.png)
or, How it Becomes the Players' Game
In a response to a previous post, Vanguard
said:
My major objection to all of this is the kind of false choice that the sandbox engenders. The players are thrust into a situation and while the focus of the game does become the thread they follow the most, you're still playing the GMs story, so to speak.
He goes on to say:
I would much rather (for the moment anyway) sit down with the players and talk about what kind of game we want to play and build the world, the setting, and the major conflict together before rolling our characters.
This is interesting, because it seems to
suggest that in the first case (the sandbox), the players do not get to play
the kind of game that they want. It also
suggests that building the milieu cooperatively results in a fuller experience
than exploration of a milieu. That may be true. Then again, it may not be.
To my mind, no matter what kind of game you
are running, player buy-in is mandatory.
Which is another way of saying that, given the freedom to do so, players
will always follow the threads that they find interesting, and avoid those they
could care less about. This does not
just mean following threads that the GM intends them to follow, it means
determining what they would like, determining what they need to do to get it,
and laying down threads of their own. Therefore,
I am not at all certain what type of “false choice” Vanguard is referring
to.
Conversely, imagine that you sit down with
the players before the game is devised, and discuss it with them
thoroughly. Taking their input into
account, you then set to work on the game milieu. Does this in any way suggest that the game
cannot be a sandbox?
Moreover, if the game is intended to be
linear, following the “major conflict”, isn’t it still going to be “playing the
GM’s story, so to speak” if the GM determines the details and texture of that
story? I.e., if he writes the actual
adventures to be used? This seems to me,
therefore, to be a false dilemma.
If the game is linear, and the players
become less interested in the “major conflict”, are then given a choice to get
off the rails at that point, or do they play through to the grim death? Is the campaign milieu then still of use to
the players and GM? Or is that work then
bundled away and forgotten? Much of the
value of a persistent milieu arises from its very persistence. The changes wrought on the milieu matter, to
a large degree, because they are lasting.
Ultimately, the only way the game ever
becomes the players’ game is if they “follow through” – if they decide what
they want to wrest from the material presented (at whatever stage of creation
it is presented in), and then take charge of their own destinies. And, no matter how focused a linear model
game may seem, ultimately a linear model limits the degree to which you can
make meaningful choices in the game.
In games I run, there are three types of
adventures that occur:
(1) Persistent Adventure Locations: Places the players know they
can always go to find a little danger, and perhaps a little coin. The Dungeon of Crows is always a place to go,
barring any other pressing business.
Likewise, any old-school campaign megadungeon, such as the ruins of
Castle Greyhawk, Barrowmaze, or Undermountain.
Note that wilderness exploration is the same sort of thing. IMHO, a world cannot have too many persistent adventure locations.
(2) Adventures of Opportunity: A ship founders on the rocks
and is destroyed. The PCs can attempt to
become involved in the salvage, or not, as they desire. The Ghost Tower of Inverness is
making its regular appearance – you can explore it now, or wait another
century. A caravan is looking for guards
on its trip to the Eastern Lands.
Princess Zelda was captured by a dragon.
A king offers a prize for the most interesting curiosity presented to
his court at midsummer. Etc. These are adventures that the players are
either interested in, or not, but they don’t get to go back to them if they let
them slip by. The wise GM gives notice
for most long in advance, and only fleshes out his notes on these adventures if
the players seem interested.
(3) Player-Driven Adventures: The wizard seeks a new
spell. The warrior seeks a weapon-master
who can grant him special knowledge. The
cleric wants to quest to cure those suffering from disease in order to undo
divine disapproval. The players set the
basic parameters (“I would like to do this”) or even the exacting
parameters (“I would like to do this, and I think it might be
accomplished by doing that”) and the GM runs with it.
Lots of adventures actually combine these
types, of course. The wizard seeks a
spell, thought to be contained in the Ghost Tower, for example. The warrior seeks a sword thought to be lost
in Undermountain. The Thieves’ Carnival
occurs in a persistent city location, but offers unique opportunities for the larcenous
at heart. Etc., etc.
Anyway, that’s how I do it.
What I mean by false choice is that it's still not "this is what I want to do," but "given the available options, this is what I prefer." To be sure, sandbox games DO offer a lot of player choice but it's entirely contingent upon what is in the milieu and what they can get to.
ReplyDeleteAs to your second comment, that's a pretty blatant misreading of it. I never have claimed that it provides a more full experience. What I will claim is that it guarantees player buy-in from day one.
Hi Vanguard,
DeleteNo intent to misread, I assure you.
I would certainly agree that, in any game, what choices players can and do make are entirely contingent on the game milieu. What I think is a false dilemma is the concept that this is any different in a more linear game. This is because, in part, the sandbox tends to evolve over time into an amalgamation of player and GM desires. Also, whether we sit down ahead of time, or not, it is extremely unlikely that I am going to run a game with Teletubby Space Rangers. Read here for "Teletubby Space Rangers" whatever breaks the game for you.
The odds are pretty good that, whatever we discuss beforehand, if it is something that I am even remotely interested in running, is going to be found in the sandbox anyway. I really don't see this as much of a limitation.
And, while I would agree that sitting down and talking it out guarantees player buy-in ON day one, I don't necessarily agree that it guarantees player buy-in FROM day one.
I have no objection to the group sitting down to determine the basic framework of the game milieu, but if the group also determines the basic thrust of the narrative beforehand, my experience has been that buy-in doesn't last. It is boring to play through a story you've already written, from either side of the screen. IMHO. YMMV.
It's not really a story that's already written so much a "here is a conflict or situation that we want to explore." I agree that there is nothing more boring than playing a game where you know how the story ends. The trick is, as you suggested, to make the framework basic.
DeleteSorry, but I am not really seeing the difference here. If I wanted to, say, play out a narrative where my character is the son of Darth Vader, what difference does it make whether the Star Wars galaxy "sandbox" already exists or not? Either the GM is willing to buy into the concept, or he is not.
DeleteThe only difference I can see is that the framework of the story in a sandbox need not be fixed, and can be adjusted by the players as their interests change.
I've been meaning to get back to this but I haven't had the time. May or may not expand this into a blog post for tomorrow.
DeleteThe difference is that pre-established settings and homebrew alike tend to be GMs pet projects. In either case, if a player wants to pursue something that is not canon or that doesn't fit into that milieu, it won't happen.
The kind of cooperative world building I am suggesting very clearly delineates what IS and IS NOT in the setting right out of the gate. It gets everyone on the same page and allows everyone to make those decisions (more or less) democratically.
It does make a huge difference (and make your job easier!) to know what the group (yourself included) right away.
Vanguard, I appreciate the responses, and I am not trying to say your way is the wrong way, or my way is the right way, but there are some things to address here. In particular, "GMs pet projects. In either case, if a player wants to pursue something that is not canon or that doesn't fit into that milieu, it won't happen."
DeleteOn one hand, it is unlikely that I will ever run a game with teletubby space rangers, so to a degree I agree with this. Nor if I was running a game set in Victorian England would a warforged ninja fit in. Is this what you mean?
Frankly, I do not want to design the world when I sit down as a player. I want to explore the "GMs pet project". I want to learn about the world. I want to explore something someone else designed, to explore a unique vision. I want to find a way to make my character fit into that unique world, and to subjugate the world to my will.
Now, you may play with the same group of people every time you play, but at my table, people's schedules mean that some times some people can play, and sometimes some people cannot. And sometimes new people want to play. There is no way that everyone can be on the same page from Day 1 because some people playing now were not there on Day 1.
I already know what I want from the game, and I have no dearth of players who are willing to tell me what they want, so no formal meeting is necessary.
Nor is the game a democracy. One person does the majority of the work; by virtue of this, that person gets the majority of the say. If he wants to cede some or all of that authority to one or more players, more power to him. I wouldn't expect it though; that authority was earned by dint of the work done.
But I am still not sure what you mean by "if a player wants to pursue something that is not canon or that doesn't fit into that milieu, it won't happen." Perhaps you could supply some examples.
I should start with all of my advice is in the interest of reducing work and increasing buy-in, for everyone.
DeleteI spent the better part of ten years building worlds, mapping continents and kingdoms, fleshing out NPCs, thinking about cosmology, conflicts between nations. I loved it. The problem, for me anyway, is that the majority of this stuff goes unexplored and languishes in your imagination. For less work, you could write several books.
And the people who do still cling to that kind of world building, in my experience, wield their power tyrannically at the gaming table because they don't want it ruined. They want their world to be a certain way and they feel some sense of entitlement that because they did the work they can squash player efforts. I see that you, in a recent post, argued against this kind of power, which is good.
So when I suggest this cooperative world building, it does a few things. It takes a huge load off the GMs back in terms of figuring out the milieu. It greatly reduces the guardedness about letting the players make major decisions (which is really about control issues). It makes the characters invested in the world. And, most importantly, everyone has a better shot getting exactly what they want.
As a GM, you can still tinker within the boundaries the group has set. As a player, you can be sure that your goals, both individual and collective, are the major focus of the campaign. I am vehemently opposed to the GM wielding most of the power. The GM is a player. It is their job to challenge the players. It is the players job to communicate how they want to be challenged. Give and take, maybe a 60/40 power split.
As to the last bit, it's really about preconceived notions. I may have phrased it poorly. I really just meant that both homebrew and published settings bring their own baggage, and it's often the GM that gets hung up because the players are doing/want to do something that doesn't jive with it. Why does the GM get the biggest say in regards to the type of game that gets played? The starting power level? Etc? It's only a ton of work if you're running the game from a top down approach.
So let's say the group really wants to play a game focused on the inner working of a royal court, with most of the action being social (we've used this example before). How do they have access to the court? The best way to give them access is just to let them be born into one noble family or another.
But the reality is that most GMs run this kind of medieval Horatio Alger story where you're born into the world with nothing, no friends, no family, no property, etc and have to rise into that position. Which is fun, sometimes. But there is no reason that can't be the start of a conflict where they begin with contacts, relationships, and everything necessary for this to be the major conflict before the players.
/I should start with all of my advice is in the interest of reducing work and increasing buy-in, for everyone./
DeleteThat was assumed.
/I spent the better part of ten years building worlds, mapping continents and kingdoms, fleshing out NPCs, thinking about cosmology, conflicts between nations. I loved it. The problem, for me anyway, is that the majority of this stuff goes unexplored and languishes in your imagination. For less work, you could write several books./
If you loved it, it wasn't a waste. If not, my rule of thumb is: "For each hour of prep, you should try to gain 2 hours minum play time." When you design X, you should also be thinking about how X is relevant to actual play.
From the LotR example, it should be clear that I suggest minimal forward plotting; a few game sessions at most. That way, when the PCs change everything, there is little work wasted, and you have a framework to extrapolate from as needed. I do not advocate writing several novels worth of things that are yet to happen.
/And the people who do still cling to that kind of world building, in my experience, wield their power tyrannically at the gaming table because they don't want it ruined. They want their world to be a certain way and they feel some sense of entitlement that because they did the work they can squash player efforts. I see that you, in a recent post, argued against this kind of power, which is good./
(Shrug) I see that as far less than an ideal game, but if they can find even a single player, and that's what they love, that's what they should do. They just shouldn't expect someone like me (or, apparently, you) to want to play.
But, yeah, if you do more work, you get more say. If you bake a batch of cookies to share, you get to decide what kind to bake. This is no different than ordering a pizza - if one person pays 3/4 of the expense, his tastes are more important than the guy who is chipping in a buck. Of course, if no one else's tastes are taken into account, there still may not be enough people willing to chip in to get that pizza. There might be no takers for those cookies. You might end up sitting alone at the table on game night.
/So when I suggest this cooperative world building, it does a few things. It takes a huge load off the GMs back in terms of figuring out the milieu./
I question that. If the GM has no ideas about what he wants to run, sure. But are you actually suggesting that fitting in everyone's ideas around the table is easier than working from your own? If the GM knows a lot about China, and nothing about Vikings, doesn't that mean he has to now do a lot more research if everyone wants Vikings instead of China?
I would think it does.
/It greatly reduces the guardedness about letting the players make major decisions (which is really about control issues)./
Why? If the GM really is that controlling, giving the players some carrots upfront gives him a stronger, not a weaker, position for not giving out more carrots later. "Hey, I studied up on Vikings like you wanted, now you can give something back in return!"
IME, most GMs aren't going to change their spots because of discussing campaign ideas before the work gets done, or even because of sharing some of the initial burden. And if the GM absolutely hates Vikings, it really won't matter how much the rest of the players love them....either the GM will say No, or he will say Yes and then do a substandard job because the love simply isn't there.
/It makes the characters invested in the world./
Maybe. But I'm betting that there are still unspoken assumptions in that investment, and that the players, being in on the creation, will expect to have those assumptions fulfilled. Which means that while "can still tinker within the boundaries the group has set", some of that tinkering will counter some player desires.
/And, most importantly, everyone has a better shot getting exactly what they want./
DeleteExcept me, of course, and those like me, who explictly want to explore the GM's unique vision, or who want a persistent campaign world that outlasts specific players and their characters.
/As a player, you can be sure that your goals, both individual and collective, are the major focus of the campaign./
How so? Regardless of what is decided, if the GM is a douchebag, the GM is a douchebag. Conversely, it the GM is not a douchebag, your goals are still the major focus of the campaign, regardless of whether or not they were discussed beforehand.
/I am vehemently opposed to the GM wielding most of the power. The GM is a player. It is their job to challenge the players. It is the players job to communicate how they want to be challenged. Give and take, maybe a 60/40 power split./
Here, I have to vehemently disagree.
The GM's power to run a game the way he wishes is absolute. The players' power to only play in games they want to be in is absolute. Everything else is just negotiaton and noise.
/Why does the GM get the biggest say in regards to the type of game that gets played? The starting power level? Etc? It's only a ton of work if you're running the game from a top down approach./
No matter what approach you take, the GM gets the biggest say in regards to the type of game he is willing to run, because he is willing to run it. Full stop. The GM does not get any say about what type of game gets played BY YOU, unless you want to play in his or her game. You get the biggest say as to what type of game you want to play in. If you can't find it, then you can run it yourself. I get the biggest say in the type of game I want to run, because if there is to be a game run by me, I have to want to run it.
/So let's say the group really wants to play a game focused on the inner working of a royal court, with most of the action being social (we've used this example before). How do they have access to the court? The best way to give them access is just to let them be born into one noble family or another.
But the reality is that most GMs run this kind of medieval Horatio Alger story where you're born into the world with nothing, no friends, no family, no property, etc and have to rise into that position. Which is fun, sometimes. But there is no reason that can't be the start of a conflict where they begin with contacts, relationships, and everything necessary for this to be the major conflict before the players./
Sure. If the GM wants to run such a game, that can be fun. If the GM does not want to run such a game, even if he is willing to do so, the odds are very good that it will start to suck balls, and die a horrible petering out death, simply because the GM lacks interest.
A player can be okay with lackluster interest in a game; a GM with only lackluster interest in a game destroys the game, regardless of his willingness to run it or lack thereof. The degree of GM buy-in is simply more important than that of the players.
/Sure. If the GM wants to run such a game, that can be fun. If the GM does not want to run such a game, even if he is willing to do so, the odds are very good that it will start to suck balls, and die a horrible petering out death, simply because the GM lacks interest./
ReplyDeletePoints like this, which make up a fairly large chunk of your responses, are kind of redundant. Of course there needs to be interest; the point is, that by stepping back and discussing what EVERYONE (yes, you, the GM, included) is interested in, you can do the legwork to create a game tailored to the unique, shared vision of the group.
I also think you should stop extrapolating what you think the outcome of this approach will be, as it's little more than speculation coming from a place of resistance. I'm not saying this is the right way, I'm saying this is an alternative.
I think you need to realize that this is not just speculation coming from a place of resistance; it is direct experience. If I don't like strawberries, I do not need to sample every strawberry in the world to know that, on the whole, I am not going to like strawberries.
ReplyDelete(And that is hypothetical there; I do like strawberries. I didn't want to compare your schema to something actually revolting, because, clearly it is not for some people.)
I am not /guessing/ that this works against what I want in a game; I /know/ it does. "Stepping back and discussing what EVERYONE (GM, included) is interested in, you can create a game tailored to the unique, shared vision of the group, but it does little of the legwork, and may increase the legwork, as demonstrated above. That the responses are redundant is only because the same problem arises with many points. That the redundant response needs to be restated, because the point that it can do the legwork has already been addressed, and rises again, is also clear.
Setting the parameters of the legwork does not get the legwork done.
It is easier to do the legwork if you are able to set the parameters based upon your interests, knowledge, and experience.
As an alternative, if the GM wishes to consult the players about what cookie recipe to use, or what ingredients might make a good cookie, all the more power to him. If the players are interested in eating the result, all the more power to them. If everyone's happy with that arrangement, then who am I to say they are wrong?
But, all other things equal, I would rather play in Bob's self-designed campaign milieu than Steve's campaign-milieu-by-committee. That doesn't make Steve wrong; just not for me.
And I have no interest in being Steve.
CAVEAT: As the game milieu evolves, I do pay attention to the expressed desires of the players, and take into account player ideas, especially those I find interesting. See Adventure Type (3) in the above blog post. But no one has an entitlement to have their ideas work out as they expect within the ongoing campaign. Not even the GM....in some ways, especially not the GM, because that would be a pretty boring game to run.
And I am sorry if that sounds strident, but, really, I worked at responding to you with actual, rational response to what you wrote.
Delete"I also think you should stop extrapolating what you think the outcome of this approach will be, as it's little more than speculation coming from a place of resistance." is the InterWeb equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "La la la I'm not listening".
It is nice that you tell me the response is redundant - it is so because that "redundant" response applies to much of what you said. Now tell me why it is not only redundant but /wrong/.
RC
Because typing out, "it is interesting if you are interested", is obviously redundant and doesn't need to be stated. I was merely providing an example of the different kind of setup that this approach allows. Of course, this exact same scenario could play out in the top-down approach, it's just highly unlikely it will.
DeleteAs to why it's wrong, I don't have to do that. We're talking about gaming preferences, not moral quandaries. Right or wrong doesn't enter into the equation, and is a false framing of this. What we can do, and have been doing, is talk about the different kinds of experiences that these approaches engender.
As to the direct experience, a lot of your judgement about the statements I have made include the language of speculation (maybe, I bet, etc). I wasn't intending for that to be accusatory, or turn you off from responding to in the future. So I'll ask you directly: have you done exactly what I've proposed here?
To respond to some points I have not addressed:
/I question that. If the GM has no ideas about what he wants to run, sure. But are you actually suggesting that fitting in everyone's ideas around the table is easier than working from your own? If the GM knows a lot about China, and nothing about Vikings, doesn't that mean he has to now do a lot more research if everyone wants Vikings instead of China?/
This statement shows a clear lack of understanding of the process I am proposing. If players are going to suggest a particular kind of setting, they need to specify what about that setting is interesting. This is about eliminating guesswork, not creating more research for the GM. So, if a player suggests they're interested in Feudal Japan, they should specify whether they are interested in the political rivalries of Daimyos or they want to explore the life of the Samurai and focus on themes of honor and sacrifice. You're free to min/max from their suggestions. Maybe you like the idea of the Daimyos and you're not sold on the far east thing. Suggest Feudal lords in Medieval Europe.
Once you have those basic elements in place, you (still collectively) begin filling in the details. Who are the major players in the setting, where do the characters fit in, and what is the Situation that is driving player decisions? Decide this collectively. This whole process should take about as long as a normal session, but at the end the world you have built is ready to explore.
Well, we are clearly talking about two kinds of campaign world presentations.
DeleteIf the GM knows a lot about China, and nothing about Vikings,a session's worth of discussing what is interesting about Vikings is still not going to let the GM present a Vikings setting in the same way he could do China.
A player specifying whether they are interested in the political rivalries of Daimyos or they want to explore the life of the Samurai and focus on themes of honor and sacrifice isn't going to give the GM all of the information he needs to present Feudal Japan very well.
"Maybe you like the idea of the Daimyos and you're not sold on the far east thing. Suggest Feudal lords in Medieval Europe." What if they really, really want Japan? Is the GM beholden to the players to supply Japan?
Deciding who the major players in the setting are, where the characters fit in, and what is the Situation that is driving player decisions is a far, far cry from having built a world that is ready to explore. It is, at the very best, broad parameters from which the actual work must now begin. Nothing you have described has ameliorated, but very well may have increased, the work the GM must do.
To take it to an extreme, in order to demonstrate the increased workload, imagine that I have a campaign setting devised from, say, the last game I ran. If I go with your suggestion, are you actually suggesting that I would be doing less work to use a new milieu than the one which is already devised?
This is not simply hypothetical - unless this is the first game you have run, every GM has work from previous games which is reusable as backdrop for future games. Unless the GM appears newborn, every GM has areas about which he is more knowledgeable than others. As an obvious example, if the players are interested in the political rivalries of Daimyos, and the GM not only knows nothing about the political rivalries of Daimyos, but knows nothing about Japan at all, and pays little or no attention to politics, it is, shall we say, /extremely unlikely/ that the GM is going to have a world ready to explore at the end of one four-to-six-hour session.
I know that I wouldn't be comfortable running a game on that basis. Interested in playing in it, perhaps, but not running it.
I am not sure if you are suggesting that an extremely shallow game milieu is "ready to explore" or if you are just glossing over the requisite knowledge (not to mention the requisite adventures and hidden information) required to make a game milieu actually ready for play.
And I didn't mean "wrong" as in "morally wrong" (which I thought was very clear in context) but "incorrect" as in "it is incorrect to believe that creating a new campaign world to meet player ideas is more work than using already completed work, and this is why."
So far, I have seen nothing that remotely convinces me that you are not loading more work onto the GM for very little (if any) benefit.
Okay, allow me to demonstrate.
DeleteMy players and I recently decided we wanted to do a "Wizard School" type game. We decided that the school was at the edge of civilization, not so much because of any prevailing negative attitude towards magic, but to give the students room to test their abilities away from the watchful eyes of the ungifted. All we decided was that it was located in a forest to the north of a small city in the eastern-most kingdom.
Before play we decided that magic is an innate gift that needs to be cultivated. You either are born with the gift or you are not. All the players would be playing gifted characters, obviously. One is a Noble, outcast from his family for what they see as a frivolous art. Another is an ex-slave, whose gift awoke when his master died. The final is a Squire who believes his powers are a result of his devotion to God.
First years are enrolled in two classes: The Basics of Alchemy and the Power of the Word. The first is what you would expect; the second, a class which establishes base levels of literacy, proper debate techniques, and a little bit of history of the school.
So, to recap, play began with:
-A rough mental map of the Wizard School
-A few NPCs; Professors, the Headmaster, classmates
-The situation: each player has been tapped to study at this school and accepted.
Because we had some new players, the first session was pretty simple. In their Alchemy class, their first assignment was to gather a few basic ingredients: The Caellum Fern, Ignus Bark, Animal Chitin, and a few others.
DeleteTheir first assignment in the Power of the Word was to copy a recipe on the board (the Slave is illiterate).
The party then went out into the forest and began foraging for the ingredients. I won't go into the details, but they managed to find this stuff.
They then had to mix the ingredients according to the recipes they copied. They made two substances: Sovereign Glue and Universal Solvent. I decided that these were base ingredients when mixing more advances concoctions or breaking materials down. All but one player managed to properly mix the ingredients.
The next session they were asked to do research about the school for The Power of the Word in interest of a debate (the game we are playing uses social combat rules, so this is a fun, light way of doing some rules teaching and answering a very relevant hypothetical): if it was possible to teach the masses magic, should we do it?
The players were tasked with defending it. They began doing research to learn the history of the school and how it became to be established. I asked the players to roll for this. They rolled well enough that all four of us could make up one fact that is canon about the school. I started:
-The school was founded with seven branches schools represented: basic sorcery, alchemy, spirit binding, summoning, death art, enchanting, and blood magic.
The other players came up with:
-One of the three founding members has more or less been written out of history. There is brief mention in the charter, but their name almost completely disappears
-A figure who is important to the history of the school was either expelled or imprisoned (there are conflicting accounts)
-There is an entrance to the wing of the school where Blood Magic, a now defunct subject, was studied in the library.
From there, the group decided they were going to break into the library after hours and explore (students are only permitted access to the sections they are meant to see; ie, materials for advanced coursework are only accessible by upper classmen). There was a lot of exploring that preceded this moment, but the night culminated when they were confronted by a hooded figure wielding a sword. Most players were too scared to act and either stared in awe or fell to passed out. One player, the squire, went blade to blade for a few rounds before taking a nasty wound. Shortly after, the headmaster stormed in with guards and banished this creature.
The only thing I had planned for the second session was the debate. Now they are tasked with arguing in support of this place knowing it harbors an mysterious and possibly malevolent past.
Obviously I am glossing over details for the sake of Brevity, but we have spent more than 10 hours playing on something like 2 hours of prep. What was your rule? 1 hour of prep = 2 hours of play? Try 1 hour of prep = 5 hours. That's a pretty obvious reduction in time.
Vanguard,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the example. What you are doing here is, apparently, quite different from what I am doing, in terms of what you are playing at the very least. I would never consider a rough mental map of the Wizard School, a few NPCs, and "each player has been tapped to study at this school and accepted" adequate preparation for a game.
In fact, if that was really all the prep there was, it would run smack-dab into the "C is For" blog posts I wrote. If the GM is simply making it up as we go along, I wouldn't feel that the choices I was making had any real validity; that kind of thing, like fudging die rolls, leaves me cold. To each his own.
But that still didn't answer the important question: Does the GM have final veto?
/Obviously I am glossing over details for the sake of Brevity, but we have spent more than 10 hours playing on something like 2 hours of prep. What was your rule? 1 hour of prep = 2 hours of play? Try 1 hour of prep = 5 hours. That's a pretty obvious reduction in time./
At a minimum, as I said earlier, 1 hour prep = 2 hours play. Anything less is a wasted investment. However, with a persistent setting, where the same hour's prep is used for play sessions over a decade later, the ratio becomes much, much better.
I cannot say that I have ever hit that mark, but I have certainly hit over a 50 to 1 ration of play value vs. time spent prepping.
I should explicate that last sentence. When I say "time spent prepping", I mean well-developed prep work, not just making a list of NPCs and getting an idea of what some area might be like.
DeleteNo dice rolls are fudged, ever. The results stand and whatever happens in play becomes canon. And their choices do have consequences. Breaking into the library night has put them on academic probation. They are now being following by Sentries to make sure they don't pull any shenanigans and have a curfew instituted until further notice.
DeleteI wouldn't say I'm winging it 100%, as I am very actively responding to every decision the players make, but I have grown much more fond of making it up as one goes over the years. It really lends itself well to a game where you know what the players want (in the sense that I mean it). Far less so for other styles of play. But that's an entirely different issue.
To answer your question, yes, the GM does have final veto power, but the natural exchange of bouncing ideas back and forth almost always results in compromise. If a player suggested the far east setting, but couldn't give examples of the kinds of things they want to see, it's your job to question it. If they don't like your compromise, ask them to specify what doesn't work. Keep tweaking it. The process is about isolating the variables and then collectively molding those into a setting and conflict that everybody is invested in.
/No dice rolls are fudged, ever. The results stand and whatever happens in play becomes canon./
DeleteThere is, in my opinion, no real difference between deciding what the opposition is on the fly and fudging die rolls, in terms of the effects on context, choice, and consequence. For example, if Bob's wizard is about to be killed by the shambling dead thing, and the GM decides it does only 1d3 damage on the spot, that is not really different from rolling 8 damage and reducing it to 3.
For their choices to have context, the GM must be able to give some indication of what is in the area ahead of time, and that indication must come from some sort of knowledge of the area. For choices to have consequences that are not based merely on the whim of the GM, indications of those potential consequences must exist independent of whether or not a choice is made. This is part of the function of statistics in the game.
However, I am glad that you agree that the GM has veto power. And, so long as you are enjoying the game you are running, I am glad you are running it. To each his own.
I would love to be a fly on the wall in your game, Vanguard. It would be interesting to see how your approach works in terms of actual play. Obviously, it works for you. If you ever decide to film a session or two, I would be interested in watching the video.
Delete/I wouldn't say I'm winging it 100%, as I am very actively responding to every decision the players make, but I have grown much more fond of making it up as one goes over the years. It really lends itself well to a game where you know what the players want (in the sense that I mean it). Far less so for other styles of play. But that's an entirely different issue./
DeleteI must be getting old, because it took me a while to catch on to the logical disconnect here.
If you are winging it (close to 100%), then a two-hour session is obviously more work and time spent than simply winging it (close to 100%) on the basis of something you simply make up on the spot.
It is clear that, if you do no development, no time is spent in development. It is equally clear that, if you do development, less time is required for a persistent setting, and less time is required to develop materials from areas you are already knowledgeable in.
Sorry, but the sandbox is still more efficient.
A more focused game also obviously lends it self to fewer potential plot threads than a game which is open. Again, a well-run sandbox (i.e., a game I would recognize as such) is going to have greater variety in plot threads if that is what the participants want.
I'm having trouble parsing some of those sentences. Could you rephrase them? It might just be early, but I'm reading, "winging it is more work than simply winging it, which is circular logic.
DeleteAs to efficiency, I remain unconvinced. The very little amount of prep I had to do for the Wizard School game is going to carry me for a long time, and will likely surpass the 50 to 1 ratio you mentioned. We play twice a month currently, for an average of four hours. In 6 months, that's almost another 50 hours of play, and I doubt I will have to invest more prep work.
And the reason I find this setup preferable is that my players and I don't always want to play with the same set of assumptions, but we almost always want to focus on something specific beyond simply exploring or experiencing the world. In this case, we're looking to find out how a Wizard happens. Maybe next game the players will want to play a war and or Orcs seeking to tame the ravening hordes. Who knows?
As to the variety, we've already covered this. If players do not interact or even hear about something, it does not exist for the purposes of the game. All that matters is what the players focus on. So, while it's true that your game is going to have more threads to follow in-game, your players are only going to focus on a few of them. The only real difference between the sandbox I'm suggesting is when that decision gets made.
Nevermind the rephrasing. I was able to grok what was going on, no rephrasing necessary.
Delete/If players do not interact or even hear about something, it does not exist for the purposes of the game. All that matters is what the players focus on./
DeleteYou seem to be assuming that information about the game world is only what the GM decides to hand out as background notes. In many campaigns, players pro-actively seek out information to better meet their goals/interests. In such a game, the wizard school set-up becomes possible because the players ask about it (the same as they did in your first session). Some characters may become involved in that, while other characters (some even of the same player) explore other things.
There is nothing in the game that mandates that the same characters, or even the same players, are involved in each game session. For instance, my current DCC campaign has multiple PC groups, which are spread out across the map at the moment, each doing its own thing.
Remember (3) Player-Driven Adventures, from the above?
DeleteThe wizard seeks a new spell. The warrior seeks a weapon-master who can grant him special knowledge. The cleric wants to quest to cure those suffering from disease in order to undo divine disapproval. The players set the basic parameters (“I would like to do this”) or even the exacting parameters (“I would like to do this, and I think it might be accomplished by doing that”) and the GM runs with it.
"I would like to found a school for wizards."
"I would like to find a school for wizards."
It seems unreasonable to me to assume that players who are so interested in a wizard's school that they would make it the focus for play in your schema suddenly become so disinterested that they fail to mention it in mine. Even though they are encouraged to do so.
Or, perhaps, that is the disconnect. In a sandbox game, as in any other, I would encourage the players to come up with goals for their characters, and to share what they are interested in. In fact, for DCC, I made a sheet to include this information, and players gain XP for their characters by filling it out.
Of course, as with your schema, the GM has final say in mine. "I want to find a way to be a teletubby ranger" is unlikely to bear fruit! :D
DeleteIn this way, there are limitations. OTOH, using your schema, I would be equally unlikely to run a game focused on teletubby space rangers, so the difference is moot.