|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 11:41PM
#21
|
|
|
That is a good tool, Crimson_Concerto, even during more open adventures: the illusion of choice. I like to be surprised more often when I DM, so I'd favor this technique. Even so, I may have designed the rudiments of an NPC who is never met; the party instead occupies themselves with a faceless NPC who came into existence but 2 seconds ago. I can cannibalize the planned NPC for this one. I can make differently baited hooks lead to the same adventure without the adventure being visible from either hook (so the link is not visible to the players). Perhaps I'm using it as more of a safety mechanism when the party goes "off the map"; move pieces of the map under them as they walk.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 15, 2012 - 5:41AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2012
|
I tend to have to use a combination of the two, particularly when starting a new campaign with a new group of players that may not be familiar with each other. In that case, I find it's easiest for me to start off with a fairly linear "rail-road" type of game. The hook can be as generic as a man coming into a tavern on a dark and stormy night - but there should be a defined in-your-face starting point to help get everyone focused.
Once the game moves forward, the world starts to grow and the players become comfortable with each other and their own playing styles within the setting, I tend to open it up and provide more details with less direction - more "sandbox" style. That's not to say I ever leave things entirely open-ended; I tend to like to have one over-arcing plot to a campaign, but it may fade in and out as the game moves forward.
As for what I prefer to play in, it also varies. Sometimes it's nice to have a straight forward here's my goal adventure, and other times it's fun to tell the obvious adventure hook to go hang itself and wander off on something else.
Clearly whatever the ruleset for D&D Next winds up being, there should be room and guidance for being able to use both styles.
What's the matter, you dissentious rogues,
That rubbing the poor itch of your opinion
Make yourselves scabs?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 15, 2012 - 6:19AM
#23
|
|
|
i hope its 100% sandbox
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 15, 2012 - 10:41AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Sep 29, 2003
|
That being said I'll never allow the players actions to completely change the plot of the story or allow them to go on off tangents that will just eat up valuable game time and ~
How sad.
Why? The point of the game if for everyone to have fun (the DM included). In a story driven campaign I make my plots loose enough that they can bend with most PCs actions but if the plot of an adventure is that the PC's are suppose to save the kingdom, then they need to save the kingdom as that is the plot of the story. I don't care how they do it but they need to do or else the entire campaign is a failure and where is the fun in failure. To be sure I don't hold their hands (and will let them fail on minor issues) but I won't let them run rampant and do whatever they want since that's not fun for me and if they fail then its not fun for anyone else either.
Besides "completely" means just that, a complete 100% change but that doesn't mean a 99% change (or any other number below 100%) which I think is well with reason.
"We are men of action, lies do not become us" ~ D.P.R.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 16, 2012 - 9:09AM
#25
|
|
|
I strongly favour a hybrid system - a 'hub and spoke' locational setup, with a central city (or caravan, or starship, or whatever) to which the PCs can expect to return; and an overall plot arc that should inform PC decision-making.
So my favourite Planescape campaign had the PCs based alternately in Waterdeep's Castle Ward and Sigil's Market Ward, and heading off on far-flung adventures as and when the need arose. Those adventures could be quite linear ("You're in prison, in Dis, along with your arch-rival; can you co-operate with him for long enough to escape?" or "Can you get to the isolated haunted castle before demons over-run it?"), but when the PCs were in town, they made their own decisions freely. An impending tanar'ri invasion plan provided the main plot arc; the PCs stumled over it, and counter-plots by both guardinals and baatezu, practically everywhere. But which bits they found, and where they chose to go next, was determined by their choices, not just mine.
My next campaign takes place in a large, sprawling empire. But I'm confident that the PCs will want to go to the old and the new capitals soon and often. And the emperor is slowly dying - the anticipated succession crisis provides a built-in plot arc, which the PCs can shape to their particular interests as time passes. (Will they identify a potential claimant who needs to be stopped? Will they seek to profit from the disorder? Could they work to split the empire up? Could they establish a claim for one of their own number?) But as before, specific adventures may be a lot more linear ("Can you get the quinine shipment to the malaria outbreak?" "Do you trust the Chief Shaman enough to go spelunking for his lost scrolls?") And there may be other driving questions to answer. ("Just how old is the pre-dynastic urn we found? Are there more like it?" "What is the shogun's daughter trying to achieve, and should we help or hinder her?")
If done right (and it doesn't always work perfectly) I find that this formula gives a good "TV drama" feel to the game.
Z.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 17, 2012 - 10:37AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
May 16, 2012
|
I never really played that much (and I was probably to young) to notice the difference. I guess I would probably like a mix of both. With too much freedom you can get lost or caught up on details that are not important, but with too little freedom you'd feel more like an audience then a participant.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 17, 2012 - 12:14PM
#27
|
|
|
I like the "hub and spoke" that zerozobb mentioned. That is similar to the format in the Neverwinter Nights computer game. For each section of the campaign, you had a home base. You went out on missions from that base.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 20, 2012 - 2:59PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2012
|
DnD is inherently a sandbox game, because the players can try anything or explore anywhere and the DM can cover it where a computer could not. that said, because of the monumental task of trying to keep track of an entire world, i have developed something similar to the "Hub" style:
i develope a general area that the players are all from. their likely from various small towns or one of a couple major cities. i then develope several secret orginizations, some good, some bad, and develope several encounters that might occur with each of them. i then give the players free reign and say go anywhere, do anything. if the players decide to try and leave my prepared areas i pull out my secret organizations, and find one that fits the current situation.
as the story progressess, the players discover a couple of them more than the others. this naturally occurs because each PC is after a specific goal, and has a specific way of doing things. these secret organizations, and their goals, are how i decide what kind of stuff the party does at the Epic level.
its not a perfect system, but it works, and the players feel as though they are in a dynamic sandbox.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 21, 2012 - 3:38AM
#29
|
|
|
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.
This is, I believe, the perfect way. And it can be easily developed in one or other way, if the MG wishes so...
|
|
|
