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.

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.

Let's follow the logic here PPCs are like Skyrim => Skyrim is a bad model for tabletop RPGs => PPC is a bad model for Tabletop RPGs.

But sure, no one here is making out that Sandbox is the only "pure" roleplaying option.

And no, robiswrong, the idea that you will inevitably do the main storyline is bullshit. And in this case, it is EXACTLY like my experiences with one of the earlier Elder Scrolls games. I still, for the life of me, have NO IDEA what the main story of Daggerfall was. And I've had a huge amount of max level characters in it. I never had to do the "main plot" just like no one ever has to do the "main plot" in a plot point campaign.

And actually, if you don't think "Oh man, we lost the Macguffin to that other guy" doesn't lead to your characters going "well, then we should get it back from him" which leads to its own adventure... yeah idk.

And as said before, the best PPCs don't have the ticking clock. Even if you fail and NEVER take out the "big bad" or whatever, the game goes on fine. The world doesn't disintegrate. There have been tons of games run with the 50 Fathoms PPC where no one even touched the "main" story of the game. There are tons of things to do in the campaign outside of that (including a plethora of random encounter charts).

There is nothing preventing player agency. If you do the "core" adventures, ok. If you fail them, ok. If you fail and try to think of a way to get around it, ok. If you fail and then abandon them, ok. If you never even look at them? ok. PPC just creates a structure. It doesn't lobotomize the GM.

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.

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.

Isn't skyrim a choose your adventure game rather than a true sandbox? I mean your action don't really have a lot of consequences. I don't see NPC's or NPC factions reacting to the things you did. They just wait till you come past their town for a quest or their dungeon for some dungeon crawling.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;738026I 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.

It is supposed to leave room for improvisation. I never liked the fact that WW wants you to write scene to scene type of adventures. Every scene is followed immediatelly by another one. I like it when the story breathes a little bit. They can improvise till a scene gets triggered by them either entering a location, after the passing of an amount of time or as a reaction on what they did before.

Doesn't a sandbox works well only in a fantasy RPG? With a map and different races and such? I don't see people sandboxing Cthulhu somehow.

Btw, I might be trying something like a plot point campaign (the method) for my next WoD mortal game focused on interaction with the spirit world. So it's occult investigation. I don't see that being sandboxed as well.

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.

Somebody once told me in terms of either theater or writing, "each character in a scene wants something, and they will attempt to maneuver events to get what they want.  Even if all they want is to quietly serve the wine and get the hell back downstairs before anybody notices them, or if what they want is to kill the king and usurp the throne."

If you know what the NPCs want, you're home free.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;737580A plot point campaign is a thing done for Savage World settings a lot that works like this.

There are a bunch of "set" adventures, dependent on time and location, and whether or not you've finished other adventures, and how they worked out.

It may have a central "plot" but the players don't really HAVE to interact with it, and can go in any direction they really wish. What adventures trigger will depend on where they go and what has happened up to that point.

You can usually draw them up in a flow chart. For instance the Sundered Skies one has a neat chart someone made for it that looks like this:



Its kind of a middle step between a plotted campaign and a sandbox. Like a directed sandbox. The adventures usually aren't too in depth, just giving general ideas of how they work rather than being broken down into every little scene, and there is a lot of room for GM improv and player creativity. And certain ones may link into a coherent story, but a lot are also optional and stuff.

I personally like them, but can see where other people might not.

So its a bit like meta plot that you don't necessarily have to interact with like playing in the Star Wars universe during the movies. They'll be happening in the background and if the PCs choose to jump in they can or happen to be the right place at the right (or wrong) time they might get caught up something related or or an event stemming from a "canonical" event but the game itself isn't automatically focused on them or steered in a particular direction/

Quote from: jan paparazzi;738079Doesn't a sandbox works well only in a fantasy RPG? With a map and different races and such? I don't see people sandboxing Cthulhu somehow.

I've ran a sandbox Call of Cthulhu game. It was a "small" sandbox (New England instead of the whole world). The PCs were independently wealthy (actually, only one of the was truly wealthy) and they wondered around the New England area looking for things man was not meant to know. Replacement PCs were friends, cousins, servants (the wealthy PC's butler), etc.

Quote from: robiswrong;738050This 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.

For me, it creates a more organic experience. I also find knowing what my different npcs are up to keeps me relaxed should the players start to get a bit aimless.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;738062And as said before, the best PPCs don't have the ticking clock. Even if you fail and NEVER take out the "big bad" or whatever, the game goes on fine. The world doesn't disintegrate. There have been tons of games run with the 50 Fathoms PPC where no one even touched the "main" story of the game. There are tons of things to do in the campaign outside of that (including a plethora of random encounter charts).

There is nothing preventing player agency. If you do the "core" adventures, ok. If you fail them, ok. If you fail and try to think of a way to get around it, ok. If you fail and then abandon them, ok. If you never even look at them? ok. PPC just creates a structure. It doesn't lobotomize the GM.

OK, so it sounds like my reading of what you wrote was closer. It's basically a big abstracted map of a campaign's space and time. Nothing is necessary to keep playing the game, and there is no single right answer to a chain of problems (or any of its links).

Perhaps what I do is closer to a sandbox than this, but that one campaign of mine does seem like it shares similar parts. Is there any free module/campaign products that is a good PPC example? And of the small number you said that did it well (where even Pinnacle is ambivalent on PPCs' success), which would be exemplary to check out?

In a way it sounds like a bundle of adventure module ideas gathered around a central campaign time and space. If they have a decent location map included, might be some useful "regional outline" stuff.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;738062Let's follow the logic here PPCs are like Skyrim => Skyrim is a bad model for tabletop RPGs => PPC is a bad model for Tabletop RPGs.

My comment was limited to CPRGs only. As for PPCs, many successfully used graphs to organize complex relationships between many elements. So the graph that is at the heart of the PPC format is a useful tool. The format itself will work.

But it doesn't fully take advantage of a human referee running a tabletop campaign. A similar graph could be made for adventure content of World of Warcraft and so on.

My opinion for tabletop RPGs to thrive and continue design of products need focus on the unique characteristic of tabletop. Characteristics that other forms of roleplaying games can't or have difficulty doing.


While a computer can power a simulation of a fantasy world in a way a human referee can't. The human referee can use experience and judgement to present a slice of the fantasy world in a dynamic way. While it is only a slice compared to the entire world a computer can handle, in the hands of the skilled human referee it can feel more real than most finely rendered virtual world of today.

The same way a skilled author can bring a time, place, or person to life in a book.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;738062But sure, no one here is making out that Sandbox is the only "pure" roleplaying option.

Right but my opinion is that the entire sandbox format and management strategy is one that LARPS, CRPGS, and MMORPGS either can't or have difficulty doing.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;738062And as said before, the best PPCs don't have the ticking clock. Even if you fail and NEVER take out the "big bad" or whatever, the game goes on fine. The world doesn't disintegrate. There have been tons of games run with the 50 Fathoms PPC where no one even touched the "main" story of the game. There are tons of things to do in the campaign outside of that (including a plethora of random encounter charts).

If you remember that the setting a WORLD instead of a Star Wars style desert plant, forest planet, ice world, etc. Then there room for a lot more just like in the real world.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;737567Does it provide the story without the railroading?

The only possible answers to that question are Maybe and No. You can't guarantee a given "the story" without railroading, because that's just what railroading is.

Look, the basic problem is deciding in advance that the players shall do this or that. This is really bizarre coming from the context of games in which Dungeons & Dragons made its debut. If I'm playing a WW2 game as the Germans, there's no schedule like, "Oh, now I'm supposed to get Sixth Army surrounded and destroyed at Stalingrad."

Even a historical game is alternate history! What's the point of play, if not for the players to make a new course of events? When you've got a map and pieces, why add a script? That's the difference between actually playing a game of cards, and just acting in a movie of Casino Royale.

Quote from: jeff37923;737711It works well to provide some structure to a sandbox, but GMs still have to be able to respond to where the Players lead the campaign when they do things that have not been prepared for.

If the structure is only in the GM's anticipation of potential shifts the players might make in the sand, then well enough. But the tendency these days is to make stuff so elaborate that it's a big waste if the players choose to make different waves instead; and to present it with the assumption that the GM's job is to force events into one of the expected patterns.

Quote from: robiswrong;737809Interconnected characters with drives that the players can screw with make for *awesome* games.

I've found that a good cast of NPCs is my #1 asset! It ends up making things flow quite easily and naturally, as if the game has taken on a life of its own.

If someone wants to make a scheme similar to a pick-your-path-book, the development of NPCs would at least provide a more plausible and meaningful basis for "scenes" than arbitrarily shunting the player(s) here and there. Have the NPCs respond to player choices by doing things that set up the next set of choices.

That business, though, was basically dictated by the limitations of the medium. Computer programs pretty quickly took its place; and for many people the main point of a human-moderated game is the flexibility, the fact one is not limited to a menu of preset options.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;738079Doesn't a sandbox works well only in a fantasy RPG? With a map and different races and such? I don't see people sandboxing Cthulhu somehow.

Y'know, different people mean different things. At least in my experience, "sandbox" came up in the RPG context to mean what "campaign" used to mean: not only in Chivalry & Sorcery but equally in Gangbusters.

Historically, Call of Cthulhu scenarios such as Shadows of Yog-Sothoth (1982) and Masks of Nyarlathotep (1984) were among the earliest -- and probably still among the best -- designs of this "plot point" sort. However strongly associated that may have become with the brand, it has also featured situation scenarios.

The basic distinction of "sandbox" from the newer concept of game (campaign, adventure, etc.) as "the GM's plan for what will happen" seems to me perfectly clear in the old board games I mentioned. The game presents the players with an initial state, and perhaps some conditionally triggered events, but the players make the moves.

It doesn't matter whether the scenario is the shopping mall siege in Dawn of the Dead, the Congress of Vienna, the Scramble for Africa, rival railroad tycoons of the Gilded Age, the Russian Civil War, the 1991 Major League Baseball Season, pirates of Madagascar, the Space Race of the 1960s, the Affair of the Diamond Necklace, the Whitechapel Murders, Count Dracula in London, or what have you.

This thread goes in all directions.

Still I don't see how you could sandbox a game about a person being possessed by an evil spirit and killing people. If that doesn't come at my players path, then they might do other stuff like well maybe they go shopping or plan their holiday or something.

The players must get the assignment and must do the murder solving. I could do a sandbox, but that means the murders just might go on without even involving the players in it.

Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of sandboxing, especially if it creates more organic games.