Quote from: Opaopajr;737980Yeah, so far from Emperor Norton's description I don't see the fixed transition regardless of choice, a la Mass Effect. However it does look like more structured and discrete than a sandbox, as the future is partially flowcharted and the side quests don't have to interconnect (or leave loose end threads you're not interested in). And that charted future is not so much "story" as it is NPC agendas accounted into a single flowchart.

Per the graph, if you look down the left hand side, there's a linear series of adventures that will be progressed through eventually.

By my reading of the graph (haven't read the actual modules), you're going through those series of things no matter what.

The overall structure seems more similar to a Bethesda game, though, as it doesn't have Bioware's typical "tutorial mission, first real mission, three mandatory parallel storylines, wrap-up mission, final mission, with a bunch of optional sidequests" structure that almost all of their games are based on.

Quote from: Skywalker;737577Or the worst of both worlds, with less freedom than your pure imagination and more effort than a more usual prewritten campaign.

Bingo.

Yeah, situations, plots, NPC plans, whatever you call 'em...those I got.

What I don't have are a whole setting's worth of maps, NPC's, maps, buildings, maps, towns, maps, cities, maps, and maps.  You know, the stuff that takes the Lion's Share of prep time and that Plot Points Campaigns hardly ever have.

Quote from: robiswrong;737961I dunno, you told the story of a mercenary band that fought in a war, captured a king, and then turned themselves into honest innkeepers.  That sounds like a pretty cool story.

I told the story AFTER the campaign was completed.

DURING the campaign, I presented it and adjudicated it as if the player were really there.


What I focus on in prep was the experience of being in my setting doing interesting things .

The story, as such, is the description of what my player experienced.

Quote from: robiswrong;737961But it was the players' story.  It was a series of events that occurred because of what the players did.  It wasn't the GM's story.  Fuck the GM's story in the ear.

So I think we agree

And to hammer an earlier the reason many Sandbox campaign fail because the referee didn't start them out in an situation that the players found interesting.  I get around this by either offering a figurative menu of potential initial situations or the player come to me and say "Hey we want to play a bunch of nobodies in a neighborhood of City-State."

Which by the way was an actual campaign I ran and one of the highlights was the players literally blanket beating a vampire with literal blankets and iron skillets.

Anyway start group doing something interesting and attitude of "Where the party goes, I go as the referee." You have the essential ingredients of a sandbox campaign.

Quote from: robiswrong;737997The overall structure seems more similar to a Bethesda game, though, as it doesn't have Bioware's typical "tutorial mission, first real mission, three mandatory parallel storylines, wrap-up mission, final mission, with a bunch of optional sidequests" structure that almost all of their games are based on.

Yes, Skyrim is a good comparison point for a PPC. Those books offer GMs a wide range of adventure hooks that the players can pick up sandbox style if they find them interesting, and then also a central "spine" series of adventures that the PCs can progress through if they want to. Simply because it's a tabletop game the spine adventures are more flexible than those in Skyrim, but there's still a definite expectation that you will need to pass through five defined checkpoints before you get to punch god in the face and declare victory over the main quest.

I will add that managing a freeform sandbox is not the easiest thing in tabletop roleplaying. Everybody who wants to run a sandbox campaign needs to figure out in their own way how to manage the mass of details that a campaign has.

If it takes a graph, then by god that the right way for you. But just keep in mind it is just a tool that serve you. Not the other way around.

The main caution I have is don't invest too much prep into items that are far into the graph. As circumstances may render that prep moot as a result of PC actions.

Quote from: Grymbok;738011Yes, Skyrim is a good comparison point for a PPC. Those books offer GMs a wide range of adventure hooks that the players can pick up sandbox style if they find them interesting, and then also a central "spine" series of adventures that the PCs can progress through if they want to. Simply because it's a tabletop game the spine adventures are more flexible than those in Skyrim, but there's still a definite expectation that you will need to pass through five defined checkpoints before you get to punch god in the face and declare victory over the main quest.

Computer games a poor model for what possible with tabletop roleplaying.

Don't get me wrong what Bethseda does with Skyrim is excellent work for CRPGs.  But it is a poor fit for tabletop roleplaying. THIS DOES NOT MAKE SKYRIM A BAD ROLEPLAYING GAME. Just a bad tabletop roleplaying game.

The same with LARPS vs Tabletop RPGs vs CRPGS vs MMORPGs vs Story game vs whatever hell other types of RPGs that are out there.

Quote from: estar;738013Computer games a poor model for what possible with tabletop roleplaying.

No argument from me.

This thread just seems to have devolved in to nothing but people saying that anything other than pure sandboxing is a horrible aberration against true roleplaying that will make Gygax spin in his grave. Which is something of an absolutist view, I'd venture.

Are Plot Point Campaigns the greatest possible form of RPGs? No, but no-one's saying they are. Are they a useful form of published campaign that supports GMs who are looking for more guidance and structure than a pure sandbox setting? Based on my experience I'll give that one a maybe. I think the fact that even Pinnacle - who originated the idea - think they've only done a great job with it once is rather telling.

Are they a good model to emulate in creating home games? Almost certainly not. Mimicking the style slavishly would mean doing work for no good reason that would just limit you later. But taking the central idea of the PPCs - that one of the first hooks you chuck the players can be a big meaty one that if pursued will lead to the campaign world being reshaped, many adventures and diversions later - that's something that I think is a decent approach for some GMs.

Quote from: estar;738008I told the story AFTER the campaign was completed.

I cannot believe some people here on this site still don't get this.

Quote from: estar;738008I told the story AFTER the campaign was completed.

DURING the campaign, I presented it and adjudicated it as if the player were really there.

Totally understood.

Quote from: estar;738008And to hammer an earlier the reason many Sandbox campaign fail because the referee didn't start them out in an situation that the players found interesting.  I get around this by either offering a figurative menu of potential initial situations or the player come to me and say "Hey we want to play a bunch of nobodies in a neighborhood of City-State."

I often do this by figuring out what the players are interested in, and presenting an initial situation.  The reason I don't consider this "railroading" is that in no way do I predict what hte players will do or how they'll respond to that.

Their response, and the consequences of that response, start the campaign ball a-rollin'.

Quote from: estar;738008Anyway start group doing something interesting and attitude of "Where the party goes, I go as the referee." You have the essential ingredients of a sandbox campaign.

Yup.  Learning to say 'yes' when appropriate is a key bit of that.  Almost any player plan should have a chance of success, not just what the GM thought of as the solution.  When you figure that out is when you kind of change from being a creator of puzzles to the creator of a world.

Quote from: estar;738013Computer games a poor model for what possible with tabletop roleplaying.

Don't get me wrong what Bethseda does with Skyrim is excellent work for CRPGs.  But it is a poor fit for tabletop roleplaying. THIS DOES NOT MAKE SKYRIM A BAD ROLEPLAYING GAME. Just a bad tabletop roleplaying game.

I generally agree.  I won't call it "bad", entirely, as I'm sure some people out there like it.  But for me the whole point of doing tabletop and not WoW is the fact that I *don't* goddamn know what will happen, either as a player or as a GM.

Quote from: Benoist;738022I cannot believe some people here on this site still don't get this.

In case it wasn't clear, I totally get it.  (I think more 'storygames' fit into that bucket than people here give them credit for, too)

I've been pretty clear in my anti-railroad, pro-player agency standpoint all along, I think.

I also wouldn't describe them as "the best of both worlds"

Its just one more campaign model. Its not a sandbox really, but its not a linear adventure, its just another tool in the shed.

It has advantages and disadvantages just like any other model, and some of those disadvantages will make it a bad fit for some groups, while with other groups it won't.

And I agree at Grymbok. I get a laugh out of how adamant people seem to be about "If its not 100% sandbox, its the antithesis of all roleplaying and is bad". Not every game has to be a sandbox. Other models work for other groups. I like sandboxes fine, but there are other ways to play and they are equally valid.

EDIT: Also, there seems to be this weird idea that Plot Points disallow anyone from improvising. Just because there is a set of adventures that go => => => for the "main storyline" of the world, doesn't mean it can't be changed by the GM based on circumstances. It just means there is an established path that can be used if things go the way they are expected in the adventures. If they are supposed to get Macguffin X, but they fail to, well, I can let them plan a way to get Macguffin X from wherever it ended up, or even allow them a way to work through without it.

Having a plot point campaign doesn't prevent anyone from making stuff up.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;738026I get a laugh out of how adamant people seem to be about "If its not 100% sandbox, its the antithesis of all roleplaying and is bad".

Can you link to a couple of quotes from these adamant people, or is this just a strawman?

Quote from: Emperor Norton;738026EDIT: Also, there seems to be this weird idea that Plot Points disallow anyone from improvising....

This is the core of the disagreement.

Let's say you have a game based around the Empire of Bastardania invading the Kingdom of Goodandniceland.  To stop the Bastardanians, you need the Mac of Guffin, and then to use it to snuff the Flame of Winthegamium.

Great.

So, what happens if the players don't get the Mac of Guffin?

Railroad/Plot Point/Illusionism:  Find a way for them to either get the Mac of Guffin, or a way to win without it, so that we can keep going through the pre-plotted adventures.

Player Agency:  Well, shit, that sucks.  I guess the Bastardanians are gonna win, and the game is probably going to turn into being about resistance fighters under a tyrannical government.

I'm not saying that railroads/plot points are the bane of gaming.  (Illusionism I've got a hate on for, because it's basically LYING).  But that entire "I don't know what is going to happen" is precisely *why* I do tabletop gaming, and so getting rid of that defeats the purpose.

Obviously many people enjoy them.  I'm not one of them, and for me plot point gaming (at least what I've been able to see of it) does *not* address the primary concern that I have with linear campaigns, does *not* include the "best" of sandbox gaming, and so is clearly *not* the best of both worlds.

For some people it may be, as what they consider the "best" of sandbox gaming may be different than my view.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;738031Can you link to a couple of quotes from these adamant people, or is this just a strawman?

Spinning straw into adamantium?

Quote from: estar;738012I will add that managing a freeform sandbox is not the easiest thing in tabletop roleplaying. Everybody who wants to run a sandbox campaign needs to figure out in their own way how to manage the mass of details that a campaign has.

If it takes a graph, then by god that the right way for you. But just keep in mind it is just a tool that serve you. Not the other way around.

The main caution I have is don't invest too much prep into items that are far into the graph. As circumstances may render that prep moot as a result of PC actions.

I have been running something of a sandbox lately and been grabbing bits and pieces of your advice here and elsewhere to make it as smooth as possible (most of it has been very helpful).

One thing I found that works for me, is to load as many adventure elements onto NPC motivations as I can. And just generally think a lot about what my NPCs want, so when they are introduced, I know what kinds of things they will ask of the players, what challenges they might pose, etc. Rather than construct an adventure in the City of Tsun where the party must find the Jade Sunflower while contending with the minions of Lord Golden Helm, I don't worry about that. I put the Jade Sunflower in Tsun, and I include mention of Lord Golden Helm's Desire for it in his NPC entry. So separating those two elements makes it easier for me pull in during play. Focusing on NPCs helps me a lot here.

I also found shifting to a gazetteer organization for everything was helpful. I have a map, and everything on my map has an entry in my gazetteer. The only other section in my notebook is the NPC and Organizations section (and for ease of play I repeat a lot of text in both sections). The adventure really seems to emerge as an interaction between where the players go and who they interact with.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;738046One thing I found that works for me, is to load as many adventure elements onto NPC motivations as I can. And just generally think a lot about what my NPCs want, so when they are introduced, I know what kinds of things they will ask of the players, what challenges they might pose, etc. Rather than construct an adventure in the City of Tsun where the party must find the Jade Sunflower while contending with the minions of Lord Golden Helm, I don't worry about that. I put the Jade Sunflower in Tsun, and I include mention of Lord Golden Helm's Desire for it in his NPC entry. So separating those two elements makes it easier for me pull in during play. Focusing on NPCs helps me a lot here.

This is really useful.  If you've planned "the players will go to x, y, and z", and then the players decide something else, you're kind of left in the weeds.

If you can push that stuff onto NPCs, you're left with "okay, how does this NPC respond now?" which is a lot easier to work with.