|
This thread got me thinking about my own homebrew setting, specifically how to run a game in it. I have a lot of setting details: a recent war, the capture of all magic by one person, several nations with vastly different cultures, and ancient kingdoms and ruins. Up until reading that thread my plan was to just drop the players into the world with a few hooks of things they might do, but now I'm wondering if setting and some quest hooks aren't good enough to generate interest. Specifically, can I expect the players to find their own quests when the setting isn't 100% developed, or should I plan an "adventure path" style plot for them to follow? Is having a defined story easier to sell to players in a homebrew setting than giving them a sandbox and telling them to play in it?
It depends what your players expect, to be honest. If they turn up to roll dice and bash goblins then a more sandbox world might leave them paralyzed with indecision. Give this bunch an obvious path, but don't make them take it.
If you've got some roleplayers who love to explore their environments, act stuff out and seatch every nook and cranny then maybe they'll love it. These guys are more likely to react well to a number of different hooks being dangled, but it never hurts to have one better baited than the rest.
I guess you can't count on the players being as into the setting as you are. It's probably okay if they don't read all the background though, as long as they get involved with whatever adventure they choose to take.
|
|
I guess what I'm looking at then is probably one large hook at the very beginning to explore the ruins of the fallen kingdom, with some smaller hooks to other adventures. I could have one to fight against the magic-tyrant, and another to join him and his mage inquisition, and another where the nobility of a conquered kingdom are trying to escape to a free land.
My original thought was to have the main plot line be to release magic back into the world, but I would like to reuse the setting with the same group, so I'm worried that such a world-altering first adventure would ruin it for future games.
Would it be better to try to have a "standard" adventure plot so as not to overwhelm with both unusual plot and setting, or does an unusual setting require an unusual plot to remain interesting and not just a gimick?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of what I have read on setting a sandbox in motion is starting on the railroad, then running off the tracks. For reasons stated by Corvino, a lot of players simply won't know how to respond to the options. I've seen it myself in my games and have since altered my introductions to sandbox homebrews. I would establish a quest, set in stone, before the game begins. That is what we are doing. The players use this as a starting point from which they can spring forward and expand their scope of adventure. I fancied my group quite the role play focused group, but when I said, "You've heard of x, y, and z. Also a, b and c. And roll to see if you've heard of q," the players decided to go to the tavern to look for adventure. Like there were so many options, they needed someone to tell them what to do.
If you want to get players in the sandbox mood while still starting with a little rail-roading (aka an agreed upon quest), define the quest, goals, motives, pretenses and everything before hand - TOGETHER. Ask them questions about everything. So using your example, if you want them to explore the ruins of the fallen kingdom, tell them that and ask them questions to fill in the details. How were you informed about this task? Why did you take it? What's in it for you? Who's rewarding you? What have you heard about the place? What do you hope to gain? Where do you see yourself afterwards?
With questions, you will get a clear picture of the character they expect to play and the direction they plan on taking them. From within, place plenty of hooks for other adventures. Clues that the kingdom was felled by people they know. Clues that the kingdom was once a pinnacle of arts and culture, so who would want to destroy it? Clues of a rising threat (cult, army, invaders). All these things can be placed in the adventure, and the players can choose to pursue them as they see fit. I have not really seen an absolute sandbox that works as intended. The use of hooks alone is practically railroading, the players just choose which railroad to ride. The other thing to keep in mind is once the players have settled on a hook, let them play with it for a bit. Don't start dropping more hooks to the point where they go from hook to hook to hook without ever obtaining a quest that they can finish. Use the quests to provide more hooks. Generally, their attitude will be "Ooh let's check that out when we get back with the MacGuffin." And that's what you want.
Think of it this way. A railroad is a quest. It is the beginning, the middle and the end. The player starts with the quest giver (whatever it may be), goes through a trial, then concludes the quest. Some railroads may branch and meet back up, and some quests can be completed with multiple approaches. What is a sandbox? It is an opportunity for players to do what what they want to do when they want to do it. And what are those things? Well, it varies party to party. Some will focus on the plot and do things that seem integral to the plot. Others will create their own goals, with or without regard to the plot. But one thing is the same throughout, they will want a quest of some sort for whatever it is they are trying to do. Whether the quest is going to a tavern, taking it over and making it your headquarters, making a map of the lands for personal satisfaction, fixing the city's sewer systems because you're tired of fecal-lined streets, or answering the king's call for aid, quests will give a satisfying beginning, middle and end to their task. So when you ask, do I want a sandbox or a railroaded system, you're essentially asking "Do I want a game where the players focus solely on the plot at hand? Or a game where the players create the plot, while the world goes on around them."
For instance, my sandbox game followed this progression: I started the players as associates of a tavern who worked to solve peoples problems. They received a job to investigate the sewers under a noble's mansion only to find goblins setting up explosives. [We determined ahead of time the goblins were working for a bugbear that was denied payment from the noble for sacking a competitor's establishment. The bugbear was now going to assault the city. Choice 1] While they were under the mansion, they overheard individuals in the mansion speaking about plots to overthrow the king. [This we did not discuss ahead of time. The king was a good king, and sometimes employed the players for good pay, so they liked him. Choice 2] When they returned to the tavern to store their loot, there was a 'businessman' looking for capable people to seek an expedition to a family crypt where there was supposedly great treasure. [I figured the crypt would be haunted and filled with undead. The businessman didn't know his family was involved with necromancy and the loot was all taken from terrorizing raids. Choice 3] At this point, the players figured they would go deal with the noble, get paid for the goblins, get information on the bugbear, and try to stop the assassination of the king. Long story short, they stopped the assassination but the bugbear destroyed their establishment and they couldn't get back in touch with the businessman for some quick money to rebuild [he vanished after investigating the crypt himself - future enemy].
When I asked if they felt that they had free reign to do what they want, it was a resounding yes and they enjoyed the plots. So, in conclusion, start on a railroad with a defined quest, introduce hooks with compelling stories, and let the players choose their path and the world moves on around them. That last part is key. Make sure you show the consequences of the choices they make. If I said, "Okay, it's been a month investigating the assassination plot. The bugbear has been waiting patiently, and the businessman is still in your tavern." That would have been quite static. It would make their decision less consequential.