First game this sunday!!

[Typhon]

Also I'm running a west marches style sandbox game. Resource management, haves and have nots and taking that risk of, "well we are beat to hell, but its just a half dozen orcs guarding that treasure chest, we can probably take them and then limp back to town... maybe"
Risk vs reward is huge for me. If the party is always at full health that risk is much less of a factor.

The problem with this is you then have to be real careful how you set up your adventure in how the "stages" or in this case "scenes" are to progress. Pretty soon you end up getting a party that says "eff it" and moves on, leaving behind some crucial item the adventure may require on a regular basis because they can't really tell what risks they're supposed (as far as story progression goes) to take and which they're not (assuming there aren't storyline hints/guides to help them decide).
Of course if the group you're in is one you've GMed for awhile, they've probably already figured out what's expected of them.

[jolt]

The problem with this is you then have to be real careful how you set up your adventure in how the "stages" or in this case "scenes" are to progress. Pretty soon you end up getting a party that says "eff it" and moves on, leaving behind some crucial item the adventure may require on a regular basis because they can't really tell what risks they're supposed (as far as story progression goes) to take and which they're not (assuming there aren't storyline hints/guides to help them decide).
Of course if the group you're in is one you've GMed for awhile, they've probably already figured out what's expected of them.

Not a bad point but this isn't an issue for me.  When I start a campaign I already have an idea about what plot points have to occur and when but otherwise I force almost nothing on the players actions.  At the end of an adventure/arc, the players will decide, at the end of the session, what they want to do next.  Do they want to investigate the disappearances in the big city?  Do they want to travel north and get involved in a minor war between Baron Arkhil and Baroness Omeree?  Do they want to explore the dungeon lacated somewhere in the frontierlands to the south?  Do they want to travel amost 3000 miles to the western coast "just because"?  That's all fine by me and I'll make the adventure to fit whatever they decide to do.  Of course, certain actions carry consequences that may have to be lived with for a long time.

Let's say I'm running a level 1-20 campaign with the ultimate culmination being an invasion of devils into the world.  That's going to happen regardless.  But depending on what they players have done and how they've reacted to certain key plot points they may end up smack in the middle of the fight or trying to find some powerful artifact a half continent away that will somehow end the whole thing...maybe.  Or something else entirely.

I don't like the 4E and mmo style of adventures where it's very linear and it's "expected" that you'll get a certain item (or be gimped otherwise) or where the adventure is basically open door>encounter and repeat twenty times till the end of the adventure.  That can be okay for one shots and stuff like that but I couldn't run a campaign like that.

To me, the game should be about the players, not some story that I've already written that the players have stumbled into.  That's one of the reasons I could never run a game in (n)WoD or L5R.  The designers and writers for those games seem so intent on creating their own story that the players and "game" aspect of things seems almost an afterthought.

jolt

[Catodon]

The problem with this is you then have to be real careful how you set up your adventure in how the "stages" or in this case "scenes" are to progress. Pretty soon you end up getting a party that says "eff it" and moves on, leaving behind some crucial item the adventure may require on a regular basis because they can't really tell what risks they're supposed (as far as story progression goes) to take and which they're not (assuming there aren't storyline hints/guides to help them decide).
Of course if the group you're in is one you've GMed for awhile, they've probably already figured out what's expected of them.

Not a bad point but this isn't an issue for me.  When I start a campaign I already have an idea about what plot points have to occur and when but otherwise I force almost nothing on the players actions.  At the end of an adventure/arc, the players will decide, at the end of the session, what they want to do next.  Do they want to investigate the disappearances in the big city?  Do they want to travel north and get involved in a minor war between Baron Arkhil and Baroness Omeree?  Do they want to explore the dungeon lacated somewhere in the frontierlands to the south?  Do they want to travel amost 3000 miles to the western coast "just because"?  That's all fine by me and I'll make the adventure to fit whatever they decide to do.  Of course, certain actions carry consequences that may have to be lived with for a long time.

Let's say I'm running a level 1-20 campaign with the ultimate culmination being an invasion of devils into the world.  That's going to happen regardless.  But depending on what they players have done and how they've reacted to certain key plot points they may end up smack in the middle of the fight or trying to find some powerful artifact a half continent away that will somehow end the whole thing...maybe.  Or something else entirely.

I don't like the 4E and mmo style of adventures where it's very linear and it's "expected" that you'll get a certain item (or be gimped otherwise) or where the adventure is basically open door>encounter and repeat twenty times till the end of the adventure.  That can be okay for one shots and stuff like that but I couldn't run a campaign like that.

To me, the game should be about the players, not some story that I've already written that the players have stumbled into.  That's one of the reasons I could never run a game in (n)WoD or L5R.  The designers and writers for those games seem so intent on creating their own story that the players and "game" aspect of things seems almost an afterthought.

jolt

I've been running games for 28 years and the best ones are often those run in the way Jolt described. Main problem is the workload for the referee but there are tricks you can use there.

[jolt]

And I don't mean to knock (n)WoD or L5R; they've written some amazing stuff for those games.  I really like some of the L5R stuff in particular.  Some great reads and ideas there.  It just seems to me that, too often, those writers are more interested in advancing a predetermined story rather than furthering a game.

jolt

[Typhon]

And I don't mean to knock (n)WoD or L5R; they've written some amazing stuff for those games.  I really like some of the L5R stuff in particular.  Some great reads and ideas there.  It just seems to me that, too often, those writers are more interested in advancing a predetermined story rather than furthering a game.

jolt

This coming from the GM who said the demons are coming reguardless what the players do 

But yhea, as long as your plot points aren't always connected with questionable encounters (questionable to the players survial, that is) then it wouldn't be a risk to be tossing in those questionable encounters along the way.

[Grimace]

This coming from the GM who said the demons are coming reguardless what the players do 

I have no problems with this.   What would the heroes do without the bad guys coming out occasionally.   

And I really like the idea that player actions can affect the world.   If they don't decide to take on x baddie while they are small, x baddie gets stronger and in turn can cause more headaches for the players as the campaign continues.

[jolt]

This coming from the GM who said the demons are coming reguardless what the players do 

Er, that was just an off the cuff example so I didn't have to type 10,000 words explaining the nature and pattern of a given campaign process that going to last 20 levels.  I thought that was fairly self evident but I apologise if it wasn't.  It matters little in any case as the players, depending on the choices they've made, may not even be at "The Event" when it occurs.  That was part of the whole point I was trying to make, which I also thought was fairly clear but, again, I apologise if it wasn't.  Player choice should trump written story.  I see little fun in forcing players to do something or go somewhere when they'd clearly rather do or go somewhere else.

jolt

[Goodlun]

Player choice should trump written story.  I see little fun in forcing players to do something or go somewhere when they'd clearly rather do or go somewhere else.

jolt

You would fit in well with my group.

[Monkeyking]

With my current game its literaly all about the players chosing where they wanted to go. I didn't present them with a macguffin or anything other than. "You are all adventurers, and adventure is out there." There is an overarcing story and things going on, but there is no doomsday plot they must stop in order to save the world, the game really is boled down to a basic game premise.

"Avoid Death, Amass Wealth."

They are taking to it quite well so far I think. One session in and they are starting to put together their own stories. The goat as the party savior, the book of names and numbers they found being some wizards lost spellbook (the illiterate character found the book, an that's his theory anyhow) and they are trying to work out how far they can push into the wilderness before they have to turn back.

That's why the whole mage of infinite vitality thing scares me, it kinda breaks the resource management aspect of what I'm attempting to do. I'm going to let it go another couple sessions and see how it shakes out.

I have found that there are two sides to running a game for a bunch of game developers, the bad side is they tend to see behind the curtain and get what I'm doing with the charts and tables and why. The good side of that is I can usually say "dont do that, it breaks stuff" and so far they are more accepting of that then most groups I have gamed with in the past.

[Typhon]

This coming from the GM who said the demons are coming reguardless what the players do  

Er, that was just an off the cuff example so I didn't have to type 10,000 words explaining the nature and pattern of a given campaign process that going to last 20 levels.  I thought that was fairly self evident but I apologise if it wasn't.  It matters little in any case as the players, depending on the choices they've made, may not even be at "The Event" when it occurs.  That was part of the whole point I was trying to make, which I also thought was fairly clear but, again, I apologise if it wasn't.  Player choice should trump written story.  I see little fun in forcing players to do something or go somewhere when they'd clearly rather do or go somewhere else.

jolt

lol I was razzen ya for the conflict of example vs advise.
Thought the :p made it self evident but guess it didn't.

"Player choice should trump written story.  I see little fun in forcing players to do something or go somewhere when they'd clearly rather do or go somewhere else."

However, that option is only really available to those who have a complex and detailed sandbox, really. Most of these adventures can be modified to fit a complex world fairly easily. However, you can't really make a complex world out of one of the adventures. Thus, many GMs are kind of limited to what the players can/cannot do (and the following consequences) within the adventure's parameters.
There should ALWAYS be an understanding (and it's the hardest thing for me to remember when GMing). This is an adventure and the players are "heros" of a kind. Meaning they are above average personalities doing great things. The players understand that they are expected to do things the normal person wouldn't and the GMs should remember that the characters shouldn't be killed off just for filling their roles (within reason, of course).
Too far one end and it's just too easy for the players. No fun for anyone. Too far the other, all characters are dead and nothing gets done. The balance between lies the great stories.

[Goodlun]

The ultimate expression is  the ILLUSION of control by the PCs.  This actually is one of the things Bio Ware does very well given the limited nature of computer systems in this regards.  They give you some illusion like you have some control over the story line even though in the end you really don't. 
I read a really good article about this but am having a heck of a time trying to find it.
One of the things the article talked about was you can have PCs go from A to B to C to D and it doesn't really matter what the A B C & D are just have your encounter happen where the PCs go.
So if the PCs decide between the swamp of horrors or the tower of evil menace the encounter with the bad guy will still be the same just with a different backdrop.   

[ArawnNox]

A lot of the methodology talk on here reminds me of a Star Wars game I ran about a year ago.
Originally, I was going to run a game based on the New Republic and have the players get involved in commando activity on a world held by the Imperial Remnent. Well, I failed to give my players any sort of guidance when creating characters, and by the time they were getting ready to play, I had a hard time figuring out why they would even be working for the republic in the first place.

So, I scrapped that idea, snagged a few threads based on the character backgrounds I was given, and plopped them down into an unscripted gang-war in Mos Eisley a short while after Jabba's Sail-Barge was destroyed. What would have been "Go here, do this." turned into "Here's the situation, go." All I did was create the major players, scenes for the players to find out what's going on, and who held what bits of information they needed.

Even then, the players sprung unexpected things on me. They ended up leaving Tatooine to go on a disguised raid of an Imperial Supply depot on Naboo. It was really clever what they did, and I let them get away with it, so long as they didn't do anything overly stupid.

That game was a lot of fun. My gungan voice and epheminent rodian impression won me internet points. ^^

[Typhon]

That game was a lot of fun. My gungan voice and epheminent rodian impression won me internet points. ^^

oO
Is that like gaelic (sounds better the more you drink-the speaking side, not the listening...although that would probably help, too)?

[ArawnNox]

Not so much. Reading gaelic is more like an excercise in wtf-ery, as you try to decipher all the language's aspirations.

[Typhon]

Sounds like you were trying it sober...with your glasses on.