Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (GMT+8). I live on the other side of the planet from most of the folks here it seems.
Picking up the "my group wants" portion of the thread:
My players keep saying "we want story, plot; we really wanna roleplay!" Then I throw them in town with a very open-ended mission and say "ok, so... does anyone want to talk w/anyone or gather info or whatever?" The players literally shrug and say "Naw we're good. Let's just go."
WTF man?
Personally what I'm looking for on the rare occasion I get to play is acceptance, enthusiasm and cooperation from my GM. For some reason the last 2 GMs have really hated me.
One guy said I was good at improv as a GM so he wanted me to be flexible as a player. Then we start playing and he stops way early one session and goes "I don't have any story ideas." I go "well, let's riff a bit. My guy loves to gather tales and what not from roadside places. I use my Knowledge: Geography, see if there's any villages/towns in the area or maybe a roadside inn. Once there we can swap some tales. Maybe there's a ruined tower in the area or maybe a villainous orc bandit lord, or even an old fairy tale of a lost princess or something." He looks angrily at me and says "I'm not good like you at improv. I don't have everything prepared so no, let's just stop here." I haven't been asked back to the game.
Another guy ran one session and it was really fun except for some reason my guy's actions didn't seem to help ANYONE in the party outside of combat. My attempt to scout went awry even though I got better rolls than another PC; my diplomacy and general roleplaying had no impact on a captive witch and my suggested courses of action were ignored. I haven't been asked back to that game either.
I tend to think and act very intuitively in games. When GMing I get a feel for whether my players need an action scene or some exposition, then I just drop it on them. Oh sure I have a hardline plot I'm trying to get across but I just sort of chuck it when play starts.
As a player I hope for the same from my GM. I don't need them to be mind readers - that's why I toss out my "helpful suggestions." This is the way I was raised as a player though. All of my games as a kid were very collaborative and it's what I'm used to: the GM vibing off where their players are taking the game and back and forth to create adventures and campaigns.
GM's today are so... rigid. "You go here, do this, and then this happens." Why doesn't everyone have gobs of random tables, half-baked encounters and partial adventure sites just laying around? Why don't any GMs turn to their players and ask "what do YOU want to do?"
As I said - this is how I was raised in gaming and this is how I run. I think my players mistake this randomness for a lack of plot, which is why they keep asking for one. In practice though I have an idea of the plot, but nothing concrete. Together we create the narrative.
To quote the BEST Willy Wonka ever: we are the music makers; the dreamers of dreams. Emphasis on WE, not I.
I tried asking players in a short-lived homebrew game (that switched over to Kingmaker, but I ended it once I realized one of the players was cheating. damn internet) "What would you like to do?" I got silence over the mic. It also didn't help that their characters had no backstory or motivations at all. Just a bunch of numbers and class abilities. No "meat", just "bones".
I will admit, I am pretty bad at improv. If players do something completely out there, and isn't anything like the various things I prepared for, I get stressed and kinda freeze up trying to think what the hell to do. Hope to be able to get past that.
... My players keep saying "we want story, plot; we really wanna roleplay!" Then I throw them in town with a very open-ended mission and say "ok, so... does anyone want to talk w/anyone or gather info or whatever?" The players literally shrug and say "Naw we're good. Let's just go." ...
I have a group that keeps saying they want a real sandbox campaign where they decide what direction to head. However; anytime they get to a point where there isn’t a clear way forward, they become completely indecisive and dither forever over even minor choices.
..
... One guy said I was good at improv as a GM so he wanted me to be flexible as a player. Then we start playing and he stops way early one session and goes "I don't have any story ideas." I go "well, let's riff a bit. My guy loves to gather tales and what not from roadside places. I use my Knowledge: Geography, see if there's any villages/towns in the area or maybe a roadside inn. Once there we can swap some tales. Maybe there's a ruined tower in the area or maybe a villainous orc bandit lord, or even an old fairy tale of a lost princess or something." He looks angrily at me and says "I'm not good like you at improv. I don't have everything prepared so no, let's just stop here." I haven't been asked back to the game. ...
I don’t think the above would bother me, but I can see how some people would take that as you telling him how to run the campaign.
I don’t know you, so don’t take this personally. Some GM’s make really problem players. Me and another guy used to take turns as GM. When he was a player, he constantly challenged the limits and house rules set up for the campaign. Made characters that didn’t fit the campaign and expected the campaign to be changed to match his character. Constantly wanted spells, feats, classes modified to fit his PC after the campaign had started. Very little of which he would put up with when he was GM.
.
.
... I tend to think and act very intuitively in games. When GMing I get a feel for whether my players need an action scene or some exposition, then I just drop it on them. Oh sure I have a hardline plot I'm trying to get across but I just sort of chuck it when play starts. ...
I have no problem when a GM does things like that. But I do find it sometimes a bit annoying when a GM tries to insist I also do it. My brain just isn’t wired that way. I simply can’t GM and run a campaign without some level of preparation.
GM's today are so... rigid. "You go here, do this, and then this happens." Why doesn't everyone have gobs of random tables, half-baked encounters and partial adventure sites just laying around? Why don't any GMs turn to their players and ask "what do YOU want to do?"
Well two things...
First, yes, one of the biggest differences between old systems and contemporary RPGs is the utter lack of random tables. Random dungeon generators. Random NPCs. Random wilderness tables. Lovingly crafted Wand of Wonder tables. Yes, if you just threw them into a situation without thought, they could derail things, and once you knew them well enough they stopped being too interesting. But you could definitely use them to spark your imagination and let it run from there into a new narrative.
The rigid GMs of today, though, would just roll on the random table and say, "This happens next," and that's no win, either.
Second, I find that directly asking people can stifle creativity, by putting people on the spot. However, if you just listen to the stories told by the players and the PCs, then all sorts of things become new hooks.
For example, my bard/witch (just a bard at the time) came from the swamp, and discussed how nobody actually lives on their own in the swamp, we cluster in villages for safety... well, except for perhaps Mad Ol' Hettie. Our GM jumped all over that line, and I eventually discovered that Hettie was my grandmother--a fact hidden from me by my father, because he disapproved of her witchcraft. I think the other PCs were rather surprised when my bard, a famously glib weaver of tall tales, not once even stretched the truth around Hettie.
It's a lot of fun to just let the story unfold in directions you never expect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My players keep saying "we want story, plot; we really wanna roleplay!" Then I throw them in town with a very open-ended mission and say "ok, so... does anyone want to talk w/anyone or gather info or whatever?" The players literally shrug and say "Naw we're good. Let's just go."
Maybe ask them for examples of what they'd like to roleplay? Sounds like there's a disconnect between what they consider roleplay, and what you do.
"I'm not good like you at improv. I don't have everything prepared so no, let's just stop here." I haven't been asked back to the game.
...
I haven't been asked back to that game either.
As Kydeem said, sometimes GMs make the worst players. I know I have to constantly check myself when I am a player under a different GM. Other times, experienced GMs as players intimidate less experienced GMs and that causes tension.
But since we only have what you're giving us to go on, and there's two games you haven't been invited back to, maybe its time for some self-reflection. Is there anything you were/weren't doing that could potentially have caused an issue?
GM's today are so... rigid. "You go here, do this, and then this happens." Why doesn't everyone have gobs of random tables, half-baked encounters and partial adventure sites just laying around? Why don't any GMs turn to their players and ask "what do YOU want to do?"
On newer GMs: This is a symptom of only running APs and modules. A railroad-style campaign is learned as the default way things are done, so when they create their own campaigns, they think very linearly.
I love random tables and definitely use them. I definitely ask the players what they want to do, and try to create a large open-ended world. I've actually found that some players WANT the linear stuff. One of my players actually made mention that he's used to seeing yellow exclamation marks over the NPCs that give quests, so I needed to make it more obvious where the "things to do" were.
As I said - this is how I was raised in gaming and this is how I run. I think my players mistake this randomness for a lack of plot, which is why they keep asking for one. In practice though I have an idea of the plot, but nothing concrete. Together we create the narrative.
Having a narrative is important, even if it is very loosely defined. Not having a narrative or expecting the PCs to create it based on their decisions has the potential to wander into "make believe" world. Meaning, the players feel like they are just sitting around making things up, which for some players, is an uncomfortable position.
The structure of the narrative provide guidance for them. If they choose to go in a different or unexpected direction, great. But there must be some kind of overarching goal/plot/threat to bring it all together.
Over the nearly 30 years I've been gaming I've learned to improv at the drop of a hat. Recently I'd worked on a really detailed and (what I hoped) would be an exciting adventure. The players all decided that they didn't want to do that one so I had to make up one on the spot. One of the best games I've had with this particular group yet.
Maybe I am old and cynical, but it seemed like we used to play a greater variety of games....
I don't think you are. I notice a lot of the older games tended to experiment, while modern ones tend to just copy tried-and-true methods. Pathfinder is far from the only game that does that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No no; you're all spot on. I can be very pushy as a player and I'm working on it. I definitely know there's a difference between what I call roleplay and what my players do. We're all new to one another.
I will point out though that many of you in this and other threads have said what Johnny boy did: listen to the players. That's what I do, I listen. I'm not hearing anything.
One guy makes no background. Even when I prompt for background with specific questions he gives me nothing. Lots of you say something to the effect of listening to what they say in character. If they're not directly reacting to me then they're not talking; when they are talking it's things like "my rogue says something diplomatic; I'd like to use Diplomacy to see if I can get her to come with me."
Even when talking OUT of character the guys jaw about work, current tv or video games. It seems to me like they're bored and maybe they are at times. But then I drop a sweet set piece fight with lots of strategic choices, some intelligent villains and a few pieces of 3d terrain for them to maneuver around. Now I've got their attention, they're engaged and we have a blast.
When all's said and done the feedback I get is that they had fun and enjoyed the combats, but they wish there was more story and plot.
I know directly asking someone "hey; why don't you make something up right here?" is a lost cause unless you're dealing with an extremely competitive or creative person. Instead I try to use prompts:
- HOW do you ask her to come with the party; with what words?
- does your character have any battle cries?
- What's the name of the village you were born in?
Even with these its often like pulling teeth to get something I can work with. Ironically the only guy who consistently comes to the rescue for me is the other old-skooler in the group.
When I first met him this guy wasn't much of a roleplayer. He didn't talk in character and tended to shut down until combat at which point he just directed traffic on the battlemat. But I noticed that, as he and I started talking about the games we USED to have as kids and older modules and such, he started to unleash little by little.
Now this guy consistently brings epic characters to the table. His last PC was a paladin who was only 2nd level but was getting built around Combat Expertise and Skill Focus: Diplomacy. This guy gave me 3 great bits from his backstory to run the plot around and he also worked with his church to go halfsies on a dilapidated forge in the slums. He was going to fix it up and in the process work from the inside out to save the downtrodden of a city where child labor is a reality and slavery exists in the open just outside the city walls.
This is what kind of fuels my belief that maybe all those hack n slash games I had as a kid weren't all hack n slash. Me and a lot of old skoolers I know seem to have this ease with which we just drop into a character and start riffing. Oh sure, for some folks they're just repeating movie lines or stealing from some TV character - I'm included in this bunch. But we just seem to dive right in and start creating a whole character that you could imagine as real.
My new skooler players are not BAD at roleplay. They just do it differently. They tend to see it as a more mechanical exercise; a bit of fluff to justify the skill/feat/power they're using. If it isn't in a book or on the map, it doesn't exist yet and they seem to feel very strongly that it's my role to create. Our roles are really very well defined.
Our games are fun. I'm not going to dump my gaming group. They're a bunch of great guys and there's still a lot of smiles, laughing and the occasional high-five going around. I'm just saying that there's something very real about the difference between the old skool and the new. I didn't think so before, but I'm coming around.
Finally let me end the rant by reiterating that there's NOTHING wrong with my players or how they play. I'm not ragging on them or, at least I'm not TRYING to. I hope to have the pleasure and honor of continuing to game with them though I will admit that our 2 conflicting styles sometimes present a rift that I haven't yet conquered.
But I'm working on it...
Mark we need to one shot sometime. I think we have very similar styles.
Dude, you're the one saying you've got a full docket at the moment. If you've got the time, I've got the beer. And by beer I mean a 1-shot or a pregen character. Unless you WANT a beer; then I have those other things and beer.
|
Mark we need to one shot sometime. I think we have very similar styles.Dude, you're the one saying you've got a full docket at the moment. If you've got the time, I've got the beer. And by beer I mean a 1-shot or a pregen character. Unless you WANT a beer; then I have those other things and beer.
Yeah the docket is very full but I can always find the time for a oner. Maybe ill get the ugly american and Irontruth to throw in on a twin cities Paizo board meetup.
Are you particular about system and genre?
Hey Mark, when the players say they want more story, I'd ask back, "Okay, but 'more story' can mean a lot of things. What does 'more story' mean to you?"
There will be a ton of hemming and hawing and shutting up in response. But at least you present them with the idea that the story can be theirs to define--because you've just asked them to literally do that.
Also, pay attention to the TV shows and especially video games they reference. The hugest difference between RPGs and other entertainment media is that in other media, the story is spoon-fed to them, with no input (or need of input) from the audience. In RPGs, that doesn't work too well. Now, video games, some games will react to the player's choices and change story from there, most won't. But if you find it, latch on to what they like.
If a player is used to spoon feeding, they honestly won't know how to drive the action. They might be looking for more spoon feeding. Best solution there is to keep up the vibrancy--taunting villains in combat, interesting NPCs who engage them, people they care about. Then let something happen to them, and see what happens.
And importantly, give them choices that matter. Give them a choice of story items, say. This artifact needs to be taken to the volcano, but that one needs to be taken to the bottom of the sea. Choose one, and the other will not be offered again, ever. That drives story.
No no; you're all spot on. I can be very pushy as a player and I'm working on it. I definitely know there's a difference between what I call roleplay and what my players do. We're all new to one another.
I will point out though that many of you in this and other threads have said what Johnny boy did: listen to the players. That's what I do, I listen. I'm not hearing anything.
One guy makes no background. Even when I prompt for background with specific questions he gives me nothing. Lots of you say something to the effect of listening to what they say in character. If they're not directly reacting to me then they're not talking; when they are talking it's things like "my rogue says something diplomatic; I'd like to use Diplomacy to see if I can get her to come with me."
Even when talking OUT of character the guys jaw about work, current tv or video games. It seems to me like they're bored and maybe they are at times. But then I drop a sweet set piece fight with lots of strategic choices, some intelligent villains and a few pieces of 3d terrain for them to maneuver around. Now I've got their attention, they're engaged and we have a blast.
When all's said and done the feedback I get is that they had fun and enjoyed the combats, but they wish there was more story and plot.
I know directly asking someone "hey; why don't you make something up right here?" is a lost cause unless you're dealing with an extremely competitive or creative person. Instead I try to use prompts:
- HOW do you ask her to come with the party; with what words?
- does your character have any battle cries?
- What's the name of the village you were born in?
Even with these its often like pulling teeth to get something I can work with. Ironically the only guy who consistently comes to the rescue for me is the other old-skooler in the group.
When I first met him this guy wasn't much of a roleplayer. He didn't talk in character and tended to shut down until combat at which point he just directed traffic on the...
I use a funky 20 question thing.. I'll PM it to you.
Send it to me as well? I think my group is getting complacent.
Mark we need to one shot sometime. I think we have very similar styles.Dude, you're the one saying you've got a full docket at the moment. If you've got the time, I've got the beer. And by beer I mean a 1-shot or a pregen character. Unless you WANT a beer; then I have those other things and beer.Yeah the docket is very full but I can always find the time for a oner. Maybe ill get the ugly american and Irontruth to throw in on a twin cities Paizo board meetup.
Are you particular about system and genre?
I just want to play. I will say though there's probably a lot I either haven't played or don't remember how. That being said any iteration of D&D, PF, or something similar is probably what I get most. Just not GURPS. Sorry GURPS fans, but my experiences in that system have been...upsetting.
Thanks argent one. I'll put that advice to good use this Saturday at our next session. And freebird - I'd love the 20 q's. I use 4 but they tend to be very open ended so perhaps with these players more and more targeted would be better.
Finally to Pan - if you're serious I'm always game for something. I've found out I'm losing a player so any infusions, even as a one-shot are always welcome.
I've never been more critical or conscious of my gaming then I have been on these boards. I ask my players for feedback and sometimes question them about specifics from the session, but honestly I don't really get that focused on it. Then I roll onto the boards and I'm like "wow; I'm kind of a D**k GM sometimes."
I pray there's no truth to the idiom "you can't teach an old Mark-Dawg new tricks"
I don't know about you guys but my railroads tend to be VERY dull. Goblins have raided the area, but their actions seem far too strategic for mere goblins. Turns out there's a wizard they're working for and he's using them to find the last piece of a McGuffin!
I have no patience for intrigue anymore. I can do it and have in a couple of my last campaigns. Even before my players lose interest though I'VE lost interest.
Granted I've been gaming about once a month to 1/6 weeks. After a month and a half of not caring what happens to the witch rebuilding her coven in secret while an evil inquisitor manipulates the party into goading the fledgling coven into the open all the while knowing that one of the PCs' own mother will soon be collateral damage, well, I frankly can't muster the energy to finish it.
Now that I have dedicated game space I'm moving toward a more weekly schedule. I wonder if that will assuage my short attention span for linear plots...SQUIRREL!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I am old and cynical, but it seemed like we used to play a greater variety of games....
...until 3rd edition and the OGL, which was very successful as a universal system, to the point of almost obliterating everything else.
The last few years saw kind of a game system revival however, and good quality stuff too. I have hopes that people will start diversifying a bit more again.
[edit] however, people had more time to dedicate to games before. I don't care what people say, web 2.0 and wide, reliable mobile connections changed a lot in how/what people do with their free time.
[post-edit] Correction, people have just as much time for games, but entertainment being immediately available, less time is given to social games. AS everything must be optimised these days, specialisation is often preferable to generalisation.
You don't need intrigue, but you need personality. Which actor is playing the role of your wizard? What's he like to meet?
And the goblins, what are they like? Do they have any weird quirks?
What's their tribe?
I've had plenty of amusing scenes between the PCs and a captured goblin. Make them come alive!
|
My players keep saying "we want story, plot; we really wanna roleplay!" Then I throw them in town with a very open-ended mission and say "ok, so... does anyone want to talk w/anyone or gather info or whatever?" The players literally shrug and say "Naw we're good. Let's just go."
When it comes to combat I imagine you have some encounters prepared. I doubt that when the players turn up you say, 'So....what do you want to fight today?'
It's the same with intrigue; have some intrigue encounters prepared, don't just have nothing prepared and wonder why they just stare at you.
... One guy makes no background. Even when I prompt for background with specific questions he gives me nothing. Lots of you say something to the effect of listening to what they say in character. If they're not directly reacting to me then they're not talking; when they are talking it's things like "my rogue says something diplomatic; I'd like to use Diplomacy to see if I can get her to come with me." ...
Some folks just do not like that sort of thing. I would guess that you are unlikely to get them to change significantly.
..
... When all's said and done the feedback I get is that they had fun and enjoyed the combats, but they wish there was more story and plot. ...
Say this very specifically and clearly to them.
Something like, "Look I hear what you are saying, but when I tried for what I thought was more story I got no participation and you all seemed bored. So that apparently isn't what you wanted. Help me with something more specific. What would you like to have happened. I want to provide but I guess I need more details/examples on what you really want."
About railroad vs improvisation:
I must admit I improvise a lot. My campaign always have specific goals, but the way players take to get there is left open more often than not. Basically, I plan half of what the game might be, and improvise the rest. I don't mind being thrown a curved ball once in a while; it's actually part of the fun (as long as it isn't done out of spite).
Railroad games allow you to accomplish more in less time however. I once GMed a game that wasn't our "primary campaign". Number of players was high, not all would be able to come at all games and intervals were irregular. I wanted more of an episodic type of game, were the sub-plot would be completed at the end of that session. For that I brought the concept of "railroad cards".
Each players was given one (or more) card with a goal to accomplish this game, with a reward in XPs. Often it would be something like "hire this character" or "go to that town", but it allowed me to meta-railroad my game without the players feeling like they're riding the coaster. Some of the ways the players would come up to accomplish their goal were quite funny, some quite clever.
I never brought back the concept, but I've been wanting to expand on it ever since.
Re: Railroading/improvisation.
A creative thinking exercise I often use (in work and play) is 'reverse/negative thinking'. The theory goes it is often easier to think negatively and then you just reverse the outcome.
Ask yourself for example, 'what would make my pcs NOT want to go somewhere?
Answers may include: low value treasure, apparently clichéd/routine encounters, using skills they don't have and for some extreme levels of danger (relative to level).
Now reverse them: unique/interesting potential treasure (e.g. PC's seeking the Aegis of Falk), unique monster/encounters (e.g. which is guarded by his cursed brother who betrayed him), skills the pcs have (e.g. his lair can only be found by an elf-blooded tracker) and levels of danger (e.g. and who has a weakness to blessed weapons).
Voila, a story hook and if the pcs don't want to follow? Why are they adventuring?
Sometimes, they are just not interested. Doesn't matter how interesting you make it, they won't bite.
That's why I always prepare two.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know everyone seems to want sandbox, completely character driven stories, but what's wrong with an actual overarching plotline? I've never had much luck with the sandbox approach, but a larger threat that's open enough to give the players choices in how to respond to it has worked beautifully in most games I've run or played in...
Generally, few players actually want a true sandbox. They want a sandbox with a nice clear trail they can follow! <g>
|
Again, different game but this is how I run sandbox for Gamma World (which in its early levels is very much like D&D):
Most starting adventures are very objective oriented - Rite of Passage (go here, get this/do this, then come back as an adult), deal with a threat or mystery or a travel quest A - B - those are the basics, with some odd-ball start scenarios thrown in. Simultaneously, I generate a wide environs map (Kingmaker) that is NOT Level/Rank specific. The harder stuff is usually far away, hidden and under layers of investigation A-B-C menace reveal.
So they usually have a running theme/adventure while at the same time a rich environs area loaded with single encounters, foreshadowing encounters for a larger existing threat/main adventure, side-quest and sometimes foreshadowing encounters for another module I may plan to run down the line. Sometimes they go exploring during their main adventure, sometimes they go exploring after they finish the main adventure (and I widen the map environ range) or sometimes they don't even finish the main adventure and get side-tracked (which is a ok).
All the side stuff is revealed via
A) Maps
- Hints on the environs map: falling star was seen over here, the Black cave is somewhere in these blasted lands, etc
- Obvious markers environs map: Radiation Zones, A marker where Wasteland Mountains and Rough hills is where the Plague (Red Death Cryptic Alliance) is camped - stay away
B) NPCs
- Hints or rumors provided by npcs
- Notes, old journals or recordings of NPCs (a dead Reclaimer with a key card and notes on military base called Fort Winter)
- Old records from the pre-war era. These could be anything from books and journals, hints via trail of crumbs or even old action/news reports (and the players try to put the pieces together to see how it could be a payoff for them).
C) World Events - This is just the world acting and reacting. The Wildmen Cannibals of the Aksar hills have been making suicidal raids on caravans vs. their usual snatch and grab of weak unprotected travelers. After the party engages then as caravan guards and follows them back to their lair they find out that they have been pushed out of their cave complex by a next of intelligent wasp like creatures. Further investigation of the Wasp/Cannibal cave complex reveals that these creatures have been artificially mutated and modified by some kind of bizarre acting Agriculture droids for an unknown purpose.
Higher level adventures can follow any of these (A,B,C) alone or in combination - they just involve a bigger and more complex threat. That
Mix of A (location feature) and C (World Event) - The Plague raider gang (Red Death) recently found a small robotic factor and now have found a way to manufacture Post-Apocalypse (re:kind junky) Powered Armor en masse. Their efforts are not 100% effective, but in a matter of weeks the whole area will be under their control, etc.
My players prefer sandbox, even if they are on a railroad. So in any and all games I run - there is an objective and then they decide the pace and angle that they are going to hit that objective. Each with its own set of consequences and risks.
I often lay out somewhat open scenarios (desides the detaction of a threat) and the players the start to railroad themselves. In other words, the actions of the NPCs and World doesn't stop and is NOT focused on the players - so the players react and go to X, Y and Z dungeon/base/cave because they are trying to stop a perceived threat and thus put themselves on a path. I don't even hint at where they are supposed to go next without research, they in fact have to dig this up to find the objective.
I love personally love sandbox adventures or objective adventures with a sandbox environment. Yes, it's a lot more work and writing than single site adventures, but if it's done right the sandbox can easily lead to many expanded single site adventures with information at the various sites which starts to mesh and weave a tapestry that evolves into an actual adventure with the classic features: Main complex, objective, threat that must be neutralized, big treasure, etc.
Anyway
I know everyone seems to want sandbox, completely character driven stories, but what's wrong with an actual overarching plotline? I've never had much luck with the sandbox approach, but a larger threat that's open enough to give the players choices in how to respond to it has worked beautifully in most games I've run or played in...Generally, few players actually want a true sandbox. They want a sandbox with a nice clear trail they can follow! <g>
That's been my experience. After my Runelords adventure path ended, the players that remained told me that they weren't thrilled with such a linear plot, and they wanted an open sandbox.
This was before Ultimate Campaign came out, so I pulled out my 1e AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide and made a hex map of the Varisian wilderness, telling the PCs that they could start exploring. I dropped a few encounters here and there, and also made a note that if they happened upon the village of Ravenmoor, I'd pull out the module Feast of Ravenmoor and run that.
No plot, no overarching story-- pure sandbox.
And the party just hung around Sandpoint waiting for the plot to drop.
We had two sessions in a row of the PCs interacting with the NPCs of the town. I rolled on random encounter tables, and they fought some goblin raiders, and heard a rumor about the Sandpoint Devil, which they never found. After the second session, I pulled the players who had most wanted sandbox-style play and asked them what they planned to do next week-- so I could prepare something along those lines. They said, "You tell us-- we're waiting for the plot!" AARGHH!
So, I lifted James Jacob's "Shadows Under Sandpoint" plot for a couple of sessions, but the enthusiasm waned, and I pulled the plug on that game after five sesions. (One of my players volunteered to GM "Skull and Shackles," which is what that group is doing now.)
|
|
I know everyone seems to want sandbox, completely character driven stories, but what's wrong with an actual overarching plotline? I've never had much luck with the sandbox approach, but a larger threat that's open enough to give the players choices in how to respond to it has worked beautifully in most games I've run or played in...Generally, few players actually want a true sandbox. They want a sandbox with a nice clear trail they can follow! <g>That's been my experience. After my Runelords adventure path ended, the players that remained told me that they weren't thrilled with such a linear plot, and they wanted an open sandbox.
This was before Ultimate Campaign came out, so I pulled out my 1e AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide and made a hex map of the Varisian wilderness, telling the PCs that they could start exploring. I dropped a few encounters here and there, and also made a note that if they happened upon the village of Ravenmoor, I'd pull out the module Feast of Ravenmoor and run that.
No plot, no overarching story-- pure sandbox.
And the party just hung around Sandpoint waiting for the plot to drop.
We had two sessions in a row of the PCs interacting with the NPCs of the town. I rolled on random encounter tables, and they fought some goblin raiders, and heard a rumor about the Sandpoint Devil, which they never found. After the second session, I pulled the players who had most wanted sandbox-style play and asked them what they planned to do next week-- so I could prepare something along those lines. They said, "You tell us-- we're waiting for the plot!" AARGHH!
So, I lifted James Jacob's "Shadows Under Sandpoint" plot for a couple of sessions, but the enthusiasm waned, and I pulled the plug on that game after five sesions. (One of my players volunteered to GM "Skull and Shackles," which is what that group is doing now.)
Part of this is conditioning - people want more freedom in their play environment but for most of their gaming life they have been on linear adventures. It might be better to try running a linear adventure with plenty of side quest and encounters thrown in - think Crypt of the Everflame (objective based site adventure) with a little Keep on the Borderlands (the environs, not the caves of chaos).
Go linear but in the environs sprinkle-in some fun odd-ball encounters, red-herrings and some lead scenarios/mini site adventures and your players WILL begin to learn to explore.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sandbox doesn't mean plotless.
A sandbox, as I've run it, means that it's a dynamic world with things happening through it. There is usually some save-the-world style overarcing thing to help push people to urgency (Winter Is Coming is a good example), but otherwise, people do their things.
Enter the PCs. They can go north and fight the orcs of the north, or go south and fight the goblins of the south, that sort of thing. The trick is to make sure you don't detail anything too strongly until the PCs get there, but you always have people wanting things to be done and adventure to be had in every direction.
The PCs should be tripping over the plot hooks lying on the ground.
I'm playing in a sandbox right now, and yes, there's all sorts of things happening. There was an auction and party we were supposed to attend? We traveled to a swamp on another island instead and saved a tribe of lizardfolk. It led to our captain being branded an outlaw. So now we're in town, looking for a new crew for our ship. One of our recurring villains turned coat and told us about where to find some treasure? We killed him. The captain was challenged to a duel to the death for his ship, I used the fact there's a bounty on his head to make sure that he wouldn't be killed (he was wanted alive).
The thing is, you've got this web of plot lines going every which way, thoughts about how to defeat a nascent pirate queen with a powerful artifact, a vampire who now inhabits the body of a black dragon, and our captain's good name to restore. Will it happen? Will any of it happen? Sure, possibly, if we decide to put effort into it. What are we going to do? It's up to us.
That's a sandbox.
I've run a few sandbox games over the years and what I've found works for me is to have a flow chart with the start and a where i would like it to go and several mid sized encounters inbtween.
Then i take the character back grounds and see how they can fit in to the story which makes a few more encounters .
Then i have a whole load of little side encounters ( which are often just the bare bones of idears ) and add them in as and when i see fit depending on what the characters do and finally i add a timeline of events that will effect the world around them.
This gives me lots of plots and subplots for the players to explore while still allowing me to nudge them in the direction of the story .
It needs quite a bit of prep ( less if like me you are good at improvising ) but gives the players lots of freedom to explore as they want and the DM has an overview of the game as a whole
My current campaign started like this
Over the past years these creatures have resurfaced. Once more Castle Flamenwing hosts forces in its crumbling walls, or at least below them. The sprawling ruins of the walled town and the deep dungeons below teem with menace; the kobold horde has returned.
They are not alone however. Many other factions both mundane and preternatural prowl the surface ruins as well as the miles of halls and chambers below. No more than a day from the ruin stands ancient Ravenhurst, last city of the old empire that once ruled these lands. The city is decadent and wicked, but it is the only bastion of safety left in the shadow of the storm-wracked castle.
Now you come to Ravenhurst, to the inn called the Sign of the Dragon and Hammer, otherwise known as the Hammered Dragon. The kobold horde is rising, the profane powers of darkness loom and the specter of ancient evil bellows from the stormclouds on the horizon.
The idea is that yes, there's an overarching plot: to rise up as heroes and beat back the kobold hordes with the underlying questions like why now and where has Ballathunda been. As the PCs gather info about the dungeon they're supposed to learn that the kobolds were here the whole time but have been dealing with FAR darker evil hundreds of feet below the surface. They should also come to find that there are neutral and even a good force that have footholds in the megadungeon.
Of course I also left in the potential to go off book. If the players got bored or tired of hacking dungeons they were given a player's map; a hex crawl map with Ravenhurst and Castle Flamenwing noted and a few surrounding hexes with their terrain filled in. They could then ask in town, gather info about the other areas of the map or simply go there in search of whatever.
Finally I have about a dozen low-to-mid level NPCs who I've created bio cards for. I don't have full stat blocks but I know who they are, have pics for them and can utilize them as needed for handing out missions, rumors and info.
Is THAT the kind of sandbox that El Jeffe is talking about? Or is that not enough of a main plot thread? Maybe this is why my players are grousing. Maybe they feel there's not enough concrete reason for adventure.
If that's the case then if I were to ever re-do the campaign I suppose I could be more specific.
"Kobolds have robbed and raided along the Trade Way; kobolds blasphemed a nearby tomb and stole the artifacts within; KOBOLDS were even found in the pantry of the Hammered Dragon! Everywhere we look these draconic pests run amok! Something needs be done. I've heard talk that a great society of them rises in the ruins of ancient Castle Flamenwing! I put this quest to all of you assembled here: venture forth, plunder the depths of the ruins and put an end to the snout-faced menace once and for all!" - Navin Radek, Captain of the Lantern Watch speaking to a gathering of adventurers in the common room of the Sign of the Dragon and Hammer the night the party arrives.
|
|
Hoover has an open thread covering Castle Flamenwing over here that for me was a good thought exercise in Dungeon design.
Some feedback and ideas from other DMs is always appreciated.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me sandbox is similar to the Elder Scrolls games; a main "quest" or plot, with hundreds of side plots. The main quest might be to defeat the evil lich that has surfaced in the black swamp, sending out his legions of undead to destroy the country side.
The side quests will be numerous, with varying lengths, outcomes, developments, etc. If the players really enjoy certain side quests, continue to build additional content on those branches of the campaign. The players essentially choose when they're ready to face the main threat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's what I think of when I hear about sandbox campaigns.
I personally enjoy the sandbox type of game, similar to the Elder Scrolls games. I am playing in one at the moment, though it's more a kingdom builder type, and not entirely sure of the metaplot, other than build a kingdom on this unexplored (for the most part) continent.
Sometimes, I would love to be able to roleplay the more "mundane" aspects of the game, and not have every single thing revolving around the earthshattering plot or what-have-you. Makes the world feel more alive, to me. I know that's not for everyone.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I should start my own thread, but I'm putting this here since I like you guys. I'm about to unveil my new basement gaming space in 15 minutes. The beer is chilling, the pizza's about to get ordered and I have 8 pieces of "mountain terrain" on the board for the mega-exploration session I have planned. And, per this thread, by "planned" I mean I know the story overview and I have a bunch of random tables cued. WISH ME LUCK and happy gaming to all!
I would love to see that.
Mark Hoover, I would love a report of your game!
Absolutely! Let us know how it goes!
