Forums of the Megaverse®

Just recently had this discussion with my gaming group, our one GM uses a sandbox "what do you want to do" style of gaming expecting the characters to motivate themselves. Its placed in Germany Chaos Earth era, and we are basically left to our own accord.

The other end of the stick is the script. "things happen and the players cannot change it" commonly called railroading. While effective for story telling, it eliminates the possibility of choice or alternative outcome.

I am starting a game that is a combination of the two. It offers direction for the players but allows them to do it of their own choice.

Share personal experiences with the two, and likes dislikes and alternatives to GMing theory.

just as aside scripiting the game to much can really tick off a player
I still am bitter wth one of my friends
we had a forgotten realms game in fourth grade set up
he liked dragonlance/kyrnn which I don't like
I played a ranger who was on a quest to destory the high elves after a band of elven mercenaries killed his family
he got his +4 against elves
we encountered a Elven wizardress and lo and behold she sends us to Krynn before I can even say Death to Elven Kind

I agree somewhere between the two is commonplaced for best results.

A script for a short adventure (< 6 weeks) is great but as a campaign gives minimal depth.

After two decades gaming I have only recently realised that my group prefers a linear settings but with the freedom to roam it and get into trouble. In case Ive worded that stupidly I'll give you an example..

The valley at the top of the world (PFRPG BOok 6: Island..) was spot on. three towns to go back and forth between, various mysteries at each town to uncover with a massive plot encorporating the whole valley. they spent weeks there and their interest was hooked.

I only realised this whilst beginning a recent campaign where the group would met in Llorn and be thrown together by an unfortunate twist of fate. I had some parts of the plot that were scripted for the campaign but the rest of Llorn was there's to roam. By the time I'd had them chased out of Llorn (scripted) they were actually still interested in the random encounters and minor encounters that had prooved mysterious (cos I didnt reveal much detail - I hadnt bloody written it!) - they were slightly disappointed that they couldnt go back (at least not straight away. I could have easily just done a "Llorn adventure" and kept the fun going, saving the campaign for later. Still we learn for the next adventure I will base it in an major city in one of the books or such. We have done to many world travelling campaigns (even though some travelling is skipped).

I don't think you need to do scripted at all.

Instead you just have NPC's with power, who do things in unsubtle ways.

Oh, and you keep having them do it near the PC's (rob a bank near them, set fire to a church near them)

And have a few - don't just try the one NPC, as essentially it's a form of railroading (look at what X is doing - look at what X is doing now - wow, am I ever gunna let up until you interact with X!?). When there are multiple NPC's doing stuff, the PC's will latch onto one of their choice.

So you don't so much script, as getting into the NPC's head and plan out his or her day.

I have found most players are not really happy with choice. They are happy with the Illusion of choice.
Normally players do not know more about the game world than the GM. The GM saying "What do you want to do?" and not offering suggestions can overwhelm players (both new and old) or at least make them uncomfortable. They then start to second guess their choices over and over.

I pretty much plan 'scenes', give subtle reactions, words, etc. to direct my party 'East', while making it look as if they could go any direction. In the small chance they chose something else, I let them, then each session something small happens that slowly redirects them to my goal. This tangent may take 4-5 sessions, but sooner or later it is back on track and everyone is happy.

BTW: I hate HATE HATE railroading where it is obvious and are basically told 'no, you gotta do this over here, not that over there' But when it is so subtle, you think it is your idea, you then mentally own it, and it gives you great satisfaction living in this illusion.

Personally, at the end of each game session, I ask the players, "What do you want to do next?"

ZorValachan wrote:I have found most players are not really happy with choice. They are happy with the Illusion of choice.
Normally players do not know more about the game world than the GM. The GM saying "What do you want to do?" and not offering suggestions can overwhelm players (both new and old) or at least make them uncomfortable. They then start to second guess their choices over and over.

I pretty much plan 'scenes', give subtle reactions, words, etc. to direct my party 'East', while making it look as if they could go any direction. In the small chance they chose something else, I let them, then each session something small happens that slowly redirects them to my goal. This tangent may take 4-5 sessions, but sooner or later it is back on track and everyone is happy.

BTW: I hate HATE HATE railroading where it is obvious and are basically told 'no, you gotta do this over here, not that over there' But when it is so subtle, you think it is your idea, you then mentally own it, and it gives you great satisfaction living in this illusion.

Personally, at the end of each game session, I ask the players, "What do you want to do next?"

Thats good advice. I also ask the players what are their thoughts, goals, avenues they're identing to explore. Each week gives me a full week to adapt the situation to suit both the story arc and the players fun.

I've done both kinds of games before and really it is all about mind set. I remember a one shot game where, while my friends and I were all eating and drinking, decided to try rolling up a team of diggers for an interesting time in the Rifts Wild West. Basically all we did was point at a spot on a map, assumed we moved there, and the GM would start random rolling to see if our dig turned anything up. He also rolled to see if we encountered anything odd or interesting while doing a dig, such as bandits, a monster, herd of animals, coalition, etc. The game was kind of nice because it was open ended, the objective was simple and strait forward (Go to a dig site following a hunch or rumors and try to make some money), and the encounters were genuinely interesting.

ZorValachan wrote:I have found most players are not really happy with choice. They are happy with the Illusion of choice.
Normally players do not know more about the game world than the GM. The GM saying "What do you want to do?" and not offering suggestions can overwhelm players (both new and old) or at least make them uncomfortable. They then start to second guess their choices over and over.

I pretty much plan 'scenes', give subtle reactions, words, etc. to direct my party 'East', while making it look as if they could go any direction. In the small chance they chose something else, I let them, then each session something small happens that slowly redirects them to my goal. This tangent may take 4-5 sessions, but sooner or later it is back on track and everyone is happy.

BTW: I hate HATE HATE railroading where it is obvious and are basically told 'no, you gotta do this over here, not that over there' But when it is so subtle, you think it is your idea, you then mentally own it, and it gives you great satisfaction living in this illusion.

Personally, at the end of each game session, I ask the players, "What do you want to do next?"

Illusionism.

Perhaps players don't so much hate choice, but choices presented to them which are pretty much identical - ie, take the road north or east, when either road looks identical to the other.

As is often the case with anything in life, the best is a good mix of the two. I've always got a story in mind for my games, how it unfolds, and what parts of it the players end up seeing depends largely on their own motivations, and there will oft be large breaks in time where it goes to a Sandbox mode, while others there's a more narrow area to deal with, depending on the events happening.

A lot of people don't realize that a story can be told through mechanics in a game as well as narrative. In fact, a lot of players and GMs actually do tell a story through the game mechanics without realizing it. Depending on how aware the GM is of the phenomena, this can make or break a game.

Colt47 wrote:A lot of people don't realize that a story can be told through mechanics in a game as well as narrative. In fact, a lot of players and GMs actually do tell a story through the game mechanics without realizing it. Depending on how aware the GM is of the phenomena, this can make or break a game.

Expand upon this concept please.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Colt47 wrote:A lot of people don't realize that a story can be told through mechanics in a game as well as narrative. In fact, a lot of players and GMs actually do tell a story through the game mechanics without realizing it. Depending on how aware the GM is of the phenomena, this can make or break a game.

Expand upon this concept please.

Well, here is a handy video from Extra Credits over at the Escapist that explains this a bit using missile command. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2545-Narrative-Mechanics

Another example of narrative through mechanics would be the digging game that I mentioned previously. Being a digger is a bit of luck and can be hit and miss, so it made sense to emulate this kind of situation through the use of random rolling on the dice. The random encounters that accompanied the hit and miss digs also helped create the sense that the land is untamed, barren, and a dangerous place to be. The rewards for succeeding at a dig were often quite humble: finding an old tin can of Bucks Baked Beans could be the end result of an entire days worth of searching. Such details in a game tell a story about the characters and the world they are inhabiting.

Our group has had issues with getting to the actual adventure itself, so I have been using a style of GMing that has been helpful, but that at least half the players seem to enjoy.

I call it Mid-Streaming

We typically have about 6 hours to play and its a very large group (8 people). So as we are in a campaign right now, I jump forward from where we ended, narrate a little bit as to what's been going on and then dump them into the first encounter already in progress. We have RP in between and then usually another encounter, depending on the amount of things they want to do.

A caveat though, based on what was going on I give them so many actions to prepare... if there is a chance to do so.

It gives me the opportunity to make sure certain points in my adventure occur, but also allows the players a lot of room to maneuver. Of course our group is adept at doing things their own way, so writing too much for adventures can be a waste of time, but a good strong outline of any sub plots you may have going on is always helpful.

I also found "mid-streaming" to be helpful in eliminating a lot of the loitering that goes on in our game sessions for the first hour or so.

I also try to mix it up a bit. After having done a couple of the mid-stream adventures, a couple players were a little agitated so I did one adventure again purely in sequence. It went very badly, just like it had been going beforehand. One encounter and got absolutely no where RP wise. So I went back to mid-streaming.

I have enlisted an assistant GM so we can break the group down for 80% of the game and then bring them together for the big fights. We will see how that goes. Next week should be the inaugural game session for the assistant. Should be interesting.

in media res

Colt47 wrote:A lot of people don't realize that a story can be told through mechanics in a game as well as narrative. In fact, a lot of players and GMs actually do tell a story through the game mechanics without realizing it. Depending on how aware the GM is of the phenomena, this can make or break a game.

This is the most true thing I've read on these forums for the better part of a year.

I run my game somewhere in between. I plan out the entire area and a general idea of what's going on where, who the major players are...etc. Then I also plan out a story that I nudge the players towards but don't shove it down their throats. I don't write the endings to my stories though, that's for the players to do. So I plan out the middle parts, but it's ultimately up to the players if the story will end with a happy ending or in failure.

The most important elements are the party's goals.

If the scripted game goes logically as a result of the party's goals being aligned with the script (an extreme example would be an adventure where the party is trapped in an isolated location for some reason or another and has to survive waves of difficulties), then it doesn't feel scripted.

Conversely, a party who has clear goals, can be put in a big sandbox, but is relatively easy to anticipate because they'll do things to advance those goals.

Parties are defined by goals instead by scripts.