I was talking to my D&D-playing client (mentioned here) and we were discussing the new game he and his friends have just fired up and my megadungeon game.
There were some differences. It wasn't story or railroad vs. sandbox (as much as I have this limited sandbox to play in) as it was episodic and mission-based vs. location-based. His group got a mission (Go take care of this for us) and went to take care of the mission. They wanted a mission and they got one. My group gets a location, and a general incentive to do something there.
I was thinking this makes an interesting contrast - do you hand out missions, or places? Both are valid ways to play, but don't have the same pros and cons.
I could sum up the differences between playing the way they did in their first session back - and I've done in the past - with the way I've been playing it now. Mission Based vs. Location Based.
Mission Based - play is more-or-less episodic. The GM provides some kind of situation that needs to be resolved. Sack a specific dungeon, Help X do Y, Rescue A from B, etc. The adventure begins, you take care of that mission, and then you move onto the next one next time. Loose threads may continue to the next one, or just get left behind as play moves on.
Pros: Very easy to prep for, both by the players and the GM. Cuts out all the "What should we do?" deliberation time. No need for natural stopping points at the end of a session, since you just keep going until it's done.
Cons: The players can get stuck doing missions/dungeons of the week/etc. that they have little enthusiasm for. Can tempt the GM into a railroad. You generally need the same attendance session to session or PCs will need to be run by another player.
Location Based - play is centered on an adventure area. Players can decide what to do, when to do it, why to do it. Missions may occur, but are accepted or denied based on player preferences. Loose threads continue until resolved.
Pros: High level of player agency. With proper play ending, you can have a stable of characters and not worry about attendance issues. Players only select what they want to deal with.
Cons: The bigger the area, and the more mobile the PCs, the more GM prep necessary. Lots of time can get spent figuring out what to do next. The GM needs to be ready for everything or have a good way to stall without killing fun.
While I do recommend that he try option 2, I totally understand how "Your mission this week is to sack the Dungeon of the Evil Priest of Evil" makes for a quick transition into play without a lot of discussion.
In my new campaign about Reclaiming Moria, I'll be using an hybrid mechanics leaning toward mission-based. The driving factor is a reckless King with a gung-ho style who will hatch plans left and right. The PCs and NPCs are going to try to shape or cancel these plans using social combats and court intrigues. If no PCs take on the mission, I'll resolve it abstractly: opening/closing new locations and creating new situations. There will always be a chance for the PCs to pick a direction and explore what's in there. However, ignoring the missions will tend to cause the military campaign to bog down and eventually fail. It shouldn't be a railroad because the PCs will have a say on what is coming next, and the option of participating or not in the live sessions.
ReplyDeleteSome stalling tactics is in order, as well as a good way to generate stuff randomly on the fly works well for area-based approaches.
Wandering monsters, or their equivalent, help immensely. That way you can pretty much generate play areas just ahead of the players. That's all that matters.
DeleteI would argue that Location Based adventure is ultimately less prep than a Mission Based session.
ReplyDeleteThe need for plotting, narrative arc, and resolution in the latter is just a huge headache for me, anyway. A properly engineered location gives you the freedom to not even consider those things. Sure, there will be a continuous stream of just-in-time prep along the way, but the players have been delegated the story for the most part.
I think you're partly conflating "mission based" and "specific story arc based." They aren't the same. "Go Find the MacGuffin in the Dungeon of Doom" is a mission - you don't need to plot anything, just stick a MacGuffin into the dungeon.
DeleteOn the other hand if you do want a narrative arc other than what the players generate for themselves, location-based play makes it pretty certain that that will only happen by coincidence. (Unless the GM shuffles things around behind the scenes.)
DeleteNot exactly by coincidence, but in parallel to the player's own actions. It's not like you can't have a location and then some non-PC actors who take their own actions and have their own plots. And you can have pre-planned outside events that affect the location, too.
DeleteIf your Missions are sufficiently small as to be completed in a single session, you eliminate the need for consistent player presence as well. New mission comes up, team is assembled based on who is present for that session, mission is performed, tie up loose ends so next time you can start a fresh mission with whoever happens to be around. Can also be used to allow players to play different characters each session, if they're the sort that like to stretch their wings a little.
ReplyDeleteI nearly always gravitate to episodic/mission based play for the "who shows up is random" factor, even though location/epic arc play is actually my preferred style.
DeleteI'm going location-based for that reason - that way I don't customize a mission and then have a critical team member not show up. Or have a mission that should end in one session but can't, and then next time some people can't show and others can.
DeleteYour guys go back to town nearly every session, though, right? That effectively (and usefully) hybridizes the problem. you get the benefits of the location-based game but the "who shows is not important" that you get with mission-based stuff.
Deletethat being said, even in episodic games, I was very pissed when people didn't RSVP, or worse yet, did RSVP and then flaked anyway.
That's why I mostly run con games. Far fewer organizational hassles.
DeleteLocation based has the advantage that people can choose their own adventures based on what they've found before, and on the team that shows up. At least one of our sessions was "avoid the wights at all cost oh wait Inquisitor Marco just walked in - kill the wights, full speed ahead!"
DeleteCon games have their own issues. At least I know the craziness I'm getting into, running games for my buddies. ;)
My game is definitely mission-based, although the players passed up on a mission once. No problem, next mission.
ReplyDeleteI must be very fortunate to have the players that I do, because all five show up almost every time.
You are very fortunate indeed. My players have a lot going on, three come from out of state (and one has a medical residency going on), and at least half have kids. So we rarely have a full house.
DeleteInteresting you bring this up. On a recent episode of the Ken & Robin Talk About Stuff podcast, they discussed the false dichotomy of railroad vs. sandbox and pretty much landed on redefining terms as mission-based vs. location-based as well. The segment's worth a listen if you're inclined.
ReplyDeleteAs for myself, I do prefer mission-based, but in small, focused dollops with allowances for PC investigation of the location if sufficient interest develops.
If I think of things the same way Ken Hite does, that's just awesome.
DeleteI like mission based especially with GURPS Worminghall. The PCs go on quests to find various magic items for a Wizard professor. For the most part my gameworld is set in mythic England but now the PCs need to go find an item in India. It has nothing to with the fact that I just bought Arrows of Indra :)
ReplyDeleteIt's a terrible, terrible co-incidence. Just like how when I find a bunch of cool minis, coincidentally monsters that look like them attack the PCs.
DeleteWe started out in the Montporte dungeon (with me as GM) doing a mission-based session, because it was supposed to be a one-shot. However, I used a huge dungeon that I had already started working on. It has made completing the mission much tougher because they are losing their focus, but we also decided to keep it going. So, two sessions in, we are straddling the mission/location fence. It is an uncomfortable place to be, but there are enticements to not completely the mission and going off in another direction to explore. There are also consequences. It is up to the players as to their direction and action.
ReplyDeleteThat's always a concern - the party can ditch the mission partly through and leave it all in the lurch.
DeleteBut if they're settling down to deal with one area, roll with it. Throw them an occasional travel-and-return mission if you need a break.