TheRPGSite

Ive been guilty of throwing some bad attitude towards the "sandbox" crowd before as I normally lean heavily on pre-game prep to a crazy degree. The closest thing I can say I typically come to sandbox (except for a couple of exceptions such as when playing in the modern world) is a massive amount of preparation completely surrounding the PCs so that Im ready no matter where they go. (and they still typically manage to pick some corner Im weak in)

Im swallowing my pride here though and am asking earnestly - as someone who wants to learn - how to you sandbox types do it? When I hear of someone playing a session completely with multiple towns, businesses, NPCs, encounters etc. all from the notes on the back of a napkin I have a hard time ...
1)believing they are telling the truth
2)believing the result doesnt suffer from "pulled it out of my backside, minimal background, itis"

I know that published settings, adventure modules and the kinds of games those that preplan everything put out include a great deal of effort to make sure the componants of the game fit into the setting, the regional history, the culture and so on. It seems it would be hard to wing this sort of detail at the gaming table on the fly. Obviously some of you do it regularly.. so Im asking how... lend us a that would like to try it a bit of advise.

The only way I can imagine it possible is for the GM to be intimately familiar and I mean INTIMATELY FAMILIAR, with the setting the way I have been when running games set in my home town, places Ive visited etc.

So help a poor, over-prepping, occasional RR conducting GM out!

Oh man I wish I had time to answer this in detail. I'm gonna bullet point a few years of learning and experience that have worked for me then inundate you in links, brother.

1. You've got to master the art of prepping; you have to be able to distinguish what is useful prep that's going to see play, and minutiae that won't (or is incredibly unlikely to). There's a significant degree of knowing your players, knowing the game you want to run, and system familiarity (like, dungeons are going to come up in D&D, investigating in CoC) involved here

2. Encounter charts, man. Zak S. made these an art for with stuff like Vornheim. (http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2011/04/5-kinds-of-random-generators-what-makes.html) there's a zen to them that allows you to prep just a little bulleted list and use it to generate hours of content.

3. Get good at figuring out how to make situations, not plots (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots)

4. Key content (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/35180/roleplaying-games/the-art-of-the-key) in a way that is easy for you to access, but (and this is super important) don't show these keys to the players. Keep the world big and real by describing it, and keep the blueprints and hexmaps on your side of the screen.

5. Let go of your plots; all of them. Kill your darling NPCs. The game is going to be about what happens; entire sessions will be generated from a weird roll on an encounter chart, or the players taking a perverse interest in a one-off NPC and wanting to dig deeper. This isn't inconvenient; its ideal!

6. Player character will die in stupid ways sometimes. Be prepared for this so that your game doesn't collapse because a "key" character suddenly vanished (again, no plots: the game is about what happens)

7. Put the stuff you love in your game. I haven't ran a single game since buying red and pleasant land that I didn't steal content directly from that book and hurl it into my game. Actually, best advice: Steal. Steal your favorite things, because trying to fill a 400-point hexcrawl with your own imagination is impossible.

I'm going to link you to the alexandrian (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17308/roleplaying-games/hexcrawl) and greatly recommend begining at the top of his GM advice guide and working your way on downward to hexcrawls. Nearly everything Justin Alexander writes is gold.

I'm also gonna link you to D&D with Pornstars (http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2012/01/mustorganizeuselessideas.html) because Zak's techniques are groundbreaking and genius and save you a shitload of prep time. Also its packed to the gills with just, the best articles (Yes, I am linking you to porn and telling you to read the articles, just like your dad and his playboy collection).

Finally, run a game  (http://www.runagame.net/2014/03/the-hex-crawl.html)has a lot of great articles for how to prep great sandbox content

Excelsior, Pal. I'm glad you stuck it out and kept posting. If I get some more time I'll come back and give you some more personalized stuff (I'm building a Carcosa citycrawl right now that I wouldn't mind discussing with you....)

I never did anything very sandbox-y until I tried Houses of the Blooded. It is a bit unusual way to do it though, as it relies on input from the whole group (so it's one of the dreaded 'story games', it also comes with a specific setting). But seriously, the HotB book is full of advice on how to run a game with minimal prep. Worked for me.

Ask your players at the end of a session what their characters plan on doing next time and plan accordingly. If you know they're looking to haul a load of spice to Planet X as their next project, you won't need to worry about coming up with floor plans for the Forbidden Temple to X'uliphan on Planet Y just yet.

Don't over-prep. Come up with what you think will be useful to know, the stuff that's necessary for the game. The players need to know if Planet X is ruled by a tyrannical despot. No one will likely care if you've decided that he's the bastard son of a former warlord unless you make that relevant for some reason.

Recycle everything you can. If you come up with an encounter or location and your players throw you a curve ball by avoiding it, don't toss that thing in the trash. You can always give it a quick makeover and reuse it somewhere else. Do this often enough and soon you'll have a ready stack of missed opportunities that can be dusted off and slotted in whenever your players head off in a direction you didn't expect.

All of Azraele's advice is solid. I'll just add a few things.  

Keep your prep simple. That means either using a system like early D&D or Traveler were you can stat up an NPC in a line or two or using a system where you just stat easily in the fly. Also, you can give 100 NPCs the exact same stats and as long as they have different personalities and goals, your players will never know or care.

If a town has five NPCs that each have a line of stats and a second line summarizing their personalities and goals (preferably with some of these at cross purposes) it is enough to make it feel like a living breathing town. It should take you ten minutes, and you can move onto the next town and create five for it. If players settle into a town as a homebase, you can add more NPCs as needed, building out from the ones you have. Also have a regional rumor table so NPC always have an interesting topic at hand if PCs want to chit chat. Make a couple of new rumors between sessions to replace the old ones.

Starting PCs don't move real fast, so you don't need to detail a lot of area at the beginning of a campaign.

Use lots of random tables to generate content. You don't need to use what you roll. It just gets you past the black page. Random rolls can be brilliant, but they can also be stupid, but even stupid random content can make you realize exactly what you want instead. The hardest part is starting. Once your world starts to grow, it becomes a game all by itself.

Avoid "save the world" plots. There is nothing more annoying than being put in an open sandbox and then having a plot you are forced to take or the world blows up. "Save the kingdom" plots are fine. The campaign can keep going even if the local kingdom collapses or is conquered. It's a cool case of player action/inaction changing the setting.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981834When I hear of someone playing a session completely with multiple towns, businesses, NPCs, encounters etc. all from the notes on the back of a napkin I have a hard time ...
1)believing they are telling the truth
2)believing the result doesnt suffer from "pulled it out of my backside, minimal background, itis"

I'm with you on this one.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981834The only way I can imagine it possible is for the GM to be intimately familiar and I mean INTIMATELY FAMILIAR, with the setting the way I have been when running games set in my home town, places Ive visited etc.

So help a poor, over-prepping, occasional RR conducting GM out!

Well, that's one reason I don't like modules.  No matter how many times I read it, I'll never be as familiar with a module as I am with something I made myself.

Second:  You don't have to run faster than the Balrog, you just have to run faster than the dwarf.  Two or three dungeon levels in OD&D are enough to get started.  For the first several months of Greyhawk, we just said stuff like "I'm going back to the inn" or "I'm going to the lawful temple to get healed."  I'm the one who first said "I'm going to the First Church of Crom, Scientist to get healed."  You don't have to plan the entire world in advance.  Again, this works especially well in OD&D since starting characters are so weak, they aren't suddenly going to be travelling everywhere.

So, a couple dungeon levels and two or three low level non dungeon adventures is enough to keep you going for quite a while.

Lastly, locales are less important than people.  Someplace, somebody told me that the key to theater is "Everybody wants something, and in any scene each character is going to try to move events towards what they want."  So, when they encounter an NPC, the one thing you need to know is "What does this NPC want?"  This even works as the game grows; what does this king want, how does he like the kings around him, etc.  This gives you a dynamic world.

Then all you need to do is decide how the players' actions either aid or interfere with various characters getting what they want.

Look at Jason Lutes' stuff (Freebooters, Perilous Wilds) to get a feel for organic play. Then work from your strengths.

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

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

That's not what most people think of as sandbox.

Having been a sandbox gamer since 1972, I would define it as "there are multiple viable actions available."

In addition to what's said above, I would add:

Almost always, if any real winging has to be done, it's only part of a session.  And if PCs are truly throwing an early session curveball in, often it will involve some travel.  The DM only has to keep the session moving until the next post-session prep period where he can re-orient.  In an urban situation the travel part may not be true but those very rare occasions are when the DM earns their 4th star; live in the moment, adopt a referee mentality, and deal with each situation for the rest of the session in a way that's true to the area and people the PCs are interacting with, not worrying about a lack of foreknowledge on your own part, or what the butterfly effect might be.

Quote from: cranebump;981854Look at Jason Lutes' stuff (Freebooters, Perilous Wilds) to get a feel for organic play. Then work from your strengths.

Seconded. Perilous Wilds is particularly great.

Hmm. Well I think my sandbox games are notable for tons of development in the course of play. There is some before the campaign, and a burst early on, but while the sandbox is running I'm almost always tinkering with and expanding it, adding locations, adding NPCs, detailing NPCs etc. I end up with this big cornucopia I can pull from at any time.

Looking at my White Star game sandbox, I basically started off with a 'starter town' space station (Toshe Station) and a line up the page to an initial quest location (Shyni Maelstrom, name from random generator at donjon.sh I think). Lines south to the official Kelron & Sterling mini-sandboxes. Then just kept adding stuff as it came up, current map reflects 6 weeks of play & development, basically that 'early burst' phase.

(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mQtfSrIGKBY/WYJJjFYJ69I/AAAAAAAAJqU/03fWpaDvRe8cEGon7mxuDpUAhxHSmlrwACLcBGAs/s1600/Star%2BChart.bmp)

Quote from: Baulderstone;981847"Save the kingdom" plots are fine. The campaign can keep going even if the local kingdom collapses or is conquered. It's a cool case of player action/inaction changing the setting.

This is so true. I started running my Wilderlands in 2006 and ca 2009-2013 it seemed the PCs just couldn't get a break, the bad guys kept on winning until by the start of the current phase in 2015 a whole new evil empire had grown out of nothing on the bones of failed PC groups... It makes for a great dramatic setting. And when an NPC says "Hope you do better than the last guy to wear that armour!"; there is actual in-game history to back it up.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;981869First, let's define sandbox. Best definition I'm come up with is that an RPG sandbox exists when the players can either choose or define what the next scenario is going to be. The opposite of a sandbox is when the GM chooses or defines what the next scenario is going to be.



One thing to note is that whereas plotted scenarios tend to burn through material, a good sandbox will usually reuse and reincorporate material. Much like a PC who starts play with a single sentence of back story can develop through play into a fully-rounded and complex character with a great mass of back story, so too can a game world develop through play: Sure, the first time the players interact with Earl Covington he might be an NPC that the GM only knows one or two sentences about. But through the course of play, Covington's background will develop. And as the PCs continue engaging with Covington, the GM will continue to develop (and reveal) more and more about the character. Don't Prep Plots: The Principles of RPG Villainy (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36383/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots-you-will-rue-this-day-heroes-the-principles-of-rpg-villainy) is a good look at how this works in the specific case of villains (but it really applies to everything in the campaign world).

There's also the fact that in a proper sandbox every bit of prep you do is a multi-functional tool. Usually the GM won't even really know how the tool is going to be used; he just knows that he has that tool and when the time comes he'll be able to use it in whatever fashion he needs to. I recommend checking out Juggling Scenario Hooks in a Sandbox (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/37530/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-day-juggling-scenario-hooks-in-a-sandbox) and (Re-)Running the Megadungeon (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/5/roleplaying-games/re-running-the-megadungeon), both of which are really practical, step-by-step walk-throughs showing how you don't have to (metaphorically speaking) buy a whole new set of tools every time you start a new scenario in a sandbox. Instead, like a carpenter starting a new project, you will generally be using all of your old tools in new ways while only occasionally making a run down to Home Depot to grab a missing piece.

Finally, the GM should never forget the most powerful tool in their prep arsenal: "What are you guys planning to do next session?"

Lots of good advice there - and I agree with your definition of sandbox, unlike Gronan's definition it distinguishes sandbox games from non-sandbox non-railroad games, ie most of them!

I especially want to call out your point about throwing in tons of stuff without knowing how (or even if) it will be used. The more cool NPCs, factions, monsters, locations etc I throw into the sandbox, the more resources I have. I don't know how things will go. When I created the Amazons of Highhaven, I had a vague idea of bitter, unhappy Princess Laurana as the (semi?) villainous foil to Good Queen Artemisia. Laurana is daughter of the last queen, Khelara by the turned-out-to-be-evil Warlord Yusan. Laurana thinks she should rule, the other amazons chose Artemisia instead. Laurana not happy.
Well at this point in the campaign, having killed her father Yusan in battle, Laurana is the devoted (half) sister to PC Hakeem the barbarian warlord, the love interest of PC Sandor Sunneson the world-hopping northman, Artemisia wants her to be the next Queen so Artemisia can die heroically in battle - and Laurana is complaining about it... Thanks to the players, this character went off in a very very different direction than what I expected.
And that happens all the time.

Quote from: EOTB;981879In addition to what's said above, I would add:

Almost always, if any real winging has to be done, it's only part of a session.  And if PCs are truly throwing an early session curveball in, often it will involve some travel.  The DM only has to keep the session moving until the next post-session prep period where he can re-orient.  In an urban situation the travel part may not be true but those very rare occasions are when the DM earns their 4th star; live in the moment, adopt a referee mentality, and deal with each situation for the rest of the session in a way that's true to the area and people the PCs are interacting with, not worrying about a lack of foreknowledge on your own part, or what the butterfly effect might be.

If the PCs move - well, NPCs can move too... I'll often have suitable existing NPCs I can throw in.
If the area is undeveloped, well that's what procedural content generation tools are for. My favourite is the Donjon random encounter generator - I print out say 10 or 20 urban & wilderness encounters and can then roll them up whenever called for.
http://donjon.bin.sh/fantasy/random/#type=encounter;enc-type=Dungeon

Lots of good stuff here guys. Thanks! Ive got reading material for a week!

One element I THINK Im hearing but would have trouble with is the notion of making up locations/NPCs/situations etc. and just moving them around depending on where the players go. If I understanding this you conjure up a tavern for example and then just plop it down in whatever town the PCs visit, that way you dont waste it should they go in a different direction.

If thats common practice, I gotta say Im not a fan. I consider part of what I do as GM as "World Building" and if the Black Goat Tavern was generated to exist on the outskirtz of Harlington, beside the old bridge... thats kind of where I want it to be. I like to think that its there even if the PCs never go there...ever. Ill grant you that doing this does generate a lot of campaign material that may not have an effect on the game (at least for the moment) but it is fleshing out the world in which the players are adventuring in. Im not sure I like the idea of a campaign where taverns, dungeons, NPCs and whatever mystically appear a few seconds in the PCs future along the path they happen to be travelling down. It seems, well artificial and contrived.

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

Admittedly, maybe Im not understanding this notion completely and if so, Im open to explanation. Im not knocking it, just trying to get my head wrapped around it.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981834Ive been guilty of throwing some bad attitude towards the "sandbox" crowd before as I normally lean heavily on pre-game prep to a crazy degree. The closest thing I can say I typically come to sandbox (except for a couple of exceptions such as when playing in the modern world) is a massive amount of preparation completely surrounding the PCs so that Im ready no matter where they go. (and they still typically manage to pick some corner Im weak in)

So help a poor, over-prepping, occasional RR conducting GM out!

I run a lot of sandbox games and I prep a LOT. I don't think sandbox is synonymous with low-prep -- but I completely understand the way you're using it: because a sandbox game has very little in the way of expectations on the PCs there's a good chance they'll go somewhere that's not fully defined forcing you to

1) Either stop the game and define it or
2) Make it up on the fly

I do a combination of both, with the idea that I might bin a bunch of work -- if, for example, the PCs are approaching a space station I haven't fully described and I assume they'll go there... then they don't.

I've gotta be okay with that.

I pretty much am.

In terms of how to do effective prep, people have already covered a lot of the basics, but as I'm doing a space game right now, I'll give an example

1) I have a large-scale map of the known space -- about 100+ stars, with names and a VERY general description of what's there ("these stars are in the X-Cluster and are the home of the Y-Empire)

2) For the 20-30 star-systems in the Player's area I have more specific notes and -- in some cases -- names of important planets. This allows me create NPCs from these areas, or talk about rumors or legends of far-away places, etc.

3) For the star systems next to the one the PCs are on, I have planet lists and "maps" of the system (simple graphics with a circle in the middle for the star and ring-orbits with dots for the various planets), descriptions of key history and political situation, notes on major conflicts. Each planet has a few paragraphs. These are still "distant places" in the game I'm playing the action (over, so far, about a year) has taken place in one system on (so far) 3 planets -- so the "next door" systems are still pretty exotic places... but they become increasingly important, as the game progresses.

The PCs may visit them... or may not -- it's not up to me. If the PC's go to a nearby system I'll want to work out a great deal more

4) In a system the PCs are in, I have a few pages on each planet including things like a summary history, culture, major cities, key conflicts, key NPCs in some cases, economic situation, and so-on

5) For the planet the characters are on, I have lists of common names, a LOT more specifics, city maps and details about sites of interest.

6) For specific encounters, I have maps, NPC statistics, and so-on. We're playing a rules-heavy game, so working out NPCs and enemy combatants is a key component of prep.

This is a lot of work -- I enjoy it and I don't mind shelving it if the PCs move on or don't explorer every aspect of what I've thought out.

I find it useful even if it's never explicitly used:

Having a good understanding of the background, current situation, and the relationships between major entities (cultures, people, etc.) helps me make up good stuff on the fly.


Example: The PCs were looking to sell some smuggled guns. They found a criminal group that would buy them, but they decided to look at alternatives -- the guys they found were sort-of-terrorists; they weren't sure they wanted to support that. I had to come up with some other criminal organizations on the fly.

The work I'd done specifying the major political and economic players as well as the cultural issues on the planet they're visiting helped a great deal there. When I had to make up names for the underworld contacts, I had lists suitably "ethnic" names for the "low class" members of that society, and I was able to pull that together quickly to create a variety of convincing organizations that felt unique and organic to that world.

That's important to me -- I can create an infinite amount of mobs and criminals off the top of my head, but without the prep, my spur-of-the-moment invention would probably have felt generic and bland, which, for me, would kill the whole point of having a game with hundreds of unique planets to explorer -- if they're all generic, why bother? Why have a "sandbox" at all?

Cheers,
-E.

When I run Vampire (Sabbat) games they are pretty much a modern day sandbox. Well, that is to say, the players have a huge amount of freedom to do what they want. They will all have their own personal goals that they will want to pursue.

That said, there is always some kind of story arc that's bubbling away in the background that I can bring in and out to keep player focus. Being in the Sabbat helps with making the sandbox manageable, as being part of that organization will always bring them together and give them a common goal. But in a fantasy game that could easily be something else - Like they are all from the same village or clan, etc. So they can always come back to protect its interests. Thing is, you've already preppered the some detail about the clan/city and it's possible enimies.

Sandboxes for me will definitely require prep work, but it's about being as efficient as possible with it. Each game is different, but for my Sabbat campaign I had a note book and I'd constantly jot down new Vampires and enemies or locations. I could then pull these out of my ass whenever I needed them. Mundane locations I'd just wing or make up soemthing more grand if needed. But if I did I'd make a note so they could be used in the fututre.

One player said to me he wanted to hunt down the Baali (devil worshipping scum who the Sabbat hate). As I'd already some decent enemies created and some locations. Which I then changed to accommodate what the player wanted. It actually became a major focus of the campaign. And for a time overtaking the main arc. The major prep work was already done I just had to change the some of the details for the game. The game was writing itself at that stage.... After they killed the main Baali threat in the area, the Baali quickly returned en masse for revenge. Actions = Consequences! :)

Another thing that helped was having some kind of 'home base' that they'd go back to. That meant they were not pulling in all directions.

If you get a chance, have a look at 'Beyond the Wall'. That's pretty much a sandbox game with very little prep work needed. It's very slick and has a lot of advice about how to run games with very little prep. Sine Nomine's stuff is excellent too for good random encounter sandbox stuff.

More good stuff, thanks!

Quote from: rgrove0172;981899Lots of good stuff here guys. Thanks! Ive got reading material for a week!

One element I THINK Im hearing but would have trouble with is the notion of making up locations/NPCs/situations etc. and just moving them around depending on where the players go. If I understanding this you conjure up a tavern for example and then just plop it down in whatever town the PCs visit, that way you dont waste it should they go in a different direction.

I don't do that exactly. But I might roll on the "table of random taverns" - there's a good one in the Paizo GameMastery Guide. More likely I'll make one up whole cloth.

I don't rearrange the scenery to put the same thing down in front of the PCs wherever they go. That feels lame.

Let me tell you what I did in a short session last night.

1. PCs decide to travel from Bratanis Village through the Ghinarian Hills to the Temple-Tomb of Belaras. Route takes them past the dungeons beneath Sky God Idol, where they have adventured before.
2. On the road I decide to roll an encounter - I roll & get an Elf Ranger Maegladher and his giant rat Galadan. Checking my notes, I decide he is a scout for King Kambdum Domnavrente of Diancecht, sent to investigate rumours of war in the north. I can see he therefore was trained at the Grove of the Rising Sun, I know the name of the priestess who initiated him, his Ranger captain et al.
3. PCs exchange pleasantries with the Elf (well, the Half-Orc threatens to eat his rat), he warns them Yusan's bandits have returned to the Sky God Idol dungeons, and PCs continue on west.
4. At the dungeon, the PCs see muddy tracks going in and decide to follow them, but are distracted by an old library (pre-keyed) where the Eldritch Knight is delighted to find a spell book, the Septimus Severian (pre-placed).
5. While PCs are nabbing the book I make my first dungeon wandering monster roll, get '6' -
 encounter, roll - Dwarves - checking notes I see these are Bolfi's men, who the PCs fought alongside before against goblins. But these dwarves want money for 'their' books.
6. Failed PC Intimidate checks, a fight breaks out. The dwarves are wounded, one felled, the other asks for quarter and the PCs let him drag away his injured friend. The PCs are worried more dwarves will come, and decide to leave the dungeon.
7. Heading west again, the first (& only) non-rolled encounter of the evening. I decide that Yusan's Bandits raided (sneaked into) a pilgrim group camp last night and kidnapped Lady Lucretia Alamsor of Rallu, a pre-existing NPC with a record of being kidnapped... The PCs encounter Lucretia's assistant Brionny Fortin out looking for her, accompanied by two hammer-armed men who look like blacksmiths. Brionny has previously been encountered but by other PCs, the men are the Alces brothers from Selatine, lent by Lady Vex of Selatine (very long term NPC) to Lady Lucretia to guard her on her pilgrimage. The groups talk, and the PCs agree to help Brionny recover her missing mistress, telling Brionny they suspect Lucretia is being held in the Skygod Idol dungeon.

And we end there.

So, a mix of random rolls, preset locales, pre-existing and new NPCs, etc.  Lucretia & Brionny were last seen (by other PCs) on their Ralluan merchant ship docked at Selatine, a couple weeks ago in-game. When I was looking for an encounter, it made sense to me that Lucretia would want to go on the famous pilgrimage to the Temple of Belaras. I knew she didn't trust her own men after an encounter with pirates on the way north, and so seemed likely she would take guards from Lady Vex at Selatine - but Vex is only just starting to rebuild the village (after overthrowing her brother Hytirus, who had been enspelled by an evil priest of Thanatos) and she wouldn't likely spare either of her two real warriors, Epicaste & Vuthrik. Hence the Alces brothers, the Alces family being loyal to Lady Vex.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981899Lots of good stuff here guys. Thanks! Ive got reading material for a week!

One element I THINK Im hearing but would have trouble with is the notion of making up locations/NPCs/situations etc. and just moving them around depending on where the players go. If I understanding this you conjure up a tavern for example and then just plop it down in whatever town the PCs visit, that way you dont waste it should they go in a different direction.

If thats common practice...

It's not. Or at least not exactly. Here's something that's sort of close to your example, but is significantly different in a couple of respects.

EXAMPLE: For the Elder Wilds area of play Chaosium's Griffon Mountain had a list of unique encounters. These could occur as part of the random encounter tables. Here's one example: a pair of standing stones located on a plain. The stones trapped an ancient proto-goddess who the PCs could interact with, possibly even free. Maybe even become her priest. The location wasn't established until the PCs encountered it in a suitable terrain location.

There are two relevant differences between this and your example. First the GM is not moving the location to wherever the PCs go. The random encounter table may put it there. Or it may not ever put those standing stones anywhere. That particular location had something like a 1/5000 chance of being generated. A campaign might not ever generate enough encounters for that to come up. It did in my campaign--that's probably why I remember it, though several other similar location based encounters did not ever occur. So the GM isn't forcing an encounter on the players based on a story, a whim, or anything else other than an appropriate location and a random event.

Second, the two standing stones had no established location  and they were something that could occur in many different, unexplored and more or less uninhabited locations. That particular encounter table wasn't used in the populated areas close to what passed for civilization in the setting. And even in an "wild" area, if the location was inappropriate (say a plain in the middle of a river or high mountains) the GM would simply generate a different encounter.

Let's look at a variant example of the Black Goat Tavern. Let's suppose as part of the one or two paragraph description of Rivertown (a distant location) the GM has written a description of the Black Goat Tavern with the note that it is near "a bridge" and further than Rivertown is known for its three impressively arched stone bridges that join Rivertown's left and right banks. The players decide to go to river town. They arrive on the left bank. While in Rivertown they decide to go to the Temple of the White God which is located on the Right Bank. To get there they will cross one of the bridges. Let's say they use the Middle Bridge. During their walk to the Temple, the PCs decide to stop at a tavern for a drink and to pick up a few rumors about what's happening in town. The GM decides that, since they are crossing a bridge to get to the White God's Temple that he will use the previously created but not specifically located Black Goat Tavern as the tavern where the PCs stop. He now updates his notes for Rivertown noting that the Black Goat Tavern is located next to the Middle Bridge.

Is this a problem? And if it is what's the problem?

Quote from: Bren;981927It's not. Or at least not exactly. Here's something that's sort of close to your example, but is significantly different in a couple of respects.

EXAMPLE: For the Elder Wilds area of play Chaosium's Griffon Mountain had a list of unique encounters. These could occur as part of the random encounter tables. Here's one example: a pair of standing stones located on a plain. The stones trapped an ancient proto-goddess who the PCs could interact with, possibly even free. Maybe even become her priest. The location wasn't established until the PCs encountered it in a suitable terrain location.

There are two relevant differences between this and your example. First the GM is not moving the location to wherever the PCs go. The random encounter table may put it there. Or it may not ever put those standing stones anywhere. That particular location had something like a 1/5000 chance of being generated. A campaign might not ever generate enough encounters for that to come up. It did in my campaign--that's probably why I remember it, though several other similar location based encounters did not ever occur. So the GM isn't forcing an encounter on the players based on a story, a whim, or anything else other than an appropriate location and a random event.

Second, the two standing stones had no established location  and they were something that could occur in many different, unexplored and more or less uninhabited locations. That particular encounter table wasn't used in the populated areas close to what passed for civilization in the setting. And even in an "wild" area, if the location was inappropriate (say a plain in the middle of a river or high mountains) the GM would simply generate a different encounter.

Let's look at a variant example of the Black Goat Tavern. Let's suppose as part of the one or two paragraph description of Rivertown (a distant location) the GM has written a description of the Black Goat Tavern with the note that it is near "a bridge" and further than Rivertown is known for its three impressively arched stone bridges that join Rivertown's left and right banks. The players decide to go to river town. They arrive on the left bank. While in Rivertown they decide to go to the Temple of the White God which is located on the Right Bank. To get there they will cross one of the bridges. Let's say they use the Middle Bridge. During their walk to the Temple, the PCs decide to stop at a tavern for a drink and to pick up a few rumors about what's happening in town. The GM decides that, since they are crossing a bridge to get to the White God's Temple that he will use the previously created but not specifically located Black Goat Tavern as the tavern where the PCs stop. He now updates his notes for Rivertown noting that the Black Goat Tavern is located next to the Middle Bridge.

Is this a problem? And if it is what's the problem?

Well if its not specifically located.. there is no problem of course. Ive done this sort of thing too... described a city has having a temple then placed it once the players go there and I work on the map. In your case Im talking about the tavern being moved to the other side of town or even in an entirely different town should they players ask to visit a tavern on their way somewhere else.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981932Well if its not specifically located.. there is no problem of course. Ive done this sort of thing too... described a city has having a temple then placed it once the players go there and I work on the map. In your case Im talking about the tavern being moved to the other side of town or even in an entirely different town should they players ask to visit a tavern on their way somewhere else.

This feels like something to avoid.
One thing - in my sandbox games I place all but the secretest info on a public campaign page, which players can read if they want. This means they can potentially know where Tavern X is, even if they never go there. But in any case Tavern X in my game would be just a name, couple NPCs, maybe a line of flavour text. I can do that again & again.

I think Dungeons* are the main issue - they're big, they take effort (even to read), once placed they're stuck. I have currently one 'floating dungeon' that PCs have heard rumours of, know it's in the Ghinarian Hills, but I have not publicly situated it yet.

*And similar detailed adventure sites.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981932Well if its not specifically located.. there is no problem of course. Ive done this sort of thing too... described a city has having a temple then placed it once the players go there and I work on the map. In your case Im talking about the tavern being moved to the other side of town or even in an entirely different town should they players ask to visit a tavern on their way somewhere else.

I see no reason to ever move the tavern once it is located.

Unless it is this tavern

Spoiler

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1243[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;981874That's not what most people think of as sandbox.

Having been a sandbox gamer since 1972, I would define it as "there are multiple viable actions available."

Here we are in complete agreement.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;981869First, let's define sandbox. Best definition I'm come up with is that an RPG sandbox exists when the players can either choose or define what the next scenario is going to be. The opposite of a sandbox is when the GM chooses or defines what the next scenario is going to be.

This part I am in disagreement with. An RPG sandbox exists when the referee provides many hooks(options) for the players and those can take many forms. The players get to choose whether or not they pursue one of those options or they can decide to pursue some other option(s) that the ref did not think of. They choose what they will pursue and the ref defines the environment, the situations and options they will have as they pursue what they chose, their actions and choices as things proceed usually leads to the creation of more options and possibilities. If it is a new option that the players thought of on their own, it is still the ref that creates that as it unfolds and this is called "winging it." Superior referees (See Arneson and Gygax in their own campaigns) embrace winging it and are good at it, it comes from knowing your world, your creation. Some falsely claim that no one can do that, or that Arneson and Gygax were exceptions. Were they exceptional refs, certainly. Is it impossible to do what they did as refs, no it is not impossible.

Players do not define the scenario, they tell the ref what they want to do and the ref uses that as an aid to define the scenario, this being when the players strike off in a direction that the ref did not foresee and the ref wings it to keep things going and expand the fun.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981899LOne element I THINK Im hearing but would have trouble with is the notion of making up locations/NPCs/situations etc. and just moving them around depending on where the players go. If I understanding this you conjure up a tavern for example and then just plop it down in whatever town the PCs visit, that way you dont waste it should they go in a different direction.

It depends, whether said tavern is something meant to be generic and used when the referee needs a tavern but doesn't have something specific prepared. Or is it something tailored. It boils down to intent. Are you placing a prepared tavern as a random element or are you place it because you want the PCs to get on with the "story" of the campaign. If it the latter then you are probably try to railroad the PC.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981899I consider part of what I do as GM as "World Building" and if the Black Goat Tavern was generated to exist on the outskirtz of Harlington, beside the old bridge... thats kind of where I want it to be.

It fine to have the Black Goat Tavern prepared if that what interest you. But the no referee can cover every contingency  with prepared content. At which point you have to wing it using your Bag of Stuff and take notes to be consistent later.

Ouch. Right after I lost the files for my GMing book...
I guess I must start to re-build;).

Quote from: rgrove0172;981834I know that published settings, adventure modules and the kinds of games those that preplan everything put out include a great deal of effort to make sure the componants of the game fit into the setting, the regional history, the culture and so on. It seems it would be hard to wing this sort of detail at the gaming table on the fly. Obviously some of you do it regularly.. so Im asking how... lend us a that would like to try it a bit of advise.

The only way I can imagine it possible is for the GM to be intimately familiar and I mean INTIMATELY FAMILIAR, with the setting the way I have been when running games set in my home town, places Ive visited etc.

Well, yes, that's my way, with one change.
You don't have to know everything about the setting in details...as you'd noticed, that's outright impossible no matter how much you prepare:). And if you take notes on everything in the setting, some of those details would have to have changed between you making the notes and the PCs getting there.

Instead, you have to understand the setting;). Then you could make up stuff, and it will fit with the rest.

How I do this? I make relationship maps, and add core principles. (And for NPCs, you can use personality mechanics even if the game is personalitymechanicsfree). NOTE: when I say "relationship maps", I don't mean just "the queen is dating the gardener" (though it might be on them). I mean the way that five things flow.
Money
Power
Security
Religious conviction
Healing
Fame
Sex (And Other Entertainments). No, I'm not kidding. People have been willing to wage war over spices, drugs and tea, haven't they? Food was a major source of entertainment way back when. And there's a reason why in the CP2020's setting, you have Rockerboys as a major archetype.

Once I know that, I don't need much. The Referee just needs to overlay the "relationship maps" over the setting. Then the PCs are generated in such a way that they also have their spots on the maps.
Invariably, they get entangled with other agents, and start acting like PCs, upsetting the status quo:D! Then the relationship maps tell me in what way the setting pushes back.
And this prompts more PC actions.

Didn't we have these discussions 6 months ago when you first joined?

That said I think the best advice for you comes from the little green one.  "You must unlearn, what you have learned."

Adopt a referee mind set. Give up intention.  If you find you have a plan or a path a goal, pause go take a smoke break, (actully never smoke) and step back.

As for the Inn example I think there might be very sosphisticated things about information theory happening here but I can't quite tease them out.  

In terms I can tease out, remember you are discovering the world along with your players.  You need to be able to say "Oh thats where the black goat in is, I had heard of that place but never been."  Unless its one of the hard points of your game it doesn't matter where it is.  If it is one of the hard points you shouldn't move it but have as few hard points as possible.  

Even if you can't move the inn you can move parts of it.  You can move the floor plan to the new inn.  You can use the densins.  Just roll up a few new names to put in the black goat if and when they ever get there, you can reuse the wine list, and where you can't it will become obvious to you.  For example if the new Inn is called The Golden Crow, the ale probably isn't called goat piss.  And its good enough that its just called ale.  If the Inns are a long way from each other and there is a Red local to the Black Goat, if you Keep it at the Golden Crow you know there us a trade route, depending on the level of animosity between the kingdoms their might be smugglers.  ....  I could go on for a while.

Short answer.  In a sand box you can be suprised by your own world.  In a sand box you don't create, you discover.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;981869First, let's define sandbox. Best definition I'm come up with is that an RPG sandbox exists when the players can either choose or define what the next scenario is going to be. The opposite of a sandbox is when the GM chooses or defines what the next scenario is going to be.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;981874That's not what most people think of as sandbox.

Having been a sandbox gamer since 1972, I would define it as "there are multiple viable actions available."

Honestly, I'm not sure if you guys are agreeing about what a sandbox is and quibbling over how to word the definition or if you are disagreeing about the definition.

In a sandbox (as I understand and use the term) the players get to decide what goals their characters will pursue and when they are going to pursue those goals. The goal may be to bite on the latest hook that the GM has dangled, e.g. "We want to sail to the island of the concupiscent red-heads" or they may invent some goal of their own "We want to take over the thieves guild of this city."

The GM then plays the world and the inhabitants therein who react to the various things the PCs attempt in pursuit of their goals. So the players don't "define what the next scenario is going to be," instead they choose or decide on a goal or goals and then they decide on what to attempt in pursuit of that goal or goals and the GM reacts to the attempts (and also plays the world in general initiating those events that aren't caused by player actions, i.e. Genghis Khan may invade Russia regardless of any actions the PCs take over in Vienna).

In not sandboxes, the GM decides what that next scenario will be. That may be what is the next mission that M send 006 on if the game is James Bond 007 or it may be the next chapter in the story that the GM is trying to tell if the game is play a bit part in the GM's unpublished novel.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981834Im swallowing my pride here though and am asking earnestly - as someone who wants to learn - how to you sandbox types do it? When I hear of someone playing a session completely with multiple towns, businesses, NPCs, encounters etc. all from the notes on the back of a napkin I have a hard time ...
1)believing they are telling the truth
2)believing the result doesnt suffer from "pulled it out of my backside, minimal background, itis"

I know that published settings, adventure modules and the kinds of games those that preplan everything put out include a great deal of effort to make sure the componants of the game fit into the setting, the regional history, the culture and so on. It seems it would be hard to wing this sort of detail at the gaming table on the fly. Obviously some of you do it regularly.. so Im asking how... lend us a that would like to try it a bit of advise.

The only way I can imagine it possible is for the GM to be intimately familiar and I mean INTIMATELY FAMILIAR, with the setting the way I have been when running games set in my home town, places Ive visited etc.

So help a poor, over-prepping, occasional RR conducting GM out!

You are suffering from focusing on details to the expense of broader outline. This is very common in most artistic disciplines, and improvisation is no different in this respect. It's why you hear about thumbnail sketches, first drafts, and all those tools you've come across in school -- they are there to give clear broader vision so as to ready oneself for detailing.

So, let's do a quick example exercise: A summer day in 1960s Rome, Italy, next to a fountained plaza.

Now give me locations, objects, people, images, smells, scenes...

Normally most people would be able to fill this out easily. But how, none were trained in improv? Simple, everyone's filled with ideas and expectations (in modern 'net speak, "memes and tropes,") about things in life. And all I did was define very big Scope factors on down. I went Time > Weather > Space > Culture > etc., using keywords that instantly evoke ideas and expectations of their own.

I don't need to know Summer, the 1960s, or Italy and fountains, all that well. I don't need to know the elements down to every last detail. I just need to know easily evoked shared impressions.

And here's the next secret: commit to what you've put down. (Also known by Bob Ross as "Happy Little Mistakes Are Just Opportunities!")

And now you know why sketching a thumbnail (or scribbling an outline) "on a napkin" is so prolific and useful.

Quote from: Headless;981953Didn't we have these discussions 6 months ago when you first joined?

That said I think the best advice for you comes from the little green one.  "You must unlearn, what you have learned."

Adopt a referee mind set. Give up intention.  If you find you have a plan or a path a goal, pause go take a smoke break, (actully never smoke) and step back.

As for the Inn example I think there might be very sosphisticated things about information theory happening here but I can't quite tease them out.  

In terms I can tease out, remember you are discovering the world along with your players.  You need to be able to say "Oh thats where the black goat in is, I had heard of that place but never been."  Unless its one of the hard points of your game it doesn't matter where it is.  If it is one of the hard points you shouldn't move it but have as few hard points as possible.  

Even if you can't move the inn you can move parts of it.  You can move the floor plan to the new inn.  You can use the densins.  Just roll up a few new names to put in the black goat if and when they ever get there, you can reuse the wine list, and where you can't it will become obvious to you.  For example if the new Inn is called The Golden Crow, the ale probably isn't called goat piss.  And its good enough that its just called ale.  If the Inns are a long way from each other and there is a Red local to the Black Goat, if you Keep it at the Golden Crow you know there us a trade route, depending on the level of animosity between the kingdoms their might be smugglers.  ....  I could go on for a while.

Short answer.  In a sand box you can be suprised by your own world.  In a sand box you don't create, you discover.

We might have Headless... at least something similar. If we did I was probably coming at it from a more defensive posture though. I am actually listening here and curious but Im not sure I like the idea of relinquishing control of the world's content. Allowing players free reign? Sure, I get that of course but building my world based on random charts or spur of the moment whims and the like is very different. I do a bit of that when solitaire gaming, using various engines to randomize the setting, NPC actions etc. but as GM I prefer a bit more artistic control. Afterall, the players may come and go but the world that is created becomes a permanent part of my gaming library.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981834Ive been guilty of throwing some bad attitude towards the "sandbox" crowd before as I normally lean heavily on pre-game prep to a crazy degree. The closest thing I can say I typically come to sandbox (except for a couple of exceptions such as when playing in the modern world) is a massive amount of preparation completely surrounding the PCs so that Im ready no matter where they go. (and they still typically manage to pick some corner Im weak in)

Im swallowing my pride here though and am asking earnestly - as someone who wants to learn - how to you sandbox types do it? When I hear of someone playing a session completely with multiple towns, businesses, NPCs, encounters etc. all from the notes on the back of a napkin I have a hard time ...
1)believing they are telling the truth
2)believing the result doesnt suffer from "pulled it out of my backside, minimal background, itis"

I know that published settings, adventure modules and the kinds of games those that preplan everything put out include a great deal of effort to make sure the componants of the game fit into the setting, the regional history, the culture and so on. It seems it would be hard to wing this sort of detail at the gaming table on the fly. Obviously some of you do it regularly.. so Im asking how... lend us a that would like to try it a bit of advise.

The only way I can imagine it possible is for the GM to be intimately familiar and I mean INTIMATELY FAMILIAR, with the setting the way I have been when running games set in my home town, places Ive visited etc.

So help a poor, over-prepping, occasional RR conducting GM out!

The planet my game is set on is the size of Jupiter (yes I hand wave gravity - magic you know:eek:) and my players are over 20 game years into circumnavigating the globe and they have encountered multiple dozens of different cultures along the way. We play out the ocean travel, I work ahead by creating a rough map of the the areas ahead of them and to the north and south of them and keep expanding that as we go as their route varies as they keep jogging from island to island to continent and so on. I know my world and I have roughed out what they are to expect and then I fill in the details during play. It is easy for them to go outside the lightly prepped areas, that is where it becomes almost pure winging.

I have lists of names for all sorts of things because those are harder to come up with, everything else is IMO easy. I can get as detailed as the players want on the fly, creating as much background as needed. My world has a vibe and while there are regional differences, those were defined long ago in rough, but any area the players have not yet visited can be tweaked all the way up to them arriving there. Outlines are very helpful, I don't use them a lot, but I have and outlines with short phrases work really well IMO. Another thing is always have a notebook with you and if at all possible write down any idea you have. The act of writing it down will help you remember and enhance your ability to flesh that idea out, and to do it on the fly if you need to. Think about your world, get to know it, make it live and breathe and you will find winging it gets easier and easier. Yes, I urge, you to become INTIMATELY FAMILIAR with your campaign world/setting.

My axioms of sandbox campaigns

First off a referee has to be willing to let his players trash his setting. If you are going to get bent about the players taking out the Emperor or the local tavern keeper then a sandbox campaign is not likely going to be enjoyable. Assuming that the players are exhibiting good sportmanship (i.e. good manners while playing a game), what is the worse thing you can imagine the players trying to do? If it occurs can be you remain fair, and will the campaign still be enjoyable for you? If the answer is yes then you will succeed at being a referee of a sandbox campaign.

I loosely based what I do for my campaigns in several categories, the Initial Context, the Bag of Stuff, and a World in Motion.

The Bag of Stuff
This is where I do world building. For me, the three main items I need are geography, NPCs, and locales. Of the three locales wind up looking like a traditional adventure after it written.  I have two broad grouping of the stuff; the specific (for example the City State of the Invincible Overlord), the generic (random castle town of 500 to 1000 people). For NPCs specific (Llewellyn the Blue, wizard of City-State), or generic (Tharian Horselord 6th level fight equivalent to a knight socially).

When I use something generic and it something that the players will continue to interact with then I will make notes , copy and paste the generic writeup and make something specific out of it.

In general I have a lot more generic material than I do specific. In addition I use material from other setting constantly notably Harn and Ars Magica altering to what I need. If players keep interacting with the place I will gradually replace it with something similar that my own original work. Although I usually do this between campaigns not during a campaign.

I wrote a series called How to build a Fantasy Sandbox (http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-to-make-fantasy-sandbox.html) to help people to jump start their Bag of Stuff. For me what happened is that I started out with the Wilderlands of High Fantasy and keep running campaign after campaign in the setting. Over the years it morphed into it own thing the Majestic Wilderlands. It my experience that most referee do not stick with any one setting for long. However with the way I did for the Wilderlands, you can start small with a bare sketch of the larger world and keep adding to it as you run successive campaigns. The "How to make" series start off with making that larger sketch and then narrows down to a specific area with the things you need to build a toolkit to handle whatever direction the players opt to pursue.

World in Motion
This is about what you do during the sandbox campaign to bring it to life. For me there are several things I try to do.

First I view the current situation from the PCs perspective, I visualize in my mind what they would be seeing if they actually were standing there. Then I use what I know about their interests, goals, and motivation to filter that into something that hopefully fun and interesting. I also rely heavily on stereotypes and assumptions to cut down on the verbal bandwidth needed.

I have to stress if you want to use stereotypes and assumptions, then you have to make sure they are true MOST of the time.  For example a common issue I see that many players won't interact with NPCs because they all got plots and plans that at the very least complicate the PCs lives if not direction hinder what they are trying to do.  I make sure that I roleplay most of my NPCs as people just trying to get on with their lives. That by and large they will be somewhat friendly and helpful if there no other reason to dislike the PCs. Especially for merchants.  Keep a running count on a notepad if you have trouble with this.

Next the setting has a life of it own and doesn't give two shits about what the players want to do. To handle this I list out goal and motivations of the NPCs most likely to effect the PCs' circumstances. It can range from the King to the local barkeeper. Then I construct a time line of what will happen as if the PCs didn't exist. This timeline is used as a Plan of Battle. A plan of battle is useful because it provided a military force a framework in order to achieve its objective. However history is full of example of general who lost because they were rigid about executing their plan. A good general will change and adapt as the circumstance of the war changes. So it is with this timeline.

The timeline is a framework which is meant to be changed after and during a session in light of the PCs did or did not do as their characters. In a sandbox campaign this where most of the referee creativity will be focused on. When the PCs do something most of the time there will be a lot of possible consequences. One or two may be the most plausible. However you do not have to pick the most plausible outcome. Rather pick the outcome that is both plausible and interesting to you and the players. Also like with the example of the NPCs above, be aware of your bias. At first keep a running count of how you decide things and if you are bias to a particular type of outcome then make a chart to roll on to change things up. Most everybody can spot consistent patterns especially in social interactions.

Initial Context

Most sandbox campaigns fail. Why? Because of the lack of a good initial context. Many mock character histories and background but if you going to get a sandbox campaign you are going to need a least a half page of specifics for each players and a half page of general information for the group as a whole.

Players who enjoy being plunked down in the middle of a blank map and told "Go forth and explore" are few and far between. About as common as players who enjoy playing GURPS with all the options in play at once. Most players want to feel their choices have meaning. Picking one of the six surrounding blank hexes is not a choice with meaning. So work on the initial situation so that it is interesting and give the players enough information to make some valid decision of what to do.

Conclusion
This is the tip of the iceberg about a topic I been writing about for the past decade. I will be happy to give specifics about any of the above. I will stress that it gets better with practice. The main problem with sandbox campaigns is the initial learning curve and getting comfortable with the free-form nature of how it flows.

Here is a link to all my blog posts on the topic (http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/search/label/sandbox%20fantasy). Also I suggest searching through Lord Vreeg's post (http://www.therpgsite.com/search.php?searchid=6691). (He the one who coined World in Motion).

Quote from: Crimhthan;981948This part I am in disagreement with. An RPG sandbox exists when the referee provides many hooks(options) for the players and those can take many forms. The players get to choose whether or not they pursue one of those options or they can decide to pursue some other option(s) that the ref did not think of.

It's the latter element that's vital for "this is a sandbox".

I don't really know where the sandbox/non-sandbox line is. My Runelords of the Shattered Star campaign is no sandbox, even though the players have at times gone far off-script, because there is a general direction to the campaign that is not player defined - "The Runelords are Rising! You need the Shattered Star to stop them!"

I'm confident my Wilderlands game is a sandbox, and pretty confident of my White Star game though it's early days yet. But there is a vast sandbox-y-ish grey area in-between.

Quote from: S'mon;981974I don't really know where the sandbox/non-sandbox line is..

It start with are you willing the let your players trash your setting/campaign and go with the flow? In short if the players are willing to let Runelord rise to do their own thing will be able to keep on trucking (so to speak) with the campaign? Mind you there will be plausible consequences for not stopping the Runelord from rising. But suppose that the players are aware of those consequence and still say "fuck it we go here instead do this X, Y and Z.). Is something you will be able to handle and have fun with?

And will you be still be able to come up with interesting situations for the players to deal with. I use the word interesting deliberately because letting the "bad" guys win will plausibly make the setting a more unpleasant place.

Also as a follow up to my reply to S'mon. A sandbox campaign is not something that is A, B, and C. It ultimately rests on your willingness to let the player trash your setting or campaign and keep on going. I have run sandbox campaigns where players were all members of the city guard. They could at any time have quit the city guard and go off to their own thing. There would be consequences to such an action like being outlawed for desertion.

Some would say "Well that still a railroad". However the difference lies in that the players choose to start off as members of the city guard knowing about the consequences of desertion. They also know there are other areas of settings they could reasonable reach that minimized that consequence. I felt (and confirmed with OOG discussion with the players) that if they ever felt desertion was warranted they had the information needed to weigh the pro and cons fairly from the point of view of their characters.

And they knew from my past campaign, is that if they had a good plan I would not arbitrarily nix it*. If it worked it works and the campaigns continues.

*However there is the chance of some random fuck up occurring when the plan is executed. But I don't have any thing special just the usual range of random encounter tables I always use.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981959.....but as GM I prefer a bit more artistic control. Afterall, the players may come and go but the world that is created becomes a permanent part of my gaming library.

Again going with the green one. "That is why you fail." Sorry if thats a too confrontational but Yoda's a bit of a douche.  

Honestly you are coming accross a bit like a guy who invites someone over to play vedio games and then makes the watch him play vedio games.   Or to be really cruel but its a vivid and familiar touch stone, Will Farrel in the lego movie.  Thats harsh, but you asked.  How do you run a sandbox game? Answer don't be Will Farrel.  I don't think you're as bad as that, I would love to play in one of your games.  

As for your gaming collection, you have to realise every sigle rabit hole goes all the way down.  Every sistuation has the potential to be infiantly cool, infanitly intersting.  Which means every choice is equally intersting ewually cool.  And it is all make believe so it only holds meaning as far as you share it and as far as it resonates.

Quote from: estar;981978It start with are you willing the let your players trash your setting/campaign and go with the flow? In short if the players are willing to let Runelord rise to do their own thing will be able to keep on trucking (so to speak) with the campaign? Mind you there will be plausible consequences for not stopping the Runelord from rising. But suppose that the players are aware of those consequence and still say "fuck it we go here instead do this X, Y and Z.). Is something you will be able to handle and have fun with?

And will you be still be able to come up with interesting situations for the players to deal with. I use the word interesting deliberately because letting the "bad" guys win will plausibly make the setting a more unpleasant place.

Yeah, like I said my Rise of the Runelords/Shattered Star game definitely not a sandbox. My Wilderlands 3e box set based game definitely is. But I have run somewhat sandboxy games like Loudwater http://frloudwater.blogspot.co.uk/ that are in a grey area, I probably wouldn't call it a sandbox but it was largely unplotted and had major sandbox elements. I think the reactive "superhero team" type style of the game kept it from being a real sandbox and left a lot of my sandbox-type material unused.

Quote from: Headless;981983Again going with the green one. "That is why you fail." Sorry if thats a too confrontational but Yoda's a bit of a douche.  

Honestly you are coming accross a bit like a guy who invites someone over to play vedio games and then makes the watch him play vedio games.   Or to be really cruel but its a vivid and familiar touch stone, Will Farrel in the lego movie.  Thats harsh, but you asked.  How do you run a sandbox game? Answer don't be Will Farrel.  I don't think you're as bad as that, I would love to play in one of your games.  

As for your gaming collection, you have to realise every sigle rabit hole goes all the way down.  Every sistuation has the potential to be infiantly cool, infanitly intersting.  Which means every choice is equally intersting ewually cool.  And it is all make believe so it only holds meaning as far as you share it and as far as it resonates.

Headless, your posts are great, but maybe a bit of review/spellcheck/edit prior to posting? :)

The most successful campaign I've run in recent years has been an ongoing weekly sandbox style game. Not sure how much I meet everyone's definition of sandbox, but basically I have no idea what the players will be trying to do from one session to the next and I just sort of let them explore, plan, interact with things as they choose. It can be challenging but the biggest piece of advice I would give based on the experience is relax. If you worry about how things should unfold, whether you are doing it exactly 100% the right way, etc you are probably going to have a worse session than if you just relax and realize you can adjust things as you go to see what works and what doesn't.

I am not sure how the gamemaster/author gives up any control over his world in sandbox styles of play.  He defines some things which are definitely located (the Black Goat tavern, in previous examples), some things which are provisionally there, (the tavern in Riverton which is near a bridge, and a temple but we won't define which yet until we need to), or are there potentially, (here is a really cool tavern which has some interesting feature which I will drop in when I get a chance.)

But the key point that defines the style to my way of thinking is that every NPC's wants something, (even if it is only a bottle of booze after passing by so many taverns) which they will operate upon even if the Players aren't aware of it.  It is through dropping these bits and pieces out there that the players are given the opportunity to interact with the world.  

Also, if a player gets ahold of the wrong end of the stick, and stumbles across something better than I thought of, I reserve the right to put it in there.  In this way, I came up with a magic constipated bear as an item of treasure once, but the tale is too long to tell at the moment.

So, if NPC 1 wants the Magic Dingus of Doom, he will act to get it.  If the players hear about this, and clues will be strewn out to that effect, they can work to help NPC 1, hinder him, or try to get the Dingus for their own.  If in the process they pass through the same area repeatedly, then the Black Goat tavern will still be there, as a fixture, and the characters there will remember the previous interactions, and have goals of their own.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981899Lots of good stuff here guys. Thanks! Ive got reading material for a week!

One element I THINK Im hearing but would have trouble with is the notion of making up locations/NPCs/situations etc. and just moving them around depending on where the players go. If I understanding this you conjure up a tavern for example and then just plop it down in whatever town the PCs visit, that way you dont waste it should they go in a different direction.

If thats common practice, I gotta say Im not a fan. I consider part of what I do as GM as "World Building" and if the Black Goat Tavern was generated to exist on the outskirtz of Harlington, beside the old bridge... thats kind of where I want it to be. I like to think that its there even if the PCs never go there...ever. Ill grant you that doing this does generate a lot of campaign material that may not have an effect on the game (at least for the moment) but it is fleshing out the world in which the players are adventuring in. Im not sure I like the idea of a campaign where taverns, dungeons, NPCs and whatever mystically appear a few seconds in the PCs future along the path they happen to be travelling down. It seems, well artificial and contrived.

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

Admittedly, maybe Im not understanding this notion completely and if so, Im open to explanation. Im not knocking it, just trying to get my head wrapped around it.

Only one person said that, and frankly, they're wrong.  That is the OPPOSITE of a sandbox.  If the Goat's Anus Inn is in the town of Fuckmorton, then that's where it is, period.  If the trolls' nest in the first level has six trolls, it has six trolls.  If you search this site, you will find about 95% of the people advocating sandboxes agree with this.  Moving shit around so the players WILL encounter it is the very definition of railroading.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981932Well if its not specifically located.. there is no problem of course. Ive done this sort of thing too... described a city has having a temple then placed it once the players go there and I work on the map. In your case Im talking about the tavern being moved to the other side of town or even in an entirely different town should they players ask to visit a tavern on their way somewhere else.

The only tavern that does that is the Old Phoenix.

Quote from: Bren;981956Honestly, I'm not sure if you guys are agreeing about what a sandbox is and quibbling over how to word the definition or if you are disagreeing about the definition.

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

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

Pretty much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;982056Pretty much.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Here is my opinion on the floating tavern issue.

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

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

Quote from: Baulderstone;982124Here is my opinion on the floating tavern issue.

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

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

One thing I've done, and this might violate the spirit of sandbox for some, is treat these sorts of things as random encounters with a little bit of depth. I actually have a table of random inn encounters I use for when players go to inns. These are usually just situations that might encounter in any sort of inn, but occasionally they get specific (like a texas chain saw type situation). I find the tables particularly useful for inns I am running on the fly more than established inns in the campaign. So for situations where the players seek out inns I haven't really thought of yet in a city (maybe they are tired of the 3-5 that I have fleshed out and seek out another option).

This is an example of one I used in one campaign: http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2017/05/wuxia-inspiration-inn-encounters.html

That looks like a fun table.

In a sandbox you have to be ready for your players to pounce on a bit of tavern gossip and immediately drop everything to outfit a sea expedition halfway around the world. Despite having nothing prepped for this, and intending it to be merely a bit of background color.  I had this happen to me once, and did it to a GM once myself.  When faced with a choice of going right or left, be prepared for the players to answer "we dig a hole and go down".

I prep my game worlds in broad strokes, with detail resolution becoming finer the closer it gets to where the PCs are. I like to have a good detailing of everything within a campaign map movement turn or two. That way I can hope to keep ahead of them no matter which way they run. If playing Traveller that would be all the star systems their ship could reach in a single jump. In D&D at least a day's march, and a sketch of a week.

Then I improvise like crazy, and write down what happened. Once it has been brought into the game it needs to remain. If I don't write down an NPC's name it is guaranteed that one of my players will, and will pull that name out when I have forgotten it.

There has some good advice so far. My approach is basically,

1. set up a bunch of NPCs and situations with conflicts between them
2. roll everything else randomly, then change bits of it to make it fit in with the rest more coherently, and
3. be one textbook chapter ahead of the students - as Gronan said, one or two dungeon levels, or just over the next hill

Sorry, this is a bit long, but this sort of thing is always hard in the abstract, when you have some play examples it makes more sense.

I'll repost here my response (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35920-GM-Advice-insufficient-steps&p=940288&viewfull=1#post940288) to a similar discussion.

   If you play computer games, think of it this way: don't try to design a main questline, just design sidequests.

As others have said, create a little world where there are a bunch of people with real personalities - simple ones, but real nonetheless - and real histories, all living in a land with real geography. Conflicts are always happening, and the PCs find out about them and decide where they'll step in. For example, "rescue the hostages from the orcs" can have a bit more to it.

Count Barnacle rules a small county on the seacoast, with its capital his keep and market town, known as Seaview. A rare kind of fish is found here, the Babelfish, it tastes awful but its liver is used in a Potion of Speak In Tongues which lets the two people drinking it understand one another despite no common language. It gets mixed in with wine when two merchants sit down to bargain, there's a bit of ritual around it. Taxes on this bring in a steady revenue. Count Barnacle has two children, a 16yo son Johann and a 20yo daughter Marie. They don't like each-other much. As daughter, Marie would not inherit the county unless there were no male heir.

Further up the river is a much smaller county, the March, ruled by William the Ugly. The Babelfish actually spawn in his part of the river, but the King granted the right to harvest them to Barnacle, so what can he do. William is unmarried, and has his eye on Marie. A woman can rule alone, but if she marries, her husband will rule.

Seaview sits beside a river that comes down the valley from the mountains, with its main source on Mount Finicky, so-called because it's rocky and hard to traverse, impossible on horseback. It's also bleak as fuck and nothing grows there. Of course this is where the orcs live in a series of underground caverns and dungeons. In ancient times, dwarves lived in those hills, but they are all gone now. Sometimes the orc tunnel into those old dwarven ruins but the undead and traps take their toll.

The orcs recently had a new chief come to power - he killed and ate his predecessor - Bagolog Stonefist. One day one of Stonefist's raiding parties took a young woman, Sally, who was the daughter of Barnacle's engineer, Harold. From her he got an idea - why not get Harold to help digging into the dwarven ruins? So one day his orcs captured a work party working on a bridge over the river, and took Harold prisoner.

So now the Count wants his people rescued, and especially his engineer. His son Johann wants to prove himself. Barnacle is considering sending 50 of his men-at-arms to deal with the orcs, with Johann leading them. Marie argues that it would be better to send a small group of adventurers, but Johann doesn't want to be associated with rabble. However she strongly urges that Johann go out into facing hundreds of orcs with a small group of armed people. Can you think why?

The party must travel through the March to get to Mt Finicky, by the way, and will need to stop for rest and provisions along the way. The river sometimes flood and there are rockfalls along some of the passes, it would help to have a local guide from the March. Count William would be glad to provide one. Can you think why?

You can also think, will Chief Stonefist mistreat engineer Harold, or will he pay him well and give him access to captured wine and food, or women if Harold is interested? So maybe the guy they're rescuing doesn't want to be rescued? And willing or not, will his advice help the orcs have better defences against assault?

So let's say the PCs go in and kill some or all of the orcs and rescue the prisoners. Did they save them all? Or not? Will this change how the various nobles feel about them? Will the PCs want to go in and explore the deeper dwarven ruins themselves?

And so on and so forth. You create real people with real motivations and real geography, conflicts pop up and the PCs can get into all that. On the other hand they could just charge on into the ruins, kill things and take their stuff. It's up to them.

Think sidequest, not mainquest. In computer games it is what it is. In tabletop games, a mainquest is just a sidequest that went on longer than expected.

As it was, the players using William the Ugly's town Oldenford (I got the name randomly from here (http://www.namesmade.com/fantasy-place-name-generator.php)) as a base, they went into the dungeon several times. As well as Johann who was Barnacle's son, they had another henchman, Ivyst the paladin. She'd come about when I used the random tavern generator here (https://donjon.bin.sh/fantasy/inn/). She was just one of the patrons and they asked her to join them for justice, loot and glory. Already as a paladin in plate mail there was a risk of her dominating combats, to tone it down I had her always refuse the party's offers of magical arms and armour. I wanted her to be good enough to support the party, but not good enough for them to rely on her to pull their arses out of the fire.

So, in and out of the dungeon of Bagalog Stonefist in Mt Finicky. With breaks to heal or level up, it was actually a period of some months in-game. And the orcs responded by doing a raid on Oldenford, burning the granaries just as winter was setting in. Willian the Ugly demanded a share of their loot to pay for grain to replace that lost in the raid. William then told them, "Because you keep poking the hornet's nest, my people have died, and many will face a hungry winter. You have one more expedition against the orcs, if you have Bagalog's head with you, the gates will be open to you, otherwise, die in the dungeon, or outside in the snow, I don't care."

So they went and slew Bagalog, and came back triumphant. By now it was winter and they had to stay there until spring came. Their man Johann, Barnacle's son, was recovering from illness... and became sicker. On investigation they found his food was poisoned. They blamed William, but said nothing to him. Swimming around the rough seas of court politics could have occupied their winter, but the PCs decided to just divert Johann's poisoned food to William's hounds and left it at that. The hounds died and nothing more was said.

To occupy themselves, they ventured into a smaller dungeon that had been on the way. I'd put a few little dungeons in from Seaview to Oldenford and Mt Finicky, the idea being that they could get some loot and xp along the way; but they basically bypassed them. So now they were going back. This dungeon I had the idea it'd be some kind of ancient temple, but I rolled everything up using this (http://wizardawn.and-mag.com/tool_ultimate.php). Among the treasures I rolled up for them was a Talisman of Ultimate Evil (an evil cleric holds it, points his finger at a good cleric, and a crack opens up in the earth and swallows him down to be consumed by lava), and a Necklace of Fire Resistance. Okay, so it's the temple of an evil fire cult. I happened to see an image of Kali in a web advert, so I said "It's the cult of Kolak the four-armed evil fire god."

One of the things I like to do with more potent magical items is make them both useful and cursed - like once I rolled up a Ring of Free Action, you're immune to hold and so on. Who else is immune to these things? Ghouls. Okay, let's make the Ring into a Crown, and call it the Crown of the Ghoul King - immune to sleep, paralysis, hold, etc - but you can only be sustained by eating human flesh.

So I thought, okay, nobody will mess with the Talisman since it's obviously evil, but how about the Necklace of Fire Resistance? Let's make it cursed that if you wear it, you turn into an evil cleric of Kolak.

While they're camping just outside the dungeon they roll up a random encounter. With random encounters what I do is say, if you roll low it's something nasty, if you roll low it's something... interesting. Like one time they rolled high and there came along a local monster, an ogre mage called Bird who owned Gauntlets of Ogre Power and liked to take the form of a human fighter. So this time the chart indicated, "local NPC gone adventuring."

I looked at the NPCs of Oldenford. I couldn't really picture William adventuring, or Pertinax the high level wizard, or anyone like that. How about their sidekicks? Like William's chief housecarl Gylliam, and so on? I glanced down the list, there were 10 of them - so I now rolled a d10, and it came up as Phillipicus, the apprentice to the high level wizard. I hadn't any stats for him, just a name. So I rolled 1d4 for level, and he was 4th. Now I rolled 1d10 for alignment, and it came up as neutral evil. Okay, now this could be an interesting encounter.

So in they go and slay and loot, and get the Talisman and Necklace. They haven't cleared out the dungeon, and do plan to go back. On th way back to Oldenford, another wandering monster check is rolled. This time it's ogres, 2-20 - and I roll up 15 of them. I say, "there's a 1 in 6 chance they're off to the Temple to join the cult of Kolak." And up it comes, 1 on a d6. So 15 ogres in purple robes are striding along. The PCs hide and let them pass.

Back in Oldenford, Phillipicus happens to have the identify spell, and once they're back in town where he can get some pearls (as the magical component to the spell), he tells them what these things are. So the party wants to destroy them, of course. "No," says Phillipicus, "we can use them for... good." They say, "no bloody way", and put them in an iron box which they weld shut, and put in the room of their paladin henchman Ivyst.

Ivyst, you will recall, was initially just a random tavern patron. But they'd got pretty fond of her, as she was courageous and straightforward, and, one played Jon said, "Just her being there stops us doing anything evil."
"But," I said, "she's never vetoed anything."
"Yes, because we knew she might oppose nasty things we wanted to do, we never even brought them up. She's like the governor general or something."

So one morning in the winter they see Ivyst isn't at breakfast, and Phillipicus isn't around. They go into Ivyst's room and find her throat cut and the iron box missing. Checking with Pertinax, they find Phillipicus isn't back with his old master, either. "Bastard has killed Ivyst and taken the stuff to go and be a new evil cleric!" they cry. They get Ivyst raised from the dead and set off to go get him.

Back in the dungeon they find Phillipicus initiating the ogres into the cult. There's a big fight and one by one the cultists and the PCs both go down. With Phillipicus on a few hit points, it's down to Johann and Ivyst. Johann falls and Ivyst strikes the last blow, downing Phillipicus. She takes the necklace and talisman, and walks out of the room, up the stairs to where the lava pit is, and disappears into the darkness there.

And the players say, "Holy shit, it turns out we were the henchmen." I certainly hadn't planned for things to end that way. If I were after a "story", then Ivyst should have died heroically saving the party while they slew the evil guy, or ran away, or buried the evil magic items, or something. But I just let the dice decide, I just moderated the dice's effects a bit. So it wasn't as I expected, but the players loved it.

Note that along the way, the party could have ignored the main quest and just got involved with the smaller dungeons, or the court politics in Seaview or Oldenford, and a couple of places along the way. There was a whole bunch of stuff happening, and it was up to them what they got involved in - or indeed, if they made their own stuff happen. No main quest, just a bunch of side quests.

So like I said, you sketch things out, let the dice decide a lot of things, and just kind of run with it, trying to stay one chapter ahead of the students in the textbook. And players will usually love it.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;982130One thing I've done, and this might violate the spirit of sandbox for some, is treat these sorts of things as random encounters with a little bit of depth. I actually have a table of random inn encounters I use for when players go to inns. These are usually just situations that might encounter in any sort of inn, but occasionally they get specific (like a texas chain saw type situation). I find the tables particularly useful for inns I am running on the fly more than established inns in the campaign. So for situations where the players seek out inns I haven't really thought of yet in a city (maybe they are tired of the 3-5 that I have fleshed out and seek out another option).

This is an example of one I used in one campaign: http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2017/05/wuxia-inspiration-inn-encounters.html

I think random encounter tables for inns are fine in sandbox play. Just like random encounter tables in a dungeon or wilderness, they help giving a feeling of activity to a sandbox. A common rookie mistake with sandboxes is to think of them as settings where nothing happens if the PCs don't act. Tables like yours make sure that there are ongoing events for the players to be drawn into.

In any case, while I like sandbox play, I don't think sandbox purity is the entire measure of quality GMing. Say you have designed the cannibal murder inn that I mentioned earlier and have yet to use it. You might be running a game session on the week of Halloween. While it might be a "sandbox violation" to drop that inn in whatever direction the PCs go, it might be exactly what the group wants that week.

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

There's no difference, because both of them are railroading. One of them is just trying to hide it.
I have more respect for the guy that does it in the open.

BTW rgrove I've been really enjoying the threads you've started here recently, well done mate. :cool:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;982108Exactly. There's a distinction between sandboxes, non-linear scenario design, and not railroading. In practice, there's a set of personal tastes that tend to associate these ideas with each other. But they're distinct things.

I talk about the fact that treating "sandbox" as the opposite of "railroad" heavily distorts the clear understanding of both terms in The Railroading Manifesto (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36914/roleplaying-games/the-railroading-manifesto-part-3-penumbra-of-problems).

It's a good article, like all your stuff - but then you already knew that. :D

So when we cast "sandbox" and "railroad" as antonyms, we actually end up treating the lightest form of railroading as if it were the most extreme form of railroading. And, in response, the meaning of "sandbox" gets warped towards meaning "anything that isn't linear". Neither distortion is useful, with the former radicalizing our understanding of railroads and the latter eradicating the unique utility of the term "sandbox" by turning it into a synonym of "non-linear design".

Definitely agree - we're seeing that in this thread. Also your point about 'default to yes' (to player idea) being the opposite of railroading. You can certainly have sandboxes where the GM has pretty rigid ideas about the setting, where players don't get to add material, it's hard status quo so many/most paths are unviable - and indeed those GMs will often claim that this is the only true sandbox (I'd say it was a sandbox, but definitely not the only kind).

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

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;982048Only one person said that, and frankly, they're wrong.  That is the OPPOSITE of a sandbox.  If the Goat's Anus Inn is in the town of Fuckmorton, then that's where it is, period.  If the trolls' nest in the first level has six trolls, it has six trolls.  If you search this site, you will find about 95% of the people advocating sandboxes agree with this.  Moving shit around so the players WILL encounter it is the very definition of railroading.

Would't that require having a fair bit of the world mapped out exactly ahead of time? When I use to improv a lot as a DM I would usually just make up shit as I went along to a degree greater than what you're suggesting.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981899One element I THINK Im hearing but would have trouble with is the notion of making up locations/NPCs/situations etc. and just moving them around depending on where the players go. If I understanding this you conjure up a tavern for example and then just plop it down in whatever town the PCs visit, that way you dont waste it should they go in a different direction.

If thats common practice, I gotta say Im not a fan.

Far as I know its not and is more often viewed as a form of cheating. Theres some older threads on the subject. But the general consensus is that prepping an area is one thing. Moving the area into the PCs path when they went left instead of right is a rather different thing and usually seen as bad DMing.

What some are noting instead is where you prep some things for when caught off guard so you dont bog down. Like you have a tavern prepped with some NPCs in it. Its not tied to any local. Its there to drop in if the PCs walk into a town you havent fleshed out and say "We walk into the nearest tavern. What it called?"

Or for random rolls. Theres a chance of bandits on the road so you prep a group in case it comes up. Same with the road patrol. It could be as simple as how many and are they mounted or on foot. Or more elabourate.

Or say a player says they want to talk to a local beggar. If you have one prepped then there you go. Use or say there arent any in town. And so on.

So overall its meant as a time saver for totally unexpected moves. Not as something to replace establishing the area.

Quote from: S'mon;982198BTW rgrove I've been really enjoying the threads you've started here recently, well done mate. :cool:

Thanks, I mean for them to be informative not controversial.

This is quite a useful thread *subscribed*

In my opinion the best sandbox games are localised not global and the history and current events firmly established prior to take off. Just don't overdo the detail, your not Tolkien and no way are you prepping every town, NPC and bush even in a small area.

Once the game starts your going to move set pieces and alter the outcome of events based on the players actions. I like to have a few adventures happening that the characters can get involved in but generally they should be low to slow impact not apocalyptic, that way if the players aren't interested in beating up on the child stealing cult your not nuking the entire game.

Have a few easy hooks you can drop in for when play stalls but generally your probably going to find tons of leads from the players themselves.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981834Ive been guilty of throwing some bad attitude towards the "sandbox" crowd before as I normally lean heavily on pre-game prep to a crazy degree. The closest thing I can say I typically come to sandbox (except for a couple of exceptions such as when playing in the modern world) is a massive amount of preparation completely surrounding the PCs so that Im ready no matter where they go. (and they still typically manage to pick some corner Im weak in)

First of all, there is no One Way to tun a sandbox.

Everyone has their own ways and techniques.

The way I do it would have sandbox zealots throwing their hands in the air and shouting "That's not a Sandbox".

My number one rule of a sandbox is "Don't over prepare". I once spent a few months writing up a 20 storey tower full of vampires (Tower of Lead in Dorastor, Glorantha) and the PCs came close and said "We don't like the look of that" and turned around. Nowadays, I don't do anything like that.

Learn to Improvise - If the players say "We want to go to Hobbiton", let them go and make things up on the spot.

Use plots liberally - (Sandbox Zealots, now is the time to throw up your hands) Prepare some plots and scenarios to drop into the campaign at opportune times. If the players get stuck for something to do, throw in something from a background plot to spark things off.

Don't be afraid to run with things - If the PCs decide to kill the Princess and rescue the ogre who kidnapped her, don't complain about them ruining your game. Instead, follow the concequences. maybe they become friends of ogres, maybe the Princess's family send people after her, maybe the Princess was the head of an evil cult and the ogre was tryign to defeat her.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981834Im swallowing my pride here though and am asking earnestly - as someone who wants to learn - how to you sandbox types do it? When I hear of someone playing a session completely with multiple towns, businesses, NPCs, encounters etc. all from the notes on the back of a napkin I have a hard time ...
1)believing they are telling the truth
2)believing the result doesnt suffer from "pulled it out of my backside, minimal background, itis"

It helps to be familiar with the setting, or to have written your own setting.

For example, if I ran a Robyn Hode campaign, how much do I need to know? The Sheriff of Nottingham is a bad guy, Prince John is a bad guy, Sherwood Forest and the surroundings is the Sandbox, the PCs are outlaws, several key NPCs can be written up. If the PCs go to Nottingham then they might meet guards at the gate, wealthy merchants to rob, peasants to help and so on. It helps to have a one-liner of many towns and villages in the area and of the major NPCs, then you can riff off what happens.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981834I know that published settings, adventure modules and the kinds of games those that preplan everything put out include a great deal of effort to make sure the componants of the game fit into the setting, the regional history, the culture and so on. It seems it would be hard to wing this sort of detail at the gaming table on the fly. Obviously some of you do it regularly.. so Im asking how... lend us a that would like to try it a bit of advise.

Make things up- on the fly. Simple as that.

This has turned into a really great thread. Here's some tips I have posted elsewhere:

QuoteRe: Have you run a dungeon crawl with a system that isnt d20?

I have run a really great short dungeon/sandbox campaign with Earthdawn. My players crawled through the Moathouse and got involved with Hommlet's politics (T1 Hommlet). You will want to reference the classic game for things like time-tracking, random encounter charts, etc. I have been going back to the early rpg materials to re-examine their playstyle, and have found a few techniques that help the GM to manage play.

First, make sure you are not asking for indvidual character intents at the start of each 10 minute exploration turn (or 4 hour overland exploration turn, or 1 day travel turn, etc.... this ain't combat). Ask the party to decide among themselves (in-character, even) what they will do and have one player tell the GM the party's intent. In this way, the party moves through the dungeon (or over the overland map) like a war-gaming unit & you can move groups of monsters around as war-gaming units in response. Then, if necessary, the GM can handle individual character's actions (X searches the south wall, Y goes and finds fresh water, etc) based on the intent given at the start of the turn.

The other technique I created to help was pre-rolling Random Encounter Lists. This is a form of "procedural generation". Take your area's Random Encounter Table and roll a list of 5 items. Now, whenever the player's RE Check roll comes up positive, just use the first thing on the list and cross it off.

Pre-rolling these results allows you to know _what_ happens, and _in what order_, but the RE Checks will ultimately determine the _pacing_ of when each thing actually occurs in play. This allows a bit of prep time to think about how to integrate each random result, or tie it into the adventure because you are preparing this before the session. Only jot down brief notes. For example: "8 additional gnolls will show up at some point, so they're off camped a distance away from the main horde, maybe they are scouts", or "Giant Bats at some point. Cool, now I can work foreshadowing in, like rustling above the players heads as they enter the cave, the smell of guano, etc." 5 Random Encounters for each "dungeon level" (or "area") you expect your players to be exploring next allows you have procedurally generated content ready to go, but not to get lost in over-preparing or over detailing each encounter.

You can also use this procedural generation technique in "sandbox" areas when the players are not around. Roll up your list of events, then make an RE Check for that area each day, week, or month (Depending on campaign needs). If it comes up positive, use the first item on the list to change the situation and evolve the "living world" aspect of that place. For example, the players clear a goblin cave-nest (an adventure site) in a forest (an overland map area). Roll up 5 events and then each week of in-game time check for a Random Encounter for the forest. If it comes up positive, the first item on the list is some-how involved in the old cave-den (a paleo-bear moves in, dwarves move in and expand the tunnels, or whatever is first on the list). As these "events" are derived from the surrounding forest's Random Encounter table (which the GM should feel free to change as the campaign progresses), this allows the area to evolve in ways that will surprise both the GM and the players but stay withing the "theme" of the area as defined by it's Random Encounter Table. Another example would be putting a Named Dragon on the RE Table. Once you've generated that dragon (either in response to the players' exploration, or as procedural context to change the situation elsewhere), you replace that slot on the RE Table with something else.

Quote from: S'mon;981985Headless, your posts are great, but maybe a bit of review/spellcheck/edit prior to posting? :)

If it's good enough for Estar, it's good enough for Headless.  :D

Quote from: Dumarest;982357If it's good enough for Estar, it's good enough for Headless.  :D

I really feel Estar is doing his best. Whereas Headless feels a bit sloppy. :D

Someone made an amazing post for me here about how to run a Vampire the Masquerade game as a sandbox. I've played in such games and they're *super* fun. Does anyone know where that post is? I couldn't find it.

Quote from: rgrove0172;982220Thanks, I mean for them to be informative not controversial.

I will say that although I may not be into the stuff you're into, you have made good contributions for discussion.

Edit: nothing wrong with controversy either.

Quote from: S'mon;982366I really feel Estar is doing his best. Whereas Headless feels a bit sloppy. :D

No, I didn't mean his ill-informed political opinions or tenuous grasp of logic, just the grammar and spelling. :p

Here is my current sandbox: https://sites.google.com/site/grreference/home/05-the-black-mountain

I started running my campaign in a small area to the south of here and now I have a couple of continents, a few islands, etc. Most of it isn't as detailed as the above but a large part of it is. If you are in Iron Town and you tell me you want to go x number of blocks in y direction, I will know what neighborhood you are in and have some people for you to meet. However, this is all the result of running the same game-world for decades and it started out as pretty much a railroad, with the characters heading up the Old Northwest Road to see what had happened in the Lake Country since it had become isolated from the rest of the nation.
If you are in the Westwood and you head in x direction for y hours, I have an idea of who you might meet.

About that inn that some GMs are willing to move to wherever the PCs wind up and others aren't, I have the inn at the high point of the pass and several inns in Iron Town Above all set but there ought to be one inn between the high point and Iron Town and I am only roughly ready for the player-characters to go into Iron Town Below. But the main thing I wanted to mention is the Inn of Indeterminate Location that I got out of Joel Rosenberg's Guardians of the Flame Series. It's a very nice Dwarf-run inn that has never actually showed up but there's a random chance it will.

----------------
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/218159/Glory-Road-Roleplay-Core-Rules

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

Railroading is when you're neutralizing the players' contributions to the game in order for your own to get the spotlight. If they're trying to avoid taverns, or find a specific tavern, and you plop the Black Goat in front of them anyways, that's railroading. Their contribution was, "fewer taverns," and you neutralized that without any in-world basis. (For example, they're being chased by a teleporting tavern, or someone has geased them to unconciously seek out taverns.)

If they go west and, lo and behold there's the Black Tavern, that's not railroading. (I feel like a lot of discussion around player choice and agency and quantum ogres is unnecessarily muddled. If the players choose to go west but don't know what's there, the only thing they're contributing is the fact that whatever happens next is in the west.)

It does, however, violate some GMing aesthetics - maybe you want to feel that the world is tangible and not merely a stage onto which you roll props on a just-in-time basis.  If that's an issue for you, what you might do is predefine two or three taverns, and then randomly roll which one the tavern they've just reached happens to be.

Quote from: fuseboy;982479Railroading is when you're neutralizing the players' contributions to the game in order for your own to get the spotlight. If they're trying to avoid taverns, or find a specific tavern, and you plop the Black Goat in front of them anyways, that's railroading. Their contribution was, "fewer taverns," and you neutralized that without any in-world basis. (For example, they're being chased by a teleporting tavern, or someone has geased them to unconciously seek out taverns.)

If they go west and, lo and behold there's the Black Tavern, that's not railroading. (I feel like a lot of discussion around player choice and agency and quantum ogres is unnecessarily muddled. If the players choose to go west but don't know what's there, the only thing they're contributing is the fact that whatever happens next is in the west.)

It does, however, violate some GMing aesthetics - maybe you want to feel that the world is tangible and not merely a stage onto which you roll props on a just-in-time basis.  If that's an issue for you, what you might do is predefine two or three taverns, and then randomly roll which one the tavern they've just reached happens to be.

Also, there is a difference between The Nauseous Pig Inn, The Flux and Anchor, and Just Another Fucking Inn.

Quote from: fuseboy;982479Railroading is when you're neutralizing the players' contributions to the game in order for your own to get the spotlight. If they're trying to avoid taverns, or find a specific tavern, and you plop the Black Goat in front of them anyways, that's railroading.

Once I teleported a reluctant player into the front room of the dungeon and had the door lock behind him.

In my defence, I was 16 years old...

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;982481Also, there is a difference between The Nauseous Pig Inn, The Flux and Anchor, and Just Another Fucking Inn.

They all look the same. But one of them chases you?

ahem.

Though I actually have a generic inn prepped. I use it for things like kingdom or guild owned roadside stops and such. They have different names and people working them. But the overall layout is the same or similar. Comes in handy when the players just want to crash their characters and sleep and really dont give a fuck if the walls are mahogany or oak. (Except THAT ONE PLAYER who frets about which type burns down faster.(Mahogany burns a little faster by the way.))

Otherwise I usually have something more detailed and specific to the locale.

Quote from: fuseboy;982479It does, however, violate some GMing aesthetics - maybe you want to feel that the world is tangible and not merely a stage onto which you roll props on a just-in-time basis.  If that's an issue for you, what you might do is predefine two or three taverns, and then randomly roll which one the tavern they've just reached happens to be.

Context matters as well. You can have a place called the Black Tavern on an encounter table or on a big list, and drop it somewhere as needed, but it is going to be a different place depending on where you put because of the community it is part of.

Ideally, I'd like to have the inn planned in the city which it belongs to long before the PCs get there, but eventually the players go to a place you haven't mapped out as well, find some nook you haven't thought of in a well-mapped out environment, or otherwise force you to create something or add depth to something on the fly. Having a bin of information like pre-existing inns, NPCs, scenarios, etc can be handy in those types of situations.

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

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Yes, Justin. Those were terrific. You found them justin time. Ha ha ha. I've been waiting to use that.

Those posts are really good and everyone should read them.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;982975You found them justin time. Ha ha ha.

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

No jury in the world will convict me.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;982566Context matters as well. You can have a place called the Black Tavern on an encounter table or on a big list, and drop it somewhere as needed, but it is going to be a different place depending on where you put because of the community it is part of.

Ideally, I'd like to have the inn planned in the city which it belongs to long before the PCs get there, but eventually the players go to a place you haven't mapped out as well, find some nook you haven't thought of in a well-mapped out environment, or otherwise force you to create something or add depth to something on the fly. Having a bin of information like pre-existing inns, NPCs, scenarios, etc can be handy in those types of situations.

The notion you and others have presented of a number of generic elements (locations, NPCs or what have you) set aside to be pulled up on a whim is fine. Others have seemed to suggest that a specific element is relocated and used again simply because the players didnt engage with it initially. That I would have a problem with.

Quote from: rgrove0172;982999Others have seemed to suggest that a specific element is relocated and used again simply because the players didnt engage with it initially. That I would have a problem with.

Who has suggested that? I wonder if you might have misinterpreted.

Mind you, don't people reuse published modules, often relocating them to different campaign settings? That seems pretty uncontroversial. It only becomes railroading when the GM sets the same thing down in front of the PCs & makes them engage with it no matter what decisions they make.

Quote from: rgrove0172;982999The notion you and others have presented of a number of generic elements (locations, NPCs or what have you) set aside to be pulled up on a whim is fine. Others have seemed to suggest that a specific element is relocated and used again simply because the players didnt engage with it initially. That I would have a problem with.

Very few others have suggested that. Has there even been more than one person in this thread who did?

Quote from: rgrove0172;981899Lots of good stuff here guys. Thanks! Ive got reading material for a week!

One element I THINK Im hearing but would have trouble with is the notion of making up locations/NPCs/situations etc. and just moving them around depending on where the players go. If I understanding this you conjure up a tavern for example and then just plop it down in whatever town the PCs visit, that way you dont waste it should they go in a different direction.

If thats common practice, I gotta say Im not a fan. I consider part of what I do as GM as "World Building" and if the Black Goat Tavern was generated to exist on the outskirtz of Harlington, beside the old bridge... thats kind of where I want it to be. I like to think that its there even if the PCs never go there...ever. Ill grant you that doing this does generate a lot of campaign material that may not have an effect on the game (at least for the moment) but it is fleshing out the world in which the players are adventuring in. Im not sure I like the idea of a campaign where taverns, dungeons, NPCs and whatever mystically appear a few seconds in the PCs future along the path they happen to be travelling down. It seems, well artificial and contrived.

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

Admittedly, maybe Im not understanding this notion completely and if so, Im open to explanation. Im not knocking it, just trying to get my head wrapped around it.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. While it might be silly for the Black Goat Tavern to move from one place to another to make sure the PCs end up there, it's not silly to assume there's a tavern or similar place along almost every road. So if the DM wants a messenger to meet up with the group to give them news that the king has summoned them for military service in the upcoming war, there's no problem with having messengers go to every stop possible and not just the Black Goat Tavern along the east road.

Now I often use the same maps and many of the same stock NPCs for things like taverns, bazaars and the like, but I make sure to at least change the names and descriptions. Which leads me to a very important piece of advice for any DM/GM and not just sandboxers:

Don't throw anything away. File it away for future use. If you need a map for a tower or stables or even a whole village you'll have one ready (with some changes) when the PCs take a detour into an area you haven't fully mapped out yet. The same goes for NPCs and monsters.

Quote from: rgrove0172;982999The notion you and others have presented of a number of generic elements (locations, NPCs or what have you) set aside to be pulled up on a whim is fine. Others have seemed to suggest that a specific element is relocated and used again simply because the players didnt engage with it initially. That I would have a problem with.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that, but personally I wouldn't do it that way.

You said

QuoteFirst, let's define sandbox. Best definition I'm come up with is that an RPG sandbox exists when the players can either choose or define what the next scenario is going to be.

I said

QuoteThis part I am in disagreement with. An RPG sandbox exists when the referee provides many hooks(options) for the players and those can take many forms. The players get to choose whether or not they pursue one of those options or they can decide to pursue some other option(s) that the ref did not think of.

Then

Quote from: Justin Alexander;982108Generally speaking, when you just literally repeat the exact same thing I said in slightly different words, that doesn't constitute "disagreement". FYI.

You are incorrect, I do not agree that the players get to define the next scenario in a sandbox, one because the players get to make choices, they do not get to define things and two because a sandbox doesn't have scenario's (adventure modules). So I did not "repeat the same exact thing in slightly different words," what I did do was state something quite different than what you said and that does constitute "disagreement." FYI

Quote from: Justin Alexander;982108Exactly. There's a distinction between sandboxes, non-linear scenario design, and not railroading. In practice, there's a set of personal tastes that tend to associate these ideas with each other. But they're distinct things.

Hmm, all sandboxes are non-linear but they are not scenario design and they are not railroads. So you might want to explain exactly what you mean by non-linear scenario design, since scenario design is writing adventure modules which by their nature are not sandboxes.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;982108I talk about the fact that treating "sandbox" as the opposite of "railroad" heavily distorts the clear understanding of both terms in The Railroading Manifesto (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36914/roleplaying-games/the-railroading-manifesto-part-3-penumbra-of-problems).

Dungeoncrawling is sandbox play and HexCrawling is sandbox play and both involve combat. Obviously mystery scenarios are more railroad than anything else and are typically something you do at a dinner party. Having read your article I just see three structures and those are Railroad, Sandboxes and Scenario Writing (Adventure Modules).  I didn't see an example of anything else.

Quote from: soltakss;982247First of all, there is no One Way to tun a sandbox.

Everyone has their own ways and techniques.

The way I do it would have sandbox zealots throwing their hands in the air and shouting "That's not a Sandbox".

My number one rule of a sandbox is "Don't over prepare". I once spent a few months writing up a 20 storey tower full of vampires (Tower of Lead in Dorastor, Glorantha) and the PCs came close and said "We don't like the look of that" and turned around. Nowadays, I don't do anything like that.

Don't over prepare - good advice.

Quote from: soltakss;982247Learn to Improvise - If the players say "We want to go to Hobbiton", let them go and make things up on the spot.

Anytime you need to, improvise - good advice.

Quote from: soltakss;982247Use plots liberally - (Sandbox Zealots, now is the time to throw up your hands) Prepare some plots and scenarios to drop into the campaign at opportune times. If the players get stuck for something to do, throw in something from a background plot to spark things off.

Sandboxes don't have plots, Novels have plots. Sandboxes have possibility hooks and these are generated constantly by the living world of the sandbox and the players are constantly becoming aware of some of them, you don't have to throw something in as the rumor mill is in a constant flow around them.

Quote from: soltakss;982247Don't be afraid to run with things - If the PCs decide to kill the Princess and rescue the ogre who kidnapped her, don't complain about them ruining your game. Instead, follow the concequences. maybe they become friends of ogres, maybe the Princess's family send people after her, maybe the Princess was the head of an evil cult and the ogre was tryign to defeat her.

Good advice, you cannot ruin a sandbox, you cannot break a world, what happens, is what happens.

Quote from: soltakss;982247It helps to be familiar with the setting, or to have written your own setting.

If it is a sandbox it is your own setting/world and of course you are familiar with it.

Quote from: soltakss;982247Make things up- on the fly. Simple as that.

Good advice.

I think some people use the words "plots" and "scenarios" interchangeably.  They aren't really the same thing.  A "location" that has a "story" (aka, a background or history) such as a haunted castle or a dungeon is not a "plot".  I think it's perfectly fine to say a good GM should have lots of "scenarios" pre-planned for the characters to either investigate or ignore at their discretion.  The word "plots" has more of a narrative implication and leads more into notions of railroading and narrative/story gaming.

For me, if I were running a sandbox, once I've placed a location on the map, that's where that location exists in the world.  It ain't moving.  That applies to anything specifically related to that location as well...

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;983287I think some people use the words "plots" and "scenarios" interchangeably.  They aren't really the same thing.

Man, I am happy to get into a scenario but I sure don't want any part of someone's plot.

Quote from: Dumarest;983301Man, I am happy to get into a scenario but I sure don't want any part of someone's plot.

yeah, exactly.

Quote from: Dumarest;983301Man, I am happy to get into a scenario but I sure don't want any part of someone's plot.

Novels have plots and Adventures Modules are scenario's.  Sandboxes have neither.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983315Novels have plots and Adventures Modules are scenario's.  Sandboxes have neither.

sorry, but I disagree.  Any significant location on your sandbox's map where PCs might wish to venture is a scenario.  Modules obviously contain one or more scenarios as well.  But the word "scenario" doesn't specifically mean Adventure Module.

I think we could debate the finer meaning and regional variations on meanings of words all day. This is why I don't think it is helpful to get too hung up on words like "story" or "plot" when people obviously mean something more like scenario or adventure. Most gamers speak pretty casually about this stuff.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;983287I think some people use the words "plots" and "scenarios" interchangeably.

Quote from: Dumarest;983301Man, I am happy to get into a scenario but I sure don't want any part of someone's plot.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983315Novels have plots and Adventures Modules are scenario's.  Sandboxes have neither.

Dynamic NPCs have plots, i.e. plans for how they intend to accomplish their goals. My campaigns have multiple dynamic NPCs. Ergo my campaigns, including all sandbox style campaigns, have plots.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;983344Most gamers speak pretty casually about this stuff.

Yes. In my experience, most gamers are pretty casual about their gaming so they have way less ego invested in the specific definitions of RPG terminology.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;983343sorry, but I disagree.  Any significant location on your sandbox's map where PCs might wish to venture is a scenario.  Modules obviously contain one or more scenarios as well.  But the word "scenario" doesn't specifically mean Adventure Module.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;983344I think we could debate the finer meaning and regional variations on meanings of words all day. This is why I don't think it is helpful to get too hung up on words like "story" or "plot" when people obviously mean something more like scenario or adventure. Most gamers speak pretty casually about this stuff.

I suppose we could go with words having non-standard meaning , but that is not helpful IMO.

Scenario: first standard definition is - a written outline of a movie, novel, or stage work giving details of the plot and individual scenes. "imagine the scenarios for four short stories" This means that the definition of "Any significant location on your sandbox's map where PCs might wish to venture is a scenario." is patently false.

The words story, plot, scenario and adventure all imply and all are pre-written scripting and that is anathema to the whole idea, reason and purpose of a sandbox. These four words all are linked to the to the idea of the railroad and have nothing to do with a sandbox.

A significant location on a sandbox map is just that a significant location, a place where the players may or may not know something about and a place where the players can choose to go or choose not to go, but there is no script for what happens when they get there. The reaction of NPCs or monsters has not been pre-written those things will be determined through play and not by following a scenario.

Quote from: Bren;983353Dynamic NPCs have plots, i.e. plans for how they intend to accomplish their goals. My campaigns have multiple dynamic NPCs. Ergo my campaigns, including all sandbox style campaigns, have plots.

Yes. In my experience, most gamers are pretty casual about their gaming so they have way less ego invested in the specific definitions of RPG terminology.

Dynamic NPCs have "lives", not "plots". "Plots" are fixed with no options as in a "plot" everything is scripted. "Lives" not "plots" means that all of their decisions and reactions to the PCs and their subsequent actions are fluid and they could go several different ways not just one pre-determined way.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983354I suppose we could go with words having non-standard meaning , but that is not helpful IMO.

Scenario: first standard definition is - a written outline of a movie, novel, or stage work giving details of the plot and individual scenes. "imagine the scenarios for four short stories" This means that the definition of "Any significant location on your sandbox's map where PCs might wish to venture is a scenario." is patently false.

The words story, plot, scenario and adventure all imply and all are pre-written scripting and that is anathema to the whole idea, reason and purpose of a sandbox. These four words all are linked to the to the idea of the railroad and have nothing to do with a sandbox.

A significant location on a sandbox map is just that a significant location, a place where the players may or may not know something about and a place where the players can choose to go or choose not to go, but there is no script for what happens when they get there. The reaction of NPCs or monsters has not been pre-written those things will be determined through play and not by following a scenario.

The problem is words carry multiple meanings all the time, and you are expected to understand the meaning through context. Pinning down terms with strict definitions for the purpose of discussing games, just leads to jargon. This is why when you take so many forum discussions offline into the real world people will often not know what you mean. But virtually every gamer I meet who doesn't spend substantial time in forums, when they use the word 'story' it doesn't mean what it means in a GNS context or literary course context. It often just means the stuff that happens around the characters.

I undetstand why people avoid using the word story, and honestly I avoid using it myself because I do think it can lead to confusion. But insisting people not use the word scenario in a sandbox, seems a bit pedantic to me. In a gaming context it means something totally different than in the definition you provide. At the end of the day, what people are actually doing at the table is a lot more important to me than the words they are using to describe it. As long as people are not intentionally expanding words well beyond their accepted conversational use, I don't see a problem with using 'scenario' the way folks are doing here.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;983287I think some people use the words "plots" and "scenarios" interchangeably.  They aren't really the same thing.

Plots are the main part of a scenario.


 

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;983287A "location" that has a "story" (aka, a background or history) such as a haunted castle or a dungeon is not a "plot".  I think it's perfectly fine to say a good GM should have lots of "scenarios" pre-planned for the characters to either investigate or ignore at their discretion.  The word "plots" has more of a narrative implication and leads more into notions of railroading and narrative/story gaming.

A "location" that has a background or history (NOT a Story) such as a haunted castle or a dungeon is not a "plot" or a "scenario". It a location that has numerous possibilities for interaction with the PCs, none of which are scripted.

The word "plots," "scenarios," and "story" carry a narrative implication and leads directly into railroading and narrative/story gaming



 

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;983287For me, if I were running a sandbox, once I've placed a location on the map, that's where that location exists in the world.  It ain't moving.  That applies to anything specifically related to that location as well...

Completely agree with this.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983362The word "plots," "scenarios," and "story" carry a narrative implication and leads directly into railroading and narrative/story gaming
.

I think the problem is mainly one of equivocation. If people use them to equivocate, I point it out and there isn't ever a problem with railroading as a result. If someone uses scenario to mean location, plot to mean an NPCs goal or plan, or story to mean stuff happening in the campaign, it is usually pretty obvious to me what they mean, and we can have a discussion without any issue. Debating the minutiae around the language, I think just bogs down the discussion.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;983360The problem is words carry multiple meanings all the time, and you are expected to understand the meaning through context. Pinning down terms with strict definitions for the purpose of discussing games, just leads to jargon. This is why when you take so many forum discussions offline into the real world people will often not know what you mean. But virtually every gamer I meet who doesn't spend substantial time in forums, when they use the word 'story' it doesn't mean what it means in a GNS context or literary course context. It often just means the stuff that happens around the characters.

I undetstand why people avoid using the word story, and honestly I avoid using it myself because I do think it can lead to confusion. But insisting people not use the word scenario in a sandbox, seems a bit pedantic to me. In a gaming context it means something totally different than in the definition you provide. At the end of the day, what people are actually doing at the table is a lot more important to me than the words they are using to describe it. As long as people are not intentionally expanding words well beyond their accepted conversational use, I don't see a problem with using 'scenario' the way folks are doing here.

Then I suppose I should just settle for "when I use the word "scenario" I am not using it to mean the same thing the rest of you are, in my sandbox there are no scripts". Because almost all of you are using scenario to mean something that is pre-scripted.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983359Dynamic NPCs have "lives", not "plots". "Plots" are fixed with no options as in a "plot" everything is scripted. "Lives" not "plots" means that all of their decisions and reactions to the PCs and their subsequent actions are fluid and they could go several different ways not just one pre-determined way.

Plot, like the vast majority of all words in the English language has more than one meaning. Context is required to discern which of the various meanings applies in any particular sentence. If you can't or won't use context to figure out which meaning applies then we aren't going to be able to have a meaningful conversation.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983364Then I suppose I should just settle for "when I use the word "scenario" I am not using it to mean the same thing the rest of you are, in my sandbox there are no scripts". Because almost all of you are using scenario to mean something that is pre-scripted.

I am a little late to the scenario discussion so to be fair, the way I use that word is usually a kind of catch all for anything from an adventure to a situation or location with interesting things going on. If the players go to a kingdom and it is in the middle of a civil war with factions and intrigue, that might be a scenario in my mind. And there could be many scenarios within that environment. But again, I do use the word quite loosely.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;983363I think the problem is mainly one of equivocation. If people use them to equivocate, I point it out and there isn't ever a problem with railroading as a result. If someone uses scenario to mean location, plot to mean an NPCs goal or plan, or story to mean stuff happening in the campaign, it is usually pretty obvious to me what they mean, and we can have a discussion without any issue. Debating the minutiae around the language, I think just bogs down the discussion.

OK if you say so, but I have no idea how anyone made the leap from scenario to location. I have not been able to find anywhere that their definitions intersect.

https://www.powerthesaurus.org/location/synonyms (https://www.powerthesaurus.org/location/synonyms) - 518 synonyms for location and not one of them is scenario

https://www.powerthesaurus.org/scenario (https://www.powerthesaurus.org/scenario) - 266 synonyms for scenario and not one of them is location.

If people are going to use brand new unique definitions for words that have not had that definitions ever before in any written dictionary, then they should write if up and publish it as Joe's Official RPG Dictionary, so that every time we say "What is the world is he talking about?" we would have a way to find out. Of course then we have a different discussion and that is why is Joe the one that get's to create these brand new never before existent definitions.

Quote from: Bren;983365Plot, like the vast majority of all words in the English language has more than one meaning. Context is required to discern which of the various meanings applies in any particular sentence. If you can't or won't use context to figure out which meaning applies then we aren't going to be able to have a meaningful conversation.

If you are going to use words outside the context of their normal definitions then it is going to make it hard to have a meaningful conversation. If you have not pre-determined what is going to happen, then you do not have a plot. If you are calling a plot the name for what happens when the players decide on the spur of the moment to go 200 miles north to the ruined Castle WhiteSkull instead of taking the job escorting the trade caravan east to an adjoining kingdom and you improvise and wing it, then don't be surprised when that confuses people.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983369OK if you say so, but I have no idea how anyone made the leap from scenario to location. I have not been able to find anywhere that their definitions intersect.

https://www.powerthesaurus.org/location/synonyms (https://www.powerthesaurus.org/location/synonyms) - 518 synonyms for location and not one of them is scenario

https://www.powerthesaurus.org/scenario (https://www.powerthesaurus.org/scenario) - 266 synonyms for scenario and not one of them is location.

If people are going to use brand new unique definitions for words that have not had that definitions ever before in any written dictionary, then they should write if up and publish it as Joe's Official RPG Dictionary, so that every time we say "What is the world is he talking about?" we would have a way to find out. Of course then we have a different discussion and that is why is Joe the one that get's to create these brand new never before existent definitions.

I would probably agree that equating scenario with a pure location is not terribly clear. But someone throwing me a location based module and calling it a scenario is something I would understand immediately.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;983373I would probably agree that equating scenario with a pure location is not terribly clear. But someone throwing me a location based module and calling it a scenario is something I would understand immediately.

That I would agree with because IMO scenario and module are the same thing, they are both pre-planned, pre-written adventures, neither of which has anything to do with a sandbox. Nothing wrong with someone playing a pre-written adventures, but you don't use those in a sandbox, a sandbox is about doing it yourself.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983364Then I suppose I should just settle for "when I use the word "scenario" I am not using it to mean the same thing the rest of you are, in my sandbox there are no scripts". Because almost all of you are using scenario to mean something that is pre-scripted.

It's becoming increasingly clear that you don't really understand how the rest of us use words. Do you write your plot hooks down on paper? If yes, then OH NOES you are  scripting.

Many people in this thread use the word "scenario" to mean, not a script, but an invented situation with some specific parameters. Typically (since memory is fallible and all that) some of those parameters are written down. The fact that the parameters of the situation are written down do not imply that their is some required set of scripted activities that the PCs must perform. Let's look at an example. One scenario might be

The City of Reknown
The City of Renown is the capital city of a kingdom. The players (for whatever reason) are traveling towards the City of Renown. Obviously the scenario isn't of much interest to a group of players unless their PCs are likely to interact with the city. So we ignore all the other scenarios that may have been written down that have nothing to do with where the PCs are now and focus on one scenario that the PCs are likely to interact with in some way, shape, or form.

• In this scenario there are some details for the City of Renown possibly a map, city population, civic militia, and a write up for the Black Goat Tavern, an inn, and maybe a few shops.
• One parameter or detail related to the city is the plot by the evil Duke to replace King Charles (who lives in the capital city) with a magically created simulcra so that the Iron Duke can take over the kingdom as the puppeteer behind controlling the "king."
• Other details include stats for the Iron Duke, his guards, his mage Graybeard, and the simulacra. Timing and what additional components are still required for Graybeard to cast the spell creating the simulacra. One key component is something from the King's person e.g. hair, nail clippings, blood, or skin. Also stats for the King Charles and the Royal Guards.
• One complicating factor (detail or parameter remember words have more than one meaning) is the presence outside the City of Renown of the Masked Avenger who wants to get his revenge against the evil Iron Duke. The Masked Avenger is masked to hide his true identify since he was once Count D'athos a nobleman the evil Duke had framed for treason. Count D'athos is thought to have died in the royal island prison known as Citadel of Doom. Stats included for the Masked Avenger and his loyal band of merry brigands.

Other parameters might be plot hooks like

• Reward posters, "dead or alive," for the Masked Avenger posted outside the taverns in every village surrounding the city that the PC are traveling towards. [They might decide to get the reward, join the Masked Avenger, or ignore the hook.]
• A damsel in distress, one of the Queen's ladies-in-waiting whose cries for help are overheard by the PCs as they ride along the road towards the city. [They might decide to rescue the damsel, take her away from her captors and sell her into slavery, or ride on ignoring her cries for help.] I could go on to specify who the damsel's captors are and why they captured her e.g.
• They are agents of the Duke who want to eliminate her because she saw one of the King's Servants gather up and remove hair and nail clippings from the King.
• They are agents of the Duke who want to take her captive because the Duke has fallen in lust with her.
• They are mercenaries who have been hired to kidnap her because a foreign prince has fallen in love with her.
• They are the Masked Avenger's men who are trying to bring her to their leader because the damsel is the fiance of the long lost Count D'Athos.
• Or I might just decide to keep all four of the above explanations in my write up and just roll 1D4 if the PCs decide to respond to her cries of distress.
• Hiring notices in the city posted by the Iron Duke for mercenaries. [They might decide to get hired, decide to look into why the Duke needs mercenaries, or just ignore the notice.
• If the PCs do anything demonstrate they have mad skilz (or if they are already well known for such mad skilz) the Queen will send one of her ladies-in-waiting or her guard captain (whichever is more appropriate) to covertly talk to the PCs to see if they can be recruited. Unlike her husband the naive King Charles, Queen Isabeau is suspicious of the Iron Duke and wants to obtain some highly skilled bodyguards to quietly protect the king from mundane assassins or magical attack.

The PCs may be drawn into the Duke's plot, either to help the Duke or to thwart him. They may be drawn into the Masked Avenger's quest for revenge. They might rescue the damsel. Or they might just buy some exotic goods and spend the rest of their money on booze, drugs, and whores in the City of Renown before taking passage across the Indigo Sea to the Free Cities of Cromar.

While there is a scenario (possibly more than one) there is no script and the only story is what happens in play, or more specifically what people retell about what happens in play.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983370If you are going to use words outside the context of their normal definitions then it is going to make it hard to have a meaningful conversation. If you have not pre-determined what is going to happen, then you do not have a plot. If you are calling a plot the name for what happens when the players decide on the spur of the moment to go 200 miles north to the ruined Castle WhiteSkull instead of taking the job escorting the trade caravan east to an adjoining kingdom and you improvise and wing it, then don't be surprised when that confuses people.

The villain has a plot. Surely you have heard the phrase "the villain's plot" somewhere, sometime in life. I am calling a plot what is typically called a plot when talking about the things people, especially imaginary people, plan to enact. Barring unforeseen events (which in RPGs is often actions by or in reaction to things the PCs do), as the GM I probably do know what will happen when the villain attempts to put his plot in action. It's still not a script though.

Plot has more than one definition. Get used to that.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983375That I would agree with because IMO scenario and module are the same thing, they are both pre-planned, pre-written adventures, neither of which has anything to do with a sandbox. Nothing wrong with someone playing a pre-written adventures, but you don't use those in a sandbox, a sandbox is about doing it yourself.

I don't know. I think if you have a module that is little more than a location description, NPCs, information on stuff that might be going on there and sources of conflict, that would all fit into a sandbox pretty easy and could still be called a scenario. If that isn't a sandbox anymore to you, that is fine. I am not worried about whether others regard my style of play as pure sandbox.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;983373I would probably agree that equating scenario with a pure location is not terribly clear. But someone throwing me a location based module and calling it a scenario is something I would understand immediately.

Module, Scenario, Adventure are all roughly synonymous when referring to an RPG. Almost all of them include one or more locations. (And Brendan I know you already know this.)

Quote from: Bren;983382It's becoming increasingly clear that you don't really understand how the rest of us use words. Do you write your plot hooks down on paper? If yes, then OH NOES you are  scripting.

You are assuming good faith and a desire for clarity rather than obtusification through quibbling over definitions.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983375That I would agree with because IMO scenario and module are the same thing, they are both pre-planned, pre-written adventures, neither of which has anything to do with a sandbox. Nothing wrong with someone playing a pre-written adventures, but you don't use those in a sandbox, a sandbox is about doing it yourself.

If I scatter location-based adventures about my sandbox, and the PCs encounter one of them, it ceases to be a sandbox?

This seems kinda dumb to me. I see no difference between including eg published Goblin Gulley in my sandbox and writing my own location with goblins in a gulley.

Quote from: Bren;983386Module, Scenario, Adventure are all roughly synonymous when referring to an RPG. Almost all of them include one or more locations. (And Brendan I know you already know this.)

I would agree. I was just ceding the point that scenario=location alone could be somewhat confusing.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;983392I would agree. I was just ceding the point that scenario=location alone could be somewhat confusing.

Sure. And I'm not surprised. I have observed in the past that you tend to be kinder, more polite, and to assume more goodwill on both sides of a discussion than I tend to do.

Quote from: Bren;983398Sure. And I'm not surprised. I have observed in the past that you tend to be kinder, more polite, and to assume more goodwill on both sides of a discussion than I tend to do.

Some people just don't fit in.

Quote from: Bren;983353Dynamic NPCs have plots, i.e. plans for how they intend to accomplish their goals. My campaigns have multiple dynamic NPCs. Ergo my campaigns, including all sandbox style campaigns, have plots.

Yes. In my experience, most gamers are pretty casual about their gaming so they have way less ego invested in the specific definitions of RPG terminology.

I'm referring to a GM's plot as opposed to a character plotting.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983315Novels have plots and Adventures Modules are scenario's.  Sandboxes have neither.

Hate to burst your bubble. But "And off to the north theres rumours of orcs gatering" and said orcs will gather and will cause trouble if the PCs or someone else doesnt intervene is a sort of plot. It is just the sort that the players may never actually interact with. But its out there. And thats one way sandboxes are run.

Quote from: S'mon;983391If I scatter location-based adventures about my sandbox, and the PCs encounter one of them, it ceases to be a sandbox?

This seems kinda dumb to me. I see no difference between including eg published Goblin Gulley in my sandbox and writing my own location with goblins in a gulley.

Sandbox is about DIY, if you use others materials, then you are automatically including all the railroads contained in that material and if you go back and re-write it to fix that then you might as well have done it yourself to begin with.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983405Sandbox is about DIY, if you use others materials, then you are automatically including all the railroads contained in that material and if you go back and re-write it to fix that then you might as well have done it yourself to begin with.

Okay this is a ridiculous argument. Sandbox is just a structure. You can do that with your own material, but you could also do it with published material designed for sandbox play. Granted, there is a strong DIY spirit to sandbox, because it it well suited to that. But I don't see how any non-DIY element automatically makes it not a sandbox.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983405Sandbox is about DIY, if you use others materials, then you are automatically including all the railroads contained in that material and if you go back and re-write it to fix that then you might as well have done it yourself to begin with.

Hmm, I didn't know the Wilderlands of High Fantasy had railroads in it... How about my Blackmoor campaigns that have used little more than the maps published in The First Fantasy Campaign and the DA series modules? How about Glorantha or Tekumel? What about TSR module B1?

For my Traveller gaming, I've read through a large number of Classic Traveller adventures, and while many have railroads, most can be mined for an interesting situation and some are even hex crawls.

Not all published modules/adventures/scenarios have railroad tracks, and many that have tracks have enough useful material that the tracks can be ignored.

Frank

Quote from: Dumarest;983402I'm referring to a GM's plot as opposed to a character plotting.

I don't really have plots. I have NPCs who have plots.

In a mission style adventure (scenario, module) I might loosely use the term "plot" as shorthand for what is going on in situation. For example, I ran a Star Wars adventure recently where the Rebel PCs went to a primitive planet to try to strike a trade deal with the locals. While they were doing that, an Imperial shuttle crash landed outside the palace where they were doing the negotiating. The Imperials fired on the locals who came to greet them killing many. I might describe the "plot" as "Green squad encounters strange native customs then helps the natives against vicious Imperials."

Describing that as the plot wouldn't prevent the PCs from deciding to desert from the Rebel Alliance and fly to Hutt Space and become Spice Smugglers or from deciding they weren't going to get a trade deal with the natives or from running off to hide in the forest leaving the locals to figure out what to do about the vicious Imperials in their lap. Which, without assistance from the PCs, would have played out a lot like the movie Zulu (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNV2M-WOgMM) with the Imperials taking on the roles played by Stanley Baker and Michael Caine.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;983406Okay this is a ridiculous argument. Sandbox is just a structure. You can do that with your own material, but you could also do it with published material designed for sandbox play. Granted, there is a strong DIY spirit to sandbox, because it it well suited to that. But I don't see how any non-DIY element automatically makes it not a sandbox.

Presumably Crimthan is raising his own sheep to make his own parchment so he can scratch out his own maps using ink he made with his own blood and plants he cultivated in his garden. Because unless you are 100% DIY you aren't running a sandbox.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;983389You are assuming good faith and a desire for clarity rather than obtusification through quibbling over definitions.

I wasn't assuming good faith so much as extreme obtuseness. But requiring a sandbox to be DIY is so patently silly as to incline me to a an assumption of bad faith.

The first few pages of this thread are going into my useful folder. Differing opinions and ideas are always a great way to hone your game.

The argumentative silliness from one poster in the latter pages :confused:

Quote from: HorusArisen;983415The first few pages of this thread are going into my useful folder. Differing opinions and ideas are always a great way to hone your game.

The argumentative silliness from one poster in the latter pages :confused:

Once again, Crimpnuts' whole schtick is to muddy any discussion as much as he can.  Quibbling over definitions is one textbook way of doing this.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;983360But virtually every gamer I meet who doesn't spend substantial time in forums, when they use the word 'story' it doesn't mean what it means in a GNS context or literary course context. It often just means the stuff that happens around the characters.

I ran into this too when I first started posting to RPG forums after a long hiatus. Story to me was the stuff that happened to my character. The things they did and the things that they saw happening on the way.

It was kinda weird to be attacked for saying "story".

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;983422Once again, Crimpnuts' whole schtick is to muddy any discussion as much as he can.  Quibbling over definitions is one textbook way of doing this.

It starts off great, I was going to link my mates brother to it since he's a newbie GM.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;983422Once again, Crimpnuts' whole schtick is to muddy any discussion as much as he can.  Quibbling over definitions is one textbook way of doing this.

Yeah this is the opposite end of the terminology spectrum.

On one end you have the "this word means EVERYTHING ON EARTH" types of morons who want to apply a term to everything.
On the other end you have the "this word means this tiny little narrow window thing I've decided to lock it down to." nuts. Sometimes to the points its nearly "NOTHING ON EARTH".

Quote from: Omega;983432Yeah this is the opposite end of the terminology spectrum.

On one end you have the "this word means EVERYTHING ON EARTH" types of morons who want to apply a term to everything.
On the other end you have the "this word means this tiny little narrow window thing I've decided to lock it down to." nuts. Sometimes to the points its nearly "NOTHING ON EARTH".

If only there was a closet somewhere on the Internet where both types could be incarcerated to argue themselves to death.

Quote from: Bren;983446If only there was a closet somewhere on the Internet where both types could be incarcerated to argue themselves to death.

That's a terribly large closet.

Quote from: Omega;983404Hate to burst your bubble. But "And off to the north theres rumours of orcs gatering" and said orcs will gather and will cause trouble if the PCs or someone else doesnt intervene is a sort of plot. It is just the sort that the players may never actually interact with. But its out there. And thats one way sandboxes are run.

You are welcome to use incorrect language to describe it to your hearts content.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983405Sandbox is about DIY, if you use others materials, then you are automatically including all the railroads contained in that material and if you go back and re-write it to fix that then you might as well have done it yourself to begin with.

But what if the material I use doesn't include any railroads?

Here's the actual published Goblin Gulley adventure I used - https://rpgcharacters.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/onepagedungeon-goblin-gully.pdf - I'm not seeing the railroad. It's not like the PCs had to go in there if they didn't want to.

Edit: BTW I also disagree that rewriting is equivalent to creation de novo. I find adaptation far easier than whole-cloth creation. Obviously material used in my sandbox needs adaptation, but that's usually not much work.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;983406Okay this is a ridiculous argument. Sandbox is just a structure. You can do that with your own material, but you could also do it with published material designed for sandbox play. Granted, there is a strong DIY spirit to sandbox, because it it well suited to that. But I don't see how any non-DIY element automatically makes it not a sandbox.

But you could also do it with published material designed for sandbox play once you strip out the railroads that are built into published materials.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;983422Once again, Crimpnuts' whole schtick is to muddy any discussion as much as he can.  Quibbling over definitions is one textbook way of doing this.

Sorry to hear that you think poor word choice is a mark of doing things the right way. But if you want to write up your special snowflake redefined words as most of you have redefined them by ignoring what the words really mean, then by all means post it so I can study the revised definitions, that are separate from the definitions used in dictionaries.

Quote from: Omega;983432Yeah this is the opposite end of the terminology spectrum.

On one end you have the "this word means EVERYTHING ON EARTH" types of morons who want to apply a term to everything.
On the other end you have the "this word means this tiny little narrow window thing I've decided to lock it down to." nuts. Sometimes to the points its nearly "NOTHING ON EARTH".

Sorry that you hate the dictionary so much, but that's OK I will stop asking you to use real words, go ahead and just make words up and assign any meaning you want since real definitions are too difficult for you to deal with.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983405Sandbox is about DIY, if you use others materials, then you are automatically including all the railroads contained in that material and if you go back and re-write it to fix that then you might as well have done it yourself to begin with.

Sandbox is not about DIY.

It's about sand.

Good grief, it's right in the name. If your so-called-"sandbox" game doesn't take place in a desert, it's not a sandbox.

And don't give me any of that nonsense about rocky deserts. It has to be sandy.

-E.

Quote from: S'mon;983452But what if the material I use doesn't include any railroads?

It doesn't matter. Because you are using the wrong words. Words that Crimthan doesn't understand. Sadly the number of words Crimthan does understand can be counted on both your hands....both your hands assuming you are an unlucky carpenter.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983458Sorry to hear that you think poor word choice is a mark of doing things the right way. But if you want to write up your special snowflake redefined words as most of you have redefined them by ignoring what the words really mean, then by all means post it so I can study the revised definitions, that are separate from the definitions used in dictionaries.

Dude that is exactly what you repeatedly doing in these threads. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Crimhthan;983459Sorry that you hate the dictionary so much, but that's OK I will stop asking you to use real words, go ahead and just make words up and assign any meaning you want since real definitions are too difficult for you to deal with.

He doesn't hate the dictionary. He, like the rest of us, likes the dictionary enough to read beyond the first definition of the word. You should try it sometime. Another thing you should try is learning the meaning of context. Its one of the ways other people determine which definition is being used at any particular time. "Context" it's a word you should learn.

Quote from: -E.;983460Sandbox is not about DIY.

It's about sand.

Good grief, it's right in the name. If your so-called-"sandbox" game doesn't take place in a desert, it's not a sandbox.

And don't give me any of that nonsense about rocky deserts. It has to be sandy.

-E.

No wonder Sandy Petersen is a good GM. It's right in his name. :D

Quote from: Crimhthan;983354Scenario: first standard definition is - a written outline of a movie, novel, or stage work giving details of the plot and individual scenes. "imagine the scenarios for four short stories" This means that the definition of "Any significant location on your sandbox's map where PCs might wish to venture is a scenario." is patently false.

And the first dictionary definition of "plot" is "a plan made in secret by a group of people to do something illegal or harmful."

Proof that whenever a gamer uses the word "plot" they are part of the great swine conspiracy to destroy gaming!!!

Using the dictionary wrong is fun.

Words don't have inherent meanings. Deriving meaning depends on context. FOR ALL SYMBOLS.

The first definition of "Sandbox" - a shallow box or hollow in the ground partly filled with sand for children to play in.

Dammit!  We're all doing it wrong!

And that's why I just gave a practical example of how I set things up, and how it come out in play. Avoids all this nonsense.

Alas, nobody was interested in that. Because "I have 20 minutes to write a reply, but I don't have 5 minutes to read anything first!"

Quote from: Crimhthan;983274You are incorrect, I do not agree that the players get to define the next scenario in a sandbox, one because the players get to make choices, they do not get to define things and two because a sandbox doesn't have scenario's (adventure modules). So I did not "repeat the same exact thing in slightly different words," what I did do was state something quite different than what you said and that does constitute "disagreement." FYI

English isn't your first language, I take it?

QuoteHmm, all sandboxes are non-linear but they are not scenario design and they are not railroads. So you might want to explain exactly what you mean by non-linear scenario design, since scenario design is writing adventure modules which by their nature are not sandboxes.

I'm going to need evidence you're capable of parsing an English sentence for meaning before we go any further.

QuoteDungeoncrawling is sandbox play and HexCrawling is sandbox play and both involve combat. Obviously mystery scenarios are more railroad than anything else and are typically something you do at a dinner party. Having read your article I just see three structures and those are Railroad, Sandboxes and Scenario Writing (Adventure Modules).  I didn't see an example of anything else.

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983354Scenario: first standard definition is - a written outline of a movie, novel, or stage work giving details of the plot and individual scenes.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983369OK if you say so, but I have no idea how anyone made the leap from scenario to location. I have not been able to find anywhere that their definitions intersect.

Okay, all kidding aside, here's the thing: You're full of shit.

It's really clear where you got "a written outline of a movie, novel, or stage work giving details of the plot and individual scenes" as your definition of "scenario". You got it by googling "scenario definition" and then picking the first thing that flashed across your eyes. I know you did that because you quoted it word for word (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/scenario). But what's definition 1.2 in that dictionary definition of "scenario"?

"A setting, in particular for a work of art or literature."

It's really difficult to come up with any explanation for this except that you're deliberately trolling the thread.

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

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;983521I don't understand, Bren. The meaning of "hand" is "to pick something up and give it to someone". I found that definition in the dictionary and it is the one and only definition which exists in the entire world. It's a verb, not a noun. You can't possess a verb. You can't count something on a verb, especially because a count is a title of nobility and is not a verb.

Exactly.

Holy shit. Is anyone actually reading all these pages of bickering? Let's go back to actual sandbox advice.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;983517And that's why I just gave a practical example of how I set things up, and how it come out in play. Avoids all this nonsense.

Alas, nobody was interested in that. Because "I have 20 minutes to write a reply, but I don't have 5 minutes to read anything first!"

The problem isn't that nobody was interested. The problem is that the one person in the thread who really needed to read it could not do so without getting the following outcome.
[video=youtube;ZuYbDP2kDfg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuYbDP2kDfg[/youtube]

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;983524Holy shit. Is anyone actually reading all these pages of bickering? Let's go back to actual sandbox advice.

Well I think the responses are blossoming into something magical, but we should keep this on track. Keep the thread on how to actually sandbox. Anyone who wants to argue over what constitutes a sandbox, start a "What is a sandbox" thread.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;983524Holy shit. Is anyone actually reading all these pages of bickering? Let's go back to actual sandbox advice.

Seconded:).

Quote from: Crimhthan;983315Novels have plots and Adventures Modules are scenario's.  Sandboxes have neither.

However settings have locales which can be and are written up in the format that Judges Guild and TSR pioneered. A map with numbered locations with each location having text describing what is there.

In addition like in real life, a set of specific circumstances can be considered a scenario in the classic wargame sense. There a goal that the players sets out for themselves and there is opposition which the referee (or other players in some campaign) handle. That goal is the "victory condition" for that specific set of circumstances. Very little difference than a scenario writeup for a wargame.

Arguing over the use and definition of words like plots, scenario, etc is just a intellectual slapping contest. What makes a campaign a sandbox is the willingness of the referee to let the players attempt to trash his setting. The multitude of advice I have written is about how I handled my players trying to trash my setting. My way is just one of several possible methods of managing this. No matter the tools or rules used it all boils to one thing, are you OK as a referee in letting players attempt to trash your setting in way the players (not you) see fit? if the answer is yes, and you strive to learn how to handle this in a fun and interesting way from session to session then you are doing it right.

For example, there is a bandit clan, led by Hawk One-Eye, who raid the surrounding villages from their mountain hideout. The PCs hear about bandit raids now and again, they might even see a bandit raid or meet a small group of bandits in the wilds. Hawk One-Eye is raiding to get rich and also to cover up the stealing of artefacts that he is planning to use to summon a long-dead bandit king, so he can unite the various bandit clans. Does this count as a plot? Does it have a place in a sandbox?

I really don't think this is so complicated is it?  Does what you describe count as a "plot?"  Well, for me the common definition of a plot as the MAIN STORY LINE of a work of fiction is a bit problematic.  The word implies an over riding structure that personally bugs me.  But sure, in a sense what you describe is a plot (although sub-plot works a little better for me).  Does it fit in a sandbox?  Obviously.  If however it's the ONLY thing in your sandbox for the players to "choose" to interact with then it isn't much of a sandbox.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;983520English isn't your first language, I take it?

Apparently it isn't yours either.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;983520I'm going to need evidence you're capable of parsing an English sentence for meaning before we go any further.

Why should I have to do something that you obviously can't do?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;983520Okay, all kidding aside, here's the thing: You're full of shit.

It's really clear where you got "a written outline of a movie, novel, or stage work giving details of the plot and individual scenes" as your definition of "scenario". You got it by googling "scenario definition" and then picking the first thing that flashed across your eyes. I know you did that because you quoted it word for word (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/scenario).

It was clear in my post that I was quoting the definition and the only one full of anything is you. If you could read you would note that scenario always applies to a script or story of some kind. It is never used to define something open with meaningful choices. Your profanity does not get you any brownie points with me, but thanks for playing.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;983524Holy shit. Is anyone actually reading all these pages of bickering? Let's go back to actual sandbox advice.

I will continue to respond as long as I am being attacked and lied about. If they stop I will stop and not one moment before. I don't start fights, but I don't run away from them either. So the real trolls can stop any time they want to.

Quote from: estar;983571What makes a campaign a sandbox is the willingness of the referee to let the players attempt to trash his setting. The multitude of advice I have written is about how I handled my players trying to trash my setting. My way is just one of several possible methods of managing this. No matter the tools or rules used it all boils to one thing, are you OK as a referee in letting players attempt to trash your setting in way the players (not you) see fit? if the answer is yes, and you strive to learn how to handle this in a fun and interesting way from session to session then you are doing it right.

And my argument is and always has been with those that refuse to accept this.

Quote from: Bren;983467It doesn't matter. Because you are using the wrong words. Words that Crimthan doesn't understand. Sadly the number of words Crimthan does understand can be counted on both your hands....both your hands assuming you are an unlucky carpenter.

Dude that is exactly what you repeatedly doing in these threads. :rolleyes:

He doesn't hate the dictionary. He, like the rest of us, likes the dictionary enough to read beyond the first definition of the word. You should try it sometime. Another thing you should try is learning the meaning of context. Its one of the ways other people determine which definition is being used at any particular time. "Context" it's a word you should learn.

You should try following your own advice, since you all are ignoring context to come up with your precious little out of line definitions, again as long as I am attacked I will respond. Let me know when you are tired of trolling this thread.

Crim, there's a multi quote option that you should consider;).

Quote from: Crimhthan;983622Apparently it isn't yours either.


Why should I have to do something that you obviously can't do?


It was clear in my post that I was quoting the definition and the only one full of anything is you. If you could read you would note that scenario always applies to a script or story of some kind. It is never used to define something open with meaningful choices. Your profanity does not get you any brownie points with me, but thanks for playing.

Are you honestly telling me you've never heard the word "scenario" used to describe the initial set up of a battle in a wargame?

Quote from: Crimhthan;983623I will continue to respond as long as I am being attacked and lied about. If they stop I will stop and not one moment before. I don't start fights, but I don't run away from them either. So the real trolls can stop any time they want to.

Crimhthan. This is derailing the discussion. You might have missed my post, but I warned everyone to keep it back on topic and to start a thread about "What is a sandbox" if that's something people want to discuss (and if you want to argue about the nature of word definitions, then try starting a thread in the Pundit Subforum about that).

Quote from: Crimhthan;983405Sandbox is about DIY, if you use others materials, then you are automatically including all the railroads contained in that material and if you go back and re-write it to fix that then you might as well have done it yourself to begin with.

And this is what I hate about Sandbox discussions.

Why shouldn't I use a pre-written setting? I can put a Sandbox in the Plains of Prax, in Sherwood Forest or on the Planet of the Amazon Women. The fact that someone else has written them up doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't use them.

If I have a pre-written scenario, why can't I use that as well? It sets up a location, a goal and some encounters. If the PCs don't want to go to the location, the scenario doesn't happen. If the PCs don't want to follow or achieve the goal, then the scenario changes. However, one or more of the encounters might still be relevant, some might require changing on the fly depending on what has happened.

But the idea that every sandbox is a blank piece of paper until the PCs go somewhere and do something just doesn't make sense to me. I like the idea of a living world, where things happen independently of the PCs, sometimes they intersect the PCs, sometimes they don't. Sometimes the PCs deliberately interact with what is going on around them, sometimes they don't.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983624And my argument is and always has been with those that refuse to accept this.

I am not seeing that with overwhelming majority of responses on this thread. Instead I see people with their own take and more importantly fitting the concepts of sandbox campaigns with the way they think. Which is most important step in being able to become comfortable with handling ad-hoc situations on the fly.

In addition from my experience advocating and explaining how to run a sandbox campaigns a formal concept for the past decade the approach you take doesn't do anything to help people understand or use the concept for themselves. It been my experience for 30 years that most tabletop roleplaying campaign are kitbashed from what ever resources referee thinks best.  

Because of this I try to structure what I say about sandbox campaign in ways that makes easy for other to cherry pick what they find works for them. Sandbox campaigns are not an on and off switch. It is a set of tools that can used with other sets of tools to help a referee to create an interesting campaign for his players.

For example, railroading is mocked by many. However there are numerous positive accounts of campaigns that are railroads. But just there are way more negative reports. Why? Because a good railroaded campaign is like a good movie or novel. While the player have little control over the direction, it a fun ride. But for every good movie or novel there are dozens of bad one. The technique puts a premium on the referee's personal talent to write. And like a campaign focused on the playing exploring blank hexes, the number of referee that are good at this are about a common as those who like to use GURPS with all the options in play.

Also note the above is simplistic. It is rare that a campaign is 100% a railroad. Far more common is where a campaign that have extended sequences of sessions focused on a railroaded adventure. In between these adventures or in between major sections of the adventure the players set the direction. Paizo Adventure Paths does this a lot because while they cover 20 levels they still only have six books to do it in. Wizards adventures are even more loose as they cram everything into one or two hardcover books.

Aside from a campaign that are deliberately designed as a railroad, why bother learning how to do a railroaded adventure well?
It can be come important in certain instances when the campaign is structured around players being subordinates in a larger group who have to perform duties  or missions. For example I ran a campaign where every players was party of the city guard of the City-State of the Invincible Overlord. The skill needed to come up with interesting and challenging missions or sequences of missions is the exact same skill needed to run a good railroaded adventure. The players were free to leave the city-guard and have the campaign spin off in another direction. But for the most part they wanted to continue as city guards to see if they could master the challenge of keeping a lid on City-State.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983623I will continue to respond as long as I am being attacked and lied about. If they stop I will stop and not one moment before. I don't start fights, but I don't run away from them either. So the real trolls can stop any time they want to.

Good luck with that. On this site it usually far more effective to just bow out. Once the shit starts flying you get dirty regardless of your wrongness or rightness or how hard you play.

Quote from: soltakss;983633And this is what I hate about Sandbox discussions.

Why shouldn't I use a pre-written setting? I can put a Sandbox in the Plains of Prax, in Sherwood Forest or on the Planet of the Amazon Women. The fact that someone else has written them up doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't use them.

He talking out of his ass. Speaking as a person who written several thousand words on the topic, been doing this for 30+ years, one of the first who popularized the concept in the mid 2000s, I use published material all the time.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;983632Crimhthan. This is derailing the discussion. You might have missed my post, but I warned everyone to keep it back on topic and to start a thread about "What is a sandbox" if that's something people want to discuss (and if you want to argue about the nature of word definitions, then try starting a thread in the Pundit Subforum about that).

I concur with this as well. Start some new threads Crimhthan.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983459Sorry that you hate the dictionary so much, but that's OK I will stop asking you to use real words, go ahead and just make words up and assign any meaning you want since real definitions are too difficult for you to deal with.

Sorry your reading comprehension is so low you cant use a dictionary properly.

Instead you blazingly show off just how little you know about sanboxing.

Try again please.

Quote from: Omega;983656Sorry your reading comprehension is so low you cant use a dictionary properly.

Instead you blazingly show off just how little you know about sanboxing.

Try again please.

Ah a complete idiot, thank you for playing.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;983492The first definition of "Sandbox" - a shallow box or hollow in the ground partly filled with sand for children to play in.

Dammit!  We're all doing it wrong!

I know!

By the way. Theres nuts now wanting to define sandbox RPGing as something with a defined focus and plot. Because real sanboxes have limits. I kid you not.

Quote from: estar;983647He talking out of his ass. Speaking as a person who written several thousand works on the topic, been doing this for 30+ years, one of the first who popularized the concept in the mid 2000s, I use published material all the time.

You are really going to take credit for being the creator of sandboxes - really, I mean really!

Quote from: Crimhthan;983665You are really going to take credit for being the creator of sandboxes - really, I mean really!

He said popularizer, not creator.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983665You are really going to take credit for being the creator of sandboxes - really, I mean really!

Reread what I said, I said I helped popularized it. A different thing. It was part of the marketing of the Wilderlands boxed set back in the mid 2000s. A bunch of long time Judges Guild referee were tapped to write the expanded content for the original 18 maps. It was pricey at $70 so people naturally asked what it good for. On the mailing list it was suggest we call what we do a sandbox campaign because it was similar in philosophy to a set of computer games that were called sandboxes (for example Civilization, or better yet Valve's Garry's Mod). For my part I thought the term was a winner and immediately started using as well as the other Wilderlands authors.

Of course we didn't invent the style. We just gave it a name and talked about it a lot. Some of us have been running sandbox campaigns since the 70s, we just didn't have a formal name for it. And yes I am proud of my role in this as it spread the idea far and wide across the hobby which is a good thing.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;983687He said popularizer, not creator.

Beat me to it :D

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;983524Holy shit. Is anyone actually reading all these pages of bickering? Let's go back to actual sandbox advice.

We keep trying but the new village idiot keeps dropping in.

Back on topic.

Theres alot of ways to go about sanboxing as has been shown before things went off to loony land.

You can have plots, no plots, kinda-allmost-plots, lots of little micro plots, stuff no one may ever interact with. but its out there, and so on.

You can have alot of pre-game prep, modules, a little pre-game prep, or all manner of on the fly stuff that itself has a range of styles and approaches.

Ive found that one thing that can dictate or at least nudge things in one direction or another is the players. Some styles of sandboxing really need proactive players who get their characters out there and doing things. Reactionary players can be harder to work with depending on the type. Some will become aggressive and participatory once they have something to react to. Others are very passive and look to the DM to lead them. Some players need some threads to grab onto and run with and aren't all that good at just going out and making stuff happen. But are great with choosing and dealing with a situation once they see it. Others will forge off and do whatever. Possibly ignoring all threads.

Theres probably other types. But those were the types of players Ive dealt with myself.

As a player Im told Im very good at making things happen. This is often unintentional. I just like to interact with the game world and that tends to lead to crazy stuff happening. But Im the sort who steps back and lets the characters with the applicable skills do their thing. I will though maneuver around other PCs if I think they are making a mistake and not listening. Which is how I ended up inadvertently saving Castle Greyhawk.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;983687He said popularizer, not creator.

He said that he has written several thousand works on the topic over the last 30+ years.

QuoteSpeaking as a person who written several thousand works on the topic, been doing this for 30+ years

Quote from: Crimhthan;983729He said that he has written several thousand works on the topic over the last 30+ years.

Man do you like to argue. It might have been hyperbole or he could have just meant he has thousands of pages of campaign notes (which is pretty believable for a 30+ year campaign). He has blogged a lot about it though, and he has published sandbox material. But he still didn't say he created the sandbox. He said he wrote about sandbox and helped popularize it. I know a lot of people who have come to sandbox by way of Estar, so I think it is a fair statement.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983729He said that he has written several thousand works on the topic over the last 30+ years.

I meant words not work my bad. It still a considerable amount (http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/search/label/sandbox%20fantasy).

Quote from: Crimhthan;983729He said that he has written several thousand works on the topic over the last 30+ years.

Sure, and biblical scholars have written thousands of works [sic] about the Bible, still without claiming to have created it. Do you have a dictionary definition handy that equates discussion with creation?

Funny, it didn't seem to take much effort for you to "find a quibble" with this post. You might need to up your game.

Quote from: estar;983736I meant words not work my bad. It still a considerable amount (http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/search/label/sandbox%20fantasy).

If you told me 300,000 words, I would have no trouble believing that. But several thousand published works, I wasn't buying claim that from anyone (not just you but anyone). Thank you for clarifying that.

Quote from: Zalman;983748Sure, and biblical scholars have written thousands of works [sic] about the Bible, still without claiming to have created it. Do you have a dictionary definition handy that equates discussion with creation?

Funny, it didn't seem to take much effort for you to "find a quibble" with this post. You might need to up your game.

One individual wrote thousands of works about the Bible, who was this one individual who wrote thousands of works? If you told me thousands of people wrote thousands of books I would not have questioned that. The original claim (until he corrected works to words) in the post you refer to was that he has written as an individual several thousand works and I did not buy that claim. As I said he corrected that to words instead of works. The quibbling is all yours, shame you weren't paying attention to the point I was making and your probably missed the one in this post as well.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983768One individual wrote thousands of works about the Bible, who was this one individual who wrote thousands of works? If you told me thousands of people wrote thousands of books I would not have questioned that. The original claim (until he corrected works to words) in the post you refer to was that he has written as an individual several thousand works and I did not buy that claim. As I said he corrected that to words instead of works. The quibbling is all yours, shame you weren't paying attention to the point I was making and your probably missed the one in this post as well.

Nonsense, your quibble was with the claim that he was the creator of the concept, a claim he never made and which you then moved the goalposts to avoid defending. (And only to attack the number of "works", which was entirely irrelevant to anything in the discussion anyway.)

I do agree your antics are entertaining even if disingenuous and obvious; please continue!

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;983732Man do you like to argue. It might have been hyperbole or he could have just meant he has thousands of pages of campaign notes (which is pretty believable for a 30+ year campaign). He has blogged a lot about it though, and he has published sandbox material. But he still didn't say he created the sandbox. He said he wrote about sandbox and helped popularize it. I know a lot of people who have come to sandbox by way of Estar, so I think it is a fair statement.

Thousands of pages I believe, twenty thousands pages I believe, thousands of works I don't believe at least if you are on the same page I am where a work would be a multiple page document not a two paragraph blog post. He or other may well have thousands of blog posts, but I would not consider an individual blog post to be a "work".YMMV

since "works" was just  typo, there's really no point debating that issue...unless of course distraction is the point.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983775Thousands of pages I believe, twenty thousands pages I believe, thousands of works I don't believe at least if you are on the same page I am where a work would be a multiple page document not a two paragraph blog post. He or other may well have thousands of blog posts, but I would not consider an individual blog post to be a "work".YMMV

Well, since he already said he meant to say 'word' I think there is no real point in carrying on this line of discussion.

Quote from: Zalman;983771Nonsense, your quibble was with the claim that he was the creator of the concept, a claim he never made and which you then moved the goalposts to avoid defending. (And only to attack the number of "works", which was entirely irrelevant to anything in the discussion anyway.)

I do agree your antics are entertaining even if disingenuous and obvious; please continue!

You don't consider a claim of several thousand works over the last 30+ years to be coequal to claiming ownership, that is astounding and disingenuous.

Now he every graciously corrected the claim of works to words that changed the interpretation of his claim IMO.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;983781Well, since he already said he meant to say 'word' I think there is no real point in carrying on this line of discussion.

I have been willing to drop this for some time, but others so far have not. And as you can see below, they are not willing.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;983776since "works" was just  typo, there's really no point debating that issue...unless of course distraction is the point.

Ding!  Winner!

Quote from: Crimhthan;983785You don't consider a claim of several thousand works over the last 30+ years to be coequal to claiming ownership, that is astounding and disingenuous.

Now he every graciously corrected the claim of works to words that changed the interpretation of his claim IMO.

Give it a rest, I posted the correction the issue been clarified.

Quote from: estar;983793Give it a rest, I posted the correction the issue been clarified.

I did but no one else seems to want to. They misrepresent what I said and I correct them. That is why I noted that the poster is still whining and moaning about something that is done.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983807That is why I noted that the poster is still whining and moaning about something that is done.

Ah, the irony ...

Quote from: Crimhthan;983785You don't consider a claim of several thousand works over the last 30+ years to be coequal to claiming ownership, that is astounding and disingenuous.

Now he every graciously corrected the claim of works to words that changed the interpretation of his claim IMO.

AFAIK Rob/estar has dyslexia, you need to read his posts with a modicum of charity.

Quote from: S'mon;983818AFAIK Rob/estar has dyslexia, you need to read his posts with a modicum of charity.

That makes a huge difference and I will bear that in mind. Mine is more like of typing skill.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983785You don't consider a claim of several thousand works over the last 30+ years to be coequal to claiming ownership, that is astounding

As predicted, you've now jumped to redefining the word "ownership". Gracious indeed for estar to respond at all to your trolling.

Step 1. Assemble box from wood of your choice, in a shape and size which pleases you.
Step 2. Fill with sand. Coarseness to your liking.
Step 3. Sculpt a few sandcastles.
Step 4. Invite local kids to bring their own toys to knock your castles over with. Occasionally throw rocks at the castles they're trying to construct in the meantime.

Quote from: S'mon;983818AFAIK Rob/estar has dyslexia, you need to read his posts with a modicum of charity.

Not quite but related. I have hearing loss due to nerve damage that also got a bit of the brain that processes languages. I can read fine. The writing and speech part, I have to watch it. Pretty overcome most of it except when it comes to composing forum posts on the spur of the moment. ;)

Quote from: Zalman;983826As predicted, you've now jumped to redefining the word "ownership". Gracious indeed for estar to respond at all to your trolling.

He is a cupcake compared to the drama I had to deal with while running a LARP events for a decade. Let's just say some people become highly invested in their characters emotionally. Then comes the day it goes south for them in-game and it doesn't stop there.

In general my view is that something of value in interacting with people even those that others say are "difficult". It not like I am perfect myself. But I do have limits and for forums there is the ignore button that can be used.

The first few pages of this thread were actually useful. Time to abandon ship.

Quote from: estar;983831Not quite but related. I have hearing loss due to nerve damage that also got a bit of the brain that processes languages. I can read fine. The writing and speech part, I have to watch it. Pretty overcome most of it except when it comes to composing forum posts on the spur of the moment. ;)

Thanks, sorry for misdiagnosing you. :)

Quote from: estar;983835Let's just say some people become highly invested in their characters emotionally.

Yes.  Yes, they do.

Wait, here's something interesting.

Quote from: estar;983835He is a cupcake compared to the drama I had to deal with while running a LARP events for a decade. Let's just say some people become highly invested in their characters emotionally. Then comes the day it goes south for them in-game and it doesn't stop there.

In general my view is that something of value in interacting with people even those that others say are "difficult". It not like I am perfect myself. But I do have limits and for forums there is the ignore button that can be used.

How do you handle those situations? I've dealt with that a few times myself.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983624And my argument is and always has been with those that refuse to accept this.

Who has refused to accept that? Within reason, I'm happy with players trying anything. They may not like the consequences. And as Gronan has pointed out, players can be jerks. Don't play with jerks...

Within reason and don't play with jerks means that we may have some conversation before we start the game. If I want to run a super hero game where the PCs are supposed to be looked at as heroes, we need to talk about what that means.

I will also take certain setting assumptions. For example, people are always arguing that Traveller's reactionless drives allow using a ship as a planet buster. Clearly if that actually happened or was at all a risk of happening, things would be very different in the setting, so I assume there's something that prevents it. For future tech or magic to be workable in a game, we have to accept that sometimes if we follow all the logic to the bitter end, something will break, and in such a case, we don't let it break if that's not what we wanted to explore.

Now all of that said, the "story games" of interest to me like Dogs in the Vinyard or Burning Wheel, they allow the players to try and break the setting within some definition of reason...

Frank

Quote from: EOTB;983852Yes.  Yes, they do.

As a side note, I noticed that I have very little issues of this kind with LARP players who play two or three characters on a regular basis. It got the point where exasperated I told a complaining player, "Have you ever played another PCs while you were here. How about you try that for the next handful of events and see how that works out." And as it turned out while there was a bit of OOG animosity most of the chapter treated him in-game completely different than his other character and he admitted I was right.

Everybody knows that Crimhthan invented the pure sandbox in 1974 and has been playing with the same gang of octogenarians since then in one long, excruciatingly DIY campaign. It's well documented, so I don't know why anyone questions this.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;983854Wait, here's something interesting.How do you handle those situations? I've dealt with that a few times myself.

For LARPS see my previous reply. I will add that I anal about Out of Game good sportmanship. The nice thing about emphasizing sportmanship is that there ton of stuff out there written for sports so it easy to find something to adapt.

For tabletop roleplaying, my secret weapon is first person roleplaying, which is probably why I like LARPs as well. One of the few quirky rules  I have is that you roleplay in first person. You don't have to an actor or do funny voices but instead of saying "I ask the bartender for a drink.", I ask the player to look at me and say "Hey barkeep how about a drink?".

I found that by doing that makes the players treat the game less abstractly and act less of a dick because now their social instinct kicks in. Despite the war stories most hobbyists do have some level of social skills even the "difficult" one.

For OOG issues that are game related, I use a variant of the good sportmanship stuff I use for LARPS. Remember sportsmanship is good manners while competing with an opponent. While it takes a little more work to find something to adapt for tabletop games there is stuff.

But in the end if they don't respond to the roleplaying or continue to exhibit poor sportmanship, they are done. Luckily there only a few times where I had to say anything directly. Most of the time what happens is that my consistency at doing the above makes them unhappy that their whims are not being catered and they stop showing up.

For a good summary of what sportmanship means (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportsmanship) look at the wikipedia article.

Quote from: Antiquation!;983829Step 1. Assemble box from wood of your choice, in a shape and size which pleases you.
Step 2. Fill with sand. Coarseness to your liking.
Step 3. Sculpt a few sandcastles.
Step 4. Invite local kids to bring their own toys to knock your castles over with. Occasionally throw rocks at the castles they're trying to construct in the meantime.

Best post on this topic in quite a few pages.
 

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;983614If however it's the ONLY thing in your sandbox for the players to "choose" to interact with then it isn't much of a sandbox.

So it's a tiny sandbox?
(http://geekologie.com/2016/09/14/snake-sandbox.jpg)

Quote from: soltakss;983633And this is what I hate about Sandbox discussions.

Why shouldn't I use a pre-written setting? I can put a Sandbox in the Plains of Prax, in Sherwood Forest or on the Planet of the Amazon Women. The fact that someone else has written them up doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't use them.

Of course you can, but now I have a question.
Where can I buy The Planet Of Amazonian Women:D?

Quote from: Omega;983663Theres nuts now wanting to define sandbox RPGing as something with a defined focus and plot. Because real sanboxes have limits. I kid you not.

Link, please;)?

Quote from: Omega;983703Back on topic.

Theres alot of ways to go about sanboxing as has been shown before things went off to loony land.


Ive found that one thing that can dictate or at least nudge things in one direction or another is the players. Some styles of sandboxing really need proactive players who get their characters out there and doing things. Reactionary players can be harder to work with depending on the type. Some will become aggressive and participatory once they have something to react to. Others are very passive and look to the DM to lead them. Some players need some threads to grab onto and run with and aren't all that good at just going out and making stuff happen. But are great with choosing and dealing with a situation once they see it. Others will forge off and do whatever. Possibly ignoring all threads.

Theres probably other types. But those were the types of players Ive dealt with myself. or another is the players. Some styles of sandboxing really need proactive players who get their characters out there and doing things. Reactionary players can be harder to work with depending on the type. Some will become aggressive and participatory once they have something to react to. Others are very passive and look to the DM to lead them. Some players need some threads to grab onto and run with and aren't all that good at just going out and making stuff happen. But are great with choosing and dealing with a situation once they see it. Others will forge off and do whatever. Possibly ignoring all threads.

Theres probably other types. But those were the types of players Ive dealt with myself.
 or another is the players. Some styles of sandboxing really need proactive players who get their characters out there and doing things. Reactionary players can be harder to work with depending on the type. Some will become aggressive and participatory once they have something to react to. Others are very passive and look to the DM to lead them. Some players need some threads to grab onto and run with and aren't all that good at just going out and making stuff happen. But are great with choosing and dealing with a situation once they see it. Others will forge off and do whatever. Possibly ignoring all threads.

Theres probably other types. But those were the types of players Ive dealt with myself. or another is the players. Some styles of sandboxing really need proactive players who get their characters out there and doing things. Reactionary players can be harder to work with depending on the type. Some will become aggressive and participatory once they have something to react to. Others are very passive and look to the DM to lead them. Some players need some threads to grab onto and run with and aren't all that good at just going out and making stuff happen. But are great with choosing and dealing with a situation once they see it. Others will forge off and do whatever. Possibly ignoring all threads.

Theres probably other types. But those were the types of players Ive dealt with myself. or another is the players. Some styles of sandboxing really need proactive players who get their characters out there and doing things. Reactionary players can be harder to work with depending on the type. Some will become aggressive and participatory once they have something to react to. Others are very passive and look to the DM to lead them. Some players need some threads to grab onto and run with and aren't all that good at just going out and making stuff happen. But are great with choosing and dealing with a situation once they see it. Others will forge off and do whatever. Possibly ignoring all threads.

Theres probably other types. But those were the types of players Ive dealt with myself.

How do you deal with reactionary players? Personally, the best I've found is to require themto have motivations, and to have some PC or NPC offer them a deal to do something.

QuoteAs a player Im told Im very good at making things happen. This is often unintentional. I just like to interact with the game world and that tends to lead to crazy stuff happening. But Im the sort who steps back and lets the characters with the applicable skills do their thing. I will though maneuver around other PCs if I think they are making a mistake and not listening. Which is how I ended up inadvertently saving Castle Greyhawk.

Now that's a story I want to hear;).
Oops. I said "story" in a sandbox thread:p!

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;983854Wait, here's something interesting.How do you handle those situations? I've dealt with that a few times myself.

With archers and fire;)?

Interesting enough, nobody commented on my suggestion to use relationship maps instead of  (or rather, overlaid on) the usual maps. I wonder why. Is that something everyone is doing anyway, so it's not worth the virtual ink?

Quote from: AsenRG;984069Interesting enough, nobody commented on my suggestion to use relationship maps instead of  (or rather, overlaid on) the usual maps. I wonder why. Is that something everyone is doing anyway, so it's not worth the virtual ink?

I know my sandboxes are normally as much NPC-based as location-based. But I never found drawing lines between names very useful. I just have a lot of NPC descriptions which include notes on their goals and relation to PCs and other NPCs.

Quote from: Bren;983986Best post on this topic in quite a few pages.

While I realize it's more condemnation of the conversation than praise for my obvious and low-hanging analogy, I appreciate the sentiment regardless.

Quote from: AsenRG;984069Interesting enough, nobody commented on my suggestion to use relationship maps instead of  (or rather, overlaid on) the usual maps. I wonder why. Is that something everyone is doing anyway, so it's not worth the virtual ink?

I try to do them in addition to geographic/political maps. The more complex (and frankly, realistic) I get with socio-political networks, the more important it is for me to graph them so I can keep it straight.

On a more local level, I remember WFRP's "Power Behind the Throne" as the most complicated adventure I'd ever run, because of the need to track a large number of NPCs, what they knew (or thought they knew), where they'd be, and when, over the course of that critical week, and then the network relationships between the various NPCs and PCs.

Quote from: S'mon;984071I know my sandboxes are normally as much NPC-based as location-based. But I never found drawing lines between names very useful. I just have a lot of NPC descriptions which include notes on their goals and relation to PCs and other NPCs.

Well, if the "relations" include who's paying fealty to whom, and so on, they might as well be on a map:). Whether you draw it is a matter of convenience and preference.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;984244I try to do them in addition to geographic/political maps. The more complex (and frankly, realistic) I get with socio-political networks, the more important it is for me to graph them so I can keep it straight.

On a more local level, I remember WFRP's "Power Behind the Throne" as the most complicated adventure I'd ever run, because of the need to track a large number of NPCs, what they knew (or thought they knew), where they'd be, and when, over the course of that critical week, and then the network relationships between the various NPCs and PCs.

Yeah, that's why I said "overlaid on". And the best part is you can use the outstanding results for future games in the same setting. A vendetta spanning 100 years isn't even unusual, and that's enough for the whole setting to change;).

Never seen said adventure, but I tend to find such tracking fun, especially when the players unearth successfully what an NPC thinks he knows, except only 20 to 50% of it is true:D!

Quote from: Antiquation!;984196While I realize it's more condemnation of the conversation than praise for my obvious and low-hanging analogy, I appreciate the sentiment regardless.

Regardless of the circumstances I like the analogy.

Quote from: AsenRG;984069Interesting enough, nobody commented on my suggestion to use relationship maps instead of  (or rather, overlaid on) the usual maps. I wonder why. Is that something everyone is doing anyway, so it's not worth the virtual ink?

I don't do instead or overlaid, but I have used relationship maps. I blogged about it here (https://honorandintrigue.blogspot.com/2015/10/french-factions-relationship-map.html) and here (https://honorandintrigue.blogspot.com/2016/07/relationship-maps.html).

Quote from: Bren;984364I don't do instead or overlaid, but I have used relationship maps. I blogged about it here (https://honorandintrigue.blogspot.com/2015/10/french-factions-relationship-map.html) and here (https://honorandintrigue.blogspot.com/2016/07/relationship-maps.html).

Thank you for the links, I had never run across that blog before, yeah I know I should have checked out the links in your signature, but some people link to things that are NSFW which means they are also NSFHome either. I am a little more trusting of links in threads because there is usually more context with them.

Great blog post.

Quote from: Crimhthan;984526Thank you for the links, I had never run across that blog before, yeah I know I should have checked out the links in your signature, but some people link to things that are NSFW which means they are also NSFHome either. I am a little more trusting of links in threads because there is usually more context with them.

Great blog post.

Glad you found something useful. There's no reason you should have run across it. It has a somewhat narrow focus: swashbuckling, the 16th and 17th centuries in Europe especially France, and the Honor+Intrigue system.

Quote from: soltakss;983596For example, there is a bandit clan, led by Hawk One-Eye, who raid the surrounding villages from their mountain hideout. The PCs hear about bandit raids now and again, they might even see a bandit raid or meet a small group of bandits in the wilds. Hawk One-Eye is raiding to get rich and also to cover up the stealing of artefacts that he is planning to use to summon a long-dead bandit king, so he can unite the various bandit clans. Does this count as a plot? Does it have a place in a sandbox?

Hawk One-Eye is plotting, so it's a plot. It could certainly fit in a sandbox. it would be interesting to see when the player-characters interacted in a big way, if they ever do, with the bandits. If the game rules include character advancement, it might be optimal for them to avoid dealing with the bandits until they are advanced enough to defeat them fairly certainly but not so advanced that it would be boring. However, the characters in my campaigns don't know from level and kept bumping up against the very similar bandit clan in the Lake Country setting. Since it's a sandbox, the bandits tended to advance in skills at a pace almost equal to the PCs so finally dealing with them was not boring.