[gamist RPGs] Player Driven Games and
Joe J Prince:
Hi all
Natespank, I'm confused by your premise in the original post. For me, a sandbox style game is all about wanting to explore the fictional world, as if it were real - embracing the right to dream (simulationism if you will).
Gamism is about play focused primarily on stepping up to meet and overcome challenges. A sandbox style game does not, in my experience, facilitate pure challenge and step on up as well as a more focused game.
To return to the computer game analogy take Grand Theft Auto – yes it is a sandbox game you can roam around as you please. But randomly killing cops and hookers gets tired very quickly. The main 'game' thrust are the missions, that's when you step up.
I'm currently playing in an epic sandbox RPG, using Rolemaster. It's been running for over a decade now – though we only game once or twice a year. It is hands down the best RPG I've ever played in.
The game is all about the right to dream. Our GM, Matt, has crafted his world over the years and for various different gaming groups – some of whom are running in concurrent campaigns and sometimes the actions of one group affect another – how cool is that?
The game is an exploration of character within a dynamic and credible world – what the PCs do matters, there is no pre-ordained plot, the future is unwritten. That said there is a vast depth of backstory and intrigue surrounding the setting; ten years in we're only just figuring out who the major powers are!
The point is, though we enjoy a good scrap and levelling up is always rewarding, the gamist aspects are not what makes play so compelling. If the challenge focus was ramped up then I believe the game would suffer for it.
Sandbox play is not conducive to gamism – how many sandbox boardgames are there?
A sandbox is a toy, games (especially gamist ones) have goals.
Cheers
Joe
stefoid:
Nates distinction is between the GM having a cast iron plot made before hand and making it up as he goes along on the other, and his term for the latter is 'sandbox'.
and youre right, neither has much to do with GNS.
Devon Oratz:
I don't particularly subscribe to GNS (I hope that is not a bad thing to say here) but I found this interesting:
Quote
To return to the computer game analogy take Grand Theft Auto – yes it is a sandbox game you can roam around as you please. But randomly killing cops and hookers gets tired very quickly. The main 'game' thrust are the missions, that's when you step up.
Actually, later GTA games are comprised of MANY gamist activities that you can undertake in any order you choose. "Randomly killing cops and hookers" is a little unfair, and also a bit limited to earlier entires in the series. The synthesis of these different gamist challenge instances and the connective tissue of emergent gameplay and a pervasive world that joins them really does create one of the most purely simulationist and wide-open experiences in all of video gaming. See also: Morrowind, Oblivion, and the Fallout series. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Quote
I'm currently playing in an epic sandbox RPG, using Rolemaster. It's been running for over a decade now – though we only game once or twice a year. It is hands down the best RPG I've ever played in.
The game is all about the right to dream. Our GM, Matt, has crafted his world over the years and for various different gaming groups – some of whom are running in concurrent campaigns and sometimes the actions of one group affect another – how cool is that?
The game is an exploration of character within a dynamic and credible world – what the PCs do matters, there is no pre-ordained plot, the future is unwritten. That said there is a vast depth of backstory and intrigue surrounding the setting; ten years in we're only just figuring out who the major powers are!
The point is, though we enjoy a good scrap and levelling up is always rewarding, the gamist aspects are not what makes play so compelling. If the challenge focus was ramped up then I believe the game would suffer for it.
This sounds really amazing. : )
Callan S.:
I think presenting a game world like a menu of gamist challenges works out. With my experience of grand theft auto (with it's many jumps, side missions and the ability to flip a car upside 10 feet after stealing it (I have done this...the shame!), driving insanely fast down busy streets and more), it's a menu of challenges. You could possibly just piddle about, walking in the surf, or, freakishly, stopping at red lights and driving around below top speed, I'll grant. So there are gaps between challenges where you could go all simmo, I'll grant. But really it's a menu presented in the form of a world (awesome!). Also the games mercenaries 1 and 2 were like this, as well as fallout 3 and to a degree, fallout 1 & 2. I remember in mercenaries 1 there was this enemy base that wasn't actually a set mission, but I just loved to destroy. It had killed me before, and given me even more close shaves, but I loved demolishing that thing. It was more of a menu entry I wrote myself. Along with all the other enemy bases I'd wail on...or they'd wail on me, just sometimes... >:)
However, just sandbox, by itself, like "You start in a street in some town in the game world, GO!"? It wont just somehow provide the grist of gamist play. I'll agree with stefoid that just trying to be sandbox by itself supports simulationism first and foremost. I think the gamism essay talks about expecting spontaniously generated challenge.
Natespank:
Maybe I should be more careful with terminology, the thread's could grow into an argument about definitions and terms. I appreciate GNS theory but I don't want to be bound by it... so I'm not trying to make a "gamist" or "simulationist" game, I'm trying to make a fun game that uses some of these ideas.
To risk confusing terms even moreso though- to address the last few posts- does anybody remember the original Legend of Zelda? Let me briefly describe it:
1- I've never seen a manual for it, so I didn't even learn the story until the end. I ended up referring to one type of enemy as "the hamburgers."
2- You begin in the middle of the screen and have no directions. There's a nearby cave and 3 ways to exit the area.
3- Your sword is in the cave- god help you if you don't explore it first because you'll be unarmed.
4- The world is hard to navigate, tis easy to get lost, and the monsters will kill you dozens of times just getting from A to B. I can't exaggerate how many times you die playing this game.
5- There's no map, and you don't have to do the dungeons in strict order, though they get way harder one after the other and most require items from previous ones. The dungeons are numbered though.
6- It's the hardest game I've ever played and beaten.
There's no story or complex setting, it's just a wide open world of set challenges for the player to explore how he or she wishes, and best of luck to them. For the first 50 deaths the game is a pain in the ass- then you start getting really good and it's one of the greatest games ever. Wide open world, do whatever you want, but it's hella-hard with extremely unreasonable enemies and puzzles- I can't convey how absurd some rooms and dungeons are. Excellent game though.
It's all about "step on up"
======================================================
Terminology aside, hopefully... how have you all structured your "open ended, player driven" campaigns? I mean in technical qualities.
1) I'm debating making a greater world with only level 1-5 enemies in it, with the 4 and 5s being rare; all the rest of the challenges will occur in optional quests or dungeons or the like. That way there's no invincible barrier preventing the players from travelling where they like. Zelda does this.
2) The alternative is a world with randomly distributed difficulty areas, which I accidentally did this time- there's one hard area on the map and the players bee-lined to it by bad luck. It's bad for the players to hit a wall of difficulty (they can't possibly kill the stuff here) so early without having more chances to hook into the setting.
3) Is the DM's role primarily to develop an intriguing setting with many nuances? Could you tell us more about your 'sandbox' campaign Joe J Prince?
4) Is a DM attempt to weave stories an infringement upon player freedom and enjoyability? Should storys be left to the players and NPCs, perhaps like Sorcerer's... I forget the term, you use a mystery novel or something to create a SITUATION and then turn the players loose, using bangs and such to keep it rolling.
5) Is it best to arrange difficulty by geography- for example, the level 6-9 stuff is in region X? Or is it best to put it everywhere?
6) What's the best ways to engage the players if they're new to this?
I play again Sunday, I'll post about how it goes on Monday. Have a good weekend!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page