TheRPGSite

If your PCs are in an undercroft and there are undead about, do you enable them to try and sneak past from above via hanging beams or, say, have weak walls that they can break through to circumvent areas with concentrated undead?

Just an example.

I'm sorry, I honestly don't understand.  Could you expand a bit more on your question?

If you're asking "do I enable the players to engage in lateral thinking?", I would say that I encourage it, but don't necessarily arrange things so that it can happen. In a situation where the party asks if they could sneak past hostiles in a room by going through a crawl space, I would judge if it was reasonable for that crawl space to exist, roll dice if necessary, and then allow it.

Reward clever role-play without altering the 'reality' of the situation. So, yes, sometimes. If the 'undercroft' is in the belly of a nuclear bunker, there's no way they are burrowing through the wall, no matter how clever the idea is.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941331If your PCs are in an undercroft and there are undead about, do you enable them to try and sneak past from above via hanging beams or, say, have weak walls that they can break through to circumvent areas with concentrated undead?

Take your conception of Undead, imagine the space as if you are really there, and see if a yes or no answer makes sense in that context.

If the bottom of the beams are six feet above the floor with a two foot clearance then no I don't think it makes sense for the party to use them to sneak past unless we are talking about undead halflings.

As for weak walls, are the walls defined as being weak in your write-up? If it doesn't say either way it is reasonable to assume that some walls are weak or perhaps the whole catacomb has weakened wall. Assign a probability and roll the dice to see if it is so.

The point of RPGs is to pretend to be a character interacting with an imagined setting doing interesting things. It not some board or miniature game with victory conditions to achieved by the use of the game rules. The rules are just one tool to be used by the human referee to handle what the character do. If the rules doesn't cover something that otherwise makes sense then you will have to use your judgment to make a ruling. The odds are high for most RPGs that there is something in the existing mechanics that can be used. For example Dexterity, Agility and Strength scores.

What should keep in mind is not to fall in the trap of thinking that the game is defined by the rules. It defined by the campaign you create around a particular setting.

In my group, players don't ask questions. Based on what has happened up to that point, players have an idea of what is possible or not and then state where they are and what they are trying to do at that moment. Then a roll is made.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941331If your PCs are in an undercroft and there are undead about, do you enable them to try and sneak past from above via hanging beams or, say, have weak walls that they can break through to circumvent areas with concentrated undead?

I dont enable them.

I look at the situation as has been described and judge if what they are trying to do is feasable within that context.

Normally I have ceilings high enough that such a thing should be possible. But there are times when its not. And there are lots of times theres no structure to even try it with. I usually note this sort of stuff in the initial descriptions for an area or when its a new feature to an established locale.

As for punching through a wall. Same thing. Has it been established that theres a weak wall section here or previously. More likely Id allow a dwarf character to search for flaws in the stone to hit a spot where a wall is thin and break through there. I usually though ask. "Are you sure?" and remind them that damaging or making holes in structures, especially underground ones can have disastrous consequences.

The group I DM for currently is really good at using the environment when they can.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941331If your PCs are in an undercroft and there are undead about, do you enable them to try and sneak past from above via hanging beams or, say, have weak walls that they can break through to circumvent areas with concentrated undead?

Just an example.

Every encounter I present to my players will never have only one solution. There's more than one way to skin a cat. I don't enable them, but I do reward clever play. In fact, they rarely resort to head on confrontation anymore.

Shemek.

Quote from: Omega;941343I usually though ask. "Are you sure?" and remind them that damaging or making holes in structures, especially underground ones can have disastrous consequences.

You're one of those GMs still? That is so crap ass.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;941342In my group, players don't ask questions. Based on what has happened up to that point, players have an idea of what is possible or not and then state where they are and what they are trying to do at that moment. Then a roll is made.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;941362You're one of those GMs still? That is so crap ass.

I'm confused. They can't ask question. They simply take action. The GM offers no information.

So the characters of your Players a basically blind children poking and prodding things without any information or sensory input (apart from what may or may not have been stated yet) and then see if the fallout from their action is positive or disastrous?

I'm not snarking. I'm honestly trying to figure out what is happening in your game.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;941364I'm confused. They can't ask question. They simply take action. The GM offers no information.

So the characters of your Players a basically blind children poking and prodding things without any information or sensory input (apart from what may or may not have been stated yet) and then see if the fallout from their action is positive or disastrous?

I'm not snarking. I'm honestly trying to figure out what is happening in your game.

He's a dickweevil, that's what's happening.  He was an early transplant to my Tongue My Pee Hole list for a reason.

Quote from: Shemek hiTankolel;941357Every encounter I present to my players will never have only one solution. There's more than one way to skin a cat. I don't enable them, but I do reward clever play. In fact, they rarely resort to head on confrontation anymore.

Shemek.

Oh, is THAT what he's talking about.

To quote the late John M. Ford, some players will want to fight their way through a situation, some will want to sneak their way through, and some will want to talk their way through.  You should do your best to have all three approaches viable.  Though a special situation like a bunch of mindless undead might reduce the possibilities.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;941362You're one of those GMs still? That is so crap ass.

No. You are just unable to GM like a human being. Try again please.

I treat PCs as competent. I don't expect players to have their PC's knowledge. A dwarf may note a weakness in the wall and understand the dangers / risks that poses even though the player may not. I have no problem saying "your hero knows...." when there isn't a reason for the player to have that knowledge. Heck, Call of Cthulhu even has a Knowledge roll for this stuff.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941331If your PCs are in an undercroft and there are undead about, do you enable them to try and sneak past from above via hanging beams or, say, have weak walls that they can break through to circumvent areas with concentrated undead?

I'm not sure how you're using "enable" here, so I won't give a straight yes-or-no answer, but, if there are appropriate hanging beams present, then I'll allow them to use those beams to sneak past and, if there's a weak wall, then they're perfectly free to break through it.  However, I will not specifically place hanging beams or weak walls for the express purpose of creating opportunities for players to do these things.  And I absolutely won't let players use out-of-character metapoints to conjure them into existence solely for the sake of ensuring that they can always do anything and everything they might dream up.

So:

- I will "enable" players to use anything present to their advantage
- I will not place things with the specific intention of "enabling" certain solutions
- I do not "enable" players to place things during play via narrative fiat

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941331If your PCs are in an undercroft and there are undead about, do you enable them to try and sneak past from above via hanging beams or, say, have weak walls that they can break through to circumvent areas with concentrated undead?

It is increasingly obvious from posts like this and Shipyard Locked's that even in our little corner of teh internetz some posters approach the GM's role with a very different mindset from what I once thought to be a consensus of sorts here.

I believe it is the GM's role to present players with a fictional world with which they are free to interact, within the boundaries of the game's internal logic.

Most fantasy settings, gaming or otherwise, behave very much (maybe too much) like our own world. From gravity to human psychology, it's usually safe to extrapolate from real world situations and experience.

So, regarding your specific example...

Climbing up the beams to sneak past the undead? In most traditional roleplaying games, this is two, maybe three tasks to resolve for each character: one to climb up (sounds easy with the appropriate equipment, and difficult without) and another to, once up there, sneak (probably easy, depending on how high up the beams are and how perceptive your undead are). Finally, depending on how wide the beams are, you may elect to put them through a third check to see if they can keep their balance while crawling (easy, but slow) or walking (hard, but faster, assuming there's enough room
for the character(s) to stand up).

Breaking through the walls? Sounds noisy and sure to attract unwanted attention, assuming it's even possible — what are these walls made of, and in what condition do they stand? (well-kept masonry is unlikely to cede anytime soon to a party of four to six PCs, even if they have pickaxes and sledgehammers. Rotting wood is another story, but may still make noise and draw attention.)

Just create the scenery in your head and fill in the details as necessary, as PCs prod and poke looking for solutions. Never backtrack. Never be for or against your players. Just strive to build a consistent and believable world, and fairness should follow.

Quote from: estar;941339Take your conception of Undead, imagine the space as if you are really there, and see if a yes or no answer makes sense in that context.

If the bottom of the beams are six feet above the floor with a two foot clearance then no I don't think it makes sense for the party to use them to sneak past unless we are talking about undead halflings.

As for weak walls, are the walls defined as being weak in your write-up? If it doesn't say either way it is reasonable to assume that some walls are weak or perhaps the whole catacomb has weakened wall. Assign a probability and roll the dice to see if it is so.

The point of RPGs is to pretend to be a character interacting with an imagined setting doing interesting things. It not some board or miniature game with victory conditions to achieved by the use of the game rules. The rules are just one tool to be used by the human referee to handle what the character do. If the rules doesn't cover something that otherwise makes sense then you will have to use your judgment to make a ruling. The odds are high for most RPGs that there is something in the existing mechanics that can be used. For example Dexterity, Agility and Strength scores.

What should keep in mind is not to fall in the trap of thinking that the game is defined by the rules. It defined by the campaign you create around a particular setting.

I don't need help coming up systems or strategies to deal with in-game stuff -- I do think random roll tables are awesome though!

The beams would be about one-and-a-half to two stories above the undead in the example.

(Bearing in mind I came up with this example literally as writing the OP so environments are easy to create for me).

The idea of playing a *character* doesn't seem to be common as much as playing an incarnation of yourself, usually to play out a power fantasy. Doesn't really make sense to me. That's another topic, though.

I think that's true too: the precept of not using just static rules-based environs. It seems kinda boring to me. As a player, I would want to be able climb up on a crate next to wall and then use it to climb up on the roof then come down through the skylights of the building that way -- I don't want to *have* to go in through the front door.

What is weird is even though I have met and played with other GMs who espouse this notion, I'm only one who seems to follow it through that I've experienced. In one group back in time, we were breaking into a car dealership and when I wanted to go via the roof and the other players followed with me, the GM didn't know what to do. I asked if there were skylights (because flashy dealerships on a lot tend to have them) and he wasn't sure what to do but said nervously "yes". We broke in through there but there was no alarm or security measures or anything -- made no sense. Just no reactivity.

Quote from: Omega;941343I dont enable them.

I look at the situation as has been described and judge if what they are trying to do is feasable within that context.

Normally I have ceilings high enough that such a thing should be possible. But there are times when its not. And there are lots of times theres no structure to even try it with. I usually note this sort of stuff in the initial descriptions for an area or when its a new feature to an established locale.

As for punching through a wall. Same thing. Has it been established that theres a weak wall section here or previously. More likely Id allow a dwarf character to search for flaws in the stone to hit a spot where a wall is thin and break through there. I usually though ask. "Are you sure?" and remind them that damaging or making holes in structures, especially underground ones can have disastrous consequences.

The group I DM for currently is really good at using the environment when they can.

Environmental stuff is really cool. I like creating environments that my players can interact with and manipulate to help them achieve their objectives.

I like the idea of a building falling down because you blew away its structural integrity. I don't think I would have them worry about doing it underground in that same way -- unless the structure was crappy to begin with, it's not collapsing because one wall got kicked in. So if it's a VC tunnel, sure, but your stereotypical dwarven ruins needs a steampunk bomb to go down.

Quote from: Shemek hiTankolel;941357Every encounter I present to my players will never have only one solution. There's more than one way to skin a cat. I don't enable them, but I do reward clever play. In fact, they rarely resort to head on confrontation anymore.

Shemek.

I tend to make direct confrontation lethal as fuck. I also like my players playing clever because I like to create challenging obstacles for them. And if they use creative thinking to take on an enemy, I counter it with something just as tricky. Some of my players will be irritated by this because they expect to just do their thing and the enemies just shoot at them -- others love it because they need to get around them real sneaky-like beat them at their own game.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;941342In my group, players don't ask questions. Based on what has happened up to that point, players have an idea of what is possible or not and then state where they are and what they are trying to do at that moment. Then a roll is made.

That sounds crap.

Quote from: Spinachcat;941431I treat PCs as competent. I don't expect players to have their PC's knowledge. A dwarf may note a weakness in the wall and understand the dangers / risks that poses even though the player may not. I have no problem saying "your hero knows...." when there isn't a reason for the player to have that knowledge. Heck, Call of Cthulhu even has a Knowledge roll for this stuff.

I tend to ask for rolls from my players to help em' out, especially if they're struggling or there's a solution that would be more simple than what they have planned (though that does not mean it is more elegant or, in fact, better than theirs). If other players present them with an idea, I also have them roll too. I have a couple of players who are particularly enthusiastic about thinking about a solution and then telling it to the others but their character isn't there to express it so I have them roll.

Quote from: nDervish;941435I'm not sure how you're using "enable" here, so I won't give a straight yes-or-no answer, but, if there are appropriate hanging beams present, then I'll allow them to use those beams to sneak past and, if there's a weak wall, then they're perfectly free to break through it.  However, I will not specifically place hanging beams or weak walls for the express purpose of creating opportunities for players to do these things.  And I absolutely won't let players use out-of-character metapoints to conjure them into existence solely for the sake of ensuring that they can always do anything and everything they might dream up.

So:

- I will "enable" players to use anything present to their advantage
- I will not place things with the specific intention of "enabling" certain solutions
- I do not "enable" players to place things during play via narrative fiat

I don't do that. If what they're saying is interesting and/or may lead to emergent behavior (which is usually the case), I say yes to it. I've done this more than a few times and it's come in handy when I haven't planned out or thought of a setup or consequence for an environ or PC, respectively.

Quote from: The Butcher;941465It is increasingly obvious from posts like this and Shipyard Locked's that even in our little corner of teh internetz some posters approach the GM's role with a very different mindset from what I once thought to be a consensus of sorts here.

I believe it is the GM's role to present players with a fictional world with which they are free to interact, within the boundaries of the game's internal logic.

Most fantasy settings, gaming or otherwise, behave very much (maybe too much) like our own world. From gravity to human psychology, it's usually safe to extrapolate from real world situations and experience.

So, regarding your specific example...

Climbing up the beams to sneak past the undead? In most traditional roleplaying games, this is two, maybe three tasks to resolve for each character: one to climb up (sounds easy with the appropriate equipment, and difficult without) and another to, once up there, sneak (probably easy, depending on how high up the beams are and how perceptive your undead are). Finally, depending on how wide the beams are, you may elect to put them through a third check to see if they can keep their balance while crawling (easy, but slow) or walking (hard, but faster, assuming there's enough room
for the character(s) to stand up).

Breaking through the walls? Sounds noisy and sure to attract unwanted attention, assuming it's even possible — what are these walls made of, and in what condition do they stand? (well-kept masonry is unlikely to cede anytime soon to a party of four to six PCs, even if they have pickaxes and sledgehammers. Rotting wood is another story, but may still make noise and draw attention.)

Just create the scenery in your head and fill in the details as necessary, as PCs prod and poke looking for solutions. Never backtrack. Never be for or against your players. Just strive to build a consistent and believable world, and fairness should follow.

Like this, Butcher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR4ZAeYtYIU&t=07m26s | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJLlbNj_ewo&t=0m41s

I have had players come to me and ask me to not base the game world on internal systems and a consistent world logic because it made them feel they couldn't just do what they wanted, essentially. I then had other players come to me and said they liked how I have this realistic, logical world but then asked me to get more extreme with it where essentially there'd be a lot of no's to everything. It's weird and makes no sense the polarity of it.

I tend to have creatures walking around, patrolling, eating, drinking, talking and stuff. One time some Mage PCs were infiltrating a motel from the back while a violent battle was raging at the front and as they were making their way up a stairwell, they heard a conversation between some guards (which got them laughing, what they were talking about too, which was cool) and then they went off to check out the nearby hallways. I did that, you know, to breathe life into the world but at any point they could have taken the guards there which could have helped but might not have either. There were big holes in the floor too in the hallways beyond that door that they'd need to jump over to fall through to lower floor to come up from the other side instead (which they could blast open with magic or whatever else).

They also had multiple things going on to deal with during the raid and locations and stuff which goes into the realm of non-linearity but that's off-topic. What is on-topic is that accessing the enemy bossman's room could be done via the door to the room, from the balcony of the room via fire escape or roof, around the side of the hallway where there was already some smoking holes via a magic fight or through the roof directly or from underneath via another room (which itself had enemies to deal with). Just lots of stuff for them to contend with. And they realised, I think, that there was lots of stuff because they were seperated into essentially three groups just navigating the same AOA.

Why is this not more common? Just throwing them an environment but one which is structured instead of "here's a sandbox world: go sandbox!".

(By the way, when I said post-2000 fantasy, this is one example of what I meant in the videos).

I thought that was sandboxing, or at least a common variation. I'm not sure what you mean by "structured". If I treat the environment in a realistic manner, I actually have less to plan.

There are players that I've had to "train", so that they understood they could employ lateral thinking and that the environment would react in a realistic way. But, once that understanding was reached, things usually proceeded swimmingly.

Quote from: Baron Opal;941512I thought that was sandboxing, or at least a common variation. I'm not sure what you mean by "structured". If I treat the environment in a realistic manner, I actually have less to plan.

There are players that I've had to "train", so that they understood they could employ lateral thinking and that the environment would react in a realistic way. But, once that understanding was reached, things usually proceeded swimmingly.

Sandboxing is where you throw PCs into a game world and say "go do shit, I dunno, fuck". Like, you draw up this big map and shit and just say "you begin at these crossroads, they take you blah blah, glag glag and etc etc. There's forest around you and like animals and shit." All grand stuff but not really much structure or really any missions or stuff to do. I'm not really a fan of that at all, it's a bit shit.

I see. I do expect the players to have the motivation to find their own adventures. However, I also throw them a few hooks at the beginning so that they know what's out there, what the world is like, and can choose an initial theme.

That's litterboxing. A good sandbox is full of hooks and options.

I guess I'm not seeing the conflict between a structured environment and an open environment. Clearly you see the conflict. But I may be missing specific elements you require for a game to not be "shit." (If you mean literally dumping Players at a crossroads and saying, "Go" -- I have never seen anyone do that. Do people do that? If they do, I don't call that a sandbox. I call that screwing over your players with too little information to make any choices of value of any kind.)

And now that you've explained why you meant about enabling and being "good at freeform gameplay" -- I'm good at it. It's how I play. I expect the Players to come up with ideas and solutions that surprise me and react not with panic but with delight and excitement.

Quote from: saskganesh;941529That's litterboxing. A good sandbox is full of hooks and options.

Interesting. I don't see the contradiction. Perhaps I didn't explain adequately.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;941530I expect the Players to come up with ideas and solutions that surprise me and react not with panic but with delight and excitement.

Indeed, it's more fun that way. I get to improvise more.

Quote from: Baron Opal;941534Interesting. I don't see the contradiction. Perhaps I didn't explain adequately.

I'm not sure, but I suspect saskganesh was responding to PrometheanVigil.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;941536I'm not sure, but I suspect saskganesh was responding to PrometheanVigil.

I'm almost sure that is the case, and I found it a good answer, too:). Though I think the way he explains "sandboxing" is just "sandboxing done incompetently".
Funny enough, what I'd consider a competently-run sandbox is (almost?) exactly what he calls "throwing together some structure";).

Quote from: AsenRG;941542I'm almost sure that is the case, and I found it a good answer, too:). Though I think the way he explains "sandboxing" is just "sandboxing done incompetently".
Funny enough, what I'd consider a competently-run sandbox is (almost?) exactly what he calls "throwing together some structure";).

Hence why I'm not seeing the conflict in what he's talking about.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;941545Hence why I'm not seeing the conflict in what he's talking about.

I think he's just seen mostly incompetent sandboxes, and came to associate the practice with this name. If that's the case, I'd understand why he would want to pick a different name for his games...:D
Or maybe he's been discussing it with people who claim to run sandbox games, yet run them in the aforementioned manner (pretending "we run the game the way Gigax, Mentzer and Holmes meant it to be run" optional;)).

The only time Ive reigned in Freeform play by my players has been when their choice completely eliminated the game we had come to play. It hasn't happened often, perhaps 3 or 4 times in several decades but when it does I stopped the action, explained that they were free to proceed the way they intended but it would seriously alter the direction of the game and probably postpone the session while I prepared for something different. In every case they were open to changing their minds with some discussion and explanation and we went on as planned.

One example was a lengthy and detailed haunted mansion mystery I planned wherein one player immediately suggested burning the place down when they first laid eyes on it. The others were quickly on board and didn't care a shits if the owners complained, authorities responded etc. They were gonna fight Evil by God! I would have let them if they had insisted but thankfully they backed off when I explained it was the investigation of the house that we had gotten together to play, not a 5 minute arson adventure.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941522Sandboxing is where you throw PCs into a game world and say "go do shit, I dunno, fuck". Like, you draw up this big map and shit and just say "you begin at these crossroads, they take you blah blah, glag glag and etc etc. There's forest around you and like animals and shit." All grand stuff but not really much structure or really any missions or stuff to do. I'm not really a fan of that at all, it's a bit shit.

You are SO FUCKING WRONG

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG  WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONGWRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

that the light from RIGHT will not reach you for eighty quadrillion eternities after the heat death of the universe!

Quote from: rgrove0172;941554. . . [T]hey backed off when I explained it was the investigation of the house that we had gotten together to play, not a 5 minute arson adventure.

Sounds like the players should've burned the referee's notes then played Risk.

Quote from: rgrove0172;941554The only time Ive reigned in Freeform play by my players has been when their choice completely eliminated the game we had come to play. It hasn't happened often, perhaps 3 or 4 times in several decades but when it does I stopped the action, explained that they were free to proceed the way they intended but it would seriously alter the direction of the game and probably postpone the session while I prepared for something different. In every case they were open to changing their minds with some discussion and explanation and we went on as planned.

One example was a lengthy and detailed haunted mansion mystery I planned wherein one player immediately suggested burning the place down when they first laid eyes on it. The others were quickly on board and didn't care a shits if the owners complained, authorities responded etc. They were gonna fight Evil by God! I would have let them if they had insisted but thankfully they backed off when I explained it was the investigation of the house that we had gotten together to play, not a 5 minute arson adventure.

Don't play with psychopaths.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941522Sandboxing is where you throw PCs into a game world and say "go do shit, I dunno, fuck". Like, you draw up this big map and shit and just say "you begin at these crossroads, they take you blah blah, glag glag and etc etc. There's forest around you and like animals and shit." All grand stuff but not really much structure or really any missions or stuff to do. I'm not really a fan of that at all, it's a bit shit.

(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/733/885/140.gif)

Quote from: Black Vulmea;941569(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/733/885/140.gif)

"Shitty referee with unimaginative players whines about things he doesn't understand, film at 10."

Quote from: saskganesh;941529That's litterboxing. A good sandbox is full of hooks and options.

Litterboxing

This is my favorite new gaming term for this week.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;941561Sounds like the players should've burned the referee's notes then played Risk.

Not really. There are times when the players arent role playing. They are genre-savvying the system. "Hey guys! I think we are in a murder mystery! Lets just start torturing the NPCs till they confess."

Quote from: Omega;941590Not really. There are times when the players arent role playing. They are genre-savvying the system. "Hey guys! I think we are in a murder mystery! Lets just start torturing the NPCs till they confess."

That's the players being dicks, but it's not the only way to think laterally:).

"I think the murder has been executed by a vengeful ghost, we know such things exist, but are usually shackled to a location, so let's burn the mansion down and see if we destroy its anchor to the world". That's the players being logical about it;).

no. Thats the players still being dicks and the PCs being arsonists. (Unless its ok to torch the place. In which case it may really be a viable solution.)

Though way back had some players do something similar and I allowed it. Then told them the session was over and Im off to do other things. Sorry no EXP or even treasure as they didnt face any challenge at all and crushed any treasure under tons of rock. This after I asked them if they were sure AND pointed that they were going to lose the treasure. Ok? Ok...

Then I warned them not to waste my time asking me to prep an adventure in a mine for them and then not actually go on the adventure they asked for.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;941536I'm not sure, but I suspect saskganesh was responding to PrometheanVigil.

You have it. Baron Opal, we cross posted. I should have quoted PrometheanVigil, but then again, it was just "blahblah shitshit" and I didn't want to

Quote from: tenbones;941572Litterboxing

This is my favorite new gaming term for this week.

I swiped it, but it's a good one!

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941522Sandboxing is where you throw PCs into a game world and say "go do shit, I dunno, fuck". Like, you draw up this big map and shit and just say "you begin at these crossroads, they take you blah blah, glag glag and etc etc. There's forest around you and like animals and shit." All grand stuff but not really much structure or really any missions or stuff to do. I'm not really a fan of that at all, it's a bit shit.

Wow, you sounds like you really know what you're writing about.

Quote from: Omega;941616no. Thats the players still being dicks and the PCs being arsonists. (Unless its ok to torch the place. In which case it may really be a viable solution.)

Except for the arson part, that's bullshit, sorry.
Arson laws aren't writtenwith murderous ghosts in mind, though, and compared to other stuff many PCS do, it's not even on the list of heaviest offences.

QuoteThough way back had some players do something similar and I allowed it. Then told them the session was over and Im off to do other things. Sorry no EXP or even treasure as they didnt face any challenge at all and crushed any treasure under tons of rock. This after I asked them if they were sure AND pointed that they were going to lose the treasure. Ok? Ok...

Then I warned them not to waste my time asking me to prep an adventure in a mine for them and then not actually go on the adventure they asked for.

And everything about it was fine, except your reaction strikes me as bizarre.

Yeah, it does seem pretty shitty for the group to just torch the mansion. Happens, though. Had a situation once involving a work stoppage at some mines. The thing really was engineered by a local rep, who was out to wrest ownership of said mines by making them appear to be haunted. Party never got to look into ANYTHING, though, once two players broke skulked around said Rep's locale, broke a window, bringing him to the door, then one of them put an arrow in his eye. The whole garrison flooded out, looking for them. A second PC set fire to a bunch of buildings, and they all ran like hell, including the other half of the party, who were, at the time, asking questions of some of the locals. They all ended up on the wanted list for murder/conspiracy. It was quite the clusterfuck. I ran with it as best I could.  The two idiots who did the damage ended up slowly fading away from the player rolls after another couple sessions. The rest of us eventually rebooted with players who, you know, try to think a little bit in character.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;941571"Shitty referee with unimaginative players whines about things he doesn't understand, film at 10."

Sounds like someone tried to melt Sensei's snowflakes.:-)

Quote from: Baron Opal;941523I see. I do expect the players to have the motivation to find their own adventures. However, I also throw them a few hooks at the beginning so that they know what's out there, what the world is like, and can choose an initial theme.

Yeah, see I agree with that. The problem is sandboxing itself requires the GTA reactivity -- you attack random people, the guards/police/whatever attack the shit out of you until you die. But doing that in a plain field is boring and this is where the GM's skill in being able to craft a cinematic shootout turns it from being shitefest to something entertaining.

I've played in a survival/exploration-themed EOTE game and that was a sandbox. Problem was, outside of random encounters, finding relics and hiding away from big beasties and the odd Imperial patrols, there wasn't really much going on. It got old fast. And the guy had done a map too, planned where the wildlife was and old ruins and stuff but... errgh. And we were doing stuff like putting up laser perimeter fences around our ship and the Technician PC built a couple sentry guns which was cool and I had bought a luxury camping set (from one of the supplements) meaning while we were cooking and drinking we'd hear some of the monster getting chewed up by the guns and we'd then take the corpses and dress and cook em'!.

But it all felt... I dunno, flat.

Quote from: saskganesh;941529That's litterboxing. A good sandbox is full of hooks and options.

What's the difference? A lot of the time people are describing a sandbox, they're describing a mission hub area instead.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;941530I guess I'm not seeing the conflict between a structured environment and an open environment. Clearly you see the conflict. But I may be missing specific elements you require for a game to not be "shit." (If you mean literally dumping Players at a crossroads and saying, "Go" -- I have never seen anyone do that. Do people do that? If they do, I don't call that a sandbox. I call that screwing over your players with too little information to make any choices of value of any kind.)

And now that you've explained why you meant about enabling and being "good at freeform gameplay" -- I'm good at it. It's how I play. I expect the Players to come up with ideas and solutions that surprise me and react not with panic but with delight and excitement.

I can go over the bridge, under the bridge, around the bridge or cross the bridge. But I am still getting to the other side of that bridge. I guess that's the most barebones description of freeform for me.

And yes, they really do do that. The aforementioned EOTE campaign was one example of my experience of sandboxes. It was a shame -- it was a good idea, it just didn't live up to the hype.

I love seeing what my players come up with. It's always interesting to see how they overcome obstacles. I've become a fan of a idea of "minimal solution planning": planning obstacles but not the consequences of them until the obstacle is actually overcome. Otherwise, you waste most -- if not, all -- of your material on something that probably won't pan out the way you anticipated. GM'ing Mage the Awakening humbles you as a GM in this department.

Quote from: AsenRG;941547I think he's just seen mostly incompetent sandboxes, and came to associate the practice with this name. If that's the case, I'd understand why he would want to pick a different name for his games...:D
Or maybe he's been discussing it with people who claim to run sandbox games, yet run them in the aforementioned manner (pretending "we run the game the way Gigax, Mentzer and Holmes meant it to be run" optional;)).

Yeah, I've played in a lot of games with shitty GM's. Only ever had a few where they were good. Those guys got props and the favor got returned via bonus XP from m'wah in my games (which every single one would be playing in my game instead of GM'ing because they were having way more fun in mine than doing the GM'ing stuff -- one had some really shitty players so I was glad to hook him up with some decent ones because shitty players really fuck up a GM's flow).

Quote from: rgrove0172;941554The only time Ive reigned in Freeform play by my players has been when their choice completely eliminated the game we had come to play. It hasn't happened often, perhaps 3 or 4 times in several decades but when it does I stopped the action, explained that they were free to proceed the way they intended but it would seriously alter the direction of the game and probably postpone the session while I prepared for something different. In every case they were open to changing their minds with some discussion and explanation and we went on as planned.

One example was a lengthy and detailed haunted mansion mystery I planned wherein one player immediately suggested burning the place down when they first laid eyes on it. The others were quickly on board and didn't care a shits if the owners complained, authorities responded etc. They were gonna fight Evil by God! I would have let them if they had insisted but thankfully they backed off when I explained it was the investigation of the house that we had gotten together to play, not a 5 minute arson adventure.

I would fucking jump for joy if any of my players said "hey, let's like NOT walk into the cave and instead burn the bandits out instead". Bonus EXP out the wazoonga for that. Why in the name of cock would you walk into a cave where you'll be fucking murdered by arrows if the inhabitants are in any way organized, competent or intelligent at all.

Thankfully, I've had players over time who caused the aforementioned jumping for joy. They quickly became the leaders of their respective groups.

Quote from: Omega;941590Not really. There are times when the players arent role playing. They are genre-savvying the system. "Hey guys! I think we are in a murder mystery! Lets just start torturing the NPCs till they confess."

Nice.

Quote from: saskganesh;941617You have it. Baron Opal, we cross posted. I should have quoted PrometheanVigil, but then again, it was just "blahblah shitshit" and I didn't want to

Yo quote me, I almost missed your post man -- there was like nothing in it.

Quote from: Skarg;941620Wow, you sounds like you really know what you're writing about.

Not really. Still learning every game.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941503Like this, Butcher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR4ZAeYtYIU&t=07m26s | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJLlbNj_ewo&t=0m41s

Solid masonry. They aren't breaking these walls for sure, unless they have pickaxes and days to spare. Or explosives. Or the appropriate magic.

Climbing the beams looks very feasible if they have the right gear (no adventurer in his right mind should leave home without 50' of rope and a grappling hook) and aren't weighed down by too much armor and/or gear.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941503I have had players come to me and ask me to not base the game world on internal systems and a consistent world logic because it made them feel they couldn't just do what they wanted, essentially. I then had other players come to me and said they liked how I have this realistic, logical world but then asked me to get more extreme with it where essentially there'd be a lot of no's to everything. It's weird and makes no sense the polarity of it.

I know, right? I've had the same happen to me. Which is why you, the GM, should have your game world operating under whichever rules you like best.

First, because the GM is just as entitled to having fun as everyone else (perhaps a tiny bit more considering the work he puts in). I've always viewed it as a tacit social contract; the GM doesn't tell the players how to run the PCs, and the players don't tell the GM how to run his world (except when either party asks the other for feedback, of course).

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941503I tend to have creatures walking around, patrolling, eating, drinking, talking and stuff.

Your players liked it because they were immersed. It made your world easier to believe in and lended immediacy and concreteness to your descriptions. It's a nice touch.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941503They also had multiple things going on to deal with during the raid and locations and stuff which goes into the realm of non-linearity but that's off-topic.

It is absolutely on topic.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941503Why is this not more common? Just throwing them an environment but one which is structured instead of "here's a sandbox world: go sandbox!".

Good sandbox have plenty of structure; it's just that the structure is non-linear. Or more precisely, it does not presume that players will interact with each discrete element of the setting (e.g. the serving girl at the tavern who has a map tattooed on her back, the goblin chieftain in hex 0204, the abandoned wizard's tower in hex 1002 and the local lord) in a certain order. Or that these elements will only pop into existence when players interact with them.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941503(By the way, when I said post-2000 fantasy, this is one example of what I meant in the videos).

So post-2000 fantasy is remixed pre-2000 fantasy. ;)

Love your posts, man. I feel you're expanding your gaming horizons and I'm vicariously reliving my own discoveries through you.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;941561Sounds like the players should've burned the referee's notes then played Risk.

Oh for Christ's sake Black, give it a break. If you show up at a friend's house to play what was described as a space-opera adventure and discover 5 minutes in that your ship crashes and you will spend the whole night surviving on a pre-bronze age world with no advance tech you have a right to take a morale check. It might be fun, might be fair, but it aint what you went there for!

I said I would have let them burn the damned place but Im not going to wing an entire different adventure on the cuff when I had 4 hours of detailed mansion investigation planned. I doubt many GMs would, unless they don't plan anything to begin with. Yep, I know those guys are out there, I aint one.

Quote from: AsenRG;941600That's the players being dicks, but it's not the only way to think laterally:).

"I think the murder has been executed by a vengeful ghost, we know such things exist, but are usually shackled to a location, so let's burn the mansion down and see if we destroy its anchor to the world". That's the players being logical about it;).

And I wont and didn't disagree. The only issue was the expectation that I would suddenly just skip past the entire session I had planned and move on to some random adventure seed pulled from my backside. They could have burned it, we would have played some boardgame and resumed the RPG the next session after I had a chance to prepare.

Quote from: Omega;941616no. Thats the players still being dicks and the PCs being arsonists. (Unless its ok to torch the place. In which case it may really be a viable solution.)

Though way back had some players do something similar and I allowed it. Then told them the session was over and Im off to do other things. Sorry no EXP or even treasure as they didnt face any challenge at all and crushed any treasure under tons of rock. This after I asked them if they were sure AND pointed that they were going to lose the treasure. Ok? Ok...

Then I warned them not to waste my time asking me to prep an adventure in a mine for them and then not actually go on the adventure they asked for.

THIS

To me its the old "Lord of the Rings and the Eagles" thing again.

Sure, the fellowship could have ridden the Eagles and dropped Sauron's bauble down Mt. Doom's throat but what fun would that have been? The point of getting together to play the adventure is to, well PLAY THE ADVENTURE, not win in the fastest and easiest way possible. Sure, a good GM shouldn't allow for such a short cut in his planning but I completely agree with him coming up with a reason to disallow such a suggestion should it come up when its going to ruin the whole game. Such things should be understood by the players and shame on them if they try and short circuit the game. I know if a few games Ive played in we have stumbled upon a plot wrecking element here and there, something the GM obviously didn't consider that would prove seriously destructive to game. We chose to ignore it, we were there to play and have fun afterall, not outsmart the guy.

Quote from: rgrove0172;941648To me its the old "Lord of the Rings and the Eagles" thing again.

Sure, the fellowship could have ridden the Eagles and dropped Sauron's bauble down Mt. Doom's throat.

GOD DAMN IT NO THEY COULD NOT HAVE!!! FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCKITTY FUCK WITH FUCK SAUCE ON FUCK!

It is made ABUNDANTLY clear by MULTIPLE characters MULTIPLE times that i) the Great Powers of Middle Earth can sense each other, and ii) the Eagles are one of the Great Powers.

Crom fuck Set up the ass, is peoples' reading comprehension THAT FUCKING BAD?

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941634What's the difference? A lot of the time people are describing a sandbox, they're describing a mission hub area instead.

Ah, the old "I will redefine words until I win" gambit.

I have a new game for you, from White Wolf:  MY PEE HOLE -- THE TONGUING.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;941650GOD DAMN IT NO THEY COULD NOT HAVE!!! FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCKITTY FUCK WITH FUCK SAUCE ON FUCK!

It is made ABUNDANTLY clear by MULTIPLE characters MULTIPLE times that i) the Great Powers of Middle Earth can sense each other, and ii) the Eagles are one of the Great Powers.

Crom fuck Set up the ass, is peoples' reading comprehension THAT FUCKING BAD?

Man, look at JRRT, cock-blocking the party like a true railroader.:-) (c'mon now, doesn't that just SOUND like something a railroad GM would pull right out his ass? "Um, no, that won't work, because, um...they can SENSE each other....yeah....).

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941634The problem is sandboxing itself requires the GTA reactivity -- you attack random people, the guards/police/whatever attack the shit out of you until you die.

You keep talking about sandboxing and I still have no idea what you mean by sandboxing.

"Sandboxing" is attacking random people?

And what is "GTA reactivity"?

I have a suspicion, just so you know, that what you think of and define as sandbox play runs counter to how everyone else here thinks of and defines sandbox play. Conversation might be difficult because of that.

I'd love to hear how you actually set up games however.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;941655You keep talking about sandboxing and I still have no idea what you mean by sandboxing.

"Sandboxing" is attacking random people?

And what is "GTA reactivity"?

I have a suspicion, just so you know, that what you think of and define as sandbox play runs counter to how everyone else here thinks of and defines sandbox play. Conversation might be difficult because of that.

I'd love to hear how you actually set up games however.

He has no idea of what he means by sandbox either.

This is an old, annoying, and pointless gambit that's been played out countless times here and elsewhere; there is a small but noisy contingent of douchenozzles who have somehow decided that "sandbox" means "no planning of anything," and no matter what anybody says they will not budge from this, and frankly, even trying to discuss anything with them is a waste of time.

The answer that 95% of the world gives them is "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Quote from: cranebump;941654Man, look at JRRT, cock-blocking the party like a true railroader.:-) (c'mon now, doesn't that just SOUND like something a railroad GM would pull right out his ass? "Um, no, that won't work, because, um...they can SENSE each other....yeah....).

Like it or not, it IS in the fucking text.  Which is my point.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;941657Like it or not, it IS in the fucking text.  Which is my point.

How about you step away from your self-serve glory-hole and take a joke?

P.S. I AGREE with you on what a sandbox is.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;941650GOD DAMN IT NO THEY COULD NOT HAVE!!! FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCKITTY FUCK WITH FUCK SAUCE ON FUCK!

It is made ABUNDANTLY clear by MULTIPLE characters MULTIPLE times that i) the Great Powers of Middle Earth can sense each other, and ii) the Eagles are one of the Great Powers.

Crom fuck Set up the ass, is peoples' reading comprehension THAT FUCKING BAD?

Doesn't matter if its valid or not, the example was used to demonstrate the point that sometimes a quick solution to a problem is counter productive in a game.

Quote from: rgrove0172;941663Doesn't matter if its valid or not, the example was used to demonstrate the point that sometimes a quick solution to a problem is counter productive in a game.

Its more a problem of gaming the system vs quick solution. Sometimes the quick solution really is the solution. But sometimes its just the players acting on meta knowledge and/or being dicks. In which case ta-ta. Theres the door. Get lost. And sometimes the supposed quick solution is the worst solution. "Bobs infected with the space plague. We can either work on a cure or toss him in the incinerator. Fuck it. Who wants to work. Sorry Bob."

Or my older example someone else provided of the player whos Paladin PC killed an NPC dock hand just to fuck with the DM and then copped an attitude when the DM reminded him that this is world in motion and here comes the constables to arrest the Paladin and the other PCs who laughed at it. Not so funny now is it?

And so on ad nausium.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;941561Sounds like the players should've burned the referee's notes then played Risk.

:D:D:D. I would have bet good money that you would respond to what rgrove said, the way you did. Fuck!
 Thanks for the laugh man. I needed that one! I haven't had a good belly laugh like that for a long time. Oh shit!!! It brought fucking tears to my eyes. :D:D:D

Shemek

Quote from: Omega;941590Not really. There are times when the players arent role playing. They are genre-savvying the system. "Hey guys! I think we are in a murder mystery! Lets just start torturing the NPCs till they confess."

But then go to Plan B, or Plan C, or Plan whatever. Do you not have contingencies based upon what the PC's might do? To go back to rgrove's example, they burn the house down. Ok, well let's see if any of the encounters I had in the house get out alive. They do, then great. Meanwhile, let's roll for random encounters and see if the flames attract anyone or anything. I have some core player's who can be really crazy if they put their minds to it, and back in the day some of the best times we had was when we were trying to get one up on each other. I had to plan at least three steps in advance or they would run rough shod and "fuck everything up." This doesn't mean that I was all "railroady", far from it. I just liked to be prepared, and have the meta campaign advance regardless of whether or not the players were actively involved in the main story arc, or were off on another one. I have continued the practice over the years. As I tell my players: "Do what ever you want, but there are ramifications, both good and bad."

Shemek

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;941650GOD DAMN IT NO THEY COULD NOT HAVE!!! FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCKITTY FUCK WITH FUCK SAUCE ON FUCK!

It is made ABUNDANTLY clear by MULTIPLE characters MULTIPLE times that i) the Great Powers of Middle Earth can sense each other, and ii) the Eagles are one of the Great Powers.

Crom fuck Set up the ass, is peoples' reading comprehension THAT FUCKING BAD?

Dude, why are you getting so upset over such a stupid story? Magical midgets walking and walking and walking so a Snow Whiteless bromance of wee folk can toss their engagement ring away? No, there are better things to care about.

And yes, I am kidding. I feel your pain and love the passion. Hope I didn't offend.

Quote from: rgrove0172;941648To me its the old "Lord of the Rings and the Eagles" thing again.

Sure, the fellowship could have ridden the Eagles and dropped Sauron's bauble down Mt. Doom's throat but what fun would that have been? The point of getting together to play the adventure is to, well PLAY THE ADVENTURE, not win in the fastest and easiest way possible. Sure, a good GM shouldn't allow for such a short cut in his planning but I completely agree with him coming up with a reason to disallow such a suggestion should it come up when its going to ruin the whole game. Such things should be understood by the players and shame on them if they try and short circuit the game. I know if a few games Ive played in we have stumbled upon a plot wrecking element here and there, something the GM obviously didn't consider that would prove seriously destructive to game. We chose to ignore it, we were there to play and have fun afterall, not outsmart the guy.

It seems to me that there are different ways to relate to both your haunted house and the eagle scenario.

For your haunted house, you seem to have gone straight to OOC GM talking to the players telling them what the planned game is about and how they'll ruin it if they do that. Um, ok, that's one way to handle it, but it seems like there are various other ways that might be more interesting. In the first place, how in-character is their suggestion, and how liable is it to work and not be interrupted by some NPC actions? If it's actually in-character for the PCs to do that, why didn't the GM think of that? If it's OOC for the PC's to do that, why isn't the GM getting the PC's back into character instead of going to OOC meta-discussion?

For the LOTR eagle thing, like the "NPC reactions" and "how liable is it to work" comment I made about your haunted house, there are various in-universe arguments against the plan, which it seems to me are vastly preferable and more interesting than "it'd be a dull story if they did that." In fact, I think the opposite, which is, "it is a lame story if the reason for it happening how it does is only because it makes a great story that way even though it seems to make no sense that it happened that way." For instance, if eagles don't have good resistance to the ring, so that they're liable to fall under its influence en route. Gandalf and Galadriel knew they couldn't resist the ring, and Boromir failed, so the eagles could have been too risky. Or other reasons. I don't understand how so many authors and fans and GMs are so quick to surrender to "because story" or "because fake lame reason" instead of taking a few minutes to think of a real rational reason for something.

Another way to look at such situations is that if you allow creative unusual approaches that you didn't think of and may at first seem to ruin all your great preconceived plans, that far more interesting game (or even scripted plot) situations fall can fall out of that. The type of game can become something much more alive and interesting. They don't need to just jump to "ok so that works game over now we have nothing to do", as gaming out the details of things tends to lead to all sorts of situations and complications and misadventures. e.g. Ok, so we're forming a fellowship who will ride eagles... who wants to ride an eagle for days? How are we going to equip them, etc? How are we going to camp and keep watch and pay attention to the eagles in case they start to go for the ring? Remember how there were birds and nazgul hunting the on-foot fellowship? And weather attacks? And Saruman? Isn't a group of giant flying eagles with riders fairly conspicuous and visible from a long ways away? Seems like there are many possible things that could happen, and if the ring-bearer ends up on foot, he may have no idea where exactly he's landed or where to go from there. They also sound interesting to me because they are based on logical cause & effect and reaction to a dynamic situation rather than a pre-planned plot. They also have the advantage of allowing approaches to be considered and tried on their actual merits instead of OOC/meta arguments such as "it's not what the GM planned" or "that sounds too easy" or "that doesn't sound like what we're supposed to do" or "that doesn't sound to me like it'll make a good game/story" or "we agreed the game would be like X so we're not even going to think about doing Y, or even spend any energy to rationalize why not in terms of in-world reasons".

Quote from: Shemek hiTankolel;941689But then go to Plan B, or Plan C, or Plan whatever. Do you not have contingencies based upon what the PC's might do? To go back to rgrove's example, they burn the house down. Ok, well let's see if any of the encounters I had in the house get out alive.

Yep. If the players havent come across too much as dicks then sure. Collapsing the mine had some long lasting after effects. None of which the PCs particularly enjoyed because theyd set it all in motion themselves. The players though rolled with it and worked to undo the problems theyd set in motion. Later they bypassed a chunk of an adventure to negotiate with some gnomes that were fallout from that mine incident. Instead they skirted around the meeting and did a hit-and-run rescue of the halfling hostages the gnomes had. This ticked off the gnomes. But improved the PCs standing with the halflings theyd also antagonized with that same mine incident.

Or in the previously mentioned Hoard of the Dragon Queen campaign. The players skipped rescuing some hostages. They had a valid reason. But it cost them both in EXP and an NPC theyd actually requested to pick up somewhere. They had a valid reason overall and their actions both hindered and helped their mission at points. They also totally avoided another part of their mission later. But this helped them quite a bit further in and I awarded then bonus EXP for it and more importantly they made massive inroads into cult and garnered more connections. They got through an impressive chunk of the adventure not through combat but through deception, bluffing and misinformation.

As long as they arent trying to deliberately kill the session or fuck with me Im perfectly fine to roll with it and see where it goes. Part of why I enjoy my current group I DM for so much. They both engage the adventure and brutally think outside the box.

Quote from: Omega;941616Then I warned them not to waste my time asking me to prep an adventure in a mine for them and then not actually go on the adventure they asked for.

That reminds me of the one thing I told players I wouldn't allow in my last ACKS campaign:  Building fires in front of dungeon entrances to smoke all the monsters out.

But that came up in a discussion of hypotheticals at the start of the campaign, when they were trying to feel out the boundaries, not in a "We want to do this!"/"No, you can't do that." context, and I made it clear that the OOC reason for disallowing it was because it sidesteps what the game was supposed to be about (going into dangerous places, fighting monsters, and taking their stuff), not simply because it was a lateral-thinking solution.  I also provided an IC reason:  If the dungeons didn't have access to air other than the main entrance, then everything living in them would have suffocated already even without anyone trying to smoke them out.

Incidentally, the PCs later found a cave containing both a stream coming out of it and a dungeon entrance inside.  One of the players started talking about diverting the stream to flood the dungeon.  They never got around to doing it, but I would have been perfectly fine with them doing so.  (And not just because I knew that, within the dungeon, there was a magical reverse-waterfall, where the water fell up to create the stream they were going to divert...  :D )

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941634I've played in a survival/exploration-themed EOTE game and that was a sandbox. Problem was, outside of random encounters, finding relics and hiding away from big beasties and the odd Imperial patrols, there wasn't really much going on. It got old fast. And the guy had done a map too, planned where the wildlife was and old ruins and stuff but... errgh. And we were doing stuff like putting up laser perimeter fences around our ship and the Technician PC built a couple sentry guns which was cool and I had bought a luxury camping set (from one of the supplements) meaning while we were cooking and drinking we'd hear some of the monster getting chewed up by the guns and we'd then take the corpses and dress and cook em'!.

As others have said, you've described a poorly-run sandbox.  A good sandbox has events taking place independently of the PCs and also reacts to the PCs' actions.  It doesn't just sit there in stasis waiting for the PCs to come and interact with it.  For example, those Imperial patrols would be there for a reason, which probably has nothing to do with the PCs, and that reason should affect their movements, equipment, and tactics.  And the patrols would eventually notice signs of an unauthorized armed force (i.e., the PCs) being in the area, at which point they would shift their movements, equipment, and tactics to attempt to locate that unknown force, assess its strength and objectives, and determine the appropriate way to deal with it (form an alliance, assault their encampment, nuke the site from orbit (it's the only way to be sure), etc.).

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;941655You keep talking about sandboxing and I still have no idea what you mean by sandboxing.

"Sandboxing" is attacking random people?

And what is "GTA reactivity"?

The Grand Theft Auto (GTA) series is the poster child for "sandbox-style" computer games, in which you run around a city, causing mayhem (shooting up a neighborhood or running down pedestrians at 100mph seem to be the most popular activities) and occasionally taking on a mission from designated quest-givers in order to progress the game's storyline.  If you are spotted doing something antisocial, police and/or rival gangs will spawn in unlimited quantities to try to kill you, ending only when you reduce your "heat" to zero.  But, of course, fighting back quickly increases the heat, leading to more powerful enemies being dispatched to take you down, so it ends up being "random shootout for as long as it's fun and I think I can survive it, then run away and hide until they forget about me, then do it again".  And, when heat runs down, they forget about you completely - you can wound a cop in a firefight while killing 50 of his buddies, then (once the heat is off) walk past him 5 minutes later and he won't bat an eyelash.

So, yeah, he's talking about something completely different than the living, reactive, world-in-motion sandboxes that most of us around here are thinking of.

Quote from: Shemek hiTankolel;941689Do you not have contingencies based upon what the PC's might do?

No, I do not, actually.

I learned a long time ago that, if I plan for ten contingencies, players will never think of doing any of those things, discuss #11-14, decide on #13, get halfway through it, switch to #15...  And even if, by some miracle, one of my ten contingencies covers what they do, my plans for the other nine won't be used.  So I stopped wasting my time planning for contingencies in favor of just setting up the situation, then winging it in reaction to what the players do.

Quote from: rgrove0172;941642Oh for Christ's sake Black, give it a break. If you show up at a friend's house to play what was described as a space-opera adventure and discover 5 minutes in that your ship crashes and you will spend the whole night surviving on a pre-bronze age world with no advance tech you have a right to take a morale check. It might be fun, might be fair, but it aint what you went there for!

I said I would have let them burn the damned place but Im not going to wing an entire different adventure on the cuff when I had 4 hours of detailed mansion investigation planned. I doubt many GMs would, unless they don't plan anything to begin with. Yep, I know those guys are out there, I aint one.

That sounds more like the player handling their characters as avatars that are aware they're merely extensions of beings in another dimension that are perfectly from any repercussions so they go immediately to any nutty tactic that pops into their minds even if from an IC standpoint its nuts or doesn't make allot of sense. Which is fine if that's the group's playstyle but can wreak havoc if its not.

And there are some genres and game types that suit total Sandbox worse than others. I admit, I've never had a good experience with and it doesn't sound that fun to me. But I game for different things and tend to prefer settings and genres that don't work as well as a Sandbox. So its important to keep things on the same page. It sounds like your handled it well. It wasn't much different from having telling the group we're going to play through this module, having them agree to play and then when you start their first choice is "We're not going in there. Its looks dangerous!"

As an aside, there's a early episode of Supernatural where the "burn it down" approach was applied to a haunted house. But it wasn't the first step for a few reasons; one being they didn't know what they were dealing with or if the house was anchoring it. Or containing it.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941634I've played in a survival/exploration-themed EOTE game and that was a sandbox. Problem was, outside of random encounters, finding relics and hiding away from big beasties and the odd Imperial patrols, there wasn't really much going on. It got old fast. And the guy had done a map too, planned where the wildlife was and old ruins and stuff but... errgh. And we were doing stuff like putting up laser perimeter fences around our ship and the Technician PC built a couple sentry guns which was cool and I had bought a luxury camping set (from one of the supplements) meaning while we were cooking and drinking we'd hear some of the monster getting chewed up by the guns and we'd then take the corpses and dress and cook em'!

The corpses were edible:)?
Also, yes, if that's all that happened, it was flat. But it was a matter of either the GM's lack of skill, or of your party not doing anything interesting with the things you found.

QuoteBut it all felt... I dunno, flat.

See above.

QuoteWhat's the difference? A lot of the time people are describing a sandbox, they're describing a mission hub area instead.

...and mission hub areas don't have any plot hooks because?
I mean, go read the first Fabled Lands gamebook, which manages to get a sandbox and a rebellion-related plot in one novel-sized text. And lo and behold, you can skip the whole plot...but you can also choose to engage with it.
And it was written decades ago, and does it without the help of a GM. What should a live GM be able to do if he strived to do the same as the book, but better:p?

QuoteI can go over the bridge, under the bridge, around the bridge or cross the bridge. But I am still getting to the other side of that bridge. I guess that's the most barebones description of freeform for me.

Who told you you're getting to the other side, at all?

QuoteAnd yes, they really do do that. The aforementioned EOTE campaign was one example of my experience of sandboxes. It was a shame -- it was a good idea, it just didn't live up to the hype.

There're bad sandboxes. There are also bad plotted campaigns.
Just as it's not fair to the latter to hold the worst examples as the model of how plotted campaigns work, it's not fair to the sandbox campaigns to hold the aforementioned EotE campaign as an example of how sandboxes work.

QuoteI love seeing what my players come up with. It's always interesting to see how they overcome obstacles. I've become a fan of a idea of "minimal solution planning": planning obstacles but not the consequences of them until the obstacle is actually overcome. Otherwise, you waste most -- if not, all -- of your material on something that probably won't pan out the way you anticipated. GM'ing Mage the Awakening humbles you as a GM in this department.

Or GMing Exalted, or any of the dozens wuxia games...
Speaking from experience. Also, that's exactly the basis of sandbox games.

QuoteYeah, I've played in a lot of games with shitty GM's. Only ever had a few where they were good. Those guys got props and the favor got returned via bonus XP from m'wah in my games (which every single one would be playing in my game instead of GM'ing because they were having way more fun in mine than doing the GM'ing stuff -- one had some really shitty players so I was glad to hook him up with some decent ones because shitty players really fuck up a GM's flow).

OK, I can relate to that. But then, stop holding the bad GMs as the examples for a whole playstyle, would you?
That's all I'm asking.

QuoteI would fucking jump for joy if any of my players said "hey, let's like NOT walk into the cave and instead burn the bandits out instead". Bonus EXP out the wazoonga for that. Why in the name of cock would you walk into a cave where you'll be fucking murdered by arrows if the inhabitants are in any way organized, competent or intelligent at all.

I know, right?
Makes you wonder how the people that consider that "player dickery" run their campaigns.

QuoteThankfully, I've had players over time who caused the aforementioned jumping for joy. They quickly became the leaders of their respective groups.

Same here.

QuoteNot really. Still learning every game.

We all are.

Quote from: rgrove0172;941642Oh for Christ's sake Black, give it a break. If you show up at a friend's house to play what was described as a space-opera adventure and discover 5 minutes in that your ship crashes and you will spend the whole night surviving on a pre-bronze age world with no advance tech you have a right to take a morale check. It might be fun, might be fair, but it aint what you went there for!

Or if you go to play a space opera noble and you find out that your father's troops have been overrun by a massive invasion, and you have to run and hide with the locals who have no military power of their own, and aren't necessarily friendly...
I mean, you didn't sign up to play that, right;)?

QuoteI said I would have let them burn the damned place but Im not going to wing an entire different adventure on the cuff when I had 4 hours of detailed mansion investigation planned. I doubt many GMs would, unless they don't plan anything to begin with. Yep, I know those guys are out there, I aint one.

Fair enough - if that's beyond the limit of your ability to improvise, nobody should ask you to do it!

Quote from: rgrove0172;941644And I wont and didn't disagree. The only issue was the expectation that I would suddenly just skip past the entire session I had planned and move on to some random adventure seed pulled from my backside. They could have burned it, we would have played some boardgame and resumed the RPG the next session after I had a chance to prepare.

I don't see a problem with that (assuming you have some boardgame ready, which I suspect you do).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;941650Crom fuck Set up the ass

This is my favourite curse from now on:D!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;941656He has no idea of what he means by sandbox either.

This is an old, annoying, and pointless gambit that's been played out countless times here and elsewhere; there is a small but noisy contingent of douchenozzles who have somehow decided that "sandbox" means "no planning of anything," and no matter what anybody says they will not budge from this, and frankly, even trying to discuss anything with them is a waste of time.

The answer that 95% of the world gives them is "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

There are such people. I'm not sure if he's one of them.

Quote from: rgrove0172;941663Doesn't matter if its valid or not, the example was used to demonstrate the point that sometimes a quick solution to a problem is counter productive in a game.

Except it's a quick solution that doesn't work, because The Players Didn't Read The Setting Corebook, so it fails as an example, too;).

Quote from: nDervish;941736No, I do not, actually.

I learned a long time ago that, if I plan for ten contingencies, players will never think of doing any of those things, discuss #11-14, decide on #13, get halfway through it, switch to #15...  And even if, by some miracle, one of my ten contingencies covers what they do, my plans for the other nine won't be used.  So I stopped wasting my time planning for contingencies in favor of just setting up the situation, then winging it in reaction to what the players do.

My approach exactly, and for exactly the same reasons;).

Funny, however, that I recently found a very good article how boxers don't pick their fighting styles. They evolve them based on their natural dispositions, training environments and the opponents they face.
In the same vein, I could argue that GMs don't really pick their styles. They evolve them based on their natural dispositions, the people they play most with, the most difficult problems they have encountered, and the campaigns they'd run so far.
So, might it be that we're not allowing the players to think out of the box, but are getting used to players that regularly think out of the box?
It's worth considering, at least.

Quote from: Shemek hiTankolel;941689But then go to Plan B, or Plan C, or Plan whatever. Do you not have contingencies based upon what the PC's might do? To go back to rgrove's example, they burn the house down. Ok, well let's see if any of the encounters I had in the house get out alive. They do, then great. Meanwhile, let's roll for random encounters and see if the flames attract anyone or anything. I have some core player's who can be really crazy if they put their minds to it, and back in the day some of the best times we had was when we were trying to get one up on each other. I had to plan at least three steps in advance or they would run rough shod and "fuck everything up." This doesn't mean that I was all "railroady", far from it. I just liked to be prepared, and have the meta campaign advance regardless of whether or not the players were actively involved in the main story arc, or were off on another one. I have continued the practice over the years. As I tell my players: "Do what ever you want, but there are ramifications, both good and bad."

Shemek

Ive been fortunate never to have experienced the "one up each other" dynamic. My players have always been pretty amicable where the story is concerned. If they pulled something like the mansion burning, it was an honest attempt at what they saw as a solution rather than some veiled jerk around. Im grateful.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;941558You are SO FUCKING WRONG

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG  WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONGWRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

that the light from RIGHT will not reach you for eighty quadrillion eternities after the heat death of the universe!

What, is he wrong, then?

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941331If your PCs are in an undercroft and there are undead about, do you enable them to try and sneak past from above via hanging beams

Yes.

If the players want to do something, I decide whether there are any penalties or bonuses, they roll to see if they make it and play continues. If it is apparent they will succeed, they don't need to make a roll.

So, they could Climb or Sneak or whatever, the Undead would have a perception roll to notice them and everyone's happy.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941331or, say, have weak walls that they can break through to circumvent areas with concentrated undead?

It depends where they are. If the PCs are in a concrete bunker then no weak walls. If they are in a store with partitions between departments then, sure, weak walls.

What I don;t do is to always give them an easy way out.  For example, I wouldn't put weak walls in just because they had been boxed in by undead. In that situation, they would ask how string the walls look and I would tell them.

Quote from: AsenRG;941754Or if you go to play a space opera noble and you find out that your father's troops have been overrun by a massive invasion, and you have to run and hide with the locals who have no military power of their own, and aren't necessarily friendly...
I mean, you didn't sign up to play that, right?

Well no you didn't. I thin I missed your point?

Quote from: rgrove0172;941642If you show up at a friend's house to play what was described as a space-opera adventure and discover 5 minutes in that your ship crashes and you will spend the whole night surviving on a pre-bronze age world with no advance tech you have a right to take a morale check. It might be fun, might be fair, but it aint what you went there for!

I went there to play a space opera game with my friends - since when did crashlanding on a hostile world qualify as not-space opera?

Quote from: rgrove0172;941642I said I would have let them burn the damned place . . .

. . . after whimpering to them about '. . . but MAH STOREH!' first.

You're a whiny, manipulative little shit to your players, aren't you?

Would it be crazy of me to suggest that having upfront conversations between everyone participating in a game about style and expectations and interests is probably a good idea?

I'm seeing a lot of heat as people dig their heels in. But I also see examples of frustration that could easily be handled with easy words long before things had a chance to melt down.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;941785Would it be crazy of me to suggest that having upfront conversations between everyone participating in a game about style and expectations and interests is probably a good idea?

I'm seeing a lot of heat as people dig their heels in. But I also see examples of frustration that could easily be handled with easy words long before things had a chance to melt down.

I think this is the best way to handle allot of this stuff. Treat your fellow players like adults.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;941784I went there to play a space opera game with my friends - since when did crashlanding on a hostile world qualify as not-space opera?


. . . after whimpering to them about '. . . but MAH STOREH!' first.

You're a whiny, manipulative little shit to your players, aren't you?

As opposed to a narrow minded, opinionated shit? Perhaps.

Genres have certain tropes one expects when playing them. Minus the tropes, are you even playing the genre, truly?

I want to play an investigation game but the gm doesn't present a mystery.

I want to play an old west game and the gm.sets the scenario in eastern europe.

I want to play supers but the gm declares a meteor strike has robbed everyone of their powers.

All possible but not what I agreed and hoped to play. I'd be dissapointed.

Quote from: rgrove0172;941756Ive been fortunate never to have experienced the "one up each other" dynamic. My players have always been pretty amicable where the story is concerned. If they pulled something like the mansion burning, it was an honest attempt at what they saw as a solution rather than some veiled jerk around. Im grateful.

Fortunately, this was never done in spite, or with any venom. It actually was quite fun, and no one ever crossed the line. We gamed together because we wanted to adventure and explore the game setting. If anyone had been trying to be a jerk they would quickly be expelled from the group. This actually happened once when someone decided that they would try and run rough-shod over the game, stir the pot, and ignore the campaign setting because they didn't agree with its basic premise. He lasted two games and was not invited to come back and roll up a new character when his old one was executed. The setting was Tekumel, and verbally attacking priests in the street, assaulting nobility, and openly desecrating temples and government buildings just doesn't fly in such a centralised and conservative, caste based society.

Shemek

Quote from: rgrove0172;941642Oh for Christ's sake Black, give it a break. If you show up at a friend's house to play what was described as a space-opera adventure and discover 5 minutes in that your ship crashes and you will spend the whole night surviving on a pre-bronze age world with no advance tech you have a right to take a morale check. It might be fun, might be fair, but it aint what you went there for!

I said I would have let them burn the damned place but Im not going to wing an entire different adventure on the cuff when I had 4 hours of detailed mansion investigation planned. I doubt many GMs would, unless they don't plan anything to begin with. Yep, I know those guys are out there, I aint one.

I'm not there to "Play this specific Haunted House scenario".
I'm there to play my character in a world.

Burning the house down as the first thing you do isn't very smart.  Yay, you got rid of the ghost...maybe.  I'm sure that will fly to a jury, especially since all the overgrown foliage around the Haunted House caught fire and burned half of the Hollywood Hills. :D  Or whatever.

The point is, despite all your dismissiveness of Black Vulmea's criticisms, everything you've said does support the notion that the players are there to play "Mah Storeh" within a very narrow range of probabilities.

I had the impression the game was going to be an investigative game with a horror tone where each session would be focused on a particular premise, in this case a haunted house mystery not a Sandbox style and this was established beforehand. But in this case, the players intended "solution" short circuited that premise and rather than drop an evening of gaming, rgrove talked to them.

"Mah mah story" was the game for the evening, That was the way the game was pitched and set up. In this case, some wires were crossed as can happen and the talked it out. I didn't get sense he'd promised them an open world playstyle then pulled a switcheroo on them.

Quote from: CRKrueger;941797I'm not there to "Play this specific Haunted House scenario".
I'm there to play my character in a world.

Burning the house down as the first thing you do isn't very smart.  Yay, you got rid of the ghost...maybe.  I'm sure that will fly to a jury, especially since all the overgrown foliage around the Haunted House caught fire and burned half of the Hollywood Hills. :D  Or whatever.

The point is, despite all your dismissiveness of Black Vulmea's criticisms, everything you've said does support the notion that the players are there to play "Mah Storeh" within a very narrow range of probabilities.

Hmm, One Shot Mansion Mystery game - subtract Mystery in the Mansion = ... nothing

I don't call that narrow, its sort of assumed. Mayby YOU want to play your character in world but most of my players, and I for that matter, showed up to play a Mansion Mystery Scenario.

Hey guys! Lets play Star Trek! AWESOME - but your not Starfleet Officers in this one and you aren't on a ship, in fact your on a early twentieth century type world that hasn't been interfered with due to the prime directive. Your actually policeman there and there have been this rash of murders.....  Huh?

That's the point I was making - if by hook or crook the action takes the game out of its expected parameters it might be best to wrangle it back in or risk losing your player's interest.

Sure if the mansion had simply been the latest passing interest in a long and varied campaign I can see letting it burn and moving on but under the circumstances?

Quote from: rgrove0172;941802Hmm, One Shot Mansion Mystery game - subtract Mystery in the Mansion = ... nothing

I don't call that narrow, its sort of assumed. Mayby YOU want to play your character in world but most of my players, and I for that matter, showed up to play a Mansion Mystery Scenario.

Hey guys! Lets play Star Trek! AWESOME - but your not Starfleet Officers in this one and you aren't on a ship, in fact your on a early twentieth century type world that hasn't been interfered with due to the prime directive. Your actually policeman there and there have been this rash of murders.....  Huh?

That's the point I was making - if by hook or crook the action takes the game out of its expected parameters it might be best to wrangle it back in or risk losing your player's interest.

Sure if the mansion had simply been the latest passing interest in a long and varied campaign I can see letting it burn and moving on but under the circumstances?

Doubt you'll get the usual suspects to budge an inch, because budging an inch evidently requires giving up a pint of soul ichor.:-/

Quote from: Nexus;941800I had the impression the game was going to be an investigative game with a horror tone where each session would be focused on a particular premise, in this case a haunted house mystery not a Sandbox style and this was established beforehand. But in this case, the players intended "solution" short circuited that premise and rather than drop an evening of gaming, rgrove talked to them.

"Mah mah story" was the game for the evening, That was the way the game was pitched and set up. In this case, some wires were crossed as can happen and the talked it out. I didn't get sense he'd promised them an open world playstyle then pulled a switcheroo on them.

Exactly, as it was it was a one shot - perhaps I should have mentioned that but to me it doesn't make a difference. As I have been saying I believe most game settings come with certain expectations. When these aren't met you risk losing your participants.

I for one cant stand Superhero games - haven't had an interest since I gave up comic books in grade school. If I was invited to play in a game of gumshoe detectives for example and suddenly during play we were all granted powers by a chemical plant explosion or something I would be pretty bummed. Theres a good chance I would drop out. I think the GM has the same right. If he sets up a cool campaign involving a war setting and the players announce they don't want to take part in the war effort - he has the right to cancel the game or hedge the players to go along with the original plan. They got together to play his War campaign afterall, not randomly wander around some make believe world.

Quote from: cranebump;941807Doubt you'll get the usual suspects to budge an inch, because budging an inch evidently requires giving up a pint of soul ichor.:-/

Oh I don't expect anyone to budge from their stance, only to recognize mine as having value.

Honestly though its hard for me to imagine playing in some of these guys games the way they describe them. I say that respectfully with no condemnation. I simply assume at least a general plotline in any game. Im not sure I would be interested in playing otherwise. When someone asks info about a game Im running I cant imagine simply giving a vague description of the setting only with no hint at what is involved or the direction the action might take.

"Your soldiers in WWII in France looking for a shipment of Nazi stolen gold"
"Your investigators in New York in the 1930s trying to find a serial killer"
"Your the crew of an asteroid mining ship caught up in political intrigue during an uprising on Mars"
"Your a group of medieval era fantasy adventurers exploring dungeons and looking for treasure"

From what Im hearing these are already too limiting for some.

Quote from: rgrove0172;941808Exactly, as it was it was a one shot - perhaps I should have mentioned that but to me it doesn't make a difference. As I have been saying I believe most game settings come with certain expectations. When these aren't met you risk losing your participants.

I for one cant stand Superhero games - haven't had an interest since I gave up comic books in grade school. If I was invited to play in a game of gumshoe detectives for example and suddenly during play we were all granted powers by a chemical plant explosion or something I would be pretty bummed. Theres a good chance I would drop out. I think the GM has the same right. If he sets up a cool campaign involving a war setting and the players announce they don't want to take part in the war effort - he has the right to cancel the game or hedge the players to go along with the original plan. They got together to play his War campaign afterall, not randomly wander around some make believe world.

This pretty much how I feel too and how I handle my game pitches and set up: establishing the setting, genre, tone, etc before we begin. Not that I can;t be flexible and talk about fringe ideas and fit them into the premise or tweak that premise for if required. The folks that enjoy my games and that I like playing for aren;t going for the more VR world simulation style immersion.

Quote from: rgrove0172;941809Oh I don't expect anyone to budge from their stance, only to recognize mine as having value.

Honestly though its hard for me to imagine playing in some of these guys games the way they describe them. I say that respectfully with no condemnation. I simply assume at least a general plotline in any game. Im not sure I would be interested in playing otherwise. When someone asks info about a game Im running I cant imagine simply giving a vague description of the setting only with no hint at what is involved or the direction the action might take.

"Your soldiers in WWII in France looking for a shipment of Nazi stolen gold"
"Your investigators in New York in the 1930s trying to find a serial killer"
"Your the crew of an asteroid mining ship caught up in political intrigue during an uprising on Mars"
"Your a group of medieval era fantasy adventurers exploring dungeons and looking for treasure"

From what Im hearing these are already too limiting for some.

I think that, as a player, I should strive to proceed with good faith when it comes to what we're there to do, which is, in most cases, play together to find out what happens, rather than treat the GM scenario as something I can fuck up as completely as I can. So, I DO think it does a disservice to a GM who's prepared a one-shot to just look at the entire affair as a challenge to see how much I can fuck it up. I do think emphasizing that you've prepared a ONE SHOT does need to be more fully considered. The context IS different from your typical campaign. That said, I think it would be savvy, in the situation of the mansion, to ensure there were some baked in reasons for the players to value the mansion, as well. If you run with some sort of ethical subsystem, alignment can usually take care of that. If not, you might have to come up with something on the spot. Of course, players can rationalize anything, so there are no guarantees that anything's going to cure douche baggery.

I think "How well do you handle player improvisation?" may have been a better thread title.

* stations archers to cover the exits *
* sets thread on fire *

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;941853* stations archers to cover the exits *
* sets thread on fire *

What? :confused:

Quote from: One Horse Town;941338Reward clever role-play without altering the 'reality' of the situation.

This is the best approach.

Quote from: Nexus;941854What? :confused:

Not your post specifically, the last page or so.  This thread started confusingly, perhaps, but seems to have turned to crap.

Quote from: tenbones;941572Litterboxing

This is my favorite new gaming term for this week.

What does it mean?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;941860Not your post specifically, the last page or so.  This thread started confusingly, perhaps, but seems to have turned to crap.

Oh, okay. Its gotten a little contentious but not too "Its a nice day for a Red Wedding" levels yet particularly by the standards of these forums. :D

Of course it makes a difference whether it's a one-shot or campaign play.  The two are completely different things.

You invite someone over for a one-shot Haunted House adventure and they burn it down that's just useless shitbaggery, they could have just said No and saved everybody's time.

Quote from: Nexus;941872What does it mean?

A shitty sandbox.

Quote from: rgrove0172;941809Oh I don't expect anyone to budge from their stance, only to recognize mine as having value.

Honestly though its hard for me to imagine playing in some of these guys games the way they describe them. I say that respectfully with no condemnation. I simply assume at least a general plotline in any game. Im not sure I would be interested in playing otherwise. When someone asks info about a game Im running I cant imagine simply giving a vague description of the setting only with no hint at what is involved or the direction the action might take.

"Your soldiers in WWII in France looking for a shipment of Nazi stolen gold"
"Your investigators in New York in the 1930s trying to find a serial killer"
"Your the crew of an asteroid mining ship caught up in political intrigue during an uprising on Mars"
"Your a group of medieval era fantasy adventurers exploring dungeons and looking for treasure"

From what Im hearing these are already too limiting for some.

Some of those could be campaign play, others seem like just storylines.
"Your soldiers in WWII in France looking for a shipment of Nazi stolen gold" - Yay, we found it, now what?  Do we have the option of stealing it and going AWOL, or if we planned on not turning it in should we not have shown up to play?

Instead of..."You're investigators in New York in the 1930s trying to find a serial killer"
Why not..."You're PI's in New York in the 1930s."  The fact that there's a serial killer is Setting Detail.  Contacts and other investigations might lead the characters to cross paths with the Serial Killer, or the characters may find their own goals and decide to pursue the Serial Killer because then they'll be the most famous PIs in New York, or at least among those in the know, which might put them on the radar of the Rich and Powerful.

Instead of..."You're the crew of an asteroid mining ship caught up in political intrigue during an uprising on Mars."
Why not..."You're the crew of an asteroid mining ship."  Setting detail will establish that times are tough and uncertain due to a current uprising on Mars.

Of course "You're a group of medieval era fantasy adventurers exploring dungeons and looking for treasure". is just you being "clever" again, insinuating that the default assumption of D&D isn't any different than your plotting.  
The way some people play D&D, You're Right.  Genre Play is Genre Play, period and D&D's "We're all dungeoncrawlers" at this point is a gaming genre.  

However, even in the very first Ur-campaigns of D&D, play expanded beyond the dungeon paradigm very quickly, so claiming that is the default plot assumption is simply incorrect.

All you really need is
1. Prepped Situations that the players could get involved with.  Really no different than "What plotline do you guys want to play" except it's the characters choosing organically by roleplaying their character's goals.
2. Contacts.  Make sure through Chargen that players know people.  Real setting people, not the "I know a guy" Edge, a Contacts Feat or other abstract OOC shenanigans, but god-honest sentient beings they know.
3. Rumor Tables.
4. Roleplaying.  They roleplay their characters doing their thing.  You roleplay the NPCs doing their thing.

Put it all together and your campaign ends up looking like a web.  There's lot of potential enemies and allies moving around doing their things, the PCs are moving around doing their things, and threads between the two will bring them to each other's notice.  Not a single Plot prepped, years of adventure.

Quote from: Nexus;941881"Its a nice day for a Red Wedding"

I lol'd. :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;941911Some of those could be campaign play, others seem like just storylines.
"Your soldiers in WWII in France looking for a shipment of Nazi stolen gold" - Yay, we found it, now what?  Do we have the option of stealing it and going AWOL, or if we planned on not turning it in should we not have shown up to play?

Instead of..."You're investigators in New York in the 1930s trying to find a serial killer"
Why not..."You're PI's in New York in the 1930s."  The fact that there's a serial killer is Setting Detail.  Contacts and other investigations might lead the characters to cross paths with the Serial Killer, or the characters may find their own goals and decide to pursue the Serial Killer because then they'll be the most famous PIs in New York, or at least among those in the know, which might put them on the radar of the Rich and Powerful.

Instead of..."You're the crew of an asteroid mining ship caught up in political intrigue during an uprising on Mars."
Why not..."You're the crew of an asteroid mining ship."  Setting detail will establish that times are tough and uncertain due to a current uprising on Mars.

There's no "reason" to take either course besides preferences. Some people want a more focused game with options laid out at the beginning. Especially if the setting is going to push things hard in a certain direction anyway. But yeah, you can stretch many premises into something Open World or at least that looks like it. Just some don't find that appealing or just like either sort of game.

QuoteOf course "You're a group of medieval era fantasy adventurers exploring dungeons and looking for treasure". is just you being "clever" again, insinuating that the default assumption of D&D isn't any different than your plotting.

I think you may being uncharitable here. It was an example of a potential play style for D and D, one I've seen quite a bit over the years. He didn't say it was the default or only one anymore then the others were the default or only way to play a WW2 historic campaign or the others the only way to run a sci-fi setting.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;941890A shitty sandbox.

Oh, when you put it like that...

Quote from: rgrove0172;941756Ive been fortunate never to have experienced the "one up each other" dynamic. My players have always been pretty amicable where the story is concerned. If they pulled something like the mansion burning, it was an honest attempt at what they saw as a solution rather than some veiled jerk around. Im grateful.

For the sake of clarity, was the Haunted Mansion Mystery a one shot session or part of a larger game with a more mission oriented play style?

The problem with many of the examples used in discussions like this is they're so situational. What's a clever move in situation can be a dick move in another, regardless of what side of the screen it comes from. In a way examples and "what ifs" are more of a Rorschach test. What details the reader fills can be more telling than their overall answer.

Quote from: rgrove0172;941554One example was a lengthy and detailed haunted mansion mystery I planned wherein one player immediately suggested burning the place down when they first laid eyes on it. The others were quickly on board and didn't care a shits if the owners complained, authorities responded etc. They were gonna fight Evil by God! I would have let them if they had insisted but thankfully they backed off when I explained it was the investigation of the house that we had gotten together to play, not a 5 minute arson adventure.

The PCs had no reason to want to investigate the mansion such that burning it down had no players dissenting?

If the PCs do not have sufficient reason to want to investigate the mansion, I am failing to understand what the problem is when they decide against investigating the mansion.

Even bog standard D&D dungeon crawling comes with the built in motivation of the dungeon being where the treasure is at.

Quote from: Nexus;941772Well no you didn't. I thin I missed your point?

Actually, you helped me make my point:D!

Hint: you just said that when you signed to play space opera nobles, playing a campiagn that works like Dune wouldn't be what you signed up for...;)

Quote from: Black Vulmea;941784I went there to play a space opera game with my friends - since when did crashlanding on a hostile world qualify as not-space opera?

Beats me, too. I'm pretty sure I can think of examples, actually:p.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;941853* stations archers to cover the exits *
* sets thread on fire *

Wish you could, don't you, Glorious General:)?

Quote from: CRKrueger;941911Some of those could be campaign play, others seem like just storylines.
"Your soldiers in WWII in France looking for a shipment of Nazi stolen gold" - Yay, we found it, now what?  Do we have the option of stealing it and going AWOL, or if we planned on not turning it in should we not have shown up to play?

Instead of..."You're investigators in New York in the 1930s trying to find a serial killer"
Why not..."You're PI's in New York in the 1930s."  The fact that there's a serial killer is Setting Detail.  Contacts and other investigations might lead the characters to cross paths with the Serial Killer, or the characters may find their own goals and decide to pursue the Serial Killer because then they'll be the most famous PIs in New York, or at least among those in the know, which might put them on the radar of the Rich and Powerful.

Instead of..."You're the crew of an asteroid mining ship caught up in political intrigue during an uprising on Mars."
Why not..."You're the crew of an asteroid mining ship."  Setting detail will establish that times are tough and uncertain due to a current uprising on Mars.

Of course "You're a group of medieval era fantasy adventurers exploring dungeons and looking for treasure". is just you being "clever" again, insinuating that the default assumption of D&D isn't any different than your plotting.  
The way some people play D&D, You're Right.  Genre Play is Genre Play, period and D&D's "We're all dungeoncrawlers" at this point is a gaming genre.  

However, even in the very first Ur-campaigns of D&D, play expanded beyond the dungeon paradigm very quickly, so claiming that is the default plot assumption is simply incorrect.

All you really need is
1. Prepped Situations that the players could get involved with.  Really no different than "What plotline do you guys want to play" except it's the characters choosing organically by roleplaying their character's goals.
2. Contacts.  Make sure through Chargen that players know people.  Real setting people, not the "I know a guy" Edge, a Contacts Feat or other abstract OOC shenanigans, but god-honest sentient beings they know.
3. Rumor Tables.
4. Roleplaying.  They roleplay their characters doing their thing.  You roleplay the NPCs doing their thing.

Put it all together and your campaign ends up looking like a web.  There's lot of potential enemies and allies moving around doing their things, the PCs are moving around doing their things, and threads between the two will bring them to each other's notice.  Not a single Plot prepped, years of adventure.

Kudos for the explanation, Green One;)!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;941853* stations archers to cover the exits *
* sets thread on fire *

It's all right, man. We know it gets harder to focus when you get older.:-)

I'm of two minds about who's responsible for PC investment. On the one hand, the GM can make sure there's hooks there, based on what he knows of the characters. On the other, I would think any decent player can come up with a reason their character would take on the presented scenario. I'd rather have the players do that, and, so far, I've been lucky enough to play with people who do, by and large.

Quote from: AsenRG;941931Actually, you helped me make my point:D!

Hint: you just said that when you signed to play space opera nobles, playing a campiagn that works like Dune wouldn't be what you signed up for...;)

Well, I don't think that describing a campaign where the character will be stripped of most of the abilities of being a noble right off is a "campaign about playing Space Nobles" its a campaign about playing "Former Space Nobles in exile/on the run". That's why I think open and clear communication is important when starting up a game/campaign especially if the game system required investment of character generation resources to being a "noble". Which is how the games I play most often function its not doubt shaped my opinion.

QuoteBeats me, too. I'm pretty sure I can think of examples, actually:p.

I think the implication was the crash landing sets the gamne on the Bronze Age world for the life of the game or at least very long term and isn't just an "adventure". So your character's high tech skills, equipment, off world  contact, etc are now mostly useless. Being refugees on a primitive world could be a great campaign but with the blanket description "Space Opera" I don't think its what most folks would think of. Its kind of a GM switcheroo which is another kind of either misunderstanding or dickery depending on the situation.

It also illustrates the problem of just using genre as the sole description for a game; genres often have various definitions and interpretations. For instance, some people consider "Space Opera" to be big flashy space battles, high end politics and exotic extraterrestrial locales with big while others consider any "soft"  or pulp sci-fi involving space travel in some form "Space Opera".

Quote from: cranebump;941932It's all right, man. We know it gets harder to focus when you get older.:-)

I'm of two minds about who's responsible for PC investment. On the one hand, the GM can make sure there's hooks there, based on what he knows of the characters. On the other, I would think any decent player can come up with a reason their character would take on the presented scenario. I'd rather have the players do that, and, so far, I've been lucky enough to play with people who do, by and large.

I think this matter is always a taffy-pull. At some point everyone has to invest enough in the fictional premise that kicks things off that things get a chance to get going.

I, too, have been lucky enough to have mostly players who can find a reason to dig into any situation. (And I am that kind of player as well.)

That said, my experience is that the more the Players are invested in what is happening (not the PCs with their fictional motivations, but the Players) the better things will be. For this reason I'm always listening for their interests at the table and feeding that as best I can. If it turns out they want to rescue their friends who got sucked into Null Space in a trap in a dungeon, then by god, I'll be opening up channels for them to figure out how to do that and offering obstacles to that path to make the journey worth something. This way I know that no matter what I prep the Players will be pushing into it because they wanted to do this thing.

Again, it's a give and take I think.

As for rgrove's almost failed haunted house, all the was needed (I think; context is still slight) is for each PC to have some emotionally staked reason to go into the house and find/discover/recover proof of something. That is, destroying the house would not at all help them, since they could only get what they really wanted by entering the house and dealing with the contents.

As I said upthread, this could be dealt with by front loading these matters in an open discussion at the top of the session.

Quote from: cranebump;941932It's all right, man. We know it gets harder to focus when you get older.:-)

I'm of two minds about who's responsible for PC investment. On the one hand, the GM can make sure there's hooks there, based on what he knows of the characters. On the other, I would think any decent player can come up with a reason their character would take on the presented scenario. I'd rather have the players do that, and, so far, I've been lucky enough to play with people who do, by and large.

Yeah, if you're running an occult investigation game I think its reasonable to expect characters that want to investigate the supernatural or adventurers that want, at least some degree, treasure and glory in a Dungeoneering driven D and D game. If the game's premise is more open ended the GM might have to construct things so there's more reason for the PCs to be interested. But even then some buy in is required or at least resisting the urge to "genre savvy" your way into a board game night. :D

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;941945As for rgrove's almost failed haunted house, all the was needed (I think; context is still slight) is for each PC to have some emotionally staked reason to go into the house and find/discover/recover proof of something. That is, destroying the house would not at all help them, since they could only get what they really wanted by entering the house and dealing with the contents.

As I said upthread, this could be dealt with by front loading these matters in an open discussion at the top of the session.

Very wise advice.  Assuming the haunted house exploration is a one-shot, there are not even any campaign continuity issues to care about.  Spend 5-10 minutes at the start of the session asking each player why their PC is motivated to explore the mansion.  Works 95% of the time to kick off any campaign/one-shot.

Quote from: Nexus;941942Well, I don't think that describing a campaign where the character will be stripped of most of the abilities of being a noble right off is a "campaign about playing Space Nobles" its a campaign about playing "Former Space Nobles in exile/on the run".

No, Dune is still a campaign about space nobles. It's just a campaign where the PCs suffered setbacks, the GM worsened their situation, and then they recruited the locals to get a shot at revenge.
But they were very much a noble's heir and a noble's mistress/space Shaolin nun.

QuoteThat's why I think open and clear communication is important when starting up a game/campaign especially if the game system required investment of character generation resources to being a "noble". Which is how the games I play most often function its not doubt shaped my opinion.

And even their experience with governing and tactics helped them, as noted in the books. So said resources weren't misspent.

QuoteI think the implication was the crash landing sets the gamne on the Bronze Age world for the life of the game or at least very long term and isn't just an "adventure".

Actually, as written in post 46, you're on the Bronze Age world "for the night", presumably the game night. What a long and tedious digression:D!

QuoteSo your character's high tech skills, equipment, off world  contact, etc are now mostly useless.

Are you kidding me?
My knowledge of advanced (for their time) medical procedures, wound dressing (First Aid), anatomy, the strategy of Roman commanders, chemistry and physics are useless? Those are things you learn in 4th grade in our schools.
My ability to shoot lightning from my hands (blaster) and to heal heavy wounds (Space Opera medicine kits) is useless? I'm not even talking Dune-like personal shields or reflex boosting equipment...

Seriously, dude, WTF?

QuoteBeing refugees on a primitive world could be a great campaign but with the blanket description "Space Opera" I don't think its what most folks would think of.

We're talking about a session. Are you seriously telling me there were no episodes of Star Trek or whatever when characters were stranded on a primitive world? You can't think of a similar situation in other space opera classics?

QuoteIts kind of a GM switcheroo which is another kind of either misunderstanding or dickery depending on the situation.

Switching...to a different part of the same genre.
Yeah, right.

QuoteIt also illustrates the problem of just using genre as the sole description for a game; genres often have various definitions and interpretations. For instance, some people consider "Space Opera" to be big flashy space battles, high end politics and exotic extraterrestrial locales with big while others consider any "soft"  or pulp sci-fi involving space travel in some form "Space Opera".

Well, since most episodes of Lexx and Firefly would fail at least one (and often more) of the three criteria in "big flashy space battles, high end politics and exotic extraterrestrial locales with big (something)" , I can only conclude that it's an overly narrow definition of the genre. Thus, I side firmly with the proponents of "pulp SF involving space travel":D!

QuoteNexus and AsenRG go back and forth...

If I may, I think you guys are simply shooting laser bolts blindly.

AsenRG, to Nexus' point you two have not even mentioned the game system yet. Yes, yes, I know in these parts the system isn't supposed to matter. But he's been referencing some very specific concepts that in some game system might be handled very differently than other. Points spent on "Contact" really would be lost and useless if the Player had built a noble about running a planet if he was no longer on that planet.

And Nexus, you are assuming that the setting destroys all of those character build elements, even though we still don't have enough information to know what kind of setup AsenRG is really talking about it. It's all too vague, lacking any of the detail to stitch together the PCs and the premise -- the stitch work that would (and could) be handled upfront before play begins.

The two of you seem to be working from the worst case beliefs about how the other would interpret the hypothetical at hand, rather than assuming that if you sat down together you could easily sort this out in 15 minutes and have a rollicking good time.

It occurs to me that it's not that I dislike genre stuff in my games, it's that I dislike artificial forced stuff in my games (and in my fiction), whether it's genre compliance, railroad plots, or forced outcomes. For example:

* My issue with the forced haunted house investigation is that I think going straight to OOC "my game is borked if you guys burn the house", there were probably many in-character, natural, logical, un-forced ways for the PCs not to choose to burn it down. Or if not, the GM might have noticed that ahead of time and addressed it somehow (or planned different content for the group) in a logical way. I want there to be a natural reason why the PCs are investigating a house, not an OOC/genre forced cause.

* I think over-the-top action & adventure is entertaining, particularly when it seems to make some sense. Alfred Hitchcock is good at this. But some action scenes (or attempted PC actions in games) seem to be over-the-top just to be over-the-top, and even pick nonsensical ways to be over-the-top, apparently because "it's even more over-the-top if it makes no sense".

* In Star Trek (TOS - I didn't get into the later ones), I was frequently annoyed by the extremely frequent encounters with "something is making most/all of our technology not work" scenarios. Especially after getting into the Star Fleet Battles game, I was interested in situation within the setting, where stuff works (e.g. the episode "Balance of Terror" and several others) but it seems like 5/6 of the episodes involve 80% of the technology being unusable 80% of the time for forced hokey reasons. The forced hokeyness is mainly what I didn't like. If they had just designed the setting with common means to jam sensors, shields, communications and transporters, and used those instead of inventing some BS each episode (like, for example, how shields can block phasers - makes sense, fine), I would have found that interesting instead of forced, lazy and lame.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;941960If I may, I think you guys are simply shooting laser bolts blindly.

AsenRG, to Nexus' point you two have not even mentioned the game system yet. Yes, yes, I know in these parts the system isn't supposed to matter. But he's been referencing some very specific concepts that in some game system might be handled very differently than other.

Because it's not my example. It's the example in post 46 of this thread, which I found to be either a bad example, or an example of a bad attitude:).
For ease of communication, let's say we're using a game based on the Cepheus Engine.

QuotePoints spent on "Contact" really would be lost and useless if the Player had built a noble about running a planet if he was no longer on that planet.

For a single session.

QuoteAnd Nexus, you are assuming that the setting destroys all of those character build elements, even though we still don't have enough information to know what kind of setup AsenRG is really talking about it. It's all too vague, lacking any of the detail to stitch together the PCs and the premise -- the stitch work that would (and could) be handled upfront before play begins.

Again, not me.

QuoteThe two of you seem to be working from the worst case beliefs about how the other would interpret the hypothetical at hand, rather than assuming that if you sat down together you could easily sort this out in 15 minutes and have a rollicking good time.

Actually, yes, we could, but what would we discuss, then:D?

Quote from: Skarg;941964* In Star Trek (TOS - I didn't get into the later ones), I was frequently annoyed by the extremely frequent encounters with "something is making most/all of our technology not work" scenarios. Especially after getting into the Star Fleet Battles game, I was interested in situation within the setting, where stuff works (e.g. the episode "Balance of Terror" and several others) but it seems like 5/6 of the episodes involve 80% of the technology being unusable 80% of the time for forced hokey reasons. The forced hokeyness is mainly what I didn't like. If they had just designed the setting with common means to jam sensors, shields, communications and transporters, and used those instead of inventing some BS each episode (like, for example, how shields can block phasers - makes sense, fine), I would have found that interesting instead of forced, lazy and lame.

off topic...

Uh... since when? A majority of the episodes are the tech working fine. Some piece might give out, be jammed, or be damaged. But overall 5/6th of the episodes were not "most of our technology wont work" Out of 79 episodes only three, maybee 4 have most of the tech failing. Some have aliens that blockade one or more bits of tech. But even then it works fine on everything else. And sometimes the puzzle is how to use what you have to beat them. Or just out think them. Or solve the problem non-violently.

Comparing it against wargame is worse than erroneous. History has shown time and again that tech can be stonewalled, or just up and fail miserably, or simply succomb to good ol mother nature.

Quote from: Omega;941971off topic...

Uh... since when? A majority of the episodes are the tech working fine. Some piece might give out, be jammed, or be damaged. But overall 5/6th of the episodes were not "most of our technology wont work" Out of 79 episodes only three, maybee 4 have most of the tech failing. Some have aliens that blockade one or more bits of tech. But even then it works fine on everything else. And sometimes the puzzle is how to use what you have to beat them. Or just out think them. Or solve the problem non-violently.

Comparing it against wargame is worse than erroneous. History has shown time and again that tech can be stonewalled, or just up and fail miserably, or simply succomb to good ol mother nature.

Ok I'll start a new thread to discuss TOS (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35980-Star-Trek-TOS-How-often-was-standard-technology-not-available). My point here was just to give an example of the issue of forced stuff versus genre.

Quote from: rgrove0172;941789As opposed to a narrow minded, opinionated shit?

'Disagreeing' != 'narrow-minded.'

I've had very productive, informative, intersting discussions with gamers with whom I don't share the same interests. The difference is, they're not complete idiots.

Quote from: rgrove0172;941789Genres have certain tropes one expects when playing them. Minus the tropes, are you even playing the genre, truly?

And again I ask, when did crashlanding on a backward planet cease to be space opera?

Quote from: rgrove0172;941789I want to play an investigation game but the gm doesn't present a mystery.

I want to play an old west game and the gm.sets the scenario in eastern europe.

I want to play supers but the gm declares a meteor strike has robbed everyone of their powers.

Look out, here they come again!

(https://i.makeagif.com/media/8-19-2015/D8sxR1.gif)

If you were A Real Boy, I would expect you to understand the difference between the campaign premise and 'what we are playing Tuesday night.'

And by the way, I played something like that "scenario in eastern europe (sic)" - a Flashing Blades game for which I created a destitute count who came to Paris searching for a commission in the guards and a magistracy to rebuild his fortunes, and instead ended up off in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in a campaign loosely inspired by With Fire and Sword. It was as fucking awesome as awesome could be.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;941980And by the way, I played something like that "scenario in eastern europe (sic)" - a Flashing Blades game for which I created a destitute count who came to Paris searching for a commission in the guards and a magistracy to rebuild his fortunes, and instead ended up off in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in a campaign loosely inspired by With Fire and Sword. It was as fucking awesome as awesome could be.

I bet it was but as my example was directed at an assumed Old West game - yours didn't have cowboys, ranchers, saloons, Indians, stagecoaches, trail drives, mountain men or anything else most would associate with the genre so I don't think it qualified as an Old West game no matter how awesome it is.

And therein lies my point. If one or two scenarios out of dozens of a science fiction game presents some weird situation where all the normal trappings of the genre are removed... FINE - kinda cool even. But the vast majority should at least reflect the common perception. If the GM decides to lay these aside for a different type of experience, I don't have a problem with it at all. If the players dont like it, they can quit, easy enough. If however the players force this situation on the game through their own actions, I think its ill advised and the GM has every right to warn them off or just cancel the game. The GM is playing too and should feel free to not spend time and energy on a game he isn't interested in.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;941960If I may, I think you guys are simply shooting laser bolts blindly.

AsenRG, to Nexus' point you two have not even mentioned the game system yet. Yes, yes, I know in these parts the system isn't supposed to matter. But he's been referencing some very specific concepts that in some game system might be handled very differently than other. Points spent on "Contact" really would be lost and useless if the Player had built a noble about running a planet if he was no longer on that planet.

And Nexus, you are assuming that the setting destroys all of those character build elements, even though we still don't have enough information to know what kind of setup AsenRG is really talking about it. It's all too vague, lacking any of the detail to stitch together the PCs and the premise -- the stitch work that would (and could) be handled upfront before play begins.

The two of you seem to be working from the worst case beliefs about how the other would interpret the hypothetical at hand, rather than assuming that if you sat down together you could easily sort this out in 15 minutes and have a rollicking good time.

Well, as far as I could tell, AsenRg point was to counter rgrove's about playing Space Nobles then immediately taking away their nobility as being disappointing to the players involved. Though with all examples, counter examples and "You'll be wrong no matter what you say!" flying around the thread its getting difficult to track.

Game system is only part of my concerns on "I want to play a Space Noble" being"surprise you're overthrown and in exile as I was planning all along". That, IMO, is a major conceptual shift from what most would assume from the premise of "playing Space Nobles" and should be something covered in the initial discussion of the campaign. IF it also cost character resources to be a "noble" its probably going to be more aggravating. But in either case, it kind of guts parts of the concept (or would to to many folks) even if there is some fiction were Space Nobles are over thrown immediately,. Its something I would discuss with my players if I intended to have something like that happen as just part of the "metaplot" and not a potential consequence of their actions. It would be akin to having a PCs theif-acrobat shot in the spine by random sniper in the first session for reasons beyond their control/not a consequence of their actions in the first session. Its going to be let down for most players even if they can immediately reallocate any lost points.

Well, I know I would be disappointed.

As for "Space Opera" if the intention was getting stranded on a primitive planet for the entire campaign... again neutralizes much of what people would consider "Space Opera" but could be fine as a story arc. Like I said much of it depends on intent. That's why I've been saying communication is vital.

But Hell, I've admitted my biases and how I'm looking it.

Quote from: AsenRG;941967Because it's not my example. It's the example in post 46 of this thread, which I found to be either a bad example, or an example of a bad attitude:).
For ease of communication, let's say we're using a game based on the Cepheus Engine.

I've never even heard of the system.

Edit: And like I said, it does matter if "being a noble" requires some kind of dedicated build or is just something you write down on the character background at the other extreme.

QuoteFor a single session.

Which you did not make clear and that's not even what the original example you were trying to counter was talking about.

The situation described seemed to strongly imply the situation was longer than a "singe session". The context of the example was the entire game it seems reasonable to assume the context of a counter example was the same thing. Rgrove didn't say your character concept being off for a session would be terribly disappointing but that it being negated for the entire game by gm fiat (changing the locale, for example) would be disappointing. That I agree with. The shift in context wasn't clear and I can't read people's minds.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;941945As for rgrove's almost failed haunted house, all the was needed (I think; context is still slight) is for each PC to have some emotionally staked reason to go into the house and find/discover/recover proof of something. That is, destroying the house would not at all help them, since they could only get what they really wanted by entering the house and dealing with the contents.

I think I disagree (context would be nice, I agree.) If the referee says "I want to run a one-shot about exploring a haunted house," and everyone agrees, then "Let's burn down the haunted house" once the game starts seems like a dick move.  This isn't PCs needing an emotional connection, this is players not being utter douchenozzles.

And I would have indeed said "Okay, the haunted house burns down, you're all arrested for arson, and I'm going home."

Because it really seems like the players didn't actually want to play the game I offered.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;941960If I may, I think you guys are simply shooting laser bolts blindly.

"Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise."

Quote from: rgrove0172;941999I bet it was but as my example was directed at an assumed Old West game - yours didn't have cowboys, ranchers, saloons, Indians, stagecoaches, trail drives, mountain men or anything else most would associate with the genre so I don't think it qualified as an Old West game no matter how awesome it is.

And therein lies my point. If one or two scenarios out of dozens of a science fiction game presents some weird situation where all the normal trappings of the genre are removed... FINE - kinda cool even. But the vast majority should at least reflect the common perception. If the GM decides to lay these aside for a different type of experience, I don't have a problem with it at all. If the players dont like it, they can quit, easy enough.

Exactly. I gathered from the beginning you were talking about game length changes and radical shifts in the overall setting. In a superhero game losing your powers for a session or two or because you were defeated by Power Eater Man and have to get them back? Great, a fine adventure or series of adventures that's been done often in the example fiction.

Starting the game with the GM fiat explosion of the Null bomb that removes everyone's powers from then on...not so much in most cases.

QuoteIf however the players force this situation on the game through their own actions, I think its ill advised and the GM has every right to warn them off or just cancel the game. The GM is playing too and should feel free to not spend time and energy on a game he isn't interested in.

And I think this is where we're running into the hang up. Its highly situation based on the nature of the game, the playstyle, intent of the players and gm, etc. Somdtimes the players being "creative" is just that and sometimes there are other issue going on. Talking it out seems like the best approach to me.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942008I think I disagree (context would be nice, I agree.) If the referee says "I want to run a one-shot about exploring a haunted house," and everyone agrees, then "Let's burn down the haunted house" once the game starts seems like a dick move.  This isn't PCs needing an emotional connection, this is players not being utter douchenozzles.

I get what you're saying.

But as a matter of habit this days, even for a one-shot (especially, perhaps, for a one shot, where the whole thing is compressed) I will always try to tie the characters into the adventure in one way or another.

If I'm expecting the characters to enter a haunted house I'm going to make sure they have reasons to keep poking around once the weird shit pops up.

Note I'm not even talking about trying to prevent the characters from not even entering the house. I'm saying, "Any sane person would leave once the ghosts arrive. So why do they stay?"

For example, in OD&D and B/X D&D PCs get XP for hauling treasure out of places where there are horrible beasts. I know why the PCs hang out in dungeons even when the monsters arrive -- the XP system makes it make sense that they do!

For a haunted house scenario if I don't have something like that to explain why human beings would stay even if there's every reason to flee I would say the group is setting itself up for complications later. If only because you're asking the group to deny their human instincts.

That said, I get it. The group said they wanted a haunted house. A haunted house was made. One should be able to expect the Players to tough it out and put their characters in a haunted house. My only point is that I've learned to go that one extra step and make sure there's a solid reason to do any one-shot adventure.

For example, for a one shot for a Classic Traveller game for a convention I built:

The Player Characters are all formers members of various branches of the military. They’ve struck out on their own (for whatever reasons) and ended up at a dead end star system where a small mining station collects and processes dense metals from a massive asteroid belt. As the scenario begins the Player Characters are just scraping by. Whatever dreams they have had about finding a fortune or settling into a more comfortable life have come to a close. But each one of them has picked up clues about a possible ruin of an ancient civilization within the asteroid built. Recognizing each other as men and women of capable qualities, they have set up a side project on the space station, comparing notes, doing more research, and building a plan. Securing an spacecraft used for repairing drones in the asteroid belt under false pretense, they head off for the location they think a fortune might wait…

So, its basically a dungeon crawl in space. But why do they go? It is my hope the setup offers the pretense they need to justify the situation... even if things start going south they'll be all in.

Do I need it? Can't I just say. "Traveller. Characters. Asteroid. Explore."

Sure I can. But I have found, in my experience at least, it's better to offer up some sort of framework that lets the PCs orient themselves to the situation and have a need of some sort.

I suppose just to revisit the actual topic of the thread I would have to say "It depends"

I am pretty adept at generating content on the fly to better flesh out the setting, lend depth to NPCs, adjust to the decisions and actions of the Players but I do draw a line at some point if the players stretch the premise of the game too thin. If by their choice the plot would take off in a direction I deem beyond the limits of the game we intended to play, I call uncle. I don't want to run a completely random game where the players just run amok. Typically our games have a sort of assumed arc - even in long campaigns they are a series of arcs. Deviating completely from the current arc isn't heresy but it will no doubt postpone the game and perhaps end it.

As I was relating to one of the members in private...

A few years ago I ran a circa 1900 adventure in San Francisco. The game involved a murderous Chinese cult, supernatural elements, a mystery to solve etc. Had the players elected to take a ship to Shanghai I would have reminded them that the game was about the events in San Fran rather than fabricate some railroady reason they had to stay. If they had insisted I would have let them but called the game done until which time I was prepared to continue the adventure in the new direction..IF I even wanted to.

Right. See my previous comments on presenting a premise, or worse - the players asking for a premise. The players agreeing to the premise. And then ignoring it or actually trying to screw it up.

Dont waste my time.

Now if Im presenting something open ended then I really dont care what they do as long as it isnt blatantly meta or being smart asses at my expense. But once they commit to a course I kind of expect them to see it through rather than hieing off to who knows where right in the middle just because. Sure I can change gears. But leaving things half done can also end up being just wasting my time and now I have to switch gears and follow this new route they are on? Situational of course.

Exactly...now on the other extreme some games just lend themselves to a more open and random framework. Recently we tried our hand at FFGs End of the World. Each games started pretty much with something like "Theres a Zombie at the door, the dead have risen. What do you want to do?" and the game just took off from there. This sort of thing is far easier to manage that way though as the setting (your home town), the characters (you and people you know), and the situation (zombies, aliens etc.) are all so familiar as to make improv extremely easy. Nothing lost by the players going off crazy in some unexpected direction.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942008IAnd I would have indeed said "Okay, the haunted house burns down, you're all arrested for arson, and I'm going home."

Because it really seems like the players didn't actually want to play the game I offered.

Our party motto is "straight to the boss fight."

Last night we'd been sent to a wizard's tower to smack him over. The tower was by the sea with many ships wrecked on its foundations. No windows visible. We knocked, no answer. We smashed in the front door, nobody came. We ventured in, and it was a labyrinth. We stepped out and collected spare wood from the ships and filled the first 20 feet of corridor with wood and oil, and burned it. We figured either the wizard would die of smoke inhalation, or he'd come out to tell us to go away.

After about twenty minutes the tower... disappeared. It reappeared the next day. We went to the front door again, still smashed, the wood and fire cleared out. A wizard appeared on top of the tower and fireballed us. From 180ft away at the top of the tower. Sigh, it's 3.5  fireball range 400ft. Our men-at-arms all perished but we survived. Next came a stinking cloud, we corrected the DM on range so all it did was obscure us, so he doesn't know if we ran away or dashed in. We dashed in, of course.

Burning it down is always a good idea. Straight to the boss fight.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942033Exactly...now on the other extreme some games just lend themselves to a more open and random framework. Recently we tried our hand at FFGs End of the World. Each games started pretty much with something like "Theres a Zombie at the door, the dead have risen. What do you want to do?" and the game just took off from there. This sort of thing is far easier to manage that way though as the setting (your home town), the characters (you and people you know), and the situation (zombies, aliens etc.) are all so familiar as to make improv extremely easy. Nothing lost by the players going off crazy in some unexpected direction.

True and I agree on the genre. That's more or less how most of the zombie survival horror games I've run have started, works pretty well.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942023I suppose just to revisit the actual topic of the thread I would have to say "It depends"

I am pretty adept at generating content on the fly to better flesh out the setting, lend depth to NPCs, adjust to the decisions and actions of the Players but I do draw a line at some point if the players stretch the premise of the game too thin. If by their choice the plot would take off in a direction I deem beyond the limits of the game we intended to play, I call uncle. I don't want to run a completely random game where the players just run amok. Typically our games have a sort of assumed arc - even in long campaigns they are a series of arcs. Deviating completely from the current arc isn't heresy but it will no doubt postpone the game and perhaps end it.

As I was relating to one of the members in private...

A few years ago I ran a circa 1900 adventure in San Francisco. The game involved a murderous Chinese cult, supernatural elements, a mystery to solve etc. Had the players elected to take a ship to Shanghai I would have reminded them that the game was about the events in San Fran rather than fabricate some railroady reason they had to stay. If they had insisted I would have let them but called the game done until which time I was prepared to continue the adventure in the new direction..IF I even wanted to.

See right here Grove is why you get people here coming at you.  You don't even consider the WHY of what the characters are doing.
It's 1900, there is no internet, and I'm in San Fran dealing with an ancient Chinese Cult.
If time wasn't critical, why wouldn't I go to Shanghai or Hong Kong where you have British gov't and Law Enforcement having to deal with ancient chinese everything for a lot longer than San Fran has, and might have more experience I can draw on.  Hell, you're so much into story, globetrotting to uncover ancient secrets relating to Occult situations is how the genre works.
The problem is, it's just not within the limits of "The Story Grove has Set".

Well, it IS easier to prepare for a game that stays within San Francisco, especially if it's a one-shot. But on the other hand, for the next time you run the one shot maybe prepare some opium den shit in Shanghai too.

I've played Traveller, but always one-shots.  A friend of mine got Traveller:The New Era and was going to run a campaign.  Hell Yeah!

Well, I didn't know what The New Era was, or about Virus or anything, and ended up playing kind of a post-apocalyptic techno-barbarian in kind of a Mad Max campaign.  We did all kinds of adventures, eventually got good enough to work for the Warlord of the biggest city, where there was a functioning spaceport that could handle shuttle landings and the Warlord was sending resources and slaves up to a small dilapitated pirate station in orbit and getting weapons and ammo coming down.  We finally got ourselves off that rock by hiring on as the boarding party/security for a small trader captain.  The GM moved away not too long after.

Did I play in a Traveller campaign?  I sure did.  It wasn't New Era's fault, technically that campaign could have existed in the frontier of any Traveller era.
Did I have fun?  It was hella fun.
Do I still want to play in a stereotypical Firefly-style Traveller campaign? You betcha.

OTOH, not all games are intended to be open ended Sandboxes  and to accommodate all possible actions that are theoretically possible for some "in" the setting. If the proposal was far a game set in San Fran as the core premise then sailing off to Shanghai, especially long term, really isn't on the term. At least not without giving the gm some time to retool. Assuming they want to run a game set in Shanghai or some kind of globetrotting game. Its quite a left turn from what they've prepared and possibly wanted.  Of course some might think limited premise games suck and that's cool but if it established up front that's what its going to do be it is what it is.

Quote from: Nexus;942063Thing is, not all games are open ended Sandboxes meant to accommodate all possible actions that are theoretically possible for some "in" the setting. If the proposal was far a game set in San Fran as the core premise then sailing off to Shanghai, especially long term, really isn't on the term. At least not without giving the gm some time to retool. Assuming they want to run a game set in Shanghai or some kind of globetrotting game. Its quite a left turn from what they've prepared and possibly wanted.  Of course some might think limited premise games suck and that's cool but if it established up front that's what its going to do be it is what it is.

The issue with a lot of these hypotheticals is that there's not enough specifics given.  Obviously the biggest one is one-shot or campaign.  Those two are so different that there's very few things related to structure that will be similar, discussing the two with regards to freeform gameply doesn't really belong in the same thread.  In the Shanghai example, since it was just off the top of his head, he didn't say why they wanted to go to Shanghai (since it's Grove, personally I suspect it's because he actually wouldn't care why, because no matter why, it's not "Mah Storeh").  If it was to investigate, I certainly see that within the bounds.  If it's to open a Jade Importing Business, Houston we may have a problem.

Yep. In a one-shot, it seems entirely reasonable that the GM will have prepped some limited scope, and the players need to care and stay within it if they want to play the one-shot. Showing up for a one-shot haunted house investigation and burning it down without investigating is a funny troll move that may not be appreciated by the GM, but he can run the one-shot for less trollish players some other time.

Thinking about campaigns, though, in the campaigns I've played in and run, it seems pretty rare that the players have been specifically excited about certain genre expectations. When players have had expectations, it's usually been about their character concept or abilities, or something they want to try out or to accomplish or do (e.g. steal and/or command a ship, be a vigilante, start a riot, rob a bank, be a certain eccentric character type, try out some magic, visit some particular setting, start inside a particular social class, be in a war, be a spy, ...) but those are short-term interests and except for character abilities (er unless they die), they don't expect to necessarily get to keep doing most of those if there's a logical change of situation. Major changes happen and are part of what makes a campaign a campaign. Both players and GM have input into what happens and what play is like, and it rarely stays the same and often goes places and does things that no one predicted, which is one of the best aspects and a reason to play games rather than compose/listen to non-interactive stories (or play/run railroad games).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942052Well, it IS easier to prepare for a game that stays within San Francisco, especially if it's a one-shot. But on the other hand, for the next time you run the one shot maybe prepare some opium den shit in Shanghai too.

Personally, I'd probably be caught unprepared too, and probably interrupt the current session once the PCs boarded the ship to Shanghai. The long trip itself offers an appropriate opportunity for an interlude.

Quote from: CRKrueger;942050See right here Grove is why you get people here coming at you.  You don't even consider the WHY of what the characters are doing.
It's 1900, there is no internet, and I'm in San Fran dealing with an ancient Chinese Cult.
If time wasn't critical, why wouldn't I go to Shanghai or Hong Kong where you have British gov't and Law Enforcement having to deal with ancient chinese everything for a lot longer than San Fran has, and might have more experience I can draw on.  Hell, you're so much into story, globetrotting to uncover ancient secrets relating to Occult situations is how the genre works.
The problem is, it's just not within the limits of "The Story Grove has Set".

Have to agree with CRK here. The worst case result would be the characters go to the Orient and find nothing (or, something completely different, OR clues to the deeper story).

Grove, you say you can easily adjust to what players do, but you keep giving examples that you can't, or do not want to do it.  I agree that sometimes players can do douche baggy things, as in your haunted mansion one-shot example. But players electing to travel to Shanghai to go to the source of your Chinese cult thread isn't "stretching the premise," it's "exploring the scenario."  (assuming this isn't another one shot).

Of course, if the expectation up front is "thou shalt not deviate from the plan," then the suggestion of just going with what the players do is moot.

Quote from: cranebump;942112Have to agree with CRK here. The worst case result would be the characters go to the Orient and find nothing (or, something completely different, OR clues to the deeper story).

Grove, you say you can easily adjust to what players do, but you keep giving examples that you can't, or do not want to do it.  I agree that sometimes players can do douche baggy things, as in your haunted mansion one-shot example. But players electing to travel to Shanghai to go to the source of your Chinese cult thread isn't "stretching the premise," it's "exploring the scenario."  (assuming this isn't another one shot).

Of course, if the expectation up front is "thou shalt not deviate from the plan," then the suggestion of just going with what the players do is moot.

The devil is in the details, of course. Are the characters going to Shanghai to "follow up on the cult" or because they got a random urge to do so or even decided to just see if they could flummox the GM. And it does seem a bit much to expect the gm to whip essentially another setting on the fly.  I admit I'd be stymied and probably end up either dropping the game (as it seems like they don't want the game I'm prepared to run) or just going "All right you spend several weeks traveling, see some interesting sites, don't really find anything ((or throw them a few bits that point back to San Fran since that's where the cult is currently active) but when you get back...' and  detail what's happened in their absence.

Going to another country in a game billed as investigation in the San Fran does feel like stretching the premise to me but maybe its just fundamental difference in expectations when it comes to rpgs and some of us will never see eye to eye. I'm used too and enjoy games with a narrower focus and tighter premise than seems generally popular here. I think rgrove is at least close to that but he's on his point in the spectrum.

Quote from: The Butcher;942094Personally, I'd probably be caught unprepared too, and probably interrupt the current session once the PCs boarded the ship to Shanghai. The long trip itself offers an appropriate opportunity for an interlude.

A long ship ride to Shanghai from San Francisco? Sure that could be an interlude. It could also be its own mini-adventure.

Or it could be a nice setting for RP intrigue dealing with some of the issues that the PC's might face going to Shanghai (perhaps some NPC's of note from Shanghai are on board). It could be a huge springboard for all kinds of interesting things that can't be acted upon until the PC's arrive - or make a stop along the way or whatever. I usually never let things like this go wasted unless it doesn't warrant it.

Quote from: Nexus;942130The devil is in the details, of course. Are the characters going to Shanghai to "follow up on the cult" or because they got a random urge to do so or even decided to just see if they could flummox the GM. And it does seem a bit much to expect the gm to whip essentially another setting on the fly.  I admit I'd be stymied and probably end up either dropping the game (as it seems like they don't want the game I'm prepared to run) or just going "All right you spend several weeks traveling, see some interesting sites, don't really find anything ((or throw them a few bits that point back to San Fran since that's where the cult is currently active) but when you get back...' and  detail what's happened in their absence.

Going to another country in a game billed as investigation in the San Fran does feel like stretching the premise to me but maybe its just fundamental difference in expectations when it comes to rpgs and some of us will never see eye to eye. I'm used too and enjoy games with a narrower focus and tighter premise than seems generally popular here. I think rgrove is at least close to that but he's on his point in the spectrum.

So, what I'm hearing here is that, if the players do something outside what the GM has planned, then said GM bears no responsibility to continue the session/story.  I think the point of contention has to do with how sandboxy the GM wants to go. That aside, what are the specific issues with adjusting to the change in plans? Would it really be that hard to gin up a new situation on the spot? If so, is that a system issue, rather than a style issue (i.e., crunchier systems are more difficult to wing?).  I'm curious about this, because, though I've had players constantly go against what I think they'll do, I've always been able to adjust, albeit with varying degrees of what I consider a "success" (though, I guess if we did what they wanted, it's a success).

Eh, I understand where rgrove is coming from here. It's an issue of scope. I'm preparing content around these boundaries. You can go off the boundaries, but I am not obliged to run your sidetrack at the expense of my table.

And sometimes the easiest way to do that is being upfront and honest.

Because, (and this will be lots of fun I promise CRKrueger,) time is rarely not critical, especially in a CoC quest -- and remember Gygax said that we can't have meaningful play without proper time keeping!

SF to Shanghai/HK would likely be over a week one-way. So then, there and back and some Shanghai/HK investigation would easily eat up 3 weeks to a full month. By then the trail runs cold, the cult speeds headily towards victory... might as well write off the whole adventure as a failure and have the players try again.

A month of nothing in such detective cases is usually downtime and build up, not for immediate mysteries and hot leads.

But I wouldn't be opposed to PCs sending letters overseas. It accomplishes the same thing, and opens up an challenge to develop a contact and maintain correspondance! (It also gives me time to prepare expanding the campaign's scope, if I so desire.)

Time, like space, is its own domain with subsequent boundaries. I just don't really see it being written off so easily in order to illustrate a point. Particularly not seen so in time sensitive genres, like detective stories about supernatural death cults.

Quote from: CRKrueger;942050See right here Grove is why you get people here coming at you.  You don't even consider the WHY of what the characters are doing.
It's 1900, there is no internet, and I'm in San Fran dealing with an ancient Chinese Cult.
If time wasn't critical, why wouldn't I go to Shanghai or Hong Kong where you have British gov't and Law Enforcement having to deal with ancient chinese everything for a lot longer than San Fran has, and might have more experience I can draw on.  Hell, you're so much into story, globetrotting to uncover ancient secrets relating to Occult situations is how the genre works.
The problem is, it's just not within the limits of "The Story Grove has Set".

You guys continually spout off with limited and often incorrect information. Of course I considered the WHY, they had good reason but in the context of things a several months of sea travel and a visit in port across the world would no doubt allowed the developments in San Fran to progress to a point of no return. The game was about dealing with the immediate threat at that place and time. Globetrotting is fine if that what the game is designed around, we play "Leagues of Adventure" exactly that way but in this case such a drastic move would simply have ended the scenario. So as you said, before you started in on me, TIME WAS an issue and therefor the trip a deal killer. But that's not even entirely the point...

Freeform gaming to the tune of making adjustments to the plotline, introducing new elements to the setting, coming up with new and interesting NPCs, cultivating new plot elements, improvising detail when it is needed is GREAT! Im all for it. Having to improvise a whole new game because the players decided to ditch the current one midstream is not something I care to deal with. Some of you do I suppose and probably do a great job of it. I might even be able to pull it off myself but I choose not to. As GM I believe I have the right to decide what game we are playing and if its not one I enjoy, why should I continue? The players certainly wouldn't continue to play one they didn't like.

Quote from: cranebump;942112Have to agree with CRK here. The worst case result would be the characters go to the Orient and find nothing (or, something completely different, OR clues to the deeper story).

Grove, you say you can easily adjust to what players do, but you keep giving examples that you can't, or do not want to do it.  I agree that sometimes players can do douche baggy things, as in your haunted mansion one-shot example. But players electing to travel to Shanghai to go to the source of your Chinese cult thread isn't "stretching the premise," it's "exploring the scenario."  (assuming this isn't another one shot).

Of course, if the expectation up front is "thou shalt not deviate from the plan," then the suggestion of just going with what the players do is moot.

Well yes but that worse case scenario involves weeks if not months of meaningless travel - which of course could be made interesting with cool ports of call, drama aboard the ship and other sideline action but its not the game we came to play. In the end the game back in San Fran went on and probably reached a conclusion without them. Fun, fun. I don't believe exploring the scenario should involve steps that take the game completely out of the scenario.

"We are going to take a hiatus and spend a month or two at the Library of Congress to research this phenomena." Really?

Yes that's extreme but it illustrates my point. If the towns of Old West New Mexico are being raided by Vampires from a ghostly train the solution to blow up the entire rail network West of the Mississippi might work but is hardly worth pursuing in a game. Rather than waste game time on such a ridiculous venture I believe it easier to simply explain why it wont work and ask the players to proceed on a more conventional path for the betterment of everyone. The adventure was advertised as an investigation into a ghostly train and townsfolk vanishing, not a military operation to destroy the entire rail industry.

Im all for Players players playing the game their way, to a point.

Quote from: Nexus;942130The devil is in the details, of course. Are the characters going to Shanghai to "follow up on the cult" or because they got a random urge to do so or even decided to just see if they could flummox the GM. And it does seem a bit much to expect the gm to whip essentially another setting on the fly.  I admit I'd be stymied and probably end up either dropping the game (as it seems like they don't want the game I'm prepared to run) or just going "All right you spend several weeks traveling, see some interesting sites, don't really find anything ((or throw them a few bits that point back to San Fran since that's where the cult is currently active) but when you get back...' and  detail what's happened in their absence.

Going to another country in a game billed as investigation in the San Fran does feel like stretching the premise to me but maybe its just fundamental difference in expectations when it comes to rpgs and some of us will never see eye to eye. I'm used too and enjoy games with a narrower focus and tighter premise than seems generally popular here. I think rgrove is at least close to that but he's on his point in the spectrum.

I actually considered the passive/aggressive approach Nexus - telling them they spent 2 months abroad and found nothing and are now returning home. I didn't due to time constraints involving the bad guys developing plans but I get the feeling if I had most on this board would have accused me of railroading by not following up dutifully on the player's designs and bringing them back to San Fran anyway.

Quote from: cranebump;942132So, what I'm hearing here is that, if the players do something outside what the GM has planned, then said GM bears no responsibility to continue the session/story.  I think the point of contention has to do with how sandboxy the GM wants to go. That aside, what are the specific issues with adjusting to the change in plans? Would it really be that hard to gin up a new situation on the spot? If so, is that a system issue, rather than a style issue (i.e., crunchier systems are more difficult to wing?).  I'm curious about this, because, though I've had players constantly go against what I think they'll do, I've always been able to adjust, albeit with varying degrees of what I consider a "success" (though, I guess if we did what they wanted, it's a success).

Ill probably get it for this one but YES... the GM bears no responsibility, in my opinion, to take the game where he isn't prepared or doesn't want to go. Its HIS game afterall. As I stated before the players aren't expected to play a game they don't like, why should the GM be any different. If while playing D&D the GM directs the players to join a pirate ship and one of the players detests sea going adventure, I would expect him to drop out while the others went to sea, or he could go along if he felt like it. The GM should have the same option, either adjust as some of you recommend and take the game in a different direction or decide..NO, I don't want to game that, and explain that the players can adjust in this case or the game will be delayed/canceled.

Quote from: cranebump;942132So, what I'm hearing here is that, if the players do something outside what the GM has planned, then said GM bears no responsibility to continue the session/story.  I think the point of contention has to do with how sandboxy the GM wants to go. That aside, what are the specific issues with adjusting to the change in plans? Would it really be that hard to gin up a new situation on the spot? If so, is that a system issue, rather than a style issue (i.e., crunchier systems are more difficult to wing?).  I'm curious about this, because, though I've had players constantly go against what I think they'll do, I've always been able to adjust, albeit with varying degrees of what I consider a "success" (though, I guess if we did what they wanted, it's a success).

Its a matter of degree, for me. Being clever is one thing, going completely off to a new setting is another. The initial hypothetical for the the thread was the PCs using ceiling beams to evade some undead. That is pretty different than going off half way around the on (maybe) a hunch leaving the established setting and likely most if not all of the PCs resources behind, somewhere the gm hasn't prepared or likely even thought about which would seem to imply there's little active connection to the San Fran cult besides them being Chinese.  It would be difficult for me to whip up another setting, some improvised connections and clues for them to find, etc. If the gm had clues that pointed them to Shanghai but didn't prepare for them to go there though, its a different story.

What some one  can adjust too and wing is going to vary. In this case, I see the Shanghai trips as less creative play and more going off the agreed on premise. Something more equivalent to the OP might be the characters decide that instead of going the gumshoe route they're going to try an infiltrate the cult as new worshipers or some other lateral approach.

I don't think the GM is obligated to run a game if its become something he doesn't want to run just players aren't obligated to play in something they thing sucks. For me, yes, whipping up Shanghai (and possibly altering the "reality" of the setting to accommodateThe  this change of course) would be a big deal. The suggested compromise of summarizing the trip could be an option.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942147You guys continually spout off with limited and often incorrect information. Of course I considered the WHY, they had good reason but in the context of things a several months of sea travel and a visit in port across the world would no doubt allowed the developments in San Fran to progress to a point of no return. The game was about dealing with the immediate threat at that place and time. Globetrotting is fine if that what the game is designed around, we play "Leagues of Adventure" exactly that way but in this case such a drastic move would simply have ended the scenario. So as you said, before you started in on me, TIME WAS an issue and therefor the trip a deal killer. But that's not even entirely the point...

Freeform gaming to the tune of making adjustments to the plotline, introducing new elements to the setting, coming up with new and interesting NPCs, cultivating new plot elements, improvising detail when it is needed is GREAT! Im all for it. Having to improvise a whole new game because the players decided to ditch the current one midstream is not something I care to deal with. Some of you do I suppose and probably do a great job of it. I might even be able to pull it off myself but I choose not to. As GM I believe I have the right to decide what game we are playing and if its not one I enjoy, why should I continue? The players certainly wouldn't continue to play one they didn't like.

I agree that you have the right to do that. In fact (since what you're describing seems to me like an elaborate one-shot adventure design), I am thinking that in your place, I would (assuming they had fair warning that they were ignoring a current hot situation to go do something else) perhaps have them roleplay getting their tickets, preparing and waiting and getting on board, and if they ship out, tell them "ok, well those characters are going to be at sea and abroad for quite a while. Who wants to play characters actually in San Francisco?" Especially if it were a one-shot at a convention (in my fantasy where there is plenty of time for that, and players with prepared characters lined up, laugh), it could be hilarious to welcome new players with new characters, and/or tell the old players they can start new characters who are actually in San Francisco, as that's where the game is going to be played for now. In fact, it could be interesting/funny to play out the adventure with a whole other group of players, then figure out what the aftermath is, design a scenario for Shanghai for any players still wanting to play the characters that left, and only if any of those characters are still being played, survive, and decide to return to San Francisco, figure out what the aftermath situation is there in the wake of the other group having taken on the original adventure.

On the other hand, if one is running a one-shot with limited scope for what PCs do and where, and you don't want them to leave or do something destructive to the situation you want to play out, then I would design in limits to the PCs such that they should be people who would do what you expect, and/or hard framing that just anticipates and figures out what to do if/when players balk on the scope of the game. It's a perfectly acceptable way to limit a game, and can even be interesting if you have an interesting mechanism for it, such as having some PCs leave and/or be replaced by PCs with relevant interests/loyalties. The weirdness is when there is a miscommunication between players & GM, or between us here on the forum about whether it is a limited scope game or an open campaign.

In my open campaigns, I just don't even build in limited-scope stuff that I'm going to be upset if the PCs bail on or burn down without investigating. I only elaborately detail stuff either because I enjoy doing so, or because the players are committed and interested in it, and if they surprise me and destroy something without seeing the details, I may salvage some of those details for appropriate use elsewhere (of course being careful not to be undermining the cause & effect of their actions - if they just destroyed some good loot, gear, information and leads, or traps and foes, they're not going to magically appear nearby - they just destroyed that stuff, and it would get thoroughly reworked and scattered to different places or different games, or re-used as a one-shot for some other players or something).

If I enjoyed the elaborate pre-planned plots and mystery investigation style adventures that you (rgrove) seem to like, then ya I'd probably want to insist that the players show up and care about them and not just sack the town I prepped and/or travel somewhere else. The weirdness though seems to be that you post these examples in threads as if it wasn't a one-shot, and/or the players don't seem to have got the memo either until you go OOC and tell them what the game is supposed to be about and what they need to do or not do. (Or you surreally warp the universe to force your story to happen - which would drive me nuts either as player or GM.) I'm not sure how much of that is because you're confused about the differences in play modes and how you can limit them without going OOC, or because you have been trying to let them have freedom in character motivations and not revealing what's going on for drama/mystery/surprise. As in other threads, it sounds like what you do is ok enough by you and your players most of the time, but is just quite different from what many of us here do, and you post your examples even with questions sometimes about what we'd do, as if there weren't huge differences in the types of games we run and our players.

Sometimes I do have a specific game situation or "plot" idea that I am excited about running that essentially needs a railroad, and sometimes I even want it to be a surprise sort of like you seem to, but I don't put those in my campaigns unless it's something I'm planning for the moment the characters are actually already in between sessions (e.g. the session ended with them already starting to enter a place to investigate it, so I'm prepping the details in the downtime), so I'd run such a thing as a one-shot (I think disposable/dismissable/low-attachment one-shot PCs tend to make such scenarios more flexible/dynamic/interesting anyway), and either explicitly tell them the constraints before play, or build them in so I know where the boundary is and what I'll do about it if a PC goes outside the scope of the game, which I'll also make clear to the players before play is the sort of game I'm running that night.

Something I haven't exactly done, but that this thread suggests to me, is that one could plot out a campaign with a particular thread of interest in mind, that is the subject of the game, and have players play characters who are relevant to that plot, but who fall out of play regularly when those characters are no longer involved with the game's main thread of interest. The only characters who would continue being played would be those who stayed with that plot focus. I partly like that idea just because I think it's a funny counterpoint to player attachment to their PCs, and also because I've seen so much fun uninhibited interesting play and good roleplaying when players just get assigned relevant characters to play who aren't adventurers or heroes or particularly remarkable but just people who are where the action is.

Quote from: rgrove0172;941999I bet it was but as my example was directed at an assumed Old West game - yours didn't have cowboys, ranchers, saloons, Indians, stagecoaches, trail drives, mountain men or anything else most would associate with the genre so I don't think it qualified as an Old West game no matter how awesome it is.

Your examples are, 'you prepared for game x and instead it turned out to be game y.' I prepared for a game set in the courts of France, and instead I was served up Cossacks on the steppes.

In our current campaign, we're talked a bit about what happens after we finish the published adventures at the core of our campaign so far, and going someplace else has come up several times already - Deadwood and the Black Hills, Saint Louis, Mexico, even Asia. None of us are so strapped down to the gurney of our current location or campaign conceits that we can't entertain the notion of 'cowboys in the Taklamakan.'

But see, this is all horseshit, and here's why.

Quote from: rgrove0172;941999If one or two scenarios out of dozens of a science fiction game presents some weird situation where all the normal trappings of the genre are removed... FINE - kinda cool even. But the vast majority should at least reflect the common perception.

But that's not the example you started with - careful, those goalposts may be coming around again - it was an adventure,  investigating a haunted house, and when the players decided to do something for which you weren't prepared, you pissed and moaned about how they weren't playing along with 'MAH STOREH!'

Here's (one of the many reasons) why you suck: instead of offering the characters in-game reasons to not burn the place down, you went full meta to push the players back on the rails. You don't appear to have the first clue how to motivate players and characters without stepping out of the game. Tell me, o self-proclaimed master of detail, what in your setup made burning the house down a bad idea beyond, '. . . buh-buh-buh-but that's what I prepared for tonight?!'

Quote from: rgrove0172;942149Well yes but that worse case scenario involves weeks if not months of meaningless travel - which of course could be made interesting with cool ports of call, drama aboard the ship and other sideline action but its not the game we came to play. In the end the game back in San Fran went on and probably reached a conclusion without them. Fun, fun. I don't believe exploring the scenario should involve steps that take the game completely out of the scenario.

This is why I've been saying the games you run are basic. "The Game We Came To Play" is code-language for "The Singular Adventure *I* Want To Run" (some might say, based on your posts "The Story I Want To Tell With Your Characters"). A well-designed sandbox-campaign can keep the focus on the PC's regardless of what they do. Every example you've stated implies the PC's are not the gravitational center of the game - rather, you are. It's purely arbitrary as you point out yourself - SURE you could make the boat-trip interesting... but San Fran will come to a conclusion without them." <--- That conclusion? See that? That's arbitrary too. Why does it *have* to be that way? Why can't they go to Shanghai, have a bunch of side-adventures, while in parallel the cult in San Fran has some new developments that cause setbacks which forces the plot in San Fran to mutate enough so that with whatever the PC's learn/acquire/whatever in Shanghai - they're now ready for what's going down in San Fran?

See? In my version it's WIN/WIN for everyone.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942149"We are going to take a hiatus and spend a month or two at the Library of Congress to research this phenomena." Really?

Yes that's extreme but it illustrates my point. If the towns of Old West New Mexico are being raided by Vampires from a ghostly train the solution to blow up the entire rail network West of the Mississippi might work but is hardly worth pursuing in a game. Rather than waste game time on such a ridiculous venture I believe it easier to simply explain why it wont work and ask the players to proceed on a more conventional path for the betterment of everyone. The adventure was advertised as an investigation into a ghostly train and townsfolk vanishing, not a military operation to destroy the entire rail industry.

Im all for Players players playing the game their way, to a point.

No it's not extreme. What's it demands is for you, as a GM, to make it worthwhile. So a player playing their PC feels they can do whatever it is their PC would do and find value - even if that means it gets them and others killed in the process. It's not a waste of game-time unless you as the GM make it a waste. I look at these things as opportunities to bring new understanding and nuances into the campaign. Perhaps a chance to introduce some interesting tidbits that could be explored later, chance meetings with NPC's they might not ordinarily come across because they *weren't* in the Library of Congress late at night researching, etc.. In essence - I make the game revolve around the actions of the PCs.

Edit: I do want to add that not every GM has the capacity to run sandbox games, much less even run them well. The only way to become good at it is to do it. Over and over. So I'm not trying to say "this is ALL you have to do = success". But I'm saying once you start doing it you'll start understanding what a lot of us are talking about and it'll click.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;942159Your examples are, 'you prepared for game x and instead it turned out to be game y.' I prepared for a game set in the courts of France, and instead I was served up Cossacks on the steppes.

In our current campaign, we're talked a bit about what happens after we finish the published adventures at the core of our campaign so far, and going someplace else has come up several times already - Deadwood and the Black Hills, Saint Louis, Mexico, even Asia. None of us are so strapped down to the gurney of our current location or campaign conceits that we can't entertain the notion of 'cowboys in the Taklamakan.'

But see, this is all horseshit, and here's why.


But that's not the example you started with - careful, those goalposts may be coming around again - it was an adventure,  investigating a haunted house, and when the players decided to do something for which you weren't prepared, you pissed and moaned about how they weren't playing along with 'MAH STOREH!'

Here's (one of the many reasons) why you suck: instead of offering the characters in-game reasons to not burn the place down, you went full meta to push the players back on the rails. You don't appear to have the first clue how to motivate players and characters without stepping out of the game. Tell me, o self-proclaimed master of detail, what in your setup made burning the house down a bad idea beyond, '. . . buh-buh-buh-but that's what I prepared for tonight?!'

You would prefer the GM make up some shit in game as to why the players should reconsider their actions instead of just coming clean and explaining the game was designed to go a different way? You would prefer... perish the thought... RAILROADING?

Wow, just wow. This more than any other post explains where you are coming from - taking a negative and combative stance no matter what my argument is. I see a lot of this in the current political strife our country is going through, blind resistance to anything the other side has to say , but I didn't think I would find it here.

If I had explained that I met the player's wishes to burn the place with some made up, on the spot, reason as to why they couldn't you would have cried Dirty Railroader!

I cant win with some of you guys, that much is obvious.

Quote from: tenbones;942177This is why I've been saying the games you run are basic. "The Game We Came To Play" is code-language for "The Singular Adventure *I* Want To Run" (some might say, based on your posts "The Story I Want To Tell With Your Characters"). A well-designed sandbox-campaign can keep the focus on the PC's regardless of what they do. Every example you've stated implies the PC's are not the gravitational center of the game - rather, you are. It's purely arbitrary as you point out yourself - SURE you could make the boat-trip interesting... but San Fran will come to a conclusion without them." <--- That conclusion? See that? That's arbitrary too. Why does it *have* to be that way? Why can't they go to Shanghai, have a bunch of side-adventures, while in parallel the cult in San Fran has some new developments that cause setbacks which forces the plot in San Fran to mutate enough so that with whatever the PC's learn/acquire/whatever in Shanghai - they're now ready for what's going down in San Fran?

See? In my version it's WIN/WIN for everyone.



No it's not extreme. What's it demands is for you, as a GM, to make it worthwhile. So a player playing their PC feels they can do whatever it is their PC would do and find value - even if that means it gets them and others killed in the process. It's not a waste of game-time unless you as the GM make it a waste. I look at these things as opportunities to bring new understanding and nuances into the campaign. Perhaps a chance to introduce some interesting tidbits that could be explored later, chance meetings with NPC's they might not ordinarily come across because they *weren't* in the Library of Congress late at night researching, etc.. In essence - I make the game revolve around the actions of the PCs.

Edit: I do want to add that not every GM has the capacity to run sandbox games, much less even run them well. The only way to become good at it is to do it. Over and over. So I'm not trying to say "this is ALL you have to do = success". But I'm saying once you start doing it you'll start understanding what a lot of us are talking about and it'll click.

What you have never understood tenbones, and your not alone, is that I totally get what you are saying. It 'clicked' a long time ago but I DONT LIKE THOSE KINDS OF GAMES, nor do many people. We like the adventures being more linear, more narrative, more theatrical. Its not a matter of being limited by ability or 'basic', its a matter of choice. Ive played in and run sandbox games - for me they lacked something I was looking for in my gaming both as player and as GM. Some people I have played with feel the same way. Its totally cool that you are into it and have mastered the ability to run them. Awesome! And I mean that - really, that's GREAT. It does not however, in anyway, overshadow what we do. Its apples and oranges not T-ball and Major League.

You made the comment that the PCs are not the gravitational center of my games. You are right. They are participants in the story, no not "Mah Storeh" or whatever the fuck that is, but "Our Story". As GM I have as much influence as the players do, sometimes more, sometimes less but its a partnership. Im not there to entertain their whims. That sounds bad but Im not sure how else to say it. The game does not revolve around the players solely, at least ours doesn't. They have a part in it certainly, a huge part but they understand they are 'part of something bigger' the world doesn't spring into existence around them then fade when they walk away. My players have always gotten this and for the most part, except for a couple new guys with previous experience to the contrary, fit in perfectly. Ive found many around the web, even a few here who have messaged me privately, that agree or at least understand and appreciate our kinds of games too.

The issue I take with a few of you like Black and yourself and others is the condescending tone you use when replying or commenting, as though anyone (Not just me) that doesn't agree with you is inferior in some way and need only practice a bit more, accept your propaganda, and someday they too will be awesome. I don't want to pick fights on this damn forum but Im simply not going to agree to that, ever.

So you admit they had a good reason to go to Shanghai, but that would have screwed things up as time was critical.
Ok.  
Did they know that?
Was there a way they could have uncovered clues to know that time was critical?
Did they make mistakes or fail to discover that time was critical?
If so...why not let them make mistakes?

I mean obviously, you wanted to play "Mah Storeh", but why not let them have to deal with the Ancient Chinese Cult after they failed to stop whatever it is the cult was doing?
Chinatown will still be there, right?  Unless the restaurant/Opium Den that was the lair of the big bad gets sucked into another dimension or something, it would still be there, only with more demons. :D

They come back later, it's not even wasted prep because you still get to use everything...except maybe a literal script.

The players were trying to solve the mystery, they were still playing the agreed upon premise, but it's not enough to force them into following your goals, you also force them into your approved sequence of steps to achieve those goals, and if they deviate too much, you blow the whistle.

What the fuck?

Quote from: rgrove0172;942192the world doesn't spring into existence around them then fade when they walk away.

heh, you don't have a world, you have a sound stage, and the game just ends when they accidentally step over the wrong line of masking tape.

Quote from: CRKrueger;942197So you admit they had a good reason to go to Shanghai, but that would have screwed things up as time was critical.
Ok.  
Did they know that?
Was there a way they could have uncovered clues to know that time was critical?
Did they make mistakes or fail to discover that time was critical?
If so...why not let them make mistakes?

I mean obviously, you wanted to play "Mah Storeh", but why not let them have to deal with the Ancient Chinese Cult after they failed to stop whatever it is the cult was doing?
Chinatown will still be there, right?  Unless the restaurant/Opium Den that was the lair of the big bad gets sucked into another dimension or something, it would still be there, only with more demons. :D

They come back later, it's not even wasted prep because you still get to use everything...except maybe a literal script.

The players were trying to solve the mystery, they were still playing the agreed upon premise, but it's not enough to force them into following your goals, you also force them into your approved sequence of steps to achieve those goals, and if they deviate too much, you blow the whistle.

What the fuck?

Youre not getting it, my mistake for not boring everyone with a complete rundown of the situation but it really doesn't matter. I get what you are saying and certainly I could have responded as you say. I chose not to. Its my game too. I didn't want to run a game on a ship for 3 weeks and make up a new city full of encounters. I had enough invested in San Fran I preferred to run the game there. That's as brutally honest as I can get. I was honest and open about it to the players and they understood. I could have made up some shit about a quarantine not allowing ships to leave, or pirates off the coast, or some other in game reason for them not to leave but I chose honesty instead. We had a great time playing the game after that.

Quote from: CRKrueger;942200heh, you don't have a world, you have a sound stage, and the game just ends when they accidentally step over the wrong line of masking tape.

Even so its an awesome stage (a really big but well detailed one) and the actors have a ball performing on it. They know the lines are there and choose to play their parts within them instead.

That's a strong analogy but not an inaccurate one.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942201Youre not getting it, my mistake for not boring everyone with a complete rundown of the situation but it really doesn't matter. I get what you are saying and certainly I could have responded as you say. I chose not to. Its my game too. I didn't want to run a game on a ship for 3 weeks and make up a new city full of encounters. I had enough invested in San Fran I preferred to run the game there. That's as brutally honest as I can get. I was honest and open about it to the players and they understood. I could have made up some shit about a quarantine not allowing ships to leave, or pirates off the coast, or some other in game reason for them not to leave but I chose honesty instead. We had a great time playing the game after that.

Hmm, did they catch you with this Shanghai thing out of the blue?  Were you surprised? I mean clues must have led them there, right?  Clues you put there...see where I'm going?  Why did they get clues that Shanghai is where this all started but not get any clues that time is of the essence and there was no time for Shanghai?

Quote from: cranebump;942132So, what I'm hearing here is that, if the players do something outside what the GM has planned, then said GM bears no responsibility to continue the session/story.

I think the point of contention has to do with how sandboxy the GM wants to go. That aside, what are the specific issues with adjusting to the change in plans? Would it really be that hard to gin up a new situation on the spot?

If so, is that a system issue, rather than a style issue (i.e., crunchier systems are more difficult to wing?).  I'm curious about this, because, though I've had players constantly go against what I think they'll do, I've always been able to adjust, albeit with varying degrees of what I consider a "success" (though, I guess if we did what they wanted, it's a success).

1: If the DM presented a scenario/outline/module and the players said "Yeah sure" and then show up and ignore it. Then yes. The DM is in no way obligated to cater to them.

2: For some. Yes. But more to the point the players agreed to something then didnt. That might mean they made the DM waste time prepping. And while sure I can come up with something on the fly. Even if its "You go to jail for arson." or worse... But That is under my own aegis and Id be just as within rights to say. "Session closed." and then explain why and why dont ever do that to me again. Though I tend to play modules really fast and free. But I do expect the players to at least engage the adventure they agreed on in some manner.

3: Seems usually ittelevant of the system. Its in part a matter of player engaging the adventure agreed on or not. Or wether the GM is willing to, or even can whip up something on the fly on the spot. Even for those good at winging it this sort of situation might be anything but fun. Very YMMV.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942202Even so its an awesome stage (a really big but well detailed one) and the actors have a ball performing on it. They know the lines are there and choose to play their parts within them instead.

That's a strong analogy but not an inaccurate one.

Like I said earlier, its a fundamental difference in perspectives and expectations. I don't get this demand for a "world" either. Its never been a big deal and there seems to have been shared feeling or at least understanding with the players I've had over the yeas in that regard. I what I can to work with my players and they do the same with me. I guess I am basic. I can't and don't want to try run everything like its some kind of virtual reality universe simulator where the PCs can do anything that pops into their heads.

If that means I'm basic then so be it. I'm having a good time, my groups have a good time and end the day that what matters to me not what some guys I'm never going to play with think of my style or techniques. We'd probably have bad times if we did play together but I don't they're failing or bad at running games they're tastes are just different from mine.

Rgrove, the examples you've given some pretty clear to me. They're not going to click with everyone though but don't sweat it. How are things going aat your table is what matter not what some faceless guys online say, including me. Don't lt get you down.,

Quote from: rgrove0172;942192I DONT LIKE THOSE KINDS OF GAMES, nor do many people. We like the adventures being more linear, more narrative, more theatrical. Its not a matter of being limited by ability or 'basic', its a matter of choice.

Okay, serious question: why do you keep asking questions/participating in discussions about nonlinear, nonnarrative, nontheatrical gaming then?  You can like whatever you please, but why are you doing what you're doing?  We're back to "I hate green peppers, so I don't go into cooking forum threads about green pepper recipes."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942210Okay, serious question: why do you keep asking questions/participating in discussions about nonlinear, nonnarrative, nontheatrical gaming then?  You can like whatever you please, but why are you doing what you're doing?  We're back to "I hate green peppers, so I don't go into cooking forum threads about green pepper recipes."

I didn't start this,thread, I just commented on it.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942192What you have never understood tenbones, and your not alone, is that I totally get what you are saying. It 'clicked' a long time ago but I DONT LIKE THOSE KINDS OF GAMES, nor do many people. We like the adventures being more linear, more narrative, more theatrical. Its not a matter of being limited by ability or 'basic', its a matter of choice. Ive played in and run sandbox games - for me they lacked something I was looking for in my gaming both as player and as GM. Some people I have played with feel the same way. Its totally cool that you are into it and have mastered the ability to run them. Awesome! And I mean that - really, that's GREAT. It does not however, in anyway, overshadow what we do. Its apples and oranges not T-ball and Major League.

See, this is where you're talking out of the side of your neck. The very things you say you "like" - are the things that I easily can produce in a sandbox-game. That's why your GMing is basic. The things you think are problems (as you've clearly indicated) are not actually problems to someone that actually knows how to run an honest sandbox game.

So yes it's very much a limitation of either your ability and/or your decision making processes. Otherwise we wouldn't even be talking about it. Right? The reason why you feel your concept of sandbox-games were lacking is simple: you don't know how to do them. If you did - or were honest about it, you'd simply say either:

1) I don't like sandbox games I like running modular storytime-adventures.
2) I'm trying to figure out how to manage my sandbox games more efficiently. Guys here's the situation.... .

But what you have is - Guys, I'm trying to run a storytime adventure and my players keep wanting to do things that's off my dot-to-dot plot-synopsis. The fact that your players, in this basic example said they wanted to go the Shanghai and, apparently put your underwear in a knot, shows they too are wanting to go beyond the confines of *your* story. They're sandboxing without you. Only you're not able to give them any real-estate to extend your tiny playground.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942192You made the comment that the PCs are not the gravitational center of my games. You are right. They are participants in the story, no not "Mah Storeh" or whatever the fuck that is, but "Our Story". As GM I have as much influence as the players do, sometimes more, sometimes less but its a partnership.

How is it a partnership when your only problem seems to be not allowing your players to explore the game? Exactly in what way is this a partnership? They aren't making up a story - YOU are. And we've been telling you for some time now, there is no story. The story is what the players DO. There are circumstances relating to the setting that you create, NPC's with motivations, etc. but the story is what emerges from the play. Anything else is storytime with dice and, yes, basic GMing.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942192Im not there to entertain their whims. That sounds bad but Im not sure how else to say it. The game does not revolve around the players solely, at least ours doesn't. They have a part in it certainly, a huge part but they understand they are 'part of something bigger' the world doesn't spring into existence around them then fade when they walk away.

I'm calling complete bullshit on this. Wanna know why? Because Shanghai doesn't apparently exist to you. The ramifications of going to Shanghai have zero consideration. The only consideration you've shown in your example is your self-absorbed clinging to *your* precious story. How do I know? Because your players wanna go to fucking Shanghai and you're on the internet bitching about it like it's some kind of problem. That's how I know.

If you knew how to run a sandbox game - you'd see this an opportunity (which I politely pointed out). And I gave you a more than reasonable answer on how you could expand things out and keep your precious story while letting them do some off-roading and who knows? Something awesome may come of it. Or nothing. Or they might die. Or they might live. Or it could be the best, most pivotal thing that ever happened to your game - but you'll never know because you're too busy working off a flow-chart.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942192My players have always gotten this and for the most part, except for a couple new guys with previous experience to the contrary, fit in perfectly. Ive found many around the web, even a few here who have messaged me privately, that agree or at least understand and appreciate our kinds of games too.

Then why are they trying to go to Shanghai and why are you here complaining about it like it's a problem? And worse - you're making it sound like they are the problem, when it's fairly clear they arrived at that conclusion by whatever means your GMing led them to that. OR are we going with "They're a bunch of assholes"? Which is it?

Quote from: rgrove0172;942192The issue I take with a few of you like Black and yourself and others is the condescending tone you use when replying or commenting, as though anyone (Not just me) that doesn't agree with you is inferior in some way and need only practice a bit more, accept your propaganda, and someday they too will be awesome. I don't want to pick fights on this damn forum but Im simply not going to agree to that, ever.

I'm not sure I've ever said I've "mastered" GMing. I don't think I ever will, I and others here have been doing it so long that I'm pretty confident in my position that it's not something that is ever mastered. You can do it for a lifetime and you can learn best practices if you're honest and self-aware enough. But I'm not really sure what "mastery" is. I think that's for players to decide. I've said before in your threads where you've made this claim (which I've never said) about me - I'm never comfortable GMing. And I make sure I'm not comfortable because I'm always trying to learn new things. If I get too comfortable, I feel like I'm mailing it in. And I love the hobby a little too much to do that.

I also don't think I ever recall saying that anyone's love for GMing in any mode is somehow inferior to mine. I said your brand of GMing is *basic*. And I mean just that, because it is. Otherwise why are you posting these things as if they're real issues? Because they are, to *you*. They are not to *me*. And there is a factual reason for that. It's not rocket-science. I'm not even saying you're wrong. I'm saying there is a way to handle this without resorting to this bullshit crutch you use as your excuse for GMing "privilege". But it requires some honesty.

And that's where the real problem is. You're so defensive you've concocted all this stuff in your head (granted, BV is a lot more aggressive than me but we're saying the same thing) that somehow you've taken these many threads where I've said your "GMing is basic" to mean I'm saying you're a lesser human for it. Nope. I'm very specific about what I'm saying on purpose. That *YOU* have taken your admitted limited experiences relative to ours, as some kind of aspect of your identity and find insult at the very factual notion, makes the problem *yours*.

There are people that love, Love, LOVE story-time adventures. You're pretending that's not what you're doing. Or you have some cognitive dissonance at play here that you refuse to see how your own examples underscore that fact every single time. Otherwise why are you having these problems you're having?

Or is that just propaganda too? heh

Quote from: rgrove0172;942213I didn't start this,thread, I just commented on it.

Right. You commented on it with more of your examples which underscore the issues you have with figuring out how to GM, worrying that people are going to snatch your GM-badge you cobbled together from Cracker-jack toys. Dont' worry Grove, you're safe.

Maybe one day you'll get to touch ... the D.O.N.G.

... uhh white-belt.

/GONNGGGGGGG!!!!

Quote from: tenbones;942221Right. You commented on it with more of your examples which underscore the issues you have with figuring out how to GM, worrying that people are going to snatch your GM-badge you cobbled together from Cracker-jack toys. Dont' worry Grove, you're safe.

Maybe one day you'll get to touch ... the D.O.N.G.

... uhh white-belt.

/GONNGGGGGGG!!!!

Wow, just wow.

Quote from: CRKrueger;942197So you admit they had a good reason to go to Shanghai, but that would have screwed things up as time was critical.
Ok.  
Did they know that?
Was there a way they could have uncovered clues to know that time was critical?
Did they make mistakes or fail to discover that time was critical?
If so...why not let them make mistakes?

I mean obviously, you wanted to play "Mah Storeh", but why not let them have to deal with the Ancient Chinese Cult after they failed to stop whatever it is the cult was doing?
Chinatown will still be there, right?  Unless the restaurant/Opium Den that was the lair of the big bad gets sucked into another dimension or something, it would still be there, only with more demons. :D

They come back later, it's not even wasted prep because you still get to use everything...except maybe a literal script.

The players were trying to solve the mystery, they were still playing the agreed upon premise, but it's not enough to force them into following your goals, you also force them into your approved sequence of steps to achieve those goals, and if they deviate too much, you blow the whistle.

What the fuck?

That is the most telling statement, though, if grove's scenario in SF has multiple avenues to approach the problem, then he isn't entirely forcing a sequence.

In any case, it's pretty clear: grove (and his players) want to run narrowly defined stories (or maybe stories with narrow borders?). And that's that. Of course, that makes anything outside those borders a "dick move," so, once again, we're into the same argument about player-centered versus GM-centered, or sandbox versus story, or whatever else it is. Once again..:-/

The War... it never ends.

Quote from: Omega;9422053: Seems usually ittelevant of the system. Its in part a matter of player engaging the adventure agreed on or not. Or wether the GM is willing to, or even can whip up something on the fly on the spot. Even for those good at winging it this sort of situation might be anything but fun. Very YMMV.

I suppose, also, that GM system knowledge can make such things moot. That said, I also know that I would have a much tougher time winging , say a 3.5 scenario, or 4E, or even 5E. I could throw it together using a few ready references. I should probably make clear here that winging the story part is easy. My issues would be with on the fly adversary generation. On that, I can easily wing Dungeon World, or B/X, but, if I were running, say, Pathfinder, I think I'd find it daunting to adjust whole cloth.

Then again, if I'm running a sandbox, I've got some thing prepped, whereas, if I'm running a narrow story, I might have nothing ready outside the present scenario.

Quote from: tenbones;942229The War... it never ends.

No kidding...:-/

The War?

Quote from: tenbones;942229The War... it never ends.

Perhaps but the difference is I don't begrudge you your side of the war. I acknowledge and value it. I just don't want to participate in it. You are incapable of the same, endlessly droning on an on about your superior way of playing and how I can never measure up. No matter how many times this comes up your argument is the same... you agree to pacify me until I grow up and learn how to REALLY play, like you.

I don't have anything against you personally tenbones, your comments are well thought out but based on assumptions, most of them faulty. Ill take some blame for minimizing some of my own descriptions and examples but you take a thimble full of water and float a freighter. In all fairness I think your logic is completely off base and your attitude in relating it sucks. I can tell you have a wealth of gaming insight and experience locked away behind all the snobbish rhetoric and under different circumstances I would love a long drawn out conversation with you to tap in on some of it. Sadly your combative posture brings my shields up every time and instead of wanting to hear more I find myself dreading your appearance. (Not as bad as Black's granted)

Im going to try really hard to cancel yellow alert and find the gems within your load of ..... when it comes my way, because I know they are in there but its gonna be tough.

Laugh, seriously we need to both laugh at this ridiculous argument between complete strangers.

As to San Fran, I never complained once. It was an example of how players can suggest something that forces a GM to either freeform or deny the result. I chose the latter.

For what its worth, thanks for taking an interest but honestly... this thread isn't even about me... I was merely commenting on someone else's issue.

Quote from: CRKrueger;942197So you admit they had a good reason to go to Shanghai, but that would have screwed things up as time was critical.
Ok.  
Did they know that?
Was there a way they could have uncovered clues to know that time was critical?
Did they make mistakes or fail to discover that time was critical?
If so...why not let them make mistakes?

I mean obviously, you wanted to play "Mah Storeh", but why not let them have to deal with the Ancient Chinese Cult after they failed to stop whatever it is the cult was doing?
Chinatown will still be there, right?  Unless the restaurant/Opium Den that was the lair of the big bad gets sucked into another dimension or something, it would still be there, only with more demons. :D

They come back later, it's not even wasted prep because you still get to use everything...except maybe a literal script.

The players were trying to solve the mystery, they were still playing the agreed upon premise, but it's not enough to force them into following your goals, you also force them into your approved sequence of steps to achieve those goals, and if they deviate too much, you blow the whistle.

What the fuck?

Um, you have played CoC, right? Usually with Azathoth or Cthulhu, et alia, there is no 'later'.

Nope, rgrove is right here. There are certain campaign issues in sandboxes that are deal breakers, such as quests that literally are apocalyptic. Similarly, if I am running a domain/business maintenance sandbox, or medieval localized sandbox, I am not going to change my table offering to the player's vision of a grand world tour.

PCs reside in Cormyr in my Cormyr-focused sandbox campaign, but want to travel off to Kara-Tur T'u Lung instead? That's nice. Off your characters go, unlikely to be heard from again. If they ever make it and return it'll likely be easily over 20+ years, and likely beyond what our campaign will last in real time. So... anyone interested in rolling up a PC that actually wants to play in Cormyr, y'know what I actually am offering the table?

I DICTATE my table's offering. Your player entitlement ends where I SAY IT DOES. I AM NOT your private video game server. Sandbox your own daydreams.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942189You would prefer the GM make up some shit in game as to why the players should reconsider their actions instead of just coming clean and explaining the game was designed to go a different way?

No, you worthless buffoon, I would prefer the referee give the players and their characters a reason to investigate a haunted house beyond, 'I want to run MAH HAUNTED HOUSE STOREH,' and in that reason for investigating the haunted house a motivation not to torch it on sight.

Perhaps there is a book or a map in the library they might want, or an archaeological artifact or a piece of art they wish to obtain, or cash and jewelry they don't want to destroy. Perhaps there are clues suggesting other people may be visiting the site. Perhaps the site is under surveillance and burning it down will attract attention they don't want. Something . . . anything . . . for the players and their characters to give a shit about beyond, 'this is what I have for tonight.'

A great adventure site draws adventurers - and the players who run them - to it like a moth to flame. The adventure should be preceded by rumors, legends, stories, eyewitnesses. Make throwing themselves into sure death their idea, because they can't resist the idea of not going.

I know it's been said upthread already, but it bears repeating: if your players' level of engagement with your adventure is to simply end it before it starts, you fucking suck, full stop. Whether you tailor your adventures to your players with personal touches - which I don't - or simply scatter lots of bright shinys around and let the players and their characters follow their whims - which I do (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/08/tailor-made.html) - participating in it should be their idea. No matter what, they should be given a reason to care on their terms, and if you can't do that, pack it the fuck in and play Monopoly, 'cause you have no fucking business sitting at the skinny end of the table.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942189This more than any other post explains where you are coming from - taking a negative and combative stance no matter what my argument is. I see a lot of this in the current political strife our country is going through, blind resistance to anything the other side has to say , but I didn't think I would find it here.

Obvious Troll is Obvious.

Quote from: Opaopajr;942245Um, you have played CoC, right? Usually with Azathoth or Cthulhu, et alia, there is no 'later'.

Nope, rgrove is right here. There are certain campaign issues in sandboxes that are deal breakers, such as quests that literally are apocalyptic. Similarly, if I am running a domain/business maintenance sandbox, or medieval localized sandbox, I am not going to change my table offering to the player's vision of a grand world tour.

PCs reside in Cormyr in my Cormyr-focused sandbox campaign, but want to travel off to Kara-Tur T'u Lung instead? That's nice. Off your characters go, unlikely to be heard from again. If they ever make it and return it'll likely be easily over 20+ years, and likely beyond what our campaign will last in real time. So... anyone interested in rolling up a PC that actually wants to play in Cormyr, y'know what I actually am offering the table?

I DICTATE my table's offering. Your player entitlement ends where I SAY IT DOES. I AM NOT your private video game server. Sandbox your own daydreams.

Awesome, just awesome. Very well said, that last line.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;942247No, you worthless buffoon, I would prefer the referee give the players and their characters a reason to investigate a haunted house beyond, 'I want to run MAH HAUNTED HOUSE STOREH,' and in that reason for investigating the haunted house a motivation not to torch it on sight.

Perhaps there is a book or a map in the library they might want, or an archaeological artifact or a piece of art they wish to obtain, or cash and jewelry they don't want to destroy. Perhaps there are clues suggesting other people may be visiting the site. Perhaps the site is under surveillance and burning it down will attract attention they don't want. Something . . . anything . . . for the players and their characters to give a shit about beyond, 'this is what I have for tonight.'

A great adventure site draws adventurers - and the players who run them - to it like a moth to flame. The adventure should be preceded by rumors, legends, stories, eyewitnesses. Make throwing themselves into sure death their idea, because they can't resist the idea of not going.

I know it's been said upthread already, but it bears repeating: if your players' level of engagement with your adventure is to simply end it before it starts, you fucking suck, full stop. Whether you tailor your adventures to your players with personal touches - which I don't - or simply scatter lots of bright shinys around and let the players and their characters follow their whims - which I do (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/08/tailor-made.html) - participating in it should be their idea. No matter what, they should be given a reason to care on their terms, and if you can't do that, pack it the fuck in and play Monopoly, 'cause you have no fucking business sitting at the skinny end of the table.


Obvious Troll is Obvious.

You honestly think I ran a game and didn't give the players reasons to explore the house? Are you as stupid as you are offensive? Of course there were reasons but they bowed to the risks involved and decided to sacrifice them in the way of a quick and safe resolution to the threat. In a campaign game I might have been ok with it but as said, THAT was the point of the damn game. Im out, I don't need to defend my point here, its not even my fucking thread.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942250You honestly think I ran a game and didn't give the players reasons to explore the house? Are you as stupid as you are offensive? Of course there were reasons but they bowed to the risks involved and decided to sacrifice them in the way of a quick and safe resolution to the threat. In a campaign game I might have been ok with it but as said, THAT was the point of the damn game. Im out, I don't need to defend my point here, its not even my fucking thread.

Yeah. I'm not getting the angry objection to this situation. It seems pretty clear cut. It's not a "sandbox" or even a campaign. Its a one shot, one off adventure such as might be played at a Con. The players apparently willingly brought into playing the haunted house "storeh" to begin with. So some of the burden of buy in rests on them. You agree to play something you work with the GM to make characters that will work for the "storeh!".

Or say you don't want to play up front like an adult. If rgrove sucks so bad why even agree to get together to game? Just to fuck him?

Quote from: Opaopajr;942245Um, you have played CoC, right? Usually with Azathoth or Cthulhu, et alia, there is no 'later'.

Nope, rgrove is right here. There are certain campaign issues in sandboxes that are deal breakers, such as quests that literally are apocalyptic. Similarly, if I am running a domain/business maintenance sandbox, or medieval localized sandbox, I am not going to change my table offering to the player's vision of a grand world tour.

PCs reside in Cormyr in my Cormyr-focused sandbox campaign, but want to travel off to Kara-Tur T'u Lung instead? That's nice. Off your characters go, unlikely to be heard from again. If they ever make it and return it'll likely be easily over 20+ years, and likely beyond what our campaign will last in real time. So... anyone interested in rolling up a PC that actually wants to play in Cormyr, y'know what I actually am offering the table?

I DICTATE my table's offering. Your player entitlement ends where I SAY IT DOES. I AM NOT your private video game server. Sandbox your own daydreams.

Very nice, however, do try to read what's actually there.  I'll help...
1. He admitted the players had a good reason to go to Shanghai...they were following up on the investigation, not opening a Pacific Rim Importers. So your "players dropping the premise argument" - yeah didn't happen.
2. He hasn't answered the question as to why the players got clues to go to Shanghai, but not apparently clues that the danger was eminent enough to not go to Shanghai.
3. Already admitted he *could* have let them follow up leads to Shanghai (which means the world wasn't going to end), he just didn't feel like it because he prepped San Fran.

Sounds like he overplayed or underplayed certain clues, or players just overemphasized the wrong thing in their investigation.  

Setting aside the adventures of MC Shanghai Grove...

Yeah I have played CoC, and yeah terrible things happened when people fuck up.  That's the problem with an End of the World scenario - It's pointless if everyone knows you don't have the guts to actually End.the.World.  If you don't want the players to leave Cormyr for Kara-Tur, you probably shouldn't drop clues then that the answer to how to save Cormyr lies in Kara-Tur. ;)

Quote from: Opaopajr;942245I DICTATE my table's offering. Your player entitlement ends where I SAY IT DOES. I AM NOT your private video game server. Sandbox your own daydreams.

Video games are railroads.

And, as Krueger already explained, if you drop hints, don't he surprised when they get followed. I think your example doesn't fit the situation. You're talking about players randomly leaving the play area just because. Groves example evidently presented a hook.

It's all about control, obviously. You guys want control over the scenario. Or need it, evidently.

Back to Grove...Grove, do you use NPCs that travel with the party much?  Reason I'm asking is, since you are more Plot-Oriented, such an NPC can help immensely in keeping things on track while still remaining IC.

But it sounds like one way or the other the players missed two key realizations.
1. Shanghai was a Red Herring.
2. Whether or not it was a Red Herring, there was no time to go to Shanghai.

I probably would have played it out, and had Cthulhu pull San Francisco into the ocean. :D But Grove fessed up honestly to his players about Operation Shanghai, that it was a Dead End he never intended them to go down, so I'm gonna give him this one and not yell at him anymore for how he handled it.  I'm sure he's already filed it under Note to Self: "If you don't want the players to go to Shanghai..."

Quote from: CRKrueger;942256Back to Grove...Grove, do you use NPCs that travel with the party much?  Reason I'm asking is, since you are more Plot-Oriented, such an NPC can help immensely in keeping things on track while still remaining IC.

But it sounds like one way or the other the players missed two key realizations.
1. Shanghai was a Red Herring.
2. Whether or not it was a Red Herring, there was no time to go to Shanghai.

I probably would have played it out, and had Cthulhu pull San Francisco into the ocean. :D But Grove fessed up honestly to his players about Operation Shanghai, that it was a Dead End he never intended them to go down, so I'm gonna give him this one and not yell at him anymore for how he handled it.  I'm sure he's already filed it under Note to Self: "If you don't want the players to go to Shanghai..."

Agree with letting the Red Herring happen and SF going into the ocean, because the red herring is supposed to fool them, right? Just make sure there's a chance to see through the ruse, if you wanna be fair.

Quote from: cranebump;942255V
It's all about control, obviously. You guys want control over the scenario. Or need it, evidently.

Yeah. "We guys" are inept scum shitting up the hobby so thus the "war".

Quote from: rgrove0172;942250You honestly think I ran a game and didn't give the players reasons to explore the house?

Ohhnoes! THEM GOALPOSTS ARE A-MOVIN' AG'IN!

(https://i.makeagif.com/media/8-19-2015/D8sxR1.gif)

Quote from: rgrove0172;942250Are you as stupid as you are offensive?

Signs point to yes.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942250Of course there were reasons but they bowed to the risks involved and decided to sacrifice them in the way of a quick and safe resolution to the threat.

Translation? 'The rewards I offered the players and their characters sucked so much donkey ball-sweat I had to beg them to play my adventure anyway!'

Quote from: CRKrueger;942256Back to Grove...Grove, do you use NPCs that travel with the party much?  Reason I'm asking is, since you are more Plot-Oriented, such an NPC can help immensely in keeping things on track while still remaining IC.

But it sounds like one way or the other the players missed two key realizations.
1. Shanghai was a Red Herring.
2. Whether or not it was a Red Herring, there was no time to go to Shanghai.

I probably would have played it out, and had Cthulhu pull San Francisco into the ocean. :D But Grove fessed up honestly to his players about Operation Shanghai, that it was a Dead End he never intended them to go down, so I'm gonna give him this one and not yell at him anymore for how he handled it.  I'm sure he's already filed it under Note to Self: "If you don't want the players to go to Shanghai..."

The party following up on a clue in Shanghai is easily handled by running a quick montage scene.  Fifteen minutes in real time, two months in game time, and then the party is back in San Francisco either having successfully gained their clue or failed to have acquired it.  Easy peasy.

Quote from: Old One Eye;942272The party following up on a clue in Shanghai is easily handled by running a quick montage scene.  Fifteen minutes in real time, two months in game time, and then the party is back in San Francisco either having successfully gained their clue or failed to have acquired it.  Easy peasy.

Sure!

Or you could have had their ship blow up right before they board. Or you could have had the cultists abduct someone really close/important to the PC's to give them a reason to stay. Or you could have have had some creepy event that was an Omen to someone that might have given them a clue to where the "real plot thread" was. Or Uncle Bob's message arrives saying he's arriving today and planning on staying like they planned in that last letter that got lost in the mail. Or it starts raining cows and it clogs the harbor. Or the Captain of the vessel suddenly gets smallpox, now the whole harbor is quarantined etc. if the issue of going was really that big of an issue.

The possibilities, as always, are endless.

Wait, So it would have been better to pull some gm fiat short circuit to preserve the "STOREH!" rather that talk it out with the players and clarify the game's expected parameters? I thought that was Railroading by most definitions.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942189You would prefer the GM make up some shit in game as to why the players should reconsider their actions instead of just coming clean and explaining the game was designed to go a different way? You would prefer... perish the thought... RAILROADING?

It's railroading either way.

Quote from: Opaopajr;942245Nope, rgrove is right here. There are certain campaign issues in sandboxes that are deal breakers, such as quests that literally are apocalyptic. Similarly, if I am running a domain/business maintenance sandbox, or medieval localized sandbox, I am not going to change my table offering to the player's vision of a grand world tour.

PCs reside in Cormyr in my Cormyr-focused sandbox campaign, but want to travel off to Kara-Tur T'u Lung instead? That's nice. Off your characters go, unlikely to be heard from again. If they ever make it and return it'll likely be easily over 20+ years, and likely beyond what our campaign will last in real time. So... anyone interested in rolling up a PC that actually wants to play in Cormyr, y'know what I actually am offering the table?

Sure. But there's a difference between "this is the scope of the sandbox we're going to be playing" and "you can't do that because the story I wrote is over here".

Quote from: Justin Alexander;942311Sure. But there's a difference between "this is the scope of the sandbox we're going to be playing" and "you can't do that because the story I wrote is over here".

And then there's "The Stakes (like the rent) are Too Damn High!"

I love CoC to death, but it's one of the few games that can be repeatedly excused 'End of the World!' stakes. BUT!, it needs a delicate touch because it's default assumption is "cultists! gotta save the world" style play. Running Mission/Investigation Sandboxes in such needs to keep an eye on "The Stakes" dial. Otherwise too many apocalyptic stakes juggles between "One Wrong Move, We All Die!" and Pinkie and the Brain goofiness "Whaddya wanna do tonight, Brain?" "Same thing we do every night, Pinkie. Try to save the world..."

Quote from: cranebump;942132So, what I'm hearing here is that, if the players do something outside what the GM has planned, then said GM bears no responsibility to continue the session/story.  I think the point of contention has to do with how sandboxy the GM wants to go. That aside, what are the specific issues with adjusting to the change in plans? Would it really be that hard to gin up a new situation on the spot? If so, is that a system issue, rather than a style issue (i.e., crunchier systems are more difficult to wing?).  I'm curious about this, because, though I've had players constantly go against what I think they'll do, I've always been able to adjust, albeit with varying degrees of what I consider a "success" (though, I guess if we did what they wanted, it's a success).

It's an issue of bait & switch of expectations, and those expectations should be clearly discussed like adults beforehand.

If I as a GM say I am offering something, then null all your PC stuff and force you into another I wanted all along, that's not what was agreed upon. It would be reasonable to expect upset, re-negotiation, and consequences for breach (like walking away). Similarly the expectation works the other way.

If Vampire PCs for a proposed Modern game gathered and their first response is to all willfully go into torpor and wait 100 years so they can play Cyberpunk Vampires! for that sweet, sweet techie gear list, is there not a similar breach in expectations? Is the GM obliged to cater to whims through passive aggressive table manipulation?

No. We are expecting mature, communicating adults. The issue is trust, breach, and the re-negotiation & consequences thereof.

The table contract is not there for when things go right, but for when things go sour. And the responsible thing is to pull out of passive-aggressive In Character push and pulling, and hash it out OOC to find where the disconnect is. We are sharing time with each other in imagination land, not playing power exchange games.

I think it is more than a little pathetic that for all the usual outcry against how some storygamers treat DMs we have here posters solemnly declaring that why yes, it is ok and even the players right to treat the DM like a vend-bot slave.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942249Awesome, just awesome. Very well said, that last line.

Look, I don't agree with a lot of your style of play (badwrongfun, kthxbai!). And I think your questions are borderline twee trolling because this forum has been going on this carousel for months now. That said, your examples (unless I read into them the endless flame wars I am so desperately trying to forget) are perfectly serviceable to other outside readers as an example that campaign boundaries are perfectly normal and healthy things to have at your table.

That actually IS an interesting discussion (and so many here are dropping the ball hard to grind that axe).

And all things have boundaries, including sandboxes (in many ways especially sandboxes, due to the limits of: human processing, free time, and sheer human life span). It is an OK, healthy, and necessary conversation to have as equal, mature adults. Negotiating boundaries, compromises, and especially creative solutions!, is a social skill needed to develop good table management and table etiquette.

I mean, really, do we have to have the obvious conversation about every sandboxing GM is now expected to prepare for Dragonlance's planet Krynn existing and the potential of an interplanar/interplanetary kender dating service?

No. We all have limits. That's interesting. Let's talk about how we decide them, how we communicate them, and how we compromise them as GMs.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942023I suppose just to revisit the actual topic of the thread I would have to say "It depends"

I am pretty adept at generating content on the fly to better flesh out the setting, lend depth to NPCs, adjust to the decisions and actions of the Players but I do draw a line at some point if the players stretch the premise of the game too thin. If by their choice the plot would take off in a direction I deem beyond the limits of the game we intended to play, I call uncle. I don't want to run a completely random game where the players just run amok. Typically our games have a sort of assumed arc - even in long campaigns they are a series of arcs. Deviating completely from the current arc isn't heresy but it will no doubt postpone the game and perhaps end it.

As I was relating to one of the members in private...

A few years ago I ran a circa 1900 adventure in San Francisco. The game involved a murderous Chinese cult, supernatural elements, a mystery to solve etc. Had the players elected to take a ship to Shanghai I would have reminded them that the game was about the events in San Fran rather than fabricate some railroady reason they had to stay. If they had insisted I would have let them but called the game done until which time I was prepared to continue the adventure in the new direction..IF I even wanted to.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942147You guys continually spout off with limited and often incorrect information. Of course I considered the WHY, they had good reason but in the context of things a several months of sea travel and a visit in port across the world would no doubt allowed the developments in San Fran to progress to a point of no return. The game was about dealing with the immediate threat at that place and time. Globetrotting is fine if that what the game is designed around, we play "Leagues of Adventure" exactly that way but in this case such a drastic move would simply have ended the scenario. So as you said, before you started in on me, TIME WAS an issue and therefor the trip a deal killer. But that's not even entirely the point...
[...]

Quote from: CRKrueger;942254Very nice, however, do try to read what's actually there.  I'll help...
1. He admitted the players had a good reason to go to Shanghai...they were following up on the investigation, not opening a Pacific Rim Importers. So your "players dropping the premise argument" - yeah didn't happen.
2. He hasn't answered the question as to why the players got clues to go to Shanghai, but not apparently clues that the danger was eminent enough to not go to Shanghai.
3. Already admitted he *could* have let them follow up leads to Shanghai (which means the world wasn't going to end), he just didn't feel like it because he prepped San Fran.

Sounds like he overplayed or underplayed certain clues, or players just overemphasized the wrong thing in their investigation.  

Setting aside the adventures of MC Shanghai Grove...

Yeah I have played CoC, and yeah terrible things happened when people fuck up.  That's the problem with an End of the World scenario - It's pointless if everyone knows you don't have the guts to actually End.the.World.  If you don't want the players to leave Cormyr for Kara-Tur, you probably shouldn't drop clues then that the answer to how to save Cormyr lies in Kara-Tur. ;)

I am not finding your bullet points in the posts you are talking about here. Are you reading things he shared from a different topic? Where are you getting all these presumptions I cannot find?

edit: And I'll be damned if I have to do IT Forensics to follow this merry-go-round through multiple topics. That shit's annoying and bad forum fu.

Quote from: cranebump;942255Video games are railroads.

And, as Krueger already explained, if you drop hints, don't he surprised when they get followed. I think your example doesn't fit the situation. You're talking about players randomly leaving the play area just because. Groves example evidently presented a hook.

It's all about control, obviously. You guys want control over the scenario. Or need it, evidently.

Just because my planet shows you a moon doesn't mean I am obliged visiting to accommodate you. Just because your PCs hear a rumor of an unreasonably distant land doesn't mean I am obliged visiting to accommodate you.

Sometimes the setting just has distant mysteries. Sometimes the NPCs just spout cloying but unreasonably impertinent stuff.

Quote from: Nexus;941872What does it mean?

A shitty sandbox!

Quote from: tenbones;942220See, this is where you're talking out of the side of your neck. The very things you say you "like" - are the things that I easily can produce in a sandbox-game. That's why your GMing is basic. The things you think are problems (as you've clearly indicated) are not actually problems to someone that actually knows how to run an honest sandbox game.

So yes it's very much a limitation of either your ability and/or your decision making processes. Otherwise we wouldn't even be talking about it. Right? The reason why you feel your concept of sandbox-games were lacking is simple: you don't know how to do them. If you did - or were honest about it, you'd simply say either:

1) I don't like sandbox games I like running modular storytime-adventures.
2) I'm trying to figure out how to manage my sandbox games more efficiently. Guys here's the situation.... .

But what you have is - Guys, I'm trying to run a storytime adventure and my players keep wanting to do things that's off my dot-to-dot plot-synopsis. The fact that your players, in this basic example said they wanted to go the Shanghai and, apparently put your underwear in a knot, shows they too are wanting to go beyond the confines of *your* story. They're sandboxing without you. Only you're not able to give them any real-estate to extend your tiny playground.




How is it a partnership when your only problem seems to be not allowing your players to explore the game? Exactly in what way is this a partnership? They aren't making up a story - YOU are. And we've been telling you for some time now, there is no story. The story is what the players DO. There are circumstances relating to the setting that you create, NPC's with motivations, etc. but the story is what emerges from the play. Anything else is storytime with dice and, yes, basic GMing.




I'm calling complete bullshit on this. Wanna know why? Because Shanghai doesn't apparently exist to you. The ramifications of going to Shanghai have zero consideration. The only consideration you've shown in your example is your self-absorbed clinging to *your* precious story. How do I know? Because your players wanna go to fucking Shanghai and you're on the internet bitching about it like it's some kind of problem. That's how I know.

If you knew how to run a sandbox game - you'd see this an opportunity (which I politely pointed out). And I gave you a more than reasonable answer on how you could expand things out and keep your precious story while letting them do some off-roading and who knows? Something awesome may come of it. Or nothing. Or they might die. Or they might live. Or it could be the best, most pivotal thing that ever happened to your game - but you'll never know because you're too busy working off a flow-chart.




Then why are they trying to go to Shanghai and why are you here complaining about it like it's a problem? And worse - you're making it sound like they are the problem, when it's fairly clear they arrived at that conclusion by whatever means your GMing led them to that. OR are we going with "They're a bunch of assholes"? Which is it?



I'm not sure I've ever said I've "mastered" GMing. I don't think I ever will, I and others here have been doing it so long that I'm pretty confident in my position that it's not something that is ever mastered. You can do it for a lifetime and you can learn best practices if you're honest and self-aware enough. But I'm not really sure what "mastery" is. I think that's for players to decide. I've said before in your threads where you've made this claim (which I've never said) about me - I'm never comfortable GMing. And I make sure I'm not comfortable because I'm always trying to learn new things. If I get too comfortable, I feel like I'm mailing it in. And I love the hobby a little too much to do that.

I also don't think I ever recall saying that anyone's love for GMing in any mode is somehow inferior to mine. I said your brand of GMing is *basic*. And I mean just that, because it is. Otherwise why are you posting these things as if they're real issues? Because they are, to *you*. They are not to *me*. And there is a factual reason for that. It's not rocket-science. I'm not even saying you're wrong. I'm saying there is a way to handle this without resorting to this bullshit crutch you use as your excuse for GMing "privilege". But it requires some honesty.

And that's where the real problem is. You're so defensive you've concocted all this stuff in your head (granted, BV is a lot more aggressive than me but we're saying the same thing) that somehow you've taken these many threads where I've said your "GMing is basic" to mean I'm saying you're a lesser human for it. Nope. I'm very specific about what I'm saying on purpose. That *YOU* have taken your admitted limited experiences relative to ours, as some kind of aspect of your identity and find insult at the very factual notion, makes the problem *yours*.

There are people that love, Love, LOVE story-time adventures. You're pretending that's not what you're doing. Or you have some cognitive dissonance at play here that you refuse to see how your own examples underscore that fact every single time. Otherwise why are you having these problems you're having?

Or is that just propaganda too? heh

Yeah, I agree with that. But since we're not going to change Grove into Gronan (his players are the only onesto stand a chance at some change), much as we'd like to, can we at least stop making all the GMing threads about him?

I mean, he's not a sandboxer, his freeform approach to GMing is virtually missing, now can we please talk how to be better at improvising, instead of how much he sucks at it?

Quote from: Opaopajr;942321I am not finding your bullet points in the posts you are talking about here. Are you reading things he shared from a different topic? Where are you getting all these presumptions I cannot find?

Dude, you quoted it yourself...

Quote from: rgrove0172;942147Of course I considered the WHY, they had good reason but in the context of things a several months of sea travel and a visit in port across the world would no doubt allowed the developments in San Fran to progress to a point of no return.

Two pieces of information there...
1. They had good reason...where did they get the idea to go to Shanghai?  From Grove of course, where else?  If they were going to try and break into the Opium Trade, I don't think Grove would have classified it as "a good reason".
2. There was a time limit they were either unaware of, or didn't realize the severity of.  Where would they have gotten that vital piece of information?  From Grove of course, where else?
They got info #1, and did not get info #2.  Someone, perhaps everyone, erred.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942149Which of course could be made interesting with cool ports of call, drama aboard the ship and other sideline action, but its not the game we came to play.

and there's the trifecta...
3. He could have taken them to Shanghai and continued the adventure, he just didn't want to, presumably because the players thinking going to Shanghai was either a misrepresentation of clues he gave, or a misinterpretation of clues by the players, or a combination of the two...and since it's Grove we're talking about, the fact that Shanghai wasn't "Mah Storeh" factored in some as well. ;)

Quote from: Opaopajr;942321And I'll be damned if I have to do IT Forensics to follow this merry-go-round through multiple topics. That shit's annoying and bad forum fu.

Multiple topics?  It was all in the single post you quoted.  You're just so riled about the mistaken assumption that people are advocating GM's being a ScreenMonkey that you're in Opa Opa Smash mode. :D

You're not the only one who is completely missing the point, Omega's not getting it either...

Quote from: Omega;942319I think it is more than a little pathetic that for all the usual outcry against how some storygamers treat DMs we have here posters solemnly declaring that why yes, it is ok and even the players right to treat the DM like a vend-bot slave.

Guys...
Letting the players go where their ideas lead them has NOTHING to do with serving the players...it's upholding the integrity of the setting and the game as whole.  It's keeping the neutral, verisimilar nature of the world legitimate.  Yeah, you can track down a lead to Shanghai...and when you come back the ritual will be done, Lo Pan will have won, and Chinatown is now something out of Big Trouble in Little China, and the Furies are coming for you...enjoy.

It's about holding the players accountable for their choices, even if they fuck things up wholesale, but letting them make those choices.

Quote from: Opaopajr;942317It's an issue of bait & switch of expectations, and those expectations should be clearly discussed like adults beforehand.

If I as a GM say I am offering something, then null all your PC stuff and force you into another I wanted all along, that's not what was agreed upon. It would be reasonable to expect upset, re-negotiation, and consequences for breach (like walking away). Similarly the expectation works the other way.

If Vampire PCs for a proposed Modern game gathered and their first response is to all willfully go into torpor and wait 100 years so they can play Cyberpunk Vampires! for that sweet, sweet techie gear list, is there not a similar breach in expectations? Is the GM obliged to cater to whims through passive aggressive table manipulation?

No. We are expecting mature, communicating adults. The issue is trust, breach, and the re-negotiation & consequences thereof.

The table contract is not there for when things go right, but for when things go sour. And the responsible thing is to pull out of passive-aggressive In Character push and pulling, and hash it out OOC to find where the disconnect is. We are sharing time with each other in imagination land, not playing power exchange games.

Everything you say here is good...BUT...not applicable to Operation Shanghai.  That wasn't players being dicks because they felt like it, that was a miscommunication of facts somewhere along the way that led to the characters operating under some seriously false assumptions.  Grove decided to come clean and correct it OOC, which is certainly one way to do it, especially since it sounds like he goofed as much as the players there.  No harm, no foul.  

Operation Shanghai in the Grove Files is no longer filed under "Mah Storeh", just cross-referenced. :D

Quote from: Opaopajr;942323Just because my planet shows you a moon doesn't mean I am obliged visiting to accommodate you. Just because your PCs hear a rumor of an unreasonably distant land doesn't mean I am obliged visiting to accommodate you.

Sometimes the setting just has distant mysteries. Sometimes the NPCs just spout cloying but unreasonably impertinent stuff.

Well, okay, but the example of the moon is more extreme than the example of China/SF.  

My main issue with the GM side of this argument is that this is not the game we came to play looks more like this is the game I came to run. I'm all for some agreeable limits, but "I before we" isn't one of them.

QuoteGuys...
Letting the players go where their ideas lead them has NOTHING to do with serving the players...it's upholding the integrity of the setting and the game as whole. It's keeping the neutral, verisimilar nature of the world legitimate. Yeah, you can track down a lead to Shanghai...and when you come back the ritual will be done, Lo Pan will have won, and Chinatown is now something out of Big Trouble in Little China, and the Furies are coming for you...enjoy.

It's about holding the players accountable for their choices, even if they fuck things up wholesale, but letting them make those choices.

This.

Quote from: Opaopajr;942317It's an issue of bait & switch of expectations, and those expectations should be clearly discussed like adults beforehand.

If I as a GM say I am offering something, then null all your PC stuff and force you into another I wanted all along, that's not what was agreed upon. It would be reasonable to expect upset, re-negotiation, and consequences for breach (like walking away). Similarly the expectation works the other way.

If Vampire PCs for a proposed Modern game gathered and their first response is to all willfully go into torpor and wait 100 years so they can play Cyberpunk Vampires! for that sweet, sweet techie gear list, is there not a similar breach in expectations? Is the GM obliged to cater to whims through passive aggressive table manipulation?

No. We are expecting mature, communicating adults. The issue is trust, breach, and the re-negotiation & consequences thereof.

The table contract is not there for when things go right, but for when things go sour. And the responsible thing is to pull out of passive-aggressive In Character push and pulling, and hash it out OOC to find where the disconnect is. We are sharing time with each other in imagination land, not playing power exchange games.

I generally agree with this. But let me toss in some "meta-GMing" caveats... if you'll indulge me. :)

So one of my "things" is that I try to keep everything in-game. I assume the responsibility of trying to allow for my PC's to get as much wrong or right about the clues they discover to come to whatever conclusion they come to. I tend to do a *lot* of setup before a campaign to check the list off all the points you made above - but once the game starts, it's started. It's extremely rare for me to pull the curtain back and reveal myself because a player is "doing it wrong". The only time I do that is when a player is so grotesquely off the reservation where we've gone beyond just "gaming" and it's turned into something personal. Fortunately this is extremely rare.

So we're both on the same page. The difference here that I've been trying to illustrate, is one of tolerance-level. Not in terms of what the PC's are/are not allowed to do - but in terms of GMing writ-large. This is why I advocate strongly for learning how to sandbox. It's not to say you *can't* do one-shot linear dot-to-dot adventures. Absolutely. I'm saying that sandboxing well encompasses that more basic style so that even your basic mode of storygaming can benefit from understanding how to sandbox. I have no problem putting a themepark module-adventure in the middle of my sandbox for the PC's to discover (and subsequently ruin through their own bizarre conclusions) - I just play the ball where it lands.

There is far less pulling the curtain back. Far less revealing those artificial invisible walls where you're forced to have these unnecessary issues. It's not a problem of being the personal bitch for the players - it's about you owning the results of whatever conclusions the players come up with based on your handling of the game. The corollary of which is learning how to skillfully deal with it without being acrimonious towards your players for coming up with some conclusion that you as the GM did not intend for them, but owning it anyhow with consequences being whatever they may be.

That's just my perspective.

Getting back on topic -

Improvisation for me comes easy. Generally less so for my players, but I'm always trying to pull them in. I encourage questions for details in a given scene so that when they ask me about something, it will often be a good prompt for my own brain to fill in things I may not have considered. On a tactical level, I don't necessarily change things for my NPC's but I might in favor of the PC's if they were the ones who asked about the detail I didn't consider.

For example- If the PC's were quietly investigating the harbor at a particular ship and I had planned an ambush from above from the ship in dry-dock. I might give a description of how the harbor lanterns are guttering, there's a light fog (which would give the PC's some obscurement bonuses), if one of the PC's ask - "Is there any cover? Maybe rigging coiled up in huge loops, or crates/barrels?" I'll toss them in there, because it's totally plausible, OR if I think for the purposes of the encounter the NPC's are smart enough to clear such obvious environmental bonuses I'll decide on the spot 'no'. But I'll let the PC's make notice-checks or whatever and they might realize the area they're in is the *only* place where crates and rigging aren't piled up thereby alerting them to the possibility that there is something afoot. This gives them more opportunities to decide how to proceed - or not.

It builds tension and puts the options of how this potential encounter will proceed. Likewise if the PC's hesitate - I'll make whatever rolls necessary (if such is the case) to determine what the NPC's interpret about the PC's actions, assuming they even realized the PC's were there. Then things unfold accordingly.

I don't ever assume an encounter is a rote thing. I try to give my players as many options as their PC's can handle via their contacts, skills, stats etc. and of course the player's own ingenuity. It keeps me on my toes and I like that, it's help me develop good improvisational skills while in-play and generally creates good tension-and-release for the player who enjoy seeing their plans/schemes/strategies put into play, regardless if they succeed or fail.

Quote from: CRKrueger;942346Guys...
Letting the players go where their ideas lead them has NOTHING to do with serving the players...it's upholding the integrity of the setting and the game as whole.  It's keeping the neutral, verisimilar nature of the world legitimate.  Yeah, you can track down a lead to Shanghai...and when you come back the ritual will be done, Lo Pan will have won, and Chinatown is now something out of Big Trouble in Little China, and the Furies are coming for you...enjoy.

If the players agreed to play "explore haunted house." and then promptly say fuck you and burn it. Then that is not upholding their end of the agreement. Therein lies the problem. It is the same as a DM pitching Ghost Tower of Iverness and the players going "sure sounds great" and then showing up and taking off for who knows where that isnt said tower.

Very different from say Keep on the Borderlands where the PCs are free to roam the area and hopefully deal with that pesky cave system wayyyyy over there. Or any given more open ended investigative session. There still might be tries at being cute. But theres usually alot more leeway too go wherever even if there are still some vague borders.

So yes. It can end up with the players either fucking with the DM or treating them like a slave to dispense EXP at their command.

I do though agree very much that players can end up following some odd logic paths with the clues given and if you dont want them sending their characters off to the other side of the world then make sure the players are aware of time constraints, world in motion, or even simple logistics involved.  Otherwise you are inviting potential unexpected side trips that can totally derail the current adventure.

If I tell the players/PCs "and these runes you see on the walls of this tomb are somewhat similar to those used by the fabled serpent people said to live in the jungles to the far south." then I have at least thought of the possibility the players will decide to stop exploring the tomb and head south to look up these serpent people for advice.

Quote from: Opaopajr;942320We all have limits. That's interesting. Let's talk about how we decide them, how we communicate them, and how we compromise them as GMs.

Okay.

The sandbox for our Boot Hill campaign is El Dorado County, the setting included in the core rules. In addition to agreeing on the boundary on our sandbox, we decided to run the five published modules as the campaign background events. Right off the bat we had to modify this - there are no railroads in El Dorado County yet, so Mad Mesa was relocated to Kansas and played as a sort of 'prequel' to the rest of the adventures. The events of Ballots & Bullets and Range War! form the central action of the campaign, but at no time are any of us bound to play The Adventure - my character got run out of Dead Mule by the vigilantes and missed most of Lost Conquistador Mine - which was never completed - while my character was the only one to see Burned Bush Wells all the way through. Ballots & Bullets  and Range War! are what's going on in the background of the campaign, the 'living setting,' and we are free to interact with them or not as we see fit.

My character - or characters, now that we've moved into troupe play - planned to run a cattle drive pretty much from the giddyup, so that meant our sandbox boundary was going to need to stretch a bit to accommodate this - driving a herd to the county line and calling it a day wasn't in the cards. Thus it was we needed a way to handle the cattle drive to Dodge City, which was provided by rules published in Variant magazine a few decades ago and adapting Dodge City from Gunslingers: Wild West Action! (http://www.goldrushgames.com/gunslingers.html). My characters are in Dodge right now, actually, after seven weeks on the trail, bringing in the herd through thunderstorms, deep river crossings, a brush fire and a Comanche raid.

There are a couple of lessons to be drawn here. First, what you prep is important. We knew a cattle drive was likely to take place, based on my character's inclination and vocation, so we had the resources in place to run it. With randomizers, drop-in resources and a couple of warm neurons, a competent referee should be able to improvise enough to keep up with engaged players making the setting and the campaign their own. Fucking think ahead about what you introduce and where it might lead the players, then prep for that.

Second, players engaged with the setting are pearls beyond price, and telling them, 'No, you only cannot go any further than this because I'm such a limp-dick I can't improvise for ninety minutes,' when they're running with logical inferences and a desire to explore is the nadir of refereeing. Hell, saying, 'Yeah, I need a few minutes/an hour/a couple of days to get my shit together,' is better than, 'Fuck you and your excitement about the game, you go where I fucking say you go.'

Remember, we're not talking about players trying to fuck with the campaign out of boredom or spite, or circle-jerking on the campaign premise - those people can fuck straight off. We're talking about players so into the campaign that they're hungry for more, and being told, 'Sorry, I can't be bothered to go back to the kitchen,' makes you a puckered brown-eye.

Quote from: Omega;942362If the players agreed to play "explore haunted house." and then promptly say fuck you and burn it. Then that is not upholding their end of the agreement.

I agree.  Agreeing to do a one-shot and then fuck the premise is just dickery.

Quote from: Omega;942362Therein lies the problem. It is the same as a DM pitching Ghost Tower of Iverness and the players going "sure sounds great" and then showing up and taking off for who knows where that isnt said tower.

Yeah, except the best way to mitigate that is to not say "How about we get together next weekend for Ghost Tower of Inverness".  Instead, the Tower is in the campaign, and the players organically go there through the choices of their characters, not because OOC "We agreed" to anything.

Quote from: Omega;942362So yes. It can end up with the players either fucking with the DM or treating them like a slave to dispense EXP at their command.

Shit players are shit players.  Non-shit players aren't.  What's the point in discussing anything if we assume assholes and the LCD?

Quote from: Omega;942362I do though agree very much that players can end up following some odd logic paths with the clues given and if you dont want them sending their characters off to the other side of the world then make sure the players are aware of time constraints, world in motion, or even simple logistics involved.  Otherwise you are inviting potential unexpected side trips that can totally derail the current adventure.

If I tell the players/PCs "and these runes you see on the walls of this tomb are somewhat similar to those used by the fabled serpent people said to live in the jungles to the far south." then I have at least thought of the possibility the players will decide to stop exploring the tomb and head south to look up these serpent people for advice.

That's where I think Grove goofed, he dropped Shanghai and obviously didn't expect them to go there.

Quote from: Omega;942362If the players agreed to play "explore haunted house." and then promptly say fuck you and burn it. Then that is not upholding their end of the agreement. Therein lies the problem.

Except we don't play "explore haunted house". We play "dealing with the haunted house issue":).

Quote from: CRKrueger;942365Yeah, except the best way to mitigate that is to not say "How about we get together next weekend for Ghost Tower of Inverness".  Instead, the Tower is in the campaign, and the players organically go there through the choices of their characters, not because OOC "We agreed" to anything.

Yeah, this, unless I'm running a PbP game;).

Quote from: Black Vulmea;942364There are a couple of lessons to be drawn here. First, what you prep is important. We knew a cattle drive was likely to take place, based on my character's inclination and vocation, so we had the resources in place to run it. With randomizers, drop-in resources and a couple of warm neurons, a competent referee should be able to improvise enough to keep up with engaged players making the setting and the campaign their own. Fucking think ahead about what you introduce and where it might lead the players, then prep for that.

This is the straight-up, solid, bankable truth. It's not "basic" - it's he entry point into more advanced gameplay. It requires GM's to stretch a little. It also requires that GM's learn when/when not to open their flaptrap lest they send their PC's careening into an unintended sandbar because you were "waxing" with your "descriptive prose". You speak it, you better damn well bet *some* player will make note it of it and act on it - therefore you own it as a GM.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;942364Second, players engaged with the setting are pearls beyond price, and telling them, 'No, you only cannot go any further than this because I'm such a limp-dick I can't improvise for ninety minutes,' when they're running with logical inferences and a desire to explore is the nadir of refereeing. Hell, saying, 'Yeah, I need a few minutes/an hour/a couple of days to get my shit together,' is better than, 'Fuck you and your excitement about the game, you go where I fucking say you go.'

Remember, we're not talking about players trying to fuck with the campaign out of boredom or spite, or circle-jerking on the campaign premise - those people can fuck straight off. We're talking about players so into the campaign that they're hungry for more, and being told, 'Sorry, I can't be bothered to go back to the kitchen,' makes you a puckered brown-eye.

Yeah for the purposes of this discussion - I'm kinda assuming that our players aren't a bunch of assholes that aren't there to play. It's true that some players may not fully "get" what you're aiming for. Its one of the most important things for me when I start a campaign to do a lot of prepwork in creating a primer for the players, where I can wax poetic all I want without being in-game, and we can have a Q/A session prior/during/after character-generation so when the game official starts I have everyone on board as much as possible to make sure they have the "scope" of the game (at least at the start) well in play. So when the game starts - I'm basically invisible and the campaign just unfolds through their gameplay and interactions with the setting and its NPC's.

There is an alternative viewpoint. Some groups just don't care as much for the "neutral verisimilitude and integrity of the setting. It might be a secondary, tertiary or lower goals but its not the Holy Grail for all groups or all games. Maybe that's story gamer thinking or what have you but isn't one of the reasons some people on this forum are so touchy the dreaded S word because they were told their play styles where Badwrongfun and should die in a fire or whatever the fuck they're saying now and their preferred playstyle the best of the best.

Rgrove seems to have perhaps goofed communicating the premise and limits of his game. But sandbox games fail for similar and their own set of reasons including some just don't enjoy them, have the time to prep them or their premise or preferred genre doesn't work well as pure Sandbox.

Which is why I said upthread that it's perfectly fine to play Storygames in a linear fashion. And as you are pointing out - it takes less prep and less work. There's a reason for that: it's more basic. That's all I've been saying.

Grove (and perhaps others) take passive/aggressive offense at the idea of calling that style of gaming "basic". Well, from the vantage point of running large-scale sandbox games, that's exactly what it is. I'm not trying to imply they're somehow less of a person because of it. Conversely I'm not going to pretend it's not something that it is. /shrug I make no allowances for people's feelings on their identity. I think it's a silly idea at best.

You don't *ever* see me attacking people for running "one-shots" for the same reason. I don't think I've run a one-shot in at least two-decades (unless I was filling in for a session due to absences), but I know they have a lot of value for those that like them. But one-shots are pretty basic for me to set up and run. I don't find them particularly challenging, and thus I don't run them. I *like* the challenge of running a sandbox vs. one-shots, or Storygames. I have nothing against any of them, and my sandbox campaigns can and do indeed contain them to some extent.

Circling back round (again) YES there are inherent problems with running sandbox games - but the sandbox-style of play pretty much removes most of the issues associated with Storygame play and requires more consideration and challenge - which, again, is why I run them.

Anecdotally<-note, I have only had one player that has played in my games that was a Storygamer that didn't prefer my method. But it was largely because he couldn't approach any of the things in the campaign from a non-storygamer perspective. He assumed every little thing in the game worked by videogame logic. "Oh look there are several dozen hungry peasants outside the halfling quarter - I go in and buy 14 loaves of bread to distribute them!" - despite everyone in the party telling him not to do it (because he didn't bring enough food - and they were particularly ravenous) one food-riot and ten-dead peasants later... he couldn't understand why things weren't working out. It was "too realistic" (insert eyerolls here).

He'd walk around looking for buttons to press, levers to pull in order to solve problems that actually demanded some consideration. So yeah - I get it, there are players out there that don't like that kinda detail. But then I firmly agree I'm not the GM for them too. However, I'm more than willing to bet I can turn them. Most of my new players now have come to me this way and are converts. I think any decent sandbox-GM can do this.

Edit: but I should amend - becoming a decent sandbox GM takes time, and lots of failures, dusting one's self off and getting back in the saddle.

Quote from: tenbones;942412Anecdotally<-note, I have only had one player that has played in my games that was a Storygamer that didn't prefer my method. But it was largely because he couldn't approach any of the things in the campaign from a non-storygamer perspective. He assumed every little thing in the game worked by videogame logic. "Oh look there are several dozen hungry peasants outside the halfling quarter - I go in and buy 14 loaves of bread to distribute them!" - despite everyone in the party telling him not to do it (because he didn't bring enough food - and they were particularly ravenous) one food-riot and ten-dead peasants later... he couldn't understand why things weren't working out. It was "too realistic" (insert eyerolls here).

He'd walk around looking for buttons to press, levers to pull in order to solve problems that actually demanded some consideration. So yeah - I get it, there are players out there that don't like that kinda detail. But then I firmly agree I'm not the GM for them too. However, I'm more than willing to bet I can turn them. Most of my new players now have come to me this way and are converts. I think any decent sandbox-GM can do this.

Edit: but I should amend - becoming a decent sandbox GM takes time, and lots of failures, dusting one's self off and getting back in the saddle.

Probably yes, but it would take time and effort;).

Quote from: AsenRG;942377We play "dealing with the haunted house issue":).

That is "Beyond the Supernatual"... :cool:

Who am I to argue with the One True Way.

Quote from: Nexus;942426Who am I to argue with the One True Way.

You narrativists are pretty, too.

Quote from: Nexus;942426Who am I to argue with the One True Way.

Ohferfuckssake, is the notion that a referee should be able to improvise and have some modicum of understanding that words fucking mean things to other people really in need of a counter-argument?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;942434Ohferfuckssake, is the notion that a referee should be able to improvise and have some modicum of understanding that words fucking mean things to other people really in need of a counter-argument?

Yes! No, wait...no. I dunno? You tell me. :)

Quote from: Nexus;942426Who am I to argue with the One True Way.

I must've missed the post about the way I GM. Zing! Seriously, though. What is the One True Way you're referring to?

Quote from: tenbones;942412Which is why I said upthread that it's perfectly fine to play Storygames in a linear fashion. And as you are pointing out - it takes less prep and less work. There's a reason for that: it's more basic. That's all I've been saying.

Grove (and perhaps others) take passive/aggressive offense at the idea of calling that style of gaming "basic". Well, from the vantage point of running large-scale sandbox games, that's exactly what it is. I'm not trying to imply they're somehow less of a person because of it. Conversely I'm not going to pretend it's not something that it is. /shrug I make no allowances for people's feelings on their identity. I think it's a silly idea at best.

You don't *ever* see me attacking people for running "one-shots" for the same reason. I don't think I've run a one-shot in at least two-decades (unless I was filling in for a session due to absences), but I know they have a lot of value for those that like them. But one-shots are pretty basic for me to set up and run. I don't find them particularly challenging, and thus I don't run them. I *like* the challenge of running a sandbox vs. one-shots, or Storygames. I have nothing against any of them, and my sandbox campaigns can and do indeed contain them to some extent.

Circling back round (again) YES there are inherent problems with running sandbox games - but the sandbox-style of play pretty much removes most of the issues associated with Storygame play and requires more consideration and challenge - which, again, is why I run them.

Anecdotally<-note, I have only had one player that has played in my games that was a Storygamer that didn't prefer my method. But it was largely because he couldn't approach any of the things in the campaign from a non-storygamer perspective. He assumed every little thing in the game worked by videogame logic. "Oh look there are several dozen hungry peasants outside the halfling quarter - I go in and buy 14 loaves of bread to distribute them!" - despite everyone in the party telling him not to do it (because he didn't bring enough food - and they were particularly ravenous) one food-riot and ten-dead peasants later... he couldn't understand why things weren't working out. It was "too realistic" (insert eyerolls here).

He'd walk around looking for buttons to press, levers to pull in order to solve problems that actually demanded some consideration. So yeah - I get it, there are players out there that don't like that kinda detail. But then I firmly agree I'm not the GM for them too. However, I'm more than willing to bet I can turn them. Most of my new players now have come to me this way and are converts. I think any decent sandbox-GM can do this.

Edit: but I should amend - becoming a decent sandbox GM takes time, and lots of failures, dusting one's self off and getting back in the saddle.

The anecdote...is that what storygaming is? I'm serious, because if so, I am not a storygamer nor a storygamer GM. We enjoy some "metagaming" neatly woven into the fiction and base realism on the fiction (if that makes sense), but just assuming everything is a thing that matters or that situations will always go your way is not how we play. We do enjoy player-driven mechanics, but not co-GMing "I win!" buttons.

Honestly, it's difficult to peg a term to our play style because we just play the way that's fun. We like crunch, but not too much. We like letting dice fall where they may, but with some leeway as to the result. We enjoy a simple ecomony between GM and player that's player-empowering. All combined, we still tweak the dials with regularity, focusing in and out on various desires.

Quote from: CRKrueger;942429You narrativists are pretty, too.

I'm fabulous, bitch! :D

Quote from: Nexus;942426Who am I to argue with the One True Way.

I dunno? Are you actually arguing here? You seem to be making a passive-aggressive claim that no one here is making besides you. I assume you're implying I'm saying that? For sake of discussion - I've already said three times in this thread (at least) why I sandbox (so I don't have the problems that Grove has) - I've also said it's fine to GM that way (in many posts), but as he's shown multiple times in almost every thread he posts - he has the same problem. None of which happens if you do things differently.

The disconnect seems to come from those that *feel* their way (Storygaming) is the same thing as Sandboxing. It isn't. There is no One True Way mang - but if one is going to have issues using one method that the other method solves - then what is actually the issue aside from the people that continue to hammer nails with sanding block then complain about it? (or passive-aggressively pretend that sanding blocks are actually hammers).

Quote from: rgrove0172;942250You honestly think I ran a game and didn't give the players reasons to explore the house? Are you as stupid as you are offensive? Of course there were reasons but they bowed to the risks involved and decided to sacrifice them in the way of a quick and safe resolution to the threat. In a campaign game I might have been ok with it but as said, THAT was the point of the damn game. Im out, I don't need to defend my point here, its not even my fucking thread.

In this case I really side with you.  If  you clearly communicated "I want to run a one shot about exploring a haunted house," and the players agreed, and then said "Fuck it it's too risky we'll just torch it," your players are being dickweevils.

It's rather like showing up for a wargame and deciding you don't want to fight a battle.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;942464The anecdote...is that what storygaming is? I'm serious, because if so, I am not a storygamer nor a storygamer GM. We enjoy some "metagaming" neatly woven into the fiction and base realism on the fiction (if that makes sense), but just assuming everything is a thing that matters or that situations will always go your way is not how we play. We do enjoy player-driven mechanics, but not co-GMing "I win!" buttons.

I tend to not like "storygaming" or "sandboxing" in broad discussion, but it serves as shorthand. So in my anecdote, the player in question operated from a logic that you'd see in videogames. He was a big fan of 4e (and whether those two are connected are irrelevant to me). So for example, they ended up trapped in an underground temple dedicated to a spider-demon. Instead of looking for a reasonable means out - he saw a sacrificial altar (that was "active" with the essence of the spider-demon) and there was a handprint in the stone with ancient brown stains around it. With absolutely *zero* thought he said "Oh I know how to get out." and he immediately slits his hand places it on the altar and swears allegiance to the spider-demon. Of course the more intelligent players actually looked for a physical means out - and despite the fact his character was a thief that knew nothing about the occult, he tripped through every wire of his own construction because he approached the setting like it was a videogame. Every "deadend" must have button or a "thing" that would resolve the immediate issue.

He assumed that everything any character knew, or encountered was free knowledge for his PC. In essence - he wasn't even in effect roleplaying a character, as much as he was just playing himself. It did not end well. It further didn't help that he tried to apply his modern moral sensibilities (as fucked up as they were) to the often cruel nature of the setting and kept triggering himself. He wanted to be led by the nose from encounter to encounter, kill stuff, take the gold of the freshly killed monsters, then go back to the inn and wait for the next adventure. I shit you not. Poor guy took a fucking beating in my game needlessly because he wasn't engaging in the conceits of the what everyone else was doing.

I have no problems with well written modules, but some people only want to play adventures that are constructed and manicured experiences like that. It's a big flowchart. I don't run campaigns like that, because I, and my players find that format very limiting and too narrow to be enjoyable in the long-term.

As for railroading - I firmly agree that there is a place for it. I use an extremely light touch. A well-run sandbox incorporates those methods within it. Just like you can have one-shots in your sandbox, and war-campaigns, and whatever else as long as you give it the right structure and setup without turning the sandbox into a litterbox.

We frightened off the OP days ago...

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942481We frightened off the OP days ago...

Might have. It's ironic, because I think almost everyone agrees with him on the one shot example. The whole Frisco/Shanghai thing, though, is another matter...

Quote from: CRKrueger;942346Dude, you quoted it yourself...

Two pieces of information there...
1. They had good reason...where did they get the idea to go to Shanghai?  From Grove of course, where else?  If they were going to try and break into the Opium Trade, I don't think Grove would have classified it as "a good reason".
2. There was a time limit they were either unaware of, or didn't realize the severity of.  Where would they have gotten that vital piece of information?  From Grove of course, where else?
They got info #1, and did not get info #2.  Someone, perhaps everyone, erred.

and there's the trifecta...
3. He could have taken them to Shanghai and continued the adventure, he just didn't want to, presumably because the players thinking going to Shanghai was either a misrepresentation of clues he gave, or a misinterpretation of clues by the players, or a combination of the two...and since it's Grove we're talking about, the fact that Shanghai wasn't "Mah Storeh" factored in some as well. ;)

Multiple topics?  It was all in the single post you quoted.  You're just so riled about the mistaken assumption that people are advocating GM's being a ScreenMonkey that you're in Opa Opa Smash mode. :D

That's one way to read it. I read it where it was a GM considering compromise of the party's elected course after the fact, but realizing the should-be-known context makes that untenable. And instead of re-emphasizing the time pressure first, the GM goes straight into "are you breaching our game's campaign's shared understanding?"

Which is using one's trump before assessing if there is an easier, less disruptive way to clarify. He went straight into direct communication, tipping the screen down if you will, instead of asking the players what is their understanding of the situation. And THAT is a great discussion to have among GMs: how to assess players' understanding of the situation before determining if they are being deliberately disruptive -- and how to handle both.

And given rgrove's maddening, meandering manner here, I'd say he is not a good, clear communicator, got flustered and went directly into "spill the (adventure) beans" mode and had The Table Talk.

Quote from: CRKrueger;942346Everything you say here is good...BUT...not applicable to Operation Shanghai.  That wasn't players being dicks because they felt like it, that was a miscommunication of facts somewhere along the way that led to the characters operating under some seriously false assumptions.  Grove decided to come clean and correct it OOC, which is certainly one way to do it, especially since it sounds like he goofed as much as the players there.  No harm, no foul.  

Operation Shanghai in the Grove Files is no longer filed under "Mah Storeh", just cross-referenced. :D

I honestly don't know if it was the players being dicks or not. I do know his previous anecdote was players postulating arson as a solution to The Haunted House. So... it's hard to say either way. (However, I give much less clemency if they are running anything Cthulhu or "Cthulhu-adjacent.")

Again, I can just as easily see rgrove's communication failure being the problem here. It's also easier to attribute to human error than to deliberate "malpractice." Either way, be it petulant or confused players, rgrove went to the solution of last resort first. It's a good solution to clear the air, but I prefer to reserve it for big problems.

Now the conversational opportunity here -- how to assess players' understanding of the situation before determining if they are being deliberately disruptive, and how to handle both -- is good. And also wholly detachable from trying to tease out the forensics of a fucking forum anecdote. rgrove's clarity capacity, and players' off-roading propensity, are just a good launch point.

edit: I felt like a little alliteration today... :p

Quote from: tenbones;942356I generally agree with this. But let me toss in some "meta-GMing" caveats... if you'll indulge me. :)

So one of my "things" is that I try to keep everything in-game. I assume the responsibility of trying to allow for my PC's to get as much wrong or right about the clues they discover to come to whatever conclusion they come to. I tend to do a *lot* of setup before a campaign to check the list off all the points you made above - but once the game starts, it's started. It's extremely rare for me to pull the curtain back and reveal myself because a player is "doing it wrong". The only time I do that is when a player is so grotesquely off the reservation where we've gone beyond just "gaming" and it's turned into something personal. Fortunately this is extremely rare.

So we're both on the same page. The difference here that I've been trying to illustrate, is one of tolerance-level. Not in terms of what the PC's are/are not allowed to do - but in terms of GMing writ-large. This is why I advocate strongly for learning how to sandbox. It's not to say you *can't* do one-shot linear dot-to-dot adventures. Absolutely. I'm saying that sandboxing well encompasses that more basic style so that even your basic mode of storygaming can benefit from understanding how to sandbox. I have no problem putting a themepark module-adventure in the middle of my sandbox for the PC's to discover (and subsequently ruin through their own bizarre conclusions) - I just play the ball where it lands.

There is far less pulling the curtain back. Far less revealing those artificial invisible walls where you're forced to have these unnecessary issues. It's not a problem of being the personal bitch for the players - it's about you owning the results of whatever conclusions the players come up with based on your handling of the game. The corollary of which is learning how to skillfully deal with it without being acrimonious towards your players for coming up with some conclusion that you as the GM did not intend for them, but owning it anyhow with consequences being whatever they may be.

That's just my perspective.

I absolutely agree with you, especially about Sandboxing being a good tool for GMs to learn In Character communication and clarification. Once you commit to playing the ball as it lies, you have placed pressure on yourself not to muddle your communication. It forces you to clarify communicated context and receive feedback confirming understanding.

In fact, it's the big discussion opportunity (brought up tangentially by rgrove's adventures,) I am saddened to see being dropped around here. I tried to clarify it as a statement in my post above. Hopefully some real GM wisdom can be brought out the toolbox this time.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;942364Okay.

The sandbox for our Boot Hill campaign is El Dorado County, the setting included in the core rules. In addition to agreeing on the boundary on our sandbox, we decided to run the five published modules as the campaign background events. Right off the bat we had to modify this - there are no railroads in El Dorado County yet, so Mad Mesa was relocated to Kansas and played as a sort of 'prequel' to the rest of the adventures. The events of Ballots & Bullets and Range War! form the central action of the campaign, but at no time are any of us bound to play The Adventure - my character got run out of Dead Mule by the vigilantes and missed most of Lost Conquistador Mine - which was never completed - while my character was the only one to see Burned Bush Wells all the way through. Ballots & Bullets  and Range War! are what's going on in the background of the campaign, the 'living setting,' and we are free to interact with them or not as we see fit.

My character - or characters, now that we've moved into troupe play - planned to run a cattle drive pretty much from the giddyup, so that meant our sandbox boundary was going to need to stretch a bit to accommodate this - driving a herd to the county line and calling it a day wasn't in the cards. Thus it was we needed a way to handle the cattle drive to Dodge City, which was provided by rules published in Variant magazine a few decades ago and adapting Dodge City from Gunslingers: Wild West Action! (http://www.goldrushgames.com/gunslingers.html). My characters are in Dodge right now, actually, after seven weeks on the trail, bringing in the herd through thunderstorms, deep river crossings, a brush fire and a Comanche raid.

There are a couple of lessons to be drawn here. First, what you prep is important. We knew a cattle drive was likely to take place, based on my character's inclination and vocation, so we had the resources in place to run it. With randomizers, drop-in resources and a couple of warm neurons, a competent referee should be able to improvise enough to keep up with engaged players making the setting and the campaign their own. Fucking think ahead about what you introduce and where it might lead the players, then prep for that.

Second, players engaged with the setting are pearls beyond price, and telling them, 'No, you only cannot go any further than this because I'm such a limp-dick I can't improvise for ninety minutes,' when they're running with logical inferences and a desire to explore is the nadir of refereeing. Hell, saying, 'Yeah, I need a few minutes/an hour/a couple of days to get my shit together,' is better than, 'Fuck you and your excitement about the game, you go where I fucking say you go.'

See, this is a fantastic example of my interest in boundaries, communicating them, and compromise. I like it so much I want to quote it in full.

My favorite part is how the compromise worked out with both players and GM working together, offering contextually reasonable suggestions and hashing it out from there. What was offered did not grossly breach time nor space boundaries (among others).

Quote from: Black Vulmea;942364Remember, we're not talking about players trying to fuck with the campaign out of boredom or spite, or circle-jerking on the campaign premise - those people can fuck straight off. We're talking about players so into the campaign that they're hungry for more, and being told, 'Sorry, I can't be bothered to go back to the kitchen,' makes you a puckered brown-eye.

But how do we know that?

You are making an inference about the players' motives that could just as easily be assumed to be the opposite. For example, rgrove's preceding anecdote was one about a "Cthulhu-adjacent" (*snicker*) classic adventure about The Haunted House -- and the party's solution was arson. Your solutions, don't be a dick player or dick GM, are good... but it's the details that trips everyone up.

How do you assess another's understanding? When do you determine clarity has been sufficient? Is there a granular method to suss out when someone is fucking with you subtly? Obvious cases are obvious. Now we should talk about the process of GM self-reflection and player assessment.

Quote from: Opaopajr;942518I absolutely agree with you, especially about Sandboxing being a good tool for GMs to learn In Character communication and clarification. Once you commit to playing the ball as it lies, you have placed pressure on yourself not to muddle your communication. It forces you to clarify communicated context and receive feedback confirming understanding.

In fact, it's the big discussion opportunity (brought up tangentially by rgrove's adventures,) I am saddened to see being dropped around here. I tried to clarify it as a statement in my post above. Hopefully some real GM wisdom can be brought out the toolbox this time.

The irony here is this has always been my position. The "problem" is people taking offense and reading into what I'm saying as "You're a lesser person". As if my advocacy for "sandboxing" is some kind of tribal challenge to their personage. If it were a simple discussion of "this method" vs. "that method" - sure there will inevitably be heated discussion (but I'm willing to have *that* discussion too). But I'm talking about outcomes and problems that emerge from ostensibly GM's that prefer one method ("storygaming" however you want to define it) that I categorize as a basic method of GMing, and how to resolve those problems using tools from a "sandbox" method.

It's like someone demanding their Crayola 8-crayon box can do anything the Crayola 72-crayon box (with the crayon sharpener) can do despite the fact the 72-crayon box actually contains the same 8-crayons. All I'm doing is pointing out you can do more with the bigger box.

There are two *real* discussions not happening here: 1) what are those other tools (might be fun to explore) 2) What are pitfalls of going "sandbox".

I think both would be far more constructive and helpful (and germane to this thread) rather than coddling feelings that seem to nail themselves to individual trees rather than the exploring the forest.

Quote from: Opaopajr;942519How do you assess another's understanding? When do you determine clarity has been sufficient? Is there a granular method to suss out when someone is fucking with you subtly? Obvious cases are obvious. Now we should talk about the process of GM self-reflection and player assessment.

You already answered your own question in your response to me: It means the GM has to commit to the purpose of the game. For me, that means the GM has to own it. All of it. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly and the Kitchen sink. That is why learning how to communicate in-game is important (for both players and GM's but more for GM's). It also means you have to learn how to own your own unintentional Red Herrings and don't assume they're mistakes when if done well, they can lead to Gaming Glory(tm) which is what we should aim for.

You can't always know what's in the heads of your players. You can only give them as much information as you feel is appropriate given the conceits of their characters and the situation and what they perceive. After that... it's on them. And yes... you will make mistakes of giving too much/too little. The worst thing is to pretend you control everything the players do.

Total control is an illusion perpetrated by GM's on themselves. The very fact we're having this discussion is proof of that. Learning to roll with the events, intentional or not, as they unfold is a skill any GM can learn. It's not just about improvisation. The more I think about it, I believe it's more about commitment to your game's conceits. It's not about keeping an iron-fisted grip on the PC's, it's about keeping a nice tension on the reins but letting the PC's go where they want. The interval between where they are and the length of those reins is the scope of your campaign. And the better you get at it - the longer you can let those reins get*.

*those reins WILL snap once you've overextended yourself. At which point you'll have to learn how to recover gracefully without anyone being wise to it.

And in the past few years I've been tested by an entire generation of players who don't operate on the same paradigm of "actions have consequences."

At what point do you write-off what seems like ignorance as petulance?

Quote from: cranebump;942500Might have. It's ironic, because I think almost everyone agrees with him on the one shot example. The whole Frisco/Shanghai thing, though, is another matter...

Not my thread cranebump, I would have known better to start such a thread. The overwhelming opinion on such matters here had been well established.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942529Not my thread cranebump, I would have known better to start such a thread. The overwhelming opinion on such matters here had been well established.

You're being a deliberate tease here. Are you indirectly confirming their suspicions of how things played out? Did I waste my benefit of the doubt on you?

Commit. Clarify.

Quote from: Opaopajr;942526And in the past few years I've been tested by an entire generation of players who don't operate on the same paradigm of "actions have consequences."

At what point do you write-off what seems like ignorance as petulance?

Oh I'm way past petulance at this point. LOL

Quote from: rgrove0172;942529The overwhelming opinion on such matters here had been well established.

Translation: "I don't care what they say. I can produce any picture with my 8-crayon set that they can with their 72-crayon set. Though I wonder why my pictures don't look as detailed as theirs?"

Grow your box man!

Quote from: rgrove0172;942529Not my thread cranebump, I would have known better to start such a thread. The overwhelming opinion on such matters here had been well established.

Well, the counter opinions are certainly louder, at times, that's for sure.  That said, I think the general consensus is that players can and will do douche baggy things, and the given example of the haunted house is certainly one of them. And, of course, if there's an agreement by the group on your parameters ahead of time, then you'd be well justified to stay within them. Where you're catching hell is when you expect people with ingrained play styles (and I mean ingrained) to take a step your direction, and they just won't. There's no justifying a style, because all styles are pretty much justified by the people playing them. As the echo chamber has resounded -- more than once -- what you do at your table is perfectly fine, if your entire table is on board.

My long distance observation of the way you play would be that I feel like you're very tied down to your prep, and feel that, if you can't execute it, it's a huge loss. Now, I'm SURE it's a loss of time, and I would be (and have been) disappointed myself, when my prep goes unplayed or untouched (it does all the time, which is why it's less detailed now than it used to be).  But really, it's not wasted at all. It's sort of like, in writing, when you devote time to thinking about a story. You may not actually commit any of those thoughts to paper, but the thoughts you do put down will be influenced, and, hopefully, strengthened by them.

Of course, that's just my observation, based on the readings from these threads. That and a dime is worth 10 cents.:-) Understand, I'm not telling you to change what you do, if you don't want to. I can only say that there are parallels in your style to my previous style. I chucked the idea of linear adventuring since I took up gaming again, the last, oh, 15 years or so, and I think my games are better for it. Further, I feel a lot less pressure to be perfect, which is always a plus. The quest for perfect control leads to false starts and headaches.

Quote from: tenbones;942533Translation: "I don't care what they say. I can produce any picture with my 8-crayon set that they can with their 72-crayon set. Though I wonder why my pictures don't look as detailed as theirs?"

Grow your box man!

Translate however the f.. you want. It's not what I said.

Quote from: tenbones;9425222) What are pitfalls of going "sandbox".

Sandbox campaigns have a chicken and egg problem. The more experienced you are in life, knowledge, and in refereeing RPG. The easier it is to build up a bag of stuff to manage the ad-hoc nature of the campaign. If you are a 15 year old kid, it not so easy even with prep. If you are a 40 year old hobbyist running her first campaign, again not so easy.

For example how is a referee is going to come up with different styles of medieval peasant huts if he has doesn't know what even one looks like. Granted this is a trivial example, but there are plenty of elements used in RPG campaigns that are not commonly known via popular culture.

Centering the first campaign around a maze with rooms filled with monsters and treasures provides a nice tidy structure to get you started with fantasy roleplaying.

Finally there is no "best". Every choice has consequences attached to it. And what it is chosen it works best if it works with the way YOU think. RPG referees are in a sense mini-gods bringing a world to life. That not a straight forward task as human limitations forces a referee to pick and choose what to say and present at every moment of a session. Disciplining ther mind to do that in a way that is fun for the referee and players is different for every person.

When I write about sandbox campaigns, I try to present as A way, not THE way. The main reason it has the attention it has in recent years is because it wasn't a method that wasn't talked about much in the 80s and 90s.

Sandbox campaigns (or any other type of campaigns) are not all one thing or the other. Learning how to run entertaining railroad campaigns or mission oriented campaigns is useful for sandbox when the players choice lead them in situations where there one sensible path, or where their character's lives start to center around performing missions.

And vice versa, sometime in a campaign that mostly railroaded or centered on mission there come a point where the over direction must be chosen by the players. Learning a little bit about sandbox campaigns will make handling that easier.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942529Not my thread cranebump, I would have known better to start such a thread. The overwhelming opinion on such matters here had been well established.

I couldn't help but notice that your "if the players decide to go to Shanghai" turned into other people's "you gave them the clues that pointed to Shanghai."  That doesn't follow.  Besides simple fuckmindedness on the part of players, another possilbility is "As you turn the corpse over, you see underneath it a copy of the Shanghai Gazette newspaper." You expect, and I expect, the players to say "Who around here sells the Shanghai Gazette," but instead they yell "Off to Shanghai"!

Quote from: Opaopajr;942526And in the past few years I've been tested by an entire generation of players who don't operate on the same paradigm of "actions have consequences."

At what point do you write-off what seems like ignorance as petulance?

I don't write off anything, but I try to make my expectations as clear as I can and I'm okay with the fact that my game won't appeal to everyone.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942542Translate however the f.. you want. It's not what I said.

You'll note that my opinion, and the opinion of those that agree with me, are like three people. You categorized that as "the overwhelming opinion" when clearly it's not. It's not even remotely close. So even you don't know what you said. Or you mischaracterized your own position on purpose/out of habit, or are cognitively dissonant of your own understanding?

The Three Sandbox GM's are Watching!!!

(http://i.imgur.com/CZhM6xJ.jpg) (http://imgur.com/CZhM6xJ)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942547I couldn't help but notice that your "if the players decide to go to Shanghai" turned into other people's "you gave them the clues that pointed to Shanghai."  That doesn't follow.  Besides simple fuckmindedness on the part of players, another possilbility is "As you turn the corpse over, you see underneath it a copy of the Shanghai Gazette newspaper." You expect, and I expect, the players to say "Who around here sells the Shanghai Gazette," but instead they yell "Off to Shanghai"!

Jesus Wept.

1. Players are investigating an Ancient Chinese Cult in San Francisco...
2. Players decide to go to Shanghai.
3. The GM Grove says "they had a good reason". How many goddamn times does it need to be quoted?

Can we stop pretending these players decided out of the fucking blue to go to Shanghai for absolutely no reason whatsoever other than purposely shoving their dick in Grove's ear?

Quote from: estar;942545Sandbox campaigns have a chicken and egg problem. The more experienced you are in life, knowledge, and in refereeing RPG. The easier it is to build up a bag of stuff to manage the ad-hoc nature of the campaign. If you are a 15 year old kid, it not so easy even with prep. If you are a 40 year old hobbyist running her first campaign, again not so easy.

For example how is a referee is going to come up with different styles of medieval peasant huts if he has doesn't know what even one looks like. Granted this is a trivial example, but there are plenty of elements used in RPG campaigns that are not commonly known via popular culture.

Centering the first campaign around a maze with rooms filled with monsters and treasures provides a nice tidy structure to get you started with fantasy roleplaying.

Finally there is no "best". Every choice has consequences attached to it. And what it is chosen it works best if it works with the way YOU think. RPG referees are in a sense mini-gods bringing a world to life. That not a straight forward task as human limitations forces a referee to pick and choose what to say and present at every moment of a session. Disciplining ther mind to do that in a way that is fun for the referee and players is different for every person.

When I write about sandbox campaigns, I try to present as A way, not THE way. The main reason it has the attention it has in recent years is because it wasn't a method that wasn't talked about much in the 80s and 90s.

Sandbox campaigns (or any other type of campaigns) are not all one thing or the other. Learning how to run entertaining railroad campaigns or mission oriented campaigns is useful for sandbox when the players choice lead them in situations where there one sensible path, or where their character's lives start to center around performing missions.

And vice versa, sometime in a campaign that mostly railroaded or centered on mission there come a point where the over direction must be chosen by the players. Learning a little bit about sandbox campaigns will make handling that easier.

I generally agree with most of this. Bolded part is the one most germane to the discussion. The part I balk at is the notion that sandboxing is being used as "the one true way". I, too, am saying "it's a way". It requires more work and effort that encompasses the other "ways" that are being bandied about. I find there is this bizarre dissonance to try and equate "storygaming" and "sandboxing" as if they're not distinct things with different requirements. As you pointed out experience is a huge factor for those exact reasons.

I would disagree with you on "best" way. A "storygamer" using those conceits of GMing will approach a linear game along that same narrow bandwidth of options. Invariably there will be moments where the PC's make decisions that may derail the linear flow of the adventure. This forces the "storygamer GM" to have to make hard decisions that invariably based on experience/personal interest/ability forces the game back on track via methods that limit agency of the players, or merely reinforce GM-fiat. Or worse, relegate the PC's as irrelevant (among other possibilities of low-value).

I would submit one *has* to go through that period in order to learn how to "sandbox". Which is spot-on when you point out it wasn't talked about during the 80's and 90's because that's when a lot of people were figuring all that stuff out. Meanwhile new blood was coming and starting from that "storygaming" approach. Once GM's get past this* (and I think most don't), they start figuring out how to "sandbox".

A decent "sandbox" GM can/will run linear adventures in the context of their sandboxes (even if their players don't realize it). But the inevitable problems of the "storygamer GM" will not be nearly as prevalent *because* the "sandbox-GM" already knows how to deal with that stuff. And the players will still not even realize it.

I ran a Talislanta hex-crawl adventure that was a gigantic T-intersection where every side-adventure etc, happened along an unmapped route where the leader of the expedition (one of the PC's who doesn't normally "lead" in the group) was making all the calls. But after much trial and tribulation he started to panic on how all these decisions on their safari were causing him to stray off course. I held up a map and showed them: it was a gigantic T-intersection, nothing more. It just happened to take place in a mountainous jungle over 300-miles of terrain and the only ultimate decision he really had to make if he stayed on course as plotted by his map was to go left, or right (based on the mission from his superiors). But because it was a hex-crawl, I fleshed everything out to make it all appear wide open. I was *fully* prepared for them to go off-roading at their discretion. So it was a linear adventure within a sandbox, left to the pure discretion of the players.

As an experienced "sandbox GM" - I can do that. As a "storygame GM" - it's much more difficult. This is why I recommend learning that method as "better". It teaches you to be more prepared as a GM and can help with improvisational skills to boot. Of course if one doesn't want to learn - that's fine too. But then when running into these problems we've both identified with that method - don't be surprised at the reaction. It's like insisting that crawling in a sprint race is the same thing. Sure we're both racing - but one *is* better than the other.

There was a young man from Cathay
On a slow boat to China one day
Was trapped near the tiller
By a sex-crazed gorilla
And China's a bloody long way

Not useful to the thread, but the PCs going off to Shanghai reminded me of the Goons' limerick.

Quote from: soltakss;942555There was a young man from Cathay
On a slow boat to China one day
Was trapped near the tiller
By a sex-crazed gorilla
And China's a bloody long way

Not useful to the thread, but the PCs going off to Shanghai reminded me of the Goons' limerick.

More useful I think than most of the posts. :D

Quote from: tenbones;942553I would disagree with you on "best" way.

I am not sure where you are getting that I consider Sandbox campaigns the best way of running a RPG campaign. It is the best way for me and I am glad to explain what I do to others in the hopes that find something useful for their own campaigns. However the "best" way is the way that work with how the referee things and that is fun for him and his players.

If I have a problem a person advocating something that doesn't work well for what they are trying to achieve. For example it my experience that a large majority of hobbyists do not find it fun to have character start out in the midst of a blank map and told to go forth and explore. However I personally know of several hobbyists who thrive in such situations. Another is that I consider RPG rules to be inefficient and cumbersome way of trying to do collaborative stories. Based on my experience in playing and refereeing rpg campaign and participating in collaborative fiction writing (alternate history is a favorite of mine).


A "storygamer" using those conceits of GMing will approach a linear game along that same narrow bandwidth of options. Invariably there will be moments where the PC's make decisions that may derail the linear flow of the adventure. This forces the "storygamer GM" to have to make hard decisions that invariably based on experience/personal interest/ability forces the game back on track via methods that limit agency of the players, or merely reinforce GM-fiat. Or worse, relegate the PC's as irrelevant (among other possibilities of low-value).

Quote from: tenbones;942553I would submit one *has* to go through that period in order to learn how to "sandbox".

I disagree, my experience the quality one needs to run a sandbox at the novice level is the willingness to let players trash your campaign setting. That how I got started. And seem to be a common element among the other I met who are long time sandbox referee. People whose campaign predate 2000.

Now being willing to let players trash your campaign doesn't mean you will be good at it, or that you find it natural. It just mean your frustration level over what the players do or don't do will be considerably lower. If you enjoy refereeing this get you into the zone of try fail, try again. Finally over the hump where you have enough experience to make work for most campaigns.

Most hobbyist learn by example. And my comments about the 80s and 90s are meant to illustrate that most of the examples didn't lend themselves to learning how to run a sandbox campaign. Especially after the success of Dragon Lance.

Quote from: tenbones;942553Once GM's get past this* (and I think most don't), they start figuring out how to "sandbox".

My view that we are more aware of different play styles thanks to the internet. And people are trying more things and getting the word out there. And some of it is actually "sticking" to the collective conscious of the hobby.  Hobby is continuing to diversify and many niches are well supported. And it easier for the hobbyist to find the niche that work best with the way he thinks and finds fun.

But the downside of course is that people are still people. They forget that interests changes over time, that while the detail of GURPS was appealing at one point in their lives, right now all they have the time and interest for is Microlite20.

Quote from: tenbones;942553I ran a Talislanta hex-crawl adventure that was a gigantic T-intersection where every side-adventure etc, happened along an unmapped route where the leader of the expedition (one of the PC's who doesn't normally "lead" in the group) was making all the calls. But after much trial and tribulation he started to panic on how all these decisions on their safari were causing him to stray off course.

My current issue is that I am effective as presenting the campaign as a slice of the life of the character  and the players want to play out each and every damn day of the campaign. Because I am able to have something to be done that interesting every game day. One session started as a rest and refit at a village and the sessions wound up helping a drunk guy find his lost flock of sheep. I just made it up as a throwaway encounter as a PC left a tavern. But it clicked with one player, he convinced the party it was important, and wound up being the focus of the session.

The reason why it is an annoyance to me is not that it happens, but the experience awards at the end of each session. I know all the different ways of awarding experience but none of them work well when the campaign is session after session of characters living out the game-days. I have something that better but it is still a work in progress.

Quote from: tenbones;942553As an experienced "sandbox GM" - I can do that. As a "storygame GM" - it's much more difficult. This is why I recommend learning that method as "better". It teaches you to be more prepared as a GM and can help with improvisational skills to boot.

I agree that Sandbox techniques are more flexible. But on the other hand what if the person isn't that flexible? Can they still run a fun tabletop RPG campaign?

My experience is that yes they can. It a different set of techniques, mostly revolving around being a good entertainer. But it can be done.

Most of the results are in-between, I know at the one game-store I frequent, a referee is known to be inflexible is a bit of a dick to boot. He not a terrible person just that how his personality skews. However he comes up with these imaginative campaigns and rule systems that are interesting enough to most of the game store regulars that they play in his campaign.

Again I contend the "best" way is the one that works with the way you think. However if you come complaining to about having to improvise when the players go off the rails. Then I am going to do pretty much as you suggest. Recommend to learn how to run a sandbox campaign and give the benefit of my experience.

Quote from: tenbones;942550the three sandbox gm's are watching!!!

(http://i.imgur.com/czhm6xj.jpg) (http://imgur.com/czhm6xj)

roooooo  rok rok rok rok rok!

Quote from: CRKrueger;942551Jesus Wept.

1. Players are investigating an Ancient Chinese Cult in San Francisco...
2. Players decide to go to Shanghai.
3. The GM Grove says "they had a good reason". How many goddamn times does it need to be quoted?

Can we stop pretending these players decided out of the fucking blue to go to Shanghai for absolutely no reason whatsoever other than purposely shoving their dick in Grove's ear?

What the fuck example are YOU talking about?

Quote from: rgrove0172;942023A few years ago I ran a circa 1900 adventure in San Francisco. The game involved a murderous Chinese cult, supernatural elements, a mystery to solve etc. Had the players elected to take a ship to Shanghai I would have reminded them that the game was about the events in San Fran rather than fabricate some railroady reason they had to stay. If they had insisted I would have let them but called the game done until which time I was prepared to continue the adventure in the new direction..IF I even wanted to.

In Grover's example he said "HAD the players elected to take a ship."  Nothing at ALL about "the players DID take a ship."

Words mean things.

Quote from: soltakss;942555There was a young man from Cathay
On a slow boat to China one day
Was trapped near the tiller
By a sex-crazed gorilla
And China's a bloody long way

Not useful to the thread, but the PCs going off to Shanghai reminded me of the Goons' limerick.

There was a young lady from Exeter
And all the young men threw their sex at her
So just to be rude
She'd lay in the nude
While her parrot, a pervert, took pecks at her.

-- Peter Sellers, "The Magic Christian"

Quote from: rgrove0172;942023A few years ago I ran a circa 1900 adventure in San Francisco. The game involved a murderous Chinese cult, supernatural elements, a mystery to solve etc. Had the players elected to take a ship to Shanghai I would have reminded them that the game was about the events in San Fran rather than fabricate some railroady reason they had to stay. If they had insisted I would have let them but called the game done until which time I was prepared to continue the adventure in the new direction..IF I even wanted to.

You are a referee that doesn't like players trashing his campaign/setting. Normally that fine, however in the many post here and other threads the picture you paint is not one of a novices. So I have to ask what gives? You are telling me that with your knowledge you can't make up a voyage to Shanghai on the fly until the session is done? Do it in a way that is fun for you and your players?

That work you put into detailing San Francisco doesn't mean it wasted. Chinese cults originate in well.. China. Maybe not that exact cult. Maybe it something worse and now the PCs are going to have even a tougher challenge now they are going to the source of this madness. Why do they feel the need to go Shanghai? The answer to that is a nice way to structure further adventures.

If you want to call a halt and talk out of game that your call. But just know there are alternatives. Alternatives that work well for many of us. Given the experiences you related, I think you have the foundation to make it work for you.

But only if you are willing to let players trash your setting or your campaign.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]662[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942562In Grover's example he said "HAD the players elected to take a ship."  Nothing at ALL about "the players DID take a ship."
Words mean things.

They do, which is why you might want to read more of them.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942147Of course I considered the WHY, they had good reason but in the context of things a several months of sea travel and a visit in port across the world would no doubt allowed the developments in San Fran to progress to a point of no return. The game was about dealing with the immediate threat at that place and time. Globetrotting is fine if that what the game is designed around, we play "Leagues of Adventure" exactly that way but in this case such a drastic move would simply have ended the scenario. So as you said, before you started in on me, TIME WAS an issue and therefor the trip a deal killer.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942201my mistake for not boring everyone with a complete rundown of the situation but it really doesn't matter. I get what you are saying and certainly I could have responded as you say. I chose not to. Its my game too. I didn't want to run a game on a ship for 3 weeks and make up a new city full of encounters. I had enough invested in San Fran I preferred to run the game there. That's as brutally honest as I can get. I was honest and open about it to the players and they understood. I could have made up some shit about a quarantine not allowing ships to leave, or pirates off the coast, or some other in game reason for them not to leave but I chose honesty instead. We had a great time playing the game after that.

So again...
1. Players are investigating an Ancient Chinese Cult in San Francisco...
2. Players decide to go to Shanghai. (Q. Where do you think they got that idea?)
3. The GM Grove says "they had a good reason". (A. Probably not random shitidea #7.)
4. Grove stops the presses, tells them to stay in San Fran.

Quote from: Opaopajr;942531You're being a deliberate tease here. Are you indirectly confirming their suspicions of how things played out? Did I waste my benefit of the doubt on you?

Commit. Clarify.

I've been made very aware my opinions on such matters,are in the extreme minority. I accept that and at some point just tire of arguing.

Storygames are not simply about "linear narrative instead of sandboxing".

Storygames are about being a group of directors (or novelists) instead of a group of actors.

If you're the novelist, sandboxing simply becomes a terrible idea. There's nothing "advanced" about it.  You're just making the novel shittier by losing focus and wasting word count for no reason.

But I hate storygames, and I really, really, REALLY can't stand some of its proponents, so feel free to keep crapping on them anyway. I approve.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942562What the fuck example are YOU talking about?



In Grover's example he said "HAD the players elected to take a ship."  Nothing at ALL about "the players DID take a ship."

Words mean things.

I started to mention it was hypothetical but by that time the damage here was done. I just threw in the towel.

Quote from: estar;942560I am not sure where you are getting that I consider Sandbox campaigns the best way of running a RPG campaign. It is the best way for me and I am glad to explain what I do to others in the hopes that find something useful for their own campaigns. However the "best" way is the way that work with how the referee things and that is fun for him and his players.

I'm not asserting you said Sandbox games are the best (you said it was merely different - which I agree with you on that point), until this post, I didn't know. But in terms of "Best" - you're mixing objectivity with subjectivity. As you even mentioned (which again I agree with) experience matters. A lot. Some people do not have the capacity/interest/desire/whatever to learn a more complex means of GMing for a desired effect. Fully accepted.But one method encompasses the other. The other does not. To the degree that someone can use a basic method well does not diminish what is possible between methods. On that point alone - I say the Sandbox method is better. I'm not denigrating the subjective value a person derives from running a Storygame, not in the slightest. That someone *feels* they're being denigrated because I point out that one method does more things than their particular method of choice has nothing to do with objective fact.

I would also submit that what is "fun" is also relative to one's experience. This too is a subjective matter that can't be easily measured other than by anecdotal experience. But I'm always willing to put that to the test at my table.

I mentioned that I believe (though I have no evidence other than circumstantial) that good Sandbox GM's are rare because most give up the ghost on it due to the requirements (or other extenuating circumstances, one presumes). It seems logical to me that the perceived divide exists in this interval - where there is natural skepticism by those that know, by doing, vs. those that think they know because of their relative inexperience (for whatever reason) and then attach their identities to that state.

Quote from: estar;942560If I have a problem a person advocating something that doesn't work well for what they are trying to achieve. For example it my experience that a large majority of hobbyists do not find it fun to have character start out in the midst of a blank map and told to go forth and explore. However I personally know of several hobbyists who thrive in such situations. Another is that I consider RPG rules to be inefficient and cumbersome way of trying to do collaborative stories. Based on my experience in playing and refereeing rpg campaign and participating in collaborative fiction writing (alternate history is a favorite of mine).

This is getting into an important distinction within the method itself. Something we've *barely* ever discussed here (and it might be worthwhile to make a separate thread if everyone is interested) and that is: what makes a good sandbox GM? Degrees of experience doing a sandbox matter too. I've said in other posts sandbox games have many more ways to implode than a Storygame because the GM is attempting to inherently spin more plates. For example - I would never slap a bunch of characters on a map and say "go forth" - without giving the players as much context as I possibly could without boring them to tears. That alone is an important technique to learn. My stance on the "story" is simple - I don't do collaborative stories - that's just the byproduct of play.

Quote from: estar;942560I disagree, my experience the quality one needs to run a sandbox at the novice level is the willingness to let players trash your campaign setting. That how I got started. And seem to be a common element among the other I met who are long time sandbox referee. People whose campaign predate 2000.

I don't see how this is a disagreement. You're illustrating exactly how one ends up becoming a sandbox GM. As I pointed out in the very quote you cited - it's the linear Storygame GM that faces these internal conflicts due to how they GM that forces them to come up with methods that will, assuming they even stick with it, will evolve their method into slowly accumulating sandbox-style tools. The trashing of your game - that willingness - is absolutely true. Its no less true once you fully adopt the sandbox-method. That goes back to my earlier claim about the illusion of control upthread. On the quote you're citing - I'm just trying to illustrate the point where the rubber hits the road and you either say "fuck it, this is too hard." or you erect your bubble of rationales as a Storygaming GM and say "Yep I'm awesome and this is the only way to do it." Subsequently you'll keep running into the same issues that will further cement that bias, until you run into Sandbox GM's who offer their solution to fix it - which then affronts their sensibilities.

Quote from: estar;942560Now being willing to let players trash your campaign doesn't mean you will be good at it, or that you find it natural. It just mean your frustration level over what the players do or don't do will be considerably lower. If you enjoy refereeing this get you into the zone of try fail, try again. Finally over the hump where you have enough experience to make work for most campaigns.

Most hobbyist learn by example. And my comments about the 80s and 90s are meant to illustrate that most of the examples didn't lend themselves to learning how to run a sandbox campaign. Especially after the success of Dragon Lance.

Estar, my DONG-sashed soldier from Fort Tusken - I swear we're saying the same thing. I just may sound like more of an ass to other's eyes doing it. :)

Quote from: estar;942560My view that we are more aware of different play styles thanks to the internet. And people are trying more things and getting the word out there. And some of it is actually "sticking" to the collective conscious of the hobby.  Hobby is continuing to diversify and many niches are well supported. And it easier for the hobbyist to find the niche that work best with the way he thinks and finds fun.

But the downside of course is that people are still people. They forget that interests changes over time, that while the detail of GURPS was appealing at one point in their lives, right now all they have the time and interest for is Microlite20.

I would agree with this too. I was a DIE-HARD D&D guy. I played other stuff, but now I'm here doing 1e Forgotten Realms Greybox fluff with Savage Worlds, a foot firmly in the past and with a new-fangled modern system. But I'm keeping it sandy. So much sand that I got Shai-Hulud casting its shadow over me and my players.

Quote from: estar;942560I agree that Sandbox techniques are more flexible. But on the other hand what if the person isn't that flexible? Can they still run a fun tabletop RPG campaign?

My experience is that yes they can. It a different set of techniques, mostly revolving around being a good entertainer. But it can be done.

And the details of that discussion is fodder for the Ultimate Sandbox thread. I, too, think anyone can learn to sandbox. Like anything else - it just takes practice and time.

Quote from: estar;942560Again I contend the "best" way is the one that works with the way you think. However if you come complaining to about having to improvise when the players go off the rails. Then I am going to do pretty much as you suggest. Recommend to learn how to run a sandbox campaign and give the benefit of my experience.

I think this is pretty much what me, CRK and AsenG have been saying (among others).

Quote from: rgrove0172;942571I started to mention it was hypothetical but by that time the damage here was done. I just threw in the towel.

Yeah, they never got that far because you told them "Guys, stay in San Fran."  Or have you just been improv'ing all the subsequent explanations?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942562Words mean things.

Yes, they most certainly do, so let's take a look at them again.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942250Of course there were reasons but they bowed to the risks involved and decided to sacrifice them in the way of a quick and safe resolution to the threat [by burning down the haunted house].

Quote from: rgrove0172;942147Of course I considered the WHY, they had good reason [to go to Shanghai] but in the context of things a several months of sea travel and a visit in port across the world would no doubt allowed the developments in San Fran to progress to a point of no return. (emphases added - BV)

In both cases, this supposed referee - again, I don't think Grover is A Real Boy - stated that the players were at least somewhat justified making the choices Grover reported, to wit, burn down the haunted house rather than investigate it and make a trip to Shanghai as part of investigating events transpiring in San Francisco.

Except . . . the example of the San Francisco game didn't come from actual play

Quote from: rgrove0172;942571I started to mention it was hypothetical but by that time the damage here was done. I just threw in the towel.

So the players 'hypothetically' could be justified in deciding to go to Shanghai, based on the events in the game, which suggests that, if this game really happened at all, there were clues or descriptions or whatever-the-fuck-ever that might've led players to surmise going to Shanghai could be a good idea.

But I don't believe this ever happened at all. See, every time Grover posts something about his games and receives feedback - often negative feedback - the examples change, for which Grover blames us.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942147You guys continually spout off with limited and often incorrect information.

The example from the Star Wars game. The example from the haunted house. The example of San Francisco. Each time the example changes as the replies roll in. Of course they had freedom to explore the space station. Of course they had reasons not to burn the haunted house down. Of course the example of the trip to Shanghai was only hypothetical.

And nearly every time Grover offers an example, then 'clarifies' the example with all the information he didn't include originally, it's orthogonal to what pretty much everyone else is posting about the same topic

The patter(n) occurs over and over again, thread after thread, leading to me to two possible explanations: (1) Grover is the stupidest fucker on the planet, or (2) Grover is an elaborate troll.

As for me, I'm done with this bullshit. I use my Ignore list for one reason and one reason only, because reading a given poster is a waste of minutes of my life I will never get back. Grover's dead to me, as of now.

Quote from: tenbones;942572I'm not asserting you said Sandbox games are the best (you said it was merely different - which I agree with you on that point), until this post,

...I think this is pretty much what me, CRK and AsenG have been saying (among others).

[/QUOTE]
Yeah in response to this comment and your similair comments later in the post, we are pretty much on the same page.

Quote from: tenbones;942572I didn't know. But in terms of "Best" - you're mixing objectivity with subjectivity. As you even mentioned (which again I agree with) experience matters. A lot. Some people do not have the capacity/interest/desire/whatever to learn a more complex means of GMing for a desired effect. Fully accepted.But one method encompasses the other. The other does not. To the degree that someone can use a basic method well does not diminish what is possible between methods. On that point alone - I say the Sandbox method is better. I'm not denigrating the subjective value a person derives from running a Storygame, not in the slightest. That someone *feels* they're being denigrated because I point out that one method does more things than their particular method of choice has nothing to do with objective fact.

I would also submit that what is "fun" is also relative to one's experience. This too is a subjective matter that can't be easily measured other than by anecdotal experience. But I'm always willing to put that to the test at my table.

My perspective is naunced on this issue. When I ran a boffer LARP chapter with 30 to 50 players attending an event, I had to learn how to herd cats in regards to what "fun". It not easy is very different than catering to a group of 3 to 8 individuals. But I learned how to do it. Most of the time I think I succeeded but I had some duds as well.

My observation is that there are some things that can work regardless of individual interests. Things that form the basis of good mass entertainment. This effect allowed me to juggle running an event where some things has to work for all 30 to 50 players, while other things can focus on a small group of them. I found the ideas that work here also works for the smaller groups tabletop RPGs as well. So I think the idea of "fun" and "best" is more objective than what you are making it to be here.

But... the thing is that even with my experience at no time it was always a crap shot as to which INDIVIDUAL player like the stuff I was presented. While I had more successes as a WHOLE, when it come to which player enjoyed that particular event, I might as well as have rolled dice. The only rule that worked was to personally interact with people and learned their likes and dislikes. Climb the steep learning curve to learn more about my players.

So you do have a point in a way. It just more complex than saying there are rules and it all subjective.

Now when it comes to tabletop RPGs one reason I continued to focus on Sandbox campaigns because running the game as a pen & paper holodeck made the campaign player neutral for the most part. Yes I played my setting serious, but I had campaign where it was treated as a romp through Merrie Olde England, and campaigns where the facts of life and existance were debated all using the same Majestic Wilderlands setting. Most of the time the players just want to get on with adventuring, kill things, take their shit, and be the heroes. In that respect it mirrors our own world where there are people living their lives all three ways I mentioned and more.

A secondary benefit that players tend to talk to each more naturally and hash out conflicting goals in a way many cooperative groups would do in real life. It rare that any one particular goal is ignored. Many times where the consensus was "We will do that but later".

Quote from: tenbones;942572I mentioned that I believe (though I have no evidence other than circumstantial) that good Sandbox GM's are rare because most give up the ghost on it due to the requirements (or other extenuating circumstances, one presumes).

My contention is that we been only talking about it for ten years as opposed to forty years (or thirty years of Dragonlance style adventure paths) of traditional adventures.

The fact that most first published adventures were tournament dungeons had a huge founder effect. Then Dragonlance had it own outsized impact.

Until the late 2000s, the only people who ran sandbox campaigns were the folks that did it themselves. After the Wilderlands of High Fantasy, this type of campaign had a formal name, people started talking about, and word got around. I had a small part in all that.

Quote from: tenbones;942572This is getting into an important distinction within the method itself. Something we've *barely* ever discussed here (and it might be worthwhile to make a separate thread if everyone is interested) and that is: what makes a good sandbox GM?

I would contribute. I still say the foundation is pretty simple, are you willing to let players trash your setting or your campaign? If that bothers the potential referee to a greater or lesser degree then learning how to run a Sandbox will be a steep learning curve.

Everything about managing sandbox campaigns is about how to make trashing the setting fun and challenging for everybody involved.

Quote from: tenbones;942572Degrees of experience doing a sandbox matter too. I've said in other posts sandbox games have many more ways to implode than a Storygame because the GM is attempting to inherently spin more plates.

The one that pretty specific to sandbox campaigns is motivation. The willingness of the players to interact with the setting as his character. But I learn how to make it work for players with low drive. Making their character part of an interesting organization that gives them missions well help.

I run CoC where "burn down the haunted house" isn't a bad idea...until you awaken the thing inside that was being held in check by the elder signs carved into the support beams and floorboards.

BTW, there is nothing wrong with limiting the scope of the sandbox. I've run plenty of games which the players readily accepted there were walls to the sandbox because the concept of the campaign was about exploring and interacting with Location XYZ and not about wandering anywhere.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942481We frightened off the OP days ago...

What, you didn't think that yelling at him that he's doing it wrong might have an effect?

Wow.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;942619What, you didn't think that yelling at him that he's doing it wrong might have an effect?

Wow.

Vigil's been here 5 years, he knows the place, and continued posting well beyond Gronan's rather vigorous challenge of his definition of a sandbox.  Look at the number of posts, he doesn't make many. He seemed to check out right around the time the thread became another version of "Narrativist Seeking Acceptance".

Quote from: Christopher Brady;942619What, you didn't think that yelling at him that he's doing it wrong might have an effect?

Wow.

I'm surprised! So many people here are at worst quiet when they're not into something. They don't shit all over things they don't like. It's not as if people like...I dunno...CRKrueger aren't open-minded and friendly towards opposing ideas.

Yes, CRKrueger. That was very much a jab. Now do what you do. I don't care. You're a bully and nothing you post will convince me otherwise.

I never drink this early in the evening.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942571I started to mention it was hypothetical but by that time the damage here was done. I just threw in the towel.

... [I have yet to find the smilie that adequately expresses my disappointment in your drollery. But when I do, it goes here.]

Started to, but couldn't get around to it, so you continued on elaborating as though you had a necessary Table Talk. Ok, Schrödinger Cat anecdotes it is then. Wake us when you decide to be genuine.

Quote from: estar;942591My perspective is naunced on this issue. When I ran a boffer LARP chapter with 30 to 50 players attending an event, I had to learn how to herd cats in regards to what "fun". It not easy is very different than catering to a group of 3 to 8 individuals. But I learned how to do it. Most of the time I think I succeeded but I had some duds as well.

I've never run a LARP. But your experience to catering to any size of a group sounds like my own experience too. Some massive successes, and some spectacular flops. And alot of varying degress in between.

Quote from: estar;942591My observation is that there are some things that can work regardless of individual interests. Things that form the basis of good mass entertainment. This effect allowed me to juggle running an event where some things has to work for all 30 to 50 players, while other things can focus on a small group of them. I found the ideas that work here also works for the smaller groups tabletop RPGs as well. So I think the idea of "fun" and "best" is more objective than what you are making it to be here.

But... the thing is that even with my experience at no time it was always a crap shot as to which INDIVIDUAL player like the stuff I was presented. While I had more successes as a WHOLE, when it come to which player enjoyed that particular event, I might as well as have rolled dice. The only rule that worked was to personally interact with people and learned their likes and dislikes. Climb the steep learning curve to learn more about my players.

So you do have a point in a way. It just more complex than saying there are rules and it all subjective.

Yep. There's always that one little detail beyond the obvious. Always that one little thing you didn't think of that caters to the chemistry of the individual and the group as it pertains to the content in your presentation, and the execution of game. And this is almost always on a session-by-session basis. Yeah it's a high-wire act, and I fully concede it's not for everyone. But I advocate for it because I've had radically higher levels of "awesome moments" in these kinds of games than I ever had running a manicured storygame-module.  

Quote from: estar;942591Now when it comes to tabletop RPGs one reason I continued to focus on Sandbox campaigns because running the game as a pen & paper holodeck made the campaign player neutral for the most part. Yes I played my setting serious, but I had campaign where it was treated as a romp through Merrie Olde England, and campaigns where the facts of life and existance were debated all using the same Majestic Wilderlands setting. Most of the time the players just want to get on with adventuring, kill things, take their shit, and be the heroes. In that respect it mirrors our own world where there are people living their lives all three ways I mentioned and more.

A secondary benefit that players tend to talk to each more naturally and hash out conflicting goals in a way many cooperative groups would do in real life. It rare that any one particular goal is ignored. Many times where the consensus was "We will do that but later".

I've never gamed with conflict-averse personalities long-term until I came here to Dallas. My LA group were a rotating cast of alpha-personalities that took to Sandbox play with ease. I have a couple of guys here with me now in Dallas that did the same - but they weren't sandbox style players when we met. But a couple of my players are very conflict-averse in real-life and when they started gaming with me, it was a shock to them about how much freedom I allowed. They consistently suffer from the "Tyranny of Choice" because the only thing I really demand is that they play their character the way they want to play them, in context of the setting. Strangely these two guys play in another group on our off-nights, where they do Storygaming and modules. I always wonder why they keep coming back to play with me. Especially after sessions where their lack of decisiveness creates more conflict in-game because other wheels are moving and the demands of my games tend to require responses. These are guys that get mildly "triggered" by the shit that goes on in my games (though they may not admit it, the rest of us know its true).

They come back because they feel my games are unpredictable. Anything can happen, nothing is certain, people can have triumphs and disasters, live and die - sometimes in the same night. And despite the fact that sometimes we can wax a little dark, it's almost always high-stakes where the PC's are front and center 100% of the time. I like to feed my players - I give to them, in the campaign, what they put in. And yeah that takes work, but it's gratifying to me because I don't pretend to be "in the band" - I'm just the band manager. But I recognize not all players are up to that task of playing lead-guitar and rocking Madison Square Garden weekly. I adjust content for them accordingly on an individual basis because I know some of them, deep down, are storygamers. They want to go from encounter A to encounter B, have the flavor text read to them. Swing, kill, loot. rinse/repeat. But the rest aren't.

It's not that I don't have those things in my games - of course your'e going to kill shit and take their stuff at some point (unless you're not that kinda PC) but it's all the other ramifications of doing that stuff that I give equal weight to that changes the nature of the game. And ones freedom to interact within those boundaries are likewise engaged.

They come back because they find that after running around in our sandbox, playing with the storygaming group is less satisfying because it's formulaic and designed for a specific generic experience. I'm not saying that every sandbox game I've run has been awesome - I'm saying we've had enough ridiculously awesome moments that can only come from sandbox-style play, that once you have them - you want *that*. All the time. Every time. And I don't take credit for it, because as I've come to realize *I* can't make this stuff happen. That's the alchemy of the sandbox. It's about the players doing stuff and the GM has to believe in those PC's. I just create the sandbox they play in. What happens is the "crapshoot" you refer to below, heh.

Quote from: estar;942591My contention is that we been only talking about it for ten years as opposed to forty years (or thirty years of Dragonlance style adventure paths) of traditional adventures.

The fact that most first published adventures were tournament dungeons had a huge founder effect. Then Dragonlance had it own outsized impact.

Until the late 2000s, the only people who ran sandbox campaigns were the folks that did it themselves. After the Wilderlands of High Fantasy, this type of campaign had a formal name, people started talking about, and word got around. I had a small part in all that.

I think this is a very good point. I'm interested in it, because I honestly don't know anyone personally that hasn't had this same experience that has gamed this long. Grove, for example might be the first I've encountered online (I'm sure there are others). I also think it's why he gets a little extra attention despite his ever-moving goalpost points - because if we take him at his word in terms of how long he's been GMing, he's a unicorn.

Quote from: estar;942591I would contribute. I still say the foundation is pretty simple, are you willing to let players trash your setting or your campaign? If that bothers the potential referee to a greater or lesser degree then learning how to run a Sandbox will be a steep learning curve.

Everything about managing sandbox campaigns is about how to make trashing the setting fun and challenging for everybody involved.

I suspect this statement is about as foundational a principle as I can imagine for sandboxing.

Quote from: estar;942591The one that pretty specific to sandbox campaigns is motivation. The willingness of the players to interact with the setting as his character. But I learn how to make it work for players with low drive. Making their character part of an interesting organization that gives them missions well help.

Yes! Context. The more context the better for low-drive players. This way players know what their PC's are about and why they do what they do. They're people with friends and enemies, loved ones etc. I also like to do pre-game sitdowns with my players before the campaign kicks off to talk about their characters. *I* want to be a fan of their characters as much as I want them to be a fan of the sandbox. They go hand-in-hand. So setting up that context for whatever kind of PC they wanna play is important.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942561roooooo  rok rok rok rok rok!

I can't... get this... sound out of my head now...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]663[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;942677aren't open-minded

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;942677nothing you post will convince me otherwise.

Great, I need another Irony-Meter.

Quote from: CRKrueger;942710Great, I need another Irony-Meter.

Get in line.

(http://www.weekendshooter.com/irony-meter.jpg)

Quote from: Black Vulmea;942741Get in line.

(http://www.weekendshooter.com/irony-meter.jpg)

Cutesy pics don't change the fact quite a few people act like pricks, unprovoked, then circle the wagons when called on it.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;942752Cutesy pics don't change the fact quite a few people act like pricks, unprovoked, then circle the wagons when called on it.

For the record, I wasn't one of the people telling Vigil his definition of sandbox was off and Brady was just white-knighting because he has a fit anytime Gronan opens his yap.

So, I'm not sure what you're even on about?  Did you even post to this thread at all, or just decide to jump in and cry foul?  Or are you carrying over from the other thread?  In which case I think my replacement IronyMeter might break also.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;942277Hmmm, yeah. I see where you could think I was poking at you/others. I was pretty spun-up last night and being snippy, so apologies. Like I said, I wasn't taking a cheap shot but I really don't post here enough (I lurk often, though) for anyone to know my tone. It's rather pointless to take pot-shots at each other over things, because they can escalate quickly and ruin future discourse.

Be the change you want to see?

EDIT: Oh I get it, "Narratives Seeking Acceptance."  Was that it?  Grove's been basically doing the same thread for 6 months now, and is always amazed when everyone doesn't agree with him.  That's what that was for.

Why couldn't the Space Opera GM just tell his players "hey, I want to run a campaign about space nobles who crash land on a primitive planet. If you want to play, make PCs for that"?

Wouldn't that solve all the handwringing?

If that really any different than the Fantasy GM who tells his players "hey, I want to run an all-Dwarf LotR campaign about the retaking of Moria, so make PCs for that."?

Quote from: CRKrueger;942756For the record, I wasn't one of the people telling Vigil his definition of sandbox was off and Brady was just white-knighting because he has a fit anytime Gronan opens his yap.


EDIT: Oh I get it, "Narratives Seeking Acceptance."  Was that it?  Grove's been basically doing the same thread for 6 months now, and is always amazed when everyone doesn't agree with him.  That's what that was for.

I thought you were pretty fair and balanced in your exchanges, especially compared to some of our more, er, "vehement" posters. This certainly seems true, so maybe there is some carryover from that going on here and there.

Quote from: Spinachcat;942771Why couldn't the Space Opera GM just tell his players "hey, I want to run a campaign about space nobles who crash land on a primitive planet. If you want to play, make PCs for that"?

Wouldn't that solve all the handwringing?

If that really any different than the Fantasy GM who tells his players "hey, I want to run an all-Dwarf LotR campaign about the retaking of Moria, so make PCs for that."?

You'd think so, though somehow I envision at least one player doing the snowflake thing ("Hey, can I be a captured Orc who's come around to the ways of the Dwarves and now fights for them?" [because I am oh, so special among these plebes]).:-)

Quote from: Black Vulmea;942588Yes, they most certainly do, so let's take a look at them again.


In both cases, this supposed referee - again, I don't think Grover is A Real Boy - stated that the players were at least somewhat justified making the choices Grover reported, to wit, burn down the haunted house rather than investigate it and make a trip to Shanghai as part of investigating events transpiring in San Francisco.

Except . . . the example of the San Francisco game didn't come from actual play


So the players 'hypothetically' could be justified in deciding to go to Shanghai, based on the events in the game, which suggests that, if this game really happened at all, there were clues or descriptions or whatever-the-fuck-ever that might've led players to surmise going to Shanghai could be a good idea.

But I don't believe this ever happened at all. See, every time Grover posts something about his games and receives feedback - often negative feedback - the examples change, for which Grover blames us.


The example from the Star Wars game. The example from the haunted house. The example of San Francisco. Each time the example changes as the replies roll in. Of course they had freedom to explore the space station. Of course they had reasons not to burn the haunted house down. Of course the example of the trip to Shanghai was only hypothetical.

And nearly every time Grover offers an example, then 'clarifies' the example with all the information he didn't include originally, it's orthogonal to what pretty much everyone else is posting about the same topic

The patter(n) occurs over and over again, thread after thread, leading to me to two possible explanations: (1) Grover is the stupidest fucker on the planet, or (2) Grover is an elaborate troll.

As for me, I'm done with this bullshit. I use my Ignore list for one reason and one reason only, because reading a given poster is a waste of minutes of my life I will never get back. Grover's dead to me, as of now.

Tearing up here. I'll suffer a terrible void in my life without this idiot's bullshit posts. He and a couple others insist on twisting my words around to feed their own high brow agenda. By all means ignore me, please.

Quote from: Spinachcat;942771Why couldn't the Space Opera GM just tell his players "hey, I want to run a campaign about space nobles who crash land on a primitive planet. If you want to play, make PCs for that"?

Wouldn't that solve all the handwringing?

I done that several times and it works.

Quote from: cranebump;942794You'd think so, though somehow I envision at least one player doing the snowflake thing ("Hey, can I be a captured Orc who's come around to the ways of the Dwarves and now fights for them?" [because I am oh, so special among these plebes]).:-)

That is certainly a issue. For example I ran a campaign where everybody was a mage in the Majestic Wilderlands. It went very well so we decided to try to have me run a campaign where everybody played a thief type character in the Majestic Wilderlands. Except one players was bound and determined to play a mage. Really obstinate about it.

In this case it worked out as it developed an aspect of my setting where there a culture of illicit mages working for criminals.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942799Tearing up here. I'll suffer a terrible void in my life without this idiot's bullshit posts. He and a couple others insist on twisting my words around to feed their own high brow agenda. By all means ignore me, please.

Look you are not special. Everybody calls everybody on their bullshit including me. Sometime they are right, sometime they are wrong. Most of time it in-between where it is a matter of opinion.

For example not a lot of people agree with my assertion that RPGs are about running a campaign first playing a set of rules second. That the rules should always reflect what the character can do in the setting not the other way around. Some vehemently argue against me about it, many are indifferent, some find it a useful insight.

It doesn't bother me because when it comes to other topics, the same cast of posters often align different. Which to me indicates that most (not all) are thinking the issues through and posting their honest opinions however contrary they may be. But there are exceptions and given time they are mocked incessantly because it obvious that they are NOT thinking the issues through and their opinions are anything but a honest expression of how they feel about the issue.

As for you, over the course your posting you managed to illicit a common response that is negative. Moreso most have taken the time to explain, including myself, why they are negative about your posts. One choice is to decide that we are a bunch of dickweeds and you go off in a huff to some other forums. However I would submit that you really dig into the posting history of those involved and take note that many of us are published authors or bloggers within the hobby and industry. It not what we have some special authority but we have a known history of being involved.

Another choice, is to decide that yes after all I have something learn here. That maybe there is an actual point that you should listen too. Note that it is you posted several times of ISSUES you been having. People only do that when they are looking for solutions.

Now you could be a advocate of a particular point of view. Certainly I do that when I talk about campaign over rules. I know full well that most gamers look at the rules first, that the choice of rules is a HUGE personal preference to one's enjoyment of tabletop roleplaying.  But I advocate my point, because I strongly feel that many common complaints would better addressed or avoided if the stance was adopted of campaign first, rules second.

However you come across as oblivious to the bias in your posts. The uncharitable view is that you are trolling as form of entertainment. And before you focus on that statement in my post and get upset remember I am taking the time to write to you. And I giving you the reasons for why I am responding the way I am.

So stay or leave, that on you. But if you want the mocking to cease then start listening to what we are telling you.

That is about the nicest mic-drop ever.

Quote from: estar;942802Look you are not special. Everybody calls everybody on their bullshit including me. Sometime they are right, sometime they are wrong. Most of time it in-between where it is a matter of opinion.

Your are right, most of the time it is in between but some stress their points as if they are absolute and in turn cast any alternative aside as trash. It is these that get the hackles up and turn a typically low-key individual, such as myself, to anger.

For example not a lot of people agree with my assertion that RPGs are about running a campaign first playing a set of rules second. That the rules should always reflect what the character can do in the setting not the other way around. Some vehemently argue against me about it, many are indifferent, some find it a useful insight.

It doesn't bother me because when it comes to other topics, the same cast of posters often align different. Which to me indicates that most (not all) are thinking the issues through and posting their honest opinions however contrary they may be. But there are exceptions and given time they are mocked incessantly because it obvious that they are NOT thinking the issues through and their opinions are anything but a honest expression of how they feel about the issue.

I can see where the limitations of the medium, written in this case and often further compromised by the annoyance of posting from a phone, can lead to misunderstandings, including some believing the one expressing their opinion isn't sincere or is operating from some other agenda. It doesn't mean that is the case however, especially when they openly deny it when accused.

As for you, over the course your posting you managed to illicit a common response that is negative. Moreso most have taken the time to explain, including myself, why they are negative about your posts. One choice is to decide that we are a bunch of dickweeds and you go off in a huff to some other forums. However I would submit that you really dig into the posting history of those involved and take note that many of us are published authors or bloggers within the hobby and industry. It not what we have some special authority but we have a known history of being involved.

If you dig into the posting history you will also find my repeated acknowledgements of those with a more varied and perhaps enlightening experience than mine. I have readily admitted my own limitations despite a lifetime of gaming. However, much of what we have discussed in these threads (related as they are they are not identical no matter what some might claim) is purely a matter of opinion and a first day novice has as much a right to his as a forty year grognard. Its certainly appropriate to point out why one has reached a counter opinion over years of gaming but it moves the argument into a very bad place when the name calling begins, accusations the opposition is a simpleton or worse voicing an opinion purely to foster conflict. At that point the exchange is just useless regardless of how valued each opinion might actually be.

Another choice, is to decide that yes after all I have something learn here. That maybe there is an actual point that you should listen too. Note that it is you posted several times of ISSUES you been having. People only do that when they are looking for solutions.

Note I have never said I was having any sort of issue in any of these threads. I have asked for opinions, explanation of how others do things. After 30+ years of gaming Im quite content with my style of GMing but I am curious -as I have said many times - about other styles as I have limited experience with other groups. Im not asking for help, cant recall ever having done so. Even my examples are of situations in which I contended with some element in the game, each time successfully accept one, ONE in which a new gamer didn't like the way I approached the damn Star Wars mine scenario. I might, correction, I HAVE used some of the advice given on this forum and I have readily reported that and thanked those for offering it but it hasn't change the fundamental way I approach my gaming. Similarly my own rants have undoubtedly had little effect on those arguing against me. It works both ways. Are they bull headed, unyielding, ignorant, trolls because they wouldn't listen to me?

Now you could be a advocate of a particular point of view. Certainly I do that when talk about campaign over rules. I know full well that most gamers look at the rules first, that the choice of rules is a HUGE personal preference to one's enjoyment of tabletop roleplaying.  But I advocate my point, but I strongly feel that many common complaints would better addressed or avoided if the stance was adopted of campaign first, rules second.

However you come across as oblivious to the bias in your posts. The uncharitable view is that you are trolling as form of entertainment. And before you focus on that statement in my point and get upset remember I am taking the time to write to you. And I giving you the reasons for why I am responding the way I am.

You say I come across that way but Ive had friends and associates read from these same posts and come away with an entirely different perspective wherein my responses have, at least initially, been very cordial and fair while others have attacked me without provocation. Ill admit that Im not expert when it comes to forums but I didn't even know what a f..ing Troll was until I was accused of being one. The very notion is ridiculous. I have far to busy a schedule to waste time arguing for no reason with strangers on the internet. I absolutely appreciate your taking the time to respond. I have voiced like appreciation to many others, including some of those like tenbones who has come at me pretty strongly from time to time. I only become upset when some asshat like pirate whats his face insists on making accusations based on his own perceptions of what he thinks I may or may not have meant in a post.

So stay or leave, that on you. But if you want the mocking to cease then start listening to what we are telling.

Listening is a given, Ive admitted readily that I 'get' where some are coming from, appreciate their perspective and have even put some of what they recommend to use. Listening however does not require agreement, no matter how impressive the resume or convincing the point of the one being debated. As it turns out I have modified my way of gaming considerably after joining this forum but nobody seems to notice the comments to that effect, or that some of my examples are intentionally left vague to encourage general discussion rather than critique of my games specifically. I mention a description of a field of flowers for God's sake and some blubbering dolt starts in about his vast experience as an outdoorsman? Really? Ill take whatever responsibility I am due for not communicating well I suppose but some of the responses to my posts have been simply inexcusable.

Holy formatting errors Batman!

Quote from: CRKrueger;942827Holy formatting errors Batman!

He's using bold/underline instead of breaking up the QUOTE block. Is there an easy way to break up quote blocks, BTW? I end up pressing the quote button twice and the using cut & paste on the middle ones to get an unquote-quote pair but it seems like a pain and it'd be nice if there were a button for that.

Quote from: rgrove0172;942816As it turns out I have modified my way of gaming considerably after joining this forum but nobody seems to notice the comments to that effect..  

Cool. What are some things you've done, and how did they turn out? (curious about it)

Quote from: Skarg;942834He's using bold/underline instead of breaking up the QUOTE block. Is there an easy way to break up quote blocks, BTW? I end up pressing the quote button twice and the using cut & paste on the middle ones to get an unquote-quote pair but it seems like a pain and it'd be nice if there were a button for that.

I know what he's doing, just making my eyes bleed. :D  No, there's no way to do it that I know of, other than cut and paste the QUOTE tags.

you know, I had this big response to Grove. I deleted. Cranebump has the right angle. I'll put my spin on it and pull a card from Black Vulmea's deck. Oh look it says -


"Fuck you. Show me."

Quote from: Spinachcat;942771Why couldn't the Space Opera GM just tell his players "hey, I want to run a campaign about space nobles who crash land on a primitive planet. If you want to play, make PCs for that"?

Wouldn't that solve all the handwringing?

If that really any different than the Fantasy GM who tells his players "hey, I want to run an all-Dwarf LotR campaign about the retaking of Moria, so make PCs for that."?

What I pitched for Star Frontiers with the added explanation that once that was resilved they could do whatever they pleased. And they did. Inadvertently getting caught up in the Dramune Run and Face of the Enemy events on their own and resolving both in some brilliantly novel ways.

And they handled Volturnus in some unexpected ways too since they could and did.

Quote from: tenbones;942848"Fuck you. Show me."

* pulls card * What does "show fuck you me" mean? :eek:

Quote from: Omega;942884Inadvertently getting caught up in the Dramune Run and Face of the Enemy events on their own and resolving both in some brilliantly novel ways.

Please start a Star Frontiers thread! I'd love to hear what the PCs did. Also, your thoughts on how Dramune Run holds up.

Interesting to hear the idea of sandbox games being thought a new thing. TFT's campaign book describes how to run hexcrawls as if it's just the way to run a campaign. I wonder if it isn't the newer games and newer players and computer game expectations and story games and modules and published settings that have led to people needing to have a terms and explanations for sandbox and hexcrawl, and also weird overstated ideas about them, and contrasting them to plot-based railroads as the base assumptions, instead of them just being an obvious logical way to run a campaign? Have a world, have a map and stuff in it, have at least some travel rules, see what happens. I guess I may be more out of touch with what's out there in games/players I avoid than I realize. ;->

People played in all kinds of styles when I was a kid and teen, some in the OSR seem to claim that every module and campaign 'back in the day' was sandbox-based but that is more just a retroactive projection than a fact. Seems to me that a variety of playstyles became the norm pretty rapidly and is reflected in even a cursory review of early modules.

Gygax's modules were only partly sandboxes for instance, Keep on the Borderland and Vault of the Drow are there but so are the fairly linear G1-3, Dungeonland and Through the Looking Glass, Temple of EE, etc. I'd say the premier sandbox is Isle of Dread but that was written for B/X. B/X may be popular with the OSR but I remember as a teen it was hard to get anyone to play since it was considered the 'kiddies edition.'

Blaming video games for a supposed lack of sandbox-style play is very 'get off my lawn!' If anything today's mainstream big budget video games are so obsessed with sandbox structures that it is tiresome.

Quote from: tenbones;942848you know, I had this big response to Grove. I deleted. Cranebump has the right angle. I'll put my spin on it and pull a card from Black Vulmea's deck. Oh look it says -


"Fuck you. Show me."

Check the rest of the deck. Every card says that.:-)

Quote from: Voros;942942People played in all kinds of styles when I was a kid and teen, some in the OSR seem to claim that every module and campaign 'back in the day' was sandbox-based but that is more just a retroactive projection than a fact. Seems to me that a variety of playstyles became the norm pretty rapidly and is reflected in even a cursory review of early modules.

SHHHH!  You're facts are going to get you dogpiled on how WRONG you are for not following the all mighty OSR creed!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;943027SHHHH!  You're facts are going to get you dogpiled on how WRONG you are for not following the all mighty OSR creed!

No, that's usually reserved for idiotic posts, like the one you just made.  Jesus, you're starting to sound like Doc Sammy with his anti-Goth crusade, only even more silly if that's possible.

When dealing with published modules you certainly can find a lot of them that aren't very "sandbox", many of them were tournament modules meant to be done in 4 hours or so.  But if you want to go by the "facts" and not revisionist history, then you have to admit that one series that was put forward above as a linear design, G1-3, included information on how to run them all separately if desired, and that linear G led to the D1-3, with literally miles of underdark paths, and multiple cities/factions for the characters to get caught up in.

If you propose the fact that if modern OSR guys are a little hazy in remembering how Sandboxy everything was, then you should also admit that the highly plotted linear module, as we know it today, didn't really exist prior to say the DL series, and even if you go back to DL and reread, you'll find the earlier ones were probably less linear than people remember.

Funny that you mention DL as I just posted in another thread about how the DL series is less linear than many claim. And I tried to hedge a bit in my post by using the term 'fairly linear' regarding G1-3.

Really, most early dungeons are linear by design, probably one of the reasons they were so used at the begining of the game as it gave the DM a small and fairly manageble world to work with. Dungeonland is a good example, although supposedly 'outside' in a pocket dimension the party's path is pretty strictly limited. I don't consider that a criticism, The Land Beyond the Magic Mirror is my second favourite piece of writing by Gygax (the first is Shrine of the Kuo Toa). I think the distinction between linear and sandbox is more of a spectrum rather than a hard distinction.

My friends and I never used the term 'sandbox' even as we moved into playing in that style unconsciously as the campaign advanced. I actually wonder if that term has been borrowed from video games or that being teens in a pre-internet world we were just unaware of it, although I did read Dragon. Would be interesting if someone could track down its first use in D&D.

I see the OSR as a bit like punk rock, a mixture of a the reactionary (minus negative connotations) and innovation. The punk rockers went back to 50s rock n' roll, early beat and garage rock in an attempt to revive the form and explore alternate possibilites. There's also an emphasis on utility, lack of pretension (which becomes its own pretension) and minimalism.

So people looking back realized that B/X and BECMI were more than 'kiddie editions' and the value of things like lower level play, 'random' tables and sand-boxes. Now some sages out there probably knew the value of those things from the beginning and never gave them up but the evangelical way these 'truths' are repeated by those who never played B/X or 1e sometimes has the dogmatic edge of the newly converted. It also starts to feel a bit like all those Baby Boomers who claim to have attended Woodstock or for my generation all those who claim they saw Black Flag play the local community hall. So many wise people in retrospect.

In particular I was surprised to find all the love of B/X as I remember looking over my copy of the Cyclopedia and thinking 'I wish I could find someone to play this with' but no one was interested as they had all 'grown up' and moved on to 1e or 2e.

Quote from: Skarg;942939Interesting to hear the idea of sandbox games being thought a new thing.

It not a new thing. What new is DISCUSSING it as a distinct type of campaign. That originated as part of the marketing of the Wilderlands Boxed Set in the mid 2000s.

Quote from: Skarg;942939TFT's campaign book describes how to run hexcrawls as if it's just the way to run a campaign.

Campaigns and adventures played as a sandbox has been around since the beginning of the hobby. It wasn't discussed as anything distinct however.

Quote from: Skarg;942939I wonder if it isn't the newer games and newer players and computer game expectations and story games and modules and published settings that have led to people needing to have a terms and explanations for sandbox and hexcrawl, and also weird overstated ideas about them, and contrasting them to plot-based railroads as the base assumptions, instead of them just being an obvious logical way to run a campaign? Have a world, have a map and stuff in it, have at least some travel rules, see what happens. I guess I may be more out of touch with what's out there in games/players I avoid than I realize. ;->

The sandbox campaigns, whatever it is called, got downplayed because of the fact that most of the earliest published adventures were tournament dungeons. Then Dragonlance hit and has it own impact. Then in the AD&D 2nd edition era the setting was king with a detailed unfolding backstory. Again sandbox campaign existed just nobody talked about them as such. It was more about how to write good adventures, adventures paths, and settings with a rich backstory. Then when Vampire hit there was a shift about roleplaying detailed character backgrounds. Gradually the idea took hold that RPGs are about collaborating to create stories.

The Necromancer's Games Wilderlands Boxed Set project crystallized this because it was the work of a dozen authors that were all been running Wilderlands campaigns for years. In the email discussions it was obvious that there somethings we did in common when running a campaign. After the release of the boxed set, people legitimately asked what was it good for and why it was worth $70. Somebody on the email list coined said "Why don't we call it a sandbox campaign, like those computer games, that have are called sandbox games because of their open world?" I was one of the early adopters as I consider the term a perfect fit. All of our campaigns focused on different things but one common thread was that the players were free to wander the landscape or interact with anybody they wanted to do.

For most of us this came about because the original Wilderlands had a comprehensive but combat list of where and what existed at the local level. So it was very easy to see what was over the next hill or what was on the next street. From that starting point the whole discussion about sandbox campaign as a distinct type of campaign ensued.

Quote from: Skarg;942939Interesting to hear the idea of sandbox games being thought a new thing.

It not a new thing. What new is DISCUSSING it as a distinct type of campaign. That originated as part of the marketing of the Wilderlands Boxed Set in the mid 2000s.

Quote from: Skarg;942939TFT's campaign book describes how to run hexcrawls as if it's just the way to run a campaign.

Campaigns and adventures played as a sandbox has been around since the beginning of the hobby. It wasn't discussed as anything distinct however.

Quote from: Skarg;942939I wonder if it isn't the newer games and newer players and computer game expectations and story games and modules and published settings that have led to people needing to have a terms and explanations for sandbox and hexcrawl, and also weird overstated ideas about them, and contrasting them to plot-based railroads as the base assumptions, instead of them just being an obvious logical way to run a campaign? Have a world, have a map and stuff in it, have at least some travel rules, see what happens. I guess I may be more out of touch with what's out there in games/players I avoid than I realize. ;->

The sandbox campaigns, whatever it is called, got downplayed because of the fact that most of the earliest published adventures were tournament dungeons. Then Dragonlance hit and has it own impact. Then in the AD&D 2nd edition era the setting was king with a detailed unfolding backstory. Again sandbox campaign existed just nobody talked about them as such. It was more about how to write good adventures, adventures paths, and settings with a rich backstory. Then when Vampire hit there was a shift about roleplaying detailed character backgrounds. Gradually the idea took hold that RPGs are about collaborating to create stories.

The Necromancer's Games Wilderlands Boxed Set project crystallized this because it was the work of a dozen authors that were all been running Wilderlands campaigns for years. In the email discussions it was obvious that there somethings we did in common when running a campaign. After the release of the boxed set, people legitimately asked what was it good for and why it was worth $70. Somebody on the email list coined said "Why don't we call it a sandbox campaign, like those computer games, that have are called sandbox games because of their open world?" I was one of the early adopters as I consider the term a perfect fit. All of our campaigns focused on different things but one common thread was that the players were free to wander the landscape or interact with anybody they wanted to do.

For most of us this came about because the original Wilderlands had a comprehensive but combat list of where and what existed at the local level. So it was very easy to see what was over the next hill or what was on the next street. From that starting point the whole discussion about sandbox campaign as a distinct type of campaign ensued.

Quote from: Voros;942942People played in all kinds of styles when I was a kid and teen, some in the OSR seem to claim that every module and campaign 'back in the day' was sandbox-based but that is more just a retroactive projection than a fact. Seems to me that a variety of playstyles became the norm pretty rapidly and is reflected in even a cursory review of early modules.

Nobody in the OSR claims that every module and campaign was sandbox based back in the day. From even before the term Old School Renaissance was coined fans of classic D&D in the 2000s people promoted, played, and published a diverse range of types of campaign and adventures. In fact it was quite possible if you read a specific set of bloggers and publishers that classic D&D was all about gonzo.
Whatever speculation about how people played back in the days quickly paled after all the Q&As and antedotes were published on various classic D&D forums and the publication of Playing at the World and Hawk & Moor.

Today you don't have to take anybody's word for it, it out there for anybody to read.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;943027SHHHH!  You're facts are going to get you dogpiled on how WRONG you are for not following the all mighty OSR creed!

Of course you never post any link to anything that supports you assertion that there is a OSR Creed other than it a bunch people who like to play, publish, and promote stuff for classic D&D. For some reason you think it pretentious to be enthusiastic about older RPGs, and god forbid you should anything to support them and promote like any other RPG is promoted in the hobby and industry.

Quote from: CRKrueger;943045No, that's usually reserved for idiotic posts, like the one you just made.  Jesus, you're starting to sound like Doc Sammy with his anti-Goth crusade, only even more silly if that's possible.

When dealing with published modules you certainly can find a lot of them that aren't very "sandbox", many of them were tournament modules meant to be done in 4 hours or so.  But if you want to go by the "facts" and not revisionist history, then you have to admit that one series that was put forward above as a linear design, G1-3, included information on how to run them all separately if desired, and that linear G led to the D1-3, with literally miles of underdark paths, and multiple cities/factions for the characters to get caught up in.

If you propose the fact that if modern OSR guys are a little hazy in remembering how Sandboxy everything was, then you should also admit that the highly plotted linear module, as we know it today, didn't really exist prior to say the DL series, and even if you go back to DL and reread, you'll find the earlier ones were probably less linear than people remember.

While I have to agree that the G Series isn't the linear mess that DL was, I think we walk a fine line when we talk about sandboxes that include modules, versus a truly open world. If I place adventure modules all over the game world, which players can find and choose to explore, isn't that really just me creating hubs for the mini-railroad? I guess my question is, how open does the world need to be to be called a true sandbox.? Because it seems to me that presenting a series of smaller, prepackaged "storehs" is no better or worse than having your group show up to hear, "okay, you find yourself standing before the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief."  I guess the difference is that you can ignore the bait, but is it still a sandbox if the world is entirely prepackaged bait?

Quote from: cranebump;943133While I have to agree that the G Series isn't the linear mess that DL was, I think we walk a fine line when we talk about sandboxes that include modules, versus a truly open world. If I place adventure modules all over the game world, which players can find and choose to explore, isn't that really just me creating hubs for the mini-railroad? I guess my question is, how open does the world need to be to be called a true sandbox.? Because it seems to me that presenting a series of smaller, prepackaged "storehs" is no better or worse than having your group show up to hear, "okay, you find yourself standing before the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief."  I guess the difference is that you can ignore the bait, but is it still a sandbox if the world is entirely prepackaged bait?

How is any world not prepackaged bait?  I create a city, NPC's with goals and motivations, I determine stuff that NPCs are up to, figure out what PCs are likely to get involved with and detail those and draw up maps.  Is that prepackaged bait?

If something isn't prepackaged, it's procedurally generated or just asspulled on command.  

The facts that...
1. A threat exists.
2. This threat exists physically somewhere.
3. If you want to end the threat, travelling to the physical location will probably be necessary. :D
...don't preclude a sandbox.  A sandbox has edges, it is not the Sahara.  What makes it a sandbox is whether I can decide to go or not, whether I deal with the giants myself or call in a marker from the Great Gold Wyrm whose egg I returned to have her do it, whether I can take over the place and lead the Giants to a New World Order.

The What is the least important part of the linear/sandbox divide, the more important questions are Why, How and most importantly, *IF*.

Quote from: CRKrueger;943136The What is the least important part of the linear/sandbox divide, the more important questions are Why, How and most importantly, *IF*.

Expanding on the point.  If an entire world was made up of nothing but pre-purchased modules (which in and of itself would be kind of hard to do, simply because you couldn't make all the maps work together) but whenever you played one (taking G1 as an example) you chose to head there, you decided to use stealth and magic to steal everything the Giants had, then hightailed it to Greyhawk to drown yourself in Ale and Whores while the Giants started taking out innocent towns for vengeance and you didn't give a shit, then yeah, that's playing in sandbox style.  How isn't it?  With ONLY pre-purchased modules it's not sustainable over the long term though.

The problem comes of course, with there not being a module assuming the Giants, having drawn orcs, ogres, etc to their cause through reputation, have kidnapped Gnomes and put them to work turning the Hill Giant Fort into a stone keep, so when the Circle of Eight finds out what the PCs did, and Geases them to return and take care of this shit or die, you'll have to make things up. :D  Or, find another module and make some changes to it, but then we're running outside "pre-purchased" a bit.

Quote from: cranebump;943133isn't that really just me creating hubs for the mini-railroad?

If it feels like it part of the setting then no it is not a mini-railroad. Especially if you are willing to let players "trash" the module. Remember there are real-life situations that have a optimal path. A railroaded campaign is one where there is truly one path from start to finish. Even then there are some specific exceptions for example a campaign that winds up being centered on a single mission.

Quote from: cranebump;943133I guess my question is, how open does the world need to be to be called a true sandbox.?

The foundation of all sandbox campaign is the willingness of the referee to let the PCs "trash" the campaign. However optimal or non-optimal their choices may be. The sandbox campaign is a sum of everything that goes on, not one or a handful of situation.

Also note is more than likely, you will encounter groups or players that from their "point of view" there is only path to the situation you present as part of the campaign. If they are adamant in their views and unbending the best way to deal with it is to make sure in the next campaign they start in a time period or place within the setting that avoids the situation they have difficulty. Another are players who are very good at strategy in terms of game mechanics. Given time they make characters or organize the party in such a way that they can win most of the plausible encounters in the campaign. Because I ran the Majestic Wilderlands, I was able to evolve many situations so that it doesn't matter if you can kill everything that moves, it still doesn't "solve" the problem. It just creates a different set of complications to deal with later.

Quote from: cranebump;943133Because it seems to me that presenting a series of smaller, prepackaged "storehs" is no better or worse than having your group show up to hear, "okay, you find yourself standing before the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief."  I guess the difference is that you can ignore the bait, but is it still a sandbox if the world is entirely prepackaged bait?

I would say that only a 1/3 of my Majestic Wilderlands adventures over the years are original creations of my own. However I would add that 3/4 of the situations that SURROUNDS the adventures I put in are my own original work. And for the 1/4 where I just the background as written, it nearly always nicely dovetails with the details I created for the region.

I consider published modules are part of the Bag of stuff. I treat them as fully fleshed out locales. For example Steading of the Hill Giant Chief as originally presented by Gygax was one of the three giant modules where a cult of Drows were manipulating the Giant to attack the surface world to further their evil goals. Eventually leading to the D series where the PCs wind up confronting the Drow directly. In my hands the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, was one of three giant locales all involved in a plot of a ancient dragon named Pan Caulderax to attack the surface world to further the dragon's evil goals. Eventually leading to the Majestic Fastness a underground dwarven city taken over by the dragon.

As it turned out the PC fully exported the Steading and the Glacial Rift, but after they killed Snurre in the Halls of the Fire Giant King, they took what treasure they found and left. Never bothering to exploring the lower levels. So it took a few more adventures to figure out the source of the events they been dealing with was a result of Pan Caulderax plots.

Quote from: CRKrueger;943136How is any world not prepackaged bait?  I create a city, NPC's with goals and motivations, I determine stuff that NPCs are up to, figure out what PCs are likely to get involved with and detail those and draw up maps.  Is that prepackaged bait?

If something isn't prepackaged, it's procedurally generated or just asspulled on command.  

The facts that...
1. A threat exists.
2. This threat exists physically somewhere.
3. If you want to end the threat, travelling to the physical location will probably be necessary. :D
...don't preclude a sandbox.  A sandbox has edges, it is not the Sahara.  What makes it a sandbox is whether I can decide to go or not, whether I deal with the giants myself or call in a marker from the Great Gold Wyrm whose egg I returned to have her do it, whether I can take over the place and lead the Giants to a New World Order.

The What is the least important part of the linear/sandbox divide, the more important questions are Why, How and most importantly, *IF*.

Well, I sorta figured as much, but I wanted to ask the question anyway, because it just occurred to me that my own various entities here and there, while part of the greater, moving clockwork of the world, aren't spun whole cloth (and many of them are basically maps and threat stats, NPC motivations and so forth, backstory as to why they're there, and so on).

I posited the idea of a world where the prepackaged became the adventure points because it seemed something of a nebulous area between the scripted and the non-scripted. For there are scripted elements within some of these modules(i.e., "if the players do X, then Y happens"). I'm not sure it would be too hard to tweak every module to fit a campaign map, or campaign conceits.

I do agree that player choice in where to go and how to approach the threat is the essential aspect of the sandbox. And I wholeheartedly agree there's a huge difference between taking on the Moathouse and following a string of events, a la Dragonlance and beyond.

I would also say that Estar's prerequisite that you have to be willing to let the players "trash" the campaign, ostensibly by ignoring anything you've bothered to prep, is an essential element in running the box. It's that sort of thing that has led to the evolution of my own campaigns. Players never did what I expected anyway, so I might as well keep things as general and open as I can. Less wasted prep, more organic outcomes.

Thanks for the replies.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;943027SHHHH!  You're facts are going to get you dogpiled on how WRONG you are for not following the all mighty OSR creed!

If there's an actual OSR Creed, I haven't been able to identify it. I would agree that there's been various styles in play for some time, but I couldn't speak as to how the game was played before the late 70s. Since I did most of my teeth-cutting with 2E, I would say there was a great deal of questing implied, based on the materials I was consuming (and not really playing) at that time.

As for the assertion that module styles=different play styles, I think another way to interpret that is that module content reflected a broad variety of scenario and genre even, rather than style. Ravenloft with its horror focus. Barrier Peaks with its alien tech. The open exploration of In Search of the Unknown. The Cthuloid echoes in...and now I can't remember the module name.:-)

I dunno...I always thought what made a module interesting was a mix of threats and perhaps a cool twist here and there. Then again, I've read more of them than I played, because I've always been waaaaay too lazy to devote myself to having to study the thing before I ran it. So, I'm not an expert by any means.

Aaaaaaand it's now "Definition Roulette" time.

I call time of death.

Quote from: estar;943130Nobody in the OSR claims that every module and campaign was sandbox based back in the day.

No but there are many who drank the Grognardia kool-aid and believe that it is the 'right' way to play and that the majority of play was in that style (truth is, no one really knows what playstyle was the majority back then, and besides, who cares?).  

Many resist the groupthink but to claim that there is no groupthink going on is pretty hard to maintain to any lurker on rpg forums or OSR blogs where you can see the same truisms being repeated ad nauseam. Just bring up DL and watch people repeat JMal talking points as if they thought of them. Of course as usual the actual creators tend to be more open minded than their rabid disciples.

Now I like a sand-box approach myself but when some push a single style of play as the only legit style based on some imaginary golden age it is bound to annoy.

Matt Finch's Primer is full of nonsense about how people 'use to play the game' before 2000 that strikes me as full of faulty claims. I know some gamers who played in the style of the Primer, but a lot didn't. You'd think from his Primer that the game wasn't rife with rules lawyers, OCD DMs and munchkins. It is false nostalgia.

Philotomy's Musings is so much better as Cone simply presents a style of play he enjoys and explains his rationale for it, no attempt to claim authority by referencing some gold-lit past.

As Pundit has said, I'm glad to see the OSR leaving the endless retroclones behind, the imitative retro art and trade dressing and instead focus on fresh settings and twists to the original system like in Patrick Stuart's work, Zzarchov Kowolwski, Hydra Collective, Michael Prescott's mini-dungeons, Beyond the Wall, Swordfishislands, etc.

Quote from: estar;942802For example not a lot of people agree with my assertion that RPGs are about running a campaign first playing a set of rules second. That the rules should always reflect what the character can do in the setting not the other way around. Some vehemently argue against me about it, many are indifferent, some find it a useful insight.

For what its worth, I have found it to be very useful.

Quote from: estar;943126...
The Necromancer's Games Wilderlands Boxed Set project crystallized this because it was the work of a dozen authors that were all been running Wilderlands campaigns for years. In the email discussions it was obvious that there somethings we did in common when running a campaign. After the release of the boxed set, people legitimately asked what was it good for and why it was worth $70. Somebody on the email list coined said "Why don't we call it a sandbox campaign, like those computer games, that have are called sandbox games because of their open world?" I was one of the early adopters as I consider the term a perfect fit. All of our campaigns focused on different things but one common thread was that the players were free to wander the landscape or interact with anybody they wanted to do.

For most of us this came about because the original Wilderlands had a comprehensive but combat list of where and what existed at the local level. So it was very easy to see what was over the next hill or what was on the next street. From that starting point the whole discussion about sandbox campaign as a distinct type of campaign ensued.

Thanks Estar.

(I assume "comprehensive but combat list" is a Freudian slip for "comprehensive but complete list". ;) )

Quote from: Voros;942942People played in all kinds of styles when I was a kid and teen, some in the OSR seem to claim that every module and campaign 'back in the day' was sandbox-based but that is more just a retroactive projection than a fact. Seems to me that a variety of playstyles became the norm pretty rapidly and is reflected in even a cursory review of early modules.

There was no "OSR" in the late 1970's and early 1980's. And no one in this thread is claiming every module and campaign back in the day was a sandbox. Because they weren't. As estar (and myself) pointed out - the terms we're using now are based on the experiences that emerged from people that played through the general evolution of RPG's since *then*. A cursory review of that material will show that the elements that we're euphemistically calling "sandbox" (and to an extent even OSR) are all present in that content in one form or another - though it's not expressly called that. Because as some umbrella idea they didn't exist.

Quote from: Voros;942942Gygax's modules were only partly sandboxes for instance, Keep on the Borderland and Vault of the Drow are there but so are the fairly linear G1-3, Dungeonland and Through the Looking Glass, Temple of EE, etc. I'd say the premier sandbox is Isle of Dread but that was written for B/X. B/X may be popular with the OSR but I remember as a teen it was hard to get anyone to play since it was considered the 'kiddies edition.'

See my response above.

Quote from: Voros;942942Blaming video games for a supposed lack of sandbox-style play is very 'get off my lawn!' If anything today's mainstream big budget video games are so obsessed with sandbox structures that it is tiresome.

You're mixing your sub-genres indiscriminately. *NO* videogame is a sandbox (in the way we're using the term for tabletop games). Simply because no videogame can produce the same level of interactivity with the campaign as a good GM. There are open-world single-player games like Elder Scrolls that attempt to give those experiences to you, but they're 1) single-player 2) still using quests that are ultimately linear 3) non-interactive because they're single-player.

Then there are your more manicured experiences like JRPG's that highly linear affairs with massive amounts of grinding between set-piece linear threads.

To ignore the impact of videogames on the younger tabletop RPG playing public is *incredibly* cognitively dissonant at best. It's like pretending hip-hop music doesn't exist just because you don't listen to it.

I will point directly at World of Warcraft which directly is influenced by D&D from the mouth of Chris Metzen himself, and has been reflected back at *millions* of new players that came up in 3e/4e/Pathfinder, including those that designed for those systems that were greatly impacted by elements of that particular MMO. I can tell you with first-hand experience in discussions I've had personally with Mike Mearls that Warcraft was definitely something that we both talked about *a lot* - not just in terms of ripping off, but in terms of the abstraction of mechanics and encounters and how to better express them in 3.x. I see a lot of those discussions present in his Iron Heroes, and 4e is ridiculously obvious (even though he had no direct say in that).

These are merely signposts tacked onto a tree. They're not the forest. But if you read the signs, they will most certainly tell you what part of the forest you've blundered into. And you're standing on a lawn. Whose lawn? Who cares? But you're still standing on it.

Quote from: Voros;943217No but there are many who drank the Grognardia kool-aid and believe that it is the 'right' way to play and that the majority of play was in that style (truth is, no one really knows what playstyle was the majority back then, and besides, who cares?).  

Many resist the groupthink but to claim that there is no groupthink going on is pretty hard to maintain to any lurker on rpg forums or OSR blogs where you can see the same truisms being repeated ad nauseam. Just bring up DL and watch people repeat JMal talking points as if they thought of them. Of course as usual the actual creators tend to be more open minded than their rabid disciples.

Did you read this thread in its entirety? No one is saying any of this. No one is proclaiming One True Way. The only reason we're talking about sandbox play is because a relatively new player that loves his Storygames is trying to pretend that his issues aren't issues and can't be resolved by Sandbox-style play. Which I maintain they can - the problem is with the GM. And this goes far beyond this thread.

Quote from: Voros;943217Now I like a sand-box approach myself but when some push a single style of play as the only legit style based on some imaginary golden age it is bound to annoy.

No one is doing that. In the privacy of your own home, if you want to shit on the table and read it like tea-leaves to Storytime your players's "their adventure" as your method of having an awesome RPG session? Rock the fuck on.

In the interests of honest discussion, however, let's not pretend there is not a difference between "Sandbox" and "Storygame" (whatever makes you feel good to call not-that). Let's not pretend we don't understand what is being discussed under the umbrella of terms that don't really demand the level of definition people seem to require for the purposes of arguing where no argument really exists.

I'm not understanding the whole, "People never played that way, the OSR is all a lie..." thing.

A bunch of people have gone back and looked at old products and read about old play styles and cobbled together, intentionally, a style of playing they find effective. (I am one of these people.)

There's not declaration that "everyone" played that way in the past, or even that any given person played that way all the time. Only that there are ways of playing that, used with intention, produce an enjoyable kind of play.

I'd offer that many of the techniques when used in the past were never formalized or written down... often because they were assumed in the gaming culture of the time (Referee-driven war-games, for example, or earlier roots of the hobby like Braunstein). Often, then, techniques and playstyles were haphazard and even working at cross-purposes. This would especially be the case if someone (like me!) picked up D&D without any other context.

I'm baffled how some people actually picking through the options and ways of playing RPGs and making up a style of play out of those pieces can keep being called out for "Bullshit" and other absurd terms... since those options certainly existed back in the day. Again, the only difference is players today are having to discussion them, hash them out, and make choices about what to keep.

Quote from: Voros;943217No but there are many who drank the Grognardia kool-aid and believe that it is the 'right' way to play and that the majority of play was in that style (truth is, no one really knows what playstyle was the majority back then, and besides, who cares?).

Understand what James Mal did or did not advocate at Grognardia, those who "drank" his kool-aid, what I wrote, what James Raggi, Jeff Rients, Dan Proctor, Kevin Crawford, doesn't define the OSR. What the OSR is can only be answer at a specific moment in time by what people were doing in regards to publishing, playing, and promoting classic D&D along with whatever else interested folks.

The reason for this situation that the foundation of the OSR always rested on leveraging the Open Game License and the technology of the Internet especially Print on Demand and PDFs. Anybody with a contrary view always had a low barrier to reach an audience.  

This is not a typical situation for a roleplaying game. So people keep looking for gatekeepers and trend setters even when there is none. There would be a point if the situation was like what happened with Fudge and Fate. Fate and Fudge are open content and enjoy same low barriers of entry but it quite obvious that Evil Hat dominates that portion of the hobby.

James Mal in contrast was perhaps the most popular blog among many others. He only published a handful of projects and did little to act as some type of publishing house. When he crashed and burned with Dwimmermount, the OSR didn't suffer even a hiccup and kept on going. Imagine what would happen to the Fate community if Evil Hat folded up tomorrow.

If the OSR has a bias, it is towards those who do. Those who publish often and publish quality works. Those who play, those who talk about what they do and why and so on. It is a community defined by participation.

Quote from: Voros;943217Many resist the groupthink but to claim that there is no groupthink going on is pretty hard to maintain to any lurker on rpg forums or OSR blogs where you can see the same truisms being repeated ad nauseam. Just bring up DL and watch people repeat JMal talking points as if they thought of them. Of course as usual the actual creators tend to be more open minded than their rabid disciples.

There going to be some amount of commonality. It just how human nature works. The real question does it stop you from getting your work out there into hands of people who are interested? It takes work, work that some that not prepared to do for a hobby which is OK. Except when a person complains about the stuff not being produced that they are interested in. The OSR answer since the beginning is and continues to be "Write it if you want to see it."

Quote from: Voros;943217Now I like a sand-box approach myself but when some push a single style of play as the only legit style based on some imaginary golden age it is bound to annoy.

Why should it annoy? What the alternative? Silence people? I think the OSR as a chaotic stew of multiple voices all doing their thing is as close to the ideal we are ever going to get. Have you ever tried the OD&D discussion forum? Knights and Knives, Piazza, Acaeum, Dragonsfoot, Ruins of Murk Hill? They are not clones of each other and each offers their own view of classic D&D.

Quote from: Voros;943217Matt Finch's Primer is full of nonsense about how people 'use to play the game' before 2000 that strikes me as full of faulty claims. I know some gamers who played in the style of the Primer, but a lot didn't. You'd think from his Primer that the game wasn't rife with rules lawyers, OCD DMs and munchkins. It is false nostalgia.

Philotomy's Musings is so much better as Cone simply presents a style of play he enjoys and explains his rationale for it, no attempt to claim authority by referencing some gold-lit past.

Right there two moderately well-known authors with different views on similar topics. Neither is representative of the OSR but both are part of the OSR. Multiply that by a 100 and that would be an accurate view of how the OSR actually is.

Quote from: Voros;943217As Pundit has said, I'm glad to see the OSR leaving the endless retroclones behind, the imitative retro art and trade dressing and instead focus on fresh settings and twists to the original system like in Patrick Stuart's work, Zzarchov Kowolwski, Hydra Collective, Michael Prescott's mini-dungeons, Beyond the Wall, Swordfishislands, etc.

While OSRIC and Basic Fantasy represents the genesis of the OSR it wasn't like there was nothing going before then. Nor it was it all about the retro-clones. The retro-clones got attention because of how novel they were in the sense they set out to replicate a out of print editions as closely as it was legally possible.

But they were only one part of the puzzle, it was the retro-clones, print on demand, and PDF distributions (RPGNow, etc) that propelled the OSR forward.

Anyway you don't have to take my word. You can take a look at Hoard and Horde (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LUFmadXbg67pp9dEu_KsLc2-2Gf-0t5mVOvzetAqdFw/edit#gid=0) and see many of the products that were released that focused on classic D&D prior to 2012. The author quit trying after 2012 because there was just too many for one person to keep track off.

How many you heard of on that list? Do you know what style they represent? What kind of focus they had? Early on I stated that what the OSR is depends on the narrow slice you see at that moment. I don't have a complete picture, neither does the author of Hoard and Horde, nobody does. All because of the OGL, and digital technology has enabled a crazy quilt of diversity that expands every year.

Quote from: tenbones;943437You're mixing your sub-genres indiscriminately. *NO* videogame is a sandbox (in the way we're using the term for tabletop games). Simply because no videogame can produce the same level of interactivity with the campaign as a good GM.

However there are video games that don't have a end goal. How the games plays out depends on what the players makes of it. You are of course correct on the interactivity part in regards to tabletop RPGs having a human referee. But the reason the Wilderlands group picked sandbox was because of the existence of open ended computer games like Civilization and the fact as a category these game were labeled as sandbox games.

And since we started talking about sandbox campaigns as something distinct, the ideas have matured as more and more people, like you and others, shared their experiences. Among the benefits, in my opinion, is highlighting the flexibility of human referee over other forms of roleplaying games.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;943221For what its worth, I have found it to be very useful.

I appreciate that. The trick of course is to translate that concept into a set of useful techniques so referees of different skill levels or experience can take advantage of it.

Quote from: Skarg;943277Thanks Estar.

(I assume "comprehensive but combat list" is a Freudian slip for "comprehensive but complete list". ;) )

Yeah that my learning disability at work. I have a 50% hearing loss as a result of nerve damage from scarlet fever and it nailed a bit of my brain's language center as well. One side effect I have a nasty tendency to swap words around or substitute similar sounding or similar spelling words. Oh well what life without its challenges, right?

Quote from: estar;943474However there are video games that don't have a end goal. How the games plays out depends on what the players makes of it. You are of course correct on the interactivity part in regards to tabletop RPGs having a human referee. But the reason the Wilderlands group picked sandbox was because of the existence of open ended computer games like Civilization and the fact as a category these game were labeled as sandbox games.

Duly noted. Few games have impacted me as the Civilization franchise. I agree entirely with you on 4x videogames. You find that they are almost never (I've never seenit until now) referenced as being influential on table-top. Civ is like a campaign unfolding on a massive scale. I'm a Civ IV guy. Civ V and Civ VI don't float my boat.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;943449A bunch of people have gone back and looked at old products and read about old play styles and cobbled together, intentionally, a style of playing they find effective. (I am one of these people.)

Likewise. Reading Matt Finch's Old School Primer was a revelation for me. It made something click in my head about how to referee classic D&D that nothing else had. However that revelation was not just about classic D&D it was about any RPG with lite mechanics. Nor did I think Matt Finch found the magic key that unlocked the secrets from "back in the day". And if you ask him, he will admit he wrote the primer in a over the top style that was overly sarcastic. Nonetheless it a work that many found useful. And it just one of many works on classic D&D that helped people figure an effective way to use these older games in a campaign.

Quote from: tenbones;943481Duly noted. Few games have impacted me as the Civilization franchise. I agree entirely with you on 4x videogames. You find that they are almost never (I've never seenit until now) referenced as being influential on table-top. Civ is like a campaign unfolding on a massive scale. I'm a Civ IV guy. Civ V and Civ VI don't float my boat.

It remains to be seen how much the idea of Sandbox campaigns has on the tabletop RPG hobby.

As for Civilization, I am a fan too, I haven't gotten Civ 6 yet, but had a good time Civ 5 although like you I found C IV to be pretty idea. My only annoyance with everything beyond Civ2 was I couldn't port the Wilderlands map in Civ 2 forward. Yes I had Wilderlands of High Fantasy drawn up in Civ 2. I had a couple of friends who played the hell out of it conquering the entire Wilderlands.

Quote from: Voros;943217(truth is, no one really knows what playstyle was the majority back then, ).

* snerk *

Of course, if you define "back then" as 2007, you're probably right.

For those of us who define AD&D as "new school" it's a different matter.

Quote from: estar;943485It remains to be seen how much the idea of Sandbox campaigns has on the tabletop RPG hobby.

As for Civilization, I am a fan too, I haven't gotten Civ 6 yet, but had a good time Civ 5 although like you I found C IV to be pretty idea. My only annoyance with everything beyond Civ2 was I couldn't port the Wilderlands map in Civ 2 forward. Yes I had Wilderlands of High Fantasy drawn up in Civ 2. I had a couple of friends who played the hell out of it conquering the entire Wilderlands.

I've thought about building my homebrewed worlds in the Civ map editor. I'm sure there's someone that's done it...

Quote from: estar;943485It remains to be seen how much the idea of Sandbox campaigns has on the tabletop RPG hobby.

As for Civilization, I am a fan too, I haven't gotten Civ 6 yet, but had a good time Civ 5 although like you I found C IV to be pretty idea. My only annoyance with everything beyond Civ2 was I couldn't port the Wilderlands map in Civ 2 forward. Yes I had Wilderlands of High Fantasy drawn up in Civ 2. I had a couple of friends who played the hell out of it conquering the entire Wilderlands.

VI is the best iteration of the game yet, as far as depth and complexity of city planning. However,   I find I just don't like VI as much as V for some reason. I'll never go back before V because getting a handle on unit stacking is one of the best things they ever did.

Quote from: tenbones;943493I've thought about building my homebrewed worlds in the Civ map editor. I'm sure there's someone that's done it...

Currently Crusader Kings II by Paradox is my dream computer sandbox. Imagine playing in the fantasy setting of your choice but with all the noble inhabitant living out their simulated lives over the centuries.
But modding CK 2 (or any other of the Paradox strategy titles) is a major hobby in of itself.

Quote from: estar;943536Currently Crusader Kings II by Paradox is my dream computer sandbox. Imagine playing in the fantasy setting of your choice but with all the noble inhabitant living out their simulated lives over the centuries.
But modding CK 2 (or any other of the Paradox strategy titles) is a major hobby in of itself.

I'm actually setting an entire month aside this summer to try and become proficient with Europa Universalis IV (I have all the expansions too)... sweet Galactus... it's a lot to digest.

Quote from: tenbones;943615I'm actually setting an entire month aside this summer to try and become proficient with Europa Universalis IV (I have all the expansions too)... sweet Galactus... it's a lot to digest.

EU4 is a good game. Just for me Crusaders King is more addicting because you are manipulating individuals and families over centuries instead of just countries.

Quote from: estar;943479Yeah that my learning disability at work. I have a 50% hearing loss as a result of nerve damage from scarlet fever and it nailed a bit of my brain's language center as well. One side effect I have a nasty tendency to swap words around or substitute similar sounding or similar spelling words. Oh well what life without its challenges, right?

It's also the way our brains work, associating similar things and sometimes making mistakes. I catch myself doing the same sort of thing without having had any damage.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;943449I'm not understanding the whole, "People never played that way, the OSR is all a lie..." thing.

A bunch of people have gone back and looked at old products and read about old play styles and cobbled together, intentionally, a style of playing they find effective. (I am one of these people.)

There's not declaration that "everyone" played that way in the past, or even that any given person played that way all the time. Only that there are ways of playing that, used with intention, produce an enjoyable kind of play.

I'd offer that many of the techniques when used in the past were never formalized or written down... often because they were assumed in the gaming culture of the time (Referee-driven war-games, for example, or earlier roots of the hobby like Braunstein). Often, then, techniques and playstyles were haphazard and even working at cross-purposes. This would especially be the case if someone (like me!) picked up D&D without any other context.

I'm baffled how some people actually picking through the options and ways of playing RPGs and making up a style of play out of those pieces can keep being called out for "Bullshit" and other absurd terms... since those options certainly existed back in the day. Again, the only difference is players today are having to discussion them, hash them out, and make choices about what to keep.

Contrast to my experience of having started inventing games and learning wargames when I was a kid, then seeing D&D and TFT about 1980 and choosing TFT because it seemed to make far more sense, and then ignoring most D&D and other RPGs after GURPS came out circa 1986. I'd recommend reading TFT's campaign book "In The Labyrinth", which explains how to run a TFT campaign. It just assumes you will run a logical game based on exploring established hex maps for regions, towns and locations. It has lots of good GM advice for logic-based play written circa 1980. It has rules for tunneling, for how far noise travels through hex maps, detailed realism-based rules for encumbrance, rules for travel and getting lost. It is written down and compared to whitebox D&D is quite "formal" while still leaving room for how to GM (though always explaining that things should make sense and have reasons). Of course it's just one game system and a campaign book only some players back then saw or read, but it is a written functional system for good "sandbox/hexcrawl" GMing. Starting from there, then layers of experience help to do it well and not have some issues, but that's just learning from experience.

It's interesting to me that now sandbox play is being taken as something re-invented or new and associated with a specific D&D product, or that people would get inspiration for that from computer games such as Civilization, as to me it seems like just a natural way to play tabletop RPGs.

Quote from: Shemek hiTankolel;941357Every encounter I present to my players will never have only one solution. There's more than one way to skin a cat. I don't enable them, but I do reward clever play. In fact, they rarely resort to head on confrontation anymore.

Shemek.

I hope nobody from PETA reads that.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;943487* snerk *

Of course, if you define "back then" as 2007, you're probably right.

For those of us who define AD&D as "new school" it's a different matter.

lol you may be one of the few with that actual experience. But even you weren't at all the tables in Chicago, San Francisco, LA, Seattle, Toronto, Vancouver, etc. How did Lee Gold, Greg Stafford or Sandy Petersen run the game?  Plus all the kids and adults running the game through the 80s. Once the game was out there people immediately took to tinkering and twisting it into new shapes and for new purposes.

Quote from: tenbones;943437There was no "OSR" in the late 1970's and early 1980's. And no one in this thread is claiming every module and campaign back in the day was a sandbox. Because they weren't. As estar (and myself) pointed out - the terms we're using now are based on the experiences that emerged from people that played through the general evolution of RPG's since *then*. A cursory review of that material will show that the elements that we're euphemistically calling "sandbox" (and to an extent even OSR) are all present in that content in one form or another - though it's not expressly called that. Because as some umbrella idea they didn't exist.

Of course there was no OSR in the 70s or 80s. Who said there was?

As for the rest, I already agreed with what you say here,  that was the point of my comparison of the OSR and punk rock: revisiting the past to find what was best and rejigging it for today.  

QuoteYou're mixing your sub-genres indiscriminately. *NO* videogame is a sandbox (in the way we're using the term for tabletop games).

I know the different meanings of the term in reference to video games and tabletop. My question is where the term originated. I suspect the term, not the idea, has been borrowed from video games. Clearly many modern video games are built jankily on the attempt to replicate or imitate what can only be accomplished at this time by a good DM and their table.

Quote from: estar;943473Understand what James Mal did or did not advocate at Grognardia, those who "drank" his kool-aid, what I wrote, what James Raggi, Jeff Rients, Dan Proctor, Kevin Crawford, doesn't define the OSR. What the OSR is can only be answer at a specific moment in time by what people were doing in regards to publishing, playing, and promoting classic D&D along with whatever else interested folks.

You've certainly always been the voice of reason among the OSR crowd estar. And of course as I already said as usual in any creative scene most of the creators are too busy doing their thing to argue how many angels dance on the top of a 20 sided die. Well except for some of the goofier statements of Raggi and Rients.

But the evangelical and dogmatic stream in the OSR is out there no matter how much you want to deny those hectoring voices. There's a reason it keeps popping up as a criticism outside of the Dragonfoot, etc circles and its not because everyone else is imagining it, or are evil 'storygamers.' I've seen at least as much pretension among OSR groupies as storygamers. People love to form their tribes and point and yell at the 'other' side.

First off, I love GURPS and the Fantasy Trip definitely infused with Steve Jackson's voice and sentiments. However thing about GURPS and The Fantasy Trip they are more concerned about presenting presenting tools to use during a campaign and don't talk a lot about what you do to run a campaign. At least for the early versions of GURPS. The tone of TFT and early GURPS was more oriented to "Hey! Want a better set of tools to use for your campaigns, here it is."

From Into the Labyrinth page 4

QuoteBest of all, we feel that THE FANTASY TRIP: IN THE LABYRINTH is complete enough to allow new GMs and players to participate without extensive study and improvisation. Existing games are marred by serious flaws and omissions which force players to rewrite the rules for themselves before they begin. Every group plays differently. By extensive playtesting, we think we have "filled in the holes" to the point where Game Masters can use their creativity and imagination to devise better and more realistic game worlds, rather than wasting it in trying to figure out how to play

Quote from: Skarg;943620Contrast to my experience of having started inventing games and learning wargames when I was a kid, then seeing D&D and TFT about 1980 and choosing TFT because it seemed to make far more sense, and then ignoring most D&D and other RPGs after GURPS came out circa 1986. I'd recommend reading TFT's campaign book "In The Labyrinth", which explains how to run a TFT campaign. It just assumes you will run a logical game based on exploring established hex maps for regions, towns and locations. It has lots of good GM advice for logic-based play written circa 1980. It has rules for tunneling, for how far noise travels through hex maps, detailed realism-based rules for encumbrance, rules for travel and getting lost. It is written down and compared to whitebox D&D is quite "formal" while still leaving room for how to GM (though always explaining that things should make sense and have reasons).

I re-read Into the Labyrinth. Like early GURPS there is little in the way of advice of structuring your campaign other than most generic type. What it excels at is presenting a bunch of sensibly organized tools that are useful to run a campaign.

I am have to disagree that it was advising sandbox play. Or any other type of campaign style for that matter. The focus read like what was outlined on page 4.

QuoteGame Masters can use their creativity and imagination to devise better and more realistic game worlds, rather than wasting it in trying to figure out how to play

Quote from: Skarg;943620Of course it's just one game system and a campaign book only some players back then saw or read, but it is a written functional system for good "sandbox/hexcrawl" GMing. Starting from there, then layers of experience help to do it well and not have some issues, but that's just learning from experience.

While I disagree it advocates sandbox play, I do agree with this. I never ran a campaign of TFT but it overall it similiar to what I read and more importantly used in GURPS 2nd Edition. I had zero issues in using GURPS the same way I used AD&D when I switched and the focus on realism and sensible rules help me fleshed out many details of the Majestic Wilderlands.

Quote from: Skarg;943620It's interesting to me that now sandbox play is being taken as something re-invented or new and associated with a specific D&D product, or that people would get inspiration for that from computer games such as Civilization, as to me it seems like just a natural way to play tabletop RPGs.

I blogged about the origin of talking about sandbox campaign. People certainly played and refereed sandbox campaign. But nobody was talking about this as a distinct style. Certainly stuff like Steve Jackson created helped people running sandboxes but as I shown that was not the focus.

Quote from: Voros;943657lol you may be one of the few with that actual experience. But even you weren't at all the tables in Chicago, San Francisco, LA, Seattle, Toronto, Vancouver, etc. How did Lee Gold, Greg Stafford or Sandy Petersen run the game?  Plus all the kids and adults running the game through the 80s. Once the game was out there people immediately took to tinkering and twisting it into new shapes and for new purposes.

They are not the same thing. Once OD&D was published and escaped into the wild then a new phase of gaming began.  Before it was pretty much the social scene of miniature wargamers throughout the United States with the center in the Upper Midwest. Two distinct phases and yes you are correct it is hard to gauge what people did after the release of OD&D.

But from the first Braustein to the release of OD&D miniature wargamers in the upper midwest and through the country were doing all kinds of things. Thanks to Playing at the World and other source, we have a good idea of the chain of events that led to OD&D. But those same sources also talk about the other things that were going on. Gronan would be better than me at explaining the different types of games that were run. But I have a distinct impression it was a crazy quilt of stuff dealing with all things historical, science fiction, and fantasy.

Quote from: Voros;943663But the evangelical and dogmatic stream in the OSR is out there no matter how much you want to deny those hectoring voices.

They exist, want to see them come out of the woodwork just yell AD&D sucks over on the Knights and Knaves forum. I what I do contend is that their existence doesn't matter in regards to the larger OSR. OSRIC has a closed side in that it not 100% open content like Swords & Wizardry. It was designed that way because Stuart Marshall, Matt Finch, and the Knights and Knaves community are preservationists and want to get more material for AD&D out. Not for something similiar.

But the catch is that once they shown how they leveraged the OGL along with Basic Fantasy, the gate was thrown wide open for anybody else to do the same. The fact that early distribution focused on Lulu was just icing on the cake. Right from the get go there was no bottleneck, no gatekeeper other than time and effort for ANYBODY to getting their vision of classic D&D out there.

Grognardia was popular but wasn't a gatekeeper. Knights and Knaves community was important to the genesis of OSRIC but again it never acted as a gatekeeper.

Quote from: Voros;943663There's a reason it keeps popping up as a criticism outside of the Dragonfoot, etc circles and its not because everyone else is imagining it, or are evil 'storygamers.' I've seen at least as much pretension among OSR groupies as storygamers. People love to form their tribes and point and yell at the 'other' side.

They are not imagining anything other than fact the individual fans are anything more than being asshats about their love of classic D&D.

Of course it is understandable given the example of Forge, and certain publishers that they may be more important than they are. The Forge lead to a centralized place distributing games the Indie Press Revolution. Publishers by virtue of copyright controlled the content of their game. However neither factor is applicable to the OSR. So no matter how popular and annoying a promoter, publisher, or player was or is, they have little if any ability to influence what other do.

And it work vice versa, there is a little I can do to control somebody that being an asshat and who involved in the OSR. Nor would I want that control if it was possible. The security of the OGL and the spread of digital distribution and print on demand are far better guarantees of creative freedom than anything a person could do.

Quote from: estar;943679...what I do contend is that their existence doesn't matter in regards to the larger OSR.

On this and the benefits of digital distro we definitely agree. How many remember wargamers who hated D&D anymore? Ultimately what matters is the creative content and what makes it to the table, that's what stands the test of time.

Quote from: Voros;943661Of course there was no OSR in the 70s or 80s. Who said there was?

As for the rest, I already agreed with what you say here,  that was the point of my comparison of the OSR and punk rock: revisiting the past to find what was best and rejigging it for today.

ah I misunderstood the context. One of the things, especially around here when talking about the OSR is that a lot of us here were around back then, and even then not a lot of us completely agree on the OSR itself. Personally, while I'm fine with a lot of the OSR stuff, it's not my cuppa. Insofar that the OSR is sandbox by implicit conceit... well I'll leave that to OSR wonks on that.

I'm more of a GM advocate. I can make Chess or Monopoly a sandbox game if I wanted, heh.

Quote from: Voros;943661I know the different meanings of the term in reference to video games and tabletop. My question is where the term originated. I suspect the term, not the idea, has been borrowed from video games. Clearly many modern video games are built jankily on the attempt to replicate or imitate what can only be accomplished at this time by a good DM and their table.

That's a good question. While not expressly using the term "Sandbox" - Doug Niles pretty much nailed down all the conceits of sandbox campaign design in the Dungeoneers Survival Guide, which was as far back as the mid-80's. Not sure about the actual term in use.

Quote from: estar;943677...
I re-read Into the Labyrinth. Like early GURPS there is little in the way of advice of structuring your campaign other than most generic type. What it excels at is presenting a bunch of sensibly organized tools that are useful to run a campaign.

I am have to disagree that it was advising sandbox play. Or any other type of campaign style for that matter. The focus read like what was outlined on page 4.

While I disagree it advocates sandbox play, I do agree with this. I never ran a campaign of TFT but it overall it similiar to what I read and more importantly used in GURPS 2nd Edition. I had zero issues in using GURPS the same way I used AD&D when I switched and the focus on realism and sensible rules help me fleshed out many details of the Majestic Wilderlands.

I blogged about the origin of talking about sandbox campaign. People certainly played and refereed sandbox campaign. But nobody was talking about this as a distinct style. Certainly stuff like Steve Jackson created helped people running sandboxes but as I shown that was not the focus.

That's interesting. Maybe I don't know what "sandbox" means in the context of Majestic Wilderlands (which I know nothing about except what I've gathered from posts here - it's a D&D setting that suggests wandering around a map playing a dynamic campaign, I gather, without an orientation for some "plot" the GM has in mind).

In The Labyrinth may not have terribly elaborate discussion on how to organize a campaign, but it does describe a system for mapping everything from 1.3m tactical hexes, to 5m location ("labyrinth" or building) hexes, to 20m location (village), to 12.5km hexes (for which they give the example map and travel rules). The sample maps all have notes of prepped details including stats for local shopkeepers and personalities. So while it doesn't go into a lot of detail, and there isn't much about what we eventually learned by running games from that starting point (like all the stuff you can figure out and track to make the world consistent and have stuff going all all over), it has next to nothing to say about any other GM style, and what it does say about GM'ing (which seemed pretty elaborate in 1980, and still seems sufficient to me) is mostly about how things should make sense and be based on the GM knowing what's there and for what reason, cause and effect and so on. There are no suggestions about the ideas found on today's RPG forums about narrative mechanics, genre expectations, and giving the players what they want even if they're stupid (on the contrary, there's plenty about making the players responsible for their survival and fortunes and a few gleeful remarks about how bad choices or bad luck can mean PCs will die, and BTW TFT has no magic healing except rare & expensive healing potions which heal 1 point of damage) - most healing is 2 days rest per point.

Quote from: Skarg;943742That's interesting. Maybe I don't know what "sandbox" means in the context of Majestic Wilderlands (which I know nothing about except what I've gathered from posts here - it's a D&D setting that suggests wandering around a map playing a dynamic campaign, I gather, without an orientation for some "plot" the GM has in mind).

Since the release of the Wilderlands of High Fantasy, there been a fair amount of discussion and works published about a style of campaign where the players not the referee sets the focus and direction. There are practical issues if this how the campaign to be run. Issue that are different than running adventure paths or other types of campaigns. Hence the discussion.

The referee job in a sandbox setting is to design the setting of the campaign, perform the traditional role of adjudicator as well as run the NPCs and monster, and manage the setting as the campaign unfolds. The referee creativity comes not from implementing grand stories like in an adventure path but in coming up with plausible AND interesting consequences to what the PCs do and not do.

Like so much of what goes on with tabletop roleplaying, there no hard and fast line between what a sandbox campaign versus any other type of campaign. Nor is this style of campaign "new", the discussion of it is certainly new but gamers been running campaign like this since the beginning of the hobby.

Hope this clarifies things.

Quote from: Skarg;943742In The Labyrinth may not have terribly elaborate discussion on how to organize a campaign, but it does describe a system for mapping everything from 1.3m tactical hexes, to 5m location ("labyrinth" or building) hexes, to 20m location (village), to 12.5km hexes (for which they give the example map and travel rules).

In short tools for detailing a campaign. Like the old Judges Guild Hexagon mapping system or the Hexcrawl format I used for Blackmarsh.  Mapping systems like TFT, Judges Guild, the Hexcrawl, are useful for sandbox campaign because they present an effect method of presenting and referencing a large amount of local level detail across a piece of geography. That handy if the player decide to go east instead of west. Helps with keeping things consistent and with running things by the seat of your pants until the next session.

But in of itself is neutral in regards to the type of campaign. Pazio used a hexcrawl formatted setting for the basis of their Kingmaker Adventure Path.

Quote from: Skarg;943742There are no suggestions about the ideas found on today's RPG forums about narrative mechanics, genre expectations, and giving the players what they want even if they're stupid (on the contrary, there's plenty about making the players responsible for their survival and fortunes and a few gleeful remarks about how bad choices or bad luck can mean PCs will die, and BTW TFT has no magic healing except rare & expensive healing potions which heal 1 point of damage) - most healing is 2 days rest per point.

Writing fan fiction is far more popular than tabletop roleplaying, I view storygames and the other things you pointed as stemming from that area of interest. Some of it is wish fulfillment, but some of it pretty creative in it own right. However it not the same idea as what initially propelled tabletop roleplaying forward in the 70s.

I view RPGs as something that can create an experience.  A pen and paper holodeck that can take you to interesting places, and allow you to be an interesting character doing interesting things. Similar to how you go see castles in England for the experience, travel to India and visit places like Taj Mahal, or decide to climb Mount Everest. You experience these places and the stuff you do and then tell stories about it afterwards. Steve Jackson with TFT was about giving you better tools to do that with the world of imagination.

"In the Labyrinth" is written for people who weren't wargamers first, which is why it includes a lot of stuff that Gary and Dave didn't find necessary.

Me, I've played TFT a lot and like it just fine.  It's neither better nor worse than D&D, just different.  The referee is FAR more important than the system.

Quote from: tenbones;943736ah I misunderstood the context. One of the things, especially around here when talking about the OSR is that a lot of us here were around back then, and even then not a lot of us completely agree on the OSR itself. Personally, while I'm fine with a lot of the OSR stuff, it's not my cuppa. Insofar that the OSR is sandbox by implicit conceit... well I'll leave that to OSR wonks on that.

I'm not a member of the OSR, because "renaissance" means "rebirth," and I never stopped playing this silly-ass game the way I always have in the first place.

Quote from: estar;943745Since the release of the Wilderlands of High Fantasy, there been a fair amount of discussion and works published about a style of campaign where the players not the referee sets the focus and direction. There are practical issues if this how the campaign to be run. Issue that are different than running adventure paths or other types of campaigns. Hence the discussion.

The referee job in a sandbox setting is to design the setting of the campaign, perform the traditional role of adjudicator as well as run the NPCs and monster, and manage the setting as the campaign unfolds. The referee creativity comes not from implementing grand stories like in an adventure path but in coming up with plausible AND interesting consequences to what the PCs do and not do.

So the DM is just a vend-bot for the players egos. oh-fucking-yay.

Quote from: Omega;943758So the DM is just a vend-bot for the players egos. oh-fucking-yay.

The flip side of that coin is, "So the players are just passengers on the GM-Ego Train.  oh-fucking-yay."

Everyone actually playing a game as opposed to yapping on the internet, of course, is somewhere in between those extremes.

Quote from: Omega;943758So the DM is just a vend-bot for the players egos. oh-fucking-yay.

OK lets break this down

The referee job in a sandbox setting is

Ready because I am formatting it so it crystal clear.

• design the setting of the campaign,
• run the NPCs and monster,
• manage the setting as the campaign unfolds.
• coming up with plausible AND interesting consequences to what the PCs do and not do.

The players don't get to decide what the setting is like, nor how the NPCs and monsters are run, or how the setting is managed during the course of the campaign. And above all what the consequences are to their actions. The referee is anything but a vend-bot.

Quote from: CRKrueger;943759The flip side of that coin is, "So the players are just passengers on the GM-Ego Train.  oh-fucking-yay."

Everyone actually playing a game as opposed to yapping on the internet, of course, is somewhere in between those extremes.

Exactly. I really hate these two extremes. The ultra-railroad and the DM vend-bot. Right up there with "the DM is the Enemy" and "the DM is Monty Haul".

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;943754I'm not a member of the OSR, because "renaissance" means "rebirth," and I never stopped playing this silly-ass game the way I always have in the first place.

Very salient distinction. That's probably why I'm not so enamored with the OSR, but not because I still play using "old school rules" - but because what I want out of my games don't require any particular version of D&D to satisfy those needs. I play old-school. I don't use old-school systems for any particular reason.

Quote from: Omega;943762Exactly. I really hate these two extremes. The ultra-railroad and the DM vend-bot. Right up there with "the DM is the Enemy" and "the DM is Monty Haul".

Which is why I advocate that a good sandbox has the full-monty of methods within it. And a good sandbox GM's uses those methods/tools as needed for the benefit of the players, which incentivises them against GM-as-enemy, which allows the GM to focus his attention on the world-at-large to give space for the eventual consequences of the PC's actions. This includes using the NPC's and world-in-motion to keep the PC's active either by incentives, feeding player-induced interest, or GM-manufactured situations relating to all of the above beyond what the PC's know.

It's a balancing act. Getting to that sweet-spot and maintaining it is the goal.

Quote from: Omega;943758So the DM is just a vend-bot for the players egos. oh-fucking-yay.

Boy oh boy, I have no idea how you got that out of what you quoted.

Me too.

Honestly, how does one read estar's post and conclude from his words "So the DM is just a vend-bot for the players egos..."?

There's nothing there making that connection unless one is willfully missing everything estar took the time to explain in his second post.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;943773Boy oh boy, I have no idea how you got that out of what you quoted.

The way he worded it came off as a bit too "The DM is only there to serve the players whims." vibe.

Quote from: Omega;943929The way he worded it came off as a bit too "The DM is only there to serve the players whims." vibe.

(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4abbb1121edb11aee235222add217d39-c?convert_to_webp=true)

Quote from: Voros;943661My question is where the term originated.

I always thought Sandbox came from war gaming with lead minis. You set up a table, built a shallow box to sit on said table, then filled it full of sand. You could then sculpt the sand to create the basic battlefield, before adding scenery, buildings, ect. You played the battle, or a series of battles (i.e. a campaign) re-sculpting the sand and resetting new scenery as required.

Quote from: Weru;944423I always thought Sandbox came from war gaming with lead minis. You set up a table, built a shallow box to sit on said table, then filled it full of sand. You could then sculpt the sand to create the basic battlefield, before adding scenery, buildings, ect. You played the battle, or a series of battles (i.e. a campaign) re-sculpting the sand and resetting new scenery as required.

It did but not directly. But via the use of sandbox as a common term used for 4x strategy games like civilization and the first open world first person shooters. And sandbox was applied to those games in part because of what you described above. The other part being the association it had with freeform childhood play.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;943940(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4abbb1121edb11aee235222add217d39-c?convert_to_webp=true)

You should talk. Try again.

Probably the more apt question is what degree of freeform as a DM do you, or your DM, like to use? Or what degree of freeform do you as player, or your players, prefer?

And if freeform is not liked... Why? What aspects fail?

Quote from: Omega;944480You should talk. Try again.

You've got five different posters in the thread telling you you're talking out of your ass and you come at me? Kiss my entire fucking ass and own your mistake.

Quote from: Voros;943663I've seen at least as much pretension among OSR groupies as storygamers. People love to form their tribes and point and yell at the 'other' side.

Yup.

QuoteYou narrativists are pretty, too.

So just what definition of Narrativist are we using here?

Anyone who thinks that the OSR is about "the GM following the players' whims" has clearly never played an OSR game. Certainly not one I was running!

Quote from: RPGPundit;944846Anyone who thinks that the OSR is about "the GM following the players' whims" has clearly never played an OSR game. Certainly not one I was running!

Isn't it more the players following the GM's whim?  In bad games, you know the ones you played in once and left, that seemed to be the cast.  In good games the GM was a fair referee who constructed an engaging world/adventure at let you have at it; and when everyone acts like reasonable mature humans, plenty of give and take / negotiation to cover things outside the "rules."

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;941331If your PCs are in an undercroft and there are undead about, do you enable them to try and sneak past from above via hanging beams or, say, have weak walls that they can break through to circumvent areas with concentrated undead?
Just an example.

So late to the thread but is this a serious question?  I never choose what will happen to intentionally circumvent or allow a player course of action.  If there is not enough information from before the player decision; then to prevent me from being biased I will assign a random chance to it being one way or another and roll (secretly).  Here is where players may negotiate for what they think odds are and if there is any luck point type thing they are asked to spend it now.  After the secret roll if the players come up with some test or have some expertise they could get to know the secret roll.  

I think the difficulty GMs have, even in a simple situation like this, is they lack much real world knowledge that would let them have an idea of the odds or if things are possible.  I always found this maddening back in the day; especially with anything involving the outdoors or physical ability or experience with animals.

For example I've climbed across the beams in a barn, in an older barns it's easy as they are wide.  Breaking through a wall, if you've done any remodeling or demolition that's an easy call as well.  It will depend immensely on what the barn walls are made of, how old it is, etc.  There are  also a lot of openings in barn walls for things like feed, shit, ventilation all sorts of stuff.  

When in doubt these days one can use the internet.