|
Post by ironnikki on Apr 27, 2012 6:29:14 GMT -8
Collaborative Storytelling is nothing new to the HJRPG crew, and it's probably my favorite part of this zany hobby we all share. I love the awesome stories that emerge, and my favorite part of GMing is the creative release of writing an engaging plot. That's not to say that I try to railroad the PC's when I GM (at least, not intentionally,) but I don't make much up on the spot unless I have to.
Recently, I've taken a break from GMing, and have started playing in a weekly Pathfinder game that one of my players is running. I've made what I consider to be an interesting character, although most of the other players have fallen into their familiar habits. Oddly enough, the guy newest to RPG's has been playing a much more interesting character than the rest of us who have been playing for years! But, I digress.
We've been playing this game for probably about a month or two now, and I'm already starting to feel a little burnt out. I think the main reason for this is because the GM is very obviously just making things up as he goes; i.e: doing no planning except for what he throws together 30 minutes before we start each week. I don't get the feeling like there's any kind of plotline, and that frustrates me. At this point, there is no antagonist or conflict, save for the personal conflicts that we as PC's have come up with (which are not really tied into the story at all.) The game just feels stagnant.
I hear a lot that having a predetermined plot turns a game into a book. I don't feel that this is the case. I think that having a predetermined plot, and refusing to deviate from it causes problems, but having no plot at all just makes things... uninteresting.
What do you guys think about this? I've never actually played in a full sandbox, but I can imagine that it would not be an experience that I would particularly enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Apr 27, 2012 7:16:26 GMT -8
I generally agree with you.
Someone in your game needs to have an agenda and a plan, be it the PCs or your NPC villain.
Occasionally the players will have grand plans of their own, and there's nothing wrong with going with that, in fact I encourage it
But just in case, you ought to have your own NPCs with their own plans that the PCs would hopefully find objectionable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2012 7:23:50 GMT -8
It sounds like yur GM is trying (unsuccessfully) to run a full-on sandbox game. but from listening to the podcast (and many others) and my own limited experience, there should still be some over-arching story and villians in the "world". Take a look at D&D 4e's Nentir Vale environment, there are 3 destinct adventure modules (not counting side quests and other stuff that can be wedged in) and the over arching story is some bad guys trying to facilitate a demon's attempts to breach the barrier between the "mortal" world and the shadowfell ("shadow" world). There is still a huge area to sandbox in and a couple of secondary plot hooks and outlined locations that can be fleshed out, but there is still this other stuff happening behind things...
I was a big fan of Top Secret back in the day and there were several adventure modules published in Dragon magazine that could all be run as stand-alone adventure, but there was also a story in the background that could tie them all together in a campaign.
Maybe you can catch the GM on a non-game day (I contact my group via e-mail - except for the young minors, I contact their parent) and let him know that you aren't seeing how things tie together and just ask him IF he has an overall story concept that just isn't appearant right now; you don't need to know what that story concept might be, you're just looking for assurance that there IS one.
Right now my group is in Call of Cthulhu and I'm giving the players limited free reign to explore and question NPCs and get a feel for what they want to do next. I have an overall story, but I'm trying to stay loose enough that my players FEEL like they are in complete control of what happens next and that the story is unbfolding and developing based on what they do. But in our D&D 4e game I've started using a deus ex machina npc to guide them from one disjointed/unrelated pre-printed adventure module to another as part of the overarching story of the Nentir Vale.
I don't concider myslef a very good D/GM, but I'm striving to learn and gain experience to get better; give your GM a chance to see that he might need to prepare a little better or get to the point a bit faster.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Apr 27, 2012 8:55:10 GMT -8
there should still be some over-arching story and villians in the "world". I just want to reinforce this. In my Feng Shui game, I told the players that the story was 100% on them. I wasn't going to dangle plot hooks, or suggest anything. However, regardless of what they're doing, the background plot is still going on. Sometimes, they'll intersect with it, sometimes they won't. If they want to try to ignore it, that's fine. However, it will still be running.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2012 9:55:22 GMT -8
There is much talk of sandbox games and railroad games. I think it is time for a new term to be added to the gaming lexicon. I will tentatively call it a “Pond Game”.
Pond games have three basic characteristics: One: They are fairly open for the players to do what they wish (like a sandbox). Two: They filled with juicy hooks for the players to nibble on (if they wish). Three: When the players do things, it affects the world…and when significant NPCs do things, it affects the PCs (think: big fish in a small pond).
These games should give players the ability to do whatever they want, but their actions will not go unnoticed by others. Also, if the players do nothing, the world will push on them until they respond.
I think this additional paradigm in the GM’s toolkit might help make for some interesting settings.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Apr 27, 2012 12:09:05 GMT -8
ayslyn and darklordsparky have the absolute right of it. This is exactly what I try to do. Here's your world players do what you want, but what the people you're not in control of are doing is still going to happen if you choose not to get involved.
Also what Stu said. Someone needs a plan whether it's the players or the npcs doesn't really matter so long as someone is being active.
Mostly this is determined by the players. If you have proactive players like I do you could throw them into an empty sand box and they'd start ordering sand from someplace else to fill it up. But if you have more passive players you're going to have to throw them something to play with.
I take a two pronged approach to this topic. I plan ahead and figure out what the npc's are up to but end up making a lot up on the fly because the players go romping off in a direction of their own choosing.
Cheers,
JiB
|
|
|
Post by daeglan on Apr 27, 2012 19:00:44 GMT -8
ayslyn and darklordsparky have the absolute right of it. This is exactly what I try to do. Here's your world players do what you want, but what the people you're not in control of are doing is still going to happen if you choose not to get involved. Also what Stu said. Someone needs a plan whether it's the players or the npcs doesn't really matter so long as someone is being active. Mostly this is determined by the players. If you have proactive players like I do you could throw them into an empty sand box and they'd start ordering sand from someplace else to fill it up. But if you have more passive players you're going to have to throw them something to play with. I take a two pronged approach to this topic. I plan ahead and figure out what the npc's are up to but end up making a lot up on the fly because the players go romping off in a direction of their own choosing. Cheers, JiB Throw a bunch of toys in the sand box. see what the players play with. flesh that out. An empty sand box is pretty boring.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2012 5:43:00 GMT -8
Keep in mind that some games pretty much have to have a pseudo "book" plot to work. A deep mystery game for instance, like a Call of Cthulhu game with all the hard copy clues and what not is going to end up with a railroad plot that you just simulate broad choice with.
For instance one I'm working on now for a Fate pulp COC mash-up to create characters for a campaign has about a dozen clues spread over four "scenes". Now how my players navigate those scenes, what order they visit them and what not, will give them some semblance of choice, but the opening and the ending are fairly solid. The story starts at one place, and its going to end at another, although even their they can make some choices that will of course dictate the overall outcome. Now I haven't written out solutions to any of the puzzles or results to any of the choices. I'll let the players solve the former and make up the latter when the choices are made. But all in all I have a flow chart in my notes that shows how everything interconnects and I know what will happen in the world around them through each step. I have to inorder to make the mystery and the investigation work.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Apr 28, 2012 8:01:18 GMT -8
Have you seen The Cabin in the Woods yet?
Go watch that to see just how non-railroad a mystery/horror story can be.
|
|
|
Post by ironnikki on Apr 30, 2012 6:56:41 GMT -8
It sounds like yur GM is trying (unsuccessfully) to run a full-on sandbox game. I think you've hit the nail on the head. I think that he really wants the story to be player-driven, but has assumed that he needs to do no prep for that to work. I'm sure that there are some GM's out there who can run an interesting game just fine with little to no prep, and some systems are even designed that way, but it just doesn't feel like it's working. I'm not sure that the other players have an issue with the way the game is going, however, so perhaps I'll just give it a few more sessions to see if things start to feel better to me. We tend to switch off GM's every few months, so I don't think that he'll be running for much longer anyway, but I know that if I were GMing, I'd want to know if my players weren't enjoying themselves, and why.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2012 16:43:52 GMT -8
I strongly suggest you have afriendly chat with the GM and other players. There is a good chance the other players are not feeling it either or they might not mind... And if you GM doesn't know people aren't happy, he can't make corrections.
If your GM switch is in the near future, maybe you could volunteer to take the next turn. That would give you a chance to lead by example and show people how much fun the game can be.
I've never run a sandbox game, but even running prepared adventures takes quite a bit of prep work...
I have three ex-wives, if there is one thing I HAVE learned in life, it is that "communication" is the key to every relationship. If you don't at least have a chat with your GM, neither of you will have a chance of getting what you want from the situation.
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on May 18, 2012 13:44:22 GMT -8
Now that you've figured out that the GM probably wants players to drive the game, why not try driving a little? Pick an NPC you dislike and do something to make an enemy of them, maybe, or decide to open a strip club. ;-) It might be just the impetus needed to get the game rolling--something for the GM to bounce off of.
|
|