Quote from: estar;981982Also as a follow up to my reply to S'mon. A sandbox campaign is not something that is A, B, and C. It ultimately rests on your willingness to let the player trash your setting or campaign and keep on going.

Pretty much.

Of course, this is why, as Bill Hoyt says, "don't play with psychopaths."  "Some men just want to watch the world burn."  Don't play with them, unless you want to watch the world burn too.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;982051I'm disagreeing with the notion of asking "Okay, what do you want to do next session."  Sandbox to me requires more of the world for its own sake for that, rather than "the players say they want to go into the dungeon so I draw a dungeon, the players say they want to loot the Temple of the Frog, I design the Temple of the Frog," etc.

The question I ask a lot is a variant of "OK given what you know, where are you guys likely to go (or do)". If they change their mind in the interim I am good with that. The work just go in the folder for use later in the campaign for another campaign if the current group never gets around to it. But asking it allows me to be a little more prepared than I otherwise would be.

Quote from: estar;982058The question I ask a lot is a variant of "OK given what you know, where are you guys likely to go (or do)". If they change their mind in the interim I am good with that. The work just go in the folder for use later in the campaign for another campaign if the current group never gets around to it. But asking it allows me to be a little more prepared than I otherwise would be.

Well, maybe I'm overliteralizing what that poster said.  Possible, I tend to take things very literally.

Yeah for me a sandbox implies just that your character is placed in the world the GM has envisioned and you are basically free to go where you wish from there.  Now the GM ideally has a reasonable chunk of the world laid out ahead of time.  It doesn't have to be an entire planet, or even a continent.  Frankly, I'm a fan of the idea of starting small - like an Island even.  Maybe you have a couple of villages, a larger town and a largish city in place plus a few interesting locales like a weird forest and maybe a tomb and a haunted lighthouse and a few smaller dungeons...stuff like that.  Then maybe there's a mega dungeon up in the highest peak on the island.  The characters learn of these items by hearing rumors or talking with npcs and what not and are free to choose which of all those sites they'd like to explore.  They are free to "get in over their heads" if they so desire...and free to suffer the consequences of so doing.   Those things are "in place."  They don't move around to always be in front of the characters.  

 Then, once they start to get to a point where they are ready to broaden those horizons, the GM can start providing nuggets of info and they can choose to "bite" any of those...

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;982056Pretty much.

Of course, this is why, as Bill Hoyt says, "don't play with psychopaths."  "Some men just want to watch the world burn."  Don't play with them, unless you want to watch the world burn too.

Some observation
1) Don't have something going on that burns the world unless you are prepared to pull the trigger on your setting. I did this once, regretted it and did a "it was all a dream" Dallas maneuver for the next fantasy campaign I ran. I was lucky that campaign was a very three session thing and the players weren't invested much in it.

2)  Instead I have became good at stuff that drastically alters things for a region. The players are just as invested in stopping it if they care, but if they don't there are alternatives. In an inversion of how it was during my first campaign, the City-State of the World Emperor is now the go-to place and City-State of the Invincible Overlord is the place to avoid. Because CSWE is ruled by a loose Council who turned the place from the capital of a demon ruled empire to a freewheeling trade entrepot. And in the CSIO the Overlord is now a Myrmidon of Set (think LE anti-paladin) and the Church of Set in the form of the Hellbridge Temple is the leading church.

Both situation came about because PCs mucking about for the umpteenth time. The PCs "ignored" one time too many what was happening in CSIO.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;982060Well, maybe I'm overliteralizing what that poster said.  Possible, I tend to take things very literally.

I seen referees do what you were talking about. It not that common, but it happens.


The most common thing I see (game stores, conventions) are hybrids where the referee has a plot that his campaign is following but is willing to change up things a little. As long as it doesn't deflect from the overall plot. The players don't mind because they enjoy the referee' creativity and willing to dedicate themselves to seeing it to the end. Similar to what S'mon is talking about in Rising in the Runelords. I would guess his players say to themselves "OK the point here is to stop the Runelords, let's focus on that."

Quote from: rgrove0172;981899....At the risk of raising hackles - what is the difference between a railroading GM arranging for the PCs to head in the direction of the Black Goat and another plopping it down in front of them no matter where they go?....

This one made me chuckle. I'd say virtually nothing. Besides, railroading can be fun too!

Quote from: estar;982063Some observation
1) Don't have something going on that burns the world unless you are prepared to pull the trigger on your setting. I did this once, regretted it and did a "it was all a dream" Dallas maneuver for the next fantasy campaign I ran. I was lucky that campaign was a very three session thing and the players weren't invested much in it.

2)  Instead I have became good at stuff that drastically alters things for a region. The players are just as invested in stopping it if they care, but if they don't there are alternatives. In an inversion of how it was during my first campaign, the City-State of the World Emperor is now the go-to place and City-State of the Invincible Overlord is the place to avoid. Because CSWE is ruled by a loose Council who turned the place from the capital of a demon ruled empire to a freewheeling trade entrepot. And in the CSIO the Overlord is now a Myrmidon of Set (think LE anti-paladin) and the Church of Set in the form of the Hellbridge Temple is the leading church.

Both situation came about because PCs mucking about for the umpteenth time. The PCs "ignored" one time too many what was happening in CSIO.

But there are players who simply take delight in fucking things up.  They exist.  Don't play with them.

And I don't mean "I want to kill the king and usurp the throne."  I mean "I want to kill every NPC I can for lulz."

On the "Black Goat Tavern" thing, I'd say you need to be clear in your mind when you develop a piece of material whether it is specific or generic.  Or more accurately, nearly any piece of material can have some elements of both, and you need to get that clear in your mind, and separate them.  Let's say that the Black Goat is something you've already got well developed, but the player haven't been there yet, and aren't showing any signs of going there.  They go somewhere else, and you need a tavern.  You could move it (but I agree that isn't good sandbox technique, and it's likely to get your own ideas muddled).  Or you could grab the floor plan for the Black Goat, name it something else, and improvise an NPC tavern keeper to run it.  Now you just need to remember to make a replacement floor plan for the Black Goat before the players go there.  But even better than any of that, is the separation.  I can't say exactly how you would divide it, because every GM has to answer this for themselves, but for example, let's assume it's like this:

- the name, "Black Goat Tavern" - specific
- the floor plan - generic
- proximity to a bridge in a particular town - specific
- the tavern keeper, Max Barrelbottom, who likes the ladies - specific
- talkative old coot that likes a pint every evening - generic
- passing courier that always stops here - started generic, but then you used him elsewhere and he became specific

And so on, and on, and on.  The types of things you (personally) can improvise easily can be short or even almost non-existent.  The types of things that are more trouble, you need at least a few generic entries.  The ones that are a lot of trouble, you need at least one or two available at all times, which means you probably need more than that on a list.  That is, if tavern names are difficult, you need a long list.  If they aren't, you don't.  

Then in your specific entry for the "Black Goat", you make sure to be very specific about anything that is critical, but defer other choices to your generic list.  Thus, the Black Goat is placed, but pieces of it are not, and are thus readily available for use elsewhere.

I tend to mess this up, because once I start writing all the specific and generic stuff gets slammed together.  So I go back and make a run through the material looking for the distinction, and then separate the information into different lists, in different documents.  Not only does this make the material more useful for later improvising, as needed, it also tends to tighten up the specific material down to the bare essentials, which makes it easier to run at the table.

I might have missed it, but another distinction I didn't see raised is that some parts of running a sandbox are things you can do halfway, and others are not.  Think of it as like the 5 year old kid showing up at the community pool for the first time.  He can run around the edges, dangle his feet in the water, play around on a float, and all kinds of stuff that's optional, stop anytime you want.  He can also go jump off the high dive.  He can back out until his feel leave the board.  At that point, it's too late to change his mind.  

Letting players have choices is the latter type.  You can't do it half way.  Either their choices matter or they don't.  If they do, certain consequences will follow, as sure as gravity is bringing the kid down into the deep end, whether jumping, diving, or chickening out half way and face planting.  If you don't want to face plant, either commit to a method or don't jump.  On the plus side, players with choices will usually complicate things for themselves and others, which is the underlying reason why you won't need as much material as you thought you did.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;982070But there are players who simply take delight in fucking things up.  They exist.  Don't play with them.

And I don't mean "I want to kill the king and usurp the throne."  I mean "I want to kill every NPC I can for lulz."

Sure, for myself I call that mad-dog behavior. The players roleplay their character as maddogs frothing at the mouth biting everything they get into their jaw.

Granted it wasn't a big problem and could often be dealt with out of game. But I wanted to see if I could handle it in-game as well.

So for one campaign players were the city-guards in charge of keeping the peace in the City-State of the Invincible Overlord. We were using GURPS. In 3rd edition GURPS most fantasy campaign started at 125 to 150 point level. At that level a character was roughly as capable as a 5th level OD&D character in relations to the ordinary NPCs.

But this campaign everybody made 50 point character who were members of the City-Guards. And i pitted them against character that I reskinned from past campaigns. The whole thing you keep telling people about operating in formation, etc. Well they learned quickly how to do that. Out of that campaign came a bunch of tacticis that I continue to use. For example they commissioned crossbow that were the max a person could carry. In OD&D terms they did 5d4 damage but took 6 round to crank up and reload.

The idea that one shot wouldn't take out an adventurer level character but it would hurt a lot. And with multiple guard firing them at the beginning of combat enough adventurers got hurt just enough to decisively turn the battle in favor of the guard. Combined with other tactics, reorganized patrol routes, and use of minor magic like a stick that when snapped would break a corresponding stick back the at the barracks. Meant that now the City Guard were a serious threat to any adventuring group in City-State.

And of course the next campaign when the players returned to playing adventurer types, they took care not to fuck around with the city guard unless the risk was worth it.  And I was pretty happy with the outcome because it wasn't an I win for me. The City Guard could be beat but it wasn't a pushover anymore.

And in later campaign the maddog found to their detriment at just how effective the guard could be. One of them was an elf that got bagged killing villagers with fireballs. He was sent back to the Elven Realm where he was polymorphed into a mule and told to offer rides or carry packages for anybody who arrives at the capitol's gate for a century.  He rolled up a new character who was considerably more calm.

Looking at my current in-game calendar he got 72 years more to go.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;982075On the "Black Goat Tavern" thing, I'd say you need to be clear in your mind when you develop a piece of material whether it is specific or generic.  Or more accurately, nearly any piece of material can have some elements of both, and you need to get that clear in your mind, and separate them.  Let's say that the Black Goat is something you've already got well developed, but the player haven't been there yet, and aren't showing any signs of going there.  They go somewhere else, and you need a tavern.  You could move it (but I agree that isn't good sandbox technique, and it's likely to get your own ideas muddled).  Or you could grab the floor plan for the Black Goat, name it something else, and improvise an NPC tavern keeper to run it.  Now you just need to remember to make a replacement floor plan for the Black Goat before the players go there.  But even better than any of that, is the separation.  I can't say exactly how you would divide it, because every GM has to answer this for themselves, but for example, let's assume it's like this:

- the name, "Black Goat Tavern" - specific
- the floor plan - generic
- proximity to a bridge in a particular town - specific
- the tavern keeper, Max Barrelbottom, who likes the ladies - specific
- talkative old coot that likes a pint every evening - generic
- passing courier that always stops here - started generic, but then you used him elsewhere and he became specific

And so on, and on, and on.  The types of things you (personally) can improvise easily can be short or even almost non-existent.  The types of things that are more trouble, you need at least a few generic entries.  The ones that are a lot of trouble, you need at least one or two available at all times, which means you probably need more than that on a list.  That is, if tavern names are difficult, you need a long list.  If they aren't, you don't.  

Then in your specific entry for the "Black Goat", you make sure to be very specific about anything that is critical, but defer other choices to your generic list.  Thus, the Black Goat is placed, but pieces of it are not, and are thus readily available for use elsewhere.

I tend to mess this up, because once I start writing all the specific and generic stuff gets slammed together.  So I go back and make a run through the material looking for the distinction, and then separate the information into different lists, in different documents.  Not only does this make the material more useful for later improvising, as needed, it also tends to tighten up the specific material down to the bare essentials, which makes it easier to run at the table.

This.  

Also, have a binder of common elements such as taverns/inns, caravans, village thieves "guilds", pilgrim convoys, bandit and merc groups, etc., etc., etc.  Don't bother placing them, just select one when needed outside of pre-planned placements and then devise another after the session as part of generic prep.  

And certainly reuse basic floor plan types for common buildings; this is historically accurate, not cheating.  Maybe if you're high on verisimilitude, have a handful of floor plans per region/culture.

Quote from: estar;982066The most common thing I see (game stores, conventions) are hybrids where the referee has a plot that his campaign is following but is willing to change up things a little. As long as it doesn't deflect from the overall plot. The players don't mind because they enjoy the referee' creativity and willing to dedicate themselves to seeing it to the end. Similar to what S'mon is talking about in Rising in the Runelords. I would guess his players say to themselves "OK the point here is to stop the Runelords, let's focus on that."

Yup. In that campaign I mash up two separate Paizo Adventure Paths and add some other adventures. It doesn't feel like a railroad to me - my previous Paizo campaign, Curse of the Crimson Throne, did feel a bit rail-shooter at times despite my best efforts. But it's not a sandbox, at most the PCs might have two different dungeons to explore/directions to go, and often they feel sure there's an obvious right choice - "No way are we taking on Jorgenfist, Fortress of the Stone Giants - we're only 13th level! Let's go find another Star Shard..." - even though in fact the road not taken was also viable.

In these sorts of linear or matrix (per 1e DSG - interlocking set scenarios) campaigns, one big buy in is the players know there is material, hopefully robust, know there is a direction, and stuff to do. I'm finding the general idea of the directed campaign works best on the very large scale - my 100+ session epic Runelords of the Shattered Star campaign feels a lot more satisfying than the tighter 34 session Crimson Throne game, which often felt focused on just getting to the end.

I probably get more satisfaction from my sandbox games, but I'm generally only confident in FULL SANDBOX in online games, which have a slower pace and easier to develop, record & access material during play.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Here is my opinion on the floating tavern issue.

If you have a list of thinly detailed taverns that have a name, some staff and maybe a distinctive menu item or two, I am fine with the GM just putting them down in the players' path as needed. They aren't imposing a story on the players. They just help the GM give the world a little flavor that might emerge into something interesting if the players actively interact with the tavern. It saves the GM the indignity of telling the players that a tavern has no name because it's not important. I don't consider this a serious violation of the rules of sandbox.

On the other hand, let's say GM just watched Texas Chainsaw Massacre and has detailed an tavern run by a family of murderous cannibals with an abattoir/dungeon underneath. If the GM decides that no matter what direction the players take, the next tavern along the road will be this one, then the GM is flat out railroading. He is pushing a threat/story on the players that is unavoidable. This is not sandbox play.