Quote from: estar;829638Ars Magica, White Wolf; yup experienced it as well. The reason I am so sour on RPGs as story games is that I played the early stuff like Whimsy Cards. It not like I read something and said it sucks. Not I played it and found it sucks. More specifically it felt like your were cheating in a roleplaying game by having god-like powers to effect the campaign.

At first it seemed cool but then we realize it was circumventing the point of having rules in the first place. An important reason that make RPGs fun is the fact they are challenges. You are trying to accomplish something within the constraints imposed by the setting and rules. Whimsy cards other story game mechanics side step this.

Now White-Wolf (and their predecessors Atlas Games with Ars Magica) are not wrong about role-playing. A RPG campaign can be just as much about the interactions between charactrers (PC and NPCs) as it can be about the plot and/or action.

I am firm advocate of roleplaying and it what I focus on when I play a character for any game. After 30 years, I been there and done that with combat, puzzle-solving, etc. What keeps my interest is the ability to interact with other as my character.

But the White Wolf crowd took it too far by trying to impose rules on plot, story, and progress of the campaign. Of course people being people that is to be expected. But in doing so they are losing the thing that got them interested in the first place, the EXPERIENCE of interacting with others as their character.



I disagree it was popular at any point. Sure it had buzz, but from my experience most White Wolf players treated the game as playing cool super-powered monsters rather than the exploration into the human condition the authors wanted it to be.

It has buzz because let's face it, running a RPG campaign for any game is a pretty complicated thing. In its most ideal form, the referee literally has the job of simulating an entire world. A daunting task for what is a leisure activities.

D&D succeeded in part because it has a brilliant way of telling people of how to make a setting that most could understand.

Draw a Maze with rooms, number the rooms. Put monsters, traps and treasure in some of the rooms. Place the character at the entrance of the maze. So simple that a 10 year old kid can do it.

So as the hobby and industry expanded, the types of campaigns grew more sophisticated. People being people try to simply things, and one way to simiplify things is to take of an RPG Campaign as a story. Because hey everybody knows what a story is. And everybody knows a little about what goes into a generic story. A beginning, middle, end, climax, etc.

Because we have enough folks who really want to be writers designing product in the industry they promote the idea that they are in the business of promoting stories.

In my opinion this is an area where the hobby and industry got it wrong. But since nobody has articulated a coherent alternative, RPG are about stories keeps coming up over and over again.

As for me, I think I got a coherent alternative; RPGs are not about creating stories, they are about creating experiences. RPGs are the cheapest thing (money and time) there is to create a virtual reality like Star Trek's Holodeck. A pen and paper virtual reality if you will.

The desired to play RPGs stems from the same root as the desire to climb Mount Everest, or to go kayaking, or to go scuba diving. It not enough to read about something, you want to experience it. And while obviously it is a better experience actually scuba dive rather than to roleplay scuba diving; it can be a fun alternative. And for somethings, like a monster infested, treasure laden dungeon maze, roleplaying (multiple forms) is the only alternative if you want to experience it.

I find that if you focus on using RPGs to create experience it leads more naturally to a sandbox style of play. Because experiences don't have a predetermined outcome.

Again, no substantial disagreement.

Certainly no disagreement on the failures of the most explicit of the story-oriented approaches (RPG theory, White-Wolf's Railroad The PC's approach). Neither of those are, IME functional.

I'll think about the experience thing. Certainly some of the most powerful play experiences I've had are ones when everyone is deeply immersed and the in-game action feels almost tangible.

I still think it's more than just frustrated authors who want games that would make for decent stories if written up -- I can't speak to how commonplace that is -- it's not really a focus of the most popular game of all time... but it is a focus for #2 (which, to my understanding, is Vampire).

But whether it's popular or not, I suspect that thinking about play as an experience might be a more fundamentally productive way to go about it than to think about it in terms of story. If history has taught us nothing, it's that when most people hear story, they think of the GM acting with full authorial control -- something that we agree is far from a leading practice.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;829693If we have two types of Sandbox -- one that has no specific PC agenda (maybe just a map) and one that does (a mission or series of missions--or a situation that cannot feasibly be ignored), what's a good term for distinguishing those types of games?

Re the latter, I guess you can have 'map the star sector' or 'map the Isle of Dread' type sandbox games. You could call them 'mission sandbox' campaigns? Most mission games do not construct a sandbox though, thus tending to the linear. But I think mission sandbox is potentially a good structure, it could be excellent for a Star Trek 'five year mission' type game. Or the old 2000 AD Rogue Trooper comic was presented as a sandbox on the war planet Nu Earth but with Rogue having an overall mission of finding the Traitor General. The big issue with this design is that end of mission = end of campaign.

Quote from: S'mon;829773The big issue with this design is that end of mission = end of campaign.

There's always another mission.

Think of it this way, the PCs are like the characters in a long book series. A mission is like one book or maybe a two or three book arc in a really long book series. Once one mission is done, a new [strike]book[/strike] mission comes along and the PCs go deal with that.

In order to separate linear from railroad, first you have to see if a "mission" is really linear.

The definition of linearity in my mind is that A will be followed by B and C. This isn't necessarily the case with a mission.

But suppose the mission is to travel along an underground sewer to reach a secret passage, ascend into a prison, and rescue a prisoner. If there are fixed challenges along the way, or perhaps even if there are notional "random encounters" albeit pre-rolled, then you have linearity. And it will not be railroaded if the real issue is "can we get through to the end?" C will only happen if you get through A and B but that's not guaranteed. Having notional random encounters, though, takes you in the direction of railroading since it may give a false appearance of operational risk--such as the chance of a guard patrol passing by just as the party reaches a certain point--when it's really a certainty.

And that takes us to a more clearcut type of railroading. The scenario may have a sequence of set-pieces (usually combat but not necessarily; may be puzzles or whatever). The PCs may be perfectly capable of losing one and bringing the scenario to an end in failure. But if they get through, the next scene contains an element which is clearly forced on the macro scale. Like, no matter what happens in the sewers, if you get to prison cell, you always arrive just as the prisoner is being led away to execution.

Finally you have cases where the outcome of each scene has minimal effect on the overall flow of the scenario. It's impossible to bypass B on the way from A to C, even though logic suggests it should be. If things go wrong in A, then you don't make it to B but you hit B' instead whose sole exit point is C. These are obvious railroads.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;827692Which kind do you run? Which kind is better?

I feel like a linear game kind of defeats the point. Or at least make it a sandbox with multiple linear adventures as options.

I guess I'd call my games Mission oriented? There's usually problem to be solved, a mystery to be explored, etc and the PCs approached according to their desires and abilities. There may be several things at once, side plots, personal goals, etc. to do or take into account.

But its not a total sandbox where they're dropped into the setting to do as they want. I've tried that mode of play and its never worked out well for me.

Quote from: Nexus;829935I guess I'd call my games Mission oriented? There's usually problem to be solved, a mystery to be explored, etc and the PCs approached according to their desires and abilities. There may be several things at once, side plots, personal goals, etc. to do or take into account.

But its not a total sandbox where they're dropped into the setting to do as they want. I've tried that mode of play and its never worked out well for me.

I see. I often hear that; "Sandbox play isn't fun," etc. Why is that? It seems a lot of players are passive and rely on the game to push them in a direction to do something, instead of actively making their way in the world.

Quote from: S'mon;829773The big issue with this design is that end of mission = end of campaign.

It depends.

The Trojan War could be a mission. The end of the mission is the end of the campaign. A follow-on campaign might be the Odyssey.

However, the Trojan War might be broken down into a number of missions:
gather the troops
Sail to Troy
Combat on the beaches
Attacking Troy
Trojan Horse
The Aftermath

Each of these is a mission, but the end of each mission is not the end of the campaign.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;829939I see. I often hear that; "Sandbox play isn't fun," etc. Why is that? It seems a lot of players are passive and rely on the game to push them in a direction to do something, instead of actively making their way in the world.

Speaking for myself, I don't like Sandbox because it feels really directionless with no urgency. I try to think like a person in the setting and, right or wrong, that generally doesn't urge me towards running towards danger  not without some pressing reason. I also like having something to hang a character concept with some assurance that it'll come up in the game. Which is meta, I admit.

Also the genres I prefer to run don't mesh with pure sandbox very well and sandbox require either heavier GM prep workload or well above par improvisational skills.

Quote from: Nexus;829942Speaking for myself, I don't like Sandbox because it feels really directionless with no urgency. I try to think like a person in the setting and, right or wrong, that generally doesn't urge me towards running towards danger  not without some pressing reason. I also like having something to hang a character concept with some assurance that it'll come up in the game. Which is meta, I admit.

Also the genres I prefer to run don't mesh with pure sandbox very well and sandbox require either heavier GM prep workload or well above par improvisational skills.

Well, just because it's sandbox doesn't mean the character concept won't come up in game. It can still be weaved into whatever choice you make in some way.

There are two kinds of sandboxes. The kind where you pre-establish everything (and there, you might miss the character hook) but the GM can also just wing it and improvise each part as you come across it, in which case he's free to insert all the character hooks he wants.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;829939I see. I often hear that; "Sandbox play isn't fun," etc. Why is that? It seems a lot of players are passive and rely on the game to push them in a direction to do something, instead of actively making their way in the world.

Sandbox play requires a key ingredient that is getting harder to find these days- proactive players.

Players who are interested in the setting and want explore/ find out more about it are a rare breed. Many players treat the setting as a backdrop, a meaningless scrolling screen that exists just to facilitate their characters being awesome and looking good doing it.

So if players come to the table with the expectation that a mission will just appear and they will rush to complete it, a sandbox is a waste of effort.

Of course the DM has to do their fair share and make the setting interesting so that the players will want to explore it. Even so, if the players don't give a rat's ass about any setting then there isn't any point in trying.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;829951Well, just because it's sandbox doesn't mean the character concept won't come up in game. It can still be weaved into whatever choice you make in some way.

There are two kinds of sandboxes. The kind where you pre-establish everything (and there, you might miss the character hook) but the GM can also just wing it and improvise each part as you come across it, in which case he's free to insert all the character hooks he wants.

No, It doesn't mean it won't but there's more of chance that it might not than in a  planned campaign where I can tie it into the intended premise. But if, for example, I tie my character's goals, motivation, whatever, to Wakanda and the rest of the group wants to go dinosaur hunting in the Savage land then I'm SOL or the GM is going to have to do some real gymnastics to work my stuff in or the group splits.

Its easier for me to come up with something that works with a more defined campaign and easier for the GM, IME. Not objectively better but I enjoy it more.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;829952Sandbox play requires a key ingredient that is getting harder to find these days- proactive players.

Players who are interested in the setting and want explore/ find out more about it are a rare breed. Many players treat the setting as a backdrop, a meaningless scrolling screen that exists just to facilitate their characters being awesome and looking good doing it.

That seems like an unnecessarily denigrating description of people that simply don't share your preferences as far as rpgs go. I'm sure some of them feel the why you describe but hardly all of them. I've found my players are pretty invested in the setting but they just enjoy more direction and focus and usually the games/genres we play don't really support "Here's thew world, go for it" quite as well as Dungeon Fantasy (for example) might.

Quote from: Arminius;829853In order to separate linear from railroad, first you have to see if a "mission" is really linear.

The definition of linearity in my mind is that A will be followed by B and C. This isn't necessarily the case with a mission.

But suppose the mission is to travel along an underground sewer to reach a secret passage, ascend into a prison, and rescue a prisoner. If there are fixed challenges along the way, or perhaps even if there are notional "random encounters" albeit pre-rolled, then you have linearity. And it will not be railroaded if the real issue is "can we get through to the end?" C will only happen if you get through A and B but that's not guaranteed. Having notional random encounters, though, takes you in the direction of railroading since it may give a false appearance of operational risk--such as the chance of a guard patrol passing by just as the party reaches a certain point--when it's really a certainty.

And that takes us to a more clearcut type of railroading. The scenario may have a sequence of set-pieces (usually combat but not necessarily; may be puzzles or whatever). The PCs may be perfectly capable of losing one and bringing the scenario to an end in failure. But if they get through, the next scene contains an element which is clearly forced on the macro scale. Like, no matter what happens in the sewers, if you get to prison cell, you always arrive just as the prisoner is being led away to execution.

Finally you have cases where the outcome of each scene has minimal effect on the overall flow of the scenario. It's impossible to bypass B on the way from A to C, even though logic suggests it should be. If things go wrong in A, then you don't make it to B but you hit B' instead whose sole exit point is C. These are obvious railroads.

It is not bending the credulity of the players to have linear plotlines within a sandbox.  There are times when life only affords certain options.  The trick is always to have there to be choices about entering into such an area.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;829952Sandbox play requires a key ingredient that is getting harder to find these days- proactive players.

The only thing a sandbox campaign requires is that the player act if he is really in the setting as their characters. Note that is this not the same as willing to roleplaying a different personality. Their character can be a version of themselves and they can still do this.

The problem is that when Sandbox Campaign were first being popularized as part of the promotion for the Wilderlands of High Fantasy boxed set. It was explained as plopping the character in a location and they go out in and explore, whether it was to explore territory or to explore the relationships with between people.

Soon this there was a lot of reports on campaigns failing to ignite. I looked at how I ran things as well as how the other people involved with the project ran their campaigns. It became clear that most of us put a lot of work in to establishing an initial context for the campaign.

In short the characters were not just thrown in to the setting with little or no information. Instead they were established as part of the setting with information on some contacts, with some allies, possibly some enemies, and leads on possible adventures. Some of our campaigns started off very structured with the character members of some organization like a temple or the royal guards.

It is the initial context that propels the start of a Sandbox Campaign. Without it you are correct in that it will only appeal to player with an interest in exploration. That you are correct in that type of player is a minority of those who game.

The essence of a sandbox isn't exploration, it that the campaign is driven by the character choices not the preconceived notions of the referee. If the players choose to turn pirate and use the Enterprise to plunder the spacelanes, in a sandbox campaign that OK. The campaign now be about former Star Fleet officers turned pirate rather than to boldly go where no man has gone.

Quote from: LordVreeg;829959It is not bending the credulity of the players to have linear plotlines within a sandbox.  There are times when life only affords certain options.  The trick is always to have there to be choices about entering into such an area.

Agreed, there are some thing in real life that where once you decided to do an activity, X, Y, and Z will have to come in order in order to achieve the goal. It is no different in a tabletop sandbox campaign.

A sandbox referee needs to focus on thinking about the plausible consequences of the character actions and pick out the most interesting. As opposed as to always pick the most probable.  However sometimes there is really is only one or two plausible consequences for something that the players did as their characters.