Quote from: Bren;830242It's logically lazy and needlessly pejorative to cast people who like something different than you want them to like as weak or lobotomized. It would be really nice if people didn't do that.

Some people like exploring a setting and creating proactive, ambitious characters who drive towards their own goal or goals. Some people don't. Oddly, that same difference in personality is visible all around us in the real world. Some people are very ambitious and driven, some prefer to go with the flow and enjoy life.

As a GM one can find players who like what you want them to like so you can run the game your want to run or one can adapt one's GM style to what the players one has on hand happen to like. Neither of those GM choices is ethically better than the other. I really, really wish people would stop talking as if one of those choices was a moral imperative and the other was not.

You really have to work with the group at the table to find the sweet spot in my experience. As a GM you can cultivate interest among the players in a style they might not be experienced with but at the end of the day, you have 4-7 people with varying preferences and tastes (and the sheer number of campaign styles have really expanded since when I first started playing). My approach is to do things the way I am comfortable as a gm but with compromise so I'm making sure everyone at the table is playing the kind of game they enjoy. Within that zone of comfort for me are a range of campaign and adventure structures I feel I can deliver adequately to the group. If my players really need something more like an adventure path to keep them happy, my years GMing 3E gave me the tools to do that and I won't object. If my players want something more sandbox I can provide that as well. I tend to have the most fun as a GM when things are open and I am also being surprised by developments (it just feels more like a genuine game to me when I don't know the outcomes or have a path in mind), so my natural preference is probably between sandbox and situational adventure. But I am not the one playing a PC. I think when you lose sight of the fact that you are playing the game for the people at your actual table, and not to message boards, you risk getting overly ideological about play style.

Quote from: soltakss;830231That is the crux of why sandboxes don't suit everyone..

Sandboxes can work for any gamer. Because RPG's are not just about experiencing situations and locales but about experiencing people in the form of NPCs and their relationship.

Whatever their initial interest gamers are people and instinctively know how to deal with people. The trick to make sandbox campaigns work for total novices is to focus on the the NPCs to provide a situation they know how to deal with.

Again it is critical for a sandbox to have a good Initial Context and Initial Context have to be tailored to the players involved. RPGs allow for pen & paper virtual realities to be experienced, with that comes the power to tailor exactly what is presented verbally and visually. So tailor the Initial Context of the gamer's first sandbox to what he knows, what he is interested in, and what he relates too.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;830248I'm talking about a new player though. For a new player you have to instruct them on the right way to play or you literally aren't teaching them the game. We have no idea if the player honestly prefers this style or is only doing it because they don't know anything else. You can't say that it's simply a matter of taste until they know what they're doing.

I agree you have to tell new people something about the rules and how your group plays though.

I don't agree that there is a "right way to play."

Part of the enjoyment that new players bring is that they don't have the same experience and presumptions. So they do some surprising things. Sometimes that is surprising in the "Wow, why didn't we think of that?" way. Sometimes it is surprising in a "Wow, never seen anyone try that before" way. Sometimes it is surprising in a "Wow, that is an hysterically bad choice. WTF were you thinking?" way. I don't want to quickly stifle their creativity because it's fun to watch and often brings a freshness and newness to the game the reminds me of when we first played RPGs.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;830249You really have to work with the group at the table to find the sweet spot in my experience. As a GM you can cultivate interest among the players in a style they might not be experienced with but at the end of the day, you have 4-7 people with varying preferences and tastes (and the sheer number of campaign styles have really expanded since when I first started playing). My approach is to do things the way I am comfortable as a gm but with compromise so I'm making sure everyone at the table is playing the kind of game they enjoy. Within that zone of comfort for me are a range of campaign and adventure structures I feel I can deliver adequately to the group. If my players really need something more like an adventure path to keep them happy, my years GMing 3E gave me the tools to do that and I won't object. If my players want something more sandbox I can provide that as well. I tend to have the most fun as a GM when things are open and I am also being surprised by developments (it just feels more like a genuine game to me when I don't know the outcomes or have a path in mind), so my natural preference is probably between sandbox and situational adventure. But I am not the one playing a PC. I think when you lose sight of the fact that you are playing the game for the people at your actual table, and not to message boards, you risk getting overly ideological about play style.

A lot of stuff to agree with here.

One minor quibble, I would say, "I think when you lose sight of the fact that you are playing the game [strike]for[/strike] with the people at your actual table..."

I'm not really GMing just for the other people. I GM to have fun as well.

Quote from: Bren;830254I agree you have to tell new people something about the rules and how your group plays though.

I don't agree that there is a "right way to play."

Part of the enjoyment that new players bring is that they don't have the same experience and presumptions. So they do some surprising things. Sometimes that is surprising in the "Wow, why didn't we think of that?" way. Sometimes it is surprising in a "Wow, never seen anyone try that before" way. Sometimes it is surprising in a "Wow, that is an hysterically bad choice. WTF were you thinking?" way. I don't want to quickly stifle their creativity because it's fun to watch and often brings a freshness and newness to the game the reminds me of when we first played RPGs.

The problem is if you don't tell them the right way to play -- for your game -- then you're going to have 5 different players with different expectations of what the game is about, and that's a recipe for disaster.

Sure, in the grand scheme of things there can be any number of games. Today you might do sandbox, tomorrow you might do linear. But if you're already in a specific game with a specific context you have to accept it, you can't try to go against the tide and turn it into something it isn't. And that's what the new player has to realize or they're going to be frustrated.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;830262The problem is if you don't tell them the right way to play -- for your game -- then you're going to have 5 different players with different expectations of what the game is about, and that's a recipe for disaster.

The solution for five people cooperating within the imagined setting of a RPG campaign is the same as it is real life.

If the referee treats the campaign as a game then you have come up with various artificial ways to make sure everybody on the same page. If you treat the campaign like a pen & paper virtual reality, then the players will work it out naturally.

Now I am making it sound simple but it is just as easy and hard as getting five people on the same page in real life. The difference is that if a referee goes the artificial route then you got to explain the ground rules, and if the rules are broken, you got to hash that out. If the referee handles it naturally then you still have all the issues with proper communications and interpersonal relationship, etc however because gamers are people they already have a basic level of proficiency doing this. It is the exact same skill set as getting the campaign together in the first place.

Quote from: estar;830267The solution for five people cooperating within the imagined setting of a RPG campaign is the same as it is real life.

If the referee treats the campaign as a game then you have come up with various artificial ways to make sure everybody on the same page. If you treat the campaign like a pen & paper virtual reality, then the players will work it out naturally.

I'm talking about basic RPG stuff like, "You can't script out your character's future," or "you can't force other players to play their character how you want," or "actions have consequences," or "you can't leave the party and stay in the game's focus," or "you can't be evil," or "you can't rely on the DM to railroad you like a video game, your decisions actually matter."

Quote from: Bren;830255A lot of stuff to agree with here.

One minor quibble, I would say, "I think when you lose sight of the fact that you are playing the game [strike]for[/strike] with the people at your actual table..."

I'm not really GMing just for the other people. I GM to have fun as well.

I agree. The GM is also one of the people at the table and a miserable GM won't run a fun a game.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;830268I'm talking about basic RPG stuff like, "You can't script out your character's future," or "you can't force other players to play their character how you want," or "actions have consequences," or "you can't leave the party and stay in the game's focus," or "you can't be evil," or "you can't rely on the DM to railroad you like a video game, your decisions actually matter."

I get what you are saying better now however it doesn't change my advice. What I will add is that the broad goal is to SHOW the players the above points rather than just rely on explaining it. In my experience tabletop RPG are still unique in the freedom they offer to players acting as their characters.  Every other form of roleplaying has some type of obvious limitation on player agency. With tabletop the only limitation on agency is in the verbal bandwidth because you have one human referee and a bunch of players.

What do you mean by treating it like a game VS artificial reality? Because I still try to treat it like an artifical reality, but you still have those implicit assumptions about how the game is played. But every game has that, no?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;830262The problem is if you don't tell them the right way to play -- for your game -- then you're going to have 5 different players with different expectations of what the game is about, and that's a recipe for disaster.

Sure, in the grand scheme of things there can be any number of games. Today you might do sandbox, tomorrow you might do linear. But if you're already in a specific game with a specific context you have to accept it, you can't try to go against the tide and turn it into something it isn't. And that's what the new player has to realize or they're going to be frustrated.

this is why you need to talk to your players and ask them what they like and what they want. Tell them what kind of game you hope to run but be open to the idea that they may want something different and you might want to experiment and see what you can do to accommodate. Compromise isn't always a bad thing and getting overly militant about play style (in my experience) is one of the quickest ways to kill a game group.  

The way I look at it, it is not my job as GM to shit on peoples' preferred play styles or preferences just because they might differ from my own (they can get that treatment in any random RPG forum). I want to find the kind of game that works for the table, and often times that means employing slightly different adventure structures from time to time to keep everyone engaged. As long as it is an approach I am comfortable running and it can fit seamlessly into what is going on in the campaign, I have no problem meeting people half way. I also like having a wide range of players at my table (I don't want just one mind, I want folks who are bringing different perspectives and inspiring me to think differently).

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;830277What do you mean by treating it like a game VS artificial reality? Because I still try to treat it like an artifical reality, but you still have those implicit assumptions about how the game is played. But every game has that, no?

It more important for a RPG Campaign to establish, in natural language, what one can do with a character, what setting is being used, and what the initial circumstances are. The elements of the reality that the player will be dealing with as their characters.

How it is to be played out it is up to the players. There should be no expectations on that point. However not just anything will happen because you have a known situation with known player characters with defined attributes and personalities.  

The main concept of advice that needs to be hammered in at this point is "Act as if you are really there as their character."

When novices are involved, the campaign needs to be a clear cut situation with clear choices. Which is true of any human activity where people are learning the ropes.

D&D got this right from the get go with the idea of the dungeon. The players start off facing a flight stairs into a place that they know is a maze of rooms filled with monsters and treasure. Other popular roleplaying games have their type of starting scenario that exemplifies the genre or setting of the RPG.

The thing is that despite the use of the term game, tabletop roleplaying is are not just games. They are not type of play regulated by rules in the sense that chess, monopoly, etc are regulated by rules.

Tabletop roleplaying is more like mountain climbing, hiking, white water rafting, taking a tour, etc. Tabletop Roleplaying is something that one experiences not plays. The rules are a just a tool towards enabling the experiences.

Sure one can experience a game of chess but the point of chess is to win by mastering the rules better than your opponent. Even in cooperative games the point is for the group to master the rules in order to achieve the victory conditions.

With tabletop roleplaying games the point is to be some character in some setting doing hopefully interesting things as that characters. The rules are a tool used by the referee and players to figure out the exact results of an action done by a player acting as his character. The rules are not the point of RPGs.

What I am trying to get across in my sandbox advice is that the point is to get the players to act naturally. Setup the initial context of the campaign so that the players can use their life experiences easily to make those first choices as to what to do. None of this is what people think of rules when it comes to RPGs. There is no die rolls involved in these decisions, no modifiers to consult. Only the idea of "What would you do if you were standing there as that character in that situation.

My own experience is that if I do the following;

• Explain the point of the game is to act as if you are really there as your character.
• Make it clear what your character can and can't do.
• Make the initial context of the campaign easy to follow with clear initial choices.

A complete novice can have fun with my sandbox campaigns and hold their own against more experienced players.

Explaining the rules that the player and I will be using to resolve actions is part of #2.

I will end with saying while rules are not important to the running of an RPG Campaigns, they are important to the enjoyment of a RPG campaign. Specific rule systems are an important preference. Just whether you like Science fiction over fantasy, Forgotten Realms over Greyhawk, or GURPS over OD&D.

For too long folk have the advice for novice ass-backwards. Focusing on the rules first and what you do with the rule second. It needs to be reversed by focusing on what you do first and then how you do with the rules second. Maybe then people will quit thinking they fix tabletop roleplaying by having "better" rules.

Quote from: Bren;830254I agree you have to tell new people something about the rules and how your group plays though.

I don't agree that there is a "right way to play."

Part of the enjoyment that new players bring is that they don't have the same experience and presumptions. So they do some surprising things. Sometimes that is surprising in the "Wow, why didn't we think of that?" way. Sometimes it is surprising in a "Wow, never seen anyone try that before" way. Sometimes it is surprising in a "Wow, that is an hysterically bad choice. WTF were you thinking?" way. I don't want to quickly stifle their creativity because it's fun to watch and often brings a freshness and newness to the game the reminds me of when we first played RPGs.

Yes.
I generally don't have the time I used to for gaming, so I have all slots full with a waiting list in the live games.

But I always had and have a one-on-one sit down first with any new player. To set the expectations and conduct.  But also to hear what they want to get out of it; so I know if the match is right, and also to know what I can add in to help.

Doesn't mean I am not surprised sometimes, as above.  But I never pretend my very political and socially oriented skill based sandbox fits everyone.  If it did, what would I hang my smug superiority on?

Quote from: estar;830243In hindsight that was a mistake. While technically true, the hexcrawl format was a great help when the player went off in an unexpected direction, it was not the focus of our campaigns. Instead it was about the freedom of the player to whatever in a wide variety of situation.

The distinction you make here has confused me in the past but now I think I see what you're saying. You're distinguishing the presentation of setting data, on the one hand, from the structure of campaign activity, on the other.

QuoteIt was because, I always had an Initial Context as a foundation from which the players could make their initial choices in the campaign. Without an Initial Context, the campaign becomes a crapshot dependent on the willingness of the players to be happy with literally throwing darts at a target in the dart. Which in my experience not that common for folk engaged in what is a leisure activity.

Initial Context seems to be closely related, or possibly identical to, what I referred to as a "motivating force". In the thread I linked (before it went down in flames) I believe I noted that the motivating force can come in many forms from different sources. E.g.

--Basic character assumptions (you're an adventurer, you want gold and glory, there's a dungeon, go get 'em)
--Slightly more elaborate but still based on generic assumptions (here's a menu of options to make money; OR, here's a hexcrawl seeded with opportunities)
--Slightly compelled (a guy walks up to you in a bar; your patron tells you to do X). I say slightly because the character assumptions make them receptive to these approaches.
--Highly compelled. I haven't really been happy with what I've seen along these lines but I am including it as an option. Basically, PCs are expected to jump into the protagonist/hero role regardless of their original concept and the particular crisis.
--Specific character motives. In Forge speak, Kickers, in more common jargon, character hooks. There is some insistence on distinguishing the two, not entirely without justification, but the idea is that the GM presents a situation where the PC's character conception indicates he/she has some skin in the game.

I think perhaps one category that isn't well-explored is the generation of a motivating force through chargen that's tied to the setting. I.e. while character-centric theories tend to advocate requiring the GM to incorporate PC backstory into the campaign, you could instead have a variety of pre-existing hooks available that the players choose implicitly or explicitly during chargen. A very stark, rudimentary example would be letting players choose to be orcs or elves where the setting is an elf-orc war. The setting and situation are fixed but the players' relation to it will vary based on this choice. Either way, there's immediately something for them to do.

Oh, and my breakdown of motivating forces illustrates the strength of generic motivations, and the problem of specific motivations, when it comes to keeping the PCs interacting. For the latter you either need the PCs to be designed with a common specific focus, or some way has to be contrived to make their motivations overlap. Like PC A wants to find a mysterious long-lost relative, and PC B is an adventurer, it's a natural link to make A the employer of B. Or for both of them to latch onto the same caravan for their respective reasons.

(I am leaving out the idea of having the players interact somehow even if they don't have PCs that are interacting. I'm sure there are ways to do this but it would defocus this thread.)