Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Yes, it's like many players expect a game to be creative for them, and it's a bummer,
The last two times I've tried to run a game at tabletop I have become disheartened
by this view. The last time, I broke down and just tried to explain the idea of sandbox
play. They were bored, I was bored, it was bad. Maybe I didn't explain well, or maybe
they weren't interested in that kind of gaming (maybe both)

One thing though: as per the title of this thread - I remember running a game where
one of the players came up with an elaborate background for his character. This
was not something I demanded or asked for or anything, but it is the kind of thing
that I encourage on principle - having the players interested and involved and such,

Now - this time, the player made up some background details ("I inherited my armor from my father - he disappeared at war in the Eastern kingdoms many years ago"
or some such) and then took these details to decide what to do in the game ("I go
east to search for information about my father")

He made up the story, and it was immediately up to me to follow it.
Is this a case of a player railroading the DM? (felt to me at that time that it was)

Ragnorakk wrote:He made up the story, and it was immediately up to me to follow it.

Is this a case of a player railroading the DM? (felt to me at that time that it was)

(shrug) If the campaign is truly a sandbox, the PCs should be allowed to decide what they want to do. How do the other player's feel about this development?

You could take several routes, all of which I'm sure have already occurred to you.

-Let him head out in search of his father, only to learn of his noble death saving a forgotten village from destruction, or his ignoble death as a POW.

-Let the player head out in search of his father, and change the setting of the campaign to wherever his father was last known to be, and have fun with it.

-Warn the patient the battle-front is a dangerous place for 1st level PCs. If the PCs choose to throw themselves onto the sword, let them.

-Make the journey a difficult and dangerous one, and set your dungeons and encounters on the way.

-Pull the player aside and ask him to defer his mission for a while.

I've had few instances of players creating detailed backgrounds for their characters at the outset.
Most of mine have been, "I think of the character as fantasy me" types, or "chess piece players", or , "fantasy stereo type role players".
These are all fine with me, and so are the ones who do created elaborate backstories for their characters, and immerse themselves in the role. I applaud the investment in the character, because it's also investment in the game.

At my table though, everybody knows that whether you're acting out a role, running a playing piece, performing Shakespeare, or just hacking orcs, if the dice say you die, you friken die.

I've got no problem flying by the seat of my pants. If the players want to go off the reservation and pursue some unexplected goal I just roll with it. It's not my "story", or "vision", that is put in danger if the players decide on rash, or reckless actions, it's their characters.
I just wing it, or default to random tables, and there's no guarantee of, "level appropriate challenges" then.

Some of my very best games have come about because of the presence of one of those detailed background players at the table though. They often bring a greater sense of realism and danger to the proceedings than the players who are only moving pieces to best advantage.

My favorite situation is to have all types at the same table. Especially when they recognize each other's play styles and play in a complementary fashion, without sneers and jeers, but instead working together so that everybody has a good time playing the way they want to.

That dosen't happen that often though.

I think if the players need a little more direction, you should give it.

I've never had players need to be totally led, but after years of running a total sandbox game, I have ran into players like deer in headlights when I just said "what are your characters doing".

I also think it's a world issue.

A lot of railroading I have seen comes from the way worlds and campaigns are set up.

Dragonlance is a great example of this.

No matter where you go, steel is scarce, clerical magic doesn't work and dragons (and their dragon-dudes) are overunning things.

There's really nowhere to get away from the metaplot at all.

Dungeondork wrote:

I feel bad for you. What joy is there besides watching players crumble beneath our minions?

Finally, the proper sentiment! - I love this.

Flambeaux wrote:

With a few rare exceptions, most of them posting on this board, without "missions" or assignments" it is my experience that most players will never leave the tavern/inn/starting location.

'I am looking for someone to share in an adventure that I am arranging, and its very difficult to find anyone' (6-7 The Hbt.) - Gandalf.

'We are plain quiet folk and have no use for adventures. Nasty, disturbing, uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner! I can't think what anybody sees in them (7 The Hbt.) - Bilbo, on his doorstep.

'I heard tell of them when I was a youngster, but there's no call to believe in them now. There's only one Dragon in Bywater, and that's Green'(43 LOTR) - Ted Sandyman, the miller's son, a la Green Dragon Inn.

'Elves and Dragons! Cabbages and potatoes are better for me and you. Don't go getting mixed up in the business of your betters, or you'll land in trouble too big for you' (24 LOTR) - Ham Gamgee, a la Ivy Bush Inn.

I don't see hooks and rumors as railroads, I see them as opportunities. The world will continue to revolve, evolve and exist without the players. The various factions will continue to do their things. It's the players that can choose to engage or not.

A sandbox has toys to play with in the sand. It's up to the players which toy to grab. So yea, I'll have the old guy in the tavern cackling over his old map and wishing for a group of strong backs/weak minds to go after it. I'll have the rumors of mysterious dragon hoards and lost gold mines. I'll have the signs that war may be upon the lands. It's then up to the players to engage with one or more and there they go.

I use broad strokes to paint the hooks/rumors. I fill out the details when the players bite.

Chgowiz wrote:I don't see hooks and rumors as railroads, I see them as opportunities. The world will continue to revolve, evolve and exist without the players. The various factions will continue to do their things. It's the players that can choose to engage or not.

That exactly how I do it. Rumors and hooks are a natural part of setting.
The local farmboy shouting "Hey let's go Owlbear tipping." can lead lots of fun.