[gamist RPGs] Player Driven Games and
stefoid:
So Kickers are player written bangs that are baked into the character, I think you can look at it that way. Presumably the player is interested in this type of character motivation because they wrote it themself.
Caldis:
The problem I had with World of Warcraft, and I think it's a concern for the sandbox style play you are describing is the static nature of the world. Doing these quests does not really matter, play is just a mechanical hamster wheel to get your character levelling up. It doesnt matter if you succeed or fail in a quest the world goes on the same. I think thats a problem with subtle hints of side quests along the way type scenarios, they dont really captivate.
Now if instead you make the world active, with threats that have to be beat back or the sandbox will be messed up. Have incursions of Orcish armies that can be beaten back or they could succeed and capture a few towns where they set up occupation. Have a wizard doing research into strange mixed montrous creations that occasionaly rampage the area. Have goblins getting bolder and bolder about sneaking in and stealing livestock, foodstuffs. I find that more interesting than the dungeon tourism that seems to be the standard idea of "sandbox".
Devon Oratz:
Quote
The problem I had with World of Warcraft, and I think it's a concern for the sandbox style play you are describing is the static nature of the world. Doing these quests does not really matter, play is just a mechanical hamster wheel to get your character levelling up. It doesnt matter if you succeed or fail in a quest the world goes on the same. I think thats a problem with subtle hints of side quests along the way type scenarios, they dont really captivate.
As is fairly typical of my GMing style for anything other than *ESTABLISHED WORLD I DID NOT CREATE* (i.e. Shadowrun) is that the world was in point of fact completely dynamic, and player actions would have the power to create and destroy factions, settings, start wars, create and kill kings, etcetera. We never got quite far enough in the campaign for any of that to happen, but that was the idea.
Natespank:
Quote
The problem I had with World of Warcraft, and I think it's a concern for the sandbox style play you are describing is the static nature of the world. Doing these quests does not really matter, play is just a mechanical hamster wheel to get your character levelling up. It doesnt matter if you succeed or fail in a quest the world goes on the same. I think thats a problem with subtle hints of side quests along the way type scenarios, they dont really captivate.
They tried to fix that a little with "phasing" in WoW, but the definite good thing for us is that we can have the world as alterable as we like. Like I said, the PCs love to affect the world- after every major quest I try to alter the world a little due to their actions. For example, at the start of the campaign it might rain 24/7 until 3 levels later they stumble upon a weather control station and destroy it. Then the weather goes back to normal- world affected.
Quote
I find that more interesting than the dungeon tourism that seems to be the standard idea of "sandbox".
Build more dynamic dungeons.
The first 4e D&D dungeon I ever ran I built myself as the hideout of an orc raider named Skincleaver. Outside was about 20 orcs/gobbos (mostly minions) and when the PCs attacked it and narrowly survived, the survivors ran inside to warn the rest of the dungeon. The gobbos "organized" defense points, and throughout the dungeon goblin trappers left traps behind the PCs in an interactive way- the remainder of the denizens holed up as best as they could for dear life, bargaining and begging (and backstabbing) to the bitter end.
Dungeons, like sandbox worlds, ought to be dynamic and react to the players- the players love that. Just be sure to show how their affection of the world is limited compared to how it WILL later be...
Natespank:
I should add one thing: my greatest pet peeve about pre-built modules and computer game RPGs is that the player's choices don't matter.
You can choose various dialogue options, but it's revealed that the set result happens anyway. Same with various decisions- only the path might differ. I hate that so much! Neverwinter nights was AWFUL for that.
In my games I go out of my way to make player choices affect the world, at least in small ways, but still ways that affect future story/gameplay/setting.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page