• "You can't script out your character's future," I've never seen a new player do that. I have occasionally had to correct a new player who wanted to make their character a princess or duke or some such in a game where such things were rolled or were advantages to purchase.

• "you can't force other players to play their character how you want," I've never seen this as a game issue. Just a social issue. The same people who have problems with that in game have similar problems with choosing pizza toppings, soda brands, or beer. I'd deal with it the same way as ordering the pizza.

• "actions have consequences," this is one where a clarifying "Mac, your character knows that climbing the cliff at night, in a driving rainstorm is really dangerous. You might fall to the rocks below and die. Are you sure you want to free climb up the cliff at night in the rainstorm?" If they choose to keep doing stuff like free climbing the cliff, then as Estar says, the game world will quickly teach the player that character actions have consequences.

• "you can't leave the party and stay in the game's focus," Why not? I'm perfectly happy to split parties a lot. On the other hand, it is pretty easy to say, "If your character goes off on her own, we will need to alternate her actions with that of the other three PCs. And since there are three of them and only one of you we will spend more time with what they are doing. Is that OK with all of you?"

• "you can't be evil," Why not? If it's just a group policy, then you say "I know you think this character sounds interesting, but we don't play PCs who are evil. You'll need to come up with a different character. How can I help you with that?"

• "you can't rely on the DM to railroad you like a video gae, your decisions actually matter." As Estar says, this falls into the range of things they will learn as they go along.

Quote from: LordVreeg;830308Doesn'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?

Good point.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;830282this 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).

Where is your anger? Where is your mindless rage at other people being different? You sir are far to reasonable and intelligent to be posting on this or any Internet forum. Go away before you contaminate this site with reason and good will.

Quote from: estar;830305For 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.

A good point, well articulated.

Quote from: Bren;830331

• "You can't script out your character's future," I've never seen a new player do that. I have occasionally had to correct a new player who wanted to make their character a princess or duke or some such in a game where such things were rolled or were advantages to purchase.

• "you can't force other players to play their character how you want," I've never seen this as a game issue. Just a social issue. The same people who have problems with that in game have similar problems with choosing pizza toppings, soda brands, or beer. I'd deal with it the same way as ordering the pizza.

• "actions have consequences," this is one where a clarifying "Mac, your character knows that climbing the cliff at night, in a driving rainstorm is really dangerous. You might fall to the rocks below and die. Are you sure you want to free climb up the cliff at night in the rainstorm?" If they choose to keep doing stuff like free climbing the cliff, then as Estar says, the game world will quickly teach the player that character actions have consequences.

• "you can't leave the party and stay in the game's focus," Why not? I'm perfectly happy to split parties a lot. On the other hand, it is pretty easy to say, "If your character goes off on her own, we will need to alternate her actions with that of the other three PCs. And since there are three of them and only one of you we will spend more time with what they are doing. Is that OK with all of you?"

• "you can't be evil," Why not? If it's just a group policy, then you say "I know you think this character sounds interesting, but we don't play PCs who are evil. You'll need to come up with a different character. How can I help you with that?"

• "you can't rely on the DM to railroad you like a video gae, your decisions actually matter." As Estar says, this falls into the range of things they will learn as they go along.

Good point.

Well, you might be familiar with it since I actually talked about the player and the situation here: http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=32177&page=3

And I have no problem with players playing evil characters, per se, but 99% of the time they can't distinguish "evil" from "retarded" and I know they'll just take it personally when it blows up in their face. Like it happened this time.

So it was more like a specific caution I gave to this person because I knew them well enough to know what was going to happen.

Quote from: Bren;830242Some 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.

Usually the non-proactive players in the sandbox are happy to follow a proactive player's lead, and enjoy it as much as a linear campaign - unless they resent the proactive guy getting more spotlight time.
Another tactic for the sandboxing GM is just to provide obvious plot hooks the PCs can bite on if they want. I'd certainly recommend this at the very start of the campaign. There's no great benefit in forcing the players to search for the fun. But get them used to the idea they are not forced to bite on every hook.

Edit: A good trick is providing two hooks, and forcing them to choose only one. Newbies IME are fine with this. Players who have been 'trained' in linear play may struggle to choose, and give you a weird look. But they usually get better.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;830339Well, you might be familiar with it since I actually talked about the player and the situation here: http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=32177&page=3.

Oh. That guy. He's a social issue not a rules issue.

Quote from: Bren;830345Oh. That guy. He's a social issue not a rules issue.

But not knowing or understanding certain rules and assumptions is a rules issue.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;830346But not knowing or understanding certain rules and assumptions is a rules issue.

Have you fixed the problem with that guy?

Quote from: Bren;830331

• "actions have consequences," this is one where a clarifying "Mac, your character knows that climbing the cliff at night, in a driving rainstorm is really dangerous. You might fall to the rocks below and die. Are you sure you want to free climb up the cliff at night in the rainstorm?" If they choose to keep doing stuff like free climbing the cliff, then as Estar says, the game world will quickly teach the player that character actions have consequences.

I want to pick on this point, simply because the word consequences often has negative connotations, but it doesn't in actual practice.

Player A does something nice (and by nice it can mean a number of helpful actions) for NPC B now one of the consequences of such action means that bad guy is gunning for the PC.  But it ALSO means that NPC B is willing to aid Player A in some fashion, that's a consequence of being a hero, you do something heroic, people want to help you, even as the bad guys don't.

So every action, has a reaction, which may not be opposite, but beneficial.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;830373I want to pick on this point, simply because the word consequences often has negative connotations, but it doesn't in actual practice.

Player A does something nice (and by nice it can mean a number of helpful actions) for NPC B now one of the consequences of such action means that bad guy is gunning for the PC.  But it ALSO means that NPC B is willing to aid Player A in some fashion, that's a consequence of being a hero, you do something heroic, people want to help you, even as the bad guys don't.

So every action, has a reaction, which may not be opposite, but beneficial.

Yep. Also a consequence.

The PCs in my Honor+Intrigue game just returned to Soissons a town where they recently destroyed a huge pack of man eating wolves led by an actual loup garou who had been killing prominent townspeople right inside the city walls. These PCs are heroes in Soissons. Well except for the Governor. A couple of the PCs let the loup garou past them as it was chasing after the governor and made the additional mistake of discussing how they should let it eat the Governor...in his hearing. He is not a fan of those two PCs. But everyone else, including the Governor's guards, thinks the PCs are big, brave, tough heroes.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;830232I don't blame that on sandbox; it's a weakness of the player who hasn't acclimated to playing RPGs yet. Instead of lobotomizing RPGs to fit the video game experience the player just has to learn how to play.

Different people enjoy playing in different ways.

I don't enjoy playing horror games. Other people love them. Does that make me, or them, wrong? No.

There are many different playstyles, all of them valid.

Saying that Sandboxes are the best way to play and anything else is rubbish is just wrong.

Saying that people who don't enjoy Sandboxes are worse roleplayers is wrong.

Calling not liking Sandboxes a "weakness" of a player yet to acclimatise to RPGs is just wrong. I know players who have played RPGs for decades who don't like Sandboxes.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;830248I'm talking about a new player though.

Were you? I can't see anything that suggests that, particularly.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;830248For a new player you have to instruct them on the right way to play or you literally aren't teaching them the game.

What colour is the sky in your world?

You have to instruct people on the right way to play? Balderdash!

Tell me, what is the right way to play? Can you make a list of the right way to play, please? I am dying to know.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;830248If you hedge every instruction about what an RPG is with "well you could do it like this, or like this, or like that, it doesn't really matter" then you're just going to confuse them. 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.

Here's what a RPG is:
You play a character through some scenes.
That is it.
Anything more is fluff.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;830248I also didn't say he was weak. Just that if you're going to try and make the game identical to Diablo or GTA, what's the point?

You said that it is a weakness in the person, which is saying that they are weak.

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."

"you can't force other players to play their character how you want," but you can force the player to play how you want.

Can't you see the inconsistency there?

Quote from: Certified;827714To borrow a term from the MMO world there is also the Theme Park, which is a mythical middle ground between structured story and emergent play. Theme park games give you setting and things that are happening. Players chose how and when they want to address them.

One way to address this is to have floating plot hooks, things the PCs can latch onto depending and then fill in the blanks as you go. Another is the idea of Fronts, to steal the term, which are things happening in the world that the GM escalates whenever the action dies down to much.

I recognize the concept's utility when it comes to videogames, but from a tabletop perspective, that's just what a "regular" sandbox looks like (to me anyway) — a fictional world seeded with adventure hooks.

Quote from: The Butcher;830523I recognize the concept's utility when it comes to videogames, but from a tabletop perspective, that's just what a "regular" sandbox looks like (to me anyway) — a fictional world seeded with adventure hooks.

And I would add to that - a good GM makes adventure hooks out of anything and everything available to them.

the "Sandbox" is the interactions of the PC's with the hooks, or lack thereof. Everything is a potential hook if you're a good observant GM with a little imagination.

Quote from: The Butcher;830523I recognize the concept's utility when it comes to videogames, but from a tabletop perspective, that's just what a "regular" sandbox looks like (to me anyway) — a fictional world seeded with adventure hooks.

The typical difference is that the "hooks" lead to linear adventures - mini railroads.