Quote from: Nexus;829942Speaking for myself, I don't like Sandbox because it feels really directionless with no urgency. I try to think like a person in the setting and, right or wrong, that generally doesn't urge me towards running towards danger  not without some pressing reason. I also like having something to hang a character concept with some assurance that it'll come up in the game. Which is meta, I admit.

Also the genres I prefer to run don't mesh with pure sandbox very well and sandbox require either heavier GM prep workload or well above par improvisational skills.

Your first comment drives me crazy.  Sandbox does not imply lack of urgency or lack of direction.  One of the better sandbox 'chapters' I ran in Igbar dealt with an undead plague that had many time-sensitive elements.  It took the PCs 4 years of real time (62 sessions) to play through 39 days of game time.  The PCs played almost every minute so as not to waste time, and there were many event chains and plot-timelines that they were aware of partially aware of, but still open to total play volition in terms of what they did.

I agree a good sandbox requires more prep to really pull off. Even the GMs with good improve skills I've seen always look better when they create a deeper and more developed setting.

Quote from: soltakss;829941The Trojan War could be a mission. The end of the mission is the end of the campaign. A follow-on campaign might be the Odyssey.

Yes exactly. Other campaigns might include the Oresteia or the Aeneid.

Quote from: LordVreeg;829973Your first comment drives me crazy.  Sandbox does not imply lack of urgency or lack of direction.  One of the better sandbox 'chapters' I ran in Igbar dealt with an undead plague that had many time-sensitive elements.  It took the PCs 4 years of real time (62 sessions) to play through 39 days of game time.  The PCs played almost every minute so as not to waste time, and there were many event chains and plot-timelines that they were aware of partially aware of, but still open to total play volition in terms of what they did.

From your description, I think we may have different ideas of what Sandbox campaign means (always a problem with jargon).  When I've played Sandbox has meant that the game is completely open ended. This is setting. Your Characters are in it. Go find something to do.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;829939I see. I often hear that; "Sandbox play isn't fun," etc. Why is that? It seems a lot of players are passive and rely on the game to push them in a direction to do something, instead of actively making their way in the world.

As a GM, I like player directed exploration. However my players like missions. I like my players. I also like creating missions just fine. Ergo, I create missions since it is something we all enjoy.

If your question is why do my players like missions better? Well that varies by player. Here are some of the reasons I've observed.

• Habit. We played a lot of Call of Cthulhu and most Cthulhu scenarios are mission focused.
• Missions make a more sense for PCs who are part of an organization. Being part of an organization connects the characters. I like connected characters. So missions support and/or are a consequence of what I like.
• Directing the exploration feels like the game becomes about my desires and the other players are just going along. That feels selfish in a way that everyone having their character go on a mission does not.
• We often create new characters if our old character doesn't seem appropriate or interested in the new mission. The mission gives the new character a purpose and an automatic connection to the old characters.
• I just want to show up and play. I don't want to think about the game in between sessions. Missions let me do that.
• What I like is playing a character who is different from me and different from my last character. Missions let me do that without requiring extra work that a player driven adventure requires.

Although written in the first person, none of these are actually exact quotes. It is mostly me putting words into my friends' mouths for them.

The reality is that it isn't easy to find players these days who actively want to make their own decisions and set their own course. For every generalization like this there are obviously exceptions, but if I were far wrong here the market for commercial adventures and settings would look very different than it does.

I don't think it reflects any change in the nature of the average 20 year old or anything like that. Its just that new gamers are completely immersed in forms of entertainment that are essentially guided, constrained experiences (most rpg adventures; essentially all computer games; all movies and books - which people often mistakenly think of as models for rpgs). How are you supposed to learn what it means to think for yourself at a gaming table? This is so completely different from the experience of playing D&D or (especially) Traveller ca. 1977, 1978. The games then were just as sophisticated and well supported as anything we have now, but the assumed style of play was completely different.

I would say the coolest thing going in gaming right now is that the OSR movement has finally evolved past reproducing rules (blurg! they are all the same, people!) and really dug into creating adventures and settings that are good for high quality sandbox style games. Some of this stuff is pretty amazing - at least as good as the best materials put out in the 70's.

Quote from: Bren;829982As a GM, I like player directed exploration. However my players like missions. I like my players. I also like creating missions just fine. Ergo, I create missions since it is something we all enjoy.

If your question is why do my players like missions better? Well that varies by player. Here are some of the reasons I’ve observed.

• Habit. We played a lot of Call of Cthulhu and most Cthulhu scenarios are mission focused.
• Missions make a more sense for PCs who are part of an organization. Being part of an organization connects the characters. I like connected characters. So missions support and/or are a consequence of what I like.
• Directing the exploration feels like the game becomes about my desires and the other players are just going along. That feels selfish in a way that everyone having their character go on a mission does not.
• We often create new characters if our old character doesn’t seem appropriate or interested in the new mission. The mission gives the new character a purpose and an automatic connection to the old characters.
• I just want to show up and play. I don’t want to think about the game in between sessions. Missions let me do that.
• What I like is playing a character who is different from me and different from my last character. Missions let me do that without requiring extra work that a player driven adventure requires.

Although written in the first person, none of these are actually exact quotes. It is mostly me putting words into my friends' mouths for them.

I have a harder time picking a linear adventure because I have no idea how much the players would like it, or how interesting it would be, or even how much I'd like it. So it's easier to just seed a setting with every kind of thing I can think of and let the players decide.

How do you guys decide what kind of linear adventure you want to do? I don't have confidence a premise will be interesting (unless it's for some setting I really love, in which case I'll know exactly how to do it), and the players won't really know how much they actually enjoy a premise until they're well into the game already.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;829992I have a harder time picking a linear adventure because I have no idea how much the players would like it, or how interesting it would be, or even how much I'd like it. So it's easier to just seed a setting with every kind of thing I can think of and let the players decide.

How do you guys decide what kind of linear adventure you want to do? I don't have confidence a premise will be interesting (unless it's for some setting I really love, in which case I'll know exactly how to do it), and the players won't really know how much they actually enjoy a premise until they're well into the game already.

I try to tie the adventure into things that are likely to be meaningful for the PCs or the players. Let me give you an example.

A fairly recent adventure involved the PCs going to Soissons (a town north of Paris) to deal with a series of vicious wolf attacks. Here was the set up and intro.

• The players had experienced the unusually cold winter and had heard that the wolf attacks in the countryside were particularly bad this year. The King, Louis XIII, and his court had even gone wolf hunting.
• Several of the PCs had previously been in Soissons and met people there. One PC, Norbert, was sweet on a farm girl he met in the Soissons market. So this PC and the farm girl, Yvette, have been exchanging letters off and on. In the most recent letter the girl talks about the bad winter and the vicious wolf attacks that have people afraid to go out at night. This is leading to hunger in the city since food can’t get in from the countryside. Norbert wants to see Yvette, wants to protect her from vicious wolves, and wants to bring food to the starving people of Soissons. (Saving the town from hunger is overly ambitious, but he can bring a cart with a bunch of food he bought.)
• In the same mail packet is another letter, from another NPC, Brother Christian. He writes a letter to another PC, Father Signoret, telling him about the terrible, perhaps unnatural wolf attacks around Soissons and asking for his help. In the letter Brother Christian refers to a previous adventure where the PC had saved a young boy from a mad man who thought he was a werewolf. He speculates that this might even be connected to the other incident. Father Signoret is interested in learning if the crazy wolf man who escaped is responsible or if this is actually something supernatural.
• Meanwhile, the Cardinal is concerned about his Majesty deciding to hare off after wolves in the countryside since that will make him unavailable for the necessary job of signing off on stuff his ministers are trying to get done while he is off in the countryside in bad weather. Also the hunting of vicious wolves may put the King (who still doesn’t have a son) at risk, epecially if the countryside is disturbed by the wolf attacks. Peasant revolts may be a concern. This is overheard by a third PC, Gaston, who is the Captain of the Cardinal’s Red Guards. Gaston suggests that if someone were to lead a party to end the threat of these wolves in Soissons that his majesty might not be tempted to ride off and that whomever sent the party that dealt with the threat would get the credit for this action. Thus Richelieu sends Gaston and the other PCs who are in the Red Guards so as to keep the King out of trouble and to score one for his new guards. If the whole plan goes FUBAR Richelieu can always blame Gaston and give him the sack. Father Signoret, who also works as one of the Cardinal’s secretaries, is sent to record the event.
• The fourth PC is a simple soldier in the Red Guard (and a drunk) and he is happy to just follow his captain’s orders especially when it means going on a mission with his buddy Norbert.

So off go the PCs.

I had decided what nights the Loup Garou would attack and I knew who and why he was making those attacks. This is what would occur if the PCs never showed up or did anything. As it was they made a big nuisance of themselves killing mundane wolves and Gaston stuck wolf heads on stakes outside Soissons main gate to show the townspeople that the Red Guards were dealing with the wolves. He also more or less intentionally challenged the wolf leader. Due to that the Loup Garou tried to target Gaston in particular. That wasn’t part of the Loup Garou’s plan, but a reaction to PC action. The plot is not necessarily linear.

There are several significant outcomes from the adventure.

• The learn that the leader of the wolves in Soissons was an actual Loup Garou. They have evidence that the supernatural is real.
• They kill the Loup Garou.
• Gaston gets bitten by the Loup Garou…twice.
• Armand de Labrousse, the brother of the Governor of Soissons gets bit by the Loup Garou.
• The Governor is a mad alchemist who wanted the Loup Garou taken alive so he could imprison him in his chateau dungeon to study the process of metamorphosis which may be related to the metamorphosis involved in the creation of the Philosopher’s Stone.
• Gaston was treated with the ritual and Key of Saint Hubertus which is supposed to prevent lycanthropy (and also rabies).
• Father Signoret doesn’t really know if the ritual is 100% effective.
• They neglected to treat Armand de Labrousse.

The aftermath and consequences from the Soissons adventure led to another adventure a few weeks later because the PCs get sent back to Soissons to (1) make certain there are no more Loup Garous around Soissons and (2) get Gaston out of Paris in case he turns into a werewolf at the full moon.


Also I find that if players don't find a mission intriguing they will often let you know either directly or by saying things like, "Why are our characters doing this?" "How did we get picked for this mission?" or "I was hoping to investigate XYZ tonight."

Quote from: Nexus;829977From your description, I think we may have different ideas of what Sandbox campaign means (always a problem with jargon).  When I've played Sandbox has meant that the game is completely open ended. This is setting. Your Characters are in it. Go find something to do.

Right.  That's a sandbox.  And, to an extent, it defines my setting...and my games often go on for decades, so 'open ended' also defines them.

But the 'go find something to do' part infers a lack of event chains and plots that are evident and interesting.  Bad GMing.  Rather, a good Sandbox has the complete opposite issue.  Players try to keep track of what is going on because there is so much happening around them, and very quickly they have loose ends (as event chains often intersect) all over the place.  

Third Rule of Setting Design,
"The World In Motion is critical for Immersion, so create 'event chains' that happen at all levels of setting design. The players need to feel like things are happening and will happen with or without them. They need to feel like they can affect the outcome, but that these events have weight of their own. Event-chains need velocity, not just speed.
Cause and effect from an event-chain cements the feeling of setting-weight and the march of time to the players. It's not enough to have an election in a town, the effect of that election must be there when the players return to that town.  It is not enough that a band of trolls and giants is spotted, what devastation due they cause and what actions do the locals take, and from there what wreckage and ruin?"
 
First Corollary of the Third Rule
"It is the interesting task of the GM to create a feel in the world that everything, every event-chain,  is happening around the PCs without the least concern whether the PCs join or not, while in reality making sure the game and these event chains are actually predicated on PC volition.  The setting consistency should never be compromised, and a good GM should be able to keep both setting and PC needs logical at the same time "

Howzat for meshing with your description?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;829992I have a harder time picking a linear adventure because I have no idea how much the players would like it, or how interesting it would be, or even how much I'd like it. So it's easier to just seed a setting with every kind of thing I can think of and let the players decide.

If that works for you and your players I wouldn't worry about creating mission oriented adventures.

On the other hand if doing what your doing isn't working for all of you, missions might work better.

One thing to try when introducing missions is to be up front with the players.

"So I was thinking that a mission where you guys are part of a diplomatic legation might be interesting. You would travel from Paris to Amsterdam. There would be travel encounters, diplomatic interactions, some intrigue, and some of you would be the guards for the legation. How does that sound?"

   Player1: "Well Guy hates traveling by water." (PC has a Landlubber Flaw.)

GM: "Well you could travel by coach, but that would mean traveling through the Spanish Netherlands."

Player1: "I don't care as long as I don't have to get on a boat."

Player2: "What would Norbert do?"

GM: "Well he could be Guy's retainer again."

Player2: "Could he be a coach driver for the legation?"

GM: "Sure."
etc....

Quote from: LordVreeg;830001Right.  That's a sandbox.  And, to an extent, it defines my setting...and my games often go on for decades, so 'open ended' also defines them.

But the 'go find something to do' part infers a lack of event chains and plots that are evident and interesting.  Bad GMing.  Rather, a good Sandbox has the complete opposite issue.  Players try to keep track of what is going on because there is so much happening around them, and very quickly they have loose ends (as event chains often intersect) all over the place.  

Third Rule of Setting Design,
"The World In Motion is critical for Immersion, so create 'event chains' that happen at all levels of setting design. The players need to feel like things are happening and will happen with or without them. They need to feel like they can affect the outcome, but that these events have weight of their own. Event-chains need velocity, not just speed.
Cause and effect from an event-chain cements the feeling of setting-weight and the march of time to the players. It's not enough to have an election in a town, the effect of that election must be there when the players return to that town.  It is not enough that a band of trolls and giants is spotted, what devastation due they cause and what actions do the locals take, and from there what wreckage and ruin?"
 
First Corollary of the Third Rule
"It is the interesting task of the GM to create a feel in the world that everything, every event-chain,  is happening around the PCs without the least concern whether the PCs join or not, while in reality making sure the game and these event chains are actually predicated on PC volition.  The setting consistency should never be compromised, and a good GM should be able to keep both setting and PC needs logical at the same time "

Howzat for meshing with your description?

I don't know if I run sandboxes by the book definition or like others here, but one of the hardest parts in my experience is keeping track of the many events that get set in motion by PC action and the NPCs. In my experience it is never simply go find something to do. I mean it can start that way, and there are moments where the players are doing just that, but as long as they are intersecting with NPCs, groups, locations, items, etc, stuff tends to be set into motion. I've literally had so many things going on at certain points, threads have been forgotten until a player mentions them. Careful organization and note taking have been important in this respect.

Granted, I may not run straight forward sandboxes, since my games tend to be a mixture of what I feel will work for the group at the table. But I personally don't see sandbox play as the players exploring a static environment (if that is what folks are suggesting).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;830004I don't know if I run sandboxes by the book definition or like others here, but one of the hardest parts in my experience is keeping track of the many events that get set in motion by PC action and the NPCs.

Indeed. I have to decide which things that are set in motion to remind the players of since there is far more stuff going on in the world than their PCs have hours in the day available for interaction.

Quote from: LordVreeg;830001Howzat for meshing with your description?

It's certainly different from anything I've run into a games described as Sandboxes.

Quote from: Bren;830003If that works for you and your players I wouldn't worry about creating mission oriented adventures.

On the other hand if doing what your doing isn't working for all of you, missions might work better.

One thing to try when introducing missions is to be up front with the players.

"So I was thinking that a mission where you guys are part of a diplomatic legation might be interesting. You would travel from Paris to Amsterdam. There would be travel encounters, diplomatic interactions, some intrigue, and some of you would be the guards for the legation. How does that sound?"

   Player1: "Well Guy hates traveling by water." (PC has a Landlubber Flaw.)

GM: "Well you could travel by coach, but that would mean traveling through the Spanish Netherlands."

Player1: "I don't care as long as I don't have to get on a boat."

Player2: "What would Norbert do?"

GM: "Well he could be Guy's retainer again."

Player2: "Could he be a coach driver for the legation?"

GM: "Sure."
etc....

It works for the most part, though a new player who is used to video games and board games is lost because he doesn't know how to handle the freedom. So I was thinking of making a guild type game with a "choose your mission" style format.

Quote from: LordVreeg;829959It is not bending the credulity of the players to have linear plotlines within a sandbox.  There are times when life only affords certain options.  The trick is always to have there to be choices about entering into such an area.

Can you be more specific or concrete here? I believe I did address the fact that there are linear plot lines which make logical sense. But there are also linear plot lines which enforce linearity at the expense of credibility.

To vary my previous examples slightly, the classic Death Test modules for The Fantasy Trip were essentially linear dungeons. You wanted to get from entrance to exit; there were some branches but each one took you along an equally challenging path with no real clue as to the nature of the branch you would take, and (if memory serves) there was no way to backtrack and take an alternate path. (Even if there was, it hardly matters.) The premise of the scenario was that you were applying for a position in the guard of a despotic ruler, and some of the strictures of the "test" were enforced by magic. A bit outlandish but not ridiculous for action-fantasy, and basically stated up front to the players. So their fate was in their hands and there was no railroading once you accepted the premise.

A somewhat more generalized scenario would be a trip along a road where cross-country travel would be extremely costly (say, if you're escorting a large wagon) and pointless (the road may have challenges but the open country is known to be worse). So you will necessarily deal with certain denizens or locales that sit along the road. Not railroaded.

Suppose instead you have a scenario where the PCs are called on to deal with a series of disappearances and sabotage at a work site. They are fed a clue that takes them to Scene A, which might be a fight. If the PCs lose, end of scenario, so there's no railroading in that sense. If they win, they find a clue in someone's pocket, leading to Scene B. Perhaps a puzzle giving another clue. On the way to the next location, a seemingly unrelated encounter occurs, maybe an attack by natives. At the next scene there's a conversation with NPCs that leads to a revelation tying the natives to some backstory. At this point another emergency occurs, so the PCs dash off, have another fight, and the real villain is revealed in a final confrontation. The End.

The GM may be willing to let the PCs fail or walk away. But the overall scene structure is dictated from the start and, with some small fudging or adjustment, will be enforced as long as the PC keep moving forward. In theory it's possible the players won't notice, but the actual structure is that of a dramatically-constructed plot line, not a sequence of events whose causality is intelligible to the PCs within the game.

Quote from: Arminius;830016Can you be more specific or concrete here? I believe I did address the fact that there are linear plot lines which make logical sense. But there are also linear plot lines which enforce linearity at the expense of credibility.

Basically with some choices, there is no going back. If you decide to murder the king, you can't walk that choice back and the game will forever be one funneled into you being on the run from the law.