"Sand Box" Adventures
hoefer:
Well, after toying with it for a while, I think I may write this game up more like a gazetteer then my traditional “Chapter/Scene format” adventures. I would just insert the subplots in their own section and reference them in the write ups for the personalities of Quisquis’s palace and the map keys. At the end of the “book” I could then have a section that story boards how the subplots would intersect and a few suggested points of “Climax.” I still think there’s probably a better layout out there for a sandbox-style game…I just haven’t run into/come up with it.
I also sill believe that sandbox-style games seem to lack climactic appeal. Is there anyone out there that can refute this? Is there a particular sandbox game you’ve played where the end of the sessions felt like a “high note” and wrapped up a lot of the loose ends? If so, do you attribute this to the skills of the narrator, the movement of the players, or was there something about how the adventure was laid out/prepared that aided in it having this sort of finish (this is my target fellas, how can I, as a writer, produce a sandbox game that is more likely to result in a nice climax for most GMs…)
Louis Hoefer
www.wholesumentertainment.com
Markus:
Hi Hoefer, I'm writing this to give you a quick answer to your main question, which is the following:
Quote from: hoefer on September 29, 2008, 07:46:00 AM
I also sill believe that sandbox-style games seem to lack climactic appeal. Is there anyone out there that can refute this? Is there a particular sandbox game you’ve played where the end of the sessions felt like a “high note” and wrapped up a lot of the loose ends? If so, do you attribute this to the skills of the narrator, the movement of the players, or was there something about how the adventure was laid out/prepared that aided in it having this sort of finish (this is my target fellas, how can I, as a writer, produce a sandbox game that is more likely to result in a nice climax for most GMs…)
The problem lies here IMHO:
Quote from: hoefer on September 25, 2008, 07:02:16 PM
For this discussion the term meant game modules, adventures, story arcs, etc. where the GM was simply given a well described/mapped setting and the players "play" within this setting making of it what they will (like an old school dungeon exploration).
Well, according to my experience, the above elements are indeed not enough to guarantee "climactic appeal". I'd also say that with only the above elements (just a situation basically), I'd struggle to collaborate with my fellow players towards the creation of what I call "a story", as opposed to "a series of events". This is valid, IMHO, regardless of the complexity/detail/coolness of the setting/situation. Reading your posts, I suspect that you link (as I do) "climactic appeal" to the emergence of "story". So the big question is, what are the minimal elements you need to add to those you mentioned above to have "story" instead of an endless (and pointless, for my own personal esthetics) sequence of events? My personal answer is: characters who have conflicts hardwired to them. The resolution of *those* conflicts will provide the climaxes you're searching for, *regardless of the actual emerging 'plot'*.
Nothing terribly new I'm afraid, but it really works for me!
bye
M
P.S: I'm unsure, however, if by "climactic end" you mean a *nearly simultaneous* resolution of all the issues for all characters, in the same session. In this case, I'm not sure about how to help you.
hoefer:
Quote from: Markus on September 30, 2008, 09:20:28 AM
My personal answer is: characters who have conflicts hardwired to them. The resolution of *those* conflicts will provide the climaxes you're searching for, *regardless of the actual emerging 'plot'*.
Your take on this (endless/pointless sequesnce of events) is exactly where I'm coming from. "Personal, hardwired conflicts" may indeed help. How would you develop this for a game you were writing that could be played by any group of gamers? Perhaps the intro to the "module" should include a some kind of plot-card gimmick that tells the players(based maybe on their character's Archetype) what it is they need to accomplish by the final "Chapter" of the adventure... This seems stilted though. One option the system offers is that each character has a list of Archetype goals set up by the player and the narrator that must complete to continue advancing "Ranks" in their Archetype. Maybe there should be some allusion in the "module" to having the narrator rework the goals for the characters going on this adventure to focus on issues that would work towards a climax. This might be a valueable part to setting up a sandbox adventure that ends climatically.
Quote from: Markus on September 30, 2008, 09:20:28 AM
P.S: I'm unsure, however, if by "climactic end" you mean a *nearly simultaneous* resolution of all the issues for all characters, in the same session. In this case, I'm not sure about how to help you.
That is the problem. This game really played out like 20,000 leagues (as it was supposed to) -up to the end where it sort of fell flat. If I were writing a novel, I could control the character's actions to bring it to a head all at once. In a "sandbox" RPG this doesn't work so well.
E:
It feel like that a sandbox and a scripted finale are kind of opposed design goals. Since the players play in the sandbox, maybe they should have the tools to trigger the big finale. If I was a player in a sandbox game I would want the big finale to be directly about the events I have triggered or influenced as a character.
I must say that I have never played in a sandbox game that offered me something different from a standard scenario, except a unfocused still scripted story. When I was playing this kind of game I wish I had more tools to experiment and to play with the setting.
When I was playing Morrowind Elder Scrolls III, I dint really like how the main plot was used, it felt like a different game was placed in the sandbox. I wish I could have used some tool to put the spotlight on different plot elements, characters, locations, etc and see how they interact together and how I could have an impact with those element using my character.
If I have to choose between a good scenario or a sandbox who in the end will have to be played like a standard scripted game, I think I would maybe choose to play the well scripted game. I don't want to play a sandbox game that need to feel like a scripted scenario in the end. But what is a satisfying sandbox game ending? I don't know, I need more gameplay experience with sandbox games to have a good idea of what I would like or want in the end.
Vulpinoid:
The worst "sandbox" style games that I've run are during the period when I was the main GM for an ongoing live-action campaign based in a modern gothic world.
The worst issue here was that half of the players expected a good climax to a story, while the other half wanted to keep roleplaying the minutiae of their characters daily lives in this alternate setting. Looking back on it now with a bit more experience and a new lexicon of terms to draw on, I guess it was a conflict of narrativist and simulationist goals.
Those who wanted to tell a good story resented the fact that those who wanted to keep their characters were always thwarting any storylines that evolved the world toward a climax.
Those who wanted to get into the psychological depths of their character resented the fact that there were other players pushing the dynamics of the world before they had fully explored their characters responses to this part of it.
In the end, we started developing a dual play concept, where players could exist in their normal lives and role-play the aspects of their day-to-day lives with bizarre powers and weaknesses. But all the while, hints were dropped about things that lay in the shadows. Players who picked up on these hints, and who actively made decisions regarding the backstory, would be offered the chance to become lured into sinister plots and more dramatic moments.
In this way, the players were offered the decision whether to continue the sandbox exploration, or whether to step up to the narrative aspects. Players were also encouraged to develop their own hidden agendas which could sweep other players up into narrative arcs of their own.
Based on my experiences, I'd have to agree with Evlyn here. The two goals can seem opposed. One style seems to be based on the narrative control of the GM, the other style seems to be based on the exploratory drive of the players. Earlier comments I made about players intersecting the backstory developed by the GM are still valid in this context. I guess it all depends how open the players and GM are to creative freedom.
If the GM is too focused on getting their story across, then sandbox play just isn't really an option. It may be called sandbox play, but it really just a loose form of narrative that gradually constricts the players into a pre-meditated story.
If the players are too focused on exploring the world and ignoring any hints, then the GM is just going to get frustrated that his concepts are being ignored.
Neither of these are conducive to enjoyable sessions.
This all links back into social contracts; written, verbal, or even instinctive. If the collective is interested in telling stories with a climax, then the basis of the game can come from a sandbox style where pieces are gathered through exploration of the world. There is no problem with that concept, as long as everyone is aware that this is how the sessions of play will proceed. It exists somewhere between the two extremes of linear narrative and open exploration, but it's a happy medium where I've found quite a few enjoyable moments and sessions.
Of course, the biggest problem is getting the collective to agree on anything. That's where the ongoing live campaigns with 40+ players had their biggest issues...
V
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page