Player-led games vs. GM-led games

[HidesHisEyes]

My relentless procrastinative thinking about RPGs, and D&D in particular, has led me to a certain way of categorising games and I'm interested in seeing if people agree with this model and if so which type of game they prefer.

There are GM-led games and player-led games. In the GM-led game, the GM presents a scenario with a goal, and the players engage with that scenario and try to achieve that goal. In a player-led game the GM provides only an environment, a world, and the players explore it at their leisure and choose a goal themselves; the GM is there to facilitate this process and make it as much fun as possible.

I think this is slightly different form the distinction between "linear" and "sandbox" games. The way I see it, if the GM presents a small scenario - a village and its surroundings, even a single dungeon - with a definite goal but leaves the players to figure out how to go about achieving the goal, that's essentially a miniature sandbox. But it's still a GM-led adventure because the GM chose the objective, not the players.

Now an admission: it seems that the majority of players want player-led adventures. Player agency seems to be by far most people's first priority, and freedom to achieve a goal however you like is meaningless if the goal has been dictated by the GM. I feel I'm very much in a minority in that, both as a player and as a GM, I favour GM-led adventures. I find player-led adventures often fun but not ultimately satisfying. They sprawl out in too many directions, they go on indefinitely and tend to involve at least as much deciding what to do as doing. Most of all they become vague, incoherent. There's a story but it's baggy and stretched out, like a novel that hasn't been edited. There's a lack of focus. To me, total player agency is not worth this.

By contrast, in a good GM-led adventure (whether it's a published module or something the GM designed themselves) I feel like I've taken part in something tangible, something that's a work in the sense that a novel or film is a work. It seems paradoxical, considering that the player-led game is intended to give you the chance to properly explore and roleplay your character, but as a player I find myself much more able to do this if my character is dropped into the GM's scenario than if he's left to wander around and decide for himself what to do.

Of course it is entirely subjective, and I'm not interested in changing anyone's mind about how RPGs "should" be played. What I am interested in is getting an idea of how many people feel the same way as me. Do you prefer GM-led adventures? Do you prefer player-led adventures? Do you think it's a false dichotomy and I'm talking ****e?

[Quertus]

Well, let's borrow an example from another thread: the DM wants to run "slay the dragon", the players want to run "create dragon-hide armor". In that scenario, things are going to feel very unsatisfying unless things play out according to the player-led model.

So, IME, even in a DM-led model, the DM needs to be able to switch to the player-led model, and needs to recognize when to do so.

That having been said...

To borrow from another thread, sometimes, the players are floundering without direction. In that scenario, you need to be able to and know when to have the "man with a gun" enter the room.

So, IME, even in a player-led model, the DM needs to be able to switch to the DM-led model, and needs to recognize when to do so.

I think dogmatic adherence to either is very capable of producing anti-fun.

[Segev]

By the OP's definitions, most games need to be GM-led. Most players need some sort of hook to introduce the setting and NPCs to them. It can become player-led as their goals form more firmly, but even then the GM will need to create the challenges in their path

[Friv]

My preference is for a GM-led first session, followed by a player-led campaign.

A GM-led opening provides context, creates plot hooks, and establishes context, and then the players can take it from there.

[Vrock_Summoner]

My preference is for a GM-led first session, followed by a player-led campaign.

A GM-led opening provides context, creates plot hooks, and establishes context, and then the players can take it from there.

This is fairly close to my approach as well.

That said, I wouldn't say my game is completely player-run, for two main reasons. One, the world around them is organic - sometimes they'll encounter unexpected difficulties from other things in the setting while trying to do what they want, or sometimes they'll make enemies in the goings-about of their business (and those enemies won't just disappear because the players find them inconvenient), and sometimes those other forces will respond to changing circumstances that may or may not have anything to do with the PCs and come out to play. In addition, the players can generally choose to ignore any issue they can get away from fast enough, but that doesn't mean they're freed from the burden of consequences - "you guys let the dark army wander by without trouble? Sure, they set up base in the town and inflict crushing poverty on the people while funneling all their resources towards the larger military campaign. Now if you want to fight them later it'll be harder."

And then, in my current campaign, there are semi-regular reality-ending abominations that can't just be ignored outright, but at this point my players are finding ways to avoid killing those while still dealing with the problem almost half the time.

[shadow_archmagi]

I think the problem with the sandbox games you were in was that nobody was experienced in the right ways.

So, the generic D&D adventure goes like this:

DM: There's a dragon. [presents scenario]
PC: I fight it! [reacts]
DM: It breathes fire! [action]
PC: Well then I'll do A BARREL ROLL [reaction]

This means that most DMs spend most of their time providing things for players to react to. It's thus only natural that many PCs will really struggle to act. There's a really good post I can't find right now about how a sandbox game starring Superman would be incredibly boring by default, because he's only interested in reacting to unusual circumstances- on a peaceful, normal day, Superman is content.

Thus, in order to take actions (rather than reactions) either the DM needs to write a super crummy world ("Okay, so there's eight lich kings at war with nine dragon kings in a 136 way free for all, the bear plague, the skeleton pirates, and a mind flayer cult. Oh, and local crime is up, there's a mugging spree. Which one do you stop first?") or the players need to have amoral goals. (VOCAB NOTE: Amoral and Immoral are different. Amoral just means not related to- collecting all 10 seasons of Friends or building a giant bronze statue of yourself or building a giant library are morally neutral goals.) Building characters like that is a weird thing most PCs aren't practiced at, but it can work.

Likewise, most DMs aren't used to reacting. Normally, the difficulty is in place, and the player overcomes it. Here, the player is coming, and the DM must provide the difficulty afterward. As anyone that's ever been in a game can attest, DM reactions are often knee-jerk and unsatisfying. "Uh, what's a library problem, uh, IT'S ALL ON FIRE NOW. Bam! Obstacle. I'm good at this."

---
In general, though, I don't think it makes a big difference who picks the scenario. The way I run games is that every session ends with the PCs declaring their intentions for next session, and then I prep that scenario. Thus, sometimes I tell the PCs there's a dragon and they choose to fight it, other times they announce that they'd like to buy a gold mine, and I choose what's involved in that. Then the next session starts about the same as it would if I'd purchased "Golems and Goldmines" and announced to the PCs that their next adventure would be in a gold mine.
---

[Satinavian]

I don't think the distinction is too useful.

Either we have a campaign with a goal and everyone agreed with the campaign and goal before characters were chosen/created and the DM started to prepare it or we have a couple of smaller adventures. In the latter case the DM regularly asks the Players what their PCs want/are going to do after the current adventure and then uses this information to prepare the next session the same way he would prepare his own scenario.

[NichG]

I think the tricky thing is, there are positive and negative emotions associated with different aspects of this, on each side of the table. That is to say, there are things that players 'do not want' and things that players 'do want' (and, often, same goes for the GM), and the way these get communicated is sometimes unhelpfully incomplete.

Someone might say 'I want a player-led game' and someone else might say 'I don't want a GM-led game'. But those are very different situations. A player who 'does not want a GM-led game' might be put off by the way the GM might behaves more than they have an active interest in leading things, so in that case its more that the GM has to avoid coming across as autocratic and controlling, rather than that the GM should just make a sandbox and step back and see what happens. The sandbox might well stagnate and go nowhere, because while the players don't want the GM to lead, they don't necessarily have ideas to lead with either.

I think, for a player-led game to be successful, you need a player who actually has big plans and huge ideas - not just 'lets get ourselves a gear upgrade', but 'I want us to be a band of mercenaries trying to take down the sorceror kings' or 'I want us to be a bunch of thieves who organize a slave revolt' or 'lets all start religions and become gods!'. But not every player who says they like player-led games is that kind of player who can actually make them work well - they may just not like autocratic GMs.

[dropbear8mybaby]

As a GM I would kill for a group that could lead. But I've never found one that could. Whenever I've tried, the game flounders and stagnates and the players end up asking me what to do. I don't know why it is but seemingly intelligent people can get to a table and suddenly become retards. I've presented players with so many choices and yet they've taken none of them. When asked later on they always reply, "Oh, I didn't realise that," or, "Yeah, I don't know why we did that."

In one instance an NPC stole 3,000 gold off of them and instead of finding out why or chasing it down, they simply left town when there wasn't even any reason for them to leave town. I asked them afterwards why they didn't pursue and they were like, "Yeah, we probably should've done that and we don't know why we didn't."

So I'm at a loss to explain it or understand it. I've actively tried to encourage groups to lead themselves, find their own stories, chase down clues, etc. in a sandbox and yet never been able to make it work. So my games always end up with me leading by presenting very simple, very obvious objectives. Players seem to be happy with it. I think it comes down to people not really knowing what they want. They'll say they want open environment and yet be bored by an open environment. They'll say they don't want to be railroaded and yet complain that they don't have clear objectives on a set path.

I've come to the conclusion that as long as people are laughing and keep wanting me to DM, that I'm doing it "right" and should just stop trying to do it any differently.

[Darth Ultron]

I don't think the distinction is too useful.

Players tend to make a big deal about it.

First you have the classic game: The players just want to play and have fun and will go on any adventure the DM puts in front of them.

Next you get the player input: The players say an often vague thing like ''we want to kill a dragon'', and then the DM makes the adventure and the players go on it...just like a classic game.

then you finally get to the player lead game: So here the DM makes a big deal about how they don't do anything except create some random stuff. Then the players take the lead and according to the theory somehow make an amazing game far better then any other game by doing something that no one can really say what it is...but it is awesome.

Of course the ''player lead'' game is just an illusion, unless your playing a pure game of randomness, as such a game will after a couple of minutes become a player input game and then a classic game.

For example: Say the DM makes a bunch of random stuff but no plot or story or anything complcated like that. Then the players come along and feel that they have tons of ''player agency'' or whatever as they ''explore'' and ''interact'' with the world. Say they do that for hours of lots of fun free form role playing, then eventually they will want to ''get around the playing for real''. So then they will pick one of the random things the DM made or make up and new one and go right back to ''the DM makes an adventure and the players go through it.''

The last one lets the players say ''this was our idea'', but the reality is that the DM just makes whatever adventure they want to make, no matter what the idea was....

[Quertus]

I think the tricky thing is, there are positive and negative emotions associated with different aspects of this, on each side of the table. That is to say, there are things that players 'do not want' and things that players 'do want' (and, often, same goes for the GM), and the way these get communicated is sometimes unhelpfully incomplete.

Someone might say 'I want a player-led game' and someone else might say 'I don't want a GM-led game'. But those are very different situations. A player who 'does not want a GM-led game' might be put off by the way the GM might behaves more than they have an active interest in leading things, so in that case its more that the GM has to avoid coming across as autocratic and controlling, rather than that the GM should just make a sandbox and step back and see what happens. The sandbox might well stagnate and go nowhere, because while the players don't want the GM to lead, they don't necessarily have ideas to lead with either.

I think, for a player-led game to be successful, you need a player who actually has big plans and huge ideas - not just 'lets get ourselves a gear upgrade', but 'I want us to be a band of mercenaries trying to take down the sorceror kings' or 'I want us to be a bunch of thieves who organize a slave revolt' or 'lets all start religions and become gods!'. But not every player who says they like player-led games is that kind of player who can actually make them work well - they may just not like autocratic GMs.

Allow me to complicate this further. I can be a player with big plans - but not always. Rarely do I come to the table with a big idea. The combination of the character x what the DM presents usually determines how big and how crazy of ideas I'll come up with in a game.

I like player-led games. But, for me to take the lead, I need the DM to do a great job stocking the sandbox. Give me a Zen garden, and we'll both be bored. Put in just cars, or just dolls, or just musical instruments, etc etc, and it's anyone's guess whether that will resonate with my character. But cram your sandbox full of different things, and keep shelves and shelves of potential items to toss in, and now we're talking.

[Solaris]

As a GM I would kill for a group that could lead. But I've never found one that could. Whenever I've tried, the game flounders and stagnates and the players end up asking me what to do. I don't know why it is but seemingly intelligent people can get to a table and suddenly become retards. I've presented players with so many choices and yet they've taken none of them. When asked later on they always reply, "Oh, I didn't realise that," or, "Yeah, I don't know why we did that."

In one instance an NPC stole 3,000 gold off of them and instead of finding out why or chasing it down, they simply left town when there wasn't even any reason for them to leave town. I asked them afterwards why they didn't pursue and they were like, "Yeah, we probably should've done that and we don't know why we didn't."

So I'm at a loss to explain it or understand it. I've actively tried to encourage groups to lead themselves, find their own stories, chase down clues, etc. in a sandbox and yet never been able to make it work. So my games always end up with me leading by presenting very simple, very obvious objectives. Players seem to be happy with it. I think it comes down to people not really knowing what they want. They'll say they want open environment and yet be bored by an open environment. They'll say they don't want to be railroaded and yet complain that they don't have clear objectives on a set path.

I've come to the conclusion that as long as people are laughing and keep wanting me to DM, that I'm doing it "right" and should just stop trying to do it any differently.

This has largely been my experience, too. "Sandbox" sounds good, and lots of players think they want it, but really all they want is their hands held and to be led from one adventure to the next. I've never had a player who I would consider actually good at sandbox, and this includes the games where I explicitly advertised it as a sandbox game and told them that the plot - if any - would be as an emergent property of their actions in the setting.

[Koo Rehtorb]

For sandboxes to work the players need to play a big part in helping create the setting, in my opinion. Anything that isn't already defined is fair game for the players to define and find meaning for themselves in.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

This has largely been my experience, too. "Sandbox" sounds good, and lots of players think they want it, but really all they want is their hands held and to be led from one adventure to the next.

The campaign I'm currently running is a good example of this: after our last campaign ended, I sent a poll out to all my players asking what kind of setting they wanted, what kind of plot, what kind of game style, etc., and the consensus was "we want to try an AD&D-ish hexcrawl-y sandbox campaign." So I drew up a map, filled out random encounter tables, wrote up detailed downtime and exploration rules, and so forth, and we proceeded to play our hexcrawl-y sandbox. At the end of the third session, I asked what people thought of the game so far (since none had played any games that were either "old school" or hexcrawl-y or sandbox-y before) and the feedback I got was basically "It's really fun so far, but when are we going to find the main plot?"

I've never had a player who I would consider actually good at sandbox, and this includes the games where I explicitly advertised it as a sandbox game and told them that the plot - if any - would be as an emergent property of their actions in the setting.

I've run into several players who I'd say legitimately "get" sandbox play, but the problem is that you really need at least half the group to be players of that type, or the non-sandbox follow-the-plot majority will view the sandboxers as detracting from "the real game" and derail the player-driven stuff to wait on the DM's next plot hook. And once again I speak from experience.

[2D8HP]

. At the end of the third session, I asked what people thought of the game so far (since none had played any games that were either "old school" or hexcrawl-y or sandbox-y before) and the feedback I got was basically "It's really fun so far, but when are we going to find the main plot?"

I had the opposite problem. I played D&D in "Ancient times", and just started playing again after a very long break, and the whole "hero of a story" PC, instead of "fragile, wandering treasure robber" as PC's has been a big adjustment!

[Thrudd]

I think "player led" vs "GM led" is a false dichotomy. The players' choices are meaningless outside the context of the setting and the world the GM has provided. The GM decides what exists: even if the players are completely free to choose anything they want to do in the game world, they are restricted by the setting the GM has created. So they can choose to go anywhere in the world the GM has created - the GM has still created it and decides what is there, even if it is happening spur of the moment, completely improvised. By definition, the GM needs to lead the game.

The most successful games, I think, or at least the most satisfying ones for the most people, are games with a clear premise, with clear roles for the players that are adhered to. That doesn't mean a pre-prepared story: not at all. But it means the game is about something fairly specific and the players know and agree what it is they are supposed to be doing. They are treasure hunters that explore dungeons and ruins and wildernesses. Or they are secret agents who go on missions for an agency. Or they are investigators who look into supernatural mysteries. When the players understand their role in the world, the GM can design the game so that they can pursue the game objectives in any way they like. Maybe there are clues to a number of different mysteries around the city, they can pursue any of them they want. There are rumors of a number of different dungeons and lost treasures, the players can follow any leads that sound enticing in any way they want. The GM still needs to create all those things.

You can't have a coherent game with a group of players who each think the game should be about something different, and a GM that tries to run a game that way will have lots of trouble. If the players won't decide what it is they want or are supposed to be doing, then the GM can't prepare things for them to interact with. If that is what is meant by "player led", then it rarely turns out well.

The players lead the flow and direction of the action, the GM leads the content and reactions of the environment, and the game rules dictate outcomes of actions and interactions.

[Cluedrew]

I think it might be a useful way to examine games. It may not be quite as clean as one or the other (there are all sorts of in-between places) but who... advances the game / adds ideas / keeps things from growing stale is an important aspect of the game.

Of course even if you are not leading that doesn't mean you are doing nothing. The divide (as I see it) is along the act/react line and reacting well can still take work to do well to create a good game. The players still have to plan to get through the dungeon and the GM has to create the world and the obstacles as the party advances.

Personally my group does very player-led campaigns. Of course we play a system where the setting is laid out by the players at the beginning of session one (with some guidelines) and we don't exactly make it hard on the GM to throw danger at the party. The expression a old school dungeon crawler DM would of had when we told them we were dropping half the party, which amounted to one combat ready character, in middle of the danger zone with no means of exit would be... I imagine either disbelief or raw glee.

[Darth Ultron]

basically "It's really fun so far, but when are we going to find the main plot?"

I've run in to this too. I lot of players say the want a sandbox game or a player-led game, but don't. I guess, like so many things, they just hear about it and assume they want it.

[thirdkingdom]

This has largely been my experience, too. "Sandbox" sounds good, and lots of players think they want it, but really all they want is their hands held and to be led from one adventure to the next. I've never had a player who I would consider actually good at sandbox, and this includes the games where I explicitly advertised it as a sandbox game and told them that the plot - if any - would be as an emergent property of their actions in the setting.

The campaign I'm currently running is a good example of this: after our last campaign ended, I sent a poll out to all my players asking what kind of setting they wanted, what kind of plot, what kind of game style, etc., and the consensus was "we want to try an AD&D-ish hexcrawl-y sandbox campaign." So I drew up a map, filled out random encounter tables, wrote up detailed downtime and exploration rules, and so forth, and we proceeded to play our hexcrawl-y sandbox. At the end of the third session, I asked what people thought of the game so far (since none had played any games that were either "old school" or hexcrawl-y or sandbox-y before) and the feedback I got was basically "It's really fun so far, but when are we going to find the main plot?"



I've run into several players who I'd say legitimately "get" sandbox play, but the problem is that you really need at least half the group to be players of that type, or the non-sandbox follow-the-plot majority will view the sandboxers as detracting from "the real game" and derail the player-driven stuff to wait on the DM's next plot hook. And once again I speak from experience. :smallsigh :

The problem I see is that "Player-driven" vs. "DM-driven" are not totally congruent with "sandbox" vs. "plotted adventure." I bolded the above sections because I think they're important. To my mind, a plotted adventure is one the DM plans in advance and is dependent upon the players to move the plot forward. If the plot of the campaign is to save the world, but what the players want to do is rescue princesses from goblins, the plot really can't advance* since the players aren't interacting with it. However, in a sandbox game, there are a ton of plots happening, and it is up to the players to choose what to interact with. The important thing about a sandbox, however, is that everything they didn't choose is happening in the background, regardless if the players chose to interact with it or not.

*Well, I would. But then it becomes more of a sandbox style game.

Here's the first post from the sandbox game I'm running that has been going on for more than a year (it's play by post, but that doesn't matter):

With winter over and the bitter cold receding to the north the town of Junction comes alive once more. No longer choked with bobbing chunks of ice and slush, work continues to repair the great stone bridge spanning the Bel and promising to open up the west once more to the civilizing forces of Man. The streets of Junction are filled with explorers and tradesfolk, mercenaries and merchants, all drawn to the frontier town at the call of the Scarlet Prince and the promise of untold wealth.

Over dinner the previous night the party's factor, a lean, smallpox-marked man named Mr. Hand had spread out the wrinkled, faded map on the table and succinctly recounts what they know.

“Here,” he says, pointing to the road leading to the town of Rocky Mount, “a pride of manticores is said to lurk, devouring all who attempt to pass. Their lair is said to be in these mountains here, overlooking the forest below. I have spoken to a merchant who claimed they are denning halfway up an almost sheer cliff, with a difficult approach.”

“A man has made contact with me, wild-eyed and bushy-bearded, claiming to know the location of a lost gold mine that he is willing to sell for the sum of five hundred gold alcedes. Ordinarily I would discount such tales as the raving of a lunatic or the sugary words of a con man, but I have sources who confirm that there was at one point an attempt to mine a lucrative vein somewhere about here.” He points to a section of the map labeled “75.55”.

“Explorers tell tales of Pesh, a fabled city far to the west. However, in order to get there one would have to either pass through Rocky Peak or take a longer and more circuitous route south, and then west.”

“There are also tales that the land west of Junction and south of Rocky Peak are exceptionally fertile. They tell me the Prince has his eye on expanding this way, at some point, as his domain is somewhat lacking in rich soil.”

“The Prince is offering a reward of five thousand gold alcedes for the removal of the river trolls currently disrupting shipping traffic on the River Sarn, some one hundred miles south of here. Alive or dead, he wishes to see them removed.” Hand points to a section of the map labeled “71.51”. “They are believed to be laired here.”

“The Rufous Baron, ruler of Junction, has offered a reward of 500 gold alcedes for anyone able to clear the land opposite the bridge of all threats, so that he may garrison a squad of troops there.”

Mr. Hand takes a sip of wine and warns the adventurers that they surely will not be the only brave souls called to the frontier. “There is one other party that I am aware of currently in Junction, and more will certainly follow with the warmer weather. I have told you what I know, and leave the final decision to those more experienced in such matters.”

So, the theme of the campaign is that after a century of the forces of Chaos being ascendent the pendulum has shifted, and lands lost to the depredations of savage beastmen are just starting to be reclaimed. I basically sold in as the Wilderlands of High Fantasy meets Oregon Trail. They started out with six plot hooks -- not because there were only six things for them to do, but because I didn't want to overwhelm them -- and picked one. In the meanwhile, there are several other adventuring parties out there, acting independently of the PCs, and several large overarching plots that are marching forwards, regardless if the players even know about them. The two main plots that the PCs have encountered thus far are as follows:

1. There's brewing civil war between several of the Principalities that comprise the Kingdom of Man. They've heard whispers of this, and have interacted with some peripheral elements, but it's pretty much stayed on the backburner. They'll probably start noticing this more next game year, when mercenary forces start to become more rare and expensive.

2. There's a hobgoblin king to the south, attempting to unify the chaotic beastman tribes into a cohesive nation. The PCs have interacted with this plotline more, but it won't really start affecting them until the next game year as well.

Now, I'm fine with the PCs doing whatever they want within the game, but according to the DM-v-Player driven rubric my "sandbox" game would still be considered DM-driven. Right now, pretty much everything they're doing is as a result of stuff I have placed in their laps (largely, to be fair, as a result of random encounter rolls that they've decided to follow up on) and they've reacted to, as opposed to things they've come up with on their own. For instance, they're getting ready to clash with a band of bandits that has been raiding the edges of the nascent domain they've established. But they could have ignored the bandit threat, or attempted to establish diplomatic relations or done any combination of the above and I would have rolled with it.

[Darth Ultron]

The important thing about a sandbox, however, is that everything they didn't choose is happening in the background, regardless if the players chose to interact with it or not.

Odd you pick something that has nothing to do with the ''sandbox'' as something it is all about. After all, a normal plot type game can have several things happening in both the foreground and background,
regardless if the players chose to interact with it or not.

A true sandbox is just a pile of random stuff the players randomly do to ''build'' an adventure in reverse. The players start at point A and then stop at point B, then look back and say ''that was adventure 1''. Of course most sandboxes are more like the players pick a plot and then it's a normal plot driven game like all the rest.

The player led game is just giving the players the illusion of ''player agency'' or whatever makes them feel good. I guess it comes from the theoretical jerk DM that would ''force'' players do do whatever they wanted and the poor players had ''no choice'' but to play the plot the DM ''forced '' them too.

[Cluedrew]

Odd you pick something that has nothing to do with the ''sandbox'' as something it is all about.

I think thirdkingdom was saying that it is more important to have those things happening in the background to keep the world changing. In an adventure focused on a "main plot" you usually get away with only updating things that directly relate to that. Maybe a few stumbling block sub-plots. But yes, usually you do have a lot more than that going on in the background.

The player led game is just giving the players the illusion of ''player agency'' or whatever makes them feel good. I guess it comes from the theoretical jerk DM that would ''force'' players do do whatever they wanted and the poor players had ''no choice'' but to play the plot the DM ''forced '' them too.

On this point I will actually have to disagree. First off that "theoretical" DM is no less real than many of the problem players you complain about. The most prominent example in my mind is CC/Marty Stu, you may or may not have read the SUE files.

Secondly, player agency is not an illusion. Despite what you have claimed, this does not mean giving players unlimited power and the GM being a doormat who grants their every which. The GM is here to have fun too. What it does mean is giving meaningful choices to the players. From character creation on.

I have played player-led games that were epic. Was it all an illusion? Well lets just say if the GM had a pre-planned adventure that could handle "A mercenary, a naive mystic and a reality TV show host (with camera crew), walk in to a bar" in a setting the fourth player, who joined us after we left the bar, just created no less I am very impressed.

I'm not saying you can't run games the way you and your players like, I'm not saying you have to like other people's way of playing. But could you please stop implying that other ways of running games are invalid?

Thank-you.

I didn't mean to say all this when I started, but here I am.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

A true sandbox is just a pile of random stuff the players randomly do to ''build'' an adventure in reverse. The players start at point A and then stop at point B, then look back and say ''that was adventure 1''. Of course most sandboxes are more like the players pick a plot and then it's a normal plot driven game like all the rest.

The player led game is just giving the players the illusion of ''player agency'' or whatever makes them feel good. I guess it comes from the theoretical jerk DM that would ''force'' players do do whatever they wanted and the poor players had ''no choice'' but to play the plot the DM ''forced '' them too.

"Player-driven" isn't just an illusion, and "GM-driven" doesn't mean "railroady jerk GM" at all. Regarding the former, thirdkingdom does have a point that there's a difference between sandboxes with bunches of pre-written mini-plots that players can follow, ignore, string together, derail, or whatever and sandboxes that are entirely randomly generated and improvised. Which one people mean when they just say "sandbox" differs from person to person, and being able to talk about different kinds of sandboxes is helpful.

Regarding the latter, GM-driven can mean something as simple as the group deciding that they're going to do an undead-hunting campaign and the GM and players both prepping appropriately. Yes, the players can do whatever they want once the game starts, but when the characters are built to hunt undead, the characters' backstories involve a hatred of undead, and the GM has created a setting with lots of undead to be slain, they're probably going to decide to go kill some undead, with no coercion on the GM's part or resentment on the players' part.

[Segev]

Darth Ultron, a sandbox isn't "random stuff." That you keep trying to claim it despite having people correct you repeatedly indicates a rather rude disrespect for your fellow playgrounders.

A sandbox had a lot going on. Whether it's in the background or not depends on what the players choose to pay attention to. Players get involved with the goings-on that interest them, or which interfere with whatever the players decide to work on. This can look similar to a plot-driven game, but differs because there isn't a sequence of events the players MUST be at to advance "the plot." Instead, stuff happens and if the players are there, they can change the outcomes.

[kyoryu]

Player agency seems to be by far most people's first priority, and freedom to achieve a goal however you like is meaningless if the goal has been dictated by the GM.

I could not disagree with this more.

"Player-driven" isn't just an illusion,...

Darth Ultron...

Why are you arguing with him???

[Delicious Taffy]

Which of your two categories applies more to a campaign where the DM gives a clearly-defined plot and goals, but the players keep treating it as an annoying sidequest and repeatedly tell the DM to get on with the "real" plot?

[thirdkingdom]

Odd you pick something that has nothing to do with the ''sandbox'' as something it is all about. After all, a normal plot type game can have several things happening in both the foreground and background,
regardless if the players chose to interact with it or not.

A true sandbox is just a pile of random stuff the players randomly do to ''build'' an adventure in reverse. The players start at point A and then stop at point B, then look back and say ''that was adventure 1''. Of course most sandboxes are more like the players pick a plot and then it's a normal plot driven game like all the rest.

The player led game is just giving the players the illusion of ''player agency'' or whatever makes them feel good. I guess it comes from the theoretical jerk DM that would ''force'' players do do whatever they wanted and the poor players had ''no choice'' but to play the plot the DM ''forced '' them too.

Um, no, it's not.

[Primus Beno]

What if you looked at "Player Driven" differently? I like to use the Dungeon World example.

I sat my middle school students down to play Dungeon World. They created their characters, found bonds between all of them, made up backstories together so everyone was included and were ready to start. I had nothing prepared for the game beyond a few quick zombie templates. I asked the following questions, without giving them context, to these eager 12 year olds and got the following responses.


Now that the cell door's open, which one of you is getting sprung?

They quickly decided it was the thief who was in jail. When asked how long, they decided a month. Know they know that this is a prison break scenario, but they got to choose who was being broken out.


What's so important that the duke had you arrested?

They decided that the thief had blackmail knowledge about the Duke trying to overthrow the king and was trying to get it to her Paladin sister before she was captured and imprisoned. They now have a central nemesis as well as motivations.

Why aren't the guards arresting all of you right now?

They had been smuggled in by the thieves guild, who had an interest in getting rid of the Duke, since he'd been squeezing them very hard lately. The guild had bought off guardsman on duty who let the party into the prison. Now I know they have a powerful ally who may be expecting something in return for this favor.

What was the hardest part about breaking into prison?

The story got a bit funny as they told me the Paladin was actually allergic to the Druid in wolf form and kept sneezing, which might have attracted the wrong guards attention. This helped bind more character stories together.


Which other prisoner can't you leave behind and what will happen if you do?


The thief knew the blackmail info, but had credibility problems since most people in the town believed the Duke's story about her being an actual thief. They had to get an old sage out who could also corroborate what the thief was saying. Now I had a complication to make their escape more difficult and an NPC they had to protect.


 After what you did to him, will the jailer live?

They decided "yes", the jailer would live since the Paladin spared his life. He was hog-tied up in one of the cells with a rag in his mouth. Now I know I have a basically "good" party who want a "good themed" story.


Had the dead breached the walls of the city when you entered the dungeon?

This shocked and scared them. They had decided that no, the dead hadn't breached the walls yet, but were close and that fog was pouring into the city. They crafted a story about the plague turning folks into zombies from a bite and the hoard had been ignored by the Duke for too long. There was panic on the streets, which made getting into the prison easier.

BAM! I had an entire story with BBEG, feeble npc, motivators, a theme, mood and a structure to easily improvise off of. I just asked leading questions to the group and had them make up their own story. Now that they were vested, they really wanted to find out what was going on. Why had the Duke ignored the hoard? Where were they going to run? Should they run? How much time did the city have? Should they save it? They put the pressure on themselves to act without me prompting them too.

It was amazing, fun and enjoyable for me. They felt like they had created the story, I could put a framework together for them and throw challenges in their way and both player and DM felt they had agency.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Another example from Dungeon World, which I think is straight out of the book.

"There's a wagon. It's flipped over on its side and you're all huddled behind it for cover as people fire arrows at you. The horses have been shot and are lying dead on the road. There's someone behind the wagon with you, they've been shot and are in shock. The wagon is also on fire."

Tell me:
Where are you?
Why are these people attacking you?
Who is the person who's been shot and why is it very important that they survive?

[IShouldntBehere]

My ideal game is both GM & Player driven. GM sets the initial tone, premise and goal of the game. "A heroic game about a world undergoing a demon invasion" and sets the initial plot hooks. Players dive into those, make choices shake things up. GM looks at the result of those actions and uses them to craft a new set of plot hooks. Rinse and repeat.


You can kind of think of like this. The GM supplies the initial raw materials. The players forge some parts from those raw materials. The GM uses those parts to build a machine to mine up some new raw materials. The players forge those raw materials into parts again, and so on.

A good game is a feedback loop with the players actions & decisions informing the GM's plot hooks and game direction, which shapes player actions & decisions.

[Solaris]

Who told you a sandbox is defined as "Things happen in the background"? They lied to you, Playgrounders. That's not indicative of a sandbox, that's indicative of a cohesive game with verisimilitude. It's tangential to a game's identity as a sandbox or non-sandbox.