Quote from: RandallS;454495How I would handle this varies. If I don't want the Orcus cult as a stronger influence in the world, the plot gets stopped or set back by NPCs.  If I definitely want a stronger Orcus cult for future use, their plot works at least partially. If I don't care, I figure out how likely their plot is to succeed and roll the dice. In my sandbox campaigns, there are other heroes out doing their own thing just as there are evils out doing their own thing. If the players don't handle problem X, someone else might.  Or they might not. Or the plot might even fall apart on its own -- perhaps there was infighting in the Orcus cult or their method of summoning Orcus just doesn't work.

I too like rolling dice to see how well an NPC agenda is coming along in the absence of the players. (I prefer to being surprised by events that transpire in the game as GM.) Tables for monthly events like in 1e AD&D's Oriental Adventures are great. I'd like to see more of those; ones customized to the key regions in your campaign world would be especially good for a sandbox game.

For example, if you had an entry about "wandering heroes appear," you could compare their strength relative to the advancement of the cult to see if they defeated the cult and maybe their leader became the new mayor, etc.

Quote from: Spinachcat;454457I have seen this with players. They come to a city and start mixing it up and pushing adventure buttons. The GM puts effort into developing this city and the NPCs and brings it alive so there are push/pull efforts responding to the PC's actions. The GM gets invested in the city...understandably because they are putting in the work. So things get heated for the PCs or their plan backfires or whatever and the PCs flee to the next location, rinse and repeat.

Not all GMs will define that as fun.

They should plainly run whatever they do like and do well, then. They have failed to grasp some basics of refereeing a D&D campaign.

Above all, one needs to offer incentives for players to form and follow through on plans. If wandering at random is about as good as having a thoughtful strategy, then one might as well expect a lot of random wandering because it's easier.

This is part of why the old advice is to let things develop organically through the process of play instead of trying to plan everything in advance.

In D&D, this probably should not be the same kind of issue it could be in Gangbusters or Traveller. You've got dangerous wilderness between pockets of civilization, and no interstate highways or railroads or airlines. High-level characters can bop around more easily, but have other high-level characters as rivals and enemies and so must plan their moves with some care -- or forfeit valued interests, if not their lives.

The really fundamental thing is that those who sow little should reap less. Those who fritter away time and squander other resources because they lack dedication fall behind those who pursue their ambitions vigorously. Castles built on sand get washed away by the tide, etc..

This is another of those things that the original multi-player form brings to the game quite naturally. Players who do only the preliminary work pave the way for other players to come in and reap the reward.

Quote from: two_fishes;454466I'm talking about a situation where, say, the players have knowledge of two cities, within a few days travel of each other. In the North city, they find some cult of Orcus activity. In the South city, the players get involved with local gang activity. You the DM have decided that the Orcus cult is trying to raise Orcus with dire consequences if they are not stopped, perhaps world-wide. However, the player show little interest in the Orcus cult quite early on, and focus on trying to take down the gangs in South city and clean up the city. What do you do with the Orcus cult? Do you drop it? Do you progress it and let their plan succeed, imposing those consequences on the players? Do you avoid world-spanning consequences altogether?

What if players are trying to raise Orcus with dire consequences if they are not stopped, perhaps world wide?

Look, it's not my job as referee to be doing really cool world-shaking things. It's my job to moderate a game in which players get to do really cool world-shaking things. If anyone is "just along for the ride", it's me.

Quote from: Phillip;454516Look, it's not my job as referee to be doing really cool world-shaking things. It's my job to moderate a game in which players get to do really cool world-shaking things. If anyone is "just along for the ride", it's me.

Precisely my feelings when I'm behind the screen; I do not sit there to feel awesome, merely as a facilitator for my players' and their characters' awesomeness.

Sigged.

Quote from: Phillip;454516What if players are trying to raise Orcus with dire consequences if they are not stopped, perhaps world wide?

Look, it's not my job as referee to be doing really cool world-shaking things. It's my job to moderate a game in which players get to do really cool world-shaking things. If anyone is "just along for the ride", it's me.

On the one hand, I think it is good to let the campaign be driven by what the PCs are trying to accomplish. However, I think that if nothing more interesting can happen in the campaign world at large than grain prices fluctuating or some duke getting married, without the PCs intervention, the campaign can start to get bland. I think it's better for the game if events transpire around the PCs that are tempting for them to want to get involved with.

Quote from: Cole;454556On the one hand, I think it is good to let the campaign be driven by what the PCs are trying to accomplish. However, I think that if nothing more interesting can happen in the campaign world at large than grain prices fluctuating or some duke getting married, without the PCs intervention, the campaign can start to get bland. I think it's better for the game if events transpire around the PCs that are tempting for them to want to get involved with.

Exactly, and presumably, you want to have big nasty stuff in the game world in order to present fun, interesting enemies to the players, and get their blood pumping about taking them on. So my question was--and I've gotten some pretty good answers--presuming the DM has dropped info about a few things that are going on, and presuming the whole "world in motion" idea, what are the various ways that DMs keep "in motion" the threats which the players show no interest in, if they even bother to keep track of things dropped by the PCs?

Quote from: Cole;454556On the one hand, I think it is good to let the campaign be driven by what the PCs are trying to accomplish. However, I think that if nothing more interesting can happen in the campaign world at large than grain prices fluctuating or some duke getting married, without the PCs intervention, the campaign can start to get bland. I think it's better for the game if events transpire around the PCs that are tempting for them to want to get involved with.

Do you really see no room at all between

(A) "I am going to destroy the world unless you follow my plot line"

and

(B) "nothing more interesting can happen than grain prices fluctuating or some duke getting married"

??

Quote from: two_fishes;454558Exactly, and presumably, you want to have big nasty stuff in the game world in order to present fun, interesting enemies to the players, and get their blood pumping about taking them on. So my question was--and I've gotten some pretty good answers--presuming the DM has dropped info about a few things that are going on, and presuming the whole "world in motion" idea, what are the various ways that DMs keep "in motion" the threats which the players show no interest in, if they even bother to keep track of things dropped by the PCs?

Ever played a board game such as Axis & Allies?

You get a move. I get a move. Those other guys get their moves.

Now it's your move again. What will you do?

Quote from: two_fishes;454558Exactly, and presumably, you want to have big nasty stuff in the game world in order to present fun, interesting enemies to the players, and get their blood pumping about taking them on. So my question was--and I've gotten some pretty good answers--presuming the DM has dropped info about a few things that are going on, and presuming the whole "world in motion" idea, what are the various ways that DMs keep "in motion" the threats which the players show no interest in, if they even bother to keep track of things dropped by the PCs?

Off the top of my head, I might sketch out the progress of a world event as a loose set of steps. Let's say it looks something like this.


0 The cult of Orcus has secretly built a shrine beneath the abandoned and shunned house of Kharis. They are raiding graves in the city and environs.

1 Zombies begin to waylay travelers. One of the city's ministers offers a reward for putting the walking dead to rest.

2 The cult suborns a member of the city senate with the seductive charms of a vampire hierodule. Interference with the cult will now meet oppposition from corrupt guardsmen.

3 On full moon nights, ghouls now roam the city. Plague begins to spread and as the city's fortunes fall, the cult's ranks swell. The head of orcus's cult now has a shadow demon in his service. Wandering undead begin to appear in adjoining hexes.

4 The cult's demon has assasinated the hierophant of Osiris and now they effectively control the city from behind the throne. Trade stalls and the city's army effectively act as bandits toward neighboring cities. Necromancy is legalized within the city.

5 If this step is reached in the month of the winter solstice, the heir to the city's throne is sacrificed in a dark ritual and Orcus manifests, bound in a dungeon level deep in the royal crypts beneath the palace. Otherwise, do not advance until next solstice.

6 All resistance is crushed and the city now flies a banner depicting the wand of orcus. The city's armies include undead and openly raid nearby settlements.


Now I might roll each campaign month or season, perhaps equal to or greater than the step number advances the event by 1. I might also roll on a general events table to see if an NPC party arrives in town and depending on the level of the NPC adventurers, their visit may reduce the event step or even defeat the cult, their leader possibly becoming the new ruler of the city.

As the news of the event in the North City is heard, the PCs might become more and more interested (or not.) There are also progressive effects on the campaign world beyond the city itself which I wouldn't include in the event plan because they will depend on other things going on beyond the scope of the city. For example if for some unrelated reason the East City declares war on the North City, the war might advance or slow the cult of Orcus's rise of power.

Note that I have more or less "capped" the event at #6. If Orcus himself rules the city from the crypts below, that is a big impact on the campaign world, of course, but I have decided that he is bound there (stars aren't right, whatever) so that it does not become the de facto only choice for the campaign. Basically I have sketched out the transition between an old status quo and a new one. At step 0 you have a "normal" city the PCs can use as a base, with an dungeon location (House of Kharis). At step 6 you have a high level challenge, comparable to Iuz of Greyhawk, Queen Vol of Eberron, etc, including a hardcore dungeon with a demon prince at the bottom.

You could also just play the event advancement by ear, if you'd rather not roll dice. Matter of taste. And I think it's entirely reasonable as DM to decide that some event series won't be triggered and never start advancing until the PCs visit - in my opinion it isn't as much about directly trying to mechanically simulate a world but instead about creating a game environment that has some independence from the players, affords them a free hand and a lot of choices along the way.

Quote from: Phillip;454561Do you really see no room at all between

(A) "I am going to destroy the world unless you follow my plot line"

and

(B) "nothing more interesting can happen than grain prices fluctuating or some duke getting married"

??

Of course I do - but it's clear that many people do not given some of the criticism of sandbox play that I have heard.

Quote from: Phillip;454565Ever played a board game such as Axis & Allies?

You get a move. I get a move. Those other guys get their moves.

Now it's your move again. What will you do?

I have played Axis & Allies, but I have no idea what your point is.

EDIT: Or rather, I do get your point, but it's not all that helpful. Look, I didn't ask the question looking for "the solution". I asked in order to see the different ways DMs handle this issue.

Quote from: two_fishes;454466DO you worry about a danger that the events which you, the DM, are interested in will overwhelm the events the players have taken in?

Not really. In practice, players tend to grab the most obvious and immediate adventure hooks. If they saw the Orcus cult stuff first they get into that, if the gang stuff then that.

But I'll usually try to have the events and issues of the campaign world tie into the PC backgrounds. I can sketch out the campaign world, have character generation happen, and then detail the issues and events to be hooks, or else I draw it all out first and then during character generation make suggesting shaping the characters.

So in your example, the PCs will have reasons in their characters' backgrounds to be more interested in the Orcus cult or the gang activity.

As well, it's always possible to draw the threads together. Orcus and the gangs could be connected, maybe without the gangs' knowing it. After all, in the real world cult groups will often be involved in organised crime to raise funds for their cult. When you're a secret evil cult you can't rely on charitable donations

Why is the question interesting in the first place? Why wouldn't the cult actions go on, interacting with whatever other actions were relevant?

If the answer is, "Well, I wouldn't enjoy the game any more if they succeeded, so that would be the end," then why are you

(a) designing the game that way in the first place?

(b) not telling the players that defeating the cult is the victory condition?

Quote from: Phillip;454621Why is the question interesting in the first place? Why wouldn't the cult actions go on, interacting with whatever other actions were relevant?

I think the question is an interesting one in that it opens the discussion to the ways DMs would have the cult actions play out.

But if we're asking how to play it out, "just do it" isn't that helpful.

Quote from: Phillip;454621If the answer is, "Well, I wouldn't enjoy the game any more if they succeeded, so that would be the end," then why are you

(a) designing the game that way in the first place?

(b) not telling the players that defeating the cult is the victory condition?

And if that's not the answer?

Quote from: Cole;454579Of course I do - but it's clear that many people do not given some of the criticism of sandbox play that I have heard.

Hence way I been writing my techniques up.  There isn't enough examples of running a sandbox like there with Dragonlance, World of Darkness, etc.