|
1 year ago ::
May 11, 2012 - 5:04PM
#1
|
|
|
Now this isn't meant to be a war between the two styles of running a game.
What I want to address is the viability if both styles and every variation in between. I am addressing this here since it would be the most relevant in D&DNext. Perhaps provide something useful that the developers can add to the DMG Next for upcoming and veteran DMs.
What are the community's thoughts on the various styles of running a game?
What is a more enjoyable style, in your opinion, to play in?
Do you feel it's better to lead the party around by the nose or to go, "Do whatever you want"?
My games, those I run and also the ones I play in, tend to be primarily an on-rails kind of experience. The DM sets the framework of the story to the characters(players) but is still in charge of the overall direction. I'm entirely fine with this style of game. I have never had a good experience with a game in the sandbox method of games. Now granted this was one game and it ended disastrously, though it was hilarious to watcrather DMfume as we made sure the disaster spread to everything, as little as it was, he had built up in the short game. Also didn't help that he only provided "known challenges" of to high for the party so we didn't have a whole lot of good choices.
My next game, I am intending on trying a more sandbox approach to the overall gameplay with occasional "hooks in the nose" important plot events to party layers with the overall story.
So what about the rest of you, what are your thoughts on how to run a game?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 11, 2012 - 6:16PM
#2
|
|
|
I often develop a 'hub', a home base (city or town for instance) from where the PCs can strike out on various quests and adventures (either in the hub itself or to nearby locations). When they're ready, I develop more hubs and nearby locales and things spread out from there. It's sort of a hybrid of an on rails and sandbox campaign I think. The PCs can roam around the hub and its surroundings freely (sandbox style). The scale is small enough that I'm not overwhelmed (I have a few quests, encounters and interesting locations ready to go). When they're ready (and I've had time to prepare), I'll reveal more hubs for the PC to explore. The world gains some nice detail and it's at a pace that the myself and the other players can handle. I picked up on this technique after playing a few video games. For instance, Link always seems to start out in his home forest and by the end of the game ends up half a world (or more) away. As each location is revealed, Link spends some time adveturing there. Works for me  .
/\ Art
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 11, 2012 - 7:39PM
#3
|
|
|
The on-rails aproach does not seem to work too well for me or some other gms that I was a player within their groups.I find when you set out to design a specific kind of adventure with specific goals in mind that more often then not the players deviate greatly from their goals.Not leading them around by the nose to acomplish things mind you.Letting them do their own thing while still trying to keep the basic premise and goals of the adventure seems to be chuggy.
With sandbox too much freedom usually means much more work for the dm.Also I found that most players given ultimate freedom tend to either get bored with things or refer back to the gm on alot of things more then they normaly would.
So Like Artifact above I tend to both run and enjoy playing in games that are a mixture of both.I also run my games much like Artifact in that I use the hub and spiral outward aproach.The hub may not be a village/town etc as the starting point.The hub may be just the starting point in general.I have done or seen alot of variations on this aproach.Shipwrecked and you start from a beach (the lost) aproach.A prison or slave compound escape etc.
I like the hub/spiral out aproach because it allows me to ryn or play in a game that is can be done with as little or much preperation as you like.One week you have little time to prepare so you throw some encounters together that take place in the near surrounding areas of the hub.Then you can just make up a basic reason why they need to travel to these various locations and experience the encounter.When you have time you can sit down maybe design a dungeon with puzzles,traps,multiple encounters,a detailed plot and story etc.Since the bigger more planned adventures can be more dangerous it makes sense to me to have a location like this be further away from the hub.More overland travel with random encounters etc before you arrive at the main destination.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 11, 2012 - 7:59PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2005
|
The games i've run that worked best were ones where i was railroading but the players thought they were playing in a sandbox campaign. I come up with NPCs, plothooks, encounters, etc, and basically plop them down infront of whatever direction the group goes, slightly adjusting things to make theses elements seem like a natural outgrowth of the player's decisions. They think its all freeform, but its really stuff that i had planned out.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 12, 2012 - 10:58AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
Every style can be fun, it is a matter of finding the right balance between what the players and DM want to produce a fun campaign. Some combinations tend to work better then others, tightly story driven campaigns favor at least a bit of railroading to keep the story moving, while open format character driven campaigns favor sandboxes. However, almost any combination can work.
In general sandboxes are harder then railroads. They require a more experienced DM to be good, because the DM will have to work with less preplanning and know the game mechanics better. The campaign setting also has to be detailed out better, because the players need to have more material to work from when they are expected to come up with ideas on their own. It is also helpful to have more experienced players, so they are a better judge of what makes sense within the campaign world and what is more likely to work within the campaigns social/technological/magical setting.
4e seems to favor story based railroading a bit, but you can certainly run a sandbox in 4e. The most important things for running a sandbox are a well thought out campaign setting, the background, environment and social material that are not rules at all.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 12, 2012 - 1:47PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2006
|
What is a more enjoyable style, in your opinion, to play in?
If I get to pick?
Sandbox.
I don't care if we're playing FR, GH, PF world, etc., or something you've created.
But I don't see any reason why I shouldn't have freedom of movement on the map. I assume that you, the DM, will write adventures ahead of my wanderings, based upon what we've played in past weeks, where we are, where we're going, my background, etc.
Because this is the story of MY/OUR CHARACTERS, not your pre-determined novel.
Although I can have fun in a railroaded game - provided you let me know going in.
For ex; Right now our Sun. night group is just finishing up the 6 part PF adventure "Rise of the Runelords".
It's a pretty straight forward module crawl.
Do you feel it's better to lead the party around by the nose or to go, "Do whatever you want"?
When I DM I start off by crafting an adventure for 1st lv characters. It'll be something that will (likely) keep their attention, provide future hook/ideas, etc. I don't have anything specific planned as a sequel, chapter 2, etc....
After that (or hell, even during it)? The players are free to take things in any direction they like.
Even better is if the players give me characters with some kind of background/goals/motivations!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 12, 2012 - 1:56PM
#7
|
|
|
The games i've run that worked best were ones where i was railroading but the players thought they were playing in a sandbox campaign. I come up with NPCs, plothooks, encounters, etc, and basically plop them down infront of whatever direction the group goes, slightly adjusting things to make theses elements seem like a natural outgrowth of the player's decisions. They think its all freeform, but its really stuff that i had planned out.
I think that kind of hybrid system works best. Create an adventure in advance, then refluff on the fly.
I've also found that it helps to keep a list of plot hooks and exotic terrain/locations for when you are forced to come up with a brand new adventure on the fly.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 12, 2012 - 1:59PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
May 20, 2011
|
I'd say sandbox. But to be more precise I'd like to be a good story, quest's, maybe even a main quest, some clue spread arround, but characters got the decision. As a character I want to be free to choose what to do.
As a dm I try to give as much freedom as possible, even if sometimes, if there are part's I particularly like or put a particular effort in it, I railroad a bit, giving just fake choices that all leads to the same moment. The only difference is how you get there.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 12, 2012 - 2:34PM
#9
|
|
|
Either style is a perfectly valid and viable way to play D&D. CCS has already relayed my opinion, for the most part. For extended campaigns, I prefer sandbox. If the DM is going to have a plot he wants us to follow - let us know beforehand, so we can just follow the plot, instead of wasting time pointlessly trying to do other things.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 13, 2012 - 12:08AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2006
|
Either style is a perfectly valid and viable way to play D&D. CCS has already relayed my opinion, for the most part. For extended campaigns, I prefer sandbox. If the DM is going to have a plot he wants us to follow - let us know beforehand, so we can just follow the plot, instead of wasting time pointlessly trying to do other things.
Yes, thinking of wasted time....
One of the worst games I ever played was a railroady FR campaign that was (poorly) disguised as a sandbox.
The DM had read all of the FR novels of the time. He'd read ALL the FR material. And he supplied even more original content! He started us out in Waterdeep. He had all kinds of detail & description going on all around us, all the time.
But after awhile? It became painfully obvious that all this stuff was behind a glass wall or something.
It was like we were sitting in the "Small World" ride at Disneyland, just passing by. We could look, but try as we might we couldn't touch/interact with any of it!
|
|
|
