no say in the game. Yet those complaining players never state their opinions and when asked just shrug their shoulders.




Ugh. My reaction would be, "Bob here has a plan, so I'm gonna run an adventure for him. If you don't want to come, your characters are free to sit in town."


----------



## DumbPaladin (Aug 19, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> I've just learned from experience that if I spend design time fleshing out the town where they start (thinking that'll become their home base) it'll go to waste if there's a bigger city anywhere on the map; because that's inevitably where they'll end up.
> 
> Lanefan




I can understand where you are coming from.  In that instance, it really is a group dynamic issue: our group likes the little hamlet we started in, but we've been all over the place.  In fact, we avoid the capital city because of all the backstabbing politics that go on there.  There's too much moral ambiguity in the big city for a little country paladin like my character is.

But you know, there are ALWAYS terrible things that can befall the big city ... or the heroes can simply be framed for something they haven't done, and have to find a new base of operations tout suite. 

I think the idea of Ye Olde Magick Shoppe going KABOOM is good too.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 19, 2010)

InVinoVeritas said:


> Have you ever just killed Ye Olde Magick Shoppe? Getting rid of the magic shop does wonders to help people not seek out big cities--because, suddenly, they don't need to, mostly.



Problem is, they do.  Not because they need to buy stuff (though to a certain extent they can, in my games), but because they need to sell it.  And this isn't limited to magic items; a party might loot a dungeon and come out with a couple of minor magic items but also have about 20K g.p. worth of art, tapestries, and statuary that is only of any use to them if they can liquidate it into cash.  Cities are good for this.

In my current campaign I've sort-of solved it by a) making the biggest city rather dangerous, b) putting the second-biggest city somewhat out of the way, and c) putting enough smaller cities that can handle a treasury into the setting that the party have some choice where to go and thus don't feel they have to always go to the biggest places to sort a treasury out.  Result so far: they seem to be making a base out of a smaller town out toward the frontier, even though it too is now a bit removed from where most of the adventuring is taking place. (I fully expect they'll end up with two or three or even four towns and cities they call "home" once they get long-range transport, and flit back and forth between them)

Lan-"I stole a statue once.  It turned me into an earthworm"-efan


----------



## InVinoVeritas (Aug 19, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Problem is, they do. Not because they need to buy stuff (though to a certain extent they can, in my games), but because they need to sell it. And this isn't limited to magic items; a party might loot a dungeon and come out with a couple of minor magic items but also have about 20K g.p. worth of art, tapestries, and statuary that is only of any use to them if they can liquidate it into cash. Cities are good for this.




Sure, but what are they purchasing that requires that level of liquidity? Since the value of the objets d'art is set and (probably) does not fluctuate, then the lower liquidity of the art only comes into play if the PCs need coin for small transactions, that they do not otherwise have. Personally, I would be tempted to leave an artwork in my possession as an artwork until I need a buyer so as to fund another purchase, and then I would first see if the seller will accept the art at face value. A bag of coin, on the other hand, offers me no rate of return or stability over the artwork. Heck, for portability reasons, I carry gems all the time. 

...but that's just the castle-building dreamer and finance professional in me. If I don't need the cash, I'd rather decorate my digs with my trophies.


----------



## DumbPaladin (Aug 20, 2010)

athos said:


> This is a very good observation. I have a friend that DMs a game where he is upset his players are becoming more and more withdrawn.
> 
> He has a style of DMing where most of the encounters are more powerful than the party and seek to humiliate or put down the party.
> 
> ...





Is he friends with these players? Whether he is or not, he's going to lose his group eventually.  My first DM was this type of person, and I and another gamer left after we'd had enough of it.  Sure, he found some new people, but he also lost two friends.  

If you are his friend, wouldn't you prefer he not have his entire group dissolve before his eyes someday?  I think this DM will ultimately appreciate that you were willing to say something hard to say in order to better him as a person -- and as a DM.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 20, 2010)

InVinoVeritas said:


> Sure, but what are they purchasing that requires that level of liquidity? Since the value of the objets d'art is set and (probably) does not fluctuate, then the lower liquidity of the art only comes into play if the PCs need coin for small transactions, that they do not otherwise have. Personally, I would be tempted to leave an artwork in my possession as an artwork until I need a buyer so as to fund another purchase, and then I would first see if the seller will accept the art at face value. A bag of coin, on the other hand, offers me no rate of return or stability over the artwork. Heck, for portability reasons, I carry gems all the time.
> 
> ...but that's just the castle-building dreamer and finance professional in me. If I don't need the cash, I'd rather decorate my digs with my trophies.



Fair enough, but you gotta pay for the digs somehow.  A bag of art ain't much good if you only have a ratty old tent to show it off in. 

Where else does money go?

Magic item buying and selling is fine in my game; there's never any guarantee you'll be able to find what you want, but sometimes it happens and when it does you need ready cash.  It's also possible to commission construction of an item if you're willing to wait half a year or more for it to get done.

I have training-at-level-up in my game, and training can be costly.

If you're a wizard type you're going to want to pick up new spells, and they don't come cheap.

Raises, resurrections, restorations, and other Fixing of Bad Stuff.

Lanefan


----------



## ArghMark (Aug 21, 2010)

Hmm.. Can't say I've personally had this issue. I've had passive players before but even they know a hook when its biting. 

Personally interested players might be the key. If I have an adventure the players should be wanting to play it; why are they buggering around in some tavern? I hit them with a plot hook, especially if they are dithering. All the stuff with sandbox/railroad I don't much care about to be honest; things just happen. For instance, somebody attacks them or a person in the inn. (Children are great to be kidnapped for instance.)

Example: You and your mates are having a couple of quick drinks in the tavern when you notice a fellow pay the innkeep a few copper and pass over a message, which he puts up on a board. Having a quick look you see there are some 'Wanted!' messages and the usual village messages, but the latest message is interesting. It says 'Hardy folks willing to swing a sword or cast a spell wanted for high paying work. Must not be adverse to danger. See Grimauld the Sage for more information. 10 Gold to start, 90 on completion for each member, maximum (Party size + 1).

If they ignore it, they spend a few days drinking and then the goblins attack the inn, kidnapping Grimauld the Sage. If they ignore that, ask them what they are playing for.


The GM must make things obvious. It is the players duty to take the hook, but the GM has the responsibility too. 



Another example - stray cat from before. Players can't ignore a cat when it comes up and scratches them and steals their purse for instance.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 21, 2010)

What's really interesting to me these days is how the rules push or don't push players towards finding sources of adventure on their own.

I consider DM advice to be part of the rules.  For example, in my 4E hack I have a lot of DM advice that says, "Do these things when the PCs head back to town for a rest."  That's all about pushing consequences based on the actions the PCs have taken.  The idea is that it starts a feedback loop, where one action changes the setting and requires more actions from the players.  

It's an important part in the game and how the whole game hangs together.


----------



## Clarabell (Aug 21, 2010)

S'mon said:


> Aha! I missed the highlighting ~--s - clearly this is why I am no good at computer games.
> 
> Like Neon said, I don't think this is good GMing technique.  If you want the PCs to interact with the cat, give them an IC reason to do so.




 Ok maybe I should explain the whole stray cat thing. This campaign was called “The Good Merchant.” The players walk into this strange shop filled with all kinds of items. They find something they want but theres no price tag. When they ask the shopkeeper what he wants for it, he hands them a black coin and tells them to bring it back when it turns gold. Well when will it turn gold? When you have completed a task worthy of the item you desire.

The players leave in search of a task to complete worthy of the item (in this case it was a set of barding for one of their pets). They walk around town and enter town square.

DM: You enter town square and look around. There are some people milling around, a few coming and going from the inn. A few kids play around the fountain, and a stray cat sits on the steps of the church.

I suppose the players thought, a church, that’s a place I can find good deeds to do, or something like that and bypassed the cat, which was one of the deeds that could get them an item.

And i wrote ~--Stray Cat--~ to show I put emphasis on the word. It really wasn't just some random cat, they did have a reason. I didn't write all that in there because I was trying to be brief. If i wrote everything I had to say, it would have been 2 or 3 pages, and no one wants to read all that ^^

Also, the ring...

I would ask for a description in case it was important. I've played with several DM's who intentionally keep information from you or they will be very detailed oriented. If no one says "I shut the door." the doors open. There was a room we were in were that actually was the puzzle, where you had to shut the door because behind the door when it was "open" was actually another hall.

So I would ask for a description of the ring. If the DM says, "Its just a normal wedding ring," I'm content. But what if it has the seal of the king on it? Or what it it has arcane markings? Maybe yes, maybe no. Might as well check.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 21, 2010)

Clarabell said:


> Ok maybe I should explain the whole stray cat thing. This campaign was called “The Good Merchant.” The players walk into this strange shop filled with all kinds of items. They find something they want but theres no price tag. When they ask the shopkeeper what he wants for it, he hands them a black coin and tells them to bring it back when it turns gold. Well when will it turn gold? When you have completed a task worthy of the item you desire.
> 
> The players leave in search of a task to complete worthy of the item (in this case it was a set of barding for one of their pets). They walk around town and enter town square.
> 
> ...




Re the ring - I agree that if you have a pixel-bitching DM, it makes sense to demand a description.

The cat thing though, I'm not seeing it at all.  I know as player I wouldn't even make a link between "black coin will turn gold" and "good deeds", never mind with "must pay attention to stray cat".


----------



## Chrono22 (Aug 21, 2010)

In one of Paizo's last dragon articles, a writer explained how to effectively use emphasis. It's a handy tool.

Putting funny text around the word cat isn't how you emphasize it... you need to surround it instead with detail.

"The cat stares at you for several minutes unflinchingly. Its strange blue-and-yellow orbs almost seem to smolder with a silent anger. A mouse passes by the glaring feline, practically underneath its feet, but the cat ignores it entirely."

Alternatively, if you want to bury information, you also need to surround it with detail. Players have a habit of leaping to conclusions by trying to separate "important" information from extraneous detail. Putting a strange looking carpet, chandelier, and other features into a room makes it that much harder for them to detect a trap.


----------



## Merkuri (Aug 21, 2010)

Regarding the cat and descriptions... A good way to highlight key NPCs or pieces of scenery is to use a colorful or unusual word to describe it.  The description doesn't need to even be very long or flowery, it has to be unique.  A few years ago I had a DM describe a woman as "swarthy".  All of the players' ears perked up at this.  Even if you have a large vocabulary, "swarthy" isn't a word you hear often.  The NPC was a recurring character, and even though the players didn't learn her name for a while, we all immediately recognized the swarthy woman whenever she appeared.

Avoid "Where's Waldo" descriptions.  Don't make your players sift through your descriptions with a magnifying lens for the relevant pieces.  Make sure they stand out, even if you feel like you're using a cluebat.  Something that sounds obvious to you may not be obvious to your players.  And if you would prefer to be subtle, be ready with a plan B if the players don't pick up on it.


Back to the OP... playing a D&D game is a two-way street.  It's a dance.  It's not all the DM's responsibility, and it's not all the players' responsibility either.

A good D&D session is like an improv routine.  Each person (player or DM) needs to take what the other people are offering and build on it, run with it.  You can't just sit back and let the other person do all the work.

If a DM just sits my PC down in a bar and says, "Go!" I will probably have some trouble thinking up something to do.  I need direction of some sort, even if it's in the form of a colorful world.  

Of course, I often find myself in the "leader" role in my group, whether I want to or not.  A few years ago we were playing through the World's Largest Dungeon (3.5e).  I started the game with a Favored Soul with a very strong personality, and she quickly became the character who made all the decisions for the group (or at least, she had the final say).  After 52 sessions (a record for us in that campaign) she finally bit the dust and I replaced her with a kobold bard with a very different personality.  I wanted to play her as more of a "whatever you say, boss!" type of character, but the group just didn't let me.  Everyone else was so used to my PC taking the reigns, and nobody stepped up to fill that role after the favored soul was gone.  It took us forever to make decisions about what to do next util I picked up the reigns again and the party ended up being led around the dungeon by this little wimpy kobold.

But who am I to say that somebody else is playing wrong?  If my fellow players are looking for a mindless kill-fest where they sit back and let the plot happen to them, then good for them.  But for good improv and for good gaming, IMO, you need to have at least one player willing to make decisions and grab those hooks.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 22, 2010)

Merkuri said:


> And if you would prefer to be subtle, be ready with a plan B if the players don't pick up on it.




This.

You just cannot count on players to pick up on--or to miss--clues. You'll put a clue into the adventure that feels like you're whacking them in the face with the answer, and they'll walk right by it and spend hours banging their heads against a wall. Then they will proceed to correctly divine the solution to the central mystery of the campaign based on a single footprint in the first adventure.

Always be ready with a way to keep things moving when the players roll a natural 1 on their Perception checks.


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 22, 2010)

I actually like how the Gumshoe system works in this regard. Just tell the players what the clues are, don't make them search for them or roll to see if they find them. 

"These are the facts, maam."

Never trust a player to pick up a clue. Throw it in their face.


----------



## Clarabell (Aug 22, 2010)

But then it just seems to be to be kind of pointless. If you have to lead them around everywhere and point out every single bit of information, then for me the fun is completely gone. If I wanted that i would work on my book. There I'm in control of pretty much everything that goes on. Half the point of playing D&D is seeing what the players will do, seeing how they will figure things how, what kind of unexpected things they do. Over the years I learned one very important thing: omit needless words. If it doesn't need to be said, don't say it. When you describe a room to your players, you do so telling them what they see. You don't say, "and behind the barrel is a key." While that's important, they don't see it.

Now let me add more to this story so you can see how really obvious this cat is throughout everything...

Campaign Title: The Good Merchant
The Good Merchant gives them a coin saying it will turn gold when they have done a deed worthy of the item they want. Good Merchant: Implies it must be a good deed.
They go and see a cat. Oh hey, stray cat. I didn't just say there's a cat on the steps. Its a stray cat, and obviously so. Good deed to be done? Give it a home or find whom it belongs to.

They didn't get this the first time. Ok fine, that's ok. Cat's still there when they come out and I point it out again. Nothing. Then a serries of very unfortunate events occours.

1. One of the players decides to hunt a deer, cook and cure it, and donate it to the church as food. As a joke they find the cat and put it inside the bundle. They finally noticed the cat, but did not get the hint.

2. Same cat shows up again. Its been brought up four times. No one takes the now obvious hint. They ignore it.

3. One player is frustrated and doesn't know what to do so, upon seeing the cat, they take it and throw it as hard as they can. I decide to play god at this point, realizing they are never going to get it. At this point I've also given them about five other deeds they could have done, all of them ignored. So I say the cat lands in a young tree, which bends to the ground and the cat gently slides off into some girls lap. She is overjoyed at her newfound pet and rushes inside to take care of it, saying "MOMMY! MOMMY! LOOK WHAT FELL OUT OF THE SKY!"

DING! coin turns gold. Not the way it was suppose to work, but oh well. For my own entertainment and to try and make the game actually move forward, I cursed the player, making it so any evil they did turned out to be good somehow. The session quickly degrades into absolute idiocy as he tries again and again to do evil and i keep coming up with ways to make it good.

And as a side note, no one else in the game turned their coins to gold. At that point, I realized that unless I made things that were so blatantly obvious that no one on earth could miss them, the game was going to go nowhere. Thats the last time I DMed, and will probably be the absolute last. What exactly is the point of doing everything for the players besides rolling their dice for them?

EDIT: A really good example of fail players: http://shamusyoung.mu.nu/images/comic_lotr15.jpg


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 22, 2010)

A stray cat, even a recurrent stray cat, would not catch my interest. I hate cats. I have never made a character with any interest in cats. I like to play heroes, and if I was told that I had to perform a good deed that was worthy of what I saught, I would not go into the Humane Society business. Just not my first choice. Or second. I just would not think of it. Ever. Unless told. Directly. And then I might not believe it. Are you sure that was what they were supposed to do? Really? Just saying, I would have missed it. Did any character ever express an interest in cats? How about a character concept that at least really suggested that cats would interest them?


----------



## Merkuri (Aug 22, 2010)

Clarabell said:


> They go and see a cat. Oh hey, stray cat. I didn't just say there's a cat on the steps. Its a stray cat, and obviously so. Good deed to be done? Give it a home or find whom it belongs to.




I'm sorry, I would not have gotten that.  A stray cat is not unusual, so the word "stray" wouldn't make the cat stick out to me.  There are some strays that hang around my apartment building.  We're told not to touch or feed them because they're feral, and they might bite, so my instinct in real life is to stay away from cats I don't know.

Plus, some people would say a stray cat is happier than an owned cat because it's free.  These people would say that finding the cat a home would not be a good deed.  

When I think "good deed" I think of helping an old lady cross the street, or giving food to a beggar, or returning a lost wallet.  Boy scout type of things.  Or, if I were told that I needed to do a "good deed" in a D&D game I would probably expect a plot hook for an adventure to turn up soon, where the completion of the adventure would be the good deed.

My point here is that not everybody thinks the same way.  Something you think is perfectly logical may not make sense to someone else.

I think your mistake was that you had one single good deed in mind - one solution.  DMs should try to avoid situations that boil down to "guess what solution the DM is thinking of."  Always have a plan B, or at least allow your players to succeed if they think of something you did not.  If I were DMing the scenario you mentioned I would have let the players succeed by donating that deer meat to the church.  It fits the description of good deed and it's creative, so they deserve to be rewarded for it, IMO.


----------



## Merkuri (Aug 22, 2010)

Clarabell said:


> Half the point of playing D&D is seeing what the players will do, seeing how they will figure things how, what kind of unexpected things they do.




By the way, I just re-read your post and notice these lines.  If you want to see players do unexpected things in your game then you need to reward those unexpected things when they happen.  If a player comes up with an unexpected solution to a problem you have, let them succeed.  They'll be more likely to try the unusual in the future.


----------



## Chrono22 (Aug 22, 2010)

Something I've learned over the years is that the driving force behind a healthy and successful campaign (one that reaches milestones, one the players will talk about for years to come) is creating and maintaining player interest. Dry, short, uncreative descriptions don't cut it. Detail is only pointless when its irrelevant. Maintaining the atmosphere that the players exist in a living, breathing world where changes occur with or without their participation, rather than a static backdrop for their exploits, is necessary to maintain player interest in what would otherwise be the pointless/trivial imaginings of a person. The more the players exist in the world, the greater their vested interest in the events that unfold will become.
Really, step back and recognize what your priorities are in relation to those of the players, and you and their expectations for play. My expectation for play is to give the players rewarding and pleasurable experiences, ones of value. If I'm mistaken, please correct me, but my perception is that you are rather trying to provide them with a story (a linear trail) by which they must walk down. Your measure of success, is how closely the players adhere to your plans.
Stop doing this. If you want to write a story, do so. But don't try to turn your players into puppets. The gameplay is a shared experience, a shared story. On some level, you _must_ cede control of the direction of play and let the players guide the direction. Else... well, you end up with the situation you've recounted.
Either way, good luck with your DMing.


> EDIT: A really good example of fail players: http://shamusyoung.mu.nu/images/comic_lotr15.jpg



Um... that's actually a fail DM. He provided a (boring) unavoidable obstacle with one solution... with the reward being, the players get to continue going on a quest to find an object they don't give a damn about.
Really, the players are better than many, and I have met some _awful_ players. At least these guys are engaged in what is happening. Which is surprising, since the DM seems entirely oblivious to what they actually want to do.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 22, 2010)

Merkuri said:


> If a DM just sits my PC down in a bar and says, "Go!" I will probably have some trouble thinking up something to do.  I need direction of some sort, even if it's in the form of a colorful world.



Good heavens, _why_?!

*Merkuri*, I don't want you to think I'm picking on you specifically here; I did read your following paragraph, but I'm trying to understand _this_ concept, and you're not the first nor the only gamer to express this.

Okay, with that out of the way, I am perpetually mystified when players adopt this mindset toward the game. From an in-character perspective, your character is an adventurer, right? Isn't seeking out adventure part-and-parcel of living the life of an adventurer?

Even the simplest of motivations - kill things, take stuff, purchase ale and whores, repeat - should, in my opinion, lead an adventurer to seek out the means of achieving one's goals. Do you need to know where the treasure is? Talk to wizards and priests and sages and captains and traders - hells, buy the oldest guy in the tavern a flagon and ask him about the area. If the referee has anything on the ball, the game-world should be full of information sources the adventurers can tap. But the adventurers should _at the very least_ possess enough initiative to buy an old geezer a drink first. That's not asking for the world, is it?

And if an adventurer's goals are even a little more advanced than that - gain wealth and power, build a stronghold, purchase really good ale and expensive whores - then all bets should be off. Become a knight and marry a princess - how do I join an order and who's daddy do I need to impress? Found a school of wizardry - start collecting a library of magical tomes and pick up henchmen/cohorts as pupils. Build a tample - find a community in need of a priest to serve them, build a shrine, train acolytes. Again, if the referee is anything more than a bump on a log, the game-world should present opportunities to those who seek them.

As far as out-of-game goes, I've heard more than a few players - and I'm expressly _not_ including you in this, *Merkuri*, so please don't assume I'm attributing any sort of motives or behavior to you -  the idea that this is too much like work; usually it's expressed something along the lines of, "I just want to throw dice and move my guy around the table for a couple of hours." (A surprising number of referees - surprising to me, at any rate - accept this and cater to it.) I think this is an unfortunate mindset - in my opinion, playing a roleplaying game like it's _Talisman_ or _Descent_ misses some of what makes roleplaying games a unique form of entertainment. (Let the accusations of "badwrongfun" commence.)

Again, this is a mindset I just don't get, so if someone would like to take a stab at explaining it to me, then please, by all means, lay it on me - the floor is yours.


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 22, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Even the simplest of motivations - kill things, take stuff, purchase ale and whores, repeat - should, in my opinion, lead an adventurer to seek out the means of achieving one's goals. Do you need to know where the treasure is? Talk to wizards and priests and sages and captains and traders - hells, buy the oldest guy in the tavern a flagon and ask him about the area. If the referee has anything on the ball, the game-world should be full of information sources the adventurers can tap. But the adventurers should _at the very least_ possess enough initiative to buy an old geezer a drink first. That's not asking for the world, is it?



So there are several things that don't fit for me in your post. 

First, your post assumes a mercenery style campaign. One with the stock stadard cliched D&D tropes. I actually never play these style games. 

Second, I always cut the "find the adventure" crap out of my games. We have a plan for play before we sit down at the table. Characters are made with the plan in mind. I find wandering around waiting for the GM to finally give me a hook to be very boring. I have never read any fantasy literature that started with a motley group of mercenaries sitting in a pub, asking around about where the adventure is. It is a different play style, but I find it saves tons of time and gets to the good stuff without any frustration.

Third, all of the most interesting stories are created out of relationships of protagonists with other people. Pre establishied relationships are the building blocks of good stories. sitting in a bar is one way to establish relationships, but as I discovered early in life, bars are poor places to establish relationships with interesting and important people. I quit going to them, and I see no reason besides pub food for why my characters would be interested in them. The "we meet in a tavern" cliche is tired, and deserves to be drug out into the street and shot. With a spoon. 

When you outline more advanced character goals, you seem to start at nothing. I like to have a my characters have a little more involvement in the world before we even start play, that way I can hit them where it hurts. Characters with no roots cannot be hurt. You should always hurt the characters. How they handle it is the story.

For full disclosure, I don't think that I have played D&D in about 2 years. I have played a bunch of indie games. And I guess I should say that I may be overreacting to your post. You may be just using D&D cliches because everyone understands them. But the thing that Merkuri is commenting on is the fact that he dislikes the D&D cliche of "we all meet in a bar" with no plan beyond that. Sorry, but that is a bad way to start play, and even very proactive players can only salvage that so much.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 22, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> So there are several things that don't fit for me in your post.
> 
> First, your post assumes a mercenery style campaign. One with the stock stadard cliched D&D tropes. I actually never play these style games.



Nor do I, or more precisely, I play them one day a year.

I do tend to use '_D&D_-isms' in forum posts, particularly on ENWorld, as a convenient shorthand - the memes of _Dungeons and Dragons_ make up a sort of _lingua franca_ among roleplaying gamers.







Nameless1 said:


> Second, I always cut the "find the adventure" crap out of my games.



So do I, in that I don't write adventures at all. There is a setting - Paris 1625! - or an open-ended initial situation - Africa 1980! - and the game is driven by what the players and their characters _do_.







Nameless1 said:


> We have a plan for play before we sit down at the table. Characters are made with the plan in mind.



Yeah, no, that's about as far removed from the way I approach roleplaying games as it gets.







Nameless1 said:


> I find wandering around waiting for the GM to finally give me a hook to be very boring.



So do I, which is why I dispense with plots and hooks altogether.

What I do have is a group of adventurers with goals to pursue. The adventure is what results from that pursuit.







Nameless1 said:


> I have never read any fantasy literature that started with a motley group of mercenaries sitting in a pub, asking around about where the adventure is.



Roleplaying games =/= literature.

It's what makes roleplaying games great, in my humble opinion.







Nameless1 said:


> It is a different play style, but I find it saves tons of time and gets to the good stuff without any frustration.



For me, playing the game is the good stuff. Exploring a world is the good stuff. Developing relationships with other characters, both player and non-, is the good stuff. Chasing dreams is the good stuff.

Really, it's wall-to-wall good stuff.







Nameless1 said:


> Third, all of the most interesting stories are created out of relationships of protagonists with other people.



I completely agree.







Nameless1 said:


> Pre establishied relationships are the building blocks of good stories.



Nonsense.

Relationships established in play are the building blocks of a great game.







Nameless1 said:


> sitting in a bar is one way to establish relationships, but as I discovered early in life, bars are poor places to establish relationships with interesting and important people. I quit going to them, and I see no reason besides pub food for why my characters would be interested in them. The "we meet in a tavern" cliche is tired, and deserves to be drug out into the street and shot. With a spoon.



I honestly couldn't care less where the characters begin, They can start on a streetcorner as far as I'm concerned.

It's what they do next that drives the game.







Nameless1 said:


> When you outline more advanced character goals, you seem to start at nothing. I like to have a my characters have a little more involvement in the world before we even start play, that way I can hit them where it hurts. Characters with no roots cannot be hurt. You should always hurt the characters. How they handle it is the story.



I expect the adventurers to put down roots in play.

I pay very little attention to character backgrounds, actually. What your character does when we're all sitting around the table together is what's important to me. I encourage players to write backgrounds which are more about what the character plans to do, not what the character did.







Nameless1 said:


> For full disclosure, I don't think that I have played D&D in about 2 years.



I played _D&D_ last Saturday, my annual fix. But none of this is specific to _D&D_.







Nameless1 said:


> I have played a bunch of indie games.



It shows.







Nameless1 said:


> And I guess I should say that I may be overreacting to your post.



Perhaps a bit.







Nameless1 said:


> You may be just using D&D cliches because everyone understands them.



Yup.







Nameless1 said:


> But the thing that Merkuri is commenting on is the fact that he dislikes the D&D cliche of "we all meet in a bar" with no plan beyond that. Sorry, but that is a bad way to start play, and even very proactive players can only salvage that so much.



You're standing at the gates of Paris. The year is 1625. You have a sword and some coins and your wits. Make your fortune.

Does it really take more than that?


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 22, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> The year is 1625. You have a sword and some coins and your wits. Make your fortune.
> 
> Does it really take more than that?




Depends on if you know anything more than jack about Paris in 1625.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 22, 2010)

shidaku said:


> Depends on if you know anything more than jack about Paris in 1625.



Knowing nothing more than what _you_ know right this very second, what would your character do?


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 22, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Knowing nothing more than what _you_ know right this very second, what would your character do?



Head to the nearest tavern and wait for something to happen.


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 22, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Roleplaying games =/= literature.
> 
> It's what makes roleplaying games great, in my humble opinion.



What makes RPGs great for me is being a participant in the types of stories that are told in great literature and myths. RPGs =/= literature, but literature is good when it tells great stories, and RPGs are good when they tell great stories. The fact that RPGs =/= literature is not what makes them great.



The Shaman said:


> Relationships established in play are the building blocks of a great game.



This is not mutually exclusive to pre-established relationships. I am often not a fan of characters with no connection to other characters. There are fun stories to be told of characters with no connection, but they are a minority. Most people have connections. The self taught orphan who comes from someplace else and neither cares for nor dislikes anyone here is a weird character type. Everyone else has some connections. 



The Shaman said:


> Nameless1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have a feeling that you misinterpret me here, mostly because I realize that my statement might be a little misleading.

By plan, I mean that we have a theme and situation in mind. I do not mean that we have a plot or outcome in mind. Creating characters that fit into the situation creates much tighter games. Think of the Iliad. There are already well established relationships and a situation at the start of the story, as well as characters that fit the situation. It is actually the characters and their relationships that create the situation. Finding out what happens is the fun part.

Your linked campaign and it's obvious inspiration make me think that you do not approach things that differenty than I do. Swashbuckler stories thrive on intrigue, and intrigue is all about relationships and motivation. There is situation in the Three Musketeers prior to the start of the story, even if you just simplify it to the scheming of the cardinal and his relationship to the french king, the Musketeers, and the various nobles of France.

I think that the issue that I see in a lot of this thread is GMs, in my opinion, starting play out too early, and without cohesive background/situation/characters. It seems like many campaigns go:

Unconnected characters -> Start play -> Search for the action -> Action!

I find that a more efficient scheme is:

Decide theme/basic situation -> Characters that fit the theme -> Flesh out the situation with character motivations/relationships -> Start play -> Action!

It probably takes as long, but I HATE the search for the action step. It is the worst part of any game. It is boring. It is solved through discussion of what kind of game people want to play, group chargen including explicit discussion of character motivations and relationships, and starting play off in the middle of the action.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 22, 2010)

Eric Anondson said:


> Head to the nearest tavern and wait for something to happen.





It actually makes sense that adventurers, who tend more often than not to be travelling, would in fact begin their adventures in taverns and inns.

Now my question was meant to be a bit silly, but there are a couple of points which can be made from it. First, anyone who's seen or read _The Three Musketeers_ likely possesses at least some familiarity with the place and the period. Presumably if you decided you wanted to play in a roleplaying game about 17th century swashbucklers, you probably bring to the game some idea of the genre tropes.

_Now_ try answering that question.

Second, this is why it's important to forumlate some kind of goals for the character; again, what your character is going to do is far more interesting and useful than what your character's done. If you understand your character's goals, then your next steps flow from that.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 22, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> But the thing that Merkuri is commenting on is the fact that he dislikes the D&D cliche of "we all meet in a bar" with no plan beyond that. Sorry, but that is a bad way to start play, and even very proactive players can only salvage that so much.




No it's not, you just don't like it.  It works very well with players interested in exploration-of-setting rather than exploration-of-premise, to use your Indie talk.


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 22, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Presumably if you decided you wanted to play in a roleplaying game about 17th century swashbucklers, you probably bring to the game some idea of the genre tropes.
> 
> *snip*
> 
> Second, this is why it's important to forumlate some kind of goals for the character; again, what your character is going to do is far more interesting and useful than what your character's done. If you understand your character's goals, then your next steps flow from that.




Sounds like your play flow is:

Discuss theme -> Create characters with motivations -> Something that follows this.

If that something is _Action!_ then it fits how I like to play. If that something includes several hours of wandering around trying to figure out how to accomplish your goals or have some type of _Action!_, I would think that your games started pretty dull, and I would say that it is your fault. My end of the deal had been fulfilled when I created a character that was a 17th centure swashbuckler who had some goals, and I would even add some relationships. The fact that you made me wander around for hours before you attacked my motivations or my contacts or me would be a letdown.

But that is just how I like to play. Other people like to sit in bars and talk to barmaids. I just think that D'Artagnan would rather his story not include hours of accomplishing nothing.


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 22, 2010)

Some jerk said:
			
		

> You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to S'mon again.






			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> No it's not, you just don't like it. It works very well with players interested in exploration-of-setting rather than exploration-of-premise, to use your Indie talk.



I like exploration of setting at times too. Just not exploration of taverns.


----------



## Orius (Aug 22, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> The worst players are the ones that won't bite on any adventure hooks, and won't do anything else either. Either it's because their PC motivation is borked ("My character wouldn't risk his life for money!"), they expect the GM to outright force their PCs to go on the adventure G1 style, or they are just fundamentally boring people.




I hate when players pull that first type.  You know, the druid or ranger that refuses to enter a city, a dwarf that won't ride a horse or ship, the klepto thief that just has to steal from the party, or the anti-paladin that has to kill the party.  I've only had to deal with this rarely, but it annoys me as a DM, and it probably annoys the players, because it's silly "real-roleplaying" characterization that throws a wrench into the gameplay and grinds the entire session to a halt.  You need to build a PC that can be flexible, and by flexible I don't mean sacrifice big long-term character goals, I mean don't be anal and make/play a character that's going to have obstinate difficulty with standard campaign elements or mess with group cohesion.



Nameless1 said:


> These exact problems are discussed in a post there called Three Sins of Players. One of the sins is passive players, another is the sabateur. One wrecks a sandbox, another wrecks a plot, and any player can be either or both, depending on the circumstances.




Passive players are alright, if they don't comprise the entire group.  It's ok if there's a turtle or two at the table, as long as they go along with the more active players.  Some players enjoy playing the game that way.  It's when you're playing with a group that's nothing but turtles that it becomes a problem, because no one takes initiative.  I've had that drive me nuts from time to time because I'd rather let the players do what they want than put them all on the Orius Express.  



Hussar said:


> It's taking an hour haggling over 5 gp for a spear.  It's taking three hours to determine the exact wording of a Divination spell.  It's poncing about interviewing every single troopie when hiring a dozen spear carriers to go hunt a creature.




This has always irritated me, quite literally.  In the first session of my very first campaign, another player blew a half hour gallivanting around town trying to by a freakin' axe when all I wanted to do was adventure.  This sort of crap wastes time and bores the hell out of the rest of the group.



Clarabell said:


> Another example, which happened recently, was this:
> 
> You find yourself at the church and see a few people milling around and a ~--Stray Cat--~ sitting on the steps.
> 
> ...




As others have pointed out though, that's not really unusual.  A stray cat comes off as dressing, like squirrels or birds or other descriptive elements meant to describe an area.  A lot of players will just brush it off as fluff, because there's nothing unusual about it.  The worst would be the KotD types who'd either complain you're wasting their time or actually kill the cat to see how many XPs they can squeeze out of it.  Many players don't pay a great deal of attention to mundane fluff or generic NPCs, because they're just background details, something that's important probably should be called out a bit more or described in a way that stands out.



> I'll make a world, but if you don't go find an adventure that's your problem. I don't run YOU ARE THE CHOSEN ONE campaigns.




I did one of those once, and boy was it a mistake.  The campaign did have some good moments, and the players seemed to be enjoying themselves, but it really ended up tying my hands as DM.  Then there's the added problem of the "Chosen One" getting a good deal of spotlight which probably ends up sucking for the other players.



Barastrondo said:


> To play devil's advocate for a moment, I'd note that I've encountered several players who have been reticent about the call to adventure because, it seemed, they'd been "trained" by GMs who ran killer games to be very wary of anything potentially lethal. A game with a high lethality index can be awfully stressful to some players, and therefore they wind up being kind of reticent about stuff that looks like it could be highly lethal.




A good campaign does throw in some occasional risk to keep the players on their toes, it's just bad when used all the time.  Especially with no saving throws, with is just cheap RBDMing.  Besides, some of those mind screws come off as so metagamey they end up having their way with verisimiltude.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 22, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> What makes RPGs great for me is being a participant in the types of stories that are told in great literature and myths. RPGs =/= literature, but literature is good when it tells great stories, and RPGs are good when they tell great stories. The fact that RPGs =/= literature is not what makes them great.



We are at an impasse, I'm afraid; I couldn't agree less.

The only story I'm interested is the recounting of the adventurers' exploits.







Nameless1 said:


> This is not mutually exclusive to pre-established relationships. I am often not a fan of characters with no connection to other characters. There are fun stories to be told of characters with no connection, but they are a minority. Most people have connections. The self taught orphan who comes from someplace else and neither cares for nor dislikes anyone here is a weird character type. Everyone else has some connections.



D'Artagnan shows up in Paris with a letter of introduction to the captain-lieutenant of the Musketeers - he has no friends, no family, no patron. The aid which M. de Tréville can offer proves limited; D'Artagnan makes his fortune on the basis of the relationships he builds following his arrival in Paris, _during the course of his adventures_.

Pre-existing relationships are significantly overrated, in my experience.







Nameless1 said:


> I have a feeling that you misinterpret me here, mostly because I realize that my statement might be a little misleading. . . .



Perhaps.

My preparation consists of creating a web of interconnected npcs, organized by family ties, professional affiliation, political factions, and so forth, a slew of genre-appropriate random encounters, and a rough timeline of future events. That's pretty much it. There are intrigues by the bushel, but none of them presume the involvement, or even the existence, of the adventurers; really, I do most of my prep before I know anything about the adventurers at all. The intersection of the adventurers with this environment is driven by the choices the players make on behalf of their characters.

If you consider this a "theme and situation," then perhaps we share a common approach, at least to some degree.







Nameless1 said:


> Creating characters that fit into the situation creates much tighter games. Think of the Iliad. There are already well established relationships and a situation at the start of the story, as well as characters that fit the situation. It is actually the characters and their relationships that create the situation. Finding out what happens is the fun part.



For me, I don't see the need to create "well-established relationships" right at the giddyup. If the adventurers are pursuing their goals, these relationships will spring up around them in no time.

Characters in _Flashing Blades_ may begin with resources such as a Contact or a Secret Loyalty to an npc; in _FB_ terms, M. de Tréville is a Contact with which the character D'Artagnan begins the game. This is the extent of the adventurers' connection to the setting. For the _Top Secret_, the agents have a case officer as their sole contact; everything else they must build in play.

So I not sure if we approach our games with the same idea of "cohesive background/situation/characters." A theme or basic situation, okay; character motivations, definitely. Relationships? Not really.







Nameless1 said:


> It probably takes as long, but I HATE the search for the action step. It is the worst part of any game. It is boring. It is solved through discussion of what kind of game people want to play, group chargen including explicit discussion of character motivations and relationships, and starting play off in the middle of the action.



This is of course an entirely valid approach, but it's not one which I personally enjoy or utilize.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 22, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> I like exploration of setting at times too. Just not exploration of taverns.



Whereas that's a passtime I enjoy in- _and _out-of-game!


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 22, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> Sounds like your play flow is:
> 
> Discuss theme -> Create characters with motivations -> Something that follows this.



Perhaps we're using two words to describe the same thing, but replace "theme" with "genre," and we're getting somewhere. 







Nameless1 said:


> If that something is _Action!_ then it fits how I like to play. If that something includes several hours of wandering around trying to figure out how to accomplish your goals or have some type of _Action!_, I would think that your games started pretty dull, and I would say that it is your fault. My end of the deal had been fulfilled when I created a character that was a 17th centure swashbuckler who had some goals, and I would even add some relationships. The fact that you made me wander around for hours before you attacked my motivations or my contacts or me would be a letdown.



And this is where we really differ.

Action! _is up to you_. I will bring the setting to life around your character; to that end I have genre-appropriate random encounters, so that instead of meeting a water selller carrying buckets suspended from a yoke over his shoulders or drunk laborer asleep in the gutter on the Pont-Neuf, you'll meet an arrogant fencing student or a guardsman courting a beautiful noblewoman or a witty actor busking for coins and shilling for his company's performance that night. It's up to _you_ to turn that into Action! because you drive the game, not me.







Nameless1 said:


> I just think that D'Artagnan would rather his story not include hours of accomplishing nothing.



The elder D'Artagnan's advice to his son was, "Fight duels!" My advice to players is, "Make stuff happen."

If you're sitting in a bar doing nothing, it's because that's what you chose to do.


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 22, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> The only story I'm interested is the recounting of the adventurers' exploits.



Me as well. I just want to make sure that the story is interesting. Hitting on barmaids is not iteresting.


The Shaman said:


> D'Artagnan shows up in Paris with a letter of introduction to the captain-lieutenant of the Musketeers - he has no friends, no family, no patron. The aid which M. de Tréville can offer proves limited; D'Artagnan makes his fortune on the basis of the relationships he builds following his arrival in Paris, _during the course of his adventures_.
> 
> Pre-existing relationships are significantly overrated, in my experience.



You are overlooking the other PCs in the story. The title characters. They have pre-established relationships. So we have one character with only one relationship, and three with more.



The Shaman said:


> My preparation consists of creating a web of interconnected npcs, organized by family ties, professional affiliation, political factions, and so forth, a slew of genre-appropriate random encounters, and a rough timeline of future events. That's pretty much it. There are intrigues by the bushel, but none of them presume the involvement, or even the existence, of the adventurers; really, I do most of my prep before I know anything about the adventurers at all. The intersection of the adventurers with this environment is driven by the choices the players make on behalf of their characters.



 I usually dispense with the rough timeline most of the time, otherwise, this is situation creation. You have created a dynamic situation that will change, and the PCs are invited to intersect with it. This is a technique that goes way back, it is just that a lot of indie games have formalized it. This could be a Dogs in the Vinyard situation generation session.



The Shaman said:


> If you consider this a "theme and situation," then perhaps we share a common approach, at least to some degree.For me, I don't see the need to create "well-established relationships" right at the giddyup. If the adventurers are pursuing their goals, these relationships will spring up around them in no time.



As stated before, in-game establishment of relationships is not mutually exclusive to pre-established relationships. The difference is that you create situations that do not involve the PCs, and I create situations that involve PCs, often from the get go, through pre-established relationships. It skips the find-the-fun step.



The Shaman said:


> Characters in _Flashing Blades_ may begin with resources such as a Contact or a Secret Loyalty to an npc; in _FB_ terms, M. de Tréville is a Contact with which the character D'Artagnan begins the game. This is the extent of the adventurers' connection to the setting.



As stated above, this is not true. It is the extent of D'Artagnan's connection to the setting. Every other character has more connections.



The Shaman said:


> So I not sure if we approach our games with the same idea of "cohesive background/situation/characters." A theme or basic situation, okay; character motivations, definitely. Relationships? Not really.This is of course an entirely valid approach, but it's not one which I personally enjoy or utilize.



I think that our games just differ on the fact that I skip the find-the-fun step and say that we already did that. I situate the PCs in the situation. No bars needed.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 22, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> You are overlooking the other PCs in the story. The title characters. They have pre-established relationships.



They are _experienced_ PCs, not new characters.

See the difference?


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 22, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> They are _experienced_ PCs, not new characters.
> 
> See the difference?




No because the campaign starts at the same time for all of them. Are there prequels that I do not know about?


----------



## S'mon (Aug 22, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> Sounds like your play flow is:
> 
> Discuss theme -> Create characters with motivations -> Something that follows this.
> 
> ...




Let me tell you how I do it in my current City State of the Invincible Overlord game.  It's a sandbox, it involves a lot of sitting in taverns.   

However, the first thing I do with many of the new PCs, in between them disembarking at the docks and getting to the tavern, is hit them with a 'bang', an event they can react to which is usually dangerous and can showcase the character of their PC.  For the CSIO it's often a damsel-in-distress type event, eg the first encounter in the campaign was an escaped wrongfully enslaved female paladin cornered by the slavers, the PCs helped her defeat the slavers.  The PCs could have ignored the situation, or helped the slavers.

Likewise when they're in the tavern, occasionally stuff happens, like the big sailor defeating all comers in arm-wrestling.  A PC challenged him to an arm wrestle, lost, but befriended the sailor and recruited him on their delve into the goblin ruins. 

And finally, if PCs choose to wander around town, again lots of stuff will happen around them, they'll encounter various NPCs, there'll be plenty of hooks and bangs to interact with or ignore.


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 22, 2010)

S'mon said:


> Let me tell you how I do it in my current City State of the Invincible Overlord game.
> 
> *snip*
> 
> ...




Now your speaking my language.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 22, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> Now your speaking my language.




Yeah, well...   I say "bangs" rather than just "encounters" because as per Edwards' definition they're normally events that require the PC to take positive action, even if just to ignore the event, and that reaction says something about the character of the PC.  For this purpose "the errand-girl is threatened by orc thugs" is much more useful than "your PC is attacked by orc thugs" - as I recall Edwards pointed out in Sorcerer & Sword, the latter doesn't lead to any character development, at most it establishes whether the PC is the fight or run away type, and whether he's capable of defending himself.

But these are just one GMing technique that happens to work well in sandbox play.  Proactive PCs are still very useful, eg IMC a Fighter PC was wandering randomly around the city and approached a strange halfling baker who was shutting up shop about purchasing the strange mechanical contraptions in store (monkey-driven blenders & such), which let me drop a 'hook' - the halfling asked the PC to rescue his missing nephews from the goblin ruins.   The halfling was a static encounter from the City State book, while the adventure hook was a floating hook I could drop in wherever appropriate.

I'd say that PCs who just sit in the tavern waiting for hooks, and never leave it to go looking further, are not very good for sandbox exploratory play.  Most of the tavern-sitting IMC involves the PCs interacting, getting to know each other and make their plans.  It's enjoyable and establishes character, so I don't try to short-circuit it.


----------



## InVinoVeritas (Aug 22, 2010)

Hi, Clarabell. I'm sorry you had such a negative experience running a game. However, what you've presented here is good stuff; I see a number of mistakes I had made myself over the years as a DM. I think I can help you by comparing your experience to my own.

First, is the attempt to perform good deeds. The whole turn-black-coins-to-gold and performing good deeds is good stuff. There's a hook, a reward, and a call to action. This is good, and certainly not a standard hook, making it more interesting.

Now, of course, is the stray cat. In my experience, I've always had stray cats around in real life. Some are semi-domesticated, but most are feral. Perhaps you make sure they have a place to sleep somewhere and some food if you want, but most stray cats wouldn't want a home. Personally, finding a home for a stray cat is like finding a home for a stray raccoon. You're doing everyone, including the cat, a favor by not trying. So, in this case, you don't want to show a *stray cat*, but a *cat in need of a home*. But really, in this case, the cat isn't the real problem.

You said you wanted a sandbox, not a railroad. You want to give the players freedom of choice in their actions. Unfortunately, you gave them a railroad. This is the real problem here. You say you wanted the PCs to go out and do good deeds, but that wasn't really what you were looking for. Donating a cooked deer to the church is a good deed. It wasn't the good deed you expected, but it was a good deed. By limiting rewards to actions that you expect and are prepared for, you take away the sandbox. In essence, the PCs could do whatever they wanted, as long as it was finding the cat a home. If nothing moves forward until the PCs take the hook, then no matter how hidden the hook may be, there isn't actually free will.

And free will is absolutely key to a sandbox. The curse you gave the PC is a huge free will killer. Basically, the curse meant that it doesn't matter what the PC wants to accomplish, it won't happen. The PC is not allowed to hold hopes, or plans for the future. So, the player's reaction of running around trying to do as much evil as possible is natural. The player is trying to assert free will, and you tried to prevent it. Players choose what to do in the hope of carrying out specific ends. Sometimes they are successful, sometimes they are not. However, if they are prevented from carrying out any ends that they choose, then there is no free choice, and just the railroad again.

In a sandbox, you can't push the players to an action. You can only pull. The coins were an example of a pull. The cat was a push. A pull suggests rewards or a prevention of harm in performing an action. A push merely forces an action. The players also indicated what sort of activities they are looking to perform--they went out and hunted deer without any push or pull. They even donated the deer to feed the hungry. In doing so, they did follow the pull of the black coins. You don't need to blatantly thrust the plot upon them in order to have them run around doing good deeds. You do if you want them to perform very specific deeds (like find the cat a home).

Honestly, I hope you give DMing another chance. You haven't made any mistakes I haven't made in the past, and getting over these hurdles will open up the way for you. Here's a few tips that might help next time:

Hiding your hooks doesn't make an activity any less of a railroad.
Respect the players' free will.
Pull, don't push.
Listen to the players and watch what they do without hooks. They want to do more of that.


----------



## athos (Aug 22, 2010)

InVinoVeritas said:


> Hiding your hooks doesn't make an activity any less of a railroad.
> Respect the players' free will.
> Pull, don't push.
> Listen to the players and watch what they do without hooks. They want to do more of that.




Good stuff...   really good stuff...

especially the 4th bullet.

Reminds me of an old CSM I had who once said it is easier to drag soldiers along with you than to push them in front of you.  He also said there were no bad squads, just bad squad leaders, your mileage may vary on that one  but I have found it a very useful thing to remember whenever I thought my team was "lame".


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 22, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> When you outline more advanced character goals, you seem to start at nothing. I like to have a my characters have a little more involvement in the world before we even start play, that way I can hit them where it hurts. Characters with no roots cannot be hurt. You should always hurt the characters. How they handle it is the story.




Not to argue against a style of play if it works for your group, but the philosophy of "Characters with no roots should cannot be hurt" and "You should always hurt the characters", applied broadly, is precisely why some people create rootless characters with no attachments to the world. They've been taught that background ties can bring them more grief than good. Now, a good GM can take that philosophy and ensure that background ties will bring them more joy than hurt, but if a GM doesn't do that — and many don't — and the players aren't masochistic — and many aren't — that's one of the reasons that threads like this ask the question of why players don't get more involved with the worlds around them. Many have been taught not to do so.

Again, trust issues. If you trust your GM to give you the play style you want, this works great. If you're invested in the "story" that comes out of "being hurt," awesome. But I would never recommend this philosophy to a new GM who is wondering how to invest his players in the world. It's failed too many already, and with good reason.


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 22, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> Not to argue against a style of play if it works for your group, but the philosophy of "Characters with no roots should cannot be hurt" and "You should always hurt the characters", applied broadly, is precisely why some people create rootless characters with no attachments to the world.




You are right. My statement was too simplistic. Stopping at hurting the characters is not always good. There is usually a next step which is triumph and sometimes recovery of what was lost. 

But the point really should have been that rootless characters have no investment in the world. Adventures are uncomfortable at best, tradgedies at worst, and a GM has an obligation to make things at least uncomfortable for the characters. Characters who are completely insulated from the world cannot have adventures happen to them. No non-sociopath every freely jumps into life or death fights against monsters without some investment in the outcome of the situation. Investment is key, and it is always character specific. A GM should go after those specific things.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 22, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> You are right. My statement was too simplistic. Stopping at hurting the characters is not always good. There is usually a next step which is triumph and sometimes recovery of what was lost.
> 
> But the point really should have been that rootless characters have no investment in the world. Adventures are uncomfortable at best, tradgedies at worst, and a GM has an obligation to make things at least uncomfortable for the characters. Characters who are completely insulated from the world cannot have adventures happen to them. No non-sociopath every freely jumps into life or death fights against monsters without some investment in the outcome of the situation. Investment is key, and it is always character specific. A GM should go after those specific things.




I'd suggest an alternate route as well; not to replace adventures like that, but to supplant them. Players don't have to be constantly facing a losing proposition to be invested. You can also give them the opportunity to build things. It may be founding taverns, it may be training a militia, it may be building strongholds or thieves' guilds, but the ability to shape a bit of the world in the players' image is also a way to get some investment out of them.

And _then_ you can threaten the thing they've built and watch them react like furious mother owlbears, stomping the enemy into a fine red paste. That's some pretty satisfying stuff.


----------



## Merkuri (Aug 22, 2010)

Merkuri said:


> If a DM just sits my PC down in a bar and says, "Go!" I will probably have some trouble thinking up something to do.  I need direction of some sort, even if it's in the form of a colorful world.






The Shaman said:


> Good heavens, _why_?!
> 
> *Merkuri*, I don't want you to think I'm picking on you specifically here; I did read your following paragraph, but I'm trying to understand _this_ concept, and you're not the first nor the only gamer to express this.




There have been studies that show that people in general say they want more choices, but once they have those extra choices they have a harder time making a decision than when they had fewer choices.  

Example: You're picking out a couch.  Your couch comes in 3 colors.  It will probably take you a few minutes to make a decision.  Now you're picking out wallpaper.  You have over 2,000 wallpapers to choose from.  You will probably take days, if not weeks, to pick your wallpaper.  (This is all assuming "you" care about decorating, of course.)

Putting me in a bar with no direction at all, just "You're in a bar," is like giving me an infinite number of wallpapers to choose from.

Perhaps if I were used to playing in such games I would learn where to look for plot hooks, but in the games I play the DMs don't make me go looking for hooks, they're right there in front of me.  They could be as obvious as a girl running shrieking into the bar or as subtle as a man in the corner staring at the party, but they tend to appear in the description of the place we're in or they're events that happen while we're there.

As a player, I'm assuming there are hooks somewhere.  I want to bite on your hooks.  I know DMs put a lot of time into prep for the game (at least, my DMs have done so) and I don't want that prep to go to waste.  The DM spent all that time to put together a fun adventure, dungeon, or scenario for me, and I'd be a rude little player if I don't play along.  I _like _playing along, just like I like saying "yes and" when doing improv.

Maybe my "there are hooks" assumption doesn't apply to your games, Shaman.  Are you a DM that like to improv the whole session?  If so, that's awesome, and a rare talent in a DM.  In my experience, though, these DMs are rare, and most of them have some sort of situation (perhaps one of many) they want the players to get to in this session, and they place hooks around in a way that's not that hard to find.

Also, I like grand plots.  I like campaigns where I find out that strange beggar we met in the first session is actually the evil wizard who's been harassing the PCs throughout their entire career.  I like when the PCs have been looking the entire campaign for the McGuffin, each adventure taking them closer.  If you want to call that a railroad, then I like railroads.

I think the term "railroad" suggests other things that I do not like, such as a lack of PC free will, so perhaps I should say that I like linear or branching campaigns (I think one person upthread referred to this as an "interchange").  I like a plot, but if the DM expected me to go left and I jerk right I expect him to roll with it and not try to yank me back on the rails.

Does that help you understand the "I don't know what do do in a bar" mentality?   Not trying to convince you that my way is the "right" way (there is no single right way to play), just trying to help you grok why some gamers might not know how to look for plot hooks the way you want them to.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 22, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> No because the campaign starts at the same time for all of them. Are there prequels that I do not know about?



I think that's a silly way of looking at it, in my humble opinion, but that's neither here nor there.  The idea that a character must have pre-existing connections to npcs as a pre-requisite for engaging the adventurer with the game-world doesn't hold up, in my experience.

D'Artagnan is only one example; Diogenes, from Baroness Orzcy's _The Laughing Cavalier_ and _The First Sir Percy_, begins the story as a mercenary with no connections to useful npcs in the setting; by the end of the first story he's routed a rebel leader, gained a fortune, and won the girl. The events of the story, of Diogenes' adventure, are what matter.

Players can - and at least in the games I run must - make connections in the game-world. Non-player characters need to be assessed constantly - can this person help me or hurt me? how do I gain favor, or at least avoid ire (assuming attracting ire is _not_ the goal at the moment - finding enemies is pretty much the _easiest_ thing to do, after all)? I provide the players with a 'target-rich environment' of npcs to facilitate this, but I have no preconceptions about what the players and their characters will do with these building blocks. You create the adventure by your choices.


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 22, 2010)

The fact that some characters have no connections does not counter the fact that most do. I am not opposed to ever having a character with no roots. I just find them contirved, harder to GM for, and not as interesting. 

As you said above, D'Artagnan actually has at least one connection. I think that you might also be overlooking the fact that he has a connection to the Musketeers. He wants to be one. I may be wrong, as I have not read The Three Musketeers since I was 9 (for those curious, that was 24 years ago), but the character D'Artagnan is definitely entrenched in the situation from the beginning. He is not completely rootless. I cannot speak to the other characters from other stories that you cite.

You also ignore that there are 4 main characters in The Three Musketeers, and even if you ignore the 2 connections that I suggest for D'Artagnan, he is only 25% of the protagonists. The rest have significantly more connections. D'Artagnan is kinda the exception.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 22, 2010)

Merkuri said:


> There have been studies that show that people in general say they want more choices, but once they have those extra choices they have a harder time making a decision than when they had fewer choices.



_In ancient Rome there was a poem
About a dog who found two bones
He picked at one, he licked the other
He went in circles, he dropped dead_

Yes, I'm familiar with the concept.







Merkuri said:


> Putting me in a bar with no direction at all, just "You're in a bar," is like giving me an infinite number of wallpapers to choose from.



When you create your character, do you set any sort of goals for your character? If so, how do you see your character achieving those goals? If not, why not?







Merkuri said:


> Does that help you understand the "I don't know what do do in a bar" mentality?



It does, and I really appreciate you taking the time to spell it out. 







Merkuri said:


> Not trying to convince you that my way is the "right" way (there is no single right way to play), just trying to help you grok why some gamers might not know how to look for plot hooks the way you want them to.



The thing is, I don't present the adventurers with plot hooks since I don't have plots or adventurers _per se_. There's stuff going on in the background, but whether or not the adventurers engage with it, and how they go about dealing with their world, is up to them.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Aug 22, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> _In ancient Rome there was a poem
> About a dog who found two bones
> He picked at one, he licked the other
> He went in circles, he dropped dead_




A poem rhymes
--at least, sometimes.
This thing doesn't;
so: it wasn't.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 22, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> The fact that some characters have no connections does not counter the fact that most do. I am not opposed to ever having a character with no roots. I just find them contirved, harder to GM for, and not as interesting.



Remember, this isn't a literary critique here - we're talking about what works in a roleplaying game. Or at least I am, which is why I think you're reading way more into this than is necessary.







Nameless1 said:


> As you said above, D'Artagnan actually has at least one connection. I think that you might also be overlooking the fact that he has a connection to the Musketeers.



A connection who tells him he can't help D'Artagnan to join the Musketeers, until the Gascon first proves his worth.

His aid is limited in scope. D'Artagnan must adventure successfully in order to become a Muskteer.







Nameless1 said:


> I may be wrong, as I have not read The Three Musketeers since I was 9 (for those curious, that was 24 years ago), but the character D'Artagnan is definitely entrenched in the situation from the beginning.



I would say that yes, you're wrong.







Nameless1 said:


> He is not completely rootless.



No, he's "not completely rootless" - he's a character of his time and place, as I would expect most roleplaying game characters to be - but he's not connected to the other characters save one at the start of the tale, and that one connection plays only a peripheral role in all that follows.







Nameless1 said:


> You also ignore that there are 4 main characters in The Three Musketeers, and even if you ignore the 2 connections that I suggest for D'Artagnan, he is only 25% of the protagonists.



There is an argument to be made that the eponymous musketeers of the story are not protagonists, but rather supporting characters of the lone protagonist, D'Artagnan. But bringing in the other musketeers, or insisting that the tale is all that exists, is an attempt to avoid the implications _relevant to roleplaying games_, that a lengthy backstory and ties to the npc community are not a pre-requisite to engaging with the setting.

I think a good character background should follow the advice of a funeral announcement - "No flowers, by request" - and I prefer that the players focus their attention on what we do around the table together; let the events of the game become your character's history. Make friends, make enemies, get blooded, intrigue, connive, and do it in actual play, together, all of us, as a shared experience.


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 22, 2010)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Remember, this isn't a literary critique here - we're talking about what works in a roleplaying game. Or at least I am, which is why I think you're reading way more into this than is necessary.



You are right to a degree. These connections are not necessary. RPGs can work without them. And have . For years. But they are useful. And take very little time. They actually help to combat the complaint that the original OP outlined. Just an optional technique for most games, but one with results.

I actually agree with you about lengthy back stories. Not into them. I just want my character to be involved from the get go, in some form. It is the pre-established friends/enemies/goals of the characters that allow me to do this. Rootless characters can work, but you spend time at the table getting there. I just like to get to the point quicker.

This getting to the good parts quickly is facilitated by characters who care about _something_ from the outset. These things don't have to be relationships, but I find the most compelling things in life are the relationships that we have. Consider someone threatening your relationships. Your mother. Your wife. Your children. Your friends. Nothing ignites fire like threats to things you care about, and often people care more about people than things or status.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 22, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> You are right to a degree. These connections are not necessary. RPGs can work without them. And have . For years.



That's been my experience.







Nameless1 said:


> But they are useful. And take very little time. They actually help to combat the complaint that the original OP outlined. Just an optional technique for most games, but one with results.



Also true.

My personal preference is simply to keep the amount of out-of-game character creation to the absolute minimum necessary, and focus on actual play. Then again, I'm not in a Big Damn Hurry for the Big Damn Heroes to get to the Big Damn Action! either, so I'm sure that plays a role.







Nameless1 said:


> I actually agree with you about lengthy back stories. Not into them. I just want my character to be involved from the get go, in some form. It is the pre-established friends/enemies/goals of the characters that allow me to do this. Rootless characters can work, but you spend time at the table getting there. I just like to get to the point quicker.
> 
> This getting to the good parts quickly is facilitated by characters who care about _something_ from the outset. These things don't have to be relationships, but I find the most compelling things in life are the relationships that we have. *Consider someone threatening your relationships.* Your mother. Your wife. Your children. Your friends. Nothing ignites fire like threats to things you care about, and often people care more about people than things or status.



Please note that I'm in no way attributing this to you, but I think that last bit can be, and often is, totally overdone, as *Barastrondo* noted upthread.


----------



## Merkuri (Aug 22, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> When you create your character, do you set any sort of goals for your character? If so, how do you see your character achieving those goals? If not, why not?




Sometimes I create goals.  It depends on my mood and the campaign I'm in.  Usually the more background I know about a campaign world the more detailed backstories I create.

In a 3.5e Eberron campaign a while ago I created a lawful neutral knight who had started her life as a scoundrel, had a run-in with the Silver Flame (the actual Flame - she was sneaking into the temple where it "lives") and was cursed into becoming ill whenever she did something she thought was evil.  She was told the curse could only be lifted until she became "pure" enough to join the Flame.  Her goal was to break that curse, and she thought that she needed to do so by basically racking up good karma, so she was driven to do good deeds whenever she got the chance, but she did so in a very "sigh, here we go again" manner.

So she did have a goal, but it was pretty nebulous and I left it up to the DM to put situations in front of her to give her the opportunity to do a good deed.  Of course, the campaign was set up so that all PCs were members of the Citadel in Breland, so we were given missions (which my PC saw as chances to do good) on a regular basis.

My current character, however, doesn't really have a goal at the moment, but this is a different type of campaign.  Our group decided to round-robin DM in a shared world that we're making up as we go.  Because the world is not really well defined my character started off not really well defined.  She didn't even have a personality to start with, but she developed one pretty quickly.  I'm imagining that she'll probably develop some goals and a background as well as we go, but since the campaign is so schizophrenic with the DM changing all the time, who knows.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 23, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> I think that our games just differ on the fact that I skip the find-the-fun step and say that we already did that. I situate the PCs in the situation. No bars needed.



You're forcing your players to accept your definition of 'fun', then.

What you call "find-the-fun" is to others the very necessary (and fun) step of exploring; during which both characters and players can learn many things about the game world and the DM respectively.

Exploration also adds depth to the world, and thus the game, from the players' perspective.  I've seen DMs who ignore this, instead rushing their party from one combat to the next, then from one adventure to the next - and sure, the PCs gain lots of ExP and get real rich real quick, but the game world has all the depth of a Hollywood blonde...it's nothing more than window dressing.

And obviously, if the players aren't interested in exploring you likely have a need for new players.

Lan-"my reaction to the stray cat would be to cast _Find Familiar_ at the first opportunity"-efan


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 23, 2010)

I am actually not forcing anything. And my players have expresed that my games are better since I have begun using these techniques.



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> Exploration also adds depth to the world, and thus the game, from the players' perspective. I've seen DMs who ignore this, instead rushing their party from one combat to the next, then from one adventure to the next - and sure, the PCs gain lots of ExP and get real rich real quick, but the game world has all the depth of a Hollywood blonde...it's nothing more than window dressing.



I want to address this actually. Combat is not at all the only thing that happens in my games. Character directed scenes are. So I make each scene pertinent to the character in it, or as much as possible. It is not about pushing minis around a grid. It is about giving players choices that are meanigful to their characters. It is about allowing the players the choices to define their characters and their role within the world. The depth of my games is not at all what would be considered "a Hollywood blonde."And I have no problems with player retention. 

I find it funny that the OP had a problem with the fact that players never engage with the fiction unless the GM railroads them, many people agreed, and yet when techniques are suggested that can help you to engage the players interests through their characters, without a railroad, they are blown off as producing shallow games without time to develope character. That accusation is just not true. Many fine games advocate this type of GMing explicitly in the rules, and many other games thrive off of it, even if not made explicit. I found the complaints of the OP to be very true until I learned some tricks from other games. Not everyone will like them. Many people use these tricks without knowing that they use them. Telling me that they are a bad idea is silly. They are techniques with wide acceptance, and have produced good results for me and many others. Ignore them if you will, but it is not like these are untried or even all that controversial.

If you would like, we could discuss how different games use exactly the techniques that I have advocated, and to good effect and overall huge success (for non D&D games).


----------



## S'mon (Aug 23, 2010)

Nameless1's techniques of grounding the PCs and getting straight to the action are perfectly viable techniques.  It's the default in eg Pendragon, or the Super Hero genre.  

Having the PCs start out as strangers, exploring the setting without prior links to the immediate area, is also a viable technique, and the traditional default in D&D and similar games. 

The latter has some advantages IMO, especially with proactive players.  The PCs are finding out about the setting at the same time as the players.  It's very easy for the GM to introduce new adventures/hooks as the PCs explore.

I find with having the PCs start as established part of the setting, the GM has to work harder to create adventures, because the adventure disrupts an established status quo which includes the PCs.   Think Murder Mystery TV shows, especially those set in a defined geographical locale - a city (Oxford - Inspector Morse) or island (Jersey - Bergerac).     Or most Super Hero plots (eg Superman II, Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV show).  The adventure/plot may originate from an NPC within the setting, such as the local super villain escapes from jail yet again, but too much of this can strain credibility.

Whereas when the PCs are new to the area,* they themselves are the disruptive element  * (A Fistfull of Dollars.  Conan the Barbarian.  Desperado.  Kung Fu).  In this latter case the GM can just sit back, introduce the PCs, and see what happens.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 23, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> From an in-character perspective, your character is an adventurer, right? Isn't seeking out adventure part-and-parcel of living the life of an adventurer?





The Shaman said:


> What I do have is a group of adventurers with goals to pursue. The adventure is what results from that pursuit.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



In my view, there is a bit of tension between these two posts. The first suggests that, as a player, I should be thinking about the game from an in-character perspective. And this is reinforced by the comments in the second post about goals and relationships. But then the last bit, about "standing at the gates of Paris", assumes some sort of metagame thinking, or at least appears to. Because if I think about that situation from within the gameworld, then I have to realise that most fortune seekers will end up living lives that are boring, or miserable, or both. For a fortune-seeking game to work, I think there has to be some sort of understanding (be it explicit or implicity) between players and GM that the odds of having interesting stuff happen are greater, for a PC, than they are for a statistically average fortune-seeker.

Once you let in that much of a metagame agenda, there seems to be no constraint but taste on how much more you admit. Including, perhaps, starting somewhere other than on a street corner.



Nameless1 said:


> I always cut the "find the adventure" crap out of my games. We have a plan for play before we sit down at the table. Characters are made with the plan in mind.



My preferences are closer to this than to The Shaman. Although my current D&D campaign did begin in a tavern, the PCs had already been designed with some links in mind, and with backgrounds/relationships that would predispose them to engaging with the gameworld. The tavern wasn't an alternative to metagaming, just a handy ingame location for the metagame to be implemented.



Nameless1 said:


> These connections are not necessary. RPGs can work without them. And have. For years. But they are useful. And take very little time. They actually help to combat the complaint that the original OP outlined. Just an optional technique for most games, but one with results.



I agree with this. If a good part of the pleasure in RPGing comes from seeing the players invest in the gameworld via the medium of their PCs, then it makes sense to design the PCs and/or the world to help ensure that investment from the get go, rather than make everyone faff around at the table to bring it about.

And this is very easy to do in a bog-standard fantasy RPG. Clerics and paladins have their gods and temples. Fighters have their families and communities to who they have to prove themselves. Even rootless wanderers have their one-time home villages destroyed by marauding gnolls, upon whom they are now sworn to have their revenge.



Nameless1 said:


> As you said above, D'Artagnan actually has at least one connection. I think that you might also be overlooking the fact that he has a connection to the Musketeers. He wants to be one.



This is right, and it fits in with the use of "relationships" rather than "goals" as being helpful properties of a PC. Goals, on their own, don't necessarily invest a player in the game, because unless there is some sort of metagame understanding between GM and player, the player does not know how feasible it is to achieve his/her PC's goal (assuming it's not something completely mundane). It is goals that integrate into the existing gameworld elements - ie goals that are also relationships - that produce player investment. But to get this requires having players and GMs who are on the same page when it comes to world and PC design.



Lanefan said:


> What you call "find-the-fun" is to others the very necessary (and fun) step of exploring; during which both characters and players can learn many things about the game world and the DM respectively.



I think Nameless1's suggestion is that this can all be done more quickly and less tediously at the metagame level, before play starts, so that once play begins there is no need to do all this stuff. Once play begins the players, the GM, the PCs and the gameworld can all already be on the same page.



Barastrondo said:


> the philosophy of "Characters with no roots should cannot be hurt" and "You should always hurt the characters", applied broadly, is precisely why some people create rootless characters with no attachments to the world. They've been taught that background ties can bring them more grief than good.



I think this is about the _type_ of grief. The idea is not that the PCs should be driven into the ground, or that all the game elements that a player, via his/her PC, has become invested in should be destroyed. It's rather that the things that a player has become invested in should be the things that the game, as it is played, puts at stake.



Lanefan said:


> Exploration also adds depth to the world, and thus the game, from the players' perspective.



I don't agree with this. Exploration for its own sake is not of very much interest to me as a player - and as a GM, I try to consciously rein in my own tendency to overemphasis aspects of the gameworld that are of no interest beyond exploration for its own sake.

In my experience, what adds depth to the gameworld for my players is when the gameworld returns upon their investment in it. So if they set out to defend their church against an evil cult, and start exploring the cult, and its demonic sponsors, and so on, the gameworld yields up answers to these investigations that the players can then respond to. The campaign I ran previous to my current one ran for 10 years, and I would guess that of the six players in that game only one or two would remember the map. But all remembered the relationship map that they drew up to keep track of their allies, their enemies, and the connections between all the other NPCs of the world.



Nameless1 said:


> It is about giving players choices that are meanigful to their characters. It is about allowing the players the choices to define their characters and their role within the world.



Agreed. I suspect that my game is not as focused on this as yours. It is still a D&D game, not an indie game, and so apart from anything else doesn't have quite the same mechanical techniques to force this as many indie games do. On the other hand, it is a 4e D&D game and so has more than zero techniques of this sort - paragon paths, epic destinies to come, and not to mention all the history and myth that the 4e D&D world is full of and in which players can very easily become caught up.



Nameless1 said:


> I find it funny that the OP had a problem with the fact that players never engage with the fiction unless the GM railroads them, many people agreed, and yet when techniques are suggested that can help you to engage the players interests through their characters, without a railroad, they are blown off as producing shallow games without time to develope character. That accusation is just not true. Many fine games advocate this type of GMing explicitly in the rules, and many other games thrive off of it, even if not made explicit. I found the complaints of the OP to be very true until I learned some tricks from other games. Not everyone will like them. Many people use these tricks without knowing that they use them. Telling me that they are a bad idea is silly. They are techniques with wide acceptance, and have produced good results for me and many others. Ignore them if you will, but it is not like these are untried or even all that controversial.



Nicely put.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 23, 2010)

S'mon said:


> Whereas when the PCs are new to the area,* they themselves are the disruptive element  * (A Fistfull of Dollars.  Conan the Barbarian.  Desperado.  Kung Fu).  In this latter case the GM can just sit back, introduce the PCs, and see what happens.



I think this is right. But I think that there is more to be said about the different options that are available here. While of course it's all about taste in gaming, in my view it's not "mere taste". The different options have their own underlying logics, which can be analysed at least to some extent.

First, as Nameless1 said upthread, this presupposes that the PCs are mercenaries, or something like that (in the case of Kung Fu, maybe something closer to wandering do-gooders - "enlightened mercenaries").

Furthermore, if you keep on going with this sort of play - the PCs always on the move to somewhere new - then you get strongly episodic play, which not everyone wants. Conversely, if the PCs become embedded in the local situation over time, and this is what everyone wanted, then why not just start there?

Early D&D seems to have been conceived on the Conan model - start out wandering, end up embedded - and thus to have anticipated a change over the campaign in the style of play (reflected mechanically, to an extent, in the shift from dungeons to castles and politics as the PCs gain levels). This is one way to play an RPG, but it's not obviously superior, and to be honest is not even obviously that attractive. Again, if I want to play an RPG with PCs embedded in the world, why not just start there?

One answer to that question might be - unless you do it in the Pendragon or Lo5R style, and make the PCs part of the ruling families by default, it takes metagaming to achieve it, as the GM and the players conspire to design PCs and world that complement one another. And some players at least - including, it seems, at least some early D&D players - have a strong dislike for this sort of metagame. So they opt to subsitute play for metagame, and make the embeddedness emerge organically in the course of play.

But if you look at The Shaman's posts upthread, then (as I pointed out in my earlier post) he already seems to presuppose some degree of metagame - namely, that the fortune-seeker at the gates of Paris has more than a realistic chance of finding fame and fortune, or at least interesting adventure. And this is reinforced by The Shaman's upthread remarks about his "random" encounters. This is all quite different to high-lethatlity, no-special-treatment-just-because-you're-a-PC classic D&D.

Once you have this much metagame, why stop there? Which brings us back to the question - If you want to play a game in which the PCs are embedded in the gameworld, why not just start there?


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 23, 2010)

Clarabell said:


> But then it just seems to be to be kind of pointless. If you have to lead them around everywhere and point out every single bit of information, then for me the fun is completely gone. If I wanted that i would work on my book. There I'm in control of pretty much everything that goes on. Half the point of playing D&D is seeing what the players will do, seeing how they will figure things how, what kind of unexpected things they do. Over the years I learned one very important thing: omit needless words. If it doesn't need to be said, don't say it. When you describe a room to your players, you do so telling them what they see. You don't say, "and behind the barrel is a key." While that's important, they don't see it.
> 
> Now let me add more to this story so you can see how really obvious this cat is throughout everything...
> 
> ...




...

Wait a second.  The merchant gave them coins which would turn gold when they did a good deed worthy of it.  Not "the specific good deed magically bound to that coin" but "a good deed worthy of it".  So the PCs tried to do a good deed - providing food for the poor.  In what sense is this not a good deed?  The players here were providing their own solution to the adventure - exactly what you claim to want.  It just wasn't the one _you_ wanted which magically had something to do with one of the hundred or so stray cats there were likely to be in the town.  (Or one of the other few good deeds on your magically approved list.)

You're running a Solve the Soup Cans game there. (Warning: TVTropes link).  And when the players had their own idea for plot, you rejected it as worthless (providing food to the poor is somehow not a good deed?).  Some of the players did exactly what you claim you wanted them to - and you ignored this.  So of course they were frustrated.  They couldn't read your mystical list of approved good deeds - and knew that any good deeds they came up with that weren't on your approved list wouldn't count for anything - you had demonstrated this.

This isn't fail players.  This is an example of a fail DM.  What you were supposed to do was take the ideas the players had provided and run with it.  Use their deed to open up a plot (for instance instead of going to the poor, the priest the next day invited all the rich merchants and minor nobles round for dinner - at that point the good deed becomes exposing the priest's corruption so charity can flow to the poor (far more of a good deed than giving a home to a _stray cat_)).

So how do you get players to provide their part of the story?  Simple.  Listen to their ideas.  Act on them.  _Let them matter_.  If you reward the ideas the players come up with by taking them and expanding on them then the players will find that fun and will keep adding new ideas and story to the mix until you get overloaded.  If you reject them (e.g. by restricting your definition of "good deed" to a DM-approved list of good deeds) then it won't be fun for the players, they won't give you ideas because there's _no point_ - they won't get any reward for them and will, in fact, be frustrated as their ideas are rejected.  So they will stop trying because they know it won't do any good.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 23, 2010)

pemerton said:


> In my view, there is a bit of tension between these two posts. The first suggests that, as a player, I should be thinking about the game from an in-character perspective. And this is reinforced by the comments in the second post about goals and relationships. But then the last bit, about "standing at the gates of Paris", assumes some sort of metagame thinking, or at least appears to. Because if I think about that situation from within the gameworld, then I have to realise that most fortune seekers will end up living lives that are boring, or miserable, or both. For a fortune-seeking game to work, I think there has to be some sort of understanding (be it explicit or implicity) between players and GM that the odds of having interesting stuff happen are greater, for a PC, than they are for a statistically average fortune-seeker.
> 
> Once you let in that much of a metagame agenda, there seems to be no constraint but taste on how much more you admit. Including, perhaps, starting somewhere other than on a street corner.



And another FoRE*** joins the discussion. Hi, *pemerton*!

Presumably most people interested in joining a game about swashbuckling adventures possesses at least a passing familiarity with the genre. The rules of the game produce swashbuckling adventurers for the players to play, and provide guidance on some of the possibilities open to an adventurer to make one's fortune during _l'Ancien Régime_. And, since we're all sitting down to play a game together, I believe we can safely assume that the referee will take a few minutes to embellish the material provided by the rules of the game with some campaign-specific details (what I like to call 'The Five Things Every Character Knows') and encourage the players to set goals for their characters, which hopefully the players will take to heart.

The "metagame agenda" is, "Let's play a game like the Three Musketeers!" The (well-written, in the case of _Flashing Blades_) rules of the game we are going to play produce genre-appropriate characters, and I'm providing a setting which reflects the period and place and the accounts (both historical and fictional) they inspire.

A "statistically average fortune seeker" in 1625 Paris is a laborer hoping to find steady work. The roleplaying game we're going to play doesn't produce these characters. 

With that in mind, does 'standing at the Porte Saint-Antoine' really sound like such a huge conceptual hurdle to cross? Here's your character; here's Paris. Go for it.



pemerton said:


> If a good part of the pleasure in RPGing comes from seeing the players invest in the gameworld via the medium of their PCs, then it makes sense to design the PCs and/or the world to help ensure that investment from the get go, rather than make everyone faff around at the table to bring it about.



What you seem to disparage as "faffing around" is what some other gamers call "playing the game."

In _Flashing Blades_ "faffing around" includes such boring, time-wasting, genre-typical activities as courting another man's wife _and_ her serving girl at the same time, or gambling in a gentlemen's club against a duke and peer, a great officer of the King's Household, or challenging a rival swordsman to summon his seconds to a little alley behind the Église Saint-Eustache.

And somehow fun manages to be had.


*** Friend of Ron E.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 23, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> The "metagame agenda" is, "Let's play a game like the Three Musketeers!" The (well-written, in the case of _Flashing Blades_) rules of the game we are going to play produce genre-appropriate characters, and I'm providing a setting which reflects the period and place and the accounts (both historical and fictional) they inspire.
> 
> A "statistically average fortune seeker" in 1625 Paris is a laborer hoping to find steady work. The roleplaying game we're going to play doesn't produce these characters.
> 
> With that in mind, does 'standing at the Porte Saint-Antoine' really sound like such a huge conceptual hurdle to cross? Here's your character; here's Paris. Go for it.



I don't disagree with any of this. But this seems to me to be quite some way away from what the OP was complaining about.

You have an agreed genre with agreed thematic material and an understanding both that the game will deal with those things - swashbucklers, musketeers, corrupt clergy, courtiers, etc - and that if the players have a bit of good luck with the dice and their decisions they will see their PCs grow from fortune-seekers to fortune-attainers.

The OP is (or at least seems to be complaining) about D&D players whose PCs won't act. But D&D doesn't set a genre (or at least, does not set a genre with anything like the specificity of tropes and themes as musketeers) and doesn't establish any baseline understanding about the prospects for PCs (indeed, we regularly see threads on these forums disagreeing about what those prospects should be in a typical D&D game).

I don't mind you having a bit of a dig at "metagame agendas" - I know you're not a FoRE - but Flashing Blades, as you describe it, has much more of such agenda than does a D&D game, when all I know about the game is that it is a D&D game. 

In light of this problem with D&D play - a probelm that I think is fairly widely recognised (it's not as if the OP is the first time I've heard this sort of complaint) - Nameless1 seems to me to be making some fairly basic suggestions, based on familiarity with non-D&D games, about how to provide the context that will motivate those players to have their PCs act. The alternative approach, of specifying genre and PC prospects much more specifically than is normally done in D&D play, might work equally well, but (perhaps because I'm a FoRE) I tend to think more in Nameless1's terms.



The Shaman said:


> What you seem to disparage as "faffing around" is what some other gamers call "playing the game."



I think we might have had this conversation before.



The Shaman said:


> In _Flashing Blades_ "faffing around" includes such boring, time-wasting, genre-typical activities as courting another man's wife _and_ her serving girl at the same time, or gambling in a gentlemen's club against a duke and peer, a great officer of the King's Household, or challenging a rival swordsman to summon his seconds to a little alley behind the Église Saint-Eustache.



But what makes you think I (or Nameless1, for that matter) would classify this as faffing around? I'm talking about reducing the level of pure exploration of the gameworld. What you're talking about isn't exploration. It isn't _looking for _the adventure - unless I'm missing something, it _is_ the adventure.

What I am describing as "faffing around" is the bit where the player has to discover, through play, who the local powerholders are, whose wives are worth courting, and where all the clubs are. I prefer a game where at least some of this is known at start up, so that we can cut straight to the action (of course some, perhaps even the most interesting, stuff can be secret at the start and emerge in the course of play - but not everything that is necessary for the fun stuff to happen).


----------



## S'mon (Aug 23, 2010)

pemerton said:


> Once you have this much metagame, why stop there? Which brings us back to the question - If you want to play a game in which the PCs are embedded in the gameworld, why not just start there?




Sometimes I want to play a game where the PCs determine in-play whether, where, and to what extent, they become embedded in any particular part of the game-world.

In OD&D-AD&D, embedding is a reward for successful play.  I like that.  YMMV (and apparently does).


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 23, 2010)

pemerton said:


> D&D doesn't set a genre (or at least, does not set a genre with anything like the specificity of tropes and themes as musketeers) and doesn't establish any baseline understanding about the prospects for PCs (indeed, we regularly see threads on these forums disagreeing about what those prospects should be in a typical D&D game).



It sets goals, doesn't it, through the level up and magic item acquisition systems. PCs are 'supposed' to go to dangerous places, fight monsters and acquire treasure. And, in old school D&D, become a military commander. That's what one could call the genre of D&D.

If a player wanted their character to become the mistress of the wealthiest, highest status man she could find, if the goals were wealth (just like trad D&D, but with totally different methods), love and security for oneself and one's children then the game would completely break down. The text of D&D just doesn't cover that, it's all about going down holes, fighting monsters and finding treasure, not seduction, relationships and child rearing.

People say you can do anything with it, but it seems to push very strongly in a particular direction, a tiny subset of all the activities that could be taking place in the game world.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 23, 2010)

S'mon said:


> Sometimes I want to play a game where the PCs determine in-play whether, where, and to what extent, they become embedded in any particular part of the game-world.
> 
> In OD&D-AD&D, embedding is a reward for successful play.  I like that.  YMMV (and apparently does).



Could you explain that please?  Do you mean that embedding is a reward because of the free followers/castle that come with your level?  Which seems to cut against letting the players decide.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 23, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> ...Some of the players did exactly what you claim you wanted them to - and you ignored this.  So of course they were frustrated.  They couldn't read your mystical list of approved good deeds - and knew that any good deeds they came up with that weren't on your approved list wouldn't count for anything - you had demonstrated this.
> 
> ...
> 
> So how do you get players to provide their part of the story?  Simple.  Listen to their ideas.  Act on them.  _Let them matter_.  If you reward the ideas the players come up with by taking them and expanding on them then the players will find that fun and will keep adding new ideas and story to the mix until you get overloaded.  If you reject them (e.g. by restricting your definition of "good deed" to a DM-approved list of good deeds) then it won't be fun for the players, they won't give you ideas because there's _no point_ - they won't get any reward for them and will, in fact, be frustrated as their ideas are rejected.  So they will stop trying because they know it won't do any good.




I must spread some XP around, et cetera.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 23, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> I must spread some XP around, et cetera.



Thanks.  Seeing that about one of my comments for the first time just made my day


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 23, 2010)

pemerton said:


> You have an agreed genre with agreed thematic material and an understanding both that the game will deal with those things - swashbucklers, musketeers, corrupt clergy, courtiers, etc - and that if the players have a bit of good luck with the dice and their decisions they will see their PCs grow from fortune-seekers to fortune-attainers.



See, this is why I need an editor - you said that much more succinctly than I did.







pemerton said:


> The OP is (or at least seems to be complaining) about D&D players whose PCs won't act. *But D&D doesn't set a genre* (or at least, does not set a genre with anything like the specificity of tropes and themes as musketeers) *and doesn't establish any baseline understanding about the prospects for PCs* (indeed, we regularly see threads on these forums disagreeing about what those prospects should be in a typical D&D game).



I agree with *Doug McCrae* on this: _D&D_ sets very clear expectations for what the game is about through its character creation and rewards systems, with the caveat that these differ between editions.

I _could_ run a sort of Huguenot _agonistes_ campaign with _Flashing Blades_ - eating dogs and boot leather during the siege of La Rochelle, fleeing the _dragonnade_ after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes - the game really doesn't provide much in the way of in-character rewards for this.







pemerton said:


> I don't mind you having a bit of a dig at "metagame agendas" - I know you're not a FoRE . . .



*pemerton*, however much you and I may disagree on the finer points of this little hobby of ours, I do enjoy our discussions, and I hope you do, too.







pemerton said:


> . . . In light of this problem with D&D play - a probelm that I think is fairly widely recognised (it's not as if the OP is the first time I've heard this sort of complaint) - Nameless1 seems to me to be making some fairly basic suggestions, based on familiarity with non-D&D games, about how to provide the context that will motivate those players to have their PCs act. The alternative approach, of specifying genre and PC prospects much more specifically than is normally done in D&D play, might work equally well, but (perhaps because I'm a FoRE) I tend to think more in Nameless1's terms.



As I noted in a previous post, everything that *Nameless1* suggested is a perfectly valid solution. They are not my preferred methods for engaging the players and their characters with the setting, but I agree they work for many.

I'm simply offering an alternative view, one which I personally believe gets back to some of the earliest principles of roleplaying games. One of the areas where I'm guessing you and I are in more-or-less complete agreement is the FoRE concept of 'system matters.' I think later editions of _D&D_ represent playing catch-up to what people were attempting to do with the game in actual play, often as encouraged by media such as _Dragon_ articles, but my personal feeling is that this effort missed the train because the execution focused on maintaining the same character memes while tacking on additional rewards systems.

Since I've walked out this far on a limb, I might as well go a little farther with an example. One of my favorite roleplaying games continues to be 2e _Boot Hill_. At first blush it appears to be little more than the tabletop skirmish game from which it originated: character abilities are related solely to gunfighting and throwing stuff, and the only way they change is by surviving fights or aging. However, there is a second rewards system as well, the acquisition of wealth. You can drive cattle or rob banks or hunt bounties or enforce The Law, and the system provides the resolution for this as well. Even though it's not reflected in my character abilities, the system still supports a wider range of character goals than shooting, stabbing, or punching stuff.

3e _Boot Hill_ was a significant revision of the game, with skill systems, changes to combat resolution, and a new reward system. The authors didn't try to tinker around the edges; they came at the system with a whole new perspective, and actually created a very good roleplaying game - if the genre were more popular, 3e _Boot Hill_ would probably be on more gamers 'desert island' lists.

I think _D&D_ has a very strong set of core memes; for a variety of reasons, gamers have been encouraged for years to keep expanding those memes, encouraged with great exuberance but perhaps with less-than-thorough consideration of how that expansion is reflected in the system. I think this is what is reflected in the original post, and _my_ suggestion is, return to first princicples first.







pemerton said:


> I think we might have had this conversation before.



Oh, perhaps once ot twice. 


pemerton said:


> But what makes you think I (or Nameless1, for that matter) would classify this as faffing around? I'm talking about reducing the level of pure exploration of the gameworld. What you're talking about isn't exploration. It isn't _looking for _the adventure - unless I'm missing something, it _is_ the adventure.
> 
> What I am describing as "faffing around" is the bit where the player has to discover, through play, who the local powerholders are, whose wives are worth courting, and where all the clubs are. I prefer a game where at least some of this is known at start up, so that we can cut straight to the action (of course some, perhaps even the most interesting, stuff can be secret at the start and emerge in the course of play - but not everything that is necessary for the fun stuff to happen).



And I would consider that 'faffing about,' that discovery through play, to be adventure, too.

Difference strokes lead to horse races, or something like that.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 23, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Could you explain that please?  Do you mean that embedding is a reward because of the free followers/castle that come with your level?  Which seems to cut against letting the players decide.




No, it could be anything.  Any friendly contacts, positions, etc.  D'Artagnan gets to join the Musketeers.  In my City State game a PC acquired a hot paladiness girlfriend, and he has so-far-unfulfilled a goal of becoming an officer on a pirate ship.  Any connections to the setting gained in play are rewards of play.  In the Raven's Wing game the friendly relations with Lord Kyle or to some extent Crus the Wizard are rewards for successful play.  Fargrim Kern's likely elevated status among the Dwarves if you successfully clear the Forge of Fury for resettlement would be a reward for successful play.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 23, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> It sets goals, doesn't it, through the level up and magic item acquisition systems. PCs are 'supposed' to go to dangerous places, fight monsters and acquire treasure. And, in old school D&D, become a military commander. That's what one could call the genre of D&D.
> 
> If a player wanted their character to become the mistress of the wealthiest, highest status man she could find, if the goals were wealth (just like trad D&D, but with totally different methods), love and security for oneself and one's children then the game would completely break down. The text of D&D just doesn't cover that, it's all about going down holes, fighting monsters and finding treasure, not seduction, relationships and child rearing.
> 
> People say you can do anything with it, but it seems to push very strongly in a particular direction, a tiny subset of all the activities that could be taking place in the game world.




I agree; D&D does have a distinct genre; D&D PCs are adventurers or adventurer-type-characters in a fantasy world.  The GM had better treat them as such, or he's breaching the social contract.

They may be "ordinary adventurers" with no special luck or breaks (OD&D & Classic) or they may be unusually favoured (3e) or near-uniquely favoured (4e), but in all cases they are fantasy adventurers, to whom unusual things happen at a much greater rate than the general populace.  If you don't believe me, take a look at the 1e DMG Town Encounter Table.  It is not a tool for simulating the day of the average townsman - he wouldn't last the day!  It's there to provide suitably exciting and dangerous occurrences for D&D adventurer PCs.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 23, 2010)

S'mon said:


> I agree; D&D does have a distinct genre; D&D PCs are adventurers or adventurer-type-characters in a fantasy world.  The GM had better treat them as such, or he's breaching the social contract.
> 
> They may be "ordinary adventurers" with no special luck or breaks (OD&D & Classic) or they may be unusually favoured (3e) or near-uniquely favoured (4e), but in all cases they are fantasy adventurers, to whom unusual things happen at a much greater rate than the general populace.  If you don't believe me, take a look at the 1e DMG Town Encounter Table.  It is not a tool for simulating the day of the average townsman - he wouldn't last the day!  It's there to provide suitably exciting and dangerous occurrences for D&D adventurer PCs.



"You must spread some Experience Points around . . . "


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 23, 2010)

S'mon said:


> in all cases they are fantasy adventurers, to whom unusual things happen at a much greater rate than the general populace.  If you don't believe me, take a look at the 1e DMG Town Encounter Table.  It is not a tool for simulating the day of the average townsman - he wouldn't last the day!  It's there to provide suitably exciting and dangerous occurrences for D&D adventurer PCs.



That's a very interesting interpretation of the encounter tables. I'm not sure if it's what the author intended but I agree with you that it makes more sense than the 'world sim' interpretation.

You're right that those tables are deadly. At night there's about a 20% chance of a monster such as a vampire, lycanthrope or demon. By day it's 3%. They are rolled once every three turns with, I assume, a 1-in-6 chance of encounter.

I've always assumed that the wilderness in D&D is intended to be ridiculously heavily monster infested, like Vance's Dying Earth. However one could apply the 'interesting lives' interpretation to this also.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 23, 2010)

Players, it's your "responsibility" to *play*.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 23, 2010)

Kzach said:
			
		

> I've done this experiment too many times to count where I've told the group either one or the other, ie. I've said, "Go where you want, do what you want, but the onus is on you to find adventure," and everyone is like, "Yay! Awesome!" and we start the game and sit in a tavern for three hours roleplaying hitting on the barmaids, drinking themselves silly, and provoking fights. Usually this goes on until I finally break and paint a flashing neon sign that says, "Adventure, this way!"




Players, it's your responsibility to entertain the DM -- if the DM is Kzach.

I gather that in Mr. Gygax's games, if play was boring him, then he would entertain himself possibly at the characters' expense.

As for me, I tend as ref to be contented wherever the players are finding their fun.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 24, 2010)

S'mon said:


> I agree; D&D does have a distinct genre; D&D PCs are adventurers or adventurer-type-characters in a fantasy world.  The GM had better treat them as such, or he's breaching the social contract.
> 
> They may be "ordinary adventurers" with no special luck or breaks (OD&D & Classic) or they may be unusually favoured (3e) or near-uniquely favoured (4e), but in all cases they are fantasy adventurers, to whom unusual things happen at a much greater rate than the general populace.  If you don't believe me, take a look at the 1e DMG Town Encounter Table.  It is not a tool for simulating the day of the average townsman - he wouldn't last the day!  It's there to provide suitably exciting and dangerous occurrences for D&D adventurer PCs.




How does this not mean that AD&D characters are "special" adventurers?  If the random tables only apply to the characters, wouldn't that mean that the rules are specifying that the PC's are special?

I have to admit, I lean far more towards Nameless1's ideas.  Mostly because of pacing.  I play fairly short sessions.  Spending significant amounts of time researching an adventure, rather than adventuring itself, means that I'm going to take forever to actually get to the adventure.

I prefer to cut to the chase.  Both as a player and as a DM.  It would not bother me in the least for a DM to start an adventure in medias res, simply skipping over the initial stuff.  Instead of meeting with the guy who's giving me the quest, start the adventure three days in with all that other stuff taken as read.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 24, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Players, it's your responsibility to entertain the DM -- if the DM is Kzach.



Or Lanefan, but it cuts both ways: I'll only invite in those who I think will be entertaining players, and if they're not then the blame falls in some amount to me.  And I also see it as my job to entertain them, or at least try.


> As for me, I tend as ref to be contented wherever the players are finding their fun.



Provided it's game-related, then sure. 

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (Aug 24, 2010)

Yeah, while as a DM I certainly derive a great deal of my enjoyment in seeing the players have a good time, there does come a point where I don't want to have to lead the players around by the nose all the time.  A table full of passive players would be boring as hell.  I want the players to be engaged and somewhat pro-active.  I don't feel that they need to find their own adventures, that's a bit more that what I want or need.  But, I also don't want them sitting there like frogs on a log waiting for me to wheel up the plot wagon.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 24, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> It sets goals, doesn't it, through the level up and magic item acquisition systems. PCs are 'supposed' to go to dangerous places, fight monsters and acquire treasure. And, in old school D&D, become a military commander. That's what one could call the genre of D&D.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The text of D&D just doesn't cover that, it's all about going down holes, fighting monsters and finding treasure, not seduction, relationships and child rearing.



I can see where this is coming from, but I don't fully agree, for two sorts of reasons: the history of the published game, and the history of what people have tried to do with it (as revealed via Dragon magazine before it became a mere house organ, via internet posts, etc).

If we look at AD&D 1st ed, we have books like Oriental Adventures which take the focus away from going into holes in the ground and finding treasure on monsters. The rules in that book - the skills, the class features (including rules for XP gain), the event charts in the GM's section, etc - all suggest a game where the players are engaged with a political and social world, and make their fortune in that world, rather than via classic dungeon delving. (I'm speaking here both from theory and from experience - I started GMing an OA game as soon as the book came out, and have never GMed a dungeon-crawl game since then. I was also influenced by what I was reading in Dragon at the time, especially the anti-alignment article in Dragon 101(?) - "For King and Country".)

Of course aspects of OA don't make complete sense - eg the XP rules aren't changed radically enough - but 3rd ed OA caught up with this to some extent, for example by suggesting that treasure be given as rewards rather than as loot. And 4e makes this a core possibility, by linking treasure to level and encounter-based parcels rather than to monsters. Although some people have criticised the parcel system as MMO loot-dropping, to me it represents the end of "kill things and take their stuff" as core to D&D play. That sort of play is of course possible in 4e, but the rulebooks support other sorts of play from the ground up.

In Dragon from the same (mid-80s) era we also had an article in Dragon 95 by Katharine Kerr adapting the monster XP reward system to give XPs for non-combat encounters.

2nd ed AD&D only increased these factors pushing D&D players away from traditional play. To the extent that the XP rules didn't keep up, it's a well-known fact that many GMs just abandoned them, adopting the "level up every few session" approach instead.



Doug McCrae said:


> People say you can do anything with it, but it seems to push very strongly in a particular direction, a tiny subset of all the activities that could be taking place in the game world.



I agree with this - ie, that D&D doesn't do everything, or even an especially wide subset of everything - but, especially given its history and the range of expectations and possiblities to which this has given rise, I don't think it specifies a genre with any great specificity. If you're turning up to a D&D game, and find yourself in a tavern, are you meant to look for maps/clues to the nearest dungeon? Listen for rumours of slaves or princesses who need rescuing (as suggested in the notorious editorial heralding 2nd ed)? Look for stray cats who need houses?

Historically, all these things and more have been done with the game. Until players know which one they're meant to be doing, it can be hard to make the game work. Hence (in my view) the benefits of getting everyone on the same page.



The Shaman said:


> I agree with *Doug McCrae* on this: _D&D_ sets very clear expectations for what the game is about through its character creation and rewards systems, with the caveat that these differ between editions.



For the reasons just given, I agree with caveat but think it tends to swallow up the point, especially when the known range of actual D&D play is taken into account.



The Shaman said:


> I think later editions of _D&D_ represent playing catch-up to what people were attempting to do with the game in actual play, often as encouraged by media such as _Dragon_ articles, but my personal feeling is that this effort missed the train because the execution focused on maintaining the same character memes while tacking on additional rewards systems.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I generally agree with your diagnosis, although as a 4e fan I naturally tend to think that its consideration of the issues has been a bit more thorough (eg treasure parcels, the pretty radical change to alignment as a mechanic).

I'm not sure I fully understand your prescription, though, of returning to first principles first. If the suggestion here is "play a game that sets things up the way you want it to", then that's good advice, but for all sorts of reasons - practical and emotional - people tend to stick with D&D even when they might be better off without it.

If the suggestion is instead "when playing D&D play it as it was written to be played back in the early 70s" then I'm not sure this will work either. For better or worse, people are trying to do other sorts of stuff with D&D, and I think will continue to do so.



S'mon said:


> I agree; D&D does have a distinct genre; D&D PCs are adventurers or adventurer-type-characters in a fantasy world.  The GM had better treat them as such, or he's breaching the social contract.



As far as genres go, this is too broad to specify much about the actual content of play.

The Shaman contrasted his musketeers Flashing Blade game with a potential "Huguenot agonistes" game. Both might fit the description of "PCs are middle class or gentlefolk trying to make their fortunes in early modern France", but as The Shaman rightly pointed out, they'd be pretty different games. By choosing Flashing Blades, the GM and players have already agreed which one they're going to engage in. But by choosing D&D, for most people it is still an open question whether the game will be Lord of the Rings, Dragonlance (= something like LoTR with less history and more gods and magic), Conan, The Dying Earth (= something like Conan with fewer thews and more wit), Lo5R (which the original OA hints at by implication, and which the 3rd ed OA makes an express attempt at) or any of the rest of the games that people try and play with a semi-generic (maybe it would be better to say "would-be generic") fantasy RPG.


----------



## Orius (Aug 24, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> You're running a Solve the Soup Cans game there. (Warning: TVTropes link).




You're not supposed to warm people about TVTropes links, they're supposed to be Schmuck Bait.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 24, 2010)

S'mon said:


> Sometimes I want to play a game where the PCs determine in-play whether, where, and to what extent, they become embedded in any particular part of the game-world.
> 
> In OD&D-AD&D, embedding is a reward for successful play.  I like that.  YMMV (and apparently does).





S'mon said:


> No, it could be anything.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Any connections to the setting gained in play are rewards of play.



I'm not sure how much my mileage varies.

I certainly enjoy seeing some types of embedding result from play - relationships (romantic or otherwise), alliances, betrayals etc. But I feel that these sorts of things are most easily achieved from a base of prior embedding, which gives the player some sort of foundation on which to build.

My own feeling is that the traditional AD&D approach - in which the PC has virtually no connections that aren't formed in the course of play - can (not must, but can) lead to an approach to the gameworld that is overly instrumental, even as embedding develops over time - particularly given some of the other factors of traditional AD&D that push towards a mercenary approach on the part of players.

To that extent AD&D does have a genre, I guess - it suggests play that will emulate certain aspects of Conan and The Dying Earth - but as I said before, I don't think it's practical these days to see D&D play as genre-limited, or even genre-focused, in that way.



Hussar said:


> I have to admit, I lean far more towards Nameless1's ideas.  Mostly because of pacing.  I play fairly short sessions.  Spending significant amounts of time researching an adventure, rather than adventuring itself, means that I'm going to take forever to actually get to the adventure.
> 
> I prefer to cut to the chase.



Obviously I agree with this!


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Yeah, while as a DM I certainly derive a great deal of my enjoyment in seeing the players have a good time, there does come a point where I don't want to have to lead the players around by the nose all the time.  A table full of passive players would be boring as hell.  I want the players to be engaged and somewhat pro-active.  I don't feel that they need to find their own adventures, that's a bit more that what I want or need.  But, I also don't want them sitting there like frogs on a log waiting for me to wheel up the plot wagon.




I don't really mind wheeling up the plot wagon. If my players wish to be led by the nose--heck, I like storytelling, I'll write up a script for the whole campaign and walk them through it. But if they want to break from the script and go do stuff on their own initiative, that's cool too.

When I get unhappy is when the players neither follow my plot hooks nor seek out their own.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 24, 2010)

pemerton said:


> As far as genres go, this is too broad to specify much about the actual content of play.




I disagree strongly; adventure fiction (including film etc) is a tiny subset of all fiction, even though it covers a broad range of adventurous activities.  There is just so much D&D can't do and shouldn't do, IME.  You can do a "Maltese Falcon" type plot in D&D, but you can't do "Sliding Doors" or "Love, Actually"; at any rate the rules would actively push against it.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 24, 2010)

pemerton said:


> IBut by choosing D&D, for most people it is still an open question whether the game will be Lord of the Rings, Dragonlance (= something like LoTR with less history and more gods and magic), Conan, The Dying Earth (= something like Conan with fewer thews and more wit), Lo5R ...




I'm not seeing a vast range here!  95% of the population would classify these as all one genre (fantasy/S&S), or more likely, at least until recently, as a mere sub genre of science fiction!  I dunno much about Lo5R, but Dragonlance is the exact same quest-fantasy sub-genre as its grand-daddy Lord of the Rings, while Conan and Dying Earth are both episodic swords & sorcery with slightly different tones.   At most you can say that players of modern D&D aren't sure whether they'll be playing a swords & sorcery game (traditional sandbox, or you could do an literary-episodic game a la _Sorcerer & Sword_ but that's unusual in D&D) or, post Dragonlance, a lengthy-quest-based game.  Which of these two sub-sub-genres it is can be established by the GM with a single sentence, if it's not already clear from context.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 24, 2010)

pemerton said:


> My own feeling is that the traditional AD&D approach - in which the PC has virtually no connections that aren't formed in the course of play - can (not must, but can) lead to an approach to the gameworld that is overly instrumental, even as embedding develops over time - particularly given some of the other factors of traditional AD&D that push towards a mercenary approach on the part of players.
> 
> To that extent AD&D does have a genre, I guess - it suggests play that will emulate certain aspects of Conan and The Dying Earth - but as I said before, I don't think it's practical these days to see D&D play as genre-limited, or even genre-focused, in that way.




Hmm, I think you've actually established that OD&D, at least, was originally *writtten as a tightly focused game*, with rules supporting exploration and self-aggrandisement in a Hyborea/Dying Earth/Nehwon type Swords & Sorcery world.  
1e AD&D rules & advice emphasised medievalism over weird fantasy, but didn't change much.  
2e advice & adventres saw drift into a more Tolkieny/Questy direction but kept almost exactly the same rules.  
3e aimed to go "back to the dungeon", was flexible enough to allow quite a wide range of adventurous play in character creation, but the XP system emphasised killing things. 
4e is quite a big departure, the rules do support a more questy approach though all the 4e WotC adventures I've bought seem to be little more than linear-series-of-fights (bought Orcs of Stonefang Pass yesterday, v disapointed).


----------



## S'mon (Aug 24, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> I don't really mind wheeling up the plot wagon. If my players wish to be led by the nose--heck, I like storytelling, I'll write up a script for the whole campaign and walk them through it.




I get really bored by that.  As GM, I need regular surprises.  As a player I need influence over the direction of what's going to happen, beyond my performance in combat.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 24, 2010)

S'mon, thanks for a series of very thoughtful replies!



S'mon said:


> I disagree strongly; adventure fiction (including film etc) is a tiny subset of all fiction, even though it covers a broad range of adventurous activities.  There is just so much D&D can't do and shouldn't do, IME.  You can do a "Maltese Falcon" type plot in D&D, but you can't do "Sliding Doors" or "Love, Actually"; at any rate the rules would actively push against it.





S'mon said:


> I'm not seeing a vast range here!
> 
> <snip>
> 
> At most you can say that players of modern D&D aren't sure whether they'll be playing a swords & sorcery game (traditional sandbox, or you could do an literary-episodic game a la _Sorcerer & Sword_ but that's unusual in D&D) or, post Dragonlance, a lengthy-quest-based game.  Which of these two sub-sub-genres it is can be established by the GM with a single sentence, if it's not already clear from context.



I see your point, but still want to hold out a little bit longer - I have some lingering intuition that I can't quite let go of!

I agree that by mainstream literary/theatric/cinematic standards D&D has a clear genre focus, and while can _pehaps_ do The Maltese Falcon clearly can't do Love Actually (for all sorts of reasons, including the centrality to D&D of party play).

But compared to The Shaman's musketeers game, I still think it's pretty broad. Musketeers specifies a whole range of tropes, and sets a whole lot of expectations. Whereas D&D, without further specification, leaves open such questions as (i) the significance of court intrigue, (ii) whether cardinals are allies or enemies (in Conan normally the latter, but in Forgotten Realms or published Greyhawk often the former), (iii) whether action is mostly urban, mostly wilderness or mostly underground, (iv) whether fame is desirable or not for PCs (ie will it bring them social power and rewards, or just attract pickpockets?), etc.

The range in literary terms is slight. The range in player expectations about the game is, in my view, still fairly broad. My own experience, as well as what I see on these boards and what I used to see in Dragon, tells me that signing up for a game of D&D leaves a lot of questions unanswered, which would be answered if I signed up for a game of musketeers.



S'mon said:


> Hmm, I think you've actually established that OD&D, at least, was originally *writtten as a tightly focused game*, with rules supporting exploration and self-aggrandisement in a Hyborea/Dying Earth/Nehwon type Swords & Sorcery world.
> 1e AD&D rules & advice emphasised medievalism over weird fantasy, but didn't change much.



Agreed. But have a look at Dragon and see what people were actually doing with the game. For whatever reason, D&D has been _played_ in a variety of ways that extends well beyond what was written. Even the increasing medievalism in AD&D can be seen as an attempt to retain players who might otherwise drift to C&S.



S'mon said:


> 2e advice & adventres saw drift into a more Tolkieny/Questy direction but kept almost exactly the same rules.



Agreed. The lack of fit between those rules and the apparently intended game (at least as bad as 1st ed OA, maybe worse)  is one reason why 2nd ed AD&D is one of my least favourite RPGs of all time.

At least in my own experience, I _can_ know what I'm getting into if I sign up for a 2nd ed game - namely, a game in which the GM tries to railroad me into and through a story, participation in which via my PC is barely supported by the rules (whether character build, action resolution, or reward).

I've got no doubt that some people had better experiences than me in 2nd ed games. But I think it might be the zenith (or nadir) of "playing D&D" giving me no handle, as a player, on how to get into the game until the GM starts railroading me along.



S'mon said:


> 3e aimed to go "back to the dungeon", was flexible enough to allow quite a wide range of adventurous play in character creation, but the XP system emphasised killing things.



I don't have much 3E experience. I agree about the XP system. At least in the core books, treasure gained also seems to be pretty tightly linked to looting monsters and NPCs.

On the other hand, the character build rules have Professions, Performance etc. Which (unless I'm a performing Bard) don't have much link to killing things and looting them. Therefore suggesting (i) that exactly what the game is about can't be inferred just from the reward system, and (ii) that until my GM tells me how my Professional Performer is going to earn XP (and I imagine a lot of 3E play carried on various informal XP systems from 2nd ed days rather than using those in the books) I don't really know what the game is about.

My personal impression of 3E is that the character build rules want to be Rolemaster, but the reward system and the action resolution system (or at least its spells and hit point components) want to be 1st ed AD&D. An unstable combination, in my view.



S'mon said:


> 4e is quite a big departure, the rules do support a more questy approach though all the 4e WotC adventures I've bought seem to be little more than linear-series-of-fights (bought Orcs of Stonefang Pass yesterday, v disapointed).



I agree that the modules seem to be disappointing (judging from what I've heard about them - I've only bought one, plus looked at the early Dungeon adventures and the encounters in the various worldbooks).

At a minimum, the game seems to allow both questy play and traditional D&D play (I run a questy-type game, but a lot of posters on these boards seem to run it in a more dungeon-bashing way, and the modules seemed designed to support the latter). But books like The Plane Above and Demonomicon, at least in part, support Glorantha-style HeroQuesting and similar play. And the potential for this is build into the game from the start (via Epic Destinies). Not to mention the flexibility in rewards created by quest XP, skill challenge XP and treasure parcels divorced from defeating monsters. At least in my view, merely knowing I was playing in a 4e game wouldn't necessarily answer all the questions that are answred when I sign up for a musketeers game.

Anyway, I'm not sure how persuasive all the above is . . . but I think I believe it!


----------



## S'mon (Aug 24, 2010)

Pemerton:
>>_S'mon, thanks for a series of very thoughtful replies!_<<

You're welcome 

>> _Whereas D&D, without further specification, leaves open such questions as (i) the significance of court intrigue, (ii) whether cardinals are allies or enemies (in Conan normally the latter, but in Forgotten Realms or published Greyhawk often the former), (iii) whether action is mostly urban, mostly wilderness or mostly underground, (iv) whether fame is desirable or not for PCs (ie will it bring them social power and rewards, or just attract pickpockets?), etc._<<

You see, in an exploration-based game these are all questions that can be answered through 
(a) exploration of the setting (finding out), and 
(b) Player determination (making it so through PC actions)

And that's an approach I often find very enjoyable.  There are supports though - eg in standard D&D the Ally/Enemy status of Cardinals is largely determined by the Alignment system. Where the action is can be player choice or established by the GM. 

>>_The range in literary terms is slight. The range in player expectations about the game is, in my view, still fairly broad. My own experience, as well as what I see on these boards and what I used to see in Dragon, tells me that signing up for a game of D&D leaves a lot of questions unanswered, which would be answered if I signed up for a game of musketeers._<<

I think this is somewhat true, partly due to genre drift and acquired incoherence over time, partly because the open, exploratory nature of OD&D lent itself to going off on a wide variety of tangents.

>>_Agreed. The lack of fit between those rules and the apparently intended game (at least as bad as 1st ed OA, maybe worse)  is one reason why 2nd ed AD&D is one of my least favourite RPGs of all time.

At least in my own experience, I can know what I'm getting into if I sign up for a 2nd ed game - namely, a game in which the GM tries to railroad me into and through a story, participation in which via my PC is barely supported by the rules (whether character build, action resolution, or reward)._<<

Ugh.  I tend to agree; even though I never converted fully to 2e I ran some crappy games in that era, probably influenced by Dungeon Magazine, and eventually left D&D for several years. 

>>_My personal impression of 3E is that the character build rules want to be Rolemaster, but the reward system and the action resolution system (or at least its spells and hit point components) want to be 1st ed AD&D. An unstable combination, in my view_.<<

Nicely put, I agree strongly.  Is the non-combat-skills system mostly just fluff, or is it there to support a broad range of play?  3e is the only system where I've seen a PC open a baker's shop and expect me to keep running her PC in a game of _Bakers & Breadsticks_.

>>_At least in my view, merely knowing I was playing in a 4e game wouldn't necessarily answer all the questions that are answred when I sign up for a musketeers game_.<<

Agreed, although the 4e default seems a bit clearer than 3e maybe; it's save-the-world dungeon adventures in a 'points of light' high fantasy setting.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 24, 2010)

S'mon said:


> Hmm, I think you've actually established that OD&D, at least, was originally *writtten as a tightly focused game*, with rules supporting exploration and self-aggrandisement in a Hyborea/Dying Earth/Nehwon type Swords & Sorcery world.
> 1e AD&D rules & advice emphasised medievalism over weird fantasy, but didn't change much.
> 2e advice & adventres saw drift into a more Tolkieny/Questy direction but kept almost exactly the same rules.
> 3e aimed to go "back to the dungeon", was flexible enough to allow quite a wide range of adventurous play in character creation, but the XP system emphasised killing things.
> 4e is quite a big departure, the rules do support a more questy approach though all the 4e WotC adventures I've bought seem to be little more than linear-series-of-fights (bought Orcs of Stonefang Pass yesterday, v disapointed).




I'm not sure that the shift to more Tolkieny style adventures occured in 2e to be honest.  Dragonlance is pretty firmly 1e - the modules came out in 84, and the books before that.  All of the gaming that the original series was based on is solidly 1e.

Even within 1e, you have a very broad range of themes.  And, let's not forget the other side of the street with the Companion rules being released in 84 - with a very strong emphasis on the characters becoming political entities.

I think your timeline ignores a lot of the things that Pemerton is talking about.  Yes, if you limit 1e to Greyhawk and Blackmoor, sure, it's a very specific game.  But, 1e isn't just that.  It's also Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, and the Companion through Immortals rules by 1985, several years before 2e came along.

In a lot of ways, 2e was simply emphasizing a style of play that was already very popular with a segment of gamers.

I will agree that D&D's reward system has long been at odds with the rest of the rules.  2e emphasized story, but, the reward system was still pretty much the same as 1e's.  3e suffers the same thing, and with the wealth by level issues, almost enforces an even stronger "THOU SHALT ADVENTURE" theme.

I'm mostly just quibbling with your timeline honestly.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 24, 2010)

There have been some really good posts in this thread!

re: using D&D to run a romantic comedy - I wouldn't say the rules _hinder_ this, they simply offer little-to-no help. Play would occur in the absence of formal rules. Put that way, it doesn't sound all that different from most of what went on in the D&D campaigns I've been in over the years. 

re: OD&D being a "tightly-focused game" - I think that's true, but it's more a reflection of the original creators being unable to conceive of how many different purposes the game's eventual audience would put it to. Everything from wargame-like campaigns to homegrown Tolkienesque -questing to hyperviolent fantasy slapstick (okay, I bet Gygax and Co. *did* conceive of that one...).


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 24, 2010)

S'mon said:


> No, it could be anything. Any friendly contacts, positions, etc. ... Any connections to the setting gained in play are rewards of play.




What I find interesting is that that isn't what I see when I look at my 1e PHB.  There are explicit setting rewards (followers, castle) attached to the various levels.  3 and 4e (and for that matter GURPS, Dogs in the Vineyard, and almost every other RPG I can think of) don't hard code setting rewards.



S'mon said:


> Hmm, I think you've actually established that OD&D, at least, was originally *writtten as a tightly focused game*, with rules supporting exploration and self-aggrandisement in a Hyborea/Dying Earth/Nehwon type Swords & Sorcery world.
> 1e AD&D rules & advice emphasised medievalism over weird fantasy, but didn't change much.




Once I understood it, I considered the XP for GP rules in 1e (I don't own anything older) to be the best rule in the game.



> 2e advice & adventres saw drift into a more Tolkieny/Questy direction but kept almost exactly the same rules.




From memory they dropped XP for GP and instead gave XP for behaving like a member of your class.



> 3e aimed to go "back to the dungeon", was flexible enough to allow quite a wide range of adventurous play in character creation, but the XP system emphasised killing things.




Defeating rather than killing - or at least they told you.  Did many people take that part seriously?



> 4e is quite a big departure, the rules do support a more questy approach though all the 4e WotC adventures I've bought seem to be little more than linear-series-of-fights (bought Orcs of Stonefang Pass yesterday, v disapointed).




There's a reason I'm running War of the Burning Sky 4e and preparing to run a converted and modified version of Paizo's Kingmaker Adventure Path rather than any WoTC 4e modules (and Goodman Games looks like exactly the opposite of what I want).



S'mon said:


> Ugh. I tend to agree; even though I never converted fully to 2e I ran some crappy games in that era, probably influenced by Dungeon Magazine, and eventually left D&D for several years.




The 2e era was when I was learning to RP.  I've never had a good game with it, but put that down to most games being crap or jokefests in my teenage years.



> Agreed, although the 4e default seems a bit clearer than 3e maybe; it's save-the-world dungeon adventures in a 'points of light' high fantasy setting.




Why dungeon adventures?  I've not really seen a need for dungeons in 4e.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 24, 2010)

Mallus said:


> re: using D&D to run a romantic comedy - I wouldn't say the rules _hinder_ this, they simply offer little-to-no help. Play would occur in the absence of formal rules. Put that way, it doesn't sound all that different from most of what went on in the D&D campaigns I've been in over the years.



Definitely - you could run a romantic-comedy game with _Chill_ or _Call of Cthulhu_ or _Shadowrun_, too, but I don't know that I would consider any of them a great medium for doing so, however.

I've heard gamers argue over the years that you can do anything with a roleplaying game because you can roleplay whatever elements you want without recourse to the rules - it's one of the arguments made for rules-light games, in my experience, and to some degree I agree with it. But I also feel that character development and the rewards system are good indicators of what the game does well, of the style of play which is most strongly supported. It's why I've moved away from generic systems toward systems which are a bit more purpose-built.







Mallus said:


> re: OD&D being a "tightly-focused game" - I think that's true, but it's more a reflection of the original creators being unable to conceive of how many different purposes the game's eventual audience would put it to. Everything from wargame-like campaigns to homegrown Tolkienesque -questing to hyperviolent fantasy slapstick (okay, I bet Gygax and Co. *did* conceive of that one...).



I wonder how much of this was driven by the marketing apparatus of the game. My impression is that TSR _wanted_ gamers to see _D&D_ as a vehicle for everything under the sun, as a means of maintaining its place at the top of the heap: "Sure, you can do Arthurian romance with _D&D_! You don't need _Pendragon_!"

And as you noted, while it is _possible_ to play the game that way, the game as written may not provide appropriate rewards without house ruling in something new.

I wonder if some of the virulence of the *Edishun Warz!* stems from the fact that each major iteration of _D&D_ has changed the rewards system - and therefore one of the objectives of play - so distinctly.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 24, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Once I understood it, I considered the XP for GP rules in 1e (I don't own anything older) to be the best rule in the game.



"You must spread some Experience Points around . . . " 


If anyone's got XP to spare, if you could hit *Mallus* and *Neochameleon* for me, I'd appreciate it.


----------



## GregChristopher (Aug 24, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> I've heard gamers argue over the years that you can do anything with a roleplaying game because you can roleplay whatever elements you want without recourse to the rules - it's one of the arguments made for rules-light games, in my experience, and to some degree I agree with it.




I think there are three approaches to this problem.

One is to strip the system down to a rules-lite shell and then the gamers provide all the detail. This seems to be very popular these days, but I dont think it works very well. Seems to just be shifting the burden to the gamers from the designers.

Another is to try to cover every eventuality. I think this may be destined to fail. GURPS and HERO try this approach. The problem is the game ends up being extremely complex with interlaced rules and people just get overwhelmed.

The last approach is to provide a quality model for representing the human mind, then providing architecture to hook in whatever skills or equipment you need to run the setting someone wants to run, and let them go. This is the approach I used in my game and I think it works pretty well.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 24, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Definitely - you could run a romantic-comedy game with _Chill_ or _Call of Cthulhu_ or _Shadowrun_, too, but I don't know that I would consider any of them a great medium for doing so, however.




Depends on whether the game is explicitly a romantic comedy and nothing but. The main appeal to running, say, a romantic comedy story in a game like D&D or Shadowrun (I won't argue for Call of Cthulhu) is probably one of two things. One, it's just one story among many, and it contrasts and/or complements the other stories going on at the same time. The bard is involved in kind of an All's Well That Ends Well subplot even as the rogue is involved in more of a organized crime turf war subplot. (Edit: This seems to sum up the average D&D webcomic, actually.)

The other reason seems like it would be accepting the sensibility that a romantic comedy could happen in, say, Greyhawk, and deciding to explore what that would be like. Embracing the tropes of the game world or the game system as part of the humor. Sort of like playing the other people in the world who aren't going into dungeons for a change of pace.

I agree it's a little odd to run something like a romantic comedy in D&D if you're not using anything else from D&D and there are other games available to you. I kind of suspect, though, that it's not really the case. The melodramatic Austen-inspired romantic subplot I run with my wife in a fantasy Champions game is just one of the things that character's involved with; all the rest are pretty Champions-empowered. But the character would have that kind of subplot by dint of her personality, and mechanics don't enter into it.


----------



## GregChristopher (Aug 24, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> Depends on whether the game is explicitly a romantic comedy and nothing but. The main appeal to running, say, a romantic comedy story in a game like D&D or Shadowrun (I won't argue for Call of Cthulhu) is probably one of two things. One, it's just one story among many, and it contrasts and/or complements the other stories going on at the same time. The bard is involved in kind of an All's Well That Ends Well subplot even as the rogue is involved in more of a organized crime turf war subplot. (Edit: This seems to sum up the average D&D webcomic, actually.)
> 
> The other reason seems like it would be accepting the sensibility that a romantic comedy could happen in, say, Greyhawk, and deciding to explore what that would be like. Embracing the tropes of the game world or the game system as part of the humor. Sort of like playing the other people in the world who aren't going into dungeons for a change of pace.
> 
> I agree it's a little odd to run something like a romantic comedy in D&D if you're not using anything else from D&D and there are other games available to you. I kind of suspect, though, that it's not really the case. The melodramatic Austen-inspired romantic subplot I run with my wife in a fantasy Champions game is just one of the things that character's involved with; all the rest are pretty Champions-empowered. But the character would have that kind of subplot by dint of her personality, and mechanics don't enter into it.




But if you do this with D&D or Shadowrun, then it is your work, Ethan; not the game's. When you have a 300 page RPG book that has 90% of the pages talking about killing things; you cant very well take that game and run it on the 10% that talks about non-combat interaction. You are no longer playing that game, but some hybrid house-ruled version that YOU have created at that point.

The point of the game architecture is to fix the rules so that they are no longer arbitrary. Whatever rules you come up with for YOUR Greyhawk romance are going to differ from MY rules for my Forgotten Realms romance. That's why we make the game in the first place, to try to harmonize the rules for everyone (accepting that there will always be some degree of variation). However, I would note there is nothing to stop you from taking a romance game and saying that you are just going to play it in the Greyhawk setting. 

Seems to me like you are just benefiting from the creativity you have in your ability to houserule and assuming that it is effortless for everyone; which is not the case.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 24, 2010)

GregChristopher said:


> But if you do this with D&D or Shadowrun, then it is your work, Ethan; not the game's. When you have a 300 page RPG book that has 90% of the pages talking about killing things; you cant very well take that game and run it on the 10% that talks about non-combat interaction. You are no longer playing that game, but some hybrid house-ruled version that YOU have created at that point.




I'm not sure where house rules necessarily need to come into it. The thing about, say, a romance is that it's something that can be handled entirely by judgment calls or, if so inclined, the Charisma checks or skill checks that are entirely part of the game. Similarly, the other 90% of the game isn't necessarily being ignored or discarded. Tenser's Floating Disc may still be cast. Bar fights may break out. There may be a succubus. And I don't think there's a good authority on just how many percentile points of the book I must use before I'm no longer "playing that game" instead of just playing the same game in a very different style.



> The point of the game architecture is to fix the rules so that they are no longer arbitrary. Whatever rules you come up with for YOUR Greyhawk romance are going to differ from MY rules for my Forgotten Realms romance. That's why we make the game in the first place, to try to harmonize the rules for everyone (accepting that there will always be some degree of variation). However, I would note there is nothing to stop you from taking a romance game and saying that you are just going to play it in the Greyhawk setting.




I have to say I don't really appreciate the "if you don't play the game in the accepted way, why do you play this game at all instead of going off and playing some other game?" line of questioning. It reads to me a lot like "If you're not going to use beholders in your game, or if you're going to make green dragons breathe fire and be of neutral alignment, why don't you play another game instead of calling your house-ruled game D&D?" 



> Seems to me like you are just benefiting from the creativity you have in your ability to houserule and assuming that it is effortless for everyone; which is not the case.




I'm benefiting from judgment calls. I'm not assuming that judgment calls are effortless for everyone, but I do think that every roleplaying game relies on them. A game that doesn't is probably run by a computer.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 24, 2010)

Mallus said:
			
		

> re: OD&D being a "tightly-focused game" - I think that's true, but it's more a reflection of the original creators being unable to conceive of how many different purposes the game's eventual audience would put it to.



I think it is not at at all a reflection of an inability I have no reason to suppose and plenty of reasons not to suppose.

I think it is rather a reflection of the same practical practices in design that to this day produce game after game that happens to be about something.

(Taken literally, your claim is no more than that they were in the same position as the one you and I and the designers of Maid are in today -- from which nothing distinguishing them from us can follow. I'm sure I don't know even the number of purposes to which D&D has been turned in the past 40 years. So, I interpret it in a way that theoretically _could_ make sense.)

"Actually, the scope need not be restricted to the medieval; it can stretch from the prehistoric to the imagined future..."

Arneson and Gygax were pioneering a new _game form_. Their efforts and observations were of similar character to those of the programmers who, some years later, took inspiration from previous D&D-inspired programs to produce the more complex Zork and its virtual Z-machine.

The big difference is that things that still posed technical challenges for computer games -- e.g., wearing things, casting spells, multiple players -- were already implemented in D&D!

The great leap for D&D was the essential concept. Once that creative germ was sown but a little, it sprouted and grew and propagated and mutated on its own. That became, I think, clear enough in the roughly four years of development prior to publication.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I'm not sure that the shift to more Tolkieny style adventures occured in 2e to be honest.  Dragonlance is pretty firmly 1e - the modules came out in 84, and the books before that.  All of the gaming that the original series was based on is solidly 1e.
> 
> Even within 1e, you have a very broad range of themes.  And, let's not forget the other side of the street with the Companion rules being released in 84 - with a very strong emphasis on the characters becoming political entities.
> 
> I think your timeline ignores a lot of the things that Pemerton is talking about.  Yes, if you limit 1e to Greyhawk and Blackmoor, sure, it's a very specific game.  But, 1e isn't just that.  It's also Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, and the Companion through Immortals rules by 1985, several years before 2e came along.




I was only talking about the rulebooks - for 0e, 1e, 2e, 3e and 4e.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 24, 2010)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Although some people have criticised the parcel system as MMO loot-dropping, to me it represents the end of "kill things and take their stuff" as core to D&D play.



So far from having ended, it seems only the more pervasive in WotC's scenarios from what I have seen at firsthand and from from what I have read.

Certainly by the time of the first sets boxed and sold in 1974, the text explicitly treated more than the dungeons.



> If you're turning up to a D&D game, and find yourself in a tavern, are you meant to look for maps/clues to the nearest dungeon? Listen for rumours of slaves or princesses who need rescuing (as suggested in the notorious editorial heralding 2nd ed)? Look for stray cats who need houses?



We are meant to *play*. Forget about calling out the instigators: we _are_ the instigators, and you know that it's right!

How the hell do you get into looking for stray cats that need houses? In a magical world full of mystery and peril, wonder and glory, wherein are possible all the adventures of heroic fantasy of which one can dream, you would entertain the merely mundane, the pettily pedestrian, the quondam quotidian?

_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Those wargamers who lack imagination, those who don't care for Burroughs' Martian adventures where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon reading Howard's Conan saga, who do not enjoy the de Camp and Pratt fantasies or Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser pitting their swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find DUNGEONS and DRAGONS to their taste. But those whose imaginations know no bounds will find that these rules are the answer to their prayers. With this last bit of advice we invite you to read on and enjoy a "world" where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx_


----------



## Hussar (Aug 25, 2010)

But, Ariosto, in that quote, and by what you're saying, aren't you essentially saying that D&D is limited to high adventure stories and nothing else?

If I play D&D that doesn't rely on high adventure, is it still D&D?  I think it is.  Not to my taste honestly, I like high adventure.  But, I'm certainly not going to begrudge someone using D&D to play a high rp, court intrigue game.  It certainly can be done.

Are there other games that might be more focused on a court intrigue style game?  Oh, most certainly.  Given the plethora of games out there right now, I'd be pretty sure to be able to find a system for just about anything.  But, that doesn't mean that other systems can't be bent towards broader playstyles.

I would think this is one of D&D's strengths.  That while it probably works best if you do play the high adventure game, it works well enough for other games as well.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 25, 2010)

pemerton said:
			
		

> My own experience, as well as what I see on these boards and what I used to see in Dragon, tells me that signing up for a game of D&D leaves a lot of questions unanswered, which would be answered if I signed up for a game of musketeers.




Those possibilities -- worlds enough, and time -- are _supposed_ to be wide open, to the extent that they _remain_ wide open! It is more the people who want to narrow them who are getting into difficulties.

Other particulars are as adequately laid out in D&D as in most games. It is just that other games are not beset with critics who could argue that _The Mountain Witch_ is too vague, or really about all sorts of "inadequately supported" things.

No, if you really truly want a game that is vague as to what it is about, what you're supposed to do, then you want *GURPS*.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 25, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, Ariosto, in that quote, and by what you're saying, aren't you essentially saying that D&D is limited to high adventure stories and nothing else?



No, what is said is that if you don't want a _game_ of high adventure, then you are unlikely to find D&D to your taste. The actual responses of people seem to bear out this prediction!


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 25, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> The main appeal to running, say, a romantic comedy story in a game like D&D or Shadowrun (I won't argue for Call of Cthulhu) . . .



Aw, c'mon! 


Barastrondo said:


> . . . is probably one of two things. One, it's just one story among many, and it contrasts and/or complements the other stories going on at the same time.



Contrasting or complementary, yes, but ultimately peripheral, in my experience, at least in the sense that while the focus may be on the complementary activity for a time, the adventurers ultimately focus more of their energy and resources on other activities.







Barastrondo said:


> The other reason seems like it would be accepting the sensibility that a romantic comedy could happen in, say, Greyhawk, and deciding to explore what that would be like. Embracing the tropes of the game world or the game system as part of the humor. Sort of like playing the other people in the world who aren't going into dungeons for a change of pace.



Ever since my earlier post, I have been thinking about a _Chill_ one-shot in the style of _Shaun of the Dead_.







Barastrondo said:


> I agree it's a little odd to run something like a romantic comedy in D&D if you're not using anything else from D&D and there are other games available to you. I kind of suspect, though, that it's not really the case. The melodramatic Austen-inspired romantic subplot I run with my wife in a fantasy Champions game is just one of the things that character's involved with; all the rest are pretty Champions-empowered. But the character would have that kind of subplot by dint of her personality, and mechanics don't enter into it.



One of the strengths of roleplaying games is that a game can be about whatever the players and referee want it to be in any given moment. One could run a romantic-comedy situation with _D&D_ Charisma modifiers and reaction checks if the need arises, and the amount of information which can be extrapolated from a character's class and secondary skill (1e _AD&D_-stylie) is formidable.

That said, extrapolating from character information to fill in gaps also indicates you're working along the margins of what the game is designed to do.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 25, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> No, what is said is that if you don't want a _game_ of high adventure, then you are unlikely to find D&D to your taste. The actual responses of people seem to bear out this prediction!




I fail to see the distinction.

As far as the quote goes, it does seem that it isn't born out by observation.  I mean, Dragonlance, Immortals rules, Ravenloft, Birthright - are all attempts to adapt D&D to a mold that is pretty far removed from those particular examples of Conan or John Carter.  

I totally agree that the base for D&D is high adventure.  But, I do think the tree has grown rather broadly over the years to the point where you can use the D&D mechanics to do a lot more than just high adventure.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 25, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Aw, c'mon!




Well, it _could_ be done, but I daresay that either _Call of Cthulhu_ or the "romantic comedy" aspect would come in sufficient conflict that one of them would have to win. 

That said, I would run a not-nearly-serious-enough-to-be-canon game of _Call of Cthulhu_ based on the Drones Club in an *instant*.



> Contrasting or complementary, yes, but ultimately peripheral, in my experience, at least in the sense that while the focus may be on the complementary activity for a time, the adventurers ultimately focus more of their energy and resources on other activities.




This is true, but — somewhat to my interested surprise — the peripheral activities can make an impression on the player's perception of their character's growth quite out of proportion of the amount of energy and resources the party invests. 

Long-winded example time! One party of adventurers had sailed across the sea to visit an Arabian fantasy region, in pursuit of a hated foe. When one PC was told by a prudish hotel-keeper that said hostess would not permit men and women to share the same rooms ("I am not running a house of assignation!"), the party invested no energy or resources into the problem. It affected the actual hunt for their enemy, and the dealings with a new local ally, not at all. But it put the PC in a terrible mood, distanced her slightly from her NPC lover, made her think the worst of another female NPC who wound up striking a friendly conversation with him, and finally — when he fell in heroic combat with said foe — the fact that she'd been spending the last week or so in sulky, resentful distance from him made her loss hurt all the more keenly.

It being a D&D game, of course, they had the opportunity to resurrect him — it took fighting off valkyries in Limbo and pulling a heist in the City of Brass for components, because I'm of the "just because you can doesn't mean it should be easy or, god forbid, boring" school — but just that little bit of invested attention made for a damned impressive twist to the story. 

(And fear not, no rails were roaded in the course of this story. Said NPC's death was entirely dice-related, right down to the natural 1 on the Heal check a PC made to save him at the last possible minute.)



> Ever since my earlier post, I have been thinking about a _Chill_ one-shot in the style of _Shaun of the Dead_.




DO EEEEET.



> One of the strengths of roleplaying games is that a game can be about whatever the players and referee want it to be in any given moment. One could run a romantic-comedy situation with _D&D_ Charisma modifiers and reaction checks if the need arises, and the amount of information which can be extrapolated from a character's class and secondary skill (1e _AD&D_-stylie) is formidable.
> 
> That said, extrapolating from character information to fill in gaps also indicates you're working along the margins of what the game is designed to do.




Granted, but I consider that a strength of the game — and of roleplaying in general — that it's not only possible, but not really contradicted. WotC ran an April Fool's joke recently that talked about how "You might want to wear a funny hat. But there's never been rules before for that before now. Because you've never needed them." And I confess, it's true. I believe many of us have been wearing funny hats without rule support for quite some time.

(Except the _hat of stupidity_. That had rules. And was a mean, mean trick to play on a poor vain tiefling.)


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 25, 2010)

Old D&D is not about "running a story" of any sort. Events occur, and afterwards we may tell of them in the form of a romantic comedy, or a cautionary parable, or whatever form of narration we may choose.

What is actually going on, though, is a game. Basketball is clear enough, I think, for all that a game might in the event feature the Harlem Globetrotters, and a cheerleader's wardrobe malfunction, and a brawl among fans.

Ditto D&D, and I would say that my current group might even spend about half of "game night" socializing in ways only tangentially related to the game.

There are plays that are actually directed toward scoring points, but they are far from the only actions possible! We can also *play* together in the less formally structured sense, just exploring things we happen to find fun.


----------



## GregChristopher (Aug 25, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> I'm not sure where house rules necessarily need to come into it. The thing about, say, a romance is that it's something that can be handled entirely by judgment calls or, if so inclined, the Charisma checks or skill checks that are entirely part of the game. Similarly, the other 90% of the game isn't necessarily being ignored or discarded. Tenser's Floating Disc may still be cast. Bar fights may break out. There may be a succubus. And I don't think there's a good authority on just how many percentile points of the book I must use before I'm no longer "playing that game" instead of just playing the same game in a very different style.




You can stand on a basketball court and juggle. You are not playing basketball.



Barastrondo said:


> I have to say I don't really appreciate the "if you don't play the game in the accepted way, why do you play this game at all instead of going off and playing some other game?" line of questioning. It reads to me a lot like "If you're not going to use beholders in your game, or if you're going to make green dragons breathe fire and be of neutral alignment, why don't you play another game instead of calling your house-ruled game D&D?"




False equivocation. Not using beholders in your game does not affect the fundamental flow, any more than wearing a funny hat. Playing D&D as a romance game DOES affect the fundamental flow in a profound way.



Barastrondo said:


> I'm benefiting from judgment calls. I'm not assuming that judgment calls are effortless for everyone, but I do think that every roleplaying game relies on them. A game that doesn't is probably run by a computer.




At a certain point, too many judgement calls becomes cowboys and indians. Thats why we have rules in the first place. To agree on a common basis for play.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 25, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Old D&D is not about "running a story" of any sort. Events occur, and afterwards we may tell of them in the form of a romantic comedy, or a cautionary parable, or whatever form of narration we may choose.
> /snip




See, this is where I'm having trouble.  I just listened to an interview with Tracy Hickman at Fear the Boot.  Great interview.  Well worth the listen.  But, Mr. Hickman started out with OD&D and into AD&D.  From the very beginning, he claimed that his games were all about "running a story" that it's the movement away from running a story and towards what he calls minutia, that is the problem with RPG's today.

I think the thing is, even though Gary Gygax and co wrote a fairly specific game, people were subverting that text from the very first day.  Players moved away from the very mechanistic approach to a game - you went from the town to the dungeon and then back to the town to rest, then back to the dungeon - that was outlined in the rules almost instantly.

Even reading Mr. Gygax's own words in the Q&A threads shows a distinct push towards story telling in his own games.  There were very strong narratives going on - both promoted by the players and by the DM himself.


----------



## anest1s (Aug 25, 2010)

Behind a bad player,there is a bad DM......which is something I thought after my first attempt to DM 

However yeah, its players responsibility to carry a story...even if it isn't the one DM has planned. The DM makes the world, the players make the story. However its true most players will just sit around and do nothing- but thats because they aren't motivated enough (or because thats what they want since there are satisfied atm)

And by motivation I mean positive motivation, not terrorizing them or "hurting" them. Don't give a cookie just to take it back, instead show them the cookie and tell them where its hidden...suddenly they want a cookie, and they go after it  


(I don't commend on the ongoing rule-setting-whatever argument, since I think you mostly agree anywayz  )


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 25, 2010)

S'mon said:
			
		

> No, it could be anything. Any friendly contacts, positions, etc. ... Any connections to the setting gained in play are rewards of play.






			
				Neonchameleon said:
			
		

> What I find interesting is that that isn't what I see when I look at my 1e PHB. There are explicit setting rewards (followers, castle) attached to the various levels.



Followers are associated with attainment of "name" level.

Recruitment of henchmen, employment of mercenaries and experts, construction of a castle, and the vast majority of human (or near-human) undertakings, are possible regardless of level.



			
				Neonchameleon said:
			
		

> Why dungeon adventures?  I've not really seen a need for dungeons in 4e.



Yes, "Dungeoneering" skill is obviously there for trips to shopping malls. "Dungeons" & Dragons was just a misprint, an unfortunate error that has been the cause of much misunderstanding.

I for one welcome the imminent arrival of *Gallerias & Grodiness* Fifth Edition!


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 25, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> From the very beginning, he claimed that his games were all about "running a story"




There is a reason old D&Ders sometimes refer to "the Hickman Revolution".


----------



## TarionzCousin (Aug 25, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Players, it's your "responsibility" to *play*.



Psst. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 There is a subliminal message on how to avoid badwrongfun hidden in the color.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 25, 2010)

GregChristopher said:


> You can stand on a basketball court and juggle. You are not playing basketball.




This looks more like a "You can play to a set point limit instead of using a time limit. You are not playing basketball" claim to me. 



> False equivocation. Not using beholders in your game does not affect the fundamental flow, any more than wearing a funny hat. Playing D&D as a romance game DOES affect the fundamental flow in a profound way.




All due respect, but I find them quite equivalent claims. If a D&D game involves group play, combat, puzzle-solving, even resource management in the form of money, magic and experience, and yet the characters' motivations are romance-based and the setting is more romantic in theme, the fundamental flow is not affected in a profound way. It's affected in a minimal way at best, no more profound than the difference between a party picking serious in-character names and personae and the difference between a party comprised of "Piggly Wiggly," "Kevin J. Ambrosius Ninja III," and "Sir Loin of the Twelve Ounces."  

There are ways to play D&D as a romance game that do affect "the fundamental flow," yes. But not all of them do. The most famous romantic play in history is full of swordfights. A tremendous number of gamers look at _The Princess Bride_ as relevant to, even worthy of emulation in gaming. The only flow that could be disrupted by any interpretation of "romance game" would have to be so narrow and restrictive that it really describes a personal table style more than "the game." And that's little different than a personal table style that mandates beholders.



> At a certain point, too many judgement calls becomes cowboys and indians. Thats why we have rules in the first place. To agree on a common basis for play.




Now I'm a believer, but I'm not a fundamentalist. Rules are there to provide consistent and impartial judgment when it's necessary. Everything else can be summed up with Old Geezer's oft-quoted description of the old, old Lake Geneva playstyle: "We made up some [excrement] we thought was cool." 

I guess the spirit of that guideline got lost in translation along the way when more people taught themselves to roleplay out of books instead of learning from other people. And tournament play may have changed things when it emerged, since you had the social dynamic of playing with strangers crop up more often. But honestly, if you're playing with friends and making up crap you think is cool? That is the _heart_ of the game. Everything else is just barracks-room lawyering.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 25, 2010)

Barastrondo said:
			
		

> I guess the spirit of that guideline got lost in translation along the way when more people taught themselves to roleplay out of books instead of learning from other people.




A lot of stuff got pretty warped. Looking at the AD&D and later Basic books with some "mental lenses" to filter out the understanding I brought when I actually encountered them, I can see the muddle. I think it would be worse going straight to the Advanced volumes, which many people did.


----------



## GregChristopher (Aug 25, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> All due respect, but I find them quite equivalent claims. If a D&D game involves group play, combat, puzzle-solving, even resource management in the form of money, magic and experience, and yet the characters' motivations are romance-based and the setting is more romantic in theme, the fundamental flow is not affected in a profound way. It's affected in a minimal way at best, no more profound than the difference between a party picking serious in-character names and personae and the difference between a party comprised of "Piggly Wiggly," "Kevin J. Ambrosius Ninja III," and "Sir Loin of the Twelve Ounces."
> 
> There are ways to play D&D as a romance game that do affect "the fundamental flow," yes. But not all of them do. The most famous romantic play in history is full of swordfights. A tremendous number of gamers look at _The Princess Bride_ as relevant to, even worthy of emulation in gaming. The only flow that could be disrupted by any interpretation of "romance game" would have to be so narrow and restrictive that it really describes a personal table style more than "the game." And that's little different than a personal table style that mandates beholders.




D&D has no rules for romance.

I hate to overuse basketball, but neither does basketball. You can have some homebrew basketball game that involves modifications to the rules. You can give 6 points for 3-pointers. Or 10 points per free throw. Or you can play with 10 players. But you are just modifying rules that exist. If you start altering the rules completely, you are playing a different game. Horse, 21, Steal the Bacon, etc. Those games are NOT basketball, even though they use a basketball as the ball. They are different games because they involve totally different rules.

If you play Battletech RPG, then jump in your Mechs to play Classic Battletech, you are switching between two games. The rules of one game marginally intersect with the other, in that you buy a Thor in the RPG and then pilot that Thor in the tabletop combat. But the two games are just radically different. They are seperate games.

By the same token, if you take D&D and start spinning off romantic subplots, you are really using a totally different game (of your own making, based on your judgment) and no longer playing D&D.

I'm not criticizing anyone who chooses to do that. I think it is actually great. I just dont think it is D&D anymore.


----------



## GregChristopher (Aug 25, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> I guess the spirit of that guideline got lost in translation along the way when more people taught themselves to roleplay out of books instead of learning from other people. And tournament play may have changed things when it emerged, since you had the social dynamic of playing with strangers crop up more often. But honestly, if you're playing with friends and making up crap you think is cool? That is the _heart_ of the game. Everything else is just barracks-room lawyering.




This sounds like True Scotsman to me. Or nostalgia.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 25, 2010)

GregChristopher said:


> D&D has no rules for romance.




Or funny hats, or silly accents, or wearing clothes of a certain color. Yet if people describe their characters as wearing funny hats and their elves as wearing green, or speak in a silly accent when in character, they are still playing D&D. By that token, those who roleplay romantic subplots are either playing D&D, or there is a double standard at work that's unsupported by anything in print. Perhaps by a given table rule, of course — if romance makes a player uncomfortable, he can say "We're here to play D&D, not to roleplay romances!" Sure. Enforcing his comfort zone's very reasonable. But that statement doesn't mean his personal definition of D&D must apply even at his table, much less beyond it.



> By the same token, if you take D&D and start spinning off romantic subplots, you are really using a totally different game (of your own making, based on your judgment) and no longer playing D&D.




Or you are roleplaying. 

It's the same process that can be used to introduce any element to the game. A wounded messenger stumbles across the street. There are no rules for NPCs appearing with fewer than ordinary hit points, or for offering rewards if they are helped. A player orders a meal in a bar. There are no rules to determine what is on the menu. Improv RP is older than Black Dougal.

I mean, it's cool if romantic subplots are totally uninteresting to any player or if they'd rather not see them in a D&D game. But subject matter that's written right into every D&D setting ever — the Tanis love triangle, Strahd's obsession, Palace of the Silver Princess — it doesn't transform D&D into a separate game. It's just a different play style than the "keep romance away from the table" play style.



> I'm not criticizing anyone who chooses to do that. I think it is actually great. I just dont think it is D&D anymore.




I guess that depends on how you define D&D. I can see it as "the formative experience and collection of feelings I associate with how I learned to play D&D." Sure, we all carry our own personal D&Ds within us. As a greater whole... man, couldn't disagree more. One of the most beloved Story Hours on this very board spun out of the potential romantic subplot between a paladin and a succubus, and I never saw anyone say "that's not D&D." 



> This sounds like True Scotsman to me. Or nostalgia.




For what it's worth, I find the "romantic subplots change the game" line of argument similarly reminiscent. Many D&D games do feature romantic subplots — ones I've been in, ones I've heard about, ones I've read about. To say they become different games once a PC decides he's interested in kissin' — that seems textbook "well, no _True_ D&D games feature romantic subplots."


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 25, 2010)

GregChristopher said:


> D&D has no rules for romance. [...] if you take D&D and start spinning off romantic subplots, you are really using a totally different game (of your own making, based on your judgment) and no longer playing D&D.
> 
> I'm not criticizing anyone who chooses to do that. I think it is actually great. I just dont think it is D&D anymore.



What???!

D+D has no rules for a lot of things*.  And if you're working up to suggesting that as soon as the game goes beyond the written rule-set it isn't D+D anymore then get ready to be soundly disagreed with by a whole bunch of people.  

* - 3e's best attempts notwithstanding.

Romantic subplots crop up on a regular basis in my game.  Thus far in the current campaign there's been, oh let's see...one marraige (albeit unintentional), three romances/affairs (one lesbian), one PC-vs.-PC murder over affairs of the heart, one pregnancy-childbirth (not from the marraige), and several failed pursuits and courtships.  All of this while at the same time getting on with some serious mule-kickin' in various dangerous adventures.

In another game - I was a player in this one - my dumb rookie PC managed to attract the fondness of one of the senior PCs in the game over the course of a few adventures.  My guy then died, and failed his raise roll when she tried to bring him back.  Undaunted, she built up her levels and saved up her money until she had enough of both to *walk down to Niflheim *(Norse hell; and this represented an entire adventure all on its own) *and steal him back*, so she could later marry him.  So yes, romance and adventuring *can* be intertwined. 

Are you honestly saying we're not playing D+D???

Lan-"roleplaying how a character changes when a loved one dies can be fun too"-efan


----------



## GregChristopher (Aug 25, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> For what it's worth, I find the "romantic subplots change the game" line of argument similarly reminiscent. Many D&D games do feature romantic subplots — ones I've been in, ones I've heard about, ones I've read about. To say they become different games once a PC decides he's interested in kissin' — that seems textbook "well, no _True_ D&D games feature romantic subplots."




Poor language use on my part. I shouldnt have said subplots. My apologies. We were talking about the whole game being consumed by romance, and that is not a subplot.

I was referring to when the game is dominated by these elements that you are really making your own game up at that point.

That should teach me to not post with a 2 week old baby in my lap. Short circuits the brain a bit.. whoops.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 25, 2010)

GregChristopher said:
			
		

> By the same token, if you take D&D and start spinning off romantic subplots, you are really using a totally different game (of your own making, based on your judgment) and no longer playing D&D.



I think you are in disagreement both with Mr. Gygax, developer of D&D, and with Mr. Arneson, innovator of the "dungeon adventure" concept and the role-playing game as we know it.

It's not a simple binary switch. It is certainly not the case that the game is defined only by numbers looked up in books! There are balances, as with dangers and treasure and a lot of things.

I think there are stages, perhaps something like this:
A). Part of the natural developments, even of "role-playing mastery", but still the same game. A witch keeping a high charisma character enchanted as a lover is mentioned in Vol. 1. The section on relatives therein is about as long as the combat system (sans tables).
B). Not very good D&D. This would -- considering "romantic subplots" -- kick in earlier in considering tournaments. The rub is, good tournaments tend to be "not very good D&D" by the campaign standard.
C). Not proper _Advanced_ D&D. Gygax had less to say about this when he no longer had a vested interest in it. Gamers continued, though, to be more interested in AD&D than in Lejendary Adventures.
D). Not really even house-ruled D&D. Congratulations: You are a game designer!
F). Not really a game. Maybe "role-playing" in a theatrical or psychotherapeutic sense.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 25, 2010)

GregChristopher said:


> D&D has no rules for romance.
> /snip
> 
> By the same token, if you take D&D and start spinning off romantic subplots, you are really using a totally different game (of your own making, based on your judgment) and no longer playing D&D.
> ...




But, as Lanefan says, D&D doesn't have rules for a lot of things.  Heck, there were no rules for _swimming_ for a pretty long time.

But, I think the developers just presumed that the groups would make up their own rulings on these things.  They didn't think the game needed that level of detail because their own games didn't.  If the character tried to swim, the DM made up a ruling.

But, as far as making a D&D romance game, using 3e rules, it wouldn't be that difficult.  You can certainly extrapolate from existing rules without needing a whole new rule set.  The skill system gives you the concept of DC's and the encounter system gives the idea of challenges.  Combine the two and you have a mechanical framework for conducting romance.

4e would probably wrap things up in an extended skill check framework with X successes resulting in romance and Y failures resulting in getting the brush off.  The degree of successes vs failures can also be used to determine the nature of the relationship.

Certainly not my cup of tea, but, also quite easily do able in a 3e or 4e framework without having to invoke completely new rule sets.

I'm quite sure that someone who is much more mechanically inclined than me could come up with something better.

Would this be a version of D&D I want to play?  No. Not interested at all.  But, I can see it being done.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 25, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> So far from having ended, it seems only the more pervasive in WotC's scenarios from what I have seen at firsthand and from from what I have read.



I'm one of many who thinks that WotC's 4e modules don't remotely live up to the potential of the system, or even the epxress promises of the DMG.



Ariosto said:


> Those possibilities -- worlds enough, and time -- are _supposed_ to be wide open, to the extent that they _remain_ wide open! It is more the people who want to narrow them who are getting into difficulties.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> No, if you really truly want a game that is vague as to what it is about, what you're supposed to do, then you want *GURPS*.



I'm not going to argue with you that GURPS is more open-ended than D&D. Or even Rolemaster, for that matter.

Nor am I arguing against those possibilities being open. I _think_ you're interpreting me as a critic of D&D for being so open. But what I'm actually trying to do is to agree with Nameless1 that (i) the OP's problem about passive players might result from the open-endedness of what it means to "play D&D", and (ii) that a solution to this might consist in an individual GM and his/her players agreeing in advance about some aspects of the game like theme, tropes, relationships embedding the PCs into the gameworld, etc. This isn't a criticism of D&D or a suggestion for reform/revision. It's some advice about how to set up the start of a particular D&D campaign.

S'mon, and (if I'm understanding you right) you, and (maybe to a lesser extent, because his examples are from a game that I think is more focused than D&D) The Shaman are saying that the OP's issue can be resolved _in the course of play_, by having active players engage the gameworld to find out what is going on in terms of theme, tropes, possible relationships etc. In contrast to this, I've agreed with Nameless1 and Hussar that I'd rather have a game in which we just cut to the chase. I also think that if your problem is inactive players, a metagame solution might be more likely to work than an ingame solution that presupposes active players.



Ariosto said:


> How the hell do you get into looking for stray cats that need houses?



Because somewhere upthread an ex-GM was complaining about players who failed to stumble onto this particular element of the game that s/he was running.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 25, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> the peripheral activities can make an impression on the player's perception of their character's growth quite out of proportion of the amount of energy and resources the party invests.



This fits with my experience. In the longest running 2nd ed AD&D campaign I played in, most of the interest for me was in the personal relationships between PCs in the party - my PC's romance with one of them, and his fellow warrior friendship with another, and our shared annoyance at yet another, who was the "prophesied one" in the GM's story.

A good part of what drove this was that PC interactions and interrelationships were a place where we, as players, could have control over the game, whereas as far as the NPCs and external environment went it was pretty railroady.

In Rolemaster games that I've GMed romances and flirtation have been pretty common, but always between PCs and NPCs rather than between PCs. Because Rolemaster (at least in its more full-blown forms) takes a "totality" approach to character building, in the sense that the character sheet is a total description of the PC, it has a range of social skills including Etiquette, Seduction etc from which one can get a pretty good picture of a PC's personality (for example, a PC whose only social skills are Duping and Lie Perception is probably not a very appealing person to hang out with - those skill and nothing more strongly suggest a manipulative user). So when romance and fliration come up, there is a bit of a mechanical peg on which to hang the resolution. And in one game, a player had his PC develop skill ranks in Seduction in order to try and consolidate a budding romance (Rolemaster has a type of siloing aspect to skill development, so that this sort of thing doesn't purge the adventuring effectiveness of the PC).

I'm therefore very comfortable to say that one can be roleplaying romance, or other social dynamics, and still be playing Rolemaster. But Rolemaster is not so different in this respect form D&D that I'd say if you're doing it in D&D you're no longer playing D&D. This is especially so when it is going on between party members, as in the 2nd ed game I mentioned above - because traditionally social interactions between party members in D&D have never been governed by action resolution mechanics unless magic has been used.



GregChristopher said:


> D&D has no rules for romance.



This isn't true when it comes to PCs interrelationships - the rule is that (absent Charm Person spells or Philtres of Love) players are free to specify how their PCs feel about one another.

And even when it comes to PCs interacting with NPCs, there is Charisma, reaction rolls etc (as Barastrondo, I think, noted upthread).



Hussar said:


> 4e would probably wrap things up in an extended skill check framework with X successes resulting in romance and Y failures resulting in getting the brush off.



Where the outcome of the romance constituted the result of an encounter (rather than simply something in respect of which the GM should say "yes") - let's say an attempt to woo an NPC who is on the rival team, but whom the PC is persuaded has a spark of good in him/her just waiting to be rekindled - then a skill challenge would be the obvious way to handle it.

I don't think the DMG or DMG2 give examples of this sort for skill challenges, but it could be pretty easily extrapolated. And Robin Laws gives an example of courtship as an extended challenge in the original Hero Wars game - a D&D GM who drew on that to run the romance skill challenge in a 4e game would still be playing 4e, I think (especially given that Robin Laws has incorporated big chunks of HeroWars/Quest into D&D via his chapters in the DMG2).


----------



## S'mon (Aug 25, 2010)

Hussar said:


> If I play D&D that doesn't rely on high adventure, is it still D&D?  I think it is.  Not to my taste honestly, I like high adventure.  But, I'm certainly not going to begrudge someone using D&D to play a high rp, court intrigue game.  It certainly can be done.




Court intrigue absolutely can be part of the game - and often is, in my campaigns.  There were two great old White Dwarf articles on this - "Scenes from Courtly Life" - back in the '80s.

However D&D is a silly choice for a game which is only about court intrigue and nothing else, where all the fighting and wars and adventuring is ignored or abstracted like in "The Tudors"  Court-of-Henry-VIII TV series.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 25, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> No, what is said is that if you don't want a _game_ of high adventure, then you are unlikely to find D&D to your taste. The actual responses of people seem to bear out this prediction!




"You must spread some XP around..."


----------



## S'mon (Aug 25, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I fail to see the distinction.
> 
> As far as the quote goes, it does seem that it isn't born out by observation.  I mean, Dragonlance, Immortals rules, Ravenloft, Birthright - are all attempts to adapt D&D to a mold that is pretty far removed from those particular examples of Conan or John Carter.
> 
> I totally agree that the base for D&D is high adventure.  But, I do think the tree has grown rather broadly over the years to the point where you can use the D&D mechanics to do a lot more than just high adventure.




All your examples - "Dragonlance, Immortals rules, Ravenloft, Birthright" are "high adventure" games/campaigns/settings.  Is this just a semantic quibble?


----------



## S'mon (Aug 25, 2010)

GregChristopher said:


> D&D has no rules for romance.
> 
> ...By the same token, if you take D&D and start spinning off romantic subplots, you are really using a totally different game (of your own making, based on your judgment) and no longer playing D&D
> 
> I'm not criticizing anyone who chooses to do that. I think it is actually great. I just dont think it is D&D anymore.




Strongly, strongly disagree with that.  The roots of D&D are in what used to be called "romantic fantasy", what we now call Fantasy was once called Romance, and centred around knights questing for their lady loves, encountering dragons and magical wonders.  

But semantics aside, love & romance *subplots* and even (horrors!) *plots* fit perfectly into a "high adventure" game of swords and magic.  The popularity of The Princess Bride as a model ought to tell you something.

Now, it's true that the older monster-&-gold based XP system does not provide a great reward mechanic - it doesn't provide a great reward mechanic for rescuing prisoners or commanding armies either, but it's pretty easy to modify.  3e's Challenge-based system provides somewhat more support (plus 3e DMG gives freeform XP as an option), and 4e's XP for Major & Minor Quests, and DMG2 suggested XP-for-roleplay, provide more support again, in fact all the support you need, since the player can decide what their quests are and the DM can rate it minor or major and assign a Level, defaulting to PC level.

But of course we're still talking the high-adventure romantic fantasy here, not Jane Austen.  PCs are expected to climb vine-wrapped towers, battle giants, duel with dragons - but in pursuit of romantic goals rather than ruins' gold.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 25, 2010)

GregChristopher said:


> That should teach me to not post with a 2 week old baby in my lap. Short circuits the brain a bit.. whoops.




Hmm...  ~S'mon looks over at now 3-year-old-critter watching Tom & Jerry ~... agree strongly!


----------



## S'mon (Aug 25, 2010)

pemerton said:


> t a solution to this might consist in an individual GM and his/her players agreeing in advance about some aspects of the game like theme, tropes, relationships embedding the PCs into the gameworld, etc...
> 
> S'mon...  ...are saying that the OP's issue can be resolved _in the course of play_, by having active players engage the gameworld to find out what is going on in terms of theme, tropes, possible relationships etc.




Well, I think it may well be worth establishing in advance that the PCS are *adventurers* in a world of monsters and magic, and are thus expected to *proactively seek adventure*.  When I started with fantasy gaming around 1983-1984, it still told me this on the back (or front) of all the Fighting Fantasy gamebooks and later RPG products I purchased.

Now, the adventure might well start at the entrance to the dungeon, as in most gamebooks and the advice in eg Moldvay Basic D&D.  But in the latter case this was understood as a learning tool, and what the PCs then did was left up to them, with the understanding that the PCs were *adventurers*!  Obviously the sane individual would then take a look at the Black Pit, turn around and go back to the village - that's how my wife plays Call of Cthulu, drives me nuts!   - but the PCs are not sane, they're *adventurers*!


I do think that the shift in published adventures to very linear play resulted in a shift in player expectations towards "wait for the railroad".  And published 4e WoTC modules are the absolute nadir of this, many are just a linear series of fights.  If you think the DM will freak out if you do something unexpected, then you learn to be passive and wait for the rails to appear.  4e's encounter-based design can be very bad this way, if the DM has put a lot of work into encounters he may want to ensure they're all used, and WoTC module writers certainly seem to think that way.  

Anyway, yes, there is a social contract issue.  If you're running a "sandbox" game, tell the players and ensure they're aware of their responsibility to be proactive and seek adventures of their choice.  If you're running an Adventure Path, make sure the players know that and that they have the responsibility to engage with the adventures on the Path (of course they can request a deviation or even negotiate an abandonment of the Path, if it sucks).


----------



## pemerton (Aug 25, 2010)

S'mon said:


> All your examples - "Dragonlance, Immortals rules, Ravenloft, Birthright" are "high adventure" games/campaigns/settings.  Is this just a semantic quibble?



I think Hussar is agreeing with me that, when it comes to the goals of fantasy RPG play, Dragonlance is different from Conan. Yes, they're all high adventure. But they set up pretty different expectations about how the players should be engaging the gameworld via their PCs.

(This isn't to insist that Hussar and I are right about this perceived difference. Just to try to clarify what I think is going on - ie that it is a genuine difference of perception and not just a semantic quibble.)


----------



## S'mon (Aug 25, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I think Hussar is agreeing with me that, when it comes to the goals of fantasy RPG play, Dragonlance is different from Conan. Yes, they're all high adventure. But they set up pretty different expectations about how the players should be engaging the gameworld via their PCs.




Yes, as I wrote just above:

"Anyway, yes, there is a social contract issue. If you're running a "sandbox" game, tell the players and ensure they're aware of their responsibility to be proactive and seek adventures of their choice. If you're running an Adventure Path, make sure the players know that and that they have the responsibility to engage with the adventures on the Path (of course they can request a deviation or even negotiate an abandonment of the Path, if it sucks)."


----------



## pemerton (Aug 25, 2010)

S'mon said:


> I do think that the shift in published adventures to very linear play resulted in a shift in player expectations towards "wait for the railroad".  And published 4e WoTC modules are the absolute nadir of this, many are just a linear series of fights.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 4e's encounter-based design can be very bad this way, if the DM has put a lot of work into encounters he may want to ensure they're all used, and WoTC module writers certainly seem to think that way.



I agree about the overarching plots of the 4e modules being the pits.

I'm also one of those who thinks that 4e is not ideal for sandboxing because of the amount of preparation that its encounters (both combat and skill challenge) tend to rely upon to really shine. (Having said that, I know some people run 4e as a sandbox, and LostSoul has done some substantive rewriting of the rules to support this.)

What is frustrating, to me, about WotC's presentation of 4e is that they don't take what seems to be the obvious third alternative to railroad and sandbox, namely, encouraging the sort of PC creation that Nameless1 has talked about, and then encouraging the GM to build encounters around that. No railroad, because the GM's work is a response to the hooks that the _players_ have put into the game at character build; but a tighter framework for GM preparation than a sandbox tends to provide.

It's doubly frustrating because 4e has so many elements that support this approach, such as Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies, Warlock pacts, a pantheon whose mythic role and history is heavily integrated into the published gameworld from the ground up, an attempt at a coherent presentation of the many D&D monsters within that same mythic history, etc.
Maybe it's not quite Glorantha, but we're looking at a pretty different package compared to AD&D or Basic. It's not as if the GM and players are going to have to put a thematically driven game together from scratch.

And to take this out of theory and into published game rules: where is the much-vaunted and promised guidance for Destiny Quests? These seem to me to only really make sense on the thematic approach to play - the GM prepares and runs a quest based on the players' hooks chosen at the metagame level - and WotC has given no guidance at all on how to build them or run them.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 25, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I'm also one of those who thinks that 4e is not ideal for sandboxing because of the amount of preparation that its encounters (both combat and skill challenge) tend to rely upon to really shine. (Having said that, I know some people run 4e as a sandbox, and LostSoul has done some substantive rewriting of the rules to support this.)




My current 4e Vault of Larin Karr campaign is about 80% sandbox, depending on how strict you are with definition - I throw in some Dungeon Delves and such as single-session adventures, but they don't all get used, or are used in a different order than I envisaged.  I've not seen any big problem with the RAW.  I use Paizo terrain battlemats to create interesting ad hoc wilderness encounters.

The main difference from running 1e is that it pays much more to only have a small number of random/semi-random encounters prepped, say 1-3, rather than an extensive random encounter table with dozens.  Sometimes I roll a few times on the random tables ahead of play, then prep those encounters in 4e format. 

I find the skill challenge rules fairly useless and very rarely use them.  Few events/obstacles are worth that amount of time and effort, especially since a big* 4e combat can suck up so much time already.

*Session before last involved a fight with 6 PCs and 1 allied NPC all of levels 3-5 vs 12 Orc Raiders, 2 Orc Berserkers, an Orc Shaman of Gruumsh, and a level 6 elite Ogre.  That took a good long time.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 25, 2010)

S'mon said:


> The main difference from running 1e is that it pays much more to only have a small number of random/semi-random encounters prepped, say 1-3, rather than an extensive random encounter table with dozens.  Sometimes I roll a few times on the random tables ahead of play, then prep those encounters in 4e format.




Also, with 4e I make far more use of 'wandering' monsters as a pacing mechanic rather than a world-sim tool.  If the PCs are heading for area X midway through a session, I decide whether I want them to get to area X right now, near the end of the session, or next week.  Then I can have 0, 1, or 2 wandering-monster encounters on the way to X.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 25, 2010)

GregChristopher said:


> Poor language use on my part. I shouldnt have said subplots. My apologies. We were talking about the whole game being consumed by romance, and that is not a subplot.
> 
> I was referring to when the game is dominated by these elements that you are really making your own game up at that point.




Yet even if the game is dominated by those elements thematically you still can't say for sure what actual gameplay is like until you see the game in play. Again, it's entirely possible that the game consists of a number of encounters, with combat and traps and puzzles, in a very straightforward classic sense — but the motivation is romance, and the PCs are fighting their way through a dungeon that is, say, a fey labyrinth. Romance is content, but it's also at heart a theme, not a plot or a ruleset.

The trouble I have with saying that romance even as a main plot changes the game is that, fairly applied, this also disqualifies several other high points that D&D has hit. Dark Sun is post-apocalyptic survival-themed D&D. Ravenloft is Gothic Horror-themed D&D. Planescape is metaphysical-themed D&D. Eberron is pulp action-themed D&D. I can't support any definition of D&D that disqualifies all of those, and I just don't see how romance is more of a gamebreaker than post-apocalyptic survival or pulp action. It's just such a ubiquitous concept to human existence.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 25, 2010)

GregChristopher said:


> By the same token, if you take D&D and start spinning off romantic subplots, you are really using a totally different game (of your own making, based on your judgment) and no longer playing D&D.
> 
> I'm not criticizing anyone who chooses to do that. I think it is actually great. I just dont think it is D&D anymore.



That's a meaningless distinction, though, because there are all kinds of things that D&D has no rules for. They come up all the time, in pretty much every session I've ever played. There aren't any rules for roleplaying; so does too much roleplaying mean it's "not D&D" anymore? Are you only playing D&D when you're actually using the game rules - most of which apply only to combat?


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 25, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Heck, there were no rules for _swimming_ for a pretty long time.



That must have been before the game was published.

Swimming rules are on page 33 of Volume 3.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 25, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I _think_ you're interpreting me as a critic of D&D for being so open.



I am interpreting you as being confused as to
(a) where it is (and is meant to remain) wide open, and
(b) where it is as practically focused as most games in the wide world of games, from Mancala to Halo 3.

Specifically, it comes from the field of wargames campaigns. In D&D, you have objectives in general terms (survive and score points), but it is up to you as to how to pursue them.

Advanced D&D introduced a rule requiring conversion of most treasures into cash to score x.p., which apparently has been the cause of much grumpiness.

Suffice to say that what I take for the obvious intent is that players who dare great things can reap great rewards.



			
				Fritz Leiber said:
			
		

> The Mouser smiled thinly before returning the parchment to its deep pocket. "The guess that a pouch of stars might be a bag of gems," he listed, "the story that Nehwon's biggest diamond is called the Heart of Light, a few words on a ramskin scrap in the topmost room of a desert tower locked and sealed for centuries -- small hints, these, to draw two men across this murdering, monotonous Cold waste. Tell me, Old Horse, were you just homesick for the miserable white meadows of your birth to pretend to believe 'em?"


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 25, 2010)

S'mon said:
			
		

> 4e's encounter-based design can be very bad this way, if the DM has put a lot of work into encounters he may want to ensure they're all used, and WoTC module writers certainly seem to think that way.



Whereas the glossary in the 1st DMG offers:

"*Encounter* -- An unexpected confrontation with a monster, another party, etc."



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> No railroad, because the GM's work is a response to the hooks that the _players_ have put into the game at character build; but a tighter framework for GM preparation than a sandbox tends to provide.



If we've got to go through ABC... because the GM has determined that we shall, then that is EXACTLY what "railroad" means to me.

I guess this is archaic in a certain subculture, but "normal" people seem still to understand it quite readily:

Where there is game, there is no plot. Where there is plot, there is no game.  A thing that is as a whole called "a game" is not necessarily game -- as opposed to plot, or sheer randomness, or something else -- throughout. 

_Snakes and Ladders_ or _Candy Land_ is all randomness, no game. The player has no choices, no control.
_Star Wars_ (movie, book or comic) is all plot, no game. The viewer or reader has no choices, no control.
A _Choose Your Own Adventure_ book is much plot and some game. The reader has clearly limited choices, control only over which pre-written chapter comes next.

Interactive fiction tends to benefit greatly from the resources that computerization affords. It's a big leap from CYOA to a sophisticated parser system! A human can do even more, but the power is largely wasted to the extent that there is nothing but plot to unroll. It is the game that calls for a game master.

"Plot, plot, eggs, ham and plot" may have not so much plot as some other things, but it is excluding game possibilities. 

The trend I see is toward exchanging the old D&D campaign game for the CYOA model that was pressed into service -- most notably with T&T, and secondarily with TFT, as "engine" -- for solitaire play. When one has no fellow players, not even one to be GM, the expedient may be better than no game at all.

It can also, of course, be entertaining in its own right. However, compared even with such "primitive" computerized efforts as Ultima III it is notably constrained.

Compared with old D&D, it is a world apart.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 25, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> Again, it's entirely possible that the game consists of a number of encounters, with combat and traps and puzzles, in a very straightforward classic sense — but the motivation is romance, and the PCs are fighting their way through a dungeon that is, say, a fey labyrinth. Romance is content, but it's also at heart a theme, not a plot or a ruleset.



Well said.

This also speaks to the point I was trying to make further upthread: if the theme of the game, as you've used it here, *B*, fits with character creation and the rewards provided by the system, then I believe you're going to get a better experience in actual play. If you're using 1e _AD&D_, with its emphasis on treasure as the primary means of advancement, then a game in which fey-lovin' is the theme will probably have less looting of old tombs and more something along the lines of a 10,000 gp heart-shaped ruby awarded by the King of the Pixies for a successful courtship.

In this way you're using the strengths of the system to reinforce the themes of the game, and _vice versa_.


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 26, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I get the impression here that you really have no experience with games that are run on tight _situations_. There is no plot. There is no predetermined order, no predetermined events, and in most games that are run in this way, every encounter is created exactly in accordance with what you cite as the definition of an encounter. Namely, that they are not planned out in advance, they are unexpected, even for the GM in those games that still insist on having such traditional structure. 

When you prep a situation, it is all about the motivations of the characters, both PC and NPC. When you create motivations at the outset for a bunch of characters, all ponted at each other and including many motivations that are in direct or tangential opposition, it creates an unstable situation. This is where the game starts. Any action undertaken by any of the characters will provoke a response by many other characters. Some will support the action, some will want to oppose it. The game starts with a scene that interests the GM/players. Characters interact. Conflict ensues. The aftermath of this encounter prompts other action by other characters, and suggests new scenes to be framed. It is this evolution of the goals, motivations, relationships, and advantages/disadvantages that drives a situation dependent game. There is no overall goal for the resolution of the situation, and there certainly is no "plot" or order of encounters. It is somewhat like a sandbox in that way, except by its very nature, the situation is not static as compared to most sandboxes.

The true beauty of a situation based game is that the whole thing is unstable. It is dynamic in that any action by any character will create conflict with other characters, will demand a response by other characters, and will ultimately create an evolving situation driving the story forward. This drive forward is not a plot because it is not predetermined. It evolves during play, just like the vaunted sandbox play is supposed to. But it demands action by the PCs by it's very nature, and creates a story like we think of them, all in the absence of a predetermined plot. 

The only requirement, as pemerton has stated upthread, is a little preparatory metagaming to create the situation, one that will interest the players and involve the PCs. Create your game not with a geographic map but with a relationship map, and include significant amounts of conflicting interests, and you get all the benefits of a sandbox, with all the benefits of a railroaded plot, but in essence no more prep than a sandbox, and different if not significantly less prep than a plot. Depending on game system of course. D&D is definitely possible to run this way, even if it will take a little getting used to in order to figure out how to properly prep encounters in a situation based game.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 26, 2010)

I don't really see a character/situation-based sandbox, such as a political game set at the royal court, as any different from  geographical sandbox.  I tend to think the best games have elements of both.  If you look at 3e Wilderlands of High Fantasy, it's certainly possible to extract complex relationship maps of the different NPCs and factions, though it's a pity that more wasn't included in the box set.  Rob Conley has very kindly provided a lot of that to me for the areas he wrote up, in the WoHF forum over on the Necromancer Games bulletin board.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 26, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> The only requirement, as pemerton has stated upthread, is a little preparatory metagaming to create the situation, one that will interest the players and involve the PCs.



Or your could do this through actual play, instead of metagaming.

Doing this out-of-game is a preference, not a requirement.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 26, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> I am interpreting you as being confused as to
> (a) where it is (and is meant to remain) wide open, and
> (b) where it is as practically focused as most games in the wide world of games, from Mancala to Halo 3.
> 
> Specifically, it comes from the field of wargames campaigns. In D&D, you have objectives in general terms (survive and score points), but it is up to you as to how to pursue them.



Ariosto, I really don't get this. You're writing as if you think I've never read your posts, or the D&D rulebooks you draw on - which I clearly have read - or else as if I have the reading comprehension of a schoolchild - which I will confidently assert that I do not.

As I said in several posts upthread, there is an undeniable difference in scope between D&D as a published ruletext, and D&D as played at actual gametables. The evidence for this is overwhelming - any single page of The Forum in any single number of Dragon from the mid-1980s will confirm this.

The OP's problem is not one of players who read the D&D rulebook and don't know what to do. It is a problem of players who turn up to a game that is badged as D&D and don't know what to do. Telling them to read the rulebook and play _that_ game isn't going to solve the problem. If that was enough, the problem wouldn't have arisen in the first place!

I think that the posts upthread about finding homes for stray cats make my point crystal clear (although I don't think they were actually intended to be evidence of my point!).


----------



## pemerton (Aug 26, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> If we've got to go through ABC... because the GM has determined that we shall, then that is EXACTLY what "railroad" means to me.



Nameless1 has said a lot of sensible stuff in response to this. But I'll add a bit.

Suppose that a player, in designing his mage PC, specifies as part of his backstory that (i) he has a mentor, (ii) that that mentor lives in a tree in a forest, and (iii) that the reason for this is that the mentor is hiding from shadowy enemies who are trying to hunt him down. (Shades of Obi-Wan Kenobi.)

Suppose, then, that I, as GM, start an encounter this way: The PCs are all sitting in the village, having returned home from a bit of orcslaying. Suddenly the wizard PC sees his mentor's raven familiar, covered in blood, flying towards him. (Shades of the Wizard of Earthsea. No one said that situation-based RPG play has to be great or original literature.)

In any group I've ever gamed with, the player of that wizard will infer that his PC's mentor is in trouble, and will try and find out about it - whether by going to the tree, or talking to the familiar, or using a magic ritual, or whatever. 

Where is the railroad? I can't see one. I as GM have not determined that anyone has to go through anything. I've responded to a hook that the _player _presented to me in his character build. He has, in effect, determined that I as GM provide him with something - namely, an attack upon his mentor to which his PC has to respond. 

Although there is no railroad, the amount of preparation I have to engage in is nevertheless reasonably slight - I need to know something about who attacked the mentor, and why, and something about what the wizard will learn is he uses magic or talks to the familiar, and that's about it. There's always a chance that things will take a different direction, but to me at least this looks nothing like sandboxing.



Nameless1 said:


> The only requirement, as pemerton has stated upthread, is a little preparatory metagaming to create the situation, one that will interest the players and involve the PCs. Create your game not with a geographic map but with a relationship map, and include significant amounts of conflicting interests, and you get all the benefits of a sandbox, with all the benefits of a railroaded plot, but in essence no more prep than a sandbox, and different if not significantly less prep than a plot. Depending on game system of course. D&D is definitely possible to run this way, even if it will take a little getting used to in order to figure out how to properly prep encounters in a situation based game.



Like I said upthread, I suspect the way I play is a bit more traditional than you. I still use geographic maps, for example (but using skill challenges to resolve movement across them makes it play more like an indie game and less like Traveller or 1st ed AD&D).

I also still play within a traditional ongoing 1st to 30th campaign framework, which means the pace of story evolution is much slower than it would tend to be in an indie game.

Which is to say, the situations in my game overall are probably not as tight as in yours.

But that to one side, I agree entirely with what you're saying. My players, when they build their PCs, locate them in the gameworld by reference to communities, and/or religions, and/or mentors, etc. And the play is based on me setting up situations that engage the players by reference to those relationships. Often not in any very sophisticated fashion - if several players are from a village that was destroyed by goblins, for example, then they're likely to respond when they come across a homestead under attack by goblins - or a paladin of the Raven Queen is likely to investigate cursed souls who can't escape to the Shadowfell - but in my experience you don't need much more than a few simple relationships intersecting to produce an overall situation that is quite complex and engaging for both players and GM. Especially if you play in a party-focused game, and some of the intersections play on, or generate, tensions within the party.

As for encounters that are a surprise, definitely yes. In my experience, the surprises occur not at the stage of "what is an encounter" - because these are built based on the evolving PC hooks - but rather in the context of encounter resolution. Like I said in the previous paragraph, the paladin of the Raven Queen can be predicted to take an interest in the cursed souls. But will he blast them or talk to them? The PCs on a mission to rescue villagers from slavery aren't just going to ignore the duergar slavers, but will they fight them or talk to them? (In my game they talked to them, and arranged to purchase the slaves back at close to cost price. As a result they now have to meet the duergar in a neutral city to make the exchange.) What will the mage who hates goblinoids do with the hobgoblin raiders whom he's knocked unconscious when they attacked the village? (In my game he beheaded them all, to the horror of his fellow PCs but the delight of the villagers.)

To me, this is almost the mirror image of a traditional AD&D or Basic D&D game, where the question of "what is an encounter" is up for grabs - because the PCs may or may not show any interest in any particular room, or cavern, or rumour, or treasure map - but the question of "how will it be resolved" is very often known in advance, because the reward system and the alignment system dicate so much of the answer to those questions.


----------



## Gimby (Aug 26, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Or your could do this through actual play, instead of metagaming.
> 
> Doing this out-of-game is a preference, not a requirement.




I think there are some interesting edge cases here

Its relatively common for a group to have a character creation session before play proper starts, building their characters together in order to achieve some desired starting condition.  I imagine that you do something similar, if only to avoid two players showing up with a nobleman who will have nothing to do with the peasantry and a firebrand revolutionary.

I've done this at least once where this session played out much like a free-form with the GM acting as arbiter.

The planned game pitch was "Veterans in the aftermath of a war" - the character creation session was set during the war itself and played out much like a normal session except at a much higher pace and with little to no mechanical resolution.  The large scale outcome of the session was known - the characters would all survive, the war would end in a pre-defined manner and so on, but it allowed for the rapid development of the broad themes of the relationships within the character party and with assorted NPCs.  

The question is then, was this actual play? We weren't using the system the bulk of the campaign was but we were certainly roleplaying during that session.  If we'd instead held the same roleplay as a "telling of old warstories in the bar" scene as part of the first full session, would that be different?


----------



## pemerton (Aug 26, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Or your could do this through actual play, instead of metagaming.
> 
> Doing this out-of-game is a preference, not a requirement.



Not a requirement for a fun game, agreed. (Not everyone shares my aversion to what I described upthread as "faffing around" - ie one person's faffing is another person's play).

But I think it is a requirement, or something like a requirement, for the sort of play that Nameless1 and I are talking about. Because if you don't do it through metagaming, than the GM has no easy way to start the game. Instead (it seems to me) s/he is stuck with providing hooks in the traditional way - either the railroad way, if it's one hook, or the sandbox way, if it's multiple hooks - and waiting to see which one the players take up.

A game like this could _evolve_ into a situation-based game over time. And I have GMed a few games, both AD&D and Rolemaster, that did this - started as a bit of a sandbox, but after several sessions of play morphed into situation-based games as the players bit at hooks and started to embed their PCs in the gameworld.

It was these experiences, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, which really showed me that a game could be run without railroading but with a much tighter focus than a sandbox (or at least what I think of as a sandbox - eg Classic Traveller or exploration D&D). It was only much later - more than 10 years later - that I became a FoRE and got a better handle on what it was I was actually doing, and how I could use the mechanics of the game to help support it. Although there is one Dragon article that predates Ron Edwards prominence in RPGing circles but which did have a big influence on my approach to play - Paul Suttie's "For King and Country" in Dragon 101. The main aim of the article is to argue against the alignment system. But in the course of the argument he also describes how a situation-based campaign might be set up - his main objection to alignment is that it needlessly gets in the way of setting up the situation. What's missing from his description is an account of how you can embed the PCs in the situation from the get-go. This is what I've come to understand better as a FoRE.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 26, 2010)

S'mon said:


> I don't really see a character/situation-based sandbox, such as a political game set at the royal court, as any different from  geographical sandbox.  I tend to think the best games have elements of both.  If you look at 3e Wilderlands of High Fantasy, it's certainly possible to extract complex relationship maps of the different NPCs and factions, though it's a pity that more wasn't included in the box set.



For the sort of play I am trying to describe, what's missing here are the PCs. Unless _they_ have a place on the relationship map, I don't think it's the sort of situation-driven play that I've been trying to characterise.

EDIT: If the GM chooses that place on the map, we have a railroad. If the players choose that place, we don't. But if the players are to choose that place then they have to either (i) learn about the relationships during the course of play, as The Shaman suggested above, in which case the game at least starts as something other than a situation-driven game, or else (ii) put themselves onto the map at the metagame, pre-play stage.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 26, 2010)

pemerton said:


> For the sort of play I am trying to describe, what's missing here are the PCs. Unless _they_ have a place on the relationship map, I don't think it's the sort of situation-driven play that I've been trying to characterise.
> 
> EDIT: If the GM chooses that place on the map, we have a railroad. If the players choose that place, we don't. But if the players are to choose that place then they have to either (i) learn about the relationships during the course of play, as The Shaman suggested above, in which case the game at least starts as something other than a situation-driven game, or else (ii) put themselves onto the map at the metagame, pre-play stage.




Indeed - in the normal sandbox/exploratory mode, the PCs come into the situation from outside, without prior links, like the Man With No Name in A Fistfull of Dollars, and it's up to the players how they interact with it.

Your 'situation based' play seems much closer to the roots of the hobby in situational roleplaying scenarios like _Braunstein_ - "You are General Xavier, the Russians are coming, what do you do?"  - except that you are apparently talking about a game where the players start off knowing the relationship map and create a PC that fits within it?  OK, but the big risk there is stasis, IMO.  There is no inherent 'kick' from the arrival of the PCs on the scene, so the DM has to create proactive antagonists, a draft timeline for their plans, and such.  All the stuff that in _Braunstein _type games is done by the players according to their GM-determined start conditions.


----------



## Gimby (Aug 26, 2010)

S'mon said:


> Indeed - in the normal sandbox/exploratory mode, the PCs come into the situation from outside, without prior links, like the Man With No Name in A Fistfull of Dollars, and it's up to the players how they interact with it.
> 
> Your 'situation based' play seems much closer to the roots of the hobby in situational roleplaying scenarios like _Braunstein_ - "You are General Xavier, the Russians are coming, what do you do?"  - except that you are apparently talking about a game where the players start off knowing the relationship map and create a PC that fits within it?  OK, but the big risk there is stasis, IMO.  There is no inherent 'kick' from the arrival of the PCs on the scene, so the DM has to create proactive antagonists, a draft timeline for their plans, and such.  All the stuff that in _Braunstein _type games is done by the players according to their GM-determined start conditions.




Hmm, depends.  By having play begin with some change in status of the PCs, then they can both be new arrivals and embedded into the relationship map.  For example, the game could start with (or shortly follow) a "coming of age" ritual of some sort, so while the shape of the relationship map remains unchanged (parents are still parents and so on) the nature of the relationships and the expectaions on the PCs change, providing the needed driver to action.   While this approach is limited in the circumstances that it allows, I don't feel it's more so than requiring the PCs to be the Man With No Name.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 26, 2010)

Think everything has been covered but feel the story comes from the middle, both the DM and the players.  Players act out producing plot, the DM has to see them and take action on them.  

Players sit around drinking and hitting on the serving wench - where is their money coming from and how long will it last?  When will they get drunk?  Who is looking at them and thinking; mark!  Who is going to take the server home?  What will be the result of that?  What are they drinking?  Do they even know?  What will be the results of it other than a hangover?  

The DM fails if he does not grab some of these and runs with them.


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 26, 2010)

S'mon said:


> OK, but the big risk there is stasis, IMO.  There is no inherent 'kick' from the arrival of the PCs on the scene, so the DM has to create proactive antagonists, a draft timeline for their plans, and such.  All the stuff that in _Braunstein _type games is done by the players according to their GM-determined start conditions.




Two things.

1) Create situations that are bound to degrade. Make lots of conflicting interests. If the PCs don't act, someone will.

2) The PCs do not have to be the kicker. Someone/something else can be. A static situation can be changed into a dynamic situation by the introduction of a new element, the gain of motivations that relate to that element, and the changing relationships that result. The PCs can be that element, but they don't have to be.

EDIT: No timeline needed. It often gets in the way.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 26, 2010)

Nameless1 said:
			
		

> I get the impression here that you really have no experience with games that are run on tight _situations_.



That impression is false.

Disagreement with an opinion concerning subject A does not imply ignorance of irrelevant subject X.



			
				Nameless1 said:
			
		

> It is somewhat like a sandbox in that way, except by its very nature, the situation is not static as compared to most sandboxes.



"Sandboxes" are not static. By "sandbox" I mean here a game like that described in _Dungeons & Dragons_ (1974) and _The First Fantasy Campaign_ (1977).


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 26, 2010)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Telling them to read the rulebook and play _that_ game isn't going to solve the problem. If that was enough, the problem wouldn't have arisen in the first place!



That is not what I read in what you actually wrote.

What I read in what you actually wrote was a claim that D&D is too vague, in comparison with other games, even specifically other RPGs, not simply for Kzach's players but by the normative standard.

It is not enough for you to know what you mean. The forum operates by text, not telepathy.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Nameless1 has said a lot of sensible stuff in response to this. But I'll add a bit.



Nameless1 wrote much in response to this that has nothing to do with this.

You offered an exceptionally weak form of the claim that "it's not a railroad  if the players like it". I disagree even with that strong form. I do not agree that "it's not a railroad if the GM's work is a response to the hooks that the _players_ have put into the game at character build". 

My criterion for a railroad is instead, as I stated, that "we've got to go through ABC... because the GM has determined that we shall".

You -- and Nameless1 -- completely ignored the explicitly stated issue at hand. That in itself would not be a big problem. Definitions of "railroad" might not warrant further discussion. The problem is that you are at length "arguing against" things that I did not write.



> Suppose, then, that I, as GM, start an encounter this way: ...
> 
> Where is the railroad?



I never said there was a railroad.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I as GM have not determined that anyone has to go through anything.



Then it's not a railroad. If people are free to go do other things, then there are no rails. The lack of that freedom is what I mean by rails.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> There's always a chance that things will take a different direction, but to me at least this looks nothing like sandboxing.



What does "sandboxing" look like to you?


----------



## GregChristopher (Aug 26, 2010)

This post is hilarious. The amazing levels of defensiveness about totally unimportant things to get defensive about, the accusations of poor reading and writing skills, the conflict over what should be obvious points..... wow.....


----------



## Beginning of the End (Aug 26, 2010)

pemerton said:


> Although there is no railroad, the amount of preparation I have to engage in is nevertheless reasonably slight - I need to know something about who attacked the mentor, and why, and something about what the wizard will learn is he uses magic or talks to the familiar, and that's about it. There's always a chance that things will take a different direction, but to me at least this looks nothing like sandboxing.




The first problem seems to be that "sandbox" is being treated as the opposite of "railroad".

But "railroad" is actually the opposite of "non-linear adventure design". And it is, specifically, the _extreme_ opposite in which the players are forced to follow the linear design of the adventure. (For a more detailed discussion of this issue, read this.)

Which leads us to the second problem: Ariosto tends to assume that all linear design is a railroad. This is not a useful generalization.

Your example demonstrates both points: First, it's a linear design (PCs find out mentor is in trouble; PCs go to investigate mentor's house; PCs save mentor), but it's unlikely to turn into a railroad because (a) you're willing to let them just ignore it; (b) if the PCs pick up the adventure seed, it's pretty easy to guess what their actions will be; and (c) there's no reason an unexpected approach to the problem (a _divination_ spell instead of investigating the mentor's home, for example) would cause the scenario to stop working.

Second, even if the scenario were to turn into a railroad after the PCs decide to rescue their mentor, there's nothing about the scenario which is incompatible with a sandbox. Sandboxes can (and perhaps even _should_) be dynamic and active places. The PCs need to be free to go out and do what they want to do, but that doesn't mean that the world is never going to come to them.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 26, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:
			
		

> Which leads us to the second problem: Ariosto tends to assume that all linear design is a railroad. This is not a useful generalization.



I have stated no such thing. I am pretty sure I have not used the phrase "linear design" at all.

If I knew what you mean by "linear design" and how, in your mind, it differs from "a railroad", then I could tell you what I actually think. It might be that I would agree with you -- on the concepts, if not on the terminology.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 26, 2010)

pemerton said:


> To me, this is almost the mirror image of a traditional AD&D or Basic D&D game, where the question of "what is an encounter" is up for grabs - because the PCs may or may not show any interest in any particular room, or cavern, or rumour, or treasure map - but the question of "how will it be resolved" is very often known in advance, because the reward system and the alignment system dicate so much of the answer to those questions.



I'll disagree with this; in that the examples you gave and how they resolved could very easily have gone exactly the same way in my old-school game...or gone completely differently; dependent almost entirely on the whims of the players at the moment. (in fact, the beheaded foes example looks *really* familiar! It's happened twice, so far...)  Remember, ExP is given for encounters defeated or avoided; and treasure is treasure wherever it comes from, so the reward system doesn't get in the way at all.  

Alignment is another issue entirely; but even there, unless alignment is being used as a straightjacket there still should be some variability in how a PC or party might react to any given situation.

Agreed that "the question of "what is an encounter" is up for grabs" in the older games, but keep in mind that in those games it doesn't matter very much; clear definition of An Encounter only matters in 4e where game mechanics use encounter as a timing mechanism. (side note: were I to ever sit down and re-design 4e this is something I'd fix, if for no other reason than it *really* seems to hamper good adventure design; 4e adventures all seem to want to proceed from one clearly-defined encounter to the next, rather than letting things flow naturally)

Lanefan


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 26, 2010)

Gimby said:


> The question is then, was this actual play? We weren't using the system the bulk of the campaign was but we were certainly roleplaying during that session.



It's a very interesting edge case, *Gimby*, and it sounds like a decent middle ground between what *pemerton* and *Nameless1* and I each prefer.

That said, roleplaying without the game is like playing tennis with the net down (with sincere apologies to Robert Frost). It's actual play, but not of a roleplaying game, in my very humble and most personal opinion.







Gimby said:


> If we'd instead held the same roleplay as a "telling of old warstories in the bar" scene as part of the first full session, would that be different?



Adventurers sitting around telling warstories in a bar sounds like a reason for me to pack up my dice for the night.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 26, 2010)

Lanefan's said:
			
		

> Agreed that "the question of "what is an encounter" is up for grabs" in the older games



That is basically to the extent that it is "up for grabs" in normal English. The DMG glossary entry is not a binding rule of usage, prohibiting dungeon key entries from being called "encounters". Neither does that latter usage supersede the ordinary usage in the old works.



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> but keep in mind that in those games it doesn't matter very much



That is right.
Call it a "meeting", if you will, and it makes no practical difference in play. "Encounter", meaning especially an unexpected meeting, suits the usual context in old D&D. For something we anticipate, we are likely to have a more specifically appropriate word.

Ordinary meanings and concepts came first, informing the design of game abstractions. For instance, "armor classes" started as classes of armor.

Now, those same terms have been pressed into use to correspond to different concepts. When the correspondence of the word "encounter" to a particular game structure is internalized, it may be a barrier to conceptualizing the old game.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 26, 2010)

pemerton said:


> But I think it is a requirement, or something like a requirement, for the sort of play that Nameless1 and I are talking about.



Fair 'nuf. In that context, I certainly agree.







pemerton said:


> Although there is one Dragon article that predates Ron Edwards prominence in RPGing circles but which did have a big influence on my approach to play - Paul Suttie's "For King and Country" in Dragon 101.



So of course I had to dig this out and take a look at it, and lo and behold, guess what appears right in the middle of the article? An ad for _Flashing Blades_! How's _that_ for a coincidence?

/digression







pemerton said:


> The main aim of the article is to argue against the alignment system. But in the course of the argument he also describes how a situation-based campaign might be set up - his main objection to alignment is that it needlessly gets in the way of setting up the situation.



It's an interesting article, but I admit as I was reading it, all I could think was, "Dude, just play _Rolemaster_ already."







pemerton said:


> What's missing from his description is an account of how you can embed the PCs in the situation from the get-go. This is what I've come to understand better as a FoRE.



Check this out.







> The players should be divided into two basic groups - lawmen and outlaws. There can also be an assortment of prominent citizens - ranchers, businessmen, and so forth. Many other possible positions for player characters include: railroad executive, Indian chief, cavalry commander, gambler, or perhaps a less savory character such as a hired gun, drifter, or bounty hunter.
> 
> Characters on the side of law enforcement can take such roles as: county sheriff, town marshal, deputy, state ranger (such as Texas or Arizona Ranger), or deputy U.S. marshal.  . . .
> 
> Players opting to be outlaws start their own gangs by hiring non-player characters and/or joining with other player characters of similar bent.  . . .



That's 2e _Boot Hill_, from 1979.

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 27, 2010)

The Shaman, interesting quote from Boot Hill. Not a game I'm familiar with, other than what you've said about it in this thread.

I agree that a lot of "modern" RPGing ideas can be found in older games. Ron Edwards gives examples from Champions, James Bond, Marvel Super Heroes and T&T. I think you've given examples in this thread (and others?) from Top Secret.

What might be a little bit new under the sun is new mechanical techniques to try to emphasise some of these varying approaches to play. That said, I've just admitted I don't know the Boot Hill mechanics!

EDIT: Thinking about Boot Hill and Flashing Blades, in the earlier days of the hobby was there a tendency to identify historical games with tighter situations and generic fantasy games with a greater degree of open-endedness? Then there are strange examples like MERP, which _could_ have offered very tight situation-based play, but instead presents itself just as more generic fantasy but using Middle Earth as the backdrop.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 27, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> The first problem seems to be that "sandbox" is being treated as the opposite of "railroad".
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Sandboxes can (and perhaps even _should_) be dynamic and active places. The PCs need to be free to go out and do what they want to do, but that doesn't mean that the world is never going to come to them.





Ariosto said:


> What does "sandboxing" look like to you?



Beginning of the End, you're probably right that I'm using "sandbox" too narrowly. Like I said upthread, I was using to describe (what I think of as) traditional Classic Traveller or AD&D/Basic D&D play - highly exploratory, with the GM establishing a range of sites and personalities within those sites, and the players choosing which of the sites/personalities their PCs seek out and interact with.

Nameless1 said upthread that sandboxes are static. I can see why this was objected to, but I _think_ that what he was getting at is that the overall orientation of the game he was describing as a sandbox is one in which the world is a buffet for the players to choose from, that there will be parts of the buffet that the players don't interact with, and that those parts remain more-or-less unchanged, waiting to see if the players finally pick them. (For example, Smaug's cave remains essentially static until the players choose to go on the Lonely Mountain quest.)

A sandbox in which the various world elements that the GM has created get actively brought into the game by the GM in response to the things that the players have their PCs do starts to look more like a situation based game. At that point, though, I again tend to think that it might be easier just to start with everyone on the same page as to situation, so that the GM can focus on creating all and only the gameworld elements that will be needed for that game.

Anyway, just some thoughts. . .


----------



## SteveC (Aug 27, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Or your could do this through actual play, instead of metagaming.
> 
> Doing this out-of-game is a preference, not a requirement.




Here's the thing: this is all preference, and we're just talking about our preferences.

For me, establishing character motivations goals, and frankly what the game will be about tells me a lot: it tells me what the game is going to be about, it tells me if I've created something appropriate for the game, and it quite frankly tells me if the game is something I want to spend my time playing. That's as a player.

As a GM it gives me the ability to prepare something for the direction the group wants to go in rather than improving the whole thing. That's very useful to me when I GM, since I'm a good improv GM but I get better with some prep work.

That's not saying a "you're at the gate, go!" campaign is bad, it's just something that I would prefer to avoid at this point in my life.

So it's all a matter of opinion, but there are some very good reasons on both sides, and that's something that seems to be lost here.

--Steve


----------



## Hussar (Aug 27, 2010)

Interesting stuff all around.

There are strengths and weaknesses of both approaches really.  The wide open, "You're at the gates of Paris, what do you do?" is great in that it allows the player to engage with the setting.  It's bad in that it presumes a fair degree of setting knowledge that the player may not possess.  For myself, presented with that scenario, with my pretty much complete lack of knowledge of Paris of that time period, I'd be pretty lost.  "Umm, find a bar?"   would be my most likely response.

OTOH, if you start off with a tighter woven group, with interconnections and whatnot, I believe it is true that you can get into the meat of things much faster.  But, there's a problem that the player might create a character and then find that that character isn't what he wants to play.  I know that happens to me from time to time.  A concept that seems really cool at the start turns out to be a complete dud at the table.

So, now, I have to eject that character and bring in a new character, again repeating all the work of building in relationships and reasons for being with the group.  That can be very off putting and can really hurt the flow of the game.

It's best if the GM is cognizant of the strengths and weaknesses of whichever method is chosen and then use the approach that will work best for the particular campaign.  I don't think that doggedly using the same approach for all campaigns is a good idea.  Use the tools that work best, rather than driving screws with hammers.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 27, 2010)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.



Right. *Gangbusters* is another in which it might be easier for some people to see it -- and also a splendid description of a D&D-style "sandbox" game.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Thinking about Boot Hill and Flashing Blades, in the earlier days of the hobby was there a tendency to identify historical games with tighter situations and generic fantasy games with a greater degree of open-endedness?



D&D easily includes Boot Hill's milieu and Gamma World's and Metamorphosis Alpha's (all explictly referred to in AD&D works) and more. A historical game is necessarily expected to conform somewhat to this or that portion of history.

Otherwise, I never saw any great difference in "specificity of situation" between D&D and Boot Hill.

What is the difference you have in mind? 



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> (For example, Smaug's cave remains essentially static until the players choose to go on the Lonely Mountain quest.)



Not in D&D as explained by its creators, and practiced by most of those in my experience who claimed to be refereeing anything as close as, say, RuneQuest.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> A sandbox in which the various world elements that the GM has created get actively brought into the game by the GM in response to the things that the players have their PCs do starts to look more like a situation based game.



Yours is the first use of the phrase "situation based game" I think that I have ever encountered.

On the other hand, I have for some years seen old-D&D players using the term "sandbox" as I (having learned from them) use it. The "sandbox" environment most definitely changes in response to the players' moves. The moves of players, and responses to those moves by players and non-player figures alike, weave an ever richer tapestry.

Maybe you are thinking of some examples of "sandbox" as used by computer gamers, but even then I think you may be inverting the positions of definitive and coincidental elements.

When there are really just a very few possible states for a game, it is obviously not desirable to "use them up" and leave players with nothing interesting to explore. Old D&D does not suffer from that weakness.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 27, 2010)

It occurs to me that, so far from their being radically different, a grasp of the Western in its various forms might be a big head start to understanding old D&D and similar games.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 27, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> It's bad in that it presumes a fair degree of setting knowledge that the player may not possess.



That's flat out backwards. It presumes _less_ than an approach in which the _character_ is presumed to be already familiar with the locale.

This is precisely why many people prefer to start players new to Tekumel in the "just off the boat" situation presented in the original _Empire of the Petal Throne_.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 27, 2010)

Maybe pemerton was thinking something like this?



			
				gamegrene.com said:
			
		

> Perhaps the biggest gripe most people have with Boot Hill was its lack of setting....
> 
> After all, who cares if you have the world's most detailed combat system if there's nothing to do but shoot one another and rob banks. It's the difference between Quake and Half-Life: both First-Person Shooters, but only one deserves to be called a Role-Playing Game by any stretch of the imagination, and that's because of the storyline.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 27, 2010)

This is not perfectly in line with the conversation as it has been going recently, but to respond a little to the OP, one thing that I often do that I forgot to mention upthread is to cite my inspirations for my games. I like to use movies so that people get a more concrete and often more visceral idea of what I am getting at. 

As a recent example, I had a short game that was a dungeon crawl/recover the McGuffin type game. I told my buddies that I wanted to run a fantasy themed Indiana Jones game. "Like we are sorta wizard/thief adventurers who raid ancient tombs to get artifacts?" "Yeah, think Tombraider/The Mummy/Indiana Jones, and I want Nazis as the main bad guys." "Can there be undead Nazis?" "Bitchin'!" Not as much situation generation, but it really set the tone. We all knew there would be no "meet in a tavern" and we all knew that we would be exploring some tombs. We knew that we would face some Nazi undead. We started out at the entrance to a tomb. We lost our first artifact. We spent the rest of the short campaign trying to get it back. From Nazi vampires. It was glorious. Completely unoriginal, but fun. We knew what to expect, we created characters to fit, and there was instant action. No waiting. Not a ton of real situation, and hardly a sandbox because we cared nothing for the rest of the world, but great fun. I was a very cohesive game, and was not at all linear, even though there was a "plot" (get back the Necronomicon (yeah, we ripped that off too) from the Nazi vampires), but we did not know how it would all unfold. There was no A->B->C->Win! It was A-> lots of other stuff that was improvised -> Win!

Did I mention it was a fully improvised GMless game of The Committee for the Exploration of Mysteries? No GM so no chance of railroad, but also not at all a sandbox. It was driven by a common understanding of tropes and a shared interest in the theme.

So point is, defining a set of influences for your campaign can help create a cohesive shared set of expectations, and can get players to engage with the story/world because they know the genre.

(Yeah, I am pretty well agreeing with The Shaman here. I said upthread that I often prefer a situation based game, but at times, all that is necessary is a shared understanding of a strongly defined theme. Even this might have been helped with a tighter situation though. Maybe. )


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 27, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> On the other hand, I have for some years seen old-D&D players using the term "sandbox" as I (having learned from them) use it. The "sandbox" environment most definitely changes in response to the players' moves. The moves of players, and responses to those moves by players and non-player figures alike, weave an ever richer tapestry.



I would take it even a step further - a sandbox environment (well, any setting environment, come to think of it) can and should change - using its own internal logic - whether the PCs interact with it or not.

Maybe the PCs had a chance to take down Smaug but instead went elsewhere, thinking "oh, we'll come back to that"; meanwhile someone else went in and killed him - got all the loot, too!

Maybe there's a war going on between two realms the PCs haven't ever been to - whether the PCs ever interact with it or not you still ought to figure out who wins/loses over time, if only to determine the outfall (if any) that might affect the PCs and the played game.

It's almost like you need something of a newsreel - whenever the party is in town for a while, catch them up on such goings-on in the world as the town would logically have heard of.  This does two things: it presents the game world as a living breathing vibrant place, and it possibly provides adventure hooks.

Lanefan


----------



## pemerton (Aug 27, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> That's flat out backwards. It presumes _less_ than an approach in which the _character_ is presumed to be already familiar with the locale.



Not necessarily. Games which start with an assumption that the character is already familiar with the locale will often have various techniquest - mechanical or informal - for handling this. For example, the players may be entitled to "declare" the existence of certain locations or NPCs.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 27, 2010)

Ariosto said:
			
		

> That's flat out backwards. It presumes less than an approach in which the character is presumed to be already familiar with the locale.




Ah, sorry, forgot the qualifier of "could" in there.  

The problem is, the "character" doesn't know anything at all since it's a completely fictional construct.  Unless the player knows that there is an X that he can go investigate, he can't even know to ask about its existence, beyond a very basic level.

In other words, if I know nothing about Eberron, and get put in a Sharn campaign, I can't possibly go looking for the nearest Dragonmarked House because I don't even know they exist.  I know pretty much nothing about that era France beyond a couple of half remembered movies.  I can't ask about what I want to do, because I have no frame of reference.

Remember, The Shaman insisted that all motivation must come from the player, not from the DM.  

You can do the "Stranger in a Strange Land" thing, but, if you do, generally the first while of the game is going to be driven pretty strongly by the DM as the DM places options in front of the players.  Tekumel is a good example.  I really have no idea, beyond the fact that it's a fantasy setting from the late 70's what Empire of the Petal Throne is.  If you told me that I got off the boat in Tekumel and then asked me what I did, my response would again, probably be the same as my adventures in Paris - "Uhh, is there a bar?" because I have zero knowledge of the setting.

Sandbox campaigns require the players to know a fair bit about the setting in order to make anything resembling an informed choice.  Without that knowledge, it stops being a sandbox and becomes a DM driven campaign.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 27, 2010)

pemerton said:


> Thinking about Boot Hill and Flashing Blades, in the earlier days of the hobby was there a tendency to identify historical games with tighter situations and generic fantasy games with a greater degree of open-endedness?



My impression is less that historical roleplaying games lent themselves to tighter situations and more that those "generic fantasy games" weren't really intended to be quite so open-ended as they proved to be, or perhaps were manipulated to be.

I read a lot of essays over the years suggesting that _D&D_ could be used to run this, that, and the other kind of adventure, but often with a caveat along the line of, ". . . if you just change _this_ rule . . ."

There's no question that the game fed off the creativity of its players, but there was also a bit of a driving force in the form of the professional writers feeding the hopper of _Dragon_, _White Dwarf_, and the other gaming rags back in the day. Where did the DIY-vibe leave off and marketing begin?

'cause when I look back at 1e _AD&D_, I see a pretty tight game with very clear character conceits and rewards. Those characters could be quite versatile in their response to challenges and those rewards could take many forms, but looking at the rules of the game, there's no question to me what 1e _AD&D_ is 'about.'

What historical games have in spades over "generic" fantasy games is a richly detailed, readily-accessible setting used in centuries of genre fiction. That's both a blessing and a curse, it would seem.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 27, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> *Gangbusters* is another in which it might be easier for some people to see it -- and also a splendid description of a D&D-style "sandbox" game.



Definitely. Lakefront City is a solid example of a sandbox setting, and as with _Boot Hill_, the adventurers may choose to be lawmen - FBI special agents, Treasure agents, local cops - or gangsters, or pursue other careers like reporters and private investigators.

That was circa 1982.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 27, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Maybe pemerton was thinking something like this?



Oh lawd, I hope not.

No setting? Are these guys from friggin' Mars or something? The setting is the American West in all its historial and mythical glory. The setting, and ideas for adventures, are as far away as your library's Louis L'Amour collection.

And _Mad Mesa_? The adventurers wander into the middle of a CATTLE WAR! Two family factions out for blood, hired guns, a sheriff trying (and failing) to keep a lid on the violence, and various and sundry other nefariousness among the townsfolk - _that's_ Mad Mesa.

Wow. That's just an embarassing review.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 27, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> . . . [O]ne thing that I often do that I forgot to mention upthread is to cite my inspirations for my games.



Same here.







Nameless1 said:


> So point is, defining a set of influences for your campaign can help create a cohesive shared set of expectations, and can get players to engage with the story/world because they know the genre.
> 
> (Yeah, I am pretty well agreeing with The Shaman here. . . .)


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 27, 2010)

pemerton said:


> Games which start with an assumption that the character is already familiar with the locale will often have various techniquest - mechanical or informal - for handling this. For example, the players may be entitled to "declare" the existence of certain locations or NPCs.



I simply 'feed' information to the players that their characters are likely to know; frex, a titled noble may have some knowledge of the king's typical schedule - "The vicomte remembers that the king is normally in chapel during this hour" - or a sailor may know the reputation of a ship or its crew - "You remember that _La Vierge_ once belonged to the duc de Nevers but was captured by the Huguenot duc de Soubise."


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 27, 2010)

Talking about old school games, and reviews thereof, there was a review of the post-apocalyptic game The Morrow Project in White Dwarf in which it was praised for solving the problem of how PCs can be both capable and ignorant of their surroundings. In TMP the PCs awake from cryogenic suspension, part of a project to rebuild society after a nuclear war, but they have overslept. They are highly skilled and well equipped. This also gives them a strong motivation. Central control of the Morrow Project organisation has, of course, broken down, leaving the PCs on their own.

I've never run/played the game but I always liked this setup. It's very focused, character types would be fairly limited, not so much in terms of skills, but in motivation, competence and mental stability, and also very sandbox-y.

It's often a weird feature of rpgs that the players begin knowing nothing about a campaign world, but their PCs are supposedly embedded in the setting, with knowledge, friends, family, responsibilities, etc. Traditional D&D solves this problem by making the PCs rootless wanderers, Conan-types. Well-armed drifters who have just rode into town. They don't care about anything except gold and power ups, and solve all their problems with violence. My problem with this setup is I find it very difficult to care about such people on account of them being total dicks.

One of the local GMs often starts his campaigns with the PCs, like the players, having no knowledge of the campaign world. In one, we woke up with no memory, in another we were pirates from different worlds who died and found ourselves in 'Pirate Heaven/Hell'. On the one hand, this is good because player knowledge = character knowledge, the two can go on the journey of the game together. But on the other, the PCs don't really care about the world (just like players in most rpgs) and have no strong reason to stick together.

This issue of the players not caring about the game world seems common on message boards. Again and again one will read about GMs who put a lot of effort, a lot of love, into their game universes, and are disappointed that the players just care about power ups and winning fights.

Perhaps this is unavoidable, a creator is always going to care more, be more invested. It works better with published fiction, because that is cast wide, and only those who are interested will read it, whereas rpgs are typically written for a much smaller audience. Perhaps it's also realistic. Lots of people in real life are very pragmatic, and only want to know what they need to in order to succeed.

I myself, playing crpgs, almost always skip the quest and world info, I'm much more interested in the game element. Though in ftf rpgs, I'm more interested in the world, probably because it's been created by a friend and I'm interested in seeing what my talented friends have built.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 27, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> You can do the "Stranger in a Strange Land" thing, but, if you do, generally the first while of the game is going to be driven pretty strongly by the DM as the DM places options in front of the players. Tekumel is a good example.



That much is true. In the "clanless barbarians in Jakalla" scenario, you will be dependent on employment by Tsolyani patrons to get out of the Foreigners' Quarter.

As to the rest, not only does The Man With No Name manage to find his way into plenty of adventures in parts of the Spaghetti West where he's a stranger... not only have many people gone through computer adventure games that leave them to find their ways through even stranger worlds ...but there _are_ some operations of gray cells that most people are taught as "life skills".

There is, for instance, the ancient and powerful technique of Crouching Tiger, Asking Questions.

If you are totally ignorant of 17th-century France, then I do not see how it would be a help to expect you to act like a 17th-century Frenchman.

Neither do I think that many apart from you expect to go into a game with nothing but total ignorance. Certainly one of the historical strengths of D&D was its drawing on ancient and perennial traditions, with very popular recent manifestations (Hobbit, Conan) as well. I do not recall anyone being totally at sea in the land of fable and fairy tales that was D&D!

Then again, the general public went mad for Pac-Man (which is essentially a lot like D&D, only way more bizarre).

] I'm
---- not
0> lost
-c I'm
= just
\| aimlessly
wandering


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 27, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Traditional D&D solves this problem by making the PCs rootless wanderers, Conan-types. Well-armed drifters who have just rode into town. They don't care about anything except gold and power ups, and solve all their problems with violence.




That's _your_ tradition, Doug.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 27, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Sandbox campaigns require the players to know a fair bit about the setting in order to make anything resembling an informed choice.  Without that knowledge, it stops being a sandbox and becomes a DM driven campaign.




Only in some weird bizarro Hussar-definition of "DM driven."

Take my City State of the Invincible Overlord campaign.  There's a pre-planned city full of location-specific encounters.  There are some partly-GM-determined elements such as floating plot hooks (for the adventure locales in the Wraith Overlord supplement) and prerolled random encounters, but the core game is determined by where the PCs go and what they do when they get there.  It's certainly less DM-determined than linear campaign design.

Also, it includes "situation".  This idea that sandbox is the opposite of situation is really weird to me.  There are tons of NPCs and NPC factions with their own agendas, in some cases these will eventually trigger major events with or without PC participation.  As the PCs encounter these NPCs and factions they make friends and enemies through their own actions - often contrary to my expectations, where I have any.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 27, 2010)

S'mon, I haven't meant to suggest that sandbox is the _opposite_ of situation. But I think it is different (or can be, for a certain sort of sandbox - I'm thinking of the very exploratory, Classic Traveller style of sandbox).

The difference is that the sandbox doesn't have an integration of the PCs into the GM's situations built in. Whereas the situation-based play that I and Nameless1 (as I understand him/her) have been talking about does presuppose that sort of integration, established at the metagame pre-play stage.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 27, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> I'll disagree with this; in that the examples you gave and how they resolved could very easily have gone exactly the same way in my old-school game...or gone completely differently; dependent almost entirely on the whims of the players at the moment.



Good stuff.

One thing about these conversations is that you only ever have a partial sense of how others are playing the game, and how typical or untypical their games are, or one's own game is.

I have seen you, in other threads, defending the legitimacy of intra-party conflict. I agree with you on that, and I feel that this fits with a readiness to be open to multiple different approaches to the resolution of an encounter.

I wonder if we are typical or not. I certainly feel that the same sorts of GMs who dislike intraparty conflict, or "evil" PCs, might be hesitant about the players resolving an encounter by paying slavers to buy the freedom of their slaves.


----------



## Kerranin (Aug 27, 2010)

I know that some RPG rules-systems actively encourage the players to build the story, giving in-play rewards to the players. Now that I think about it, I am wondering if I couldn't give small in-game rewards even in 4e.

Perhaps just handing out cards which give the player the right to one re-roll of a die.  Not a huge reward but at least acknowledging that the player helped with the story.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 27, 2010)

S'mon said:


> Only in some weird bizarro Hussar-definition of "DM driven."
> 
> Take my City State of the Invincible Overlord campaign.  There's a pre-planned city full of location-specific encounters.  There are some partly-GM-determined elements such as floating plot hooks (for the adventure locales in the Wraith Overlord supplement) and prerolled random encounters, but the core game is determined by where the PCs go and what they do when they get there.  It's certainly less DM-determined than linear campaign design.
> 
> Also, it includes "situation".  This idea that sandbox is the opposite of situation is really weird to me.  There are tons of NPCs and NPC factions with their own agendas, in some cases these will eventually trigger major events with or without PC participation.  As the PCs encounter these NPCs and factions they make friends and enemies through their own actions - often contrary to my expectations, where I have any.




But, how do the PC's "encounter" these NPC's?  They wander the city, dungeon crawling style, taking random turns until they "find" adventure?  You, as the DM, just ask which random streets they decide to head down, describing what they see until they find something that catches their eye?

Or, do you have a couple of scenarios in the hopper at the outset, just to get the player's feet wet, introduce the setting, introduce a couple of NPC's and then sit back?

Cos, when I ran the Shelzar, City of Sin campaign, that's precisely what I did.  After a couple of fairly basic scenarios, just to get the ball rolling, I pretty much let the players do whatever they felt like doing.  But, I did feel that I needed those initial few adventures (the first of which included running an errand for a patron (which they started out having) by retrieving a rare text of dwarven pornography   It was a fun game) just to set the stage.

I have to admit, it's been years since I've just done the, "Well, you're at the gates of the Keep, what do you do?" approach.  In fact, I think the last time I did do that probably would have been Keep on the Borderland.  Might be worth giving another shot.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 27, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, how do the PC's "encounter" these NPC's?  They wander the city, dungeon crawling style, taking random turns until they "find" adventure?  You, as the DM, just ask which random streets they decide to head down, describing what they see until they find something that catches their eye?
> 
> Or, do you have a couple of scenarios in the hopper at the outset, just to get the player's feet wet, introduce the setting, introduce a couple of NPC's and then sit back?




More the former, but I do include 'bangs' - including events that initiate street wandering, such as subsequent fleeing from enemies/the Law - and 'floating hooks'  which can be dropped in during random wandering where appropriate and can lead to the developed locales in the 'Wraith Overlord' supplement.  If you stretch definitions the latter two could be considered 'scenarios'.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 27, 2010)

Note that my approach to sandbox reality is that while much is predetermined, much  'crystallises' into certainty at the point of contact with the players.  Before that point a floating plot hook is in a Schrodinger state, not yet attached to NPC A, B, or C.  Which NPC it attaches to will have consequences for that NPC and for the campaign as a whole.  Eg IMC when plot hook A (To Despot Ruins) did *not* attach to an NPC it established that she did not have a sister with sons kidnapped by goblins, when plot hook B (To Patrician Theatre) did attach to her it established that she was the niece of a Marquis, and also an orphan and only child.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 28, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> I read a lot of essays over the years suggesting that _D&D_ could be used to run this, that, and the other kind of adventure, but often with a caveat along the line of, ". . . if you just change _this_ rule . . ."



Yet the truly remarkable thing is the design was robust enough that you *could* change this rule or that rule to suit the setting and still have a very playable game.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> One thing about these conversations is that you only ever have a partial sense of how others are playing the game, and how typical or untypical their games are, or one's own game is.
> 
> I have seen you, in other threads, defending the legitimacy of intra-party conflict. I agree with you on that, and I feel that this fits with a readiness to be open to multiple different approaches to the resolution of an encounter.
> 
> I wonder if we are typical or not. I certainly feel that the same sorts of GMs who dislike intraparty conflict, or "evil" PCs, might be hesitant about the players resolving an encounter by paying slavers to buy the freedom of their slaves.



It all comes down to how willing you are as DM to hit the curveball.  Quite frankly, some simply can't do it, or are afraid to try; and I rather suspect those are the type you're referring to here.

As for selling people into slavery:

One of the key PCs in my game has the past profession of "slaver" and the personality to go with it.  Early in the campaign, the party captures a gang of guys raiding a village.  They don't want to just kill them, but taking them back to town is going to lead to far too much time wasted in court; but Cassandra has a solution: instead of calling these guys 'prisoners', think of them as 'inventory'.  So the captives are taken to the coast and sold into slavery.

A couple of PCs rather objected to this, and tipped off the local authorities.  Several rounds of bribes and counter-bribes later (the local constabulary did very well out of all this) the objecting PCs ended up being *given* - not sold, but given - to the slavers by the rest of the party, as a gift!

(and the nice side-effect here was that one of the PCs they gave away turned out to be rather significant; the party had to later go and rescue him, allowing me to run a variant of the A-Series modules...)

Lan-"if they give me hooks, I'll bait 'em"-efan


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 28, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Yet the truly remarkable thing is the design was robust enough that you *could* change this rule or that rule to suit the setting and still have a very playable game.



Very true.

My contention is not that one shouldn't make or apply new rules - it's that many of the suggested rules I saw over the years don't necessarily mesh with the core conceits of the game. If a proposed rule change doesn't consider and isn't integrated with how characters are created and rewarded, then in my most humble and personal opinion, it's at best an inelegant solution.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 28, 2010)

As much as I agree with the notion that it's the player's responsibility to go out and do something, there's a corollary to that: the GM is responsible for actually giving them something to do when they do follow that lead.

This comes from a game that I've been playing in for the last few weeks, but am likely done with. I GM most of the time, so I'm always trying to help a GM out when I'm playing: there's a mysterious stranger in the corner? I'm going to find a reason for my character to go speak with them. People are disappearing in the old mine? Let's find out what's going on!

But when the GM inserts so many colorful characters or situations into play without having anything come of it, it's not colorful, it's not realistic, it just becomes annoying!

I'm a pretty busy guy, so I'm normally giving up something to come play RPGs. There seems to be some notion with some GMs that there must be a passage of a certain amount of real time and a certain amount of interaction with NPCs before it becomes the magical time when something that's actually interesting will happen. Stop that!

The last session we spent four hours covering a four day journey to a nearby village that could have been summarized by "you reach the village of Fallcrest after traveling for four days. Along the way you come across some farmers transporting the harvest to Winterhaven, who tell you that the road ahead is clear. One night you hear the howling of wolves, but even the keen-eyes of the eleven ranger are unable to detect any sign of them. You're at the gates of Fallcrest, what would you like to do now?"

Seriously? That was four hours of my life I won't be able to get back. Was it realistic that the journey took a session? Darned if I know, but I do know that it did represent the tedium of a journey on horseback.

Okay, that was a bit of a rant, but I think the idea is sound... I'll delve into the intricacies of your world, but don't waste my time by having the result be tedious!

--Steve


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 28, 2010)

Some Jerk said:
			
		

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






SteveC said:


> I'm a pretty busy guy, so I'm normally giving up something to come play RPGs. There seems to be some notion with some GMs that there must be a passage of a certain amount of real time and a certain amount of interaction with NPCs before it becomes the magical time when something that's actually interesting will happen. Stop that!




I personally feel that every moment of play should have some point. The GM should always be thinking, "What am I accomplishing with this scene." If the answer is ever "Well, I'm just not ready to have something cool happen," you should break for the night. Every scene should move the plot forward or give a meaningful insight into the characters involved. Even reinforcing theme is not a really good reason to have a scene. Theme can be reinforced concurrently with advancing the story or showing characterization. Even beer and pretzels guys should relate to frustration over the story related by SteveC. Cut the crap out of your games!

And before anyone jumps all over me about using the word "plot" above, all I mean with that is that the situation is evolving. That relationship map that I talked of up thread should be called into play. Someone should be trying to forward their agenda. There is no predetermined outcome, but someone should be trying something in an effort to change the dynamic state that is the situation. The relationship map is the GMs crib sheet for figuring out on the fly who might want to try something that would affect the PCs/NPCs. Use it.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 28, 2010)

*Players, it is your responsibility to communicate productively with the GM to make the game more fun at the time -- not just to complain after the fact to strangers on the Internet.*



			
				SteveC said:
			
		

> That was four hours of my life I won't be able to get back.



I'm betting it was you who decided how you spent that time, with 479 chances not to spend another minute the same way.

I recall a fellow who somehow got it into his head that it might be necessary to play out a tedious retreat across the Russian steppes in months of real time. I don't recall the reasoning, which was just bizarre to me anyhow.

I do recall that the reason I learned of this was that the referee asked online for advice about how to _avoid_ a boring game.

I do not think I have ever met a GM who wanted to bore players.

I would be astounded if a GM responded to a player saying, "Please, can we gloss over details of encounters along the way, and cut to arriving at our destination?" by refusing the request -- unless the other players wanted to carry on.

Moreover, I simply cannot see how your one-paragraph summary can be the whole story.

1." Along the way you come across some farmers transporting the harvest to Winterhaven, who tell you that the road ahead is clear. "

2. "One night you hear the howling of wolves, but even the keen-eyes of the eleven ranger are unable to detect any sign of them."

Even if it took the GM more than 30 seconds to say those things, there is no way it took four hours. If it took four hours and your "game" consisted of nothing but listening to the GM, then you have an even bigger problem.

No, I will bet that you players actually chose something other than, "We'll be on our way, then." You engaged in activities, and those took up time.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 29, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> /snip
> 
> I would be astounded if a GM responded to a player saying, "Please, can we gloss over details of encounters along the way, and cut to arriving at our destination?" by refusing the request -- unless the other players wanted to carry on.
> /snip





Really?  You've never had a DM force you to play out scenes you found boring and asked to gloss over.  Lucky man.

Heck, I quit a group over exactly this.  Glacial pacing, screwing around with trivialities, that sort of thing.  To give an example, we were playing in a Shackled City campaign.  We had met a very nasty creature in an underground lair, and were forced to retreat.

I decided that since we were in a fairly large city and my character background was caravan guard that hiring a dozen guys with longspears or crossbows was a great idea.  Their sole purpose was to whack this critter and we'd send them back home.  A hunting party so to speak.

The DM forced me to interview every single prospective hireling, in character, in first person.  I had to gather their history, talk them into coming etc. etc.  We spent a significant amount of time gathering THREE spear carriers.  Who then proceeded to be far more nuisance than help as they would pull on any traps we found, wander off like kittens and whatnot.

I quit the group shortly afterward.  Only loyalty to what was a very good DM otherwise kept me there that long.  But, I realized that I was spending the entire session being frustrated and bored and life's too short for that.

So, wrapping back around, if you've never run into this, count yourself lucky.  That DM was the latest time I've hit that, certainly not the first time.

There are many, many DM's out there for whom pacing is a foreign concept and who think that arbitrarily throwing difficulties at the players equals challenging the players.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 29, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The DM forced me to interview every single prospective hireling, in character, in first person.



I presume that what you mean is that
(A) you objected
and
(B) the other players agreed with you
and
(C) the DM insisted that was the only way to hire a group of men at arms
and
(D) you chose to go along with that.

If you neglected *(A)*, or if *(B)* was false, then I am not astounded.


----------



## Merkuri (Aug 29, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> I presume that what you mean is that
> (A) you objected
> and
> (B) the other players agreed with you
> ...




So what?  Life's too short to stay with a group where your playstyles don't match.  I'm guessing that was not the only thing that made Hussar leave.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 29, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> *Players, it is your responsibility to communicate productively with the GM to make the game more fun at the time -- not just to complain after the fact to strangers on the Internet.*
> 
> 
> I'm betting it was you who decided how you spent that time, with 479 chances not to spend another minute the same way.



Shows what you know: it's part of my work release program to play in this game! 



> I recall a fellow who somehow got it into his head that it might be necessary to play out a tedious retreat across the Russian steppes in months of real time. I don't recall the reasoning, which was just bizarre to me anyhow.
> 
> I do recall that the reason I learned of this was that the referee asked online for advice about how to _avoid_ a boring game.
> 
> ...



I did talk with him about it, after the session was over. It's always my opinion that it's best to work on issues like this outside of the game proper. Especially since we're all friends who work in the same environment. Whenever issues like this come up on ENWorld I will consistently argue that the solution to the problem is good communication, and if things can't be worked out, going one's separate ways.

And I did make a few comments during play: we were forced to spend quite a bit of time provisioning and making preparations for the trip itself, and after about 20 minutes of that I did go into my "can we hurry this up mode." We did.



> Moreover, I simply cannot see how your one-paragraph summary can be the whole story.



I would be incredibly surprised if anyone can summarize a four-hour game session in one paragraph and include all of the details. What could possibly have led you to have that expectation?



> 1." Along the way you come across some farmers transporting the harvest to Winterhaven, who tell you that the road ahead is clear. "
> 
> 2. "One night you hear the howling of wolves, but even the keen-eyes of the eleven ranger are unable to detect any sign of them."
> 
> ...



We did. We attempted to roleplay with the farmers, but soon found they had nothing to say. They were simply color text. We attempted to investigate the sounds of the wolves, but couldn't find the source. In effect it was more color text.

I admit that I do loves me some roleplay. I have no problem with an entire session that's nothing but roleplaying with interesting characters. That did not happen.

The other thing we did was roll a lot of perception, nature and endurance checks. The GM made a lot of die rolls behind the screen: this was against his weather and encounter system for the area. We also roleplayed the journey in a highly detailed manner. I could tell you about the weather at each point along the way, how we broke for lunch and the order of watches we used for lunch. I'm not kidding, it was on that level.

In talking to the GM afterwards, he said that he wanted the journey to take the entire session so that it was realistic and his sandbox campaign has many, many tables for possible encounters in the area. Apparently we almost came upon the signs of an adult green dragon that lives in the area. Almost is the operative word, there.

So I don't know what to tell you beyond that, other than after our talk I've decided not to be back until the group rotates GMs. I take my own advice that no gaming is better than bad gaming.

And I'm not trying to universally say this game was bad. I am sure someone who was really into simulating a gaming environment in a realistic manner could have enjoyed this game. My GM pointed out that it is much more realistic to have the game sometimes have nothing happen than to always have danger for every trip the group makes. How would a normal person, like those farmers, make a regular trip to market if you had dangerous encounters every time you left town?

For me, that play style doesn't work, so I bowed out. I think the session had some relevance to this thread, which is why I posted about it.

--Steve


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 29, 2010)

Merkuri said:
			
		

> So what?  Life's too short to stay with a group where your playstyles don't match.



Are you seriously under the misapprehension that I said anything to the contrary?


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 29, 2010)

SteveC said:
			
		

> Shows what you know: it's part of my work release program to play in this game!




I call that cruel and unusual!



			
				SteveC said:
			
		

> I did talk with him about it, after the session was over. It's always my opinion that it's best to work on issues like this outside of the game proper.



So those were four hours of life that you chose to spend as is best in your opinion.



			
				SteveC said:
			
		

> I would be incredibly surprised if anyone can summarize a four-hour game session in one paragraph and include all of the details. What could possibly have led you to have that expectation?



I did not write "all the details". I wrote "the whole story". I meant what you suggested in your statement.


> The last session we spent four hours covering a four day journey to a nearby village that could have been summarized by...



I agree that it _ought to have been_ handled like that. I agree that the GM had a very poor estimate of how fun the planned "adventure" would be.

I do not agree that you fulfilled your responsibility as a fellow participant in that team effort.

I also think there are many people who enjoy a spot of color here and there that is not meant to invoke a Pavlovian response, and many scenarios and GMs catering to us. If a cigar simply cannot ever be just a cigar to you, then that is something you should disclose before you even get into a game.



			
				SteveC said:
			
		

> And I'm not trying to universally say this game was bad.



For not trying, you certainly did a good job. It's beside my point, anyhow.


			
				SteveC said:
			
		

> For me, that play style doesn't work, so I bowed out. I think the session had some relevance to this thread, which is why I posted about it.



I think it has some relevance. I think the take-home lesson is what I put in bold at the top of my response. (Yes, your advice to GMs is also good, except as you take it to the extreme needed to accommodate your proclivity.)



_If I am not for myself, who is for me? When I am for myself, what am I? If not now, when?
-- Hillel_


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 29, 2010)

SteveC said:


> This comes from a game that I've been playing in for the last few weeks,  [...]
> The last session we spent four hours covering a four day journey to a nearby village  [...]



"The last few weeks" indicates this is either a new campaign or that you are a new player in an existing one.  Either way, could it be that the DM let the journey drag in order to allow some character interaction...to let you lot get to know each other?  Or, perhaps to size the group up - see how they react to things and-or interact with NPCs?


			
				Nameless1 said:
			
		

> And before anyone jumps all over me about using the word "plot" above, all I mean with that is that the situation is evolving. That relationship map that I talked of up thread should be called into play. Someone should be trying to forward their agenda. There is no predetermined outcome, but someone should be trying something in an effort to change the dynamic state that is the situation. The relationship map is the GMs crib sheet for figuring out on the fly who might want to try something that would affect the PCs/NPCs. Use it.



Has it occurred to you that people might be simply enjoying being *in* the dynamic state that is the situation, just the way it is?

Yes, now and then you need to jump-start things...but not all the time.  There's nothing worse as a player than to feel you're constantly being pushed along.

Lanefan


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 29, 2010)

Aristo - stop trying to make this thread adversarial rather than conversational or you're getting threadbanned.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 29, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> I presume that what you mean is that
> (A) you objected




Yes, I objected.  Fairly strenuously.



> and
> (B) the other players agreed with you




Well, since the other players were simply watching me roleplay with the DM, since their characters weren't actually involved at the time, I really don't know if they agreed or not.



> and
> (C) the DM insisted that was the only way to hire a group of men at arms
> and




I'm not sure what this means.  I said I was hiring men at arms.  I asked how I would do that in the DM's game world and he told me how it was done.  I believe it was something to the effect of heading down to the mercenary guild hall and rounding up some people.



> (D) you chose to go along with that.
> 
> If you neglected *(A)*, or if *(B)* was false, then I am not astounded.




What choice did I have?  "I want to hire a dozen spear chuckers to help us take down the grell."  "Here's what you have to do..."

My choices at that point became either do what the DM said, or walk.  Eventually I chose to walk.

I know it's easier to believe that DM's are infallible beings gracing poor players with the gift of their wisdom, but, Sturgeon's Law applies to DM's as much as it applies to anything.  Most DM's are not as good as they think they are (and that likely includes myself).  Having played with some shockingly piss poor DM's over the years, that's not a big surprise to me.

Like I said, if you've never had the misfortune of running into this kind of DM, then you're very lucky.  I've smacked into it more than once.  Heck, I probably WAS this kind of DM once upon a time before I smartened up.  I don't think I do this to my players anymore, you'd have to ask them.

*~ So I warn Aristo and you don't take the hint and decide to continue a conflict? you're out of the thread: Admin ~*


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 29, 2010)

Some Jerk said:
			
		

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






Hussar said:


> Most DM's are not as good as they think they are (and that likely includes myself).  Having played with some shockingly piss poor DM's over the years, that's not a big surprise to me.




This is most assuredly true. It is OK though. No one should be held to the hypothetically perfect standard. The only time it becomes not OK is when said GMs decide that they know better, and refuse to learn how to be better. This is what Enworld is for though, right?


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 29, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I know it's easier to believe that DM's are infallible beings gracing poor players with the gift of their wisdom...



Hussar, is it really so much easier for you to hit people with such hyperbole? It is easier to make -- or to argue against -- a point by actually addressing that point. What you very often do instead is what you have done here. Instead of addressing a statement, you misrepresent it.

The statement of mine that you quoted and took issue with very specifically concerned (A) and (B). You specifically did _not_ address either (A) or (B).

I have written nothing about "infallible beings". When you behave like that, it looks like an attempt to be insulting. It does nothing but distract and detract from whatever of actual relevance you may have to say.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Aug 30, 2010)




----------



## S'mon (Aug 30, 2010)

I get the feeling this thread may have reached the end of its natural life.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 30, 2010)

It is not the GM's responsibility to care more about my life than I do. Neither is it my responsibility to care more about the game than does the GM, who has invested additional time and energy in preparation and must deal not only with me but with the other players.

The GM cannot read my mind. Neither can I read the GM's mind.

I have a responsibility to myself, and to my fellows -- including the GM.

This is a _social_ undertaking! It is a _team_ effort! We can actually talk with one other, instead of having to play guessing games!

There is a saying, "There is no 'I' in TEAM."

It is *everyone's* responsibility to communicate and cooperate in order to make the get-together enjoyable for everyone.

You GMs treating players as not on your team, and you players treating GMs as not on your team, are doing yourselves a disservice.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 30, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> It is not the GM's responsibility to care more about my life than I do. Neither is it my responsibility to care more about the game than does the GM, who has invested additional time and energy in preparation and must deal not only with me but with the other players.
> 
> The GM cannot read my mind. Neither can I read the GM's mind.
> 
> ...



I'm with you up to here, at least as far as out-of-game relations go.  In-game is a whole other issue: PCs can and will be independent, DMs will throw puzzles and guessing games at the party, and so forth.


> You GMs treating players as not on your team, and you players treating GMs as not on your team, are doing yourselves a disservice.



But keep in mind that once the dice start rolling there's also a certain amount of adversarial-ness in the player-DM relationship: the DM is trying to make life miserable (or shorter) for the PCs, while the PCs are trying to somehow defeat whatever the DM is throwing at them.

Out-of-game, however, your observations are still quite right.

Lanefan


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 30, 2010)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> But keep in mind that once the dice start rolling there's also a certain amount of adversarial-ness in the player-DM relationship: the DM is trying to make life miserable (or shorter) for the PCs, while the PCs are trying to somehow defeat whatever the DM is throwing at them.



That depends on the game, doesn't it?

The reason to play a game like that is because we find it fun. We are still on the same team when it comes to the ultimate goal of having fun.

People who think the GM's job is to make it hard for the players to have fun, or vice-versa, are seriously mixed up.

I _want_ the DM to let me get on with making _my_ adventure. I _want_ there to be great risks, and commensurate rewards, and the chance to triumph or die trying. I _want_ the outcome to hinge on more than just tosses of the dice, to challenge my skill as well. 

Just give me an arm's length of cold steel, and with it I will write my story.

A player who instead wants to be told a story will do better with a GM who wants to tell one. The same holds for other tastes.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 30, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> That depends on the game, doesn't it?
> 
> The reason to play a game like that is because we find it fun. We are still on the same team when it comes to the ultimate goal of having fun.



True.  You entertain me, and I'll entertain you.


> People who think the GM's job is to make it hard for the players to have fun, or vice-versa, are seriously mixed up.



Now here we get into the messy business of defining what is "fun", and that's a morasse from which we may never emerge once we enter...


> I _want_ the DM to let me get on with making _my_ adventure. I _want_ there to be great risks, and commensurate rewards, and the chance to triumph or die trying. I _want_ the outcome to hinge on more than just tosses of the dice, to challenge my skill as well.



Excellent, except it's not just *your* adventure.  It's the whole game's, if it can be said to be anyone's at all.  The DM, the other players and you all have a hand in creating it, and the story that goes with it.



> Just give me an arm's length of cold steel, and with it I will write my story.



Brilliant line!  Status updated.  Thanks!

Lanefan


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 30, 2010)

Hussar has been banned from the thread because he decided to be confrontational with Aristo whom I'd just warned.

I've deleted a couple of argumentative posts in the hope that this can continue in a sensible vein. 

Shall we see?

Thanks


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 31, 2010)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Now here we get into the messy business of defining what is "fun", and that's a morasse from which we may never emerge once we enter...



It's a foetid mire for those who insist that everyone must find the same things fun or non-fun. In the practice of normal human beings carrying on a friendly conversation about a social engagement, we do _not_ need to define fun. We just need to talk about how things are going.



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> Excellent, except it's not just *your* adventure.



That depends on whether anyone else is involved, doesn't it?

The element of coercion in the modern Monolithic Party contributes, I think, to much indigestion.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 31, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> That depends on whether anyone else is involved, doesn't it?



Well, most of the time you've probably got the rest of a party tagging along; so others will therefore be involved... 


> The element of coercion in the modern Monolithic Party contributes, I think, to much indigestion.



Maybe, but in fairness I don't think I can blame Monolithic Party Syndrome on new-school gaming; I've seen it in old-school games as well.  Far too often.

When it's driven by the players I can almost accept it, but when it's driven by the DM via not allowing certain things (e.g. evil characters, cross-gender characters, etc.) it can be bloody annoying*.

* - exception: when the setting in play demands limitations to start out e.g. you're in a Human land thus to start with you'll all be Human; provided those limits will come off during play once the party travels elsewhere.

The biggest arguments come up when the players can't agree on what monolith the party is going to be; usually along Good/non-Good lines.  Believe me, I've seen it happen. 

Lanefan


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 31, 2010)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Maybe, but in fairness I don't think I can blame Monolithic Party Syndrome on new-school gaming; I've seen it in old-school games as well. Far too often.



It _is_ a "new school" in itself to me, even if not as new as some others. Some "mechanical" rules sets were designed with it in mind, and some other customs tend to go along with it.

For instance, I think my current AD&D 2e DM would have a heck of a time trying to run his Plot R.R. without the assumption that everyone is basically joined at the hip. The M.P. format also happens to be convenient for the arrangements of that group of players.

I think it's an awkward fit for the AD&D "raw", vs. 3e or 4e (which look like non-starters here), but he has house-ruled quite a bit.

Now, we don't really need the Plot R.R. as players. That's just the way this DM rolls. However, I have seen players' inability to _agree on_ what "story to carry" cited as a problem to which the DM taking responsibility is a solution.

If players put in just a fraction of the preparation time that the DM does, we can follow the original PHB's advice and agree upon our plans before arriving for the session. For that matter, even old-time tournament scenarios seem often to leave more to plan on the spot than most of what I have read or played of modules from the past decade.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 31, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> It _is_ a "new school" in itself to me, even if not as new as some others. Some "mechanical" rules sets were designed with it in mind, and some other customs tend to go along with it.
> 
> For instance, I think my current AD&D 2e DM would have a heck of a time trying to run his Plot R.R. without the assumption that everyone is basically joined at the hip. The M.P. format also happens to be convenient for the arrangements of that group of players.



Well, if it works for that group then all's cool.

If my group ever behaved like they were joined at the hip I'd ask them who they were and what they had done with my players.


> I think it's an awkward fit for the AD&D "raw", vs. 3e or 4e (which look like non-starters here), but he has house-ruled quite a bit.



I'm not sure.  I think you can have a Monolithic Party in any edition...any system, for all that.  I also equally think you can have a fractious (but still fun and playable) party in any edition or system; it all depends on what the players want and to some extent what the DM is willing to put up with.


> Now, we don't really need the Plot R.R. as players. That's just the way this DM rolls. However, I have seen players' inability to _agree on_ what "story to carry" cited as a problem to which the DM taking responsibility is a solution.



Fair enough; sometimes the DM has to do that, and maybe she's baited one too many hooks.  The players being unable to decide between stories is certainly an improvement over the OP here, where they wouldn't carry a story *at all*.


> If players put in just a fraction of the preparation time that the DM does, we can follow the original PHB's advice and agree upon our plans before arriving for the session. For that matter, even old-time tournament scenarios seem often to leave more to plan on the spot than most of what I have read or played of modules from the past decade.



As a DM, I've no objection at all if they want to spend session time deciding what they're going to do - I prefer it, in fact, as it gives me a chance to see the curveballs coming. 

Lanefan


----------



## pemerton (Aug 31, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> I have seen players' inability to _agree on_ what "story to carry" cited as a problem to which the DM taking responsibility is a solution.



For various reasons, but mostly because of the effect on at-the-table play dynamics, I prefer a party approach to play. To try and achieve this approach, I tend to try and create situations that speak to the backstory of multiple PCs (and hence to the thematic/story concerns of multiple players).


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 31, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> I'm not sure.  I think you can have a Monolithic Party in any edition...any system, for all that.  I also equally think you can have a fractious (but still fun and playable) party in any edition or system; it all depends on what the players want and to some extent what the DM is willing to put up with.




Oh, you definitely can have either type in either system. The Monolithic Party, so to speak, is a product of human behavior, not ruleset — it was just as common back in the day, although I'd say some of the reasons have shifted. Back then, it was more common to run into The Only Game In Town, a group dynamic that pretty much relied on there being no comparable experiences to a tabletop D&D game. For people who are players at heart and have no interest in running games, starting their own group might not have seemed as attractive as sticking with a party that's set in its group dynamic. There weren't many other options just to play, and it would take a while for "no gaming is better than bad gaming" to be widespread enough that people would receive it as advice instead of having to arrive at the decision on their own.

These days, with a much wider proliferation of RPGs and play styles actively supported, and with many media such as video games competing for some of the same thrills, The Only Game In Town isn't what it used to be. It still persists in some places — such as among busy adults who wouldn't have time to start their own game but still really prefer tabletop to video games or internet play. But voting with your feet is definitely a wider-spread notion this century than last. 

The Monolithic Party (vote Ogremoch in '34!), in my experience, has its most basic roots in people who want to play but don't want to run, and are willing to put up with more crap if it means that they get to play regularly. There are a lot of ills that can come out of that dynamic, and this is just one of them.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 1, 2010)

Barastrondo, what have you got in mind by "monolothic party"? I had read it as a party which is mostly cohesive as far as activities and interests go - so that even if there are fractures or different agendas, they aren't the sort that cause the party to actually split up (short of a player leaving the game, of course, but that's likely to be a rare occurrence among friends).

But you seem to be reading it in a stronger sense, not going only to the character of the PCs but the dynamic of the group of players. (I guess the two aren't entirely unrelated, but I'm still interested to hear you elaborate a bit more.)


----------



## S'mon (Sep 1, 2010)

Outside of "Paranoia" I've never seen Player v Player be anything but destructive, in a tabletop adventure RPG of the D&D sort.  I think it's great for PCs to pursue their own agendas, which may require private activities - other players can watch - but not fight each other.

I certainly think it's much better to just ban PvP than to say "You can fight each other, but you still have to adventure together" - that strongly favours the backstabbing scumbag players/PCs.


----------



## Barastrondo (Sep 1, 2010)

pemerton said:


> Barastrondo, what have you got in mind by "monolothic party"? I had read it as a party which is mostly cohesive as far as activities and interests go - so that even if there are fractures or different agendas, they aren't the sort that cause the party to actually split up (short of a player leaving the game, of course, but that's likely to be a rare occurrence among friends).
> 
> But you seem to be reading it in a stronger sense, not going only to the character of the PCs but the dynamic of the group of players. (I guess the two aren't entirely unrelated, but I'm still interested to hear you elaborate a bit more.)




Ariosto used the term alongside the word "coercion," which kind of set my assumption for what he was talking about. I read the reference to the Monolithic Party, caps included, as a bad thing -- and the bad thing it represents is certainly real, and edition-agnostic.

A cohesive party, though, seems to be a different beast entirely, the kind of thing that nobody starts threads to ask advice about because it's not a problem. Maybe the occasional "I love my players" thread. As I'd use the terms, the Monolithic Party seems to be one that is hostile to new ideas and directions, whereas the cohesive party is all about new ideas and directions as long as the whole group thinks they sound like they'd be fun.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 2, 2010)

pemerton said:


> Barastrondo, what have you got in mind by "monolothic party"? I had read it as a party which is mostly cohesive as far as activities and interests go - so that even if there are fractures or different agendas, they aren't the sort that cause the party to actually split up (short of a player leaving the game, of course, but that's likely to be a rare occurrence among friends).
> 
> But you seem to be reading it in a stronger sense, not going only to the character of the PCs but the dynamic of the group of players. (I guess the two aren't entirely unrelated, but I'm still interested to hear you elaborate a bit more.)



I'm not Barastrondo, but I've been using the term to represent the sort of party/group where what you play is very much restricted by the existing group e.g. if you're not Lawful Good don't bother applying.


			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> Outside of "Paranoia" I've never seen Player v Player be anything but destructive, in a tabletop adventure RPG of the D&D sort. I think it's great for PCs to pursue their own agendas, which may require private activities - other players can watch - but not fight each other.
> 
> I certainly think it's much better to just ban PvP than to say "You can fight each other, but you still have to adventure together" - that strongly favours the backstabbing scumbag players/PCs.



Your experience is much different than mine, where party infighting is pretty much standard operating procedure and backstabbing scumbag PCs are just as welcome as any other type.

The only headaches arise when it drifts out of character and becomes personal between players; you really need the right players to pull it off.  But we do, and usually laughing our faces off the whole time. 

Lan-"one of the scumbags"-efan


----------



## pemerton (Sep 2, 2010)

S'mon said:


> I think it's great for PCs to pursue their own agendas, which may require private activities - other players can watch - but not fight each other.
> 
> I certainly think it's much better to just ban PvP than to say "You can fight each other, but you still have to adventure together" - that strongly favours the backstabbing scumbag players/PCs.





Lanefan said:


> party infighting is pretty much standard operating procedure and backstabbing scumbag PCs are just as welcome as any other type.
> 
> The only headaches arise when it drifts out of character and becomes personal between players; you really need the right players to pull it off.



My experience is probably closer to Lanefan's. I agree that you need the right players.

I although think that PvP works better when it is at the level of schemes/priorities than actually trying to kill one another. Apart from anything else, the latter tends to produce the need to continually introduce new PCs, which can be a bit destabilising for some campaigns at least (probably not Lanefan's, though, from the impressions I get of it).


----------



## S'mon (Sep 2, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> I'm not Barastrondo, but I've been using the term to represent the sort of party/group where what you play is very much restricted by the existing group e.g. if you're not Lawful Good don't bother applying.
> Your experience is much different than mine, where party infighting is pretty much standard operating procedure and backstabbing scumbag PCs are just as welcome as any other type.




I had the following situation in my online campaign recently:  One PC was taught trying to steal all the treasure from a successful expedition by the other PCs and an accompanying high-level NPC.  The thief PC (actually a Fighter) escaped, sans most of the treasure, but he was finished in the group and the player had to drop the PC, since he could no longer credibly accompany them, and, while I didn't expel the player he ended up dropping the game, at least temporarily.

What does your group do with backstabbers?  Welcome them back with open arms?


----------



## pemerton (Sep 2, 2010)

I'm not Lanefan, but where there has been PvP in my games it has normally been with consent by both players - ie an understanding that they are happy to play out the conflict between their PCs - or at least with a fairly light-hearted attitude.

And it case that doesn't make it clear - PvP in my game has always been out in the open as far as the players are concerned, even if the PCs don't always know what's going on. So the backstabbing, if any, is only a part of the fiction - at the table itself there is only frontstabbing!


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 2, 2010)

S'mon said:


> I had the following situation in my online campaign recently:  One PC was taught trying to steal all the treasure from a successful expedition by the other PCs and an accompanying high-level NPC.  The thief PC (actually a Fighter) escaped,



I, as Lanefan the Fighter, have also done exactly this! 







> sans most of the treasure,



Where I mostly got away with it...the trick is to not get found out until you're a long way away from the scene. 


> but he was finished in the group and the player had to drop the PC, since he could no longer credibly accompany them, and, while I didn't expel the player he ended up dropping the game, at least temporarily.
> 
> What does your group do with backstabbers?  Welcome them back with open arms?



Or track them down and kill them, or backstab them in return, or ignore it and carry on, or any number of other options.  So much depends on the campaign.  In a linear campaign where there's only one party it just doesn't work as well unless the player is prepared to role-play the character  (and maybe themselves) right out of the game; I've done this in the past.  But when there's multiple parties in the same campaign, leaving one just means a chance to join another; and once there's been enough turnover things tend to get forgotten about anyway.

And the player is always free to bang out another character and dive right back in, leaving the backstabber out there for future reference.

Reading more closely, I just noticed your event occurred in an online campaign; which would take away the face-to-face part of it.  That would present a much different dynamic than I'm used to.

Lan-"I never met a magic sword I didn't like.  Ownership is irrelevant"-efan


----------



## DragonLancer (Sep 2, 2010)

S'mon said:


> I certainly think it's much better to just ban PvP than to say "You can fight each other, but you still have to adventure together" - that strongly favours the backstabbing scumbag players/PCs.




It's why I ban player vs player in my games. You would never adventure with someone like that whom you could never trust. I want the players playing the game and the scenario/campaign, not infighting.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 2, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I'm not Lanefan



Yes you are!  Today's my day to be pemerton... 


> but where there has been PvP in my games it has normally been with consent by both players - ie an understanding that they are happy to play out the conflict between their PCs - or at least with a fairly light-hearted attitude.
> 
> And it case that doesn't make it clear - PvP in my game has always been out in the open as far as the players are concerned, even if the PCs don't always know what's going on. So the backstabbing, if any, is only a part of the fiction - at the table itself there is only frontstabbing!



We pass notes and occasionally set up elaborate schemes; but much of the time it is, as you say, frontstabbing.

And talk about players carrying the story!  When they're at each other's throats I don't have to do a thing except adjudicate the occasional rule or spell effect (or rewrite and pass on notes, if required)...I can sit back, crack a beer, and enjoy the entertainment!

In character, I once had an entire adventure designed for me by another player so I could get back the +2 Sword of Healing (which I'd stolen in the first place; and its previous owner had stolen it also) she had stolen from me.  That one sword was in fact stolen somewhere over a dozen different times by about 7 different people; I wound up with it in the end, and only when I had loaned it to someone - i.e. it changed hands without being stolen - did it finally meet its demise. (it was last seen in the throne room of Hel's palace, if anyone ever wants to go get it)

Lanefan


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 2, 2010)

I used to game with people who were, like Lanefan, heavily simulationist - do what your character would do. They were accepting of PvP so long as it was appropriate to one's character. I was never very comfortable with it. I sensed that there really was a gamist undercurrent there, a competitive element when it came to player v player contests, that these guys never acknowledged.

It was the late 90s and we used to play a fair bit of Amber or World of Darkness, games that are more encouraging of PvP than D&D. Though the classic 'Head of Vecna' story is pure PvP - it was all a scheme set up by one player party to fool another party in the same DM's world.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 2, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Reading more closely, I just noticed your event occurred in an online campaign; which would take away the face-to-face part of it.  That would present a much different dynamic than I'm used to.




Yes, but my tabletop groups are super-cooperative and haven't done PvP since I was 15.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 2, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> In a linear campaign where there's only one party it just doesn't work as well unless the player is prepared to role-play the character  (and maybe themselves) right out of the game; I've done this in the past.  But when there's multiple parties in the same campaign, leaving one just means a chance to join another; and once there's been enough turnover things tend to get forgotten about anyway.
> 
> And the player is always free to bang out another character and dive right back in, leaving the backstabber out there for future reference.




It's a sandbox campaign, in theory I could run 2 parties, but my time is limited and 2 separate parties would mean halving the play time of both.  I normally run it the traditional way where whoever irl turns up in the chatroom, turns up in the game (usually in the Pirate's Cove Inn, Sea Brigand's Street, City State of the Invincible Overlord), and adventures together for that session.  Occasionally I do solo stuff but I try to do most of it early in the session before most of the players turn up.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 3, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> I used to game with people who were, like Lanefan, heavily simulationist - do what your character would do. They were accepting of PvP so long as it was appropriate to one's character. I was never very comfortable with it. I sensed that there really was a gamist undercurrent there, a competitive element when it came to player v player contests, that these guys never acknowledged.



In the PvP that I've GMed, it's very rarely come down to combat - and when it has, that has mostly been the bulk of the party reining in or chasing down the rogue PC.

The dynamics have therefore tended not to be gamist. What has tended to drive PvP in my games has been disagreement between the PCs over questions of morals/politics/allegiances - generally reflecting differences over player preferences as to which direction the story should head, but occasionally just because a player deems such disagreement to be "in character", or even because someone thinks that initiating such a disagreement might be fun.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 3, 2010)

pemerton said:


> It's goes without saying that others - like The Shaman - might legitimately prefer a different approach to play. But I will rise to the bait and say that, while I think I'll concede the "organic" point, I don't think I'll concede the "real" point. Because a players playing out of a relationship or some history that was developed at start, when done well, can make it as real as if it emerged purely organically out of _nothing but_ the course of play.



Out of curiosity, do the games you enjoy provide rules as boundaries for, or mechanics which engage, the develop-at-start process? Or is this wholly player-driven?

Frex, a _Flashing Blades_ character may begin the game as the captain of a company of soldiers in the royal army, or a fencing master, or the member of a knightly order, or a member of a gentlemen's club. They may possess advantages like influential contacts, favors owed by powerful persons, or noble titles. They may also possess secrets such as a double or twin, a secret loyalty, or religious fanaticism.

So most adventurers begin the game thoroughly engaged with social institutions, influential individuals, or societal mores, which, if I'm understanding you correctly, is the sort of thing you consider important as the foundation for the games you enjoy; I'm guessing you also like to take it a step or two further, creating conflicts and relationships resulting from that engagement with the setting.

But sticking for the moment with just that initial engagement, I think it's significant that in emulating the swashbuckling genre _Flashing Blades_ provides specific rules for how that engagement tales place; there are mechanical limits in the rules, as well as a significant measure of randomization, guiding the extent to which an adventurer begins the game engaged in the setting.

Would you say this characterizes the games you choose to play as well? If so, to what extent?


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 3, 2010)

In the save-or-die thread, you wrote:







			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> In the sort of game I called encounter/scene based, ingame causality of the sort just described is less important. As I said earlier, it is important to maintain a consistent gameworld - but if a satisfyingly dramatic encounter requires that encounter B have at least 10 foes, then if the players kill 2 guards earlier on before they can retreat it is legitimate as GM to replace them, provided there is a coherent story to be told about where the extra bodies came from. (What counts as coherent here will, of course, depend in part on what the players already know.)



This seems to be the basis of 4e adventure design, from the now-numerous examples I've seen: one encounter affects the next minimally at most and most preferably not at all....which is fine if you're looking to run a series of great set-piece battles but not so great if there's to be any natural fluidity in the adventure, in how the denizens of the dungeon interact with each other and respond to a threat.

It's the biggest headache I've found with converting 4e modules: figuring out how the different occupants of the place would logically interact with each other.  The modules themselves generally don't seem to care much. 


> But it's not legitimate to make those sorts of changes to the encounter in such a way as to undo the signficance of what the PCs achieved.



Agreed completely in any case.

Lanefan


----------



## S'mon (Sep 3, 2010)

Heh, IMCs if the PCs killed 2/10 guards then retreat, chances are next time there'll be 18 guards... and if the PCs didn't retreat far enough they're likely to get bushwhacked while resting.  I follow EGG's advice in the 1e DMG - unless you're dealing with static foes like zombies in a crypt, alert-the-enemy-then-retreat is typically a disastrous tactic.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 3, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> t's the biggest headache I've found with converting 4e modules: figuring out how the different occupants of the place would logically interact with each other.  The modules themselves generally don't seem to care much.



The way I try to handle it is to run those areas as single encounters (with the players being slightly higher level than suggested in the module - this also means I've never had a problem with grind!).


----------



## pemerton (Sep 3, 2010)

Double post deleted.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 3, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Out of curiosity, do the games you enjoy provide rules as boundaries for, or mechanics which engage, the develop-at-start process? Or is this wholly player-driven?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



This is a good questions. The answer varies from system to system.

The games that influence how I play - which mark me as a FoRE! - are HeroQuest, The Burning Wheel, The Dying Earth and Maelstrom Storytelling. In each of these, the relationship stuff is constrained as part of the character build rules. It is, in effect, another attribute (as it would also be in points-buy game, perhaps).

I'm guessing that, in Flashing Blades, the relationships and statuses that can be acquired as part of PC build don't typically have a mechanical expression for action resolution purposes - or maybe give bonuses for reaction rolls in certain contexts (a bit like some 2nd ed AD&D kits) but the actual reaction rolls are determined using a separate mechanic.

In the games I mentioned, however, the relationship is itself a skill/attribute - so, for example (to cite an example from one of the HeroQuest rulebooks) a player whose PCs has a horse stolen can use his/her PC's relationship with that horse to make an opposed check to unseat the thief. To generalise - relationships become like another skill or talent to be deployed in resolving actions.

Now having said all that - the game that I principally GM is 4e, and 4e does not quantify relationships in this sort of way. So in my game, it's much more open-ended, and relies on the players (with encouragement from me and mutual cooperation among themselves) to specify their PCs in ways that go beyond the character build mechanics.

In my experience - especially when playing with a group of longtime friends, as I do - this is enough to generate relationships and thematic content that do the sort of encounter-driving play that I enjoy.

But in 4e I think relationships are also important at the mechanical level, but in slightly more subtle ways. First, they open or close options as far as paragon paths, epic destinies and some other flavouored character build options are concerned. And in other cases, certain character build choices (eg divine PC, warlock pact, familiar) also bring a certain relationship into existence within the gameworld. This means that there is an ongoing feedback between the open-ended relationship stuff and the mechanical stuff going on - which also interacts with the "developed in play" relationships as well.

The second way that relationships are mechanically important is in resolving non-combat actions, which in 4e are quite abstracted (except for most tactical movement and perception skill checks, and some knowledge checks, which are closer to 3E or Rolemaster in the way they are handled). The GM has to set a DC based on guidelines in the DMG (the notorious page 42!). And at least when I do this, I rely heavily on the relationships the PC has, and the way the player presents their PC's action and the way the context of action implicates those relationships, to help set DCs. So this is not quite the same as "relationship as attribute", but it comes closer to it than a game like Rolemaster, because the use of most skills can often become "expressive" of a relationship, at least to a degree. (This also goes to the point, in the quote in Lanefan's post that is two or three upthread, about "thematic" logic trumping ingame causal logic - hence Gygaxian skillful play has less work to do in my game than in an AD&D or Classic Traveller game.)

I don't know if the above makes sense.

The other thing about these threads is that it's hard always to get a sense of how others play. What I've written above, for example, might make it seem like my approach to GMing 4e is very self-conscious and theory-laden, but in practice it doesn't feel that way most of the time. I also wonder, in practice, what you or anyone else would make of the game I GM. To me it seems fairly vanilla fantasy RPGing with a reasonably heavy emphasis on PC development and an integration of those PCs into a rich mythic history. But then when I see people posting about their strong sandbox preferences, or their strong adventure path preferences, or how they love to play in a really detailed world like the Realms, I think maybe it is at least a little different from how some other people are playing the game! I certainly know that I've played in RPG games that I didn't really enjoy (but that others seemed to) so I've got no doubt that there would be players who'd think my game sucks.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 3, 2010)

pemerton said:


> The other thing about these threads is that it's hard always to get a sense of how others play.




Heck, I find it hard to get a sense of how_ I_ play!    Is Game X a sandbox, linear, matrix?  Is it "situation driven"?  Railroady? And how do I explain to a player coming into linear-y high-fantasy Campaign X that it's completely different from sandboxy low-fantasy Campaign Y?  What is high fantasy, anyway?


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 3, 2010)

pemerton said:


> The games that influence how I play - which mark me as a FoRE! . . .






pemerton said:


> . . . are HeroQuest, The Burning Wheel, The Dying Earth and Maelstrom Storytelling. In each of these, the relationship stuff is constrained as part of the character build rules. It is, in effect, another attribute (as it would also be in points-buy game, perhaps).



I'm familiar with _HeroQuest_ - I own _Mythic Russia_ and created a character for an _HQ_ game but ultimately didn't participate - so I have some idea of how this works.







pemerton said:


> I'm guessing that, in Flashing Blades, the relationships and statuses that can be acquired as part of PC build don't typically have a mechanical expression for action resolution purposes - or maybe give bonuses for reaction rolls in certain contexts (a bit like some 2nd ed AD&D kits) but the actual reaction rolls are determined using a separate mechanic.



Pretty much the former. Here's an example.

*Contact*
Any character may choose to have a contact, a Non-Player Character (NPC) who will help the character in time of need. Such characters may be of any [social] rank, but will help less often the higher their rank. For example, a character might know Louis XIV, but it is doubtful he will be at the character's beck and call! More likely contacts might be: ministers, spies, high nobility, military officers, various officials, magistrates, etc. The Gamemaster and the player should decide on the nature of each contact.​
Pretty trad as far as such mechanics go, which is one of the reasons I like it. 







pemerton said:


> Now having said all that - the game that I principally GM is 4e, and 4e does not quantify relationships in this sort of way. So in my game, it's much more open-ended, and relies on the players (with encouragement from me and mutual cooperation among themselves) to specify their PCs in ways that go beyond the character build mechanics.
> 
> In my experience - especially when playing with a group of longtime friends, as I do - this is enough to generate relationships and thematic content that do the sort of encounter-driving play that I enjoy.



Got it.







pemerton said:


> But in 4e I think relationships are also important at the mechanical level, but in slightly more subtle ways. . . . I don't know if the above makes sense.



To someone more familiar than I with 4e (read: . . . which is probably just about everyone), I'm sure it does.

I'm content to just take your word for it. 


pemerton said:


> The other thing about these threads is that it's hard always to get a sense of how others play. What I've written above, for example, might make it seem like my approach to GMing 4e is very self-conscious and theory-laden, but in practice it doesn't feel that way most of the time. I also wonder, in practice, what you or anyone else would make of the game I GM.



I think we're reaching for the same brass ring, but we are debating the use of a ladder versus a trampoline, or something like that.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 4, 2010)

S'mon said:


> Heck, I find it hard to get a sense of how_ I_ play!    Is Game X a sandbox, linear, matrix?  Is it "situation driven"?  Railroady? And how do I explain to a player coming into linear-y high-fantasy Campaign X that it's completely different from sandboxy low-fantasy Campaign Y?  What is high fantasy, anyway?



How do I play?  I chuck 'em in an adventure, roll the dice and see what happens.....

And I don't even try to explain high-low fantasy linear-sandbox and other such terms to new players.  They can figure it out for themselves as they go along (if they care), then tell me, and then we'll both know. 

Lan-"who put this railroad in my sandbox?-efan


----------



## alms66 (Sep 5, 2010)

Um, really.  You've been GMing since you were thirteen and you just figure this out now?  How old are you?  I started GMing at 13 and figured this out when I was 13+1/2.  It does feel good to shout it from the rooftops every now and then, but I mean, c'mon, that's the art of GM-ing, my friend.

I will now say that I read the first post and nothing after so, do with that what you will...


----------

