As some of you might be aware, the delivery of the Brave Halfling boxed set edition of Delving Deeper was a long and miserable story. But, it arrived in the end and it was not a disappointment.
Now, there are nothing here to really excite me. I must admit that first of all. The game is not like LotfP or Ambition & Avarice. But, it does not try to be. Delving Deeper is trying to be faithful to the OD&D edition, and does a decent job of it. I guess you can split hairs and list all the differences, but let us not forget they have to differ from the original game for legal reasons! If OD&D is your kind of flavour, this is not a bad clone to pick up. When I compare it to the original it feels quite close actually. In some cases more close than e.g. Swords & Wizardry Whitebox (which I will write about at a later date).
The first thing that strike me is the pretty box. The front illustration is excellent, and filed with action. Nasty monsters fighting dungeon delvers, it's right there on the tin, so to speak. I really like Mark Allen's artwork and I like the uniformity it gives the game. One nice thing is the amount of illustrations in the monster book.
Having mentioned the books I guess I have to mention that this edition is not three small booklets. It's five books, but in the books "Volume I", "Volume II" and "Volume III" are mentioned, which looks confusing. I like that there's a book for players and one for referees. I'm less thrilled with a whole book of treasures. So often those books are just rehashes of "classic D&D items", i.e. boring retreads of Gary's campaign. A booklet with random tables for generating new content for both monsters and treasure would be my choice. I did say something about this not being intended to be what LotfP is, right? Maybe I should appreciate this for what it is.
The rules for naval combat, aerial exploration and wilderness exploration are compact but looks usable. Probably the only rules for building fortifications I'd ever use would have to be short! That is the feeling about almost everything in this game. It's to the point, solid and usable. I might actually go for this game for the same reason I go for my BRP book, it's simple and workmanlike, even though it lacks bennies, card based initiative and new exciting mechanics. It almost wins me over by not even trying to be selling itself.
One little sweet thing included in the box (did I say I love the box?), is the Blackmarsh setting by Robert Conley. Very classic, with a lot of the feel you get from looking at a map of Blackmoor. It guess that is not a coincidence. It became available before the game arrived at my doorstep, so I got it and for a while entertained the idea of playing Heroes and Other Worlds in that setting. That never came to be, but it is a good canvas for adventure. I'm not sure I'm all done with the sandbox settings of Robert Conley yet! Delving Deeper is not a bad rules set for exploring something like that. It's basic, but that's the point.
Now where do I have my graph paper, pencils and hex paper?
Showing posts with label Sandbox. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sandbox. Show all posts
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Friday, November 21, 2014
Do you as the GM have obligations?
Not too long ago we talked on our podcast with Swedish rpg luminary Anders Björkelid. He and his friends in the rpg club NisseNytt toured conventions with massive well researched scenarios, and published their fanzine where they pontificated upon our hobby. Anders summarized their attitude to scenario design, and their modus operandi as (paraphrased) "every player deserves an experience and a story, regardless of what they do". This I remembered when I read LotFP last week. James Raggi mentioned something similar, but with the opposite intention. He claims the GM have no obligations to the players. If they complain about being bored you ought to say "Yeah, so what are you going to do about it?"
So, do you have an obligation to the players, or not?
I find the idea quite compelling if I go to a con and sign up and pay for a game to be guaranteed a story. If I am proactive and engage I will have fun, but even if I sit back and have a day when I just want to hang out and see what happens, something still happens!
On the other hand, I know that a game where the players are engaged will be more fun, and it will be easier to run for me if the players are there as co-creators. Maybe we even share narrative control, and it will be more of a interactive storytelling.
Interactive storytelling is actually one of the key words for what NisseNytt was all about. So how does this tie together?
I think you as a GM do have an obligation to the players. But, I also think as a player you have an obligation to engage in the game. Middle of the road, wishy washy conclusion, eh?
Have you, dear reader, read any of the Play Dirty GM advice by John Wick? If you have not, I suggest you do. John is sometimes very polarizing, but he is seldom boring. His way of GMing is all about bringing stuff to the players. But, it's not at all holding hands and telling a story. No, he suggest you hurt the PCs as much as you can, and kick them while they are down. "They will love you for it", he claims. I guess you could say John Wick argues you have an obligation to make life tough for the player characters, so to sweeten the final victory.
Obviously, there are more than one way to skin this particular cat.
Maybe this in one of the reasons role playing games are such a powerful tool too express yourself through. It's adaptable to multiple approaches, and none are wrong. I have played in a NisseNytt scenario where I knew there was a story going on, and for me the big thing was to follow along to participate through the viewpoint of my character. I've also played with James Raggi, where he sat back and watched us squirm after presenting us with a extremely messy situation we as players had to sort out as our PCs. Finally, I've also played a session of Dogs in the Vineyard where the game master put me, the player, under more and more pressure to act with my PC as the situation we had become part of spiralled out of control as it began to emotionally engage us as players just as much as our PCs. I was down, and the kicks kept coming.
I loved all of those situations. So, ask yourself this the next time you sit down behind the GM screen. Do you have an obligation to the players this time?
So, do you have an obligation to the players, or not?
I find the idea quite compelling if I go to a con and sign up and pay for a game to be guaranteed a story. If I am proactive and engage I will have fun, but even if I sit back and have a day when I just want to hang out and see what happens, something still happens!
On the other hand, I know that a game where the players are engaged will be more fun, and it will be easier to run for me if the players are there as co-creators. Maybe we even share narrative control, and it will be more of a interactive storytelling.
Interactive storytelling is actually one of the key words for what NisseNytt was all about. So how does this tie together?
I think you as a GM do have an obligation to the players. But, I also think as a player you have an obligation to engage in the game. Middle of the road, wishy washy conclusion, eh?
Have you, dear reader, read any of the Play Dirty GM advice by John Wick? If you have not, I suggest you do. John is sometimes very polarizing, but he is seldom boring. His way of GMing is all about bringing stuff to the players. But, it's not at all holding hands and telling a story. No, he suggest you hurt the PCs as much as you can, and kick them while they are down. "They will love you for it", he claims. I guess you could say John Wick argues you have an obligation to make life tough for the player characters, so to sweeten the final victory.
Obviously, there are more than one way to skin this particular cat.
Maybe this in one of the reasons role playing games are such a powerful tool too express yourself through. It's adaptable to multiple approaches, and none are wrong. I have played in a NisseNytt scenario where I knew there was a story going on, and for me the big thing was to follow along to participate through the viewpoint of my character. I've also played with James Raggi, where he sat back and watched us squirm after presenting us with a extremely messy situation we as players had to sort out as our PCs. Finally, I've also played a session of Dogs in the Vineyard where the game master put me, the player, under more and more pressure to act with my PC as the situation we had become part of spiralled out of control as it began to emotionally engage us as players just as much as our PCs. I was down, and the kicks kept coming.
I loved all of those situations. So, ask yourself this the next time you sit down behind the GM screen. Do you have an obligation to the players this time?
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
The Vampire sandbox
I listened to a podcast that discussed the first scenario for Vampire, in the back of the 2nd ed rulebook. I remember when Vampire was the hottest thing, and how I bought that book and pored over it. I tried to figure out how to make a "personal horror" game out of it, and even though we played it a bit it never really fulfilled its potential. Looking at that example scenario do provide some fairly good hints on how the creator, Mark Rein Hagen, really envisioned his game.
The scenario is very limited in its geographical location. There are no extensive secondary world to explore, there are no obvious fights and no obvious treasure. But, there are a crowd of NPCs.
While I never really came to appreciate the "super heroes with fangs" aspects of Vampire, I did find the idea of a NPC based scenario to be intriguing. I've found that it is a challenge to make them flow well, though. If the NPCs one after one come up to the PCs and talk, then walk away to make way to the next in line, it will feel like the players really are standing there with a line of people. To make it still feel like a place, like something is happening, was always a challenge to me.
If we take a look at some scenarios that look like that, which I've had more success with, I at once think of Call of Cthulhu. Many CoC scenarios have many people to talk to, but they also almost always have a strong plot element. Sometimes even so strong it can be considered railroaded. But, I've found that is one of the best ways to make the "crowd of people" scenario work. If you have some plot going on, with things happening no matter what, all that talk doesn't feel as much like it's happening in a vacuum.
Now, you know what I first thought when I listened to how the podcasters (I wish I remembered which podcast it was, but my mp3 player have crashed and I have no copy of the file anywhere and no recollection of how I found it) described the scenario? I thought, "this sounds like a sandbox"! But, often sandboxes are described as a setting, a place, where the players are free to create their own plot and explore freely. This is another kind of sandbox, that is almost not a place and not about exploration. It's a sandbox of people.
I've never thought about that before, and naturally it makes me wonder if anyone have thought of doing a sandbox like that for their game, their old school game of D&D and similar games? Has it been done, or have we not yet left the dungeon?
The scenario is very limited in its geographical location. There are no extensive secondary world to explore, there are no obvious fights and no obvious treasure. But, there are a crowd of NPCs.
While I never really came to appreciate the "super heroes with fangs" aspects of Vampire, I did find the idea of a NPC based scenario to be intriguing. I've found that it is a challenge to make them flow well, though. If the NPCs one after one come up to the PCs and talk, then walk away to make way to the next in line, it will feel like the players really are standing there with a line of people. To make it still feel like a place, like something is happening, was always a challenge to me.
If we take a look at some scenarios that look like that, which I've had more success with, I at once think of Call of Cthulhu. Many CoC scenarios have many people to talk to, but they also almost always have a strong plot element. Sometimes even so strong it can be considered railroaded. But, I've found that is one of the best ways to make the "crowd of people" scenario work. If you have some plot going on, with things happening no matter what, all that talk doesn't feel as much like it's happening in a vacuum.
Now, you know what I first thought when I listened to how the podcasters (I wish I remembered which podcast it was, but my mp3 player have crashed and I have no copy of the file anywhere and no recollection of how I found it) described the scenario? I thought, "this sounds like a sandbox"! But, often sandboxes are described as a setting, a place, where the players are free to create their own plot and explore freely. This is another kind of sandbox, that is almost not a place and not about exploration. It's a sandbox of people.
I've never thought about that before, and naturally it makes me wonder if anyone have thought of doing a sandbox like that for their game, their old school game of D&D and similar games? Has it been done, or have we not yet left the dungeon?
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
How to write adventures - I keep talking about location based design
So, what were my experiences from Location Based Design for my adventure?
I had decided to play a game of Mutant, one of the earliest games I ever played for any extended time. It's a BRP game, which really looks a lot like Gamma World. Mutated anthropomorphic animals for the win! Thanks to those qualities I could inject lot of humour and jokes about contemporary events.
The backstory say that some kind of catastrophe occurred, and humankind escaped into subterranean bunkers, and only ventured outside when long time had passed. Knowledge of the old times have faded, and now mutants of all kinds roamed the lands. I decided to make the PCs all be part of a secret project to develop psychic powers, and they had all been put to cryogenic sleep. Now they wake up, with hazy memories and can explore the setting with no preconceived ideas, as they knew as much as their characters did.
My location was a small village, with a sawmill powered by an artifact from the Old Days. The village was basically ruled and run by the robber baron that owned the artifact. I made up a few enemies of his, some shops and people in the village and let the players loose.
Like I wrote about yesterday I had the map, the location in question. The threat I envisioned was the tension in the village between the rich ruler and his "subjects". In order to make it something the players could not just ignore I also invented an NPC with a personal vendetta against the baron, and a timeline for how it would play out.
So, how did it work?
The biggest problem I think was related to the reasons for the PCs to be there. They woke up, and some mutated badgers brought them to the baron and the basically followed along. While they did walk around a bit, they never did take strong action for or against any of the sides in the village. I think I learned that the threat has to be immediate, and personal. If you have very pro-active players they might make things up for themselves, but I think having a clear, threat, is a good idea. It's first now when I look back at it and try to formulate what the components were that I settled on that term.
I claim this is one of the basic forms of design for an adventure. Some call this fish tank or sandbox. I'd prefer to shine the light on the Location. Why? Because a sandbox is just a somewhat flat area, of a common material. I think a location based adventure has to be much more, and that's why I never have had much success with "sandboxes". A Location has to be strange, worth investigating and exploring and there has to be a clear threat looming large and personal. At least that's the theory.
Next up I'll take a closer look at the Scene Based Design.
I had decided to play a game of Mutant, one of the earliest games I ever played for any extended time. It's a BRP game, which really looks a lot like Gamma World. Mutated anthropomorphic animals for the win! Thanks to those qualities I could inject lot of humour and jokes about contemporary events.
The backstory say that some kind of catastrophe occurred, and humankind escaped into subterranean bunkers, and only ventured outside when long time had passed. Knowledge of the old times have faded, and now mutants of all kinds roamed the lands. I decided to make the PCs all be part of a secret project to develop psychic powers, and they had all been put to cryogenic sleep. Now they wake up, with hazy memories and can explore the setting with no preconceived ideas, as they knew as much as their characters did.
My location was a small village, with a sawmill powered by an artifact from the Old Days. The village was basically ruled and run by the robber baron that owned the artifact. I made up a few enemies of his, some shops and people in the village and let the players loose.
Like I wrote about yesterday I had the map, the location in question. The threat I envisioned was the tension in the village between the rich ruler and his "subjects". In order to make it something the players could not just ignore I also invented an NPC with a personal vendetta against the baron, and a timeline for how it would play out.
So, how did it work?
The biggest problem I think was related to the reasons for the PCs to be there. They woke up, and some mutated badgers brought them to the baron and the basically followed along. While they did walk around a bit, they never did take strong action for or against any of the sides in the village. I think I learned that the threat has to be immediate, and personal. If you have very pro-active players they might make things up for themselves, but I think having a clear, threat, is a good idea. It's first now when I look back at it and try to formulate what the components were that I settled on that term.
I claim this is one of the basic forms of design for an adventure. Some call this fish tank or sandbox. I'd prefer to shine the light on the Location. Why? Because a sandbox is just a somewhat flat area, of a common material. I think a location based adventure has to be much more, and that's why I never have had much success with "sandboxes". A Location has to be strange, worth investigating and exploring and there has to be a clear threat looming large and personal. At least that's the theory.
Next up I'll take a closer look at the Scene Based Design.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Non-Antagonistic play - DM vs Players the other way
I was listening to the Narrative Control Podcast, and they talked about how to generated interesting conflicts in a game. Basically, regardless if you believe the game master's job is to create a story for the player characters to participate in, or creating interesting situations for the players to create a story from, you will still need conflicts.
This reminded me of the old question of to what extent you should have any element of antagonistic play, i.e. to what extent the GM should make it hard for the players. Note, not the characters. The thing is, some players might take it like it's targeted towards them, even when the figure in the cross hairs is their characters. Now, let's assume "interesting" conflicts means something that makes it hard for the player character.
The neat little trick mentioned on the podcast was attributed to Rob Donoghue, and I thought it was quite neat.So, the idea was to not attack the PC, since some players will take it personally and attack back! Instead, attack what the PC is invested in. I thought that was quite cool. Among the really smart game masters this might be yesterday's news, but to me this was something new worth pondering. If in the emergent play one character has started to be involved in something like a mercantile organization, or a church, you put them in dire straights and see what happens.
My experience with the kind of players that might take troubles for their characters like a personal affront is luckily something I have been spared. I have not had that much experience with a wide open sandbox either (I always had the dungeon walls limiting the player choice somewhat), so now I'm catching up and learning the tricks. I think Rob is onto something good. I will try to use this a bit more consciously in the future.
This reminded me of the old question of to what extent you should have any element of antagonistic play, i.e. to what extent the GM should make it hard for the players. Note, not the characters. The thing is, some players might take it like it's targeted towards them, even when the figure in the cross hairs is their characters. Now, let's assume "interesting" conflicts means something that makes it hard for the player character.
The neat little trick mentioned on the podcast was attributed to Rob Donoghue, and I thought it was quite neat.So, the idea was to not attack the PC, since some players will take it personally and attack back! Instead, attack what the PC is invested in. I thought that was quite cool. Among the really smart game masters this might be yesterday's news, but to me this was something new worth pondering. If in the emergent play one character has started to be involved in something like a mercantile organization, or a church, you put them in dire straights and see what happens.
My experience with the kind of players that might take troubles for their characters like a personal affront is luckily something I have been spared. I have not had that much experience with a wide open sandbox either (I always had the dungeon walls limiting the player choice somewhat), so now I'm catching up and learning the tricks. I think Rob is onto something good. I will try to use this a bit more consciously in the future.
Monday, November 28, 2011
An interesting way to start a sandbox
I have been listening to podcasts again. Yeah, I do that a lot. Me and my spouse cover different ones. She listens to 'casts about book of fiction and science news while I enjoys listening to people talk about ways to explore and invent imaginary worlds. Yeah. Solid stuff.
I did pick up a nice idea from the Happy Jacks podcast which I now have listened to a new episode of. Blame none but me if you think the following is stupid, though, it's my interpretation of an off hand remark made on the show.
For me the idea of a sandbox hinges upon the very proactive players. Frankly, I have seen few that would fit the bill. So, how about a way to show them the possibilities and wet their appetites before letting them loose? I'm thinking like this. How about you start your sandbox campaign with a pilot? You know how they do tv-shows, when they have a longer pilot episode where the main players gets introduced and suitable arenas of conflicts are delineated? I'm thinking that maybe that is a good way to start a sandbox campaign.
The way I would do that, would be a short but quite scripted episode where I expose the players through a simple plot (yes a predetermined one), to the things they then can poke and prod to their hearts delight. That way you would show how a story could look like in this world, and who the powers are they might want to topple, or play nice with. Naturally this would be strict by scenes, with time limits and also by cut scenes. Very focused and railroady.
Then I'd let the loose.
I wonder if that would fly?
I did pick up a nice idea from the Happy Jacks podcast which I now have listened to a new episode of. Blame none but me if you think the following is stupid, though, it's my interpretation of an off hand remark made on the show.
For me the idea of a sandbox hinges upon the very proactive players. Frankly, I have seen few that would fit the bill. So, how about a way to show them the possibilities and wet their appetites before letting them loose? I'm thinking like this. How about you start your sandbox campaign with a pilot? You know how they do tv-shows, when they have a longer pilot episode where the main players gets introduced and suitable arenas of conflicts are delineated? I'm thinking that maybe that is a good way to start a sandbox campaign.
The way I would do that, would be a short but quite scripted episode where I expose the players through a simple plot (yes a predetermined one), to the things they then can poke and prod to their hearts delight. That way you would show how a story could look like in this world, and who the powers are they might want to topple, or play nice with. Naturally this would be strict by scenes, with time limits and also by cut scenes. Very focused and railroady.
Then I'd let the loose.
I wonder if that would fly?
Monday, May 9, 2011
My thoughts on sandboxing
A few days ago I read some reviews of old Swedish modules, the shared heritage kind of thing, if you like. I noticed that one module was described as a "fishtank", and the way it was described it was clear that some kind of sandbox was what the author was describing. That made me look at what was provided, and how that stack up.
I guess anyone interested in the subject have seen Rob Conley's major series of posts on how to create a sandbox? I have a suggestion. Don't read it. Yet.
That series, while informative and exhaustive, is way too much. To start a sandbox you need far less. This module that ignited the fire fuelling the this train of thought provided far less.
Note that I have never successfully ran a sandbox campaign, so what do I know?
I guess anyone interested in the subject have seen Rob Conley's major series of posts on how to create a sandbox? I have a suggestion. Don't read it. Yet.
That series, while informative and exhaustive, is way too much. To start a sandbox you need far less. This module that ignited the fire fuelling the this train of thought provided far less.
- A sketchy map, with some atmospheric names, is great for inspiring wonder and creating ideas for adventure.
- Some NPCs who move about this area, with clear motives and plans for players getting involved in, helping or thwarting.
- Pro active players who can look at that map and run with the ideas generated from it.
- Player characters with ambitions and short and long term goals.
- A few McGuffins.
Note that I have never successfully ran a sandbox campaign, so what do I know?
Thursday, October 14, 2010
How to create a swashbuckling campaign in no time at all
This is one post players in my present 7th Sea game might want to avoid. I don't say that because I'm going to spoil any important parts of the plot, but because I will come across as disorganized and confused.
Many bloggers have posted about how to set up "sandbox" campaigns. Personally I'm not yet a convert to that style, so I will post something different. I'm not sure what can be learnt from my experiences, but if my suggestions are not good advice I at least hope some of it might be amusing.
So. This time I had gotten a request for a game of pirates and swashbuckling. I own 7th Sea, so I suggested that. Now it was time to think of some way to start it off. Since the theme didn't fit very well with meeting in a tavern to go off and fight monsters I decided to start everything on a ship.
Now what?
Swashbuckling means a merry chase round and round and breathtaking escapes and chases, right? Ok. Then I'll start with a fight, and let them get hold of a treasure map. Either they grab it from the villain when winning the fight, or they get hold of it because he drops it. Yeah, I know. But, I figured it kind of fit the style of story. Then they might go off and try to find the treasure and I can have someone mysteriously trying to stop them, or if the go ashore to find out more I can have people chasing them and trying to get the map back.
As you might note I had no master plan. I kind of figured they would meet the villain whose map they had gotten in the end at the treasure site, but that was it.
So what you need for a campaign are three things
1. a location that reinforce the theme, a ship.
2. a villain
3. a MacGuffin, the map and the treasure
Then it might help to have a few outs for the likely roads taken, like "Somebody chasing them if they go to A and somebody chasing them if they go to B."
After this I had no idea. I did buy a pile of adventures for Flashing Blades when they were on sale at DrivethruRPG, so I figured I could somehow contrive to place them in front of the players if they went off in unexpected directions.
Now we have just began to entangle us in a few of those adventures and I have introduced a whole crowd of conspiracies and secret societies. I have a strong suspicion it will become more and more twisted, and considering I have no idea how it fits together I wonder what will happen?
What amazes me most of all is that they still haven't tried to get hold of that treasure from the map.
Many bloggers have posted about how to set up "sandbox" campaigns. Personally I'm not yet a convert to that style, so I will post something different. I'm not sure what can be learnt from my experiences, but if my suggestions are not good advice I at least hope some of it might be amusing.
So. This time I had gotten a request for a game of pirates and swashbuckling. I own 7th Sea, so I suggested that. Now it was time to think of some way to start it off. Since the theme didn't fit very well with meeting in a tavern to go off and fight monsters I decided to start everything on a ship.
Now what?
Swashbuckling means a merry chase round and round and breathtaking escapes and chases, right? Ok. Then I'll start with a fight, and let them get hold of a treasure map. Either they grab it from the villain when winning the fight, or they get hold of it because he drops it. Yeah, I know. But, I figured it kind of fit the style of story. Then they might go off and try to find the treasure and I can have someone mysteriously trying to stop them, or if the go ashore to find out more I can have people chasing them and trying to get the map back.
As you might note I had no master plan. I kind of figured they would meet the villain whose map they had gotten in the end at the treasure site, but that was it.
So what you need for a campaign are three things
1. a location that reinforce the theme, a ship.
2. a villain
3. a MacGuffin, the map and the treasure
Then it might help to have a few outs for the likely roads taken, like "Somebody chasing them if they go to A and somebody chasing them if they go to B."
After this I had no idea. I did buy a pile of adventures for Flashing Blades when they were on sale at DrivethruRPG, so I figured I could somehow contrive to place them in front of the players if they went off in unexpected directions.
Now we have just began to entangle us in a few of those adventures and I have introduced a whole crowd of conspiracies and secret societies. I have a strong suspicion it will become more and more twisted, and considering I have no idea how it fits together I wonder what will happen?
What amazes me most of all is that they still haven't tried to get hold of that treasure from the map.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Yet more campaign styles
I have written before about Story Campaigns, Sandboxes and Emergent Campaigns and I still keep my eyes peeled for new ideas and attitudes to campaign development. A short while ago I found this blog post about campaign styles. Check it out. Some interesting nuggets in there.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Castles made of sand, stories made from threads of many colours
A few days ago I read a very enlightening piece over on the blog Playing D&D With Pornstars. He writes about the way the "work ethic" of the rogue drives play, and gets the character into troubles and adventure.
As you might remember, I posted about how I had a bad experience of my players ignoring the hooks to adventure I dangled before them. This about a work ethic made me think.
I really think you can have a good and solid game which feels interactive, even if the GM have a story to tell. I also think that having a open sandbox sounds like it's liberating, but it comes with its own set of problems not advertised on the box.
One suggestion from in one of the comments to my post lamenting my experiences with adventure hooks has the key. Imagine a campaign where the outlines of the world are prepared, and there are forces at work in the setting. This will lay some groundwork for greater machinations going on behind the scenes. Now imagine how those machinations will manifest themselves on a concrete level, visible to the players. This is an adventure hook.
This makes me think of how Dogs in the Vineyard works. The players have a town in front of them, and if the go there they will be entangled in the webs of intrigue and the twisted relationships there. Also, whatever they do will have consequences.
If the GM wants to have epic stories play out in his world, this is how they evolve. Great changes are afoot, and if the characters interact with the results of those changes the players will help shape the future. The GM will decide how much he lets the players shape until they have stepped up their game to the global level.
Let's imagine for an instant that the players ignore that town, ripe with sin and glorious options for kicking ass. If there are more things going on in the world there will be more things happening soon which will hit the fan close to where the characters are standing. This is another adventure hook.
Our hard working GM might be a bit frustrated by now if the players don't take that hook. No worries. Keep moving your "story" along, and if you don't decide to kick out your players for not doing their job (go ahead and do it!) things will happen they can't ignore. Bring 10 000 orchs to their hometown.
What I'm imagining here is not a Sandbox as such, at least not the way it sounds like when its praises are sung on old school blogs. I don't think it's a railroaded Story campaign either. I suggest a new term is founded to express the idea of a campaign frame where there are a Story fuelling conflicts in the setting, an open world whereupon the players can leave their mark and finally a whole bundle of threads which tie into the bigger issues that they players can ignore as long as they take some of these threads and start weaving. I'd like to call it a Threaded Campaign, as a middle ground between the open Sandbox and the Story Campaign.
I realize I might misrepresent some of your holy cows here. Some is for emphasis, but I think my main thrust is interesting. Feel free to comment upon that, and other thoughts you have.
As you might remember, I posted about how I had a bad experience of my players ignoring the hooks to adventure I dangled before them. This about a work ethic made me think.
I really think you can have a good and solid game which feels interactive, even if the GM have a story to tell. I also think that having a open sandbox sounds like it's liberating, but it comes with its own set of problems not advertised on the box.
One suggestion from in one of the comments to my post lamenting my experiences with adventure hooks has the key. Imagine a campaign where the outlines of the world are prepared, and there are forces at work in the setting. This will lay some groundwork for greater machinations going on behind the scenes. Now imagine how those machinations will manifest themselves on a concrete level, visible to the players. This is an adventure hook.
This makes me think of how Dogs in the Vineyard works. The players have a town in front of them, and if the go there they will be entangled in the webs of intrigue and the twisted relationships there. Also, whatever they do will have consequences.
If the GM wants to have epic stories play out in his world, this is how they evolve. Great changes are afoot, and if the characters interact with the results of those changes the players will help shape the future. The GM will decide how much he lets the players shape until they have stepped up their game to the global level.
Let's imagine for an instant that the players ignore that town, ripe with sin and glorious options for kicking ass. If there are more things going on in the world there will be more things happening soon which will hit the fan close to where the characters are standing. This is another adventure hook.
Our hard working GM might be a bit frustrated by now if the players don't take that hook. No worries. Keep moving your "story" along, and if you don't decide to kick out your players for not doing their job (go ahead and do it!) things will happen they can't ignore. Bring 10 000 orchs to their hometown.
What I'm imagining here is not a Sandbox as such, at least not the way it sounds like when its praises are sung on old school blogs. I don't think it's a railroaded Story campaign either. I suggest a new term is founded to express the idea of a campaign frame where there are a Story fuelling conflicts in the setting, an open world whereupon the players can leave their mark and finally a whole bundle of threads which tie into the bigger issues that they players can ignore as long as they take some of these threads and start weaving. I'd like to call it a Threaded Campaign, as a middle ground between the open Sandbox and the Story Campaign.
I realize I might misrepresent some of your holy cows here. Some is for emphasis, but I think my main thrust is interesting. Feel free to comment upon that, and other thoughts you have.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Defining Dogs as a sandbox, and how hooks and threads make the box tick
Once again my commentators are thinking along the same lines as me, and I'll tie in a bit with that. I will try to expand upon DitV as sandbox, and my thoughts on the social aspect of play and what makes a game tick. The latter is what I call narrowing the sandbox. Let's dive right in.
If we put it down to basics, riding from town to town settling issues might not look very much like an open game. It's correct that there are few allowances in the game to, say, settle down and grow crops instead. But, within the limits of the way the game is set up, it's very open. Let's take a look at that, and then the rules for settling down and grow crops.
As you come to a town in Dogs, usually the problem with the town will be apparent for all to see. This person have sinned, or stepped out of line socially and the society has to be healed somehow. If you accept that your role is to heal that town, you now have total freedom! ? You could burn the town to the ground, shoot all the sinners, forgive everyone or any kind of harsh or mild action. You are invested with the power to say it is alright, and you choose how to exercise it.
So what if I wanted to grow barley instead? Well, nothing is stopping you. If you take a look at what the game system, you'll see that is not a task system. In fact, conflicts in DitV is even not really about who "win" the conflict. The system is a betting game where all you're doing is to see how far you are ready to go to win. There's even suggestions for other settings in the rulebook. If you want to settle down and grow crops you can do it, and when conflicts arise from agriculture the game system will help you decide how for you are ready to go to get what you want. Let's take a look at the social aspect of play.
Since my dear readers have pointed out that this idea that you are a "wandering religious lawman" could be considered very limiting, let's ask ourselves how that is. I'd suggest that the meta layer of the game, the social rules is most important here. Just like in my game (posted about earlier) where the players ignored the fact that they had sat down to be adventurers and thus go on adventures, there are always social rules that are the basis for a functional game.
I'd say that accepting the fact that in DitV you are supposed to be a lawman is just as basic as accepting that in D&D you wont play a starship captain. It's a social meta rule. I think these rules are probably what makes a game tick. If the players accept a limited arena of action it will feel cool, and the spaces wide within that arena.
Now, why would anyone even accept a more narrow arena than a wide open world? Well, I think it ties into the idea of adventure hooks. Even the most open game will go nowhere unless there's a hook somewhere. It might be in the character backstory, or something the GM put together. Actually, I think the game where it will feel like a real world, and with endless possibilities is one where the GM have a whole bunch of hooks, or story threads. Let's say he have a dozen he hand dangle in front of the players and they can pick and choose which one to go for. I think then you will get a good game from that prep and the socially accepted arena. It will be open, but not wide open. The edges of the box will have come into focus, but everything you do will make sense and have an effect. Isn't that what we all want as players?
If we put it down to basics, riding from town to town settling issues might not look very much like an open game. It's correct that there are few allowances in the game to, say, settle down and grow crops instead. But, within the limits of the way the game is set up, it's very open. Let's take a look at that, and then the rules for settling down and grow crops.
As you come to a town in Dogs, usually the problem with the town will be apparent for all to see. This person have sinned, or stepped out of line socially and the society has to be healed somehow. If you accept that your role is to heal that town, you now have total freedom! ? You could burn the town to the ground, shoot all the sinners, forgive everyone or any kind of harsh or mild action. You are invested with the power to say it is alright, and you choose how to exercise it.
So what if I wanted to grow barley instead? Well, nothing is stopping you. If you take a look at what the game system, you'll see that is not a task system. In fact, conflicts in DitV is even not really about who "win" the conflict. The system is a betting game where all you're doing is to see how far you are ready to go to win. There's even suggestions for other settings in the rulebook. If you want to settle down and grow crops you can do it, and when conflicts arise from agriculture the game system will help you decide how for you are ready to go to get what you want. Let's take a look at the social aspect of play.
Since my dear readers have pointed out that this idea that you are a "wandering religious lawman" could be considered very limiting, let's ask ourselves how that is. I'd suggest that the meta layer of the game, the social rules is most important here. Just like in my game (posted about earlier) where the players ignored the fact that they had sat down to be adventurers and thus go on adventures, there are always social rules that are the basis for a functional game.
I'd say that accepting the fact that in DitV you are supposed to be a lawman is just as basic as accepting that in D&D you wont play a starship captain. It's a social meta rule. I think these rules are probably what makes a game tick. If the players accept a limited arena of action it will feel cool, and the spaces wide within that arena.
Now, why would anyone even accept a more narrow arena than a wide open world? Well, I think it ties into the idea of adventure hooks. Even the most open game will go nowhere unless there's a hook somewhere. It might be in the character backstory, or something the GM put together. Actually, I think the game where it will feel like a real world, and with endless possibilities is one where the GM have a whole bunch of hooks, or story threads. Let's say he have a dozen he hand dangle in front of the players and they can pick and choose which one to go for. I think then you will get a good game from that prep and the socially accepted arena. It will be open, but not wide open. The edges of the box will have come into focus, but everything you do will make sense and have an effect. Isn't that what we all want as players?
Thursday, January 21, 2010
What shape is that sandbox anyway?
In the comments to my last post the question arose, what happens if you ignore the town and go out in the mountains to dig for gold? Well, in DitV you are God's Watchdogs, who travel from town to town so doing that would be an error in the part of the player. Basically, you wouldn't play the game, so why did you show up?
This is where I think the shape of the sandbox becomes an issue. Imagine a game where you are playing a roguish character, but stop behaving like one. Imagine a game where you are a preacher and mailman, but stop behaving like one. In a narrow sandbox you would be able to do whatever you want, as long as you stay within that box. The thing is, there's always a shape of that box, be it narrow and long or something else.
I think that while strictly limited games where you can only do what's expected of you is considered bad, the solution to that problem is not the Sandbox silver bullet. I think the wish to be able to go anywhere and do anything is the ultimate dream of Simulationism. I'm afraid I have to use some Forge-speak, since it actually expresses what I mean here. But, for a casual gamer who just want to be heroic this wont cut the mustard.
I suggest that the reason we have adventures is that for those of us who don't want Simulationism, there has to be a Story, of some kind. The effect will be that the sandbox has to shrink, and maybe a little more narrow. It doesn't have to be narrow as a railroad track, but it suddenly gets a bit of focus when the edges are no longer lost in a mist, but can at least be imagined. I have some ideas about how to bring that focus, which I will detail tomorrow.
This is where I think the shape of the sandbox becomes an issue. Imagine a game where you are playing a roguish character, but stop behaving like one. Imagine a game where you are a preacher and mailman, but stop behaving like one. In a narrow sandbox you would be able to do whatever you want, as long as you stay within that box. The thing is, there's always a shape of that box, be it narrow and long or something else.
I think that while strictly limited games where you can only do what's expected of you is considered bad, the solution to that problem is not the Sandbox silver bullet. I think the wish to be able to go anywhere and do anything is the ultimate dream of Simulationism. I'm afraid I have to use some Forge-speak, since it actually expresses what I mean here. But, for a casual gamer who just want to be heroic this wont cut the mustard.
I suggest that the reason we have adventures is that for those of us who don't want Simulationism, there has to be a Story, of some kind. The effect will be that the sandbox has to shrink, and maybe a little more narrow. It doesn't have to be narrow as a railroad track, but it suddenly gets a bit of focus when the edges are no longer lost in a mist, but can at least be imagined. I have some ideas about how to bring that focus, which I will detail tomorrow.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The Wild West sandbox
I was about to play Dogs in the Vineyard the day before yesterday. Since everyone in Sweden is ill, all the time, it didn't happen. But, when I was sitting on the bus going to where I though we were having a game, I realized one thing about Dogs. In DitV you as the GM generate a town, according to specific rules. Some NPCs will inhabit that town, and they are all involved in "the thing" that's happening in that town. They all have an agenda and want something specific from the characters, and you have to specify what will happen if the characters never had entered that town. Then you let the players loose and don't ever try to play god! It struck me that this is the ultimate toolbox for sandbox play.
So, that means that the most well known new school Forge-style indie game is based on sandbox play, not Story. Interesting.
So, that means that the most well known new school Forge-style indie game is based on sandbox play, not Story. Interesting.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Some reflections on sanbox campaigns
If you hang out by the blogs, especially those OSR oriented, you have probably heard the word "sandbox" mentioned a gazillion times. I don't know if it's as frequently used on the rpg forums. Maybe it is.
The idea behind a sandbox is nice. You have a world to explore as a player, and the GM have the freedom to develop just as much as is needed, since the players are going to be exploring and thus be the engine that takes the campaign somewhere. Often, freedom from "story" seems to be an objective when people set up to talk about their sandbox campaigns. I think a few things is worth mentioning about this.
Now, I am just as bored by GM railroading as the next guy. But, that is just as extreme as a world map for sandbox and having everything that happen by driven by the players. Simply put, elevating the sandbox style of play and disparaging "story based games" is taking one extreme and making it an ideal while calling the other bad and "extreme". You see what I mean?
I have had some experiences that highlight some things worth thinking about, regardless of game style. I once had a game prepared where the characters were walking down the street and a NPC jumped into the river right in front of their eyes. I expected my friends to do the obvious thing and try to rescue that fellow and try to find out why he was trying to kill himself. Let's look at this from two perspectives.
From the sandbox perspective, I was a bad GM. I had a story and I wanted my players to walk the path. In a way I agree with that description. It might have been better if I had asked the players what they wanted to do.
Let's put it another way. We had gathered to play a game, and I had prepared some stuff to entertain my friends. They re-payed that by acting like jerks, just being contrary and refusing to follow along. Weren't they just ignoring my kind of fun and trying to strike out on their own instead? No, I maintain they broke the social contract. The rest of the session was a meandering mess where they walked around town ignoring any kind roguish adventure. No fun was had. While I certainly failed to make the game fun for them, they failed to make it fun for me as well.
If your players wont grab a plot hook you'd better let them create their own adventures. In the same vein, if your players seem to wander about and not doing much like adventure you'd better show them a hook or two. If they wont do any of those, they might need a reminder that you agreed to play a game and they don't. Too bad it took me quite a few years and my own attempt at a sandbox campaign to realize that.
It's very popular in the blogosphere to talk about the liberating effects of a sandbox. This experience of mine, and my latest attempt at a sandbox campaign in Traveller have shown me that neither the open sandbox nor the GM-story ends of the spectrum works for me. Nuances don't come across as well in this medium, but for me it seem to be the way to make a campaign work. A guided "story-sandbox" kind of works. I wanted to toss in those two cents in the big sandbox conversation.
The idea behind a sandbox is nice. You have a world to explore as a player, and the GM have the freedom to develop just as much as is needed, since the players are going to be exploring and thus be the engine that takes the campaign somewhere. Often, freedom from "story" seems to be an objective when people set up to talk about their sandbox campaigns. I think a few things is worth mentioning about this.
Now, I am just as bored by GM railroading as the next guy. But, that is just as extreme as a world map for sandbox and having everything that happen by driven by the players. Simply put, elevating the sandbox style of play and disparaging "story based games" is taking one extreme and making it an ideal while calling the other bad and "extreme". You see what I mean?
I have had some experiences that highlight some things worth thinking about, regardless of game style. I once had a game prepared where the characters were walking down the street and a NPC jumped into the river right in front of their eyes. I expected my friends to do the obvious thing and try to rescue that fellow and try to find out why he was trying to kill himself. Let's look at this from two perspectives.
From the sandbox perspective, I was a bad GM. I had a story and I wanted my players to walk the path. In a way I agree with that description. It might have been better if I had asked the players what they wanted to do.
Let's put it another way. We had gathered to play a game, and I had prepared some stuff to entertain my friends. They re-payed that by acting like jerks, just being contrary and refusing to follow along. Weren't they just ignoring my kind of fun and trying to strike out on their own instead? No, I maintain they broke the social contract. The rest of the session was a meandering mess where they walked around town ignoring any kind roguish adventure. No fun was had. While I certainly failed to make the game fun for them, they failed to make it fun for me as well.
If your players wont grab a plot hook you'd better let them create their own adventures. In the same vein, if your players seem to wander about and not doing much like adventure you'd better show them a hook or two. If they wont do any of those, they might need a reminder that you agreed to play a game and they don't. Too bad it took me quite a few years and my own attempt at a sandbox campaign to realize that.
It's very popular in the blogosphere to talk about the liberating effects of a sandbox. This experience of mine, and my latest attempt at a sandbox campaign in Traveller have shown me that neither the open sandbox nor the GM-story ends of the spectrum works for me. Nuances don't come across as well in this medium, but for me it seem to be the way to make a campaign work. A guided "story-sandbox" kind of works. I wanted to toss in those two cents in the big sandbox conversation.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
How to plan an adventure successfully when uninspired
So how do you make a campaign, or an adventure then? I've seen many bloggers talk about sandboxes, and sometimes I think they are treated like the only way to really play old school. It might be true (but I don't think so), but it sure isn't the only way to do it.
Every campaign needs a setting, NPCs and players. That much is clear, and how to combine those elements is the hard part.
What is an adventure then?
A string of encounters? A time line with things that happen? NPCs with motives and agendas? A plot with things that will happen at certain times when certain NPCs explore those agendas?
I've found that adventures with a plot have the nice feature that social gamers can follow along just fine, and character actors can act out their little persona and be happy. It is a very good way to make the game into that proverbial railroad, which potentially is very unfun. Otherwise it can be great. I have done this before.
Another way of doing things, the sandbox referred to in the beginning, is to fix up a setting with sites to explore and then sit back and let the players tell you what they want to do. Do that with social gamers or character actors and watch your game grind to a halt and be taken over by monologues before grinding to a halt. Very unfun.
I have now lately been running a site based game, with a dungeon as a flowchart of encounters, more or less disconnected. With players who have some kind of driving force to explore it works just fine. I could imagine that those players who love interacting with NPCs don't like it that much, though.
While nothing of this is new, I have been thinking lately that I'd like to run this or that game, and found out that without having any idea of what kind of players I have, it's very hard for me to prepare! No shit, Sherlock, eh? Well, the thing is, I have been thinking all along that I don't adapt much to my different players and that was something I should get better at. This is a time for rediscoveries.
So, who do you run your game for? Yourself? Will it help you to prepare, if you don't have to care about what kind of players you'll get? Or, do you run your game for your players, but don't know about it? How do you then make them work, without explicitly engaging your players in the campaign design?
I have realized that since I have never involved my players in planning an adventure I must either have been very lucky, or did something else correct. Sadly it kind of make it work less for me like now when I'm stuck and uninspired, since it was all done unconsciously. Something I read in Alternity might be a way out.
Since I don't have my Alternity books handy, this will be a summary of the idea from memory. In that game the GM chapter on encounters talk about Combat Encounters, Interpersonal Encounters and Challenge Encounters or something like that. Unless I have it mixed up with some other GM advice, they basically said that these three kind of encounters should be in a good game in an even mix. Alternity had a very good GM book, I think, so maybe it can be used for this dilemma of mine. The idea for me would to prepare a bunch of encounters of each kind, and toss a few at them and see what sticks. I'm beginning to wonder if I might have reinvented what's called "Bangs" in Forge-speak?
Well. I hope it works.
Oh! By the way, Cthulhu.
Every campaign needs a setting, NPCs and players. That much is clear, and how to combine those elements is the hard part.
What is an adventure then?
A string of encounters? A time line with things that happen? NPCs with motives and agendas? A plot with things that will happen at certain times when certain NPCs explore those agendas?
I've found that adventures with a plot have the nice feature that social gamers can follow along just fine, and character actors can act out their little persona and be happy. It is a very good way to make the game into that proverbial railroad, which potentially is very unfun. Otherwise it can be great. I have done this before.
Another way of doing things, the sandbox referred to in the beginning, is to fix up a setting with sites to explore and then sit back and let the players tell you what they want to do. Do that with social gamers or character actors and watch your game grind to a halt and be taken over by monologues before grinding to a halt. Very unfun.
I have now lately been running a site based game, with a dungeon as a flowchart of encounters, more or less disconnected. With players who have some kind of driving force to explore it works just fine. I could imagine that those players who love interacting with NPCs don't like it that much, though.
While nothing of this is new, I have been thinking lately that I'd like to run this or that game, and found out that without having any idea of what kind of players I have, it's very hard for me to prepare! No shit, Sherlock, eh? Well, the thing is, I have been thinking all along that I don't adapt much to my different players and that was something I should get better at. This is a time for rediscoveries.
So, who do you run your game for? Yourself? Will it help you to prepare, if you don't have to care about what kind of players you'll get? Or, do you run your game for your players, but don't know about it? How do you then make them work, without explicitly engaging your players in the campaign design?
I have realized that since I have never involved my players in planning an adventure I must either have been very lucky, or did something else correct. Sadly it kind of make it work less for me like now when I'm stuck and uninspired, since it was all done unconsciously. Something I read in Alternity might be a way out.
Since I don't have my Alternity books handy, this will be a summary of the idea from memory. In that game the GM chapter on encounters talk about Combat Encounters, Interpersonal Encounters and Challenge Encounters or something like that. Unless I have it mixed up with some other GM advice, they basically said that these three kind of encounters should be in a good game in an even mix. Alternity had a very good GM book, I think, so maybe it can be used for this dilemma of mine. The idea for me would to prepare a bunch of encounters of each kind, and toss a few at them and see what sticks. I'm beginning to wonder if I might have reinvented what's called "Bangs" in Forge-speak?
Well. I hope it works.
Oh! By the way, Cthulhu.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
