Quote from: The Traveller;713819Is there really that much of a difference though?

I've run a few sandboxes over the years, and being an improvisational (ie lazy) DM I've slipped the "moveable encounter" in many times. If you do it too often players will smell a rat, and the illusion of a sandbox will be broken.

EDIT: oh I see your point, a prepared location is awesome. The point where it has been a problem for my sandboxes has been when I put an entire adventure, hooks and all, in front of the players, regardless of what they did.

ACKS heads in this direction. Monsters in ACKS have a % in lair value (assuming they are of a type that has a lair) that's rolled when an encounter is generated. The determines how many are encountered (with larger numbers possible in lair), and whether or not there is any treasure (often only occurs in lair). The suggestion ACKS makes for Sandbox preparation involves building a number of lairs, which are effectively pre-made encounters to be dropped in when a random encounter dictates an encounter, and the % in lair roll comes up positive. The result is a clustering of discrete encounter locations along the path the party travels.

I've been using the above system in play, and it works surprisingly well. Some would immediately label this illusionism, and I was tempted to do so when I first read it. However, in play it's no more illusionism (and possibly less so) than deciding the party has encountered a lair of orcs because the No. encountered roll turned up particular high after that last wandering monster roll. It's still allowing for random, neutral content generation on the fly based on the setting's internal logic, but allows for there to be a little more detailed prep built in to some of those results.

Quote from: Arduin;713794aka railroading aka NOT sandbox.  What you described is no different that a video game.  No interaction unless pre-written in the script.

No, "Railroading" means you don't have the freedom to wander around.  Like being on a train, you are stuck on one path, you cannot change course no matter what you try.  If the game/adventure says you go to City X and fight Evil Wizard Y, no amount of player action can prevent that; you cannot choose to go to Castle Z instead.

Any BTW, a video game can be a sandbox (the Elder Scrolls series comes to mind).

What I learned to like about random encounter tables is that they are a method to describe a region in a succinct, bullet-point like way.
I learned to greatly prefer them to having to wade through prose text to pull gameable info from.

Encounter tables (that can include "mood" entries like sounds, sights, and weather phenomenons as well) are the cure against official settings and metaplots. They work as implied settings that enable, no, demand of GMs a certain level of personalization, making sure that it becomes truly a GM's campaign.

The important part is that they only work in actual play. They are not for passive consumption (like fluff-heavy Pathfinder modules), they are not meant for just reading, they don't fuel forum debate/speculation about the implications of the latest metaplot event.

And that's the reason why they fell out of grace - armchair theorists have no use for them, they are not fun to read (or write?), and they make for boring, technical-looking layout.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;713837The important part is that they only work in actual play. They are not for passive consumption (like fluff-heavy Pathfinder modules), they are not meant for just reading, they don't fuel forum debate/speculation about the implications of the latest metaplot event.

This, this, a thousand times this. I hate having information that's important at the table buried in twenty paragraphs of useless backstory prose with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns.

Quote from: Arduin;713790If you don't have a mechanism for unplanned (non GM mandated) encounters, you aren't running a "sandbox".

Quote from: Bobloblah;713792This isn't really true. You could pre-fabricate an enormous amount of content, including the likes of wandering monster (such as demarcating patrol routes and times, a predator's hunting range, etc.), but the question is, "Why?" as random encounters allow this type of content to be built on the fly with much less wasted effort (i.e. encounters the party never stumbles into). Regardless, pre-generating content doesn't prevent it from being a Sandbox, as long as the party can go wherever and do whatever they like, with the DM having the world react in a sensible fashion.

Much as I hate to agree with Arduin, who is almost always wrong, I have to agree with him this time.  Or half agree.

The crucial point is "non-GM mandated". A sandbox isn't just "Players wander anywhere they want" but also "players choose what encounters they experience". The wandering determines what happens, not the GM's precious plans.

You *can* prepare a buttload of encounters... but if the GM is determining when the encounters are occurring, and in what order, it's either a railroad, or on the edge of being one. There has to be some loss of GM control over what happens for it to be a sandbox. That means that the "moveable encounter" is very risky; if you are using an encounter planned for a different location because you want that encounter to happen, you are railroading; if you are using it because oops, the players wandered into new territory and you need one, quick, then it may still be a sandbox.

It's true that you can have arbitrary encounters without them being *random* encounters. There are ways to select from a list of prepared encounters without forcing a particular encounter. But really, random encounters are a hell of a lot easier, and they restrict GM control over the situation.

Quote from: Bobloblah;713840This, this, a thousand times this. I hate having information that's important at the table buried in twenty paragraphs of useless backstory prose with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns.

I have no problem with game-inspired prose if it stays in novels where it belongs. (I am just reading WH's Drachenfels, and I like it so far.)

But game products that are written with other priorities than their immediate and smooth use at the game table - yes, a thousand suns.

Well theoretically you can map out routes & ranges for the local inhabitants, and surmise what the party encounters by their location, time, season, etc., which is a tremendous amount of work (though for very small sandboxes, like tiny islands, maybe it's worth it). Or you can fiat it, but then you are probably using a table to choose from – even a mental checklist – and that may as well have random numbers attached if it doesn't already. The random encounter is just a very efficient way for a human running a campaign to build a relatively spontaneous "living world" as they go.

I'll pop back in this evening to address individual post. but in general reading I have a question.

What would be the difference in a random encounter table I created and me just throwing something down. other than the random nature of it. I still defined what can be in a region so why define it ahead of time and then randomize it?

Sorry if that sounds sarcastic it is truly not meant to be

As far as Railroading versus free form. I gm my best on the fly having learned to trust my instincts. I have also run Railroad like games (With player's knowledge and consent) but have never forced players to choose a certain option though in truth the alternative choice is usually a pretty shitty choice.

Please continue and thanks

Quote from: talysman;713844Much as I hate to agree with Arduin, who is almost always wrong, I have to agree with him this time.  Or half agree.

The crucial point is "non-GM mandated". A sandbox isn't just "Players wander anywhere they want" but also "players choose what encounters they experience". The wandering determines what happens, not the GM's precious plans.

You *can* prepare a buttload of encounters... but if the GM is determining when the encounters are occurring, and in what order, it's either a railroad, or on the edge of being one. There has to be some loss of GM control over what happens for it to be a sandbox. That means that the "moveable encounter" is very risky; if you are using an encounter planned for a different location because you want that encounter to happen, you are railroading; if you are using it because oops, the players wandered into new territory and you need one, quick, then it may still be a sandbox.

It's true that you can have arbitrary encounters without them being *random* encounters. There are ways to select from a list of prepared encounters without forcing a particular encounter. But really, random encounters are a hell of a lot easier, and they restrict GM control over the situation.

I don't agree.  Railroading is just that:  PCs going down a predetermined path without deviation.  Sandbox just means they can deviate all they want, and interact with anything they encounter.  This can be still be done though GM created scenarios.  I.e., if the GM puts in enough work to create everything in the world, it's still a sandbox because the players are still choosing where to go and what to do.  They very well could choose to bypass many of the GM's main encounter areas as well.  Hell, we've all probably had that happen to us as GMs at some point.  Skyrim is an excellent example of this.  It's not a railroad because nothing is forcing you to follow the main campaign story.  However, every other encounter has been pre-created for the players by the devs (GMs if you will).

Quote from: Artifacts of Amber;713853What would be the difference in a random encounter table I created and me just throwing something down. other than the random nature of it. I still defined what can be in a region so why define it ahead of time and then randomize it?

I don't recall that in your original post you specified or, mentioned tables...

Quote from: Arduin;713861I don't recall that in your original post you specified or, mentioned tables...

What did you think "random encounters" meant?  What were you talking about when you said it's not a sandbox without random encounters?

Sheesh. You're so busy trolling, you forget which lies you've told.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;713856I don't agree.  Railroading is just that:  PCs going down a predetermined path without deviation.  Sandbox just means they can deviate all they want, and interact with anything they encounter.

No, it has to be *meaningful* deviation. If the players skip the Dungeons of Dread and go to Marvelous Mansion, but it doesn't matter, because you were planning on using the same encounters in the same order whichever way they choose, it's not a sandbox. Their choice was meaningless.

You even acknowledge this when you talk about bypassing GM encounters. The only way you can bypass a GM encounter is if the GM can't force specific encounters. If the GM *can* force specific encounters, then geography doesn't matter: the players are on a predetermined path, regardless of where the wander.

Quote from: talysman;713844You *can* prepare a buttload of encounters... but if the GM is determining when the encounters are occurring, and in what order, it's either a railroad, or on the edge of being one. There has to be some loss of GM control over what happens for it to be a sandbox.

I was referring to preparing a buttload of encounters then rolling them randomly, like a random monster table on steroids. The outcome of the encounters can even be used to help weave the ongoing campaign.

For example, random encounter rolled on a 2d10 table: 3d10 bandits. Haha, have at them!

A prepared random encounter rolled on the same table: 14 armed men besieging a farmhouse, who are secretly the men-at-arms of a local noble who wants the farmer's daughter for his bed. One of the men is the noble's first cousin, and he has a notable jewelled dagger which people in the surrounding area will recognise if someone tries to sell it to them.

So it's not just an encounter but a plot hook as well. Admittedly it involves a lot more work so I'd probably just salt them among straight up random encounters, but if you've a half an hour here or there the portfolio can build up quickly.

Quote from: talysman;713873What did you think "random encounters" meant?

Random means unplanned, not fixed, unpredictable.  Certain areas of my world I don't bother with tables.  Just whatever pops into my head based on approximation of demographics of that area.

Quote from: Artifacts of Amber;713853I'll pop back in this evening to address individual post. but in general reading I have a question.

What would be the difference in a random encounter table I created and me just throwing something down. other than the random nature of it. I still defined what can be in a region so why define it ahead of time and then randomize it?

Sorry if that sounds sarcastic it is truly not meant to be

As far as Railroading versus free form. I gm my best on the fly having learned to trust my instincts. I have also run Railroad like games (With player's knowledge and consent) but have never forced players to choose a certain option though in truth the alternative choice is usually a pretty shitty choice.

Please continue and thanks

Quote from: talysman;713844The crucial point is "non-GM mandated". A sandbox isn't just "Players wander anywhere they want" but also "players choose what encounters they experience". The wandering determines what happens, not the GM's precious plans.

You *can* prepare a buttload of encounters... but if the GM is determining when the encounters are occurring, and in what order, it's either a railroad, or on the edge of being one. There has to be some loss of GM control over what happens for it to be a sandbox. That means that the "moveable encounter" is very risky; if you are using an encounter planned for a different location because you want that encounter to happen, you are railroading; if you are using it because oops, the players wandered into new territory and you need one, quick, then it may still be a sandbox.

It's true that you can have arbitrary encounters without them being *random* encounters. There are ways to select from a list of prepared encounters without forcing a particular encounter. But really, random encounters are a hell of a lot easier, and they restrict GM control over the situation.

Either you didn't read this post or ignored it.

The key element whether random or not is player agency. Wandering where you will on a map in itself is not an example of this.

Go through my precious planned encounter or suffer a 'fuck-you' encounter isn't much better than an outright railroad.

I have no idea why the concept of simultaneous multiple adventure options involving free player choice is such a hard concept to get a grasp on.